6 ms·

> In fact, this might bring American public transportation to a leapfrog moment. Many pundits have lamented that developing cities elsewhere have “leapfrogged”

by pm90 2y ago

> In fact, this might bring American public transportation to a leapfrog moment. Many pundits have lamented that developing cities elsewhere have “leapfrogged” the US on public transportation — building subways and rail networks that put ours to shame. Over a hundred years ago, we built first-generation public transit.15 Over the last forty years, other countries built second-generation public transit. Now we have the opportunity as a nation to lead the world on third-generation public transit, and in that course develop products and expertise that can be exported. This is quite the stretch. Even in the best case scenario, Waymos won’t beat well run public transit lines in dense cities, especially in east and south asia. This piece is way too optimistic about Waymo. They’ve mastered a couple of cities over many years. To do that for more cities would require just as much time. It’s conceivable that ride share will continue to exist until that happens, which is likely several decades.

fnordpiglet 2y ago
I’m not sure I agree with this. Autonomous cooperative cars would convoy in dynamic flocks in a way that does point to point transit with a lot of the advantages of trains (in that a major advantage of trains is they don’t congest). This would actually have a significant advantage over every other type of transit. Even having a modest percent of all cars on the roads cooperative autonomous vehicles using basic control theory to relieve congestion would aid the entire cities traffic (there have been several studies proving this).
- ben-schaaf 2y ago
  > Autonomous cooperative cars would convoy in dynamic flocks in a way that does point to point transit with a lot of the advantages of trains The main advantages of trains are: * Dedicated right of way - which you cant't get with cars. * High route capacity - even a unrealistic 10x improvement still doesn't compete with trains. At 2x it's worse than busses. * Cheap running & maintenance costs - doubtful running costs are similar, certainly not maintenance. Trains do however congest, you get that a lot in the USA when you don't have dedicated passenger lines. > Even having a modest percent of all cars on the roads cooperative autonomous vehicles using basic control theory to relieve congestion would aid the entire cities traffic (there have been several studies proving this). There have also been several studies into something called induced demand. The result of reducing car traffic is that more people choose to drive, resulting in more car traffic. The only way to actually reduce traffic is viable alternatives to driving.
  - seanmcdirmid 2y ago
    Getting rid of parking can get rid of traffic since less people will drive if they aren’t confident that they can get a parking space. Most US cities have a ton of on street parking that they could eliminate to put an indirect dent in congestion. This would also mean fewer people with cars (since a lot of people rely on free on street parking at home) and would lead to better use of streets (transit lanes, bike lanes, wider pedestrian sidewalks, etc…). Also, if people can’t as easily own and operate cars, demand for public transit will shoot up (like in Japan and Europe, although they never experienced a car boom like the USA).
    - ben-schaaf 2y ago
      I completely agree, but I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. What people are arguing for is using robot taxis as a city's primary/only public transportation, which just means more people with cars.
      - fnordpiglet 2y ago
        Sorry, how would robot taxis mean more people with cars? Robot taxis are generally either driving or parked at their lot. That’s not people with cars, that’s people in on demand cars that park outside the city away from the people.
        ben-schaaf 2y ago
        Removing parking reduces congestion because less people take the car, taking alternative forms of transportation instead. Removing parking to improve traffic flow so that you can push more robot taxis through the city results in more cars.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        You can always limit robotaxi fleets via legislation, medallions were a thing before Uber/lift. Even if they aren’t limited, not having the sunk cost of a personal car can lead to more transit use anyways as long as robo taxis are priced appropriately higher. My main point is that taking away easy/street parking will be more effective than just not building roads or even going with congestion pricing.
