Suffer what? A traffic jam on some day in a major city? That’s a pathetic bar to set for what a city can stomach with what well running autonomous taxis can mean for the future. Massive potential savings in greenhouse emissions, 24/7 on demand and reliable transport, efficient route planning preventing traffic jams, massive reduction in deaths caused by traffic accidents etc.

Right tell that to the people who have crashed and been horribly mutilated or killed from unexpected traffic jams or ambulances or fire trucks that can’t get through because of unexpected traffic.

It’s not like regular traffic where everyone knows this part of the road is jammed up at this specific time range if the cars are just locking up in random areas.

People have been killed for decades by traffic jam negligence. Another freeloader making an entire jam is just pointing out how wrong it is to let dangerous private property have unlimited use of public streets for free.

Fwiw I feel much safer as a biker and pedestrian around Waymo cars compared to typical drivers in San Francisco.

They always yield in a reasonable way to bikers, they are never suddenly swerving to the right without signaling, etc.

> Massive potential savings in greenhouse emissions, 24/7 on demand and reliable transport, efficient route planning preventing traffic jams, massive reduction in deaths caused by traffic accidents etc.

or we could just use a train

Yeah generally relying on massive cultural change to accomplish your policy goals is going to be a loser.

Most people dislike trains and are honestly afraid of them (unreasonably so) in cities.

I remember an essay on that from a transportation guy back during the first hype wave of self driving cars. He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour.

Rail and light rail excel in that. And loading usually doesn't disturb other traffic. Busses are worse but better than private cars. Taxi's are worse than private cars.

He thought self driving cars will be the worst of all. Low passengers per hour, a lot of empty trips, and highly disrupting in high traffic areas.

> He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour.

That's not really a fair metric. Taking rail requires me to take a bus at each end and increases my journey length considerably. I would be boosting the passenger per hour of 3 vehicles despite a worse experience?

I think metrics should capture the full cost and experience of the system. Having someone take transit for an 10% longer journey can be worthwhile, having someone take transit for 300% longer journey to save traffic might not be worthwhile if it reduces their labor output to society considerably.

It's really a planning discussion not a personal one. Planners where I lived chose rail as well as streets and I get reliable transport by rail or the Schroedinger street choice.

It's not about your personal experience Dumbo

Passengers will choose alternative options if it isn’t convenient enough. So yes it is important to take personal experience into account.

Also theoretical throughput is different than the real one. A380’s CASM (cost per available seat mile) is awesome when it can be loaded in full, except that it isn’t usually the case. The program is doomed as the result.

>> He said you can rate transport by the number of passengers you can load per hour.

The key word is transport. This is a rating of a mode of transport not a rating of any specific journey involving one or more modes of transport.

Exactly. Such a metric dismisses the traveller's view. It's a "pat yourself on the back" kind of metric. Reminds me of ... the often misused idea that more traffic lanes don't solve problem because they will soon enough actually be used by people who find a benefit in using them (the horror).

One would hope for metrics that take into account the benefits to the travellers. A cab or similar is used because it brings a benefit to the user. NOT typically for the pleasure of spending more money.

The marginal driver cost is what creates equilibriums in the conventional modes. Either they're scheduled to work a shift, or they're owner-operators. Both create constraints on how many vehicles can be dispatched, the form they have to take to satisfy demand, and the logistics around them(train tracks, parking spaces, automotive supply services, etc.). The large footprint of private auto and taxis lies within these constraints, as does the high-cap status of buses and trains.

The new modes are actually just the cost of the vehicle and support team, which means that the fleet can feasibly operate tiny, light, high frequency vehicles instead of or in addition to huge, consolidated, scheduled ones. You could have a self-driving three-wheeler, a self-driving minibus and so on. Loading can be standardized by policy.

That they aren't doing that right away just reflects the current cost structure and legal framework being weighted towards larger prototypes following conventional modes. But the reason why a robotaxi makes a better taxi is because it isn't a taxi in practice, it's transit. It's centrally planned, it has standardized fleet management.

There are many things to love in the potential of self-driving cabs. Fleets can also be parked in distributed smaller spaces (impractical for cabs or buses - typically). Fleet cars can be idled in place (head to a street with typically available space and just stop there.) And this is even if we never get to privately owned or leased vehicles being used as part of a fleet operation when not wanted by their private owner.

Private cars are far worse because they park uselessly all day, blocking space.