At no point do I claim that the sole cost of traveling by car is gas. The question is not whether a household can spend more that $5k per year driving, owning a

At no point do I claim that the sole cost of traveling by car is gas. The question is not whether a household can spend more that $5k per year driving, owning and maintaining a car. My skepticism is that the _per household_ savings for the city would be that high. Apparently about a third of households don't have cars, and from what I can tell, a bunch of people have cars that they drive very little (which both lowers the replacement opportunity for robocabs, and demonstrates that some people apparently just like having a car). Approached another way, is SF the best city to start with, or would a city that started with higher car ownership figures give them a larger savings impact? Re your comments about commuter rail/muni: 1. If you live in the peninsula or the South Bay, are you a San Franciscan? Should you count towards such a stat? 2. Yes, people living in the city pay very high housing costs, and part of the value of that housing is convenient access to everything else. But I'm really not expecting robocabs to bring down the cost of housing by decreasing demand. Even if it's cheap and convenient, transportation will always take time.