EV's and Transportation as a Service to kill Alberta economy by 2030?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by GGG

I can see the cost difference existing but I'm unsure how much you actually end up seeing and how much just ends up as profit in a market that will be at least as monopolistic as cell phones. The cost for no one to own a car is much lower than the cost for x% to not own their car. And given these companies want to ensure profitability there will be a sweet spot for this car sharing option.

The rush hour problem isn't congestion it's that the demand for cars will only exist at rush hour unless people will be willing to car pool. (Which they could do now but choose not to). Changing from a driverless car from a driven one does not make car pooling any more attractive. So if car pooling does not increase and congestion decreases reducing transit times and parking costs no longer exist because I just send the car home all of these things incentivize me owning my own car.

And if people aren't willing to car pool the usage rate of the vehicles won't be high enough to get the benefits of car sharing for most people. Cartogo is an excellent example. Making car to go driverless doesn't really change the car 2 go model. It makes it a little easier to get a car but outside of that the automated fleet of corporate owned vehicles is no different.

So while automation will happen automation actually incentivized individual ownership by reducing insurance, parking and congestion costs.

People much smarter than you or I that study this for a living are making the exact same arguments as you and I. No one really knows what is going to happen.


Billions of dollars are being invested in autonomous Rose sharing or TaaS. Ford just invested $1B in a ride sharing start up. In fact, they announced they'll have their own TaaS by 2021. Apple invested over a billion in a Chinese ride share company. Google has spent many billions investing their own. Uber is worth billions simply based on its bet to become TaaS. I feel like these guys are smart bettors.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by GGG

I can see the cost difference existing but I'm unsure how much you actually end up seeing and how much just ends up as profit in a market that will be at least as monopolistic as cell phones. The cost for no one to own a car is much lower than the cost for x% to not own their car. And given these companies want to ensure profitability there will be a sweet spot for this car sharing option.

The rush hour problem isn't congestion it's that the demand for cars will only exist at rush hour unless people will be willing to car pool. (Which they could do now but choose not to). Changing from a driverless car from a driven one does not make car pooling any more attractive. So if car pooling does not increase and congestion decreases reducing transit times and parking costs no longer exist because I just send the car home all of these things incentivize me owning my own car.

And if people aren't willing to car pool the usage rate of the vehicles won't be high enough to get the benefits of car sharing for most people. Cartogo is an excellent example. Making car to go driverless doesn't really change the car 2 go model. It makes it a little easier to get a car but outside of that the automated fleet of corporate owned vehicles is no different.

So while automation will happen automation actually incentivized individual ownership by reducing insurance, parking and congestion costs.

I think there is significant absolutist push backk happening in this thread in part because of the implied doom and gloom for the energy economy of alberta, but from the posted excerpt, the authors don't appear to be suggesting that people will just start abandoning their vehicles en masse at the side of the road, but that they will represent an increasingly small amount of car owners and miles travelled:

Taken together, this analysis forecasts a very fast and extensive disruption:
TaaS will provide 95% of the passenger miles traveled within 10 years of
the widespread regulatory approval of AVs. By 2030, individually owned ICE
vehicles will still represent 40% of the vehicles in the U.S. vehicle fleet, but
they will provide just 5% of passenger miles.

I don't think this is particularly outrageous if you consider some of the math involved. There are about 250 million vehicles in the US, and they are on average about 11 years old.

In 13 years, you'll have basically gone through the lifecycle of vehicles in production now. Ford is saying they want to have an autonomous vehicle in their lineup by 2021. The department of transportation is making it mandatory for new vehicles to be able to communicate to each other by 2020.

These are all in step with a timeline for a reduction in user driven mileage in the next 12-15 years. Even though people aren't buying them, auto makers are expanding their eletric vehicle lineup. For me, the development of electric vehicles is ubiquitous with autonomous vehicles, and the drive behind their development from major auto manufacturers is going to be a big reason autonomous vehicles may be prevalent in our society sooner than we think.

