Waymo in Portland
waymo.com
waymo.com
https://www.oregonlive.com/commuting/2026/04/trimet-official...
https://www.portlandmercury.com/news/trimets-present-crisis-...
At the same time, Portland's city council is debating whether to cap the cut of driver pay that rideshare companies take: https://www.opb.org/article/2026/04/13/uber-lyft-driver-pay-...
So at the same time that public transit is retreating and rideshare company labor overhead is threatening to increase, Waymo shows up with a convenient solution to both problems.
Sorry to nitpick, but why is the next month's ballot (and in general the issues that have not been voted on yet) affecting current service?
from the Oregonian article I linked
The service changes take affect in August, in large part because they can no longer expect the funding for them to exist by then.
> “The agency’s current position is that they have to cut service now to avoid worse cuts later, although worse cuts may be coming later anyway,” Walker wrote.
from the Mercury article I linked
I think a more plausible reason is, "withdraw the services now to get people who want that spending and that service irritated, and therefore more likely to get out and vote for it". Keeping service in place till the vote might supress the vote through complacency.
I'm not passing a value judgement on this top-down pressure on the electorate, governments should in theory be neutral and uphold current law, but governments are populated by politicians, and politicians who advocated this still want to advocate it and give it its best electoral chance. In a like "up is down" sense, people who favor cutting this government expenditure should favor the early cuts, they save money... of course, they don't, just sayin.
No it didn’t. Bus rides cost $2.80 in Portland.
I don't give a fuck if it's free, if it's inaccessible. I'm not crossing SE Foster on a rainy evening to catch a bus that won't take me home afterward.
Waymo has ~2,500 cars on the road in the US by last count, and combined they are doing between 400,000 and 500,000 rides per week. Total. For the whole country.
TriMet, in just the Portland metro area, did 122,000,000 rides last year, or roughly 2,300,000 rides per week.
Let’s say you moved every single Waymo car in the United States to Portland. Great. You’ve now covered 17% of what TriMet did last year.
Now you simply have to build/buy five more Waymo cars for each one that you brought to Portland, bringing the Portland metro area’s Waymo fleet to ~15,000 cars.
Since we’re abolishing public transit for some godforsaken reason in this thought experiment, that’s fifteen thousand cars that are on the roads constantly. It’s not like adding 20,000 new households where people’s cars are often parked, it’s much, much worse than that.
These 15,000 cars would also likely need additional dedicated infrastructure for fuel/charging, which is expensive and extremely logistically difficult.
It’s not just a terrible idea fiscally (unless you truly believe that Waymo could finance, insure, maintain, and provide infrastructure for a fleet 6x the size of its current nationwide inventory with a budget of $555mm), but it’s logistically just… bad.
It is bad for one simple reason: Waymo, as it exists, does not compete with public transit. It competes with taxis and other ride hailing services. Modes of transportation at scale are not interchangeable. Anyone can buy and legally fly a Composite-FX Mosquito helicopter, but Composite-FX does not compete with airlines or airports.
Waymo’s self driving stuff could eventually be useful on buses, but Waymo-as-a-municipal-transit-vendor would be a completely different business from “Uber without drivers”.
I wonder how much that sentiment is that based on steampunk and 1880's nostalgia?
I've lived and travelled in a ton of places. Trains in low density cities are simply not working well enough. I now prefer to live in exurb and drive everywhere. It's so good.
Pretty much by definition, yes.
Repeating "trains" in every transport context is unproductive. Each mode of transport requires certain density. Most US cities just don't have it. It's that simple.
Which American cities have notable modern train systems? Not Portland, or NYC, or Washington DC.
adjective
no· ta· ble ˈnō-tə-bəl for sense 2 also
1 a : worthy of note : remarkable
| a *notable* improvement
I’ve become quite radicalized on trains after visiting Japan and Switzerland myself.
UK spent $100M just to deal with bats in a single train tunnel, which is representative of the issue https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wryxyljglo
China just doesn't have to worry about environmentalists or anyone else locally trying to stand in the way, they just bulldoze them and build.
China also has much lower labor costs, and even Japan is a good bit cheaper (than the US, at the least)
The metro area density of Tokyo is 3,000 / km^2
The metro area density of Beijing is 1,747 / km^2
Greater Los Angeles: 208 / km^2
A perhaps more interesting use case is the utsunomiya light rail. Utsunomiya has a density of around 1200/km^2.
What they ended up doing was building a new tram with exactly one line. The main thing they did was make sure the tram comes frequently, including off peak.
End result is people rely on the tram line and the tram is making good money, being operationally profitable (still gotta pay back construction costs of course).
Utsunomiya is obviously not exactly greater LA, but Utsunomiya has on average 2.25 cars per household[0]. It has traffic issues and people feel the need to own a car. And yet the tram line is finding success because transportation is a local issue, not a global one!
You can solve for transportation issues in crowded areas. Few reasonable people are lamenting that you don't have a train between madison, WI and Chicago every 15 minutes. Many are simply lamenting that even at a local level PT in many places is leaving a lot on the table despite there being chances of success!
Smaller focused PT has proven itself to work time and time again, and compounds on other PT projects in the area.
[0]: https://www.pref.tochigi.lg.jp/english/intro/overview.html
Most of the rail has get around mountainous, uneven terrain subject to earthquakes, strong winds, and heavy rain. California should be able to build rail parallel to the I-5, a long, flat terrain without extreme weather or strong earthquakes. The problem seems to be a political one, not an engineering one. In fact, if the Interstate Highway System did not already exist, I doubt the U.S. today would be able to accept and complete it.
> one long line with a few branches
I currently live in Japan, and that does not really match what I've observed. There are three distinct railway companies in my area (JR, Tokyu, Yokohama Municipal Subway), each with their own dedicated rail, trains, power supply, etc.
The situation is more like "a disjoint union of graphs, where some of the graphs are connected".
It has to be said: even in Japan train projects are multi decade projects.
Is Cali HSR stopped? I can imagine it being slow but I wonder if it's 10x slower or "merely" 3x slower.
https://www.metro.net/about/media-relations/156-million-new-...
A BRT system would have had a capacity of, very optimistically, 6,000 people per hour per direction (a 100 person bus arriving every minute), but in practice probably less (that is difficult to maintain without delays). At the time, there was some doubt that even this capacity was required. The original tram setup also had a capacity of about 6,000 people per hour. Within years, the trams were full to overcrowding, and the line was expanded to 10,000 people per hour. Now it's at capacity again, with some of the longest trams in the world arriving every three minutes at peak. The only realistic option to further increase capacity is to turn it into a metro line (which, fortunately, was in principle planned for from the start, and _is_ possible, albeit with some disruption).
If they'd gone with a BRT, they'd now be looking at ripping up the whole thing and having nothing for years while they laid tracks.
Normal Person: I heard about shellfish, but it turns out I don't like to eat it, because it tastes bad.
Seafood Advocate 1: You are wrong, shellfish is highly nutritious. And one of the most calorie dense foods.
Seafood Advocate 2: Everyone knows you need to eat shellfish between the hours of 11AM and 1PM. If you learn to eat at the proper time, you would like shellfish.
Seafood Advocate 3: People in Japan eat shellfish, so it is highly likely that you like shellfish as well.
Seafood Advocate 4: The only reason someone could say they dislike shellfish is because of the anti-seafood conspiracy.
Normal Person: I thought this was originally a thread about chicken pasta recipes? Continues to not eat shellfish.
That's buses. Even more with electric buses. They are insanely subsidized by public. Robot taxis are vastly cheaper for everyone.
and thats a policy decision rather than a commercial one
That might be an unintentionally excellent analogy, because like a Band-Aid, self self driving cars have the potential to heal the urban environment. The widespread adoption of self driving cars doesn’t take cars off the road, but it does reduce the reliance on destination parking. Entire city car parks could be replaced with medium density residential, substantially increasing density and paving the way to walkable cities.
Similar to alcohol prohibition and methanol poisoning.
Yup, it is genuinely convenient that Waymo doesn't rely on an unpopular payroll tax for funding while the bus system does
Portland car infrastructure in particular does get a little love from me just because of how damn impressive some of it is (namely the mountain passage to the west and the complex bridge interchanges on the east side) but it's still car infrastructure.
So you pay Waymo, they pay a few hundred dollars a year per car in registration, and you benefit from billions of dollars a year in highway funds from both state and federal sources.
Waymo and I pay a lot in state and federal taxes. Shouldn't that work out that we're paying for a shared resource we use even if the proportional accounting is not exact?
But in any event, cars and roads are massively subsidized, such that drivers get far more than they pay for. See for instance: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/59667
Roads are paid for out of the general fund, meaning that even those (few) who don’t use them pay for them, which I’d call a subsidy (as opposed to self-supporting). That’s not necessarily a bad thing; the same is true for many programs that support low-income people, and I think that’s great. But it’s still fair to call it a subsidy.
State and local governments spend a truly obscene amount of money building and repairing roads, and set aside a nauseating amount of publicly owned land to serve as roads, street parking, and parking lots. Those of us who don't frequently drive get some benefit from the roads, sure, because of the efficiencies of shops needing deliveries and whatnot, but not anything close to proportional to what drivers get out of it. And we accept this as the default way that things should be, whereas we assume that public transit needs to "pay for itself".
In that same budget, PDOT spent $56M on streets, signs and streetlights, before you even consider the $242M spent on "asset management" - which appears to generally be capital improvements; i.e., rebuilding roads [2, page 509].
I don't care what fraction of that wear and tear is due to buses, it's not remotely close. And in any case, by the same fourth-power law, private 18-wheelers do astronomically more damage than buses.
And yes, PDOT makes revenue back from some of those things, so it's not all straight from the city general fund, but it doesn't matter in any practical way. They don't have revenues broken down as far as I'd like on that budget - there's one big $89M line item for "charges for services", which appears to include parking meters as well as tram fare - but the vast majority of their budget still comes from taxes plus "intergovernmental" sources (aka state and federal money, aka taxes).
[1] https://www.gpmetro.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-Oper... [2] https://www.portland.gov/budget/documents/fy-2025-26-city-po...
Where "some benefit" includes transportation and delivery of every single product necessary for daily life as well as garbage removal of the same products.
I'd also argue we'd need the same amount of roads, but those roads (mostly highways) could be smaller/fewer lanes.
Am I misremembering, or did they just drastically expand it?
I actually live in Portland, and Waymos are going to be a massive improvement over the chronically inattentive, unskilled drivers around here. Waymos aren't glued to their phones at intersections. That, alone, is 70% of all pedestrian crashes caused by human drivers in Portland.
The first two happened to me within the span of a month during the three years that I rode Trimet in Portland.
That part should be worrying; will they need to increase prices significantly when they decide to become profitable?
But more broadly, I agree that Waymo is an improvement over taxis or Uber/Lyft. The comparison to public transit is a complicated and local question (I don't live in Portland and have never ridden TriMet), but in general I think there's a place for both.
just a point of clarification, the term "payroll taxes" refers to Social Security and Medicare taxes that are applied to your paycheck; you don't pay them, self-employed and employers pay those. Wage-earners do not pay them directly, but do collect the social security and Medicare benefits that they pay for later in life, so in that sense it's something of a deferred bonus to workers.
