5 ms·

Just use freight trains. Way more efficient.

squarepizza 3y ago
And instead of robotaxis, just invest in public transport. AVs exemplify technosolutionism: technology solving a problem caused by a prior technology.
- simmonmt 3y ago
  My goodness are those "just"s doing a lot of work.
  - squarepizza 3y ago
    Less than AVs "just" being a few years away.
- pavel_lishin 3y ago
  Gadgetbahn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadgetbahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadgetbahn
- soco 3y ago
  Waymo is an US company and public transport is not really a thing in the US, so they'd probably struggle to find funding for that. In Switzerland autonomous buses are being tested already since 2016 on different locations as pilot projects: https://www.astra.admin.ch/astra/en/home/topics/intelligente-mobilitaet/pilotversuche/erkenntnisse-aus-pilotversuchen.html https://www.astra.admin.ch/astra/en/home/topics/intelligente...
  - aiisjustanif 3y ago
    > Waymo is an US company and public transport is not really a thing in the US, so they'd probably struggle to find funding for that. I think that is the point, we should be doing better by the citizens.
  - gpvos 3y ago
    Public transport used to be huge in the US, it was killed by big car, which means it can be revived by other big industry.
- javagram 3y ago
  Aren’t robotaxis public transport? They’re a personal rapid transport (PRT) system that uses existing infrastructure (the roads), rather than requiring expensive railways be built throughout every neighborhood. There’s a light rail project going on near where I live that’s going to have taken near a decade and several billion dollars to complete. “just” scaling up such systems to run throughout suburbs is economically and politically infeasible.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Maybe, but PRT is not mass transit and not useful in general. They might be safer then human controlled cars (this remains to be seen), but they have all the other disadvantages. They still need to park someplace (most are only going to be used during rush hours). They still take up road space for only a couple people meaning a lot of traffic and we need to build a lot of roads. They still pollute (and may be worse if they get programed to drive out to free parking in the suburbs).
    - preommr 3y ago
      This is such a bad faith argument. The scale of buses make them much worse in terms of cost-effectiveness and therefore environment safety. Instead of spending overhead on specialized equipment, it's much better to mass produce similar typed vehicles that are easier to maintain and service and put that money towards environment measures. Also, when you factor in things like the carbon cost of the driver that is needed for the bus, the fact that buses still operate on a schedule and not on demand (therefore leading to an entire bus with a capacity for 40 people being occupied by one or two), and that on average they're much more expensive to transition to more eco-friendly advancements, I would say busses are way worse than a fully functional sdc environment. People envision sdcs as taxis with robots, but it would mean so much more. You could have better and safer bike lanes, slower lanes with with lower speed vehicles that cost ~1k for < 1 mile travel increasing the chances people go and visit nearby businesses. And all of it with the efficiency of a factory instead of the bureaucracy of most transit systems where it takes millions to add the bare minimum of services.
soco 3y ago
Indeed, for places with a rail connection and un/loading facilities.
- hammock 3y ago
  Historically the most prosperous (interior) cities were exactly that. Chicago, St Louis, New York etc
- sfpotter 3y ago
  OK, build more rail and facilities. That's also easier than driverless cars.
  - BurningFrog 3y ago
    Large scale infrastructure like that is near impossible in the age of CEQA, NEPA, etc. I present the California high speed rail project as Exhibit A, and rest my case.
    - sfpotter 3y ago
      It’s being built. Eventually it will be completed and it will have obvious utility. Then people will expand it because of how obviously useful it is. Same thing happened with the Shinkansen.
      - BurningFrog 3y ago
        "15 years later, there is not a single mile of track laid, and executives involved say there isn’t enough money to finish the project." From https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/why-californias-high-speed-rail-is-taking-so-long-to-complete.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/why-californias-high-speed-r...
        sfpotter 3y ago
        Are you saying no construction has occurred and that it is impossible to levy taxes for its completion?
ravenstine 3y ago
No one today wants to build railroads, not without being able to make folks like you and me pay for it to an extent that they can make an excess profit. Trains aren't nearly as profitable (if at all) as automobiles because, for the same amount of freight, you are only able to sell to far fewer individual owners and a highly reduced frequency. There are far more opportunities to overcharge the customer if you have thousands of potential renters or buyers, or millions if you can also sell to everyday people. Plus there's no status to be had from investing in rail, but plenty of it from some hip young people promising trucks of the future today! After all, if Elon is [saying he is] doing it, how can you not believe?
- rhyme-boss 3y ago
  The government pays for roads. Why wouldn't they pay for rail if it's a more efficient path?
- sfpotter 3y ago
  Not everything needs to be profitable or to “pay for itself” for it to be worth building. The idea that it does is a fallacy.
  - ravenstine 3y ago
    To be clear, I'm not saying that's what I believe.
AlgorithmicTime 3y ago
[dead]
gpvos 3y ago
Not so easy. See this recent post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36852542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36852542 .
- sfpotter 3y ago
  OK, nationalize the railroads.

