[tyroneshoelaces]

http://gondolaproject.com/2011/03/08/could-googles-self-driving-car-kill-public-transit/

"Last week at the TED 2011 conference, Google unveiled their self-driving car. And while an interview and test drive with CBS news was both fun and informative to watch, the issue of the technology’s impact on public transit was never addressed.

If the self-driving car becomes a reality in the next, say, 20 years, one has to ask the very valid question of what purpose, truly, will public transit serve in the near future?

Will it kill public transit as we know it?

That may seem alarmist, but it’s certainly worth asking and answer to the above question is anywhere along the spectrum from possibly to probably. But whatever the impact, it is a game-changer the likes of which public transit has never seen."

This got me thinking this morning...

I think this is worth discussing or at least thinking about as we invest in new transit projects and developments associated with them.

Efficient small cars use less energy to move people around and save the most scarce resource on the planet, human time. This new technology could eventually pack many more cars on the existing roadways (since they could be 6" apart) and improve mobility, safety and cost.

[jaxg8r1]

I wonder if the technology won't also lower the cost of public transit? Think of it: Buses without having to pay the costs of drivers...

[tyroneshoelaces]

It definitely should. Tri-met is getting killed by wage costs.

TriMet now spends $1.63 in benefits for every $1.00 spent on wages, and the agency has more than $1.2 billion in unfunded actuarially accrued liabilities for promised retirement benefits.

There would be issues to resolve though. I'm not sure I would want to get on a bus/train/streetcar in some places at some times. No one would hear your screams! Fare collection would be an issue too.

I wonder if the technology would allow one to "call" a car-share type vehicle to pick you up?

[RainDog]

Well presumably even if your car drives itself you still have to purchase the car... pay for gasoline,parking, maintenance, insurance etc.

I would imagine public transit would still remain cheaper since all those costs are shared and the driver-less technology could be applied just as well to transit(lowering its cost significantly).

So transit would still keep its major draw... affordability.

[tyroneshoelaces]

If only that were true.

Transit costs about 4x what cars cost on a per passenger mile basis. A lot of that is the driver so this may equate things since the stats don't include the car driver's time as a cost.

I'm also not saying that transit is necessarily worse because of the high cost. What I am saying is that there may be other ways of transporting people like shared driverless cars in our future.

[RainDog]

If only that were true.

Transit costs about 4x what cars cost on a per passenger mile basis.

Whats your source of that figure? I'm kind of curious how they calculate that.

It's $92 for a monthly transit pass. 1/4th of that would be $23. You can't even get a tank of gas for that much. hmmmmm :hmmm:

[tyroneshoelaces]

Are you serious or just kidding around?

You don't actually think your fare pays the cost of your transit trip...do you?

[2oh1]

Transit costs about 4x what cars cost on a per passenger mile basis.

Source?

That sounds like some wacko right wing propaganda where facts are twisted out of context.

I'm having trouble believing that a filled bus costs more per passenger than an equal amount of cars for those passengers, especially since most cars on the road only have one person in them.

[2oh1]

Will it kill public transit as we know it?

That may seem alarmist, but it’s certainly worth asking and answer to the above question is anywhere along the spectrum from possibly to probably.

The correct answer is probably not to not at all, with a strong emphasis on not at all.

Use a bit of common sense. Why do the majority of people on mass transit choose to ride on mass transit? Because they can't drive? BZZZZZZZZT!!! Thanks for playing but try again. Until you truly understand why people choose mass transit in the first place, you cannot make predictions about the fate of mass transit. To suggest otherwise is silly.

It's fun to geek out and picture some sort of sci-fi world where cars drive themselves, and though the technology is certainly doable, there are so many non-technical hurdles for it that I can't imagine it becoming a reality outside of testing for the next 50 years if not much longer.

The prices for self-driving cars will be astronomical, and the tech will be riddled with regulations, especially after the first accident. And there will be accidents. Deadly accidents. It's not as if we're talking about roads filled with only self-driving cars. We're talking about a few self-driving cars on roads with cars driven by people. People are pretty frigging stupid. They speed. They type texts while driving. They eat. They do everything BUT pay attention to the road. The first deadly accident that a self-driving car is involved in will tie the tech up in legal battles and regulatory madness for decades.

It's fun to imagine this tech in everyday life, but I doubt we'll see it as anything more than a novelty in our lifetime.

[tyroneshoelaces]

Source?

That sounds like some wacko right wing propaganda where facts are twisted out of context.



The figures you should look at are on page 3-4 of Tri-met's report. 24.7% of the cost of a ride is covered by the fare. I would imagine that pass holders get an even better deal than that.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFMQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrimet.org%2Fpdfs%2Fpublications%2Ftrimetridership.pdf&ei=5K63T6SYHsSKiAKF1YGcBw&usg=AFQjCNEkR4ZmY_QT835KKWEzYE55PlWzVA&sig2=7aLUMCEEoXGBR0whhDieYw

I'm having trouble believing that a filled bus costs more per passenger than an equal amount of cars for those passengers, especially since most cars on the road only have one person in them.

