For context, this is coming in as TriMet is laying off staff, reducing service frequency, eliminating bus lines, and cutting parts of light rail routes due to a $300M budget shortfall. The cuts were exacerbated by state Republicans getting a proposed payroll tax repeal onto the ballot next month; TriMet relies heavily on payroll taxes that are deeply unpopular among the self-employed and small business owners, so the budget is going to get worse before it gets better.
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.
Yup, it is genuinely convenient that Waymo doesn't rely on an unpopular payroll tax for funding while the bus system does, and also doesn't have human drivers who need to be paid subject to the laws of the city of Portland. But it doesn't actually matter all that much what is going on municipally in Portland at the moment - Waymo (or ideally, a wide variety of competing robotaxi services) should exist everywhere in the country and be as widely available as cars and roads themselves. And eventually this will happen; the concept that Waymo entering a new local market is a newsworthy event is a temporary state of affairs.
Yup, it is genuinely convenient that Waymo doesn't rely on an unpopular payroll tax for funding while the bus system does
To be fair, it gets far more subsidies from the government in general by simple virtue of being a car, they're just A) longterm and thus assumed and B) less visible in general. So I'd say the connection between transit and controversial taxes is arbitrary, really--I'll grant you "convenient", but definitely not genuinely-so!
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.
Road maintenance isn't a subsidy, it's a collective good that buses also benefit from along with many other types of human transport. This is separate from the cost to the government of running a bus system, which is exactly what large numbers of people really don't want to pay an additonal tax for and are therefore voting against.
However, busses do tremendously greater wear and damage to roads than cars, and if everyone used busses exclusively the cost of road maintenance and repair would likely go up.
I'd also argue we'd need the same amount of roads, but those roads (mostly highways) could be smaller/fewer lanes.
If the road is privatised by the virtue of it being mostly used by private companies like Waymo (in the future) then they can foot the bill for road construction and maintenance.
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".
Road wear and tear increases as the fourth power of axle load. Are you counting the spending on bus stops, bus parking, dedicated bus lanes, and more on the other side of the ledger?
In FY25, according to their budget [1], TriMet - the Portland public transit authority - spent $19M on bus services.
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).
> Those of us who don't frequently drive get some benefit from the roads, sure
Where "some benefit" includes transportation and delivery of every single product necessary for daily life as well as garbage removal of the same products.
Yes. Roads are subsidized; the true cost of building and maintaining roads comes from general funds, not just from vehicle registrations and gas taxes (which of course Waymo doesn’t pay, being righteously electric).
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.
Good point about electric. Maybe a tax on tires would be more fair, but that would lead to some dangerous behavior.
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.
In 2025, TriMet had 262 million passenger miles at a system cost of $812 million, for a cost of $3.09 per passenger mile.[1] Fares covered 7.8% of their costs. The other 92.2% came from payroll taxes and federal grants.
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.
This is an implementation problem, not a problem with the underlying concept.
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.
The $812 million figure for 2025 did not include the cost to build the rail system. Nor did it include many other expenses. TriMet's expenditures for this year are $1.185 billion.[1]
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.
> This is an implementation problem, not a problem with the underlying concept.
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.
The problem seems to be that many people view government services as a jobs program. Unfortunately, you can't maximize the number of well paying jobs a program creates AND provide high quality service AND control costs.
You raise a good point. My guess: It is not possible to provide what people need/want at a reasonable price point, especially in low density cities. As a result, it requires a lot of subsidies. I assume that cities create bus services primarily for people below middle class who may not be able to afford a car.
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.
> buses and lightrail are significantly more efficient per person than personal vehicles
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.
Right, the reason it might be underutilized is if you're bad at designing cities for it. Which the US is, so it is.
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).
Those preferences are based at least partially on the available transportation. If the automobile didn't exist, would people still prefer to live so far from jobs and entertainment?
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.
Train-advocates being against self-driving cars will be recognized as being equivalent to environmentalists being against nuclear power. Fortunately, I don't expect train-advocates as being nearly as successful. Once someone has tried Waymo, there's no going back to the old ways.
But you're ignoring the core point (in both your metaphor and in the argument at hand):
- 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)
I'm not against self driving cars. Self driving cars are an improvement over not self driving cars.
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.
Public transit is only efficient if people use it. If there’s only 1 person on the bus it is less efficient than a car.
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.
> Public transit like buses and lightrail are significantly more efficient per person than personal vehicles.
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.
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.
FWIW, some States require roads be funded exclusively with gas and use (e.g. vehicle registration) taxes. This does seem to significantly incentivize efficiency and long-term planning because their budget has to anticipate variable revenue.
Oh wow I didn't know Uber solely relied on private roads, had their own DMV, or fleet of millions of cars; truly an innovative company that doesn't rely on public infrastructure!
The point is that the cost of the road infrastructure isn't accounted for, not to mention the externality of having a half a million cars on the road to move 750k people. Rideshare is slipstreaming in the subsidized flow of cars.
The cost of providing a bus exceeds the cost of operating a car in many cases, like lower population density neighborhoods. It may save the public money to centralize transit on major corridors and then subsidize trips on Waymo in some areas and at some times.
It depends on the population density. You may have a perfectly well designed route for the area, but there are only so many people per hour that want to take a trip. You can delete routes and make people walk further, but that makes the trip take longer and not everyone can or wants to walk a long ways to the bus stop.
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.
"Centralize transit on major corridors" is about full buses. But transit agencies spend as much per hour on an empty bus as a full one. Transit agencies run empty buses on routes that are rarely full, and run vans and even microtransit that may just be a waste of money.
Per [1], a typical Portland public bus causes about 730 times more road wear than a full size pickup truck (which is about the worst case for road wear from a personal vehicle). How many buses have more than 700 people riding in them?
(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.)
> Waymo is an expensive taxi service, not a solution to public transport.
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.
Assuming an average fare of 2.47$ per to make the math even, that's 6.00$/ride total cost.
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.
Yes. If the government were able to provide transit more cheaply in the future by using new vehicles then the transit that the government provides would be cheaper than it is today.
And the meaning of the truism you so adoitly picked up on is that at reasonable projections trimet and similar public transit will be uncompetitive in price (and service) relative to self driving EVs. Ergo it is correct to deprioritize their funding.
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.
To put your point another way, “If you make transit unusable or get rid of it entirely, then the robot cars could get better than the system you eliminated or intentionally broke”
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.
Too many, but at least some are directly on vehicles. Transit (in the USA, on the West coast) is funded >90% by taxes on income, property, vehicle registration, fuel, etc not by the people using it.
I cannot speak for every state ever, but I remember that roads in WA were mostly funded by gas/diesel taxes + vehicle registration fees.
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.
Everyone uses the roads. You have to reach for very obscure examples to find commerce that doesn't utilize roads. Every bit of concrete and steel to build transit was at some point transported over roads.
If Portland is really forward-thinking, they would be smart to use this opportunity to jump to the next stage of public transport by focusing on flexible bus routes and Waymo/rideshare subsidies for the poor and disabled.
Self driving cars aren't the next stage of public transport; they're a bandaid solution to American urban design. They're still cars, so they still contribute to traffic and increased pavement wear, and I cannot imagine they'd be cheaper at scale than buses for storage/maintenance/cleaning.
I spent ten years in the trenches of American urban design policy. The best we could do was lose very slightly less quickly. It's not changing. Trains are great, we should build more, and we probably should replace a lot of bus routes by subsidizing rides on Waymo and its ilk. It'll be cheaper and provide better service.
Not like the US didn't try. California spent 15yrs trying to build a high speed train and failed. Canada has been talking about building trains forever too and it usually goes nowhere because the budgets explode like every major infrastructure project these days.
I wonder what's different between these English speaking countries you mention failing to build out rail transit, and places like Japan and China that have built fabulous rail networks.
Japan is a fairly unique case, and probably does not share much with China aside from being in the same region. Japan is geographically well suited to serving a large portion of the population with one long line with a few branches. That's a convenient advantage.
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)
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".
LA proper seems to have a density of 3000/km^2 according to Wikipedia
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.
California high speed rail isn't running now but it is improving lots of things along the way. For example one of the most dangerous crossings in the state is now grade separated with the Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project.
I wonder if California high speed rail will ever surpass quadcopter personal vehicles in passenger miles per year. I know which way I'd bet for the year 2040.
Ha, even using the UK as a counterpoint, they do pretty well. I enjoy taking the LNER, and appreciate that it is a 'slow' train that happens to run 50% faster than the top speed of Amtrak in all but a very limited set of tracks in the NEC. And maybe I've just had unusually good luck, but LNER has almost always been punctual.
OTOH, on my visits to Europe I am simultaneously impressed with the prevalence of passenger train options, but disheartened by the price. If Europe struggles to provide really affordable trains, there isn't much hope for the US. Aside from regional train options in the densest areas, we just have too much distance to cover. Infrastructure costs would kill the plan. At this point maybe we should just be trying harder to produce renewable fuels for planes.
As a tourist or outsider, the cost of trains in Europe is going to be much more expensive. In the Netherlands for example, the price of a train ticket without a subscription (such as for tourists) is very high; the price of a monthly subscription for free train rides outside rush hour is €130/month, which is way less than monthly cost of car use.
Bus Rapid Transit is another option that could be amazing (while being much cheaper to implement), but it falls short for the same reason as trains: they require dedicated infrastructure that complicates driving, and complicating driving is political suicide.
One of the things I found when advocating for transit was that BRT cost savings in the US almost always come from reducing quality at stations, which loses public support faster than you save money. I found that voters are usually willing to spend far more on trains than on BRT, in excess of any savings.
BRT is mostly "you get what you pay for" - cheaper at a cost of lower capacity. Given relatively low density of US cities - that might be the right tool tho.
One thing you have to be careful about with things like this is induced demand. In Dublin in the early 90s, there was a debate about what to do with the right of way of an old commuter rail line, which had been closed in the 60s when closing rail lines was fashionable. Irish Rail wanted to reinstate the commuter rail line, Dublin Bus wanted to build a BRT system. In the early noughties, the transport authority split the difference and put in a tram system (green line Luas).
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.
None. Why would you think that? My guess is you're an American living nowhere near an urban rail system but I thought most people here would at least be passing familiar with modern trains. Even some American cities have them.
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.
Muse this - train is a tool, just like a car, bus, bike, plane, drone or rollerblades.
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.
It's not at all that simple. One of the neat things about trains is their permanence - once you've built one, you can fight for allowing increased density repeatedly until you win. That's what we've been doing in Seattle!
Only that they are worthy of noting. If there is a modern system, but it happens to suck for some reason, you don't have to mention that one. So feel free to strike that "notable". Which American cities have modern train systems?
Also just like... looking at a train and noticing it can carry a ton more people than a car, has no concept of traffic, and can theoretically go as fast as possible.
People generally don't want to use it because we design everything exclusively for cars, so cars are more convenient. At the cost of increased risk of death, increased travel time, increased land cost, etc.
A huge amount, most self-proclaimed supporters of "public transportation" are primarily train enthusiasts (which is a fine hobby!). Any concern for safe, clean, effective transportation is incidental and is immediately abandoned if it ever means less trains.
What makes you say that? I'd only propose them in very high density corridors (or in corridors where building a train would be paired with allowing high density).
A lot of it probably has to do with train advocates seeming like audiophiles extoling the virtues of phonograph records and the like. It seems like they are nostalgic for an 1880s utopia. That's just the vibe I get. I wonder what people in this thread think about The Line.
I think there is also a couple of other factors at play with the online train / mass transit advocates on places like HN. It could just be my imagination, but I think there is trains-are-a-good-solution-for-other-people (but not necessarily for me) contingent. And there is a trains-are-good-for-you transportation method, that you have to put up with for the "greater good". A bitter pill to swallow, not something you actually want. Kind of the opposite for say, electric vehicles, where they currently are a much superior alternative to and internal combustion engine vehicle for almost ever use case (acceleration, $/mile, maintenance, general hassle). That's why I think EVs will inevitably win, even in the U.S.. Maybe someone could come up with a luxury light rail that people would actually want to use? I mentioned it up-thread in the context of California high speed rail, but now I'm going to broaden it. When will personal (flying) quadcopter vehicles have more annual passenger miles than every passenger rail combined (subways/light rail/Amtrak) in the U.S.? I'm could see it happening within my lifetime. Maybe this has some bearing on why I see trains as antiquated?
Also, reading through the whole thread make me think there should be a meme about this.
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.
And am I the only one who thinks the concept of a "transit advocate" is a bit odd? I mean, yes, there are people whose career is to make transportation work/better. And they should continue to do so. Were there non-Bell-Telephone-employees that were telephone advocates back in the 1940s? Airline advocates convincing people to fly? Car phone/cell phone brick/flip phone/smart phone advocates?
Were there man-on-the-street grass roots 1950s advocates that were instrumental for getting the interstate highway system built? Suburban expansion advocates? Do you really only need an advocate to convince people to like something that they otherwise currently dislike?
A well run public transit system should obviously be cheaper at scale than robotaxis, but the incentives for Waymo (or Uber, or Lyft, etc.) are very different than the city's incentives. It's very possible that in practice private companies can operate more cheaply at scale than buses because they have much higher incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
“Self driving cars aren't the next stage of public transport; they're a bandaid solution to American urban design.”
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.
It's not a bandaid because American urban design isn't going to change substantially. I don't see American cities changing their mind on how they build and where they build.
They won't be better for maintenance but unless Portland can build the state capacity to fund public transport properly this is better than nothing. Plenty of developing countries rely on buses, jitneys, and low footprint vehicles like mopeds for traffic flow because they don't have the state capacity to enforce an urban framework conducive to public transit. Honestly many US states are the same.
All they can do is to install more needle disposal bins and putting more narcan kit in the restrooms. I hate the direction Portland and more generally Oregon is going so much. It's always tax tax tax while everything is getting worse. Kotek needs to go.
Decriminalizing drugs without full legalization and regulation leads to that. Addicts can't buy drugs of known purity and dosage, and this is what happens.
Similar to alcohol prohibition and methanol poisoning.
I haven't been to Portland for years, but I remember it as being a transit-forward city, with several streetcar lines (one connected to an aerial tram), and decent light rail service covering much of the metro area.
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.
> The cuts were exacerbated by state Republicans getting a proposed payroll tax repeal onto the ballot next month;
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.
Do you live in Oregon? The recent vote was about rejecting the proposed payroll tax increase, which was massively unpopular. The vote was so overwhelming that Kotek attempted to yank that clause, so it can be tried another day.
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?
The wording below of the ballot question is clearly “rejecting a tax increase”.
> 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.
And in August, the bus line that serves my neighborhood completely goes away, and the next closest bus line with stops 2 miles away will end weekday service after 6:30 p.m. and weekend service altogether.
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.
The bus system would almost certainly be better if it did cost a somewhat-significant amount of money, because one of the biggest problems with public transit in the US is marginalized people getting on public transit and acting in ways that are unpleasant and disruptive to everyone else using it (think about a homeless drug addict passing out on the bus while splayed across several seats; or a schizophrenic screaming incoherently at everyone nearby and threatening to kill them). Having a meaningful fare and consistently enforcing payment of that fare keeps these people off of transit and makes the experience of being in an enclosed space with strangers better for everyone else.
Which is perfectly fine! It’s just that one individual’s willingness to spend 10x-20x for a similar service doesn’t make that service a “solution” to a community-sized problem.
Would it be cheaper to build and operate a public transit network, or to redistribute wealth by taxing and giving $x cash reimbursements to people for using Waymo?
Public transit is not only cheaper, it is also the only feasible possibility.
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”.
> A scheduled increase to Oregon’s transportation taxes, including those that help fund TriMet, is on hold after an effort to repeal the hike secured enough signatures to send the issue to the ballot next month.
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.
>The service changes take affect in August, in large part because they can no longer expect the funding for them to exist by then.
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.
I would not blame this on republicans; they don't hold a majority in the state senate, house, both senators and most house reps are democrats, and there isn't anywhere they hold meaningful power. Further they're opposed to doubling payroll taxes, the taxes are not raised yet.
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.
Oh wow that's a lot farther than I remember. I took a Waymo while in the Bay area a couple years ago, and I seem to remember the Waymo service area only going as far South as the I-280 and US-101 interchange?
Am I misremembering, or did they just drastically expand it?
Waymo is subsidized. They operate vehicles without paying for the cost of the road, land, or surrounding parking.
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.
> They operate vehicles without paying for the cost of the road
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.
I'm sure that they'll just dodge regulations like every other Service as a Software company. Literally taking the money out of the City's hands and providing a slower, less safe, less equitable service. While taking profit too. Sheesh.
By every available measure, Waymo is safer and more equitable than cabs and rideshares. Waymos don't refuse service on skin color or disability. They don't have to stop every block along a fixed route like TriMet. And they're not profitable. So what's your actual beef, here?
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.
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.
>TriMet relies heavily on payroll taxes that are deeply unpopular among the self-employed and small business owners
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.
> 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.
> you don't pay them, self-employed and employers pay those
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.
>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,
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.
ah, good correction, that's why the self employed hate them, they have to pay both halves.
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 am self-employed and have been since 2007-ish and while paying "both sides" is the downside, there are soooooo many upsides to being self-employed (especially since the Trump tax sh#t has been enacted and especially if you are setup as S-Corp) that I seriously* do not mind paying both sides at all.*
you probably have a high wage profession, and you max out FICA etc. and stop paying payroll taxes around April every year. You don't like the income uptick at that point cuz you're just so darned happy to pay payroll taxes? There's a line on the form, you could throw in some more. But housekeepers are also self-employed and those taxes fall much more heavily on them. While they are in a lower tax bracket and pay less as a percentage of their income tax, payroll taxes don't work that way (till somebody chimes in to say "no, Portland Oregon is absolutely confiscatory on this score, we practice Bolshevism!" which would be missing the point)
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.
I've got to retract some shade I've thrown at Waymo when discussing Tesla FSD in the past.
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.
I've tried Tesla FSD a couple of times (free trial in our Model 3) and didn't like it (even though I'm an early adopter who is used to putting up with rough edges; my wife tried it once and wouldn't touch it again). It acted like a nervous new driver.
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.
It's good to hear that more people are realizing that Tesla is nowhere near where they claim to be.
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.
I stanned for them so hard. Oh well; live and learn. It's still the best autonomous driving system that you can buy, though now that Hyundai onlined their Waymo production line, needing a car might be a thing of the past in a few years.
Maybe that's why they pivoted so hard into Optimus (at the cost of their auto division).
