#[r/cybertruck](https://www.reddit.com/r/cybertruck/) is now private. If you are unable to find it, here is a link to it. As we are not a support sub, please make sure to use the proper resources if you have questions: [Official Tesla Support](https://www.tesla.com/support), [r/TeslaSupport](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaSupport/) | [r/TeslaLounge](https://www.reddit.com/r/TeslaLounge/) personal content | [Discord Live Chat](https://discord.gg/tesla) for anything. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/teslamotors) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Link contains a video showing car parks being envisioned with green spaces. I'm sure subs like "f\*ckcars" mostly hate Elon, but even they'd like this development.
This IS already the world that most of the world has - due to public transport. It’s only the US that’s so obsessed with private cars and parking them. The US will do anything to avoid public transport it seems. Even have a billionaire idiot suggest a park INSIDE AN AIRPORT which is only possible because 10,000 of his autonomous cars are now queuing up around the corner, to pick up passengers/their owners. One car he showed was a two seater, and one was a very small bus which can’t fit the luggage of 20 people going to the airport anyway. Watching it was like watching some bizarre alternative future where somehow trains and busses haven’t been invented yet. It’s utterly mental. Look around this stadium in the the centre of London. Nothing but housing and parks etc. because a train station is right there. https://preview.redd.it/at5rfv25w9ud1.jpeg?width=1179&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4852f974943f11d462e4af348bd17ff09c071fd8
If you're old enough to remember, they said very similar things about the Segway before its release.
Dude says a lot
15USD/month
The comparison is specious.
Oh please. I live in one of those countries you probably think is a utopia of mass transit, and cars are just as much a part of life here as in the States. And yeah: for things like a sport arena, a train makes sense (and I like trains quite a bit). But once you actually start living in the real life, you start to realize you really need point-to-point travel quite a bit. And I say this even though we made sure to take a house that is 2 minutes away from a tram station, 3 from 2 bus stations, and only a few stations away from the main train station for exactly having the ability to use the mass transit. We still need the car 4 to 5 times a week at least. In short, trains are nice. But if you really think they \*replace\* cars (rather than offer an alternative for some use cases), you are fooling yourself.
Hi Elon, I live in London about 45 minutes from the stadium I posted. Only a fool drives anywhere near the middle of London. Public transport is excellent and a billion times quicker. A small electric bus that can’t even go in dedicated bus lanes, is idiotic.
Am very curious to know what things that require need of a car 4 to 5 times a week in a city with good transportation?
I don’t want to live in the city and I want to drive my car because it’s fun! Nooooooooooooo
Easy to do when your country is the size of South Carolina.
Parks, ya right, you mean more retail stores
Easy to do with planning. Ever been to New York?
Yup. It’s super condensed with people so it works on a small scale (by square footage). Now do Casper Wyoming.
You think Casper is going to buy loads of Elons tiny busses?…
Nope, neither will NYC
London is the literal worst when it comes to cars, haven’t been updated on roads since horses in 1800. It your picture there’s Fulham parking garage bottom left 😂😂 London Underground is excellent tho, but that doesn’t make your reasoning any good. There’s a place for both, brining in London as a single example on what Tesla is doing makes no sense.
This assumes a high trust society where there aren’t large numbers of people who dgaf and will trash all shared transportation.
Exactly. Because they are pointless.
London is awful for cars for sure. But most people don’t even drive anyway. London also has electric cabs and electric busses. So nothing from Elon is even remotely relevant. Certainly not an MX5 sized car or a 20 seater bus.
Someone tell this Elongated guy what a train is
I hope this sentiment is right and we could reclaim the space taken up by parking lots.....but at the same time, if autonomy becomes so easy and cheap that no one needs to own a car, wouldn't that also just drive up congestion....creating bigger and wider roads to accommodate it all. Wouldn't the asphalt used in parking lots simply get moved to roads instead? Is that a good thing? I honestly don't know how this will all turn out. The one thing I'm fairly positive of though.....Tesla probably won't be a leader in autonomy based on anything we've seen so far.
True, Segway was meant to replace cars BUT in the US nobody *ever* can imagine such a thing, thus Americans assumed it was meant to replace walking (“so where you gonna fit that Segway in your car?”) heck everyone still thinks that was its goal. 😂
Who is the "dude" in your comment?
Where do you live that trains come right to your door and drop you off right where you need to go? I'm both jealous and a bit concerned about the noise of living so close to a train station.
I can't think of anything more alienating than public transport. You're nut supposed to live your life according to a timetable, like a fucking machine. The fact that some of you, who live in a large city, have memorized public transport routes and timetables, doesn't mean that's how you're supposed to live. And the fact that you can't wrap your head around the notion that we can build a transportation system that adapts to our needs, instead of us having to adapt to the transportation system, is fucking baffling.
They’ll have to redesign cities around this!
They said this about uber and Lyft too and then they found out that it actually generates WAY more traffic than personally owned cars because the Ubers have to constantly drive to pick you up. So there are fewer vehicles but way more ON THE ROAD instead of parked in an employee lot for 8 hours.
In dense urban areas trains are a perfect solution. Most Americans, however, don’t live in an area where the density is high enough to justify the construction of rail lines and busses have too many stops/indirect options for it to be convenient. I work from home but occasionally go into the office to meet with my team. It’s a 35 minute drive but if I wanted to take the bus it would be close to 2.5 hours because I’d need to make 3 transfers and the buses only run every 30mins. I’d take an uber but it’s about $60 each way. Robo taxi in combination with street level roads and boring tunnel will allow for quick point to point transit for much lower cost than traditional public transit.
