4 ms·

>- There is a real danger that they will destroy the fabric of our cities This is just not true, I far prefer to bike next or in front of waymos on shared road

>- There is a real danger that they will destroy the fabric of our cities This is just not true, I far prefer to bike next or in front of waymos on shared roadways because they keep proper distance and are predictable. Far from destroy the fabric, they are like benevolent sea turtles, providing a cover of safety for more vulnerable road users. >They will increase, not decrease, the number of cars on the road and the use of road space Possibly true but let's see some evidence. >As cars shift electric, gas taxes will be less effective Didn't SF just pass a tax on AVs? Easy fix. >- There is a risk that AVs will displace other forms of public transit which are better for the environment, for pedestrians, for land use, and for the surrounding areas Waiting for a train sucks, people want to go point to point. >- By reducing the perceived cost of spending time in traffic, AVs will encourage people to commute longer distances, resulting in more traffic, infrastructure costs, and emissions overall Same argument can be made for public transit / trains. It's not a good argument.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago
> they are like benevolent sea turtles, providing a cover of safety for more vulnerable road users. Hopefully they stay that way! But right now they are in their testing phases and the #1 priority of AV companies is to demonstrate their safety and obtain trust and social license to operate. The argument made in the video is somewhat more dystopian, of a future where AVs are entrenched and society becomes dependent on them, and they have secured enough of a foothold to start raising speed limits, removing stoplights, banning non-AVs from roads, etc. It's only one possible future, of course. But it's a common trajectory, where initially a service is introduced very benevolently, and only once it's secured traction do they start to turn the screws. I'm sure we can all think of some examples... > Possibly true but let's see some evidence. The details are in the video; you can watch it if you'd like, and refute its claims with counterarguments. >- By reducing the perceived cost of spending time in traffic, AVs will encourage people to commute longer distances, resulting in more traffic, infrastructure costs, and emissions overall > Same argument can be made for public transit / trains. It's not a good argument. The same is actually true of trains, except that the cost to society is much less, because of how much more efficient trains are. No matter how many people commute by train, you never need ever-widening train-highways to alleviate the traffic jams from too many people riding the train. It's instead a positive feedback loop of increased ridership leading to higher train frequency, increased service quality, better speed, better network connections, and a stronger and more walkable area around and between train stations. It's exactly the opposite of cars, but not because the argument is wrong. It certainly does lead to more suburban development (and lower costs of real housing), but this becomes an upside rather than a downside.
- aeternum 2y ago
  I don't buy the raising speed limits thing because the tech is actually much easier to regulate and enforce than human drivers. I guess the example is Uber/Lyft, but remember that those went to a vote and the vote passed. And if non-AVs are banned from cities, wouldn't our cities be much more bikeable and safe? How many pedestrians are killed again by human drivers? Trains are not magical, they also suffer from congestion issues, in fact moreso than roadways because they generally cannot pass each other. If a city were pure AVs, you could absolutely have train-size AVs for key arteries/events and still enable much more flexible point-to-point travel. AVs can and will have pooled ridership in the near future.
  - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
    Trains can pass each other! I see it happen all the time in Japan. It's easy to enforce speed limits on AVs, but also easy for AV proponents to argue that speed limits are obsolete and unnecessary when cars have millisecond reaction times, a legacy from back when sluggish humans piloted vehicles around. It's hard to say what the future may hold.
    - aeternum 2y ago
      It's crazy that people are so pro-train. Imagine if they were invented now, the idea of building train tracks throughout cities would be laughed at. Trains cannot turn to avoid someone and their stopping distance is awful making them incredibly unsafe unless operated on tracks that completely exclude humans. If trains were an AV they'd never be approved. The only thing they have going for them is passenger density but that is now easily achieved with battery electric vehicles. The smart thing to do is actually pave over existing tracks and allow high-density AVs exclusive use to those thoroughfares. You could achieve much higher utilization and have routes that go more direct since they could exit the thoroughfare to load and unload rather than block it.
      - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
        It's rare that I encounter such a fascinatingly different viewpoint to my own that I'm staggered to consider how it could have been arrived at. Trains don't need to turn to avoid people because their motion is entirely predictable. You can stand one meter away from a passing train with no fear, because you know exactly what its trajectory will be -- it's built into the track under your feet. This is why people are comfortable walking next to trams in crowded areas, whereas they have to give cars a wide berth -- you don't know if they're about to steer into you. For this as well as several other reasons, trains are orders-of-magnitude safer than road vehicles. Especially when weighted by passenger-miles, because then we're comparing the collision frequency of one train against that of hundreds of cars (or even a thousand -- one shinkansen train comfortably carries about 1300 riders). And yes, because the passenger density is so high, noise level is low, and the traffic is so intermittent and predictable, this does allow the construction of both separated-grade tracks (whether elevated or subway), and also protected crossings for at-grade trains. The safety level is so high that people rarely get hit by a train by accident -- more often suicide or crime is involved. And better safety features, like barriers at stations, can go along way to reducing these remaining risks. It's hard to imagine these kind of safety features being feasible for AVs. Battery electric vehicles do not and will not come close to the passenger density of trains. Trains also afford higher comfort (it will probably be a long time before robovans provide washrooms with running water!). By moving between fixed stations, investments in fixed infrastructure can be made with confidence to accommodate the high throughput of people. The routes naturally become direct not because trains stop at every single block, but because travel destinations naturally move close to the stations rather than sprawling out. And because people stepping off a train don't bring a car with them, these areas are intrinsically walkable and pleasant, and don't need to be cris-crossed with high-traffic roads that consume much of the available space. If you ever have a chance to visit Japan or the Netherlands, let me know if you update your ideas about trains.
oblio 2y ago
Did you watch the entire video? His point that once mass adoption happens, the risk is that you won't be able to easily go without them in many places. Ever heard of Dallas, Houston, where you literally can't walk 500m from where you are, because you're meant to drive 3km to get there, instead.
panick21_ 2y ago
> This is just not true, I far prefer to bike next or in front of waymos on shared roadways because they keep proper distance and are predictable. Safe biking is already being done. Instead of having a waymo, having good street design and more people using the roads in things other then cars makes it far more save. If its a low speed road, driving with human on it is pretty save. If its a high speed road, you shouldn't share it with a car anyway. > Possibly true but let's see some evidence. Even if you can't prove its more, its unlikely to be significantly less. And even say 20% less, would still be far to much. Utrecht has a much lower number of car trips compared to Fake London without AVs. So at best, you are still far worse then simply adopting better urban design. > Waiting for a train sucks, people want to go point to point. Waiting in traffic jams sucks as well. People care about what is faster and cheaper. At scale, on aggregate a proper transportation system is more efficient, faster and cheaper overall for society. If people actually had to carry the true cost of their 'point to point system' they wouldn't want it. The US with their amazing 'point to point' system has hilarious amounts of traffic jams and cities with incredibly long commute times. Even while being far less dense, far less efficient and owning car is more expensive then a city wide public transport ticket in a comparably sized city Europe. > Same argument can be made for public transit / trains. It's not a good argument. Same dumb argument people make about induced demand. You want to encourage public transport because, its environmentally friendly, highly space efficient, on aggregate highly cost efficient and leads to urban design that is incredibly for living quality. Encouraging people to use the least efficient means of production is bad, encouraging people to use the most efficient means of transportation is good.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

