5 ms·

> Autonomous vehicles promise to change this, revolutionizing our cities by making transport safer, cheaper, and easier to access. But deploying autonomous driv

> Autonomous vehicles promise to change this, revolutionizing our cities by making transport safer, cheaper, and easier to access. But deploying autonomous driving technology to get there – perhaps one of the greatest engineering problems of our time – isn’t possible without developing a deep understanding of the nature of the challenges it must master. Uh this problem has been solved for over one hundred years, its called public transit. This is just the most expensive, most complicated solution for a problem that has already been solved in many places many times. Its like using globally distributed micro services to serve your blog which could just be hosted on medium. Yes, driverless cars will be useful for things at some point, but we don't need them in a dense city! I want fewer cars, not driverless ones

chrisseaton 6y ago
> This is just the most expensive, most complicated solution for a problem that has already been solved in many places many times. Can you estimate how 'expensive' and 'complicated' it would be to retrofit San Francisco with a public transit system? I would guess tens of billions of dollars and tens of decades, and that's if it would ever get approved in the first place. London has spent $20 billion and twenty years adding one new rail line. In a city starting out as already famously enthusiastic about public transit. What should we do in the half-century before this possible transit system turns up in San Francisco? Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.
- jeffbee 6y ago
  Indeed, do not let perfect be the enemy of better. The best way to improve transportation in SF is to tell everyone in a car to fuck right off, and run a bus both ways down every street every 3 minutes. No rails required.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I do also support completely closing all cities to private cars (reasonable exceptions for genuine requirements.) I don't understand why almost anyone needs, let alone wants, to try to drive a car into a city in the first place. Relcaim the streets for people. But again... how 'complicated' do you think it would be to achieve this legislation? I would guess impossibly complicated, so it's no more than a dream. So what do we do about it now? And what can a private company like Waymo do?
    - thethethethe 6y ago
      > 'complicated' do you think it would be to achieve this legislation? Depending on how extreme you want to get, not that complicated. Part of market street has already been closed to cars. Many streets have been converted into pedestrian streets during covid. I bet we will see more meaningful improvement on this front in SF before driverless cabs hit the streets
    - Pfhreak 6y ago
      Do it incrementally: Ban parking minimums, so developers stop putting parking lots in their buildings. Tax lots based on their assessed land value and give them credits for providing housing units. Developers will build more units and less parking. Surface lots will close down or dramatically increase rates -- either way, people will find alternatives. Require transit lanes for all major avenues, and enforce their use. Increase taxes and spend that money on transit. Make transit free, which will make it much easier for people to just hop on for their trips. Invest in trains. Bus rapid transit is kinda terrible, but it could be a stopgap until your trains work well.
      - tialaramex 6y ago
        (Not on the same continent as San Fransisco) When they first sought permission to build the building I live in, it was rejected for too few parking spaces, but by a decade later the penultimate plan was rejected for too many∆. My flat has a space (which I don't use) but some other residents don't get one. Public transit here is excellent, amenities are in walking distance, I can imagine wanting a car if I had kids or was disabled, otherwise it's unnecessary. ∆ the land didn't sit empty, it had a house on it, permission was sought to build a large multi-residence building on that land instead, once that permission was obtained the house was demolished.
      - oftenwrong 6y ago
        >Ban parking minimums, so developers stop putting parking lots in their buildings. SF already took that step: https://www.reubenlaw.com/san-francisco-eliminates-parking-requirements-citywide/ https://www.reubenlaw.com/san-francisco-eliminates-parking-r... Their permitting process is still a mess, based on what I have read, but that is a good start.
- bsimpson 6y ago
