6 ms·

And driverless cars, if they are allowed to be developed, will eventually be public transit that takes you from door-to-door running 24/7, way, way better than

by imgabe 3y ago

And driverless cars, if they are allowed to be developed, will eventually be public transit that takes you from door-to-door running 24/7, way, way better than any train or bus. But idiots just need something to be against.

Kerb_ 3y ago
According to the International Energy Agency, cars emit between 57 and 322 gCO2-eq/pkm—compared to buses at just 22-92 gCO2-eq/pkm, and trains at 6-118 gCO2-eq/pkm. That metric meaning “grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per passenger-kilometer”. They are also just massively safer to ride. https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/public-transportation#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20International%20Energy,gCO2%2Deq%2Fpkm https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/public-transportation#:~:.... So driverless busses would probably be a better outcome than driverless taxis. Does a driverless electric bus fall under "any bus"? This group targets individual transport systems like robotaxis, and similar developments in the field of public transit would probably not be targeted by this group as such.
ornornor 3y ago
How? They also point out that these automated cars, if they end up actually working right, make zero effort to be handicap accessible, unlike existing and currently working public transit (which also happens to be delayed and hampered by these same semi functional, automated cars)
- imgabe 3y ago
  You'd have a fleet of driverless cars driving around the city and summon one with an app. With no drivers they would only need to stop to recharge/refuel and for maintenance. If you can automate a car, you can automate a handicap accessible van. Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean they wouldn't. Public transit is great, but it means you have to go to a specific stop and wait there, and then go from wherever you get dropped off to your final destination, which is probably not the bus stop / train station. That's not very handicap-accessible, since it often means navigating escalators / elevators that end up being broken half the time.
  - ornornor 3y ago
    These cars would be privately owned and follow the whims of shareholders. We all know how well that goes. These issues with public transit are correctable. Stops could be added in between, infrastructure made more accessible… Handicap accessibility is a mandate for public transit. For a private car fleet, it’s an afterthought and token gesture. Also, the public transit network is already there and works. Why not invest in that instead while also encouraging active Mobility by walking or cycling instead of more cars? I still fail to see how what they’re demanding is idiotic. You might not agree with it, or it might make you uncomfortable about your transportation choices, but it’s the opposite of idiotic.
    - imgabe 3y ago
      What is stopping the city from buying and operating driverless cars? Their money is just as good and I'm sure the companies selling the cars would be happy to sell to them. Oh, the only thing stopping them are "activists" who demand inferior solutions to transit. The public transit network is "there" in some places, and kind of works. If you happen to live near a stop and your schedule allows you enough time to wait for a bus / train to arrive, then sure. If you don't live in one of those places then you're SOL. Good luck waiting for the city to add a new train line. It took NYC over 100 years to build the second avenue line... Meanwhile the infrastructure for cars is there, and actually does work and goes from point-to-point from almost every single residence / place of business in the entire country.
      - abenga 3y ago
        > What's stopping the city from buying and operating driverless cars? Cost and inefficiency? The city should invest in and expand access to efficient public transit, not spend money on expensive multi-ton vehicles that can move one fare at a time. The solution to "some people live far from bus stops" should first be "local government adds more bus stops", not "local government spends billions on small cars."
        lotsoweiners 3y ago
- fastball 3y ago
  We shouldn't have nice things because some sub-10% portion of the population might not be able to use them is the dumbest argument. You can have public transit and driverless cars.
  - abenga 3y ago
    That's not GP's argument though, they said driverless cars _are_ public transit.
- berdario 3y ago
  Will they? AFAIK, Waymos thought of wheelchair users: https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/10656347?hl=en https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/10656347?hl=en See also: https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/9/23298488/waymo-accessible-disability-dot-design-challenge-av https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/9/23298488/waymo-accessible-... (They mention that the WAV trips in SF had been manual, it's unclear to me if that was the case also in Phoenix) Anyhow, while I think that "zero effort" is hyperbole, the risk that they are not going to invest enough is a very real risk... And also, if the argument is that 100% of their fleet should be (wheelchair?) accessible, that's a valid concern, since it seems that all players are currently failing at it