Emphasis on "can buy", because Chinese competitors like BYD's "God's Eye" (I presume it sounds better in the original Chinese) aren't available outside China.
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.
I've determined that my ultimate dream car would be something like a Rivian but with Waymo tech, so I can drive it manually when I want/need (snowstorms, off-road), but I can also let it drive me across the country at night while I camp in the back. Would absolutely change the way we move across the US, especially if you have hobbies that involve a lot of gear and equipment.
At least 80% of what you’re describing would be satisfied by trains and buses. It’s wild that Americans are so obsessed with self-driving cars while ignoring public transit that solves most of the problems. It’s reliable, more efficient, better for the environment, and less stressful for you.
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 looked at taking the train from my town to Glacier National Park along with my bike. The route goes from Portland and Seattle to Chicago, and has a stop at south glacier.
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.
Because the US is soooooo exceptional, right? And yet the moment you provide actual proper train connections the lines are successful and profitable (see e.g. Northeast Corridor.
No, but I was pointing out that profitability isn't a very useful metric for selling the benefits of either mode. Otherwise the counterargument would be that transit in the rest of the US outside the Northeast Corridor makes it the exception to the rule.
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?
No, the pitch isn't that. And yet in the US inevitably people will always demand to know government subsidies for everything but cars, and will pretend that alternative modes of transport are only proposed as a full replacement of cars. No one is taking your precious cars away.
I didn't bring up money except to call out that profitability of either trains or cars is irrelevant to actual utility and comfort. Obviously they both cost money and you can subsidize either one.
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.
> 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.
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).
> 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.
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.
I've responded, but you decided to dismiss everything.
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.
We're talking here about passenger rail, not freight rail. And when it comes to passenger rail, the US is terrible by the standards of other developed countries.
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?
Where I live in the Netherlands the train quite literally stops in front of my door, as in my building that is ~50 meters from the train station where I can take a train every 10 minutes (15 on weekends) to any other city in the country, and even outside the country to Germany or France.
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.
A self-driving car can stop 2 meters outside your house on an arbitrary schedule. That's going to be the competition with trains in the very near future.
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.
> A self-driving car can stop 2 meters outside your house on an arbitrary schedule.
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.
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.
The Brightline in Florida exists, as does the Acela on the East Coast. These things are entirely possible in the US, we just don't seem to want them enough.
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.
Those places are comfortable with subpar transit conditions. There's nothing actually individually desirable about taking the train compared to having a private car take you directly between points A and B, people just seem to shy away from admitting that in favor of pro-social signaling in support of public transit.
Ah yeah, the subpar conditions of ... not being dependent on the car for 100% of your life. The subpar conditions of ... not having to spend hours driving on the highway. The subpar conditions of ... having a choice.
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)
This is in a thread about self-driving cars - spending hours on a highway vs a train makes no difference to me if I'm not steering, except that I'm not packed in with the public, which I don't want.
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.
I think that a lot of it isn't country-specific at all. People often just believe that the way they do things is the best way to do those things.
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.
I guess you've never ridden on the Shinkansen or anywhere in Switzerland. I'd much rather take those trains than do the equivalent drives, especially if I'm the one behind the wheel.
In this thread I'm assuming I'm not behind the wheel. I don't own a car and I don't like driving, I take taxis and rideshare everywhere that a plane can't.
> 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.)
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.
> If the US bothered to build out the infrastructure, you could go anywhere you wanted to go via public transport as well.
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.
See above comment, why does the number of vehicles matter? I've left stadium events via taxi and ride-share, often there is a queueing area where cars pull up, you get in and leave. It's like a train that takes you home.
Let's say you go to a concert or similar event where there's potentially thousands of people leaving at the same time. How many robotaxis do you need to carry the same amount of people as a single train carriage is capable of carrying? 200? 300? What about what an entire train, with multiple carriages, could carry?
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?
Sure, 200 or 300, why not? I've been to events of this size and left them in taxis or rideshare. Automatic demand allocation + wage surging systems at companies like Uber funnel drivers to the events and people leave. Presumably that allocation only gets smarter when the cars all drive themselves. Trains would still have the last mile problem here, the main difference would be spacing out the congestion potentially to different remote hubs.
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.
> - Those events do happen today exactly as described and nobody dies.
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.
> At least 80% of what you’re describing would be satisfied by trains and buses. It’s wild that Americans are so obsessed with self-driving cars while ignoring public transit that solves most of the problems. It’s reliable, more efficient, better for the environment, and less stressful for you.
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.
Why? Isn't Amtrak that, but just geographically-scoped? Isn't Caltrain workable? Subways also function fine in NYC, DC, Boston, and even LA
(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)
It's comically (and extremely variably) priced. A trip from DC to NYC and back would be ~$25 in electric costs with a typical electric car versus Amtrak could easily be $300+ though possibly as cheap as $50 if you are flexible to awful hours like depart at 4:30am or something.
the actual cost of a trip between times square and the national mall is about $200 all things considered based on the ~0.80 federal mileage reimbursement rate for 250 miles. that train corridor is overwhelmingly successful as well so the idea that amtrak isn't a good deal is at odds with reality.
That's assuming you don't already have a time-depreciating asset in your possession. Per mile cost is about halved if you drive significantly more than average.
Amtrak (where it exists) is often deprioritized for freight travel, and other times is often limited to extremely low speeds, resulting in extremely slow travel. Your road trips are only possible if you have extremely relaxed time constraints and specific destinations in mind.
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.
Amtrak simply leases the lines in the West from freight providers rather than owning the track outright. The reason Amtrak can offer so much better service in the Northeast Corridor is because they own the track. Incidentally the NEC is the only part of Amtrak operating at a profit.
It's better if trains prioritize freight travel and car-focused roads prioritize passenger travel, than the other way around. Human beings have more pressing time constraints than nearly all shippable physical goods.
Amtrak started out as a holding company for private passenger rail companies that went bankrupt. It's never had a static amount of funding (until the Biden admin, Amtrak had to renegotiate its budget regularly) and many of its stations are just pet projects for rural Congress reps who want to give their district a way to leave their area, so Amtrak runs many trains at a loss.
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.
The remaining dregs of Amtrak are the result of the nationalization of the failing private passenger lines in the US.
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.
I’m 99-100% a car user now after living in Portland, Seattle and Los Angeles. Here’s why - I gave up my car for a bike when I lived in Portland, however when people openly smoked fentanyl on the trains the train operators had to stop the train during my morning/afternoon commute for ~15 minutes (this happened often). Also the last straw for me was getting my place broken into and having my bike stolen. Therefore I moved to cars because I didn’t have to inhale secondhand fentanyl smoke or deal with unscheduled delays. As a man in Los Angeles I had to deal with a drunk man on a bus touching my thigh and hitting on me and people trying to sell me drugs/solicit me for money/phone calls/etc. As a regular hiker I’m also not sure public transit would service trailheads in the Cascades or the Sierra Nevadas. As for the environmental impact, I agree that trains or busses may sometimes be better for environment but we’re also approaching a future of self driving electric cars powered by nuclear and fusion plants providing clean energy, so I think this problem will likely go away.
I welcome Waymo in Portland, I’m just concerned for the well being of the vehicles!
Look I don't fault you - Americans drive cars because every alternative is absolute dogshit, I don't disagree. But I can't e realistic about that and not this:
> 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.
These also don't disappear if you replace privately-owned cars with buses and trains. You need paved roads to put buses on and track to put trains on, and they emit particulate pollution as well unless they're also electrified which is a similar problem to electrifying cars.
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.
The problems do diminish significantly if you need fewer lanes by half or more, and have fewer vehicles per person.
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.
Kind of begs the question why so much local level water stuff is federally regulated.
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.
I appreciate what you're saying and am a big fan of long distance train and bus journeys myself and have done a lot of both, sleeping and not.
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.
It is a chicken and egg problem. As long as the majority of people who would maintain the social environment are avoiding the social environment, the healthy consensus/operating regime can never emerge.
In my experience the majority consensus is to maintain a quiet, generally polite environment on trains and buses.
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.
Correct. But the golden question is, do what? The authorities don't care. Rules and laws are rarely enforced, and when they are enforced they're done so unevenly. If you decide to take matters into your own hands, it's much more likely that you will be punished by the law than the person you were correcting. So, what do you expect people to do?
My point is that in established cultures there are expectations around how these situations are handled, and what you expect people to do is specific to the culture. A single disapproving grandmother can put a stop to it.
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.
>A single disapproving grandmother can put a stop to it.
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.
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.
It's not. Pass a law that continuing to be noisy or disruptive on a bus or train after a warning results in 10 years of prison time with no parole and consistently enforce it. The problem will solve itself without a chicken and egg problem. Problematic people can simply be removed from society to make for a good social environment. Adding more good people is not the only option and in fact only hides the problem instead of solving it.
This would involve incarcerating a lot of homeless people, which is expensive, and pro-homeless activists would see it as a human rights abuse and fight it.
It would be expensive, but would have everyday visible tangible effects which you can't always say about other government spending. In regards to people thinking it's abusing people's rights they will just have to be ignored or taught to respect other people's right to a good experience with public transport.
Deeply unfortunate, but we're arguably in a lose-lose situation where suffering from the problem has abuses, and yet so does fighting those who profit or benefit from the situation.
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 honestly find it horrifying that you think stripping a person of their freedom and dignity for ten years is a reasonable penalty for being “noisy” on a train.
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.
Living in a society where you don't have to worry about people stealing, being violent, doing drugs, scamming you, breaking into your car, etc sounds like the opposite of a dystopia.
Yeah, but you mentioned none of those things, instead you suggested a 10+ year sentence is reasonable for people who are too “noisy”. I assume you’d recommend slow torture and then the murder of their entire family if someone dared to actually “do drugs”.
Fortunately, your views are wildly extreme and unconstitutional. Regardless, I hope you find some empathy and some peace out there.
Having actual consequences and holding people is all related to solving these problems.
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.
Cars are not the solution to that. Hooligans and irritating people are just a possibility in literally every social environment, they always have been, and they always will be. Answers to that problem are social - it's a bigger problem in America than Japan, for exmaplem.
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".
I am a huge proponent of increased public transit (I'm of the opinion that every city should have a massive congestion tax with large swaths only accessible on foot or by public transit), but trains and buses would be wildly inconvenient for what op is describing.
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.
People just do not understand how big and spread out the US is compared to other countries. "Last mile" dramatically underestimates how much heavy lifting the personal transportation part would need to do. More like "last 50 miles".
The European mind does not comprehend how big and sparsely populated the American West is. You can't even pitch a tent in most places in the Alps, and why would you, when you just stop at a hut that has a staff and you can get fed and sleep in bunks with 20 other people? Meanwhile I can drive to numerous places where there isn't a structure or even another person in a 20km radius. No one is going to run a train to a place like that.
That depends how you define "densely populated", but certainly most car trips are near where people live and work, not in wilderness camping areas you are describing.
there are effectively no passenger trains in America and effectively no political will to expand them. Busses take multiple times as long for the same trip compared to a car. This doesnt even get into the anti-social behavior present on both. Given these facts, it is not wild at all to prefer cars (self driving or not) vs alternate transportation methods
> Busses take multiple times as long for the same trip compared to a car.
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.
I guess everything is hell, if you feel like writing that.
> 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.
Napaway briefly offered ticketed intercity service on busses with 18 sleeper pods, but has (temporarily) discontinued it in favor of focusing on charter service.
You're right, but in the US a government providing any sort of public service is an immediate target for the right (and an unfortunately significant portion of the "left"). We insist on paying more for less rather than ever allowing a poor person to benefit in a way they don't "deserve". So public transit hardly exists or is woefully inadequate in most places.
The sad truth is the USA spends ~$150B/year building and maintaining it's road network (to say nothing of the inflation-adjusted costs that went into its initial roll-out). Source: The US Fed tracks it directly - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TLHWYCONS
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.
The USA is riding on 100 years of the benefits of scale and economic investment. If the USA was investing $150B a year into building passenger rail, we would not be paying $1B/mile for "new" and "trailblazing" rail projects. If we had to build much of the highway infra we built 75 years ago, but do it now, we'd be paying similar $1B/mile prices for the highways.
You are misunderstanding the nature of the problem. I like trains but they can't and don't address the issue the OP is raising. Even if the US already had public trains it still isn't a "last mile" problem. Especially in the western US, it is a "last hundred miles" problem.
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.
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.
Public transit in America presents a much higher chance of encountering dangerous people than a private car. Until those people are permanently, irrevocably, and definitively locked up, it would not matter off public transit were free, or even paid users to use it, it will not be a serious option. Nobody in my family is allowed to use public transit.
This is all FUD and extremely unlikely if not improbable to run into someone violent. If you’re that afraid of public transit and people in general, no amount of “rounding people up against their will” would change your mind.
It really is not. I use public transit heavily. The people on it fucking suck. No one helps when someone is being harassed for fear of violence. The US needs to enforce basic decorum on public transit if it wants mass buy in.
No I’m claiming that violent people have a tendency to support violence as the only rational option. While turning around and defunding healthcare and advocating more prisons be built. Rather than diagnosing the actual problems. Violence wont stop mental illness.
The posters advocating for it and stating Daniel Penny should’ve encourage copy-cats are violent and sick people.
I'd love for you to come along with me on a ski mountaineering trip to the eastern Sierra. It's a mountain range larger than Switzerland with basically one interstate highway to access and no roads that cross through in the winter. Very few year-round towns, and nearly zero services outside of those towns. This ain't the alps - there are no huts, no gondolas, no nothing. If you want to access it, you have to walk/ski your way there. That often means long drives (50-100+ miles), camping in your car, and bringing everything you need to survive with you.
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.
> At least 80% of what you’re describing would be satisfied by trains and buses. It’s wild that Americans are so obsessed with self-driving cars while ignoring public transit that solves most of the problems. It’s reliable, more efficient, better for the environment, and less stressful for you.
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.
Connecting two Waymo geos with a train would be an interesting company idea. You could lease freight track the way Amtrak already does it in the American West but try to negotiate a contact more favorable than Amtrak's. You could try to work with Waymo to work on bundles.
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.
The scenario is a cross-country trip in an electric car. What actual, specific advantage does a train or bus offer in this scenario? What problem does it solve better?
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.)
Unfortunately, until something big happens in the US, autonomous vehicles will be more accessible to working class americans than good and reliable mass transit, especially outside of major population centers.
Public transit only works if you live in the densest of the dense part of a city. If you live out in Beaverton or Gresham these bus lines lose money hand over fist, not to mention farther-flung places.
In my experience, night trains with private cabins are fan service for rail fans, environmentalists and/or masochists, not real transport options.
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.
It's a train or bus that is exclusively yours, goes exactly where you want it to go, when you want to go. Sounds objectively better than a train to me.
Enough with this public transport bullshit. We live in very spread out suburbs where you need to drive to everything and everyone has big backyards because we like it that way. Most people here don’t want to live in a tiny coop sharing walls with neighbors on all sides and live the vast majority of our lives in a 15 min public transport bubble. Further, having a train line is borderline not feasible the way the vast majority of the US lives. There is no way having a train station with even a 30 minute walking distance is feasible or even desirable. I also don’t want to get into public transport with a whole bunch of other people no matter how nice it is. It’s not going to be able to compete with a self driving EV of my own that I charge with my solar panels for free.
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.
It would also be satisfied by magic flying carpets. Between flying carpets, functional public transport, and self-driving cars, only one of these three things is not utter fantasy in the near-ish future in the United States.
I want this as well. Hopefully my Cybertruck will get unsupervised driving someday, but until then, it's the closest thing to the dream of electric off-roading, self-driving vehicle with huge cargo capacity. I've already stopped driving myself around 98% of the time, according to my FSD stats.
They are basically the car Homer designed in that famous episode of The Simpsons. They are the ugliest and and most impractical car ever designed. The fact that the bed cover blocks the rear view window should be illegal. Dozens of people must have told Elon how stupid using stainless steel for the body is but he ignored them all. The cabin looks incredibly cheap for an $80,000 car. It is a very bad truck.
I do have to admit the steer by wire system with adaptive sensitivity is neat.
None of the subjective things you said has any bearing on my lived experience of the past two years I’ve owned it. It off roads well. Holds lots of stuff. Backed up my whole house when we had a power outage. Safest truck ever tested. Drives itself. Looks awesome.
It ~objectively doesn't off-road well or hold lots of stuff compared with other vehicles in its class. That said, unlike the meanie commenter I'm glad you like your vehicle and very jealous of the self-driving! :)
Ah. Now I see why you’re so against it. My condolences. I did get my share of similarly deranged people flipping me off, until I moved out of the Seattle area. Now things are better :)
So the owner of a company makes a Nazi salute in public twice and makes many racist comments and retweets on twitter and you just shrug and buy from the company anyway? You are confirming everything I assumed about cyber-truck buyers. You consider me deranged and not Musk? That is just absurd.
Hey man I don't want to argue anymore. I bought a cybertruck, not a Musk. Musk clearly has some issues and I wish he'd shut the hell up, but in my opinion there's so much to do and be happy about in life that it's a waste of time to get mad and negative about things like car purchases.
Snowstorms are probably when I’d most want self driving. Back in February driving from Tahoe to SF, they closed the road, not because of conditions, but because too many impatient drivers spun out. I trust Waymo to go the recommended speed and not get impatient.
Its not always about speed, This winter I was on interstate 93 in a 4WD with winter tyres. I was doing 25-35mph because the roads weren't treated. I still spun out, like many others. The road was an ice rink.
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
When it comes to controlling the wheels to prevent sliding and slipping, the AV control system is unbeatable. The ABS and traction control on a regular car has to cope with whatever control inputs the driver has made; on an AV, the computer models the grip limits of the wheel and plans a trajectory to not exceed them. It's not just for snow but also for changing pavement surfaces and the rain.
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.
They put the hardware on performant cars because it would be stupid to choose gas for stop-and-go city driving. Electric cars are fast; a new Honda Civic does 0-60 in 6 seconds!
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 drove up there in the AM Thursday, Feb 18th, during the snowstorm, about an hour before they closed the pass for the rest of the day.
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.
In a Canadian context, on a two lane highway, sometimes doing the absolutely safe/totally cautious speed in a moderate snowstorm will result in a very large collection of vehicles behind you, with angry drivers. In particular if the persons collecting behind you are some combination of not very risk averse, commute on the same road every day, and are very confident in themselves because they have dedicated winter purpose studded snow/ice tires on.
