My prediction is that car usage will go thought the roof when AI cars work.
People can have a stress-free commute to a nice house in the countryside and work in the cities. Because the car is electric, it will be inexpensive to run.
Commute time still matters, and congestion pricing will become the norm.
I can read on the subway, but while a 20 min subway ride is fine, an hour each way is still a lot, and a two hour train commute just doesn't leave much time in your life for doing social things.
Also, I think there's going to be a huge surge in in-demand AI buses. Rideshares will take people to a random spot, you'll wait 2 minutes for a predetermined seat on a specific bus, and then switch to a rideshare van for the last 5 minute drive to your office in the city.
It's just going to be so much cheaper. With economies of scale and urban congestion pricing, you'll have to choose between dropping $45 on a dedicated hour-long door-to-door car trip, or $6 for the car-bus-van version which is only 20% slower anyways.
> Late-stage capitalism will find ways to make it cost exactly as much as driving your own car.
Late-stage capitalism is a defunct theory based on Marxism.
Real, actual capitalism results in competition which drives prices down, as long as there are two or more competitors and antitrust law is enforced. Which is generally the case.
And in the case of monopolies like city buses, cities set prices directly in response to democratic pressure. By your argument, NYC subways ought to be $25 a ride... but they aren't.
> Real, actual capitalism results in competition which drives prices down, as long as there are two or more competitors and antitrust law is enforced.
I generally agree with you here, (though it's a bit simplistic for things not directly related to price: for example good luck avoiding arbitration clauses)
> Which is generally the case.
Now our opinions differ. Lina Khan was an exception, and I certainly can't imagine the current regime standing up against money.
Some recent(ish) ones I think have been less than great for competition
HBO / Discovery?
Facebook/Instagram/Whatsapp?
LiveNation / Ticketmaster?
Disney / Fox?
Charter / Time Warner Cable?
AT&T / Time Warner?
CBS / Viacom?
Comcast / NBC?
JP Morgan / Chase?
CVS / Aetna?
Cigna / Express Scripts?
Sinclair Media
Probably not, if they're all computer-controlled, and can communicate with each other. I posit traffic jams is mostly caused by idiot and reckless drivers...
The throughput of a road is car density * speed. So from a pure throughput perspective, the ideal driver is a tailgating speed demon. To maximize time spent at high speed you should also floor it when the light turns green, and slam the brakes at the last possible moment when it goes red.
One thing I forgot to mention, braking as late as possible doesn't help you at all, but it does free up road space behind you, which can let people behind you get through an intersection they otherwise wouldn't.
Yup, and if every car is computer controlled and in communication with nearby cars you can safely reduce spacing. Most of that space between cars is due to human reaction time. (And even then that's not always enough. 40 years ago, I'm going along, geezer is being awfully slow about their left turn so I lightly apply the brakes. Geezer then proceeds to completely stop, utterly unaware that I'm heading right towards his door. I slam on my brakes. I was able to stop for said geezer but the woman behind me didn't have the usual warning of brake lights flaring and came up a couple of inches short in stopping. Geezer proceeds off, apparently completely unaware of the accident he caused.
(And that was not the only close call I had with that geezer at that corner.)
well, I guess my hope is that renting a car whenever needed is cheaper than the cost of purchasing, maintaining, insuring, and storing a personal robocar. It would be quite hard to make the US more car-dependent than it already is! But I am speculating - you may very well be right
It will only be cheaper if you don't drive much anyway, and you are the type who would never be seen in a car more than 3 years old.
If you drive a lot (like the person in the countryside) the car that is there when you want to is worth owning vs a shared car that you might have to wait for. Plus by owning the car you can just leave your golf clubs in the trunk.
If you can stand being in a used car you will discover that shared cars are all more expensive just because at the first sign of cosmetic wear they get rid of it while seats that have been sat in a few times are still good enough for many more years. (unless you almost never drive anyway)
Because of the above I don't see much growth in the shared car market. There will be some because there are people who don't have parking, people who don't drive much, and people who demand a new car that they don't otherwise care about. However the vast majority of people will still own their own car.
Cost is only one dimension of renting a car. As long as the car rental companies keep making it as painful as possible, it won't be a solution for usual usage. Hopefully Waymo goes after them too.
Very much. They often don't have cars at all - despite letting you reserve them. Or they are not open when your train arrives / leaves. I'm considering a 3 day drive my next trip in part because it is the only way to be sure we can get around when there.
(we are going to a remote location where I wouldn't expect public transit to serve, but the train station is in a small town that still should have some transit but doesn't)
Even weekend vacation homes will go up in value. It's no big deal to have a vacation home on a lake 10 hours drive away if I can sleep in the car overnight on Friday and Sunday.
When we all realized we needed a commuter car in the family to save a crap ton of money. Rather spend $4 in electricity than $25 in diesel for a 100 mile commute.
That’s a weird comparison, given you can commute 100 miles for like $8 of gas with a $10k car. Breakeven on fuel costs is in the order of decades on that commute.
Right, but I'm saying comparing like-for-like models of big truck vs. EV for commuting is a bad/weird comparison. You can cut your fuel costs by like 2/3 by moving from a big truck to a compact ICE car for commuting. (Or even a smaller/more efficient truck - e.g. a hybrid Ford Maverick costs about $25 in gas for 300 miles.)
And sure, you might have a legit reason to need a full-size pickup for commuting, but that doesn't apply to 90% of people who actually commute with full-size pickups.
Yes, it was apples-to-apples, and my point is that it's still a bad comparison, because it's like there are a hundred people comparing whether whole Cripps Pink or Fuji apples are more cost-effective for feeding their pets, but 90 of those people have pet grasshoppers that they could feed with leftover lettuce.
It's spicy auto complete. Ask it to create a program that can create a violin plot from a CVS file. Because this has been "done before", it will do a decent job.