> they are like benevolent sea turtles, providing a cover of safety for more vulnerable road users. Hopefully they stay that way! But right now they are in their testing phases and the #1 priority of AV companies is to demonstrate their safety and obtain trust and social license to operate. The argument made in the video is somewhat more dystopian, of a future where AVs are entrenched and society becomes dependent on them, and they have secured enough of a foothold to start raising speed limits, removing stoplights, banning non-AVs from roads, etc. It's only one possible future, of course. But it's a common trajectory, where initially a service is introduced very benevolently, and only once it's secured traction do they start to turn the screws. I'm sure we can all think of some examples... > Possibly true but let's see some evidence. The details are in the video; you can watch it if you'd like, and refute its claims with counterarguments. >- By reducing the perceived cost of spending time in traffic, AVs will encourage people to commute longer distances, resulting in more traffic, infrastructure costs, and emissions overall > Same argument can be made for public transit / trains. It's not a good argument. The same is actually true of trains, except that the cost to society is much less, because of how much more efficient trains are. No matter how many people commute by train, you never need ever-widening train-highways to alleviate the traffic jams from too many people riding the train. It's instead a positive feedback loop of increased ridership leading to higher train frequency, increased service quality, better speed, better network connections, and a stronger and more walkable area around and between train stations. It's exactly the opposite of cars, but not because the argument is wrong. It certainly does lead to more suburban development (and lower costs of real housing), but this becomes an upside rather than a downside.

