Ride-hailing in Metro Vancouver: Uber, Lyft, Sidecar - emerging technologies

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Oh, there absolutely will be. The same technology that enables driverless cars will enable driverless buses too. In fact its even easier to automate transit vehicles because they follow a fixed route and so they can take advantage of more comprehensive mapping data.

Since labour is one of the biggest costs of public transit, this has the potential to make it much cheaper, which could increase ridership further.

And the higher costs of adding the technology to make driverless vehicles safer like lidar have less impact on the cost of a bus than on the cost of a car. New Flyer have had a Level 4 autonomous bus since 2021.

[WarrenC12]

The bus sucks. Let's not pretend it doesn't.

Trains are popular because of the speed. You're still mixing it up with the best and worst parts of the general public. The bus is all that and slower.

Uber is popular. Evo and other sharing options are popular. Removing the driver and reducing the price accordingly will do well.

[38 Geary]

Any word of when Waymo will be expanding to Vancouver?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Any word of when Waymo will be expanding to Vancouver?

They're only operating in San Francisco and Phoenix. They're concentrating on trying to launch in Austin and LA next. They have said they have no current timeline or plans to try to operate in Canada.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Oh, there absolutely will be. The same technology that enables driverless cars will enable driverless buses too. In fact its even easier to automate transit vehicles because they follow a fixed route and so they can take advantage of more comprehensive mapping data.

Since labour is one of the biggest costs of public transit, this has the potential to make it much cheaper, which could increase ridership further.

Uber will be much cheaper as well. If a person can get an Uber share to work or a train station for 5 dollars (or whatever), they will. Transit agencies could end up deploying a fleet of their own shuttles that work similar to Uber share, except with 8 passengers instead of 2 or 3 that Uber share does.

Cities are going to have to come up with a strategy to deal with these vehicles because they are going to proliferate.

Autonomous vehicles can theoretically communicate with each other, so if there is enough of them on the road, they could potentially use road space far more efficiently than humans.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Uber is popular. Evo and other sharing options are popular. Removing the driver and reducing the price accordingly will do well.

Translink averages close to a million boardings a day. If we assume the average trip has two boardings and there are two trips (one to work, one back again) a day, that's 250,000 riders a day. And I think that would be a pretty conservative estimate.

What do you think is going to happen to traffic if you add 250,000 Uber trips to the morning commute? Do you seriously believe that it would be workable? And that's before factoring in the fact that these Uber trips are going to be a lot more expensive.

I don't see any compelling reason why people who are willing to take the bus today would change just because self driving cars are available. And I see no reason why a self driving car trip would cost any less than a self-driven EVO trip, and those trips are at least a couple of orders of magnitude fewer than transit trips.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Translink averages close to a million boardings a day. If we assume the average trip has two boardings and there are two trips (one to work, one back again) a day, that's 250,000 riders a day. And I think that would be a pretty conservative estimate.

What do you think is going to happen to traffic if you add 250,000 Uber trips to the morning commute? Do you seriously believe that it would be workable? And that's before factoring in the fact that these Uber trips are going to be a lot more expensive.

I don't see any compelling reason why people who are willing to take the bus today would change just because self driving cars are available. And I see no reason why a self driving car trip would cost any less than a self-driven EVO trip, and those trips are at least a couple of orders of magnitude fewer than transit trips.

If we are in a fully autonomous world, things will look a lot different. Very few people will own cars. There won't be much need for public parking, street parking, etc. Cars take up a ton of space and have very poor utilization rates.

There might be some congestion. There will also be deals to carpool with people instead of going alone. Still a way better experience than the bus.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

If we are in a fully autonomous world, things will look a lot different. Very few people will own cars. There won't be much need for public parking, street parking, etc. Cars take up a ton of space and have very poor utilization rates.

There might be some congestion. There will also be deals to carpool with people instead of going alone. Still a way better experience than the bus.

The issue isn't the space required to park all those cars downtown. That's already been solved. The issue is the road capacity to move a few hundred thousand more cars during the rush hour. That one is not easily solved.

If people are going to share cars, then doesn't it make sense to make the cars larger in order to lower per-rider costs? Oh wait, those are called "buses". They can self-drive just as well as the cars can.

When you start sharing rides you reduce convenience because of the need to circulate around pickup and dropoff points, or alternatively make your way to common pickup points. The more you share the less convenient and less appetite there will be. The bus is the logical conclusion of this.

Where I can see self-driving cars making a difference is in solving the "last mile" problem of getting transit to people's doorsteps. If the price can be brought down low enough, I can see a demand for transfers between rapid transit stations and front doors. That would make transit more palatable and may not contribute too much to traffic and congestion heading into the central business districts.

[logan5]

From Wikipedia...