Everybody also pays income taxes which are a separate set of taxes, and they are equally hated by all.
"payroll taxes" are called that because they are applied to payrolls of people who pay payrolls. Payroll taxes would not pay for things like mass transit.
If you are self-employed, you have to manually pay the tax because there's no employer wage to automatically deduct from.
A quick search could have resolved your confusion before commenting nonsense.
the main reason for the distaste is that self-employed people generally fall in the class of people who do a better job preparing for retirement, and the govt old age/retirement systems are not intelligently run, it's more like "money under the bed" that gets raided to pay the current generation of old people rather than being saved not saved for the future. That same money in a private insurance account would offer the better returns as investment accounts do.
the reason the retirement funds are set to go bankrupt is that there are a lot of baby boomers. This is not the baby boomers fault, when govt retirement programs were set up back in the depression era, it gave pension eligibility to people who had not paid into a retirement system, paid for by current workers, and that can kept getting kicked down the road. I don't think anybody wants to see penniless old people, they simply want a government that plans ahead and doesn't keep kicking the can down the road, and doesn't raid pension monies to use as "free money" to pay for other government pork.
I seriously don't mind living in America and paying taxes here but, but when better and more efficient tax regimes are available, or when socialist tax proposals derail local economies, I seriously want to educate people about them.
In Oregon, TriMet is funded by a payroll tax: https://www.oregon.gov/dor/programs/businesses/pages/trimet-...
> The Oregon Department of Revenue administers tax programs for the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District (TriMet). Nearly every employer who pays wages for services performed in this district must pay transit payroll tax.
> The transit tax is imposed directly on the employer. The tax is figured only on the amount of gross payroll for services performed within the TriMet Transit District. This includes traveling sales representatives and employees working from home.
If a tax is a function of the worker's income, it doesn't really matter (except for nominal terms) whether the worker or employer pays the taxes, the economic effect is the same. Who actually bears the burden of the tax ends up determined by the price elasticity of supply/demand in that labor market, and is not determined by who is on the hook for the literal payment.
yes, I took a lot of micro (and macro too for that matter) but if what you say were true, neither political party nor activists would go on and on about taxing "corporations". You should direct your comments toward the parties that do that. But of course, you would get downvoted because the parties that do that don't want to hear otherwise. That's what I was doing, trying to explain ecomonics in ways they'd be receptive to, because telling people how things work is always a good thing even if they are not ready to go all the way.
also, in terms of pure micro, indirectly taxing things is never as efficient as directly taxing them, which you are not accounting for. The inefficiency tax in the form of "lower overall employment" is not easily measured even though we know it's quite significant and as impactful as "well this tax averages out the same" when it's not the same.
An alternative view of this is the majority of voters are expected to reject a tax increase in the upcoming elections, in a state that elects a supermajority of Democrat legislators.
https://ballotpedia.org/Oregon_Referendum_120,_Increase_to_G...
> A "no" vote repeals five sections of HB 3991 related to tax and fee increases, including increases to the state's gas tax from $0.40 to $0.46, payroll tax for transportation from 0.1% to 0.2%, and vehicle registration and title fees, with revenue dedicated to the State Highway Fund for transportation funding.
> They are voting to give themselves a pay raise
A no vote would mean they earn the same they did before they vote. Earning the same is not a pay raise.
People here keep asking why do tax payer needs to pay for incompetent politicians' mistakes. Then when Oregonians did something, the same people blamed them. Are you people high?
It is like saying “that bus would be useless at the bottom of a lake”
well, yeah. The first step would be not driving it into a lake
Different population densities have different optimal vehicle sizes. It's the same reason a small city airport might have one or two regional jets per day serving it instead of 2 747s per week.
You can fit 40-50 people in your car?
(I am of course ignoring the scaling for fuel, maintenance, pollution, and traffic costs of personal vehicles; but my point is that most people severely underestimate just how awful the economic case for an underused full size bus is. Now, minibuses and microbuses are a different story; but US public transit systems don't use them.)
[1] https://www.kgw.com/article/news/verify/yes-bus-more-road-da...
Which is also why WA state has been charging an additional significant car registration fee on EVs (on top of the usual annual registration costs), since EVs don't contribute to this normally through gas/diesel taxes.
Tax revenue was $555mm
https://trimet.org/about/pdf/trimetridership.pdf
~122,300,000 rides (originating + boarding)
So about $4.53 per ride.
The Portland metro is ~2.5mm people, so about $222/resident/yr.
Portland metro area residents pay on average about sixty cents per day to subsidize TriMet.
Roughly 1/43rd the average cost of ownership for a new car in Oregon.
https://info.oregon.aaa.com/how-much-does-it-really-cost-to-...
When a company / government gets the cost per mile to run a fleet of autonomous EV's down to ~60cents/mile or so, which is a plausible enough number, then a lot of those transit rides are going to look real silly from a cost effectiveness POV.
This of course is in refutation to the various points made up the thread that self driving EVs are not cost competitive and glorified taxis -- not viable public transit for the masses.
Like you admit that Waymo can’t compete with transit unless you hobble transit.
Waymo raised $16 billon in February. If they really need $500mm to build a transit competitor in Portland, the only reason why they would reach into the taxpayer’s pocket instead of their own would be to undermine a genuinely more useful and capable system that they don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell of competing with.
For comparison, a Lyft or Uber in the same area would cost you $1-2 per mile. Obviously it's not feasible for all 200k daily riders to take Uber/Lyft, and the Uber/Lyft cost doesn't include externalities like extra traffic, but TriMet is very expensive per passenger mile.
Public transit like buses and lightrail are significantly more efficient per person than personal vehicles. This is because they can transport many more people for the same amount of space and energy. They also typically run on set tracks, which yields more efficiency gains.
The US is really, really bad at doing public transit. It doesn't help that everything is car centric, which makes public transit much harder.
For example, in your comment you're excluding road cost, but you're including the full system cost of transit. That's a car centric side effect, e.g. we take roads for granted. But the cost of cars also includes the cost of roads, the cost of land under those roads, the cost of parking, etc.
Partially not, as gas taxes cover part of it. I think gas and diesel taxes should cover the full cost of roads, which would help. Still doesn't mean transit should be run so inefficiently.
Assuming the transit is fully utilized and the car is mostly not. And maybe that's a good way to look at it. But in Portland the light rail is often well under capacity, and in that case a carpool likely wins on efficiency.
> the cost of cars also includes the cost of roads, the cost of land under those roads, the cost of parking
Partially. Those roads will have to exist even if we did not have personal cars.
We design cities for cars, which results in the cities spreading out further and further, which makes transit less desirable and more expensive. Other countries don't have this problem to this degree, because they don't design their cities exclusively for cars.
Also, I don't think most roads would need to exist if the amount of cars decreased. Because of the density problem noted above. Cars are sort of self-eating. The more cars you use, the more land-per-car you need as everything spreads further out to accommodate the cars.
Consider that the transportation system might not be the best fit if it requires designing the rest of the world differently and against preferences (large, detached, single-family homes with a yard).
We also have the issue that dense inner cities are subsidizing the infrastructure for the spread out suburbs. If people had to pay the full cost they again might choose differently.
The car is mostly not.
> But in Portland the light rail is often well under capacity,
Haven't looked deeply into it, but looking at how the US plans and designs its public transport, I'm surprised anyone was using it at all.
I agree. The question remains - why do U.S. municipalities universally and repeatedly fail to successfully implement rapid transit at an efficient price point? Buses, trains, and subways in America have ever-growing budgets (both in absolute and per customer mile terms) with ever-declining quality of service. Just asking for more tax revenue again and again is not the solution.
Re-read your same response, but replace "mass transit" with "private automobiles". The economic case is equally weak/negative. For a moment, imagine there is a small RaspberryPi-like device in your car that records every mile driven within city limits, then sends you a monthly bill for the true cost to maintain and police those roads. The cost would shock most users. Without a doubt, private automobiles are massively subsidised by tax payers. However, it is a democracy, and the voters are OK with it, so it continues.
To go further, there are very few mass transit systems in the world that do not require large gov't subsidies to operate. (I guess less than ten.) In all such cases, the gov't funds nearly 100% of the construction cost of railways.
If you divide passenger miles for TriMet busses (141,726,107) by the number of revenue miles (21,195,016), you get an average of 6.7 passengers per bus, or around 10% of available seats. For MAX (the train) you get an average of 27.4 passengers per train, or around 16% of available seats. In both cases that's seats, not total capacity including standing room. I realize it's important to provision the system for peak demand, but still this seems very wasteful.
And because road wear scales with the fourth power of axle loading, a bus will typically cause 1,000x more road damage than a car.[2] Assuming every car on the road has only one occupant, this means that, on average, a TriMet bus causes 150x more road wear per occupant. The main externality created by cars is traffic.
I agree with you that public transportation can work. It clearly does in many places. But Portland's public transportation is dysfunctional, and I don't see that changing any time soon. That's why substitutes (even partial substitutes like Waymo) are beneficial. The more options people have for getting around, the better off they'll be.
1. https://trimet.org/budget/pdf/2026-adopted-budget.pdf
2. https://www.kgw.com/article/news/verify/yes-bus-more-road-da...
- If everyone took a Waymo... Waymo sucks. Not true of trains.
($/MW of power is stupid with nuclear in the age of solar and batteries, with basically zero safety concern... i.e. you can deploy solar and batteries to houses... not so much for nuclear)
All take Waymo shared taxi/minibus - it is better than current mass transit and almost as good as car during low traffic.
But self driving cars are not public transit. That's a grift that the people making the self driving cars are selling, so they can sell a bunch of self driving cars. The most prominent example is the hyperloop in vegas.
Self driving cars will not solve the traffic, safety, time, or cost concerns around cars. They will help a little bit, marginal gains. But they will not solve it because it's not a departure from the status quo, it's just a continuation of it.
I would be interested to see a study on that. I see many buses driving around with zero or one passengers on them. If a bus is full, the efficiency would be off the charts. But for a city like Portland, that only happens during commute times. The rest of the time, the buses are driving around empty.
Almost everyone drives so the government needs to pay for roads either way. Public transit on the other hand is easy to cut. What matters here is marginal costs of people using ride shares instead of public transit, not the full cost of driving that would need to be paid either way.
Perhaps it isn’t expensive once you consider the peak load and externalities. How many new roads would you have to build to do that?
Why not both?
The absolute biggest problems with mass transit in the US are the "first mile" and the "last mile".
If I wanted to take mass transit, I had to show up before 7:00 AM in order to park my car. Every single train after 7:00AM became useless to commuters. That's idiotic.
And then I needed a car at the destination station to drive to my workplace. So, a bunch of us had completely idle cars parked at the commuter station that we used roughly 15 minutes per day but needed parking at both the station AND the workplace--just to use the train. Good lord that is stupid.
