The OECD has published a fairly realistic report about the effects of self-driving cars on urban transportation. However, the report contains some implicit assumptions that may not come true.
“Single-occupancy car use generates individual and collective benefits,” admits the report, “but these are eroded and, in some cases, obviated by environmental impacts, loss of transport system efficiency due to congestion, social inequity and exclusion, as well as road crashes and strong dependence on fossil fuels.” Except for congestion, however, most of these problems are exaggerated and even congestion is technically easy (but politically difficult) to solve with congestion pricing.
“Typically, the response to the negative impacts of car-dominated transport systems,” continues the report, “has been to promote public transport.” But this “comes at a heavy cost,” and despite many cities paying that cost, “public transport continues to lose market share to private vehicles in most developed economies.”
The report sees shared self-driving cars as the solution. Shared vehicles can “provide quality mobility to all citizens with significantly reduced traffic volumes, fewer emissions, less need for public parking space, at prices well below the current ones.” This conclusion is based on data from a previous report and a transportation model that assumes that “all car and bus trips in a city [are replaced] with mobility provided through fleets of shared vehicles.”
The main flaw in this report is the assumption that everyone will give up their personal vehicles in favor of shared vehicles. As previously noted here, the Antiplanner is skeptical of this notion. First, many people will feel more comfortable in their own, personalized vehicles than in shared vehicles.
Second, over the life of a car, the average cost of driving per mile is about the same whether someone drives 10,000 miles per year or 100,000 miles. This means that shared vehicles can’t be significantly less expensive than personal vehicles.
Many users call this pill as love pill buy generic viagra http://opacc.cv/documentos/Conteudo%20Programatico%20e%20CV%20do%20Formador_%20Formacao%20em%20S%20%20Vicente.pdf as it makes men able for lovemaking activity. The effect of cheap tadalafil tablets remains for 5 hours, whereas of cialisroximately 4 hours. http://opacc.cv/documentos/auditores/Modelo%2017.pdf buy female viagra New Version Works Well to Erect the Penis if taken with prescription. In Pune, Kharadi is growing as one of the most booming residential area as it having the lots of location levitra without rx advantage. Third, charges for shared vehicles will be based on average costs per mile, while people who already own their own cars only perceive the marginal cost of driving each additional mile. Many people will figure they can “beat the system” by paying for a car up front and then paying only the marginal cost for driving, and I suspect at least half of them will be right.
As a result, it doesn’t seem reasonable to me to assume that more than half of today’s car owners will give up their personal vehicles in favor of shared vehicles. How does this change the OECD’s model?
First, the number and distribution of parking spaces needed in a city will be different. If all cars are shared, they can be stored in some low-rent part of the urban area when they aren’t all in use. If half of cars are private, more parking spaces will be needed near the homes and workplaces of those car owners. The OECD concludes that 95 percent of public parking can be eliminated. This seems unrealistic.
Second, the number of cars on the road will be somewhat greater. OECD’s conclusion that only 3 percent of today’s car fleet will be needed in the future seems highly unrealistic, while the claim that vehicle miles during rush hour will be reduced by 37 percent seems somewhat optimistic.
Third, the OECD’s conclusions about rapid reductions in energy use and pollution depend on the rapid turnover of cars that would result if all cars were in use 95 percent of the time rather than the current 5 percent. Make no mistake: I think self-driving cars will produce enormous benefits, but the energy and pollution benefits may not be as large as the OECD assumes.
The problem with building a transport model based on an assumption like this one is that planners then believe they have to impose that assumption on the world. “The transition phase from individual use of cars to shared mobility is critical to success,” says the report. “It is also a challenge.” But the only reason there needs to be a “transition phase” is so that reality matches up with the results of the OECD’s model. Having decided that shared vehicles are better than privately owned ones, the authors of the report want to force urban residents to give up their personal vehicles, perhaps by passing a law forbidding private vehicle from entering cities.
It is possible that self-driving cars will so relieve urban congestion that more people will find dense cities attractive, which is what planners want. It is also possible that self-driving cars will so reduce the time cost of travel that more people will move to the exurbs. Personally, I don’t care which of these comes true. I just object to planners who want to impose a result on people because that result fits their model better than what people would rather do.