  SF has spent more than 1.5 billion dollars and a decade trying to add 3 stations to the existing train network downtown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway
  - thethethethe 6y ago
    That's great, its a good investment. Also, buses exist, and they work quite well actually, especially if you remove cars from the road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
- thethethethe 6y ago
  > I would guess tens of billions of dollars and fifty years, and that's if it would ever get approved in the first place. So? I still think it is worth it. Also, these costs and delays are not given, they are artificially induced by mismanagement, and could be changed. I am not saying that they shouldn't build the cars, I'm just pointing out that the "solution" they are providing isn't that revolutionary. Also, buses exist, which are much cheaper than what you are describing > Don't let perfect be the enemy of better. I don't really see how this is that much better than what already exists. How different would this really be from the status quo? I can already automatically hail a car which will take me where ever I need to go. Sure, autonomous cars _might_ be safer, but I doubt they will reduce congestion or travel times all that much. Plus, we'll have rolling surveillance cameras with a myriad of advanced sensors constantly driving by. I don't buy it
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > So? I still think it is worth it. The 'so' is that your complaint was that these cars are too complicated and expensive. I think an actual public transit system is undeniably more complicated and expensive, even if it's worthwhile.
    - thethethethe 6y ago
      I'm not complaining that the cars are expensive or complicated, I am just pointing out that it is a silly solution to problem which has already been solved. > I think an actual public transit system is undeniably more complicated and expensive, even if it's worthwhile I'm not so sure about this. We have public transit systems figured out in a lot of places. We don't even have self driving cars that we consider safe yet, let alone laws which regulate them
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > [the cars are] the most expensive, most complicated solution > I'm not complaining that the cars are expensive or complicated
- benlivengood 6y ago
  > I would guess tens of billions of dollars and tens of decades, and that's if it would ever get approved in the first place. So a quarter or two of FAANG profits for scale?
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    Yeah great if we can get that much money. Did you have some good idea how to achieve that?
- r_klancer 6y ago
  Like autonomous electric buses every 2-3 minutes in dedicated lanes that are demarcated by paint? Autonomous because labor costs (and shift considerations) are a major factor limiting the frequency of service you can provide. Electric because they will cost less in maintenance. They are also an important part of a possible solution for helping lower density suburban areas that suffer from housing shortages. It's worth listening to this whole talk by Peter Calthorpe, the planner who developed the now-well-known concept of transit oriented development: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/01/07/talking-headways-podcast-the-answer-is-the-arterial/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/01/07/talking-headways-podc...
- mprovost 6y ago
  The new train line (Crossrail) in London is years behind schedule, mostly due to problems with the software control systems for the trains. [0] Integrating automated trains into an existing rail network isn't easy - imagine the scale of the challenge with automated cars on city streets. [0] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/crossrail-delay-logistics https://www.wired.co.uk/article/crossrail-delay-logistics
bsimpson 6y ago
Cool, if you wanna get downtown from the Mission. SF hasn't had good public transit since at least the 50s. https://www.streetcar.org/end-of-the-b-geary-60-years-ago/ https://www.streetcar.org/end-of-the-b-geary-60-years-ago/
- thethethethe 6y ago
  I agree. So maybe we should improve it, instead of waiting a decade for rolling surveillance cameras to replace uber drivers, which is what I was suggesting
- caturopath 6y ago
  > Cool, if you wanna get downtown from the Mission. Awesome, if we're calling that route good, let's close it down to non-professional car traffic. That's where people are dying https://i.imgur.com/NW3w0OF.png https://i.imgur.com/NW3w0OF.png
Eridrus 6y ago
