Is mass transit obsolete?

http://editorial.autos.msn.com/article.aspx?cp-documentid=457882


Do vehicles like the Loremo make the argument for mass transit null?

Consider the following:

150 mpg for a two passenger vehicle equals 300 passenger miles per gallon. That is more than ten times the average passenger mpg of a bus, and three times that of light rail!

An argument for mass transit is the physical space required for personal transit. On the roads, this is currently certainly a valid concern. However, future cars will drive themselves, essentially forming virtual trains as they drive automatically nose-to-tail, inches apart, with no human intervention whatsoever.

As far as parking goes, with some of the small vehicles such as the Smart, I think it's debatable as to how much of an advantage in physical parking space that mass transit will have. Unused trains and unused buses also have to park after rush hour and they consume space and use fuel to get to and from the parking depot. The parking depots are also have a fairly large footprint, while a car parking space can obviously be puny.

In Japan, there are robotic parking garages that achieve incredible passenger vehicle density. VW has invented an even more efficient robotic parker that is 5x more efficient than a conventional garage.






Mass transit has a lot of downsides of course. Criminals are attracted to the passenger loading stations. The stations and the vehicles make an attractive terrorism target.

Mass transit is obviously a good way to spread communicable diseases quickly. If you were writing a movie script for how to transmit a pandemic, it would tend to include mass transit. In the event of a pandemic, mass transit will shut down, either from the fear of the passengers or by direction of the government. An economy that relied on mass transit would be disastrously impacted.

Now despite these drawbacks in my estimation the major argument made for greater population density is the ability to use mass transit!

Remove that incentive and the argument for population density shrinks. The downsides of population density are many. The lack of greenery makes cooling needs massive. Local air quality suffers, resulting in chronic illnesses. Epidemics are more likely. Violence is more endemic. Ironically, valuing the natural environment diminishes as the inhabitants have no appreciation for it. Light pollution. Noise pollution. Stress. Pollution. Drug use. The human cost is great.

The logical question arises, why can't mass transit take advantage of the same technological advances? Well it can, but not at the same rate. It's locked into a procurement-cycle pace of upgrades. Not to mention political interference. Just take a look around at your current mass transit and compare that technology to what is available in your car showroom.

There is no reason to believe the dynamic that leads to that situation will change.

And as technological advancement accelerates (Moore's Law, or Kurzweil's accelerating returns), the sum of time mass transit will spend behind the technological curve will be exacerbated.

City planners really need to consider the acceleration of technology and challenge some based assumptions about transit.

Perhaps suburban villages - with walkability to shops for daily shopping - with advanced personal transportation vehicles for commuting and other personal trips - is the greener and better overall formula.