Waymo at the right price solves a whole bunch of these issues. Suddenly utilization of your train can go up because you've decoupled train utilization from train station parking. In addition, train utilization isn't so dependent upon close distance to the station. Now, you can build a transit station and allow it to organically fill in instead of getting killed because it's an expensive money sink for 10+ years until housing builds around it. etc.
Sure, you should be able to take a bicycle from the station; that's not how the US is laid out so you have to deal with what you are stuck with today. Sadly, this isn't the old days where everybody works at the mill and dropping a station right there gets you 80% of the population; you have to put that station in and wait a decade while things adjust.
Waymo gets you across the interim while the mass transit convenience transitions from poor to something useful over multiple decades.
That's absurd. Waymo exacerbates the problem. It doesn't provide public transport.
You get unlimited travel for $100/month on Trimet. You think Waymo is going to cost anything close to that?
Only because the government is subsidizing 90% of TriMet's operating costs.
It might be interesting to see what sort of system Waymo could build with a similar subsidy... but that's never going to happen.
That's like owning a train system and not paying for the tracks. Yeah... that's a huge part of it.
There's also indirect subsidies, for example the cost of land and housing. Cars are extremely space inefficient, so they encourage poor urban design that results in huge amounts of land wasted.
Well... the land and property that's left is then inflated in price. You could consider that cost difference as a subsidy to all drivers.
Everyone uses roads, and everyone pays for roads. If you buy a potato from a grocery store, part of the money paid for fuel for the delivery truck. The tax on that fuel paid for part of the road.
It sounds like they're going to leave that behind, at least for the foreseeable future. A $300 million cut will probably lead to a death spiral in ridership.
Oregon, and Portland in particular, suffered a lot economically after covid due to overprotective laws banning operations. A lot of companies went out of business, people moved, and tax revenue plummeted. Growth since has been slow due to hostile laws. TriMet cuts are due to poor city and state management, which frankly doubling payroll tax would exacerbate.
Like others, my biggest objection with it was their approach to scaling. Tesla aimed for the vision-only general solution with FSD, while Waymo held strong to its LIDAR-first geofence strategy. I held this opinion before using Waymo, as it wasn't available in my city (Houston, TX).
I've used it several times after being invited into their Early Access earlier this month...and, wow, I couldn't have been more wrong.
Waymo drives incredibly well. Like, INCREDIBLY well. Tesla FSD v14 drives well too, but Waymo feels more confident in edge case situations (of which there are many in the city driving space) and, well, I can be on my laptop or whatever during the trip.
Ironically, Waymo pushed me towards using public transit in Houston, so it's incredibly sad to read that this expansion is happening as Portland's public transit system is getting defunded. The time and mental sanity I've gotten back from not driving has been immense and undeniable. (It's weird how "bus-pilled" I became after my first few Waymo trips given that I grew up in NYC taking the bus and subway all of the time.)
All that said, based on how slowly Tesla is scaling their (inexcusably much more nascent) Robotaxi offering, I don't think ANY of our cars are going to get "unsupervised" FSD with the hardware they were shipped with.
For anobody observing it from the sidelines, it was obvious for the past 3 years at least, that Tesla will not achieve real unsupervised FSD with HW3, and now it's also obvious it will not be wiht HW4. It's also obvious they are very well aware of those facts, despite lying to investors and customers for the past 10 years.
Maybe that's why they pivoted so hard into Optimus (at the cost of their auto division).
https://www.drive.com.au/news/byd-launches-driver-assistance...
Can't vouch for its quality since it's notoriously difficult to get reliable safety data on Chinese self-driving, but I'm reasonably sure these are the first widely available consumer vehicles with LIDAR, which is already a massive improvement on Tesla's myopic camera-only insistence.
If they were serious about being close to cracking FSD, they would double down on their auto business. Them killing their flagships (Model S/X) and investing their time on Optimus instead strongly suggests that they probably won't make it. (They did finally online their Semi production line, but I have my doubts on how well that will do.)
Portland is a tough place to drive, lots of edge cases, so a good test case for Waymo.
Having said that, as good as Waymo might be, I'm still concerned about the effect on public transport, which I use when I can. We're in the suburbs but it's good for getting downtown (no parking to worry about) and to the airport, which unlike many US cities is served by rail. We're don't live near a light rail station (wish there were more of them!) but we park and ride. I wish more people would do that, but Americans are obsessed with single car transport and the cities are designed for that.
"When I go I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming and afraid like the passengers in his car"
Even if you also have good winter tires on, if your level of "caution" could be best measured as normal to high, sometimes it's a judgment call on when you want to pull off to the shoulder for 45 seconds to let a bunch of vehicles behind you pass. I'm not sure this is something any automated driver has been configured for. Or just generally to deal with driving when the road condition could best be described as "two only partially visible ruts in the snow where the tires of previous vehicles have driven, with snow in the centre".
Same thing in somewhere with a climate like upper Michigan or in Maine.
You couldn't see anything. As soon as there wasn't a car 20 yards in front of you, it was a complete whiteout. Ice built up on the wiper as quickly as you could possibly reach out of your window and clear it. Radar would probably be nice, but I don't think it'd be enough to keep driving. The cameras and lidar would be an absolute wreck.
I'm sure we'll get there eventually, but that is really the final frontier for AI driving I think. Waymos aren't even allowed to drive in a snowstorm right now. I suspect that you'll be dealing with Caltrans closing the pass for the rest of your life.
Disclosure: My grad student advisor.
Humans and Control System Models need feedback to operate, and worse still... when any input into the vehicle's controls produce zero results, you will spin out.
My concern with a model in these conditions is that it wouldn't recoginize the fact that other cars were in the ditch and that it should probably slow down
The main limitation is still sensors in the snow, but it seems to not be that big of a deal to build sensor packages that are better at seeing in the snow than a human is.
Being able to plot a series of inputs that can more efficiently use available traction than a human doesn't prevent you from blundering your way into a dumb situation where the laws of physics dictate that the only possible outcomes are various flavors of bad ones.
It's not clear how often the software will chose poorly and need to brute force its way out with traction/handling. The fact that they seem to be hedging against this by putting the hardware on particularly performant cars indicates it must happen enough to matter or be rare but bad enough to matter when it does happen.
Waymo will probably also rack up a ton of technically not at fault accidents by being obtuse in traffic since there's when there's snow there's a lot less margin for the "two people trying to pass each other in a hallway" type missteps that behavior tends to create.
No, this is not a "works in a textbook" take. The path planner is aware of surface conditions on the road. This is already a big deal because otherwise the AV would not be safe to operate in the rain.
Waymo will not be touched in most of those accidents. I've been driving in snow long enough to know that there are always going to be idiots who drive too fast for conditions and lose control of their car; I'm sure some of them will blame Waymo because it's nearby. I once watched a guy with a TX license plate spin out on a perfectly empty, perfectly straight freeway. Waymo doesn't really need to do anything for human drivers to crash.
I love Waymo in other cities, but it'd be especially helpful here during the 1 day every other year that we actually get any snow ... if we ever get snow here again.
The second-order effects of that could be pretty wild. If people stopped owning their own cars, we wouldn't need houses with garages and driveways. It'd favor dense development with loading zones rather than parking spaces. It'd also be a big boon for EV adoption since the cars are all owned by one corporate owner and all go home to a centralized depot to charge at night rather than needing to retrofit EV chargers onto everyone's living situation. (Indeed, Waymo runs an all-electric fleet.). There'd be a premium on very reliable powertrains, since the cars might easily put 60-70K miles/year on them instead of the 10-15K that is typical of passenger vehicles. I dunno why Waymo went with Jaguar instead of Toyota, but perhaps "EV" is the explanation. Cars would wear out in 3-5 years instead of lasting for 15-20, and so you'd always have the latest hardware and technology on the car.
All the money we spend on traffic enforcement would become pointless, with audits of the software becoming a more effective use of dollars instead. But that blows a hole in many small local PD's budgets, many of which use speeding and parking tickets to raise revenue. Municipalities would likely find themselves powerless at regulating Big Self-Driving Rideshares.
The third-order effects are interesting as well. Once all cars on the road are self-driving, why not have them draft each other and physically link up to improve power efficiency and safety? You might even call such an arrangement a "train", blurring the line between road and rail transportation. But then, if you've got docking and linkage mechanisms, why not put the boundary between the electronics & powertrain and the passenger compartment, like the Rivian "skateboard" platform? You could return to private ownership of the passenger compartment - where, after all, some people like to store all their junk - and then have the rideshare own only the means of locomotion. Then you could extend this to other forms of locomotion like elevators, airplanes and ferries, so that your passenger compartment could just drop down an elevator shoot, onto a waiting self-driving car, which links up with others to become a train, takes you to the airport where you're loaded onto a plane without ever having to board, and then your pod deplanes and a self-driving car takes you straight to your hotel, where you now have transportation to wherever you want to go.
The future looks an awful lot like intermodal containers for people.
Love this concept.
As self-driving vehicles become a larger share of road use, roads can be more efficiently designed just for them: no speed limit, just 2 strips of pavement for the tires, no signage or striping, etc.
We'll just build the cars with parts that seldom fail. And we'll make them very strong, so that the only risk from hitting a deer or even a cow is a splash of gore.
That should help eliminate the need to turn. A loud horn and flashing lights will do pretty well for any errant humans that cross the path.
We can even reduce rolling resistance by using steel wheels instead of rubber, and we can make the road a surface of continuous steel for durability.
We can even hitch the cars together so they can't collide with eachother and they can collectively share the propulsion load. (Maybe even with automatic micro payments, so a car with low battery can pay the others to help it along.)
What would we call this thing?
> You might even call such an arrangement a "train"
Joking aside, though, the big issue with trains is last-mile. The road network covers a lot more land than the rail network does, and can reach places that trains can't. And this seems to be inherent to the physics of it, driven (hah) by cars ability to turn where trains cannot.
Mass transit enthusiasts love to gloss over the very real convenience issues that mass transit has, saying "Well everybody should just live next to the train station." The world doesn't work like that. Hence why I think a hybrid system of dockable autonomous vehicles that can be linked up into a train in high-throughput thoroughfares gives you the best of all worlds.
The world as a whole, and particularly the US, maybe not, but it does actually work in urbanized dense cities.
Currently I live in a city with an OK pt network; in the a high density apartment. I chose this because I can catch a train to work, go drinking locally, and I dislike driving.
If I could rely on a driverless car, i would happily live further out in the suburbs, as the driverless car removes the upsides of density more than anything else... And I think this is a common sentiment, driven mostly by housing costs.
And then you have the cost of a trip, of owning vs rideshare... If its my car I can choose the furnishing, pay for fuel or power however is most efficient for me (eg solar), not have to pay for cleaning, and store my stuff in the car.
So a Tesla?
As for autonomy, Waymos have LIDARs which at least provides more redundancy.
I see these as different design tradeoffs so no judgment implied.
Always feels a little weird to read a comment that is plausibly going to end up being referenced in a future news article.
