Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation The Almighty Buck Technology

How Much Americans Could Save by Ridesharing Driverless Cars Over Owning 388

An anonymous reader shares a study: Self-driving cars promise safer roads, less traffic and increased mobility. Some autonomous vehicle proponents also maintain they will save time and money. But will they really save Americans time and money? And even if they do, are Americans ready to give up driving? Online insurer Esurance surveyed consumers, analyzed trends, and spoke to experts to find out. "Like with most new technology, we'll see consumer perceptions evolve and adoption accelerate as the promised benefits of self-driving cars are realized," said Haden Kirkpatrick, head of strategy and innovation at Esurance.

The reality is that the first fully autonomous cars will be very pricey and beyond the reach of most Americans. Manufacturers expect the early buyers will be businesses and the very wealthy. One developer says prices won't start coming down enough for most families and individuals to buy them until 2025 or beyond. Until the price of ownership of self-driving vehicles comes down, most people will experience driverless vehicles through ridesharing, according to researchers. According to Esurance research, in the best-case scenario, a family that gives up its car in favor of driverless ridesharing could save $4,100 in annual transportation costs. Other research confirms that a 20 percent improvement in efficiencies of the personal transportation system, would generate a five percent increase in household incomes.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

How Much Americans Could Save by Ridesharing Driverless Cars Over Owning

Comments Filter:
  • Misleading title... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cre1mer ( 5440320 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @10:43AM (#56896282) Homepage

    How Much Americans Could Save by Taking Public Transit

    FTFY - If you live in city with a robust transit system, you can live without owning a car.

    • by AuMatar ( 183847 )

      Which means New York? That's about the only US city that qualifies. Taking 3 buses and spending 2.5 hours to get across town doesn't.

      • Which means New York? That's about the only US city that qualifies. Taking 3 buses and spending 2.5 hours to get across town doesn't.

        Depends how far out you are. A large part of New York City is covered by a fairly efficient subway that is much quicker than that if you don't mind walking a couple blocks. Some parts of the city, you'll get around faster by subway than car. If you're in an area you have to take the bus though- that sucks and those are slow and an inefficient use of your time.

      • Which means New York? That's about the only US city that qualifies. Taking 3 buses and spending 2.5 hours to get across town doesn't.

        New York is frequently in the news for their transit system that is crumbling before their eyes with constantly delayed or cancelled subway trains.

        • The New York subway system [wikipedia.org] is 114 years old. Like many transit systems across the country, infrastructure improvements have been deferred for too many years. That it runs at all is a miracle.
      • It's true that in NYC you can go pretty much anywhere using public transit - but it's not necessarily a quick trip. If you need a cross town bus or something like that, you might as well walk. It's the only place I've lived where 3 miles == 45 minutes. In NYC you need to make the same calculation that you do everywhere else, trading cost and neighborhood for commute times. You could easily get a place in Philly on one of the subway or commuter rail lines and live without a car, but you'd need to think about

      • by cre1mer ( 5440320 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @11:02AM (#56896422) Homepage
        I live in Silicon Valley. My commute is two local buses and an express bus to go one hour each way from San Jose to Palo Alto (36 miles). If I was to do that by car, morning commute would be 30 to 60 minutes and afternoon commute would be 45 to 90 minutes. Many of my coworkers take Caltrain from San Francisco or San Jose and a local bus, or the Dumbarton Express bus from from BART station in Union City (across the bay). You have to be nuts to drive a car through Palo Alto during commute hours.
    • Try taking the subway in NYC for any trip that doesn't involve Manhattan. it's either a 3 hour one way ordeal, or a 3 hour one way ordeal through Manhattan because virtually every subway line goes through Manhattan.

    • by sl149q ( 1537343 )

      The more apropos question is whether it is overall cheaper to have privately financed autonomous vehicles providing the equivalent to public transit. Will city and state governments discover that they can simply stop expanding public transit (and possibly scale it back over time) as lower cost and more efficient use of the roads can be found with autonomous vehicles?