Disingenuous. The idea is that a multilayered train/metro system like what the rest of the developed world besides the US has would go much further to reducing the number cars in the road. Last mile travel could be covered by busses or even robo taxi, but the heavy lifting for transport is done by trains. One of the parts I hated most in Elon’s presentation Is the broad oversimplification that all of today’s transport sucks. It *sucks* in the US. Other countries have long implemented affordable, efficient mass transit.
Yeah the real issue is that in the US public transport isn’t some quiet and peaceful experience. Everyone keeps talking about NYC public transport but they haven’t had crazy people screaming at them on a bus or a guy blast music on a Bluetooth speaker on the subway. Yes, you can put in noise cancelling headphones and do your best to ignore all the idiocy but that really only works if you’re a single person and not someone trying to bring their family somewhere.
How would Segway ever replace cars? That's ridiculous. Segway isn't going to get me from Philly to NY in an hour on the turnpike. It won't even get me across town to work in less than an hour. They move so slow, you're standing the whole time, oh and rain and wind exists.
Exactly. How is it possible in the US for a scooter to *ever* replace driving a car, anywhere, no matter how short the trip. Inconceivable.
Straight from Tony Saba
How many cars do you own? Because I'll bet you have less than the average person in the US. Your air quality and noise pollution are likely significantly less. The thing is, we need both, but our cities should be designed for the human, not the car. Here in the US, almost all of our cities are designed for a car first. I know that's the source of my frustration and possibly OPs. I don't have an option of getting to a light rail without driving. Even if I did, the destinations I can reach without needing a car after I get there are very limited. Our buses, at least in my city, are an absolute joke. I basically have zero options besides driving. Options would be really nice, something you might be taking for granted.
Philly to NY is not a short trip. Most people work 20+ miles from home. What if it's raining? You're exposed to the elements. You completely disregarded all of my points.
Yep, that's why this is all a pipe dream. We should be increasing public transportation to encourage less people to be on the road. That's really the only way something like this works.
So with autonomy we should need way fewer parking lots, which means more space for other things, correct?
Yeah, in a vacuum. In reality, we have trillions of dollars of infrastructure that won’t just vanish overnight. Ride-share didn’t magically solve all of our car centric problems, it did the opposite.
The problem is building subways and trains is expensive and difficult. I agree it's the way to go, but not politically and economically realistic. Autonomy working out is probably the only realistic solution this country has to urban hell.
Of course not in vacuum, and of course not overnight. It will take time. But over time, if more people (eventually all people) use cars as a service, we can get rid of 95% of parking lot space, and we will be VERY incentivized to do so. Space in dense urban areas is worth a lot, useless space will be appropriated for other things QUICKLY. Obviously this will take decades, but everything does.
It’s all part of the same problem.
Again, in a perfect world, you’re right. However, you’re overlooking the substantial influence of auto manufacturers lobbying billions of dollars over decades for minimum parking requirement laws. Ridesharing has already created the profit incentive for car manufacturers, and unless every car manufacturer transitions to a Robo taxi model, it’s highly unlikely to happen. Moreover, land developers don’t have nearly the same incentive to demolish parking lots as auto manufacturers, who lobby for ridiculously inflated parking requirements in most states. Unless you’re specifically referring to our cities, we don’t have a significant space problem in the United States. We have ample space, and in areas where we don’t, we already have solutions that utilize less space for more parking. We simply build upward, or underground. Just because we *can*, doesn’t mean we will. If you replace all of the cars on the road with Robo taxis, you’re just moving the parking lot to a different location.
>Disingenuous. Lol. It is “disingenuous“ to make a comedic reply to someone who tried to claim trains and robotaxis fill the same role? Come on, mate. Laugh a little. Or at least exercise some reasonable level of common sense. >Other countries have long implemented affordable, efficient mass transit. Bully for them? The United States is a geographically, culturally, and density unique nation. Perhaps, instead of trying to repeatedly smash a square peg into a round hole, we explore potential solutions that fit said unique characteristics. I don’t know if you live in the United States or not, but suburban sprawl is next level here. Combine that wide spread living situation with the fact that it would take an *enormous* amount of eminent domain (government taking people’s land) to get even close to a usable implementation of public transportation and it becomes less clear that investing tens, or hundreds, of billions of dollars into this is the right idea. Not to mention how, exactly, do low-income folks, who generally live farther away from their place of work and have less flexibility in their schedules, get to work/grocery stores/doctors/etc. during the transition from cars to public transit? Reddit loves to pretend that repeatedly chanting “muh trains and buses” will magically make the American situation suddenly public transit friendly. The reality, of course, is far, far more complicated and messy. I, for one, think autonomous vehicles offer a potentially powerful solution. Much like how Africa skipped land line telephones and jumped straight to cell phones, I think there is an opportunity for America to skip the massively disruptive attempt at rebuilding major urban, and all surrounding suburban, areas to accommodate transit options they were never built to handle and, instead, leverage autonomous vehicles to reduce pollution and congestion.
Well, it takes my wife more than 40 minutes less to drive to her workplace than to take the transit system. Then shopping is a \*lot\* easier when you can use the car. The one main shopping area we like to use is really badly connected anyway, because it's too "new" and has only a few buses that require us to switch at least twice to use. Mass transit is not a panacea. Real life is better with a mix.
A billion times quicker, huh? Come on, if you want me to take you seriously, you are going to have to want to be taken seriously. London is a case study in itself. Honestly, I have no idea why you would want to live anywhere near there, much less \*in\* London. It's a great place to visit, but I cannot even imagine trying to live there without going mad.
Heh, now \*that\* is an interesting claim. Nobody drives, because they hate the traffic. Hmmmm... **Edit**: It's always interesting to see how many people make the angry meme face when confronted with the obvious contradiction in their worldview.
