3 ms·

My point about autonomous driving software increasing highway capacity granting us "free" infrastructure is not to say the underlying infrastructure is free (he

by zaroth 8y ago

My point about autonomous driving software increasing highway capacity granting us "free" infrastructure is not to say the underlying infrastructure is free (hence the quotes). But when existing infrastructure becomes 3x more efficient due to private market software development, you have effectively tripled the value of your infrastructure for free. An inner-city bus ride costs $2.00 and doesn't get me door to door. The cost of getting to the bus and getting from the bus stop to my actual destination pushes that, even at minimum wage, probably closer to $5+. That's 30 miles (at cost) door to door in a hypothetical Tesla RoboTaxi! How can a bus compete with that? Yes, a bus is a much more efficient use of space on the road, but it is not more efficient to the individual riders. Hence the negative externality. But in reality, the real-world usage (market-share) of buses and light rail is so negligible as to be almost entirely irrelevant. "US Passenger Miles" according to the Bureau of Transportation in 2017 for Highway travel is 5,502,417. That number is in Millions. Whoa... That does include 365,220 labeled "Bus" which appears to be private charter, not public transit. In the "Transit" section "Bus" is 19,343 and "Light rail" is 2,795, "Commuter Rail" is 12,321 million passenger miles. That means Bus, Light, and Commuter Rail total 34,459 million passenger miles, which is ~0.6% the number of Passenger-Miles traveled by private vehicles on the highway. By the way, for longer rail trips, Amtrak is 6,527 million passenger miles in 2017 (declining year over year) and air travel is 693,818 million passenger miles and growing year over year. Heck, lets get electrified air travel and ditch trains for passenger travel as well. Heavy freight via train will still possibly make sense, although autonomous trucking will probably steal a lot of market share. For hazardous materials and national security purposes you probably still need the heavy freight network to be operational. It would be cooler if the really big stuff all went via dirigible though. [1] - https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles https://www.bts.gov/content/us-passenger-miles