My Tesla Was Driving Itself Perfectly—Until It Crashed
The danger of almost-perfect tech
$10K for full autopilot on Tesla in 2018 was essentially a fraud. I have since then learned not to trust anything Elon says.
I’m not saying cars shouldn’t ever exist. The ‘last mile problem’ is a thing, and proper self-driving cars could be good for part of that (especially after a train and bus if you have lots of stuff). But you want to sleep in a vehicle with lots of storage space while driving across the country? That’s called a train. Nothing new needed.
I want to move on my schedule and convenience, I don't want to have to warp my day to day around someone else's departure schedule.
And there's nothing wrong with it! I take detours on road trips all the time following “Historic <thing> →” signs or just because I see something interesting in the distance and want to go check it out. On a train journey I'd just have to watch them pass by.
Buses can be slower, but I don't even know of a 2x difference. For longer trips they can travel 24/7. And overall they are more efficient because you can do other things instead of driving.
> This doesnt even get into the anti-social behavior present on both
I don't have a problem on buses and trains. I have more problem with other drivers when I drive. Your comment is, ironically, antisocial.
That sounds like hell. Bus seats are just as tight as coach class airline seats, and unlike trains there isn't even an option to pay exorbitant pricing for a sleeper compartment.
> Bus seats are just as tight as coach class airline seats
IME bus seats are first class in padding and support, a bit wider than coach, and with more leg room (though I'd need to measure to confirm). Much more comfortable than airplane coach - and without the air pressure, vibration / noise, and humidity problems.
> exorbitant pricing for a sleeper compartment
It just depends on the train, how far ahead you pay, etc.
1. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2025-Q4-Ride...
But one huge factor that you have to contend with is the randomness of the tragedy of the commons problem on public transport / shared transport. A train journey can be blissful to sleep on right until a loud group gets on and sits across from you and there's no seats available to move.
I think this is something that can't be overlooked, especially if you're talking about something like a short trip where if you don't sleep well en route, quite a large proportion of the trip time is going to be affected. Having a private vehicle where you can guarantee control of your environment is a really huge plus.
But that's precisely the problem, it only takes a very tiny minority to change this. If one group, one person sometimes, in a carriage of 50 people decides to go against this, then that's that. It's not even particularly common, but it happens, it's random, and so it's just something that must be contended with.
The majority consensus is to desire a peaceful environment but do nothing when it is violated.
That is why it breaks down — once it is discarded in a melting pot the cultural expectations are unclear and it seems you’re at least initially dependent on the state or mob dynamics.
I think you have to go further upstream socially - there are people that should not be free, but are. Public transit has not just loud talking or music on phones, but the mentally deranged, babbling, even actively drug using population walking a knife's edge between erratic and aggressive behavior. From my POV it's so far past a stern stare on the US west coast that the suggestion comes across comical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippine_drug_war
Extremely popular and objectively reduced crime and drug usage. In portlands case, you keep weed, steroids, psychedelics, and party drugs legal and come down like hell on the society destroying stuff like fenty
China needed to do similar drastic things to get out of the slump caused by the opium wars. They call that period the “century of humiliation “ for a reason.
There's immense social capital and NGO patronage at work surrounding 'homeless' - and I parse that as mentally ill now, as it's an insult (IMO) to the homeless who are perfectly capable of respecting others and participating in the social contract.
I’d much rather be around the noisy-but-relatively-harmless person than someone with so little regard for their fellow man.
Or longer if they show they are unable to reform while in prison.
>penalty for being “noisy” on a train
That is ignoring the second order effects of the situation. This noise is holding back the flywheel of public transportation that could have economic benefits to millions of people. The penalty is for the enormous cost of holding the rest of society back. The person who has such little regard for their fellow man is the one who is letting the few ruin society for the many.
Fortunately, your views are wildly extreme and unconstitutional. Regardless, I hope you find some empathy and some peace out there.
In regards to doing drugs I'd prefer only the death penalty or other equivalent permanent punishment for those have used or distributed them and not the whole family. When we have a war on drugs, murder is not the correct word to use. Drug usage is an extremely fast spreading social virus that needs to be immediately and swiftly snuffed out.
>your views are wildly extreme and unconstitutional
If having properly waited consequences to people's negative actions is considered unconstitutional than I believe the constitution should be changed as it is allowing society to be held back. I see nothing fortunate about allowing people to not have to be responsible for their actions that have negatively impacted society. I hope you too find some empathy.
Answers which involve removing oneself from society (by entering a private car) are not good answers. And when you factor in the externalities, you're just displacing "I'm upset, possibly even unwell due to sleep lost" onto "we replaced 90% of the local natural environment with pavement and paint it with crushed human beings every single day".
As an American, it's far easier to imagine autonomous robot driven road trips than it is to imagine a government that is competent enough to build passenger rail networks.
(to be clear, I don't think the other poster is correct that having trains would satisfy the desire of the guy who wants a self-driving Rivian. I consider his want/need there to be fundamentally different)
Building new rail projects in the US is very hard because of capital costs and regulations like NEPA (and CEQA in California) which require environmental review for everything. Brightline in Florida was able to get around this by working in an existing highway ROW.
And will probably go bankrupt this year: https://www.wlrn.org/business/2026-01-23/brightline-business...
Fees are also very high for such a slow option.
As for the future, well... it is bleak. This administration is actively trying to block transit expansion, presumably due to their undying affection for the fossil fuel industry, going so far as to withhold funding from already awarded grants to regional rail.
So while the northeast can sort-of pull it off due to its relatively compact nature and history of more progressive policies, this leaves the vast majority of the country in a no-mans land.
We used to have passenger rail. Even the desolate nowhere of semi-rural Ohio was well-served. Street cars to get around town, inter-urbans to get between nearby towns, and proper passenger trains to get to points far-away.
It didn't work out. There's reasons why it didn't work, like the literal conspiracy between General Motors and Firestone Tire that deliberately sought to destroy it.
Whatever those reasons were, they are are behind us. So it may seem superficially easy to just put it all back... but it isn't.
When the lines stopped being used, we tore them out. They're gone. And where the lines are gone, old stations are also mostly gone. Cities had once been built around (and because of) rail, but were subsequently built for cars as time marched forward and things continued to expand.
In some cases, whole communities have disappeared in the transition away from rail. In many other cases, we let our central stations decay and rot or demolished them to make space for things like convention centers.
So what's left is what we have: We have cars.
It's easy for me to see a future where I can buy a car and curl up in the back seat with a movie (and maybe a cocktail) while it ferries me from A to B.
That's a future I might actually live long enough to see, and it appears to be inevitable.
And I'd love to be freed of the chains of having to drive myself from A to B.
But I'll be dead and buried before we get passenger rail to be even 1/10th of what it once was.
So I choose to dream practical dreams. I can only play the hand I'm dealt.
So, let's say you take public transport from SF to Yosemite/Los Angeles. Now, how do I cover the last mile (or even multiple points)? Take more public transport? Hitchhike?
The reason long-distance public transport works well in Europe is that there is good local public transport in both the source and the destination cities. When that does not exist, you are better off driving.
Amtrak could do the same thing but because of how Amtrak is organized in not sure that it would be possible. Most of the current Waymo geos are not connected by Amtrak directly and require transfers.
Trying to take something like a windsurf board on a train, and then having to navigate multiple train changes along with whatever other baggage you have makes it a non-starter.
The "last mile problem" you mention is unresolved when it comes to getting from the closest public transit stop to the actual destination (frequently in a park or even off road).
And finally, the final cost to the rider would be significantly higher, as sleeper trains are not cheap.
I think America could do quite well if it focused on public transit in and between densely populated areas. Fewer cars in cities could make for denser cities, which in turn could allow for even more public transit. But outside of population centers, America is much more spread out than Europe, meaning that trains are less economical, and often wouldn't get the ridership that would allow them to make sense.
The point of public transit isn't to handle 100% of all trips. It's to handle the most common trips in a more efficient and scalable way.
Step 1, get to the local train station in my town. There are 6 trains daily between me and Portland. Also, amtrak on the cross country trains requires the bikes to be in a box, in storage cars.
So I gotta get a large bike box, and get myself, my bike, the box, and some tools to break it down to our local amtrak station. Then partially dissasemble the bike, and box it. (of course, our train station has room in it for 5-10 people, and most sit outside, uncovered, which is fun in spring.)
Then, get to the main Portland Train station, with my bike box, and backpack with my stuff and tools. Wait up to 9 hours for the hawaitha train. (its often many hours late, and only leaves once per day).
Load Bike in cargo car, and then board train late at night.
Wake up around 5am, (or later, if train is behind schedule) and disembark at Glacier, re-assemble my bike. Figure out how to get it, and the box (i'll need it for the return trip) to a hotel or AirBnB.
For the return trip, its about the same, 1 daily westbound train, that is usually hours late, then hope you get to portland before the last train for the day leaves for my town, or else find a place to stay with a bike, backpack, and bike box in the sketchy area around the trainstation...
Or, hop in a car with a bike rack, and drive 10 hours. Which is easier, and MUCH cheaper if I split the cost of gas with someone else. So 2 extra travel days back for vacation, and much less stress.
But this fellah seemed to have that part figured out: Bike to the train station, and take the bike on the train. That part seems straight-forward. The train stations were near-enough to where they wanted to start, and near-enough to where they wanted to be.
The problems they lament seem to revolve chiefly around the specifics of taking the bike on a train, and the limited schedule of the train, and the lack of adhesion to that schedule.
Those problems wouldn't be improved if the vastness of the US were reduced, would they?
Suppose in some hypothetical future, we can take the (expensive) train to our destination in Somewhere, USA, and it drops us off.
So there we are, at a train station in Somewhere, USA.
What happens next? A bus? Light rail? Uber/Lyft/taxi? A friend who has time to show up? Renting a car? What's our next move? (Lots of destinations don't have much for local public transport.)
For contrast: When I drive myself to Somewhere, I've still got my car to use after I get there. I can go anywhere I want to go, at any time I choose to do so, and I can bring as much stuff and as many people as suits me without much additional cost.
I don't have to wait around for a train. I don't have to deal with checking luggage, or retrieving luggage. I can just pop into town -- with my car -- and set forth to do whatever I want. The bags can ride along with me until I get to wherever it is that I'm crashing for the night and until then, they don't present any particular burden at all.
I might have been better-rested if I took the hypothetical train, but getting dropped off at a train station isn't a very complete solution.
The lack of other public transportation is already real in much of the US.
(If we're not adding trains, then there's really nothing here to talk about in this context -- is there?)
I wonder if there are psychological studies on why Americans en masse cannot even perceive the idea of there being other transportation options than cars and (to a lesser extent) planes. Even though in the rare cases when someone manages to provide a well-planned alternative Americans do use it, see Northeast Corridor (2200 trains a day, 15 million passengers a year, 14% of intercity traffic, replacing most air travel between some of the cities).
---
Note: it's both funny and sad reading about the state of anything in the US that keeps pretending it's not a third-world country.