Busses are full about as much as cars are.

[tyroneshoelaces]

Use a bit of common sense. Why do the majority of people on mass transit choose to ride on mass transit? Because they can't drive? BZZZZZZZZT!!! Thanks for playing but try again. Until you truly understand why people choose mass transit in the first place, you cannot make predictions about the fate of mass transit. To suggest otherwise is silly.

You don't need to know how to drive in a driverless car. They are even looking at removing the controls.

Did you read the article?

[2oh1]

What the huh? I said "Why do the majority of people on mass transit choose to ride on mass transit?" because I assume you don't know, based on your belief that driverless cars would likely kill mass transit... and your reply was:

You don't need to know how to drive in a driverless car.

You just proved the point I was making. The idea that driverless cars will save people from having to ride mass transit is wrong to the point of silliness. It's based on the idea that people use mass transit because they have to rather than because they want to. Anyone who would make such an argument does not understand why people choose to use mass transit in the first place. It's not because they don't know how to drive.

Car free communities are on the rise. Transit oriented housing is as well. Streetcar systems are being built in many cities across the U.S. These things aren't happening because of a lack of driverless cars.

I'm certainly not debating that the price of a fare pays the full cost of the ride, but it's ignorant to suggest* that getting someone from point A to point B is the only benefit of mass transit.

*I'm not saying you're ignorant enough to think that. I'm just pointing out the flipside of the fact that the cost of a fare doesn't fully cover the cost of the trip. Mass transit has far more benefits than getting someone from point A to point B. It benefits people in so many other ways. It benefits entire communities.

[tyroneshoelaces]

You've got to be kidding!

If you think more expensive, slower, dirtier transportation is better than anything else just because you believe in it, I have nothing more to say.

This thread answers this question.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5706658#post5706658

[65MAX]

http://gondolaproject.com/2011/03/08/could-googles-self-driving-car-kill-public-transit/

Last week at the TED 2011 conference, Google unveiled their self-driving car. And while an interview and test drive with CBS news was both fun and informative to watch, the issue of the technology’s impact on public transit was never addressed.

Why would it be discussed? You're comparing apples to oranges. That's like saying improved shoe technology will kill the use of hats... it's a total non sequitor.

Public transport won't go away even if (when) ALL private automobiles have self-driving capabilities. As pointed out above, people don't take transit because they can't drive. First of all, not everyone owns a car, or even wants to. Some for financial reasons, some because they have no place to park one. And many people WITH cars choose to take transit when it's convenient or when they don't want to pay for parking. Public transit is always going to be a part of any major city.

The only "impact" would come from applying driverless technology to buses and trains, in which case would make transit operations much cheaper.

[Grantenfuego]

You've got to be kidding!

If you think more expensive, slower, dirtier transportation is better than anything else just because you believe in it, I have nothing more to say.

This thread answers this question.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?p=5706658#post5706658

:previous: I'm unsure how the above thread answers any questions on the matter.

I've been reading this thread for a few days now and didn't really want to jump in this debate, but it's become quite hard not to at this point.

Where I live owning your own car is beyond a luxury it's almost stupid. A monthly parking spot is $150+/ month, easy. (that's for a car that drives itself as well). A monthly transit pass is $80+ and in most cases public transit is faster.

I know we're talking about Portland, but Portland already has a better and cheaper transit system than San Francisco, that's why I'm not bashful to compare the two.

Having enough money and personal parking space for a car that can drive you wherever you want automatically( drunk, sober, whatever) sounds great, but there will always be a ton of people who can't afford insurance, parking, maintenance, gas, ect.

I'm very happy that we in Portland and San Francisco have a government that puts a priority on making it comfortable for cyclists and transit riders. To be perfectly honest I'm a bit scared of a city where a bunch of driver-less cars with 360 degree censors are racing around. That sounds terrible for pedestrians.


The only "impact" would come from applying driverless technology to buses and trains, in which case would make transit operations much cheaper.

:previous: This, to me is the plus side of the technology. Obviously it's no secret that I would love to see Tri Met thrive.

[MarkDaMan]

Why would it be discussed? You're comparing apples to oranges. That's like saying improved shoe technology will kill the use of hats... it's a total non sequitor.

I think the question could have been posed, "How could Google's self-driving car change our communities?" but I don't see the correlation between a self-driving car and the demise of mass transit.

[zilfondel]

If anything, a Google car would be a perfect compliment to Car2Go. Instead of owning these cars, they would drive themselves around to where people need them, like taxis. Driverless taxis.

Why on earth would you need to own a car that can drive itself?