shkkmo 8y ago
> My point about autonomous driving software increasing highway capacity granting us "free" infrastructure is not to say the underlying infrastructure is free (hence the quotes). But when existing infrastructure becomes 3x more efficient due to private market software development, you have effectively tripled the value of your infrastructure for free. The alternate way of looking at is that you will be paying 3x more in maintenance and space usage then you need to. By not planning ahead for this "certainty" you have tripled the amount you need to spend on transportation infrastructure in the future. In the intervening 30 years, you will have had to deal with spiking demand from how self-driving cars reduce the cost of car trips. To prevent having to build a bunch of infrastructure that will eventually become unneeded, mass transit is critical to avoid wasting money and space. We need to ween ourselves off of needing all of this road capacity with usage and congestion based surge pricing. As self driving cars begin to increase usage efficiency, we can slowly lower the usage fees charged to self driving car to further incentivize the transition to self driving cars. > An inner-city bus ride costs $2.00 and doesn't get me door to door. The cost of getting to the bus and getting from the bus stop to my actual destination pushes that, even at minimum wage, probably closer to $5+. How can a bus compete with that? By charging a usage fee to push riders to more space and energy efficient forms of transit. There are also other improvements that can be made to improve last-mile transit options. My skateboard does a very good job of this and I expect to see more scooters. I also think that autonomous vehicles have a large role to play in helping with these last-mile trips in less dense areas where the "last-mile" may be several miles or more and space is at less of a premium. > the real-world usage (market-share) of buses and light rail is so negligible as to be almost entirely irrelevant. The good thing is that this give us a lot of space to compensate for the increased demand for transit that self-driving cars will bring.
- zaroth 8y ago
  Whether you look at autonomy as granting the ability to reduce your future infrastructure development costs, or providing a boost in road capacity without increasing infrastructure cost, either way autonomy is providing a massive boost / making infrastructure more efficient and thereby effectively lowering (possibly halving or more) roadway cost per passenger mile. Why would the road infrastructure ever become unneeded? It's more needed than ever with the rise of incredibly cheap, extremely convenient, on-demand private transportation. The availability of which increases productivity and drives overall GDP growth and prosperity. I don't see why it follows that we need to ween ourselves off of roads. Roads are the backbone of our economy, and more efficient use of roads provides huge economic benefit. More availability of on-demand low cost private transport is an amazing benefit to low-income workers. Usage fees for roads that are being used more efficiently than ever, to try to drive people to less efficient (for them) modes of transportation, is a recipe for suppressing growth. It's a regressive tax which disproportionately impacts the poor. Scooters are neat. Scooters are "0.1" relative to cars "5,500,000" in the 2017 million-passenger miles table. Maybe that grows 1000x to be a "100". But in a fully autonomous future, scooters are obsolete and not worth the investment in designated travel lanes. Creative future designs for super-light autonomous personal transport will certainly not take the form of a "scooter".
  - shkkmo 8y ago
    > It's more needed than ever with the rise of incredibly cheap, extremely convenient, on-demand private transportation. The availability of which increases productivity and drives overall GDP growth and prosperity Yes, lowering the costs (in time, money, energy and space) of transit increases the efficiency of our economy. It also increases the demand for such. > Why would the road infrastructure ever become unneeded? You were the one who said that eliminating non-self-driving cars would triple the space efficiency (and probably increase the other efficiencies as well). Are you claiming that this would lead to a commensurate tripling of demand? Otherwise you are looking at having more road capacity than is needed. The issue that I see is that the increase of demand spurred by self-driving cars and robot taxis will happen well BEFORE we reach the point where those self-driving cars provide increases in traffic capacity (space) efficiency. This timing mis-match will further exacerbate traffic and parking problems in major cities (reduced time, energy and space efficiency). These costs fall directly on those who will increasingly be forced to live further away from work which will disproportionately impact the poor. Of course, if you increase usage fees without providing effective mass transit systems, park-n-rides and last mile solutions then this also serves as a regressive tax on the poor. This is the problem with simply increasing gas taxes rather than finding ways to directly tax congestion. > Usage fees for roads that are being used more efficiently than ever, to try to drive people to less efficient (for them) modes of transportation, is a recipe for suppressing growth. It's a regressive tax which disproportionately impacts the poor. Without usage fees, self-driving cars will lead to roads being used less efficiently due to decreased usage of public transit and increased traffic. If you grant that mass transit is socially more efficient, then increased usage of that will lead to spurred growth. It is the optimization of individual efficiency, with its associated externalized social costs, that will slow economic growth overall. Single occupant vehicles may be the most efficient choice for the individual, but if everyone drives, then the use of single occupant vehicles is less efficient than it would be if fewer people drove. This is the paradox of the "tragedy of the commons", it doesn't just hurt society but has a direct negative impact on your individual well being. > Scooters are great. Scooters are "0.1" relative to cars "5,500,000" in the 2017 million-passenger miles table. Maybe that grows 1000x to be a "100". I think you misunderstand. First I meant a "kick" scooter (or electric kick style scooter) as opposed to a "small motorcycle" scooter as I suspect you interpreted. Secondly, I am talking about their use as a "last-mile" option which you would never expect to account for a large number of passenger-miles as they are supposed to be used for very short trips and "last-mile" portions on longer trips. Edit: As a side note, I doubt we will see the nationwide banning of person-driven vehicles in our lifetimes. Americans love their cars and I doubt you will see them taken away easily. I suspect we may see the banning of person-driven cars in city centers much sooner.

by zaroth 8y ago

shkkmo 8y ago

> My point about autonomous driving software increasing highway capacity granting us "free" infrastructure is not to say the underlying infrastructure is free (hence the quotes). But when existing infrastructure becomes 3x more efficient due to private market software development, you have effectively tripled the value of your infrastructure for free. The alternate way of looking at is that you will be paying 3x more in maintenance and space usage then you need to. By not planning ahead for this "certainty" you have tripled the amount you need to spend on transportation infrastructure in the future. In the intervening 30 years, you will have had to deal with spiking demand from how self-driving cars reduce the cost of car trips. To prevent having to build a bunch of infrastructure that will eventually become unneeded, mass transit is critical to avoid wasting money and space. We need to ween ourselves off of needing all of this road capacity with usage and congestion based surge pricing. As self driving cars begin to increase usage efficiency, we can slowly lower the usage fees charged to self driving car to further incentivize the transition to self driving cars. > An inner-city bus ride costs $2.00 and doesn't get me door to door. The cost of getting to the bus and getting from the bus stop to my actual destination pushes that, even at minimum wage, probably closer to $5+. How can a bus compete with that? By charging a usage fee to push riders to more space and energy efficient forms of transit. There are also other improvements that can be made to improve last-mile transit options. My skateboard does a very good job of this and I expect to see more scooters. I also think that autonomous vehicles have a large role to play in helping with these last-mile trips in less dense areas where the "last-mile" may be several miles or more and space is at less of a premium. > the real-world usage (market-share) of buses and light rail is so negligible as to be almost entirely irrelevant. The good thing is that this give us a lot of space to compensate for the increased demand for transit that self-driving cars will bring.

