You say last-mile services are trivial, but they absolutely are not trivial in the slightest, and assuming they are demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how change gets made in a democratic, even republican, manner.
Changing the primary transportation mode of a population requires a cultural shift to adopt the new mode. The population must be willing to forgo what they already have in favor of something new. You are saying that automated "people movers" (which is an emotional sketch rather than an defined policy item) will work well in car-ubiquitous US suburbia, but these folks live in suburbia specifically because of low population density and general quality-of-life. They explicitly enjoy being around people they know and not being around people they don't know. Any solution you're proposing must respect their existing values while providing an alternative option.
Your examples of last-mile services aren't really last-mile services, save for the final one:
>trams
Since it seems infeasible to allow anyone to board a tram at any point on its journey, tram stops will be necessary. Perhaps you now face a last-quarter-mile problem, which is better but still may not be good enough for that specific population. Track maintenance may be significantly lessened by using a "trackless tram", but such would have severe challenges in a snowy climate. Trams only work in dense urban environments.
>buses
Buses have been used in cities for many decades, so our understanding of them is that they work generally well. Buses are common in suburban environments with many low-income residents. The benefit of buses is their limited amount of supporting infrastructure and route adaptability. However, similar to the tram situation, a bus still does not get you directly to your home.
>actually usable bike lanes
Bike lanes in dense urban environments are almost always a net positive. What constitutes an "actually usable" bike lane depends on an individual's risk tolerance. As a last-mile problem, not all people are physically able to bike from a train station, though ebikes do help. Again, weather can impact people being willing to bike, let alone leave the house.
>automated "people movers"
This service is more conceptual, but I imagine you're thinking of a Waymo-style service, where you can summon an autonomous vehicle which will pick you up at home and take you to-and-from the station. The main issues here are availability and reliability. If addressed, you'll likely crack the suburban transportation nut, but such individualized transportation in cities isn't sustainable.
> You say last-mile services are trivial, but they absolutely are not trivial in the slightest, and assuming they are demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how change gets made in a democratic, even republican, manner.
I"m not sure what point you are making here. The UK, Germany, and Japan have very good rail networks and were democratically governed the last time I looked.
> You say last-mile services are trivial, but they absolutely are not trivial in the slightest, and assuming they are demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how change gets made in a democratic, even republican, manner.
We had an entire public transit system that included the "last mile." It was systematically destroyed by the automotive industry.
The reset of the developed world has much better public transit. Terrible public transit isn't quite a uniquely American problem, but it's close.
Do go on about how it's "absolutely not trivial in the slightest", though.
> As a last-mile problem, not all people are physically able to bike from a train station, though ebikes do help
Biking takes less energy and fitness than walking does, even at a faster speed. Before you argue with me, google it, please. Before you start whinging about the elderly: the people old enough to not be able to bike are about 10% or less of the population, and since bike lanes are not the only option, "the elderly can't do it" isn't even a valid counterpoint anyway.
>Do go on about how it's "absolutely not trivial in the slightest", though.
It's not trivial because, as you note, past efforts WERE systematically destroyed by the automotive industry. Getting better public infrastructure is an advocacy problem, and the political environment needs to be supportive of such efforts.
Also, you may be referencing the streetcars systems used by many cities about 100 years ago, which were destroyed by the auto industry in favor of their buses. Now that electric buses exist, I would much rather live in a city with a fleet of electric buses than electric streetcars. Some US cities are even implementing the point-to-point-charging supercapacitor buses, which is even more sustainable.
>Biking takes less energy and fitness than walking does, even at a faster speed.
No argument there. I bike multiple times a week in a large US city, even during rush hour and traffic jams. More people should bike, especially because of the health benefits, and most US cities will benefit from better bike infrastructure. We can look to Amsterdam and other European places for good examples of bike transportation and storage infrastructure.
