As stated, this proposal envisions a city designed with two universally accessible but completely independent transportation networks: one for LLMs, the other for FHVs. The two travel networks are accessible to every individual in the community and each provides access to every area of the community. The two networks are physically separated such that they never intersect. There is no possible physical interaction between FHVs and LLMs, as this would immediately and unacceptably increase the risks to the occupants of LLMs and reduce convenience to all users. Also, because FHVs perform valuable functions for the community, it must be recognized that few people or businesses would want to be in a community where FHV use is restricted. Thus, two universally accessible, but separate networks are needed.
In contrast to multi-modal solutions, in which users must shift themselves and any baggage, cargo, and personal belongings back and forth between multiple travel modes in a single trip, this dual infrastructure design creates two complete systems with alternative temporal, spatial, and social sensibilities. Just as in pedestrian malls or downtown areas, where cars are sometimes banned, the LLM system creates a space in support of a less harried lifestyle. Since the LLM network is accessible to everyone and accommodates all forms of travel, from pedestrians to fully featured motor vehicles,2 it offers a complete and convenient new lifestyle network—one that is functionally equivalent to the current automobile and road system, but without any of the undesirable features. The LLM network is actually more convenient by any measure than a conventional single street system.
Was this article helpful?