Robin Chase asks the question in this Atlantic Cities piece, further to the post below. In that piece on the Google car, the author notes:
Google is keenly aware what’s at stake. There’s the safety component, with cities recognizing the need to strive for zero traffic fatalities.
The nature of urban mobility itself is also on the line. Larry Burns, a former vice president for research and design at G.M. who’s now a paid Google consultant, says taxi-like fleets of shared autonomous vehicles can become viable business models if they can capture just 10 percent of all city trips. “I think that should be viewed as a new form of public transportation,” he says. Having recently invested in the ride-sharing service Uber, Google no doubt senses that marrying urban travel demand with autonomous vehicles could transform car-ownership as we know it.
How will all this affect the choices of individuals, especially those with limited options as a consequence of their income?
Imagine, for instance, the impact of this technology on insurance rates. Even if the completely autonomous vehicle is not yet ready for prime time, car companies will initially install the sensors needed to prevent collisions with both other vehicles and people. That should have a dramatic downward impact on insurance rates – for those who can afford the new vehicles with these initially expensive bells-and-whistles.
For those who can’t, however, what happens to their insurance rates? Presumably an equally dramatic upward shift. For many, they will not be able to afford cars with the technology nor the insurance for cars without.
Their choice will be the shared autonomous vehicles that Google sees as a viable business model. They’d buy a plan similar to a cell phone, structured according to their needs and wallet, purchasing a mobility service, not the hardware. If it works, if it’s affordable and if it’s pervasive, then reasonably we should anticipate a significant drop in the number of cars required, the space they consume and people’s attachment to the idea of the personal car as a reflection of status and identity.
Transformative indeed.
Why would there be an equally dramatic upward shift of those without these safety features? They may eventually cause a higher proportion of damage but the absolute risk will presumably be unchanged at worst. And if autonomous vehicles are much safer then they will presumably lead to lower accidents with all vehicles not merely those with these safety features. To me, this implies that the cost of insuring vehicles without these features will not rise and may actually decrease.
I agree with Alex.
To me, the more disturbing thought is if we swing the pendulum even further towards car-oriented development under the slogan that these fancy new cars are safe and accessible to all (including kids and the elderly).
Love to see this before I depart from this planet ! Sitting in the back seat and read the newspaper is so much more enjoyable than driving through city traffic with its constant red lights, pedestrians crossing, bikes swaying and lane crossing.
Regular bus service, especially on low demand routes, is indeed ripe for replacement by these autonomous vehicles that can be ordered on demand, or shared.
Ride sharing generally, like Uber’s service, is also very useful but opposed by entrenched organizations like taxi associations: http://www.geekwire.com/2014/washington-taxi-company-suing-uber-unlawful-deceptive-business-practice/ or here http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-06/chicago-cabbies-sue-over-unregulated-uber-lyft-services.html
Empty seats in normal, or auto-cars, are an underutilized resource that ought to be used far more in our crowded cities. Perhaps when entering downtown Vancouver is $25 by yourself, but only $15 with 2 or more people will behavior change. When can we expect this in Vancouver ?
Yes, the businesses who pay loads of tax agree with your charging to enter downtown. Oh no wait, they don’t, not at all. That would be punishing people to patronize their businesses and they would guaranteed have a serious drop, and they have already taken a huge hit with the parking situation. Those business have contributed far more tax dollars than you ever will. What about sales reps who need to travel in and out of downtown all day? What if you are going to the hospital? No one is going to implement your pay to enter downtown scheme.
Well, London did, as did Stockholm and Singapore .. why not Vancouver ?
Downtown Vancouver needs more pedestrian areas and wider sidewalks. Cars everywhere – like right now – is not the future for downtown Vancouver.
London: Introduced congestion charging in 2003, billing drivers who drive downtown. Downtown traffic soon decreased by 21 per cent and bus passengers increased by 6 per cent. But by 2008, traffic was back up to pre-charge levels. Net revenues from the charge (which, according to the British House of Commons, amounted to $220 million in 2007 alone) is reinvested in London’s transport system, with a large portion going to pay for the city’s double-decker buses.
Not to mention they have a much, much better transit system and fourteen times the population. But screw those businesses anyways, right? Why not Vancouver?