In a way yes but there will be more need for roads which would make the whole world us style unwalkable dystopias and the us worse than now. The only thing to save us would be more efficient and cheaper buses but I’m not sure that would work.
How about sitting, alone 95% of the time, in your car. Sitting in the same traffic as everyone else, but not interacting with them. Unable to do anything, but wait and turn an otherwise short commute into 2x the time (or more). In places with actually good public transport, you really just need to know the right station/platform/stop to be at and which train is o get on. They come so often, if you miss one, the next will be right behind in the next 5-15 minutes. You aren't alienated, alone in your car. Not that you necessarily want to chat every one up, but at least you aren't forced alone.
At the cost of freedom. Humans are best when they make mistakes and are allow to grow. Automating everything creates no need for humans.
There's a real disconnect between you and OP. Sometimes you just want to be alone. Elon mentioned this in his presentation. Being alone in your own private cabin opens up a number of options that you wouldn't otherwise have. You can spread papers out on your desk and work during your commute. You can work with multiple widescreen monitors (perhaps built into the car itself). You can hold Zoom calls. Heck, you can watch YouTube on a big screen without headphones. You can eat in the car (many public transportation providers forbid eating on the bus/train). I'd happily accept a 2x longer commute time if I could actually do things during that time.
How? Someone explain this. I assume folks want to get to an event before it starts? Like say 30 minutes before. Stadium is like 60,000 seats, and the robotaxi seats two people. So, well, *30,000* robot taxis are going to converge at the stadium and drop off everyone smoothly and then magically disappear somewhere and then reappear right when everyone needs to leave? Instead of you know, thousands catching a subway every few minutes and dispersing where they need to with connecting lines? Isn’t this magnitudes better? Say even it solves 10% of the load, not all of it. That’s still thousands of robotaxis converging at one spot
Ain't nobody wanna be locked in a train with smelly crackheads.
Actually, Elon is the one claiming robotaxi and trains fill the same role. He decided to broadly say current mass transportation sucks while showing pictures of trains in his presentation. He’s selling robotaxi is a viable alternative to efficient mass public transit whether you believe in that or not. I most certainly do live in the US and grew up in a suburban hellscape as you described. Suburban sprawl is a policy choice and mutually related with our car dependency. The funny thing is, you seem to believe it’s a *challenge* to rebuild our cities into well planned mixed use, easily connected cities. Would it surprise you if I told you that our cities didn’t used to be like this? A transformation occurred through the 60-80s that demolished neighborhoods, transit, etc. to run highways right through major cities and build tons of parking lots. The government has and DID use eminent domain to destroy houses and communities to build this car centered infrastructure. cities are waking up to the fact that this is unsustainable, and ironically the transformation to reclaim these spaces is *far less disruptive* than the original construction of these. The unfortunate thing about your argument though is that while America does have a uniquely car based culture, solutions to these problems already exist all across the world and even the US! MANY suburbs already connect to commuter rails into the urban core. We can have a good rail system *regardless* of our geography. China has invested immensely in their high speed rail infrastructure across a country just as geographically large and spread out as the US. You find the same across all of continental Europe. Japan while smaller, has built high speed rail across incredible complex geography and keeps them well maintained even in harsh climates of the north! Robotaxi should be limited to nothing more than a last mile solution.
And in rural America it can take you 45mins to drive to the nearest Walmart, much less other options than a Walmart. So instead of driving for 45mins the proposed solution is... Have your car drive for you, just like city transit. Nothing really changes here, except maybe you can do something for 45mins in a car idk Then there's cities where you're wanting a utopia of more traffic but you don't have to worry about it.
80% of Americans live in or near a city centre. A 35 min drive may even be less by metro considering rush hour and parking. Having lived in cities with great metros, it really makes you wonder why America is so far behind
>instead, leverage autonomous vehicles to reduce pollution and congestion. But they INCREASE congestion. And they're not great for pollution either (switching to electric can help). Congestion is based on peak cars on the road at a given time. Making those cars drive themselves doesn't improve it. And making those cars go drive to their charging stations after they drop everyone off downtown doesn't help either. Maybe it could drive better behaviors in terms of public transit by getting people in suburbs to to the train stations. That's the best hope.
I suppose the idea is that we have Robovan for higher-density needs.
>And they're not great for pollution either (switching to electric can help). Mate, we are on a Tesla sub discussing the Cybercab. Of course it is electric. >But they INCREASE congestion. >Congestion is based on peak cars on the road at a given time. Making those cars drive themselves doesn't improve it. How does replacing the driver of a car with an autonomous car *increase* congestion? Whether it is a person or a robot driving the car, the car is still there. The opportunity for *decreased* congestion comes from the lack of everyone needing to bring their own, personal car to the same area. If I take a robotaxi to place X, then, once I get there, the next person who wants to get to place X could use the same car to get there. Now, instead of 2 cars in the area, you have 1. Multiply that by however many people can use the same car and you can guess at how reduced congestion will be.
And who will pay for the road? TESLA LOL
Smoke and mirrors in another attempt to boost the stock price.
People with cars will continue to drive 95% of the time and people without will be in new robotaxis, increasing congestion.
So it’s going to coordinate picking up strangers until it hits 20 people and then take them to the game? That’s better than those people just walking to their transit and taking a subway right there? None of this makes any sense if you just think about it for 2 minutes past the presentation graphics. Or if it’s makes sense at all it’ll have to be in super low density areas transporting to other super low density areas.
