A more realistic route to autonomous driving • Hacker News Board

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#71

Post by njarboe » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 11:13 PM UTC

pastage wrote: post #69

njarboe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more "mass" the transit the harder it is for the vehicle to go exactly where all the people on it want to go. Subway, maybe walk a 1/2 mile, bus somewhat less but lots of stops, individual road transport, very close. An auto-car just sitting costs almost nothing per hour (capital cost, but very little other cost), so you can have lots of them everywhere. Pickup time can be very short. I almost never used taxis in…

Nice inclusive term, individual road transport can only mean bicycle since that is the only way you can get enough parking close for everyone.

auto-vehicle? I'll try to use that. A much better word especially since car=always bad for some people.

Bicycle parking is also a problem in many areas that have a high density of bicycle users. See Amsterdam train stations or apartment buildings where you have to store your bike in your 600sqft apartment.

Walking is really the best although these new electric skateboards seems to be almost totally portable and storable.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#72

Post by randomdata » Sun, Aug 05, 2018, 11:19 PM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #68

randomdata wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The comment beside you says that a car has a useful lifespan of 200,000 miles, or 50¢ per mile for the tech. The internet suggests the average highway speed in the US is 70mph. That suggests that it will cost $35/hr. for the autonomy and probably that much again for the car itself. At $70/hr., I expect people will still opt to own their own vehicle.

When driving your own car at 70mph for an hour you are not getting that distant for free.

Certainly not, and in many cases it may even cost more than that to drive your own car. But the car comes with a huge advantage that taxis have fallen short on:

The cost is upfront. People sit down and budget $x for transportation and then they know that amount of money will get them anywhere they want to go. People hate having to decide in the moment whether they want to spend the money or not. I notice a similar phenomena when it comes to mobile phone service. People would rather pay extra for a plan that provides more than they could ever need than to have a lesser plan and pay overages when needed because the overages require thinking about it in the moment, rather than pre-planning how much they want to budget. $70/hr. isn't even going to have anyone thinking twice about changing their behaviour completely.

Maybe robs-taxi services will pioneer a pay ahead of time service that captures the necessary mindshare that will make ownership obsolete, but that won't have anything to do with the technology. There is nothing stopping a taxi service from doing that today with human drivers. It's just a tough business model to work with when providing services, so it is uncommon.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#73

Post by mmt » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 12:51 AM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #67

vonmoltke wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> especially among people who really want to get out of car ownership I have brought this up before and I still do not understand how or why this idea is so tightly coupled to fully autonomous vehicles. I don't see how removing a human driver from a car service is going to change the dynamics enough to drive legions of people who own cars to get rid of them if they haven't done so already. The only friction a human d…

The more "mass" the transit the harder it is for the vehicle to go exactly where all the people on it want to go. Subway, maybe walk a 1/2 mile, bus somewhat less but lots of stops, individual road transport, very close. An auto-car just sitting costs almost nothing per hour (capital cost, but very little other cost), so you can have lots of them everywhere. Pickup time can be very short. I almost never used taxis in…

> An auto-car just sitting costs almost nothing per hour (capital cost, but very little other cost)

I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss capital cost parenthetically as part of "almost nothing". Maybe if the auto-cars were retrofitted 10-15 year old vehicles and the retrofitting cost a fraction of the vehicle's value, I'd agree. However, if they're all brand new (and even electric, where the TCO is weighted toward capital and away from operating costs), I say it's far from almost nothing.

Additionally, you go on to point out:

> if I did not have off street parking like many in my neighborhood, getting rid of it would be a no-brainer.

Therein lies a cost of "just sitting" that is routinely brought up in any car vs public transit (or other alternatives like bicycles or walkable designs) conversation.

The denser the area, the higher the cost. I suspect that if you did not have off street parking due to density, the parking portion of the "just sitting there" cost included in the pricing of the auto-car would make it no longer a no-brainer.

Where auto-cars could at least gain some space efficiency is in being able to park bumper-to-bumper and with minimum side clearance, since there would be no need for a human to enter or exit while it's in storage.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#74

Post by allannienhuis » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 3:46 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #55

allannienhuis wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except you get to park the subway car in your driveway.

