Self-driving shared vehicles could remove 90% off streets

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

GRA

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 19, 2011
Messages
14,018
Location
East side of San Francisco Bay
Via GCC:
ITF report finds self-driving shared vehicles could take up to 90% of cars off city streets; total kilometers travelled increases
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/04/20150430-itf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Pretty much just states the obvious, but not everyone has considered the implications.
 
I will believe it when I see it. The system will create enough cars to handle average load. That means at peak times, people without cars, I.e, schmucks, will wait while people with money will bid up up access to special car pools or will simply own cars. Soon next tier of former schmucks will want to own cars. Then car manufacturers will find way for the third tier of schmucks to own their cars if they incur high debt. Soon only lowest class of schmucks will rely on shared cars. That will cut revenue of shared pools, further reducing the shared pool. The realities of individuals' desire for optimum personal comfort disrupt every utopian solution.
 
DanCar said:
Are these called trains? :p
Actually, I think that (less expensive and more energy efficient per passenger mile, far more adaptable to changes in demand on different routes) Self-driving shared electric vehicles will probably soon render passenger trains obsolete.

And after we allow the autonomous high speed shared vehicle left lane on freeways, there will be far fewer long distance private vehicle trips, and short-range trips by plane, as well.
 
mjblazin said:
The realities of individuals' desire for optimum personal comfort disrupt every utopian solution.
Considering that Millennials are already opting out of car ownership and are behind most of the 'sharing economy' (while also being the most environmentally and energy conscious), I'm not sure I'd bet against a solution we older folk consider to be 'utopian'...
 
AndyH said:
mjblazin said:
The realities of individuals' desire for optimum personal comfort disrupt every utopian solution.
Considering that Millennials are already opting out of car ownership and are behind most of the 'sharing economy' (while also being the most environmentally and energy conscious), I'm not sure I'd bet against a solution we older folk consider to be 'utopian'...

Are they opting out, or forced out? There are fewer and fewer well-paying jobs in this country. Maybe the millenials are just making do with what they can afford. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention.
 
GetOffYourGas said:
AndyH said:
mjblazin said:
The realities of individuals' desire for optimum personal comfort disrupt every utopian solution.
Considering that Millennials are already opting out of car ownership and are behind most of the 'sharing economy' (while also being the most environmentally and energy conscious), I'm not sure I'd bet against a solution we older folk consider to be 'utopian'...
Are they opting out, or forced out? There are fewer and fewer well-paying jobs in this country. Maybe the millenials are just making do with what they can afford. Necessity is, after all, the mother of invention.
That is the question, and there's evidence on both sides. Bottom line, we just don't know for sure yet whether the millennial behavior of re-urbanizing*, sharing, and reduced desire for car ownership is driven primarily by need or desire. OTOH, the re-urbanization of empty-nest boomers does seem to be driven by desire, for easy access to services (medical etc.) without needing to own a car to go everywhere, as well as a desire to shed too-big houses and their upkeep (lawn care etc).

*The evidence for re-urbanization driven by desire does seem to be strong, but whether that changes once they start having children remains to be seen. The influences on them for re-urbanization are similar to those the boomers had for suburbanization - TV. Think of the popular TV sitcoms in the '50-'70s, and they are mostly (notable exceptions like The Honeymooners) set in the suburbs. Look at the '90s-'00s, and they're set in an urban area, indeed mostly in _the_ U.S. urban area - NYC. Seinfeld, Friends, Sex in the City, How I Met your Mother, all (even Seinfeld) present urban living as desirable, and in NYC you don't need a car. San Francisco, same, and most of the other cities from which millennials take their cultural cues are supportive of carless (walk/bike/transit/taxi/car-sharing) culture.

The interesting question to me is whether autonomous car-sharing will cause people to stay in the suburbs. I doubt the low density will allow car-sharing to be profitable or even desired in such areas, but I suppose that could change.
 
Just to add more data (and more confusion) to the issue, here's an article from ABG:
More data shows that Millennials don't like driving
Culprits Include Attitudes, Generation-Specific Conditions

Danny King

Can the flip-flopping data on millennials and their driving habits be chalked up to lies, damned lies or statistics? Too bad Mark Twain isn't around to figure that out, because analysts can't seem to get a decent handle on whether millennials are spending more or less time in their cars than their predecessors among Generation X and Baby Boomers. A most recent study from the University of North Carolina that was published in the Atlantic's Citylab [ http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015...-for-why-millennials-are-driving-less/398366/ ] suggests less.

The report takes a look at whether those driving habits are generation-specific and a result of a change in attitude (e.g., more concern for the environment, greater use of public transportation or bikes, etc.), or if they've been caused by different circumstances (e.g., many millennials hit driving age around the time of the most recent recession, which would naturally reduce the amount of driving they would be doing). The findings, of course, reflect that the decline was a combination of both factors. Either way, it may not only be a millennial thing, as driving levels started dropping off in the late 1990s with Generation X members.

Of course, this report contradicts many of the findings in an MTV study [ http://www.autoblog.com/2015/01/27/millennials-like-cars-after-all-mtv-study/ ] posted earlier this year. That report noted that millennials are driving more than Baby Boomers and Gen-X-ers. This wasn't merely an obligation thing either, as it found that younger drivers are more likely to take road trips during their free time than the older folks. In fact, millennials said they'd give up texting and social media (gasp!) before giving up their cars. O RLY?
 
