Artkansas 

Never thought I'd be doing a link to Breitbart.com, but they have an interesting article on possible effects of self-driving cars.

Futuristic simulation finds self-driving taxibots will eliminate 90 percent of cars and open acres of public space.

Grillparzer

Something else that no one has mentioned in any articles I've read are self driving cargo trucks. Load an eighteen wheeler in Los Angeles, slap it's back end, and forty hours later it's ready to be unloaded in New York. No drivers would mean no down time while traveling.

gerv 

You knew this was going to happen. I mean if Apple could put the Dick Tracy watch on the market, you knew this Google/Uber fantasy wouldn't stop even if it is complete madness.

Thank God for bicycles with friction shifting!!

Roody

Eventually one of these 'bots is going to hit a bicyclist. What will happen then?

(Look at the History of Jaywalking thread if you need a hint.)

One architect says that walking or biking on an automatized road would be "like sticking your finger in a fan."

Roody

One blogger I follow makes the point that microtransit (like taxibots) could be good or bad for cities:
My way of saying this is that if taxibots get more people to switch from private cars, they're a good thing. But if they get people to switch from public buses and trains, they will be bad for the city. Thinking about access for different income levels is also important.

Smallwheels

Big delivery trucks will only become automated after all cars are automated. There is too much extra driver involvement needed by a big truck compared to a car.

I would love to have automated cars all around. Special race tracks would be needed for all of the gearheads to play with their motorized toys.

I-Like-To-Bike

Entrepreneurs in S.F have done just that. No untermensch on this bus, only high tone urban Millenials.
Take a Virtual Ride on Leap Transit, San Francisco's New Luxury Bus - CityLab

https://vimeo.com/122275278

Roody

That's pretty much the opposite of what I meant. Personally, I don't care if these people want to pay $6 for a luxury bus ride. as long as it's coming out of their own pocket. But if they're using public roads, city bus stops, and other taxpayer-funded amenities, they need to pay a fee or tax to cover it. And they need to not impede or slow down the regular bus service either. There have already been demonstrations and whatnot in SF about these luxury bus services.

CliffordK

We've had the technology for one person (or a couple of people) to drive the equivalent of 500 trucks across the country bumper to bumper at high speed for over a century now.

Rather than automating the long distance trucking, I could see improving rail efficiency, switching, and logistics, and it is coming with things like containers on the railways.

Automated taxis will probably be created sometime. There are already car-share services popping up. The question is whether these services will compete with the economics and freedom of a car. It may well do it. There are lots of big expenses with automobiles that just get hidden from view.

Roody

Yes, it's called a train.

cooker

Johnnycab:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsuOfieIG0Q

I-Like-To-Bike

This piece addresses some of the issues that you raised over private transit operations competing with public transit.
https://www.humantransit.org/2015/04/...or-cities.html
Extract:
"If it turns out to be a fight, the playing field would have to be leveled in terms of the overwhelming public sector cost drivers such as workforce compensation and Federal regulatory burden before we have a fair fight. (And I mean leveled upward, toward fair wages and policies that respect the civil rights agenda encoded in Federal transit regulations.) Consider the latter: Do we need to clarify the Americans with Disabilities Act so that the cost of complementary paratransit (which takes 20-40% of most transit agency budgets) is shared by all private transit companies operating in the space?

Will we require private transit to do Title VI equity plans to prove that they do not discriminate against people with a low ability to pay? (That would be interesting, because neglect of low income people is intrinsic to most profitable business models, which is why you've never seen an airline magazine ad that appeals to low-income concerns.) The enormous burdens of Federal regulation -- most of it designed to implement a civil rights agenda that's theoretically endorsed by all sides -- would have to be shared before we'd know who's really best for which market."

Roody

I don't know the answer to all of your questions, but I'll take a shot at it.

Ideologically, many people would like to open up the public transit market to private sector competition. They think that competition would improve service, lower costs, and cut taxes, as well as provide additional areas for capitalists to gain wealth. However, meaningful competition requires that competing services must operate on a level playing field. That would obviously not be the case with urban transit. Public transit companies must meet many regulatory requirements (service area, labor, environmental, and many other requirements) that do not typically apply to private companies. If more lightly regulated private companies were allowed to compete with public transit, the results would be fairly predictable. (I can list these for anybody who doesn't know, but will leave it for now.)

One way to level the playing field would be to lighten or remove the current regulations on public transit. However, this would eliminate many of the actual purposes of public transit--serving all areas of the city, providing transportation for people of all income levels, fair wages, regional planning, reducing pollution, connecting businesses to consumers and employees, and so forth. So personally, I reject the idea of deregulating public transit providers in order to level the playing field for private sector competition.

The other solution is to require the regulation of private competition at a similar level to the public providers. I think this might accomplish the goals of equal access transportation, but it might make private companees reluctant to enter into competition, considering the burden of the regulations.So personally, I think this is a good idea--but it might not work.

There might be room for compromise. I would look to one area where private companies are having some success at competing with government owned monopolies in some (but maybe not all) locations. That is the public education system versus public schools--specifically charter schools, which often do receive some public subsidization. Although they have a lighter regulatory burden, charter schools still must accept all students who apply, avoid discrimination, locate in low income areas, and measure outcomes by the same standards (achievement tests for students) as their public counterparts. So the playing field, while not completely level, is a little less bumpy.

