6 ms·

Waymo is public transport, but you mean mass transit. People don't use mass transit because it sucks, blaming other modes of public transit doesn't cut it. The

Waymo is public transport, but you mean mass transit. People don't use mass transit because it sucks, blaming other modes of public transit doesn't cut it. The design and implementation of it is what keeps people from using it. The good news is automated vehicles will add flexible options for new types of public transport that are between single-trip taxies and mass transit and will lower costs to all kinds of public transit.

hiddencost 3y ago
It sucks because we don't fund it. Europe does fine.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  I hate the comparisons to Europe, because they're apples to oranges. I've been in European cities and I totally agree, it's a joy to be able to take public transit and/or walk everywhere. But most European cities were built long before the car. Older US cities (Boston, NY) have great public transit/walking options, though I agree deferred maintenance is taking its toll. But if you look at cities designed around the car, for many of them it's just prohibitively expensive to add things like light rail or subways now. Austin TX will be adding more light rail, but the price tag keeps exploding and the route keeps getting shorter. I'd be curious if anyone could point to any city that was built around the car where they subsequently made substantial public transit improvements that carry more than, say, 10% of commuters.
  - BadHumans 3y ago
    Amsterdam and Paris used to be both be very car dependent. Here is a video about Amsterdam before they shunned cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI5pbDFDZyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI5pbDFDZyI
  - coalteddy 3y ago
    US cities love their cars. Not even in city centers do they prioritize pedestrians over cars. That has nothing to do with apples or oranges. It's a priority thing and not costs. There is no reason to need cars in city centers. Makes cities ugly, loud and dangerous compared to europe or asia.
- renewiltord 3y ago
  Almost everything where people ask for "more funding", that service is junk and adding money just means you go from getting junk for cheap to getting junk for expensive. I've seen zero cases of it going from junk to even mediocre. I've seen numerous examples of junk going from cheap junk to expensive junk, especially in US public services. The "more funding" is always allocated towards existing rent-seekers. And my opinion with getting junk is that if I'm getting it, I want to be paying as little for it as possible. As a quick test for what you feel, try this. You read a headline that says "This city school received the most government funding of any school in the US". Do you think that school is "great" / "mediocre" / "crap"? My personal immediate inclination is that the school is probably shit.
- Aloisius 3y ago
  Europe doesn't really do fine. Outside a handful of cities, cars are the dominant form of transit there too.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
barbazoo 3y ago
> Waymo is public transport Is it? Doesn't "public transit" at least somewhat imply that it's a business that has to operate under the rules of some democratically elected institution? Waymo will ban you, price you differently based on who/where/when you are, etc. I wouldn't expect any of that from "public transit".
- gretch 3y ago
  >price you differently based on who/where/when you are, etc public transit already does this https://www.bart.gov/tickets/discounts https://www.bart.gov/tickets/discounts -Seniors 65 and over get 62.5% off -Youth 5-18 years old get 50% off
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    Muni is free for seniors and youth. That's a different kind of price segmentation than the kind of price discrimination that these companies can do. Also even without discounts public transit is substantially cheaper than taxi services (like 1/10th the cost). Some arguments I've seen is that the city should just make public transit free as you can offset the hit by getting rid of fare enforcement / fare machines.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    I was thinking more of individual pricing
- OkayPhysicist 3y ago
  People can (and should) be banned from public transit, too.
  - barbazoo 3y ago
    I’ve never seen that happen and I disagree that it should. Not saying it doesn’t happen.
- tialaramex 3y ago
  Yes, it's public transit. Public doesn't mean "there aren't any rules" it just means public. You can't light barbecues in my local public park, and the bloke who tried to knife a bus driver isn't allowed to ride the public buses here.
accurrent 3y ago
European and Asian nations tend to have perfectly usable mass transit (including developing countries). Sure there are some us cases for cars, but for daily commute its not needed. To add to it mass transit is generally heavuly subsidized that means that less well off people can get to work/school at low costs. It reduces poverty and income inequality.
- dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
  Mass transit is great when it's available, which means in places of high density, which is why you list Asia and Europe. It's right there in the name. I live in Europe in a village of about 1500 people are there is no usable public transport (2 buses a day). Relative to total area, mass transit is almost nowhere. That's also true for for total road kilometers. I agree with your last sentence, but for those who live outside of cities or other places of high density, public transport is unusable or unavailable. Governments roundly ignore people who live in these places (due to expense and political irrelevance) so there is always a fairly decent percentage of the population that is "public transport poor".
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    >I live in Europe in a village of about 1500 people are there is no usable public transport (2 buses a day). and how would waymo fix this? Waymo is still a private business and needs to weigh the costs of deploying to a smaller town vs. simply not supporting that range. It's the same issue as government.
    - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
      Automated vehicles will enable smaller buses that drive themselves and make serving these places profitable to service. Automated taxi services like Waymo also ultimately be cheaper too.
      - zorowithenma 3y ago
        Nah bro, they would instead send those cars where they would get much more profit. You just can't expect too many cab bookings in a small town of 1500. Idk bout EU but here in India we have public transport to even remote places and it is sure profitable and many people do use it everyday, even if the population is less many use public transit instead of own veichles in towns.
GeneralMayhem 3y ago
Waymo is not public transport in the sense that most people mean it, which describes only state entities, as opposed to the private sector. Public transit exists to serve the public good, doesn't need to turn a profit, and is accountable to government (ideally elected) officials. Waymo is a for-profit entity that can do more or less whatever it wants within the bounds set by CPUC. I think it's a net good, but it's still private industry.

