
What will self-driving cars do to cities? - jwilliams
https://jonathannen.com/cars-and-real-estate
======
cagenut
IMHO self driving cars will predominately be a fleet/subscription-service
model eventually, and in that case it will actually further incentivize
_shorter_ commutes (denser living). Right now, when you buy, finance or lease
a car you pay a fixed rate and the variable component is almost negligible.
That means a 10 or a 50 mile commute are really just a question of your
personal time, they don't have much price-cost.

Conversely for a shared-fleet-subscription model you will pay a much more
utility-like rate (or they will price the subscription based on utility like
analysis). Now there will be a much more direct correlation to the distances
you travel and the price you pay.

Especially since commuting will have the peak-utilization effect on pricing
that all shared services from frame-relay networks to ec2 autoscaling exhibit.
People will be able to directly price the cost of living in location X vs.
location Y and make a much more informed decision (I can pay $250/month on my
mortgage for a 3rd bedroom in a home closer to work, or I can pay $300/month
for my 45-minute rush-hour service charge). Overall more accurate pricing will
dramatically skew toward density.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
You ignore places like china with severe traffic problems in their cities and
an autocratic government that can push things through. They'll make self
driving cars mandatory inside the fifth ring road just to optimize road and
parking resources and ignore the western habits you describe above. That will
be a huge deal for megacities, and not much of a change from personal habits
where taxis are already ubiquitous. Also, see Singapore, Hong Kong, Tokyo,
Bangkok, Manila, ....

~~~
pjc50
I expect to see fossil fuel vehicles banned from _London_ in my lifetime, so
the city could well bar non-autonomous private cars once the autonomous tech
is good enough. It would make it a lot safer for cyclists, although it's the
trucks and buses that are the real danger there.

~~~
majewsky
Well, if we're at the point where non-autonomous cars are outlawed, there's no
way trucks and buses will still have human drivers.

------
lukethomas
A common theme with the self-driving car discussion is the potential to
reshape cities. While I'm sure this will happen, I'd love to see
thoughts/ideas on the impact in suburban & more remote areas.

For example, will people be willing to commute longer distances? Will smaller
cities outside larger metropolitan areas become more popular?

~~~
pmiller2
I already commute an hour each way by public transportation. The only benefit
a self-driving car could theoretically offer me is that I don't have to deal
with other passengers.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Which would be huge, at least for me. I'd love to be able to pull out my
laptop and get rid of my "busywork" (e.g. emails, review daily reports, etc.),
which would be a hell of a lot easier in a self driving car than, say, the
BART.

~~~
EternalData
Interesting subpoint here: people who are able to work remotely are going to
add about an hour or perhaps a bit less to their productivity but those who
cannot (let's say a hypothetical janitor/sales clerk) will not, further adding
a layer of inequality to those who work with their minds versus those who work
with their hands.

This is all things equal, and assuming that the advent of self-driving cars
doesn't also bring a whole new economy/job market.

~~~
cm2187
I wouldn't overdo the remote working. My experience is that it is terribly
inefficient in my business. It's fine at small dose to help people cope with
other obligation but I don't see that being the future of office work.

~~~
majewsky
It depends on the person. Some people are amazingly productive while working
from home (I have two such colleagues), while others (e.g. me) are clearly
less productive and more easily distracted at home.

~~~
cm2187
I think what you have in mind is jobs producing code. But when the job
involves a lot of interactions with other employees, it becomes quite
inefficient.

------
simonrobb
I currently live in East Melbourne (~15 second walk from Hoddle Street) and
pay through the nose for the privilege. And yet a few years ago lived in one
of those big Victorian terraces on Hoddle just 50 metres away, where a mate
and I paid AUD $240/week each for the entire place. What you say about the
disparity in property value caused by the road is spot on.

Funnily enough, a little while back my neighbour made the exact same point
about Hoddle Street - in (say) twenty years the property values are going to
see a massive shift because of changing technology in our cars. However I
think it will be the move to electric cars that makes the real difference. No
more fumes, no more grime covering every surface, far less noise. Add in
reduced traffic because of self-driving tech and suddenly that property will
be worth a packet.

~~~
jwilliams
Totally agree - I think self-driving will be a major impact. But the
electrification of cars will be much, much sooner.

------
pouetpouet
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utnPEbDNbrE&t=24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utnPEbDNbrE&t=24)

Jeff Speck: Autonomous Vehicles & the Good City 10 rules

------
mcculley
I'm intrigued by thinking about what will happen when all of the parking lots
and garages get turned into more useable space. When we hit the tipping point
of self-driving cars being commercially feasible, it will make sense that they
be parked where the land and electricity is cheapest, when they are parked at
all. If we transition to mostly Uber-style car usage, the cars will be in
motion as much as possible.

That will lead to lots of parking lots and garages being razed in favor of
more useful buildings. That means more density in urban areas and potentially
more pedestrian friendly cities.

Higher density means more electricity, water, and sewage usage.