Any systemic, not short term unemployment rate related, reduction in miles driven is likely more a reflection of changes in shopping habits, not a generational dislike for motor vehicles. One lesson we hopefully learned in the recession was to stop using shopping as entertainment and be more efficient about when we actually go to a store. The availability of web searches, even if not used to purchase an item, tell you exactly what store has it. Looking for a particular unusual size air filter, I might have checked 3 or 4 different locations. I searched, confirmed the store had it, and bought it, making one trip.

It is why I never bought into the peak oil, Club of Rome, future. The sad truth is we waste an awful lot of stuff in this country. Simply cutting back on the wasted time, resources and money in our lives will likely extend our capacity beyond our ability to accurately calculate it.
 
mjblazin said:
Any systemic, not short term unemployment rate related, reduction in miles driven is likely more a reflection of changes in shopping habits, not a generational dislike for motor vehicles. One lesson we hopefully learned in the recession was to stop using shopping as entertainment and be more efficient about when we actually go to a store. The availability of web searches, even if not used to purchase an item, tell you exactly what store has it. Looking for a particular unusual size air filter, I might have checked 3 or 4 different locations. I searched, confirmed the store had it, and bought it, making one trip.

It is why I never bought into the peak oil, Club of Rome, future. The sad truth is we waste an awful lot of stuff in this country. Simply cutting back on the wasted time, resources and money in our lives will likely extend our capacity beyond our ability to accurately calculate it.
Actually, it has been calculated numerous times. Basic conclusion is that electric transportation isn't going to get us where we need to be. Only reducing VMT by redesigning how we live (by densifying, mixed-use walkable/bikeable/transit-oriented neighborhoods) with the attendant much lower infrastructure and energy costs can get us the necessary reductions. You might start with "Seven Rules for Sustainable Communities" by Patrick Condon, which references many of the studies on factors of the built environment that affect VMT, GHGs, energy usage, public health, income etc.
 
I don't think there is an assumption except for that one columnist in Huff Post that plug in electric vehicles are a significant driver in any future. I would expect a 10% reduction in driving miles would more impact than anything done by EVs for several decades.
 
mjblazin said:
I don't think there is an assumption except for that one columnist in Huff Post that plug in electric vehicles are a significant driver in any future. I would expect a 10% reduction in driving miles would more impact than anything done by EVs for several decades.
They definitely help, they're just not enough by themselves to get us to 80% reduction, given that buildings and the infrastructure that supports them are the largest single contributor to GHGs. So, reduce the need to drive by putting the buildings closer together and provide mixed-uses, reducing the amount of surface area taken up by roads (and cement production ranks #1 or #2 in the U.S. among industrial GHG production), and then, having removed the need for much driving or riding, convert the remaining powered ground transportation requirements to electric. It's too big a subject to go into here, but Condon's book includes an excellent bibliography.
 
Didn't want to start a new thread, so I'm throwing this in here:

http://www.theonion.com/article/engineers-unveil-new-driverless-car-capable-of-com-38358?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview:NA:InFocus


Funny, plus, it's a Toyota.
 
Via GCC:
IBM study finds consumers very interested in alternative ownership models for cars, self-enabling vehicles
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2016/01/20160112-ibm.html

Consumers expect to use cars differently—showing particular interest in self-enabling vehicles—though they don’t necessarily want to own one in the traditional sense, according to the results of IBM’s automotive consumer study, presented at the North American International Auto Show (NAIAS) in Detroit. This presents opportunities for automakers to apply analytics and cognitive capabilities to develop new vehicle options.

“A New Relationship – People and Cars,” developed by the IBM Institute for Business Value (IBV), reports that consumers also show a high level of interest in self-enabling vehicles, or cars that can learn, heal, drive and socialize. These capabilities include autonomous, self-driving cars, vehicles that can be fixed without human intervention and the implementation of cognitive computing to learn and assimilate to the driver’s behaviors, the vehicle itself and the surrounding environment. . . .
Direct link to the IBM report (5Mb): http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=XB&infotype=PM&htmlfid=GBE03718USEN&attachment=GBE03718USEN.PDF

From the executive summary of the report:
. . . For this second part of our “Auto 2025” series, we surveyed consumers to develop an
informed view of how they will own and use vehicles over the next decade. This report reveals
important consumer perspectives, based on a survey of 16,469 consumers in 16 countries. In
search of greater effectiveness, efficiency and safety, they expect intuitive, automated and
personalized mobility experiences through digital capabilities and services. Consumers also
expressed a greater desire to both co-create mobility solutions and buy vehicles through
preferred channels and ecosystem participants.

One recurring and notable difference of opinion: consumers in growth markets were
consistently more eager to try vehicle and mobility innovations – they base their decisions on
perceived value, rather than mature market consumers who seem content to wait for proven
value. The reaction of consumers in growth markets to new technology can be summed up as
a “When can I have it?” mentality. Those in mature markets were more hesitant, with
responses that reflect the question, “Why do I need it?”

Also see: https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/01/06/ford-at-ces-announces-smart-mobility-plan.html
 
Back
Top