I agree, it's a fault of mine that I jump around in time like that. I have a long-term vision painted out and I should be more careful about what stages in it I am talking about. However, the path is reasonably incremental -- at least potentially. At least presuming this is a tech which gets and adoption curve similar to the late-20th century curves of new computer related technologies. That is not a small claim, since this is computers taking over transportation and transportation has different rules from the other things computers took over.
I do expect decent robotaxi services to start showing up reasonably early on, and then to grow. No, they won't be with ultralight cars at first, and yes it takes volume before they can be with cheap cars. But they will be cheaper than regular taxi fairly soon -- it turns out labour is 57% of the cost of a Manhattan taxi, for example.
$1/mile taxi outcompetes transit trips under 3 miles at the subsidized price, and under 6 miles at the real cost. San Francisco is only 7 miles wide.
Fully packed trains at rush hour do indeed make good use of their ROW, but that is cream-skimming. Trains must keep headways of 5 minutes because they have online stations. The train ROWs are not going away, of course, I am speaking more to the question of what new things we would plan looking forward, particularly with BRT (which should become Bus+conformant robot lanes) or dedicated ROW LRT. (Already many are starting to realize that BRT is a clear win over LRT in terms of cost effectiveness, but they need to go further.)
Trains can actually do even better numbers than you say, but only to serve a limited population that lives and works along them. Indeed, their ROW is so valuable that people move jobs and houses to be along them.
I do think there will be synergies, actually. And the ability of robocars to replace the big mass transit systems is more distant. But there is a problem, which is mass transit is only really efficient -- in terms of energy and in making use of that expensive ROW -- at rush hour. The ideal approach in the medium term is the mass transit at rush hour, and the robots the rest of the day. But there will be resistance to buying transit equipment to use only a few hours/day, and hiring staff who only work rush hour. Commuter rail -- which is the most efficient form of transit in the US -- does this in some cities, so it may be more possible than I think.
And the robojitney -- computer coordinated automatic vanpools -- may also make a lot of sense. One of transit's big issues is the modern city is not nearly so hub and spoke as that of the past. A majority of trips in the city do not involve the CBD, but most transit systems tend to take you though it to change trains.
You may be right that I overemphasize the issues around transit. This is in part because the things I have learned about the economics of transit are surprising and so largely unknown.
I agree, it's a fault of mine that I jump around in time like that. I have a long-term vision painted out and I should be more careful about what stages in it I am talking about. However, the path is reasonably incremental -- at least potentially. At least presuming this is a tech which gets and adoption curve similar to the late-20th century curves of new computer related technologies. That is not a small claim, since this is computers taking over transportation and transportation has different rules from the other things computers took over.
I do expect decent robotaxi services to start showing up reasonably early on, and then to grow. No, they won't be with ultralight cars at first, and yes it takes volume before they can be with cheap cars. But they will be cheaper than regular taxi fairly soon -- it turns out labour is 57% of the cost of a Manhattan taxi, for example.
$1/mile taxi outcompetes transit trips under 3 miles at the subsidized price, and under 6 miles at the real cost. San Francisco is only 7 miles wide.
Fully packed trains at rush hour do indeed make good use of their ROW, but that is cream-skimming. Trains must keep headways of 5 minutes because they have online stations. The train ROWs are not going away, of course, I am speaking more to the question of what new things we would plan looking forward, particularly with BRT (which should become Bus+conformant robot lanes) or dedicated ROW LRT. (Already many are starting to realize that BRT is a clear win over LRT in terms of cost effectiveness, but they need to go further.)
Trains can actually do even better numbers than you say, but only to serve a limited population that lives and works along them. Indeed, their ROW is so valuable that people move jobs and houses to be along them.
I do think there will be synergies, actually. And the ability of robocars to replace the big mass transit systems is more distant. But there is a problem, which is mass transit is only really efficient -- in terms of energy and in making use of that expensive ROW -- at rush hour. The ideal approach in the medium term is the mass transit at rush hour, and the robots the rest of the day. But there will be resistance to buying transit equipment to use only a few hours/day, and hiring staff who only work rush hour. Commuter rail -- which is the most efficient form of transit in the US -- does this in some cities, so it may be more possible than I think.
And the robojitney -- computer coordinated automatic vanpools -- may also make a lot of sense. One of transit's big issues is the modern city is not nearly so hub and spoke as that of the past. A majority of trips in the city do not involve the CBD, but most transit systems tend to take you though it to change trains.
You may be right that I overemphasize the issues around transit. This is in part because the things I have learned about the economics of transit are surprising and so largely unknown.