Robotaxis might not save…

[rr6013]

Why robotaxis might not save the planet

Automating Uber and Lyft with Tesla EV robotaxis would increase greenhouse gases by 55%.

Sponsored

 

[CyberGus]

"By studying data from San Francisco, Nunes’ team concluded that the convenience of ubiquitous fleets of robotaxis would increase demand for rides, generating more trips and more vehicle miles traveled — erasing the electric vehicles' environmental benefits."

In a word - bollocks.

First of all, San Francisco traffic is an outlier. It's dense, urban traffic to be sure, but with it's own unique challenges.

Second, the article seems to be suggesting that having easy access to taxis will create more rides. Really? There are no Ubers now? Will people start taking pointless trips just to use a robotaxi? OK sure maybe, but...55% more??

Smells fishy.

 

[Friday]

You don't get revenue if you don't write headlines/articles and entice the clicks. Patently obvious with "most" of the anti-Tesla headlines.

 

[rr6013]

"By studying data from San Francisco, Nunes’ team concluded that the convenience of ubiquitous fleets of robotaxis would increase demand for rides, generating more trips and more vehicle miles traveled — erasing the electric vehicles' environmental benefits."

In a word - bollocks.

First of all, San Francisco traffic is an outlier. It's dense, urban traffic to be sure, but with it's own unique challenges.

Second, the article seems to be suggesting that having easy access to taxis will create more rides. Really? There are no Ubers now? Will people start taking pointless trips just to use a robotaxi? OK sure maybe, but...55% more??

Smells fishy.

I operated an Uber in San Diego, LA and San Francisco.

At Uber launch 70k mi/yr was logged driving ride hail. That mileage mirrors MIT finding on increased use. San Francisco and San Diego (+NYC) are impacted with über congestion at times and areas when single ride hail taxi demand is highest. This was evident in 2015. Now may be different, IDK.

The Uber revolutionary business model was fueled by a real-ization that you no longer need a car! People who own a phone; go anywhere, go anytime at an affordable cost and do not own a car!

MIT study conformational findings show that taxis and EV car ownership do not change transportation behavior, cost or greenhouse gas reduction merely by changing energy source to electric. Not even robotics impact global warming (AGW) which is a BIG takeaway.

Tesla pivot to robotics and automation is not a driver of greenhouse gas reduction. Contra Tesla mission Robotaxi and automation are the new enabling technologies that might further global warming.

Mass transit emergent…on-trend hereafter.

 

[rr6013]

You don't get revenue if you don't write headlines/articles and entice the clicks. Patently obvious with "most" of the anti-Tesla headlines.

Agreed…but

AXIOS is a publishing site bought and owned by Laureen Jobs. Not a fan of AXIOS template-style presentation but neither the article nor the sources suffer wag-the-dog guilt by association.

Both MIT and Laureen I respect and are beyond click bait for popularity purposes. Neither Laureen nor MIT are in it for the clicks.

 

[DarinCT]

Automating Uber and Lyft with Tesla EV robotaxis would increase greenhouse gases by 55%.

That's not what the article said and that's not what the research said.

The article said, " Key takeaway: To avoid worsening emissions, electric robotaxis would need to be 55% cleaner than today's EVs — or people need to stop riding solo, the study concluded. "

First, 55% increase(your words) is not the same as a 55% decrease(Axios' words). Second, that number does not even exist in the research quoted. Additionally, the word "greenhouse" only exists in the References section.

Most of all, the part about people riding solo is the entire point of the research. Dropping it is ignoring what the researchers were getting it.

The real point of the research is: If people move from mass transit to automated taxis, the environmental impact would be a net negative.

Their thinking goes like this, because automated taxis will cost less than Uber and Lyft, that will increase demand for automated taxis. This will take away from both mass transit and individual passenger vehicles ownership (which are long-term cheaper they conclude). This increase in miles driven plus the reduction in mass transit will be pencil out worse for emissions.

 

[BillyGee]

Power it with nuclear energy and watch your carbon footprint vanish.

 

[Friday]

Agreed…but

AXIOS is a publishing site bought and owned by Laureen Jobs. Not a fan of AXIOS template-style presentation but neither the article nor the sources suffer wag-the-dog guilt by association.

Both MIT and Laureen I respect and are beyond click bait for popularity purposes. Neither Laureen nor MIT are in it for the clicks.