I basically agree that cities of a certain density are too dense for cars, but SF isn't really there. Though I would love for SF to remove the zoning thay causes it to be this way. I think it's also worth considering that self-driving tech ia fully compatible with buses and that the driver is a big component of the cost of bus service, which limits bus frequency and constrains ridership. Trains are great, but we're basically incapable of building them at reasonable cost in the US.
- thethethethe 6y ago
  > I basically agree that cities of a certain density are too dense for cars, but SF isn't really there. Depends on where you live. If you live in the outer areas (south of bernal heights, outer sunset, etc) you might need a car but most other places you can get around easily with transit, walking, or biking
  - Eridrus 6y ago
    There is a difference between needing a car (i.e. I cannot live without it) and public transport being so good that you do not want one and the density being too great to support cars. My experience living in the Lower Haight a few years back was that buses were slow, infrequent and required multiple transfers unless I was going to a few select places. Cycling was ok, but man were there some big hills (potrero) involved, e.g. cycling back from the dogpatch was pretty tiring even for a young person in pretty great shape at the time. And taking a train from dogpatch to the haigh required going back through the city. So I could definitely get by without a car, but it constrained where I would consider going pretty significantly. On the other hand, driving was usually fine, but finding parking was impossible, which self-driving cars don't have a problem with. Of course, parking was constraining driving, so removing the need for parking would make congestion worse, but even pretty close to the city center I felt like driving was pretty easy, and if we structure our streets (and bus lanes) right, the demand for self-driving cars will be in the routes that do not have enough demand/congestion to sustain good bus service.
f6v 6y ago
I think that’s a false dichotomy. Yes, public transport is much better than everyone driving a car. However, whenever I talk to a parent of 2, they say a car is a must even a city like Berlin (that has a vast public transportation network). There no one size fits all.
- thethethethe 6y ago
  > I think that’s a false dichotomy. I disagree, I never said cars should totally be banned, I was just pointing out that it is ironic how Waymo is claiming they are solving this age-old problem of transport in cities like they Gods when the problem has already been solved for a very long time. > whenever I talk to a parent of 2, they say a car is a must even a city like Berlin (that has a vast public transportation network). There no one size fits all. I don't think fleet of self-driving taxis would do much for these the people so I don't really see how this is relevant. Yes, people need cars for various reasons such as a disability, kids, etc. However, the problems those people face are not the problems Waymo claims to be solving. Waymo is claiming to solve general transit related issues, which again, is a solved problem
  - f6v 6y ago
    It’s a solved problem in densely populated cities like HK, Tokyo, Shanghai etc. I only know about US suburbs from the movies, but it doesn’t seem like public transport would solve the commute there.
ihsw 6y ago
How do you address public transit that smells like a toilet and that's not secure from transients, drug addicts, and ridiculously violent psychopaths?
TulliusCicero 6y ago
While I agree in principle, it's not like Google or Cruise can change that. The reason we have crap transit in the US is because of politics and culture, and tech/car companies can't unilaterally overthrow everything we already have, even if they wanted to. Also, even in transit-friendly Japan or South Korea, there's still plenty of cars about, so self driving work still has value.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> This is just the most expensive, most complicated solution for a problem that has already been solved in many places many times. Can you estimate how 'expensive' and 'complicated' it would be to retrofit San Francisco with a public transit system? I would guess tens of billions of dollars and tens of decades, and that's if it would ever get approved in the first place. London has spent $20 billion and twenty years adding one new rail line. In a city starting out as already famously enthusiastic about public transit. What should we do in the half-century before this possible transit system turns up in San Francisco? Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

