20 ms·
The marginal driver cost is what creates equilibriums in the conventional modes. Either they're scheduled to work a shift, or they're owner-operators. Both crea
by syntheweave 3y ago
The marginal driver cost is what creates equilibriums in the conventional modes. Either they're scheduled to work a shift, or they're owner-operators. Both create constraints on how many vehicles can be dispatched, the form they have to take to satisfy demand, and the logistics around them(train tracks, parking spaces, automotive supply services, etc.). The large footprint of private auto and taxis lies within these constraints, as does the high-cap status of buses and trains.
The new modes are actually just the cost of the vehicle and support team, which means that the fleet can feasibly operate tiny, light, high frequency vehicles instead of or in addition to huge, consolidated, scheduled ones. You could have a self-driving three-wheeler, a self-driving minibus and so on. Loading can be standardized by policy.
That they aren't doing that right away just reflects the current cost structure and legal framework being weighted towards larger prototypes following conventional modes. But the reason why a robotaxi makes a better taxi is because it isn't a taxi in practice, it's transit. It's centrally planned, it has standardized fleet management.
- creer 3y agoThere are many things to love in the potential of self-driving cabs. Fleets can also be parked in distributed smaller spaces (impractical for cabs or buses - typically). Fleet cars can be idled in place (head to a street with typically available space and just stop there.) And this is even if we never get to privately owned or leased vehicles being used as part of a fleet operation when not wanted by their private owner.