Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.