The end goal of robo-taxis is to shuttle people between the home/destination and the train station.
this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
4 points (83.3% liked)
Microblog Memes
5787 readers
2442 users here now
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
Rules:
- Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
- Be nice.
- No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
- Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.
Related communities:
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
We already have that in my city, it’s called Metro Micro and it costs $2.50 and includes a free transfer to public transit.
I don’t know what Musk thinks he’s going to charge for it, but I doubt it’ll be better than that.
Which btw that program isn't doing too well. It's a huge cost right now, compared to more traditional public transit. And imagine that this is with regular "cheap" vans rather than more expensive vehicles. These also seem to be a small step better than Personal vehicles as I hear most rides are solo rides (which is not exactly the aim). What is great about micro is they support bikes, and people with disabilities to help reach the last mile in their trip.
I’ve never had a solo ride in one, and I never noticed anything about their vans that seemed cheap. My biggest complaint is that you have to order one hours in advance because they’re so busy. That might depend on the service area you’re in though.
AFAIK all the buses here support bikes too, at least all the ones I’ve been on with Metro.
Wouldn't buses/trams be more efficient at that? They move more than 1 person to their desired destination.
That would be more efficient, but there are enough places with no bus or tram. And then you have services that are infrequent or shut down early and could use some help.
Shuttles are already a thing
Neither takes you and your bags to your front door. Cars move more than 1 person too.
Imagine needing to get back home from a train station, but there are 13 people that will need to be dropped-off before you, at their individual homes.
So, exactly like when I was a kid riding the school bus and our household was the first one on in the morning and the last one off in the afternoon.
Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely dearly love to have proper trains running on time to every location.
But we basically made a souffle, and you're asking us to turn it into chocolate cake.
We could get away with an advanced network of buses.
Buses are great for public transit and the most cost effective option for some communities. There also seems to be a stigma against buses, though, where people are more willing to take a train than a bus. I’m starting to suspect that stigma extends to people wanting to build trains instead of buses that can get the same job done for less money than building a brand new train system.
I live in a city with a decent network of busses and trains. The trains are just nicer. The trains aren't that different in fanciness to the busses, but they are bigger on the inside and I think that makes a big difference.
There also seems to be a stigma against buses, though, where people are more willing to take a train than a bus.
I'll absolutely take a train over a bus if they are going to the same destination.
- train has fewer stops meaning train reaches the destination faster
- train has ultimate right-of-way, and doesn't have to stop for pedestrians on the tracks, red lights, or other things
- trains in some cities, go under waterways meaning more direct routes than busses
- there's more space inside trains and usually more choice of seats. Standing is also an option which isn't allowed on most busses
- acceleration and deceleration are more predictable and comfortable
- nearly all metro light rail trains are powered by electricity, while many city busses remain diesel
Most of those can addressed by busses too actually.
Train has fewer stops meaning train reaches the destination faster
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) or any bus line can have less stop for this reason. To expand on BRT routes, they can be dedicated lanes for busses, with right of way. They can be specific only for busses, and cars not allowed to use it ever or also mixed usage where certain rush hours are for bus use only but outside those hours can be used by other vehicles.
Train has ultimate right-of-way, and doesn't have to stop for pedestrians on the tracks, red lights, or other things
This can also be done with BRT routes.
trains in some cities, go under waterways meaning more direct routes than busses
BRT as well.
there's more space inside trains and usually more choice of seats. Standing is also an option which isn't allowed on most busses
Busses can absolutely support this. Paris has more open busses to allow more people standing or people with disabilities.
acceleration and deceleration are more predictable and comfortable
With dedicated BRT lanes, I believe that can also be done considering there's only bus stops that need to be slowed down on.
Nearly all metro light rail trains are powered by electricity, while many city busses remain diesel
I know technically electric busses are possible, but I'm not certain how feasible this is.
My understanding is that BRT routes are cheaper and faster to setup than trains, and can be upgraded to trains. I'm not saying BRT is better than light or heavy rail, but that should be a more common path for mass transit that is not utilized in the US.
For this discussion, you're really torturing the definition of a bus if you're going to use BRT to mean busses. BRT does not meet most peoples definition of "city bus" as the conversation up to now has suggested.
I’m not saying BRT is better than light or heavy rail, but that should be a more common path for mass transit that is not utilized in the U
BRT would nearly always be a zero sum solution to make your statement true. You would have to subtract from current roads that accommodate traffic to create BRT to meet your metric. Land, espeically in dense cities is nearly always already allocated. If anything besides the zero sum BRT, light rail would likely be a better choice than BRT because it can subterranean or elevated with fewer building challenges/dangers.
I’m not saying BRT is better than light or heavy rail, but that should be a more common path for mass transit that is not utilized in the US
I'm interested in an example of a city you have a in mind that BRT would be a better choice than city busses or light rail.
- trains can drive at higher speeds than buses
- train wheels don't emit microplastic particles like bus tires do
- trains are significantly safer than buses
- trains move on tracks which results in them moving in a stable and predictable way while buses often shake more which can result in people feeling sick (happens to me often when taking the bus)
train wheels don't emit microplastic particles like bus tires do
we can help solve this by using plastic breaks on trains
Lol
load more comments
(2 replies)
Believe it or not, RTD (regional Denver) is building BRT right now. Blew my mind. I'm looking forward to it
Hey, BRT is great! I'll happily support that rather than building regular car infrastructure.
I also still vastly prefer the train. Or a ferry, if that's an option.
