SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://gizmodo.com/uber-and-lyft-have-a-hot-new-idea-for-screwing-over-cit-1822661060
The arrival of autonomous vehicles is an inevitability, so it makes sense that before mass adoption hits, companies like Lyft and Uber would want to band together to determine what our self-driving future will look like. Sounds pretty harmless, right?
Well, not so fast, because a new pledge by 15 big-name transportation companies seems designed to screw over city-dwellers who want to ride in their own self-driving cars. Item #10 of the Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities, co-signed yesterday by Uber, Lyft, Zipcar, and Didi Chuxing (China's largest ride-sharing service), reads as follows:
10. WE SUPPORT THAT AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES (AVS) IN DENSE URBAN AREAS SHOULD BE OPERATED ONLY IN SHARED FLEETS.
Due to the transformational potential of autonomous vehicle technology, it is critical that all AVs are part of shared fleets, well-regulated, and zero emission. Shared fleets can provide more affordable access to all, maximize public safety and emissions benefits, ensure that maintenance and software upgrades are managed by professionals, and actualize the promise of reductions in vehicles, parking, and congestion, in line with broader policy trends to reduce the use of personal cars in dense urban areas.
Translation: These companies want to make it illegal for individuals to use privately owned self-driving cars in big cities, effectively giving the signatories control of our autonomous streets.
See the Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities site for details on their principles, which are enumerated here:
- We plan our cities and their mobility together.
- We prioritize people over vehicles.
- We support the shared and efficient use of vehicles, lanes, curbs, and land.
- We engage with stakeholders.
- We promote equity.
- We lead the transition towards a zero-emission future and renewable energy.
- We support fair user fees across all modes.
- We aim for public benefits via open data.
- We work towards integration and seamless connectivity.
- We support that autonomous vehicles (AVs) in dense urban areas should be operated only in shared fleets.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Unixnut on Sunday February 04 2018, @11:41AM (4 children)
> Depends on the urbanization degree... the big cities in Europe suffers very little of what you describe.
I don't know. I mean, I live in London, one of the "Big cities in Europe", and one of the densest I believe.
We still have the issues described. You can't have a bus stop everywhere, in every nook and cranny. You also can't have every bus route go to the same places, so inevitably you will have to take multiple different buses and/or other forms of public transport to get to your destination. It is rare to have a direct route just by one bus or other public transport. If nothing else, you will have to walk a bit.
This means that going somewhere with public transport is still about 2x to 3x slower than a car (despite all the government attempts to cripple and slow down cars). The only benefit is that it is a lot cheaper (due to high taxes on taking cars into the city + most of the parking has been removed, resulting in very high parking costs).
Also, buses cause quite a bit of congestion, especially as they stop and go multiple times every 5 or so minutes. On average cyclists will beat you on a good day, and on a bad day pedestrians will beat you to your destination (usually people would just vacate the bus and walk in those situations, unless the weather is really crap and wet, which it usually is).
So tftp is right, they are a pretty poor choice, usually the choice for the young, the poor (who have no other option) and the retired (who have all the time in the world and never seem to be in a rush).
However in London, I would say the next best thing to a car isn't public transport, but the bicycle. It is direct point to point (like a car) so the travel time is shorter, It doesn't have the high charges, taxes and "because fuck you" penalties of driving a car, and you don't have to worry about parking. If you get one of those folding bikes, you can even take it on buses for the longer stretches, or fit it on your back rather than having to leave it somewhere. If you are not of the disposition to exercise, they have IC engine and electric bikes too.
The only thing that ruins it is the weather here, the constant wetness/rain, however I have started seeing bicycles with some kind of plastic transparent cover against the elements, which seems to work quite well. In addition I've seen bikes for hauling goods, bikes with seats at the front for children side by side, etc... they are becoming quite popular, and the government is encouraging their adoption.
I can forsee a future where most urban people use bicycles (like the Chinese used to before their massive economic boom), and you would have public transport for the other travel. Actual vehicles would be limited for heavy haulage (shop restocking, moving house, etc...), taxi services and for the rich (who can afford to pay through the nose for the privilege). Having a personal car in a dense city is a losing proposition, and fewer and fewer people are doing it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 04 2018, @12:46PM (3 children)
When you say "walk a bit" you don't mean "12 km to closest train/bus station", right?
About how much is that bit though? Because, this:
leads me to believe we aren't talking more than 2-3 km. Which is half an hour walking, tops.
But you do have the tube, right? Worse come to worst, assume you only use the tube and walking, what is the max walking distance to reach a tube station? 'Cause even with 2x15 mins walk and 30 mins by tube, you are still within an hour max of travel between any point to any point. Which is not bad by my measures.
Buses alone, perhaps is true. But public transit is not limited to buses.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Unixnut on Sunday February 04 2018, @05:45PM (2 children)
> When you say "walk a bit" you don't mean "12 km to closest train/bus station", right?
No, usually about 10-15 minutes walk in my experience. My commute used to be a 10 minute walk to the tube station, then a 45min to 1h20 tube ride (depending on whether there is a breakdown, a strike or some other delay), then a 15minute walk to work.
However I paid a lot more money to rent a place near a tube station so I didn't have to drive or take a bus there (I used to have to take a 15min to 45min bus journey to the tube, to get the train to work, before I moved).
> leads me to believe we aren't talking more than 2-3 km. Which is half an hour walking, tops.
