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

61–70 of 134 posts

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

#61

Post by MBCook »

acdha wrote: post #35
MBCook wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wow really?

Oh dang. I was using a Chevy Bolt. Its footprint is basically 13k sq in.

But I messed up the math. It’s not ~9 sq ft (which I rounded up). I lost a zero. It’s 90 sq ft.

I’ll fix my post. Thanks!

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

#62

Post by lobster_roll »

> Cars are more convenient and comfortable

I worry that this perspective alone oversimplifies the issue and doesn't consider that when riding an SF bus today one has to worry about:

- Aggressive passengers

- Stench from smoking / urine / body odor / people bringing in garbage into the bus

- Being on guard in case of theft (can't pull out laptop and catch up on work)

- Falling off seat due to aggressive bus driving

- Sketchy happenings by the bus stop

These aren't mild annoyances as the authors' wording might (unintentionally) imply, but real health and safety risks. More so if one is female or are physically disadvantaged.

I'd love to see this concern being talked about more as part of the conversation.

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

#63

Post by BurningFrog »

mike_d wrote: post #52
ufo wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the parent poster is talking about fees that are proportional to congestion, to disincentivize driving during rush hour.

The Bay Area does this with carpool lanes. The electronic billboard says $12 and you see a nonstop stream of Tesla, BMW, Mercedes, etc. and tech company busses. All it does is force the poor to sit in traffic while some lanes are reserved for people to whom $12 is inconsequential. I fail to see how applying this same logic to an entire road makes it any better.

The benefit comes when prices reach the level where traffic flows at full speed.

This increases the traffic throughput by maybe 5x, which makes the road much more useful.

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

#64

Post by NoZebra120vClip »

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 typically make several runs along their route in both directions, until they need to go back to the barn for refueling, maintenance, or mileage. So any deadheading they need to arrive or return from that route tends to be a fractional part of the mileage they make on that route. Also, the route taken to and from the barn can be a lower-traffic route than that which the bus covers on its scheduled route. It's also a defined endpoint; if we see these robotaxis meandering around town with nowhere to go, except sometimes a random supercharger port, that is not deadheading, that's lollygagging.

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

#65

Post by MBCook »

ars wrote: post #23

People want to move around. This is a fundamental fact. And once they learn how much they can move, they are unwilling to move around less (or slower). This is something all the "get rid of cars" people ignore, and it's why it will never work.

> And once they learn how much they can move, they are unwilling to move around less (or slower)

I think you’d find a ton of people willing to trade their car for public transit if it was a viable option. I’ve never heard of someone who enjoyed having a $733 monthly car payment (the average). Especially not $1200 (a full 15% now!)

There are plenty of people in big cities, even in the US, who are happy without cars.

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

#67

Post by xnx »

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.

> Meanwhile i'm trying to figure out if any city in the us is willing to ban cars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island,_Michigan

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

#68

Post by jprete »

mr_toad wrote: post #56
MBCook wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having a 100% automated driving system will fix traffic. How? If we replace every car driven by an individual with a car driven by machine… you’re left with the same number of cars. Just as much traffic. Still need all the roads. And parking lots unless the cars drive more to avoid parking. Better for the environment? I don’t see it. Every car taken off the road (including EVs!) is less polluting. Less fuel. Less m…

> How? If we replace every car driven by an individual with a car driven by machine If all vehicles - not just cars - were driven by machines and connected to a network then there are many optimisations that they could be doing. For example you could get rid of traffic lights, yielding rules, even lanes. Cars could travel much faster if they didn’t have to worry about reaction times. For example cars could go through…

Those are the kinds of optimizations that work very well in theory and are an absolute nightmare in practice.

You're talking about a system where one kid running into the road could cause a chain collision of dozens of cars that were counting on rushing the intersection at high speed. Or, alternatively, could end up with the kid getting hit at 45 miles an hour, with extremely fatal and destructive results.

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

#69

Post by MBCook »

mr_toad wrote: post #56
MBCook wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Having a 100% automated driving system will fix traffic. How? If we replace every car driven by an individual with a car driven by machine… you’re left with the same number of cars. Just as much traffic. Still need all the roads. And parking lots unless the cars drive more to avoid parking. Better for the environment? I don’t see it. Every car taken off the road (including EVs!) is less polluting. Less fuel. Less m…

> How? If we replace every car driven by an individual with a car driven by machine If all vehicles - not just cars - were driven by machines and connected to a network then there are many optimisations that they could be doing. For example you could get rid of traffic lights, yielding rules, even lanes. Cars could travel much faster if they didn’t have to worry about reaction times. For example cars could go through…

Realistically, I don’t see how anyone could EVER pass a law saying humans can’t drive where other cars can. Americans (I’m one!) seem far too independently minded, in the sense of wanting to be in control themselves.

Even if you could get 90% on board, the other 10% will fight to the death over it.

Which means the benefits of a 100% automated system (which I disagree with BTW), can’t be reached except possibly after a VERY long time when enough anti-robos have changed their minds/died out.

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

#70

Post by MBCook »

mike_d wrote: post #45
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.

This already exists in the form of a gas tax and road use taxes (registration). NIMBYs get in the way of building the lanes that already have demand and funding. Extending it further really just ends up as a restriction on the movements of the poor.

> NIMBYs get in the way of building the lanes that already have demand and funding.

We have decades of experience showing building more lanes just induces more demand and the problem gets worse.

But we keep doing it. Because it sounds like it should work.

Post reply on HN