That said, biking in Amsterdam is very different than biking in much of the US. The Wikipedia article on Amsterdam says the average high over a year ranges between 43F - 72F. What an ideal climate for biking; no wonder so many people there bike. I've biked in traffic in snowstorms in one of the most bike-friendly cities in the US, and I was usually the only person out there. People just don't like to bike in the cold and extreme heat. People just don't like to be out in the cold and extreme heat in general, which is why personal vehicles are so appealing in those places.
> Now that electric buses exist, I would much rather live in a city with a fleet of electric buses than electric streetcars
Nah, this just makes it obvious you never commuted using public transit tbh. Trams feel much more stable, have more room, and their routes are easier to reason about. Trams always end up more desirable than buses, which sway, feel crowded, and rattle due to uneven road surface.
If you make dedicated bus lanes and rewrite the traffic laws so that busses have right of way at all intersections, then busses could replace trams (or streetcars). But without these you allow individuals to block the public transport infrastructure which means there's no advantage to the far more space efficient public transport methods.
> You say last-mile services are trivial, but they absolutely are not trivial in the slightest
I'm German. Europeans in general have tons of experience with running public transport in constrained-budget scenarios. Just ask us if you need help.
> and assuming they are demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how change gets made in a democratic, even republican, manner.
If democracy doesn't implement change on its own, rising prices of gasoline, changing attitudes of Gen X and demographic requirements (SAHMs with nothing to do but drive children around on errands won't be around for much longer given that these women will be part of the working class by necessity) will.
Those still thinking that they can keep on living like they did since the 50s are deluding themselves and their peers. Democracy can't override market forces or nature.
> However, similar to the tram situation, a bus still does not get you directly to your home.
You can make bus stops dense enough to achieve walking distances < 200m. Unlike trams, buses can stop very fast which makes dynamic stops (i.e. the bus only stops when people want to enter/exit) possible and most bus lines already operate that way.
> As a last-mile problem, not all people are physically able to bike from a train station, though ebikes do help.
You're constantly bringing up the "not everyone can use it" point, which is valid on its own but no one, even the most radical Greens, calls for banning people with disabilities from having a car as transportation. The goal is to get the remaining 99% of local/regional individual-transportation traffic to use shared services.
> This service is more conceptual, but I imagine you're thinking of a Waymo-style service, where you can summon an autonomous vehicle which will pick you up at home and take you to-and-from the station. The main issues here are availability and reliability. If addressed, you'll likely crack the suburban transportation nut, but such individualized transportation in cities isn't sustainable.
I rather thought of electric "micro buses", think like the size of a VW T4 van, that autonomously drive in a 5-minute schedule through the suburbs and people just can hop on and off wherever they want. Basically, just as flexible as a car, but usable by everyone. Your idea is also great, but I'd not say that it isn't sustainable in cities - to the contrary, especially cities will be going towards that route. Already, London drastically restricts driving into the city, a number of city cores in Germany are no-car, Barcelona plans to have 60% of it's streets car-free.
>I'm German. Europeans in general have tons of experience with running public transport in constrained-budget scenarios. Just ask us if you need help.
I'm sure some of us will. That said, Europe is only directly comparable to the Northeast in terms of geography, climate, and population density. The US is truly massive, and each part of the country has distinct cultural norms which may or may not support public transit development.
>About 5% of all U.S. workers in 2019 commuted by public transportation.
>Commuters use buses (46.3% of all public transportation commuters, or about 3.6 million people); subway or elevated rail (37.7%), long-distance train or commuter rail (11.8%); light rail, streetcar or trolley (3.1%); and ferryboat (1.0%).
>Roughly 3 million of the nation’s 7.8 million public transportation commuters lived in the New York metro area.
>70% of the nation’s public transportation commuters live in one of the seven largest metropolitan areas.
>The percentage of workers who commuted by public transportation varied by region. The Northeast had the highest share of workers who commuted by transit, at 14.3%, followed by the West (4.4%), the Midwest (3.0%), and the South (2.0%).