For example, Empire Corridor, passenger rail corridor in New York State running between Penn Station in New York and Niagara Falls: "In the 1890s, the Empire State Express between New York City and Buffalo was about 1 hour faster than Amtrak's service in 2013." (Wikipedia)
I wonder if there are psychological studies on why non-Americans cannot perceive why trains are genuinely an undesirable solution in the US looking forward in 2026. America could have trains if it wanted to; we don't because they aren't actually a forward-looking solution to transit in the US given all other constraints, such as having spacious homes instead of being packed in like sardines like all the "first-world" examples of public mass transit.
That's not usually a problem in and of itself. A person can believe that a Kosher diet is best and that's OK. It's also OK when a person believes that bacon cheeseburgers are a necessary spice of life.
They can find joy in being spread out over an expansive rural property, with room for some chickens and a whole fleet of cars and to serve dinner to 34 guests on a holiday. A person can also appreciate the rote efficiency of a sleep tube apartment and spend their waking hours not in their own space, but in spaces that are shared with everyone.
It's part of the human condition to have strong opinions. It's often OK that these opinions aren't compatible with eachother. It's good to be tolerant of others' ideas and practices.
It only becomes particularly problematic when folks stop being tolerant and start projecting their opinions onto others. Discourse can devolve pretty quickly when that happens. It can degrade to places well beyond "No true Scotsman" namecalling and invocations of Godwin's law -- whole wars have started over differences of opinion.
---
Now, of course, there is are local elements as well. For instance, a person who grew up in Vietnam may have a very different idea of what dinner consists of compared to the ideas of a person who grew up in Guatemala.
Regionalized differences of opinion shows up very often in online discussions because people of cultural different backgrounds get to converse together. It's usually OK. Sometimes, it isn't OK.
A lot of the Web is US-centric, or at least in English. A lot of people in the world speak English as a second language because that's the language that Americans use, so that's what they were taught. The news, worldwide, covers whatever it is the US is doing. And when I went to public school in Ohio [USA], where we were taught over and over again that the US is the very best place on earth and were stand and pledge our allegiance to the flag, and our country, every single morning.
That kind of shit all tends to promote an us-vs-them response on all sides, instead of tolerance and acceptance.
That's not a particularly useful operating mode, but it's what we've got.
---
Sometimes, it seems like it's fun to make fun of Americans with their big cars and their dumb flimsy houses made of sticks, paper, and stone dust, with the worst electrical plugs that carry the most uselessly-low voltage. (Those Yanks can't even figure out how to build a proper kettle! Look at them, all driving to Wal-Mart instead of just walking to the shops! Wasting away on the freeway commute when they could be enjoying a nice Schnitzel on the train!)
And since so much of the web is US-centric, it's easy to imagine that people sometimes find themselves surrounded by Americans that they variously find to be unsavory. And if that happens, then it may be the case that they don't like that very much.
---
But I don't pop in over to European- and Asian-centric online forums much. When I do, then I don't spend any time at all making fun of their cultural or societal differences.
In fact, I avoid starting that kind of confrontation at every cost. I avoid this simply because I'm not a complete piece of shit.
You're saying all this as if this exact scenario isn't solved in plenty of places across the world? You take the bus or tram or metro or cycle or just walk if it's close enough. If the city is actually built with public transport in mind, not just a single bus line that runs every 2 hours bolted on as an afterthought, those options can be easier and faster than finding a parking spot, unless you feel entitled to park your vehicle anywhere you please to the detriment of everyone who isn't you.
Where I live in the Netherlands it's faster to bike most places than driving, because we don't solely cater to drivers and don't devote half the city to letting people store their cars. Even up North in the villages you can still get around by bike, since cycling lanes are dead cheap to build and maintain and can go down in the middle of a swamp if you needed to.
> When I drive myself to Somewhere, I've still got my car to use after I get there.
Sure, and when I cycle to Somewhere, I've still got my bike. Same logic, except I can lock it to a post and forget about it rather than needing to find a dedicated slab of real estate specifically reserved for my vehicle's existence. And if I took the train, I can rent a bike when I get there, which is a thing that exists in basically every city that actually invested in making it work.
> I can go anywhere I want to go, at any time I choose
That only holds true because decades of car-centric design have made it so. In the Netherlands you couldn't just go anywhere you wanted by car, because there are plenty of streets and whole areas where cars flat out aren't allowed, because we actually prioritize the people who have to live with those infrastructural choices over random passersby who don't want to be "inconvenienced" by having to walk 5 minutes or share the road with someone who isn't also in a car.
If the US bothered to build out the infrastructure, you could go anywhere you wanted to go via public transport as well.
What happens in your scenario if you can't find parking anywhere near your destination and the only option is lugging your bags along roads that weren't built for pedestrians? I know I've been in similar situations in the past where I had to drive around for fucking ages trying to find a single spot, I definitely would've preferred walking than that whole circus.
> I might have been better-rested if I took the hypothetical train, but getting dropped off at a train station isn't a very complete solution.
Right, in a country that gutted its public transit and zoned everything to be car-dependent, a train station by itself isn't a complete solution. That's a policy failure, not an argument against trains.
Public transit != mass transit. There's no reason that self-driving vehicle fleets can't be municipally subsidized and provide a dramatically better private experience than any mass transit anywhere in the world, and we already have the infrastructure for it.
Oh no. The number of vehicles carrying 1-2 passengers through a bottleneck that is entry/exit to the venue doesn't matter at all.
Even though it's a trivial question of capacity and throughput.
Also why on earth would I want the gov't paying fucking Google for their robotaxis, rather than having them put that money into public transport which serves everyone else and not just the pockets of some silicone valley douchebags?
This misses a couple things:
- As an individual going between destinations, my mind is on my travel and not focused on the externalities of how optimal or efficient the transport is for other people. The fact that a train can fit more people is a downside, because being packed in with the public while trying to travel is not actually desirable. This is why even trains charge for expensive private rooms.
- Whether a private company or Google provides it is immaterial to this as well: I'm not chasing after Google trying to pay them, it is just literally more desirable to travel alone and privately whoever is providing it. I have no problem if the government wants to build its own robotaxi fleet, maybe it'd be better, maybe worse, let God sort them out. I'd use the one that has better service and fits my budget.
Seemingly very rare that anyone argues for public transit expansion based on any of the following:
- They like being in a box with strangers for a long duration, where bad behavior of just one individual becomes stressful and inescapable. You can increase funding for social services to reduce the number of homeless people responsible for this disruption, but you can't stop strangers from farting.
- They prefer the lesser convenience of having to plan 3+ legs of a trip instead of 1, e.g. having to walk to/from a transit station at both ends of the track.
Trains do some things better that matter to me as a rider: they are faster. They have food service and bathrooms. But "look how packed in we could be" is not an argument that's going to convince anyone who has a choice.
Because this creates a huge backlog and queues of cars. Even at 4 people per car a moderate 16k-person event needs 4 000 trips from the stadium in a short time.
Also because this creates a huge pressure on the system. Those 4k trips will starve the system in other places because companies won't just have a few thousand idle cars just laying around in case of events. Welcome to surge pricing.
BTW a similar pressure exists at peak hours when everyone leaves for work, or from work. Two trains carrying 2000 people with 15 minute intervals will need 500 cars minimum (4 people per car) for the same trip in the same direction.
2000 employees at Spotify office in Stockholm will need 500 cars minimum to take them home. In the center of the city. When other offices also leave work for home. Lol.
(In Stockholm subway carries 1.3 million passengers a day. Good luck replacing this to 1-4-people per car)
> Seemingly very rare that anyone argues for public transit expansion based on any of the following:
<lists imaginary reasons no one has or argues for when talking about public transit>
- Those events do happen today exactly as described and nobody dies.
- I'm not sure why those trips would starve the system, or why companies would not have idle cars lying around "in case of events". Where there is space for events to happen, they happen all the time. Surge pricing solves immediate high demand, over a longer window there's no reason to believe that companies would essentially leave money on the table by not having a larger fleet, especially if that fleet can be trivially re-allocated automatically over areas much larger than a single city, or state.
- In cities I've lived in, people don't just leave work exactly at 5pm like robots and immediately congest the roadways.
- This is a parallel concern, but why is a company like Spotify of all things not fully remote? Why do any of those employees need to bombard transit at all?
- Buses are also cars that don't require additional infrastructure to carry more people
> <lists imaginary reasons no one has or argues for when talking about public transit>
My point was that nobody ever argues those things because they're the worst parts of public mass transit, and they are among the most self-evident justifications for private transit. Instead it has to be "The US can't fathom" and other broad strokes like that because the idea that it can and simply rejects it is harder to accept.
Ah yes, the great counterargument of "nobody dies".
> I'm not sure why those trips would starve the system,
"I'm not sure why huge surge in demand in one part of the system would not starve other parts of the system."
> or why companies would not have idle cars lying around "in case of events".
Because companies are not in the business of having huge fleets of expensive hardware just sitting in extra rented garage space just for these occasions.
> over a longer window there's no reason to believe that companies would essentially leave money on the table by not having a larger fleet,
Why would they care when there's no public transportation to speak of, and all are stuck with their fleets of cars, as you so desire?
> - In cities I've lived in, people don't just leave work exactly at 5pm like robots and immediately congest the roadways.
That's why it's called peak hour, not peak millisecond. Just one more lane, and a a few hundred thousand cars on the road should fix all problems.
> This is a parallel concern, but why is a company like Spotify of all things not fully remote?
This is an irrelevant concern because Spotify was just an example of a company having an office in the center of the city. One of hundreds of such companies, with thousands of people.
> Buses are also cars that don't require additional infrastructure to carry more people
Keywords: busses, more people.
> My point was that nobody ever argues those things because they're the worst parts of public mass transit
You either argue for busses, as above, or complain about "oh my god I need to sit with some strangers in the same place" and "oh my gid it's inconvenient to plan a trip with more than one stop".
Yes, that's about the extent of the arguments. And yes, that's why it's invariably Americans who cannot even begin to conceive other modes of transportation.
I'm even planning a Eurotrip by train this summer with some mates, I'd say the distances here are comparable to get from NL to PL for example.
And besides, how is it that the US is "too wide" for trains to work, but apparently building an equivalent highway system is perfectly possible? China is also a massive country, yet they have incredible passenger train options to get cross country.
Not sure what you mean by the last bit - the US already has that highway system, and the local roads serving the last mile, because that last mile infrastructure already has to exist to get from public transit to your house.
China doesn't have the exact same problem because so much of the country lives in dense wall-to-wall housing, which sucks no matter how you spin it if you like having any kind of space to yourself.
No it can't, because cars aren't allowed on the streets around my house, with the exception of emergency vehicles and logistical vehicles like moving or delivery vans. The closest spot where a taxi could stop to drop me off is a lot further than where the bus or trains are. The closest parking space is actually a good 200-300m away from my door, reserved for residents so also always full, whereas I have a bus stop literally in front of my door and a train station 20 steps from it. I can also rent a bicycle 24/7 from the train station if all other modes of transport fail me (and I didn't have access to my bike for whatever reason).
