4 ms·
Imagine, now, that self-driving combined with Uber pool, so that people who need to get from and to the same destinations at the same time (as is typical for co
by romwell 5y ago
Imagine, now, that self-driving combined with Uber pool, so that people who need to get from and to the same destinations at the same time (as is typical for commutes) would be able to share the ride.
Imagine then making those vehicles larger to enable not only a decrease in traffic, but an increase in housing density, local infrastructure in walking distance, and economic growth.
Imagine if we then realized we could charge that elongated car as it's driving if we put electric lines above streets.
Oh, and why not increase rolling efficiency while we're at that, and make the task of self-driving simpler by embedding signaling infrastructure into the road itself.
You just imagined buses, trolley buses, and streetcars respectively.
Which is what makes the most sense, and will continue making the most sense for vehicles that don't sit in your garage most of the time.
There's more to car ownership than being able to get from A to B in principle.
Once you add immediate availability, individual vehicle preferences, having your stuff in the car already, the ability to keep your stuff there once you arrive at your destination, never having to think about small, but normal usage damage (especially if you have kids), or, conversely, having the vehicle just as clean as you want it...
...you will see that garages aren't going anywhere any time soon, self-driving cars or not.
And that we'd be wise to develop actual public transport infrastructure for the people who really do only care about getting from A to B, with some acceptable wait time. It's a win-win for everyone.
My pessimistic prognosis is that the development of the self-driving car will make the taxis slightly cheaper, but instead of paying your Uber driver, you're going to be paying engineers, maintenance, and cleaning staff.
- ljm 5y agoImagine how different the US would be if it was Big Public Transportation that lobbied to have towns and cities designed around them, rather than the car industry. Walking, cycling, buses, trams, trains, etc. etc. You'd still have cars but they wouldn't be a basic need for survival like they're often treated as, because you can't get anywhere without one. Because it was basically 100 years ago when the car industry sought to dismantle that infrastructure, and succeeded.
- asdff 5y agoTo be fair it wasn't some conspiracy. The reason why people began using the car 100 years ago was that the car was becoming widely available and it was super convenient even in the days when roads were caked in horse manure. Even in the peak of the streetcar era, the private car was the best way around town, and as more people bought more cars, it continued to dominate as the streetcar would be bogged down in traffic just like a bus today. Intercity passenger rail also didn't stand much of a chance against the convenience and speed of the jet age.
- ljm 5y agoThere was _a_ conspiracy, or at least Wikipedia refers to it as such: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp.... That is to say, there's enough there to suggest that this wasn't the free market answering solely to consumer demand.
- TMWNN 5y agoThe article explains why there actually was no conspiracy.[1] [1] No, kids, Who Framed Roger Rabbit? isn't real history
- romwell 5y agoI mean, is it really a conspiracy if open and unashamed corruption was the modus operandi at the time. When there's funding for highways but not rails, the results are unsurprising. The benefits of public transit are a positive externality[1][2]. [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Positive https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality#Positive [2]Real history is way worse
- HeyLaughingBoy 5y agoRegardless of whether or not there was a conspiracy, I think the last 100 years of private vehicle ownership in the US have shown that solely due to the convenience, it would have happened anyway.
- fallingknife 5y agoThe fact that Uber is so popular even though it is more than 10x the price of a bus shows exactly how much people want to ride buses.
- romwell 5y agoAre you kidding me? What buses? There's no public transport in the US, aside from a few exceptional places like NYC, Seattle, Boston (maybe), and, like, DC. Uber is so popular because it actually allows you to get from A to B, for some money. But I love the circular logic of "nobody wants the buses, why fund them" — "you can't get anywhere on a bus, why fund them" — "look how few people ride the bus" etc.
- HideousKojima 5y agoAn Uber (or personal car) also has the advantage of being able to take an alternate route. I used to work on the west side of Capitol Hill in Seattle and lived on the east side of the hill. Any time something like Hempfest or Pride was going on, it literally became faster to walk home than take the bus. If I was driving I could have taken an alternate route and gotten home in a fairly reasonable amount of time.
- ASalazarMX 5y agoImagine calling a self-driving taxi that doesn't know someone puked on the back seat.