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.
Turnouts exist. Unfortunately, head-of-line-blockers are very commonly already overwhelmed by the task of keeping tab of their own vehicle; would be a far stretch to expect them to simultaneously stay aware of traffic situations, spot the turnouts ahead, and then take the turnout.
The entire city shuts down and loses their mind with just a millimeter or two of snow here. Last time we got 0.25 of an inch there were ~9 accidents within a 2-mile span on the highway in the morning, and we just ended up shutting the highway down for the day.
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.
After skiing in Utah, I wonder why the driving conditions around Tahoe get so bad. In comparison, for most places around Salt Lake/Park City, you never need chains or 4-wheel drive.
Utah snow at its elevations and climate is more dry and fluffy. Tahoe snow or similar when the temperature is only marginally below freezing is more likely to be wet, slushy. Same thing as snow/ice buildup on the mountain passes over the Cascades in WA when the temperature is hovering just below zero C.
It simply snows a lot more in Tahoe from a SWE standpoint. Utah gets similar "inches" of snow, but fractions of the moisture, which if you've ever built a snowman you know the difference between the heavy thick stuff and the powder that doesn't clump. Utah gets the powder, Tahoe gets the sludge (and a ton of it).
Yes. The longer-term possible second-order effects are going to be wild. Easier t o get to wilderness? Awesome!, but also crowding like you've never seen (but maybe also more small parks because there will be a glut of unused parking).
I don't see why one of those second-order effects wouldn't be the death of car ownership, with everyone using a rideshare service instead. Hell, that's the business model for Waymo and almost everyone other than Tesla in the autonomous-vehicle industry. It just doesn't make sense to own your own vehicle, use it for ~2 hours/day, and have to worry about parking/storing/fueling/maintaining it when you could have a service do all of that for you. Plus self-driving cars fix several issues with human rideshares, eg. you can drive it out to the boonies without worrying about how it's going to get back; you don't need to worry about getting assaulted by the robot driver; when they wait for you you only need to pay the opportunity cost of another ride rather than the opportunity cost of the driver's time. It's feasible to take a Waymo out to a state park, though you wouldn't usually do that with an Uber.
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.
I think this fundamentally misunderstands what people want...
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.
> 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.)
> 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.
I bought a 2018 Model 3 that was later upgrade with HW3. I paid about $10K extra for the full auto-pilot. Elon back then said that eventually the car will come pick me up from the airport. That was a nice dream. Nearly 10 years later, my Tesla still cannot do that.
$10K for full autopilot on Tesla in 2018 was essentially a fraud. I have since then learned not to trust anything Elon says.
I, independently, made almost exactly the same comment before seeing yours lol. I already do 20+ hour cross-country trips in my Y without a break to sleep, which is only possible because I'm not meaningfully fatigued driving. it's still technically supervised but I think that's beyond the point OP is making
Yea. With a huge 100 kWh battery and a removable range extender for those extra-long trips :)
Plus that battery (and range extender) can also provide power and heating when parked.
It depends what you mean by self-driving. The car drives itself without any input; I would argue that fits the definition of self driving. Legally you must be supervising it, which is a valid criticism, but the car drives itself well enough that I can provide basically no input on 20+ hour cross-country trips, which allows me to do things like not stop to sleep.
Self driving means self driving. If I drive myself to work, my wife doesn’t need to keep her eyes on the road for me.
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.
A Waymo was recently stuck on some light rail tracks in Phoenix this year [1]. Portland has a rather diverse bunch of streetcars and trams concentrated in its downtown core. Hopefully they don't get stuck on the tracks or block the trams.
From the article it doesn't sound like it was physically stuck as much as it's maps might not have been updated with the latest addition of that light rail and/or it was confused by the ongoing construction.
Definitely a big concern, but given the number of times in my lifespan that I've seen pictures or video of human-driven vehicles that have got stuck on railroad crossings (or just straight up drunk people trying to drive linearly down a railroad track)...
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.
> 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?
This is the right way to look at it. For autonomous fleets, there are typically tiers of intervention, starting with a simple remote check - "can I drive through this?" type confirmation, to much more detailed remote instructions that are slower to give, to getting someone from operations out (or in an emergency first responders) to manually move the car. One reason why you might want to keep traditional controls in the vehicle for the near term.
It's a big operations challenge, and hope Waymo (and everyone else TBH) get it smoother and smoother.
I wonder if at some point we'll see a hockey stick adoption of self-driving cars. For now every new city is worth a blog post, eventually they'll allow intercity drives. Will international adoption take off? Will I be able to use it on a country road to visit my family in 10 years?
If Waymo's announcements come to reality, that is happening this year. Phoenix entered full service in 2020, then San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2024, and Austin and Georgia in 2025 (in partnership with Uber). But this year they are planning on rolling out in 13 cities! Miami and Orlando are already in full service. Nashville, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are running invite-only service. Tampa, New Orleans, Minneapolis are in testing. San Diego, Detroit, Las Vegas and D.C. have been announced to launch this year, but haven't started testing yet. And that is on top of eight other cities that they are already testing in, but don't have timelines for offering full service.
That is already a huge jump from two cities a year.
The DC rollout is mired in regulatory red tape and is most likely dead until the mayoral election goes through, and if the new mayor is anti-Waymo unlikely to go through in the near future.
Waymo and Baidu are the only big players and both are working on launching in foreign markets for the first time this year, in addition to big expansions in their home markets. But country roads are not on the agenda. I predict an eventual public-private partnership to bring AVs to rural areas. It would be a cost-effective way to support the healthcare of ageing rural populations who are facing hospital closures.
I'd assume so. Even the city launches are extremely limited to a section of the overall metro area that one would consider necessary for full local service. They are dropping a lot of seeds and then will allow them to grow. While it seems very slow, I have always enjoyed watching Google's taxi service GTM approach much more than I did watching Uber's.
Stiff competition for humans, especially drivers outside the top quartile or so. Waymo appears to its passengers to drive much more competently than certainly any sub-average rideshare driver.
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
Waymo undoubtedly drives better than your average rideshare driver - I have taken dozens of Waymos in SF and the experience is unmatched. Also no chance of being harassed by the driver, which is a big plus.
This. Also Waymo can be surprisingly aggressive in SF, lane cutting and speeding up when yellow light is on and whatnot. It really feels like being driven by an emotionless highly competent driver, which is exactly what I want. The only gripe I have with it is about dropping off, I can't tell it to move forward a couple of feet to avoid a puddle or to make it easier for me to unload the luggage ...
Pick-up, drop off, and routing remain a challenge for Waymo. I hate having to walk a few minutes to get to the Waymo. Not that big a deal usually, but it became a problem when I was on crutches after spraining my ankle. Same for drop-offs, with the caveat that a human driver is going to see that I'm being dropped off in a bad neighborhood and not have me walk a couple blocks and is going to drop me off right outside my destination. Finally, routing. Waymo's take the weirdest routes sometimes. There was one trip I'd swear the Waymo Driver was the digital equivalent of drunk, the route it took was so convoluted. Which is kind of interesting. It means the system can reroute on the fly based on traffic conditions elsewhere and avoid getting jammed up. It's like when Google maps has you take a weird route to somewhere you're familiar, and then you look at traffic and there's an accident it's taking you around. Still a bad experience when a 10 minute ride turns into a 20 minute ride because the Waymo decides to go a weird way.
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.
The one feature that Waymo has over other rideshare apps is that the cars presumably actually show up.
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.
Waymo cancels cars when they are unable to get to you in a reasonable time. The service will not resend a car automatically, so the user needs to babysit the app until they’re actually in the car. I’ve seen this twice in the last week. In Phoenix and SF we have preferred ride share or taxi when the car showing up is important, like getting to a medical appointment on time.
Yes exactly. I loved that when i opened up the app to go some where the first thing I saw before I even put in where I'm going, was how long until ill be picked up. the cars don't care about the trips, not trying to tip/ride max.
> I hope these aren’t all just set on fire because there is promise in reducing fatalities.
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.
Ironically, Uber used the same tactics to replace taxis with rideshare:
(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.
Mm, suppose I might indeed prefer the top ~tenth of drivers (or more) on many occasions… recommendations from a screen aren’t the same. Been fun chatting with drivers since the early days for sure, when it was all new-exciting-rideshare talk
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.
Waymo inflates their prices to be above that of Uber/Lyft because they don't have enough vehicles to meet demand. But their operating costs / mile are lower than that of Uber/Lyft. I'd estimate their internal cost per mile is approx. half that of Uber/Lyft. They pocket the rest because they need to recoup decades of expensive R&D.
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.
It's not clear to me if their costs are lower yet. Waymo's vehicles are rather expensive (estimates for their newer Zeekrs are around $75k each), and they need to pay some number of remote monitors for exceptional situations (as noticed during the recent blackout in San Francisco). They also have to collect tons of data to build & maintain high resolution 3D maps of the areas they operate in. And they have to pay engineers to improve the self-driving software.
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.
We're looking at different metrics, you're analyzing the average total cost, while I'm analyzing the marginal cost. Waymo has enormous fixed costs like you mentioned, mapping cities and paying engineers are not cheap, which need to be amortized over a massive self-driving fleet. But those are fixed costs which don't increase with fleet size. Waymo currently operates only ~3000 vehicles, which is not enough to amortize those fixed costs into overall profitability.
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.
Even when just looking at marginal costs, I doubt Waymo is half that of a human driven vehicle. If we assume a robotaxi lasts 200k miles before being retired, then the cost of the vehicle alone ($75k) is 37.5 cents per mile. If a vehicle drives 200 miles a day, that's $5 of electricity (250Wh/mile x 10 cents/kWh), maybe $15 of labor to clean, and the space to park it near downtown ($3/day). That's another 12 cents per mile for a running total of 50 cents per mile. Then factor in maintenance (tires, brakes, suspension, etc) and you're probably close to $1/mile. Then you also need support staff, remote operators (approximately 1 per 50 vehicles, but paid significantly more than Uber drivers), and plenty of compute and storage for the high resolution maps (which must be constantly updated as the environment changes). And none of that includes the R&D costs to improve the vehicles or the self-driving software. Yes many of these costs decrease as fleet size increases, but it'll be a while before it gets below $1/mile. (Nationwide, Uber's rates are $1-2/mile depending on the area.)
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.
Those are some good points. Waymo & self-driving cars only makes sense in markets where the cost of paying a human driver is much higher than the amortized cost of operating a self-driving vehicle. As an extreme example, in Bangladesh a driver will work for ~$0.25/hour. Self-driving cars don't make economical sense there, the additional cost of making a vehicle self-driving never pays off vs having a dedicated driver.
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.
I believe sooner or later Waymo will start selling their tech package to car companies, who in turn will pass the cost on to customers either as a huge mark up or subscription services. I don't believe Waymo can survive on self-driving taxi alone, the hardware cost is too much to go global.
In San Francisco, it has to be. Because of prop 22, Uber/Lyft must compensate drivers a minimum of $22.40/hr, plus $0.36/mile for vehicle expenses. Waymo doesn't have this cost, so it's effectively ~$25/hr cheaper to operate than Uber/Lyft.
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).
Engineering costs are capital/fixed costs, they're paid once to develop the technology and don't scale with the number of trips. Operating costs (which is what I'm discussing here) are what it actually costs to run each ride. Waymo's marginal cost per trip doesn't include a chunk of some engineer's salary.
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.
Where is this estimate? I found a wide range of estimates in my web search, from a per-mile cost of revenue of $2 (meaning a loss of $2 per mile excluding capex), to up to $50/mile.
The Gemini results when I searched for this cited this Reddit post [1] which cites this Reddit post [2], which conveniently gives your $2/mile answer.
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.
It's hard to measure "cheaper" as an end user consumer, the price you pay for the service, because it's very likely they're operating at a loss to gain market share and growth.
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.
IIRC, in SF they're slightly more expensive before tip, but having ridden in them in SF, LA, and AZ I've always felt they were cheaper. Over the long run, they will probably end up being cheaper from the wholesale perspective since eventually the parts and technology cost will come down with time and scale while human wages will continue to rise.
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.
Alphabet/Google/Waymo is a technology business, with emphasis on business. They're not running a charity. They're in it to make money. If it's a $20 Uber ride to somewhere, they're not going to leave money on the table and charge $10 because they don't have a driver to pay. They're going to charge $22 for the premium experience because they know people will pay that.
Of course, but I never claimed that they would do that. At some point though other autonomous services will enter the market and Waymo will have to compete with them on price. Even if that doesn't happen (which seems incredibly unlikely), they're still competing against public transit and people driving themselves (or privately owned self driving cars). Not having to pay a driver means the floor where they can make a profit is lower.
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.
That sounds right. Passenger pays for lower risk, etc. The market sees the company making $2 extra and a competitor will see if they can do it for just $1 extra.
Depends on the region, I think. Lyft and Uber partner with them in certain cities, so you transparently are charged the same as a similar ride with a human driver. It's only a better experience than a human driver, though, in my view. No chance of yapping, more privacy, no chance of your driver being a psycho, cars are better maintained.
If a waymo costs $200k (car+sensors+install labor) and drives 200k miles, then amortizing up-front costs alone are about $1/mile. We don't really know what the TCO of a waymo is, and it's possible it could go down with economies of scale. Rideshare drivers can get paid $1-2/mile although it varies a lot.
That's just the current cost. The long term cost structure should be based on cars that come out of the factory with all the right stuff pre-installed. There's a BOM for some extra components; many of which you might already find in some cars. Otherwise it's just another EV. So, long term the extra cost per mile relative to a driver driving the same car should be cents rather than dollars per mile. And of course if there is no driver, some components like manual controls, dashboards, mirrors, etc. actually become redundant as well. So the total BOM might actually be lower long term.
The driver cost is of course the big saving. And they need breaks as well and don't drive 24x7. A robo taxi only has down time when there are no rides, or for charging and maintenance/cleaning.
Mostly what Waymo is doing currently with customized vehicles is not actually super scalable. But it helps at their relatively small current scale. You wouldn't design a custom vehicle + factory for their current growth rate. That becomes more interesting when they start scaling beyond tens of thousands of new vehicles per year. They are probably in the lower thousands currently.
I think they raised close to 20-30B so far. They say they are doing 500K rides per week. At 15$ 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.
> A robo taxi only has down time when there are no rides, or for charging and maintenance/cleaning.
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.
Of course they have downtime. They need to charge. Waymo partners with car rental companies for depot operations where they inspect for damage and clean the cars. Damaged cars need to get repaired.
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.
> 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.
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.
Of course they operate in the same market, and the influences of that market on supply are the same. But the response of gig drivers and autonomous vehicles to these influences and incentives is obviously not the same. It can't be the same.
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.
Why would the people who control Waymo be better at these things than the people who control Uber?
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.
During peak hours Waymo is more expensive than standard uber/lyft - I don't pay attention to black/premium pricing. Off-peak the price can be comparable. I mainly check because my wife prefers it.
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.
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.
> I-5 in the Portland area south of the OR-217 interchange has extremely gentle curves.
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).
Theoretically, fully automated driving doesn't require traffic signals, as much lighting, guard rails, lane width, rumble strips, reflectors, signage, etc.
I don't see why you should prefer jobs for humans. If a robot can do a job as well better and more cheapy than a human, it should, and that goes trebly for any sort of safety-focused job. The right fix is eliminating the need for make-work and not creating more unnecessary jobs.
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.
Multiple factors: market viability, climate compatibility, capacity, and definitely regulatory factors. Currently DC, NYC, Boston and Chicago are all being slowed down by anti-Waymo groups like Uber drivers and public-transit lobbyists.
Waymo is a sort of public transit. It's just an vastly more inefficient than any other form of public transit, but an order of magnitude more efficient than private passenger cars.
> 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.
Depends on your definition of efficiency. Any ride service will drive more miles thus resulting in more congestion and more energy use than personal vehicles, because in addition to driving from point A1 to B1, they have to drive from B1 to A2. They get closer with density but never match. They will also always be more expensive to operate per mile because you need to cover the cost of the driver (human or machine).
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.
We do get ice and snow in Portland, along with flooding and landslides. No, it's not the same as Midwest, but we do get a few days every other year or so that you just don't drive out in. The black ice around a couple curvy sections of i-5 are notoriously bad at night in winters. (Terwilliger)
I have lived in the midwest, as well as Portland. It is good that Portland only occasionally gets ice, because in like-for-like conditions it is way more dangerous than the midwest. Primarily because of hills. I found driving in snow & ice in the midwest to be mostly a non-event, even on inadequate tires.
I really hope we're able to get them without the city council messing things up. The way they reacted to the news at first, you'd think Minneapolis was the first city to ever have autonomous vehicles. That, mixed with a heavy dose of "What about the buggy whip makers??"
If it's the latter then Portland makes little sense. There are no regulations allowing it and the bill to enable it is still in motion at the state level (and not a slam dunk).
> 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.
Portlanders do not think this. Survey people in Portland and you'll find they want trains as well. NIMBYs don't and NIMBYs make up the majority of people who actually have the time and wealth to go to city meetings.
If you say you support density but that support withers away at the slightest hint of nostalgia or trade off, or because some old ladies walk in the dead mall sometimes (that was the cited reason), then you don’t really support density.
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?
In context, when they said, “that mall is rad, I hope they block it there’s a campaign to stop the demolition” made it pretty close to unambiguous.
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.
You can want trains while simultaneously detesting all of the conditions that make trains viable. Just like you can want to drive to work every day and also want to never be in traffic. NIMBYism has nothing to do with being averse to working downtown or tearing down a mall (a radically YIMBY position regarding dead malls).
5,000 units can also be built alongside entirely too much office space and ground floor retail, which is mixed use.
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.
I rode the MAX when living there for a few years. I vividly recall screaming drugged out homeless riders being a regular feature. The last time I rode, a year ago, there was someone in the throes of the fent-bends in my section, who smelled like he was dying (he well may have been).
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.
The NYT reported recently that the rollout of more impermeable ticket gates have noticeably reduced the proportion of unstable people on the subway.
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.
I'm a MAX apologist, but you're right. It sucks. I live on the yellow line, and I estimate that there's a visibly (or audibly, or orfactorily) unstable person on the train 50% of the time. I'll ride the train by myself sometimes, but always avoid it with friends or family because it's gotten embarrassing at this point.
Has it been shown that screaming drugged out homeless riders avoid the presence of crowds? Is there any physical mechanism where having more people on the trains leads to Daniel-Penny-like suppression of drugged out homeless riders? Or does "getting more people onto the trains" just mean removing their options until they are forced to ignore the drugged out homeless riders?
