„humanity could be ushered into a new economy where driving is a hobby, only for sunny days along clear roads with a view. The struggles and tedium of the daily commute could be handled by autonomous vehicles, traffic accidents could fall to nil, passengers could focus on working and relaxing in their mobile offices, and the elderly, disabled, and blind could have considerable mobility and autonomy.”
Sounds remarkably like a world with good public transport.
The best you can hope for is public transport that will get you where you're going in time.
There's no public transportation that will provide privacy, consistent comfort, or even a seat. Never mind the most basic problem with public transportation—the other passengers. Any time you get into an enclosed metal box with an arbitrary number of random people, you roll the dice. You could have a quiet, safe ride, or you could end up with loud music, obnoxious body odors, food spilling on you, bags hitting you in the face, or someone vomiting all over the floor. Any long-time New Yorker has their fair share of subway and bus stories.
Public transportation is a vital part of any city. But it's not a "relaxing mobile office," it's not always easy or convenient for the elderly and disabled, and you can't have it as the only option.
well, you certainly can get some work done on a train once you figured out your commute in a way that will get you a seat. Grande, that is not an option for anyone.
On the other hand, what would the world look if we all used autonomous cars? Seems like we would end up with the same, or worse, traffic jams. If people were willing to share their cars, they would be a bit less. But remember any means of public transport uses less space than cars. http://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-almo...
> But remember any means of public transport uses less space than cars
I think this is indicative of the PR problem that transit advocates have and that the GP is trying to point out: the advocates keep focusing on moving people from point A to point B.
Transit advocacy always seems to be about X thousand passengers per hour and saving Y thousand square feet of real estate. Quality of life of those passengers doesn't get a mention.
Granted, creature comforts may not be all that high on everyone's priority lists, but I'm confident they are for many, especially as they get to middle age and have the financial means to vote with their wallets.
In many places you really can't work on a subway if you needed a network connection since you are far underground and can't get a signal. Some have WIFI now though.
Here in Lisbon all the subway lines have mobile signal (the operators installed base stations along the line back in 2006). I'm not sure how good is the internet connection, but works fine for calls.
I'm a bit disappointed in HN that you got downvoted. Your first sentence might be inflammatory, but you do follow it up with completely valid criticisms, all of which I always remind people of when they try to sell me on public transit.
An additional refinement on comfort is temperature (and, I'm sure, for some locales, humidity). No matter what ones preference, that's also a roll of the dice. If it's a train, and you're lucky enough to be on a system that allows it, you could try moving between cars in search of your personal Goldilocks Zone, but that can mean sacrificing a seat and may not be feasible with luggage.
Now, here's an alternative (or wishful thinking): business class. This already exists in air travel (privatized public transit) and on some commuter rail lines (semi-privatized in the US?).
I think it's telling that, especially on short-haul flights there's a tendency for first class sections on planes to get smaller or disappear entirely (or never exist in the first place on no-frills airlines), but I don't wish for first class luxury. I would only want what you mention: privacy, consistent comfort, or even a seat (a guaranteed one), with the possible addition of amenities such as electrical outlets and internet.
I have a theory as to why it's merely wishful thinking and would never "fly", which I'll share if anyone's interested.
There's another major problem that I see with public transit (in the sense of the proposed utopia), and that's that enough people actually want to live in suburbs, where it's way too expensive to run even a halfway decent transit system.
The last major problem that I think is inadequately addressed, is freedom, although you touched on it by mentioning privacy. Cars grant the greatest freedom of movement we have available.
A car allows someone to go almost anywhere almost any time at remarkably high speed with modest incremental (monetary) cost and little to no advance planning or notice required. Of course, whether this on-a-whim freedom is desireable/beneficial on a macro is debatable, but I think it's pretty clear it's desireable by individuals.
In the densest cities with the best transit systems during peak hours, using that system can replicate (and even surpass!) this freedom of movement. However, that falls apart if ones trip extends outside of those peak hours or outside the city[1].
[1] This is, at times, considered a feature by some US suburbs in that it makes it effectively impossible for poor people from the city to come out to their neighborhoods, though this may seem weird to us in booming cities where land close to the center is most expensive and is cheapest at the outskirts.
Sounds remarkably like a world with good public transport.