25 Percent of US Driving Could Be Done By Self-Driving Cars By 2030, Study Finds (techcrunch.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TechCrunch: Self-driving still seems to be a ways off from active public use on regular roads, but once it arrives, it could ramp very quickly, according to a new study by the Boston Consulting Group. The study found that by 2030, up to a quarter of driving miles in the U.S. could be handled by self-driving electric vehicles operating in shared service fleets in cities, due mostly to considerable cost savings for urban drivers. The big change BCG sees is a result of the rise in interest in autonomous technologies, paired with the increased electrification of vehicles. There's also more pressure on cities to come up with alternate transportation solutions that address increasing congestion. All of that added together could drive reduction in costs by up to 60 percent for drivers who opt into using shared self-driving services vs. owning and operating their own cars.

Comments

Its called mass transit

[Elfich47]

Larger cities need to invest in mass transit and maintain it. Look at NYC, Tokyo and London as working mass transit systems. Smaller cities need working bus systems that aren't starved for money in order to be useful.

And I'll get ahead of it here: mass transit needs to be properly funded in order to work properly. Mass transit does not appear to pay for itself on the surface, it pays for itself because of increase in population density that occurs as a result.

Re:Its called mass transit

[MrLogic17]

>, it pays for itself because of increase in population density that occurs as a result.

You say that like it's a good thing.

Re:Its called mass transit

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

A lot of small-to-mid-sized cities use a city-sponsored taxi system because it's a lot more efficient (and safer) to move seniors and low-income people around than busses. (Think scary bus stations where randoms "hang out" or snowy sidewalks seniors have to traverse instead of getting out at their door.)

With Uber and the like in the mix, some towns are skipping expensive and inefficient busses in a new way:
https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/04/05/0439229/canadian-town-picks-uber-for-public-transit

Also remember that concentration of transportation in a few modes (busses, trains) can lead to havoc if there's a union involved and they feel like striking. It's much better to have a diverse set of transportation options in any city so one annoyed group can't bring a city to a halt.

Re:Its called mass transit

[squiggleslash]

It is. People living there receive more services, and businesses located there get more custom. And nobody's forced to use a mode of transportation they dislike - you're allowed to walk, you can take a bus or train, or you can drive. It's a win-win for everyone.

Re:Its called mass transit

[AuMatar]

Pretty much everywhere not Manhattan in New York has shitty public transit. Brooklyn is ok, but Queens (the largest borough) it may as well not exist. But if you live in Manhattan its pretty good.

Self-Driving? Yes. Shared? No.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

I'll be toward the front of the line when cars have reliable self-driving capabilities. But I'm not sharing my car - that's personal space.

I like having my stuff (umbrella, bag full of fitness clothes and shoes, kids toys, pens, sunscreen/lotion, med kit, sunglasses, etc.) right where I want it at all times. I also like being able to clean my car to my standards and know that someone else hasn't been doing who knows what in my seat ten minutes ago.

So when I'm in a city and I need a taxi, I'll rent your shared car...you just can't have mine.

Re:Self-Driving? Yes. Shared? No.

[Sloppy]

This is the thing that has had me scratching my head. People equate self-driving cars with 'always rent the car'. I don't understand why everyone things those two are necessarily tied together.

They aren't necessarily tied together. Of course some people will want one thing and not the other.

But they happen to go great together. For every person who needs their car to be personal space, there will be n people who don't need that. I think n is a big number, like 19 or something. Some people probably think that's absurd and the real number is incredibly low, like 3. Cool, whatever. I'm not a pollster or market analyst.

There are even degrees. How much money is a mobile safe and personal cleanliness standards really worth to you? How much money-saving would tip you? What if we're talking about your family's second or third car, the one that's only getting driven 3000 miles per year? Are you sure you're willing to spend an extra $20,000 on a second mobile safe to avoid carrying a backpack or briefcase, if we were talking about 20 days per year instead of 200 days per year? There are going to be so many possible intermediate cases, not just across the whole population, but even within one person's life. I suspect there's a real market here, and I would probably be one of its customers if the numbers were right.

Pooled driving? Already exists.

[MrLogic17]

We already have pooled driving and shared cars. It's called a taxi.
The only thing a self-driving vehicle does is take out the cost of the human driver. That's it.

People also carpool. That's been around forever.

Self-driving vehicles will change a lot of things: delivery trucks will go cross-country without sleep breaks, off-site parking will be more practical, highway deaths will drop like crazy - but nothing about city traffic will fundamentally change.

Re:Pooled driving? Already exists.

[netsavior]

nothing about city traffic will fundamentally change.

well in the shorter term it will get orders of magnitude worse. In many areas, it would be cheaper to have your car circle the block indefinitely than to buy/rent a parking space. Certainly for the duration of a meal or trip to the store, "drive to nowhere, then drive back" will be the standard way to "park".

Re:Pooled driving? Already exists.

[Anonymous Coward]

The driver is half the cost of the taxi - so hardly unimportant. More so if they are electric vehicles and thus no effective fuel cost.

It also allows for greater utilisation of the taxi, etc.

My guess is manual driving (and thus parking) of vehicles will be banned in many CBDs by 2030 - too many advantages of doing so.

Re:Pooled driving? Already exists.

[swillden]

nothing about city traffic will fundamentally change.

It'll change dramatically.

