Isn't that sentiment how people used to think about computers playing Go, writing an essay, beating humans at Jeopardy, or transcribing spoken language? Betting on the side of "computers will never be able to X" seems like a generally bad bet.
> We could have public transportation, but we just can’t imagine a world where someone doesn’t privately own a thing someone else rents.
The concept of self driving cars isn't mutually incompatible with public transportation.
No. I was a student in the mid-90s, and the position of everyone regarding Go was "We'll have enough compute power one day".
It was only after AlphaGo hit the news with its wins that I started seeing this revisionist history of "They said the computer will never win at Go".
To which I have to reply "No. They did not".
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_and_mathematics#Game_tree_c...
It is.
Just like Uber with $25B in funding is mutually incompatible with small time taxi services around the world. The only way Uber ever pays its investors back is by establishing a global monopoly over taxi-transportation and making narrow margins over economies of scale.
The self-driving industry has received upwards of $200billion in funding. If cities start moving towards public transit, that signals an existential threat to the ability of these VCs to make their money back.
Note: Some industries are zero sum games. The total number of places people want to go to is limited. Better taxi technology will not mean a larger addressable market. The only way self-driving companies win, is by defeating other means of transport.
Perhaps, maybe, we fund things based on consent rather than force?
You say this as if it’s cheap or easy to make any kind of significant public transit improvement in an already established city.
Public transit is hard is in the same way that going to Harvard as a black person in 1900 was hard. It was hard because malicious forces (whether they accepted the accusation or not) made it impossible.
Painting a BRT line and some traffic cones is all you need to set up public transit. Hell, almost all pre-established cities had entire street car networks that we disassembled due to car-centric post-1950s development.
Here's SF, Seattle and LA pre-1950.
https://i0.wp.com/transitmap.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/...
http://www.tundria.com/trams/USA/SanFrancisco-1944.shtml
https://la.curbed.com/2015/11/9/9902244/red-car-map-los-ange...
On the other end of the scale, while this would be possible with human drivers too, driving down the cost and response times of being able to automatically reposition and provision a fleet of cars would potentially make deep integration with public transport in ways that'd make public transport more attractive possible as well. E.g. imagine a public transport provider guaranteeing a maximum X minutes wait to drive demand, and plugging holes by dynamically provisioning cars to meet that guarantee on lower demand routes, or in case of full buses. Or an "end to end" service where you input where you want to go and instead of just getting the route, you're told to get on bus Y, and when you get of at station Z a car is there waiting to take you to your final destination.
Most of my Uber use is for journeys where public transport would be feasible but where being able to guarantee low waits and/or predictable arrival times makes a difference, and sometimes where a short leg (distance wise) of the public-transport option is too time consuming, and where it'd be "easy" to cut down on the car use if the transport system was better integrated.
If you can make the experience smooth enough to reduce the "end to end" convenience advantage of a car, even if it means using cars for part of it, it might well be a net improvement in public transport use.
No, but it does make individual vehicle ownership look pretty silly:
Why buy a vehicle if you're just going to let it sit there for 95% of the time when it could be, you know, doing vehicle things?
And if you're going to let it drive strangers around, what (besides a maintenance burden and a parking burden) have you gained by owning it as compared to, say, owning stock in a company who maintains a fleet of said vehicles?
The knowledge that nobody has farted in this seat besides the people I invited to just isn't worth that much.
> we can’t imagine a world where someone doesn’t privately own
I love public transportation and my favorite cities are ones that have the best public transportation.
But most of what I like about it is great when “visiting,” not living. When I’ve lived in cities that had great public transportation it was occasionally nice; I could go downtown and get drunk without worrying about/coordinating transportation.
But commute times on public transport are absolutely dreadful. Unless you win the lottery and your frequent destinations are along a single route with few stops, you’re transferring and waiting for a bunch of other folks.
And cities where public transport works well are densely packed, making getting downtown from the edges any other way difficult too.
Unless you’re talking about converting privatized point-to-point travel to public transportation, which sounds absolutely awesome and autonomous driving might bring closer to being a reality, I’d say I’m rather fond of going directly to my destination and back in less than 10min of drive time.
Edit: realizing from the comments here that many people’s experience with using a vehicle and public transport is a daily commute. I work from home and I don’t drive during “rush hour” when, for some reason, society pays to migrate an entire city full of knowledge workers from their home to a computer.
Living in the suburbs and not participating in daily commute culture looks a lot like “winning the lottery.”
An example of how I use my car: I choose to go to the grocery store with the best supply chains in my area and it adds ~5 minutes to my drive compared to the one that’s “walkable” as long as it’s not rush hour. I place my order on my phone, pull up, open my trunk, a store employee puts the groceries in, and I drive home.
That’s a hard baseline to compete with, especially for anyone who has a family they have to coordinate this around. I’d much rather stick my kids in a car seat and do the above than whatever the equivalent would be with public transportation.
This is usually a driver's fantasy.