I do not disagree with the broad conclusions of this article, but do disagree with:
“over the life of a car, the average cost of driving per mile is about the same whether someone drives 10,000 miles per year or 100,000 miles”
Modern cars can be driven many hundreds of thousands of miles without major repairs if well maintained. The depreciation of a new car is therefore amortized over the mileage driven. Surprisingly a ten year old car with 100,000 miles on it is not worth much more than a ten year old car with 300,000 miles on it. Therefore the extra miles put on a car cost less and less per mile as the depreciation is amortized over more and more miles. For example, if one owns a new car the cost per extra mile put on it is mostly a function of the extra cost of gasoline, tires and maintenance which are a function of miles driven, but insurance and depreciation are not as related to mileage. Therefore once the vehicle is bought, the extra miles put on the car cost less than the average cost per mile. The cost per mile continues to drop as every extra mile is put on the car.
Note that the first hybrid taxis, Ford Escapes used in San Francisco, were retired after four years with 300,000 miles on them only because there is a San Francisco ordnance that does not allow taxis to be driven over 300,000 miles. See:
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/mar/30/local/me-green-cabs30
I heard on the radio that these Escapes would be sold on to other taxi companies in other cities as they were still running well.
The mechanics I go to specialize in hybrid cars and say that Toyota Prius batteries appears to last 10 years regardless of the mileage put on the car.
This may mean that once the cost of the driver is removed, it makes sense for a self driving car to be driven many more miles than is presently done in a normal car. It may be that the owner can have her car pick her up at home, drive her to work; then work with an Uber like demand system during the day picking up fares where they make money; stop by at a fueling station as required; stop by a place that cleans the car; then pick up the owner and take her home; go to a store and be loaded with groceries the owner ordered on line and take them back to her home; then pick up fares again; perhaps stopping at the owner’s home and taking her to an evening engagement. If demand is low in the middle of the night the car can just wait until demand increases. Algorithms can be written to make sure the car is available to pick up its owner again as required. The car will be able to schedule its own maintenance and monitor its systems so that if it needs repairs it can go to an auto shop for them.
If the car is electric and battery powered then it may stop at recharging stations as required. If the cost of electricity increases dramatically due to peak demand the car may even be able to stop at a recharging station and put some power back into the grid, then recharge again as power cost decline.
I therefore expect fully self driving cars to drive many miles per year, quite possibly generating income for the owner.
Found that at least one Ford Escape hybride made it 500,000 miles see:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1085577_2008-ford-escape-hybrid-500k-miles-still-in-patrol-service
Here is a Prius with 621,000 miles on it:
http://www.hybridcars.com/toyota-prius-taxi-running-strong-with-600000-miles-and-original-battery/
So modern cars can last a very long time. Depreciation on these cars would be very low per mile traveled.
Found that at least one Ford Escape hybride made it 500,000 miles see:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1085577_2008-ford-escape-hybrid-500k-miles-still-in-patrol-service
Here is a Prius with 621,000 miles on it:
http://www.hybridcars.com/toyota-prius-taxi-running-strong-with-600000-miles-and-original-battery/
I am not comfortable letting strangers use my car. Ask any Uber, or Lyft driver about bodily fluids, trash, and unpleasant odors caused by the people they were driving. Now imagine what could happen if no one is there to monitor behavior.
It is certainly true that almost all cars have a much longer life 30 years ago but I don’t believe that depending on 500,000 miles is realistic for any car without planning on a new engine, transmission etc. In any case, I would be very slow to rent out my car unsupervised. It only takes one idiot to really mess up a car. I’m not necessarily talking about body damage. One spilled soft drink or careless smoker would do it.
We don’t know how long cars being built today will last. The evidence based on the examples I show above seem to indicate many cars will last this long if well maintained.
Using an Uber like system the owner of the car will be able to look at the reputation of the customer who has to register with the Uber system before getting into the car. Customers who damage cars can be charged for any damage, and listed as having damaged cars so the car owner may be able to set up controls that will not accept them. The owner could also set up cameras in the car that monitor what the person is doing, and put in a smoke detector to make sure they don’t smoke. Not a perfect system but much better than just picking up any unknown customer.
Note that long distance overnight travel may also become possible with a pure self driving car set up so the passengers can sleep in the car while it is driving. See:
http://www.dezeen.com/2015/11/25/self-driving-driverless-cars-disrupt-airline-hotel-industries-sleeping-interview-audi-senior-strategist-sven-schuwirth/
Since the cost per mile decreases as mileage goes up the cost of these trips may also be relatively low, and save on hotel bills.
My 2001 Ford pickup truck (Diesel engine) is approaching 410,000 original miles on it.
Paul,
Note that I wrote, “Over the life of a car.” While you make an important point, I still maintain that the cost per mile is about the same over the life of a car no matter whether the car is driven 10,000 or 100,000 miles per year.
“I am not comfortable letting strangers use my car. . . . imagine what could happen if no one is there to monitor behavior.”
Cameras would record the interior of the car from all angles. Any infractions of the verbal morality or other statutes would result in the fine of one credit.