Same in the center of the city, you cannot get to many places by car. A deliberate choice, for example when we dug out the hideous polluting highway and replaced it with a canal instead (which funnily enough was a canal in the first place before they made it into a highway). Utrecht is a perfect example of gov't realizing a mistake it made with car-centric design, doubling back and correcting it in a way that increases the QoL of every single resident of Utrecht.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/sep/14/utrecht-restor...
This isn't even to say that the Netherlands is some kind of dystopia for drivers, if anything drivers here tend to be happier since they don't need to contend with a bunch of other people on the road, and more than half the country drives anyways.
> Not sure what you mean by the last bit - the US already has that highway system, and the local roads serving the last mile, because that last mile infrastructure already has to exist to get from public transit to your house.
My point was that building out the highway system was a deliberate policy choice made in lieu of a strong passenger rail/public transport network. Had they focused on making passenger rail more viable, then we'd be talking about the opposite world here, where building highly space-inefficient and expensive highways would be a ludicrous proposition.
> China doesn't have the exact same problem because so much of the country lives in dense wall-to-wall housing, which sucks no matter how you spin it if you like having any kind of space to yourself.
We're talking about cross-country lines here, if anything it's even more absurd that the Chinese can have such a strong rail network when the majority of the country has no use for the lines serving the far-west of the country where there aren't that many people. Whether the cities are shit to live in or not is a separate discussion altogether.
In any case, what vehicle infrastructure does the government fund today that goes away if you expand rail service? I still need to get to my house, and I don't want to live anywhere near a public transit station. Is the pitch that we get rid of the highway system entirely and make all intercity travel rail or plane?
I'm also not concerned with or pretending that alternative modes of transport are full replacements of cars; basic comparison of the modes obviates that.
I also don't own a car, and if I did I wouldn't consider it precious, or be worried about anybody taking it away. Public mass transit advocates always go there though, it's a pretty common ad-hominem-adjacent implication. Cars are just generally a better experience. They go from A to B, and they don't have other people on them. Those factors make them obviously desirable.
If somebody comes up with a teleporter I can install at home I'll use that instead. Maybe then I'd consider that precious, or even be in love with it. It would save me a lot of time.
All of that aside my main point is to push back against the idea that more trains solve any problems with US transit, especially looking forward even a little into the future. They're complicated and time consuming to build out additional infrastructure for compared to an airport, and solve a transit gap between self-driving vehicles and air travel that will likely increasingly narrow.
Aka your pure fantasy that you present as fact. Of course there might be idiots who may claim to "seize the means of private transportation" or something like that, but let's not pretend it's a serious argument.
> Cars are just generally a better experience. They go from A to B, and they don't have other people on them. Those factors make them obviously desirable.
Can't see anyone arguing against that.
> All of that aside my main point is to push back against the idea that more trains solve any problems with US transit, especially looking forward even a little into the future.
Strange then that Northeastern Corridor whose validity you immediately called into question, keeps increasing ridership.
> solve a transit gap between self-driving vehicles and air travel that will likely increasingly narrow.
Of course they don't for many obvious reasons that start with words like "capacity" and "throughput".
It's also funny and ironic that you imagine the fantasy argument of "we'll take your cars away in favor of public transportation" and then literally arguing for taking away any and all alternative modes of transport except cars, and especially except cars owned by private companies (I do love the coming era of arbitrary surge pricing at any convenient time).
I realize I could have phrased it better, but I was not talking about anybody seizing the means of private transportation. I was talking about train fetishists cheekily implying that people love their precious cars, which you did.
I also haven't argued that trains don't carry more people at once, I've just said that they suck in every other way. I also haven't argued to take away anything. Trains already exist almost everywhere they make sense to exist, which is apparently to funnel people back and forth in Japan and a couple of northeast US states on entirely private rail. It's honestly hard to find anything in your reply that intentionally or otherwise is actually responding to anything I said.
It's a fascinating psychological and sociological question: why Americans think that the only possible state of things is the current one as it exists in the US, and why they are completely incapable of imagining any ither possible solutions.
E.g. "Trains already exist almost everywhere they make sense to exist, which is apparently to funnel people back and forth in Japan and a couple of northeast US states".
Yup, country the size of US eastern seaboard with comparable population only needs to "funnel back and forth". And Northeast Corridor just apparently appeared out of nowhere because it somehow was needed exactly there, and not anywhere else in the US, and also "just to funnel people back and forth".
Unlike cars. Americans don't need any other forms of transportation because they are physically incapable of imagining other forms despite success cases existing even in the US, and proven to work even in the shittiest third-world countries.
It's not unlike talking to a brick wall.
Adieu.
One of the famous sleeper trains in Europe (Nightjet Vienna-Amsterdam) is often booked out weeks (sometimes months) in advance, costs as much as a plane ticket + hotel room or more, and you have a decent chance of being told (as you show up in the evening) that unfortunately one car is missing tonight and you have the option of a full refund (screwing up your entire trip and having to book a last minute plane ticket), or you can take a 50% refund on your 255 EUR sleeping ticket and spend the night sitting in the shared seating part on a seat that would have regularly cost 35 EUR. This was something that on some routes was happening routinely for over a year [1].
The night train from Switzerland to Malmö was cancelled (after tickets had already been sold) because the Swiss government decided to not subsidize it.
Trains like this offer zero flexibility (you have to book a specific train weeks in advance), go where they go which is a very limited route network, and even in Europe with all the environmentalists, rail networks, shorter distances, and massive government subsidies, they don't seem to be able to run them very frequently or on many routes.
Calling them equivalent or a replacement for self-driving cars (which would take the passenger where they want, when they want) is disingenuous and isn't going to magically convince people.
[1] https://www.srf.ch/sendungen/kassensturz-espresso/espresso/f...
> As for the environmental impact, I agree that trains or busses may sometimes be better for environment
That's like saying gunshots may sometimes be more dangerous than throwing rocks.
> but we’re also approaching a future of self driving electric cars powered by nuclear and fusion plants providing clean energy
Even if this was true (I don't think either change is happening nearly fast enough) car-dependency is directly upstream of numerous other environmental problems, most of which don't disappear even if you take parking out of the mix, such as grounds heat and flooding caused by paved roads, such as obsession with energy- and water-inefficient low-density residential zoning (sprawl), such as particulate pollution from tires, such as ecosystem damage from the need to dump literal tons of salt on icy roads for tires to drive on, such as the emissions of road paving itself... you get the idea.
Low-density residential sprawl is mostly water-inefficient because it allows people to have the ability to have a garden that they water, you don't inherently use more household-internal water if you live in a suburban house compared to an apartment. Most of the energy efficiency issues are also directly related to low-density residential zoning allowing for more physical space for a dwelling than an equivalently-expensive dwelling would cost in an expensive, dense urban area. In short, the things about low-density residential neighborhoods that are less energy efficiently mostly don't have to do with cars and mostly do have to do with goods that people actively want and can only afford outside of dense urban areas.
Which is more or less a non-issue east of the Missouri river
Why do North and South Carolina have to shell out to manage all their runoff in federally prescribed ways just because all the states on the Colorado river can't get along?
Why does St. Louis and every other "give and take from river" water district have to mandate all sorts of federally prescribed minutia written around assumptions of aquifer depletion? It's not like a lack of low flow toilets is gonna affect anything other than the size of the local water treatment plant.
Low-density sprawl in the American style is impossible without cars. Streetcar suburbs could exist but those are necessarily more concentrated and again need less road coverage.
Nor can you say the sprawl is what people "actively want" when it's illegal to build to any other pattern in the vast majority of the country.
No public transport system that remotely makes any kind of economic sense, either in terms of infrastructure or operational cost, can replace the established network topology that exists for cars in the US. The connectivity is much more like a mesh than a hub-and-spoke model. Even though the US has a strong regional jet system that connects arbitrary nodes in that graph it still doesn't entirely avoid the "last hundred miles" problem.
A lot of American long-distance travel is not between two big cities. Even in Europe, similar kinds of routes have no train service and limited bus service.
That being said I’m in full support of metros for large cities and high speed rail between major cities but it’s hard to beat a domestic airline you can show up for an hour before it leaves at an airport and gets you there 10x faster for anything other than the shortest trips.
That's a $41/month subscription every citizen's paying no matter what. When we're pulling cash on that volume from everyone's pockets to build lavish infrastructure literally up to people's doors (vastly more road square footage than housing+school square footage combined), of course folks are going to say "nothing compares" -- because nothing does compare. Which stinks (imagine if we'd focused a century of spending on rail at rates like that; damn), but it is what we have at the moment.
I hope your analysis is correct and subsequent passenger rails will be much cheaper!
I love the confidence with which you give your answer though! Europeans famously underestimate the American West, which is why they often get into serious trouble (or die[1]) at alarming rates out here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Debrina_Kawam
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Iryna_Zarutska
https://www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/nypd-men-pushed-subway-...
The posters advocating for it and stating Daniel Penny should’ve encourage copy-cats are violent and sick people.
It's an electric car, so carbon emissions are low.
Most of the route will be in rural areas in the middle of the night, so the impact on traffic will be minimal.
As for the cost to build and maintain the roads, they are already needed so rural areas are accessible. Wear and tear on roads and bridges isn't much of an issue since heavy vehicles like trucks cause massively disproportionate damage[1]. (A bus might actually be worse than the equivalent number of cars in this respect.)
---
[1] See https://blog.ucs.org/dave-cooke/trucks-cause-the-lions-share... . Some studies show that damage varies with the fourth power of axle weight.
I love rail but it is a convenience / luxury mode in many cases, and should be complimentary to car travel, not replace it.
So a Tesla? I think your dream is pretty common, since they make the most popular vehicle in the world
The supervised driving is great, I have used it with my Model Y, but let me know when the car can pickup and drop off my kids at their school and activities. Like Waymo can. Then, it will be self driving.
I do have to admit the steer by wire system with adaptive sensitivity is neat.
It is a very fragile truck that is very expensive to repair because stainless steel is a terrible material to make a truck body from.
But thank you for the kind words. I do enjoy it a lot!
[1] https://www.azfamily.com/2026/01/08/waymo-passenger-flees-af...
I would be curious to compare stats of 100,000 hours of human drivers getting stuck on grade crossings or doing something dumb, such as trying to drive around crossing barrier arms, vs 100,000 hours of automated driving. I would bet the automated driver does a lot better.
I recently saw a video from (I think not Phoenix) of 3 waymos that were next to each other blocking traffic in an intersection, refusing to move, because they were facing a traffic signal intersection where the signals had reverted to blinking red mode. Humans who paid attention when learning to drive will understand this means the intersection has reverted to a 4-way-stop due to the traffic signal failure.
The problem is that multiple red lights were blinking in view of the waymos not in sequence with each other, so the waymos interpreted it as a alternating-blinking red railroad signal crossing, and all of them refused to proceed, even when it was their "turn" in a 4-way-stop arrangement.
What's the hot fix for this? Are they just stuck until a tech can physically go out and reset and move them? Or can someone in a office somewhere remotely get alerted, look at the video feed/data, and override it with instruction on how to proceed?