As a solution, "get MORE people onto the trains" seems less optimal than "get fewer drugged out homeless riders onto the trains".
Why are you advocating people murder mentally ill people? Daniel Penny is a murderer and violent criminal piece of shit. Why are you advocating for violence? You are a sick person. Please stop commenting.
> 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?
I'm saying it _is_ and _was_ an issue during the day and heavy commute hours, those were the only hours I rode it! Other places in the world with nice train systems do not burden their riders with "safety in numbers", the places are just plain safer, period. And a great place to start is Don't let people smoke fentanyl on the train :) (And make sure everyone has affordable housing and healthcare, ofc)
There absolutely are serious issues at all times, regardless of how busy the trains are. I'm sorry, but as someone who actually lives in Portland I'm telling you that mentally ill drug users do not give a crap about how many people there are in the train car. After the third time I had to move my kids to different cars or even exit the train entirely due to open drug use and dangerous behavior, I swore off public transit for good.
That's what I was asking -- why do you believe this? What is your mechanism for safety in numbers? If it's "criminals fear being observed", that doesn't hold now that catch-and-release is standard practice. If it's "criminals fear being outnumbered", that doesn't hold when the crowd will be prosecuted if they attack. The only mechanism left for safety in numbers is hoping that criminals feel shy.
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.
Because MAX is on rails it can and does come to a complete halt for indefinite periods of time whenever some jackass in an Escalade parks it on the track. I know this firsthand and I only lived in Portland for one month.
MAX has dedicated right-of-way outside the city centers, but in the cities it shares city streets. Tourists drive / stop-at-lights in the dedicated lanes a lot.
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.
I wonder how long Google will continue to subsidize this at a substantial loss? Estimated $30–40 billion spent in the last decade that only really pays off if they dominate the market.
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 don't believe Google breaks it down but everyone assumes Waymo accounts for roughly 50% of $7.52B in "other bets" losses. And that's just 2025, losses in Q4 2025 are almost 2x Q4 2024. Cost factors are improving but they continue to shovel money into the R&D furnace.
I bet they've hit operating breakeven a couple years ago. If they hadn't they wouldn't have been expanding. Expanding while you have an operating loss means the loss would be expanding alongside the service. I'm not seeing that in the numbers.
They have the money to do so, and investors are aware that it is a long term play. Waymo is already dominating the market for all intents and purposes.
I don't think Waymo needs to dominate the market to succeed. They just need to scale up (time)x(number of vehicles) enough to amortize the R&D costs of the self driving capability. Paying a driver is a big chunk of a taxi/Uber's costs, so eliminating that leaves a lot of room to maneuver.
Are they sure? Portland is a special kind of crazy. I can say this cuz I’m a native now living in Berlin. locals are going to trash the cars and do all sorts of damage.
How about a Waymo competitor that uses nonporous, impervious materials for the interior, and automatically sanitizes itself in between passengers? You pay with Monero and logs are only kept long enough to solve any murders you might've committed, and for the next rider to report if you still managed to mess something up.
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.
I also don't understand why people aren't more upset about the privacy issues. They have your whole travel data, your face, your voice, "private" conversations.
And the people in the Philippines who can intervene in the "self" driving can comment on your bodily features if bored.
> I also don't understand why people aren't more upset about the privacy issues.
I 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).
It recently became very real for a lot of people. The US government is buying that harmless advertising data to target, locate, and arrest/deport people.
If I was an immigrant of any legal status, I would now absolutely think twice about providing a real name or address to any online service. Any benign good-faith "its only for ads" argument has been destroyed within the last year. GrapheneOS/Librem/Pursim should start advertising heavily in immigrant communities.
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.
Of all the organizations with access to my data (e.g. ISP, social networks, cellphone service provider, current US government, etc.), I absolutely trust Google the most.
Do you think Google is lying about the microphone?
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 for
I live in Portland. Took an Uber to the airport early in the morning. The driver was extremely reckless. Nearly wrecked several times. This has never happened before. We reported him. But, yeah, looking forward to using Waymo.
I'm a little sad to see this because I'm moving northward to Seattle next month, I've lived in Portland proper for over 16 years, and Seattle doesn't have Waymo yet. Great timing lol.
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.
God willing. Unfortunately Seattle has a recent history of award-winning marksmanship when it comes to turning its own feet into Swiss cheese. A few years ago we passed a brilliant gig worker minimum wage law which:
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.
I wonder how large the footprint will be. I live in the greater Portland area, but not in the city proper. There are definitely situations where Waymo would be great, but my guess is that they won't start off serving my specific area.
Surprised Portland is allowing Waymo in, considering that they have a decent public transport system (judging by US standards, not European standards), with light rail.
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.
That seems like a dream environment for these cars. They are very good about waiting for humans to cross. To be honest, a Waymo at the front in an intersection means that it's going to be much more relaxing as a pedestrian or bicyclist crossing. This is especially true in intersections with a no-right-on-red where Waymos will obey but human drivers in San Francisco rarely do.
Every town says the exact same thing when Waymo shows up, and it's never true. There's nothing unique about Portland drivers, streets, sidewalks, or pedestrians.
I feel like I've lived in enough places and they're pretty small relatively speaking but whatever, seems like we'll see how it actually plays out.
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
This is a false blanket statement. Portland has very short (walkable) blocks, many one way streets, and it is true that most often than not cars actively stop for pedestrians to cross the street
Oh man... this will be so awesome as a pedestrian/cyclist. When I see a Waymo coming, I can actually have some reasonable expectation that it will stop for me!
One of my friends talks about this skate park on Stevenson st, which is a cobblestone road in San Francisco. It's ostensibly a two way road, but with street parking, it isn't really. Or rather, in order for two full sized cars to fit, one of the cars has to go up on the curb. Waymo's don't seem capable of doing this (yet, on that street), and jam up that road whenever there's traffic on it. Waymo's has problems with that narrow SF street and any amount of traffic on it.
Seems like a hostile market for Waymo. Many Portlanders despise tech giants and are strongly anti-car & anti-AI, far more than SF. Not to mention Portland's political / governance / people problems already inclines the population to anger.
How long does Waymo generally take to map and otherwise get ready for a new city rollout (permits, etc.)? I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't even started offering rides in 2027.
No idea. I would just assume whatever they’re doing there gets shouted down in short order by the locals who are known for being kind hearted, incredibly naive, and violent.
okay so now imagine Portland with transportation budget cuts and no Waymo
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
The same Waymo that says that they don't give a shit that they're stopping in bike lanes because their selfish passengers pay for it? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47912645
Human drivers (especially Uber/DoorDash drivers) stop in bike lanes all the time without repercussion. Pointing the finger at Waymo for this doesn't negate the larger problem of it not being enforced by local traffic enforcement.
I've personally reported a taxi driver for parking in a bike lane, and I hope he lost his cab license for it because it was really egregious. PBOT actually asked me for official testimony.
My personal enthusiasm can come off this way, but I'm excited for it as a cyclist, someone whose brother was killed by a driver, and general cutting edge technology hobbyist.
Same here, as someone who doesn't drive much, and is generally a "vulnerable road user". I've seen Waymos drive. When they screw up, it's by stopping dead under an abundance of caution. They never speed. They can spot a ped or cyclist from blocks away. Every time I take an Uber home, the driver is guaranteed to drive 40+ on the 20mph road in front of my house while blasting through crosswalks with people waiting to cross. The data is not really in yet (still not enough miles to really say if they are safer), but they pass the eye test.
People are interested as its a sci-fi promise long hoped to be filled. It is the first step to alot of other changes that will happen as higher majority of vehicles on the road transition to actual full self driving.
> Portland has always been a pioneer in urban design, balancing its independent spirit with a deep commitment to sustainable, forward-thinking living.
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.
For context, this is coming in as TriMet is laying off staff, reducing service frequency, eliminating bus lines, and cutting parts of light rail routes due to a $300M budget shortfall. The cuts were exacerbated by state Republicans getting a proposed payroll tax repeal onto the ballot next month; TriMet relies heavily on payroll taxes that are deeply unpopular among the self-employed and small business owners, so the budget is going to get worse before it gets better.
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.
Yup, it is genuinely convenient that Waymo doesn't rely on an unpopular payroll tax for funding while the bus system does, and also doesn't have human drivers who need to be paid subject to the laws of the city of Portland. But it doesn't actually matter all that much what is going on municipally in Portland at the moment - Waymo (or ideally, a wide variety of competing robotaxi services) should exist everywhere in the country and be as widely available as cars and roads themselves. And eventually this will happen; the concept that Waymo entering a new local market is a newsworthy event is a temporary state of affairs.
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.
Road maintenance isn't a subsidy, it's a collective good that buses also benefit from along with many other types of human transport. This is separate from the cost to the government of running a bus system, which is exactly what large numbers of people really don't want to pay an additonal tax for and are therefore voting against.
If you only wanted to run buses, you would not build nearly as many roads as we do.
However, busses do tremendously greater wear and damage to roads than cars, and if everyone used busses exclusively the cost of road maintenance and repair would likely go up.
I'd also argue we'd need the same amount of roads, but those roads (mostly highways) could be smaller/fewer lanes.
If the road is privatised by the virtue of it being mostly used by private companies like Waymo (in the future) then they can foot the bill for road construction and maintenance.
How does Waymo get subsidies? If I ride in Waymo, does that mean I get subsidies?
> by simple virtue of being a car
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".
Road wear and tear increases as the fourth power of axle load. Are you counting the spending on bus stops, bus parking, dedicated bus lanes, and more on the other side of the ledger?
In FY25, according to their budget [1], TriMet - the Portland public transit authority - spent $19M on bus services.
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...
Your first link is for the bus budget in Portland, Maine. The system cost for busses in Portland, Oregon in 2025 was $453 million.[1]
1. https://trimet.org/about/pdf/trimetridership.pdf
Oh... that's embarrassing. Honest mistake, I swear.
Buses in my city did so much damage to the asphalt at bus stops that they had to pour thousands of thick concrete pads that wouldn't rut.
> Those of us who don't frequently drive get some benefit from the roads, sure
Where "some benefit" includes transportation and delivery of every single product necessary for daily life as well as garbage removal of the same products.
Bicycling also benefits from road maintenance. Portland does have some innovative bicycle-centered road infrastructure.
Yes. Roads are subsidized; the true cost of building and maintaining roads comes from general funds, not just from vehicle registrations and gas taxes (which of course Waymo doesn’t pay, being righteously electric).
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.
Good point about electric. Maybe a tax on tires would be more fair, but that would lead to some dangerous behavior.
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?
I’m not sure Waymo pays much in taxes. Do they?
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.
Waymo is an expensive taxi service, not a solution to public transport.
In 2025, TriMet had 262 million passenger miles at a system cost of $812 million, for a cost of $3.09 per passenger mile.[1] Fares covered 7.8% of their costs. The other 92.2% came from payroll taxes and federal grants.
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.
1. https://trimet.org/about/pdf/trimetridership.pdf
This is an implementation problem, not a problem with the underlying concept.
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.
The $812 million figure for 2025 did not include the cost to build the rail system. Nor did it include many other expenses. TriMet's expenditures for this year are $1.185 billion.[1]
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...
> This is an implementation problem, not a problem with the underlying concept.
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.
The problem seems to be that many people view government services as a jobs program. Unfortunately, you can't maximize the number of well paying jobs a program creates AND provide high quality service AND control costs.
You raise a good point. My guess: It is not possible to provide what people need/want at a reasonable price point, especially in low density cities. As a result, it requires a lot of subsidies. I assume that cities create bus services primarily for people below middle class who may not be able to afford a car.
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.
> buses and lightrail are significantly more efficient per person than personal vehicles
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.
Right, the reason it might be underutilized is if you're bad at designing cities for it. Which the US is, so it is.
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.
Portland was originally designed around mass transit and is a completely planned city - this argument does not hold water there specifically.
> is if you're bad at designing cities for it
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).
Those preferences are based at least partially on the available transportation. If the automobile didn't exist, would people still prefer to live so far from jobs and entertainment?
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.
> Assuming the transit is fully utilized and the car is mostly not.
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.
Train-advocates being against self-driving cars will be recognized as being equivalent to environmentalists being against nuclear power. Fortunately, I don't expect train-advocates as being nearly as successful. Once someone has tried Waymo, there's no going back to the old ways.
But you're ignoring the core point (in both your metaphor and in the argument at hand):
- 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 dedicated taxi - it sucks just like cars in heavy traffic.
All take Waymo shared taxi/minibus - it is better than current mass transit and almost as good as car during low traffic.
I'm not against self driving cars. Self driving cars are an improvement over not self driving cars.
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.
Public transit is only efficient if people use it. If there’s only 1 person on the bus it is less efficient than a car.
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.
> Public transit like buses and lightrail are significantly more efficient per person than personal vehicles.
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.
> in your comment you're excluding road cost
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.
FWIW, some States require roads be funded exclusively with gas and use (e.g. vehicle registration) taxes. This does seem to significantly incentivize efficiency and long-term planning because their budget has to anticipate variable revenue.
I didn't realize this was a thing. Which states are those?
Oh wow I didn't know Uber solely relied on private roads, had their own DMV, or fleet of millions of cars; truly an innovative company that doesn't rely on public infrastructure!
try it again while calculating infrastructure and road costs for 262mm uber/lyft rides
Because roads are a shared resource used by everyone (even non car owners) Uber/Lyft's portion is small and covered by taxes they already pay.
The point is that the cost of the road infrastructure isn't accounted for, not to mention the externality of having a half a million cars on the road to move 750k people. Rideshare is slipstreaming in the subsidized flow of cars.
What about infrastructure costs for lyft and uber?
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?
The cost of providing a bus exceeds the cost of operating a car in many cases, like lower population density neighborhoods. It may save the public money to centralize transit on major corridors and then subsidize trips on Waymo in some areas and at some times.
how many people can fit in a bus compared to a car?
Doesn't matter if there's only four people willing to ride on a given schedule.
That is an argument for buses on well-designed routes and schedules, not an argument against buses.
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
It depends on the population density. You may have a perfectly well designed route for the area, but there are only so many people per hour that want to take a trip. You can delete routes and make people walk further, but that makes the trip take longer and not everyone can or wants to walk a long ways to the bus stop.
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.
Yep, you definitely want a range of bus sizes. Some areas are served perfectly well with a couple of these
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Minotour
Still other are better served with these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200
https://railvelocipedes.org/ 8-)
The OP you're responding suggested using Waymo's to help fill the buses, not get rid of buses.
I suggested both. Milk runs through suburban neighborhoods likely make sense to get rid of entirely.
Which are almost always fairly empty so the critic's comments about bus capacity is irrelevant.
"Centralize transit on major corridors" is about full buses. But transit agencies spend as much per hour on an empty bus as a full one. Transit agencies run empty buses on routes that are rarely full, and run vans and even microtransit that may just be a waste of money.
> cost of providing a bus exceeds the cost of operating a car in many cases
You can fit 40-50 people in your car?
This only works if the bus is popular. How often do buses in Portland have more than 5 people on them?
How often do cars have more than 5 people in them?
Per [1], a typical Portland public bus causes about 730 times more road wear than a full size pickup truck (which is about the worst case for road wear from a personal vehicle). How many buses have more than 700 people riding in them?
(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...
> Waymo is an expensive taxi service, not a solution to public transport.
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.
If it can deliver transit to the public at a reasonable price…
Even five dollars a ride would be twice the price. It's just not comparable.
How many tax dollars go into subsidizing a public transit ride? Varies from place to place but it's not insignificant.
https://trimet.org/budget/pdf/2026-adopted-budget.pdf
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-...
Assuming an average fare of 2.47$ per to make the math even, that's 6.00$/ride total cost.
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.
Yes. If the government were able to provide transit more cheaply in the future by using new vehicles then the transit that the government provides would be cheaper than it is today.
And the meaning of the truism you so adoitly picked up on is that at reasonable projections trimet and similar public transit will be uncompetitive in price (and service) relative to self driving EVs. Ergo it is correct to deprioritize their funding.
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.
To put your point another way, “If you make transit unusable or get rid of it entirely, then the robot cars could get better than the system you eliminated or intentionally broke”
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.
how many tax dollars go to roads and bridges just for cars?
Too many, but at least some are directly on vehicles. Transit (in the USA, on the West coast) is funded >90% by taxes on income, property, vehicle registration, fuel, etc not by the people using it.
I cannot speak for every state ever, but I remember that roads in WA were mostly funded by gas/diesel taxes + vehicle registration fees.
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.
Everyone uses the roads. You have to reach for very obscure examples to find commerce that doesn't utilize roads. Every bit of concrete and steel to build transit was at some point transported over roads.
Or rail and ships.
Varies from place to place but it's not insignificant
At the margin, it substitutes for some trips.
If Portland is really forward-thinking, they would be smart to use this opportunity to jump to the next stage of public transport by focusing on flexible bus routes and Waymo/rideshare subsidies for the poor and disabled.
Self driving cars aren't the next stage of public transport; they're a bandaid solution to American urban design. They're still cars, so they still contribute to traffic and increased pavement wear, and I cannot imagine they'd be cheaper at scale than buses for storage/maintenance/cleaning.
I spent ten years in the trenches of American urban design policy. The best we could do was lose very slightly less quickly. It's not changing. Trains are great, we should build more, and we probably should replace a lot of bus routes by subsidizing rides on Waymo and its ilk. It'll be cheaper and provide better service.
>Trains are great
I wonder how much that sentiment is that based on steampunk and 1880's nostalgia?
Yesh go to literally any other industrialized part of the world and see how ** backwards the US is on trains
I’ve become quite radicalized on trains after visiting Japan and Switzerland myself.
Not like the US didn't try. California spent 15yrs trying to build a high speed train and failed. Canada has been talking about building trains forever too and it usually goes nowhere because the budgets explode like every major infrastructure project these days.
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
I wonder what's different between these English speaking countries you mention failing to build out rail transit, and places like Japan and China that have built fabulous rail networks.
Japan is a fairly unique case, and probably does not share much with China aside from being in the same region. Japan is geographically well suited to serving a large portion of the population with one long line with a few branches. That's a convenient advantage.
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)
> Japan is geographically well-suited
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".
Yes, but also:
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
LA proper seems to have a density of 3000/km^2 according to Wikipedia
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
California high speed rail isn't running now but it is improving lots of things along the way. For example one of the most dangerous crossings in the state is now grade separated with the Rosecrans/Marquardt Grade Separation Project.
https://www.metro.net/about/media-relations/156-million-new-...