hiddencost 3y ago

It sucks because we don't fund it. Europe does fine.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I hate the comparisons to Europe, because they're apples to oranges. I've been in European cities and I totally agree, it's a joy to be able to take public transit and/or walk everywhere. But most European cities were built long before the car. Older US cities (Boston, NY) have great public transit/walking options, though I agree deferred maintenance is taking its toll. But if you look at cities designed around the car, for many of them it's just prohibitively expensive to add things like light rail or subways now. Austin TX will be adding more light rail, but the price tag keeps exploding and the route keeps getting shorter. I'd be curious if anyone could point to any city that was built around the car where they subsequently made substantial public transit improvements that carry more than, say, 10% of commuters.
- BadHumans 3y ago
  Amsterdam and Paris used to be both be very car dependent. Here is a video about Amsterdam before they shunned cars. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI5pbDFDZyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI5pbDFDZyI
- coalteddy 3y ago
  US cities love their cars. Not even in city centers do they prioritize pedestrians over cars. That has nothing to do with apples or oranges. It's a priority thing and not costs. There is no reason to need cars in city centers. Makes cities ugly, loud and dangerous compared to europe or asia.
renewiltord 3y ago
Almost everything where people ask for "more funding", that service is junk and adding money just means you go from getting junk for cheap to getting junk for expensive. I've seen zero cases of it going from junk to even mediocre. I've seen numerous examples of junk going from cheap junk to expensive junk, especially in US public services. The "more funding" is always allocated towards existing rent-seekers. And my opinion with getting junk is that if I'm getting it, I want to be paying as little for it as possible. As a quick test for what you feel, try this. You read a headline that says "This city school received the most government funding of any school in the US". Do you think that school is "great" / "mediocre" / "crap"? My personal immediate inclination is that the school is probably shit.
Aloisius 3y ago
Europe doesn't really do fine. Outside a handful of cities, cars are the dominant form of transit there too.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

barbazoo 3y ago

> Waymo is public transport Is it? Doesn't "public transit" at least somewhat imply that it's a business that has to operate under the rules of some democratically elected institution? Waymo will ban you, price you differently based on who/where/when you are, etc. I wouldn't expect any of that from "public transit".

gretch 3y ago
>price you differently based on who/where/when you are, etc public transit already does this https://www.bart.gov/tickets/discounts https://www.bart.gov/tickets/discounts -Seniors 65 and over get 62.5% off -Youth 5-18 years old get 50% off
- vlovich123 3y ago
  Muni is free for seniors and youth. That's a different kind of price segmentation than the kind of price discrimination that these companies can do. Also even without discounts public transit is substantially cheaper than taxi services (like 1/10th the cost). Some arguments I've seen is that the city should just make public transit free as you can offset the hit by getting rid of fare enforcement / fare machines.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  I was thinking more of individual pricing
OkayPhysicist 3y ago
People can (and should) be banned from public transit, too.
- barbazoo 3y ago
  I’ve never seen that happen and I disagree that it should. Not saying it doesn’t happen.
tialaramex 3y ago
Yes, it's public transit. Public doesn't mean "there aren't any rules" it just means public. You can't light barbecues in my local public park, and the bloke who tried to knife a bus driver isn't allowed to ride the public buses here.

accurrent 3y ago

European and Asian nations tend to have perfectly usable mass transit (including developing countries). Sure there are some us cases for cars, but for daily commute its not needed. To add to it mass transit is generally heavuly subsidized that means that less well off people can get to work/school at low costs. It reduces poverty and income inequality.

dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
Mass transit is great when it's available, which means in places of high density, which is why you list Asia and Europe. It's right there in the name. I live in Europe in a village of about 1500 people are there is no usable public transport (2 buses a day). Relative to total area, mass transit is almost nowhere. That's also true for for total road kilometers. I agree with your last sentence, but for those who live outside of cities or other places of high density, public transport is unusable or unavailable. Governments roundly ignore people who live in these places (due to expense and political irrelevance) so there is always a fairly decent percentage of the population that is "public transport poor".
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  >I live in Europe in a village of about 1500 people are there is no usable public transport (2 buses a day). and how would waymo fix this? Waymo is still a private business and needs to weigh the costs of deploying to a smaller town vs. simply not supporting that range. It's the same issue as government.
  - dkjaudyeqooe 3y ago
    Automated vehicles will enable smaller buses that drive themselves and make serving these places profitable to service. Automated taxi services like Waymo also ultimately be cheaper too.
    - zorowithenma 3y ago
      Nah bro, they would instead send those cars where they would get much more profit. You just can't expect too many cab bookings in a small town of 1500. Idk bout EU but here in India we have public transport to even remote places and it is sure profitable and many people do use it everyday, even if the population is less many use public transit instead of own veichles in towns.

GeneralMayhem 3y ago

Waymo is not public transport in the sense that most people mean it, which describes only state entities, as opposed to the private sector. Public transit exists to serve the public good, doesn't need to turn a profit, and is accountable to government (ideally elected) officials. Waymo is a for-profit entity that can do more or less whatever it wants within the bounds set by CPUC. I think it's a net good, but it's still private industry.