5 ms·

It’s just US implementing proper public transportation via contemporary means. I’ve always thought US has the advantage of a genuine need for robotaxis compared

by ansgri 4y ago

It’s just US implementing proper public transportation via contemporary means. I’ve always thought US has the advantage of a genuine need for robotaxis compared to other advanced economies where public transport already works well.

throwaway2037 4y ago
Tokyo, Seoul, Tapei, Bangkok, Singapore, Hongkong, Jakarka, Kuala Lumpur would all greatly benefit either by safer or cheaper taxis.
IshKebab 4y ago
Even in Europe public transport generally only works well in the biggest handful of cities.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  If you squint inhumanly hard you can argue I live in my country's sixth biggest "city" (ie a contiguous area of urban and semi-urban development - but under such a view the city's "name" doesn't make sense to the people who live in it and that city doesn't have good public transport as a whole because it's not really a city) But the city I actually live in (the one whose residents recognise its name) is only a couple hundred thousand people, and it has good enough public transport that I lived here for almost thirty years now with no desire to own a car. Have I gone in somebody else's car to an event? Yeah, maybe a few times per year. But day-to-day and week-to-week I don't need a car. I have a license, I own a car parking space, I could easily afford a car, but it makes no sense to buy one, so I don't.
xnx 4y ago
With work fromn home and the efficiency, its worth asking if billion-dollar right-of-way public transiy makes sense anywhere. Waymo is to rail as packet-based networking is to dedicated copper analog phone lines.
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  Yes, a car can bring people point to point, however it still isn't space efficient. Each traveller in their own vehicle is read of a compact bus or train. Still requiring broad roads and space in the attractive areas.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Given autonomous driving, computer-dispatched and scheduled mini-buses and vans could make sense for a lot of scenarios where there's reasonable demand and no transit.
  - mrshadowgoose 4y ago
    Yes, cars are less space efficient. However, what is the objective line of "too space inefficient", and are cars over that line? If not, why should one care? We aren't optimizing for "most space efficient as possible", there are other factors in the mix. Despite all the complaining, Western society seems to generally be accepting of the space inefficiency of cars as it currently stands. And computer modelling has shown that, all other things being equal, autonomous vehicles are expected to increase the capacity of existing roadways. Also, don't forget that a lot of people want to get around in a car, regardless of bus/train availability, despite what your personal feelings on the subject might be. However, don't get me wrong here, a lot of people also want to get around on foot, by bike, and by bus. Admittedly these options are lacking in most Western urban environments. We should also be building up these options for the people who want to use them. Transportation doesn't have to be a winner-take-all, one-solution-for-everyone fight. Different people want different things, and there's no reason that transportation options shouldn't reflect this.
    - themacguffinman 4y ago
      Because of global warming? The idea is fairly straightforward: - less space efficient means less fuel efficient which means heavier carbon footprint - less space efficient means more vehicles which means heavier carbon footprint - less space efficient encourages suburban sprawl which means lower city service efficiency which means heavier carbon footprint - less space efficient encourages suburban sprawl which means more efficient alternatives like public transit are more costly and less convenient which means heavier carbon footprint You say transportation doesn't have to be a winner-take-all fight but that completely ignores market/political forces shaped by city planning. You handwave it away by saying "admittedly these options are lacking in most Western urban environments" but why do you think that is? It's a consequence of American city space-inefficiency which makes efficient public transit worse and favors inefficient cars. It doesn't have to be winner-take-all, winner-take-most is enough to change climate change outcomes significantly.
rwmj 4y ago
If you can do self-driving cars safely then it's probably not a massive step to do self-driving buses and trains.
- pmyteh 4y ago
  Trains are a completely different beast: they can't stop in line-of-sight so the complexities are mostly in engineering a safe (and failsafe) path for the train, rather than the driver watching for obstacles. There are self-driving systems, but they look quite different from self-driving cars and likely have zero AI. Buses, on the other hand, maybe.
  - rwmj 4y ago
    Right, disproving my own point, this is a good article: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/the-political-myth-of-the-driverless-tube-train/ https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/the-political-myth-...
    - fragmede 4y ago
      Fascinating article, thanks! It didn't touch on why people want driverless trains. Personally, and I'm not a train engineer, but I think driverless trains would let them run trains every 15 minutes at all times of the day, not just rush hour.
      - pmyteh 4y ago
        There are advantages in things like braking consistency that will let you pack more trains per hour down a tunnel with automated systems. London's underground rail network increasingly has this kind of automation, where the driver presses a 'go' button and the train takes itself to the next stop, in the key bits under the city centre. It has a fairly high capital cost, though, and doesn't save you the driver, as the LonRec article shows. The main people who want fully driverless systems are politicians who hope that no drivers == no strikes and lower salaries. Though honestly that would just move the labour power to the control room operators, even if there were a good financial case for the upgrade (which there isn't).

by ansgri 4y ago

throwaway2037 4y ago

Tokyo, Seoul, Tapei, Bangkok, Singapore, Hongkong, Jakarka, Kuala Lumpur would all greatly benefit either by safer or cheaper taxis.

