Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ archagon 3 days ago

As an American with extensive time spent in Europe, I’d much, much rather have European-style metros and tramways than self-driving cars.

Waymo (though a technical marvel) is a bandaid over our inability to build and maintain public infrastructure. Be sure to cherish what you’ve got.

▲minwcnt5 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

European cities have lots of taxis. Same with Asian cities. They will obviously have AVs in the future. I'm not sure why you think they should be mutually exclusive with transit.

▲Manuel_D 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Many American cities don't have the population density to make metros and trams economically viable. And those few cities that do have comparable density (New York, Chicago, namely) do have metros.

Public infrastructure has high overhead costs, and low population density means there isn't enough ridership to make it viable.

▲542354234235 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

The problem is when cities treat car infrastructure as absolutely mandatory, and all other transport infrastructure (pedestrian, cycle, bus, tram, train) as optional. When you say that everyone has to be able to get everywhere by car all at the same time, you have to build more roads and parking (at minimum more roads using taxis, self-driving), more roads spread everything farther apart, which means more distance per trip, which means more cars on the road, which means more roads, which means everything is spread farther apart, rinse, repeat.

American cities low density is a direct result of designing for car infrastructure over all else. And car infrastructure is far more expensive than other transportation, and since increased car infrastructure lowers density, it directly makes all other transportation more expensive and less viable.

Since cars are the most dangerous form of transport, for other drives but more so for cycles and pedestrians, it makes it less feasible to use them for your first-last mile. Then you add in that, as the roads grow and distances multiply, speeds are increased to attempt to compensate, multiplying the danger to anyone not in a car.

▲archagon 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Rotterdam — a city with a population of around 650,000 — has both a metro and a tram system. Extraordinary density is not a prerequisite.

And in any case, there's no reason that public transit needs to be self-funded. We don't expect the same of most of our other public services.

▲Manuel_D 3 days ago | parent [-]

Rotterdam has 3,000 people per square kilometer. Contrast that with the San Francisco bay peninsula's ~1,100 people per square kilometer.

This is demonstrating my point about population density and transit.

▲archagon 3 days ago | parent [-]

The peninsula might not be dense, but San Francisco has a density of 7,194/km2 and the transit situation pales in comparison to Rotterdam's.

There are many urban areas in the US with population density of 3,000/km2 or higher that do not have any public transit at all.

▲Manuel_D 3 days ago | parent [-]

People in the thread are asking why people ride Waymo to SFO, which is well outside San Francisco proper. Thus, the whole peninsula's density is what's relevant.

The US does not have many metro areas with population densities above 3,000/km2. And those that do, like Washington D.C, NYC, Boston, Chicago, do have metro systems.

▲rangestransform 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

American public transit construction costs are now ridiculous in terms of both money and political capital. Even somewhere as sprawled as San Jose now requires well over 1b/mi to build a subway under; BART could've acquired an entire autonomous driving company for the cost of the Silicon Valley extension.

▲sagarm 2 days ago | parent [-]

And a new freeway offramp costs $100M. Yet, nobody is bleating about killing and starving Caltrans.

▲dgfitz 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

As an American, I think you’re naive and short-sighted.

You must realize that, at some point, self-driving cars will be ubiquitous. Maybe not for 50 years, but they will be.

What you’re actually saying is “I’m virtue-signaling with Europe because that’s what the cool kids do”

▲archagon 3 days ago | parent [-]

…What? What sort of terminally online strawman would be spending his free time “virtue-signaling with Europe” to some anonymous bozos on a tech forum? What a dull and intellectually uncurious reply.

I think self-driving cars may eventually become common in areas where cars are currently common. I think public transit will continue to dominate in parts of the world where it currently dominates, because it is simply a superior user experience for the majority of people when the government cares to invest in it. (Not to mention far cheaper and more egalitarian.)

I am conveying my lived experience in most European cities I've been to.

▲xnx 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> a superior user experience

A superior user experience is going exactly from where I am to where I want to be safely, quickly, and affordably. Self-driving cars are looking really good for those criteria.

▲archagon 3 days ago | parent [-]

$20+ per ride is affordable? Waiting 10m+ for your ride and slowly sifting through traffic is quick?