So I can see something like charter bus companies being a fair and practical way of opening up transit to some "fairly fair" competition that might improve cost and service, while still retaining the important agreed-upon social and economic goals of public transit.

[HR][/HR]

I admit that I don't have a full grasp of all these issues--they're pretty big issues, and complicated to me. But I do hope to learn more and remain open to different points of view.

Also, I see that I didn't address your question about paratransit!

I guess it's similar to the question of whether charter schools should have to provide special ed.

Off the top of my head, I think that private transit should be required to provide paratransit on fixed-route buses, such as low doors and wheelchair access.

However, they shouldn't be required to provide the on-demand special service, such as the van-type buses specifically provided for people with disabilities. They can just pay a tax to subsidize those as public services, if they choose not to provide the service themselves.

Mobile 155

Just as a thought, wouldn't driver-less taxis lead to driver-less mass transit? Couldn't a sub way, Passenger train, or even a bus on a predetermined route be run by a computer? The whole issue of employee cost would be taken care of with robotics. It has happened in parts of the auto industry. It is a bit like E-mail replacing letters. Don't get here much anymore, busy riding more.

Roody

Of course. Hundreds of thousands of good paying jobs will be eliminated by automation, just like in auto manufacturing. Millions of dollars in income will be transferred from middle class workers to upper class capitalists, just like in the auto industry. It's the new American Way.

wphamilton

That would be gradual though. Looking at just truckers, there are 3.5 million truck drivers, 2 million tractor trailers and around 400,000 of them are owner/drivers Trucking.net stats. At the very least, the owner/drivers would be grandfathered in any grand plan, and the tens or hundreds of billions it would take to convert that many tractor trailers (and 13.5 million other trucks) would make it an incremental process at best.

Roody

Whatever it takes to get you through the night...

wphamilton

?? Doesn't matter to me either way, except that software engineers like me would be in greater demand. I'm just presenting the facts and what I see coming from them.

Mobile 155

Well I didn't invent job obsolesce, haven't seen a elevator operator since I was a kid nor do we have people pumping our gas in my state. It does seem as if transportation has been going that way the world over not just the US. List of automated urban metro subway systems - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I see even in Detroit they have played with the idea. If it can be done with a train could it not be done with a Bus? If Google can do it with a car couldn't they do it with a Taxi? We now have airplanes that can fly themselves and only use the pilots to take off and land. I am only talking about the natural evolution of transportation not social issues. So like someone said above it could move the workforce from non skilled to skilled. From people driving to people building and programing. The latter two being higher paying. I was in a car the other day that can park itself. Someone had to build that and someone had to develop the program for the necessary equipment.

This is just a discussion on what ifs as I see it.

Artkansas 

I tend to think its the new world way. Jobs in India, China and other countries will also be lost to automation.

cooker

I'm hoping for a self driving bicycle. I'll still pedal, but I'll watch youtube videos and let the bike steer and brake.

Roody

I think this entire discussion is going beyond the scope of this forum. So unfortunately, I'm not going to be able to respond to your post unless the mods OK it. It's a very hot topic in economics right now.

tandempower

Proliferation of automated cars would shift the means of funding and distribution of cars. Dealerships would lose business because taxi operating companies would buy and service the cars shipped directly from manufacturers. Local government would probably gain more legitimacy in regulating the number of cars on the roads because they wouldn't be curtailing individual rights/freedom but rather just regulating the public transit business, which they already do to a large extent.

cooker

Aren't you a "free market" guy?

If people buy into the notion of just summoning a car when they need it, many may also buy into ride sharing. Cars could even be designed with shields between passengers, the way they are used in some cabs to separate the driver and pasengers, making people feel safe riding with strangers. With aritificially intelligent computer dispatchers deploying them efficiently, we (or our progeny) may end up with a lot fewer cars on the road. As a result there may be less need to regulate and limit them the way we now do with taxis. A range of entrepreneurs will own one or many cars and "plug them into the net". If they aren't making a living due to too much competition or letting their vehicles get too shabby, they will drop off the system.

EDIT: linked to 5 year prediction thread
https://www.bikeforums.net/living-car...l#post18383297

tandempower

That's an interesting question: would isolating rider compartments in public transit stimulate more ridership? It's so hard to say because ride-sharing is just mental vacuum for those who have no interest in it currently, I think. There are many people who are just die-hard adherents to the culture they've grown up with, which is to drive around on their own or with others, park where they need to go, etc. I wonder how many of such people would be willing to re-instate military drafts for the sake of thinning out motor-traffic on the roads so the culture of road-space-waste can continue for future generations. Whenever you hear about freedom not being free and how we should honor military sacrifices that keep the US free, I wonder if people also understand this to refer to population control as a means for ensuring everyone can drive without too much congestion on the roads.

Or they will petition (and bribe) regulators to create regulations that favor them and raise barriers for the competition and new market-entrants. I have been noticing this issue a lot lately; e.g. recently saw a bumper sticker reading "hire licensed contractors - it's the law!" and a TV commercial about it being illegal to give legal advice if you're not a bar-certified attorney. Trade unions and professional associations work at maintaining artificial scarcity to drive up revenues for many professionals and workers. The free market is often kept on leash and reigned in when competition begins to favor consumers over producers.