The other major factor is the abundance of data about driving and drivers that is now available to manufacturers and insurance companies. Once your driving data is available for your insurance profile it will become increasingly difficult and expensive to get appropriate insurance coverage. What is interesting about the posted analysis is the economic argument for the switch.

There will still be outliers, perhaps even 50% of the cars owned and on the road, but 13 years from now that 50% of vehicles might be 25 or 30% autonomous already, just owned privately.

That doesn't sound crazy to me.

[GGG]

I'm 100% behind that autonomous is the future and autonomous cabs and car2go will exist. What I remain unconvinced by is that private ownership reduces total number of cars owned by any significant margin.

What is the difference between Cabs and Car2go and this revolutionary future? Car2go is more expensive than car ownership at the majority of people's kms/month driven. Autonomous fleets don't make Car2go cheaper. So unless there is a dramatic change in the commuting demands placed on us the autonomous cars in the passenger space is not revolutionary.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

1) GM invests $500M in Lyft. Would they invest half a billion dollars just to help us save money? It's because they're Blockbuster and realize they need to invest in movie streaming or become obsolete. That's why.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...e-against-uber

2) Yes maintenance costs are associated with mileage, but when you're your own shop, it's cheaper. It's still much lower power mile than ownership.

lol

GM does not consider themselves Blockbuster. And they are not investing in Lyft because they are concerned for their own demise. They are simply covering bases.

Still waiting for any kind of reasoning where corporations are going to provide all these vehicles for public benefit.

There is a big difference between the existence of TAAS, and it's dominance.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It was at one point looked at as an unecessary luxury by those that didn't want to pay for it though. People then, had the same concerns as people now when new things are introduced. It was inconvenient in the sense that communities had to splurge for the infrastructure and people needed to retrofit their structures. "Who is going to pay for it?" Will my taxes go up?"

The resistance you're talking about is similar to what some of us are saying here: it takes time and money for these things to change. Infrastructure and lifestyles don't just turn on a dime.

I just don't see insurance companies agreeing to lose tonnes of money. I can see them jacking up prices and making it a luxury for the wealthy. Plus, as they become more rare, the cost of buying, owning and maintaining them will go up due to supply and demand. Much like insuring a high-end sports car or a classic car is now. Or horse and buggy insurance for that matter.

Who said anything about losing money? If there are fewer accidents, then insurance rates will come down. Insurance companies will still profit.

If they could jack rates at will, they would do it now.

[para transit fellow]

I think the first gamechanger will have the biggest impact on oil /gas industry -- electric vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles will create different changes in the realm of how we use vehicles.

I believe we will start to see the impact of electric vehicles on global oil consumption in about 5-7 years

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Still waiting for any kind of reasoning where corporations are going to provide all these vehicles for public benefit.

I don't think anyone has suggested that any corporation (I assume you mean automotive manufacturers) is going to give anything away. So the question is kind of confusing.

Like they've always done, they'll sell them for a profit.

If this is what people want, then Mercedes-Benz (for example) isn't just going to throw up their arms and say "well that's it, we had a good run".

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

I think there is significant absolutist push backk happening in this thread in part because of the implied doom and gloom for the energy economy of alberta, but from the posted excerpt, the authors don't appear to be suggesting that people will just start abandoning their vehicles en masse at the side of the road, but that they will represent an increasingly small amount of car owners and miles travelled:



I don't think this is particularly outrageous if you consider some of the math involved. There are about 250 million vehicles in the US, and they are on average about 11 years old.

In 13 years, you'll have basically gone through the lifecycle of vehicles in production now. Ford is saying they want to have an autonomous vehicle in their lineup by 2021. The department of transportation is making it mandatory for new vehicles to be able to communicate to each other by 2020.

These are all in step with a timeline for a reduction in user driven mileage in the next 12-15 years. Even though people aren't buying them, auto makers are expanding their eletric vehicle lineup. For me, the development of electric vehicles is ubiquitous with autonomous vehicles, and the drive behind their development from major auto manufacturers is going to be a big reason autonomous vehicles may be prevalent in our society sooner than we think.

