Bringing fully autonomous rides to Nashville, in partnership with Lyft

Waymo–Lyft partnership & geographic expansion

• Commenters see this as Waymo’s first non-pilot commercial rollout with Lyft, and notable because it’s non‑exclusive: riders can use either the Waymo or Lyft app.
• Many view this as an “inflection point” in coverage: SF, SFO, Phoenix, LA, Austin, Atlanta, Nashville, Silicon Valley suburbs, plus testing or hiring in other US cities and Tokyo.
• Some locals (e.g., Atlanta, Nashville) report seeing rapid growth of Waymo vehicles and say they’re “no worse” than human drivers, sometimes safer or more comfortable.

Economics, costs, and remote operations

• One camp believes Waymo is approaching or at break‑even in dense markets: high utilization, higher per‑mile pricing than Uber, and falling lidar/hardware costs.
• Skeptics highlight expensive vehicles, hardware tariffs, ongoing R&D, and unknown spending on remote assistance and mapping; they doubt “few months” payback and expect multi‑year amortization.
• Back‑of‑envelope analysis suggests labor is largely fixed engineering cost, with relatively low marginal cost per additional vehicle. Remote assistance ratios are guessed between 1:10 and 1:100 cars.
• Waymo hints at “very positive” unit economics but doesn’t disclose numbers; some see this secrecy as competitive discipline, others as a sign they’re still not clearly profitable.

Uber/Lyft’s role and strategic risk

• Waymo benefits from ride‑hail platforms for instant distribution, overflow coverage by human drivers, and avoiding building all operations (support, payments, regulatory know‑how) itself.
• Platforms gain more “drivers” and can keep serving rides even if AV fleets are small at first.
• Several commenters argue Uber/Lyft are ultimately commoditized: they don’t own cars or core AV tech and could be reduced to low‑margin fleet management or licensed operators.
• Others see potential acquisitions (e.g., Lyft as a cheap channel) but question Lyft’s “moat” beyond operational knowledge and regulatory relationships.

Competition: Tesla, Zoox, others

• Some users are bullish on Tesla Robotaxi, citing early Bay Area rides and Tesla’s hardware scale; others ridicule it as years behind Waymo and primarily stock‑price theater.
• Zoox and Chinese players (Pony.ai, Baidu) are mentioned as serious long‑term competitors, though US market access for Chinese firms is doubted.

Societal impact, transit, and labor

• Strong thread debating whether autonomous taxis solve real problems versus just entrenching car‑centric cities.
• Critics argue trains, trams, and buses are more efficient for traffic, environment, and safety; AVs may worsen congestion via empty “deadhead” miles.
• Supporters counter that US public‑transit build‑out is politically and financially broken; AVs could pragmatically leapfrog those constraints and improve safety and comfort.
• Significant discussion of autonomous buses: technically easier and could enable higher frequency, but blocked by driver unions, security/cleanliness needs, and politics.
• Broader concerns: privatization failures, dual‑use (warfare) worries, and concentration of power in a trillion‑dollar mobility monopoly.

Ownership and user experience

• Many riders like driverless rides for safety, comfort, price, and not dealing with human drivers.
• Others dislike being surveilled or “rated” and prefer personal cars or rentals.
• Some hope for individually owned self‑driving cars eventually; others think ubiquitous robotaxis will make ownership a luxury or niche convenience (e.g., storage, family gear, home backup battery).