4 ms·
Even outside of "cheating" like this, self-driving would have a pretty significant impact on parking economics. You don't need to have parking spread throughout
by jdminhbg 5y ago
Even outside of "cheating" like this, self-driving would have a pretty significant impact on parking economics. You don't need to have parking spread throughout the city in convenient places, because you can send your car to the central parking depot while you're shopping and recall it when you're done.
- criddell 5y agoI don't think sending a car on an errand is cheating in any way. In fact I think it's one of the great promises of self driving cars. People already do curbside pickup of groceries, dry cleaning, restaurant food, etc... There's no reason a person needs to be in that car.
- vkou 5y agoThis sounds wonderful, except for the part where your desire to avoid paying for parking is creating gridlock for everyone else, as your car drives around, creating traffic. [1] Since I'm not interested in paying the taxes necessary to double the amount of roads in town, and since I hate traffic, I'd rather just make what you describe illegal [2], just like how many other nuisances are illegal on public roadways. It should be pretty easy for legislatures to force vendors to disable self-driving summons/parking on public roads. [1] And no, even if the traffic you create is counterflow, we will still need more road capacity, and I'm not paying for it. Where I live, there is no 'counterflow' - traffic consistently sucks in both directions of travel. [2] Or toll you, preferably to the point where you'll find it more advantageous to just pay for parking.
- jdminhbg 5y agoI think you misunderstood. I'm not talking about driving around in a holding pattern. I'm saying that instead of interspersing valuable real estate with parking lots so that people can walk from their car to the shop/restaurant, you can put all the parking in one (realistically, a few) places.