Slashdot Mirror
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.
They may work elsewhere but they will just get beaten up in Philadelphia.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
>> autonomous cars don't need to park-- they just go give someone else a ride
I'm hoping "autonomous cars != end of personal car ownership." I still like to have my own passenger compartment that no one else has eaten in, thrown up in, etc. that I can maintain to my own standard of hygiene.
"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."
This will not change with autonomous cars. If people didn't want to own cars, the above situation could exist _now_ -- they are or were called taxis/taxi cabs/cabs/hansom cabs/licensed hackney carriages.
The reality is that people -- especially Americans, I suspect -- want to own cars. Only banning private vehicles from the streets or levying huge congestion charges on them is going to take them off the streets.
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 ?
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
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.
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.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
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.
Why is it that authorities are so ignorant that they allow projects to be built when a traffic and parking issue is obvious. For example an apartment house might have to meet a basic legal requirement of having four parking spaces per rental unit if they are one or two bedroom units and six spaces for three bedroom units. A theater that seats 1,000 should be required to provide parking for 1,500 cars. I am astounded that building and zoning commissions fail to demand adequate parking for every enterprise. Those parking spaces should also have a standard size for each car and none of the super tight parking allowed at all.
A lot of people are complaining that they do not like the idea of sharing vehicles.
What about thinking about it this way - suddenly proximity of your parking spot to where you are is a lot less important. Your personal autonomous vehicle drops you off at your destination and then goes to find a parking spot. Then, when your waiter brings you the check (for example), you let your vehicle know to come pick you up in ten minutes. The vehicle checks current traffic levels and leaves for a just-in-time pickup.
Before you go to bed you let your autonomous vehicle know what time you want to get to work. Your vehicle looks at the average commute time for that time of day and lets you know when it will pick you up. It leaves its parking spot with enough time to get you.
The drawback to this that you are spending money to pay for gas or electricity while your vehicle drives (empty) to a parking spot. I would say this is the price you pay for wanting your own vehicle. The alternative is a taxi-style service.
For everyone complaining that other people will make the car unusable, you might not have taken a cab recently. More often than not it seems like you are video recorded. In addition, the cab company (which I assume would be the same ones putting autonomous cabs on the street) would have a vested interest in keeping vehicles clean.
I used ZipCar for several years and reporting damage or a messy car was easy for the company to follow up on. The previous user had to have reserved the vehicle and paid for its use. The company has credit card on file already, it is easy enough to go after the user for damages.
- (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
I've speculated on this before...
I expect that subscribed-to sedan services will increase in popularity as a step above taxis. Paying more than a conventional taxi and giving the subscriber the ability to report/reject cars that are in poor condition will allows the service to charge and ban offenders that mess up cars. On top of that, there are services for school buses where an on-vehicle camera system records the trip to a local disk only and overwrites the recordings after so many days unless a report is made that the footage needs to be pulled before it's overwritten, at which time it's retrieved over-the-air when the vehicle comes in for regular service at the company's garage. That system would work relatively well for a subscription car if it doesn't catch audio and isn't pulled unless there's an actual reason to pull it (like vandalism or evidence that the interior was used for a crime) so long as such conditions are made clear from the beginning.
Taxis will still be a thing, for either those that don't need a sedan often enough to justify paying for a subscription, or for those who cannot subscribe to a sedan service due to previous behavior. Used like a service they'd probably cost more, but used infrequently it wouldn't be that big of a deal. There would also be a greater likelihood of recordings being reviews more frequently.
Private car ownership will continue for people like me that have plenty of room for parking and like you, don't want to share the vehicle with unknown others. I look forward to scenic road trips where I can look at the scenery instead of always having to drive, though I would probably want the option to drive. It would be convenient when going to congested places to be able to be dropped off and let the car go find a place to park itself, or even for the car to just go home if the per-mile cost (like for an electric) is low.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
If the robot cabs are given laser beams and missile launchers they will. Boy will they ever.
"HitchBot 2 - HitchBot's Back, And He's Pissed!!!!!" (not suitable for all audiences, extreme violence and some robot nudity)
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
Require more affordable parking in downtown areas.
Seriously, I live in Austin and work downtown. Most days I bike to work. The days I do drive, I spend 20 minutes circling looking for a spot that won't cost me $15. Street parking is $1/hr. Lots are typically $10-12. Garages (the most convenient) are always $15-20. They're also never full.
Cities should require all buildings have enough parking and set the rates to "reasonable" rather than "extortionate".
-Chris
These "autonomous car" flacks are really relentless. These stories always show up from an "anonymous reader" always in US prime time, always during the week (never on weekends) and always telling us how "autonomous cars" are going herald in the New Utopia.
