4 ms·

> Remember, the use case is a village whose taxi needs are satisfied by 1 car per village Eh? No, absurd. I'm not sure where you got that I was limiting myself

> Remember, the use case is a village whose taxi needs are satisfied by 1 car per village Eh? No, absurd. I'm not sure where you got that I was limiting myself to villages that only need 1 taxi per village. I think you are thinking of some 3 person 'towns' not a standard village. Yeah sure you can dial down your prospective customers to some ridiculously low amount, but I already said, I was never talking about rail systems in obscure regions without cities. If that's your beef, you're wasting your time. There might be different reasons trains would be more economical in some settings but for someone in a hut in Siberia no of course trains are not a sane idea. > Your numbers seem to assume a lot that isn't supported by the data What data? My numbers are facts easily and quickly verified on the web, cite sources, please. Saying 'the data' is tantamount to nonsense, here. > Those numbers just don't break even Yes so for your 10 huts in the prairie your self driving car is a superior solution, yay, sarcasm. Meanwhile, my rail line is servicing hundreds of thousands of people, in cities and towns, below cost. One is far more economical than the other.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
How about Bethel Alaska? Most taxis per person, most people travel by taxi there.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> > Remember, the use case is a village whose taxi needs are satisfied by 1 car per village > Eh? No, absurd. I'm not sure where you got that Scroll to the top of the thread you've been discussing: > The square mile around me has fewer than 4 journeys an hour to anywhere[0] > a taxi service would be brilliant, my son could get to scouts and back under his own steam. Automated or manual doesn’t matter, but we can’t sustain a taxi service. - there’s one in a town about 6 miles away. One taxi.[1] So, not only not "absurd", but explicitly specified. ---- > I already said, I was never talking about rail systems in obscure regions This thread concerns villages, not suburbs of cities. Specifically villages with 0-1 taxis serving them, and a total trip demand of fewer than 4 people per hour. This thread is about running self-driving cars vs. train lines for that city and cities like that. You joined this thread. I think we can be forgiven for thinking you were talking about the topic of the thread you joined, and not something else :) Everybody makes mistakes, right? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39333564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39333564 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39333882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39333882
- smaudet 3y ago
  Sure, and my mistake, if any, was assuming the topic had changed (as happens in the course of comment threads). Regarding the individual with a taxi in a town 6 miles away, I didn't mean to imply he would definitely be serviced. Instead, its more likely he would be able to walk/find some transportation to a local rail line, if we had a rail line network. This would still be better than the current state of affairs, by the sound of it - maybe be able to hire a taxi vs being able to walk with their son to a nearby station. If this individual is truly in a remote region, nothing will solve that. Last mile can and should still be solved by alternative low-cost low-frequency transportation such as cars, bicycles, low-cost trams, buses, airplanes, drones, etc.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    > If this individual is truly in a remote region, nothing will solve that. That seems a little fatalistic! I would hope the comment would be "I can't think of anything that would solve that". Because I and a few others can: Self-driving vehicles. Cars or busses. That's what we were discussing before someone mentioned that no, self-driving cars are bad for this specific use case, trains would be better.
    - smaudet 3y ago
      > That's what we were discussing before someone mentioned that no, self-driving cars are bad for this specific use case, trains would be better. That's a gross mischaracterization of what I actually said, which was that we have an unfortunate network of roads and barely any rail. And, furthermore, if you have the infrastructure to support refueling stations, then you aren't so remote, are you? If you have such infrastructure, then you probably have a population density to support other infrastructure, like rail. And yes, that is always preferable (as your main means of long distance land based travel).

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

How about Bethel Alaska? Most taxis per person, most people travel by taxi there.

ImPostingOnHN 3y ago

> > Remember, the use case is a village whose taxi needs are satisfied by 1 car per village > Eh? No, absurd. I'm not sure where you got that Scroll to the top of the thread you've been discussing: > The square mile around me has fewer than 4 journeys an hour to anywhere[0] > a taxi service would be brilliant, my son could get to scouts and back under his own steam. Automated or manual doesn’t matter, but we can’t sustain a taxi service. - there’s one in a town about 6 miles away. One taxi.[1] So, not only not "absurd", but explicitly specified. ---- > I already said, I was never talking about rail systems in obscure regions This thread concerns villages, not suburbs of cities. Specifically villages with 0-1 taxis serving them, and a total trip demand of fewer than 4 people per hour. This thread is about running self-driving cars vs. train lines for that city and cities like that. You joined this thread. I think we can be forgiven for thinking you were talking about the topic of the thread you joined, and not something else :) Everybody makes mistakes, right? [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39333564 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39333564 [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39333882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39333882

smaudet 3y ago
Sure, and my mistake, if any, was assuming the topic had changed (as happens in the course of comment threads). Regarding the individual with a taxi in a town 6 miles away, I didn't mean to imply he would definitely be serviced. Instead, its more likely he would be able to walk/find some transportation to a local rail line, if we had a rail line network. This would still be better than the current state of affairs, by the sound of it - maybe be able to hire a taxi vs being able to walk with their son to a nearby station. If this individual is truly in a remote region, nothing will solve that. Last mile can and should still be solved by alternative low-cost low-frequency transportation such as cars, bicycles, low-cost trams, buses, airplanes, drones, etc.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > If this individual is truly in a remote region, nothing will solve that. That seems a little fatalistic! I would hope the comment would be "I can't think of anything that would solve that". Because I and a few others can: Self-driving vehicles. Cars or busses. That's what we were discussing before someone mentioned that no, self-driving cars are bad for this specific use case, trains would be better.
  - smaudet 3y ago
    > That's what we were discussing before someone mentioned that no, self-driving cars are bad for this specific use case, trains would be better. That's a gross mischaracterization of what I actually said, which was that we have an unfortunate network of roads and barely any rail. And, furthermore, if you have the infrastructure to support refueling stations, then you aren't so remote, are you? If you have such infrastructure, then you probably have a population density to support other infrastructure, like rail. And yes, that is always preferable (as your main means of long distance land based travel).