Both Hillary and Trump says they are going to boost infrastructure spending. I think its better to wait and see how self-driving/mobility as a service develops before spending money on transportation infrastructure
Houston's near town development has a long history unique to our area - everything from a former Freedman's town that left lots of prime real estate in the hands of people who really preferred not to sell for development to local management districts using tax money to buy property outside their taxation area in order to prevent or slow gentrification. The area recently expanded to by the Northline extension was considered a blue collar area at best and frankly too crime-ridden and dangerous at worst for any redevelopment. That has turned around with the rail - and since Houston's is an at grade rail, we actually lose one-two lanes of the thoroughfare when rail goes in. Yet North Houston which was the site of the Moody Park Riots is now the target of development and gentrification and you can track that against the rail's expansion.
Among other things it linked most of the city's major stadiums, creating a relief valve for major event traffic, it linked parking and medical center sites, cutting traffic to and from our congested Medical Center and almost since inception it has carried more people on a daily basis than the combined ridership of our spoke and hub "Park and Ride" system which brings commuters in from the suburbs to downtown.
Development along the Red Line has ramped up and the gentrification that comes from it is obvious along its recent Northern expansion. So just like in Boston bringing rail has a net-postive effect on property values once construction is done.
Considering those ridership numbers are based on paid rides and ours is an honor system with loose enforcement Metro is putting up some decent ridership numbers!
Unfortunately due to Bob Lanier's intentionally blocking such expansion we don't have the desperately needed heavy rail system to cut freeway traffic between Houston's higher density bedroom communities.
And more frustratingly we still have only part of the rail plan implemented due to ongoing efforts to block rail funding. The rail line proposed to link our downtown and Galleria commercial district has been blocked for 10+ years by a single Congressman and some vocal business owners in a 1.5 mile stretch of road. If they had just sucked it up the construction would be done and those same businesses would be benefiting from their increased accessibility.
I'd rather take the 2.50 rail fare than the way more expensive lyft/uber/whatever.
Second, you can still fly first class if you want a better experience.
Most people don't buy BMWs either, but enough do that they stay in business. Uber doesn't compete with public transit by bus, either.
You're right to imply that initially there would (probably) be a luxury factor to get the sector off the ground -- what's the opposite of a loss leader? -- but the invisible hand reaches through the centuries and demands satisfaction, or so the story goes.
It might be successful someday, maybe, but how about we wait until then.
I find it hard to believe I'll still get all of this for the same relative price in a future when I'm renting rides from an autonomous fleet.
(that's maybe a slightly hyperbolic phrase, but people that aren't dependent on owning a personal vehicle will make different choices)
Current car sharing schemes only really work for short two way trips without much of a stay at the destination, since you would block the car for the whole duration. Robot taxis (just like their conventional counterparts) on the other hand could be booked separately for each direction,taking the duration of the stay out of the equation (except when it is so short that it is cheaper to keep the taxi waiting). Once on this level, it's just natural to replace the easy trips with public transportation.
I can understand thinking that autonomous cars aren't going to happen anytime soon (it's harder than it looks) but I can't understand thinking it will happen and not be a hugely transformative shift.
The parent is saying self-driving won't be a revolution because it won't fix that problem. You're still in traffic - just not holding the wheel.
In big cities it may indeed help reduce the need for cars, making the few cases where public transportation is wildly inefficient (i.e. getting from Manhattan to somewhere in Jersey <30 miles away) bearable.
But besides the literal handful of U.S. cities with workable public transportation, this automated car revolution will not help anything besides making things more convenient. It will not allow us to come to terms with the massive pollution that cars generate. It will not help us achieve truly affordable transportation (even when this technology is perfected, it will not be able to give us $2.50 rides like public transportation can do today). Etc.
With this autonomous cars movement, it looks like more Americans are finally ready to accept the idea of massive investment into transportation infrastructure (albeit by private companies instead of government). But the solution they are happy with is to re-purpose vehicles designed for individuals and make them into an adhoc transportation system. We need to think at true scale.