7 ms·

Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilization and providing more ways to walk and cycle that feel and

by dangus 6mo ago

Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilization and providing more ways to walk and cycle that feel and are safe. They’re even bad for drivers as they are more detrimental to traffic than personal car ownership. They take up space on the road even when they aren’t being used to transport anyone. I think we should spend less time worrying about ride share policy and spend more time working on the root cause of the need to drive so often. Achieving this goal is not something that necessitates giving up single family homes, or suburbs, or small towns, or the ability to own a personal car, or anything like that.

azornathogron 6mo ago
Taxis (and Uber etc) also take up space on the road when they only have their driver and no fare paying passenger on board, so I don't see that a Waymo is any worse than that. Both human-driven and robo-driven taxis are financially incentivised to spend as much time as possible carrying fare paying passengers and as little as possible driving empty to pick someone up. Anyway, I agree that walking, cycling, and public transit, are all IMHO preferable to any form of taxi.
SR2Z 6mo ago
Being around a Waymo makes me feel WAY safer than being around a human driver. If more cars were replaced, I would probably bike even more. Seriously, Waymos follow at a respectful distance and overtake me safely. They stop at stop signs. Sometimes they even stop and wait for me to make a decision about which way I'm heading.
- dangus 6mo ago
  It's not "human driver versus waymo driver," it's "car versus no car" or "10 cars versus 2 cars" or "fast cars versus slow cars."
  - SR2Z 6mo ago
    No, it's the human driver vs the Waymo. I'm not going to entertain fantasies where all the cars magically disappear from the road; there's no political will for that and no politician is dumb enough to try. To be perfectly clear, the difference between an empty road and a Waymo is mostly academic if you're on a bike. The Waymo is just that good at respecting space.
    - dangus 6mo ago
      I’m not talking about cars magically disappear from the road, I’m specifically talking about taxis and rideshares versus using another way to get around, which even includes personal car ownership. Studies have shown repeatedly that rideshares lower transit usage and don’t reduce personal car ownership.
      - SR2Z 6mo ago
        Improving transit and allowing Google to blow $100B on making cars drive themselves are not mutually exclusive. In the US, in particular, last mile transportation is mostly done by car. Transit cannot economically serve low-density suburbs. In a city? It depends on price versus convenience. As more and more cars drive themselves, the city can get away with taking back more and more space for transit and cyclists. People should choose mass transit because it's convenient, not because there's no way to call a car.
        dangus 6mo ago
        But the studies say that Google blowing $100B on self driving cars changes human behavior to take less transit which then costs taxpayers money because transit ridership and revenues decrease. This idea that companies have to be allowed to do business however they want is not something we just have to do. We can as citizens and governments say “no, you’re not allowed to run a robot taxi company because it’s overall bad for our city.” Laissez Faire capitalism is an ideological cancer to American society.
alwaysdoit 6mo ago
Personal cars also take up space on the road when they aren't being used. It would be much easier to build physically separated, safe biking lanes and drop off areas if we could use all the space we currently dedicate exclusively to personal vehicle parking on public streets.
- dangus 6mo ago
  Not usually, and not in the same way. They are usually parked in a parking spot or garage. Taxis and Waymos stop in areas that are explicitly marked not to stop or park.
basisword 6mo ago
>> Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilisation and providing more ways to walk and cycle that feel and are safe. This is nonsense. Even in places with great public transport a lot of people own cars because taxi's and Uber's are unreliable or unavailable. Given Waymo should be available at any time of day and not pick + choose rides as randomly a lot of car owners should be able to give them up.
- dangus 6mo ago
  Studies have proven over and over that rideshare/taxi is bad for traffic, reduces transit utilization, and doesn't reduce personal car ownership. Example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z#Sec8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z#Sec8
JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilization Anecdote: I take transit way more in San Francisco with Waymo. Because booking is deterministic (it says 20 minutes, it will be there in 20 minutes, even if it’s a short ride), I can connect with the loose network of city and regional rail systems in a way that was tedious with human drivers. (I lived in New York for 10 years, and eagerly take the subway there.)
- dangus 6mo ago
  Which, again, is a band-aid to bad regional transit connectivity.
  - JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
    > a band-aid to bad regional transit connectivity Maybe. American suburbs are already spread out. It doesn’t make sense to run subways to every corner the way we do in urban centers. Doing last mile with shared transport—versus cars which park idle for most of the day around train stations—makes sense.
    - dangus 6mo ago
      Did I say we should run subways to every corner? Here’s a nice video about how small suburbs and even farms don’t need to involve deep car dependence: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg Meanwhile, Arlington, Texas has over 200,000 people with no bus system. And before you say “oh it’s Europe it’s old” I will point out that the Netherlands had a huge car dependency problem in the mid-century and deliberately moved away from it during/after the oil crisis. You can see multiple single family home developments that would be right at home in a US suburb in this video. The author even reaches a rural farm without a car. What about if American transit authorities just did basic stuff like work together and perform actual regional planning rather than working in silos and having conflicts with each other? For example, there’s zero reason why NJ transit should be a different agency than NYC’s transit authority. They should be the same agency that works toward a comprehensive regional transit system focused on the metropolitan area rather than arbitrary state borders. Instead, they’re forced to do things like sell $100 World Cup train tickets because they haven’t been empowered to reap the rewards of the economic development they enable.

by dangus 6mo ago

azornathogron 6mo ago

Taxis (and Uber etc) also take up space on the road when they only have their driver and no fare paying passenger on board, so I don't see that a Waymo is any worse than that. Both human-driven and robo-driven taxis are financially incentivised to spend as much time as possible carrying fare paying passengers and as little as possible driving empty to pick someone up. Anyway, I agree that walking, cycling, and public transit, are all IMHO preferable to any form of taxi.