Paul: “Surprisingly a ten year old car with 100,000 miles on it is not worth much more than a ten year old car with 300,000 miles on it. ”
This is not surprising at all. My parents always bought used, as have I. Lots of buying and selling used cars in my life.
A cars mileage tells you very little. What is important is what kind of miles they are. A 10 year old car with 300,000 highway miles on it will likely be in equal or better shape than a car with 100,000 in-town miles on it. Thus the fact they have close to equal value is to be expected.
A car with 300k in-town miles vs one with 100k in-town miles will be nowhere close to the same value.
It also depends on where the car was owned and driven. I live on the ND side of the ND/MN border. Cars owned and driven in Minnesota are worth less than equivalent cars from the North Dakota side. Why? Minnesota dumps obscene amounts of salt on the roads in the winter. North Dakota uses sand or a mix of sand with some added salt. So used MN cars tend to have rust problems while ND cars do not. Savvy sellers will mention if a car was ND owned and driven in newspaper and craigslist ads.
I would like to see your calculations on this. A car driven 10,000 miles a year will be obsolete in 20 years and may well be retired when a modest repair bill comes up and 200,000 miles on the clock. At this stage the car is fully depreciated. A car, like the taxi cab examples I have listed, may be driven 100,000 miles per year but is likely to be kept 400,000-600,000 miles based on the examples I list. Even if a car is retired with 400,000 on it and only four years, old the body parts alone will probably still be worth more than the whole 20 year old car with 200,000 miles on it. Therefore the depreciation on the four year old 400,000 mile car will be far less per mile driven than the 20 year old car driven 10,000 miles per year. This results in a lower per mile cost for the 100,000 mile per year car.
It does appear that cars in constant operation with good maintenance like taxi cabs last more miles than cars driven infrequently. This could be because a great deal of wear is apparently caused when the car warms up.
I would argue that the data I have put hear argues for a fully self driving car to be used more frequently, and possibly rented out, than a normal car.
Hopefully we will see in the next ten years or so.
Paul,
Except the Taxi cars have much higher maintenance costs, that “we’ll maintained” isn’t free. So they may last more miles, but incur more maintenance costs.
Also, old cars are incredibly cheap to insure. My 1998 Ford Contour costs less than $300 per year to insure. This offsets repair costs, so unless the engine or tranny dies the car can be ecenomical to keep on the road.
Also, for an individual, buying a used car brings some risk. Sure in theory it may make sense to scrap a car and get another by a few hundred dollars, but how do you know the car you buy isn’t going to have its own breakdown 6 months down the road? At least with the car you have, you have a good idea of its history.
Sure in theory it may make sense to scrap a car and get another by a few hundred dollars, but how do you know the car you buy isn’t going to have its own breakdown 6 months down the road? At least with the car you have, you have a good idea of its history.”
On several occasions, I had major issues buying used cars and then having them breakdown within days of purchasing them. Not half a year. Half a WEEK.
It’s hard to know what people have done to their cars. Or have not done in terms of maintenance. You can find well-maintained cars with lots of records, but be ready to pay a premium when you find those, and act quickly.
Not having to deal with such crap is why I bought a new Subaru, which is the longest lasting sedan in its class. Given that it’s only being driven 6,000 miles a year, I expect it to last 50 years, when it will finally reach 300,000 miles.
However, I think poor city streets will shake it apart in 15 years.
Still not a bad deal.
Eventually it will become much less costly to simply subscribe to a car service than to sink your money into capital equipment. In effect you’ll be sharing the capital expense with five or ten other subscribers. Fully autonomous vehicles will be expensive. Owning one will be economically viable for car sharing entities and very rich individuals only, not for Joe Sixpack.
Apart from crony capitalism, I don’t see why planners or anyone else would be concerned about the ownership status of an AV entering an urban area as long as corporate- and individual-owned AVs are maintained and updated correctly. There will be car service subscriptions that provide only private rides, with no sharing at all. Such plans will be expensive but available as some people won’t tolerate sharing a car ride. Nothing wrong with that if they can afford it. However, AV vs. human-driven cars entering urban areas will be regulated due to the dramatically reduced injury/fatality rate for AVs. Eventually human-driven cars will be banned outright from urban areas. There’s no stopping that, although I have a feeling that people who enjoy driving will migrate to the exurbs where self driving will still be allowed.
CapitalistRoader
“Eventually it will become much less costly to simply subscribe to a car service than to sink your money into capital equipment.
Where has this EVER happened to something used as frequently as a car? The only time what you describe happens are things used VERY infrequently. Box trucks, backhoes, platform lifts, things you need once a decade?