With a pedestrian zone for Robson, for example, or partially closed Alberni with outdoor dining revenue will vastly increase eventually, as more people will actually shop downtown. Robson is in decline, with sidewalks too narrow and far too much roadway.
It will be beneficial for businesses.
Cars don’t shop. People do.
We need more Vision in Vancouver. Downtown Vancouver is quite ugly. It needs a major facelift only urban streets with parks, benches, more shopping friendly can bring. Then it will be destination i.e. experience shopping for folks that today stay in Langley, Surrey or Burnaby, Susan !
Author
Alex raises a good point. Will insurance rates go up? If overall risk is reduced, regardless of who has the technology, does everyone’s rates go down, just some more than others?
I think they`ll be pure Heaven! Life changing/saving!
You guys are missing a point on the impact of this change. This is not just about the fact that you won’t have to drive your personal car. Think about this:
– No bus drivers
– No cab drivers
– No truck drivers
Further, instead of driving somewhere why don’t I just send my car to do things for me:
– pick up groceries
– pick up my kid from school
This would also potentially blur the line between public transit, delivery, cabs, shared cars…My car can drop me off at work, then drop of kids at work, then go cruising to find some passengers (and make some money) then go do some errands for me, then come pick me up…At that point do I really need to own the car? Or are we talking about a cheap service that I can subscribe to…Kind of like personal transit..
Could indeed be as revolutionary as the internet and solve traffic gridlock. Will be a few more decades to be fully implemented as entrenched groups ( unions mainly ) will put up many many road blocks
My car could not drop me at work, then drop off the kids, then drop off my wife since we all start work/school at the same time in different places. That’s the reality of “rush hour”. For a couple of hours each morning something like 70% of the population is in motion with different origin-destination pairs.
Because so many people want to travel on differing routes at exactly the same time automatic cars cannot solve gridlock. Wrapping each human in a tonne of metal, glass and plastic is inherently inefficient whether there’s a driver or not. Bicycles, buses and trains will still be necessary during peak hours.
Off peak will be entirely different.
My car is unlikely to find many passengers during the day because many people do not need to go anywhere except during peak hours and the total number of automatic cars (privately owned and commercial fleets) will greatly exceed the number needed off-peak. Thus my car will either need to find a place to park near work or drive all the way back home empty to park there. We either continue to waste space and energy building parking lots or we waste energy having empty cars returning to their home bases. Neither one is economically or environmentally sound.
Overall demand for travel will increase and economics will merely smooth out demand. During peak hours road space and vehicle availability will be low so automated taxi prices will be high. Off peak, however, there will be an overabundance of cars sitting around waiting for someone or something to move. Unless all the privately owned cars sit idle all day excess supply will drive down off-peak prices to the point where commercial car sharing services cannot break even and traditional fixed route, fixed timetable public transit won’t make any sense.
On the flip side excess supply and low pricing will induce demand. People will make trips currently considered too expensive or impractical, children will make solo trips instead of waiting for a carpool and the elderly will make solo trips instead of occupying a passenger seat in a car, HandyDart or bus. For some events the total number of vehicles heading to the destination could double.
It’s going to be very interesting.
Well argued !
Downtown’s parkades are too empty, yet too many parking spots exist on streets. When parking fees are dramatically increased on street, or eliminated altogether, my personal car ( or a shared for fee car ) could drive me to shop or lunch or work, but then head off 4-20 blocks and park in a cheap parkade. It could be wonderful for streets like Davie, Robson or Denman that allow some car traffic but no parking, with wider sidewalks. Shopper arrives, leaves car, and car drives away to park somewhere downtown in a parkade A wonderful new concept that does not exist today but that would beautifully enhance car clogged pedestrian shopping areas like those streets mentioned ! Ditto for schools, office towers or other congested zones at certain hours due to parking constraints.
Perhaps we’ll see it by 2030 in action.
Interesting article here http://news.yahoo.com/look-no-hands-test-driving-google-car-050411412–finance.html on perfecting the technology .. closer than we think ?
Closer than we think .. Or further away ? Are computerized cars able to hit a deer to avoid the ditch, or navigate busy Roman five lane traffic circles, asks this article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/driverless-cars-are-possible-but-not-desirable/article20585553/#dashboard/follows/