Silly stuff like this happens all the time even with human drivers, I feel like the important piece when hearing that the technology encountered an issue is how long did it take to resolve?
It's a big operations challenge, and hope Waymo (and everyone else TBH) get it smoother and smoother.
For Waymo, it's this one.
Waymo. Slightly better than an irresponsible alcoholic. As long as the maps are up to date.
That is already a huge jump from two cities a year.
You can drive, on the highway, from San Francisco to San Jose, two cities that are about 50 miles apart.
I suppose you mean something more "road trip-y"? Interstate, not intercity?
Although I like jobs for humans, I hope these aren’t all just set on fire because there is promise in reducing fatalities. Want to find a way for offline vehicles that can go 65MPH to remain legal though. Without Flock every block either unless we (in USA) forget what the whole USA thing’s about.
Edit: @Waymo would LOVE to see an industry-leading privacy pledge so good the EFF slaps their logo on it (even caveated), also your engineers are amazing
Engineers design a road for 55. Police say make it 40 for $$ and pretext. Public says make it 60. Karen says make it 30. Politician says they don't care as long as Karen stops screeching, the public doesn't hate them and the police doesn't hate them. End result ->45
Refactoring the humans out would only change a couple of the less influential inputs to that equation. It might actually make it way worse if the public loses interest.
Can’t stop until cross traffic can simultaneously use intersections all at 100 miles an hour with inches to spare
Heck I'd just be happy with banked curves.
Not always.
I think a lot of time, speed limits are set based on the expected amount of traffic, not the curvature or the road. For example, I-5 in the Portland area south of the OR-217 interchange has extremely gentle curves. You could take them at 100 mph and not risk losing grip.
Yet the limit is 55 mph anyways because that area is expected to have considerable traffic, with traffic merging on and off. The limit is kept low to keep collision speeds low.
But if every car was autonomous, that wouldn't be necessary. Autonomous cars can be far more cooperative than human drivers, even without inter-car communication. It's 4 lanes wide. We could let that left lane go 90 mph for the cars that don't need to be exiting any time soon, while the right lane travels slower because cars are either merging on or off. Human drivers suck at this kind of arrangement because we have slow-pokes that think "The limit is just a limit, I don't have to go that fast" and go 5 under the limit in whatever lane they feel like, combined with others that think being overtaken is a personal insult, people that think their lane is a birthright and don't let people merge ("I have to tailgate or else people get in front of me!"), and other toxic human behaviors.
Take the human out of the equation, and we can easily go faster than 55.
Not even that, there is one curve on I-5 south of 217, it is otherwise a straight line until you get to Wilsonville (and before then it goes up to 65 mph at the intersection with 205).
if driving was a privilege
and not treated as a de facto right,
only withheld as a last-resort due to the curse it can be in the US.
I report these issues in the app whenever I do take a Waymo, so hopefully they'll get better.
The one to ride is Zoox though. They have limited deployment but their vehicles have no steering wheel, it's like a gondola ride to your destination.
Exact same reason why Uber and Lyft were considerably cheaper than taxis in many big cities when they first launched (eg: Lyft in Seattle in 2013/2014), running at a loss, and the pricing has now incrementally grown to become the same as, or even more expensive than traditional meter taxis in some places.
There is also no reason to compete with Uber/Lyft on price because they are just leaving money on the table. When Waymo first launched, we saw them try to undercut (Waymo was about 20% cheaper than Uber/Lyft) but now it's about 20% more expensive. People are willing to pay extra for Waymo, so why would they charge less?
The margin on each Waymo ride is currently very, very high. I don't expect Waymo to cut prices until real competition arrives.
I looked up the numbers - the estimated Uber/Lyft cost per mile in SF is ~$4.50/mi, and Waymo is trending around $1.40/mi (estimated 2025 number).
Anyway, digging into the Reddit posts which gave your lower-bound number, the reasoning seems very suspect. In particular, the biggest methodological problem is that they use retail price numbers when Waymo is almost certainly getting wholesale prices. So it assumes $110K ($70K for a Jaguar iPace + $40K for sensors and other AV equipment) for the car depreciated over 5 years, but $70K is the retail price for a Jaguar, including dealer markup, distribution, marketing, etc, and when you are buying thousands of them you are almost certainly not paying retail. Likewise, it figured 25c/kwh for electricity, which is retail off-peak PG&E rates, but Google just buys their own solar panels and pays pennies for electricity. The AV equipment figure of $40K was I recall what it cost back in ~2014; the cost of LIDAR has come down dramatically since then and now runs $500-1000/vehicle, so that number should also be suspect. And if vehicle cost is more like $50-60K/year than $110K/year, $7K/year in insurance is way too high. Hell, Google could just self-insure with their $250B in cash, they've got a stronger financial position than every insurer other than Berkshire Hathaway.
I'd bet the true cost per mile is well under $1.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfDrivingCars/comments/1oiqerw/ho...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/waymo/comments/1il5d5i/unit_costs_p...
Waymo has other costs, such as engineering driverless operation.
Once there are enough trips, the fixed engineering costs are spread across more and more trips, exponentially trending towards zero, driving the cost per trip even lower.
Waymo passed 200 million driverless miles in February. If we optimistically assume they're up to 300 million miles now, and every mile was paid for at $10 per mile, that's $3 billion in revenue since they launched. In that same time, Waymo has gotten $27 billion in funding. Of course they haven't spent anywhere close to that amount, and they are optimizing for faster rollout rather than profitability, but the finances aren't as gleaming as one might expect.
I'm sure Waymo will figure out ways to reduce their costs over time, but right now I think they're charging pretty close to what they need to break even.
What matters most are marginal costs (i.e. how much does it cost for Waymo to add 1 more ride). Looking at marginal costs, Waymo takes in more money than it spends on each ride, so projecting outwards when Waymo operates a large enough fleet, Waymo will be profitable.
Uber/Lyft run enormous fleets of ~2 million vehicles in the US, and that's how they are able to maintain profitability. They can spread their engineering and management expenses over millions of rides.
---
Doing my own math, the marginal costs for Waymo are:
Revenue: Each Waymo vehicle brings in ~$50/hour
Expenses: Waymo must pay for
* Assume the cost of a vehicle is $100k
* Amortized depreciation of the car (assume vehicles need to be fully replaced after ~250,000 miles, vehicles average 25 miles / hour, vehicles need to be fully replaced after 10,000 hours, cost is $10/hour)
* Maintenance (Assume the total cost of maintenance is an additional 25% of the vehicle price, vehicle price is $100k and vehicle lasts 10,000 hours, cost is $2.5/hour). This is likely an underestimate, I didn't model the cost of a mechanic, so this could be as high as $5-7/hour.
* Support (assume 1 support agent can support 10 vehicles, Philippine support agent costs $10/hour, so amortized $1/hour per vehicle)
* Cleaning (needed daily, costs $1/hour per vehicle)
* Datacenter compute for vehicle coordination ($0.50/hour per vehicle)
* Electricity (Assume $2/hour)
10 + 2.5 + 1 + 1 + 0.5 + 2 = $17/hour to operate a Waymo.
In conclusion, the marginal costs for Waymo is very profitable.
There are other considerations as well. For example, available ride shares can scale up/down with demand, while Waymo & competitors will need lots of spare vehicles to satisfy peak demand.
I'm certain autonomous vehicles will eat up the market currently held by Uber/Lyft/Taxis. It's just going to take longer than a lot of people expect.
Waymo can expand easily in markets like SF and NYC, where drivers are guaranteed a minimum pay rate of $22+ per hour, but will make less and less economic sense in cheaper labor markets.
Or less depending on how you tip.
That said, it doesn't really matter if they're cheaper as long as they're comparable.
The cars are newer and nicer (for now), they're almost always cleaner since they can rotating one car out for cleaning doesn't mean the driver is losing earnings, they're better drivers than the average ride-share driver, you don't feel the need to tip, and I've multiple of my friends who are women call out that they feel safer in them because there's no risk of the driver being creepy (or worse).
I don't think Waymo is trying to win on price right now. I think as long as they just stay somewhat competitive on that front the other benefits will continue to draw in customers.
(nobody would confuse me with an economist!)
If we're in a world where human driven Uber's are $30, you're right that Waymo probably won't charge $20 just to be nice, even if it only costs them $10. They might charge $20 though if their data shows that it would 10x the number of riders or if they're also competing with another autonomous taxi company.
The driver cost is of course the big saving. And they need breaks as well and don't drive 24x7. A robo taxi only has down time when there are no rides, or for charging and maintenance/cleaning.
Mostly what Waymo is doing currently with customized vehicles is not actually super scalable. But it helps at their relatively small current scale. You wouldn't design a custom vehicle + factory for their current growth rate. That becomes more interesting when they start scaling beyond tens of thousands of new vehicles per year. They are probably in the lower thousands currently.
I think they raised close to 20-30B so far. They say they are doing 500K rides per week. At 15$ per ride that adds up to ~390M/year. That's revenue, not profit. But if they could 100x that by rolling out to more and more cities and larger and larger areas, it's going to add up to annual revenues that add up to more than what they raised. That's not going to happen overnight, obviously. But they seem on a path where they are scaling, optimizing, reducing their cost, and growing.
The risks here are mainly that they won't have the market to themselves. Others are doing robo taxi's too and if any of them starts scaling faster and cheaper, Waymo could hit some growth issues. Also, with multiple companies competing, prices per ride would eventually go down. The next five years are going to be interesting.
It's wierd to see this fantasy of machines on HN, of all places - that they have no downtime, no additional costs - it's only a savings from employing people), and (not said here) they don't make mistakes.
Lots of machines have far more downtime and cost than people. Many have more maintenance hours than operating hours.
But, a Waymo car has a huge impact compared to gig drivers. Even ones that do it 12 hours a day. The Waymo fleet is maximally available for both rush-hour busy times plus closing time at bars and nightclubs.
I don't know if they've released updated fleet statistics, but in the past I've been shocked at how small it is relative to the visibility and passenger miles. This indicates that downtime isn't a limiting factor.
Gig drivers optimize, or try to, their individual revenue and other preferences the shape their responsiveness to customer demand. In other words it's two sided market among individuals. Waymo isn't. Waymo optimizes across their whole fleet for revenue, presumably, and customer satisfaction.
What makes you say that there is a difference, the difference is in Waymo's favor, or that it's so large?
Rideshare drivers also know about rush hour and closing time, and rideshare companies adjust availability for those times. There's no reason to think Waymo will handle it's inventory of rides better than Uber.
> Gig drivers optimize, or try to, their individual revenue and other preferences the shape their responsiveness to customer demand. In other words it's two sided market among individuals. Waymo isn't. Waymo optimizes across their whole fleet for revenue, presumably, and customer satisfaction.
That is really a bizarre notion. Why would Waymo's interests be any more aligned with customers than rideshare drivers? Waymo cars are robots operated by a corporation in another state or country. Rideshare drivers are human beings in the same car, who live in the same city or town.
