5 ms·

I'm really not sure that this is the case at all. Taxis already exist in basically every city in the US, as do vanpools, bus services and heavily subsidized pub

by x1798DE 12y ago

I'm really not sure that this is the case at all. Taxis already exist in basically every city in the US, as do vanpools, bus services and heavily subsidized public transportation, but we still have significant rates of car ownership. Self-driving cars do improve on the "human-driven-car" model because they have faster reaction times and the like, but the aspect of self-driving cars where you don't have to be in control of the vehicle isn't anything new. It's certainly possible that cost was the major driver of these sorts of things, but my guess is that the convenience of having your own car ready at all times will remain paramount. It's also plausible to me that airbnb-like services renting out self-driving cars will be common, which would simultaneously alleviate the need to own a car and reduce the cost of car ownership. I imagine the switch to primarily self-driving car services will have a greater impact in cities, where the density will be high enough that the latency between wanting a car and getting one will be smallest. If a car has to drive for 20 minutes just to pick you up and take you to the store to get some milk, you'll probably just want your own car.

abruzzi 12y ago
I've frequently heard the idea bounced around that self driving cars will eliminate the need for ownership. I'm glad you mentioned taxis, because it brings up something that has bugged me about this idea for a while. I live in a metro area of 200,000. This metro area has exactly zero taxis. (We do have a free ride services that is funded by the local city for getting the elderly and disabled around, which probably has six cars.) The three reasons are size density and wealth. As density goes down, mileage to get from point A to point B goes up, which means costs go up. It also means that cars are potentially occupied for longer periods, so you would likely need more cars to service the same population in denser areas. So ultimately taxis are not economically feasible here. So because you don't have to hire drivers, those costs go down and potentially lower the barrier to entry, but you have potentially more expensive vehicles, and higher maintenance costs that may somewhat offset the savings. So you could charge more for the service here, but being a poor city, would anyone here pay the extra costs? Enough to sustain the business model? Or will we have to suffer with significantly worse service--wait an hour to get picked up. I'm sure the business model would work in SF, NYC, Chicago, but here it will have to come down a lot in cost. Also (to the parent poster,) I just see the possibility that a migration like this could take place within 25 years just ludicrous.
- ncallaway 12y ago
  "Also (to the parent poster,) I just see the possibility that a migration like this could take place within 25 years just ludicrous." Why is such a time-frame for this kind of a transition so ludicrous? In 1989 cell-phones were uncommon and looked like this: http://phoneevolution.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/1.jpg http://phoneevolution.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/1.jpg. In 1899 there were about ~8,000 automobiles in the United States [1]. In 1924 Ford was producing over 2M Model T's per year [2]. In 1903 we saw the powered flight of a heavier-than-air aircraft by the Wright brothers. In 1927 somebody flew an airplane across the Atlantic ocean. [3] [1] http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_19th.htm http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_19th.... [2] http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_30.htm http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_30.ht... [3] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/wb-timeline.html#1903 http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/wb-timeline.html#1903
  - Mandelbug 12y ago
    I would like to point out that all of your examples are of expanding industries, not industries that underwent large societal, cultural, and legal transformations into entirely different industries. Society, culture, and laws are made for expanding industries, they have to be evolved and rewritten for industries of change. So I am going to have to disagree, 25 years would have to be the most optimistic kind of prediction, assuming that all players are willing and pro-active, rather than passive and resistive (both in society and legally speaking).
- prawn 12y ago
  At first, someone might own their own robo-car but make it available (through some brand/software) to service other people on demand. Imagine it's called "Uber Libre" or something so it leverages an app and efforts in major cities. Assuming that insurance/security is covered by Uber Libre, the risk to the vehicle owner will be reduced. That person will profit from their vehicle whenever they're not using it (and tax free against the cost of the vehicle?). They'll either build up a fleet or others will catch wind and do the same. Someone buying a new vehicle will be choosing between the default or something that self-drives only them around or something they can share with friends or rent out to the masses. An equilibrium will be reached where the needs of the city are covered for the costs involved. Want to go to a restaurant and drink more than you could and still drive? Easy. Want to have a truck show up and help you move a sofa? Easy. 25 years is a long, long time...
bluedino 12y ago
>> Taxis already exist in basically every city in the US They exist, but in most towns nobody uses them at all.
duaneb 12y ago
Taxis are too expensive to use casually for most people.
slavik81 12y ago
Taxis are expensive and slow. There are relatively few of them, so you spend 20-40 minutes waiting for them to pick you up, and then pay them 5x-10x as much as it would cost you to drive yourself. If self-driving cars were even half as common as regular cars, there would be a dozen parked on the street by your house. You wouldn't need to wait more than a few minutes, and cost could be lower than standard car ownership due to better utilization of the vehicles.
- x1798DE 12y ago
  The whole point of mentioning taxis was that the part about self-driving cars where you don't have to control the vehicle and where the vehicle just goes and picks someone else up after you are done with it is already served by taxis. It's definitely likely that self-driving cars will displace taxis, but it's not clear that it will actually be all that cost-effective in most places. The argument to be made is that the driver is such a large fraction of the cost of a taxi that reducing that to a single fixed-cost addition of a computer + sensors is going to dramatically change the pricing structure in such a way that people will give up personal vehicles. I think that's very likely not true in most places where population densities are low. There will probably be some rebalancing, but I don't think it will be as dramatic a shift as the parent comment made it out to be.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    I'm in a town in a ~2,000 square mile county, where the county population is less than 40,000 and the town is a bit more than 10,000. There is a county transit authority (which is subsidized) that runs a couple of buses and a few taxis (I don't think they are subsidized, but labor here is cheap and it isn't a hard place to find your way around). There's lots of places with lower population density than that, but the viability of something that costs 60 or 70 percent of what a taxi costs kicks in at some pretty low point.
ack 12y ago
The idea of renting your own car out is already in practice (though not a self-driven one). see http://www.snappcar.nl http://www.snappcar.nl

