5 ms·

I guess I have a few responses: 1. If fully self-driving cars come along at some point in the recognizable future, I would bet pretty large amounts of money t

I guess I have a few responses: 1. If fully self-driving cars come along at some point in the recognizable future, I would bet pretty large amounts of money that they'll be extremely popular in Europe or whatever else you're thinking of as not "car-dependent." 2. The amount of money, time, and intellectual capital put into building driverless cars is an infinitesimal drop in the bucket compared to the money, time, and intellectual capital that would be necessary to make a gigantic change in the US physical infrastructure. Particularly time -- there's no way that America is going to change into Europe, well, ever, but particularly not in our lifetimes, so if you want a better transportation system, I wouldn't bet on that. 3. But also, the time, money, and intellectual capital spent on driverless cars is non-rival to any (limited, local) makeovers that American localities are going to get.

rglullis 4y ago
1. "Extremely popular" compared to what? Non-autonomous cars? Taxis? Bikes? Buses? Trains? Yeah, I could see people thinking it would be cool to get a self-driving car as a replacement for the occasional taxi, but why would people stop using the existing public transit alternatives that already work? 2 and 3. The American way for city growth is the cause of financial troubles for most cities. And I cited Amsterdam exactly why it works as an example of how you can redesign a city to reduce car-dependency step-wise. Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6... to see the economic problems that plague cities in the US, and how a lot of them are improving simply by changing zoning laws.
- syntheweave 4y ago
  There is no world in which robotaxis exist that would inhibit robobuses and robobikes from also existing and being integrated into one coherent transportation network. The existing toolkit of pricing controls makes it easy to pull a lever to get more people onto the smaller or shared vehicles as needed, and with roughly linear ability to expand the fleet in any of these axes, the roads they're running on already built and paid for, and the cost of deployment rapidly dropping, nothing will stop them from taking over in a span of 5-10 years. It'll be the biggest boon to urban transit we've ever seen, because what self-driving actually does is make modality, routing and scheduling less important to individual trip planning.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > the roads they're running on already built and paid for Roads still require maintenance, and without a profound change in how cities are organized, these costs are always going to be overwhelmingly large compared with the cost of everything else. > self-driving actually does is make modality, routing and scheduling less important to individual trip planning. That is the worst type of optimization. It still keeps people in desolate suburbia and makes millions of people across America with the sensation that "commute time" is a constant that can not be avoided, so it should be at least made comfortable. Investing to make the transportation systems smarter without even looking at how the urban spaces could be changed to get rid of cars is like the (myth) story of NASA putting millions of dollars to make a space pen, instead of using a pencil.
- aetherson 4y ago
  1. You seem to think that driverless cars are unimportant for places like Europe. I think you're deeply wrong. If cars that can equal or exceed the performance of median humans come to the market without adding more than a few tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of the vehicle, I expect that they will rapidly become more popular than current automobiles in Europe (and Europe is far from car-averse -- the Netherlands has about one car per two people), and that they will on the margin significantly (but not catastrophically) reduce usage of public transport. (EDIT: If the pattern of driverless cars is dominantly one of rides-for-hire rather than ownership, the total unit sales of driverless cars might be significantly lower than current unit sales of normal cars, but I would expect driverless cars to rapidly eat most of the passenger-miles of automobiles plus a significant share of the passenger-miles of public transit). 2 and 3: You didn't even remotely address anything I said.
  - rglullis 4y ago
    > The Netherlands has about one car per two people That is not the relevant metric. The important metric is how many trips does the average dutch take by car that could be taken by some more efficient mode? Lots of people in European cities have cars but use them only on the weekend. Or they use the car to go to work on the outskirts of the city, but manage to use public transportation when going to a football match for a night out. Lots of families have only one car when in the US it would be only possible to live if each adult had their own car, etc. > You didn't even remotely address anything I said. You are right, I didn't. Because to me holding self-driving cars as the panacea that is going to solve the issues in the US is ridiculously naive. It is an illusion created by the corporations that are not interested in actually solving the problem and just want to push out more cars, keep people addicted to broken lifestyles and over-consumption. And is backed by short-sighted technologists that see the world through their nerd lenses and don't stop to think if there are better, lower-tech ways to improve everyone's lives.
    - aetherson 4y ago
      Nobody held driverless cars as a "panacea" to anything that's completely something you made up. Let's just review this whole conversation: 1. I suggested to a poster who wanted to blame the whole Cruise problem on the garbage truck that garbage trucks do in fact have to block lanes. 2. You then jumped in and said that American should "just" reinvent itself so that cars weren't a big deal. You left it implicit why that was relevant here, but I think I understand you to believe that driverless cars are an unimportant technology. 3. I pointed out that "just" changing the fundamental mode of transit across all of America is in fact a tall order. 4. And then you've gotten less and less responsive to actual points until you get to here where you're now suggesting that driverless cars aren't a panacea, which is an argument nobody made. To affirmatively restate my points: 1. Driverless cars, to be successful, must deal with a lot of messy road conditions, not just the 99% case. 2. If driverless cars do at some point cross the above line and genuinely become equal to or greater than the median human driver, I think they will be an important technology that will improve people's lives -- in both the United States and very significantly (if possibly somewhat less so) in Europe. 3. Driverless cars are plausibly on a much shorter timeline than remaking all of America's physical transportation/density infrastructure, and plausibly much less overall expensive than remaking all of America's physical transportation/density infrastructure. 4. Investment in driverless cars is non-rival to other changes to America's physical transportation/density infrastructure.

