We're far from them doing it, but I have to imagine at some point Waymo, assuming they survive, will operate similar to Uber and Lyft in terms of pricing vs vehicle type. They have to realize how critical consistency-of-ride is so I'm not suggesting they'll have tons of options, but they will "have to" tier their offering lest someone else comes along (assuming the tech becomes more widespread) and offers a tier they don't offer. At the least I would think they'll end up with a base ride (like an Ioniq or even something extremely basic), an Ioniq or Ioniq+ type in the middle and then some kind of larger, more luxurious option. I mean this as it relates to rideshare because I'm sure Waymo has had plenty of internal conversations about the various verticals they can eventually operate (shipping, mass transit, etc.).

There's a larger Ioniq 9. But the real future is probably a 2-seater with no steering wheel. That handles most usage.

That's actually a really interesting question. Because it's not necessarily about handling most usage, but also about handling peak usage. Is it worth the cost to keep everything 4-seater if that means they can all enter "carpool mode" whenever required at times of peak demand?

Because once they become ubiquitous, I suspect the vast majority will be operating in carpool mode at rush hour. Most people won't be willing to pay 4x to get a private vehicle if they're by themselves. Especially since the more vehicles there are, the more efficient carpool mode becomes for everyone.

My impression is that the shared ride options on Lyft/Uber only give a small discount and see little usage. Sharing rides is only more difficult and less attractive for Waymo users, who won't have a third party to buffer interactions.

The price depends on a lot of factors. And there are many factors that can turn it into a large discount. And the larger the fleet is, the less difficult it becomes.

Of course it's less attractive at the same price, but if it's cheaper enough it becomes more attractive for the average rider. And we can even imagine cities implementing single rider surcharges at rush hour to keep traffic running smoothly.

Rush hour will be a bottleneck. So something has to be done, and it will involve trading off price and convenience. Whether it's carpool mode or self-driving buses or likely a combination of the two.

That's really interesting because I hadn't actually thought about that in-depth before. I think Tesla's robotaxi prototype was even a 2-seater. My knee-jerk reaction to your comment was "no, 2 seater won't happen because the incremental cost of the additional seats and doors is immaterial to the overall cost of the car."

But then thinking more about it I thought of how great we (all the people who like Waymo) think it performs around bikes and pedestrians. So now I agree with you directionally but you might not be taking it far enough. Once (if?) autonomous vehicles rule the road, and they're known to be safe, the future will likely be the broad spectrum from autonomous buses (on the large side) to super-cheap, bike-like vehicles (on the small side) that cost way less than a car. For a single occupant, if you knew another vehicle wasn't going to kill you, wouldn't you take an e-bike (with a cover and basket on it?) for short trips if the fee was proportionate to the cost of the vehicle? I would. Assumes lidar shrinks I guess and that automated kickstands are a thing, but that seems tractable in the years to come.

Bike share programs already exist and are pretty popular in NYC. Self driving doesn't really seem necessary at that scale.

Can you expand on that? Why is it that a vehicle being bigger vs smaller is the distinction? I’m one person but I care about some combo of money/time/distance/comfort. If I could get a cheaper ride from say Houston up to the park rather than having to drive it myself the value prop to me is the same—I don’t have to drive. Heck if the seat on the bike was comfortable enough like a laid-back sport seat in a car I might choose the bike at the same price point because it would be more fun (again this assumes I “know” it’s safe).

Sounds like you might enjoy a recumbent bicycle.

For a "bike" to balance you need a certain level of physical/mental engagement. How much value are you really getting from the self driving aspect, even if it were feasible, at that point?

At some point smart-car esque self driving vehicles will likely be possible, but self-driving unenclosed two wheelers? Pointless IMO.

Yeah, you're right, uncle. How about some kind of conveyance that just costs a lot less than a conventional US car? Rhetorical. Not expecting a reply to that.

I don't understand the hostility.

A bike already fits your requirements, self driving would just make it more expensive.

If you want something enclosed, NYC has self-driving (from your perspective) trains and busses.

If you want enclosed and not-shared, I guess you just want a smaller car? Losing wheels wouldn't make it cheaper, IMO, because that makes a bunch of stuff more complicated.

I figure the real future will be 2-3x 2-seater separate soundproof bubble domes per car.