Additional advantages could include higher speed limits;[51] smoother rides;[52] and increased roadway capacity; and minimized traffic congestion, due to decreased need for safety gaps and higher speeds.[53][54] Currently, maximum controlled-access highway throughput or capacity according to the US Highway Capacity Manual is about 2,200 passenger vehicles per hour per lane, with about 5% of the available road space is taken up by cars. One study estimated that automated cars could increase capacity by 273% (≈8,200 cars per hour per lane). The study also estimated that with 100% connected vehicles using vehicle-to-vehicle communication, capacity could reach 12,000 passenger vehicles per hour (up 545% from 2,200 pc/h per lane) traveling safely at 120 km/h (75 mph) with a following gap of about 6 m (20 ft) of each other. Human drivers at highway speeds keep between 40 and 50 m (130 and 160 ft) away from the vehicle in front. These increases in highway capacity could have a significant impact in traffic congestion, particularly in urban areas, and even effectively end highway congestion in some places.[55] The ability for authorities to manage traffic flow would increase, given the extra data and driving behavior predictability[56] combined with less need for traffic police and even road signage.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Where I can see self-driving cars making a difference is in solving the "last mile" problem of getting transit to people's doorsteps. If the price can be brought down low enough, I can see a demand for transfers between rapid transit stations and front doors. That would make transit more palatable and may not contribute too much to traffic and congestion heading into the central business districts.

They could also replace HandyDarts, or certain feeder routes in the outer burbs that only average 2-8 riders at peak load... but for the city centres, 50 cars will never be more efficient than 1 bus.

Ironically, Uber's already implemented "fixed-route shuttles" (that you have to walk to) to increase efficiency, which are absolutely, definitely not buses. Convergent evolution wins again?

Originally Posted by logan5

From Wikipedia...

"One more lane, bro!"

Edit: It won't be an instantaneous 1:1 replacement: you'll see a slow rollout with a mix of AVs and human drivers sharing the road (and all the conflicts that entails); there's also induced demand ensuring that road capacity will remain at 100% from start to finish. So you'll go from being stuck in traffic to being slightly less stuck in traffic along with more people.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The bus sucks. Let's not pretend it doesn't...

Blasphemer!

[38 Geary]

I think it's valid to be excited about autonomous vehicles (I can see it replacing taxis/Uber/Lyft), but it's not a solution to mitigating traffic for a growing population in and of itself, or transporting large volumes of people quickly and efficiently across the city or through multiple cities. It's part of a much larger, multi-faceted solution (fortunately I believe Vancouver has a robust public transit system), but it won't take cars off the road. If anything, it'll add to the number of cars on the road (especially if people start switching from public transit to AVs). And to others' point, they've got a lot of bugs to work out. Austin is seeing a ton of growing pains right now with Waymo. Most of the kinks seem to have been worked out in San Francisco, but it still does not operate on freeways or to the airport (still in testing phase). If Waymo does ever come to Vancouver, brace yourselves, because it'll take awhile for it to learn the city and region through mapping and testing.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

The bus sucks. Let's not pretend it doesn't.

Trains are popular because of the speed. You're still mixing it up with the best and worst parts of the general public. The bus is all that and slower.

Uber is popular. Evo and other sharing options are popular. Removing the driver and reducing the price accordingly will do well.

Are you suggesting pods?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Are you suggesting pods?

Maybe!

[whatnext]

Bloomberg had a really good article on Tesla self-driving crashes in the last week. Format's a bit annoying with all the scrolling down but very informative and why this tech might not be quite ready:

A Fatal Tesla Crash Shows the Limits of Full Self-Driving
As Elon Musk touts robotaxis in Austin, federal regulators are investigating whether the system is dangerous even with a human behind the wheel.
By Dana Hull and Craig Trudell
June 4, 2025 at 3:00 AM PDT

The setting sun was blinding drivers on the Arizona interstate between Flagstaff and Phoenix in November 2023. Johna Story was traveling with her daughter and a co-worker in a black Toyota 4Runner around a curve that turned directly into the glaring sunlight. They pulled over to help direct traffic around two cars that had crashed.

Back before that curve, Karl Stock was behind the wheel of a red Tesla Model Y. He had engaged what the carmaker calls Full Self-Driving, or FSD — a partial-automation system Elon Musk had acknowledged 18 months earlier was a high-stakes work in progress.

In a few harrowing seconds, the system’s shortcomings were laid bare by a tragedy. The Tesla hit Story, a 71-year-old grandmother, at highway speed. She was pronounced dead at the scene....

....The Tesla driver, Karl Stock, was traveling at 65 miles per hour in his Model Y, according to the crash report police compiled. As multiple cars ahead began to brake or came to complete stops near the scene of the first crash, the footage appears to show the Tesla maintained its speed.

The Model Y swerved to the left just as it sped past Howard, who stood on the shoulder of the interstate, whipping what appears to be a safety vest in the air. The Tesla jerked back to the right and hit Johna Story head-on with the front bumper, hood and windshield, sending her body tumbling through the air....

....Two months after Story’s death in Arizona, a Tesla Model 3 with Full Self-Driving engaged crashed in Nipton, California, in January 2024. Another Model 3 crashed two months later in Red Mills, Virginia, followed by another two months later in Collinsville, Ohio. In all four incidents, the collisions occurred in conditions that reduced roadway visibility, such as sun glare, fog or airborne dust...

