[arcticbull]

> Now isn’t good. We’re on the precipice of a regime change. Self-driving cars port economies of scale from Phoenix to New York and vice versa. That isn’t true of trains given the amount of local planning required*. We should deploy artery routes. But the end game will be point to point, aided with trains for efficiency. There are many ways that could develop; it seems silly to bet on the legacy model this late in the game.

Cars are an awful model because they spend 95% of their time idle. They do that because most people only want to commute to work and from work. Which means you need to have enough capacity on the road for 1.5-pax average vehicles for everyone. That's why adding one more lane never solves anything. They're fundamentally a choice which does not scale no matter how many more lanes you add. No matter how much automation you add. And if you choose to play this game you just induce more demand.

They're also a regressive tax on the poor since you're shouldering the average person with hundreds to thousands of dollars in car payments, maintenance, registration, licensing, insurance, etc. Plus the socialized cost of 'free parking'.

Cars are a bad model, period.

> In suburbs, yes. Cities have had cabs for ages.

Well sure, but that's because they pool their leases and insurance, which isn't something you can do in a gig economy. Which means uber and Lyft have fundamentally worse unit economics than cabs. So you should assume you'll in the fullness of time pay at least as much as cabs cost.

> Now isn’t good.

Now is the best time since yesterday.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Cars are an awful model because they spend 95% of their time idle

Private cars, sure. I doubt a New York taxi gets that down time.

> uber and Lyft have fundamentally worse unit economics than cabs. So you should assume you'll in the fullness of time pay at least as much as cabs cost

But higher utilization. Uber is profitable in New York. I think Uber is actually more expensive than a yellow, now, because the TLC hasn't been great about inflation adjusting rates. But it's more convenient, more reliable, and so, again, utilized more. (Wayne was like $5 per ride in Phoenix.)

> Now is the best time since yesterday

You're purposely ignoring the point. If you're getting all the requirements tomorrow, tonight isn't a smart time to build.

[arcticbull]

Most people in New York take the metro.

> Of all people who commute to work in New York City, 39% use the subway, 23% drive alone, 11% take the bus, 9% walk to work, 7% travel by commuter rail, 4% carpool, 1.6% use a taxi, 1.1% ride their bicycle to work, and 0.4% travel by ferry.

> Uber is profitable in New York.

And if that's all it took to be Uber they'd be in great shape but again, most people in New York take the metro. And Uber's business model relies on people taking Uber outside of Manhattan.

> You're purposely ignoring the point. If you're getting all the requirements tomorrow, tonight isn't a smart time to build.

This doesn't make sense. I'm telling you if you build rail density will come. Like it always has. So if you want a chicken, you better get started on the egg.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Most people in New York take the metro

I assume this is your source [1]. It's from 2017, and only measures commutes. As of February, total subway ridership was down a quarter to a third; busses have stabilized at -35% [2]. Notable absentee: Manhattan, the densest of the lot, where we're stubbornly below -50%.

I'm not arguing against trains. Just against deploying new trains at the precipice of a game changer.

> if you build rail density will come. Like it always has

You're quoting sources from before remote work. (I'm ignoring the increasing automation, particularly in Manhattan.) And, again, before we know how self-driving cars will change transportation.

[1] https://archive.today/20200213125620/https://factfinder.cens...

[2] https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/riders-return/#:~:text=M....