zaroth 8y ago
Whether you look at autonomy as granting the ability to reduce your future infrastructure development costs, or providing a boost in road capacity without increasing infrastructure cost, either way autonomy is providing a massive boost / making infrastructure more efficient and thereby effectively lowering (possibly halving or more) roadway cost per passenger mile. Why would the road infrastructure ever become unneeded? It's more needed than ever with the rise of incredibly cheap, extremely convenient, on-demand private transportation. The availability of which increases productivity and drives overall GDP growth and prosperity. I don't see why it follows that we need to ween ourselves off of roads. Roads are the backbone of our economy, and more efficient use of roads provides huge economic benefit. More availability of on-demand low cost private transport is an amazing benefit to low-income workers. Usage fees for roads that are being used more efficiently than ever, to try to drive people to less efficient (for them) modes of transportation, is a recipe for suppressing growth. It's a regressive tax which disproportionately impacts the poor. Scooters are neat. Scooters are "0.1" relative to cars "5,500,000" in the 2017 million-passenger miles table. Maybe that grows 1000x to be a "100". But in a fully autonomous future, scooters are obsolete and not worth the investment in designated travel lanes. Creative future designs for super-light autonomous personal transport will certainly not take the form of a "scooter".
- shkkmo 8y ago
  > It's more needed than ever with the rise of incredibly cheap, extremely convenient, on-demand private transportation. The availability of which increases productivity and drives overall GDP growth and prosperity Yes, lowering the costs (in time, money, energy and space) of transit increases the efficiency of our economy. It also increases the demand for such. > Why would the road infrastructure ever become unneeded? You were the one who said that eliminating non-self-driving cars would triple the space efficiency (and probably increase the other efficiencies as well). Are you claiming that this would lead to a commensurate tripling of demand? Otherwise you are looking at having more road capacity than is needed. The issue that I see is that the increase of demand spurred by self-driving cars and robot taxis will happen well BEFORE we reach the point where those self-driving cars provide increases in traffic capacity (space) efficiency. This timing mis-match will further exacerbate traffic and parking problems in major cities (reduced time, energy and space efficiency). These costs fall directly on those who will increasingly be forced to live further away from work which will disproportionately impact the poor. Of course, if you increase usage fees without providing effective mass transit systems, park-n-rides and last mile solutions then this also serves as a regressive tax on the poor. This is the problem with simply increasing gas taxes rather than finding ways to directly tax congestion. > Usage fees for roads that are being used more efficiently than ever, to try to drive people to less efficient (for them) modes of transportation, is a recipe for suppressing growth. It's a regressive tax which disproportionately impacts the poor. Without usage fees, self-driving cars will lead to roads being used less efficiently due to decreased usage of public transit and increased traffic. If you grant that mass transit is socially more efficient, then increased usage of that will lead to spurred growth. It is the optimization of individual efficiency, with its associated externalized social costs, that will slow economic growth overall. Single occupant vehicles may be the most efficient choice for the individual, but if everyone drives, then the use of single occupant vehicles is less efficient than it would be if fewer people drove. This is the paradox of the "tragedy of the commons", it doesn't just hurt society but has a direct negative impact on your individual well being. > Scooters are great. Scooters are "0.1" relative to cars "5,500,000" in the 2017 million-passenger miles table. Maybe that grows 1000x to be a "100". I think you misunderstand. First I meant a "kick" scooter (or electric kick style scooter) as opposed to a "small motorcycle" scooter as I suspect you interpreted. Secondly, I am talking about their use as a "last-mile" option which you would never expect to account for a large number of passenger-miles as they are supposed to be used for very short trips and "last-mile" portions on longer trips. Edit: As a side note, I doubt we will see the nationwide banning of person-driven vehicles in our lifetimes. Americans love their cars and I doubt you will see them taken away easily. I suspect we may see the banning of person-driven cars in city centers much sooner.