Mass-transit wise- Driverless cars may be a replacement for Lift vans, but bus and train service? Doubtful. Although Portland isn't the greatest example (we don't have much congestion), people often ride the subway/light-rail to avoid highway congestion. More cars on the road = more congestion = less mobility = you are late more often.

Whats new is old.

http://imaginativeamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/imagi_cars-vs-bus-vs-bikes.jpg
pic found on this blog: http://www.imaginativeamerica.com/category/walkability/

[2oh1]

If anything, a Google car would be a perfect compliment to Car2Go. Instead of owning these cars, they would drive themselves around to where people need them, like taxis. Driverless taxis.

The scary part of that thought is congestion. Driverless cars could essentially double the amount of cars on the road (car trips being taken, really) without adding a single extra car. Instead of paying for parking, one might opt to send the driverless car home and then have it return at the end of the work day. That's two complete trips instead of one. Going to the airport? You'd probably send your driverless car home rather than deal with airport parking, and then have it pick you up at the airport when you return. Again, it's one person doubling the number of trips a vehicle makes. Thus, our roads could easily become overwhelmed even if our local population were to DECREASE.

Think about that for a moment. Yikes.

[llamaorama]

The scary part of that thought is congestion. Driverless cars could essentially double the amount of cars on the road (car trips being taken, really) without adding a single extra car. Instead of paying for parking, one might opt to send the driverless car home and then have it return at the end of the work day. That's two complete trips instead of one. Going to the airport? You'd probably send your driverless car home rather than deal with airport parking, and then have it pick you up at the airport when you return. Again, it's one person doubling the number of trips a vehicle makes. Thus, our roads could easily become overwhelmed even if our local population were to DECREASE.

That's bad, but I think that with self driving cars there will be more smart infrastructure and road pricing. Especially if the cars aren't owned by the user but by some service provider you subscribe to like Car2Go.

Cars that drive themselves will chose optimal paths, and ones without passengers will find places to go queue up or temporary park to get out of the way. Also smart vehicles might normalize the presently unpopular idea of having tracking devices in cars. Not only that, but they can be blocked or excluded from a roadway. To do these things right now it costs money to build and maintain license plate reader gantries and big physical gates and signs and this discourages the tolling and/or management of any road smaller than a freeway. But in the future even cul-de-sacs in a subdivision would have some tiny charge for vehicles to use them.

Ideally, what would occur in your scenario is that road space carries a value, and as it becomes scarce it costs more. Fewer people would make fewer trips by car as the price rose, and multi-passenger self-driving buses or existing MAX or streetcar lines would gain passengers. It could be a boon to regional or high speed rail if robot taxis eliminate the last mile problem, though maybe super luxury buses with cabins or high speed freeways where cars could go 100 mph would make Amtrak obsolete.

Honestly I'm more worried about equitable access to roadways as public space. Will bicyclists and pedestrians need to pay or get licenses to walk or bike? Will roads still be for everyone or will they be owned by private companies, and how will those businesses bid on existing infrastructure and will they compete in a truly free market? Doesn't infrastructure tend towards natural monopolies anyways due to economies of scale and the network effect?

[tyroneshoelaces]

Goggle's self driving car just passed 300,000 miles with the only accident being when it was rear ended at a stoplight.

http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-self-driving-car-logs-more-miles-on.html

Great video of a blind person "driving" a google car.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cdgQpa1pUUE#!

[Derek]

I noticed the Prius didn't use a turn signal when pulling into Taco Bell. They should probably address that. :P




Still a really awesome project put on by Google. Very impressive.

[tyroneshoelaces]

Self driving cars approved by the California legislature.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/48861376

Since a huge percentage of cars in this country are in California, the rest of us usually follow their lead.

[2oh1]

That's sort of misleading.

If signed by Governor Jerry Brown, Padilla's bill would legally allow autonomous vehicles on the road and charge the state's Department of Motor Vehicles with determining the standards for self-driving cars, rules which current do not exist under the present vehicle code.

In other words, rules are on the way. The idea of driverless cars roaming without drivers isn't likely. And that's putting it mildly.

the bill requires the cars to have a flesh-and-blood human being behind the wheel if something goes wrong.

That last sentence is poorly written. The bill requires autonomous vehicles to have a flesh-and-blood human being behind the wheel, period. The reason for the requirement is to ensure safety in the event that anything goes wrong.

We already have too many cars on the road with only one occupant. If we ever see a time when driverless cars don't require anyone to be behind the wheel, we're going to see a massive increase in traffic congestion, and that will only encourage mass transit use rather than discourage it (getting back to the initial question posed in this thread).

[llamaorama]

Clearly congestion tolling is necessary or these will cause all kinds of problems.

The cars are all computerized and could be networked together, and you wouldn't need physical barriers or gates to change their paths, right? So a city where robot cars are taking over the streets simply could tame them with a traffic management program?