>If I take a robotaxi to place X, then, once I get there, the next person who wants to get to place X could use the same car to get there. But if they want to arrive at the same time, you both still need cars. And even if you don't, let's say that you both live a similar distance away from place X. Normally each of you drives there, so the total distance driven by each of you is 2X, 4X for both. But now the car needs to drive to you, distance Y, to the destination, distance X, to them, distance X, and to the destination, distance X. Then something similar happens as you go home - so the car travels 3X + 2Y. It is *only* possible for congestion to be reduced if the cars can always find someone who needs to go near to another passenger. But that's not how traffic patterns work. If 30,000 people go to an arena, there's not going to be 30,000 people going from the area back to their homes. Every morning, a city of a million people will see close to 100,000 people drive from the suburbs to work, but maybe 10,000 people will be driving home. At the end of the day, it's reversed - 100,000 home and maybe 10,000 going to work. People and destinations are not interchangeable and congestion is created by a large amount of people who want to go to the same place at the same time. The only way to fix it is to find a way to make each person take up less space on the road.
>Actually, Elon is the one claiming robotaxi and trains fill the same role. He decided to broadly say current mass transportation sucks while showing pictures of trains in his presentation. He’s selling robotaxi is a viable alternative to efficient mass public transit whether you believe in that or not. Mate, Elon made a similar claim that I did earlier. Trains have the issue of fixed routes and not being able to pick you up and drop you off. You have to go to the train, then take the train where it is designed to go, then figure out how to get to your final destination. Robotaxis fill an entirely different niche. I’m not sure why you are struggling with this idea. >China has invested immensely in their high speed rail infrastructure across a country just as geographically large and spread out as the US. And their high-speed rail system cost insane amounts of money to build and is continuing to cost insane amounts of money to maintain, all while not moving that many people. China is **not** a country I want to emulate in this instance (or many other instances). >Japan while smaller, has built high speed rail across incredible complex geography and keeps them well maintained even in harsh climates of the north! Thank you for educating me about I country I lived in for 2 years! As someone with that long-term exposure, I can confidently tell you that there are plenty of limitations to Japan’s set up AND that Japan has an *entirely* different geographical, cultural, and density situation than the US. >The funny thing is, you seem to believe it’s a *challenge* to rebuild our cities into well planned mixed use, easily connected cities. Would it surprise you if I told you that our cities didn’t used to be like this? A transformation occurred through the 60-80s that demolished neighborhoods, transit, etc. to run highways right through major cities and build tons of parking lots. The government has and DID use eminent domain to destroy houses and communities to build this car centered infrastructure. I am aware. And I want to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Having top-down government control of transit has already caused enormous issues. It would be lovely if we could learn from the past, no? >MANY suburbs already connect to commuter rails into the urban core. We can have a good rail system *regardless* of our geography. I don’t disagree. But I think we fundamentally disagree on what this means for cars in America. My impression is that you think trains and buses can, for most people and in nearly all circumstances, replace cars. I live in a suburb with light rail to the urban core. The rail station is 10 minutes away by car and then the ride into the city can take upwards of 45 minutes. Throw in waiting for the train and it is easily 1+ hours just to get into the urban core, then however long it takes me to walk to my destination. Furthermore, I am in a northern state that sees quite a bit of snow in the winter and this option, which still requires a car for me to get to the light rail, becomes less and less appealing. Or, I could drive my electric vehicle, which is powered by the solar panels on my roof and has high functioning level 2 autonomy, and spend roughly equal amounts of commute time, but in far more comfort and go directly to my destination instead of having to engage with multiple forms of transportation. Once robotaxis are commonly available, I might not even need to own a car. The money I would have spent on buying and maintaining a car could, instead, be put towards (hopefully) cheap fares. From my perspective, ideally, in the medium term future, high speed rail connects cities (or, if we ever crack truly sustainable air travel; airplanes) and then I simply summon a robotaxi to take me wherever I want to go within a reasonable radius (say, 25 or 50 miles).
>except maybe you can do something for 45mins in a car Yes, that is exactly what you can do. You can read. You can get some work done. Daydream. Whatever you like. Although, it's a strange life you lead if you rate it by where the next Walmart is. >where you're wanting a utopia of more traffic I did not say that. I do not want that. But mass transit has its limits and problems. Ignoring that fact will not make it go away.
Poe's law mate. If you don't indicate you're joking on the internet people will assume you reaally are simply stupid/making argument in bad faith.
> In dense urban areas trains are a perfect solution. Most Americans, however, don’t live in an area where the density is high enough to justify the construction of rail lines. No. In fact absolute majority of Americans do - 83% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. And when considering "pocnvinience" you need t ofctor in time wasted in traffic.
I don't see anybody saying we should shut down subways now that robotaxis are starting to become a reality. Obviously it still makes sense to serve high density areas with high density public transport. The post you are replying to said that we wouldn't need parking lots any more, which... yeah, sounds great.
The interior camera, coupled with having to create an account to take a ride, should filter out assholes really quickly. Their accounts will be disabled. They will not ride in these vehicles ever again. Problem solved.
> The idea is that a multilayered train/metro system like what the rest of the developed world besides the US has would go much further to reducing the number cars in the road. Last mile travel could be covered by busses or even robo taxi, but the heavy lifting for transport is done by trains. And who is saying we shouldn't do this? All we're suggesting here is that if we dont need the cars to sit idle, we don't need parking lots. Obviously good public transit is necessary in a large city. The robotaxi + robovan were never meant to replace high-density fixed-route rail transport. That's not what they do.
Have you looked at the cost of adding a subway to an existing city that lacks it? What about cities where the geography doesn't feasibly permit a subway? Tampa Bay? Miami? Etc. Robovan is, essentially, a subway that uses existing infrastructure (roads) and isn't fixed in the route/destination. Or it is a bus that doesn't have to follow a specific schedule/route but can dynamically respond to demand. Whether it works out or not is, of course, up in the air but it does have advantages over high cost, fixed route public transit.
