8 ms·

I think this is one of those examples of how unless regulated there will be 10x more cars on the road if/when self driving cars are ubiquitous. Lots of people

I think this is one of those examples of how unless regulated there will be 10x more cars on the road if/when self driving cars are ubiquitous. Lots of people envisioned less cars because the with self driven cars the current use of cars can be covered by less cars but self driven cars enable more uses. Send your kids to their friends. Grandma goes shopping. Need to borrow a drill pop it in car. Want to run a local cake store. Deliver the cakes in the cars. Right now in my city there are billboard trucks that drive around. I can imagine 10x more of them. And of course with no driver and lots of competition prices will come down. Why take public transport when I can be delivered door to door for less. I enjoy public transport here in Tokyo and I'm happy for the excersize I get walking to and from the station but, for example my office is a 20 minute walk from my apartment. I usually walk it but if it's raining or too hot I've used the Taxi app to have a taxi pick me up and drive me that short distance. The cheaper, easier, and faster (time to pickup) things get the more likely I'll take advantage of that more often.

sdrothrock 8y ago
> The cheaper, easier, and faster (time to pickup) things get the more likely I'll take advantage of that more often. I think this balances out naturally though in (y)our situation -- there's limited space for taxis near the station, so if a lot of people are taking taxis, the benefit of taking a taxi approaches zero unless the benefit is "sit" rather than "save time." A good example of this is rainy days or typhoons. So in the other cases you list, I wonder if it might not be self-balancing there as well -- as the roads get congested, the benefit of popping a drill into a car to send to a friend or whatever will approach zero as the costs rise due to congested roads.
- tokyodude 8y ago
  I think you're saying the problem is as more people take taxis the lines for them get longer at the station. But I don't need to wait in that line if I'm going door to door. As for congestion, if all the cars are AI maybe they can pack a few X more cars on the streets? Not saying I like that idea
  - sdrothrock 8y ago
    > I think you're saying the problem is as more people take taxis the lines for them get longer at the station. But I don't need to wait in that line if I'm going door to door. I'm saying that the immediate area around the station gets incredibly congested, so it's difficult to get close to the station in anything that approaches a timely fashion. It prevents "door to door" since it takes longer to get to the station "door" with the congestion than it would have taken to simply walk.
    - tokyodude 8y ago
      But I have no desire to go to the station door. I want to go to my destination. From my door to my office door. Or from my door to my friends door. I have zero interest in going to some station to use an outdated mode of transport when I can have a modern and cheap AI car take me directly to where I'm trying to go
      - sdrothrock 8y ago
        My bad; I completely misread your initial post as wanting to replace a 20 minute walk from your house to the station with a taxi.
hyperpallium 8y ago
Yes. Roads widened -> traffic increased. Also: when you drive, you probably schedule a bunch of errands to do on the one trip. Soon, you mightn't bother arranging to avoid this bother. Corollary: Then, why collocate businesses? This could be the beginning of the end of the mall.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  > This could be the beginning of the end of the mall. Malls started dying a long time ago. Articles like this[1] have been written for years. [1] http://time.com/4865957/death-and-life-shopping-mall/ http://time.com/4865957/death-and-life-shopping-mall/
- kortilla 8y ago
  >Roads widened -> traffic increased. This is only true when there is unmet demand. I have a lot of roads to show you in Western Nebraska that won’t get increased traffic no matter how big they get.
  - barrkel 8y ago
    Rather, it's true when the existing roads have a lot of traffic. The reason why widened roads increases traffic isn't just unmet demand; demand actually increases. The extra capacity means that people can shorten journey times by using the road, and they then locate their homes and businesses at either end or along the road. The road itself increases demand.
    - maxsilver 8y ago
      I think the OPs point is that this is not true. Roads do not ever, themselves, increase demand in any way. (See any rural area anywhere, full of roads way under max capacity). > The extra capacity means that people can shorten journey times by using the road, and they then locate their homes and businesses at either end or along the road Exactly. So if people are shortening their journey times using the road, then whatever previous journey they took no longer exists. The new road did not increase demand, it relocated already-existing previously-poorly-serviced demand to a new more efficient route. This is generally a good thing, it's what a successful road project is intentionally supposed to do, and why they are worth spending money on.
femto 8y ago
It will be only a matter of time until we have autonomous vehicle spam: cars with billboards driving around (unless stuck in traffic) simply to be seen. It could be a huge problem because of competing goals. The spammers won't care about traffic flow as their only goal will be to have cars on the road and visible, whilst people in cars will want to get places in a reasonable time.
- scarejunba 8y ago
  Just Dutch auction off the limited quantity: road space. Modern technology allows ubiquitous tracking and recognition of vehicles. No reason to subsidize at that point. We can just charge everyone
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    I don't think it's wise to encourage even more tracking of people/objects moving around in the real world. it probably wouldn't be that bad if government could track autonomous semis making deliveries to large shopping centers, but I wouldn't want it to have fine-grained data on who goes where and who delivers to their house.
  - mrfredward 8y ago
    We already have a system to turn road usage into government revenue. Collection is easy efficient, and wastes zero time for the people paying. It does a good job correlating not only to road use but also pollution produced. In fact it's so easy to pay that many consumers rarely even think about it when they're paying it, yet even anonymous cash payers can't find a way to skirt around it. It's called the gas tax, and it does a good enough job charging people for their negative externalities that everyone seems to hate it.
    - Cogito 8y ago
      This would be true if fuel usage was linearly related to wear and tear on the roads, or road usage. Fuel taxes almost never tax heavy usage vehicles enough, compared to the amount of damage they do to the road. A fuel tax also doesn't solve the problem grandparent post is trying to solve, excess usage of 'high value' roads. If road usage, and road wear and tear, was evenly distributed then a fuel tax would work, but the reality is that is simply a convenient and fairly effective proxy solution. As technology improves a solution similar to grandparent, some form of usage tolling, will become feasible and provide a more effective outcome.
ice-blaze 8y ago
I think the "Rebound effect" may help you in your argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)