I don't know much about Axios so I checked their disclosure pages. I think "Programmatic Advertising" income is website visit based?

https://www.axios.com/about/money

Revenue sources
We are a privately held company called Axios Media, led by co-founders Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen and Roy Schwartz, where EVERY employee is an owner. We maintain a strict firewall between our editorial department and other departments that help us earn money (here's our editorial policy) and disclose if there are any conflicts of interest. The company and its investors, which include Glade Brook, Greycroft, Lerer Hippeau and NBC, have held several successful funding rounds (read a Wall Street Journal article here). We are governed by a seven-person board of directors that is controlled by the co-founders and chaired by VandeHei. Axios Media owns www.axios.com
Our revenue comes from:

• Corporate and Social Responsibility (CSR) advertising. These are fully labeled ads on our newsletters, site, podcasts and mobile app paid for by companies and not-for-profits. They typically are not selling products; instead, they are amplifying their corporate social responsibility and brand reputation messaging with our highly influential audience.
• Performance ads. These are fully labeled ads selling products or services, usually found in our high circulation newsletters.
• Sponsored events. These are on-the-record events focused on big societal or policy topics. Axios fully controls the topics, participants, and questions; the sponsor gets promotion of their brand and a fully labeled, sponsored commercial or segment.
• “Axios on HBO” show. We are paid a per-episode fee for the production, talent and time to produce television. We do this in partnership with HBO and our co-directors at a New York-based production company called DCTV.
• Axios HQ technology and services. We created the software and training to allow others to communicate in our trademarked Smart Brevity style. Organizations, big and small, pay annual fees to utilize the tech for internal communications. Some pay additional fees for HQ specialist training.
• Axios Studio. Our studio is paid by advertisers to create content, transforming their advertising message into our Smart Brevity™ style. The format (written, video, audio, etc.) varies depending on the messaging. Any content created in partnership between Axios Studio and our partners is clearly labeled in placements across Axios products.
• Content partnerships. Third-party platforms or media companies republish Axios editorial content for a fee.
• Programmatic advertising. These are automated, fully labeled ads selling products or services, found on our website only.
• Membership revenue. In certain Axios Local cities, readers contribute money to support local journalism.
• Job and event boards. In certain Axios Local cities, job or event postings can be purchased for display in the newsletter and/or on the site.

 

[CyberGus]

Robotaxis will not charge less, even if they cost less to operate. That's not how markets work. They will charge what the market will bear.

A car-and-driver solution (taxi, Uber, etc.) has the exact same energy footprint per traveller as a robotaxi. The driver does not count as a "passenger".

It's true that mass transit (buses and trains) are much more efficient than single-user transit. But people can already choose between those modes.

It seems to me that the net result of a robotaxi economy is that more people will choose to forgo automobile ownership; that impact is significant.

 

[Ogre]

Even if Robo-taxis were free, you still wouldn't see a 55% increase in traffic in San Francisco. The city's infrastructure simply cannot handle that much more traffic.

This is why ebikes and scooters have exploded in popularity.

 

[Crissa]

55% more traffic isn't actually that much more traffic, tho. It sounds like alot, but it's not.

-Crissa

 

[rr6013]

That's not what the article said and that's not what the research said.

The article said, " Key takeaway: To avoid worsening emissions, electric robotaxis would need to be 55% cleaner than today's EVs — or people need to stop riding solo, the study concluded. "

First, 55% increase(your words) is not the same as a 55% decrease(Axios' words). Second, that number does not even exist in the research quoted. Additionally, the word "greenhouse" only exists in the References section.

Most of all, the part about people riding solo is the entire point of the research. Dropping it is ignoring what the researchers were getting it.

The real point of the research is: If people move from mass transit to automated taxis, the environmental impact would be a net negative.

Their thinking goes like this, because automated taxis will cost less than Uber and Lyft, that will increase demand for automated taxis. This will take away from both mass transit and individual passenger vehicles ownership (which are long-term cheaper they conclude). This increase in miles driven plus the reduction in mass transit will be pencil out worse for emissions.

Factually, I stand corrected. Thank you.
tl;dr
The preponderance of evidence .vs. essence of time, narrative serves to shortcut and to summarize some existential insight. In this instance, it was not shortcut nor summary and the insight non-obvious.

Existentially, the study concluded “… that even limited uptake of the technology may produce a net increase in energy consumption and emissions”. Can Tesla increase its technology to level-up .v. ICE?

The exercise whether that translates to <Factual>% technological increase to achiever cleaner and/or emissions decrease is left to Tesla.

What impressed about the seminal study was its structure, metrics and comparables used to place BEV,autonomous taxis, conventional taxis and private vehicles together as one cohort contrasted with pooling, mass transit and individual behavior modifications. Those matrices will further future updates and studies.

My personal takeaway on sustainable energy to reduce emissions through BEV technology .vs. private ICE the study‘s conclusion demonstrated how Tesla’s $80/Whr pack level cost has to drop further to reach parity with ICE personal transportation. It doesn’t answer what that cost is but existentially remains illusive.

