20 ms·

I have a feeling I'll be down voted to hell for this, but self driving cars always felt like going the complete wrong direction for me. Aside from small persona

• aqme28 6y ago
  I completely agree. I see the benefit for things like trucking. For cities though, I would much rather live in a place like Amsterdam or New York than one that's completely car-centric, even if the cars drive themselves.
• kylecordes 6y ago
  It is a large and very heterogeneous world. There are plenty of places where public transport will work best and plenty of others where a car (self driving or otherwise) is much more useful.
• kindatrue 6y ago
  There's also what's known as the "geometry" problem - 1 self driving car takes up as much space as 1 human driven car. Part of the problem is the general incompetency and mismanagement of US public transit construction -- the costs are insane, even when compared to "socialist" "high-cost" union-heavy Europe. This was a great read on why we get so little for our money: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-... - and it busts the common misconception that it's 100% because unions. (tldr: it's because politicians get rewarded for creating jobs (votes) and spending money on contractors (lobbying), and because we outsourced everything)
  • twox2 6y ago
    Presumably if all cars were self driving, or say 90% were. Then that would become the next "public transportation". And if they were all electric, the footprint would be less harsh as well.
    • the_gastropod 6y ago
      Personal cars will never be the "next public transportation". The density just doesn't work. Personal vehicles are the least space-efficient (to say nothing of energy efficiency) means of transportation among buses, trains, bicycles, and walking. You can't solve congestion issues by replacing a more-dense option with a less-dense one. The only thing self-driving cars solve for is freeing up a person to read or do something else during their commute.
      • JamesBarney 6y ago
        Congestion itself isn't the issue. Wasted time and fossil fuels is. And most of my friends who take public transportation to work have a commute that is longer than my friends who drive to work. Right now there is a difference in quality of that time in that your attention is more free when taking public transit but self driving cars fix this issue.
    • HotAirBalloons 6y ago
      It's not public transportation in the same way that taxis aren't solving the public transportation problem. But also, why is it that there is this assumption that when self driving cars become a reality, they'll also be electric? The two problems are completely orthogonal, and while solving both of them are important, making self driving cars electric isn't a priority for most companies today.
  • shadowgovt 6y ago
    One SDC takes up slightly less space when we factor in the necessary buffer around human-driven vehicles to account for human reaction times and safety perception. A fleet of SDCs snaking down a road can "tuck in" tighter to each other because computer reaction times are better (especially if they're networked and sharing decisionmaking signals). Of course, it's still not as space-efficient as a bus. But the bus infrastructure as a solution has been challenged by COVID-19.
• the_gastropod 6y ago
  Public transit is obviously one facet here. But another is just flat out poor urban planning in the U.S. Walking and bicycling should be more viable forms of transportation. But there are only a small handful of cities (arguably just one) where that's currently feasible in the U.S. It's pretty ridiculous that we've spent the past 100 years designing our cities around the least efficient, least pleasant, most dangerous form of transportation in existence. Like you, self-driving and electric cars don't interest me a whole lot—I feel like they're largely missing the point.
  • JamesBarney 6y ago
    Only 5% of the U.S. population of takes transit to work, 2-3 percentage walk and .5% bike. And everyone else drives or works from home. I don't think it's missing the point at all.
• AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  The fundamental prerequisite for functional mass transit is a high population density. That's why it works in NYC and doesn't work in Los Angeles. But that means it's not just a matter of building mass transit. First you have to build taller buildings. And even then there are going to be places where it's just not happening. It doesn't matter how you change the zoning, nobody is going to build skyscrapers in Pine Bluffs, Wyoming.
  • atharris 6y ago
    The rest of the world is rife with small, rural towns that nevertheless have great public transit systems, or at least ones that are more effective than what we see in the US. The major difference is that these places are willing to invest in the public sphere, and they're by and large willing to permit construction that is not car-centric (i.e., no parking minima to subsidize drivers).