This makes lots of sense to me. A 2-seater is often a hard sell for a private owner (even one with no kids), but I'd bet the majority (or at least a plurality) of taxi/ride-share trips are for one or two people.

Or a 4-seater with two rear facing seats. The design space gets bigger quickly once you no longer have to account for a driver and their field of vision, especially if the cars usually travel at city speeds where aerodynamics don't matter as much.

It's not critical if you will still pay for shit service especially if competitors are like that too.

$23.66/hour in Savannah, GA in 2025 is a starvation wage. Savannah has a bad housing squeeze with very few apartments and they still cost nearly $2K/mo when you find them. God bless those poor souls.

Savannah's COL is 22% below the national average. $23.66/hr starting pay plus benefits definitely isn't a "starvation wage".

> In Chatham County, the living wage per hour necessary for one adult with no children is $22.46 while those with one kid is $35.70, two kids is $43.45, and three kids is $56.93.

https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2024/12/09/what-is-a-...

So that's fine then? A family of four with both parents working at $23.66/hr each is $3.87/hr above that level.

Unless you're saying "starvation wage" and "living wage" are the same thing, which I don't think is a reasonable characterization.

Only problem is if they decide to have a third kid, or if you have a single parent with one or more kids. And while I get that unforeseen things happen to people that lower their wages after they already have their kids, I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.

> I'm also tired of people becoming parents without considering the financial aspects ahead of time. If you're making minimum wage and are barely surviving, don't have kids until you're on steadier ground.

Young is abolutely the best age to have kids. Ask biology.

If you want a society (I do) then you want a society that supports people having children.

If you want a healthy society (I do) then you want a society that supports people having children at a young age.

I’ve been thinking about how modern family structures seem increasingly misaligned with what our biology and history may have prepared us for. It seems likely that nature "intended" families to be multigenerational, larger clan-like units linked by shared responsibility, proximity, and care.

Modern norms have instead left many parents effectively on their own, juggling full-time work with full-time childcare. If multigenerational living were normalized, the retired could help raise the kids while the working adults focus on providing. That setup allows for more quality time rather than burnout.

This isn’t anecdotal. I didn’t grow up in a household like that. But the research supports it:

1. Older adults living with younger generations experience less loneliness, better mental health, and even longer lifespans. 2. Multigenerational households are more financially resilient, less likely to live in poverty, and able to share housing, food, and caregiving costs. 3. Children benefit cognitively and emotionally from regular grandparent involvement. 4. Multigenerational setups enable parents to stay in the workforce while providing more consistent and affordable childcare. 5. Families in these homes report stronger relationships and better intergenerational understanding.

Of course there are challenges. Privacy, space, and generational conflict are real. But with today's social isolation, rising living costs, and aging demographics, we might want to normalize this kind of household again.

Maybe the future isn't just smarter cities or more automation, but rethinking how we live together.

---

*Sources:*

1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9876343/ 2. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/03/24/the-inc... 3. https://academic.oup.com/psychsocgerontology/article/75/6/12... 4. https://www.gu.org/app/uploads/2021/03/FamilyMatters2021.pdf 5. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db255.pdf

"Modern norms" often just means individuals being myopic jackasses.

I guess? The town my parents settled in was doing well when they moved there. 15 years later when I was born, it and all the surrounding towns were clearly in decline. Today, friends that have stuck around say it’s not safe to walk around because of the meth.

They also didn’t have jobs for programmers, so I moved to where they did.

> Today, friends that have stuck around say it’s not safe to walk around

Which neighbourhood is it?

Small town in the midwest

Or you could just have really good public childcare and after/before school programs for kids up to 10 years.

Speaking from experience, both are necessary. Public childcare and afterschool programs aren't a replacement for quality time with grandparents. They also don't cover weekends or evenings like grandparents can do.

While I agree, you've gone way off topic now, though. Because supporting them would be... something like a job that pays $23.66 per hour.

We have plenty of people in the world. We'd be a whole lot better off if more people waited until they're financially stable before having children.

There are some child care costs for two working adults, so the calculator wants about 15% more money in that case, but yes it says that wage is roughly enough for two adults and two children.

"Living wage" in that report isn't "starvation wage", though. For the housing component for instance, they use 40 percentile rents. The methodology page isn't too clear about how they determine the next highest cost component (transportation), but it looks like they also use the median cost for used cars. The "living wage" might not correspond to a luxurious experience, but it's nowhere near destitute, either.