And instead of robotaxis, just invest in public transport. AVs exemplify technosolutionism: technology solving a problem caused by a prior technology.

simmonmt 3y ago
My goodness are those "just"s doing a lot of work.
- squarepizza 3y ago
  Less than AVs "just" being a few years away.
pavel_lishin 3y ago
Gadgetbahn: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadgetbahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadgetbahn
soco 3y ago
Waymo is an US company and public transport is not really a thing in the US, so they'd probably struggle to find funding for that. In Switzerland autonomous buses are being tested already since 2016 on different locations as pilot projects: https://www.astra.admin.ch/astra/en/home/topics/intelligente-mobilitaet/pilotversuche/erkenntnisse-aus-pilotversuchen.html https://www.astra.admin.ch/astra/en/home/topics/intelligente...
- aiisjustanif 3y ago
  > Waymo is an US company and public transport is not really a thing in the US, so they'd probably struggle to find funding for that. I think that is the point, we should be doing better by the citizens.
- gpvos 3y ago
  Public transport used to be huge in the US, it was killed by big car, which means it can be revived by other big industry.
javagram 3y ago
Aren’t robotaxis public transport? They’re a personal rapid transport (PRT) system that uses existing infrastructure (the roads), rather than requiring expensive railways be built throughout every neighborhood. There’s a light rail project going on near where I live that’s going to have taken near a decade and several billion dollars to complete. “just” scaling up such systems to run throughout suburbs is economically and politically infeasible.
- bluGill 3y ago
  Maybe, but PRT is not mass transit and not useful in general. They might be safer then human controlled cars (this remains to be seen), but they have all the other disadvantages. They still need to park someplace (most are only going to be used during rush hours). They still take up road space for only a couple people meaning a lot of traffic and we need to build a lot of roads. They still pollute (and may be worse if they get programed to drive out to free parking in the suburbs).
  - preommr 3y ago
    This is such a bad faith argument. The scale of buses make them much worse in terms of cost-effectiveness and therefore environment safety. Instead of spending overhead on specialized equipment, it's much better to mass produce similar typed vehicles that are easier to maintain and service and put that money towards environment measures. Also, when you factor in things like the carbon cost of the driver that is needed for the bus, the fact that buses still operate on a schedule and not on demand (therefore leading to an entire bus with a capacity for 40 people being occupied by one or two), and that on average they're much more expensive to transition to more eco-friendly advancements, I would say busses are way worse than a fully functional sdc environment. People envision sdcs as taxis with robots, but it would mean so much more. You could have better and safer bike lanes, slower lanes with with lower speed vehicles that cost ~1k for < 1 mile travel increasing the chances people go and visit nearby businesses. And all of it with the efficiency of a factory instead of the bureaucracy of most transit systems where it takes millions to add the bare minimum of services.

soco 3y ago

Indeed, for places with a rail connection and un/loading facilities.

hammock 3y ago
Historically the most prosperous (interior) cities were exactly that. Chicago, St Louis, New York etc
sfpotter 3y ago
OK, build more rail and facilities. That's also easier than driverless cars.
- BurningFrog 3y ago
  Large scale infrastructure like that is near impossible in the age of CEQA, NEPA, etc. I present the California high speed rail project as Exhibit A, and rest my case.
  - sfpotter 3y ago
    It’s being built. Eventually it will be completed and it will have obvious utility. Then people will expand it because of how obviously useful it is. Same thing happened with the Shinkansen.
    - BurningFrog 3y ago
      "15 years later, there is not a single mile of track laid, and executives involved say there isn’t enough money to finish the project." From https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/why-californias-high-speed-rail-is-taking-so-long-to-complete.html https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/17/why-californias-high-speed-r...
      - sfpotter 3y ago
        Are you saying no construction has occurred and that it is impossible to levy taxes for its completion?

ravenstine 3y ago

No one today wants to build railroads, not without being able to make folks like you and me pay for it to an extent that they can make an excess profit. Trains aren't nearly as profitable (if at all) as automobiles because, for the same amount of freight, you are only able to sell to far fewer individual owners and a highly reduced frequency. There are far more opportunities to overcharge the customer if you have thousands of potential renters or buyers, or millions if you can also sell to everyday people. Plus there's no status to be had from investing in rail, but plenty of it from some hip young people promising trucks of the future today! After all, if Elon is [saying he is] doing it, how can you not believe?

rhyme-boss 3y ago
The government pays for roads. Why wouldn't they pay for rail if it's a more efficient path?
sfpotter 3y ago
Not everything needs to be profitable or to “pay for itself” for it to be worth building. The idea that it does is a fallacy.
- ravenstine 3y ago
  To be clear, I'm not saying that's what I believe.

AlgorithmicTime 3y ago

[dead]

gpvos 3y ago

Not so easy. See this recent post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36852542 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36852542 .

sfpotter 3y ago
OK, nationalize the railroads.