    • zamfi 6y ago
      Could you give a few examples of small rural towns where people can afford cars but instead the town has great public transit? Genuinely curious!
      • JoeAltmaier 6y ago
        Iowa City, Iowa
        • zamfi 6y ago
          Am I missing something? Iowa City seems to have only busses, and they run hourly. Perhaps I'm wrong? If I'm not wrong, then we have vastly different definitions of "great public transit" -- I would not be happy there without a car.
        • deleted 6y ago
          [deleted]
      • deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
• shadowgovt 6y ago
  A lot of self-driving is likely to replace taxi service, not make its way to private ownership. The advantages of individual vehicles for motion around a city are diminished wait times and arbitrary point-to-point linkage. One is not constrained to traveling only on the public transit arteries plus foot-travel distance. (The tradeoff of fossil fuel consumption is huge and should not be ignored, however).
  • clairity 6y ago
    electric kick scooters (and bikes) make foot-travel distance less relevant in many places, extending the serviceable radius around a station from 1/3 mile to 2-3 miles. we just need to turn street parking into dedicated bike/scooter lanes to make it safe enough for more people to choose this option.
    • shadowgovt 6y ago
      Possibly. Americans seem real reluctant to hop on a bike, and I don't think it's just for safety reasons. Big chunks of the US are too cold to want to be outside that much, a lot of the year. But more dedicated bike infrastructure would be a huge help in general.
      • hutzlibu 6y ago
        "Big chunks of the US are too cold to want to be outside that much, a lot of the year." There are surely limits to everything and not everyone is into extreme sports, but even in the winter I really like cycling. Much, much more, than the virus infested public transport. There is a saying, there is no such thing as bad weather, just bad clothing.
        • shadowgovt 6y ago
          Clothing won't help when the roads are slushed up.
          • 6y ago
• abainbridge 6y ago
  Agreed, but self-driving cars would enable self driving buses and they could be great. One problem with buses is that paying the drivers is expensive. As a result buses need to be big to amortize the cost of the driver across lots of users. But big buses don't work well in low demand times of the day. The only option is to run them less frequently, which sucks for users. And big buses don't fit down small streets. And fewer larger buses means fewer routes. Self driving buses could solve all these problems. I'd still prefer to walk or cycle, but I'm probably biased because I live in a warm, dry and flat part of the UK and don't have kids.
  • ggoo 6y ago
    Couldn't we already have self driving buses if we just put them on tracks? They go a predefined route anyway :)
    • toast0 6y ago
      Roads are cheaper than rails, and easier to change. Buseses on wheels are more flexible than trams or whatever on tracks, and can route around a collision. Rails in the road are a severe hazard for cyclists and somewhat hazardous for pedestrians.
      • ggoo 6y ago
        (sarcasm)
  • kanox 6y ago
    > Agreed, but self-driving cars would enable self driving buses and they could be great. Self-driving cars would enable self-driving taxis which would be superior to both private vehicles and public transport. Imagine if there was no need to park and you could summon a vehicle of the appropriate size at will.
    • abainbridge 6y ago
      I have a theory that large fleets of self-driving taxis will make congestion worse (compared to private cars). They have to drive to you, then drive wherever you want to go, turning one vehicle journey into two ( * ). There are lots of other factors to consider but that seems to be a fundamental problem with the taxi model. I'd be interested in replies that explain the flaw in this theory. I assume it is wrong because I haven't heard anyone else say it. * It could be even worse. Imagine the morning rush - thousands of taxis have driven to peoples' homes and then driven them to their work/school. Then most will have to park until the next peak of demand in the evening. Either they park in the city, or they drive to an out-of-city parking lot, then drive back in to collect, then drive people home, then drive somewhere else to park until the morning rush. What would have been two vehicle journeys using a private car became six.
