Yonah Freemark, a writer over at Atlantic Cities–which normally loves any transit boondoggle–somewhat sheepishly admits that light rail hasn’t lived up to all of its expectations. Despite its popularity among transit agencies seeking federal grants, light rail “neither rescued the center cities of their respective regions nor resulted in higher transit use.”
Not to worry, however; Atlantic Cities still hates automobiles, or at least individually owned automobiles. Another article by writer Robin Chase suggests that driverless cars will create a “world of hell” if people are allowed to own their own cars. Instead, driverless cars should be welcomed only if they are collectively owned and shared.
The hell that would result from individually owned driverless cars would happen because people would soon discover they could send their cars places without anyone in them. As Chase says, “If single-occupancy vehicles are the bane of our congested highways and cities right now, imagine the congestion when we pour in unfettered zero-occupancy vehicles.” Never mind the fact that driverless cars will greatly reduce congestion by tripling roadway capacities and avoid congestion by consulting on-line congestion reports.
Chase’s motives are obvious: as the co-founder of several carsharing programs, including ZipCar and BuzzCar, she stands to make enormous profits if everyone adopts her model. Just why Atlantic Cities buys into her vision is less clear, but the love Atlantic Cities writers seem to have for transit and car sharing suggests a collectivist mentality, while the hatred they have for individually owned cars implies a dislike of giving other people freedom.
The online retailers will also offer free home delivery services and you cialis consultation will get them within the comforts of sitting at your home. Initially cialis on line purchase kamagra was developed with an intention of curing heart patients. Is erectile dysfunction accounted the biggest concern in your life? Not to worry since we have come up with some of modern medicines like Kamagra, Silagra, Caverta, Eriacta, viagra mastercard, Super P Force tablets etc. Thus, Kamagra samples of generic viagra the combination of Kama (sex) and Agra (suffix of Agra) is a perfect choice for you. Of course, Chase has an explanation for why single- or zero-occupant vehicles are to be abhorred. “People consider the cost of individual car trips to be just the cost of gas,” she says, “and we won’t think twice about asking a driverless robot car to do our bidding.” In other words, people are too stupid to own their own cars; it would be much better to have a sharing system that forces people to see the full cost of driving.
Personally, I happily imagine sending my dog to a vet without me accompanying it. Even more likely, I’d be happy to send the car in for servicing or to take an appliance to a shop for repair without wasting my time. People could be more productive if they didn’t have to be stuck behind the wheel of a car all the time, and everyone would be better off. But to Chase, such people would somehow pose a burden on everyone else.
Her solutions are, first, to make sure that “the cost for autonomous vehicles be high enough that each vehicle will need to be used well.” In other words, keep them out of the hands of ordinary people who might “misuse” them.
Second, she wants highway agencies to charge an extra per-mile fee to people whose cars run around without an occupant. Why? Zero-occupant cars impose no more costs on society than multi-occupant cars. The people who own the cars should get to decide when and where they go and how many people they will carry, not some central planner who hates cars and the freedom they offer.
There’s nothing wrong with car sharing if people want to do it, but it shouldn’t be imposed on people. The great thing about mass-produced automobiles is that nearly every household in American can afford one. Collectivists would send us back to the nineteenth-century two-class society in which a few wealthy people have freedom and mobility and everyone else is dependent on some collective form of transport–then they’ll demonize the people with freedom. That’s the wrong way for America to go.
I would think that one huge use of a passengerless car would be counter-rush hour, dropping off people at work, school and train stations and then returning home or to a remote parking area, then picking them up in the evening. The passengerless cars would then be solving parking and some traffic problems, not adding to them.
The downside would be that people could send their cars through rush hour and add to the congestion without caring much because they wouldn’t suffer the congestion. But I don’t see that happening too much as a practical matter.