  • by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @10:43AM (#56896286)
    Seems very optimistic to even have real safe autonomous cars on the road let alone have these features down to standard cars. The first cars with collision avoidance braking were available 15-years ago and its pretty much only in the last year where they have been standard on typical cars from some manufacturers.
    • by orlanz ( 882574 )

      Yup. I don't expect to have true autonomous vehicles till 2025. And I suspect only for highly repeated, well known/mapped, and simple routes. I don't think we will see autonomous vehicles being as common as backup cameras till 2035. Heck half of 2017's sedan's and SUVs across the vendors didn't have good UIs nor integrated their touch screens properly. They were all designed old school with physical buttons for everything as if the customer may opt out of the screen.

  • Yeah, right. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Comboman ( 895500 )

    Other research confirms that a 20 percent improvement in efficiencies of the personal transportation system, would generate a five percent increase in household incomes.

    Yeah, right. Increasing efficiency no longer gets passed on to employee incomes, it just gets captured as profit by the 1%.

  • by Frank Malenfant ( 5456240 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @10:48AM (#56896316)
    I spent on average 1/24h in a car, and for this I must pay more than 10$ a day + gas. If I could have a reliable and cost efficient driverless taxi service available, I'd certainly never own a car ever again. I live in a small rural town where public transportation is almost inexistant and taxi fares are expensive. I wish I could just use a car when I need to and let it go elsewhere when I don't need it. In my mind, fully autonomous cars will have a very big effect on car ownership for individuals. If a business were to own such cars for a taxi service, there would be no much maintenance costs, just the acquisition price and power (for electric cars, and where I live power is cheap), so I think they could come up with a price that is very competitive and have a good profit margin. They would have no taxi drivers to pay and I hope the taxi licencing would be adapted to this new reality and that governments won't try to slow this revolution with heavy taxation. They should instead have a contingency plan (buying back licences, facilitate career change, etc.) for these drivers that normal technological advancement pushes out of a job.
  • This seemed pretty wacky, so I looked at the actual "study" [esurance.com]. It's a fluff piece with no grounding in reality.

    The first major assumption is that a family pays $500/month to lease a car every month. Most sensible families have a $30k car paid off in 5 years and drive it another 5.

    A second major assumption is that the cost of ride sharing currently covers the full purchase price, maintenance, and depreciation of the driver's vehicle. I do not know that this is the case.

    So if you ignore the cost of owning the ride share car, and you inflate the cost of owning a car, it's cheaper to ride share!

    Fucking genius!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by sinij ( 911942 )
      While holding on to a paid-off car is sensible, I don't think your numbers are quite right. IHS states average is 79.3 month (~7 years), and this is data coming out of recession.
      • someone still drives those old cars. they are resold. i have an 8 year old honda that is dirt cheap to maintain and perfectly usable

      • While holding on to a paid-off car is sensible, I don't think your numbers are quite right. IHS states average is 79.3 month (~7 years), and this is data coming out of recession.

        I guess I'm way outside the average.

        - My 1999 Lexus has 290,000 miles
        - My 2000 Hyundai has 130,000 miles.

        Both cars are fine. If either of them went I'd just get another used car.
        The Hyundai only cost me $2000 over 5 years ago.

      • IHS states average is 79.3 month (~7 years)

        Most used cars aren't ground up for scrap when sold/traded for the replacement. They're bought by someone else, and used for years more.

        As an example, my cars average about ten years old right now. One of them is seven years old, but new to me (just bought it a month ago).

    • by orlanz ( 882574 )

      first major assumption is that a family pays $500/month to lease

      This concept you will find across the entire housing and automobile industry. I find it absolutely idiotic that the industry thinks this way and people kind of fall for it. No one cares about the TCO. So many times I been given and seen the "Its just $25 more per month. That's well within your affordability." And if the rate is too high, "A lease will be really good in bringing that monthly payment down.".

      NO one likes to talk about the total cost and the actual "monthly affordability" seems too complex

      • by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        first major assumption is that a family pays $500/month to lease

        NO one likes to talk about the total cost and the actual "monthly affordability" seems too complex for people (failings of basic education). Monthly affordability should take into consideration things like "retirement funding", "living expenses", "annual vacation", "taxes", etc.

        When we bought my car a few years ago (new, but with an employer discount and a good trade-in) the salesman literally staggered back when we told him we wouldn't pay over $125 a month. It was actually mildly amusing to watch and how I am going to approach car buying from now on.

        • When my wife and I were just finishing up grad school and looking for our first house, we ran into the same thing. We looked at our current level of income and based buying a house on that. Knowing full well that it was likely we would be earning more soon, but that wasn't something we'd gamble a house on.

