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

California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

cpuc.ca.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–424 of 424 posts

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#421

Post by gnicholas »

johnneville wrote: post #361
ra7 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not. SFO, owned by the city of SF and at the behest of city officials, have been notorious in blocking Waymo: https://missionlocal.org/2023/11/waymo-rebuffed-by-sfo-sf-gu...

i've struggled to get an uber for some early morning flights and can see it being easier to waymo to millbrae bart and connect to SFO than waiting a long time or paying insane surge prices for uber

You could also waymo to millbrae and uber to SFO. The price ($5.20) for BART to SFO makes it unattractive, especially since you often have to wait for a while. I've caltrained to millbrae and taken uber to SFO for $12, which is often worth the time tradeoff for me.

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#422

Post by nemonemo »

bugglebeetle wrote: post #105
ra7 wrote: post #2

New Waymo operating area: https://twitter.com/saferroadsorg/status/1763687210447196417

Not surprised they stopped short of Glendale in LA: https://www.latimes.com/socal/glendale-news-press/news/tn-gn...

Is there any underlying reason for the high traffic incident rate from the insurance company? Glendale seemed relatively safe when I was driving there.

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#423

Post by LordDragonfang »

matsemann wrote: post #34
zk wrote: post #14

This is incredible news. In the next 10 years more and more transportation will shift to self driving and save thousands of lives and prevent many more injuries. Already in San Francisco waymo's are and feel much safer than human driven rideshare.

While autonomous driving helps a bit on safety, that's just one of the many issues with the car dependence in our society. It might even expand the issues, if it ends up with less people using public transport and relying on these kinds of things.

It's not an either-or situation, one helps the others.

AVs more or less solve the last-mile problem with public transportation - if you don't live on a transit route, or the one you live near is infrequent, taking it can be infeasible.

But also, it directly helps one of the major pain points of transit logistics - you cannot effectively respond to demand by scaling up/down the size and quantity of busses when you have human drivers that expect to have regular routes and regular hours. In contrast, you can have a whole fleet of electric short/medium/large busses which spend most of their time idling at the charge stations (which reduces maintenance costs) and go in and out of service as the daily traffic demands it, even pre-emptively going to a destination hub during off-peak times to await peak one-way demand (e.g. busses going to loiter downtown at 3/4ish to wait for all the businesspeople going back to the suburbs)

Re: California Approves Waymo Expansion to Los Angeles and SF Peninsula [pdf]

#424

Post by zht »

1024core wrote: post #419
zht wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

someone needs to get the seniors in and out of the cars...

If they can get into the drivers seat and attempt to drive themselves, surely they can get into a car as a passenger?

"The City (SF) has a fleet of transport vehicles that transport Seniors (old folks) around town. It would be much more cost effective to just have a bunch of Waymos available to Seniors."

this is what I meant.

The drivers of the fleet of transport vehicles are helping old folks in and out of the vehicles, which you wouldn't get with a waymo

Post reply on HN