There's not even an attempt to include any news in the story, just pure PR.
Even half-drunk and not paying attention I can see the pattern. Look for yourselves.
You are welcome on my lawn.
"The good news is that autonomous cars don't need to park-- they just go give someone else a ride."
They will only give another person a ride during peak hours, say morning rush hours and evening hours. Mid-day traffic will be lighter, and middle of the night traffic will be downright dead. At those time these Johny Cabs still have to go somewhere. The Schisters trying make a buck will want them programmed to waste the least gas possible. So unlike human cabs that often troll around looking for a fare, these Johny Cabs are likely to park immediately at the closest free spot and wait for someone to call for a ride with their smart phone.
Without enough regulation, these cabs may make parking matters worse, as they won't necessarily go back to home base every night if a few pennies can be saved on gas by parking near where they will be needed in the morning.
when thousands of unconscious drunk people, faces covered in felt marker writing wake up and stumble out of their cabs and collectively ask where the hell am I. And the cab says "Anchorage Alaska, that'll be $1500.00 for the ride."
At least there will be enough cabs to take them home right there.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Now the thing is personal automated vehicles, even one per two people would still be a lot of wasted space, if the vehicles were a tiny 3m long the population density over 100m would be only 66 people assuming bumper to bumper. How about if it carried 30 -50 people in a vehicle 15m long, the population density over 100m would be between 200 - 330 people also assuming bumper to bumper. It would cause less congestion.
Of course that would mean that the vehicles would not go exactly to everyone's destination, but on routes that were suited to almost all passengers, you may have to walk. There could be multiple routes to common areas that people went, and passengers could change from route to route as required.
Of course it would not be as comfortable, but a 15 metre vehicle that carries 30-50 people and doesn't need to park anywhere but just drop people off at their destination and continue on its route for others would surely reduce congestion far more.
I can't believe its taken this long to come up with such an idea.
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.
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.
Of all people who commute to work in New York City, 41% use the subway, 24% drive alone, 12% take the bus, 10% walk to work, 2% travel by commuter rail, 5% carpool, 1% use a taxi, 0.6% ride their bicycle to work, and 0.2% travel by ferry.
There are 13,237 taxis operating in New York City, not including over 40,000 other for-hire vehicles.
Transportation in New York City
If you need over 50,000 vehicles on the road daily to meet existing for-hire demands, how many robo-cabs would you need to provide 25% of the city's commuter services?
The commuter car is by definition mostly idle between 9 in the morning and five in the afternoon and between six in the evening and seven in the morning.
Parked.
Seriously? I don't get the hype over self driving cars, but this is nuts. Maybe just the article rather than the study, if there is one. We have practically or completely driverless transport. It's called public transport, and it costs a hell of a lot less than it would to deploy and accommodate useless driverless cars. It's a solved problem, many times over. Rail, underground rail, trams, light rail, busways (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O-Bahn_Busway), driverless trains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automated_urban_metro_subway_systems) etc. The answer to fixing a problem involving hundreds of cars driving to the same place is not to take the driver out of the picture, it is to take the bloody cars out of the picture.
Decent home shipping to save you from carrying your shopping home. That's the main reason people have for driving to malls. Get rid of it. It's a terrible reason, and lugging shopping home is no fun, even with a car.
Most of the world is so far behind in what's possible with public transport, that's where research should focus on. Driverless cars matter about as much as rich tycoons taking joyrides into space.
Public transportation is useful, sure .... but you're WAY exaggerating its abilities.
For starters, you're at the mercy of the system. You've got to schedule everything around the times it stops where you need to be picked up, and it's likely it has no way to drop you off at your destination at the optimal time for your own needs. Then, you lose a measure of control over your environment while you're riding. Want to play your favorite song at full volume while you're out and about? Hope you brought a pair of earbuds, so they won't kick you off for disturbing someone else! Need to get someplace during "peak hours"? Hope you don't mind having to stand during half the trip, packed in to the subway or train car like a sardine because all of the seats are taken.
And let's not pretend the ONLY reason for a trunk and extra storage space in a vehicle is to bring shopping home! I've owned several pickup trucks before where the idea was throwing large items back there to save me a LOT of money paying someone else to transport them for me. Moving furniture to/from a house, for example? Getting building materials to do some home repair? Hauling away bags of yard waste or other trash? And in my car, I've done on-site computer service jobs for years where I need to haul around all of the tools and spare parts, plus broken machines to bring back with me to work on at home. NONE of this is possible with public transportation.