Can't wait until they expand to europe
Does anyone know/have a hunch which European cities are most likely to get these cars first?
Probably cities with good road infrastructure
California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
291–300 of 424 posts
Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
#292Just yesterday, walking in the inner sunset neighborhood of SF, I saw an old lady in a 1980s Volvo come to a 4-way stop. She looked really old, as in probably even 90+. She wasn't sure about the rules of the stop sign: she came to the stop and was hesitating to go. Other cars were waiting for her and some of them started just going through, creating a very dangerous situation. Eventually she mustered the courage to j…
Safer, maybe. cost effective, I don't see it. especially compared to this aforementioned fleet of transport vehicles.
Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
European and Asian nations tend to have perfectly usable mass transit (including developing countries). Sure there are some us cases for cars, but for daily commute its not needed. To add to it mass transit is generally heavuly subsidized that means that less well off people can get to work/school at low costs. It reduces poverty and income inequality.
Mass transit is great when it's available, which means in places of high density, which is why you list Asia and Europe. It's right there in the name. I live in Europe in a village of about 1500 people are there is no usable public transport (2 buses a day). Relative to total area, mass transit is almost nowhere. That's also true for for total road kilometers. I agree with your last sentence, but for those who live o…
>I live in Europe in a village of about 1500 people are there is no usable public transport (2 buses a day).
and how would waymo fix this? Waymo is still a private business and needs to weigh the costs of deploying to a smaller town vs. simply not supporting that range. It's the same issue as government.
Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
> How will waymo help with something like the super bowl? It will commit to the ride and not cancel.
Only if it’s coded that way. And a profit-seeking org may not code it that way if the optimal solution (for them) is canceling and finding more lucrative passengers.
A profit seeking org wouldn't take the ride in the first place instead of repeatedly accepting and cancelling. Or it would simply increase the price because it implicitly knows the value.
Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
#295Fantastic news. I use them all the time in Phoenix. My mom uses them to get to her doctor appointments. I think people underestimate how much of a quality of life improvement these are for people even when compared to Uber/Lyft.
> people underestimate how much of a quality of life improvement these are for people even when compared to Uber/Lyft I do underestimate it. What are quality of life improvements? Seems to be the same thing from a customer perspective. I guess if you are concerned for your safety from the uber driver it is an improvement but it is the only one that comes to mind.
It makes me super anxious when drivers run stop signs, drive in the shoulder, or perform other maneuvers that I'd never perform while driving myself. Knowing I'm in a car with no risk of an accident due to knowingly breaking the law would bring me a great deal of peace.
Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
European and Asian nations tend to have perfectly usable mass transit (including developing countries). Sure there are some us cases for cars, but for daily commute its not needed. To add to it mass transit is generally heavuly subsidized that means that less well off people can get to work/school at low costs. It reduces poverty and income inequality.
Subsidizing public transit to make it affordable is a terrible idea. If you want good public transit with stable funding, you must build it primarily for the middle class. For people who pay more taxes than they receive benefits and who could choose to drive instead. Driving has high fixed costs and low marginal costs. If you have a car anyway, using it for yet another trip is cheap. If you want to make public transi…
>For people who pay more taxes than they receive benefits and who could choose to drive instead.
that doesn't make sense. You just described the issue: they can choose to drive. And many do in the US.
Government subsidizes transport to get more people into the city hubs, which bolsters the economy of business as more people can reach downtown, which gives the town/city more money in taxes. These business have fixed costs so it's not like a rich person is going to be proportionately better to business than a poor person buying the bare necessities.
It makes a lot more sense to target people who are taken out of the economy pool otherwise without such transportation. Especially if we're talking about a large city like LA.
----
and while it's a cliche, it needs to be asked in this context: what even is "middle class" here?
>If you want to make public transit competitive with driving, you must make the fares low enough. That often means paying a substantial fraction of the expenses from taxes.
I argue that such a "low enough bar" for a state like California will never outdo the convenience of a car. You're right in the long term that less cars => lower road maintenance => less road subsidies => more money to go around to other parts of the state. But we're not starting from scratch here.
Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
#297Any reason why Waymo is so much more expensive than alternatives? I went across SF last weekend and Uber/Lyft was around $16. Waymo was $56.
Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
#298Any reason why Waymo is so much more expensive than alternatives? I went across SF last weekend and Uber/Lyft was around $16. Waymo was $56.
they are usually couple of dollars more (for $20 range rides) but I think their demand supply is so skewed that it surges almost all the time it feels like
Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
#299Waymo is absolutely fantastic. I’ve used it two dozen times and it feels really safe and competent.
Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Waymo is public transport Is it? Doesn't "public transit" at least somewhat imply that it's a business that has to operate under the rules of some democratically elected institution? Waymo will ban you, price you differently based on who/where/when you are, etc. I wouldn't expect any of that from "public transit".
Yes, it's public transit. Public doesn't mean "there aren't any rules" it just means public. You can't light barbecues in my local public park, and the bloke who tried to knife a bus driver isn't allowed to ride the public buses here.
>Public transportation service means the operation of a vehicle that provides general or special service to the public on a regular and continuing basis consistent with 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53.
From the FTA. and for those who really want to dive into the law of it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/subtitle-III/chap..., whose own definition is:
>(A) means regular, continuing shared-ride surface transportation services that are open to the general public or open to a segment of the general public defined by age, disability, or low income; and
in a legal sense, Waymo doesn't seem to meet even these high level definitions. So it's likely classified as private transportation unless I'm missing something.