SR2Z 6mo ago

Being around a Waymo makes me feel WAY safer than being around a human driver. If more cars were replaced, I would probably bike even more. Seriously, Waymos follow at a respectful distance and overtake me safely. They stop at stop signs. Sometimes they even stop and wait for me to make a decision about which way I'm heading.

dangus 6mo ago
It's not "human driver versus waymo driver," it's "car versus no car" or "10 cars versus 2 cars" or "fast cars versus slow cars."
- SR2Z 6mo ago
  No, it's the human driver vs the Waymo. I'm not going to entertain fantasies where all the cars magically disappear from the road; there's no political will for that and no politician is dumb enough to try. To be perfectly clear, the difference between an empty road and a Waymo is mostly academic if you're on a bike. The Waymo is just that good at respecting space.
  - dangus 6mo ago
    I’m not talking about cars magically disappear from the road, I’m specifically talking about taxis and rideshares versus using another way to get around, which even includes personal car ownership. Studies have shown repeatedly that rideshares lower transit usage and don’t reduce personal car ownership.
    - SR2Z 6mo ago
      Improving transit and allowing Google to blow $100B on making cars drive themselves are not mutually exclusive. In the US, in particular, last mile transportation is mostly done by car. Transit cannot economically serve low-density suburbs. In a city? It depends on price versus convenience. As more and more cars drive themselves, the city can get away with taking back more and more space for transit and cyclists. People should choose mass transit because it's convenient, not because there's no way to call a car.
      - dangus 6mo ago
        But the studies say that Google blowing $100B on self driving cars changes human behavior to take less transit which then costs taxpayers money because transit ridership and revenues decrease. This idea that companies have to be allowed to do business however they want is not something we just have to do. We can as citizens and governments say “no, you’re not allowed to run a robot taxi company because it’s overall bad for our city.” Laissez Faire capitalism is an ideological cancer to American society.

alwaysdoit 6mo ago

Personal cars also take up space on the road when they aren't being used. It would be much easier to build physically separated, safe biking lanes and drop off areas if we could use all the space we currently dedicate exclusively to personal vehicle parking on public streets.

dangus 6mo ago
Not usually, and not in the same way. They are usually parked in a parking spot or garage. Taxis and Waymos stop in areas that are explicitly marked not to stop or park.

basisword 6mo ago

>> Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilisation and providing more ways to walk and cycle that feel and are safe. This is nonsense. Even in places with great public transport a lot of people own cars because taxi's and Uber's are unreliable or unavailable. Given Waymo should be available at any time of day and not pick + choose rides as randomly a lot of car owners should be able to give them up.

dangus 6mo ago
Studies have proven over and over that rideshare/taxi is bad for traffic, reduces transit utilization, and doesn't reduce personal car ownership. Example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z#Sec8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-020-00678-z#Sec8

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago

> Waymo and other taxi services are inherently bad for cyclists compared to increasing transit utilization Anecdote: I take transit way more in San Francisco with Waymo. Because booking is deterministic (it says 20 minutes, it will be there in 20 minutes, even if it’s a short ride), I can connect with the loose network of city and regional rail systems in a way that was tedious with human drivers. (I lived in New York for 10 years, and eagerly take the subway there.)

dangus 6mo ago
Which, again, is a band-aid to bad regional transit connectivity.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > a band-aid to bad regional transit connectivity Maybe. American suburbs are already spread out. It doesn’t make sense to run subways to every corner the way we do in urban centers. Doing last mile with shared transport—versus cars which park idle for most of the day around train stations—makes sense.
  - dangus 6mo ago
    Did I say we should run subways to every corner? Here’s a nice video about how small suburbs and even farms don’t need to involve deep car dependence: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg https://youtube.com/watch?v=ztpcWUqVpIg Meanwhile, Arlington, Texas has over 200,000 people with no bus system. And before you say “oh it’s Europe it’s old” I will point out that the Netherlands had a huge car dependency problem in the mid-century and deliberately moved away from it during/after the oil crisis. You can see multiple single family home developments that would be right at home in a US suburb in this video. The author even reaches a rural farm without a car. What about if American transit authorities just did basic stuff like work together and perform actual regional planning rather than working in silos and having conflicts with each other? For example, there’s zero reason why NJ transit should be a different agency than NYC’s transit authority. They should be the same agency that works toward a comprehensive regional transit system focused on the metropolitan area rather than arbitrary state borders. Instead, they’re forced to do things like sell $100 World Cup train tickets because they haven’t been empowered to reap the rewards of the economic development they enable.