Self-driving taxis and rental cars

[Canastenard]

It takes no doubt that the transportation sector has a major impact on the environment. In addition to greenhouse gases and other air pollutants they emit during their lifetime, cars require a lot of rare materials to be made, and as a consequence their production is environmentally damaging too. In fact I would bet that cars are the single most environmentally damaging objects most people can own, and if we could make sure people don't need to own one to move then we could significantly reduce the environmental impact of first-world countries.

Because of the environmental concerns related to cars, especially fossil-fueled ones, environmentally minded people try to find alternatives to driving individually in their own car, like using public transport or carpooling, whenever it's practical to do so. Taxis and rental cars also are an option for those who don't own a car, but those are expensive and I'm pretty sure are a source of logistic problems when it comes to human labor.

So I ask the question: can self-driving taxis and rental cars be an effective alternative to individual car ownership? Public transportation can be an option but it's not always practical. Taxis and rental cars could be a more flexible alternative, but their price makes their repeated usage prohibitive, and I feel like autonomous cars could be a solution to that problem. Just call a phone number or use a web application, and the car leaves the station by itself, without the need of a human to drive it. Autonomous taxis and rental cars sound like they could sustain the moving needs of the population with less vehicules, which would work because I'm pretty sure there's always more parked cars than moving ones at any given moment, since cars are generally parked more than 90% of the time: http://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/02/cars-are-parked-95-of-time-lets-check.html

However this might also have some disadvantages. Although it would probably be the most convenient option for people who don't own a car, owning one is still the most convenient way to move. Self-driving taxis and rental cars might be good when you've planned what you want to do, but there are situations where you might want to use your car as soon as possible for something more or less urgent you haven't planned beforehand, and you might prefer the convenience of using your own car rather than the limitations inherent to something that isn't yours. I also said that there are more cars parked than moving at any given time, but it might be more complicated at specific hours in specific areas, like when everyone goes home after work, although with the likely society shift in the future where a major part of the work is automated (I just gave an example with taximen after all ) and universal basic income is implemented it might not be as much of an issue. It still might be a potential issue, and we should make sure there are enough vehicules to meet everyone's needs at any moment and in any place, we don't want people to be dissatisfied because there's no vehicule available. And of course we should make sure people have the opportunity to easily contact stations, as without a phone or internet it would be impossible to use those vehicules. I suspect a partial solution would be to mandate the option to contact a station in places of interest for the public such as supermarkets.

And then there's the problem of how to get into such a system in the first place. First there's the ick factor of self-driving cars: although they're actually safer, most people will intuitively think that they're less safe. There also should be incentives for people to use them over cars they own, like being cheaper per kilometer, because let's be honest most people don't care enough about the environment to change their lifestyle without gaining a personal advantage. I don't think individually owned cars will be forbidden, but if autonomous taxis and rental cars are succesful enough, they might become an unnecessary luxury for most people, and it will still be a success if we reduce their number considerably.

Although replacing individual car ownership with autonomous taxis and rental cars will reduce the usage of critical materials whose extraction and processing might be environmentally damaging, I don't expect the overall car traffic to go down. For this reason, these cars should not run on fossile fuels, because otherwise I don't expect a drop in greenhouse gas emission.

What do you think about it? Personally I'd be fine not owning a car if such a system was in place, but I don't expect it to become a reality before a few decades from now, and it definitely won't be a thing when my current car will die, so the next best thing might be to get a car that's a little less environmentally damaging. The best thing might be to buy a used car and to choose a model that emits less air pollutants and greenhouse gases than other cars.

[brimstoneSalad]

Autonomous taxis and rental cars sound like they could sustain the moving needs of the population with less vehicules, which would work because I'm pretty sure there's always more parked cars than moving ones at any given moment, since cars are generally parked more than 90% of the time: http://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/02/cars-are-parked-95-of-time-lets-check.html

Slightly fewer vehicles, maybe, but not 90% fewer or even near it. Most cars are parked at the same time; usage peaks a couple times a day. The intermittency is a huge issue.

Autonomous taxi fleets could help, or even private cars that rent themselves out automatically when not in use, but drastically reducing car ownership from that alone might not be viable, particularly in rural areas. In urban areas where taxi use is more prevalent personal ownership may vanish, but there would have to be so many taxis available that the result would be pretty close.

The bigger environmental advantage would come from relief of traffic congestion. Fewer roads, fewer lanes, less transit time, virtually no stop and go traffic.
In that sense, everybody might need to own a car (or there might need to be nearly a one car to one household ratio), but if they're all self driving we could cut transportation emissions drastically anyway.

We could also cut down on the environmental cost in terms of embodied energy per car, because cars could be smaller and lighter once people aren't worried about impact ratings anymore.
Autonomous delivery (which can be scheduled when roads are less used) could also cut down on people's need for cars large enough to carry groceries, etc.

although with the likely society shift in the future where a major part of the work is automated (I just gave an example with taximen after all ) and universal basic income is implemented it might not be as much of an issue.

That's possible (we don't know what that will bring in terms of employment), but human behavior also has a social component. Let people off a tight work schedule, and they'll probably still want to socialize at the same times, go to lunch, etc.

I suspect a partial solution would be to mandate the option to contact a station in places of interest for the public such as supermarkets.

That would be pretty easy. We already have bus stops etc. many of which are wired already. There'd just need to be a call box.

First there's the ick factor of self-driving cars: although they're actually safer, most people will intuitively think that they're less safe. There also should be incentives for people to use them over cars they own, like being cheaper per kilometer, because let's be honest most people don't care enough about the environment to change their lifestyle without gaining a personal advantage.