It's literally called a "living" wage, and I guarantee you in reality it's nothing more than that, if even. Life tends to always have unexpected costs. I shouldn't need to tell anybody that, including you.

>It's literally called a "living" wage, and I guarantee you in reality it's nothing more than that

Did you read the methodology page or even my comment? I made specific objections with the methodology and you didn't even address them.

>Life tends to always have unexpected costs. I shouldn't need to tell anybody that, including you.

I shouldn't have to tell you that if you read the methodology page, you'd see there's a specific category for "Other necessities" and "Civic engagement" (whatever that means), and I'm not objecting to those categories.

> it's nothing more than that, if even

How do you characterize the poverty line, since it's much much lower?

The entire point of the term "living wage" is that it's fine. Yes including the ability to save up for unexpected costs.

Indeed. The independently calculated Living Wage in my country (as opposed to the government's "Living Wage" which is just a minimum wage law with better branding) is actually very slightly higher than my average annual expenditure when I last checked.

Most people wouldn't want to live like me (I don't drink, I don't holiday abroad, I don't have kids, or expensive hobbies), but I prefer this. Also, some of the discrepancy is explained by the annoying "Being poor is expensive" where I can make choices that are cheaper over the long term but would be ruinously expensive for a poor person.

So the entry level job at the factory is a living wage for the area it's in. Sounds like that's what people have been asking for?

Most factory workers are non-exempt employees and are eligible for overtime pay.

And the Hyundai Metaplant is not in Savannah itself.

The living wage says its right on the edge for the savannah area.

> In Chatham County, the living wage per hour necessary for one adult with no children is $22.46

https://www.savannahnow.com/story/news/2024/12/09/what-is-a-...

>Waymos will get cheaper to make as they scale up.

Meaning their profits will rise as they inevitably increase prices

There is plenty of competition coming to hold prices down.

Minority view here I'm sure but maybe profits are a just reward for inventing the future - this is literally science fiction come to life

Facebook was once inventing the future, too

Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit. These vehicles clearly have utility beyond just public transit, but I'd rather they be an edge case rather than considered a main solution. So yeah, from my perspective the problem is being focused on profits instead of trying to solve the real problem with solutions that have already existed for decades.

If you zoom out a bit, your argument would be more-or-less the same when regular automobiles were replacing the functioning transit systems in the USA, specifically in LA.

I've never really understood this "improve public transit instead of autonomous vehicles" argument. They're two entirely distinct funding sources. Nothing is preventing us from improving public transit except the same things that always have.

It's an argument that we should fund public transit more. What's hard to understand?

Obviously funding public transit is good, but people usually phrase funding arguments as zero sum tradeoffs. You wouldn't write "bookstores are cool, but I'd rather have public transit", because there's no trade-off there. I'm assuming the OP actually meant something by writing their post the way they did.

People funding autonomous driving will obviously lobby against increased funding for public transit and they will also fund demonizing public transit.

Look at Musk and Vegas. The vast majority of mass transportation in Vegas should be handled by actual public transit, most likely high speed rail from LA and light rail along the Strip to downtown Vegas and a few other places.

Instead Vegas has a silly monorail, a few buses that don't even get dedicated bus lanes on 8+ lane stroads and something stupid like, dunno, 20 daily flights from LA. Plus Musk setting up tunnels or hyperloops or other stupidities.

Musk doesn't need autonomous vehicles to derail public transit. Hyperloop predated FSD, to use your example. Moreover, the objection applies equally to taxis and Uber/Lyft.

It's also not an actionable objection. Let's say we go and ban autonomous vehicles. Why wouldn't the same billionaires simply continue lobbying against public transit improvements and for the repeal of the ban? They have the money to do both.

We haven't failed to invest sufficiently in public transit for 50+ years solely because of billionaire lobbying. That's not the blocker.

As a counter to your one example:

I've worked on autonomous vehicles for 16 years and my largest philanthropic effort is improving public transit. The common theme is being really interested in transportation and wanting it to work well for people.

Cruise was also the top funder of one San Francisco's recent MUNI funding ballot propositions (which just barely failed). You can certainly have a cynical take on that, but they still did it.

It seemed to me to always have been a goalpost relocation. The talking point wasn't even a fringe view beforehand and if anything would be taken as an obvious diversion from those who are big-oil aligned. Instead it was first seen when electrification of transit was achieved by capitalism.

