Just this weekend, me and my roomate went on a road trip to san diego and we rented a car because he didn't want to put the ~1200 miles on his car.
I don't think any of the autopilot cars will be gas guzzlers. By the time they are allowed for consumer use as taxis, the Tesla 300 mile range battery will be half as expensive.
Perhaps innovators will offset the protections by having +2 passenger seats in a standard sedan? Or a new car design altogether to side-step arbitrary rules?
The status quo path leads to chaos.
If you have trouble with that idea, look at the history of the UAW. Unions are not infinitely powerful, and the further above "market price" they're trying to price their services, the worse off their position becomes.
Once they are replaced by cost-effective automation, there is little to no leverage they have.
Driverless cars would be a very poor replacement for public transit in traditional cities. Transit has far, far, higher density than cars do, no matter who's driving them.
The problem with cars, for the most part is the immense amount of space that is dedicated to support them, usually at the expense of all other uses, and of the people living there. Driverless cars would reduce this somewhat, but as a 1-for-1 replacement, not nearly enough to be useful.
Probably the best effect of driverless cars will be the other effects you mention: taxi-type services will get cheaper, thus fewer people will own cars, thus fewer people will feel tempted to drive everywhere, thus other modes will get more use, and cities will become more pleasant as car infrastructure shrinks, thus causing even fewer people to drive, etc, etc.
[and yeah, driverless buses etc, are a great application of the tech, maybe more so than actual cars as they're more amenable to simplifications (dedicated routes with supporting infrastructure, etc)...]
However I could see some kind of minibus that could run at both higher density and higher load factor, respond to demand, and sit idle when there is no demand being the optimal kind of vehicle.
[Especially in the U.S., automobile infrastructure is actually often excessive even for peak usage, due to things like ill-considered minimum parking regulations and local politics ("I widened roads! Vote for me!"). But that's a cultural/political problem, not a technical one.]
Another factor in favor of mass transit is that it tends to result in much more focused development around transit networks, resulting in denser and more walkable communities. The fact that it "can't go everywhere" is actually a benefit when it comes to the urban form...
We need vehicles that are big enough to carry a decent number of people, so that during rush hour the available road-space can be effectively utilised: After all, we want to reduce the overall cost and blight of roads for a given peak level of demand, which means maximising the number of passengers per square metre of tarmac. On the other hand, away from rush hour, we want vehicles that are small enough to flexibly be able to tailor their route to the demands and needs of their passengers - so that individuals can be picked up and dropped off at their front doorstep - and at a time that suits them, rather than according to an inflexible schedule.
These conflicting requirements call for a mix of vehicle sizes - both small and large. If you take the cost of a driver away, then I think the minibus might well hit a sweet spot in terms of size and flexibility - although that is little more than a hunch at the moment.
-More multi-mode trips, some car trips are just to have a car available for the return trip (e.g. "Let's take separate cars because you have to leave earlier than I do" or "I would take the BART to SF, but it won't be running at 3 AM when i need to come home").
- cars that actually match their necessary capacity. Lots of people buy trucks, vans, and SUVs for the 10% of the time they really need them. Even 5-seat sedans are overkill for most trips. One-passenger robotaxis would hopefully be cheaper due to reduced fuel and manufacturing costs.
-fewer marginal trips. Currently, most costs of car ownership are fixed: insurance, capital, registration. Once you have a car, the only cost to using it more is fuel, so you still take the car for trips where it's only marginally more convenient than alternative transportation.
I don't think so, I think public transport becomes more important. In the same vein as automated cars reduce human dependence, subways and its ilk can become faster and more automated.
In the end, on-rails 1d motion is still much more efficient than 2d rubber on tarmac motion, and the in case of a short airline flight 1d is still more efficient (because you expend most of your fuel ascending and descending from an airport).
In terms of efficiency though, maybe putting everyone in maglev tube pods and having them input a destination and fly along nanotube personal rails like in the Jetsons will be the future.
Never knew I had dyslexia before!
Great article, with research, here - http://blog.priceonomics.com/post/47636506327/the-tyranny-of...
Taxi rates would fall so far it would be silly.
Source: Kelley Blue Book.
If a van in my neighbourhood is ready to pick up anyone going to the closest bus-rapid transit stop, those stops can be even further apart.