• siavosh 6y ago
  Twenty years ago I interned in a small robotics company, and one of scientists there was a Phd from Berkeley. He had done his thesis on dynamic controls for autonomous vehicles. I was asking him a bunch of questions, and at the end he just said that it's a moral question, and that they've already solved all these problems -- "you just connect the cars together physically, and it's called a train". I thought it was pretty funny and insightful.
• aantix 6y ago
  The city that I live in is very spread out. The idea of hopping from a subway to a bus to another bus just to get to a doctor's appointment sounds awful. And if I had to take 4 young kids along with me for the trip, double awful. For the denser cities - my wife and I lived in SF for close to five years. As our family grew, and the city space grew more populous, parking spots were really rare. Getting to a pediatric appointment was misery. We knew the above scenario was our future. And it sounded completely miserable. So we moved to a spread out, suburban city. I want to go directly to the location and start the errand as soon as possible. I hate waiting or slow buses or waiting for people to get on, get off. I just want to be able to go.
  • jxramos 6y ago
    Indeed, the creature comforts of a car is probably the big reason they are so successful compared to the alternatives. I rode public transportation well into my late twenties I think. When some folks would accompany me for the trip at times they didn't even own hardy thick winter coats to be able to bear the cold elements outside. People who haven't had to spend significant times standing and waiting to be picked up outside can be pretty shocked at how unpleasant the experience can be, especially given harsher locations.
    • jxramos 6y ago
      Come to reflect more on the public transportation experience you'd often overhear people's aspirations and progress towards car ownership, especially among the teens from what I recall. Forgot all about that frequent occurrence.
  • twic 6y ago
    Your city is very spread out because everyone has a car. This is why this is such a difficult problem - transport networks, whether road or rail - are a fundamental part of the anatomy of a city. You can't simply take a city which grew up around driving and replace that with taking the train, any more that you can transplant a crab's exoskeleton into a rabbit. Nonetheless, our cities must eventually become crabs. So we need to have a plan for how we're going to make that transformation gradually, as the cities grow and evolve.
• Kalium 6y ago
  > how is revolving our infrastructure and culture around them any better than simply investing in public transportation by making it a more feasible option for people? Public transit can't haul freight cross-country. Self-driving vehicles can. As others have pointed out, self-driving vehicles could significantly cut the operating costs of public transit. This also seems like a major win for investing in public transit.
  • josephcsible 6y ago
    > Public transit can't haul freight cross-country. Self-driving vehicles can. Freight should be hauled cross-country on rails, not on roads.
    • Kalium 6y ago
      You're absolutely right! Freight cannot be efficiently moved between the railyard and final destinations on public transit, on foot, or on bicycles. Self-driving vehicles can do this.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• Shivetya 6y ago
  tl;dr public transit definition needs to stop being confined to rail and buses. I have always been in the camp that real dystopian future is tens of millions trapped in large cities instead of being free to live and travel where they want. I can never willingly place myself back into a large city. there is no reason the concept of public transportation does not include self driving vehicles in many sizes. already this day we run separate transit vehicles for those with handicaps which make regular bus and train travel difficult or impossible to access. So why not smaller cars that can serve any one in need at any time regardless of where they are located. one of the most common traits in any recently freed or booming economy is the personal vehicle and for good reason. it offers the means to travel where and when you want to not be trapped in one location.
• kanox 6y ago
  I really wish people would stop claiming that the solution to cars is walking or public transport. I don't have a car either but claiming that people should "stop driving" is not a serious approach. Cars are extremely useful and are not going anywhere. They have problems like carbon emissions and being extremely dangerous but those will have to be solved while preserving the fundamental utility of a cars: They are individual vehicles that can go nearly anywhere and carry considerable cargo.
  • cannabis_sam 6y ago
    >Cars are extremely useful I agree, but I also think this is part of the problem. Choosing to use public transportation for longer distances is a significant personal cost, while the benefit of lower costs in externalities is almost invisible. Conversely, driving a car has a comparatively lower personal cost, essentially negative, since it increase freedom of movement. But the externalities are conveniently hidden by our economic and political systems.
