(no title)
johnloeber | 1 year ago
1) With superior scale, the utilization of each Waymo approaches 100%. "Empty rides" going to a new pickup spot become more and more rare because they immediately get a ride close-by.
2) I think you underestimate the case for shared rides. Any Waymo with >= 2 passengers is reducing congestion, not adding. When you consider small bus-shuttles, e.g. 6 or 12 or 18 seats, it gets even more impactful.
3) The point with suburbs is that they become more accessible when the price point comes down. If you have a 45-minute commute to drive yourself, an Uber might cost you $60, which would be prohibitive. If a seat in a carpooled Waymo costs only $5 or $10, the incentives and customer behavior change significantly.
soneca|1 year ago
> *”because they immediately get a ride close-by”
That’s is unsubstantiated utopia (from you POV). People do not have uniformly distributed locations for starting and ending routes. There are concentrations of where people work, live, go to restaurants, schools, etc. More so if you are assuming suburban homes. The direction of routes also have very strong biases.
You very strongly and, again, unsubstantially overestimate shared rides. Shared rides could already be happening at scale with a human driver and are not. There is nothing about self-driving tech that solves any urbanistic, social or economic barrier to shared rides. Also, a shared ride negates most of the benefits of self driving cabs. You are not alone in the confined space, you are sharing with others, others that will likely be more intrusive than a professional driver. The vehicle will not be as clean, as comfortable, as silent, etc.
About commute getting cheaper seems a pipe dream. There is nothing in the self driving tech remotely indicating that a currently $60 ride will cost $5 with self driving cars.