Will Robot Cabs Unjam the Streets?

An anonymous reader writes: The Atlantic has a story with some video of a traffic simulator showing just how the roads can be jammed up by people looking for a place to park. (You can play with the simulator too.) This has been suspected for a long time by many traffic researchers and city planners, but the simulator shows just how quickly the roads jam up after just a few of the blocks fill up with parked cars. The good news is that autonomous cars don't need to park-- they just go give someone else a ride. They could change city life forever.

Comments

It'll never happen

[JMJimmy]

Quite simply, it's not going to happen. While some people are comfortable sharing their stuff, the vast majority are rather possessive. They don't want to sit in someone else's filth. They don't want their car to drive off, pick up someone who has sex in it or their kid vomits or a pet shits, etc. Efficiency is all well and good but reality is people are disgusting and we generally want to keep to ourselves because of it.

Re:It'll never happen

[Hadlock]

Yeah I'm not super keen on renting out my Toyota Corolla or VW whatever car, but I would be willing to buy a car designed and maintained by uber, but I could take on road trips/extended whatever simply by turning "off" the taxi mode an hour or two ahead of when I need to use it, like going camping for the weekend or whatever.
 
To avoid getting crappy uber users, just set your car to only accept fares from users with at least 100 rides and an average of 4.8 stars or higher (out of 5 = 96%). Yeah on that rare occasion you will get a drunken 5 star rider who barfs in your car, but just send the car over to the Uber service center to get it cleaned up at a minimal cost. Small, almost inconsequential price to pay for basically a free car, maybe even make a profit renting your car out while you sleep/work.

Re:It'll never happen

[twotacocombo]

They don't want to sit in someone else's filth. They don't want their car to drive off, pick up someone who has sex in it or their kid vomits or a pet shits, etc.

Yet millions of people still take public transportation every day.

Re:It'll never happen

[Ramze]

Most people who use mass transit use it because it is the most efficient way to get from A to B, not because they can't afford their own vehicle, nor because it's the cheapest option.

Case in point: I stayed in Atlanta for a 4 day weekend at a convention downtown. I drove to my hotel, then used the hotel's free airport shuttle to the airport to take the subway/train system MARTA to downtown Atlanta and back daily (sometimes 3 or 4 round-trips in a day). It cost me all of $10... and it was the fastest way to get from my cheap hotel to downtown as there was also a ballgame and another convention as well and the roads were bumper to bumper. I rode the train several times a day - got my money's worth and met interesting convention-goers on the train. I took a taxi back to the hotel one night when I stayed out later than the trains ran.

IF I had driven my car downtown to a lot, it would have taken two to three times as long - not to mention finding parking in busy downtown even with parking garages (I know - had a buddy that did that the next year we went), plus the cost of gas and parking for the day (for each day) would have been prohibitive. (We settled on staying at a guest hotel downtown the third year... no driving or trains. yay!)

People in cities with mass transit often prefer it over having a vehicle... and they hate the tourists who bring their cars and don't know how to drive or where to park.

But, back to your point -- you're incorrect. The efficiencies don't take hold when the vast majority of a system is automated -- they take place when only a small fraction is in place. There is a tipping point. If one single car stops to turn left into a parking garage, it can back up an entire left lane of traffic for a mile or more in a decent sized city. That's just one car. For each car that pauses to let someone out rather than turning and seeking parking, you get vast returns in traffic efficiency.

If you must make the public vs private argument, then I'd say you're just arguing quality -- if people care enough, they'll get 2 tiered taxis. One for Uber and another for Super-Uber for those that want to ensure their car is squeaky clean. Most mass transit seats are plastic and easily washable. Cars could easily be outfitted with uncomfortable, but sanitary plastic seating and a bottle of alcohol spray for the germaphobes.

Another aspect is that people junk up their cars with their own crap -- but, it's often stuff they want to keep, so they wouldn't be leaving that in Ubers... they'd just leave trash if they're litter-bugs. I bet Uber could record video and charge extra for damage or littering and put a stop to that (assuming it's paid by credit card).

They key issues for ownership of vehicles are - utility, time, personalization, and storage. People like to keep their baby carriers in the vehicle... sometimes their drinks or other groceries, napkins, kleenex, lotion, sunglasses, etc. Sometimes people store presents in trunks to hide from family members.... various other things.

The personal car isn't going away, but it could become an auto-driving personal car. Still, many families may only need 1 personal family car and use an Uber automated taxi for travelling to work, school, and most other short trips.

Re:It'll never happen

[JMJimmy]

then why does the traffic back up the same way and the same time every day?

Depends on the scenario. Mostly though it comes down to speed differences. Highway driving, people entering (especially a lot at once) cause traffic to slow down. Everyone behind them needs to slow down as well but it creates an amplification effect that travels like an accordion causing each person behind them to slow more than they did. Traffic jams are eased by people slowing down and going the same speed. They last longer due to jackasses who try and find the fastest lane - each lane change usually results in another accordion effect due to the psychology of break lights (people see them and over break instead of leaving a larger gap & allowing their drive train to slow for small speed changes... that's why you'll see people leaving large gaps in the middle of traffic jams; they keep their speed constant and stop the accordion effect though they can only stop 2-3 of them before they have to re-gap).

