Technology

59589 readers

2891 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Waymo Plans Massive Robotaxi Service Area, But Not Massive Enough (www.forbes.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Wanderer@lemm.ee to c/technology@lemmy.world

16 comments fedilink hide all child comments

"Waymo has filed a request to the California Public Utilities Commission to expand robotaxi service in the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles region. In the SFBA, it grows from just San Francisco to the whole peninsula, all the way to Sunnyvale but not including Marin, the East Bay and Santa Clara/Cupertino/San Jose. The LA area includes everything north and west of Compton, but not the San Fernando valley."

This is massive I'm not really sure what the writer is on about with the title.

Waymo have been in the background making slow and steady progress for years. So much so most people probably don't even know the extend of their self driving (without a human behind the wheel) developments.

This could be the beginning of the big push to actual serious market infiltration.

While walking, cycling, electric mobility, and trains are a must for a healthy city they do run into problems. Mainly the last mile problem and unexpected journeys, self driving cars will make a huge impact on the health of cities, traffic and ease of getting around.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] pedz@lemmy.ca 23 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (6 children)

God forbid we have public transit instead of fucking cars everywhere. There's no need for buses or trains when we can spend huge amounts of energy to autonomously move two tons of metal for each and every individual that exists.

Humanity is not running to ruin. It's taking a car.

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Yes.

But I also see this being more like a mini bus situation. 10 people to a car instead of 1.

If that then frees up traffic there is a lane for rail, that rail is easier to access from a larger area, would require no parking or planned transport at the destination.

Quite bluntly American cities are terrible, the big ones need more rail even NYC. Lots of places in Europe are identical. But this could be the shot in the arm that urban planners need, the change in politics and the landscape that could allow them to say "same proposal as last year. Can we build a train? ... did you just say yes? You fucking with me? Can we really build a much needed train here? ... Oh thank Christ"

[–] pedz@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I'd be curious to see any numbers on that. Uber and Lyft played the card of "but it's car sharing and thus reducing trafic" but in the end, it doesn't really change much, and sometimes even increase trafic.

https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/uber-lyft-traffic-congestion-car-ownership-study/

As someone that doesn't have a licence, never have driven a car and avoids them if possible, taxis (autonomous or not) are generally useless to me. They are still cars and they keep people dependent on cars.

In a city, people shouldn't need a taxi (read, a car) to get around. In urban areas, people can walk, bike or use public transit. And if you want to go from one city to another, one shouldn't also need a taxi (car) to get there.

I'm aware that this is kind of "utopist" and requires efforts to change things but, if the solution to wanting less cars is "cars but shared!", this is not a solution. It's just proof of failed policies. It will not encourage any change, just stagnation. Things will stay based on cars.... but autonomous... and electric (oh so green)! Oh and also, now big tech knows exactly where you're going, and when.

EDIT: And if robotaxis would be "part of the solution" for the last mile, why wouldn't a normal taxi already fulfil that role? We don't have enough? So we'd need more vehicles on the road, But autonomous? Why do they need to be autonomous? How come is the last mile such a huge problem for most people? Is walking or cycling a mile that difficult for most people? Is everyone carrying a 42" TV around?

[–] Wanderer@lemm.ee 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Absolutely agree.

The main issue with this is public opinion, well that and laws and cost. I just believe, based no available data admittedly that self driving cars will help to change people's minds about stuff. Like if it's a lot cheaper than owning your own car, which people say it should be. I can see a lot of people say getting a car to a depot and then getting a bus. Public transport will increase and more people will see demand for bus lanes or trains if the demand is there.

Thinks like minimum parking in US could change, that could give enough of a density boost to have a sort of double effect. Like if there is less parking and suddenly you can walk from one shop to another you might. Then if you start doing that you are going to choose the shops that are double story and even closer together.

I think taxis are just too expensive. I had an on demand bus service trial by me and it was awesome. I could take it to town if I was going there or take it to town and get the train to the next city. But when that wasn't there I would never get a taxi into town, I also hate taxis and my city doesn't have uber.

For me self driving cars would be enough to get rid of my car back home and I might anyway but self driving cars would be enough.

My home city isn't big enough for great public transport and the roads are too narrow for bus lanes so you get stuck in traffic anyway. If you want to go the next two cities over I can go into town and get the train but its faster to drive and both times I worked in those cities I worked on the outskirts, one didn't have a bus link, the other was much much faster to drive.

University I took the bus for 1 year then the other I had a bike. That was awesome and I would love to do it again. The main think stopping me cycling is I don't want to share the road with crazy human drivers that wish you was dead. That changes I will cycle more. Either with designated lanes or with no human drivers.

Another city I lived in I was on the outskirts and drove to the outskirts of a nearby city, on a warm day I walked it once but it took 45 mins I think. If I took public transport I would have had to go into town, between towns and then back out again. Would have taken forever. Getting into town I could walk to station (or drive there actually) and get the train in. If I was drunk I'd have to get a taxi as the trains stopped running so that was kinda nice.

Also for some stupid reason in my country it is much cheaper to drive than to take the train between cities, the speed and frequency is pretty good. But 1 person to drive being cheaper than a train is crazy. 4 people you'd be crazy to take the train. I love trains and only ever take them one city over.

Lived in Sydney actually too the bus and train everywhere was super easy and quick and cheap. Since then I believe every big city has no excuse to not have a system as least as good as Sydney. (Trains lines were pretty shit actually. One line on the north side and that was more like the west side.).

I actually despise driving but I can't get away from the car. The biggest issue for me might be getting groceries.

load more comments (3 replies)