4 ms·

Are you talking about raw material costs? Or is that one of these extrapolations of if we scale everything to millions of cars and realise no inefficiencies and

Are you talking about raw material costs? Or is that one of these extrapolations of if we scale everything to millions of cars and realise no inefficiencies and nobody making any money in the supply chain?

cyberax 1y ago
I'm talking about the current cost of the self-driving system, that is already produced by companies that charge a significant markup. With volume, it will go down more. I'm not including the base vehicle in the cost. It's highly variable, and can be as low as $10k for small personal intra-city taxis. China has already launched a $30k taxi: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2024/05/14/baidu-launches-new-28000-robotaxi-in-wuhan/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2024/05/14/baidu-... This _completely_ blows any transit out of the competition. Literally nothing can come even close in the end-to-end efficiency.
- cycomanic 1y ago
  Why does it blow away any other public transit? That can't be true because if you put the same self driving tech into a bus, you already am an order of magnitude cheaper per passenger (likely more). Moreover let's assume robotaxis are cornering the market and make all other forms of transport non viable. Why would the public then maintain the roads? So at that point at least costs are suddenly going to explode.
  - cyberax 1y ago
    Sigh. People are WAAAY too accepting of urbanist propaganda. Buses are _barely_ more effective than cars. A regular passenger car with 4 people is more efficient than a city bus. An EV needs 2.5 people (these numbers are for the US). The explanation is simple: 1. Buses have to drive _all_ _the_ _time_, even when there are few passengers. As a result, the average bus load tends to be around 10-20 people. And you can not increase the bus interval to compensate for it because it makes off-rush-hour bus commutes impractical. 2. Buses have INCREDIBLY polluting components: 2-3 drivers for each bus needed to provide the service. They are by far the dirtiest part of the bus. This part can be removed with the self-driving hardware, but... A full self-driving bus also makes no sense. It defeats the main advantage of self-driving: door-to-door transportation. That being said, self-driving mini-buses seating 6-10 people are a good idea for rush hour transit.
    - cycomanic 1y ago
      > Sigh. People are WAAAY too accepting of urbanist propaganda. > Sigh people just like to make statements without evidence to back them up. > Buses are _barely_ more effective than cars. A regular passenger car with 4 people is more efficient than a city bus. An EV needs 2.5 people (these numbers are for the US). > Evidence? Moreover you know that average occupancy rates of cars are around 1.5 [1], for short trips like commuting it's more like 1.1 [1] so that's a factor 2 off from your 2.5. So even if we believe your numbers you have to explain how you're going to increase occupancy rate by a factor of 1.5 to 2 before they become just better (not even blowing out of the water). [1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page029.html https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page029.... Note I could not find numbers on buses, but trains in the above source have occupancy rates of 50%. > The explanation is simple: > > 1. Buses have to drive _all_ _the_ _time_, even when there are few passengers. As a result, the average bus load tends to be around 10-20 people. And you can not increase the bus interval to compensate for it because it makes off-rush-hour bus commutes impractical. > And robotaxis have to drive empty to and from the person they are picking up. > 2. Buses have INCREDIBLY polluting components: 2-3 drivers for each bus needed to provide the service. They are by far the dirtiest part of the bus. This part can be removed with the self-driving hardware, but... > Not sure how we should account for bus drivers, considering that even if they are not working as bus driver the person is still around (also should we include the emissions from all the engineers working on self driving tech at the moment then) . However your statement is also false in most western countries, at least green house gas emissions of private households are dominated by transport (i.e. Cars). > A full self-driving bus also makes no sense. It defeats the main advantage of self-driving: door-to-door transportation. > You're contradicting yourself. If the bus driver is the most polluting part of the bus (according to your statement above), then it would definitely make sense to get rid of them. It would be great if your statement was true and robotaxis are the most efficient thing ever. I'd love to see well laid out evidence for this, but from what I just found your statement is not supported by reality.
    - pja 1y ago
      > Sigh. People are WAAAY too accepting of urbanist propaganda. > > Buses are _barely_ more effective than cars. A regular passenger car with 4 people is more efficient than a city bus. An EV needs 2.5 people (these numbers are for the US). > > The explanation is simple: > > 1. Buses have to drive _all_ _the_ _time_, even when there are few passengers. As a result, the average bus load tends to be around 10-20 people. And you can not increase the bus interval to compensate for it because it makes off-rush-hour bus commutes impractical. > > 2. Buses have INCREDIBLY polluting components: 2-3 drivers for each bus needed to provide the service. They are by far the dirtiest part of the bus. This part can be removed with the self-driving hardware, but... > > A full self-driving bus also makes no sense. It defeats the main advantage of self-driving: door-to-door transportation. Even if you focus only on emissions this completely ignores the cost of congestion, which is huge. Your complaint about self driving buses makes no sense either. If the most polluting part of the bus is the driver then removing the driver makes the bus far, far less polluting. When your arguments don't even make sense on their own terms it suggests that you're making them from an emotional position instead of a rational one. That's ok: if you don't like buses just say so, but be honest about it instead of making spurious arguments.

