It seems there is a solution for your problem already: Busses.

Although not strictly automated, they are externalized. That is you are not the one doing the driving, and therefor you are free to sleep, read, work, etc, while you wait to get to your destination.

The beauty about busses is that they exists. There is no unsolved technology problems with busses. And they can be (and most likely already are) implemented without any or minimal additional infrastructure in your area.

If busses are overcrowded your local government can simply buy more, so they scale really well. If they become congested, we also have a solution called trains. Trains also solves your problems with driving and as a bonus get you to your destination far quicker then driving.

Many people want privacy and control over the vehicle they're in, and will pay a premium for it. When you take a bus you're sharing it with random people, can't stop to take a break whenever you want, and can't go directly door to door.

Trains can be a superior alternative depending on what country you're in. In the U.S. we're far behind some other countries in high speed rail infrastructure, so over long distances trains are usually slower than driving.

If there is political will to fund the research needed and create the infrastructure for autonomous highway driving lanes, surely politicians in the US can find the incentives to fund the infrastructure needed for extra buses (including luxury lines with first class seating; for those willing to pay the premium) and train lines.

Edit: As an example of political will for the established and proven solution of mass public transit system, over the unproven non-existent solution of autonomous highway driving lanes. Look at the steam (pun intended) the idea of establishing high speed rail between Portland OR, and Vancouver BC is getting from the public and politicians alike.

http://www.cascadiarail.org/

> There is no unsolved technology problems with busses.

They have similar physics problems as cars.

1. They can't go very fast nor carry a lot of weight before they become uneconomical or unsafe.

2. They especially can't go very fast for very long if they are electrical.

3. They need a driver which makes them expensive to run often or with few passengers.

If you get to choose, what you want is something like:

A. Medium speed trains. Cheaper than high speed ones, but still twice as fast as cars with more comfort and less attention. But they need to have good infrastructure, so they can go that speed well and consistently.

B. Local buses with fixed routes.

C. Better golf carts for local transport.

Eventually you would automate all of them. Which would be relatively easy because the fast trains go on tracks, the buses go known routes and the cars, that are the most complex to automate, go slow. Slow also wouldn't affect for example automated deliveries, or repositioning, over longer distances.

Also even before automation as the cars would be "underbuilt", relative to today, they are cheap. So the don't get the sunk cost of a car. And since they don't go outside the local area, each municipality can choose their own infrastructure more freely.

Of course I don't see it happening as things are today, but this is in my opinion more inline with what should be discussed. Since things relative to physics isn't likely to change quickly.

Indeed buses or by no means the optimal technology of transporting people. But they often are the cheapest and easiest, and therefor often the smartest choice for urban planners. However once buses start to become congested (Seattle, I’m looking at you), or forseen to become so, they really are a terrible option next to some sort of a train (light, or heavy, underground, elevated, or on ground).

Buses could probably work in urban areas if there were less cars. Today cars come from far and wide "bunch up" in cities. Much of the reasons why trains are better in urban areas today is because of the dedicated space and being electric. But train don't get to really use their speed, easier environment or carrying capacity much in urban areas.

With less cars in cities buses could be competitive with trains since they are street level and can go in different directions, but the would probably still have to be electric and automated for that to be true. (Of course you would still need subways and commuter trains anyway, but you wouldn't be as dependent on them). Trams could probably also be an option, but I am not entirely sure on the future of self-driving trams.

Your comment is how things "should work", but really not how they do. At least in the U.S.

The drive from Las Vegas to Los Angeles is about 3.5 hours. It's a 90 minute flight.

If you try to do it by Bus it takes 12 (often for about 1/2 the price of the plane ticket), and for some reason a train with NO STOPS took 16 hours. Which was discontinued just a couple years ago, because no one was using it.

Maybe someday we will get a high speed Mag Lev train for this commute, because mass transit has completely failed this commute.

> Your comment is how things "should work", but really not how they do. At least in the U.S.

Since this is a comment on a thread about the possibility of building the infrastructure required for highway lanes reserved for autonomous cars, i.e. a thread about how things "could work" I see no problems with giving my self the same leeway for the established technology as the parent does for any future technology.

Why did the bus trip take 12 hours when it's only a 3.5 hour drive?

I think the highway freight problem is also a good place for humans to act as a backup, since you more or less know when that will be needed (the beginning and the end). Also, a human driver on their 7th hour of driving is often not as alert as they normally would be, so the level of comparison is easier for AI to meet.

Unfortunately, what the people paying for this want to achieve is the ability to not have to pay for a human driver, and if you need a human for the beginning and the end of the drive, you have to pay them for the whole time. So, while this would be an excellent application, I fear the business incentives are not aligned for it to happen first like it ought to.

I wonder if "launch zones" will be one of the first "modify the environment" solutions for public roads. A staging area where a driver can leave the truck that is to go on the highway. Some place very near the highway (even better if it is something like weigh station simple to enter and exit).

If there were enough of them and someone like Elon Musk with lots of eyes on the road via teslas could identify when the vehicles need human drivers (wrecks / construction / weather) then maybe the trucks approaching the human-need area could get off at one of the staging areas for a human to take over. It would help with the "human from beginning to end" problem that would require level 5 automation.

You might not even need to team up for eyes on the ground if you have lightweight drones regularly flying the routes back and forth.

One problem might be enough people to take over at a moments notice. Another problem might be drivers who only get periodic experience handling the truck. But it seems like a semi-feasible solution to get a step closer to highway freight automation.

Autopilot on my Tesla Model 3 has already solved highway driving for me.

As someone that rides a motorcycle, I'm deathly scared of self-driving cars and the tech companies that will try to automate highway driving, especially with their agile 'move fast break things' 'ask forgiveness not permission' mentality

"'move fast break things'" -- that was Uber. They learned their lesson. I don't think anyone else is doing anything nearly as stupid with cars.