←back to thread

597 points achristmascarl | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Night_Thastus ◴[] No.44987324[source]
I'm cautiously optimistic about this self-driving thing. Waymo at least seems to have figured out a lot of it.

Would it be way better to make walkable neighborhoods, mixed-use developments, and reliable and frequent public transit?

Yes. Yes it would.

But, in lieu of that, self-driving has a lot of advantages in the long run, even if the technology isn't 100% perfect right now.

replies(3): >>44987428 #>>44987467 #>>44988121 #
xnx ◴[] No.44987428[source]
In most respects, Waymo is the modern version of reliable and frequent public transit, with a lot of additional benefits.
replies(2): >>44987486 #>>44987634 #
1. mritterhoff ◴[] No.44987486[source]
Not in terms of throughput though. Buses and trains still have em beat.
replies(2): >>44988714 #>>44989594 #
2. xnx ◴[] No.44988714[source]
This is true for intersection throughput, but I bet full travel throughput (walking to the bus, waiting for the bus/train, walking to your destination) is the same or better with Waymo.
3. standardUser ◴[] No.44989594[source]
In rural places, not only are there no buses or trains, there's hardly any taxis. Maybe during the day if you wait an hour or two, but you're not getting home at night without your own car.

A couple robot taxis roaming around every rural country in the US comprehensively solves this problem.

replies(1): >>44998896 #
4. mritterhoff ◴[] No.44998896[source]
Agree. Though I imagine the cost to run robot taxis in low density areas would be much higher than in high density areas, as there'd be a higher distance between rides, and so more wasted time and gas. I suspect that would slow adoption.

Also if we dream big here, I wonder how robot buses would work in low density areas, maybe with dynamic routes and pricing?