cyberax 1y ago

I'm talking about the current cost of the self-driving system, that is already produced by companies that charge a significant markup. With volume, it will go down more. I'm not including the base vehicle in the cost. It's highly variable, and can be as low as $10k for small personal intra-city taxis. China has already launched a $30k taxi: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2024/05/14/baidu-launches-new-28000-robotaxi-in-wuhan/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2024/05/14/baidu-... This _completely_ blows any transit out of the competition. Literally nothing can come even close in the end-to-end efficiency.

cycomanic 1y ago
Why does it blow away any other public transit? That can't be true because if you put the same self driving tech into a bus, you already am an order of magnitude cheaper per passenger (likely more). Moreover let's assume robotaxis are cornering the market and make all other forms of transport non viable. Why would the public then maintain the roads? So at that point at least costs are suddenly going to explode.
- cyberax 1y ago
  Sigh. People are WAAAY too accepting of urbanist propaganda. Buses are _barely_ more effective than cars. A regular passenger car with 4 people is more efficient than a city bus. An EV needs 2.5 people (these numbers are for the US). The explanation is simple: 1. Buses have to drive _all_ _the_ _time_, even when there are few passengers. As a result, the average bus load tends to be around 10-20 people. And you can not increase the bus interval to compensate for it because it makes off-rush-hour bus commutes impractical. 2. Buses have INCREDIBLY polluting components: 2-3 drivers for each bus needed to provide the service. They are by far the dirtiest part of the bus. This part can be removed with the self-driving hardware, but... A full self-driving bus also makes no sense. It defeats the main advantage of self-driving: door-to-door transportation. That being said, self-driving mini-buses seating 6-10 people are a good idea for rush hour transit.
  - cycomanic 1y ago
    > Sigh. People are WAAAY too accepting of urbanist propaganda. > Sigh people just like to make statements without evidence to back them up. > Buses are _barely_ more effective than cars. A regular passenger car with 4 people is more efficient than a city bus. An EV needs 2.5 people (these numbers are for the US). > Evidence? Moreover you know that average occupancy rates of cars are around 1.5 [1], for short trips like commuting it's more like 1.1 [1] so that's a factor 2 off from your 2.5. So even if we believe your numbers you have to explain how you're going to increase occupancy rate by a factor of 1.5 to 2 before they become just better (not even blowing out of the water). [1] https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page029.html https://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ENVISSUENo12/page029.... Note I could not find numbers on buses, but trains in the above source have occupancy rates of 50%. > The explanation is simple: > > 1. Buses have to drive _all_ _the_ _time_, even when there are few passengers. As a result, the average bus load tends to be around 10-20 people. And you can not increase the bus interval to compensate for it because it makes off-rush-hour bus commutes impractical. > And robotaxis have to drive empty to and from the person they are picking up. > 2. Buses have INCREDIBLY polluting components: 2-3 drivers for each bus needed to provide the service. They are by far the dirtiest part of the bus. This part can be removed with the self-driving hardware, but... > Not sure how we should account for bus drivers, considering that even if they are not working as bus driver the person is still around (also should we include the emissions from all the engineers working on self driving tech at the moment then) . However your statement is also false in most western countries, at least green house gas emissions of private households are dominated by transport (i.e. Cars). > A full self-driving bus also makes no sense. It defeats the main advantage of self-driving: door-to-door transportation. > You're contradicting yourself. If the bus driver is the most polluting part of the bus (according to your statement above), then it would definitely make sense to get rid of them. It would be great if your statement was true and robotaxis are the most efficient thing ever. I'd love to see well laid out evidence for this, but from what I just found your statement is not supported by reality.
  - pja 1y ago
    > Sigh. People are WAAAY too accepting of urbanist propaganda. > > Buses are _barely_ more effective than cars. A regular passenger car with 4 people is more efficient than a city bus. An EV needs 2.5 people (these numbers are for the US). > > The explanation is simple: > > 1. Buses have to drive _all_ _the_ _time_, even when there are few passengers. As a result, the average bus load tends to be around 10-20 people. And you can not increase the bus interval to compensate for it because it makes off-rush-hour bus commutes impractical. > > 2. Buses have INCREDIBLY polluting components: 2-3 drivers for each bus needed to provide the service. They are by far the dirtiest part of the bus. This part can be removed with the self-driving hardware, but... > > A full self-driving bus also makes no sense. It defeats the main advantage of self-driving: door-to-door transportation. Even if you focus only on emissions this completely ignores the cost of congestion, which is huge. Your complaint about self driving buses makes no sense either. If the most polluting part of the bus is the driver then removing the driver makes the bus far, far less polluting. When your arguments don't even make sense on their own terms it suggests that you're making them from an emotional position instead of a rational one. That's ok: if you don't like buses just say so, but be honest about it instead of making spurious arguments.