3 ms·
Manhattan also has a robust public transit system, making it feasible for a person without a car to get around. Driverless taxis are probably disproportionately
by veridies 8y ago
Manhattan also has a robust public transit system, making it feasible for a person without a car to get around. Driverless taxis are probably disproportionately likely to be used in suburbs and other places without that infrastructure.
- ghaff 8y agoYet, that isn't where taxis are primarily used today. Why would driverless taxis be much different? Maybe they'll be a little cheaper (though Uber drivers are probably only making minimum wage--if that) but it's not clear why that would transform behavior.
- CydeWeys 8y ago> Yet, that isn't where taxis are primarily used today. Huh? Taxis are for sure used way more in NYC than out in the suburbs. They benefit significantly from density. Out in the suburbs you can't even catch a taxi unless you call one to you. The popular way of getting around in the suburbs is driving your own car. In cities mass transit and taxis are much more common, especially because parking is so expensive that it makes more financial sense to hail a taxi for the occasional trip.
- ghaff 8y agoThat’s what I was trying to say. Dense urban areas are where taxis are used the most and those will be hardest for self driving.
- ehsankia 8y agoIndeed. It's less urban areas that have poor public transport that need this the most. The bay area for example is extremely hard to get around without a car, but something like Seattle? Very different.