The other major factor is the abundance of data about driving and drivers that is now available to manufacturers and insurance companies. Once your driving data is available for your insurance profile it will become increasingly difficult and expensive to get appropriate insurance coverage. What is interesting about the posted analysis is the economic argument for the switch.

There will still be outliers, perhaps even 50% of the cars owned and on the road, but 13 years from now that 50% of vehicles might be 25 or 30% autonomous already, just owned privately.

That doesn't sound crazy to me.

Why? Your insurance company has your driving record now. The cost of insurance is fairly straight-forward: replacement cost plus a profit margin.

Insurance companies want fewer accidents. Having virtually no accidents means less outlay. Profitability on a smaller capital turnover.

I am not seeing any reason why insurance is going to become more difficult or expensive for individual drivers.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Who said anything about losing money? If there are fewer accidents, then insurance rates will come down. Insurance companies will still profit.

If they could jack rates at will, they would do it now.

But if there are fewer cars, the price of parts, fuel and repairs is bound to go up as well. Manufacturers will charge more for parts if the quantity goes down, oil companies will make up for losses by charging more, and mechanics that work on gasoline engines will charge more as the work become more infrequent.

The parts and repairs prices in particular are bound to drive up insurance costs. Insurance companies don't charge their rates based on accidents (by that logic, someone who as never had an accident shouldn't have to pay much at all). It's based on the theoretical risk of an accident and the cost of repairs and replacement. That won't change just because there are fewer manual cars.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I don't think anyone has suggested that any corporation (I assume you mean automotive manufacturers) is going to give anything away. So the question is kind of confusing.

Like they've always done, they'll sell them for a profit.

If this is what people want, then Mercedes-Benz (for example) isn't just going to throw up their arms and say "well that's it, we had a good run".

People are suggesting that there will be a massive supply of vehicles available for shared consumption. Who is supplying these vehicles, and why?

The car companies build cars. They will continue to build cars. They don't care if cars are gas, electric, or nuclear powered -as long as they are building them.

Why question is: who is supplying us with all these cars that we are going to share? How will it be profitable for them? Surely someone thinks there is an actual business case here, or is everyone just hoping for unicorns?

[GGG]

Why are there fewer cars? The automation reduced parking and insurance costs and eliminated congestion, Evs reduced gas cost. Everything is making car ownership cheaper why would I car pool when owning my private car (which got much smaller and cheaper because
I don't need the safety features) gets much cheaper and I can drink beer in it.

If mass commuting still occurs private cars will still dominate.

[puckedoff]

Automated cars will decimate demand for public transport too. I'm not going to take the train when I can have my car drop me off and return home, especially if the price of these cars comes down as many are expecting.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

But if there are fewer cars, the price of parts, fuel and repairs is bound to go up as well. Manufacturers will charge more for parts if the quantity goes down, oil companies will make up for losses by charging more, and mechanics that work on gasoline engines will charge more as the work become more infrequent.

The parts and repairs prices in particular are bound to drive up insurance costs. Insurance companies don't charge their rates based on accidents (by that logic, someone who as never had an accident shouldn't have to pay much at all). It's based on the theoretical risk of an accident and the cost of repairs and replacement. That won't change just because there are fewer manual cars.

I fail to see how the price of parts is going to skyrocket.

But even if parts are more expensive, if there are fewer accidents then insurance costs will be lower.

Insurance costs are based on aggregate replacement costs. And are shared by all drivers, which is what makes it affordable.

If the number of accidents declines significantly, then the cost of insurance will decline as well.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

People are suggesting that there will be a massive supply of vehicles available for shared consumption. Who is supplying these vehicles, and why?

The car companies build cars. They will continue to build cars. They don't care if cars are gas, electric, or nuclear powered -as long as they are building them.

Why question is: who is supplying us with all these cars that we are going to share? How will it be profitable for them? Surely someone thinks there is an actual business case here, or is everyone just hoping for unicorns?