” In effect you’ll be sharing the capital expense with five or ten other subscribers.”
Except you will collectively be putting 5 times the wear and tear on the car. Also, what happens when one person wants to go on a trip for the weekend? There WILL be “high demand” charges or waiting lists, making personal ownership preferable as you know it will be available when you want it.
“Fully autonomous vehicles will be expensive. Owning one will be economically viable for car sharing entities and very rich individuals only, not for Joe Sixpack.”
Cars with A/C used to be expensive, now it’s virtually a standard feature. Cell phones used to toys of the rich, now even elementary school kids have them. Fully autonomous vehicles will be expensive… at first. The price will drop like other such goods have through the last 100 years.
Honda makes 200k+ Civics each year at it’s Crawfordville, Indiana plant. That some of those 200 hundred thousand plus make it to 300k on the original engine or transmission is not surprise. When you have that many with modern engineering a few are bound to do that. The question is the distribution of them. What percentage make it to 100K ? 150k? 200k? And what are the costs involved in getting them to that?
The question isn’t how long a car might last but the distribution of longevity of the fleet and at what cost. Yes, I can get a car to “last” 300k miles. If I’m lucky, I don’t have to replace the transmission more than once. If I’m lucky I don’t have to drop a rebuilt engine in it more than once. Yes, you’re experiences are different. But all those struts, springs,, brakes, ignition computer, air conditioner repair , cam sensor dies, radiator replacement, CV joint replacement,, wheel bearings swapped, car rusting out, the extra cost of repairs when it breaks down in the middle of nowhere ( very expensive ), et al.
“I live on the ND side of the ND/MN border. Cars owned and driven in Minnesota are worth less than equivalent cars from the North Dakota side. Why? Minnesota dumps obscene amounts of salt on the roads in the winter. ” ~NoDakNative
Yes, some sellers and buyers buy into this urban myth. Those who don’t prescribe to this mysticism realize that the sales tax in MN is considerably higher than in ND. They also realize that since F-M, GF-EGF and such have these things called bridges, that MN cars may drive just as much or more in salt than in salt.
Wait, salt and salt? Yes, both NDdot and MNdot have it and use it. The same with the cities. They may use different mixtures but they still use it. The biggest issue isn’t amount in this case but cleaning the car. 2006 Toyota Corrollas registered in MN and similar mileage have no discernible difference with rusting from 2006 Toyota Corollas..
That said, it’s good to see mysticism alive and well in the Red River Valley.
@antiplanner, . The problem in certain circles is that they can see the cost of auto ownership. Yet they fail to see the other obvious fact, auto ownership rates are HUGELY HUGELY GIANT.
What does that mean? The cost of car sharing will need to be very, very, very low in comparison to get people en mass to move to it. It may be able to do that. In some situations, like downtown workers waiting 10 minutes for a self-driving car sharing car to pick you up may prove worth it. But in a lot of other cases, owning your own car and having it present waiting for you will be more convenient.
On a side note, there’s a group of people out there who’s car doubles as some sort of quasi-storage unit on wheels. I’m curious what it would take to change their habits. Going for a long walk yesterday in an area with a very high property crime rate, I saw a lot of cars with a lot of stuff in plain sight begging for someone to pop a window.
@NoDakNative:
Telephones. To be fair, though, that was a crony capitalist scheme so b) housing. Home ownership is in the low-60 percent range and that’s a fairly recent phenomenon. Before WWII it was well below 50%. Many, many people lease their housing, something they spend more time in then their car.
I think AV’s will cause a sea change in how most people think about their daily transportation requirements. Driving really is a waste of time. Why not do something else while you’re being transported from point A to point B? I’m guessing that AV manufacturers will develop four- or six-place cars with completely sealed passenger compartments. Each compartment would require its own HVAC and lighting controls, and I’m guessing that the windows [internal and external] will be adjustable from fully transparent to fully opaque. This stuff won’t be cheap, but you wont be ponying up entire capital cost for it. You’re only going to pay for some fraction of the car, not the whole thing. And you get back that 45 minutes to an hour of daily commute time, or more if the AntiPlanner is correct about the exurbs becoming more popular with the advent of AVs.
In a world where most people commute to work Monday thru Friday, demand for vehicles will naturally drop off on weekends, just like there are far fewer traffic jams on weekends than weekdays now. And in any case it will depend on your plan. I imagine some high end plans will provided unlimited, immediate, and completely unplanned trips at any time. Bargain plans will require a day or week notice to take that weekend trip to the beach unless you want to pay a hefty surcharge.
Cars are a money pit. AV’s should make transportation much less expensive.