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

121–130 of 134 posts

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

#121

Post by tim333 »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #94
quietthrow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bingo! Singapore has solved this extremely effectively. Note that the solution is not just on demand pricing but also having good transportation infrastructure that actually is usable and is a viable alternative. Bay Area has addressed it to some degree but I would not call it solved by any means. They have dynamic pricing which ensure you can pay to go faster during peak times. This is mostly a solution for rich peo…

Singapore also has very expensive car purchase taxes and gas taxes. Yet, taxis in the city state are still incredibly affordable compared to USA prices, which doesn’t bode well for dissuading robo taxies over there. https://www.introducingsingapore.com/taxi#:~:text=With%20som... .

Singapore being Singapore will probably have some sensible way to price the robo taxis

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

#122

Post by taylodl »

mortureb wrote: post #81
xethos wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you've just alienated two groups: environmentalists that realize cars are bad for the environment, and car people that are interested in driving their own unique vehicles. The former you were never going to get, but the latter could concievably have been on your side about getting bad drivers from behind the wheel. You've gone from "People won't have to drive", to "People cannot drive". And the latter will likely…

Probably. I can see the only automated car rule being for freeways only or large urban areas only and it would still make a significant difference. Or maybe the automated vehicles get their own two lanes on the freeway. Many ways to go about this while still being effective.

I'm not interested in providing a public subsidy to Uber. If they want two lanes of the highway dedicated to their vehicles then they can pay for two lanes of the highway dedicated to their vehicles. I expect their road tax to be considerably higher per mile.

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

#123

Post by xethos »

mortureb wrote: post #81
xethos wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you've just alienated two groups: environmentalists that realize cars are bad for the environment, and car people that are interested in driving their own unique vehicles. The former you were never going to get, but the latter could concievably have been on your side about getting bad drivers from behind the wheel. You've gone from "People won't have to drive", to "People cannot drive". And the latter will likely…

Probably. I can see the only automated car rule being for freeways only or large urban areas only and it would still make a significant difference. Or maybe the automated vehicles get their own two lanes on the freeway. Many ways to go about this while still being effective.

> or large urban areas

Please tell me your plan is not to have the cars speed up where all the pedestrians are

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

#124

Post by HDThoreaun »

jprete wrote: post #43
mortureb wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Do you think that people would be on the road _less_ if everyone were using taxis instead of personal cars? If so, why? What's the actual reason why robotaxis reduce the demand, or consumption, of road miles?

The claim here is that even with more cars on the road traffic can be reduced if cars are able to communicate with each other. E.G. all the cars stopped at a red light accelerate at the exact same rate as the light turns green, no more brake checking/rubbernecking causing traffic on highways. I think in the long run this effect will probably exist, whether it overpowers the increased number of road users remains to be seen.

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

#125

Post by HDThoreaun »

taylodl wrote: post #119
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.

Once you've figured out how to make me whole for the cars and motorcycles I've invested in and can no longer use because of a 100% automated driving system then we can talk. If you don't have a solution for that then you can just sit down and STFU.

Large metros are already incredibly punishing on car users. NYC is the king of this in the US. I don't think the residents there give a shit that your old, pre automated communicating driving system no longer works there.

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

#126

Post by shuckles »

acdha wrote: post #109
shuckles wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares what people said? They are obviously wrong because they argued from false premises. Uber succeeded because they made hailing a ride easier. Trying to credit them or blaming them for traffic is insane. Traffic is the consequence of roadway design and allocation, not how the cost of VMT is packaged and sold (by Uber or Toyota).

Uber encouraged this as part of their campaign for legitimacy. Their policy was to ignore local laws trying to expand as quickly as possible and getting the TED types on their side was part of that. > Trying to credit them or blaming them for traffic is insane. I realize you’re a fan but that doesn’t change the fact that having a large number of empty vehicles circling waiting for fares creates more traffic. This com…

I’m not a fan of Uber actually, but I’m also clear headed about the cause of traffic. The data in the study you linked doesn’t show the opposite. It just says about half the VMT of a ride hail is without a passenger. It makes no claims about the total effect on VMT which would benchmark against, eg, time spent parking, substitution effects, etc.

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

#127

Post by HDThoreaun »

MBCook wrote: post #70
mike_d wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Induced demand is the point of road expansions. The government wants more people travelling because it pumps the economy. Never understood this argument since it actually agrees that the government is accomplishing its goal.

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

#128

Post by taylodl »

HDThoreaun wrote: post #125
taylodl wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once you've figured out how to make me whole for the cars and motorcycles I've invested in and can no longer use because of a 100% automated driving system then we can talk. If you don't have a solution for that then you can just sit down and STFU.

Large metros are already incredibly punishing on car users. NYC is the king of this in the US. I don't think the residents there give a shit that your old, pre automated communicating driving system no longer works there.

Large metros have been punishing on car users for decades. However, they have not mandated you can't use your car. They've simply made it very expensive and inconvenient for you to do so.

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

#129

Post by seanmcdirmid »

tim333 wrote: post #121
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore also has very expensive car purchase taxes and gas taxes. Yet, taxis in the city state are still incredibly affordable compared to USA prices, which doesn’t bode well for dissuading robo taxies over there. https://www.introducingsingapore.com/taxi#:~:text=With%20som... .

Singapore being Singapore will probably have some sensible way to price the robo taxis

If the robo taxies aren't cheaper than normal taxies, they simply aren't going to be used. The fact that taxies are so cheap in Singapore already makes me think that robo taxies aren't even needed (is labor really so cheap there?).

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

#130

Post by mike_d »

BurningFrog wrote: post #91
mike_d wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The benefit comes when prices reach the level where traffic flows at full speed. How then does your gardener get his truck to your house? Your DoorDash driver? The elderly woman on a fixed income who needs to get to her doctors appointment? Roads cannot be the domain of the rich. (Also please don't pretend that public transport is even remotely viable in the US)

You assume it will be very expensive. I don't think so, but we'd have to implement it to know the levels. For many errands, people can avoid rush hours, which may not even need road pricing. I'll note that all your "poor" examples own a car.

> I'll note that all your "poor" examples own a car.

This is actually a key point many city dwelling anti-car advocates completely miss. The poor do depend heavily on cars because they are pushed to the outskirts where they can afford housing but still have to commute to the cities where the jobs are. When I lived outside the Bay Area my car cost me less than what some people here spend on their bikes.

Post reply on HN