> Where do you live that trains come right to your door and drop you off right where you need to go? In Vienna, Austria. I have a Tram (aka road-train) station about 200m from my apartment. I have an U-Bahn (aka subway-train) station about 400m from my apartment. The Tram takes me to an S-Bahn (train train) station that's about 700m from my apartment. These are ALL EVs, so there's that too. I also have two Bus stops that are about 300m from my apartment (but they're not trains so they don't count in this conversation). Each of these are connected with each other in a way that you never need to walk over 200m to hop between them. No matter where I need to go in Vienna, I never feel like I NEED to drive.
Good point which I hadn’t considered!
Urban and dense are not the same. I live in an “urban” area but every house still has a car because there aren’t enough people justify a proper transit system.
Generally any urban area is dense enough for a public transit. In my country even villages get public transit. But yes, I know people like you are bainwashed into believing you can't. And I dont' have energy to deprograam you, so I think that's the end of the topic. PS. Funny enough I just got reminded about a city in USA that did the bus & bike lanes, and now they are removing them becacause people in cars that are stuck in traffic are very unhapy that buses and bikes get to drive faster than them.
All the problems listed are solved by BRT bus lanes for way cheaper. Not saying the BRT bus can’t be self driven along a track eventually, like many subways are around the world - but that’s an obvious goal. Nothing announced at that event is new
I’m asking how it would solve parking lots. 100% agreed parking lots are an urban wasteland. How would this solve parking lots? How would a swarm of robotaxis magically drop off thousands of people to a stadium then leave to help others in the city then magically return efficiently right when needed? Like where are they parking or if not parking how they are timing it to arrive right back at the park when needed? Do you remember a couple of Tesla keynotes ago when he showed underground tunnel videos that also didn’t make any sense? This keynote they showed a slide saying subway sucks and then a stadium with grass, they didn’t even bother trying to make an animation trying to show a subway car of people all getting dropped off with robo taxis 2 at a time at a stadium, because it makes no sense. The drop off would be miles long
>All the problems listed are solved by BRT bus lanes [...]. Are they? >Or it is a bus that doesn't have to follow a specific schedule/route but can dynamically respond to demand. Can buses dynamically respond to demand in near real time? >[...] for way cheaper Is it? Current buses require paying multiple full time salaries to keep each individual business running, not to mention the personnel employed to maintain the bus, its routes, etc. In theory, Robovan, or similar products, require none of that.
Sounds like we're listing all the reasons having 20,000 people arrive to a stadium by car is a terrible idea. The nearby roads can't handle the flood of cars before+after the game, robotaxi or not.
Elon said it’s a $30k car. This means small battery, this means huge parking lots for charging them multiple times per day as they drive around.
Well they can, with parking lots … that’s how it works. As inefficient and ugly as it is
OK, so we have an Elon-time schedule for the robotaxi. Whatever happened to Tesla enabling owners to use their own cars as taxis to make money when they’re not using them? Did we just 100% forget about that? You know, the whole thing that was supposed to justify the exorbitant price of FSD?
If the standard is inefficient and ugly, I don't see what your complaint is. It'll still be inefficient and ugly when replaced with robotaxis. On the one hand, you're saying it's crazy to have low-density vehicles moving everyone to the stadium, but it's somehow OK if those vehicles are driven by people and take up a footprint 10x the size of the stadium from developing into anything useful.
There is no *bus* system that can dynamically respond to demand. Small towns in US already tried this by subsidizing “on demand” uber rides. It ended up costing WAY more than just having an appropriate sized bus running on a set schedule and being a mess generally This doesn’t work because you can have 1 person on a bus route or 50. They all eventually want to go somewhere different, so how would “on demand” work as efficiently as a bus or subway system ? All of this has already been tried and tested over decades. It’s not like cities around the world love wasting money on subways and buses - they are used because they hold a lot of people and move them efficiently, regardless if there is 2 people waiting or a 100
So, if you only have 1-2 people, Robotaxi. If you have 5-10 people, then 3-5 Robotaxis. If you have 20+ people, then Robovan. This is what I mean by dynamic response. I'm not saying it *will* happen, but I am saying it *could* happen. >All of this has already been tried and tested over decades. Color me surprised that *autonomous transport* has been tested for **decades**.
Mate, there’s 37 cities bigger than London, many which are not 200 year old metropolitans build for horses with a solid 200 year old underground network. And you’re only referring to the city center even. There are massive car parks in all suburbs of London and plenty of areas where cars are preferred. Let’s disregard Elon and Tesla and just talk about autonomous vehicles - being able to get to a doorstep of where ever you need to go and let your car do the rest while eliminating the need for parking lots is a massive improvement for ALL cities and towns larger than 5.000 people. How many miles are driven just to find parking? For an autonomous van, it can easily be modularly changed and deliver goods and groceries to shops covering that last mile hauling, which eliminates the need for trucks too, which in itself also is a massive improvement for London even.