How many times I have waited in a place or been at the office only for people to arrive late complaining of the traffic or not being able to find a place to park?
I think most people want to use individual transportation because of the feeling of control it gives them. They can choose an alternate route, honk, hate and insult other road users, aren't bond to a schedule, choose where they park. Most of the time if you take into account the time it takes to go to their car, exit parking or find parking, they aren't faster or only negligibly so [1]. But they don't feel it because they are feeling they are always active compared to the passive act of sitting in a bus/tramway/subway.
The only users of individual transportation that are on average really faster than public transports in a city with a decent public transport system are motorcycle/moped users and cyclists, and mostly because the former tend to park illegally on the sidewalk.
[1] exception is nighttime driving
Where this is true, it’s due to a policy decision to prioritize private vehicles ahead of everything else. I noticed your subsequent “less than 10 minutes of drive time”, which as an American seems quite fanciful for someone who didn’t “win the lottery” - that’s barely enough time for parking in many cases, or a single congested intersection or on-ramp.
The other big factor is alternate use of that time: if you’re walking or bicycling, you get a workout; if you’re on transit, you can catch up on your reading, gaming, social media, or prepare for your first meeting; but if you’re driving you’re just staring at the car ahead of you wishing you could go faster. That’s why so many people really want to believe self-driving cars are right around the corner because that holds the prospect of a simple purchase making their lives better without having to help anyone else.
But commute times on public transport are absolutely dreadful.
My opinion couldn't differ more. I lived for 6 years in London. I didn't own a car the entire time. I had a zipcar membership, but I used it maybe once every 2 months. I kept it mostly not to loose my "car insurance no claim discount" of many years more than to use the service.
When I did commute by tube(underground) and train the entire trip lasted ~20min(including 5 min walk) and I didn't mind it at all. This was using one of the worst lines (the northern line). It's the deepest, the hottest and the dustiest (or at least it was back then) of the tube lines. But I got used to it pretty quickly and I actually enjoyed my very short commute (as compared with one I had before, when I lived in Staines, that was almost an hour one way).
Note that within a city like London there are better and worse modes of public transport. My favourite was definitely commuting by river (10min on a fast boat, no people packed like sardines, no hot temperature etc).
But then again I also spent few months biking to work(sadly before my bike was stolen).
Before that I lived in another large city with much worse public transport than London. I used my own car there every day. And as someone with experience of living long term in both places I can tell you I much preferred London.
That was all before the advent of remote work. Now, I much prefer not commuting at all and living elsewhere.
On the other hand when I visited for the first time I didn't enjoy London's public transport one bit. It seemed confusing(initially) cramped, uncomfortable etc. Only later I started liking it much more.
So basically something like personal rapid transit, first deployed ~50 years ago? And for which virtually every implementation has disappointed?
> Or other automated, private cars on the road yielding to public transit vehicles.
It's called "transit signal priority", and has been around for at least 20 years.
Signal priority is only at signals. I'm talking about private cars changing lanes to let public transit pass through. Human drivers will only do it for emergency vehicles, but you can make it a condition of licensing for a private driverless vehicle.
The first PRT system was (and still is!) completely automated.
We don't need self-driving to do this, and in fact many localities have already tried this with human drivers, and it's been an abject failure. Dynamic-dispatch public transit has been tried!
The results have been low usage (because it turns out the predictability of a timetable and consistent route is a feature, and not a bug!), with high wait times and long trip times.
Heck, the major ride hailing companies have done pilots on this front (ride hails as last-mile supplements to fixed-route public transport) and it's been a pretty thorough failure there as well.
In urban planning circles there's the term "gadgetbahn" to derisively describe high-tech, flashy transit projects using unproven tech that ends up being far worse than normal proven technologies. Dynamic-routed public transit is like that, but with even less "gadget".
> and it's been an abject failure.
For the product being delivered (low speed, low latency, available only in specific areas), public transit is criminally expensive. I'm not surprised people prefer driving in suburban areas. If it was 1/10th price, or free, it becomes a lot more attractive. Free is impossible if you have to pay salaries to human drivers.
Driverless vehicles don't have to be 4-seater cars. They can be much smaller, like the Smart Car, or a single person enclosed three-wheeler.
This is true - the problem is that dynamic-dispatch transit is even more expensive on a per-passenger or per-ride basis, and both speed and latency are actually worse than status quo public transit.
It'd be one thing if the result of these projects have been "this is great but expensive", but the result overwhelmingly has been worse than fixed-route bus transit across every major metric.
Autonomous cars can improve the cost problem, but can't dramatically change the calculus on speed and latency. Likewise, autonomous cars can also solve the cost problem for buses, and better!
Even if you remove the human driver and the need for a 3-ton piece of metal powered by an ICE?
> both speed and latency are actually worse than status quo public transit
All the ride-hailing apps seem to appear to disprove this. They're more expensive than public transit for this very reason.
> Likewise, autonomous cars can also solve the cost problem for buses, and better!
Hear hear!
