10 ms·

I assume if there were more self-driving cars, fewer people would own cars. I think more people would take Ubers, Lyfts, and other ride sharing services. So I

I assume if there were more self-driving cars, fewer people would own cars. I think more people would take Ubers, Lyfts, and other ride sharing services. So I think that could reduce the need for parking and the amount of traffic just by increasing the utilization rate of cars.

endisneigh 4y ago
read the study I linked - what you suppose does not and has not happened in practice.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Ah ok, I'll check it out. I'm curious if self-driving Ubers would be a step change tho, or if we would observe the same thing. Edit: because if we half self-driving cars, do we also get self-driving buses and now we can have a lot more bus routes? Is lack (or cost) of labor one thing that holds back the number of buses we have? Could we have more mini buses? Just curious how much the labor factors into the transit options we have. Maybe it doesn't that much, I don't know.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    I assume with autonomous driving, scheduled and computer dispatched minibuses/shuttle buses would be more common. Labor is a fairly large component of public transit. Of course, you don't remotely eliminate that for various reasons but reducing the need for drivers almost certainly makes alternative forms of transit more economical.
  - mewpmewp2 4y ago
    There could be a huge algorithm which will try to schedule vehicles with varying sizes from 2 seats to 30 seats to people all over the city. If you pay more you can get the exact N spots so you get privacy, if you are willing to pay the least, you might have to go 30m into a dedicated spot where a 30 seater will stop for you and some others, then it will make optimised stops based on what everyone has as their destinations.
    - danny_codes 4y ago
      Ngl this sounds much worse than normal public transportation. AFAIK it's just the same thing but if you're rich you get special treatment. Imo more of a regression than an advance. Cars were largely a mistake.
      - mewpmewp2 4y ago
        You get special treatment when you are rich already now. It's more advanced and optimal version of what there is now. Right now if you are rich you can just hire a driver and a luxury car, and be much more wasteful with your resources, so I don't see the difference in terms of inequality.
      - dotancohen 4y ago
        If done properly, the rich people's transportation could subsidize the poor people's transportation to an extent.
dinkumthinkum 4y ago
Really? Do you find Uber and Lyft to be affordable or a financially sensible means of regular transportation?
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  One of the main costs is labor. Another is fuel. Get rid of labor and if fuel gets cheaper (I assume electricity, because it can come from more sources than gas, will get cheaper over time), then I assume these services will be cheaper. Plus, car ownership is not that cheap either.
  - dinkumthinkum 4y ago
    Car ownership is a lot cheaper than Uber. It’s not even a question. You could buy an overpriced car that you can’t afford with a high interest rate and it would still be much cheaper. I think you need to go back to first principles on this one.
    - dtgriscom 4y ago
      > Car ownership is a lot cheaper than Uber. It’s not even a question. Well, yes it is. Cars are expensive: lease ($200+/month), maintenance ($100/mo), gas ($50/mo), insurance ($120/month), garage ($200/month). WAG of $670/month. That's 15 to 40 short-ish Uber rides/month. Commute an hour each way every day, and have free parking? Buy that car. Have it available for occasional trips to the grocery store? Uber is almost certainly cheaper. And, if autonomous taxis become real then the price will go down even further.
      - aidenn0 4y ago
        Leasing a car is the most expensive way to own a car (short of buying a new one every 3 years). Of course if you're paying $200/mo. for parking you can probably afford it. In much of the country parking is indirectly subsidized with zoning laws. This is all moot because, if driving places gets cheaper, traffic will get worse, which was the original point.
astral303 4y ago
I don’t think self-driving cars lead to fewer people owning cars, in fact it’s quite the opposite. With FSD, those who don’t like driving can deal with owning a car to do necessary transportation tasks (e.g. commuting), instead of giving it up for alternative methods because they don’t want to drive consciously/presently.
- mewpmewp2 4y ago
  Owning a self driving car you can always regulate using taxes etc. If too many people start using self driving cars you would increase taxes on owning those. I don't see that being an actual problem.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    that doesn't make any sense though - self driving is a capability, not a type of car. it would be like taxing cars that have cruise control. fundamentally self driving is a safety feature, why would you tax it?
    - mewpmewp2 4y ago
      You could tax owning a car more or putting the car in traffic in general, not necessarily self driving aspect of it. The main tax being about taking up room in the streets.
    - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
      Tolls in cities for traffic control are common where needed. It works well and is simple.
- throw0101c 4y ago
  Alternatively, a bunch of friends could buy a car together and split the costs. I could see a scenario where instead of (or in addition to) vehicles being pooled between "x" random people (taxis, Uber/Lyft, ZipCar), you could purchase a fractional share of a car (Cf. NetJets): you get semi-exclusive use of (particular?) vehicles.
bluGill 4y ago
i don't think so. when you own a car you can keep stuff in the car. Your golf clubs for an after work game, or those prizes you won at the circus while enjoying the meal after.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Fair point. If there are lots of self-driving taxi cars, there could be a market for storage lockers to store golf clubs or other things, however, I understand that may not provide the same benefit, namely not having to move this stuff all the time.
lokedhs 4y ago
Less parking, sure. But self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. The problem isn't the number of cars in existence, but rather how many cars are actually driving around at any given point. This number will surely go up with self driving, or at best stay the same.
- wpietri 4y ago
  > But self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. I think self-driving cars could (and probably will) net worsen the traffic problem, but the above is not necessarily correct. If we ever get them working properly, self-driving cars can collaborate in ways that humans can't. E.g., imagine a busy freeway. In theory, cars going similar ways could form a sort of peoloton, communicating with one another about intention and circumstance. So you could have a group of cars going from one city to another traveling at high speed very close together, saving fuel and space. But yes, generally anytime we make something easier, people do it more, so I expect any road efficiency gains to be swamped by increased demand.
  - ziml77 4y ago
    The problem is that every vehicle participating in that network would have to be owned and operated by a trusted entity. Otherwise it would be too easy for someone to modify the software or tamper with the hardware in ways that cause information to be misreported and cause a mess.
    - HDThoreaun 4y ago
      And then the person who owns that car gets charged with murder when it crashes on the highway
      - Gigachad 4y ago
        Except it was actually someone who’s iot car got hacked by an unknown group from another country.
clouddrover 4y ago
Adding more taxis increases traffic: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/uber-and-lyft-admit-they-re-making-traffic-worse https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/uber-and-... https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-21/cities-traffic-uber-and-lyft https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-21/cities-tra... https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/uber-lyft-traffic-congestion-car-ownership-study/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/uber-lyft-traffic-congest...
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Adding more human-driven taxis has increased traffic. I don't think that necessarily means adding more self-driven taxis would increase traffic. Perhaps, but I don't think it's a given.
  - clouddrover 4y ago
    There's no difference. They're both taxis. It doesn't matter who or what is driving it.
alasdair_ 4y ago
Making it easier and cheaper to access a car will likely mean more cars on the roads, not less.
- jimkleiber 4y ago
  Depending on a variety of factors. Number of people traveling, at which times they're traveling, how many people are traveling per vehicle, where they're traveling, etc.