Tons of cities of autonomous transport. They are called driverless subways In your first paragraph how does this system know how many people it needs to pick up ? Spell it out for me. How will the system always have the right type of vehicle, specially when there are massive spikes in demand at peak times, without having people stand around waiting extremely long times as it needs to constantly redistribute resources? That’s why you have buses or subway cars that are sometimes empty or sometimes full
Between the autonomy will turn parking lots into parks and will solve LA traffic, I don’t know which one was the more ridiculous comment…
The solution is literally bus or metro
>Tons of cities of autonomous transport. They are called driverless subways Which are completely unrelated to your earlier point about testing for decades and failing. But hey, you can always pretend to misunderstand for fake internet points, mirite? >In your first paragraph how does this system know how many people it needs to pick up ? Spell it out for me. Give me an A! Give me a P! Give me another P! What does that spell? APP! I can't hear you?! #APP! *cue pom-pom shaking and high kicks* The advantage this system has is everyone who wants to use it will need an app. The apps will track where people are in near real time. It will, over time, gain a deep understanding of needs and develop heuristics that will model demand on any given day (similar to how power companies work). "Now wait one moment StartledPelican," I hear you saying. "Uber has had this advantage for a long time and it hasn't magically solved any of these issues! Checkmate, atheist!" Autonomous vehicles have the cost advantage that Uber never had. Driverless means massive cost savings. EV means companies can charge the vehicle at *wholesale* prices instead of retail. EV also means reduced maintenance costs. The potential for *truly* autonomous driving is rightfully valued astronomically high. If/when it is delivered, it will change society as much or more than the introduction of affordable cars did.
Bus routes don’t hit every area or side street of a given city. Can you imagine walking blocks carrying kids and groceries in the rain from a bus stop to your home? It’s ridiculous to think buses are going to save humanity.
100 taxis with 250km range makes more sense than 50 taxis with 450km range. And with Teslas latest battery, charging and 48v architecture, they'll charge quicker than current models.
bullshit, even if businesses could get rid of their parking they’d use it to generate profit not turn it into parks
So will cabs which don’t have a rider just drive around using energy? Won’t cab charging deports effectively become the parking lots we were meant to remove?
That sounds really convenient! I admit to being a bit jealous. It reminds of me of the 2 years I lived in Japan. That said, if I may provide some perspective. Vienna, Austria, according to a quick internet search, has a population density of 4,000 people per km2 (10,000 people per mile2). The ”denser” areas of Utah valley, where I live, seems to average at less than 1,200 people per km2 (3,000 people per mile2). It is less than 1/3 as dense as Vienna. Which, in turn, means (roughly) you would need **more than three times** as much infrastructure to serve the same number of people. That is just per person numbers; when you factor in the likely greater land area, it probably is even worse. I made a comment elsewhere that many people overestimate how densely populated the United States is. Suburban sprawl is a real thing here. With people spread out so much more, the required cost for infrastructure is, usually, prohibitive.
Giving people more options for driving generally creates more cars on the road not less. What reduces traffic is walkable neighborhoods and public transit. Just fluff to try to hype up not owning your vehicle and your transportation needs being held hostage by corporate robot taxis.
I never claimed that. Just saying that’s something autonomy could improve a lot.
Never heard about buses. Elon is sharing alien knowledge!
Please let me know when your area has driverless buses that do not follow fixed routes. Interested to give them a try!
I have buses with drivers. I have buses that have dinamic routes. And I have buses that adjust their route and frequency according demand. And I live on a poor European country. Why is driver less relevant to this?! And why is drive less relevant to the discussion of subway vs bus costs?! Edit: I just remember that we have some driverless buses as well in fixed routes
Apologies. As someone who also speaks more than one language, I understand the difficulty of communicating in a non-native language. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by: >Why is driver less relevant to this?! And why is drive less relevant to the discussion of subway vs bus costs?! Are you asking why a bus with a driver has higher costs than a bus without a driver? >I just remember that we have some driverless buses as well in fixed routes This is really cool! What company makes these driverless buses? Do you mean that run on a track? Or do you mean they are truly autonomous buses?
The people using transit already aren't using the parking lots. The number of parking spots they have at a stadium is a reasonable indicator of how many people typically drive themselves. It stands to reason that space occupied by parking could be reduced by the same ratio as drivers that switch to autonomous transport. Thousands of cars already converge there and go on to park. Clearly the logistics work out in a way that's acceptable to the thousands that choose to drive. Dedicated drop-off areas would only make this better.
The semester of college I spent in Vienna, taking the Ubahn to Staatsoper station every day for class was one of the best times of my life.
Every few years tech bros think they reinvented public transportation
Shit I remember years ago thateven Elon said it would create more not less
More room for homes and businesses!
Tesla make me laugh the more I hear of their idiotic bullshit.
90% shit neighborhoods of people trying to survive with no jobs. 10% high tech heaven for the 1%. Chefs kiss.
People are forgetting the biggest motivation to go autonomous’: insurance. It will begin with your own personal insurance rate; your car’s autonomous capability will have a distinct impact on the rates you pay. Your car’s ability to almost completely and objectively describe the activity involved in any driving incident will dramatically reduce costs and complexities. You will be rewarded for owning and utilizing autonomous ‘robotaxis’. These ‘smart’ cars will have their own Waze eventually; they will know road and traffic conditions. Bottom line, while manufacturer’s haven’t bought into the FSD world just yet, they will when the insurance companies tell them to. And this Robotaxi platform will probably be the perfect time for them to start making the move.
Rubbish Tell me how is one going to drive to the mailbox or park the tesla cybercab inside a garage or park it at a nearby curb just relying on autopilot with no steering wheel or pedals
While you're not wrong in your statement, the drive from Philly to NY is way more than an hour and the answer is in no way cars, but rail. And I'm pretty sure I've seen some segways with a pod like dome - i know you're referring to the most common version but it's a little bit like pointing at a convertible and saying that cars can never be used in the rain. Sure, segways are not good for blizzards, etc but i dont think a few drops of rain is an engineering challenge. And much like many things, I don't think segways were intended to replace ALL forms of travel, but was considered at the time a cutting edge disrupted that would change urban mobility. When in reality it changed mall cop step counts and that's about it.
