4 ms·
> Cars can park away from you and come back to pick you up. This should alleviate parking problems, and reduce parking-space-search based congestion on the stre
by brenns10 4y ago
> Cars can park away from you and come back to pick you up. This should alleviate parking problems, and reduce parking-space-search based congestion on the street.
I know this sounds nice for just a moment, but if you consider it longer, it's awful. It won't decrease congestion, it will increase it. Why?
1. Cars will still be searching for parking: many people will prefer to have their car nearby. It's not as if every car will altruistically drive to a far-off area. Since self driving cars have more patience than humans, they'll be on the road much longer searching for their parking. It may be more efficient to keep the car circling the block, which is even worse.
2. Parking availability is a major inhibitor of car trips, especially in cities. This is a good thing. If it becomes easier to "park" (ie leave your car driving on the street or send it away), that will induce more car trips, and more car trips means more congestion, until there's a new equilibrium (maybe a 7-minute parking search is eliminated, but it's replaced with 7+ minutes of traffic).
3. Pick-up and drop-off in cities is already difficult with rideshare services. If all personal vehicles are doing it as well, they'll definitely congest the curb lanes more. This is definitely a more solvable problem than the first two, but still an annoyance.
And for what it's worth, the 4-hour commute may be a bit far fetched, but it's hard to deny that many wouldn't mind an extra 20 minutes of commute time in traffic if they can relax, nap, read, watch a show, etc. People will chose that option more, adding more trips and more congestion, until an equilibrium is reached. Maybe it won't be 4-hour commute times but it will be a major increase and added congestion.
All of these extra miles traveled searching for parking, and adding extra congestion, are disastrous to cities and neighborhoods. Sure, the fossil fuel emissions alone would be awful, but suppose (charitably) that all autonomous vehicles are electric, and assume that their electricity generation is emission free (unrealistic for decades). The weight of EV batteries will dramatically increase road wear and tear, and they'll increase the pollution due to rubber tires, which are already the major source of microplastic pollution. And of course, it's a dramatic waste of energy from the power grid. And all of this is ignoring that dedicating that much road space storing to idling and parked vehicles is a no-good, terrible, awful way to utilize public space in a city or neighborhood, when it could be used by some efficient public transit, parks, and safer infrastructure for personal vehicles when necessary.
- lallysingh 4y agoPrice the spots by location (or bid) and make their availability known through a web service. The parking trip is a straight shot and spot congestion is managed better than today. Another benefit of automating a manual process.
- brenns10 4y agoSure, fair market pricing for parking via bidding would be amazing. Of course, there's decades of subsidies for parking built-in, but the price would still be much higher than you'd expect. (Check out "The High Cost of Free Parking" by Donald Shoup for a great overview of the huge public subsidy we already give cars, paid for by non-drivers). You'd then need to price the time a vehicle spends on the road without an occupant. Otherwise you're just pushing people to send their cars around the block for an hour to avoid paying market rate for parking. But it's hard to enforce the "unoccupied vehicle" rule, so it would be much better to just charge for all road use time in high congestion areas. Maybe... congestion pricing?
- fortran77 4y agoEveryone pays for free parking, not just non drivers.
- brenns10 4y agoExactly. Which means drivers are getting a great discount thanks to the people who don't use a car, and the non-drivers are getting a markup on all the prices they pay. And the non-drivers were already paying a huge amount to maintain car infrastructure (at least in the US) because the gas tax doesn't nearly cover it. Now don't get me wrong, I understand the value of a public good. Grocery stores receive food via trucks on roads, so even non-drivers get the benefit of the road. The parking subsidy, however, is insidious because it's so much less visible. It's not a government investing in a public good: the city instead requires businesses to maintain off-street parking, and they pass that cost on to everyone. It lets everybody believe that parking, and driving altogether, is much cheaper than it really is, because the (actually enormous) parking costs are hidden away and subsidized by those who don't use it.