          So we did up our monthly budget, figured out the max we could pay, backwards calculated a 30 yr fixed rate loan, and had our maximum house price. We scraped together the down payment, and were ready to go.

  • Hatfields & McCoys (Score:4, Informative)

    by sdinfoserv ( 1793266 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @10:56AM (#56896380)
    It's like sharing lawn tools with the neighbor - it never works out. He keeps them too long, returns them dirty, uses up all the gas, doesn't check the oil... If you're going to get cranky over a $300 lawn mower, you're going to go ballistic over a $100K "shared" vehicle.
  • by sjbe ( 173966 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @11:00AM (#56896408)

    How Much Americans Could Save by Ridesharing Driverless Cars Over Owning

    In my particular case the answer is a good approximation of zero with a hell of a lot of added aggravation. I don't live in a dense urban area so pretty much any place that isn't a densely populated city doesn't make much sense for "ride sharing". I would need the vehicle at roughly the same time as everyone else (work commute) so using it when I need it most will be a competitive bidding situation and probably not save me a penny. Plus I have to schedule and/or wait for the ride to arrive.

    Don't get me wrong, I'd LOVE to have access to driverless cars but it's going to be a good long while before they make any kind of practical sense.

    The reality is that the first fully autonomous cars will be very pricey and beyond the reach of most Americans.

    So what? That's true of every new technology. As production ramps up the costs will naturally fall. The rich get the fanciest toys first just like they always have.

    Manufacturers expect the early buyers will be businesses and the very wealthy. One developer says prices won't start coming down enough for most families and individuals to buy them until 2025 or beyond.

    They think autonomous cars will be a widespread thing as soon as 2025? HAHAHAHAHA... cough, sniff... Ummm, no they won't. I have confidence they will become a thing eventually but it just isn't going to happen that fast. The legal framework and insurance alone is going to take longer than that even if the technology was ready today. And the technology is no where near ready for the General Public today. Best case I'd imagine you'll see rollout start at the earliest sometime in the 2030s with lots of testing and pilot programs over then next 10-15 years. Then it will take a few decades to really start gaining large amounts of market share presuming everything goes well up to that point and there are no showstopper technology or political problems.

    According to Esurance research, in the best-case scenario, a family that gives up its car in favor of driverless ridesharing could save $4,100 in annual transportation costs.

    Maybe if you live near NYC where the cost of owning a car is prohibitive, travel distances are short, and where the infrastructure is set up already to support using vehicles you don't own. Basically if you live in a place where taxis are a routine thing it probably makes sense. Doesn't really work for the majority of the US and in places like Europe which already have decent public transportation there really isn't so much added value. As much as I'd like to have a driverless car (or decent public transit) to take the wheel for my morning commute I don't see it as a likely thing before I retire.

    • They think autonomous cars will be a widespread thing as soon as 2025? HAHAHAHAHA... cough, sniff... Ummm, no they won't. I have confidence they will become a thing eventually but it just isn't going to happen that fast. The legal framework and insurance alone is going to take longer than that even if the technology was ready today. And the technology is no where near ready for the General Public today. Best case I'd imagine you'll see rollout start at the earliest sometime in the 2030s with lots of testing and pilot programs over then next 10-15 years. Then it will take a few decades to really start gaining large amounts of market share presuming everything goes well up to that point and there are no showstopper technology or political problems.

      You'd be wrong. Roll out started back in 2017 (http://www.latimes.com/travel/deals/la-tr-las-vegas-first-driverless-shuttle-to-loop-the-city-20171228-story.html). Yes, limited roll out, but there are driverless buses in a few places already. Cars aren't far behind (if they aren't already) -- in limited number, in limited zones, but starting to roll out none the less.

  • by sinij ( 911942 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @11:01AM (#56896412)
    I am not interested in this model, because at its core is renter model. You don't own the car, as such you don't have any say in how it operates. So things like mandatory in-car advertising, sub-optimal routes to save fuel, or even whims of corporate policies and posturing (e.g. shuttle man last, because everything is a fault of patriarchy).

    You are also foolish to think that costs will be lower in the long term. Once alternatives (i.e. personally owner car) are rare you will pay exactly as much as market can support for personal transportation. So you will still have monthly payments that are comparable to what you pay now.
    • If Uber runs the market, this is true. If the city does as a public utility (like trains/buses are run), a lot of those problems start fading away.

