7 ms·

I think the eventual goal will be that most cars will be self-driving and that will negate most of those problems. I imagine that the vision of the future is a

I think the eventual goal will be that most cars will be self-driving and that will negate most of those problems. I imagine that the vision of the future is a giant car-sharing program made up of self-driving cars all coordinated by Google. Think about it - you fire up an app to request a car, one appears at your door within a couple of minutes, takes you to work, then disappears. After work, a different car picks you up, whisks you home, then scurries off to recharge/refuel/drive someone else. I suspect that in the long term the thinking is that things like "parking" and "owning a car" will be less common than they are today. There will still be a place for manually driven cars, like ones pulling a trailer, etc.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Correct. That's one reason I think that Chicago's decision to privatize parking was an inspired one. The city got a great deal of criticism for giving a decades-long revenue concession to a private operator for a relatively low up-front cost, but all the critics assume a constant or increasing demand for parking based on historical usage patterns. I think usage patterns are going to change radically and that we'll see far lower traffic densities in the not-too-distant future.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ams6110 12y ago
  It was a desperation move, not an inspired one. Chicago and the entire state of Illinois are in terrible financial condition.
timdorr 12y ago
AAAS - Automobiles as a Service. That could actually be pretty cool. Basically, a ZipCar + Uber that doesn't suck. That would be the dream.
- RaphiePS 12y ago
  See http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/25/uberauto/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/25/uberauto/
- AJ007 12y ago
  I miss the days when you could read science fiction and think, "none of this exists, I wonder what the future will end up looking like?" We are way past the conceptual stage for the future of transport, and I think it will look exactly like the mashup you are describing.
  - masklinn 12y ago
    It could even be improved with printable self-driving cars, areas would have a base load of self-driving cars, but in case of need/rush the area center would just print new cars. My biggest fear re. cars as a service is degradations, it's been an issue in at least some of the bicycle sharing systems.
User9812 12y ago
I can't see that working. You'll require a ton of cars taking individuals or small groups to and from work in a big city. That's not very efficient, and the reason we have a metro system in the first place. 1. That's a lot of pollution. 2. You have twice as much traffic, since these cars need to come to your house every morning, and drive back to their charging station in the evening. They can take those trips off-peak hours, but you still have a lot more cars on the road. They could stay at your house overnight to save on wasting energy, but at that point you're just owning a car, or renting one full-time. 3. Do many people take a taxi to and from work daily? No, and this is quite similar. It's too expensive, people take public transportation, or buy a cheap vehicle (this could be that vehicle). This is a replacement for the taxi, and for car rentals. If you live in a city and need to rent a car for a day, this would be a great situation. You don't even need a driver's license, so you just push a button, car appears, and you're taking it to your destination. I've lived in a dozen different cities, and this is something I'd use. I don't rent cars often because it's kind of a hassle, a little scary driving in a new city, and a little annoying searching for parking, but the convenience of pushing a button would encourage me to use it for certain trips. It should also be slightly cheaper than a taxi since you're not paying or tipping a driver. They could probably get creative and offer monthly plans, where you get up to X trips, and Y kilometers, for a slightly better rate than renting on a per trip basis.
- prawn 12y ago
  1. Less pollution than what we have now given that many people spend time hunting for a park when they arrive, or drive five-seat vehicles even though they're alone or with 1-2 others. I read something saying that in a city centre, often 30% of traffic is simply people hunting for a park. I know when I arrive near my office, I can spend 5-10 minutes driving around trying to get an all-day park. Three times a week I'm driving an SUV that can seat five and has a large boot (passengers are my wife and toddler), the other days I'm in a five seat sedan (and solo). 2. I'd say that depots will be interspersed around the city and suburbs, for one thing. Cars might move from suburban depots over night to densely-arranged city parking/depots during the day, waiting for the evening rush. A car that dropped you at work after your run in from the South is then immediately free to take someone from the city centre down South again, or be available for a courier job, or a tourist leaving a city hotel for a day trip. The mesh of cars communicating will determine the most economical use of the vehicles and anticipate demand. Further, cars communicating with each other will mean that typical causes of congestion (like traffic lights) will be better handled and less of an issue. 3. Taxis are expensive partly because there are salaried humans driving them. If these are electric vehicles and solar charged, fuel and driver are largely out of the equation.
vacri 12y ago
Why not go the whole hog and just shuttle people to whichever house has an open bed for the night? With some smart scheduling software, you could ensure that families get shuttled to the same location.
- steffan 12y ago
  I realize you're being facetious, but these already exist. They're called “hotels.” It doesn't take a huge stretch of imagination to think that if the marginal costs of operation were similarly reduced by automation that it could become economically feasible to reside solely in hotels.
ams6110 12y ago
Google will be unable to centrally coordinate the transportation needs of everybody in any way approaching the ability of individuals to autonomously manage their own needs. What would actually happen in this scenario is persistent shortages of cars in times of high demand and long waits.