 

[rr6013]

I don't know much about Axios so I checked their disclosure pages. I think "Programmatic Advertising" income is website visit based?

https://www.axios.com/about/money

Revenue sources
We are a privately held company called Axios Media, led by co-founders Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen and Roy Schwartz, where EVERY employee is an owner. We maintain a strict firewall between our editorial department and other departments that help us earn money (here's our editorial policy) and disclose if there are any conflicts of interest. The company and its investors, which include Glade Brook, Greycroft, Lerer Hippeau and NBC, have held several successful funding rounds (read a Wall Street Journal article here). We are governed by a seven-person board of directors that is controlled by the co-founders and chaired by VandeHei. Axios Media owns www.axios.com
Our revenue comes from:

• Corporate and Social Responsibility (CSR) advertising. These are fully labeled ads on our newsletters, site, podcasts and mobile app paid for by companies and not-for-profits. They typically are not selling products; instead, they are amplifying their corporate social responsibility and brand reputation messaging with our highly influential audience.
• Performance ads. These are fully labeled ads selling products or services, usually found in our high circulation newsletters.
• Sponsored events. These are on-the-record events focused on big societal or policy topics. Axios fully controls the topics, participants, and questions; the sponsor gets promotion of their brand and a fully labeled, sponsored commercial or segment.
• “Axios on HBO” show. We are paid a per-episode fee for the production, talent and time to produce television. We do this in partnership with HBO and our co-directors at a New York-based production company called DCTV.
• Axios HQ technology and services. We created the software and training to allow others to communicate in our trademarked Smart Brevity style. Organizations, big and small, pay annual fees to utilize the tech for internal communications. Some pay additional fees for HQ specialist training.
• Axios Studio. Our studio is paid by advertisers to create content, transforming their advertising message into our Smart Brevity™ style. The format (written, video, audio, etc.) varies depending on the messaging. Any content created in partnership between Axios Studio and our partners is clearly labeled in placements across Axios products.
• Content partnerships. Third-party platforms or media companies republish Axios editorial content for a fee.
• Programmatic advertising. These are automated, fully labeled ads selling products or services, found on our website only.
• Membership revenue. In certain Axios Local cities, readers contribute money to support local journalism.
• Job and event boards. In certain Axios Local cities, job or event postings can be purchased for display in the newsletter and/or on the site.

AXIOS came about at a time when “news”, newsrooms and investigative journalism were fast disappearing. Using technology to template content into AXIOS context was one answer to the disruption and a worthy goal that Laureen Jobs shared, could contribute and fund to keep news and journalism from going the way of the dinosaurs.

AXIOS emerged after TIME tried automating its magazine. That venture TIME chose not to implement but the technology lived on. Pages Software in San Diego commercialized TIME digital contect system-to-press as desktop publishing automation. SteveJobs advocated for its use of its O-O NeXT technology and picked it up when it failed commercially. It lives on as Apple Pages in much reduced desktop form but with incrementally more templates over time.

Laureen Jobs combined Pages digital workflow and WebObjects database integration experience to AXIOS when she privately backed the venture. That’s how AXIOS “programmatic” content became programmatic advertising. Its AXIOS DNA. Laureen stated before investing in news that she didn’t need AXIOS to make money and not why she wanted to see it thrive.

As much eyewash as the advertising proclaims it to be “the” money-shaker, the reality is that its one of the few news organizations privately held. And it’s not a mouthpiece like other extremely rich news publishers who shall remain nameless, neither.

AXIOS is a scrappy tech-enabled online news publication that is able to put all its money in people, journalists and a real newsroom.

 

[DarinCT]

Factually, I stand corrected. Thank you.
tl;dr
The preponderance of evidence .vs. essence of time, narrative serves to shortcut and to summarize some existential insight. In this instance, it was not shortcut nor summary and the insight non-obvious.

Existentially, the study concluded “… that even limited uptake of the technology may produce a net increase in energy consumption and emissions”. Can Tesla increase its technology to level-up .v. ICE?

The exercise whether that translates to <Factual>% technological increase to achiever cleaner and/or emissions decrease is left to Tesla.

What impressed about the seminal study was its structure, metrics and comparables used to place BEV,autonomous taxis, conventional taxis and private vehicles together as one cohort contrasted with pooling, mass transit and individual behavior modifications. Those matrices will further future updates and studies.

My personal takeaway on sustainable energy to reduce emissions through BEV technology .vs. private ICE the study‘s conclusion demonstrated how Tesla’s $80/Whr pack level cost has to drop further to reach parity with ICE personal transportation. It doesn’t answer what that cost is but existentially remains illusive.

The study also used a synthetic model then put real world data in. They acknowledge the limitations of this. Personally, robotaxis feel so far away to me considering the current tech and regulatory environment. In the (far?) future, I wonder how valid this modeling will be on a large scale. Electrification of mass transit may also be a variable that needs considering in future research.

I love EV and also I'm also realistic that the crossover threshold for environmental sake is as low as 45mpg in some places of the US. The used EV market is immature. I also wonder if it will be the most significant contributor to emission reduction in the future compared to mass transit and automated taxis. Exciting times.

Sponsored