East Contra Costa officials welcome autonomous car transit system
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 май 2024
- John Ramos reports on a new driverless transportation system that could help connect East Contra Costa to BART.
Website: kpix.com/
RUclips: / cbssanfrancisco
Facebook: / cbssanfrancisco
Instagram: / kpixtv
Twitter: / kpixtv
Autonomous public transit already exists… they’re called trains in other countries. Just look north to Vancouver that have a massive autonomous public transport system.
Wow, people in Brentwood have to drive ALLL the way to Antioch to use BART… 🥵 the struggle is real!
When are we getting Bart to Brentwood?
they did say its expensive for bart so I guess this will work temporarily for now
if you paid for it, it has taken SJ over 50 years
Probably never because the funding went to autonomous mini cars
One day BART (heavy rail) will go to Brentwood! This is judt going to help people to use BART.
Looking like a miniature version of the trucks in I, Robot🤣
Yup😂😂😂
London Heathrow airport did this in 2011.
All renderings and its not working
We need automated buses everywhere!
This is the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. Instead of fixing our broken land-use system we are now trying to band-aid over the top with expensive, tech-bro boondoggles in what is really just a way for a few people to extract some money from our collective taxes before giving up again.
The fix isn't fancier cars, it is restructuring our cities so that we have options other than cars. The oft touted "freedom" that you get with cars isn't so free when you have to spend $10K a year just to get around. And the number of hours that the average American spends either in their car or working to pay for their car is approaching 25% of their waking life. All that on top of the fact that if we keep building the way we have been, we will be completely bankrupt in another generation. We almost already are. And then there is the insane environmental cost of this kind of development.
We need to build denser neighborhoods where people have alternatives to driving if that is what they prefer. We need to build more housing in the urban areas so that people aren't priced out of the market there. So many people would love to live in an area where they could walk or bike to their destinations, but stupid zoning codes, tax incentives, and nimbyism force them into areas where they are required to drive to their destinations. People stuck in traffic generally didn't choose that. They are doing the best they can with the system that we have all, collectively built. It is time to address that problem and give people options that will allow those who would rather live near their work, shops, doctors, and schools the ability to actually do that.
None of this means eliminating the suburb. Suburbs work for a lot of people. But right now, unless you are very very rich, or somehow manage to get grandfathered in, suburbs are the ONLY affordable option. We need to build so that those who would rather live somewhere other than the suburbs, and who don't want to spend all that time and money on and in a car, will finally have that option.
Wasting time and money on fantasy "transit pods" that will never come to pass (and wouldn't solve any issues if they did) is not the way forward.
What if people don’t like to live in a “denser” neighbourhood?
@@onetwothreeabc Then they can continue to live in the suburbs, exactly like I mentioned. What we need are options. There are many people for whom the suburbs work perfectly and they should continue to be able to live there. But there are also many people who would love to live in an area where they could walk or bike to work, live in an area where there is enough density for transit. We need to be building for these areas as well. The fact that these kinds of areas all have sky high rental and purchasing costs shows that there is pent up demand for that kind of thing.
And when we talk about density, think in terms of traditional small towns in the U.S. These pre-war towns were set up so that people could get around without needing a car. But nobody would consider them in the same breath as, say, Manhattan. Cities like Battleboro VT or Watertown SD or Pensacola FL. These places are starting to add more density so that walkability, bikeability, and small transit systems make sense. But even in these cities there are plenty of places to live that are more suburban as well. But those suburban areas are linked to a modest urban core that can sustain things like real transit. And even in suburbs that are further out, there is room to add things like corner stores and small commercial islands (except that they are forbidden by zoning laws first established in the 1950's).
Close to 70% of the U.S. is suburban. There will never be a time when people who want to live there won't be able to. Add in rural areas and that number jumps to 88%. There will always be suburban and rural options out there. But what we need are more options for people who would rather live in a different environment. And for every person who chooses to do so, that is one less car on the road that benefits the remaining drivers (plus a metric ton of other ancillary benefits that ripple out to the wider community). But right now these area are so rare that the cost of living in them is absurd. It prices out a lot of people who are then forced to take on the added expenses of a car (and the incredible amount of time that that car consumes) even if it is not something they actively wanted. People should have the right to live in the kind of community that appeals to them (including urban, suburban, and rural). But right now our zoning laws and runaway nimbyism is locking people out of that choice and forcing them into a suburban, car-centric lifestyle even if that isn't their preference.