We've had self-driving buses since 1875, they're called trams.
Imagine seeing vehicles automatically moving to the side of the road to let an emergency vehicle through. Or the subtle nudges and lane shifts to ensure traffic doesn't reach a standstill.
It's a great use case for a hive mind ML/AI.
It turns out transportation is not a zero sum game. There's no "AlphaGo beats Lee Sedol" watershed moment for AV. Instead we progressively work towards a good-enough level of AV driving that minimizes the risks compared to human drivers. Transit will always have accidents and deaths, even for public transportation, and we try to reduce that risk over time with new solutions.
Personally I'd like to see the evidence that Cruise and Waymo are riskier than human drivers in SF. My anecdata is that they drive by my house every 5-10 minutes during the day and are the best drivers on my street. Just yesterday, a Cruise slowed down nicely to edge into the other lane while I was getting into my car on the street. Most humans (including Muni drivers) speed past, inches from me.
In the case of this accident, sounds like the fire truck hit the Cruise. That actually happens a lot with non-AV cars. Emergency vehicles go into a red light expecting the green side to stop and they don't. So let's learn from it. Did the truck have its siren going? Could the Cruise car see the truck around the corner (it was at Turk and Polk)? Could the truck see the Cruise? What could the Cruise detect that could have indicated the truck was coming?
I've spent a good decade trying to poke holes into "why 'acthually' public transportation can't work in the US", and I've come out of it even more confused. The US has all the hallmarks of country that's well suited for public transit. Urban housing shortages, open space, flat land, pockets of density, overdue infrastructure overhaul, you name it. It is really THAT simple. There's so much low hanging to pick off and best-of-all, public transit spending goes back into the pockets of
That being said, you can't convince a person to like anything if they're reasoning from a place of comfort. I'm a broken record, but hearing an American praise European cities while simultaneously doing everything in their power to stop their city from ever becoming that, is the sort of hypocrisy that cannot be solved through convincing, logic or education.
Lastly, public transit also needs a strong police force, and there is some much needed 'cognitive dissonance' that YIMBYs need to figure out if they're going to convince those holding out.
_________
Prevention is better than a cure. Driverless electric cars are here to save the automobile industry at the expense of the environment, climate and public safety.
It's also too complicated for humans, though. They get into accidents all the time.
I feel like we're holding computer drivers to a higher standard than the humans we already allow to drive. The computers are absolutely going to make mistakes, and some of them will have catastrophic results, but, uh...
Too complicated for most humans too. I've seen human drivers t-boned by fire trucks and ambulances. Have had near misses myself a couple times. The solution is not "intuition and social cues" but better technology and instrumentation and especially Vehicle-to-Vehicle Communication (V2V) which all emergency vehicles (and eventually all vehicles) should have.
Public transport is a local monopoly where profitable routes are used to subsidize unprofitable routes in order to guarantee base level of price and service to all residents. Public transport is not linked to any particular ownership or operating model, nor to any specific vehicle type. Sometimes agencies own and operate a fleet directly, other times they contract out operators and sometimes contract out whole fleets.
Self-driving vehicles are just another tech they'll have to incorporate the way they have been incorporating shared bicycles or scooters. In the long term, large bespoke expensive vehicles (busses, trains) requiring special operators and infrastructure will not be able to economically compete with mass-produced Autonomous EVs, so they'll replace much of today's fleets. Thinking that AEVs and public transit are at odds with each other is nonsense.
As the article shows, a system that works 99% of the time won't cut it. Ditto the recent story where a robot car drove into wet cement. Or a zillion other edge cases, some of which will be fatal.
And this isn't just shade directly at Cruise, this seems to apply to all of the SDV companies out there. It's far from being ready for primetime. And speaking who was an early cheerleader of SDVs, and who continues to be highly supportive of their development, I'm increasingly skeptical that they are ready-enough to be tested en masse on public streets.
The recent Cruise meltdown re: Outside Lands was pretty concerning. In a natural disaster (like the types that the Bay Area is highly prone to!) the idea is just that you'd have all of these unoccupied vehicles sitting in the middle of the street preventing evacuation and emergency access?!
I think Chess would be a better example - IBM was able to beat Kasparov with the Deep Blue super computer simply through hardware upgrades to essentially the same model. That system was searching 200 million moves per second, whereas with improved search algorithms modern (and better) chess engines beat GMs at orders of magnitude fewer moves per second on simple PCs.
Driving a car has multiple problems which are all much broader, and some of your goals are at odds with each other (e.g. driving slower makes everyone safer but the owners won’t be satisfied & some situations like merges or unprotected turns may be intractable without a safety risk; you need to respond to police / fire fighters / construction flaggers but not pranksters or carjackers, etc.)
Nobody said you couldn’t solve Go without AGI. It’s still open for debate whether that’s true of driving.
I imagine after we all start just using an app to summon one of those cars to go around, there will still be people quick to call self-driving impossible every time something interesting happens.
(Reminds me of solar energy.)