Indeed, do not let perfect be the enemy of better. The best way to improve transportation in SF is to tell everyone in a car to fuck right off, and run a bus both ways down every street every 3 minutes. No rails required.
I do also support completely closing all cities to private cars (reasonable exceptions for genuine requirements.)
I don't understand why almost anyone needs, let alone wants, to try to drive a car into a city in the first place.
Relcaim the streets for people.
But again... how 'complicated' do you think it would be to achieve this legislation? I would guess impossibly complicated, so it's no more than a dream. So what do we do about it now? And what can a private company like Waymo do?
Ban parking minimums, so developers stop putting parking lots in their buildings.
Tax lots based on their assessed land value and give them credits for providing housing units. Developers will build more units and less parking. Surface lots will close down or dramatically increase rates -- either way, people will find alternatives.
Require transit lanes for all major avenues, and enforce their use.
Increase taxes and spend that money on transit.
Make transit free, which will make it much easier for people to just hop on for their trips.
Invest in trains. Bus rapid transit is kinda terrible, but it could be a stopgap until your trains work well.
When they first sought permission to build the building I live in, it was rejected for too few parking spaces, but by a decade later the penultimate plan was rejected for too many∆. My flat has a space (which I don't use) but some other residents don't get one. Public transit here is excellent, amenities are in walking distance, I can imagine wanting a car if I had kids or was disabled, otherwise it's unnecessary.
∆ the land didn't sit empty, it had a house on it, permission was sought to build a large multi-residence building on that land instead, once that permission was obtained the house was demolished.
> 'complicated' do you think it would be to achieve this legislation?
Depending on how extreme you want to get, not that complicated. Part of market street has already been closed to cars. Many streets have been converted into pedestrian streets during covid.
I bet we will see more meaningful improvement on this front in SF before driverless cabs hit the streets
The new train line (Crossrail) in London is years behind schedule, mostly due to problems with the software control systems for the trains. [0] Integrating automated trains into an existing rail network isn't easy - imagine the scale of the challenge with automated cars on city streets.
> I would guess tens of billions of dollars and fifty years, and that's if it would ever get approved in the first place.
So? I still think it is worth it. Also, these costs and delays are not given, they are artificially induced by mismanagement, and could be changed. I am not saying that they shouldn't build the cars, I'm just pointing out that the "solution" they are providing isn't that revolutionary.
Also, buses exist, which are much cheaper than what you are describing
> Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.
I don't really see how this is that much better than what already exists. How different would this really be from the status quo? I can already automatically hail a car which will take me where ever I need to go. Sure, autonomous cars _might_ be safer, but I doubt they will reduce congestion or travel times all that much. Plus, we'll have rolling surveillance cameras with a myriad of advanced sensors constantly driving by. I don't buy it
The 'so' is that your complaint was that these cars are too complicated and expensive. I think an actual public transit system is undeniably more complicated and expensive, even if it's worthwhile.
I'm not complaining that the cars are expensive or complicated, I am just pointing out that it is a silly solution to problem which has already been solved.
> I think an actual public transit system is undeniably more complicated and expensive, even if it's worthwhile
I'm not so sure about this. We have public transit systems figured out in a lot of places. We don't even have self driving cars that we consider safe yet, let alone laws which regulate them
I don't see how stating that something is expensive or complicated is a complaint. You clearly are not trying to understand what my original comment meant. I was trying to point out my perceived irony of the situation, then state my opinion, not complain about Waymo.
I'm not really sure why you are being so adversarial, looking at your other comments here, I don't think we disagree all that much
Like autonomous electric buses every 2-3 minutes in dedicated lanes that are demarcated by paint?
Autonomous because labor costs (and shift considerations) are a major factor limiting the frequency of service you can provide. Electric because they will cost less in maintenance.
They are also an important part of a possible solution for helping lower density suburban areas that suffer from housing shortages. It's worth listening to this whole talk by Peter Calthorpe, the planner who developed the now-well-known concept of transit oriented development: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/01/07/talking-headways-podc...
Can you estimate how 'expensive' and 'complicated' it would be to retrofit San Francisco with a public transit system?
I would guess tens of billions of dollars and tens of decades, and that's if it would ever get approved in the first place.
London has spent $20 billion and twenty years adding one new rail line. In a city starting out as already famously enthusiastic about public transit.
What should we do in the half-century before this possible transit system turns up in San Francisco?
Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.