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-tesla-full-self-driving-crash/?sref=x4rjnz06

[Migrant_Coconut]

The legal complications seem like the biggest obstacle to mass adoption. When a self-driving rideshare hits somebody, do you throw the book at the driver, the taxi company, the car manufacturer, or the AI's programmers? Or do they all point fingers at each other and walk away scot-free?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I think it's valid to be excited about autonomous vehicles (I can see it replacing taxis/Uber/Lyft), but it's not a solution to mitigating traffic for a growing population in and of itself, or transporting large volumes of people quickly and efficiently across the city or through multiple cities. It's part of a much larger, multi-faceted solution (fortunately I believe Vancouver has a robust public transit system), but it won't take cars off the road. If anything, it'll add to the number of cars on the road (especially if people start switching from public transit to AVs)...

I think people get their wires crossed a bit between "number of cars" and "number of cars on the road". There is a possible scenario where the total number of cars goes down if AVs really are widely adopted and that leads to more car sharing. But that does not necessarily equate to less trips, and if the number of trips don't fall then the number of cars on the road won't fall either.

I'm personally skeptical about the degree of car sharing that one might reasonably expect. The people who are OK with sharing cars can already do so through services like EVO. That number might go up a bit since sharing is a lot more convenient when the car picks you up at your door and you don't have to worry about where to park it, but I don't imagine it's going to be a very significant increase.

And all the hype about earning revenue from your car by allowing it to serve as a ride sharing vehicle when you're not using it seems overblown to me. I don't know that many car owners who would be willing to let anonymous people use their car. Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but we'll see.

Originally Posted by whatnext

...As multiple cars ahead began to brake or came to complete stops near the scene of the first crash, the footage appears to show the Tesla maintained its speed.

The Model Y swerved to the left just as it sped past Howard, who stood on the shoulder of the interstate, whipping what appears to be a safety vest in the air. The Tesla jerked back to the right and hit Johna Story head-on with the front bumper, hood and windshield, sending her body tumbling through the air....

Some folks say that fully autonomous cars should be allowed as long as their aggregate record shows that they are safer than humans. But as long as they are making mistakes that any human would easily be able to avoid I think public sentiment will be against them.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Bloomberg had a really good article on Tesla self-driving crashes in the last week. Format's a bit annoying with all the scrolling down but very informative and why this tech might not be quite ready:

A Fatal Tesla Crash Shows the Limits of Full Self-Driving
As Elon Musk touts robotaxis in Austin, federal regulators are investigating whether the system is dangerous even with a human behind the wheel.
By Dana Hull and Craig Trudell
June 4, 2025 at 3:00 AM PDT

The setting sun was blinding drivers on the Arizona interstate between Flagstaff and Phoenix in November 2023. Johna Story was traveling with her daughter and a co-worker in a black Toyota 4Runner around a curve that turned directly into the glaring sunlight. They pulled over to help direct traffic around two cars that had crashed.

Back before that curve, Karl Stock was behind the wheel of a red Tesla Model Y. He had engaged what the carmaker calls Full Self-Driving, or FSD — a partial-automation system Elon Musk had acknowledged 18 months earlier was a high-stakes work in progress.

In a few harrowing seconds, the system’s shortcomings were laid bare by a tragedy. The Tesla hit Story, a 71-year-old grandmother, at highway speed. She was pronounced dead at the scene....

....The Tesla driver, Karl Stock, was traveling at 65 miles per hour in his Model Y, according to the crash report police compiled. As multiple cars ahead began to brake or came to complete stops near the scene of the first crash, the footage appears to show the Tesla maintained its speed.

The Model Y swerved to the left just as it sped past Howard, who stood on the shoulder of the interstate, whipping what appears to be a safety vest in the air. The Tesla jerked back to the right and hit Johna Story head-on with the front bumper, hood and windshield, sending her body tumbling through the air....

....Two months after Story’s death in Arizona, a Tesla Model 3 with Full Self-Driving engaged crashed in Nipton, California, in January 2024. Another Model 3 crashed two months later in Red Mills, Virginia, followed by another two months later in Collinsville, Ohio. In all four incidents, the collisions occurred in conditions that reduced roadway visibility, such as sun glare, fog or airborne dust...

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2025-tesla-full-self-driving-crash/?sref=x4rjnz06

Waymo tech and Yesla tech are 2 different things. Waymo cars are far more reliable than Tesla. Waymo has had fully self driving vehicles operating for years now, with no deaths. Tesla is not even close to what Waymo is doing.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by logan5

Waymo tech and Yesla tech are 2 different things. Waymo cars are far more reliable than Tesla. Waymo has had fully self driving vehicles operating for years now, with no deaths. Tesla is not even close to what Waymo is doing.

Then it is even scarier that Tesla is pushing robo-taxis as its saviour.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by logan5

Waymo tech and Yesla tech are 2 different things. Waymo cars are far more reliable than Tesla. Waymo has had fully self driving vehicles operating for years now, with no deaths. Tesla is not even close to what Waymo is doing.

Yes, the lack of LiDAR in the Tesla AVs also makes me skeptical.