Point not brought up by the other person: Bicycles. I am primarily a bike commuter, and have had one good experience with a bike and bus:
Last bus out of the city, like 2:30am. Driver has no time for our shit, tells us to bring them inside and hang on, to hell with the front rack. We didn't even pay.
I've also had my bike half pop out of said front rack, get taco'd, and got absolutely nothing out of it. Totally fucked. No restitution.
Best case with bikes on a bus is you get lucky and get a spot, usually you're better off just riding the whole way.
Trains, have room. Never not made a train with my bike.
Yeah. Busses join traffic. They reduce it, but traffic delays them
load more comments
(1 replies)
As somebody from one of the related industries: The problem is federal grants in the US. Every year thousands of municipal and state government employees write to the feds grants for funding transportation. The money available until the infrastructure investment act was all money for roads. Even now with money for commuter rail is still very small in comparison and stipulations like requiring nearby travel lanes for other types of vehicles still mean that elevated and tunneled train systems are not being adequately funded.
The effect is obvious: Do you as a munucipal/state government administrator build a free new federally funded road to make people feel like a problem is being addressed and then blame the unaddressed problems on the next elected person or do you raise taxes to fund a light rail system that is infinitely more costly despite the fact nobody else will build public rail links to connect it to. Planning departments usually do know what transit will work best, but getting funding for trains has been nearly impossible.
The feds have, I think since the 50s, discouraged new public rail and we are paying that price over and over again. Say what you will about biden but him being a train guy is probably the only thing that has improved the number of light rail projects in the states and we won't see those benefits for years.
The rest of the problem lies in urban sprawl and parking lot minimums. Which is a similar problem where its impossible to not create unwalkable sprawl.
Not really, we removed a TON of stuff to make way for roads. We're over 100 years out of date, its just a matter of funding.
In the before shot the whole place is full of trees. So so many trees, I can see like 1/20th of them in the later picture.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Ugh. Jesus christ.
And yet, people living in vehicles are 'homeless' and looked down upon. They've left no room for anything else to be realistic
load more comments
(6 replies)
Twitter is bad.
It's because they all live in the US.
If the operated out of the UK they would know what a bus was. It would be late of course, but at least they would see them.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The point is to not ride the public transportation with the lesser peoples.
- and 2. class wagons?
- Trains
- Trams
- Ebikes
- Public Busses
In that order, preferably. Fuck this techbro shit.
I want state owned electric self driving g taxis. I want to walk out of my door and get in the neighborhood self driving bus to take me (up to) 2 miles from work, where I can either walk or use a lil razer scooter to get to my job.
Alas, I work 62 miles away from home.
load more comments
(14 replies)
A robo-taxi is private, arrives when you call it, and goes directly from where you are to where you want to be. I don't see the similarities between that and a bus or train.
That's a robo-van, not a robo-taxi.
My impression is that the robo-van is intended to be a taxi with some ride-sharing capabilities.
The Robovan is intended for the company’s Tesla Network, an autonomous ridehailing service for purpose-built self-driving cars
So a bus, but without a set timetable, and proprietary.
That isn't what rideshareing is.
Ridesharing implies there's a driver.
So if you own this thing, you're likely sitting in it and going somewhere. And it is going to stop and pickup random people? To sit in a very tight space with you, facing each other? Like bus, but worse?
OR
Do you think you are going to buy one and other people will use it while you sit at home? In which case it's a bus to them. But worse.
OR
Do you think it's going to be owned by Tesla and you are going to pay a monthly fee so you can use their transport and share it with other people? Like a bus, just less consistent.
Tell me your dream scenario.
You really are unnecessarily aggressive and still incorrect. While USUALLY there is a driver and USUALLY the vehicle is privately owned, that does not have to be the case. I have no "dream scenario," I just pointed out that you incorrectly compared the person's comment about ridesharing and taxis to a bus, which is not at all similar.
How is it not comparable?
It's a vehicle on four wheels, on public roads.
It transports multiple people from A to B.
The people might not be acquaintances.
One is "hail and hope it arrives within reasonable time", the other has a set timetable and can carry more people more comfortably.
It is absolutely comparable, you are incorrect.
Who said anything about riding with randos? Regardless, I guess by your definition waymo is busses, lyft/uber are busses, all rideshares are busses, taxis are busses, hell, everything is busses. Why do we have all these words when we can just say busses! Lmao.
My dude, do you not know what fucking ride-sharing is?
A has a car and shares it with B.
A might not be in acquaintance with B.
There HAS to be A and B for it to have "ride-sharing capabilities".
Or else it's a self-driving van.
Lyft/ubers are illegal taxis. There's a driver and a passanger. Going from point a or b. No stops, no randos.
A good public transit system leaves from within 5 minutes of where you live and goes to within 5 minutes of where you want to be in any town of more than like 40k people.
A good public transit system is also better for the environment, makes traffic less awful, and is generally just preferable to robotaxi bs.
The person you're responding to was not making a case for or against, just stating that a robo-taxi is not similar to a city bus.
from within 5 minutes of where you live and goes to within 5 minutes of where you want to be
That's technically true where I live but it would require waiting for a local bus at each end of most trips, and that's usually slower than walking.
Sure, but I cannot imagine that Elon's newest toy would solve that. It still needs to be dispatched from somewhere. Obviously, it would solve it, if you splurged on tons of robovans, much like you'd solve it, if you splurged on tons of buses.
Scheduled pick-up is already a thing on ride shares.
view more: next ›