rglullis 4y ago

1. "Extremely popular" compared to what? Non-autonomous cars? Taxis? Bikes? Buses? Trains? Yeah, I could see people thinking it would be cool to get a self-driving car as a replacement for the occasional taxi, but why would people stop using the existing public transit alternatives that already work? 2 and 3. The American way for city growth is the cause of financial troubles for most cities. And I cited Amsterdam exactly why it works as an example of how you can redesign a city to reduce car-dependency step-wise. Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6... to see the economic problems that plague cities in the US, and how a lot of them are improving simply by changing zoning laws.

syntheweave 4y ago
There is no world in which robotaxis exist that would inhibit robobuses and robobikes from also existing and being integrated into one coherent transportation network. The existing toolkit of pricing controls makes it easy to pull a lever to get more people onto the smaller or shared vehicles as needed, and with roughly linear ability to expand the fleet in any of these axes, the roads they're running on already built and paid for, and the cost of deployment rapidly dropping, nothing will stop them from taking over in a span of 5-10 years. It'll be the biggest boon to urban transit we've ever seen, because what self-driving actually does is make modality, routing and scheduling less important to individual trip planning.
- rglullis 4y ago
  > the roads they're running on already built and paid for Roads still require maintenance, and without a profound change in how cities are organized, these costs are always going to be overwhelmingly large compared with the cost of everything else. > self-driving actually does is make modality, routing and scheduling less important to individual trip planning. That is the worst type of optimization. It still keeps people in desolate suburbia and makes millions of people across America with the sensation that "commute time" is a constant that can not be avoided, so it should be at least made comfortable. Investing to make the transportation systems smarter without even looking at how the urban spaces could be changed to get rid of cars is like the (myth) story of NASA putting millions of dollars to make a space pen, instead of using a pencil.
aetherson 4y ago
1. You seem to think that driverless cars are unimportant for places like Europe. I think you're deeply wrong. If cars that can equal or exceed the performance of median humans come to the market without adding more than a few tens of thousands of dollars to the cost of the vehicle, I expect that they will rapidly become more popular than current automobiles in Europe (and Europe is far from car-averse -- the Netherlands has about one car per two people), and that they will on the margin significantly (but not catastrophically) reduce usage of public transport. (EDIT: If the pattern of driverless cars is dominantly one of rides-for-hire rather than ownership, the total unit sales of driverless cars might be significantly lower than current unit sales of normal cars, but I would expect driverless cars to rapidly eat most of the passenger-miles of automobiles plus a significant share of the passenger-miles of public transit). 2 and 3: You didn't even remotely address anything I said.
- rglullis 4y ago
  > The Netherlands has about one car per two people That is not the relevant metric. The important metric is how many trips does the average dutch take by car that could be taken by some more efficient mode? Lots of people in European cities have cars but use them only on the weekend. Or they use the car to go to work on the outskirts of the city, but manage to use public transportation when going to a football match for a night out. Lots of families have only one car when in the US it would be only possible to live if each adult had their own car, etc. > You didn't even remotely address anything I said. You are right, I didn't. Because to me holding self-driving cars as the panacea that is going to solve the issues in the US is ridiculously naive. It is an illusion created by the corporations that are not interested in actually solving the problem and just want to push out more cars, keep people addicted to broken lifestyles and over-consumption. And is backed by short-sighted technologists that see the world through their nerd lenses and don't stop to think if there are better, lower-tech ways to improve everyone's lives.
  - aetherson 4y ago
    Nobody held driverless cars as a "panacea" to anything that's completely something you made up. Let's just review this whole conversation: 1. I suggested to a poster who wanted to blame the whole Cruise problem on the garbage truck that garbage trucks do in fact have to block lanes. 2. You then jumped in and said that American should "just" reinvent itself so that cars weren't a big deal. You left it implicit why that was relevant here, but I think I understand you to believe that driverless cars are an unimportant technology. 3. I pointed out that "just" changing the fundamental mode of transit across all of America is in fact a tall order. 4. And then you've gotten less and less responsive to actual points until you get to here where you're now suggesting that driverless cars aren't a panacea, which is an argument nobody made. To affirmatively restate my points: 1. Driverless cars, to be successful, must deal with a lot of messy road conditions, not just the 99% case. 2. If driverless cars do at some point cross the above line and genuinely become equal to or greater than the median human driver, I think they will be an important technology that will improve people's lives -- in both the United States and very significantly (if possibly somewhat less so) in Europe. 3. Driverless cars are plausibly on a much shorter timeline than remaking all of America's physical transportation/density infrastructure, and plausibly much less overall expensive than remaking all of America's physical transportation/density infrastructure. 4. Investment in driverless cars is non-rival to other changes to America's physical transportation/density infrastructure.