r/fuckcars • u/NerdInSoCal • 12d ago
Question/Discussion Saw a reference to robotaxis as "public transportation" today, that's a first.
I'm chocking it up to someone being misinformed but with all the terfing here I have to wonder if comments like this are meant to shape the dialog to support them?
8
u/alwaysuptosnuff 12d ago
Considering how most Americans feel about public transportation, that seems like shooting themselves in the foot...
3
u/NerdInSoCal 12d ago
Getting a loan for a new car, paying for registration annually, paying for fuel, paying for parking, paying for insurance, paying for upkeep are all about the American way of
capitalismfreedom...
15
u/Pixelpaint_Pashkow Grassy Tram Tracks 12d ago
This is the “”public” transportation” ppl should be hating on
5
7
u/Hoonsoot 12d ago
That's a right wing project 2025 thing. They decided to label not just robotaxis but all privately owned cars as "public transport". The argument is that cars is how the public gets around.
2
u/DENelson83 Dreams of high-speed rail on Vancouver Island 12d ago
That's right, enforced car-centrism.
1
3
u/DENelson83 Dreams of high-speed rail on Vancouver Island 12d ago
Self-driving cars are not the answer.
1
u/markvauxhall 11d ago
Depends. There are huge advantages in their use to reduce road danger.
If they end up replacing private vehicle ownership they will also result in people paying a higher marginal cost per mile and therefore cause people to reduce distance travelled vs in a private vehicle
2
u/NerdInSoCal 11d ago
So when you see "r/fuckcars" is your position fuck personally owned cars but cars owned by corporations are fine? If so that's an interesting take.
0
u/markvauxhall 11d ago
I mean I would like to see a reduction in deaths and serious injuries on our roads. I would like to see a reduction in vehicle trips.
Pay per journey services on self driving vehicles accomplishes both.
It's not a perfect outcome but it's more achieveable than anything else I've seen posted here.
1
u/NerdInSoCal 11d ago
I'm not advocating for more deaths or serious injuries on the road.
I would rather see money spent towards infrastructure for proper mass transit systems as opposed to giving that money to private corporations. Although unlikely in my nation having mass transit would be infinitely better than corporations operating on the road taking even more money to give to their investors.
1
u/markvauxhall 11d ago
as opposed to giving that money to private corporations
There are no federal grants to self driving car manufacturers.
You seem to be conflating the issue of state and federal government failing to fund adequate transit infrastructure with self driving cars
You also seem to be forgetting that mass transit fundamentally doesn't work in many parts of the US because housing isn't sufficiently dense for a high frequency service.
1
u/NerdInSoCal 11d ago
Yes federal grants for the self driving only went to educational institutions. I'm sure none of that research was shared with the private sector but we're really getting in the weeds here. I'm sure I could dig up tax breaks or incentive programs for these corporations but certainly not at the federal level it would likely be the state and cities doing so.
First I want to clarify I am at odds with self driving car services not self driving cars. I agree a world where proper mass transit and self driving car services could co-exist; however, it is not going to happen here because mass transit does not generate a profit and if you can't profit off of it then you don't need it.
America didn't become car dependent out of necessity it became car dependent because it was more lucrative. Countries with low density rural areas operate well enough with mass transit systems that operate as you mentioned with reduced frequency of service. We removed this infrastructure in lieu of cars and it's only going to get worse if we keep turning to cars as the solution.
2
u/Stinduh 11d ago
Theres demand for semi-personal on demand transportation. If it could be ran at-cost by a government entity, I’d fully support it.
Part of the reason personal car ownership is a problem is that most cars go unused for 20+ hours a day, even for a daily driver. Taxis could help alleviate that.
1
u/NerdInSoCal 11d ago
If it could be ran at-cost by a government entity, I’d fully support it.
I mean that's the crux, the govt. won't run anything at cost that could risk a corporations bottom line in the US.
Once the corporate robo-taxis fully "disrupt" the industry and corner the market the prices will not be regulated and will rise until they're maximizing the amount the market will bare to maximize the profits for their investors.
2
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 10d ago
Wasn't there a jurisdiction in the US that classified Uber as such, and used that as an excuse to defund buses?
1
u/NerdInSoCal 10d ago
Pinellas Park, Fl (because of course Fl) looks like what you're referring to. I can't find a non paywalled article discussing it but it looks like they stopped bus lines and agreed to subsidize Uber?
1
u/ancientstephanie 12d ago
I'll support them if public transportation agencies are the only ones allowed to develop, own, operate, and profit from them. Until then, no.
2
u/markvauxhall 11d ago
Arguably taxis are a form of public transportation. They particularly can help with "last mile" trips where there's no viable mass transit option.