endisneigh 4y ago

read the study I linked - what you suppose does not and has not happened in practice.

jimkleiber 4y ago
Ah ok, I'll check it out. I'm curious if self-driving Ubers would be a step change tho, or if we would observe the same thing. Edit: because if we half self-driving cars, do we also get self-driving buses and now we can have a lot more bus routes? Is lack (or cost) of labor one thing that holds back the number of buses we have? Could we have more mini buses? Just curious how much the labor factors into the transit options we have. Maybe it doesn't that much, I don't know.
- ghaff 4y ago
  I assume with autonomous driving, scheduled and computer dispatched minibuses/shuttle buses would be more common. Labor is a fairly large component of public transit. Of course, you don't remotely eliminate that for various reasons but reducing the need for drivers almost certainly makes alternative forms of transit more economical.
- mewpmewp2 4y ago
  There could be a huge algorithm which will try to schedule vehicles with varying sizes from 2 seats to 30 seats to people all over the city. If you pay more you can get the exact N spots so you get privacy, if you are willing to pay the least, you might have to go 30m into a dedicated spot where a 30 seater will stop for you and some others, then it will make optimised stops based on what everyone has as their destinations.
  - danny_codes 4y ago
    Ngl this sounds much worse than normal public transportation. AFAIK it's just the same thing but if you're rich you get special treatment. Imo more of a regression than an advance. Cars were largely a mistake.
    - mewpmewp2 4y ago
      You get special treatment when you are rich already now. It's more advanced and optimal version of what there is now. Right now if you are rich you can just hire a driver and a luxury car, and be much more wasteful with your resources, so I don't see the difference in terms of inequality.
    - dotancohen 4y ago
      If done properly, the rich people's transportation could subsidize the poor people's transportation to an extent.

dinkumthinkum 4y ago

Really? Do you find Uber and Lyft to be affordable or a financially sensible means of regular transportation?