In London, Paris, or St. Petersburg, I pay a few bucks to hop on a train that runs every few minutes and rapidly end up across town, roughly in the area I need to be. It's literally the cheapest and fastest way to get from point A to point B, not to mention tested at scale and thoroughly battle-hardened over the course of a century.

Not every city has this privilege, of course, but surface trams are 80% of the way there, especially if they have right-of-way. And they don't make pedestrians' lives a living hell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNTg9EX7MLw

▲xnx 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> $20+ per ride is affordable?

In the US, the unsubsidized price of a ticket is close to this amount.

> Waiting 10m+ for your ride and slowly sifting through traffic is quick?

In my city, it's difficult to pick any 2 points that are faster to get between by public transit vs. taxi.

Every city is different, but trains rarely make sense in the US (outside of NYC).

Right of way is the huge advantage of trains, it would be great if self-driving vehicles could have that same advantage.

▲eldaisfish 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

you're shouting at a wall here. This site is absolutely infested with US techbros who believe that the solution to any problem is zero regulation and more computers.

This is why self-driving cars appeal to this crowd. You and i seem to be from a world where public infrastructure like clean, affordable transit is the goal. This raises the floor for everyone. Many here would rather think solely of their own comfort, which is fine, but despite repeatedly being told that they are short-sighted, they refuse to change.

▲simianwords 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Where did you get $20 figure? Self driving cars are bound to be much cheaper because there is no human needed to drive it.

▲johannes1234321 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The core for a good experience is a good structure.

In many regions of the U.S. people live too far apart, shops and businesses are zoned apart into wide spread business areas. Public transport won't provide a good experience.

In a notable part of European cities people live in denser quarters, where a "third place" is reachable in walking distance, some degree of shipping, doctor visits, work are close by. There public transport can fill the gaps for the remaining trips in an (space) efficient way. Self driving cars however would clog the area.

Adapting US settlement structure to allow public transport won't happen. However a self-driving car can turn the dial for individuals to move out of the urban European area into more rural areas. Question is how big that group is.

▲glitchc 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Try moving a few bags of sod and mulch via public transit. Condescending tone is condescending.

▲archagon 3 days ago | parent [-]

Designing our urban transit around the needs of the mulch-bearing 0.1% seems like a bad idea.

▲glitchc 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

0.1%? You think so? Sorry you're wrong. Suburban population is the largest demographic in North America.

And Home Depot says otherwise. They have reported record profits year over year for the past two decades. Just because you don't use sod in your condo doesn't mean suburbanites don't need it for their homes.

▲dgfitz 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Throwing out bullshit statistics like 0.1% is an ignorant take.

See, it’s super easy to be a jerk.

▲Dylan16807 3 days ago | parent [-]

Saying we shouldn't design around that use case isn't being a jerk.

And the exact number wasn't the point. The percent of consumer vehicles on the road that are carrying a significant payload to/from home is pretty small. Especially areas where transit even halfway makes sense. What's your best estimate?

▲losvedir 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

Where I live, the percent of cars that carry a load that would be unwieldy to manage on public transit at least once per month has to be at least 50% and probably closer to 90%.

From Costco trips to babies to wagons, strollers, wheel chairs, hardware stores, bigger box purchases like a TV, out of town trips to visit friends, pet grooming, airport trips with luggage, it's hard for me to imagine a life without a car.

I know you can just say that I'm a product of my circumstances and culture and you don't need a car for any of that, or there are other ways to accomplish my goals, but I could say the same back to you. And the arrow of time seems to point to people everywhere moving in the direction of wanting personal mobility whether horses, bikes, or cars.

It's not all or nothing, but it seems to make sense to me to build around cars as a first class concern, in addition to other forms of transit. Some places in Europe obviously can't, for historical reasons, but I don't see that as a benefit per se, so much as something to have to work around.

Edit: I should add, I did live car free in Boston for 10 years and loved it and didn't really perceive any shortcomings at the time, and even hated having to buy a car when I moved. But now in my 40s with two young kids and a house and an elderly mother, it's an entirely different situation and I can't see how it would work. I would suggest if you're totally anti-car but only in your 20s or early 30s, your opinion might change as your circumstances do. I also lived for a year without a car in Singapore and that was tolerable in a way that wouldn't have been in most places, since it has some of the best public transit in the world, but even there cars are considered luxuries and it would have made things a little easier.