    • chrisco255 6y ago
      Public transportation is synchronous by necessity. Private transportation is asynchronous. There are tremendous economic benefits to asynchronous transport. The truth is a robust system would have a healthy mix of both.
      • cannabis_sam 6y ago
        I absolutely agree, the synchronous/asynchronous description is both absolutely apt and correct. But the choice for the individual is muddled by the very concept of externalities. It’s cheaper to pollute our planet, than enduring the inconvenience of public transport. But the only reason that is true, is the terrible economic systems we all live under.
        • autokad 6y ago
          > "But the choice for the individual" End it there and stop trying to make decisions for other people.
• AirMax98 6y ago
  Could not agree more. As someone who commutes primarily via bicycle, I've always been mystified by colleagues and friends who choose to drive to work in the densely populated northeastern city while cycling through center city is faster, more fun, better for your health, etc. There are obvious times when driving a car will make more sense, e.g. transporting delicate flowers, but for the average commuter it breaks down to the fact that the car is just somewhat sacred in our society. It is an important aspect of the American identity and our vision of success in this country, and so here we are, innovating around cars with technologies like self-driving rather than looking forwards to new potential paradigms of transportation. This is just in regards to the average commuter, I'm sure that self-driving does have its place in like, moving 40' containers in low-density areas.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• rconti 6y ago
  Getting the rich to subsidize new tech is a great way to democratize it, though. The self driving car's endgame might not be a car after all.
• bwanab 6y ago
  I take the subway everywhere in my city in the US. I don’t expect it to be perfect and I’m not disappointed. I’m also very happy to let my car drive for long boring stretches on long trips. I find I arrive at my destination much more relaxed. And yes, I keep my hands on the wheel and eyes watching around me. The car does the stupid stuff like keeping the car in the middle of the land and watching for other cars all around.
• 908B64B197 6y ago
  The issue is throughput and latency. Public transit is high throughput (and can be low latency if you are lucky and stay on the same link) but as soon as you have to make a transfer (bus to train or bus to bus) the latency immediately spikes up. And the latency pretty much is unbearable as soon as you move to and from a non-central location (suburb to suburb) or not during peak hours. To further use the computer network analogy, the last mile is generally also a problem. Doesn't matter if most of the network is fiber, if my house can only get a twisted pair the network is going to be bad. Same thing if the bus station or train station is 2 miles from my house; it's like it didn't exist.
• esotericsean 6y ago
  I live in California which is known for its "car culture," but that aside I don't think I would ever be comfortable with only using public transportation or not owning a car. Having a car is convenient and gives you full control over exactly when and where you want to go.
• UncleOxidant 6y ago
  I was working at a large corporation a couple of years ago and looked out over the parking lot which covered many acres - there were roughly 3000 cars there. And this was just one of 4 campuses of said corporation in my area. In total they have well over 10,000 cars parked on those parking lots every day (prior to covid, anyway). At an average cost of $25,000 there were around $250M worth of cars parked on those lots. And they sit Idle there for 8 hours/day. Most cars are sitting idle 95% of the time. That's a lot of capital just sitting doing nothing most of the time not to mention all of the land required to store them.
• Symmetry 6y ago
  They don't help as much as mass transit but they help in a couple of ways. The most significant is that we spend a huge amount of inner city land on parking. We could build denser without worrying about that. A fair amount of inner city traffic is people cruising around looking for parking too. Also, outlying rail or subway stops should really have a lot of development around them but often in the US they're surrounded by parking lots for people commuting in to work. Reducing the need for parking really helps in this case. Also, people currently have to buy a car big enough for their greatest needs. You don't need a large a car when commuting in to work as when you're taking a road trip with your family but if you're thinking of buying a car you need one to do both. So hopefully we see the average car on the road being much smaller than they are now.
• vaccinator 6y ago
  When cars will be driving themselves, you wont need to own one... one of the many parked near your home will come pick you up.