IshKebab 4y ago

Even in Europe public transport generally only works well in the biggest handful of cities.

tialaramex 4y ago
If you squint inhumanly hard you can argue I live in my country's sixth biggest "city" (ie a contiguous area of urban and semi-urban development - but under such a view the city's "name" doesn't make sense to the people who live in it and that city doesn't have good public transport as a whole because it's not really a city) But the city I actually live in (the one whose residents recognise its name) is only a couple hundred thousand people, and it has good enough public transport that I lived here for almost thirty years now with no desire to own a car. Have I gone in somebody else's car to an event? Yeah, maybe a few times per year. But day-to-day and week-to-week I don't need a car. I have a license, I own a car parking space, I could easily afford a car, but it makes no sense to buy one, so I don't.

xnx 4y ago

With work fromn home and the efficiency, its worth asking if billion-dollar right-of-way public transiy makes sense anywhere. Waymo is to rail as packet-based networking is to dedicated copper analog phone lines.

johannes1234321 4y ago
Yes, a car can bring people point to point, however it still isn't space efficient. Each traveller in their own vehicle is read of a compact bus or train. Still requiring broad roads and space in the attractive areas.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Given autonomous driving, computer-dispatched and scheduled mini-buses and vans could make sense for a lot of scenarios where there's reasonable demand and no transit.
- mrshadowgoose 4y ago
  Yes, cars are less space efficient. However, what is the objective line of "too space inefficient", and are cars over that line? If not, why should one care? We aren't optimizing for "most space efficient as possible", there are other factors in the mix. Despite all the complaining, Western society seems to generally be accepting of the space inefficiency of cars as it currently stands. And computer modelling has shown that, all other things being equal, autonomous vehicles are expected to increase the capacity of existing roadways. Also, don't forget that a lot of people want to get around in a car, regardless of bus/train availability, despite what your personal feelings on the subject might be. However, don't get me wrong here, a lot of people also want to get around on foot, by bike, and by bus. Admittedly these options are lacking in most Western urban environments. We should also be building up these options for the people who want to use them. Transportation doesn't have to be a winner-take-all, one-solution-for-everyone fight. Different people want different things, and there's no reason that transportation options shouldn't reflect this.
  - themacguffinman 4y ago
    Because of global warming? The idea is fairly straightforward: - less space efficient means less fuel efficient which means heavier carbon footprint - less space efficient means more vehicles which means heavier carbon footprint - less space efficient encourages suburban sprawl which means lower city service efficiency which means heavier carbon footprint - less space efficient encourages suburban sprawl which means more efficient alternatives like public transit are more costly and less convenient which means heavier carbon footprint You say transportation doesn't have to be a winner-take-all fight but that completely ignores market/political forces shaped by city planning. You handwave it away by saying "admittedly these options are lacking in most Western urban environments" but why do you think that is? It's a consequence of American city space-inefficiency which makes efficient public transit worse and favors inefficient cars. It doesn't have to be winner-take-all, winner-take-most is enough to change climate change outcomes significantly.

rwmj 4y ago

If you can do self-driving cars safely then it's probably not a massive step to do self-driving buses and trains.

pmyteh 4y ago
Trains are a completely different beast: they can't stop in line-of-sight so the complexities are mostly in engineering a safe (and failsafe) path for the train, rather than the driver watching for obstacles. There are self-driving systems, but they look quite different from self-driving cars and likely have zero AI. Buses, on the other hand, maybe.
- rwmj 4y ago
  Right, disproving my own point, this is a good article: https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/the-political-myth-of-the-driverless-tube-train/ https://www.londonreconnections.com/2021/the-political-myth-...
  - fragmede 4y ago
    Fascinating article, thanks! It didn't touch on why people want driverless trains. Personally, and I'm not a train engineer, but I think driverless trains would let them run trains every 15 minutes at all times of the day, not just rush hour.
    - pmyteh 4y ago
      There are advantages in things like braking consistency that will let you pack more trains per hour down a tunnel with automated systems. London's underground rail network increasingly has this kind of automation, where the driver presses a 'go' button and the train takes itself to the next stop, in the key bits under the city centre. It has a fairly high capital cost, though, and doesn't save you the driver, as the LonRec article shows. The main people who want fully driverless systems are politicians who hope that no drivers == no strikes and lower salaries. Though honestly that would just move the labour power to the control room operators, even if there were a good financial case for the upgrade (which there isn't).