- cycomanic 2y ago
  But even then, that assumes that you assign the cost of building the infrastructure to public transit (or the public). Now if Waymo makes up a significant portion of overall traffic, why should the public pay for the cost of building the infrastructure, i.e. the roads?
  - fnordpiglet 2y ago
    You can tax Waymo and they pass on. The public should pay for shared infrastructure, and I would assume Waymo isn’t the exclusive monopoly and I would also assume private citizens would acquire their own autonomous cooperative vehicles that have enhanced comforts (such as TVs, gaming systems, etc). The key would be removing humans from the loop and a cooperative protocol.
- amluto 2y ago
  Flocking may well be an improvement over the status quo, but it fundamentally can’t be nearly as efficient as busses due to simple geometry: cars physically take up a space. https://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-almost-everything.html https://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-alm...
  - fnordpiglet 2y ago
    Have you spent a lot of time riding urban busses in the US? Most of them are almost entirely empty. There are some lines, particularly commuter lines, where that isn’t the case. But by and large they are incredible NOT dense. They are also not convenient. They don’t provide direct point to point transit. They follow a schedule and require transfers to get to any location not on the local route. As a practical matter they’re generally not compelling for most people outside of specific uses like commutes. Even in NYC for the decade I was there I almost never used a bus because the experience was so unpleasant, I stuck to the subway and Uber. So, without some sort of draconian mandate requiring divestiture of cars, autonomous cooperative cars are a substantial advantage. I’d note you also don’t need autonomous cooperative cars to have as much seating. A single person autonomous vehicle could be a single person sized car and it wouldn’t feel like a death trap because accidents would be effectively nonexistent. Traffic density could be bumper to bumper with high rates of flow. In that sense you could actually jam many more people into the space of a current (largely or completely) empty bus.
    - amluto 2y ago
      For urban busses to work well you need a culture where even people who can afford cars think the bus is reasonable. And you need a frequent bus schedule and either efficient enough busses or bad enough traffic that busses are competitive. Boston mostly checks these boxes.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
      >> Have you spent a lot of time riding urban busses in the US? Most of them are almost entirely empty. There are some lines, particularly commuter lines, where that isn’t the case. But by and large they are incredible NOT dense. When public transport is overcrowded it's unattractive- nobody takes the bus anymore, it's too crowded. When it's not overcrowded it's inefficient. Catch 22! The US can't have public transit. Everyone else in the developed world seems to manage just fine but the US is special. Here's an idea: use all those big server farms and AI talent to optimise public transport. If there's too many passengers for a route, add more buses. If there aren't enough, reroute the buses where there's more demand. Maybe get those leapfrogging self-driving AIs to drive buses, instead of personal cars, and get the buses to flock instead of cars? There are social solutions, institutional solutions and technological solutions to the problems in mass transit. A nation that considers itself a leader in science and technology should be able to make a dent there. Companies who advertise their self-driving AI as beneficial for its safety and efficiency could make more than a dent if they used their considerable means to attack a real problem. But - noooo! It's gotta be self-driving cars. More cars! More cars to solve the problems caused by too many cars in the first place.

