https://gizmodo.com/elon-musks-beer-pouring-optimus-robots-a...

This was the claim of ride-sharing about 10 years ago but studies showed the opposite, that it actually increased congestion.

Clean, effective, prompt, affordable, quickly constructed mass transit however, does seem to work.

I'm not anti-robo-taxi or pro-mass-transit. Instead, if the value is fewer cars and less carparks, mass transit with the aforementioned properties has been shown to work.

Sadly the United States has been unable to hit those notes with their projects (LA's metro, for example, is still constructing approximately the Prop A system approved by voters, in 1980, 44 years ago: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6f/Lo...) so in that specific case, it's murkier.

That world and system exists, its called public transportation and Europe

Owning a car and ride sharing are not even in the same category, unless you're of the opinion that the only purpose of a car is to get someone from A to B.

It seems to me that the average car is in use about the same hours of the day that all the other cars are in use, in front of me during my daily commute and clogging the roadways out of town on Friday afternoon

Well said thread. The whole "Cybercab" event had me thinking "who is actually believing this? This just feels like stock fraud".

I don't want to be that cynical. I want to drive a car that is all torque and no fumes.

I mean, the "Cybercabs", THEY DON'T HAVE CONTROLS. Where is that going to be legal in 2-3 years?

Gwynne Shotwell promised p2p starship travel. If you want to talk about over promise under deliver, this is straight up vaporware and will never ever happen.

Their list of cities include Zürich Switzerland. If you launch a rocket of that size on Zürich lake you will blow out every window in the city...

> A bus with no windows, no steering wheel and no ground clearance, so a tram.

It's absolutely not a tram; it's a large passenger van (not big enough to be called a bus). Trams run on rails.

They still haven't released everything they promised for the Cybertruck, and the Roadster 2 is still MIA. I suspect it'll all come to fruition, but investors tire of new promises when old ones take such a long time to ship.

Cybertruck is the perfect example of over promised / under delivered. The Cybertruck is the modern day Delorean, with even worse build-quality issues.

The key word is options. One doesn't denigrate the other. The cities I've MOST enjoyed public transportation in were in Asia, where I truly didn't miss cars but they are still centers of mass car adoption and new EV infrastructure alongside continuing to open new subway and train lines every year and supplying an abundance of bike share. I'm talking about China specifically. The tier 1, 2 and even 3 cities there really make sure you can get from point A to point B any way you want and each option is well thought out. Bike lanes are separated with median from both pedestrian paths and cars. For walking, crossings, overpasses and underpasses ample enough that you're never forced to jaywalk. You're always within walking distance of a metro stop. That said, cars are still an important part of the mix and they are doing more autonomous taxis than anyone else. It concerns me that in western online discourse it's seen as adversarial, i.e any infrastructure devoted to cars will detract from public/walkable, and vice versa. It doesn't have to be that way.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/13/business/china-driverless...

That's 2 out of 3; the third is law enforcement and a DA that prosecutes. Few will ride public transit when they are/feel threatened.

If I remember correctly, Model Y and Model 3s will start running the network next year in Texas and California, is the plan. The cybertaxi will be available later.

No source as in peer reviewed study, no, only anecdotal evidence (personal experience). To me, if you want less cars driving around, it would make sense to build the infrastructure in a way that they can get to their destination as quickly as possible.

And it is certainly not a secret that inner cities in Europe - apart from maybe the big tourist magnets - have been dying for a number of years. There's already a big threat for stores in cities through internet shopping, and I've heard of concepts to counter that by designing cities in a way that shopping trips will become more wholesome "experiences". That is, if you go for a shopping day, it's not just from one store to the next, but there's an offer of exhibitions, shows, music etc. mixed with excellent dining opportunities etc., all interwoven with the commercial stores.

But, if your "experience" begins with a drive designed to make it as hard as possible to get to where you want, I'm not sure it's going to work. You can try to change people's attitudes, but all things equal, for many people I would bet the ideal shopping experience would be the comfort of their own car to get to and from the shops, together with having the chance to drop off your bags every now and then in your own trunk.

I don't buy the claim that the only solution is to push cars completely out of the cities. That's not going to work, I'm sure, without offering an equally good alternative to the comfort that your own car gives you. Especially with internet shopping eating the lunch of traditional brick and mortar stores. Online shopping offers many advantages in many cases. Cities already have to work really hard to get shoppers back, and of course that requires changing things up.

But if the hope is "sure, there's going to be a transitional phase, but people will get used to PT/bikes/walking and inner city shopping will flourish again", I'm afraid that there's a very good chance that this is going to backfire big time.

> I think that considering it as being 'nannied' is the wrong perspective.

I just want to point out that this is not necessarily *my* perspective, but I know a lot of people who have already become used to classify all kinds of regulations that way. You may try telling them that it's the wrong perspective, but it won't change anything, I'm afraid.

I agree with the historical perspective you sketch (more appropriate for European cities than American ones, though), but disagree with most of your conclusions.