The watermelons simply couldn't accept that, it went against their article of faith that capitalism is responsible for all of the world's problems and could not provide any solutions. IF there is one thing that makes them the most angry it is solving problems without going to their preferred political alignment. So they all downloaded their latest talking points and reprogrammed themselves and declared that electric car's only purpose is to save the auto industry in spite of 48% of global transport carbon emissions coming from cars and vans.

> Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit

False dichotomy.

Good public transport would be self driving cars as a feeder network to mass transit once the self driving tech is cheap enough.

It could only work well as work habits change to stop having peak hours (peak usage for low-utilization self-driving cars doesn't seem likely to be economical).

Even in cities with good public transit, it will not take me home at 3 AM, with possibly few exceptions like New York.

Even in cities with good public transit, it will not take me home at 3 AM, with possibly few exceptions like cities that have good public transit.

We probably went wrong when we decided to maximize money versus maximizing happiness.

We badly need to move beyond GDP and to at least IHDI, if not something even better.

I can't buy food or pay my mortgage with happiness.

I didn't say it was easy. And I'm not talking about individual action. Governments should incentivize and force different things. Conceptually simple example: construction projects should require sustainability and aesthetics reviews, including, for example, use of better materials and green and walkable spaces. For example I find the butt ugly and cheap American solutions for sidewalks (I think continuously poured concrete cut into slabs with circular saws) much worse than the European ones (paving stones, often natural stone). The US is the richer country and it frequently looks cheaper and poorer.

Beauty matters.

What a terrible idea. I don't want my government to "force" things. Nor should idiot government bureaucrats have any authority over something as subjective as aesthetics.

Paving stones are terrible for skates, and not great for running either. Poured concrete is much smoother. And it's not cut with circular saws so I have no idea what you're referring to there.

Poured asphalt, then.

And it doesn't hurt to plant more trees. American cities, especially in the South, seem to be utterly allergic to trees. Which makes even less sense in hot climates.

Or huge billboards. Lack of general greenery and hedges to block noise. Stroads. I could go on an on. The average built environment in US cities and suburbs is awful and again, cheap.

Whatever sensible measure you can imagine, it’s most likely very strongly correlated with gdp

At some point they diverge, otherwise we wouldn't have Karnataka and the US sitting where they are for HDI rankings.

When I moved from country where I had to use public transit to a country where I could drive, my happiness (re transportation) increased by a large amount.

I am not sure how this relates to the whole "public transit vs cars" argument though.

Where was this place where you could not drive? I don't know of any such place.

For many of us "good public transit" would make zero difference in our daily lives in the US. We just don't live somewhere that there will realistically be a bus stop or train stop within easy walking distance. I'm not even a long drive from a train station but it's absolutely unworkable as transportation for most purposes aside from going into the big city 9-5.

> Self-driving cars are cool but I'd rather have good public transit.

Last mile is a PITA in the US. It is difficult to take the train from San Diego northward if you don't get there at 7AM because the parking will fill up.

At some point, Waymo can cross over into replacing a personal car for the last mile task. Right now, it's a bit expensive: $20/ride 2 ride/day 5 days/week * 50 weeks = $10,000 per year. Purchasing your own car still makes more sense. If that were $1,000 per year? No brainer--I'd dump my car in a heartbeat.

You sound young and naive

Why? Why is not "everyone has access" and "wellbeing for everyone" the reward for inventing the future?

Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future?

If Waymos make the world better and safer and more convenient, why are they not simply something we figure out how to make a public good?

In Star Trek you didn't have to pay to take the turbolift or transporter around large spaces, everyone got the benefits of the technology.

> Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future?

Well obviously we want a lot of the benefit to be the latter. But if you don't have some of the former, then almost no multi-billion-dollar-cost inventions get made in the first place.

Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention.

Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining.

Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay.

I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.

> Yuri Gagarin was the first man in orbit, and that was absolutely a multi-billion dollar invention.

That was government-funded. Most projects aren't that lucky. And are any governments funding self-driving cars?

> Alan Turing didn't pursue his ideas because he wanted to get wealth beyond imagining.

I said multi billion dollar cost. Not multi billion dollar benefit. He's not an example.

> Mondragon makes billions of dollars annually, and strongly limits executive pay.

Have they made any inventions that required a billion dollars or more? Ten billion?

But you saying "makes billions" is exactly what I'm talking about. It's great that they don't pay a lot of money to executives and the workers own things. But the company invested money and the company profited. It didn't all go to making the world a better place.

You avoid particularly wealthy people when a coop can self-fund, but the coop is still trying to profit off the result of the research. And if a risky research project ever can't be self-funded, then whatever/whoever makes the loan might make a huge profit. If that incentive isn't there, the loan doesn't happen and the research doesn't happen.

> I think it's very reasonable to assume that we can, we have historically, and currently do, make multi-billion dollar investments for the good of all. The idea that it requires some profit incentive is, imo, a pernicious falsehood.

It doesn't require it, but if you make it possible to profit off research then you end up with much more money spent on research.

You are referencing fiction unironically as an argument which is a rather worrying sign for your connection to objective reality. You also don't have to worry about logistics in RTSes, but that isn't an argument for revolutionizing military strategy.

As for why it isn't something you can figure out how to make a public good? In order for it to truly be a public good you have to either make it as one in the first place via the public sector or at very least pay a large sum of money in order to buy it out (which you have already objected to). Otherwise it is just plain stealing.

> You are referencing fiction unironically as an argument which is a rather worrying sign for your connection to objective reality.

From the parent post: > - this is literally science fiction come to life

Of course I'm going to reference fiction when I'm addressing a comment about how this is science fiction come to life. What are you on about?

Exactly, capitalism isn't about putting capital to work doing things. It's only concern is share holder profit!

In my experience, most price increases are in labor-intensive industries. Construction, etc.

Compare with tech, which is what a Waymo is like: computers, TVs, etc are insanely cheap compared to their equivalents in the past.

I had to point out to a Gen Zer complaining about how video game companies keep jacking up prices ("this game for the Switch is $80!") by pointing out that when you adjusted for inflation, a Super Nintendo game cost over $100 in today's money.

What do you think is happening, now that the hyper scalers stopped growing by more than 20-30% per year? We're just entering the maturity stage of the tech world. 10-20 years from now all these subscriptions will reach and exceed cable levels.

Well it depends on their competition and what the market will bear. If they have competitors with a similar-quality product that is undercutting them on price, Waymo will have to lower prices to compete.

And regardless, there's always a ceiling when it comes to what people will pay. In the case of a robotaxi there's of course significant marginal cost to expand the fleet of vehicles, but if they can make more money with more cars at a lower price point (than fewer cars at a higher price point), then they'll do so.

> If they have competitors with a similar-quality product that is undercutting them on price, Waymo will have to lower prices to compete.

Oligopoly, cartels, huge barriers to entry into the market.

I appreciate your optimism in the free market for a domain where you have to spend tens of billions of dollars to even enter it

I bet they will try and expand service area over expanding inventory. It's very expensive to keep cars in reserve for peak times, Uber gets around this by offloading the cost onto their drivers, but waymo will need to be able to pull cars from nearby areas.

jags and ioniqs are a midway stop for sure. there's no need to have a seat you can't use with a steering wheel and windows that are not totally blacked out. the final product would probably resemble something closer to Cruise One concept.

the next step has already been announced. the holdup is regulatory approval for less-conventional vehicles.

https://insideevs.com/photos/802937/waymo-zeekr-robotaxi/#69...

Yeah I know about Geely and under current circumstances I categorize this as "never gonna happen". There's probably better chance of partnering with GM at this point...

Why would they even entertain the idea of even talking to a Chinese OEM. This is obviously very important technology and Google must know the Chinese history of IP theft. They are not in the Chinese market because of this!

Zeeker must have given them such an unbelievable deal that Google couldn't pass it up. Either that or the other OEMs have really soured on them. I always thought the idea of OEMs being reduced to generic white label badges while companies like Waymo make all the profit on the future of "on demand" transportation is not appealing to them. Companies like GM tried to cut Waymo out by buying Cruise but it hasn't worked out. I guess if the stock price of one of these OEMs falls enough, maybe Waymo can just buy them out but do they really want to take on that obligation?

i don't beleive that waymo is letting zeekr have any IP - the plan is to buy dumb vehicles and upfit them.

Is any of the hardware on a Waymo vehicle proprietary to Waymo? I had sort of assumed they used off the shelf LIDAR and sensors from other manufacturers, and that their secret sauce was entirely in the software. If that's the case, I don't think there would be any risk of IP loss.