by x1798DE 12y ago

abruzzi 12y ago

I've frequently heard the idea bounced around that self driving cars will eliminate the need for ownership. I'm glad you mentioned taxis, because it brings up something that has bugged me about this idea for a while. I live in a metro area of 200,000. This metro area has exactly zero taxis. (We do have a free ride services that is funded by the local city for getting the elderly and disabled around, which probably has six cars.) The three reasons are size density and wealth. As density goes down, mileage to get from point A to point B goes up, which means costs go up. It also means that cars are potentially occupied for longer periods, so you would likely need more cars to service the same population in denser areas. So ultimately taxis are not economically feasible here. So because you don't have to hire drivers, those costs go down and potentially lower the barrier to entry, but you have potentially more expensive vehicles, and higher maintenance costs that may somewhat offset the savings. So you could charge more for the service here, but being a poor city, would anyone here pay the extra costs? Enough to sustain the business model? Or will we have to suffer with significantly worse service--wait an hour to get picked up. I'm sure the business model would work in SF, NYC, Chicago, but here it will have to come down a lot in cost. Also (to the parent poster,) I just see the possibility that a migration like this could take place within 25 years just ludicrous.

ncallaway 12y ago
"Also (to the parent poster,) I just see the possibility that a migration like this could take place within 25 years just ludicrous." Why is such a time-frame for this kind of a transition so ludicrous? In 1989 cell-phones were uncommon and looked like this: http://phoneevolution.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/1.jpg http://phoneevolution.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/1.jpg. In 1899 there were about ~8,000 automobiles in the United States [1]. In 1924 Ford was producing over 2M Model T's per year [2]. In 1903 we saw the powered flight of a heavier-than-air aircraft by the Wright brothers. In 1927 somebody flew an airplane across the Atlantic ocean. [3] [1] http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_19th.htm http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_19th.... [2] http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_30.htm http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364/materials/cars/cars%20_30.ht... [3] http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/wb-timeline.html#1903 http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/wb-timeline.html#1903
- Mandelbug 12y ago
  I would like to point out that all of your examples are of expanding industries, not industries that underwent large societal, cultural, and legal transformations into entirely different industries. Society, culture, and laws are made for expanding industries, they have to be evolved and rewritten for industries of change. So I am going to have to disagree, 25 years would have to be the most optimistic kind of prediction, assuming that all players are willing and pro-active, rather than passive and resistive (both in society and legally speaking).
prawn 12y ago
At first, someone might own their own robo-car but make it available (through some brand/software) to service other people on demand. Imagine it's called "Uber Libre" or something so it leverages an app and efforts in major cities. Assuming that insurance/security is covered by Uber Libre, the risk to the vehicle owner will be reduced. That person will profit from their vehicle whenever they're not using it (and tax free against the cost of the vehicle?). They'll either build up a fleet or others will catch wind and do the same. Someone buying a new vehicle will be choosing between the default or something that self-drives only them around or something they can share with friends or rent out to the masses. An equilibrium will be reached where the needs of the city are covered for the costs involved. Want to go to a restaurant and drink more than you could and still drive? Easy. Want to have a truck show up and help you move a sofa? Easy. 25 years is a long, long time...

bluedino 12y ago

>> Taxis already exist in basically every city in the US They exist, but in most towns nobody uses them at all.

duaneb 12y ago

Taxis are too expensive to use casually for most people.

slavik81 12y ago

Taxis are expensive and slow. There are relatively few of them, so you spend 20-40 minutes waiting for them to pick you up, and then pay them 5x-10x as much as it would cost you to drive yourself. If self-driving cars were even half as common as regular cars, there would be a dozen parked on the street by your house. You wouldn't need to wait more than a few minutes, and cost could be lower than standard car ownership due to better utilization of the vehicles.

x1798DE 12y ago
The whole point of mentioning taxis was that the part about self-driving cars where you don't have to control the vehicle and where the vehicle just goes and picks someone else up after you are done with it is already served by taxis. It's definitely likely that self-driving cars will displace taxis, but it's not clear that it will actually be all that cost-effective in most places. The argument to be made is that the driver is such a large fraction of the cost of a taxi that reducing that to a single fixed-cost addition of a computer + sensors is going to dramatically change the pricing structure in such a way that people will give up personal vehicles. I think that's very likely not true in most places where population densities are low. There will probably be some rebalancing, but I don't think it will be as dramatic a shift as the parent comment made it out to be.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  I'm in a town in a ~2,000 square mile county, where the county population is less than 40,000 and the town is a bit more than 10,000. There is a county transit authority (which is subsidized) that runs a couple of buses and a few taxis (I don't think they are subsidized, but labor here is cheap and it isn't a hard place to find your way around). There's lots of places with lower population density than that, but the viability of something that costs 60 or 70 percent of what a taxi costs kicks in at some pretty low point.

ack 12y ago

The idea of renting your own car out is already in practice (though not a self-driven one). see http://www.snappcar.nl http://www.snappcar.nl