Fixed-Route, Fixed-Schedule (FRFS) Systems

and why they aren't the answer

The purpose of this section is to mention other mass-transit systems, not promote them.
I have ridden the Shinkansen in Japan and les Trains à Grande Vitesse (TGV) in France. I have ridden the San Francisco BART, the Paris Métro, the Tokyo Chikatetsu, El Metro de la Ciudad de México, and the Washington Metro. Those trains and subways, FRFS mass-transit systems, have technical strengths and serve dense populations. However, the mass-transit system which will best serve sprawling cities like Los Angeles and San Diego, where travelers now rely on cars, will descend from our current freeways, variable-route, variable-schedule (VRVS) systems.
The San Francisco Bay Area has invested heavily in their Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) System, but in most of California including the Bay Area, our cars take us from where we are to where we want to be. Population centers now served by automobiles would be well advised to learn Davius’ commandments before applying 20th-century solutions to current transportation challenges.

Seriously?

The answer to the question, "why not FRFS mass-transit systems - such as railways - to serve automobile-based populations?" is that trains restrict travel to where the rails are. 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. Improving current railways is a good idea but would only serve travelers on current routes, not the millions now driving cars on freeways and other highways. Trains arrive and depart at intervals and would be unable to address the traffic loads on rush-hour freeways. Since current rail travel serves only a fraction of travelers, it is not sustainable without tax money.

The current mass-transit system now in high use in California - freeways combined with motor vehicles - is a VRVS system. Daviua calls the modern follow-on VRVS systems which he proposes, "CAV Systems."

While we're at it, let's answer another question you might have: "why not just let CAVs into the jungle (current freeways with wild human drivers)?" Answer: this approach does not address congestion.

Finally, "why not let the free market provide CAVs independent of government?" Answer: CAVs without CAVWAYs will never provide the safety and efficiency of CAV Systems comprised by CAVs on CAVWAYs.