  - LeeroyWasHere 3y ago
    Airbnb for cars, what could possibly go wrong.
Fricken 3y ago
Same goes for you idiots
duskwuff 3y ago
Driverless cars are not "public transit". At best, they're slightly cheaper taxis.
- piaste 3y ago
  Mass taxis would still be an improvement over individual cars, which are idle 90% of the day and require parking space in the most valuable parts of the city.
  - duskwuff 3y ago
    > Mass taxis would still be an improvement over individual cars No, they'd actually be substantially worse. Personal cars are poorly utilized, but they at least spend all of their time carrying at least one person (the driver), and stay off the roads when they aren't in use. A taxi will, necessarily, spend less than 100% of its time carrying a passenger; if it's being used primarily by commuters, it's likely to spend at least 50% of its time with no passengers at all (because it's deadheading back into a city to take workers home, or vice versa). Having everyone drive cars everywhere isn't sustainable, but making those cars into taxis isn't the solution either.
    - piaste 3y ago
      Good point. I was already thinking that taxis have an issue with peak demand, but I was only thinking of the capacity, I didn't consider the return trip. One option is to mix public transport with driverless taxis - consolidate public transportation into fewer, bigger routes (knocking down costs), then use driverless taxis for short trips to the station. A little inconvenient to add 1-2 extra transfers to your trip, though. There's also the opportunity to automate carpooling, but that's not quite the same - it's just moving a little further on the flexibility <-> efficiency scale of transportation (where individual vehicles are furthest left and trains are furthest right). Even if you're just sharing a taxi with 2-3 other commuters, you're still sacrificing the convenience of leaving at the time of your choice and having privacy during the trip - though of course for a big price discount.
- 3y ago
sdeframond 3y ago
Being autonomous does not change the fact that a car weighs 1000kg and occupies about 10sqm, just to move a single 70kg person. Or even no one at all, since they are autonomous. It's a gigantic waste of space and energy. In this regard, it is in no way comparable to trains, buses etc.
- badpun 3y ago
  > a car weighs 1000kg and occupies about 10sqm, just to move a single 70kg person. > It's a gigantic waste of space and energy. So were horses and buggies before car was invented. Interesting, waste of neither space nor energy was not raised as an issue back then.
  - cr3ative 3y ago
    I can almost guarantee it was raised by someone back then. That’s a strange claim to make. Even just dealing with the poo was a logistical nightmare for a city!
    - Xylakant 3y ago
      Indeed: > Just because all roads lead to Rome doesn’t mean you can get in — at least not on wheels. During Julius Caesar’s reign, daytime access to the Eternal City was restricted, with travelers required to hitch their carriages outside the city gates. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-rome-forbade-downtown-traffic-day https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-rome-forbade-dow...
- twoodfin 3y ago
  If it’s truly a waste, producing no value, no one will pay for it. But obviously many, many people value things like - The time savings of direct, immediate, door-to-door transportation - Dedicated storage capacity - Configuration flexibility, e.g. children’s car seats, foldable seats, luggage racks - Style and comfort options - Privacy …and direct their dollars accordingly.
  - 3y ago
tetris11 3y ago
And there will be hundreds of them on the road at any one time, empty vehicles idling behind one another because the company decided that was the "safest speed" to maximise their profits, taking up the roadways to hinder much more efficient public transit, and slowing everything right down. The companies will then likely pay off the city to let them use mass transit lanes, or to allow them some priority over other drivers. If you think this is hyperbole, consider Netflix's great win in the Net Neutrality fight.
zecg 3y ago
> And driverless cars, if they are allowed to be developed, will eventually be public transit that takes you from door-to-door running 24/7, way, way better than any train or bus. Driverless cars still take space both to move and to stand still.
- imgabe 3y ago
  You mean like all physical matter?
  - aydyn 3y ago
    No shit sherlock
ehnto 3y ago
To barely scratch the surface here, mass transit helps solve congestion issues, something almost all car-centric cities suffer from. Forget the word public, I know that scares some people. We are talking about space and efficiency now. How would putting everyone back in cars help? Autonomous or not, tightly following or not, super syncronous (good luck with company interop and human drivers on that one) it's a lot of energy and space for 1-4 people, and we already know most city's road infra can't support everyone. You'll just be stuck in traffic autonomously instead of on a train moving more people more effectively.