Certainly worth $100 billion
It was $156 million? About half of that was funded by the high speed rail budget
> California spent 15yrs trying to build a high speed train and failed.
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.
I wonder if California high speed rail will ever surpass quadcopter personal vehicles in passenger miles per year. I know which way I'd bet for the year 2040.
Those are two unusually competent countries when it comes to trains. Try Germany or the UK for a more average outcome.
Ha, even using the UK as a counterpoint, they do pretty well. I enjoy taking the LNER, and appreciate that it is a 'slow' train that happens to run 50% faster than the top speed of Amtrak in all but a very limited set of tracks in the NEC. And maybe I've just had unusually good luck, but LNER has almost always been punctual.
OTOH, on my visits to Europe I am simultaneously impressed with the prevalence of passenger train options, but disheartened by the price. If Europe struggles to provide really affordable trains, there isn't much hope for the US. Aside from regional train options in the densest areas, we just have too much distance to cover. Infrastructure costs would kill the plan. At this point maybe we should just be trying harder to produce renewable fuels for planes.
As a tourist or outsider, the cost of trains in Europe is going to be much more expensive. In the Netherlands for example, the price of a train ticket without a subscription (such as for tourists) is very high; the price of a monthly subscription for free train rides outside rush hour is €130/month, which is way less than monthly cost of car use.
Bus Rapid Transit is another option that could be amazing (while being much cheaper to implement), but it falls short for the same reason as trains: they require dedicated infrastructure that complicates driving, and complicating driving is political suicide.
One of the things I found when advocating for transit was that BRT cost savings in the US almost always come from reducing quality at stations, which loses public support faster than you save money. I found that voters are usually willing to spend far more on trains than on BRT, in excess of any savings.
Wow; that's surprising.
People vote with their gut. Their gut tells them that buses are terrible and trains are generally good. They're right.
People have buses. Makes them feel poor. Trains feel sophisticated.
BRT is mostly "you get what you pay for" - cheaper at a cost of lower capacity. Given relatively low density of US cities - that might be the right tool tho.
One thing you have to be careful about with things like this is induced demand. In Dublin in the early 90s, there was a debate about what to do with the right of way of an old commuter rail line, which had been closed in the 60s when closing rail lines was fashionable. Irish Rail wanted to reinstate the commuter rail line, Dublin Bus wanted to build a BRT system. In the early noughties, the transport authority split the difference and put in a tram system (green line Luas).
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.
None. Why would you think that? My guess is you're an American living nowhere near an urban rail system but I thought most people here would at least be passing familiar with modern trains. Even some American cities have them.
Why the ad hominem?
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.
Guessing you're American is ad hominem?
> ad hominem: appealing to feelings or prejudices rather than intellect [0]
Pretty much by definition, yes.
0: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
I mean I wasn't making any rhetorical argument. That part of the comment was just me musing.
Muse this - train is a tool, just like a car, bus, bike, plane, drone or rollerblades.
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.
It's not at all that simple. One of the neat things about trains is their permanence - once you've built one, you can fight for allowing increased density repeatedly until you win. That's what we've been doing in Seattle!
Horses before train carriages then? How is that working out tho?
No
>modern trains. Even some American cities have them.
Which American cities have notable modern train systems? Not Portland, or NYC, or Washington DC.
It's hard to say "system", but Seattle's just opened our second line, and we've got a couple in design as well.
What do you mean by notable?
Only that they are worthy of noting. If there is a modern system, but it happens to suck for some reason, you don't have to mention that one. So feel free to strike that "notable". Which American cities have modern train systems?
Ok, that's an unusual definition of notable.
notable
adjective
no· ta· ble ˈnō-tə-bəl for sense 2 also
1 a : worthy of note : remarkable
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notableI misread that you were retracting "notable" and replacing it. I thought you were adding "it can't suck for any reason" to your definition.
Also just like... looking at a train and noticing it can carry a ton more people than a car, has no concept of traffic, and can theoretically go as fast as possible.
But in practice runs empty most of the time, is commonly delayed by any problem on the line or station, and operates on a very limited schedule.
In the US, because the US is very bad at building public infrastructure. Or, lately, building anything.
The ability to carry people is worthless if no one wants to use it
People generally don't want to use it because we design everything exclusively for cars, so cars are more convenient. At the cost of increased risk of death, increased travel time, increased land cost, etc.
A huge amount, most self-proclaimed supporters of "public transportation" are primarily train enthusiasts (which is a fine hobby!). Any concern for safe, clean, effective transportation is incidental and is immediately abandoned if it ever means less trains.
What makes you say that? I'd only propose them in very high density corridors (or in corridors where building a train would be paired with allowing high density).
A lot of it probably has to do with train advocates seeming like audiophiles extoling the virtues of phonograph records and the like. It seems like they are nostalgic for an 1880s utopia. That's just the vibe I get. I wonder what people in this thread think about The Line.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Line,_Saudi_Arabia
That's understandable, but I think the mass transit crowd is pretty different. I think you may need to meet more transit advocates!
I think there is also a couple of other factors at play with the online train / mass transit advocates on places like HN. It could just be my imagination, but I think there is trains-are-a-good-solution-for-other-people (but not necessarily for me) contingent. And there is a trains-are-good-for-you transportation method, that you have to put up with for the "greater good". A bitter pill to swallow, not something you actually want. Kind of the opposite for say, electric vehicles, where they currently are a much superior alternative to and internal combustion engine vehicle for almost ever use case (acceleration, $/mile, maintenance, general hassle). That's why I think EVs will inevitably win, even in the U.S.. Maybe someone could come up with a luxury light rail that people would actually want to use? I mentioned it up-thread in the context of California high speed rail, but now I'm going to broaden it. When will personal (flying) quadcopter vehicles have more annual passenger miles than every passenger rail combined (subways/light rail/Amtrak) in the U.S.? I'm could see it happening within my lifetime. Maybe this has some bearing on why I see trains as antiquated?
Also, reading through the whole thread make me think there should be a meme about this.
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.
And am I the only one who thinks the concept of a "transit advocate" is a bit odd? I mean, yes, there are people whose career is to make transportation work/better. And they should continue to do so. Were there non-Bell-Telephone-employees that were telephone advocates back in the 1940s? Airline advocates convincing people to fly? Car phone/cell phone brick/flip phone/smart phone advocates?
Transit is public, so it requires advocacy, just like any other oplicy issue!
Were there man-on-the-street grass roots 1950s advocates that were instrumental for getting the interstate highway system built? Suburban expansion advocates? Do you really only need an advocate to convince people to like something that they otherwise currently dislike?
Yeah, motorist clubs. AAA did a lot of advocacy for expanding driving back in the day, apparently they still lobby for & against certain taxes.
No, just car and oil company executives lobbying politicians.
A well run public transit system should obviously be cheaper at scale than robotaxis, but the incentives for Waymo (or Uber, or Lyft, etc.) are very different than the city's incentives. It's very possible that in practice private companies can operate more cheaply at scale than buses because they have much higher incentives to reduce costs and increase efficiency.
“Self driving cars aren't the next stage of public transport; they're a bandaid solution to American urban design.”
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.
It's not a bandaid because American urban design isn't going to change substantially. I don't see American cities changing their mind on how they build and where they build.
They won't be better for maintenance but unless Portland can build the state capacity to fund public transport properly this is better than nothing. Plenty of developing countries rely on buses, jitneys, and low footprint vehicles like mopeds for traffic flow because they don't have the state capacity to enforce an urban framework conducive to public transit. Honestly many US states are the same.
> increased pavement wear
That's buses. Even more with electric buses. They are insanely subsidized by public. Robot taxis are vastly cheaper for everyone.
All they can do is to install more needle disposal bins and putting more narcan kit in the restrooms. I hate the direction Portland and more generally Oregon is going so much. It's always tax tax tax while everything is getting worse. Kotek needs to go.
Decriminalizing drugs without full legalization and regulation leads to that. Addicts can't buy drugs of known purity and dosage, and this is what happens.
Similar to alcohol prohibition and methanol poisoning.
I haven't been to Portland for years, but I remember it as being a transit-forward city, with several streetcar lines (one connected to an aerial tram), and decent light rail service covering much of the metro area.
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.
> The cuts were exacerbated by state Republicans getting a proposed payroll tax repeal onto the ballot next month;
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...
They aren't rejecting a tax increase. They are voting to give themselves a pay raise at the expense of infrastructure.
Do you live in Oregon? The recent vote was about rejecting the proposed payroll tax increase, which was massively unpopular. The vote was so overwhelming that Kotek attempted to yank that clause, so it can be tried another day.
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?
The wording below of the ballot question is clearly “rejecting a tax increase”.
> 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.
> Waymo shows up with a convenient solution to both problems.
No it didn’t. Bus rides cost $2.80 in Portland.
And in August, the bus line that serves my neighborhood completely goes away, and the next closest bus line with stops 2 miles away will end weekday service after 6:30 p.m. and weekend service altogether.
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.
The bus system would almost certainly be better if it did cost a somewhat-significant amount of money, because one of the biggest problems with public transit in the US is marginalized people getting on public transit and acting in ways that are unpleasant and disruptive to everyone else using it (think about a homeless drug addict passing out on the bus while splayed across several seats; or a schizophrenic screaming incoherently at everyone nearby and threatening to kill them). Having a meaningful fare and consistently enforcing payment of that fare keeps these people off of transit and makes the experience of being in an enclosed space with strangers better for everyone else.
Typically the poor are going to end up with subsidized fares even if you raise the standard fare. Your proposed solution seems unlikely to help.
Really horrifying lack of empathy in your thinking. Also, what a stupid, shortsighted plan.
It's possible to want homeless drug addicts to be able to get the help they need while also not wanting them spazzing out on the bus next to me.
So use your car instead?
I see. You meant that Waymo showed up with a solution for you, specifically, not the city or the neighborhood that you live in.
Specifically for him being probably highly paid IT specialist that can afford daily commute on a taxi.
Which is perfectly fine! It’s just that one individual’s willingness to spend 10x-20x for a similar service doesn’t make that service a “solution” to a community-sized problem.
Would it be cheaper to build and operate a public transit network, or to redistribute wealth by taxing and giving $x cash reimbursements to people for using Waymo?
Public transit is not only cheaper, it is also the only feasible possibility.
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”.
> The cuts were exacerbated by state Republicans getting a proposed payroll tax repeal onto the ballot next month
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?
> A scheduled increase to Oregon’s transportation taxes, including those that help fund TriMet, is on hold after an effort to repeal the hike secured enough signatures to send the issue to the ballot next month.
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
>The service changes take affect in August, in large part because they can no longer expect the funding for them to exist by then.
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.
Two Santas but it's federa/state vs on a cyclic basis. Disgusting.
I would not blame this on republicans; they don't hold a majority in the state senate, house, both senators and most house reps are democrats, and there isn't anywhere they hold meaningful power. Further they're opposed to doubling payroll taxes, the taxes are not raised yet.
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.
How far into the 'burbs do waymos usually extend? Will Beaverton/hillbsoro be part of the build?
Hard to know. The Waymo bay area service area is 60 miles long.
https://support.google.com/waymo/answer/9059119?hl=en#PHX
Oh wow that's a lot farther than I remember. I took a Waymo while in the Bay area a couple years ago, and I seem to remember the Waymo service area only going as far South as the I-280 and US-101 interchange?
Am I misremembering, or did they just drastically expand it?
> Waymo shows up with a convenient solution to both problems.
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?
> You get unlimited travel for $100/month on Trimet.
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.
Waymo is subsidized. They operate vehicles without paying for the cost of the road, land, or surrounding parking.
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.
> They operate vehicles without paying for the cost of the road
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.
Right, which is a subsidy.
I'm sure that they'll just dodge regulations like every other Service as a Software company. Literally taking the money out of the City's hands and providing a slower, less safe, less equitable service. While taking profit too. Sheesh.
By every available measure, Waymo is safer and more equitable than cabs and rideshares. Waymos don't refuse service on skin color or disability. They don't have to stop every block along a fixed route like TriMet. And they're not profitable. So what's your actual beef, here?
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.
And you don’t have to worry that some random passenger will piss, puke, or shit in the Waymo during your commute.
The first two happened to me within the span of a month during the three years that I rode Trimet in Portland.
> And they're not profitable.
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.
>TriMet relies heavily on payroll taxes that are deeply unpopular among the self-employed and small business owners
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.
> Payroll taxes would not pay for things like mass transit
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.
> you don't pay them, self-employed and employers pay those
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.
>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,
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.
Employers and employees split payroll taxes 50/50 by law. You definitely pay payroll taxes as an employee in the US.
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.
ah, good correction, that's why the self employed hate them, they have to pay both halves.
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.
No. The reason that self-employed don't like payroll tax is that they have to pay both sides of it, so it seems like more than they paid as employees.
I am self-employed and have been since 2007-ish and while paying "both sides" is the downside, there are soooooo many upsides to being self-employed (especially since the Trump tax sh#t has been enacted and especially if you are setup as S-Corp) that I seriously* do not mind paying both sides at all.*
you probably have a high wage profession, and you max out FICA etc. and stop paying payroll taxes around April every year. You don't like the income uptick at that point cuz you're just so darned happy to pay payroll taxes? There's a line on the form, you could throw in some more. But housekeepers are also self-employed and those taxes fall much more heavily on them. While they are in a lower tax bracket and pay less as a percentage of their income tax, payroll taxes don't work that way (till somebody chimes in to say "no, Portland Oregon is absolutely confiscatory on this score, we practice Bolshevism!" which would be missing the point)
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.
The OTT payroll tax isn't that onerous really. (I say this as someone who pays them for our employees.)
I've got to retract some shade I've thrown at Waymo when discussing Tesla FSD in the past.
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.
This type of mea culpa is exceedingly rare. Credit to you for updating your opinion when presented with evidence, and publically admitting so.
I've tried Tesla FSD a couple of times (free trial in our Model 3) and didn't like it (even though I'm an early adopter who is used to putting up with rough edges; my wife tried it once and wouldn't touch it again). It acted like a nervous new driver.
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.
It's good to hear that more people are realizing that Tesla is nowhere near where they claim to be.
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.
I stanned for them so hard. Oh well; live and learn. It's still the best autonomous driving system that you can buy, though now that Hyundai onlined their Waymo production line, needing a car might be a thing of the past in a few years.
Maybe that's why they pivoted so hard into Optimus (at the cost of their auto division).
Emphasis on "can buy", because Chinese competitors like BYD's "God's Eye" (I presume it sounds better in the original Chinese) aren't available outside China.
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.
It would be a great thing if Tesla somehow pulled it off, but -short of a miracle breakthrough in AGI- it is not likely.
I've determined that my ultimate dream car would be something like a Rivian but with Waymo tech, so I can drive it manually when I want/need (snowstorms, off-road), but I can also let it drive me across the country at night while I camp in the back. Would absolutely change the way we move across the US, especially if you have hobbies that involve a lot of gear and equipment.
At least 80% of what you’re describing would be satisfied by trains and buses. It’s wild that Americans are so obsessed with self-driving cars while ignoring public transit that solves most of the problems. It’s reliable, more efficient, better for the environment, and less stressful for you.
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 looked at taking the train from my town to Glacier National Park along with my bike. The route goes from Portland and Seattle to Chicago, and has a stop at south glacier.
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.
Most of this is just that the US rail system is amazingly shitty by global standards.
This is an extremely simplistic view. For instance, the US moves more of its freight (by percentage) than all western European countries except Switzerland: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usag...
Passengers are not freight. And freight is one of the reasons US railways suck for passengers.
Moving people by train in the US makes about as much sense as delivering pizzas by barge.
Because the US is soooooo exceptional, right? And yet the moment you provide actual proper train connections the lines are successful and profitable (see e.g. Northeast Corridor.
Is that profitability calculated before or after billions in federal funding?
Have you calculated profitability of vehicles after government has funded all the infrastructure for them?
No, but I was pointing out that profitability isn't a very useful metric for selling the benefits of either mode. Otherwise the counterargument would be that transit in the rest of the US outside the Northeast Corridor makes it the exception to the rule.
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?
No, the pitch isn't that. And yet in the US inevitably people will always demand to know government subsidies for everything but cars, and will pretend that alternative modes of transport are only proposed as a full replacement of cars. No one is taking your precious cars away.
I didn't bring up money except to call out that profitability of either trains or cars is irrelevant to actual utility and comfort. Obviously they both cost money and you can subsidize either one.
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.
> 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.
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).
> 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.
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.
I've responded, but you decided to dismiss everything.
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.
Freight is better. Passengers don’t belong on trains.
Tell it to Northeast Corridor. Or Japan.
We're talking here about passenger rail, not freight rail. And when it comes to passenger rail, the US is terrible by the standards of other developed countries.
The US is a very big, very spread out place. I'm not sure which country has trains that take you directly to your front door.
It is indeed a very big place.
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?
Near-enough is not strong competition with as-close-as-possible.
[flagged]
Where I live in the Netherlands the train quite literally stops in front of my door, as in my building that is ~50 meters from the train station where I can take a train every 10 minutes (15 on weekends) to any other city in the country, and even outside the country to Germany or France.
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.
A self-driving car can stop 2 meters outside your house on an arbitrary schedule. That's going to be the competition with trains in the very near future.
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.
> A self-driving car can stop 2 meters outside your house on an arbitrary schedule.
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.
Recently, on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47815395
There are lots of potential high-traffic corridors, and the US is still incapable of serving them.
The Brightline in Florida exists, as does the Acela on the East Coast. These things are entirely possible in the US, we just don't seem to want them enough.
Sorta, kinda.
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.
Ah yes. The entirely hypothetical situation that doesn't exist anywhere in the world
Those places are comfortable with subpar transit conditions. There's nothing actually individually desirable about taking the train compared to having a private car take you directly between points A and B, people just seem to shy away from admitting that in favor of pro-social signaling in support of public transit.
Ah yeah, the subpar conditions of ... not being dependent on the car for 100% of your life. The subpar conditions of ... not having to spend hours driving on the highway. The subpar conditions of ... having a choice.
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)
This is in a thread about self-driving cars - spending hours on a highway vs a train makes no difference to me if I'm not steering, except that I'm not packed in with the public, which I don't want.
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.
I think that a lot of it isn't country-specific at all. People often just believe that the way they do things is the best way to do those things.
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.