by pm90 2y ago

fnordpiglet 2y ago

I’m not sure I agree with this. Autonomous cooperative cars would convoy in dynamic flocks in a way that does point to point transit with a lot of the advantages of trains (in that a major advantage of trains is they don’t congest). This would actually have a significant advantage over every other type of transit. Even having a modest percent of all cars on the roads cooperative autonomous vehicles using basic control theory to relieve congestion would aid the entire cities traffic (there have been several studies proving this).

ben-schaaf 2y ago
> Autonomous cooperative cars would convoy in dynamic flocks in a way that does point to point transit with a lot of the advantages of trains The main advantages of trains are: * Dedicated right of way - which you cant't get with cars. * High route capacity - even a unrealistic 10x improvement still doesn't compete with trains. At 2x it's worse than busses. * Cheap running & maintenance costs - doubtful running costs are similar, certainly not maintenance. Trains do however congest, you get that a lot in the USA when you don't have dedicated passenger lines. > Even having a modest percent of all cars on the roads cooperative autonomous vehicles using basic control theory to relieve congestion would aid the entire cities traffic (there have been several studies proving this). There have also been several studies into something called induced demand. The result of reducing car traffic is that more people choose to drive, resulting in more car traffic. The only way to actually reduce traffic is viable alternatives to driving.
- seanmcdirmid 2y ago
  Getting rid of parking can get rid of traffic since less people will drive if they aren’t confident that they can get a parking space. Most US cities have a ton of on street parking that they could eliminate to put an indirect dent in congestion. This would also mean fewer people with cars (since a lot of people rely on free on street parking at home) and would lead to better use of streets (transit lanes, bike lanes, wider pedestrian sidewalks, etc…). Also, if people can’t as easily own and operate cars, demand for public transit will shoot up (like in Japan and Europe, although they never experienced a car boom like the USA).
  - ben-schaaf 2y ago
    I completely agree, but I don't see what that has to do with this discussion. What people are arguing for is using robot taxis as a city's primary/only public transportation, which just means more people with cars.
    - fnordpiglet 2y ago
      Sorry, how would robot taxis mean more people with cars? Robot taxis are generally either driving or parked at their lot. That’s not people with cars, that’s people in on demand cars that park outside the city away from the people.
      - ben-schaaf 2y ago
        Removing parking reduces congestion because less people take the car, taking alternative forms of transportation instead. Removing parking to improve traffic flow so that you can push more robot taxis through the city results in more cars.
        seanmcdirmid 2y ago
        You can always limit robotaxi fleets via legislation, medallions were a thing before Uber/lift. Even if they aren’t limited, not having the sunk cost of a personal car can lead to more transit use anyways as long as robo taxis are priced appropriately higher. My main point is that taking away easy/street parking will be more effective than just not building roads or even going with congestion pricing.
cycomanic 2y ago
But even then, that assumes that you assign the cost of building the infrastructure to public transit (or the public). Now if Waymo makes up a significant portion of overall traffic, why should the public pay for the cost of building the infrastructure, i.e. the roads?
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  You can tax Waymo and they pass on. The public should pay for shared infrastructure, and I would assume Waymo isn’t the exclusive monopoly and I would also assume private citizens would acquire their own autonomous cooperative vehicles that have enhanced comforts (such as TVs, gaming systems, etc). The key would be removing humans from the loop and a cooperative protocol.
amluto 2y ago
Flocking may well be an improvement over the status quo, but it fundamentally can’t be nearly as efficient as busses due to simple geometry: cars physically take up a space. https://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-almost-everything.html https://humantransit.org/2012/09/the-photo-that-explains-alm...
- fnordpiglet 2y ago
  Have you spent a lot of time riding urban busses in the US? Most of them are almost entirely empty. There are some lines, particularly commuter lines, where that isn’t the case. But by and large they are incredible NOT dense. They are also not convenient. They don’t provide direct point to point transit. They follow a schedule and require transfers to get to any location not on the local route. As a practical matter they’re generally not compelling for most people outside of specific uses like commutes. Even in NYC for the decade I was there I almost never used a bus because the experience was so unpleasant, I stuck to the subway and Uber. So, without some sort of draconian mandate requiring divestiture of cars, autonomous cooperative cars are a substantial advantage. I’d note you also don’t need autonomous cooperative cars to have as much seating. A single person autonomous vehicle could be a single person sized car and it wouldn’t feel like a death trap because accidents would be effectively nonexistent. Traffic density could be bumper to bumper with high rates of flow. In that sense you could actually jam many more people into the space of a current (largely or completely) empty bus.
  - amluto 2y ago
    For urban busses to work well you need a culture where even people who can afford cars think the bus is reasonable. And you need a frequent bus schedule and either efficient enough busses or bad enough traffic that busses are competitive. Boston mostly checks these boxes.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 2y ago
    >> Have you spent a lot of time riding urban busses in the US? Most of them are almost entirely empty. There are some lines, particularly commuter lines, where that isn’t the case. But by and large they are incredible NOT dense. When public transport is overcrowded it's unattractive- nobody takes the bus anymore, it's too crowded. When it's not overcrowded it's inefficient. Catch 22! The US can't have public transit. Everyone else in the developed world seems to manage just fine but the US is special. Here's an idea: use all those big server farms and AI talent to optimise public transport. If there's too many passengers for a route, add more buses. If there aren't enough, reroute the buses where there's more demand. Maybe get those leapfrogging self-driving AIs to drive buses, instead of personal cars, and get the buses to flock instead of cars? There are social solutions, institutional solutions and technological solutions to the problems in mass transit. A nation that considers itself a leader in science and technology should be able to make a dent there. Companies who advertise their self-driving AI as beneficial for its safety and efficiency could make more than a dent if they used their considerable means to attack a real problem. But - noooo! It's gotta be self-driving cars. More cars! More cars to solve the problems caused by too many cars in the first place.