I agree about Waymo's advantages as an Uber replacement, but I don't think the commuting picture is quite as rosy as you describe. First, If commuting is the dominant use case you will still need somewhere to park them. Most of the demand will be going downtown in the morning and to the suburbs in the evening so the cars won't have much to do between 9 and 5. Sure there will be some taxi like use cases during the day but the demand for that is tiny relative to commutes. Second, a shared ride in a waymo is probably not better than a good bus trip in a city (a frequent service single seat route). You lose the personal space and you still have to wait for a pick up and a non direct route to drop off other customers. Demand for fast transit like trains may even go up after the increased long distance commuters in Waymos slow down traffic and increase the speed premium of trains.
Good comment, thanks. The 9-5 supply/demand issue is not as clear to me, since there are alternative uses that might be productive, eg delivery of physical goods during times of low rider demands. Or they can park a little bit outside of the urban core. The problem with most buses in the US is that they are far too slow due to the high number of predetermined stops; a self driving vehicle with dynamic routing might be much more appealing. Finally, strong agree on trains. EG If Waymo solves a last-5-mile commuting problem, then trains to/from suburbs and exurbs become even more useful.
Vay.io tele-driven service in Vegas offers same benefits (smooth drives, privacy) and keeps human drivers employed. Vay shall have much cheaper CAPEX per unit (AV vs ROV+TS, latter certainly much cheaper tech) , but quite certainly higher OPEX (teledrivers salary), to offer same benefits (smooth drive, privacy) in a “VayRide” offering scenario.
I agree about Waymo's advantages as an Uber replacement, but I don't think the commuting picture is quite as rosy as you describe. First, If commuting is the dominant use case you will still need somewhere to park them. Most of the demand will be going downtown in the morning and to the suburbs in the evening so the cars won't have much to do between 9 and 5. Sure there will be some taxi like use cases during the day but the demand for that is tiny relative to commutes. Second, a shared ride in a waymo is probably not better than a good bus trip in a city (a frequent service single seat route). You lose the personal space and you still have to wait for a pick up and a non direct route to drop off other customers. Demand for fast transit like trains may even go up after the increased long distance commuters in Waymos slow down traffic and increase the speed premium of trains.
Good comment, thanks. The 9-5 supply/demand issue is not as clear to me, since there are alternative uses that might be productive, eg delivery of physical goods during times of low rider demands. Or they can park a little bit outside of the urban core. The problem with most buses in the US is that they are far too slow due to the high number of predetermined stops; a self driving vehicle with dynamic routing might be much more appealing. Finally, strong agree on trains. EG If Waymo solves a last-5-mile commuting problem, then trains to/from suburbs and exurbs become even more useful.
I take them in Phoenix all the time, and they're great.
Commutes may not be back so much as you think, though, because we won't need parking lots—or parking lots in anywhere near the quantity we have now.
I don't understand what you mean there? Why would parking lots being unnecessary mean that Waymo-based commutes would not be popular?
Vay.io tele-driven service in Vegas offers same benefits (smooth drives, privacy) and keeps human drivers employed. Vay shall have much cheaper CAPEX per unit (AV vs ROV+TS, latter certainly much cheaper tech) , but quite certainly higher OPEX (teledrivers salary), to offer same benefits (smooth drive, privacy) in a “VayRide” offering scenario.
Can teledriving be a winning alternative?