Mmmm, underground traffic jams. I've seen that Dr Who episode.

I was thinking of a system where you drive your car into/onto a single-vehicle pod/cart which you then drive off at the station near your destination. I thought that was the boring company's design; perhaps it was another company I was thinking of...

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#75

Post by njarboe » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 4:39 AM UTC

mmt wrote: post #73

njarboe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more "mass" the transit the harder it is for the vehicle to go exactly where all the people on it want to go. Subway, maybe walk a 1/2 mile, bus somewhat less but lots of stops, individual road transport, very close. An auto-car just sitting costs almost nothing per hour (capital cost, but very little other cost), so you can have lots of them everywhere. Pickup time can be very short. I almost never used taxis in…

> An auto-car just sitting costs almost nothing per hour (capital cost, but very little other cost) I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss capital cost parenthetically as part of "almost nothing". Maybe if the auto-cars were retrofitted 10-15 year old vehicles and the retrofitting cost a fraction of the vehicle's value, I'd agree. However, if they're all brand new (and even electric, where the TCO is weighted toward capit…

Auto cars can also drive away from expensive parking when not in use. Lots of Uber drivers live in Sacramento but work in SF 80 miles away.

Maybe if interest rates go up capital costs will be an issue, but using a 100k car paying 4% interest is $4000 a year or about $0.50 per hour. When not moving there is basically no wear and tear or fuel costs. Almost nothing compared to paying a driver.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#76

Post by zamfi » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 5:49 AM UTC

vonmoltke wrote: post #51

zamfi wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whereas, especially for transportation options that involve multiple people in a vehicle, the cost of a driver isn't really all that much relative to the overall cost of operating a vehicle. Do you have a source on this? It’s my understanding that most mass transit systems in the US spend a huge amount on operator compensation. BART, the one I’m most familiar with, spends $500m of its $691m operating budget on sala…

First off, you cannot ignore the $876mm capital portion of the budget; that money needs to come from somewhere. Second, that $500mm covers every employee of BART. The administrators, maintenance personnel, police, and other non-operator functions do not go away. Without knowing what portion of that line item goes to operators one cannot make a judgement on how much cheaper the system would be without them.

Of course you're right; my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Actual train operator salaries probably cost BART about $50m annually, not $500m. In both the cases of BART and private cars, the money to pay for tracks or roads comes from taxpayers. The trains themselves are now 40+ years old, and are finally being replaced at a cost of ~$300m this year. Grandparent post specifically talked about operating costs though.

All that said, trains are basically the most efficient mode of transport from a (number of drivers) / (number of passengers) perspective.

But speaking seriously for a moment:

- Lyft charges riders about $2/mile in the Bay Area [0] before fees.

- The IRS lets you depreciate your vehicle at a rate of $0.545/mile.

- A reasonably efficient car burns ~40 mpg on freeway, at $3.50/gallon that's ~$0.09/mile.

So, of the $2/mile the riders pay, about 1/3 of that is costs associated with purchasing and operating the vehicle (according to IRS estimates) and fuel.

If we eliminate the rest via autonomous driving, and taxis became 65% cheaper, I suspect many people would make much more use of them.

[0]: https://www.lyft.com/pricing/SFO

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#77

Post by mmt » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 6:56 AM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #75

mmt wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An auto-car just sitting costs almost nothing per hour (capital cost, but very little other cost) I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss capital cost parenthetically as part of "almost nothing". Maybe if the auto-cars were retrofitted 10-15 year old vehicles and the retrofitting cost a fraction of the vehicle's value, I'd agree. However, if they're all brand new (and even electric, where the TCO is weighted toward capit…

Auto cars can also drive away from expensive parking when not in use. Lots of Uber drivers live in Sacramento but work in SF 80 miles away. Maybe if interest rates go up capital costs will be an issue, but using a 100k car paying 4% interest is $4000 a year or about $0.50 per hour. When not moving there is basically no wear and tear or fuel costs. Almost nothing compared to paying a driver.

