8 ms·

A few reactions: Engineering cultures can be revolutionary even if the core ideas are the revolution. The startup community knows this well as it is repeated

A few reactions: Engineering cultures can be revolutionary even if the core ideas are the revolution. The startup community knows this well as it is repeated ad naseum - ideas are worthless (mostly), and its largely about the execution. Calling a cab from a phone is not new or original. Uber didn't think of it nor did they execute it first or probably even technically best. But their combination of technical execution and business acumen allowed them to raise shit tons of money, aggressive loss lead into users and grow internationally rapidly. And Taxis drivers in France are lighting cars on fire. Engineering itself can be revolutionary. Second, and more pedestrian I suppose - It seems odd in the time of intelligence being move to the cloud, Waze and autonomous cars, to predict that the 101 will be a parking lot and investing in yesteryears mass transit is the right move. It would seem that autonomous fleets will be optimized to move people with less resources including energy, roadways, and vehicles. If anything one could argue that we should be pumping money and engineering into vehicle autonomy as its likely a better long term (something he should be able to get behind) investment than more lanes and asphalt. Sure we need to maintain roadways, but I would rather plan for more efficient and safer transport.

fscherer 11y ago
even if autonomous cars will be cheaper than having your own car, it may still not be affordable for the people who rely on public transportation and which could not afford a car anyway. (for example in my hometown an uber is still about 4 times the price of taking the bus or subway). the problem is that autonomous driving and services like the high class busses will still take a lot of money out of the public transportation system, and if then they need to raise their prices, some people would loose their only means of transportation
- wishpishh 11y ago
  Does that really add up? If the people who rely on public transportation are not the ones who will be able to afford the new services, how would the new services move money out of public transportation? Are you talking about the people who are currently spending their money on public transportation, but could in fact afford to spend it on some other, more luxurious transportation mode if they so chose? If so, isn't it likely that if they still choose public transportation, out of ideological concerns presumably, they will continue to do so in the future? I'm not qualified, but I'm guessing that the money will mainly be moved from private car transportation to these new transportation services.
  - fscherer 11y ago
    I kind of mixed up two arguments. My main argument was that there is definitely a need to invest into "yesteryears" public transport systems, because the new services are not affordable for anybody. and the other argument is that new "high class" bus services take money out of public transportation, which is badly needed there, but as you said, this may not add up to much. (However I could see myself switching from public transport to self driving cars, so they can also be included in this argument) But both arguments go in the same direction - that public transport is definitely necessary and will remain necessary in the future but is often neglected and in a really bad condition.
- netcan 11y ago
  Public transportation is not necessarily all that "cheap," it's often subsidized directly or indirectly. Cars are increasingly taxed (inc. fuel tax). It's hard to legitimately say which is cheaper. Buses don't need their own infrastructure, but they do need roads and these are often funded by various car taxes. Still, they often need subsidies to run. Many also have subsidized rates for poorer people on top of that. Transport is generally expensive. I don't think it can be taken as plain fact that driving cars is the most expensive method, especially outside of dense urban areas. If you gave those same subsidies to poor drivers, many would be able to afford to drive. Excluding taxes, driving a low cost vehicle has a fairly decent cost per-km. A litter of petrol can take you 15-20 km in an efficient, small car. Untaxed, that's <$1. If you travel 500km per month, that's about $30. Add $110 for purchase and repairs (cheap car), $40 for insurance and we are at $170 per month. $5.50 per day. Pretty close to the price of public transport in many European cities, maybe less. This is driving relatively little, but most car owners just consume more transport (travel more/farther) that public transport users. Also, more than one person can ride. It also doesn't take into account for infrastructure costs though, but public transport's purchase price often doesn't' either. I'm not saying cars are better/cheaper, just that it's not a clear win for either mode. Transport is expensive. If you have no money, you can't afford much of it. We subsidize public transport for poor people and could do the same with cars.
  - fscherer 11y ago
    hmm I have not thought about it that way, but don't we subsidise public transport not only to make it affordable but also too use less energy for the same amount of people? Wouldn't fuel consumption per passenger be much higher if we subsidise cars? Also most cities would not have the road-space to replace subways and busses by individual cars

fscherer 11y ago

even if autonomous cars will be cheaper than having your own car, it may still not be affordable for the people who rely on public transportation and which could not afford a car anyway. (for example in my hometown an uber is still about 4 times the price of taking the bus or subway). the problem is that autonomous driving and services like the high class busses will still take a lot of money out of the public transportation system, and if then they need to raise their prices, some people would loose their only means of transportation

wishpishh 11y ago
Does that really add up? If the people who rely on public transportation are not the ones who will be able to afford the new services, how would the new services move money out of public transportation? Are you talking about the people who are currently spending their money on public transportation, but could in fact afford to spend it on some other, more luxurious transportation mode if they so chose? If so, isn't it likely that if they still choose public transportation, out of ideological concerns presumably, they will continue to do so in the future? I'm not qualified, but I'm guessing that the money will mainly be moved from private car transportation to these new transportation services.
- fscherer 11y ago
  I kind of mixed up two arguments. My main argument was that there is definitely a need to invest into "yesteryears" public transport systems, because the new services are not affordable for anybody. and the other argument is that new "high class" bus services take money out of public transportation, which is badly needed there, but as you said, this may not add up to much. (However I could see myself switching from public transport to self driving cars, so they can also be included in this argument) But both arguments go in the same direction - that public transport is definitely necessary and will remain necessary in the future but is often neglected and in a really bad condition.
netcan 11y ago
Public transportation is not necessarily all that "cheap," it's often subsidized directly or indirectly. Cars are increasingly taxed (inc. fuel tax). It's hard to legitimately say which is cheaper. Buses don't need their own infrastructure, but they do need roads and these are often funded by various car taxes. Still, they often need subsidies to run. Many also have subsidized rates for poorer people on top of that. Transport is generally expensive. I don't think it can be taken as plain fact that driving cars is the most expensive method, especially outside of dense urban areas. If you gave those same subsidies to poor drivers, many would be able to afford to drive. Excluding taxes, driving a low cost vehicle has a fairly decent cost per-km. A litter of petrol can take you 15-20 km in an efficient, small car. Untaxed, that's <$1. If you travel 500km per month, that's about $30. Add $110 for purchase and repairs (cheap car), $40 for insurance and we are at $170 per month. $5.50 per day. Pretty close to the price of public transport in many European cities, maybe less. This is driving relatively little, but most car owners just consume more transport (travel more/farther) that public transport users. Also, more than one person can ride. It also doesn't take into account for infrastructure costs though, but public transport's purchase price often doesn't' either. I'm not saying cars are better/cheaper, just that it's not a clear win for either mode. Transport is expensive. If you have no money, you can't afford much of it. We subsidize public transport for poor people and could do the same with cars.
- fscherer 11y ago
  hmm I have not thought about it that way, but don't we subsidise public transport not only to make it affordable but also too use less energy for the same amount of people? Wouldn't fuel consumption per passenger be much higher if we subsidise cars? Also most cities would not have the road-space to replace subways and busses by individual cars