▲Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent [-]

No no no, not the percentage of cars that sometimes carry a load, the percentage of cars on the road that are currently carrying such a load.

If you do that once a week, then you can use transit the other 90% of the time. If people use transit 90% of the time, then we can build smaller roads and de-prioritize cars. That's the argument here, that transit can dominate in co-existence with self-driving cars, not that we'd need to get rid of cars. And especially in the context of waymo there's no effect of "I'm already paying a ton of money to own and insure a car, I might as well use it every trip".

(And again, this is in moderately dense areas where transit works and you actually care about how many cars are on the road to begin with. And it doesn't have to be 90% in particular.)

▲glitchc a day ago | parent | next [-]

It doesn't work that way. Once a car is obtained, it has fixed costs. My monthly finance payments can't be pro-rated to the days I actually use the car. Ditto for insurance. In many cases, the best deal for insurance is to pay for the year up-front. Bears repeating, a year, up-front. Insurance companies incentivize this. Between those two, that's 80% of the TCO. Fuel and maintenance are actually incidentals based on usage and account for < 20% of annual ownership costs.

Ergo, it's no surprise that people want to use them as often as possible. They want to recoup value from those fixed costs. It's simple economics.

▲Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-]

Did you not read my entire comment? I directly addressed that.

> in the context of waymo there's no effect of "I'm already paying a ton of money to own and insure a car, I might as well use it every trip"

▲dgfitz 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> And again, this is in moderately dense areas where transit works and you actually care about how many cars are on the road to begin with. And it doesn't have to be 90% in particular.

This caveat destroys the rest of your points, as logical as they may seem.

▲Dylan16807 2 days ago | parent [-]

The first caveat or the second one?

Remember the original argument was "I think public transit will continue to dominate in parts of the world where it currently dominates" I'm taking that and strengthening it to a significant expansion of transit, but obviously not everywhere can do transit.

If the lanes on the road can fill up, you have enough traffic to sustain some busses.

In emptier areas that's a pretty different discussion, but importantly you still wouldn't need to design around cars. Slap in a very basic road and it'll handle all the cars fine.

▲glitchc a day ago | parent [-]

If you need an alternative mode to get to public transit, it has already lost the battle. I can walk to my car in 20 seconds. I can carry many items in its trunk, making it worthwhile to make multiple stops on my journey. Public transit is not meeting my use-cases.

▲Dylan16807 a day ago | parent [-]

>If you need an alternative mode to get to public transit

No one was suggesting that.

> I can carry many items in its trunk, making it worthwhile to make multiple stops on my journey. Public transit is not meeting my use-cases.

Well the guy I was talking to was only worried about one or few trips per month, and we only need most people to use transit for the scenario to work.

▲ 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲whiplash451 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

EU’s amazing infrastructure is the Minitel that will prevent it from getting the internet of self-driving.

Subways don’t solve last-mile problems or trucking.

▲archagon 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Good. Cars ruin walkable cities, and the last-mile problem can be solved in other ways.

And it's not just the EU. I'm sure that e.g. China and Japan will continue to invest in their excellent public transit infrastructure even when there are more self-driving cars on the road.

▲astrange 3 days ago | parent [-]

Much of Japan's transit infrastructure is private. There's nothing special about transit that means the government has to own it; being a government, it can regulate things without owning them.

Americans have this idea that transit is for poor people, which translates to "it's not important for transit to make money", which translates to "we need to make it illegal for transit to possibly try to make money", so there aren't even vending machines at the platforms. Whereas in Asia they do profitable land development at the transit stations.

▲glitchc 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Much of Japan's transit infrastructure is private. There's nothing special about transit that means the government has to own it; being a government, it can regulate things without owning them.

Japan's private transit infrastructure is only private in high-very high density environments (inner-city) and subsidized in low-density environments (rural, cross-country). Ultimately private group transit requires population density above a certain threshold to be viable.

▲tonyedgecombe 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

>Subways don’t solve last-mile problems

We don't have a last mile problem, we have legs for that.