Well, guess I’m officially “old” now. All talk of big changes seems like complete lunacy to me. “Driverless cars” I’m sure it’ll happen, but so will insurance fraud, malfunctions, misidentification (a stuffed animal in the street might paralyze the car and make it call for a tow truck). Along with an even longer list of things I can’t imagine (hackers stealing the car, or taking it to a chop shop). The cars will come onto the street and will change how traffic moves in the city, but a paradigm shift isn’t going to happen. It seems most likely to me that there will be “Fully Automatic Drive” lanes on the commuter highways and in certain downtown areas. If you want to take your car there or use those highways you’ll have to have a certain automatic package installed on your vehicle. On that commuter highway you would have maximum speed and capacity, in that downtown as well. The rest of the world would continue to be used by both human drivers, computer drivers; personally owned vehicles and corporately-owned vehicles (rented and leased)………..(and bicycles)!!
The Antiplanner wrote:
Yonah Freemark, a writer over at Atlantic Cities–which normally loves any transit boondoggle–somewhat sheepishly admits that light rail hasn’t lived up to all of its expectations. Despite its popularity among transit agencies seeking federal grants, light rail “neither rescued the center cities of their respective regions nor resulted in higher transit use.”
I think it fair to say that Freemark never met a rail transit project he didn’t like.
But the lack of increase in transit use is not limited to light rail – I think the same can be said of heavy rail transit as well (at least in U.S. markets outside of New York City).
Chase’s motives are obvious: as the co-founder of several carsharing programs, including ZipCar and BuzzCar, she stands to make enormous profits if everyone adopts her model. Just why Atlantic Cities buys into her vision is less clear, but the love Atlantic Cities writers seem to have for transit and car sharing suggests a collectivist mentality, while the hatred they have for individually owned cars implies a dislike of giving other people freedom.
I do not believe most government entities (that includes core municipalities) are going to be in favor of such a collectivist solution, even if their politics tend to want to go in that direction, for one simple reason – the current system of privately-owned motor vehicles, through motor fuel taxes, parking space fees, parking space taxes, tolls and other charges provide the funds to prop-up money-losing transit systems in most U.S. metropolitan areas.
Of course, Chase has an explanation for why single- or zero-occupant vehicles are to be abhorred. “People consider the cost of individual car trips to be just the cost of gas,” she says, “and we won’t think twice about asking a driverless robot car to do our bidding.” In other words, people are too stupid to own their own cars; it would be much better to have a sharing system that forces people to see the full cost of driving.
That is correct. And I don’t think I would want my driverless car soliciting trips from strangers, even though it probably could do so.
Besides, most of the writing about the “full cost of driving” does not usually quantify what those costs might be, especially in the form of economic external costs, preferring to leave them unquantified, while hinting about how terrible and high they are.
“I’m sure it’ll happen, but so will insurance fraud, malfunctions, misidentification…Along with an even longer list of things I can’t imagine”.
Textbook slippery slope.
Certainly there were challenges to overcome when society transitioned from horse power to automobiles, but those problems were solved. Thinking society can’t overcome a few obstacles in the transition to automated cars is dinosaur thinking.
(I actually grew up in the age of the dinosaurs by the way) the list of problems may or may not be solved, I’m just reacting to the utopian visions in the article and fanciful dreams of the commentors on the Atlantic Cities site. My expectation is that the transition to auto-drive will be as seamless and complete as the transition from Manual Transmissions to Automatic Transmissions. People will choose and pay for what they want.
OFP2003 wrote:
My expectation is that the transition to auto-drive will be as seamless and complete as the transition from Manual Transmissions to Automatic Transmissions.
Hey! I resemble that!
I still drive a standard transmission vehicle.
There’s nothing wrong with car sharing if people want to do it, but it shouldn’t be imposed on people.
But, there is if you’re associated with a business that’s in direct competition with private car ownership. It’s called a sales pitch.
Frank
April 15, 2014 at 7:20 am
“I’m sure it’ll happen, but so will insurance fraud, malfunctions, misidentification…Along with an even longer list of things I can’t imagine”.
Textbook slippery slope.
Certainly there were challenges to overcome when society transitioned from horse power to automobiles, but those problems were solved. Thinking society can’t overcome a few obstacles in the transition to automated cars is dinosaur thinking.
THWM: Frank, those problems weren’t solved also why are you against coexistence?