  • and when there an crash the eula says you are at fault and that log access starts at $250 per event.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @11:04AM (#56896448)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Still looking for ethnic slurs on Belgians.

      All I've got are the python ones: Sprout and Phlegm.

      Anybody?

  • Well.... (Score:4, Informative)

    by erp_consultant ( 2614861 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @11:08AM (#56896462)

    Here in the good old US of A there are a few cities that have a public transit system that is good enough to get by without having a car. New York city comes to mind. If you live close to the BART line in San Francisco it works well for the daily commute. Maybe Chicago. The T-line in Boston is pretty good.

    After that it is a very steep drop off. Public transit really only works if you live and work right downtown of a major city. If you are in the suburbs then forget it. Rightly or wrongly, having a car is seen by some as a symbol of success. In America there is a stigma attached to taking the bus. Most people would prefer the freedom of having their own car and setting their own schedule.

    Where I work there is a ride share program but almost nobody uses it. Why? Because I don't want to be sitting in front of someones house waiting for them to get their shit together while my car idles away. Or standing in the hot sun waiting for my ride to show up. Yes, I would probably save some money but for me the freedom is worth more than the few dollars I might save.

  • But will they really save Americans time and money?

    Maybe. Right now in the U.S. there is a culture where your car is a status symbol. Because of that people spend way more on cars then they need to. With an autonomous ride sharing vehicle the economics are different and more akin to commercial trucks. They need to be reliable, repairable, and go 1 million or more miles. Because of this you can't compare it to the cost of using Uber or owning you own car.

    And even if they do, are Americans ready to give up driving?

    Some will, some won't. As with all technologies it will be a slow progression. If a car manufacture relea

  • Self-driving ride-sharing would work for me if I could schedule a ride and then a '78 Trans Am shows up at my door and let's me drive that bitch.

    Other than that, no thanks. Self-driving ride sharing is not for me. I'll leave that to you youngsters, with your technology and blueteeth and lip piercings.

  • by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @11:30AM (#56896616)

    Why does the cost of riding in a ride-share car go down over 25% between 2025 and 2030?

    Why is the cost/mile to own so much higher than the cost/mile to hail? Don't the share companies need to make a profit?

    Based on the IRS deduction the cost to operate a vehicle in 2018 is $.545/mile. This chart says by 2030 a rideshare company will be charging $.25/mile, so their expenses must be well below that

    None of this makes sense to me.

  • You mean, like, with STRANGERS?!

    Ok, so explain to me how this is different that (horrors!) taking public transit.

  • Self-driving cars promise safer roads, less traffic and increased mobility.

    {Citation Needed} -- and not from marketing departments or from SDC fanbois.

  • Yeah, sure.
    "Tragedy of the Commons" is a thing.

    Ever seen collective spaces used by lots of people? Worse, used almost anonymously?

    Yeah, no thanks - I don't want to hop in my 'driveshare' car at 0700 in the morning to go to work and slip on a pool of cum and vomit from the last user(s).

    • lots of people take bus or taxi or train to work. there would be number to call if interior needed cleaning and another vehicle needed to be sent. I'd expect the last user to get extra charges on their card.

      see, not that hard to solve

  • by HockeyPuck ( 141947 ) on Thursday July 05, 2018 @12:13PM (#56896894)

    In SF there's scooters on every corner just waiting to be used... and most aren't.

    So in the driverless model, to make it so i'm not wasting time waiting for a car to take me to the store, and then another one to pick me up and take me home. Is someone going to foot the bill to have thousands of cars just sitting around waiting for someone to click "i need a ride" button on their phone?

    Who cleans up the driverless car if the previous rider gets sick in it or spills their drink? If the car shows up and their a slurpee spilled on the seat, I now have to reject it and wait another X minutes for another car to show up. Not exactly something I'm willing to do if I need to get somewhere. Also, how do you budget your time when you need to take into account the variable availability of one of these cars?

    I can't imagine trying to haul kids around in these things in the case when you've got a child seat. Or, you want to take your bike somewhere, and you've got to attach a bike rack to it.

Don't tell me how hard you work. Tell me how much you get done. -- James J. Ling

Working...