CMV: A flawless, automated, safe and reliable public transit system is the only viable future for most major cities, and the United States should invest largely in it.

I am aware this is not the most controversial topic, but it is still pretty important in terms of shaping a future for cities.<br><br>So, a flawless, automated, safe and reliable public transit system is the only viable future for most major cities, and the United States should invest largely in it.<br><br>Automated public transit, such as maglev and hyperloop trains, could serve the following benefits: <br><br>1. **Safety**: Since the system is automated, you don't have to worry about accidents caused by your average, clumsy or drowsy car driver, or potentially distracted or drunk bus driver. Also, automated systems could have more built in safety measures such as narrow seating with seat belts and safety bars to keep the passenger in a safe position if the vehicle were to crash. And the elevated or underground pathways of the system would prevent pedestrians or animals from accidentally getting into the pathway of the vehicle, and allow the vehicle to go faster and safer on its route.<br><br>2. **Reliability**: Automated systems could also work more efficiently under changing conditions. For example, if a highway was closed due to some sort of accident, automated systems could have set detour routes built in that would reroute the vehicle safely and quickly. The system could also handle other kinds of conditions such as rain or snow, as it would be designed to handle those conditions from a technical standpoint by relying on scans of the world and not on human eyesight or dependability. (For example, a bus driver may have trouble seeing at night, but that doesn't matter when the bus is relying on advanced scans of the environment to determine the best route.)<br><br>3. **Ease**: Since the public transit system is automated, it doesn't matter when the driver gets tired and needs to take a break. But the system could also have better conveniences, narrow seating with safety bars, but also with small tables and power outlets or USB ports to charge electrical devices. Food and drink could also be served through vending machines or from a vending robot.<br><br>4. **Eco-friendliness**: With the ability to install solar panels or wind turbines along the route and at stations, the system wouldn't have to rely on major power plants that pump out pollution and greenhouse gases. This makes a huge difference in terms of what vehicles are better for the environment, and also in terms of what kind of infrastructure is better for the environment. (Also, some carbon capture technology and oxygen generators could be installed to counteract emissions from construction and ongoing operations.)<br><br>5. **Ease of construction**: The elevated or underground pathways could allow for easy construction in otherwise difficult to build areas, such as mountainous or swampy terrain. The underground construction could also be less invasive to pre-existing neighborhoods, as it would be easier to put stations and pathways underneath existing roads or paths. This would also allow for less displacement of people and businesses in order to build a new route.<br><br>**Counterarguments and potential solutions:**<br><br>1. This seems too costly: Yes, the initial construction of the system would be expensive, and would likely require government spending or loans to get it going. However, a well-designed system could save money in multiple ways. First, it could lead to cheaper, more efficient transportation for people in the area, which could allow them to save money by not having to own a car. Second, it could reduce the amount of traffic on highways, which reduces the amount of wear and tear on the road, which could allow the government to save money on maintenance and repair. Third, it could also take advantage of renewable energy, solar, wind, and kinetic energy generators to power the system, which could reduce energy costs. Finally, it would create jobs in terms of construction, maintenance and repair. One could make the argument that the system doesn't generate money directly, but one could also make the argument that car manufacturers do not pay for the construction of the roads that cars use, so why should the public transit system pay for its own infrastructure?<br><br>2. This seems impractical to implement: Yes, it would be difficult to implement such a system, but not impossible. First, the system would be implemented in phases, each phase relying on the technology of the last phase. First, there would be the design phase, in which the best route would be determined. Then, there would be the construction phase, in which the physical infrastructure of the route would be built. Then, there would be the testing phase, in which the physical integrity and safety of the system would be tested and improved upon. Then, there would be the model deployment phase, in which model trains would be deployed and tested on the route, which would also lead to improvements on the route and the trains. Finally, there would be the first passenger deployment phase, which would deploy the trains to carry passengers. The system would also rely on other, pre-existing infrastructure, such as fiber optic cables, to supply it with data and internet connectivity for its systems.<br><br>**TL;DR**: Automating public transit is the best future for major cities because of safety, reliability, ease, eco-friendliness and the ease of construction. The counterarguments of cost and practicality relate to the funding and implementation of the system, but it would likely save money in the long run, and it would be implemented in phases to allow for testing and improvement.<br><br>**Edit**: Thanks to everyone for all the thoughtful opinions and arguments, and thanks to /u/AnActualFurry for the silver, /u/Wolf-1995 for the gold, and /u/OhWaffleyGood for the platinum. This discussion was really helpful and interesting, and it's helped me develop this topic further.