-
I largely agree. I'm uncertain, however, to what extent these autonomous vehicles will be compatible, resp. unsuited, to rider pooling. Given the urban density of places like London and the compactness of destination distributions, there is no other course, I think, than rider pooling. Road capacity has, irrespective of the size of the vehicles that use them, limits. The higher the level of congestion, the slower the means of transport and the higher the negative economic impact. As long as people commute to centralized workplaces policy makers will be ultimately forced, just as with today with car pooling lanes to legislate passenger pooling and perhaps a cap on the number of vehicles allowed and perhaps even their integration under a public utility not much different from today's TfL. With high levels of pooling and perhaps transfers these vehicles become little more than smart busses. And vehicle permits? Taxi medalions 2.0? The ultimate question will be to what extent big corporate interests--- which are already ramping into the gate-- will be able to replay last century's methods of subversion..
EdwardZ-
I largely agree. I'm uncertain, however, to what extent these autonomous vehicles will be compatible, resp. unsuited, to rider pooling. Given the urban density of places like London and the compactness of destination distributions, there is no other course, I think, than rider pooling. Road capacity has, irrespective of the size of the vehicles that use them, limits.
True, but self-driving vehicles 'solve' one of the biggest restrictions on motor traffic capacity, namely that there is a time delay between drivers setting off from a stop in a queue at traffic signals. It has long been a dream of traffic engineers to have the whole queue start moving at the same time, with regular distances between all the vehicles. Moreover, while traffic signals were not invented for motor traffic (there was congestion caused by operators of horse-drawn vehicles long before that came along, and the inspiration was taken from railway signals), they became widespread because early drivers generally proved unable to successfully negotiate priority at junctions with other road users. However, traffic signals greatly reduce motor traffic capacity. With self-driving cars, so the theory goes, a lot of signal control can be abolished and motor traffic capacity increased. As you say, of course, there will still be limits, and I also believe they will be hit very quickly, getting us back to square one concerning congestion and capacity. What self-driving cars will not be able to solve will be the great complexities of an urban street system, how all the junctions interact, etc.
The higher the level of congestion, the slower the means of transport and the higher the negative economic impact. As long as people commute to centralized workplaces policy makers will be ultimately forced, just as with today with car pooling lanes to legislate passenger pooling and perhaps a cap on the number of vehicles allowed and perhaps even their integration under a public utility not much different from today's TfL.
Yes, over-centralisation is the biggest problem here. Policymakers will, of course, initially hope that computer-controlled traffic movements will enable them to reduce levels of investment in public transport, which are an unsustainable burden (e.g., in London and surroundings radial public transport mainly serves to increase land values (caused by whence it enables people to travel to where economic activity takes place), which causes more impetus to fund more public transport, and so on).
With high levels of pooling and perhaps transfers these vehicles become little more than smart buses. And vehicle permits? Taxi medallions 2.0? The ultimate question will be to what extent big corporate interests--- which are already ramping into the gate-- will be able to replay last century's methods of subversion..
There are all sorts of variables that are unpredictable. It's certainly true that car makers are seeing this as their best chance to get a large chunk of the market for public transport, and companies like BMW have already been investing in that.
Christian Wolmar told me that he had re-researched the usual story of the 'subversion' of American urban public transport and found quite a lot that was wrong with it. I can't remember in which of his books it is, though. I think it may be this one:
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/bookshelf/great-railway-revolution/
I'm only a short way into his books and I generally don't know much about railways, so can't really comment.
Oliver Schick
Most certainly. Not only that, but as enclosed motorised carriages will acquire even more of the nimbus of the 'universal transportation tool', other modes will increasingly be sidelined. (The myth of the universal tool is one of the main problems with car use.)
Also, there would be a renewed impetus for more highway capacity again. Greenwash around electric cars, the promise of largely crash-free environments (which I think is questionable at best) and the fact that people would probably be able to use the time spent travelling for other activities would soon cause people to forget about the real problems with driving, that they will spend even more time being inactive, and the social separation and isolation they're most likely going to increase, not to mention the dire consequences for land use patterns.