[JambalayaJim]

> converges with transit's goals - energy use, vehicle size, availability, etc.

What about noise pollution, congestion, pedestrian/cyclist safety?

My big worry with robots is is that just like Uber, they actually result in a lot more cars on the road.

[0xfaded]

Robotaxis are likely already safer for cyclists.

The interesting part will be when parked cars start being removed as people give up car ownership. That will introduce much more space for interesting options like pedestrian streets and bike infrastructure.

[rahimnathwani]

Higher congestion is good for pedestrian safety. I felt much safer crossing streets in London or Beijing, than I do in San Francisco.

[seanmcdirmid]

I get London, but having seen a cyclist die before in Beijing, I’m going to disagree and raise an eyebrow on that claim. Yes, congestion means drivers go more slowly, but there are plenty of roads in Beijing that aren’t congested enough (eg Dongzhimen wai on a Sunday afternoon), and drivers tend to have no inhibition against speeding if they can. You are 10x more likely to die in some sort of auto accident (as a pedestrian, cyclist, or car occupant) in China than in the USA, and Beijing by Chinese standards is pretty bad (Shanghai and most southern cities have better traffic). Given a lack of guns, safety in china for tourists centers mostly around avoiding getting hit by a car.

[JambalayaJim]

Higher congestion where I live means irritable drivers, drivers blocking intersections after being caught by red lights, etc.

You can have slow speed limits and low congestion.