I guess you've never ridden on the Shinkansen or anywhere in Switzerland. I'd much rather take those trains than do the equivalent drives, especially if I'm the one behind the wheel.
In this thread I'm assuming I'm not behind the wheel. I don't own a car and I don't like driving, I take taxis and rideshare everywhere that a plane can't.
It can exist. Just add trains.
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?)
> 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.)
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.
> If the US bothered to build out the infrastructure, you could go anywhere you wanted to go via public transport as well.
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.
How many private vehicles do you need to provide mass transit away from a mass event such as a stadium, or a concert?
See above comment, why does the number of vehicles matter? I've left stadium events via taxi and ride-share, often there is a queueing area where cars pull up, you get in and leave. It's like a train that takes you home.
> See above comment, why does the number of vehicles matter?
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.
A really sloppy, inefficient train.
Let's say you go to a concert or similar event where there's potentially thousands of people leaving at the same time. How many robotaxis do you need to carry the same amount of people as a single train carriage is capable of carrying? 200? 300? What about what an entire train, with multiple carriages, could carry?
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?
Sure, 200 or 300, why not? I've been to events of this size and left them in taxis or rideshare. Automatic demand allocation + wage surging systems at companies like Uber funnel drivers to the events and people leave. Presumably that allocation only gets smarter when the cars all drive themselves. Trains would still have the last mile problem here, the main difference would be spacing out the congestion potentially to different remote hubs.
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.
> Sure, 200 or 300, why not?
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>
In no particular order:
- 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.
> - Those events do happen today exactly as described and nobody dies.
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.
Hard to find an unserved corridor where train makes more sense than plane or car.
US East Cost. The area is about the size of Japan with similar popilation. And there are only a few disjointed efforts.
On the East Coast they have trains that go to the front door of your house?
Didn't know that Japanese trains (or European trains) go to the door of your house
Exactly, why would the US want to copy that?
Northeast Corridor 2200 trains a day, 15 million passengers a year, 14% of intercity traffic, replacing most air travel between some of the cities.
> At least 80% of what you’re describing would be satisfied by trains and buses. It’s wild that Americans are so obsessed with self-driving cars while ignoring public transit that solves most of the problems. It’s reliable, more efficient, better for the environment, and less stressful for you.
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.
Why? Isn't Amtrak that, but just geographically-scoped? Isn't Caltrain workable? Subways also function fine in NYC, DC, Boston, and even LA
(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)
It's comically (and extremely variably) priced. A trip from DC to NYC and back would be ~$25 in electric costs with a typical electric car versus Amtrak could easily be $300+ though possibly as cheap as $50 if you are flexible to awful hours like depart at 4:30am or something.
You should factor in the time/stress/wear costs but yes, I've found driving to be significantly cheaper than even the DC Metro most days.
the actual cost of a trip between times square and the national mall is about $200 all things considered based on the ~0.80 federal mileage reimbursement rate for 250 miles. that train corridor is overwhelmingly successful as well so the idea that amtrak isn't a good deal is at odds with reality.
That's assuming you don't already have a time-depreciating asset in your possession. Per mile cost is about halved if you drive significantly more than average.
People in and around the acela corridor drive significantly less than the national average.
[dead]
Amtrak (where it exists) is often deprioritized for freight travel, and other times is often limited to extremely low speeds, resulting in extremely slow travel. Your road trips are only possible if you have extremely relaxed time constraints and specific destinations in mind.
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.
Amtrak simply leases the lines in the West from freight providers rather than owning the track outright. The reason Amtrak can offer so much better service in the Northeast Corridor is because they own the track. Incidentally the NEC is the only part of Amtrak operating at a profit.
It's better if trains prioritize freight travel and car-focused roads prioritize passenger travel, than the other way around. Human beings have more pressing time constraints than nearly all shippable physical goods.
Amtrak started out as a holding company for private passenger rail companies that went bankrupt. It's never had a static amount of funding (until the Biden admin, Amtrak had to renegotiate its budget regularly) and many of its stations are just pet projects for rural Congress reps who want to give their district a way to leave their area, so Amtrak runs many trains at a loss.
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.
> Brightline in Florida was able to get around this buy working in an existing highway ROW.
And will probably go bankrupt this year: https://www.wlrn.org/business/2026-01-23/brightline-business...
Oof their debt is now considered junk bonds huh. They missed some loan interest payments? Yeah not looking good...
I tried to ride it a few times, but could never find a way it made logistical or financial sense.
The remaining dregs of Amtrak are the result of the nationalization of the failing private passenger lines in the US.
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.
I’m 99-100% a car user now after living in Portland, Seattle and Los Angeles. Here’s why - I gave up my car for a bike when I lived in Portland, however when people openly smoked fentanyl on the trains the train operators had to stop the train during my morning/afternoon commute for ~15 minutes (this happened often). Also the last straw for me was getting my place broken into and having my bike stolen. Therefore I moved to cars because I didn’t have to inhale secondhand fentanyl smoke or deal with unscheduled delays. As a man in Los Angeles I had to deal with a drunk man on a bus touching my thigh and hitting on me and people trying to sell me drugs/solicit me for money/phone calls/etc. As a regular hiker I’m also not sure public transit would service trailheads in the Cascades or the Sierra Nevadas. As for the environmental impact, I agree that trains or busses may sometimes be better for environment but we’re also approaching a future of self driving electric cars powered by nuclear and fusion plants providing clean energy, so I think this problem will likely go away. I welcome Waymo in Portland, I’m just concerned for the well being of the vehicles!
Look I don't fault you - Americans drive cars because every alternative is absolute dogshit, I don't disagree. But I can't e realistic about that and not this:
> 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.
These also don't disappear if you replace privately-owned cars with buses and trains. You need paved roads to put buses on and track to put trains on, and they emit particulate pollution as well unless they're also electrified which is a similar problem to electrifying cars.
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.
The problems do diminish significantly if you need fewer lanes by half or more, and have fewer vehicles per person.
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.
>Low-density residential sprawl is mostly water-inefficient
Which is more or less a non-issue east of the Missouri river
Indeed, the root of many water problems is people wanting to live in the desert.
Kind of begs the question why so much local level water stuff is federally regulated.
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.
I appreciate what you're saying and am a big fan of long distance train and bus journeys myself and have done a lot of both, sleeping and not.
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.
It is a chicken and egg problem. As long as the majority of people who would maintain the social environment are avoiding the social environment, the healthy consensus/operating regime can never emerge.
In my experience the majority consensus is to maintain a quiet, generally polite environment on trains and buses.
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.
I think that is the case if the majority has or exercises little to no effective social power to enforce the norm.
The majority consensus is to desire a peaceful environment but do nothing when it is violated.
Correct. But the golden question is, do what? The authorities don't care. Rules and laws are rarely enforced, and when they are enforced they're done so unevenly. If you decide to take matters into your own hands, it's much more likely that you will be punished by the law than the person you were correcting. So, what do you expect people to do?
My point is that in established cultures there are expectations around how these situations are handled, and what you expect people to do is specific to the culture. A single disapproving grandmother can put a stop to it.
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.
>A single disapproving grandmother can put a stop to it.
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.
Create vigalantee laws that legalize “taking matters into your own hands”
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.
It's not. Pass a law that continuing to be noisy or disruptive on a bus or train after a warning results in 10 years of prison time with no parole and consistently enforce it. The problem will solve itself without a chicken and egg problem. Problematic people can simply be removed from society to make for a good social environment. Adding more good people is not the only option and in fact only hides the problem instead of solving it.
This would involve incarcerating a lot of homeless people, which is expensive, and pro-homeless activists would see it as a human rights abuse and fight it.
It would be expensive, but would have everyday visible tangible effects which you can't always say about other government spending. In regards to people thinking it's abusing people's rights they will just have to be ignored or taught to respect other people's right to a good experience with public transport.
Deeply unfortunate, but we're arguably in a lose-lose situation where suffering from the problem has abuses, and yet so does fighting those who profit or benefit from the situation.
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 honestly find it horrifying that you think stripping a person of their freedom and dignity for ten years is a reasonable penalty for being “noisy” on a train.
I’d much rather be around the noisy-but-relatively-harmless person than someone with so little regard for their fellow man.
>for ten years
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.
You can make this kind of specious argument for any infraction, no matter how minor. Hard pass on your ridiculous dystopia.
Living in a society where you don't have to worry about people stealing, being violent, doing drugs, scamming you, breaking into your car, etc sounds like the opposite of a dystopia.
Yeah, but you mentioned none of those things, instead you suggested a 10+ year sentence is reasonable for people who are too “noisy”. I assume you’d recommend slow torture and then the murder of their entire family if someone dared to actually “do drugs”.
Fortunately, your views are wildly extreme and unconstitutional. Regardless, I hope you find some empathy and some peace out there.
Having actual consequences and holding people is all related to solving these problems.
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.
Cars are not the solution to that. Hooligans and irritating people are just a possibility in literally every social environment, they always have been, and they always will be. Answers to that problem are social - it's a bigger problem in America than Japan, for exmaplem.
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".
I am a huge proponent of increased public transit (I'm of the opinion that every city should have a massive congestion tax with large swaths only accessible on foot or by public transit), but trains and buses would be wildly inconvenient for what op is describing.
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.
I agree with you, however in the US the “last mile” is often the “last 50 miles” when goal is outdoor recreation.
People just do not understand how big and spread out the US is compared to other countries. "Last mile" dramatically underestimates how much heavy lifting the personal transportation part would need to do. More like "last 50 miles".
The European mind does not comprehend how big and sparsely populated the American West is. You can't even pitch a tent in most places in the Alps, and why would you, when you just stop at a hut that has a staff and you can get fed and sleep in bunks with 20 other people? Meanwhile I can drive to numerous places where there isn't a structure or even another person in a 20km radius. No one is going to run a train to a place like that.
You're describing places that have few people and hence few car trips. Most car trips, even in the US, take place in densely populated areas.
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.
Saying most car trips take place in densely populated areas in the US is a lie
That depends how you define "densely populated", but certainly most car trips are near where people live and work, not in wilderness camping areas you are describing.
there are effectively no passenger trains in America and effectively no political will to expand them. Busses take multiple times as long for the same trip compared to a car. This doesnt even get into the anti-social behavior present on both. Given these facts, it is not wild at all to prefer cars (self driving or not) vs alternate transportation methods
MARTA (Atlanta regional transit) heavy rail average daily ridership is 80,000 people [1].
1. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/2025-Q4-Ride...
> Busses take multiple times as long for the same trip compared to a car.
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.
> For longer trips they can travel 24/7
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.
I guess everything is hell, if you feel like writing that.
> 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.
Napaway briefly offered ticketed intercity service on busses with 18 sleeper pods, but has (temporarily) discontinued it in favor of focusing on charter service.
You're right, but in the US a government providing any sort of public service is an immediate target for the right (and an unfortunately significant portion of the "left"). We insist on paying more for less rather than ever allowing a poor person to benefit in a way they don't "deserve". So public transit hardly exists or is woefully inadequate in most places.
The sad truth is the USA spends ~$150B/year building and maintaining it's road network (to say nothing of the inflation-adjusted costs that went into its initial roll-out). Source: The US Fed tracks it directly - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TLHWYCONS
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.
Seems like a bargain by comparison! Chicago is about to spend $1 billion/mile to extend an above-ground train line: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Line_Extension
The USA is riding on 100 years of the benefits of scale and economic investment. If the USA was investing $150B a year into building passenger rail, we would not be paying $1B/mile for "new" and "trailblazing" rail projects. If we had to build much of the highway infra we built 75 years ago, but do it now, we'd be paying similar $1B/mile prices for the highways.
Here in Canada we're investing $60-120b on a rail to connect Toronto to Montreal.
I hope your analysis is correct and subsequent passenger rails will be much cheaper!
The best thing about rail in the US is we'll have a lot of premium land for bike paths and AV lanes when the rail gets decommissioned.
You are misunderstanding the nature of the problem. I like trains but they can't and don't address the issue the OP is raising. Even if the US already had public trains it still isn't a "last mile" problem. Especially in the western US, it is a "last hundred miles" problem.
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.
Its the ultra independence mindset. I don't think trains work for the commenter you talked to.
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.
> Its the ultra independence mindset.
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.
Public transit in America presents a much higher chance of encountering dangerous people than a private car. Until those people are permanently, irrevocably, and definitively locked up, it would not matter off public transit were free, or even paid users to use it, it will not be a serious option. Nobody in my family is allowed to use public transit.
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-...
This is all FUD and extremely unlikely if not improbable to run into someone violent. If you’re that afraid of public transit and people in general, no amount of “rounding people up against their will” would change your mind.
It really is not. I use public transit heavily. The people on it fucking suck. No one helps when someone is being harassed for fear of violence. The US needs to enforce basic decorum on public transit if it wants mass buy in.
Great we’ll start with rounding you up first who cares about your opinion and rights.
FUD? Are you claiming these did not happen?
No I’m claiming that violent people have a tendency to support violence as the only rational option. While turning around and defunding healthcare and advocating more prisons be built. Rather than diagnosing the actual problems. Violence wont stop mental illness.
The posters advocating for it and stating Daniel Penny should’ve encourage copy-cats are violent and sick people.
I'd love for you to come along with me on a ski mountaineering trip to the eastern Sierra. It's a mountain range larger than Switzerland with basically one interstate highway to access and no roads that cross through in the winter. Very few year-round towns, and nearly zero services outside of those towns. This ain't the alps - there are no huts, no gondolas, no nothing. If you want to access it, you have to walk/ski your way there. That often means long drives (50-100+ miles), camping in your car, and bringing everything you need to survive with you.
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Valley_Germans
> At least 80% of what you’re describing would be satisfied by trains and buses. It’s wild that Americans are so obsessed with self-driving cars while ignoring public transit that solves most of the problems. It’s reliable, more efficient, better for the environment, and less stressful for you.
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.
Connecting two Waymo geos with a train would be an interesting company idea. You could lease freight track the way Amtrak already does it in the American West but try to negotiate a contact more favorable than Amtrak's. You could try to work with Waymo to work on bundles.
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.
In the US it's often not the last mile, but the last 10 or 100 miles. I'm saying this as someone enjoying fantastic public transport in Budapest.
The scenario is a cross-country trip in an electric car. What actual, specific advantage does a train or bus offer in this scenario? What problem does it solve better?
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 can't take my dog on pretty much any public transit or most ride shares. More than 20% of Americans have dogs.
Unfortunately, until something big happens in the US, autonomous vehicles will be more accessible to working class americans than good and reliable mass transit, especially outside of major population centers.
Its a trojan horse on the way to make car ownership impossible to a large swath of Americans.
Public transit only works if you live in the densest of the dense part of a city. If you live out in Beaverton or Gresham these bus lines lose money hand over fist, not to mention farther-flung places.
In my experience, night trains with private cabins are fan service for rail fans, environmentalists and/or masochists, not real transport options.
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...
It's a train or bus that is exclusively yours, goes exactly where you want it to go, when you want to go. Sounds objectively better than a train to me.
Enough with this public transport bullshit. We live in very spread out suburbs where you need to drive to everything and everyone has big backyards because we like it that way. Most people here don’t want to live in a tiny coop sharing walls with neighbors on all sides and live the vast majority of our lives in a 15 min public transport bubble. Further, having a train line is borderline not feasible the way the vast majority of the US lives. There is no way having a train station with even a 30 minute walking distance is feasible or even desirable. I also don’t want to get into public transport with a whole bunch of other people no matter how nice it is. It’s not going to be able to compete with a self driving EV of my own that I charge with my solar panels for free.
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.
It would also be satisfied by magic flying carpets. Between flying carpets, functional public transport, and self-driving cars, only one of these three things is not utter fantasy in the near-ish future in the United States.
How do those carpets handle in the snow?
I fucking love trains.
I want this as well. Hopefully my Cybertruck will get unsupervised driving someday, but until then, it's the closest thing to the dream of electric off-roading, self-driving vehicle with huge cargo capacity. I've already stopped driving myself around 98% of the time, according to my FSD stats.
Why did you buy a Cybertruck?
They’re awesome, why wouldn’t I?
They are basically the car Homer designed in that famous episode of The Simpsons. They are the ugliest and and most impractical car ever designed. The fact that the bed cover blocks the rear view window should be illegal. Dozens of people must have told Elon how stupid using stainless steel for the body is but he ignored them all. The cabin looks incredibly cheap for an $80,000 car. It is a very bad truck.
I do have to admit the steer by wire system with adaptive sensitivity is neat.
None of the subjective things you said has any bearing on my lived experience of the past two years I’ve owned it. It off roads well. Holds lots of stuff. Backed up my whole house when we had a power outage. Safest truck ever tested. Drives itself. Looks awesome.
It ~objectively doesn't off-road well or hold lots of stuff compared with other vehicles in its class. That said, unlike the meanie commenter I'm glad you like your vehicle and very jealous of the self-driving! :)
Ah well. I just do some minor stuff for fun so I’m not too well versed in what real off-roading/hauling is. It’s good enough for my needs anyway.
But thank you for the kind words. I do enjoy it a lot!
How many times have you been flipped off while driving it? And buying one after Elon lost his mind and did a nazi salute TWICE is pretty gross.
Ah. Now I see why you’re so against it. My condolences. I did get my share of similarly deranged people flipping me off, until I moved out of the Seattle area. Now things are better :)
So the owner of a company makes a Nazi salute in public twice and makes many racist comments and retweets on twitter and you just shrug and buy from the company anyway? You are confirming everything I assumed about cyber-truck buyers. You consider me deranged and not Musk? That is just absurd.
Hey man I don't want to argue anymore. I bought a cybertruck, not a Musk. Musk clearly has some issues and I wish he'd shut the hell up, but in my opinion there's so much to do and be happy about in life that it's a waste of time to get mad and negative about things like car purchases.
You bought a cybertruck from a company run by a racist nut job.
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.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_EJ3DyiiA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Yn4XzbMf9nY
That would be something being asleep and waking up to a car crash
reminds me of an old joke:
"When I go I want to die in my sleep like my grandfather. Not screaming and afraid like the passengers in his car"
The version I've heard a bunch of times had him as a bus driver..
The version I've heard: When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep like Grandpa; not like Grandma, who died screaming "Look out for that car!"
Snowstorms are probably when I’d most want self driving. Back in February driving from Tahoe to SF, they closed the road, not because of conditions, but because too many impatient drivers spun out. I trust Waymo to go the recommended speed and not get impatient.