Waymo designed their lidars for sure (Velodynes before that). Cruise still relied heavily on Velodyne at least in my time there

What's expensive about operating a Waymo? Do the capital costs exceed that of the driver's salary?

The other day I almost got ran over by an old lady in her old Volvo wagon at a stop sign. She seemed to have gotten confused a little and was turning left but couldn't figure out the right move to make. People behind her honked and she decided to just go for it. I happened to be in the crosswalk and just happened to look over at the honking, and saw her coming, so managed to jump out of her way.

She was easily over 90, if not over 95.

People like her could really benefit from a personal Waymo. Just sell a car with FSD built in, at the level of a Waymo, and bam! That would make so many senior citizens' lives easier!

Why sell a car when you can charge per ride?

Well, you wouldn't have to sell the car. You could also setup a licensing / loan / dedicated car system.

It would work well for local municipalities that want to provide low-cost door-to-door service for the elderly.

We have a bus service here, The ART, and a dedicates "paratransit" bus service that provides door-to-door service to eligible riders.

And a couple private large-scale developed and managed neighborhoods that have driverless non-automated (remote controlled) transit systems.

If you know a large portion of your riders have disabilities, dedicated buses or vans make sense.

I'm sitting here advocating for this, and it's a great service that I'm glad they have it for those in need, and yet I need fucking plywood for hurricanes myself.

Yeah, it is Florida. But honestly, the transit system here and bike infrastructure development and traffic planning is good.

> You could also setup a licensing / loan / dedicated car system.

I think the word you were searching for is leasing the vehicle.

> the word you were searching for is leasing the vehicle

Car leasing tends to be time based. A self-driving car may depreciate more like an airplane, based on miles driven.

It's not so much "why sell the car" but more "who is going to buy this car?" Plus, without maintenance the self-driving capability will probably degrade and become unsafe.

Supply. There may not be enough Waymos sitting around to satisfy all of the demand at a point in time.

For the same reasons why you accept a lower price when selling in bulk basically. There are fewer overhead costs for you to deal with. You have to deal with the risks and the slower payout and money now is worth more than money later, the very premise responsible for loans.

Hell, it’ll make MY life easier. Can’t wait for the day where I can do whatever the hell I want while my car drives itself. Affluent seniors that shouldn’t be driving are an obvious market and it would have been helpful for those in my life, too.

this is 10000% the wrong approach— the approach is to build better, more walkable cities, with better zoning, and public transit so elderly or disabled people aren’t left out of society.

these people shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car; to me one of the biggest annoyances with american life

So tear down every city in the country and rebuild them all from scratch, then force the ~45% of people that don’t live in those cities to move there.

And that’s better than mandating a small percentage of the population use FSD cars?

Not sure I like the autocratic tone of that plan

This is a pretty uncharitable read of the parent poster. Many cities are upzoning, which means that corridors are being torn down and built more densely. During those times, we're seeing a lot more mixed use, walkable and bikeable spaces introduced. In Seattle we're seeing streets being closed and lanes being removed to support biking and walking.

You can make walkable enclaves neighborhood by neighborhood. And those sites are really desirable. Especially near transit. The right approach is to build more like this until there's no one left who wants to live there and cannot. For the remaining folks who have no interest in it, sure, they can have automated cars.

But right now the line is out the door for this sort of place and we cannot build them fast enough.

> This is a pretty uncharitable read of the parent poster.

Which is pretty fair because the parent poster was using a very uncharitable read of what they were replying to. 10000% the wrong approach, really?

Between inventing better FSD cars and rezoning cities / completely upending urban lifestyles, I think the first one has a better < 100 year time horizon while we push for the second one.

My father can barely walk a block before he needs to sit and rest. Your plan would not work for him. A more walkable city would be great for me, someone who can walk well. Him? Nope.

Another aim of walkable cities is many amenities you need being within that one block.

So roughly the distance from the car to the store's entrance.

In a neighborhood like Culdesac Mesa AZ, your father could downsize to an electric scooter. And maybe meet his neighbors.

Wheelchairs and other assistive devices work well in walkable cities.

Waymo and Toyota have a deal to do just that.[1]

[1] https://waymo.com/blog/2025/04/waymo-and-toyota-outline-stra...