4 ms·
they address point #1 directly (still cheaper to drive around, at $0.50/hour). but really, they buried the lede: > "But no one owns an autonomous vehicle now,
by clairity 8y ago
they address point #1 directly (still cheaper to drive around, at $0.50/hour). but really, they buried the lede:
> "But no one owns an autonomous vehicle now, so there's no constituency organized to oppose charging for the use of public streets. This is the time to establish the principle and use it to avoid the nightmarish scenario of total gridlock."
their thesis is that now is the right time from a policy perspective to implement congestion pricing on autonomous cars. the driving around aimlessly bit is literally to alarm politicians into action.
a pay-per-use model is economically rational but notoriously hard politically. only recently has technology advanced enough to do real-time pricing, which is arguably more fair than former systems (like flat rate pricing). ideally you'd pay per mile*minute (similar to taxis and ridehailing).
- skybrian 8y agoNot a bad idea, but there's the question of why we should single out autonomous cars, rather than having congestion pricing for everyone? Every car takes up space. If it's doing something useful then it's worth it.
- clairity 8y agoyou shouldn't limit it to autonomous vehcles, but as the article notes, no one wants to pay for something that was formerly free, so it's politically difficult. but the strategy of implementing it only on autonomous vehicles now provides a wedge for wider implementation later.
- jstarfish 8y agoBut we already have 'no-cruising' ordinances to harass human drivers endlessly circling around looking for fares, parking or prostitutes, artificially creating traffic and the hyperbolic 'nightmarish scenario of total gridlock.' This is not a new problem, and focusing solutions on autonomous vehicles is pointless discrimination.