jimkleiber 4y ago
One of the main costs is labor. Another is fuel. Get rid of labor and if fuel gets cheaper (I assume electricity, because it can come from more sources than gas, will get cheaper over time), then I assume these services will be cheaper. Plus, car ownership is not that cheap either.
- dinkumthinkum 4y ago
  Car ownership is a lot cheaper than Uber. It’s not even a question. You could buy an overpriced car that you can’t afford with a high interest rate and it would still be much cheaper. I think you need to go back to first principles on this one.
  - dtgriscom 4y ago
    > Car ownership is a lot cheaper than Uber. It’s not even a question. Well, yes it is. Cars are expensive: lease ($200+/month), maintenance ($100/mo), gas ($50/mo), insurance ($120/month), garage ($200/month). WAG of $670/month. That's 15 to 40 short-ish Uber rides/month. Commute an hour each way every day, and have free parking? Buy that car. Have it available for occasional trips to the grocery store? Uber is almost certainly cheaper. And, if autonomous taxis become real then the price will go down even further.
    - aidenn0 4y ago
      Leasing a car is the most expensive way to own a car (short of buying a new one every 3 years). Of course if you're paying $200/mo. for parking you can probably afford it. In much of the country parking is indirectly subsidized with zoning laws. This is all moot because, if driving places gets cheaper, traffic will get worse, which was the original point.

astral303 4y ago

I don’t think self-driving cars lead to fewer people owning cars, in fact it’s quite the opposite. With FSD, those who don’t like driving can deal with owning a car to do necessary transportation tasks (e.g. commuting), instead of giving it up for alternative methods because they don’t want to drive consciously/presently.

mewpmewp2 4y ago
Owning a self driving car you can always regulate using taxes etc. If too many people start using self driving cars you would increase taxes on owning those. I don't see that being an actual problem.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  that doesn't make any sense though - self driving is a capability, not a type of car. it would be like taxing cars that have cruise control. fundamentally self driving is a safety feature, why would you tax it?
  - mewpmewp2 4y ago
    You could tax owning a car more or putting the car in traffic in general, not necessarily self driving aspect of it. The main tax being about taking up room in the streets.
  - yazaddaruvala 4y ago
    Tolls in cities for traffic control are common where needed. It works well and is simple.
throw0101c 4y ago
Alternatively, a bunch of friends could buy a car together and split the costs. I could see a scenario where instead of (or in addition to) vehicles being pooled between "x" random people (taxis, Uber/Lyft, ZipCar), you could purchase a fractional share of a car (Cf. NetJets): you get semi-exclusive use of (particular?) vehicles.

bluGill 4y ago

i don't think so. when you own a car you can keep stuff in the car. Your golf clubs for an after work game, or those prizes you won at the circus while enjoying the meal after.

jimkleiber 4y ago
Fair point. If there are lots of self-driving taxi cars, there could be a market for storage lockers to store golf clubs or other things, however, I understand that may not provide the same benefit, namely not having to move this stuff all the time.

lokedhs 4y ago

Less parking, sure. But self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. The problem isn't the number of cars in existence, but rather how many cars are actually driving around at any given point. This number will surely go up with self driving, or at best stay the same.

wpietri 4y ago
> But self driving cars will do nothing to reduce traffic. I think self-driving cars could (and probably will) net worsen the traffic problem, but the above is not necessarily correct. If we ever get them working properly, self-driving cars can collaborate in ways that humans can't. E.g., imagine a busy freeway. In theory, cars going similar ways could form a sort of peoloton, communicating with one another about intention and circumstance. So you could have a group of cars going from one city to another traveling at high speed very close together, saving fuel and space. But yes, generally anytime we make something easier, people do it more, so I expect any road efficiency gains to be swamped by increased demand.
- ziml77 4y ago
  The problem is that every vehicle participating in that network would have to be owned and operated by a trusted entity. Otherwise it would be too easy for someone to modify the software or tamper with the hardware in ways that cause information to be misreported and cause a mess.
  - HDThoreaun 4y ago
    And then the person who owns that car gets charged with murder when it crashes on the highway
    - Gigachad 4y ago
      Except it was actually someone who’s iot car got hacked by an unknown group from another country.

clouddrover 4y ago

Adding more taxis increases traffic: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/uber-and-lyft-admit-they-re-making-traffic-worse https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-05/uber-and-... https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-21/cities-traffic-uber-and-lyft https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-02-21/cities-tra... https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/uber-lyft-traffic-congestion-car-ownership-study/ https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/uber-lyft-traffic-congest...

jimkleiber 4y ago
Adding more human-driven taxis has increased traffic. I don't think that necessarily means adding more self-driven taxis would increase traffic. Perhaps, but I don't think it's a given.
- clouddrover 4y ago
  There's no difference. They're both taxis. It doesn't matter who or what is driving it.

alasdair_ 4y ago

Making it easier and cheaper to access a car will likely mean more cars on the roads, not less.

jimkleiber 4y ago
Depending on a variety of factors. Number of people traveling, at which times they're traveling, how many people are traveling per vehicle, where they're traveling, etc.