I think it's pretty easy to understand why they're safer when people see them in action.
And eliminating traffic congestion is a pretty big advantage. People would love to get home and to work in half the time, and while doing things on their smart phones or eating, etc.
People will also save huge amounts of money on liability insurance.

Self-driving cars probably need to be mandated to see the real benefits of eliminating traffic congestion entirely.

For this reason, these cars should not run on fossile fuels, because otherwise I don't expect a drop in greenhouse gas emission.

It will be easier to run them on batteries, because they can manage their charges and ranges better.

and it definitely won't be a thing when my current car will die, so the next best thing might be to get a car that's a little less environmentally damaging. The best thing might be to buy a used car and to choose a model that emits less air pollutants and greenhouse gases than other cars.

Your best bet is to keep your current car running.
If the engine dies, you can replace it with an electric engine.
There are a number of tutorials on the subject available online.
You could also convert the engine to run on ethanol (which could be done before your car dies), but I'm not sure what kind of access you'd have to fuel.

[Canastenard]

Autonomous taxis and rental cars sound like they could sustain the moving needs of the population with less vehicules, which would work because I'm pretty sure there's always more parked cars than moving ones at any given moment, since cars are generally parked more than 90% of the time: http://www.reinventingparking.org/2013/02/cars-are-parked-95-of-time-lets-check.html

Slightly fewer vehicles, maybe, but not 90% fewer or even near it. Most cars are parked at the same time; usage peaks a couple times a day. The intermittency is a huge issue.

Autonomous taxi fleets could help, or even private cars that rent themselves out automatically when not in use, but drastically reducing car ownership from that alone might not be viable, particularly in rural areas. In urban areas where taxi use is more prevalent personal ownership may vanish, but there would have to be so many taxis available that the result would be pretty close.

I made this argument starting from the premise that there always are more parked vehicules than moving ones at any given time, but maybe I was a bit too optimistic in my estimations. It would be interesting to have an idea of the highest moving:parked car ratio during usage peaks, so for example if the historical highest percentage of moving cars compared to total cars in a city is 75% (intuitive speculation, I hope we can find a credible source about that) then that might mean, assuming a 10% safety margin, a reduction of the total number of cars by 15%. Not the massive reduction of the number of cars I hoped for, but I guess it's something

To be optimistic since self-driving cars are going to be more efficient at traffic fluidity that would mean less time during which they're moving on the road for the same travel as a traditional car, which could increase the ratio of parked/moving cars a little bit. And also no more instructional vehicules, but I guess I'm scraping the bottom of the barrel here
... but to be pessimistic calling cars from stations rather than having them at home might increase overall traffic, which may negate some traffic advantages of self-driving cars.

Good point about rural areas. While a station would probably be close to someone who lives in a city, people who live in rural areas would have to wait for a longer time for cars to come to their home. Since for those people owning their own car wouldn't be an unnecessary luxury, it might be right to allow them to have subsidies to get their own car.

although with the likely society shift in the future where a major part of the work is automated (I just gave an example with taximen after all ) and universal basic income is implemented it might not be as much of an issue.

That's possible (we don't know what that will bring in terms of employment), but human behavior also has a social component. Let people off a tight work schedule, and they'll probably still want to socialize at the same times, go to lunch, etc.

What I meant was not that people would use cars less but I was (in an admittedly clumsy way) addressing the peak issue, which I had in mind was mostly due to people going to work and then back to home at similar hours, my point was that car usage might be more homogeneous during the day than before. Some peaks would still exist though, like midday when people want to eat out.

[Canastenard]

What about alternatives to cars? Often they're only transporting one person on a short distance, making them very ineffective, in which case they might be replaced by lighter individual modes of transportation. I think electric bikes, which thanks to the electric assitance can go faster and make climbing slopes less tedious, are a good candidate. They would fit well in urban areas to replace short and individual road trips, and by replacing this kind of car trip by e-bike trips we could lower the overall demand for riding cars, making self-driving cars as a service rather than a pritave possession more plausible.

Of course there are disadvantages with e-bikes. It would be harder to transport things with you, because you would be limited to something like one big baggage or two small ones. It also doesn't isolate from the weather, and people might not like to use it when it's very cold or hot or when it's raining. It also has less capacity to transport people, multiple persons can ride a car easily, but e-bikes would be limited to one, or two if they're tandem. And to be a win for the environment it would have to make people able to renounce to owning their own car without having too much impact on convenience, at least in non-rural areas, and make the overall need for cars lower.

Electric bikes are definitely not a perfect substitute for cars which will always be the most practical more of transportation in many situations, but I feel like they have the potential to lower peak car traffic if widely adopted, which would mean a lower total number of cars. It unfortunately won't happen without a lifestyle change for the population, and like veganism, asking people to change their habits for the sake of environmentalism rises the bar of entry which is not desirable. But I know I personally would like to own an electric bike over a car if I could still rend a car when I need it.

And then there's the question of how will e-bikes and autonomous cars coexist on the road. It will be a challenge for car AI developers.

[brimstoneSalad]

e-bikes are great as a much lesser evil; significantly less embodied energy and less road needed.

If we converted all city roads into one-way roads, the other lane could be a bike-lane. A bunch of narrow one-way lanes wouldn't be a problem if we had exclusively self driving cars. Self-driving e-bikes are not impossible.

There are covered and partially covered options. Two seats is common, three seats is unusual, but for trips like that a minority of people could summon cabs or have cars. It probably would decrease reliance on larger vehicles.