I was looking for new office space a few months ago. I asked every real estate
agent and commercial builder what they were thinking about self-driving cars.
They all said that they weren't thinking about it as it was too far off to
worry about. I was surprised at their lack of vision.

~~~
ghaff
I'm not sure why I would care as a real estate agent or commercial developer.
I have to function in the here and now with clients (and zoning) in the here
and now. That there might be changes brought on by autonomous driving or any
of a slew of factors in a few decades is not really on my radar.

~~~
mcculley
If I were a real estate agent, I would be interested in what my market looks
like in a few years.

The commercial property developers I spoke to are building new properties
right now and not thinking about how they might want to refit them in a few
years. I agree that most of them aren't thinking ahead. I see buildings all
around me being razed that were built just a few years ago. It's a myopic
industry.

------
specialist
Car sharing will be the catalyst that reshapes cities. Reducing car ownership
90% (let's say) will reduce the space allocated to parking and traffic
proportionally. When that happens, land use (zoning) will become much more
dense.

Maybe self-driving cars will hasten car-sharing. That seems to be Uber's long-
term bet. We'll see.

~~~
mmcconnell1618
I don't think car ownership will drop by 90%. People like their personal space
and think about a family who needs to put a car seat into the self-driving
vehicle every time they use it. What about all the other junk you have in your
car?

People who can afford their own self-driving vehicle will probably have one
(but maybe not multiple cars per family). Cars will likely still be seen as an
expression of personality or status symbols.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
This is a very American mindset. I agree with what you said if we restrict the
world to the USA.

------
jaclaz
I must be missing a link.

Whether there is a driver or not (or whether the cars will be electrically
powered or not) the cars will still occupy the same physical space, please
read as parking, and if the same number of people will need to go from point A
to point B and viceversa, roads will be needed as well.

~~~
johnking
With regards to the parking space article reference. In the long run with self
driving cars we can reduce the overall number of parked cars through greater
vehicle utilization. Instead of them being parked for long periods of their
life, they can join fleets (think the Tesla fleet idea) and service many
people in one day.

~~~
SomeStupidPoint
Only if you can negate the need for a personal vehicle, which self-driving
cars aren't close to doing.

Self-driving cars do nothing about the fact I need somewhere to put my gym bag
during the work day or my gym and work bags while I go out in the evening. Or
that I might need a carseat for a child. Or that I might like to keep an
umbrella and change of clothes in my car. Or....

Any benefit to not having the static car is quickly mitigated by the
inefficiency of storage shuffling for even a moderate amount of things.

~~~
cm2187
There is another objection. People who use a car to go to work need that car
at the same time. Playing lottery on whether I will be allocated a car or not
to get to work this morning isn't an option. That's why farmers usually own
their hardware. They could rent except that they all need it the same days.

It will free up the streets nevertheless. The reason you park your car nearby
is so that you can walk to it. But if the car can go park itself and come back
10-15min from where you live in some big car park, you would probably as happy
as if you had to walk 5-10min yourself.

Plus ownership isn't fully rational. Otherwise people wouldn't bury themselves
into debt to own their house, pushing property prices up. Instead you would
have cheap property you can rent.

------
sharmi
Most discussions seem to take for granted that the self driving cars as a
service would equally service all participants at all times.

The operators will be incentivised to service maximum people with minimum
number of cars. At any point where there is high demand, there would not be
enough cars to service everyone. So again, those who can afford it would opt
to hace their own cars.

If everyone is forced to use the self driving service, there comes the
question of how the system prioritizes pickups, young vs old, healthy vs sick,
the vulnerable etc.

So, I believe it will still settle into the more wealthy using an elite
service or owning their own car and others using a system not too different
from a public transportation system, only self-driven.

~~~
dredmorbius
The operators will be incentivised to _obtain maximum revenue_ with a minimum
_cost_.

That will likely lead to similar dynamics of other transport modes:

1\. A high-priced, high-amenity premium "first class" (perhaps "white glove")
service, catering to upper-income / high-discretionary-spending households.

2\. Possibly: a moderate-tier, principally professional-employment / shopping-
oriented tier. The primary support for this will come from the _businesses_
served by the livery, notably professional employers (a transport/commute
perk) and upscale shopping districts (to increase in-store traffic). I'm
presuming that brick-and-mortar retail will remain a thing, and given a less-
than 10% incursion by e-commerce, this seems likely.

3\. A bare-bones "economy" tier. This will be made _intentionally_ bad, not
because of price, but because any amenity enhancement will erode demand to the
higher-priced tiers. This will be offered to low-income households, and
possibly to noneconomic sectors (children, students, handicapped, elderly).

One characteristic of transport services dating to the dawn of large-scale
passenger ship travel and rail service is that the lowest-tier amenities are
made _intentionally_ worse than necessary, for the logic outlined above.

~~~
majewsky
As a counter-point: There used to be three travel classes on trains at least
here in Germany, but today, only two are left (basically "white glove" and
"economy").

EDIT: Also, what does "first class" entail in the context of self-driving
cars? Most differentiation between travel classes is in the area of service by
train/flight attendants. The only thing I could think of is the
comfortableness of the seat and the amount of leg space.

~~~
dredmorbius
Appointments, SLA, and quite probably some level of arbitrarily selected
Veblen differentiators. Much as elsewhere. Private vs. shared space as well --
think an service which might collect and drop off multiple passengers en
route.

The ultimate differentiator would likely be a dedicated chauffeur.

------
fullshark
Star Trek style Teleportation is the real game changer regarding real estate
prices.