If car sharing is profitable, car sharing outfits will supply as many as necessary. To make money. And car manufacturers (if they aren't running the service themselves) will build them.

Who supplies cabs? Who supplies Car2Gos?

Nobody expects it to be a free service. You'll have to pay for it. That's where the unicorn doesn't come in.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If car sharing is profitable, car sharing outfits will supply as many as necessary. To make money. And car manufacturers (if they aren't running the service themselves) will build them.

Who supplies cabs? Who supplies Car2Gos?

Nobody expects it to be a free service. You'll have to pay for it. That's where the unicorn doesn't come in.

Cabs are profitable.

That doesn't mean that all of a sudden everyone is going to stop driving their own car and take a cab everywhere.

The premise was that car sharing is going to be super cheap and therefore people will adopt it.

For it to be adopted that thoroughly, there would need to be millions of vehicles available. HUGE capital outlay. That won't happen as quickly as some are suggesting here.

And all we have so far is 'if' car sharing is profitable. Again, I think the logistics being that most people want to drive in basically the same direction at the same time, suggests that: costs won't be anywhere near as low as are being suggested; far more vehicles would be required than the projections suggest; and there is no real reason offered as to why people would suddenly adopt something that has never been in demand, ever.

[Enoch Root]

Just doing some quick math...

I think someone said the expectation was something like 50 million shared vehicles (to replace 247 million single-operator vehicles). Using that number, and assuming $20k per vehicle, that's $1 TRILLION capital outlay.

That is a LOT of $9 rides.

And remember, if a car is being driven 24/7, it's shelf life is a couple of years, not 10 to 12. Even if you can squeeze 3 years out of each vehicle, that's still a lot of capital.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

It's interesting that many objections revolve around when this could happen...not if it will happen. Whether the changes happen in 14 years 20 years or 30 years the Alberta economy still needs to figure out how to leverage this.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Just doing some quick math...

I think someone said the expectation was something like 50 million shared vehicles (to replace 247 million single-operator vehicles). Using that number, and assuming $20k per vehicle, that's $1 TRILLION capital outlay.

That is a LOT of $9 rides.

And remember, if a car is being driven 24/7, it's shelf life is a couple of years, not 10 to 12. Even if you can squeeze 3 years out of each vehicle, that's still a lot of capital.

Maintenance of an electric vehicle is orders of magnitude easier than a regular car. The battery is the highest maintenance item I believe.

[taco.vidal]

I think certain trends point to death of wide spread car ownership as we know it North America.
-Fewer young people are driving. Im on mobile and not looking up stats now. I think the numbers are something like 50% of 16 years old had their license in the 1980s and today that it down to 30%. The same stats for people in their mid 20s are down as well. From what Ive read, millenials dont show much interest in driving.
-Trends show that people are leaving the suburbs to live closer in the city
-I think vehicle ownership numbers have been trending down for a while. Total sales might be up and more people might own multiple vehicles but the percentage of people without a vehicle is increasing. Id have to look this one up but Im pretty certain Ive seen the numbers for this in economic articles.
-Adding to the point above, fewer people are owning homes. More people are living in condos and other higher density dwellings. Gone are the days where people want a house in the burbs with double or triple garage and a vehicle for each driver in the family.
-Less people are having kids and those that are, are having just about 1 child. Less need for vehicle than with a family of 2, 3 or more kids.

Times are changing. Just because you today at 40 cant imagine life without your cars and minivan, and cant imagine not living in the burbs, and cant imagine raising a child in a condo, doesnt mean that up and coming generations arent welcoming a lifestyle different than yours.

Lifestyles are changing for younger generations where they dont need vehicles and cant afford vehicles.

I think in the more distant future, private vehicle ownership will be only for the very wealthy.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Maintenance of an electric vehicle is orders of magnitude easier than a regular car. The battery is the highest maintenance item I believe.

There is no difference with respect to the tires, the suspension, the interior, the exterior...

Yes, the maintenance for EVs is less, but it isn't as 'less' as you are suggesting.