aeternum 2y ago
I don't buy the raising speed limits thing because the tech is actually much easier to regulate and enforce than human drivers. I guess the example is Uber/Lyft, but remember that those went to a vote and the vote passed. And if non-AVs are banned from cities, wouldn't our cities be much more bikeable and safe? How many pedestrians are killed again by human drivers? Trains are not magical, they also suffer from congestion issues, in fact moreso than roadways because they generally cannot pass each other. If a city were pure AVs, you could absolutely have train-size AVs for key arteries/events and still enable much more flexible point-to-point travel. AVs can and will have pooled ridership in the near future.
- mitthrowaway2 2y ago
  Trains can pass each other! I see it happen all the time in Japan. It's easy to enforce speed limits on AVs, but also easy for AV proponents to argue that speed limits are obsolete and unnecessary when cars have millisecond reaction times, a legacy from back when sluggish humans piloted vehicles around. It's hard to say what the future may hold.
  - aeternum 2y ago
    It's crazy that people are so pro-train. Imagine if they were invented now, the idea of building train tracks throughout cities would be laughed at. Trains cannot turn to avoid someone and their stopping distance is awful making them incredibly unsafe unless operated on tracks that completely exclude humans. If trains were an AV they'd never be approved. The only thing they have going for them is passenger density but that is now easily achieved with battery electric vehicles. The smart thing to do is actually pave over existing tracks and allow high-density AVs exclusive use to those thoroughfares. You could achieve much higher utilization and have routes that go more direct since they could exit the thoroughfare to load and unload rather than block it.
    - mitthrowaway2 2y ago
      It's rare that I encounter such a fascinatingly different viewpoint to my own that I'm staggered to consider how it could have been arrived at. Trains don't need to turn to avoid people because their motion is entirely predictable. You can stand one meter away from a passing train with no fear, because you know exactly what its trajectory will be -- it's built into the track under your feet. This is why people are comfortable walking next to trams in crowded areas, whereas they have to give cars a wide berth -- you don't know if they're about to steer into you. For this as well as several other reasons, trains are orders-of-magnitude safer than road vehicles. Especially when weighted by passenger-miles, because then we're comparing the collision frequency of one train against that of hundreds of cars (or even a thousand -- one shinkansen train comfortably carries about 1300 riders). And yes, because the passenger density is so high, noise level is low, and the traffic is so intermittent and predictable, this does allow the construction of both separated-grade tracks (whether elevated or subway), and also protected crossings for at-grade trains. The safety level is so high that people rarely get hit by a train by accident -- more often suicide or crime is involved. And better safety features, like barriers at stations, can go along way to reducing these remaining risks. It's hard to imagine these kind of safety features being feasible for AVs. Battery electric vehicles do not and will not come close to the passenger density of trains. Trains also afford higher comfort (it will probably be a long time before robovans provide washrooms with running water!). By moving between fixed stations, investments in fixed infrastructure can be made with confidence to accommodate the high throughput of people. The routes naturally become direct not because trains stop at every single block, but because travel destinations naturally move close to the stations rather than sprawling out. And because people stepping off a train don't bring a car with them, these areas are intrinsically walkable and pleasant, and don't need to be cris-crossed with high-traffic roads that consume much of the available space. If you ever have a chance to visit Japan or the Netherlands, let me know if you update your ideas about trains.

oblio 2y ago

Did you watch the entire video? His point that once mass adoption happens, the risk is that you won't be able to easily go without them in many places. Ever heard of Dallas, Houston, where you literally can't walk 500m from where you are, because you're meant to drive 3km to get there, instead.

panick21_ 2y ago

> This is just not true, I far prefer to bike next or in front of waymos on shared roadways because they keep proper distance and are predictable. Safe biking is already being done. Instead of having a waymo, having good street design and more people using the roads in things other then cars makes it far more save. If its a low speed road, driving with human on it is pretty save. If its a high speed road, you shouldn't share it with a car anyway. > Possibly true but let's see some evidence. Even if you can't prove its more, its unlikely to be significantly less. And even say 20% less, would still be far to much. Utrecht has a much lower number of car trips compared to Fake London without AVs. So at best, you are still far worse then simply adopting better urban design. > Waiting for a train sucks, people want to go point to point. Waiting in traffic jams sucks as well. People care about what is faster and cheaper. At scale, on aggregate a proper transportation system is more efficient, faster and cheaper overall for society. If people actually had to carry the true cost of their 'point to point system' they wouldn't want it. The US with their amazing 'point to point' system has hilarious amounts of traffic jams and cities with incredibly long commute times. Even while being far less dense, far less efficient and owning car is more expensive then a city wide public transport ticket in a comparably sized city Europe. > Same argument can be made for public transit / trains. It's not a good argument. Same dumb argument people make about induced demand. You want to encourage public transport because, its environmentally friendly, highly space efficient, on aggregate highly cost efficient and leads to urban design that is incredibly for living quality. Encouraging people to use the least efficient means of production is bad, encouraging people to use the most efficient means of transportation is good.