Gig drivers have range of needs and preferences. Waymo, same algorithm, same car, same user experience all the time. Forums like HN also tends to have a blind spot about consumer preferences of women. These and other reasons are why Waymo has an outsize impact on a market compared to fleet size.
Again, the premise seems to be the fantasy that computers are objective, autonomous gods that don't have biases or errors, none of which is true. And again, it's bizarre to encounter that on HN of all places.
It's a very dangerous fantasy that sacrifices individual, rational thought and places all power in the hands of those who control the computers, like a cult.
Doesn't matter.
At this point, if the US doesn't lead, China will.
They have a massive population imbalance that they can only crawl out of with automation. Someone is going to have to drive around all those seniors. Once it's a proven model, it'll spread to the rest of the world.
With all other apps, it feels like 50% of drivers just sit there waiting for you to cancel. I can't rule out that it's a bug with the app not showing updated locations in some cases (I've had an Uber show up even though the web app showed it three traffic lights away), but "actually gets me where I need to go in a timely manner" is a key feature and when "RIDE AVAILABLE, 3 MINUTES" turns into 7 minutes as soon as the app is done searching for a driver, and that turns into you having to cancel 5 minutes in and try again, the platform becomes useless.
(Taxis/rideshares) are dangerous, drivers harass you, etc. Ours are so amazing, people love them.
The reality is that I have zero problems with rideshares (or taxis, when I'm someplace that still has them). Being a social animal like other Homo sapiens, interacting is a positive but drivers have no problem giving me peace. I'd much rather have the intelligence and flexibility of a human who can communicate, adapt, and solve problems.
> your engineers are amazing
They say the same about you!
Def interesting seeing complaints about drivers not showing since early days Uber pax (in SF) loved getting rides to outer neighborhoods without needing to lie about their destination.
Offline/human-operated/assisted vehicles could remain in the competitive mix to ensure we don’t get screwed again.
That is, of course, tremendously challenging. It's impractical to look at a job performed by millions and just saying "well fix capitalism" when eliminating the jobs. But it's still the right solution. There shouldn't be gas station attendants, there shouldn't be redundant bureaucratic figuers and managers, and, when possible, there shouldn't be millions of paid car drivers.
Ehh, I’ll stick with the original:
“I like jobs for humans”
Perhaps other pathways to income/wealth accumulation & fulfillment are even better! As it stands I think we could read it as “I like humans“.
No, we have them in St. Louis and it snows a few times per year here.
https://www.botanicalinterests.com/community/blog/usda-hardi...
Definitely, and at no cost to taxpayers.
> It's just an vastly more inefficient than any other form of public transit
Waymo is less efficient in the narrow case of transporting hundreds of people between two specific points at a specific time, but more efficient for almost every other case.
If Waymo had dedicated right-of-way in the same way trains do, it would be more efficient.
The flip side is drastically fewer parking spaces needed, most of which can be located outside of the city core. And decreased costs due to fewer accidents.
https://www.oregonlive.com/business/2026/04/self-driving-car...
> Hannah Schafer, communications director for the Portland Bureau of Transportation, said Waymo is welcome to map out the city streets.
> “All they’re doing right now is basically taking pictures. Taking pictures in the right of way, anyone is allowed to do that. That’s not something that we regulate,” Schafer said.
> However, she said the city would regulate the testing and driving of autonomous cars.
> “No one can drive driverless vehicles in Portland without a permit,” Schafer said. “That is not allowed.”
...
> Portland fought vigorously with Uber over the terms of its local arrival a decade ago and a battle is already brewing over Waymo. Portland council member Mitch Green staked out his opposition in January, telling constituents on Bluesky, “You should know I don’t support that.”
...
> Oregon legislators considered a bill earlier this year that would have set statewide rules for self-driving cars, and would have prohibited local governments from imposing blanket prohibitions on autonomous vehicles. The bill died in committee following opposition from local governments.
NIMBYs are usually not against new stuff in their backyard, they really just don’t want to lose the historic parking structures and culturally relevant SFHs already there.
Perhaps you are harboring NIMBY views you refuse to acknowledge and you are feeling defensive? Are you holding onto the corpse of Lloyd center?
Those are not conflicting things. Mourning something does not imply disliking the thing that replaced it.
Why are people assuming that the kitchen coworkers are reasonable and that I am somehow making assumptions? I was there, I heard the conversation, HN replies did not. Portlanders are notorious for this sort of tradeoff-ignoring woo woo bullshit anyway, frankly it isn’t an extraordinary claim.
The only other categories are heavy manufacturing (which is harder to argue for) and single family homes, which are not dense by definition.
I’m not sure if you’ve ever been to Portland but the predominant problem is still too much office and retail space (much of it empty) and not enough residential space; every apartment I have lived in and almost every apartment building I walk by day to day has vacant ground floor retail.
You can drive a lot of busses for 22 million a year.
I use the train a lot in Portland and I would not endorse something so expensive.
Streetcar is more susceptible to being stopped because someone parked over the white line, but with 20 minute headways it takes longer to cause a problem.
These incidents haven't made me fear, because I am a relatively big and tall male, but they _definitely_ will for others. And even then, they aren't pleasant.
You simply don't run into those things often on trains/subways in Europe (I lived in Spain for a year and traveled extensively in Europe during that time, and on other europe trips prior). So fix those issues, and then I am sure people will want to ride the rails.
As a solution, "get MORE people onto the trains" seems less optimal than "get fewer drugged out homeless riders onto the trains".
This seems intuitive to me because I would never risk fighting someone in the street over some crime, so I don't see why having me around would deter them at all. The same goes for maybe 90% of the people I know. We're weak and docile, even in numbers.
> As a solution, "get MORE people onto the trains" seems less optimal than "get fewer drugged out homeless riders onto the trains".
You dont have to do one thing. It’s not an either or. You’re statements are coming off as mentally ill and illogical. Should we send Daniel Penny after you?
Not everyone who fare evades is unstable, obviously, but the article suggested that a high proportion of the unstable were fare evaders, so their reduction was an unexpected corollary benefit of the new gates. (I assume this would conceptually clash with the effort to make public transport free.)
Curious to hear from anyone with recent NY subway experience with thoughts to share on this.
So one year of revenue buys ~2500 cars at those prices, which is roughly the size of their fleet (~3000 according to Wikipedia). It seems plausible that newer cars will be cheaper as designs get optimized, economies of scale hit and what used to be really expensive cutting-edge hardware becomes commoditized and goes down in cost over time.
They certainly also need support including contractors that assist cars that get need human input, maintenance etc. and the electricity for the cars isn't free either, but just based on these numbers, it sounds like they are likely close to being profitable if you ignore R&D.
If you assume $10 a ride, and a car giving 3 rides an hour for 12 hours a day, that's $360 in revenue per car per day, close to the $320 you'd get from $350M/3000/365. That means each car pays for itself in about a year (ignoring all other costs, of course).
Based on this and the assumption that cars last for more than 2 years, I'd guess that Waymo is only "unprofitable" (not sure how this works in accounting terms) due to ongoing R&D and expansions and there really isn't much more to "subsidize".
I will feel so secure and private being recorded at all angles in a car I don't own and can't sue.
"Waymo: ‘no plans’ to use in-car camera data for targeted ads"
(https://www.theverge.com/news/644770/waymo-interior-camera-a...)
And the people in the Philippines who can intervene in the "self" driving can comment on your bodily features if bored.
Because nobody is forcing you to take a Waymo? I dont think it is as hard to understand.
Its like saying "You dont understand why people arent more upset about spicy food because your stomach cant handle it.."
Waymo microphones are only activated when you contact support.
Do you think Google is lying about the microphone?
why?
i no longer believe a company of alphabet's size cannot weather a "controversy" around surreptitious data collection. too many people accept this possibility as a matter of course.
beyond PR, alphabet, like every other company at or near its size:
* has obviously bribed the current administration
* they can afford a relative slap on the wrist should any financial penalty be imposed
* and of course, NSA letters continue to allow the federal government to receive whatever data they wish to ask forI think a lot of people are starting to realize that despite years of doom-and-gloom finger wagging about privacy, their lives have never actually been negatively impacted by the horrors of targeted ads and, if anything, are materially improved (free internet search engines, free email, free social networks, and so on).
This also intertwines with the coordinated ID push for many social media networks. It builds an effective framework to target anyone. Trump casually designates people "terrorists" already.
OK there might be some problems with this idea. But if I'm paying with credit card and it's attached to my name, they should be able to rely on the next passenger to report if I've damaged the car, right, and they could stop recording me?
Heck they could provide a camera with a physical cover that makes a 90 decibel sound when it opens, and it could check the car in between riders. "promise no peeping" definitely not good enough when minor physical hardware privacy measures are so inexpensive.
This is even worse in an Uber where the drivers can put cameras anywhere and do anything with the recordings.
Portland will probably be a great testing ground for them because generally speaking you have a lot of tech curious and tech averse people here living together. When we got electric scooters there were both tons of people using them and a lot of people throwing them in the Willamette. Pretty big artistic community that doesn't look kindly on AI right now. This has no real bearing on Waymo's success, but I'll be interested to see how they navigate the PR part of it.
1. Caused rideshare pricing to skyrocket, resulting in
2. way fewer people taking rideshare trips, so
3. drivers end up making less than before, and
4. when you do take one, 95% of the time the driver pulls up two blocks away and plays chicken with you to capitalize on the minimum wage amount while doing the least and incurring the least miles on their car.
Handshakes all around. I'm sure we have the most brilliant minds at work figuring out how to kneecap Waymo as much as possible so we can maintain this standard of service.
Public transport ridership took a massive hit with the pandemic and never fully recovered.
Waymo does not solve a public transport problem. I don't mind that it takes money from Uber, Lyft, etc., but the damage it also transfers income from human taxi drivers (what little they can salvage from Uber, Lyft) to a large corporation.
I see it as a net negative for society, not a net positive.
I'm not saying it's going to randomly speed up to 80mph and crash into a building and explode. Just that I'll finally have a chance to witness those hilarious videos in person
like, do you guys hear yourself? these are unrelated things, cities are always grappling with stuff like this, and at this point in history Waymo is expanding to all cities and will opportunistically prioritize some cities over another while continuing their total rollout
Good luck to Portland getting fucked by Waymo.
I would rank it up there with mobile broadband and smartphones in terms of influence.
The rain will be a real test though!
...while high on marijuana and watching TikTok
> The rain will be a real test though!
Maybe, between the fog of San Francisco and the downpours of Miami, they Waymo Driver is very experienced.
What will they tell the unemployed drivers? "Coal miners need to code" doesn't work any more. Become a data thief/labeler perhaps?
People should research the racist history of American cities before publishing broad, vapid, and likely LLM-generated statements like this.
If you're going to say a place has "always been a pioneer in urban design", you should take the time to acknowledge that Portland's early urban-design efforts were deeply racist and explicitly segregated.
https://www.portland.gov/bps/planning/adap/history-racist-pl...
https://habitatportlandregion.org/the-early-history-of-portl...