The site dismisses trains as an alternative to IOT highways but doesn't seem to go into details about why they believe improving highways would be more cost-effective than improving railways.
It kind of comes off as "this concept that's been talked about for decades is the solution to our traffic woes despite the lack of implementations"
> Issue: fixed-route, fixed-schedule (FRFS) mass-transit systems are obsolete
I doubt that I'm going to find much to agree with here.
> Vision: variable-route, variable-schedule (VRVS) systems are sustainable
Is this meant as a "we will find some way to make them sustainable"? Or "they already are sustainable"? Seems like bad writing, either way.
> Challenges: standardization, traveler trust, legal constraints, and external threats
Oh man, at least they admit that everyone thinks they're going to kill people and break laws with impunity. I'm surprised that they don't have "safety" listed, though.
> Mass-Transit Solutions for an Automobile Culture: FRFS transportation systems such as railroads, no matter how fast the trains, will have little effect on automobile drivers and traffic.
[Citation needed] But seriously, if you start with the assumption that people will never use mass transit, even when it's obviously faster and better, than I guess you could get here?
> The Promised Land: CAVs - single-occupant cars, taxis, limos, and buses - operating on CAVWAYs under common protocols, protected from human drivers, will operate as VRVS systems, offering safe, efficient, secure, accessible, sustainable mass transit.
You can just say "gadgetbahn", you know.
Other pages....
> In California, where most of the right-of-way was procured for freeways and highways, railways would be redundant with the new CAVWAYs; new routes and right-of-way for trains would be very expensive.
Wow, it's a shame that building new rights of way would be expensive and unworkable. Glad we can instead build new rights of way that are, uh, not expensive or unworkable?
> AVs on CAVWAYs will use far less energy than vehicles idling in freeway traffic jams. Those CAVs will be fuel efficient because they can remain safe using light-weight construction. Constant CAV speeds and ride-share services will also reduce fuel use. And, CAVs on CAVWAYs will use the most-effective energy sources available at the time.
These types of systems refuse to realize that roads have a carrying capacity, and traffic slows down when more cars are added past that capacity. No amount of automation will solve this.
> Davius' Ten Commandments of CAV Systems are introduced below. They will appear on various pages of this website.
> 1) Build roads from where travelers (Roman armies) are to where they need to go (unconquered villages and farms).
I think the philosophical questions here are very interesting:
1. What should be the end result of capitalism’s goal to convert human effort into durable societal infrastructure? Should it be to create heaven on earth? ie. an elimination of scarcity and a control over entropy?
2. Does heaven require an omniscient, omnipresent god? If it does exist, should we aim to destroy it to “improve heaven”? If it doesn’t exist, should we aim to create it to “improve heaven”?
It kind of comes off as "this concept that's been talked about for decades is the solution to our traffic woes despite the lack of implementations"