Its not always about speed, This winter I was on interstate 93 in a 4WD with winter tyres. I was doing 25-35mph because the roads weren't treated. I still spun out, like many others. The road was an ice rink.
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
When it comes to controlling the wheels to prevent sliding and slipping, the AV control system is unbeatable. The ABS and traction control on a regular car has to cope with whatever control inputs the driver has made; on an AV, the computer models the grip limits of the wheel and plans a trajectory to not exceed them. It's not just for snow but also for changing pavement surfaces and the rain.
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.
This is the "works in a textbook" take.
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.
They put the hardware on performant cars because it would be stupid to choose gas for stop-and-go city driving. Electric cars are fast; a new Honda Civic does 0-60 in 6 seconds!
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 don’t buy it. Proof you had actual snow rated tires on and still spun out? Otherwise I claim lies are afoot
I drove up there in the AM Thursday, Feb 18th, during the snowstorm, about an hour before they closed the pass for the rest of the day.
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.
Fair point, and I know it was bad on Thu. I was traveling back on Monday and, other than avoiding the impatient drivers, conditions were fine.
Snowy/Ice-y driving? Check out all this Canadian work!
http://cadcd.uwaterloo.ca
Disclosure: My grad student advisor.
In a Canadian context, on a two lane highway, sometimes doing the absolutely safe/totally cautious speed in a moderate snowstorm will result in a very large collection of vehicles behind you, with angry drivers. In particular if the persons collecting behind you are some combination of not very risk averse, commute on the same road every day, and are very confident in themselves because they have dedicated winter purpose studded snow/ice tires on.
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.
Turnouts exist. Unfortunately, head-of-line-blockers are very commonly already overwhelmed by the task of keeping tab of their own vehicle; would be a far stretch to expect them to simultaneously stay aware of traffic situations, spot the turnouts ahead, and then take the turnout.
The entire city shuts down and loses their mind with just a millimeter or two of snow here. Last time we got 0.25 of an inch there were ~9 accidents within a 2-mile span on the highway in the morning, and we just ended up shutting the highway down for the day.
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.
After skiing in Utah, I wonder why the driving conditions around Tahoe get so bad. In comparison, for most places around Salt Lake/Park City, you never need chains or 4-wheel drive.
Utah snow at its elevations and climate is more dry and fluffy. Tahoe snow or similar when the temperature is only marginally below freezing is more likely to be wet, slushy. Same thing as snow/ice buildup on the mountain passes over the Cascades in WA when the temperature is hovering just below zero C.
It simply snows a lot more in Tahoe from a SWE standpoint. Utah gets similar "inches" of snow, but fractions of the moisture, which if you've ever built a snowman you know the difference between the heavy thick stuff and the powder that doesn't clump. Utah gets the powder, Tahoe gets the sludge (and a ton of it).
Yes. The longer-term possible second-order effects are going to be wild. Easier t o get to wilderness? Awesome!, but also crowding like you've never seen (but maybe also more small parks because there will be a glut of unused parking).
I don't see why one of those second-order effects wouldn't be the death of car ownership, with everyone using a rideshare service instead. Hell, that's the business model for Waymo and almost everyone other than Tesla in the autonomous-vehicle industry. It just doesn't make sense to own your own vehicle, use it for ~2 hours/day, and have to worry about parking/storing/fueling/maintaining it when you could have a service do all of that for you. Plus self-driving cars fix several issues with human rideshares, eg. you can drive it out to the boonies without worrying about how it's going to get back; you don't need to worry about getting assaulted by the robot driver; when they wait for you you only need to pay the opportunity cost of another ride rather than the opportunity cost of the driver's time. It's feasible to take a Waymo out to a state park, though you wouldn't usually do that with an Uber.
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.
I think this fundamentally misunderstands what people want...
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.
> 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.
Perfect.
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?
I already made this joke up-thread:
> 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.
> "Well everybody should just live next to the train station." The world doesn't work like that.
The world as a whole, and particularly the US, maybe not, but it does actually work in urbanized dense cities.
This joke gets made on every story about Waymo. It’s so funny.
if you can also figure out how to have the cars automatically detach and park themselves in the owners' driveway, you're on to something.
> something like a Rivian but with Waymo tech
So a Tesla?
Off-roading aspirations and 3rd row legroom (S1) seem to be major differentiators from Rivian.
As for autonomy, Waymos have LIDARs which at least provides more redundancy.
I see these as different design tradeoffs so no judgment implied.
I bought a 2018 Model 3 that was later upgrade with HW3. I paid about $10K extra for the full auto-pilot. Elon back then said that eventually the car will come pick me up from the airport. That was a nice dream. Nearly 10 years later, my Tesla still cannot do that.
$10K for full autopilot on Tesla in 2018 was essentially a fraud. I have since then learned not to trust anything Elon says.
Waymo uses Lidar and radar as well as cameras and so is fundamentally superior to Tesla's camera only approach.
I, independently, made almost exactly the same comment before seeing yours lol. I already do 20+ hour cross-country trips in my Y without a break to sleep, which is only possible because I'm not meaningfully fatigued driving. it's still technically supervised but I think that's beyond the point OP is making
> I already do 20+ hour cross-country trips in my Y without a break to sleep
Always feels a little weird to read a comment that is plausibly going to end up being referenced in a future news article.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/04/self-driving-ca...
My Tesla Was Driving Itself Perfectly—Until It Crashed
The danger of almost-perfect tech
Yea. With a huge 100 kWh battery and a removable range extender for those extra-long trips :) Plus that battery (and range extender) can also provide power and heating when parked.
That's kind of a beautiful vision
> I've determined that my ultimate dream car would be something like a Rivian but with Waymo tech
So a Tesla? I think your dream is pretty common, since they make the most popular vehicle in the world
It will be amazing if they get self-driving working. Currently, you can't even sit in the back seat.
It depends what you mean by self-driving. The car drives itself without any input; I would argue that fits the definition of self driving. Legally you must be supervising it, which is a valid criticism, but the car drives itself well enough that I can provide basically no input on 20+ hour cross-country trips, which allows me to do things like not stop to sleep.
Self driving means self driving. If I drive myself to work, my wife doesn’t need to keep her eyes on the road for me.
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.
So you want a cyber truck but you have Elon Derangement syndrome?
If they don't show up as green Subaru Outbacks with a bunch of bumper stickers on the back they'll stick out like a sore thumb.
Perhaps they can disguise the LIDAR beacon inside an IR-transparent Thule roof box.
I think they also have a blue 2007 Prius model.
If the back window can be smashed in, that would also fit Portland aesthetics.
A Waymo was recently stuck on some light rail tracks in Phoenix this year [1]. Portland has a rather diverse bunch of streetcars and trams concentrated in its downtown core. Hopefully they don't get stuck on the tracks or block the trams.
[1] https://www.azfamily.com/2026/01/08/waymo-passenger-flees-af...
Well, that's the hope, but the bar is pretty low. Portlanders constantly block streetcars, usually by doing a shite job of parallel parking.
From the article it doesn't sound like it was physically stuck as much as it's maps might not have been updated with the latest addition of that light rail and/or it was confused by the ongoing construction.
Definitely a big concern, but given the number of times in my lifespan that I've seen pictures or video of human-driven vehicles that have got stuck on railroad crossings (or just straight up drunk people trying to drive linearly down a railroad track)...
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.
> 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?
This is the right way to look at it. For autonomous fleets, there are typically tiers of intervention, starting with a simple remote check - "can I drive through this?" type confirmation, to much more detailed remote instructions that are slower to give, to getting someone from operations out (or in an emergency first responders) to manually move the car. One reason why you might want to keep traditional controls in the vehicle for the near term.
It's a big operations challenge, and hope Waymo (and everyone else TBH) get it smoother and smoother.
> 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?
For Waymo, it's this one.
> or just straight up drunk people
Waymo. Slightly better than an irresponsible alcoholic. As long as the maps are up to date.
I wonder if at some point we'll see a hockey stick adoption of self-driving cars. For now every new city is worth a blog post, eventually they'll allow intercity drives. Will international adoption take off? Will I be able to use it on a country road to visit my family in 10 years?
If Waymo's announcements come to reality, that is happening this year. Phoenix entered full service in 2020, then San Francisco and Los Angeles in 2024, and Austin and Georgia in 2025 (in partnership with Uber). But this year they are planning on rolling out in 13 cities! Miami and Orlando are already in full service. Nashville, Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio are running invite-only service. Tampa, New Orleans, Minneapolis are in testing. San Diego, Detroit, Las Vegas and D.C. have been announced to launch this year, but haven't started testing yet. And that is on top of eight other cities that they are already testing in, but don't have timelines for offering full service.
That is already a huge jump from two cities a year.
The DC rollout is mired in regulatory red tape and is most likely dead until the mayoral election goes through, and if the new mayor is anti-Waymo unlikely to go through in the near future.
You can definitely see a bit of a hockey stick forming in Waymo's reported rides per week. Nice chart in this article. https://techcrunch.com/2026/03/27/waymo-skyrocketing-ridersh...
The inflection point will be cities building infrastructure and passing laws supporting self driving. Then it will hockey stick.
> eventually they'll allow intercity drives
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?
Waymo and Baidu are the only big players and both are working on launching in foreign markets for the first time this year, in addition to big expansions in their home markets. But country roads are not on the agenda. I predict an eventual public-private partnership to bring AVs to rural areas. It would be a cost-effective way to support the healthcare of ageing rural populations who are facing hospital closures.
I'd assume so. Even the city launches are extremely limited to a section of the overall metro area that one would consider necessary for full local service. They are dropping a lot of seeds and then will allow them to grow. While it seems very slow, I have always enjoyed watching Google's taxi service GTM approach much more than I did watching Uber's.
It will mirror the chart of Gs subcontractors in India / Phils
Stiff competition for humans, especially drivers outside the top quartile or so. Waymo appears to its passengers to drive much more competently than certainly any sub-average rideshare driver.
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
Waymo undoubtedly drives better than your average rideshare driver - I have taken dozens of Waymos in SF and the experience is unmatched. Also no chance of being harassed by the driver, which is a big plus.
This. Also Waymo can be surprisingly aggressive in SF, lane cutting and speeding up when yellow light is on and whatnot. It really feels like being driven by an emotionless highly competent driver, which is exactly what I want. The only gripe I have with it is about dropping off, I can't tell it to move forward a couple of feet to avoid a puddle or to make it easier for me to unload the luggage ...
Pick-up, drop off, and routing remain a challenge for Waymo. I hate having to walk a few minutes to get to the Waymo. Not that big a deal usually, but it became a problem when I was on crutches after spraining my ankle. Same for drop-offs, with the caveat that a human driver is going to see that I'm being dropped off in a bad neighborhood and not have me walk a couple blocks and is going to drop me off right outside my destination. Finally, routing. Waymo's take the weirdest routes sometimes. There was one trip I'd swear the Waymo Driver was the digital equivalent of drunk, the route it took was so convoluted. Which is kind of interesting. It means the system can reroute on the fly based on traffic conditions elsewhere and avoid getting jammed up. It's like when Google maps has you take a weird route to somewhere you're familiar, and then you look at traffic and there's an accident it's taking you around. Still a bad experience when a 10 minute ride turns into a 20 minute ride because the Waymo decides to go a weird way.
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.
The one feature that Waymo has over other rideshare apps is that the cars presumably actually show up.
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.
Waymo cancels cars when they are unable to get to you in a reasonable time. The service will not resend a car automatically, so the user needs to babysit the app until they’re actually in the car. I’ve seen this twice in the last week. In Phoenix and SF we have preferred ride share or taxi when the car showing up is important, like getting to a medical appointment on time.
Yes exactly. I loved that when i opened up the app to go some where the first thing I saw before I even put in where I'm going, was how long until ill be picked up. the cars don't care about the trips, not trying to tip/ride max.
> I hope these aren’t all just set on fire because there is promise in reducing fatalities.
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.
Ironically, Uber used the same tactics to replace taxis with rideshare:
(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!
Mm, suppose I might indeed prefer the top ~tenth of drivers (or more) on many occasions… recommendations from a screen aren’t the same. Been fun chatting with drivers since the early days for sure, when it was all new-exciting-rideshare talk
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.
Final thing “They say the same about you!” Still don’t get it hehe
Are Waymos cheaper than hiring a person?
Waymo inflates their prices to be above that of Uber/Lyft because they don't have enough vehicles to meet demand. But their operating costs / mile are lower than that of Uber/Lyft. I'd estimate their internal cost per mile is approx. half that of Uber/Lyft. They pocket the rest because they need to recoup decades of expensive R&D.
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.
It's not clear to me if their costs are lower yet. Waymo's vehicles are rather expensive (estimates for their newer Zeekrs are around $75k each), and they need to pay some number of remote monitors for exceptional situations (as noticed during the recent blackout in San Francisco). They also have to collect tons of data to build & maintain high resolution 3D maps of the areas they operate in. And they have to pay engineers to improve the self-driving software.
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.
We're looking at different metrics, you're analyzing the average total cost, while I'm analyzing the marginal cost. Waymo has enormous fixed costs like you mentioned, mapping cities and paying engineers are not cheap, which need to be amortized over a massive self-driving fleet. But those are fixed costs which don't increase with fleet size. Waymo currently operates only ~3000 vehicles, which is not enough to amortize those fixed costs into overall profitability.
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.
Even when just looking at marginal costs, I doubt Waymo is half that of a human driven vehicle. If we assume a robotaxi lasts 200k miles before being retired, then the cost of the vehicle alone ($75k) is 37.5 cents per mile. If a vehicle drives 200 miles a day, that's $5 of electricity (250Wh/mile x 10 cents/kWh), maybe $15 of labor to clean, and the space to park it near downtown ($3/day). That's another 12 cents per mile for a running total of 50 cents per mile. Then factor in maintenance (tires, brakes, suspension, etc) and you're probably close to $1/mile. Then you also need support staff, remote operators (approximately 1 per 50 vehicles, but paid significantly more than Uber drivers), and plenty of compute and storage for the high resolution maps (which must be constantly updated as the environment changes). And none of that includes the R&D costs to improve the vehicles or the self-driving software. Yes many of these costs decrease as fleet size increases, but it'll be a while before it gets below $1/mile. (Nationwide, Uber's rates are $1-2/mile depending on the area.)
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.
Those are some good points. Waymo & self-driving cars only makes sense in markets where the cost of paying a human driver is much higher than the amortized cost of operating a self-driving vehicle. As an extreme example, in Bangladesh a driver will work for ~$0.25/hour. Self-driving cars don't make economical sense there, the additional cost of making a vehicle self-driving never pays off vs having a dedicated driver.
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.
I believe sooner or later Waymo will start selling their tech package to car companies, who in turn will pass the cost on to customers either as a huge mark up or subscription services. I don't believe Waymo can survive on self-driving taxi alone, the hardware cost is too much to go global.
Is it known that Waymo operating costs are lower?
In San Francisco, it has to be. Because of prop 22, Uber/Lyft must compensate drivers a minimum of $22.40/hr, plus $0.36/mile for vehicle expenses. Waymo doesn't have this cost, so it's effectively ~$25/hr cheaper to operate than Uber/Lyft.
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).
> Waymo doesn't have this cost, so it's effectively ~$25/hr cheaper to operate than Uber/Lyft.
Waymo has other costs, such as engineering driverless operation.
Engineering costs are capital/fixed costs, they're paid once to develop the technology and don't scale with the number of trips. Operating costs (which is what I'm discussing here) are what it actually costs to run each ride. Waymo's marginal cost per trip doesn't include a chunk of some engineer's salary.
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.
But then Uber/Lyft total cost doesn't need to account for the vehicles.
Machines require maintenance, repairs, upgrades. Also, Waymo hasn't fired all their engineers for some reason, so those costs are not one-time.
Where is this estimate? I found a wide range of estimates in my web search, from a per-mile cost of revenue of $2 (meaning a loss of $2 per mile excluding capex), to up to $50/mile.
The Gemini results when I searched for this cited this Reddit post [1] which cites this Reddit post [2], which conveniently gives your $2/mile answer.
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...
> 20% more expensive.
Or less depending on how you tip.
It's hard to measure "cheaper" as an end user consumer, the price you pay for the service, because it's very likely they're operating at a loss to gain market share and growth.
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.
Great point
IIRC, in SF they're slightly more expensive before tip, but having ridden in them in SF, LA, and AZ I've always felt they were cheaper. Over the long run, they will probably end up being cheaper from the wholesale perspective since eventually the parts and technology cost will come down with time and scale while human wages will continue to rise.
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.
Alphabet/Google/Waymo is a technology business, with emphasis on business. They're not running a charity. They're in it to make money. If it's a $20 Uber ride to somewhere, they're not going to leave money on the table and charge $10 because they don't have a driver to pay. They're going to charge $22 for the premium experience because they know people will pay that.
Of course, but I never claimed that they would do that. At some point though other autonomous services will enter the market and Waymo will have to compete with them on price. Even if that doesn't happen (which seems incredibly unlikely), they're still competing against public transit and people driving themselves (or privately owned self driving cars). Not having to pay a driver means the floor where they can make a profit is lower.
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.
That sounds right. Passenger pays for lower risk, etc. The market sees the company making $2 extra and a competitor will see if they can do it for just $1 extra.
(nobody would confuse me with an economist!)
Depends on the region, I think. Lyft and Uber partner with them in certain cities, so you transparently are charged the same as a similar ride with a human driver. It's only a better experience than a human driver, though, in my view. No chance of yapping, more privacy, no chance of your driver being a psycho, cars are better maintained.
If a waymo costs $200k (car+sensors+install labor) and drives 200k miles, then amortizing up-front costs alone are about $1/mile. We don't really know what the TCO of a waymo is, and it's possible it could go down with economies of scale. Rideshare drivers can get paid $1-2/mile although it varies a lot.
That's just the current cost. The long term cost structure should be based on cars that come out of the factory with all the right stuff pre-installed. There's a BOM for some extra components; many of which you might already find in some cars. Otherwise it's just another EV. So, long term the extra cost per mile relative to a driver driving the same car should be cents rather than dollars per mile. And of course if there is no driver, some components like manual controls, dashboards, mirrors, etc. actually become redundant as well. So the total BOM might actually be lower long term.
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.
> A robo taxi only has down time when there are no rides, or for charging and maintenance/cleaning.
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.
Of course they have downtime. They need to charge. Waymo partners with car rental companies for depot operations where they inspect for damage and clean the cars. Damaged cars need to get repaired.
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.
> 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.
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.