In town it's the lights. While they regulate traffic, most of a green light is spent waiting for the line of cars to accelerate with each car in the line taking longer than the next to get moving due to not wanting to over-accelerate and cause a crash. In automated cars they could solve this if every car had a standard acceleration rate, however, they would still need to make adjustments for differences in traction.

Uber - Cabby Riots - Autonomous

[Hylandr]

If cab drivers are going to riot in the street and inflict personal harm and property damage, who the hell thinks an autonomous car has a snowballs chance in hell ?

Cabbies can't win

[Etherwalk]

If cab drivers are going to riot in the street and inflict personal harm and property damage, who the hell thinks an autonomous car has a snowballs chance in hell ?

There are not enough cab drivers to cause a revolution on their own, and the people aren't with them. The state has far more power and will apply it to suppress personal harm and property damage, and the public will be with the state. Thus they can slow change by various methods--most notably bribery of elected officials and regulatory capture--but they cannot stop it entirely.

Money is the only thing that would let them stop it entirely given those circumstances. (As we see with the health insurance industry which is able to largely prevent meaningful change. Obamacare came 16 years after Bill Clinton tried something bigger, after all.) And the industry doesn't have enough money to do that.

Re:Cabbies can't win

[tlambert]

Then they came for my job, and no one was left to defend me.

Alas you are thinking far too simply my friend. We are approaching a point where automation will potentially render a sizable portion of the population unemployable because a machine can do their job just as well, if not better and for a lesser cost in a world where Humans Need Not Apply

So, instead, I became an artist, and lived off my Universal Basic Income, which was granted to me by the abundance created by automation of all the drudge jobs.

Well, except for Bill, in Passaic New Jersey, who has to press the red "there are still humans on the planet, please keep the light on" button every morning so that the robot factories don't shut down. Bill also wants to be an artist, but, no, he has to press the red button once a day. He's very unhappy that he's the only human left with an actual job, but ... frankly, Bill has always been a whiner, ever since we took away his red Swingline Stapler.

Unless you happy to be one of those roboenablers who are seeking to bring about the robotic apocalypse... in which case I say: "Well played sir!"

I'll *happily* build the S.O.B.'s, at least until they get to the point where they can build themselves... I'll even buy Bill a new stapler.

It's a non-issue.

[Ichijo]

The problem of congestion caused by people circling around looking for parking has already been solved. Cities simply have to wake up to the fact that parking is both rivalrous and excludable and therefore neither a public good nor should be treated as one.

Some will. Some won't.

[khasim]

But think about other changes as well.

Autonomous cars can be parked a lot closer than any cars that need to open doors to let people out. So think about a few parking garages advertising "robot rates" and cutting the parking stalls down to car-size+3-inches-on-three-sides. The cars drop off their human passengers and then pack themselves into the robot garages.

Alternatively, if you're worried about someone soiling your pristine car, then charge enough to have it professionally cleaned before you want it back. And insist that the customers pay electronically so that you know EXACTLY who the offender was.

Re:Some will. Some won't.

[DerekLyons]

And put the roads underground in the cities too. The price of the real estate you free up for better use makes this worth the money.

Even if excavation and construction was cheap (it isn't) - the cost of moving all the infrastructure located beneath the streets would make this scheme cost prohibitive. And the real estate thus freed up would be pretty much useless because you wouldn't be able to build anything significant on top of it.

Changing cities

[Anonymous Coward]

They could change city life forever.

Yeah, that's what was said at the time the Segway was introduced. That was 14 years ago. Nothings changed because of Segways, AFAICT.

Re:Err, no, that isn't how it works

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in England, in a town where I really should have a car. For various personal reasons I do not drive; I kind of wish I did but it might not happen.

I also visit London, where it is now possible to cross roads again and generally get around because a congestion charge -- which is an EXISTING FACT that was grounded in really quite right wing economics but implemented by a left-wing mayor and perpetuated by a right wing mayor -- is in place. Average traffic speeds are in fact increasing -- they are almost back up to the speeds of the 1930s. Pollution is lower. London is slightly nicer as a result.

This is all I meant. I didn't attack car ownership, I just stated a fact that others have stated: people like their cars.

You, on the other hand, overreacted as if I'd kicked you in the balls. Was it because I said 'especially Americans'? Was that actually untrue or did I just challenge your implicit association between car ownership and penis size, or something?

Re:Another Cure

[FranTaylor]

I'm a little curious as to in what universe you live in which each person brings 1.5 cars to the movie theater.

They need enough room in the parking lot to hold two theater's worth of people, unless you expect the lot to empty and fill instantaneously between shows.

vehicle ownership fetish

[FranTaylor]

Decades of television brainwashing have convinced people to needlessly blow their paychecks on oversized overpowered motor vehicles. The military industrial complex continues to justify its existence by generating ever larger profits. The brainwashed masses plaster their vehicles with "patriotic" symbols, with the massive irony that their fuel purchases are destabilizing world politics and giving aid and comfort to those who wish us harm. The irony is lost, because the urge to own the biggest and most wasteful vehicle on the block is strong, the brainwashing is effective.