~~~
seanmcdirmid
Until people find out the teleporter is really just making a copy of the
person at a remote destination and then killing the original.

~~~
majewsky
Actually, it's the other way around. You make the copy _after_ killing the
original. :)

~~~
seanmcdirmid
That would be considered a bug, like copying a deleted file.

------
rsp1984
If you look at the big European cities, real estate is expensive wherever
there is an acceptable train or subway connection to the city and prices fall
sharply outside of these zones.

Self-driving cars will equalize this and it's a good thing. If you can take an
affordable self driving taxi to the city you don't care about train
connections any more and the key factors for choosing a home outside the city
will change.

~~~
dredmorbius
Would you have any data or maps showing this? Or specific examples in mind?

------
patkai
As much as Skype did.

------
brudgers
The politics of cities will trump the politics of self driving cars, and the
politics of self driving cars sits a very long way from a future where enough
cars are self driving that removing super arterial roadways will be a
reasonable consideration or the costs of going underground are palatable...the
Big Dig replaced one form of transportation infrastructure with another.

------
mherrmann
I've been wondering if electrical cars (self-driving or not) will affect
prices of properties which are - currently - next to noisy and polluted
streets. Does anybody have insight into that? Or maybe smog-ridden cities?

~~~
johnking
Interesting idea, and probably will have an impact. But definitely a long term
bet, given the time scale that ICE cars will be replaced.

------
madengr
It may raise prices at the outer suburbs as a commute will be easier.

------
dredmorbius
A good premise, though I'd strongly suggest a retrospective view looking at
how cities _have been_ shaped in the past, by automobiles, lifts, and other
technologies, in technological and pre-technological eras.

Cities are dendritic or networked structures. They can be defined as a locus
of points with connections between them, both physical (as with transport
networks), or logical -- the financial, cultural, social, political,
communications, and other links between nodes.

Cities are characterised by _greater_ nodal density than non-urban areas.
Cities provide a superlinear return to scale, Cf. work of Geoffrey West (Santa
Fe Institute) and others.

This is subject to limitations, ultimately _an irreducible inter-nodal cost
factor_. An example of this would be the disease risks of major cities such as
London and New York in the mid-19th century. _London actually had a net-
negative population replacement rate_ , excluding in-migration. That is, the
city _could not replace its population_ faster than it was dying out. The
principle cause was disease, quite notably cholera epidemics, responsible for
deaths up of to 50,000 people annually. It took the creation of the London
Sewerage System (1870) for this to be addressed.

A similar history can be told of New York City. It had its first sanitation
canal by the 1840s, but didn't have its first sewage _treatment_ plant until
1903, _and was still regularly dumping raw sewage into the Hudson River in the
1970s_. (It now does so ... only irregularly.)

[http://toilet-guru.com/nyc-sewer-system.php](http://toilet-guru.com/nyc-
sewer-system.php)

New York (and Chicago) also saw the first use of the lift (elevator), which
decreased the cost of _vertical_ real estate, along with structural steel. The
consequence being that those cities built _up_. By the 1950s, cheap petrol and
booming auto sales made _horizontal_ space cheap, and subsequent cities built
_out_ , notably _also_ the Chicago area (which had land to expand into), Los
Angeles, San Jose, Atlanta, and the Washington / Alexandria region.

New limits were reached with smog and traffic congestion levels, in suburbs.
At the same time, crime and social problems were driving middle-class and
wealthy residents from city centres. Policing costs and requirements, as well
as greenfield infrastructure developments made sprawl more attractive than
densification.

Self-driving, potentially electric, vehicles affect these dynamics a few
different ways.

They may allow for more effective roadbed utilisation. Given traffic density
in many cities, this may well be limited, and still likely cannot meet to
density of urban bus, light-rail, or subway / heavy-rail systems.

They should reduce the requirements on residential and destination parking, by
shifting parking to non-central regions. Parking _may_ become denser and/or
less deterministic -- it's not necessary that a _specific_ vehicle is
extracted, only that _some_ vehicle is extracted.

Utilisation costs of transport likely shift toward _marginal_ rather than
_fixed_ costs. That is, much of the present cost of private transport is a
sunk value, whilst a distance- or time-based rental front-loads the full
direct cost. This may discourage casual travel.

Transport use is _very unevenly_ distributed through the day. Peak-load
requirements are either un-met, are responded to with demand-pricing, or
require a large unutilised capacity in off-hours.

A likely development of a multi-tiered service-class offering, as with rail,
air, or ship transport. The lowest-level tier offering will be intentionally
disincentivised to foster utilisation of higher-level tiers, in a private-
enterprise system.

Elements of the service might be more _or_ less reliable than current private
transport.

I suspect on balance that _denser_ rather than _less dense_ construction will
be incentivised, though it's hard to account for all factors, or arising
disincentives.