This actually got me thinking. I checked on the map the distance between my home and work. It is ~12.6km (following the roads, not as the crow flies). It is (according to the map estimate during peak rush hour, door to door):
- a 35 minute car journey
- a 53 minute journey by public transport (1 bus and a tube ride with no changes)
- a 47 minute journey by bicycle
- a 2h22 minute journey if you walk it
I am actually surprised that the car fares so well in peak rush hour, where this area is usually clogged to high heaven. I guess it is because of the congestion charging, meaning nobody is really commuting into the centre by car unless they are rich, so the traffic is lighter.
As both buses and cars share the roads, any traffic that slows down the car slows down the bus as well (despite the bus lanes).
> But you do have the tube, right? Worse come to worst, assume you only use the tube and walking, what is the max walking distance to reach a tube station? 'Cause even with 2x15 mins walk and 30 mins by tube, you are still within an hour max of travel between any point to any point. Which is not bad by my measures.
My commute was based on either pure tube, or tube + buses (see above). My experience with buses was when I was going to school, which had no tube link. That was 3 bus trips. 1h isn't bad for a commute, but you really cover a little distance in that time. For example, at the place I work at now (I now commute by car) it takes me the same time to travel 90km to the city to work as it takes my colleague (who lives in the centre) to travel to the outskirts of the city where our office is.
It costs me more to commute, but for the same commute time, I get a large 4 bedroom house with a garden and double garage, whereas he is stuck in tiny stuffy flat in the city centre. I also suspect that my extra commuting costs are offset by the lower rent for my place, but as I never asked him how much he rents his place for, I can't say for sure.
> Buses alone, perhaps is true. But public transit is not limited to buses.
I thought tftp was primarily going on about buses, however his points about having to share a tin can with random strangers is a valid one. I've spent 15 years travelling solely by public transport. In fact I didn't even get a driving licence until I was 24.
Public transport is a horrible experience. In hindsight I wish I got my licence and started driving sooner. You always have to wonder if you are going to get some weirdo, or some crazy person, or someone who reeks to high heaven on piss/beer, or some nutjob that wants to pick a fight with you. It is really stressful, and that ignores the threats of terrorism on the system, which the government like to remind us is now "very high", mainly due to their policy decisions (which they don't suffer the consequences for).
Not to mention that come winter, they become excellent breeding grounds for all kinds of illnesses. Nothing quite like one ill person getting in a tin can full of people, and sneezing for the next 30 mins to guarantee high levels of transmission.
Another big problem with public transport is that it is unreliable. Yes, on a good day, when everything is working as it should, with no delays, no overcrowding, etc..., using public transport is bliss. I can get to work in about 35 minutes.
That has been known to happen, however it is rare. More often it can take around an hour, or more. It has known to take 1h45 due to delays or breakdowns or whatever. Not to mention you rely on others to get you home. If they decide to strike you can end up stranded, or unable to go to work at all (unless you want to spend forever on bus replacement services and/or walking).
Sure, it didn't take 1h30 every day, however if my boss wants me in at 9am on the dot, I have to assume worst case scenarios. This means I would block off 2h every morning for "commuting", and either arrive early or on time. That is lost time to me, especially as I have to get up early for it.
I will say that trains are better in this sense, because they have specific arrival and departure times, so you know if you get the 7:15 to London it will arrive by 8:30 (barring any major problems) , giving you 30min leeway to get to the office. I wish London transport was that regular and reliable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 04 2018, @09:48PM
That's not a completely horrible idea.
Get people into fewer vehicles--or make them pay for the "convenience" of a private car.
On the freeways in SoCal, we have HOV lanes (High-occupancy vehicle).
You need to have X number of people in the car to use it.
(Over time, that number has gone up.)
Some folks gather near an on ramp and get a free ride to/from work.
This seems even more egalitarian than the charge-them-money thing that London and Paris are doing.
Public transport is a horrible experience
Your experience and mine are different.
(I'm not working any more.)
the threats of terrorism on the system, which the government like to remind us is now "very high"
You have a greater chance of getting hit by lightning than being zapped by a "terrorist".
If they put the money they piss away on "terrorism" into dealing with coronary artery disease, they'd get a lot more bang for the buck.
public transport [...] is unreliable
Your experience and mine are different.
trains are better in this sense, because they have specific arrival and departure times
My bus system prints a schedule and keeps pretty close to it.
Sometimes a bus has to wait at a stop a minute or so in order to not get to the next stop too soon.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Sunday February 04 2018, @11:46PM
Melbourne experience: the majority of jobs related to software/IT are in the city. They are still building high raises around like crazy. Eastern suburbs are packed, the western ones are growing explosively (large spaces available).
The result:
- minimal parking fee: $14/day - early birds
- commuting by car from eastern suburbs is a nightmare. Commuting by train, a bad dream, unless you start early;
- commuting by car from western suburbs - almost impossible at rush hour, only two toll-free bridges. Commuting by metro train, a nightmare - only two lines servicing the huge development areas.
I moved about 60km away from the city. As a consequence, I'm using the regional train network, gets me in 45mins to the city, after driving 12km to the local train station (crossing a patch of forrest on the way, extra care for kangaroos early dawn or latish dusk). Recycled water available to water the gardens make the area green even when the fresh water is restricted.
All for a total of 1h:10mins tops from home to the (current) office and about $250/mo commuting costs.
One on top of the other - yes, if one chooses the place of residence carefully, one can still get better living outside the city. Wreacks havoc though on social life, my closest-living friend is 30km away, the farthest one is 120km. It sorta kills the spontaneous 'lets get together', makes a planning exercise from it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford