3 ms·

I worry that self-driving cars are going to be used as an excuse not to expand public transit, especially in the Bay Area. By reducing people's sunk cost in ca

I worry that self-driving cars are going to be used as an excuse not to expand public transit, especially in the Bay Area. By reducing people's sunk cost in cars, it may well free up the public mind to alternative forms of transportation. A lot of political inertia comes in the form of personal sunk costs. Also, self driving vehicles could themselves be used to expand public transit. IIRC, In Portland in the 90's, there was this thing called the "Custom Bus" where an late-night adapted bus route could be formed by people phoning in a request for a pickup within 2 miles of a normal bus route. Automated vehicles and networked computers could let us do an even better job of adaptive transportation.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
> By reducing people's sunk cost in cars I love this conversation. The US new auto sales run rate is ~17 million vehicles/year, with an average price right around $35k. That's $595,000,000,000 per year in capital being allocated to automotive mobility alone. Think what better things we could do with that capital (or everyone could work far less!) if we only spent a fraction of that on automotive capital costs.
- NegativeLatency 9y ago
  Don't forget maintenance, insurance, and gas costs
  - eutropia 9y ago
    Do we seriously spend 1 thousand billion dollars per year personally getting our asses around with cars after it's all said and done? Holy crap. That's more than 5% of GDP.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      I haven't checked the numbers but it doesn't surprise me. A car is the most expensive or second most expensive asset that most people own. (And/or they spend a lot of money on taxi/Uber/Lyft/etc.) And most people spend a decent chunk of their days getting from Point A to Point B. Only some of that is commuting. The cost of not being a subsistence farmer, I suppose. (Somewhat joking, but a big part of what makes modern civilization possible is mobility and a lot of that requires cars. In some situations, they're less important but they're still common pretty much anywhere.)
    - stcredzero 9y ago
      Shoe leather wasn't cheap in the middle ages, and leather soles used to wear out all of the time. Transport is something people are willing to pay for.
- imchillyb 9y ago
  You may love that conversation, but how many Americans are willing to give up their vehicles? In America, the privately owned vehicle isn't just transportation, it's a status symbol. That's not going to change just because someone crunched some numbers.
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    > but how many Americans are willing to give up their vehicles? That's not the question. Can you afford your own car if the cost efficiencies are no longer there because there are so many fewer cars on the road? How many people own their own Cessna versus buying tickets on Southwest? Even with a private pilot license, I would never consider owning a plane myself. Too expensive!
  - ghgggh5555 9y ago
    I have a hard time believing this will be as big an issue as many believe. The biggest reason is generational die off. We're already seeing younger people forgoing even getting a license. Urban population growth is rendering it less valuable. The only cohort that licensing is up is boomers. 55-75 are more likely to have a license than they were a generation ago. Licensed 16 year drivers is way down. Something like half the number are licensed versus a generation ago. Some of it is "blamed" on cost of owning a car. Those that can afford it but don't buy say they just don't need it. Rides are readily available; friends, Uber/Lyft, and pub trans are enough for a lot of folks as urban density increases. I'd post references but this is easily Googled from multiple sources. And I'm on a slow mobile connection right now. Younger folks tend to see cars as noisey, smelly, expensive, and passé already. Not sure that status symbol thesis holds up
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      > Younger folks tend to see cars as noisey, smelly, expensive, and passé already. Not sure that status symbol thesis holds up That might be some of it, but Millenials on average are also less well off than older cohorts; they simply can't afford a new car, or possibly even a car at all (but might require one; not everyone lives in a metro with good public transit).

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> By reducing people's sunk cost in cars I love this conversation. The US new auto sales run rate is ~17 million vehicles/year, with an average price right around $35k. That's $595,000,000,000 per year in capital being allocated to automotive mobility alone. Think what better things we could do with that capital (or everyone could work far less!) if we only spent a fraction of that on automotive capital costs.

NegativeLatency 9y ago
Don't forget maintenance, insurance, and gas costs
- eutropia 9y ago
  Do we seriously spend 1 thousand billion dollars per year personally getting our asses around with cars after it's all said and done? Holy crap. That's more than 5% of GDP.
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I haven't checked the numbers but it doesn't surprise me. A car is the most expensive or second most expensive asset that most people own. (And/or they spend a lot of money on taxi/Uber/Lyft/etc.) And most people spend a decent chunk of their days getting from Point A to Point B. Only some of that is commuting. The cost of not being a subsistence farmer, I suppose. (Somewhat joking, but a big part of what makes modern civilization possible is mobility and a lot of that requires cars. In some situations, they're less important but they're still common pretty much anywhere.)
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Shoe leather wasn't cheap in the middle ages, and leather soles used to wear out all of the time. Transport is something people are willing to pay for.
imchillyb 9y ago
You may love that conversation, but how many Americans are willing to give up their vehicles? In America, the privately owned vehicle isn't just transportation, it's a status symbol. That's not going to change just because someone crunched some numbers.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  > but how many Americans are willing to give up their vehicles? That's not the question. Can you afford your own car if the cost efficiencies are no longer there because there are so many fewer cars on the road? How many people own their own Cessna versus buying tickets on Southwest? Even with a private pilot license, I would never consider owning a plane myself. Too expensive!
- ghgggh5555 9y ago
  I have a hard time believing this will be as big an issue as many believe. The biggest reason is generational die off. We're already seeing younger people forgoing even getting a license. Urban population growth is rendering it less valuable. The only cohort that licensing is up is boomers. 55-75 are more likely to have a license than they were a generation ago. Licensed 16 year drivers is way down. Something like half the number are licensed versus a generation ago. Some of it is "blamed" on cost of owning a car. Those that can afford it but don't buy say they just don't need it. Rides are readily available; friends, Uber/Lyft, and pub trans are enough for a lot of folks as urban density increases. I'd post references but this is easily Googled from multiple sources. And I'm on a slow mobile connection right now. Younger folks tend to see cars as noisey, smelly, expensive, and passé already. Not sure that status symbol thesis holds up
  - toomuchtodo 9y ago
    > Younger folks tend to see cars as noisey, smelly, expensive, and passé already. Not sure that status symbol thesis holds up That might be some of it, but Millenials on average are also less well off than older cohorts; they simply can't afford a new car, or possibly even a car at all (but might require one; not everyone lives in a metro with good public transit).