Of course they operate in the same market, and the influences of that market on supply are the same. But the response of gig drivers and autonomous vehicles to these influences and incentives is obviously not the same. It can't be the same.
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.
Why would the people who control Waymo be better at these things than the people who control Uber?
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.
During peak hours Waymo is more expensive than standard uber/lyft - I don't pay attention to black/premium pricing. Off-peak the price can be comparable. I mainly check because my wife prefers it.
Sometimes cheaper, [nearly] always better.
Rideshare drivers can speed
Is that supposed to be good?
YES!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fm567YGy5c
once we've refactored humans out of driving, the speed limits can go way up
I don't think so.
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.
> Engineers design a road for 55.
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.
> I-5 in the Portland area south of the OR-217 interchange has extremely gentle curves.
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).
Might increase as trust grows.
Can’t stop until cross traffic can simultaneously use intersections all at 100 miles an hour with inches to spare
>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.
At minimum increased to what they would be
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.
[dead]
Theoretically, fully automated driving doesn't require traffic signals, as much lighting, guard rails, lane width, rumble strips, reflectors, signage, etc.
I don't see why you should prefer jobs for humans. If a robot can do a job as well better and more cheapy than a human, it should, and that goes trebly for any sort of safety-focused job. The right fix is eliminating the need for make-work and not creating more unnecessary jobs.
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.
>prefer
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“.
This is exciting! I wonder how they determine which cities are next in line? Probably regulation and governance?
Multiple factors: market viability, climate compatibility, capacity, and definitely regulatory factors. Currently DC, NYC, Boston and Chicago are all being slowed down by anti-Waymo groups like Uber drivers and public-transit lobbyists.
Waymo is a sort of public transit. It's just an vastly more inefficient than any other form of public transit, but an order of magnitude more efficient than private passenger cars.
Or, more neutrally, a different tradeoff point between mass transit and personal cars.
> Waymo is a sort of public transit.
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.
Depends on your definition of efficiency. Any ride service will drive more miles thus resulting in more congestion and more energy use than personal vehicles, because in addition to driving from point A1 to B1, they have to drive from B1 to A2. They get closer with density but never match. They will also always be more expensive to operate per mile because you need to cover the cost of the driver (human or machine).
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.
I think Baltimore soon. Seen them testing around the city.
Wouldn't Baltimore be the first Waymo market that actually gets snow? I don't think they've cracked driving in a real Midwest/northeast winter.
We do get ice and snow in Portland, along with flooding and landslides. No, it's not the same as Midwest, but we do get a few days every other year or so that you just don't drive out in. The black ice around a couple curvy sections of i-5 are notoriously bad at night in winters. (Terwilliger)
I have lived in the midwest, as well as Portland. It is good that Portland only occasionally gets ice, because in like-for-like conditions it is way more dangerous than the midwest. Primarily because of hills. I found driving in snow & ice in the midwest to be mostly a non-event, even on inadequate tires.
They're currently testing in Minneapolis and plan to launch in the next year to the public, so they seem to think they can crack tough winters
I really hope we're able to get them without the city council messing things up. The way they reacted to the news at first, you'd think Minneapolis was the first city to ever have autonomous vehicles. That, mixed with a heavy dose of "What about the buggy whip makers??"
Considering Minneapolis city council tried to ban Uber and Lyft entirely I have a strong feeling they’ll mess it up…
Wow. That will be a tough one. Driving on dry and even wet roads is quite predictable but snow is a completely different game.
Portland gets very occasional snow. But they'll probably just shut the Waymos down along with everything else that shuts when there's snow and ice.
> Wouldn't Baltimore be the first Waymo market that actually gets snow?
No, we have them in St. Louis and it snows a few times per year here.
Let me put it this way, I don't think they're operating in USDA Hardiness Zones of 1-5.
https://www.botanicalinterests.com/community/blog/usda-hardi...
They're in Detroit, Denver, Minneapolis, and D.C.
They’ve been testing in Truckee, CA for years
portland gets snow
They’re being tested in Philly right now too
If it's the latter then Portland makes little sense. There are no regulations allowing it and the bill to enable it is still in motion at the state level (and not a slam dunk).
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.
I just wish the US would build trains. All I want.
Are trains really less expensive and more efficient than busses? One additional stop to Vancouver WA on the Max train is 22 million a year in operating cost. https://www.columbian.com/news/2024/dec/11/it-seems-so-outra...
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.
Yes, trains are much more efficient than busses.
You need density for trains, but Portlanders think it is a war crime to ask you to work from an office or tear down a dead mall to build housing, so…
Portlanders do not think this. Survey people in Portland and you'll find they want trains as well. NIMBYs don't and NIMBYs make up the majority of people who actually have the time and wealth to go to city meetings.
I heard people in the kitchen at work whining about the loss of Lloyd center (dead mall) which is set to be replaced by 5,000 housing units.
But you didn't join the conversation, just listened from a distance and made assumptions?
I was busy. What is the assumption I’m accused of making?
You assumed they are against density and not just mourning a nostalgic place for them?
If you say you support density but that support withers away at the slightest hint of nostalgia or trade off, or because some old ladies walk in the dead mall sometimes (that was the cited reason), then you don’t really support density.
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?
Literally nowhere did you mention that they said their support for density withered. You only said they mourned the loss of a mall they liked.
Those are not conflicting things. Mourning something does not imply disliking the thing that replaced it.
In context, when they said, “that mall is rad, I hope they block it there’s a campaign to stop the demolition” made it pretty close to unambiguous.
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.
You can want trains while simultaneously detesting all of the conditions that make trains viable. Just like you can want to drive to work every day and also want to never be in traffic. NIMBYism has nothing to do with being averse to working downtown or tearing down a mall (a radically YIMBY position regarding dead malls).
I don't know many if any YIMBYs who are opposed to density. I know people who are opposed to density being seen as only apartments and condos.
What do you think density means? A mixed use neighborhood of apartments, condos, retail, and office is density.
The only other categories are heavy manufacturing (which is harder to argue for) and single family homes, which are not dense by definition.
5,000 units of apartments is not mixed use so unless there is more to the story you're leaving out, this is not mixed use.
5,000 units can also be built alongside entirely too much office space and ground floor retail, which is mixed use.
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.
Why would anyone take a Waymo when you can ride the Trimet MAX for $2.50?
I rode the MAX when living there for a few years. I vividly recall screaming drugged out homeless riders being a regular feature. The last time I rode, a year ago, there was someone in the throes of the fent-bends in my section, who smelled like he was dying (he well may have been).
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.
The NYT reported recently that the rollout of more impermeable ticket gates have noticeably reduced the proportion of unstable people on the subway.
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.
Any form of station-side ticket gate would be a complete and utter non-starter for the MAX - half of the stations are practically rural.
I'm a MAX apologist, but you're right. It sucks. I live on the yellow line, and I estimate that there's a visibly (or audibly, or orfactorily) unstable person on the train 50% of the time. I'll ride the train by myself sometimes, but always avoid it with friends or family because it's gotten embarrassing at this point.
Those are separate problems
The solution is to get MORE people onto the trains, not fewer.
Has it been shown that screaming drugged out homeless riders avoid the presence of crowds? Is there any physical mechanism where having more people on the trains leads to Daniel-Penny-like suppression of drugged out homeless riders? Or does "getting more people onto the trains" just mean removing their options until they are forced to ignore the drugged out homeless riders?
As a solution, "get MORE people onto the trains" seems less optimal than "get fewer drugged out homeless riders onto the trains".
Why are you advocating people murder mentally ill people? Daniel Penny is a murderer and violent criminal piece of shit. Why are you advocating for violence? You are a sick person. Please stop commenting.
> 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?
Safety in numbers. There's a reason there's not an issue during the day and during heavy commute hours.
I'm saying it _is_ and _was_ an issue during the day and heavy commute hours, those were the only hours I rode it! Other places in the world with nice train systems do not burden their riders with "safety in numbers", the places are just plain safer, period. And a great place to start is Don't let people smoke fentanyl on the train :) (And make sure everyone has affordable housing and healthcare, ofc)
There absolutely are serious issues at all times, regardless of how busy the trains are. I'm sorry, but as someone who actually lives in Portland I'm telling you that mentally ill drug users do not give a crap about how many people there are in the train car. After the third time I had to move my kids to different cars or even exit the train entirely due to open drug use and dangerous behavior, I swore off public transit for good.
That's what I was asking -- why do you believe this? What is your mechanism for safety in numbers? If it's "criminals fear being observed", that doesn't hold now that catch-and-release is standard practice. If it's "criminals fear being outnumbered", that doesn't hold when the crowd will be prosecuted if they attack. The only mechanism left for safety in numbers is hoping that criminals feel shy.
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.
The MAX is nice, and cheap. But it doesn’t run everywhere. I would take the MAX over Waymo, but Waymo over the bus.
Because MAX is on rails it can and does come to a complete halt for indefinite periods of time whenever some jackass in an Escalade parks it on the track. I know this firsthand and I only lived in Portland for one month.
Are you sure you're not thinking of the Portland streetcar? Max does not have nearly the same issues.
MAX has dedicated right-of-way outside the city centers, but in the cities it shares city streets. Tourists drive / stop-at-lights in the dedicated lanes a lot.
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.
Being slow and inconvenient would be the main reasons. Less exposure to communicable diseases and other unpleasantness are secondary reasons.
How would you know what diseases the previous passenger had?
I got strep from a dude coughing on MAX without a mask. Of course the one day I forget mine.
Correction: it's $2.80, capped at $5.60 for a day-pass. (Still $100 for a monthly pass, though.)
I wonder how long Google will continue to subsidize this at a substantial loss? Estimated $30–40 billion spent in the last decade that only really pays off if they dominate the market.
Waymo now generates more than $350M in annual recurring revenue, says https://ideas.darden.virginia.edu/waymo-fully-autonomous-fut..., and quotes $130-150k per car.
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".
How is the revenue recurring? They offer a subscription?
I don't believe Google breaks it down but everyone assumes Waymo accounts for roughly 50% of $7.52B in "other bets" losses. And that's just 2025, losses in Q4 2025 are almost 2x Q4 2024. Cost factors are improving but they continue to shovel money into the R&D furnace.
Are they losing money on a per-ride basis? I assumed they had large R&D costs, but that each ride would be near break even.
I bet they've hit operating breakeven a couple years ago. If they hadn't they wouldn't have been expanding. Expanding while you have an operating loss means the loss would be expanding alongside the service. I'm not seeing that in the numbers.
They have the money to do so, and investors are aware that it is a long term play. Waymo is already dominating the market for all intents and purposes.
I don't think Waymo needs to dominate the market to succeed. They just need to scale up (time)x(number of vehicles) enough to amortize the R&D costs of the self driving capability. Paying a driver is a big chunk of a taxi/Uber's costs, so eliminating that leaves a lot of room to maneuver.
It's the Uber model. Operate at a subsidized low price, create stickiness, push out the previous generation, enshittify and raise the price, $$$.
Are they sure? Portland is a special kind of crazy. I can say this cuz I’m a native now living in Berlin. locals are going to trash the cars and do all sorts of damage.
Thank goodness that Waymo has no plans to use the cameras recording you in the car for targeted ads.
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...)
How about a Waymo competitor that uses nonporous, impervious materials for the interior, and automatically sanitizes itself in between passengers? You pay with Monero and logs are only kept long enough to solve any murders you might've committed, and for the next rider to report if you still managed to mess something up.
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.
> I will feel so secure and private being recorded at all angles in a car I don't own and can't sue.
This is even worse in an Uber where the drivers can put cameras anywhere and do anything with the recordings.
I also don't understand why people aren't more upset about the privacy issues. They have your whole travel data, your face, your voice, "private" conversations.
And the people in the Philippines who can intervene in the "self" driving can comment on your bodily features if bored.
> I also don't understand why people aren't more upset about the privacy issues.
I 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).
It recently became very real for a lot of people. The US government is buying that harmless advertising data to target, locate, and arrest/deport people. If I was an immigrant of any legal status, I would now absolutely think twice about providing a real name or address to any online service. Any benign good-faith "its only for ads" argument has been destroyed within the last year. GrapheneOS/Librem/Pursim should start advertising heavily in immigrant communities.
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.
> your voice, "private" conversations.
Waymo microphones are only activated when you contact support.
truly not trying to be snarky here but i don't understand why you would place this level of trust in an Alphabet Inc brand.
Of all the organizations with access to my data (e.g. ISP, social networks, cellphone service provider, current US government, etc.), I absolutely trust Google the most.
Do you think Google is lying about the microphone?
> I absolutely trust Google the most.
why?
robust culture of data protection because of lots to lose
here's why i don't think that holds water:
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:
> I also don't understand why people aren't more upset about the privacy issues.
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.."
I live in Portland. Took an Uber to the airport early in the morning. The driver was extremely reckless. Nearly wrecked several times. This has never happened before. We reported him. But, yeah, looking forward to using Waymo.
I'm a little sad to see this because I'm moving northward to Seattle next month, I've lived in Portland proper for over 16 years, and Seattle doesn't have Waymo yet. Great timing lol.
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.
They announced back in September that they’re coming to Seattle. https://www.king5.com/article/traffic/traffic-news/autonomou...
Waymo has already been mapping Seattle for months. I don’t see customers in Portland having access before Seattle.
God willing. Unfortunately Seattle has a recent history of award-winning marksmanship when it comes to turning its own feet into Swiss cheese. A few years ago we passed a brilliant gig worker minimum wage law which:
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.
I wonder how large the footprint will be. I live in the greater Portland area, but not in the city proper. There are definitely situations where Waymo would be great, but my guess is that they won't start off serving my specific area.
Apparently Waymo hasn't yet received a permit from the city of Portland, so whether they actually operate there remains TBD.
Surprised Portland is allowing Waymo in, considering that they have a decent public transport system (judging by US standards, not European standards), with light rail.
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.
So, these streets are so tiny and pedestrians are used to just walking out on crosswalks because most people stop at crosswalks
That seems like a dream environment for these cars. They are very good about waiting for humans to cross. To be honest, a Waymo at the front in an intersection means that it's going to be much more relaxing as a pedestrian or bicyclist crossing. This is especially true in intersections with a no-right-on-red where Waymos will obey but human drivers in San Francisco rarely do.
Every town says the exact same thing when Waymo shows up, and it's never true. There's nothing unique about Portland drivers, streets, sidewalks, or pedestrians.
I feel like I've lived in enough places and they're pretty small relatively speaking but whatever, seems like we'll see how it actually plays out.
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
This is a false blanket statement. Portland has very short (walkable) blocks, many one way streets, and it is true that most often than not cars actively stop for pedestrians to cross the street
None of those things are unique to Portland. Waymo already operates in San Francisco, Boston, and Philadelphia.
Oh man... this will be so awesome as a pedestrian/cyclist. When I see a Waymo coming, I can actually have some reasonable expectation that it will stop for me!
Waymo has no problem navigating the narrow streets of SF.
One of my friends talks about this skate park on Stevenson st, which is a cobblestone road in San Francisco. It's ostensibly a two way road, but with street parking, it isn't really. Or rather, in order for two full sized cars to fit, one of the cars has to go up on the curb. Waymo's don't seem capable of doing this (yet, on that street), and jam up that road whenever there's traffic on it. Waymo's has problems with that narrow SF street and any amount of traffic on it.
wonder if these will end up in the willamette too https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/06/divers-pull-11-e-sco...
The dream of the 90s is alive I take it
They didn't mention it was Oregon. Maybe they're rolling out to Portland, Maine?
There are definitely hints that it is Oregon on the page.
Haha. Somehow I mistook this to be related to Wayland.
Seems like a hostile market for Waymo. Many Portlanders despise tech giants and are strongly anti-car & anti-AI, far more than SF. Not to mention Portland's political / governance / people problems already inclines the population to anger.
If Waymo is still operating there by the end 2027 I’ll eat my hat.
How long does Waymo generally take to map and otherwise get ready for a new city rollout (permits, etc.)? I guess I wouldn't be surprised if they haven't even started offering rides in 2027.
No idea. I would just assume whatever they’re doing there gets shouted down in short order by the locals who are known for being kind hearted, incredibly naive, and violent.
Nice, looking forward to all the, ahem, creative protest to be done on the robocars if they ever do show up here. heh
okay so now imagine Portland with transportation budget cuts and no Waymo
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
[flagged]
The same Waymo that says that they don't give a shit that they're stopping in bike lanes because their selfish passengers pay for it? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47912645
Good luck to Portland getting fucked by Waymo.
Human drivers (especially Uber/DoorDash drivers) stop in bike lanes all the time without repercussion. Pointing the finger at Waymo for this doesn't negate the larger problem of it not being enforced by local traffic enforcement.
I've personally reported a taxi driver for parking in a bike lane, and I hope he lost his cab license for it because it was really egregious. PBOT actually asked me for official testimony.
Personally never happier to have left Portland than right this moment.
Why? Are fearing the inevitable torching of one of these or fooling yourself into believing that waymo wont take over the world?
I feel like this post and most (if not all these comments) are an ad.
My personal enthusiasm can come off this way, but I'm excited for it as a cyclist, someone whose brother was killed by a driver, and general cutting edge technology hobbyist.
Same here, as someone who doesn't drive much, and is generally a "vulnerable road user". I've seen Waymos drive. When they screw up, it's by stopping dead under an abundance of caution. They never speed. They can spot a ped or cyclist from blocks away. Every time I take an Uber home, the driver is guaranteed to drive 40+ on the 20mph road in front of my house while blasting through crosswalks with people waiting to cross. The data is not really in yet (still not enough miles to really say if they are safer), but they pass the eye test.
The rain will be a real test though!
> the driver is guaranteed to drive 40+ on the 20mph road in front of my house while blasting through crosswalks with people waiting to cross
...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.
People are interested as its a sci-fi promise long hoped to be filled. It is the first step to alot of other changes that will happen as higher majority of vehicles on the road transition to actual full self driving.
Self driving cars are such a huge quality of life improvement that people would advertise it for free.
I would rank it up there with mobile broadband and smartphones in terms of influence.
The amount of trips I would suddenly be interested in taking would skyrocket.
A population with more spirit to resist than SF. I wonder if they bring out the traffic cones.
What will they tell the unemployed drivers? "Coal miners need to code" doesn't work any more. Become a data thief/labeler perhaps?
I wonder what percentage of people in Portland are resistors. Do they outnumber the homeless?
> Portland has always been a pioneer in urban design, balancing its independent spirit with a deep commitment to sustainable, forward-thinking living.
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...