For one, it will largely eliminate parking. No need to park your car on the street in front of your home, have it park somewhere outside the city and have it drive in when you need it. When you go to the store or similar, no need to park your car at the store. It can circle the block, or drive a few miles away to where it can park. This will have the biggest effects not in dense urban areas but in moderately-dense suburban areas. Those huge mall parking lots will become unnecessary. Assuming car ownership stays high, parking will likely consolidate into enormous lots a few minutes' drive from merchants. It's also highly likely that many people living in moderately-dense areas that currently have a car will switch to using self-driving car services instead, since they'll be cheaper and almost as convenient, and they won't need parking at all since when they get out of the vehicle it will go off to service another customer.

In the longer run, cities will likely outlaw manually-operated vehicles and that will have an even more dramatic effect. Mutually-cooperating or centrally-controlled (could go either way) vehicles that communicate via RF have no need of things like stop signs and stoplights. Taken to the logical limit, there's no need for vehicles to stop at intersections at all as long as they can coordinate to arrange for gaps for cross-traffic to pass through -- and the gaps needn't be any larger than the time the crossing vehicle needs to pass through them (which will be terrifying until we get used to it). This will make city traffic smooth and predictable... which may in turn cause it to increase in volume until it's not.

On highways, such vehicles have no need of the "safe following distances" required by human situational non-awareness and slow response times. They'll close up into trains of vehicles inches apart, both to pack more vehicles into a given area of roadway and improve energy-efficiency by drafting. They will also be able to increase speeds significantly without danger, and without great loss of efficiency (due to drafting). I expect that it won't be too long after self-driving vehicles become commonplace that local governments will carve out self-driving only lanes so they can begin to take advantage of the higher efficiencies offered.

People also carpool. That's been around forever.

Sure, but people don't carpool very much, because unless you have a fixed group of people who go the same place every day at the same time, it's too hard to organize. It's often too hard to organize even with such a group of people. Self-driving cars with centralized dispatching systems can handle the organization automatically and dynamically. It seems entirely likely that in the future you'll put what time you want to go to work in your phone and your digital assistant will automatically notify your carpool service of choice. The service will take your requirements along with the requirements of thousands of others and construct routes that incur minimal overhead, and your phone will notify you when your ride is five minutes out. Note that it's not necessary that the vehicle be self-driving for this to work, but it will be a natural extension for self-driving car services, which will help mitigate the fact that ride demand is so bursty. They can purchase small vans which transport a half-dozen people during rush hour and make grocery store runs, etc., at other times. Demand-adjusted pricing will encourage people to take single-rider journeys at off-peak times, and to accept sharing at peak times.

Re:Not going to happen.

[queazocotal]

I have various health issues.
I cannot legally drive.
A self driving vehicle would be enormously freeing.

Another point to consider - truck drivers

[Weaselmancer]

Let's say that trucking follows the same metric, 25% self driving inside of 15 years or so.

The trucking industry employs 3.5 million people. Source.

That means that we are potentially looking at 875,000 freshly unemployed truckers over the next 15 years.

Is anyone planning for this?

3D transporation networks

[sjbe]

Mass transit does not appear to pay for itself on the surface, it pays for itself because of increase in population density that occurs as a result.

Sort of. Mass transit pays off biggest in cases where it allows you to use three dimensions instead of two. Subways allow you to use trains underground or overhead instead of on surface streets. Aircraft allow you to fly above the surface streets. When you get a dense city like NYC or Tokyo, you have people living in three dimensional buildings (high rises) but transiting in a two dimensional road network. This ensures congestion if you don't have a robust subway and tunnel network.

Busses obviously don't work in three dimensions but they can help optimize the 2D surface street usage. But above a certain population density they are limited in how much they can help. Street cars are basically trains on surface streets so they lack the routing flexibility of buses but don't take advantage of three dimensions like subways do so they really are a terrible solution for most circumstances as public transit.

Population density is both good and bad

[sjbe]

People living there receive more services, and businesses located there get more customers

That depends on the services you are seeking and what sort of customers you are looking for. Good luck finding a tractor repair store or any customers for one in downtown Manhattan.

And nobody's forced to use a mode of transportation they dislike - you're allowed to walk, you can take a bus or train, or you can drive.

You can only drive in a city like NYC if you are rather wealthy. Costs too much and is far too impractical for most people. You essentially are forced to take public transit and not everyone likes that.

  It's a win-win for everyone.

It's a win-win for people who want/need to be in a dense city. It's a huge loss for those who dislike living in such a place. Dense populations have their good and bad features. It's not a clear "win-win".

Boston Consulting Group is being conservative

[93 Escort Wagon]

The vast majority of Boston driving could be automated today.

Current AIs could easily handle merging in without checking whether a car is there or not, getting in minor low-speed accidents regularly, and constantly sounding the car horn.

You mean Taxi's

[sdinfoserv]

" self-driving electric vehicles operating in shared service fleets in cities", that's a description for electric, autonomous taxi's.
Taxi's are here now and under used. Electric vehicles are here now, but the range sucks and they're not practical for 1/2 the country. Try using a battery vehicle in Minneapolis in January - nope.
Once self driving cars are widely available and "safe", which could be (c) 2030, traffic will double. All these prognosticators ignore American / human nature. We like to drive alone. If you have a vehicle that drives you to work, why pay the high cost of city parking when you can send it home, have it go pick up the kids after school, have it get groceries (Walmart is already planning for this eventuality), release it into a revenue earning driving system (send it to work for you in Uber while you're at work), have it go run any number of errands for you- but it still has to come back to get you after work. Now instead of 2 runs (1 to work, 1 home) there are 4 runs + errands all of which will effectively double+ traffic in cities. Sounds like more of a problem than a solution.