sdrothrock 8y ago

> The cheaper, easier, and faster (time to pickup) things get the more likely I'll take advantage of that more often. I think this balances out naturally though in (y)our situation -- there's limited space for taxis near the station, so if a lot of people are taking taxis, the benefit of taking a taxi approaches zero unless the benefit is "sit" rather than "save time." A good example of this is rainy days or typhoons. So in the other cases you list, I wonder if it might not be self-balancing there as well -- as the roads get congested, the benefit of popping a drill into a car to send to a friend or whatever will approach zero as the costs rise due to congested roads.

tokyodude 8y ago
I think you're saying the problem is as more people take taxis the lines for them get longer at the station. But I don't need to wait in that line if I'm going door to door. As for congestion, if all the cars are AI maybe they can pack a few X more cars on the streets? Not saying I like that idea
- sdrothrock 8y ago
  > I think you're saying the problem is as more people take taxis the lines for them get longer at the station. But I don't need to wait in that line if I'm going door to door. I'm saying that the immediate area around the station gets incredibly congested, so it's difficult to get close to the station in anything that approaches a timely fashion. It prevents "door to door" since it takes longer to get to the station "door" with the congestion than it would have taken to simply walk.
  - tokyodude 8y ago
    But I have no desire to go to the station door. I want to go to my destination. From my door to my office door. Or from my door to my friends door. I have zero interest in going to some station to use an outdated mode of transport when I can have a modern and cheap AI car take me directly to where I'm trying to go
    - sdrothrock 8y ago
      My bad; I completely misread your initial post as wanting to replace a 20 minute walk from your house to the station with a taxi.

hyperpallium 8y ago

Yes. Roads widened -> traffic increased. Also: when you drive, you probably schedule a bunch of errands to do on the one trip. Soon, you mightn't bother arranging to avoid this bother. Corollary: Then, why collocate businesses? This could be the beginning of the end of the mall.

wutbrodo 8y ago
> This could be the beginning of the end of the mall. Malls started dying a long time ago. Articles like this[1] have been written for years. [1] http://time.com/4865957/death-and-life-shopping-mall/ http://time.com/4865957/death-and-life-shopping-mall/
kortilla 8y ago
>Roads widened -> traffic increased. This is only true when there is unmet demand. I have a lot of roads to show you in Western Nebraska that won’t get increased traffic no matter how big they get.
- barrkel 8y ago
  Rather, it's true when the existing roads have a lot of traffic. The reason why widened roads increases traffic isn't just unmet demand; demand actually increases. The extra capacity means that people can shorten journey times by using the road, and they then locate their homes and businesses at either end or along the road. The road itself increases demand.
  - maxsilver 8y ago
    I think the OPs point is that this is not true. Roads do not ever, themselves, increase demand in any way. (See any rural area anywhere, full of roads way under max capacity). > The extra capacity means that people can shorten journey times by using the road, and they then locate their homes and businesses at either end or along the road Exactly. So if people are shortening their journey times using the road, then whatever previous journey they took no longer exists. The new road did not increase demand, it relocated already-existing previously-poorly-serviced demand to a new more efficient route. This is generally a good thing, it's what a successful road project is intentionally supposed to do, and why they are worth spending money on.

femto 8y ago

It will be only a matter of time until we have autonomous vehicle spam: cars with billboards driving around (unless stuck in traffic) simply to be seen. It could be a huge problem because of competing goals. The spammers won't care about traffic flow as their only goal will be to have cars on the road and visible, whilst people in cars will want to get places in a reasonable time.

scarejunba 8y ago
Just Dutch auction off the limited quantity: road space. Modern technology allows ubiquitous tracking and recognition of vehicles. No reason to subsidize at that point. We can just charge everyone
- leetcrew 8y ago
  I don't think it's wise to encourage even more tracking of people/objects moving around in the real world. it probably wouldn't be that bad if government could track autonomous semis making deliveries to large shopping centers, but I wouldn't want it to have fine-grained data on who goes where and who delivers to their house.
- mrfredward 8y ago
  We already have a system to turn road usage into government revenue. Collection is easy efficient, and wastes zero time for the people paying. It does a good job correlating not only to road use but also pollution produced. In fact it's so easy to pay that many consumers rarely even think about it when they're paying it, yet even anonymous cash payers can't find a way to skirt around it. It's called the gas tax, and it does a good enough job charging people for their negative externalities that everyone seems to hate it.
  - Cogito 8y ago
    This would be true if fuel usage was linearly related to wear and tear on the roads, or road usage. Fuel taxes almost never tax heavy usage vehicles enough, compared to the amount of damage they do to the road. A fuel tax also doesn't solve the problem grandparent post is trying to solve, excess usage of 'high value' roads. If road usage, and road wear and tear, was evenly distributed then a fuel tax would work, but the reality is that is simply a convenient and fairly effective proxy solution. As technology improves a solution similar to grandparent, some form of usage tolling, will become feasible and provide a more effective outcome.

ice-blaze 8y ago

I think the "Rebound effect" may help you in your argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebound_effect_(conservation)