Besides the dropping house prices, increased density will increase the number of pedestrians and cyclists, as well as those retail services that cater to the carless.
I mean, something like five+ companies are working on some level of autonomous cars. It's not like we're looking at a future monopoly on the production of them.
Which means, if SF gives a monopoly to Google, then LA might give one to Mercedes, while NYC gives one to Ford. (Or whatever). The point being, there is still competition overall to win the business of municipalities.
If my municipality is making the decision, then there is a politician who can be bribed into keeping that utility into place. Really, a terribly system.
Yeah thats why 'to prevent abuse' sure.
> - fewer deaths and injuries from accidents, or none at all. The organ transplant industry dies.
I have a solution for this, its called, it simply allow people to sell the rights to there organs or even better allow them to sell there organs outright.
There are other reasons then objectives to allow markets.
Do you truly belive there is taxi medallions to prevent abuse? If that is what you belive you must be dumb as a stump.
About organs, economists have calculated that you could save a hole lot of people if there was a market in organs. The only reason not to allow it is some ethical bullshit that does not make any sence. We allow people to work in mines and crap fishing bootes, that is a high risk job as well.
Lets see how you will feel when your wife/father/mother is dying and you can not help her/him, with the full knowlage that you could buy a organ for $10k. Lets see if you stick to your shitty ethics and keep looking down on creazy free-market people or if you will gladly spend the $10k and save a life of somebody close to you.
You are looking at an 80-85% drop in the required number
of cars in cities (even accounting for current peak
traffic volumes. see the KPMG report. I also came to the
same number back-of-the-envelope).
In a lot of things like city bike sharing there's an aggregate flow of bikes into the city at 9am and out of the city at 5pm, so trucks have to shuttle the bikes back in the opposite direction. Seems to me if one car shuttled three commuters into the city you'd have 1/3rd the number of cars on the roads, but each car driving 6 times as far as it has to drive out empty to pick up the next fare.
What kind of fill rate do you think it's reasonable to expect for cars driving from the city to the suburbs in the morning rush hour?
My calculation was based on people using their cars at most 10% of the time, and a utilization rate of robo-taxis at about 60%.
It's a solvable problem, I think, and eventually people will find a niche, but burying your head and pretending that this isn't an issue at all isn't a good idea.
You can't do too much if you're prone to motion sickness.
Taxi medallions are licenses by the city for taxi companies, to prevent abuse. But if the software is certified, you don't really need the medallions. Drop $500,000 off the cost of a taxi.
You don't have to pay the 2 drivers that normally share a cab. Drop $80,000 a year off.
Assuming the cars no longer crash (version 2.0?), drop $10,000/year off for taxi insurance.
Combine that with Google-quality routing, and smart-phone taxi ordering, and you're looking at a major price drop for taxi service, assuming some sort of competition. I'm guesstimating a 50-75% drop.
Most people in cities will opt out of owning their own car, and use robo-taxis.
You are looking at an 80-85% drop in the required number of cars in cities (even accounting for current peak traffic volumes. see the KPMG report. I also came to the same number back-of-the-envelope).
Obviously, this will destroy GM and Toyota. Might be good for Tesla as they are still tiny, and I'm sure Elon and Larry have discussed this.
Some other interesting outcomes:
- should increase the total number of trips and miles driven, as lower prices lead to higher quantity demanded, so more wear and tear on cars, and more gas consumed (though less for idling).
- with many driverless cars, they can communicate with each other, driving faster and closer together, and co-ordinating intersection crossing. price of oil change is ambiguous.
- fewer deaths and injuries from accidents, or none at all. The organ transplant industry dies.
- more trees and less concrete lead to cooler cities?
- you can probably get away with more single-lane streets, with no parking, increasing usable land areas in cities by 25%, significantly dropping housing prices.
- in your driverless car, you can talk on your cell, use your laptop, read a book, not be stressed from driving. people may be willing to drive farther to work, increasing sprawl, and also dropping the quantity demanded for housing near the core, dropping prices.
- public transit disappears? though driverless buses would be cheaper too.
- more people bike to work, as it's much safer
- software requirement: interior management for driverless taxis. some video or image recognition for lost purses, people having heart attacks, people throwing up in the back seat.