anigbrowl 12y ago

Correct. That's one reason I think that Chicago's decision to privatize parking was an inspired one. The city got a great deal of criticism for giving a decades-long revenue concession to a private operator for a relatively low up-front cost, but all the critics assume a constant or increasing demand for parking based on historical usage patterns. I think usage patterns are going to change radically and that we'll see far lower traffic densities in the not-too-distant future.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ams6110 12y ago
It was a desperation move, not an inspired one. Chicago and the entire state of Illinois are in terrible financial condition.

timdorr 12y ago

AAAS - Automobiles as a Service. That could actually be pretty cool. Basically, a ZipCar + Uber that doesn't suck. That would be the dream.

RaphiePS 12y ago
See http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/25/uberauto/ http://techcrunch.com/2013/08/25/uberauto/
AJ007 12y ago
I miss the days when you could read science fiction and think, "none of this exists, I wonder what the future will end up looking like?" We are way past the conceptual stage for the future of transport, and I think it will look exactly like the mashup you are describing.
- masklinn 12y ago
  It could even be improved with printable self-driving cars, areas would have a base load of self-driving cars, but in case of need/rush the area center would just print new cars. My biggest fear re. cars as a service is degradations, it's been an issue in at least some of the bicycle sharing systems.

User9812 12y ago

I can't see that working. You'll require a ton of cars taking individuals or small groups to and from work in a big city. That's not very efficient, and the reason we have a metro system in the first place. 1. That's a lot of pollution. 2. You have twice as much traffic, since these cars need to come to your house every morning, and drive back to their charging station in the evening. They can take those trips off-peak hours, but you still have a lot more cars on the road. They could stay at your house overnight to save on wasting energy, but at that point you're just owning a car, or renting one full-time. 3. Do many people take a taxi to and from work daily? No, and this is quite similar. It's too expensive, people take public transportation, or buy a cheap vehicle (this could be that vehicle). This is a replacement for the taxi, and for car rentals. If you live in a city and need to rent a car for a day, this would be a great situation. You don't even need a driver's license, so you just push a button, car appears, and you're taking it to your destination. I've lived in a dozen different cities, and this is something I'd use. I don't rent cars often because it's kind of a hassle, a little scary driving in a new city, and a little annoying searching for parking, but the convenience of pushing a button would encourage me to use it for certain trips. It should also be slightly cheaper than a taxi since you're not paying or tipping a driver. They could probably get creative and offer monthly plans, where you get up to X trips, and Y kilometers, for a slightly better rate than renting on a per trip basis.

prawn 12y ago
1. Less pollution than what we have now given that many people spend time hunting for a park when they arrive, or drive five-seat vehicles even though they're alone or with 1-2 others. I read something saying that in a city centre, often 30% of traffic is simply people hunting for a park. I know when I arrive near my office, I can spend 5-10 minutes driving around trying to get an all-day park. Three times a week I'm driving an SUV that can seat five and has a large boot (passengers are my wife and toddler), the other days I'm in a five seat sedan (and solo). 2. I'd say that depots will be interspersed around the city and suburbs, for one thing. Cars might move from suburban depots over night to densely-arranged city parking/depots during the day, waiting for the evening rush. A car that dropped you at work after your run in from the South is then immediately free to take someone from the city centre down South again, or be available for a courier job, or a tourist leaving a city hotel for a day trip. The mesh of cars communicating will determine the most economical use of the vehicles and anticipate demand. Further, cars communicating with each other will mean that typical causes of congestion (like traffic lights) will be better handled and less of an issue. 3. Taxis are expensive partly because there are salaried humans driving them. If these are electric vehicles and solar charged, fuel and driver are largely out of the equation.

vacri 12y ago

Why not go the whole hog and just shuttle people to whichever house has an open bed for the night? With some smart scheduling software, you could ensure that families get shuttled to the same location.

steffan 12y ago
I realize you're being facetious, but these already exist. They're called “hotels.” It doesn't take a huge stretch of imagination to think that if the marginal costs of operation were similarly reduced by automation that it could become economically feasible to reside solely in hotels.

ams6110 12y ago

Google will be unable to centrally coordinate the transportation needs of everybody in any way approaching the ability of individuals to autonomously manage their own needs. What would actually happen in this scenario is persistent shortages of cars in times of high demand and long waits.