jeffbee 6y ago
Indeed, do not let perfect be the enemy of better. The best way to improve transportation in SF is to tell everyone in a car to fuck right off, and run a bus both ways down every street every 3 minutes. No rails required.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I do also support completely closing all cities to private cars (reasonable exceptions for genuine requirements.) I don't understand why almost anyone needs, let alone wants, to try to drive a car into a city in the first place. Relcaim the streets for people. But again... how 'complicated' do you think it would be to achieve this legislation? I would guess impossibly complicated, so it's no more than a dream. So what do we do about it now? And what can a private company like Waymo do?
  - thethethethe 6y ago
    > 'complicated' do you think it would be to achieve this legislation? Depending on how extreme you want to get, not that complicated. Part of market street has already been closed to cars. Many streets have been converted into pedestrian streets during covid. I bet we will see more meaningful improvement on this front in SF before driverless cabs hit the streets
  - Pfhreak 6y ago
    Do it incrementally: Ban parking minimums, so developers stop putting parking lots in their buildings. Tax lots based on their assessed land value and give them credits for providing housing units. Developers will build more units and less parking. Surface lots will close down or dramatically increase rates -- either way, people will find alternatives. Require transit lanes for all major avenues, and enforce their use. Increase taxes and spend that money on transit. Make transit free, which will make it much easier for people to just hop on for their trips. Invest in trains. Bus rapid transit is kinda terrible, but it could be a stopgap until your trains work well.
    - tialaramex 6y ago
      (Not on the same continent as San Fransisco) When they first sought permission to build the building I live in, it was rejected for too few parking spaces, but by a decade later the penultimate plan was rejected for too many∆. My flat has a space (which I don't use) but some other residents don't get one. Public transit here is excellent, amenities are in walking distance, I can imagine wanting a car if I had kids or was disabled, otherwise it's unnecessary. ∆ the land didn't sit empty, it had a house on it, permission was sought to build a large multi-residence building on that land instead, once that permission was obtained the house was demolished.
    - oftenwrong 6y ago
      >Ban parking minimums, so developers stop putting parking lots in their buildings. SF already took that step: https://www.reubenlaw.com/san-francisco-eliminates-parking-requirements-citywide/ https://www.reubenlaw.com/san-francisco-eliminates-parking-r... Their permitting process is still a mess, based on what I have read, but that is a good start.
bsimpson 6y ago
SF has spent more than 1.5 billion dollars and a decade trying to add 3 stations to the existing train network downtown. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Subway
- thethethethe 6y ago
  That's great, its a good investment. Also, buses exist, and they work quite well actually, especially if you remove cars from the road https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bus_rapid_transit
thethethethe 6y ago
> I would guess tens of billions of dollars and fifty years, and that's if it would ever get approved in the first place. So? I still think it is worth it. Also, these costs and delays are not given, they are artificially induced by mismanagement, and could be changed. I am not saying that they shouldn't build the cars, I'm just pointing out that the "solution" they are providing isn't that revolutionary. Also, buses exist, which are much cheaper than what you are describing > Don't let perfect be the enemy of better. I don't really see how this is that much better than what already exists. How different would this really be from the status quo? I can already automatically hail a car which will take me where ever I need to go. Sure, autonomous cars _might_ be safer, but I doubt they will reduce congestion or travel times all that much. Plus, we'll have rolling surveillance cameras with a myriad of advanced sensors constantly driving by. I don't buy it
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > So? I still think it is worth it. The 'so' is that your complaint was that these cars are too complicated and expensive. I think an actual public transit system is undeniably more complicated and expensive, even if it's worthwhile.
  - thethethethe 6y ago
    I'm not complaining that the cars are expensive or complicated, I am just pointing out that it is a silly solution to problem which has already been solved. > I think an actual public transit system is undeniably more complicated and expensive, even if it's worthwhile I'm not so sure about this. We have public transit systems figured out in a lot of places. We don't even have self driving cars that we consider safe yet, let alone laws which regulate them
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > [the cars are] the most expensive, most complicated solution > I'm not complaining that the cars are expensive or complicated
benlivengood 6y ago
> I would guess tens of billions of dollars and tens of decades, and that's if it would ever get approved in the first place. So a quarter or two of FAANG profits for scale?
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  Yeah great if we can get that much money. Did you have some good idea how to achieve that?
r_klancer 6y ago
Like autonomous electric buses every 2-3 minutes in dedicated lanes that are demarcated by paint? Autonomous because labor costs (and shift considerations) are a major factor limiting the frequency of service you can provide. Electric because they will cost less in maintenance. They are also an important part of a possible solution for helping lower density suburban areas that suffer from housing shortages. It's worth listening to this whole talk by Peter Calthorpe, the planner who developed the now-well-known concept of transit oriented development: https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/01/07/talking-headways-podcast-the-answer-is-the-arterial/ https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/01/07/talking-headways-podc...
mprovost 6y ago
The new train line (Crossrail) in London is years behind schedule, mostly due to problems with the software control systems for the trains. [0] Integrating automated trains into an existing rail network isn't easy - imagine the scale of the challenge with automated cars on city streets. [0] https://www.wired.co.uk/article/crossrail-delay-logistics https://www.wired.co.uk/article/crossrail-delay-logistics