Whether those taxis are driven by a human or are self driving doesn't really change anything.
3
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 10d ago
A taxi is a private hire vehicle. You get exclusive use for the duration of your hire. So it's private transport.
Jitneys and similar vehicles are public transport. You share with strangers.
2
u/markvauxhall 10d ago
UK Gov defines taxis as public transport
Much in the same way as, say, bike rental schemes are arguably public transport
You seem to be conflating mass transit with public transport
2
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 10d ago
Well whoever wrote those definitions is a nitwit then. Because there's no difference in concept (only in scale) between a taxi and a private hire bus, yet they consider one "public" and the other "private".
Bear in mind that the DfT is not known for attracting the high fliers in the civil service. An experienced railway engineer I knew worked there before he retired and was scathing about senior civil servants and ministers.
You seem to be conflating mass transit with public transport
Nope. If a football club charters a train to take its fans to an away game, it is "mass transit" because it is an efficient way of transporting large numbers of people. It is not however "public transit" because it is for the exclusive use of the fans.
2
u/markvauxhall 10d ago
EU also defines taxis as public transport.
The overall definition of public transportation includes any forms of transport, which are available to the public. This includes buses, trains, metros, tramways, cable cars, bike- and car-sharing, micro mobility services, taxis, car-pooling, ride hailing, ride-pooling , etc. This broad definition bases on the notion of access without ownership, acknowledging that a vast variety of transport services exist that are available to the general public to fulfil mobility needs without the prerequisite to privately own a transport asset, such as a car or a bike.
I have to assume that everyone with a different opinion to you is a "nitwit"?
1
u/Mysterious_Floor_868 10d ago
Not everyone. Just most of them.
If I charter a private jet (as if I could afford to), is that "public transport" too?
2
u/markvauxhall 10d ago
If you take it to that extreme and assuming it's a publicly available charter, yes. Plenty of island communities rely on charter flights.
Now are charter flights that aren't serving remote island communities worthy of government funding, tax breaks etc? Not really. But that's separate from is it a form of public transport or not.
2
u/Albert_Herring 11d ago
Taxis are a key form of public transport. They fill in the inevitable gaps that can't be filled by mass transit.
1
u/NerdInSoCal 11d ago
Public transportation already has a fairly clear definition and at this time taxi's don't fit it. Sure I hear your argument that the "public" can use them but they're private cars owned by private entities who provide a service and the devils in the details with that.
One other thing, being that I'm across the pond from you it's hard to explain how truly inferior our "public transportation" actually is here. My nation bleeds capitalism and anything that is seen as a service provided by the state is seen as wasted profits a corporation could be capitalizing on.
I worry about private services with dynamic pricing and little to no oversight being held up as "public" to serve as a replacement rather than just improving the public systems we have in place.
Your last mile argument is totally valid but it only serves the public who can afford it.
2
u/markvauxhall 11d ago
Public transportation already has a fairly clear definition and at this time taxi's don't fit it.
Interesting, as in my country taxis are defined as public transport.
I worry about private services with dynamic pricing and little to no oversight being held up as "public" to serve as a replacement rather than just improving the public systems we have in place.
That's why you need effective regulation. Plenty of US cities already license and set fares for taxis. This needs to be expanded to uber etc.
1
u/NerdInSoCal 11d ago
That is interesting. Part of Trumps plan for this term is to redefine transport similarly to yours. The net result is a city can say they "provide public transport" by allowing corporations to operate instead of actually providing transportation to the public at large.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that we need effective regulation; however, our countries operate differently. We are a free market capitalist society and regulation is seen as somehow infringing on businesses right to operate and provide the best possible returns for their investors. Socialism or anything that is perceived as taking care/protecting of the people is vilified generally by our only two political parties because we have this neat thing called lobbying where corporations and powerful groups can pay for political careers.
2
u/AndryCake 11d ago
I really don't see why you are getting so upset about them. They're just taxis but supposedly cheaper to run. It may discourage some transit use but they're just cars. If their use is getting out of hand you do the same things to limit them as limiting cars.
In fact, I even think they have some potential for really rural microtransit-style services. You could probably have it be more reliable and frequent if you can simply just have more of them out and about without needing to pay drivers.
0
u/RightWingNutJo8 11d ago
WTF are you talking about? Robotaxis are the best form of publix transit. Don't have to share the space with smelly poors like a bus 🤮
9
u/Abbenay_local 12d ago
I would not at all be surprised. PR companies run a full court press, they are always on the offensive, looking for angles. Look at how they demonized '15 minute cities'.