4 ms·

I'd imagine primarily because it's too expensive with human drivers, sufficiently so that no one has considered this a viable market. Not to mention we've only

I'd imagine primarily because it's too expensive with human drivers, sufficiently so that no one has considered this a viable market. Not to mention we've only recently started getting digitally connected taxi services at all, and they're still experimenting with their models. I've certainly heard people talking about taking Uber to their nearest station, so I can imagine a more organised timetable synced service being a available in future. And I think Google Maps starting to integrate things like Uber is a sign of a more integrated market for transport. If you can say "directions to work" and get a one button option to book the whole 3 part journey, alongside the other options, it suddenly becomes a lot more practical.

vonmoltke 10y ago
> I'd imagine primarily because it's too expensive with human drivers, sufficiently so that no one has considered this a viable market. Why do you think removing human drivers will make enough of a difference? From the numbers I have seen (I can look them up when I'm not on my phone) the driver is only about half of the non-tip cost of a hired car. Do you think cutting the cost in half is sufficient?
- aninhumer 10y ago
  The other factor here is that traditionally taxis charge a minimum fare for short distances making them much less cost effective. If you charge close to linear pricing over short distances, I think it could be very affordable. And another advantage is that the service doesn't have to be immediately popular to be cost effective, since you don't need to pay drivers to sit around to provide availability.
  - vonmoltke 10y ago
    The practice of minimum fares is orthogonal to the driver. Why would a driverless arrive not do the same? The issue of profitability again is orthogonal to drivers. How do you pay for vehicles and maintenance of your service is not profitable?
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      I'm not sure the exact reasons for minimum fares, but I'm not sure the driver is entirely irrelevant here. There could be a certain amount of emotion driving that decision. In any case, to answer your original question: Yes, I think halving the cost of taxis will make a significant difference to their viability in many use cases. I think costs may also fall further than that, as regulations have been limiting competition in taxi markets. (And just intuitively, one would expect that sharing a car should be cheaper than owning one.) Moreover, I think taxi markets were stagnant for a long time, so the lack of such a service in the past doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have been viable, and the new players may simply not have explored this kind of service yet. >How do you pay for vehicles and maintenance of your service is not profitable? The point is that without a driver, your ongoing costs (i.e. fuel and maintenance) are more proportional to usage. A driver sitting doing nothing is costing you money, but a car sitting doing nothing barely does.
      - babyrainbow 10y ago
        >new players may simply not have explored this kind of service yet... Think it is too obvious to miss... >The point is that without a driver, your ongoing costs (i.e. fuel and maintenance) are more proportional to usage. isnt it the same with a driver too?

vonmoltke 10y ago

> I'd imagine primarily because it's too expensive with human drivers, sufficiently so that no one has considered this a viable market. Why do you think removing human drivers will make enough of a difference? From the numbers I have seen (I can look them up when I'm not on my phone) the driver is only about half of the non-tip cost of a hired car. Do you think cutting the cost in half is sufficient?

aninhumer 10y ago
The other factor here is that traditionally taxis charge a minimum fare for short distances making them much less cost effective. If you charge close to linear pricing over short distances, I think it could be very affordable. And another advantage is that the service doesn't have to be immediately popular to be cost effective, since you don't need to pay drivers to sit around to provide availability.
- vonmoltke 10y ago
  The practice of minimum fares is orthogonal to the driver. Why would a driverless arrive not do the same? The issue of profitability again is orthogonal to drivers. How do you pay for vehicles and maintenance of your service is not profitable?
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    I'm not sure the exact reasons for minimum fares, but I'm not sure the driver is entirely irrelevant here. There could be a certain amount of emotion driving that decision. In any case, to answer your original question: Yes, I think halving the cost of taxis will make a significant difference to their viability in many use cases. I think costs may also fall further than that, as regulations have been limiting competition in taxi markets. (And just intuitively, one would expect that sharing a car should be cheaper than owning one.) Moreover, I think taxi markets were stagnant for a long time, so the lack of such a service in the past doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't have been viable, and the new players may simply not have explored this kind of service yet. >How do you pay for vehicles and maintenance of your service is not profitable? The point is that without a driver, your ongoing costs (i.e. fuel and maintenance) are more proportional to usage. A driver sitting doing nothing is costing you money, but a car sitting doing nothing barely does.
    - babyrainbow 10y ago
      >new players may simply not have explored this kind of service yet... Think it is too obvious to miss... >The point is that without a driver, your ongoing costs (i.e. fuel and maintenance) are more proportional to usage. isnt it the same with a driver too?