>The percentage of U.S. workers commuting by public transportation fell from 12.1% in 1960 to around 5.0% in 2019.
The most surprising statistic to me is that NYC accounts for roughly 40% of public transportation commuters in the country. The rest make general sense.
>The goal is to get the remaining 99% of local/regional individual-transportation traffic to use shared services.
Well, that is YOUR goal. The vast majority of Americans do not live in dense urban environments, so most will not support your goal. That's okay; we have our own mixture of geographic, climate, and population density realities which differ from your own. (Actually, you would be better served talking about measures in different states rather than the US as a whole, because we're built state-first, not federal-first like all European countries save for Switzerland.)
You might find it interesting that, in some parts of US suburbia, individuals and families roam around towns riding electric golf carts instead of cars using separate roadway infrastructure.
As an American who (1) generally supports mass transit and non-personal-car modes of transportation while (2) understanding the globally-unique geographic, climate, population density, and cultural realities of the US, here's how I envision mass transit will look in a few decades across the US:
>Planes: widely used everywhere, airports are linked to urban centers by rail or BRT
>Trains: same cross-country lines exist, Northeast network continues strong, train networks in Florida and on the Pacific Coast expand, lightly used for regular transit in 80% of states
>Light-rail/subway: most major US cities have one, existing networks see varying degrees of expansion, ridership increases handled by more frequent trains
>Trams: used in dense urban cores of major US cities which do not have extensive light-rail/subway network, sees strong ridership, trackless more prevalent than track
>Streetcars: limited use, electric trams or buses more preferred due to track and electrification infrastructure and maintenance costs
>BRT: widely deployed across major urban areas, used to either extend light-rail/subway reach or provide hub-to-destination travel
>Buses: still widely used, expanded service in both urban and suburban areas, direct home-to-station travel facilitated by autonomous microbuses
>Bike infrastructure: widely deployed across all major urban areas and most suburban areas, virtually all old railroads converted to bikeways, some new bikeway construction for commuters, protected bike lanes in all dense urban cores
>Cars: still used each and every day by the majority of Americans, many are electric, some are autonomous
Changing the primary transportation mode of a population requires a cultural shift to adopt the new mode. The population must be willing to forgo what they already have in favor of something new. You are saying that automated "people movers" (which is an emotional sketch rather than an defined policy item) will work well in car-ubiquitous US suburbia, but these folks live in suburbia specifically because of low population density and general quality-of-life. They explicitly enjoy being around people they know and not being around people they don't know. Any solution you're proposing must respect their existing values while providing an alternative option.
Your examples of last-mile services aren't really last-mile services, save for the final one:
>trams
Since it seems infeasible to allow anyone to board a tram at any point on its journey, tram stops will be necessary. Perhaps you now face a last-quarter-mile problem, which is better but still may not be good enough for that specific population. Track maintenance may be significantly lessened by using a "trackless tram", but such would have severe challenges in a snowy climate. Trams only work in dense urban environments.
>buses
Buses have been used in cities for many decades, so our understanding of them is that they work generally well. Buses are common in suburban environments with many low-income residents. The benefit of buses is their limited amount of supporting infrastructure and route adaptability. However, similar to the tram situation, a bus still does not get you directly to your home.
>actually usable bike lanes
Bike lanes in dense urban environments are almost always a net positive. What constitutes an "actually usable" bike lane depends on an individual's risk tolerance. As a last-mile problem, not all people are physically able to bike from a train station, though ebikes do help. Again, weather can impact people being willing to bike, let alone leave the house.
>automated "people movers"
This service is more conceptual, but I imagine you're thinking of a Waymo-style service, where you can summon an autonomous vehicle which will pick you up at home and take you to-and-from the station. The main issues here are availability and reliability. If addressed, you'll likely crack the suburban transportation nut, but such individualized transportation in cities isn't sustainable.