> Auto cars can also drive away from expensive parking when not in use.

Driving away is, of course, not standing still. That increases the cost, but, perhaps more importantly, increased latency (or, rather, jitter).

They need not be stored in the most expensive, densest areas, but, for those who want to get rid of car ownership, that non-zero cost (especially if borne by the public with free on-street parking) isn't likely one they're willing to ignore.

> about $0.50 per hour.

A car sitting idle for 9 hours per day and averages 30mph while driving adds 1 cent per mile. A car sitting idle for 18 hours adds 5 cents per mile.

The former may be almost nothing, but the latter isn't.

> Almost nothing compared to paying a driver.

I still disagree, but that's just semantics.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#78

Post by perl4ever » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 7:32 AM UTC

njarboe wrote: post #75

mmt wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> An auto-car just sitting costs almost nothing per hour (capital cost, but very little other cost) I'm not sure it's fair to dismiss capital cost parenthetically as part of "almost nothing". Maybe if the auto-cars were retrofitted 10-15 year old vehicles and the retrofitting cost a fraction of the vehicle's value, I'd agree. However, if they're all brand new (and even electric, where the TCO is weighted toward capit…

Auto cars can also drive away from expensive parking when not in use. Lots of Uber drivers live in Sacramento but work in SF 80 miles away. Maybe if interest rates go up capital costs will be an issue, but using a 100k car paying 4% interest is $4000 a year or about $0.50 per hour. When not moving there is basically no wear and tear or fuel costs. Almost nothing compared to paying a driver.

Seems like depreciation (assuming straight line over 20 years) is going to roughly double that figure.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#79

Post by perl4ever » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 7:48 AM UTC

mmt wrote: post #77

njarboe wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Auto cars can also drive away from expensive parking when not in use. Lots of Uber drivers live in Sacramento but work in SF 80 miles away. Maybe if interest rates go up capital costs will be an issue, but using a 100k car paying 4% interest is $4000 a year or about $0.50 per hour. When not moving there is basically no wear and tear or fuel costs. Almost nothing compared to paying a driver.

> Auto cars can also drive away from expensive parking when not in use. Driving away is, of course, not standing still. That increases the cost, but, perhaps more importantly, increased latency (or, rather, jitter). They need not be stored in the most expensive, densest areas, but, for those who want to get rid of car ownership, that non-zero cost (especially if borne by the public with free on-street parking) isn't…

Depreciation and utilization rates need to be incorporated.

If interest + depreciation is about $9K/yr, that's $25 a day, which means if you drive 8 hrs a day and have a 58% utilization rate, is $5.38/hr which is not all that far from what Uber drivers net. At 30 mph, it's 18 cents added per mile.

A self-driving car could perhaps operate more than 8 hours a day, but that doesn't mean that customers will be equally available at all hours.

I strongly suspect that when you do a proper analysis, self-driving cars are just competitive and not hugely cheaper.

Re: A more realistic route to autonomous driving

#80

Post by perl4ever » Mon, Aug 06, 2018, 7:52 AM UTC

zamfi wrote: post #76

vonmoltke wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, you cannot ignore the $876mm capital portion of the budget; that money needs to come from somewhere. Second, that $500mm covers every employee of BART. The administrators, maintenance personnel, police, and other non-operator functions do not go away. Without knowing what portion of that line item goes to operators one cannot make a judgement on how much cheaper the system would be without them.

Of course you're right; my comment was mostly tongue-in-cheek. Actual train operator salaries probably cost BART about $50m annually, not $500m. In both the cases of BART and private cars, the money to pay for tracks or roads comes from taxpayers. The trains themselves are now 40+ years old, and are finally being replaced at a cost of ~$300m this year. Grandparent post specifically talked about operating costs though…

Utilization rates are 50-58% for Uber or Lyft. When you take it into account that a taxi is not en route 100% of the time, and add the cost (interest, depreciation) of a much more expensive vehicle, I think your 65% savings go up in smoke.