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

31–40 of 134 posts

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

#31

Post by acdha »

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.

You might want to review all of the hype from when they were getting started. There was a ton of talk about how it’d transform cities not to need parking, which a lot of city leaders liked because it allowed them to suggest cuts to transit and bike funding in favor of something associated with richer people.

It didn’t work, of course, due to the inherent inefficiencies of cars and the challenge such an expensive service has: people don’t want to wait if they’re paying that much but that means you need empty vehicles constantly cruising around. Congestion pricing would help only if it included mileage and then only by making the service even more expensive so people would take the bus or bike instead.

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

#32

Post by MBCook »

alex_young wrote: post #21

Uber Pool was so cheap it increased overall city travel: For every mile of personal driving it removed, it added 2.6 miles of people who otherwise would have taken another mode of transportation. Seems logical. So, why not automate the bus system and automatically introduce routes where demand is? Such a system would ensure that people can quickly get where they are going, not add vehicles to the busy parts of the sy…

Not as profitable or easy to get investors.

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

#34

Post by diogenes4 »

epicureanideal wrote: post #28
MBCook wrote: post #19

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…

I’d rather not ride a bus with potentially mentally unstable, smelly, or violent others, especially without at least one other human guaranteed to be present.

Meanwhile i'm trying to figure out if any city in the us is willing to ban cars. I can't think of any other factor that lowers the quality of life in cities that even comes close to them.

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

#35

Post by acdha »

MBCook wrote: post #24
dv_dt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They’re already doing that. They don’t want to pay for the parking on the robotaxis, or move them further away when not in use, so they just drive in circles taking up space and making traffic worse without even carrying anyone. Who said having 90+ square feet of pavement to haul an average of around one person was a waste? Now we have the tech to average less than one! (Edit: sq ft corrected, was off by 10x)

> Who said having 10+ square feet of pavement to haul an average of around one person was a waste? Now we have the tech to average less than one!

Sadly you left out a zero: even a Toyota Camry is a hundred square feet so you’re probably at 150 when you allow space on the sides and buffer zones.

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

#36

Post by jprete »

mortureb wrote: post #26
MBCook wrote: post #19

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…

Nah what you luddite. You seem more concerned about maintaining artificial jobs and stifling progress to “prevent people getting rich off of it”. Having a 100% automated driving system will fix traffic. It will be better for the environment. It will give us back more time in our day.

No, it actually won't.

There is nothing that a driver would do that an automated taxi would not, because both the driver and the automated taxi are optimizing for their ability to give as many rides as possible for as much money as possible.

The main reason to think their behavior would differ is on the margins where drivers have to go home and sleep and robotaxis do not. But that really makes it likely that a robotaxi service will keep its cars out 24/7 except for maintenance.

The other reason to believe drivers and robotaxis will behave differently is if you think drivers are leaving money on the table, or robotaxis will. And Silicon Valley simply does not leave money on the table. I'd be more ready to believe the drivers do.

There's another other factor here: when you make cars more available and more convenient, people are more likely to take them. So robotaxis will probably increase, not decrease, road usage, if only because they never need to sleep, eat, or go to the bathroom. They will just repeatedly get a fare, drive the fare, and go do whatever they do to be idle. Which, in many cities, is going to be "wander the streets" or "take up parking spots in the city center".

EDIT: I had responded to this without reading the OP article. The article has some good discussion of the kinds of secondary effects that are likely to cause robotaxis to increase road consumption.

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

#37

Post by mortureb »

jprete wrote: post #36
mortureb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah what you luddite. You seem more concerned about maintaining artificial jobs and stifling progress to “prevent people getting rich off of it”. Having a 100% automated driving system will fix traffic. It will be better for the environment. It will give us back more time in our day.

No, it actually won't. There is nothing that a driver would do that an automated taxi would not, because both the driver and the automated taxi are optimizing for their ability to give as many rides as possible for as much money as possible. The main reason to think their behavior would differ is on the margins where drivers have to go home and sleep and robotaxis do not. But that really makes it likely that a robota…

I said all vehicles. If they’re all automated, they can all talk to each other and effect all those changes.

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

#38

Post by toast0 »

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.

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

Yeah, but people don't like it when we have economic downturns or forced migration.

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

#39

Post by dauertewigkeit »

epicureanideal wrote: post #28
MBCook wrote: post #19

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…

I’d rather not ride a bus with potentially mentally unstable, smelly, or violent others, especially without at least one other human guaranteed to be present.

We could have premium exclusive busses. Still a better solution then everyone being carried individually in their own private vehicle. Also think of the networking possibilities!

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

#40

Post by willcipriano »

diogenes4 wrote: post #34
epicureanideal wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d rather not ride a bus with potentially mentally unstable, smelly, or violent others, especially without at least one other human guaranteed to be present.

Meanwhile i'm trying to figure out if any city in the us is willing to ban cars. I can't think of any other factor that lowers the quality of life in cities that even comes close to them.

> can't think of any other factor that lowers the quality of life in cities

Meanwhile I think nothing lowers quailty of life more than living in a city. That said I don't go into them so you guys can do whatever you like.

Post reply on HN