Metro systems need to be the backbone of any city's transportation infrastructure. Inter-city transport should be high speed rail. It's simply the most efficient way we have of transporting people. Vehicles should be around for "last mile" service if an area isn't well serviced by train, but areas proximal to stations should prioritize pedestrians and bicycles.
No, because cars will be moving a way higher % of the time, which means a way lower % of the time parked/charging.
Here are some popular current “Segways” used just as the original one was envisioned: the electric bicycle, the electric skateboard, the one wheel, the electric scooter, 🛴 all can replace driving a car on many occasions. They did not need to travel hundreds of miles to be successful as well as help replace car trips and cars. Similar to the RoboTaxi in its announcement and original vision just like the point which was made by the person who started this thread.
I disagree on the reason, but i agree somewhat on the outcome. People will still buy personal vehicle's, they will just be able to park in more hidden and further away places because it won't be people parking them, thus creating more green space and developed spaces where you want it.
But if they aren’t moving because they are always in use then they’ll be using energy to aimlessly wander awaiting a guest instead of remaining parked. Why is this expenditure of energy deemed preferable?
> Can you imagine walking blocks carrying kids and groceries in the rain from a bus stop to your home? Millions of people do that.
Drop-offs like American schools: https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gokid.mobi%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F04%2Fschool_dropoff_pickup_insanity.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=dcd1319e2432ad64597cdf5f3b498bf3d7bc84896466db3cecfcdf89792eb379&ipo=images
Third world countries manage to make public transport work.
Didn't stop Waymo cars being blocked deliberately in SF.
80k people in a city about eight miles across. Like three busses could serve the whole city.
They still have to abide by physics and the charge curve. Induction charging is probably going to be slower than jacked in charging (he said they dont have plug ports at all). So I dunno, still need a huge parking lot for a bunch of them to charge at the same time. And you cant have them drive to a central location to charge, so you need these lots all over the place. There are thousands of taxis in LA, thousands of gas stations for them. Even if you halve those numbers (which wont be enough because these are supposed to replace our cars, which is not what taxis are doing), you will need pretty much just as many parking lots for these to charge. What are they doing at 3AM when most people are sleeping? There is a huge demand during the day, what are all those extra day cars doing at night? Sitting in a lot? So still need big lots.
In the US? Even so, what makes you think people can r would go back?
Who said anything about being alone? Autonomous vehicles means autonomous busses as well. It's obvious that we need vehicles with more than two seats. Shit, even Elon understands this, why do you think they're making the van? In cities with good public transport it doesn't take long for the next bus to arrive. Unless you travel a less popular route. Or outside the regular hours. Then you're screwed. I'm not against public transport, I just think it can be done way better.
But this doesn't sound like a utopia of mass transport because most people who live in cities with good mass transportation such as London, New york, Tokyo and Amsterdam tend to massively out way people who own cars due to owning a car being a worse option. Nobody says there can't be a mix but it's obvious that there current mix in some places is terrible
They have bus lanes and these buses move on it in a fixed loop, i think they are using lidar or something to make sure they are always in lane. And yes its driverless. Its kinda like a train but on asphalt roads. But yeah, their routes are fixed without much flexibility. Even the steering wheeless robotaxi is available in china, but they use lidar and operate around a fixed geofenced area, very similar to waymo. The car does not have a screen for infotainment yet tho.
Because the current system is already today unsustainable. The US can afford to build car only suburbia but it cannot afford to properly maintain it. This will get worse, at sone point people will ask themselves why they should sacrifice their wealth just to maintain a car only dystopia.
I think you meant "outweigh". Having been to New York, you'll pardon me if I do not choose to see it as having "good" mass transit. It's ok, but not anywhere near being sufficient for a city of its size. I like mass transit. I really do. And where we live, it's pretty awesome. But there is simply only so much you can do with it. And you do kinda sound like you don't think there can be a mix. You openly questioned why we would need a car, as if you are 17 and just repeating things you have heard about mass transit, rather than someone who has real life tasks that unfortunately do not fit with how the city planners though things should be 30 years ago. Trains in particular should really concentrate on routes that are stable and plannable. It simply takes too long to reroute rail (or impossible through built-up areas). Buses can fill some of the gaps between areas that see massive amount of people needing to get from a well-known A to a well-known B. For the rest, we really need point-to-point solutions. There simply have not actually been any viable possibilities for this, but that looks like it will change in the next decade or so.
It's a shuttle bus
They will stop building parking lots . If you resist you will walk for miles .
Along with the rapes beatings and graffiti it will be great !
Yes but the both the entry and the separate exit of a mass event like a concert or football game is horrible . And that is then the cars are already parked there . Can you imagine if all the time to Park and exit happened together at the same time but twice. meaning all those cars have to enter to pick up , then exit . This doesn’t account for the time it takes to find the one you called, or that the autonomous vehicle has to find you and verify it’s you , vs the 100k people looking for their ride .
>Having been to New York, you'll pardon me if I do not choose to see it as having "good" mass transit. It's ok, but not anywhere near being sufficient for a city of its size. New York is considered to have "good" transportation when compared most places in America, no one suggested it's the perfect system.. >You openly questioned why we would need a car, as if you are 17 and just repeating things you have heard about mass transit, rather than someone who has real life tasks that unfortunately do not fit with how the city planners though things should be 30 years ago. I didn't questions the need of car, I was just asking what instance a car was needed 4 to 5 times a week in a city with good transport. Speaking from experience as well as supported by research car ownership/car usage in city with good transport much lower. The instances that you described needing a car are instances that most people in cities use public transport such as going to work and shopping. Ofcourse there are always people in unique circumstances who need access to a car but it obvious that solution is getting more cars of the road and have people use mass transportation
People can deliberately block cars with human drivers too. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/-wgsoKLgKqY?app=desktop
How? They’re creating vehicles with low amount of seats. A cab that’s a 2 seater where it could’ve held 4 Or a van that’s hold 13 or whatever but we have buses. Man imagine if they went in on buses, trains, etc?