With regard to this particular boondoggle... it will never see the light of day because it is patently stupid. Every aspect of it will be more expensive than either transit or private cars. It is just a few tech bros trying to get some cash out of gullible investors before the whole thing goes belly up.
@@2000bvz
I do agree with you that the pods in the concept art are stupid.
Just would like to respond to your density arguments.
There are in fact many rental properties in the SF bay area that is walkable to a transit station and affordable by an average working-class person. They are for sure not as nice as a single-family home in the suburb, but definitely livable.
I personally experienced both ways of living. I'm fine with either way. But my family members prefer the bigger, nicer house in the suburb, so that's where we ending up with.
@@onetwothreeabc I'm glad you found a place that works for you. That is my hope for everyone.
I live in the bay area and I have found almost no affordable units anywhere near BART, Muni, or any of the other local transit agencies. Everything here is so expensive. And it kills me that the average person (national average, not bay area average) is priced out of the area.
@@onetwothreeabc berkeley has lots of walkable neighborhoods and they still have front and back yards. In other countries, people live in houses that have a backyard and even a front yard and they are walkable. Making a walking neighborhood dosen't necessarily means creating a new Manthan in a neighborhood or suburb. Just old and ignorant people have the idea that walkable means destroying houses and crearing 100 or 50 dtories building in what was single family housing.
What happens when the Kia Boys take these over?
I don't know why is this big news? BART for 52 years has been autonomous and was the first rapid transit system worldwide to be autonomous. The trains are droved by a computer and basically the operators (not drivers) just open the doors. So, I don't know why is this a hipe when its just something to completament walking, cycling (and using a scooter), taking a Bus or BART.
more public transit!!!!
So, if we became dependent on these, they could deny our use of them because of a politically incorrect Facebook post, or they might maintain them like they do public transit now and have them break down or raise prices to change our travel habits for the “public good?”
How might autonomous vehicles reshape urban planning?
How are they planning to keep it safe for commuters? A previous video showed that those cars won't move if an object is in front of it. The homeless or Oaklanders could simply lie in wait for a commuter, and then take their time robbing and assaulting them since there's no one is around to help.
can't wait
Nope. People like their bubbles
First fix the roads, then cross your fingers it doesn’t crash and fail like Tesla.
Whoa.
Talking about autonomous car transit system while the 80 has hella crater potholes and been under construction since god knows when…. Come on now. Lol.
Costs, please. How much will this pie in the sky cost, really?
Well the bullet train that never actually got built still cost tax payers $10 billion. Factor in bidenomics and this should only cost $20 billion. Politicians and 'consultants' gotta eat 🤷♂️
Yeah, yeah. Not a new idea but hasn't managed to become reality yet. I'm skeptical.
Looks about as economical and useful as California s high speed rail.
No thanks.
Not impressed
What could possibly go wrong?
Or people could drive them, we need to outlaw autonomous vehicles
We need to outlaw skilless jobs like driving small white taxies.
This is the future, not BART or light rail. This is flexible with much less infrastructure. Cool.
These do not compare at all, pods are more a replacement for e bikes or scooter than trains. Those pods seem to only go about 30mph from what I can find online, so not even half the speed of BART.
@@KaiWritesCode To use trains, many need buses. Buses are not very bike friendly. At least with this, you won’t be holding up dozen of passengers to put your bike on. The Glydways car has a slot in underneath the seat cushion to secure the bike during the ride. Also, there are a lot of bike-unfriendly roads that need a lane diet. If this pulls enough people out of their private cars, they can eliminate parking faster, allowing for much more needed infill development. Transit becomes more viable and ridership will increase. If we do this without buses, you can create bike lanes at ground level that are actually safe to use.
The success of the overall system should be measured by its ability to eliminate stroads, which requires reducing driveways on arterials, which requires less parking and less parkers. Ultimately, we need to reduce not just supply of parking but also demand for parking, which is obvious from the point of environmental justice and social justice. Glydways should be especially be used to connect so-called “lifestyle centers” to maximize the substitution of cars for car alternatives such as walking and biking.
This will.add to the transportation mix and I see how they can fit in helping people move out of their cars (some urbanidts and transit supporters don't see that). But, this will definitely not replace BART. I don't know why it's big news when BART is an autonomus transit system and was the first one where there was no need for drivers and that was 52 years ago. So, no. This will be part of the mix but will not replace bikes, scooter, walking, buses, or BART.