bsimpson 6y ago

Cool, if you wanna get downtown from the Mission. SF hasn't had good public transit since at least the 50s. https://www.streetcar.org/end-of-the-b-geary-60-years-ago/ https://www.streetcar.org/end-of-the-b-geary-60-years-ago/

thethethethe 6y ago
I agree. So maybe we should improve it, instead of waiting a decade for rolling surveillance cameras to replace uber drivers, which is what I was suggesting
caturopath 6y ago
> Cool, if you wanna get downtown from the Mission. Awesome, if we're calling that route good, let's close it down to non-professional car traffic. That's where people are dying https://i.imgur.com/NW3w0OF.png https://i.imgur.com/NW3w0OF.png

Eridrus 6y ago

I basically agree that cities of a certain density are too dense for cars, but SF isn't really there. Though I would love for SF to remove the zoning thay causes it to be this way. I think it's also worth considering that self-driving tech ia fully compatible with buses and that the driver is a big component of the cost of bus service, which limits bus frequency and constrains ridership. Trains are great, but we're basically incapable of building them at reasonable cost in the US.

thethethethe 6y ago
> I basically agree that cities of a certain density are too dense for cars, but SF isn't really there. Depends on where you live. If you live in the outer areas (south of bernal heights, outer sunset, etc) you might need a car but most other places you can get around easily with transit, walking, or biking
- Eridrus 6y ago
  There is a difference between needing a car (i.e. I cannot live without it) and public transport being so good that you do not want one and the density being too great to support cars. My experience living in the Lower Haight a few years back was that buses were slow, infrequent and required multiple transfers unless I was going to a few select places. Cycling was ok, but man were there some big hills (potrero) involved, e.g. cycling back from the dogpatch was pretty tiring even for a young person in pretty great shape at the time. And taking a train from dogpatch to the haigh required going back through the city. So I could definitely get by without a car, but it constrained where I would consider going pretty significantly. On the other hand, driving was usually fine, but finding parking was impossible, which self-driving cars don't have a problem with. Of course, parking was constraining driving, so removing the need for parking would make congestion worse, but even pretty close to the city center I felt like driving was pretty easy, and if we structure our streets (and bus lanes) right, the demand for self-driving cars will be in the routes that do not have enough demand/congestion to sustain good bus service.

f6v 6y ago

I think that’s a false dichotomy. Yes, public transport is much better than everyone driving a car. However, whenever I talk to a parent of 2, they say a car is a must even a city like Berlin (that has a vast public transportation network). There no one size fits all.

thethethethe 6y ago
> I think that’s a false dichotomy. I disagree, I never said cars should totally be banned, I was just pointing out that it is ironic how Waymo is claiming they are solving this age-old problem of transport in cities like they Gods when the problem has already been solved for a very long time. > whenever I talk to a parent of 2, they say a car is a must even a city like Berlin (that has a vast public transportation network). There no one size fits all. I don't think fleet of self-driving taxis would do much for these the people so I don't really see how this is relevant. Yes, people need cars for various reasons such as a disability, kids, etc. However, the problems those people face are not the problems Waymo claims to be solving. Waymo is claiming to solve general transit related issues, which again, is a solved problem
- f6v 6y ago
  It’s a solved problem in densely populated cities like HK, Tokyo, Shanghai etc. I only know about US suburbs from the movies, but it doesn’t seem like public transport would solve the commute there.

ihsw 6y ago

How do you address public transit that smells like a toilet and that's not secure from transients, drug addicts, and ridiculously violent psychopaths?

TulliusCicero 6y ago

While I agree in principle, it's not like Google or Cruise can change that. The reason we have crap transit in the US is because of politics and culture, and tech/car companies can't unilaterally overthrow everything we already have, even if they wanted to. Also, even in transit-friendly Japan or South Korea, there's still plenty of cars about, so self driving work still has value.