Instead of the same number of cars wandering aimlessly 90% of the time, we will have way fewer cars in the world and they will be actively providing rides most of the time. Yes it's true that we will need charging lots, but instead of being located in the highest density/demand areas, they can be wherever is most cost effective. Their relative size will also be much less, since cars will be active a much larger percentage of the time therefore requiring less storage for a fleet of the same size.
There are a great deal of assumptions here. You do recall Elon stating both "personalized public transit” as well as "an uber driver looking over a fleet of cars, like a shepherd". Brother of these imply fewer vehicles at the scale you are stating.
I wish some of these ideas were better suited toward public transit (full size self driving busses) etc, hopefully it iterates to include these too so we aren’t so focused on individualized car services (yes even robotaxi)
>no one suggested it's the perfect system It's not even good. It's somewhere between barely functional and adequate. I would not want to try to do my day-to-day in that city; it seems like it would be highly frustrating. The area I live in is \*much\* better than New York in terms of coverage and usability, but as you have registered, it still does not really cover our needs very well (and they are not that particularly wild needs). >I didn't questions the need of car, I was just asking what instance a car was needed 4 to 5 times a week in a city with good transport. "I didn't question the need of a car, I was just questioning the need of a car." You contradicted yourself. 'Nuff said. >obvious that solution is getting more cars of the road and have people use mass transportation Is it? Why is it obvious? That sounds like you have a "just so" opinion and are trying to disqualify any other opinions by claiming yours is "obvious". Mass transit is slow to build, slow to actually ride, unfortunately very undependable, prone to disruptions (such as Covid), difficult to use outside the planned use case, and extremely slow to adapt. It works best when moving between node points, like from a main train station and an airport. The reason why, despite all the expenses and annoyances that owning a vehicle brings, people \*choose\* to pay that kind of money to have point-to-point options that are always available to them. You can ignore that. You can try to force people to do it your way. History is full of failed attempts at doing both of those things. I \*like\* mass transit and use it whenever I can, but it has major problems that over a century of experimentation has failed to solve. Having point-to-point options would be good, especially if it means better use of resources and further accelerating the move to EVs.
Fucking Reddit. You want this so bad but because it’s Elon you compare it to every other failed attempt from the past. Never mind everything else this dude has help create right now.
>It's not even good. It's somewhere between barely functional and adequate. I would not want to try to do my day-to-day in that city; it seems like it would be highly frustrating. The area I live in is *much* better than New York in terms of coverage and usability, but as you have registered, it still does not really cover our needs very well (and they are not that particularly wild needs). I personally wouldn't call a system that is considered on of the best subway in North America which has a daily ridership of over 3 million people a day with affordable tickets prices as a "barley functional"... am sure there's a lot of things they can improve on however their coverage is unmatched by most cities in America. >Is it? Why is it obvious? That sounds like you have a "just so" opinion and are trying to disqualify any other opinions by claiming yours is "obvious". It obvious because we've decades of research and there are many examples that show that the direction we're heading.. cities across the world are looking for solution for the noise pollution, traffic jam, congestion, parking spaces and accidents and research has showed that less cars solves most of these issues.. Even part of Elon robocab pitch is the service lead to less cars being on the road.. London and New York have congestion charge to discourage people from driving and to use public transportation... So no it not just my opinion but but something most people paying attention would notice. >Mass transit is slow to build, slow to actually ride, unfortunately very undependable, prone to disruptions (such as Covid), difficult to use outside the planned use case, and extremely slow to adapt. It works best when moving between node points, like from a main train station and an airport. Ofcourse it's slow to build were talking about system that transport thousands of people per hour. Cars more prone disruption than a train due more likelihood of traffic. In most cities trains get to the disired location faster than cars. Most good transportation have stop or station close to residential area with links to working districts or shopping centre making them useful. >The reason why, despite all the expenses and annoyances that owning a vehicle brings, people *choose* to pay that kind of money to have point-to-point options that are always available to them. You can ignore that. You can try to force people to do it your way. History is full of failed attempts at doing both of those things. Lol you think it's a failed experiment but most of the major cities in the world are investment huge in thier public transportation system after seeing the benefits places like Japan and UK and the ridership in the cities are the most they've ever been and lot of these cities are also pedestrianising alot of thier central areas and either limiting cars or making them only access by public transportation. Am sure people have their reasons for owning a car which is fine but people who can not see the shift that's currently happening is just being naive
No one catches public transportation according to a time table, not in cities that have good transit. You just walk to the station and get on. Then you get off when you’re at your destination. And you don’t have to worry about finding a place to park or getting stuck in traffic. Once you’ve lived in a city with good transit, you realize that public transportation is freedom and cars are an excruciating trap.
I live in Europe and we have a great public transport system here. You do need to know the timetable for any route that is less popular. Unless you want to wait around for 20 minutes.
Just make the circumference of the area the “drop off” location. Right now drop off areas are like 20 feet long. Obviously that part would change. Airports move thousands of people all day at drop off/arrival areas in a similar fashion.
So how much are we supposed to save with these taxis vs a car note? And what about for the people who own their cars? It would have to be stupid cheap like when I was in Colombia and had Uber fares for a buck n change. Other than that to get around if it’s expensive what’s the point? N why can’t we ever own anything?
Login is required to comment.
Login with Google