Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12
Assuming everybody else continues to buy cars at the same rate.
Are you living in a world with free electricity? We have some of the cheapest electricity in North America (and expensive gas). But as the demand shifts from fuel to electricity, new sources like Site C have much higher costs to produce power. Governments will also need to replace the tax base generated by fuel taxes. Other energy sources will likely absorb at least some of that taxation.
But all of that aside, anything that makes cars cheaper for individuals to own, makes them cheaper for sharing organizations. The major manufacturers all recognize this. Ford, GM, and of course Daimler-Benz are all investing heavily in car sharing and technologies like Uber. Why? Because this is their future customer base.
We're talking about utilization of an expensive asset. If you can increase that from 3% to only 9%, that's tripling the value. It's easy to see car sharing cars (in particular autonomous ones) having 50% or greater utilization.
I think you need to spend some time working on grammar and sentence structure if you want your ideas to be communicated successfully.
What I think you are talking about is commuting times of day when there is a potential for high usage of shared vehicles towards specific destinations, leading to congestion.
I think we are talking far into the future here, but consider a scenario where there is very little private car ownership. We can probably get rid of street parking entirely, people can share rides to work in the same car (for a discount of course), and others will simply take these cars to the closest skytrain or WCE station. The reason many people drive downtown today is because they don't live close to a train station, don't want to take a bus, and there's no park and ride reasonably close to them.
Hey, it's not my fault if you're using the wrong word, that's on you.
The City's traffic data shows massive double digit increases in cycling every year, and flat to declining car usage. If you take that data seriously, why wouldn't you increase cycling capacity and infrastructure?
|
Even if cars as a service (CAAS) becomes a thing (fuck that though, I would lose so many pairs of sunglasses and phone chargers), that just means there would be MORE congestion.
If automated cars were used on demand, the only thing that would happen is that there would be fewer parking spots needed. But for every person driving around today, would STILL be a person driving around tomorrow. An SOV is an SOV whether or not a computer is driving it. There might be fewer cars in existence, but at a specific hour of the day there would be the same number of cars on the road as today.
In fact, it would drastically increase congestion and road use. Instead of cars spending time being idle in parking spots under buildings waiting for their masters to return, they would be out and about driving around (EMPTY) waiting for someone else to summon them. They would need to drive to that pick up (EMPTY).
So at the AM Rush, instead of cars mostly entering downtown and staying there all day, the same volume of cars would enter downtown, THEN LEAVE, to pick up more people, then return, and on and on. That just means that the lights need to now be timed to allow a reverse commute of empty cars. We are going to need like double the road capacity in downtown to accommodate automated ride shares.