Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

sfchronicle.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 134 posts

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#11

Post by [deleted] »

fragmede wrote: post #4
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

One word: deadheading. Any time you share a vehicle in time but not in space (only one rider per trip) you've increased congestion due to the trip out to fetch the person. Net loss every time.

If we define deadheading as any segment on a route a transit vehicle is empty (which is at odds with the definition for deadheading from my flight attendant friends, and my friends who are fans of the greatful dead), and eliminate that, a lot of bus lines are going to become very short, especially late at night.

[deleted]

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#12

Post by 3np »

fragmede wrote: post #4
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

One word: deadheading. Any time you share a vehicle in time but not in space (only one rider per trip) you've increased congestion due to the trip out to fetch the person. Net loss every time.

If we define deadheading as any segment on a route a transit vehicle is empty (which is at odds with the definition for deadheading from my flight attendant friends, and my friends who are fans of the greatful dead), and eliminate that, a lot of bus lines are going to become very short, especially late at night.

Buses take more passengers and can still be a net-win by reducing taxi traffic (besides secondary reduction in congestions due to less accidents from intoxicated and tired drivers).

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#13

Post by dv_dt »

shuckles wrote: post #10

Uber was supposed to make hailing a vehicle easier. It succeeded at that. Congestion is a matter for traffic engineers and congestion pricing.

I guess if fossil fuel companies can do it with CO2 why not Uber and congestion, sure just sign all us up to pay for the externalities.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#14

Post by BurningFrog »

The solution for too much traffic is well known and independent of robotaxis.

"Road Pricing" means that vehicles pay for driving on congested roads. The price is set so that road supply and demand match, and traffic flows optimally. It also gives the road owner an income for providing important roads.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#15

Post by brutusborn »

BurningFrog wrote: post #14

The solution for too much traffic is well known and independent of robotaxis. "Road Pricing" means that vehicles pay for driving on congested roads. The price is set so that road supply and demand match, and traffic flows optimally. It also gives the road owner an income for providing important roads.

Do you know of any good implementations of this system?

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#16

Post by hotnfresh »

shuckles wrote: post #10

Uber was supposed to make hailing a vehicle easier. It succeeded at that. Congestion is a matter for traffic engineers and congestion pricing.

The original ride-sharing concept that they claimed was The Thing they were doing definitely had congestion-reduction as an expected benefit, if not the main point.

Whether accidentally or on purpose, they turned into a jitney cab company instead, which does not provide that benefit.

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#17

Post by loandbehold »

brutusborn wrote: post #15
BurningFrog wrote: post #14

The solution for too much traffic is well known and independent of robotaxis. "Road Pricing" means that vehicles pay for driving on congested roads. The price is set so that road supply and demand match, and traffic flows optimally. It also gives the road owner an income for providing important roads.

Do you know of any good implementations of this system?

Singapore?

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#18

Post by brutusborn »

nytesky wrote: post #5

Wasn’t the point of taxi medallions to limit traffic in the first place?

I think the point was artificial scarcity to increase local government revenues and to gain political support from taxi unions which are often very powerful.

If the true purpose was to limit traffic, why would it be limited to taxis?

Re: Uber was supposed to help traffic. It didn’t. Robotaxis will be even worse

#19

Post by MBCook »

It’s almost as if robotaxis are solving the problem in a way that they can make money off of, not trying to be an actual solution.

Why would investors do that?

Oh right.

Robotaxis are just an attempt to do Uber without having to pay drivers. They’re not an attempt at fixing congestion. Or safety (though I’m sure they claim it). Or bad public transit.

They’re aiming for the local maxima. “Fix” taxis/Uber as they exist today and make money doing it.

Similar technology could make self driving busses to provide more/adaptive routes.

Nah.

Post reply on HN