by imgabe 3y ago

Kerb_ 3y ago

According to the International Energy Agency, cars emit between 57 and 322 gCO2-eq/pkm—compared to buses at just 22-92 gCO2-eq/pkm, and trains at 6-118 gCO2-eq/pkm. That metric meaning “grams of carbon dioxide-equivalent per passenger-kilometer”. They are also just massively safer to ride. https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/public-transportation#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20International%20Energy,gCO2%2Deq%2Fpkm https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/public-transportation#:~:.... So driverless busses would probably be a better outcome than driverless taxis. Does a driverless electric bus fall under "any bus"? This group targets individual transport systems like robotaxis, and similar developments in the field of public transit would probably not be targeted by this group as such.

ornornor 3y ago

How? They also point out that these automated cars, if they end up actually working right, make zero effort to be handicap accessible, unlike existing and currently working public transit (which also happens to be delayed and hampered by these same semi functional, automated cars)

imgabe 3y ago
You'd have a fleet of driverless cars driving around the city and summon one with an app. With no drivers they would only need to stop to recharge/refuel and for maintenance. If you can automate a car, you can automate a handicap accessible van. Just because they haven't yet doesn't mean they wouldn't. Public transit is great, but it means you have to go to a specific stop and wait there, and then go from wherever you get dropped off to your final destination, which is probably not the bus stop / train station. That's not very handicap-accessible, since it often means navigating escalators / elevators that end up being broken half the time.
- ornornor 3y ago
  These cars would be privately owned and follow the whims of shareholders. We all know how well that goes. These issues with public transit are correctable. Stops could be added in between, infrastructure made more accessible… Handicap accessibility is a mandate for public transit. For a private car fleet, it’s an afterthought and token gesture. Also, the public transit network is already there and works. Why not invest in that instead while also encouraging active Mobility by walking or cycling instead of more cars? I still fail to see how what they’re demanding is idiotic. You might not agree with it, or it might make you uncomfortable about your transportation choices, but it’s the opposite of idiotic.
  - imgabe 3y ago
    What is stopping the city from buying and operating driverless cars? Their money is just as good and I'm sure the companies selling the cars would be happy to sell to them. Oh, the only thing stopping them are "activists" who demand inferior solutions to transit. The public transit network is "there" in some places, and kind of works. If you happen to live near a stop and your schedule allows you enough time to wait for a bus / train to arrive, then sure. If you don't live in one of those places then you're SOL. Good luck waiting for the city to add a new train line. It took NYC over 100 years to build the second avenue line... Meanwhile the infrastructure for cars is there, and actually does work and goes from point-to-point from almost every single residence / place of business in the entire country.
    - abenga 3y ago
      > What's stopping the city from buying and operating driverless cars? Cost and inefficiency? The city should invest in and expand access to efficient public transit, not spend money on expensive multi-ton vehicles that can move one fare at a time. The solution to "some people live far from bus stops" should first be "local government adds more bus stops", not "local government spends billions on small cars."
      - lotsoweiners 3y ago
fastball 3y ago
We shouldn't have nice things because some sub-10% portion of the population might not be able to use them is the dumbest argument. You can have public transit and driverless cars.
- abenga 3y ago
  That's not GP's argument though, they said driverless cars _are_ public transit.
berdario 3y ago
Will they? AFAIK, Waymos thought of wheelchair users: https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/10656347?hl=en https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/10656347?hl=en See also: https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/9/23298488/waymo-accessible-disability-dot-design-challenge-av https://www.theverge.com/2022/8/9/23298488/waymo-accessible-... (They mention that the WAV trips in SF had been manual, it's unclear to me if that was the case also in Phoenix) Anyhow, while I think that "zero effort" is hyperbole, the risk that they are not going to invest enough is a very real risk... And also, if the argument is that 100% of their fleet should be (wheelchair?) accessible, that's a valid concern, since it seems that all players are currently failing at it
- LeeroyWasHere 3y ago
  Airbnb for cars, what could possibly go wrong.

Fricken 3y ago

Same goes for you idiots

duskwuff 3y ago

Driverless cars are not "public transit". At best, they're slightly cheaper taxis.

piaste 3y ago
Mass taxis would still be an improvement over individual cars, which are idle 90% of the day and require parking space in the most valuable parts of the city.
- duskwuff 3y ago
  > Mass taxis would still be an improvement over individual cars No, they'd actually be substantially worse. Personal cars are poorly utilized, but they at least spend all of their time carrying at least one person (the driver), and stay off the roads when they aren't in use. A taxi will, necessarily, spend less than 100% of its time carrying a passenger; if it's being used primarily by commuters, it's likely to spend at least 50% of its time with no passengers at all (because it's deadheading back into a city to take workers home, or vice versa). Having everyone drive cars everywhere isn't sustainable, but making those cars into taxis isn't the solution either.
  - piaste 3y ago
    Good point. I was already thinking that taxis have an issue with peak demand, but I was only thinking of the capacity, I didn't consider the return trip. One option is to mix public transport with driverless taxis - consolidate public transportation into fewer, bigger routes (knocking down costs), then use driverless taxis for short trips to the station. A little inconvenient to add 1-2 extra transfers to your trip, though. There's also the opportunity to automate carpooling, but that's not quite the same - it's just moving a little further on the flexibility <-> efficiency scale of transportation (where individual vehicles are furthest left and trains are furthest right). Even if you're just sharing a taxi with 2-3 other commuters, you're still sacrificing the convenience of leaving at the time of your choice and having privacy during the trip - though of course for a big price discount.
3y ago

sdeframond 3y ago

Being autonomous does not change the fact that a car weighs 1000kg and occupies about 10sqm, just to move a single 70kg person. Or even no one at all, since they are autonomous. It's a gigantic waste of space and energy. In this regard, it is in no way comparable to trains, buses etc.

badpun 3y ago
> a car weighs 1000kg and occupies about 10sqm, just to move a single 70kg person. > It's a gigantic waste of space and energy. So were horses and buggies before car was invented. Interesting, waste of neither space nor energy was not raised as an issue back then.
- cr3ative 3y ago
  I can almost guarantee it was raised by someone back then. That’s a strange claim to make. Even just dealing with the poo was a logistical nightmare for a city!
  - Xylakant 3y ago
    Indeed: > Just because all roads lead to Rome doesn’t mean you can get in — at least not on wheels. During Julius Caesar’s reign, daytime access to the Eternal City was restricted, with travelers required to hitch their carriages outside the city gates. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-rome-forbade-downtown-traffic-day https://www.sciencenews.org/article/ancient-rome-forbade-dow...
twoodfin 3y ago
If it’s truly a waste, producing no value, no one will pay for it. But obviously many, many people value things like - The time savings of direct, immediate, door-to-door transportation - Dedicated storage capacity - Configuration flexibility, e.g. children’s car seats, foldable seats, luggage racks - Style and comfort options - Privacy …and direct their dollars accordingly.
- 3y ago

tetris11 3y ago

And there will be hundreds of them on the road at any one time, empty vehicles idling behind one another because the company decided that was the "safest speed" to maximise their profits, taking up the roadways to hinder much more efficient public transit, and slowing everything right down. The companies will then likely pay off the city to let them use mass transit lanes, or to allow them some priority over other drivers. If you think this is hyperbole, consider Netflix's great win in the Net Neutrality fight.

zecg 3y ago

> And driverless cars, if they are allowed to be developed, will eventually be public transit that takes you from door-to-door running 24/7, way, way better than any train or bus. Driverless cars still take space both to move and to stand still.

imgabe 3y ago
You mean like all physical matter?
- aydyn 3y ago
  No shit sherlock

ehnto 3y ago

To barely scratch the surface here, mass transit helps solve congestion issues, something almost all car-centric cities suffer from. Forget the word public, I know that scares some people. We are talking about space and efficiency now. How would putting everyone back in cars help? Autonomous or not, tightly following or not, super syncronous (good luck with company interop and human drivers on that one) it's a lot of energy and space for 1-4 people, and we already know most city's road infra can't support everyone. You'll just be stuck in traffic autonomously instead of on a train moving more people more effectively.