
Automakers Prepare for an America That’s Over the Whole Car Thing - zonotope
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/22/business/automakers-prepare-america-fewer-cars.html
======
rhino369
I wonder how low "cars per person" we will achieve through self-driving
Uber/lyft services? Those type of services, if cheap enough, could replace the
need for cars for little trips here and there.

But things like commutes are harder to replace. You have everyone trying to
drive all at the same time during high traffic. Traffic will only increase as
people can nap during commutes because people will commute from further and
further away.

You'd have to have a lot of extra cars that only make 2-4 trips a day due to
demand.

Plus a large amount of car lifetime is determined by mileage. Fleet
maintenance will help, but after 150k miles on average, they'll need to be
replaced. If these self driving car services are so cheap, we might increase
the car mileage per person. Which means we'll burn through cars at a faster
pace than person.

I'm not convinced that the end of personal ownership will be all that bad for
car companies. I bet it hurts midmarket luxury the hardest since nobody will
buy them.

~~~
jawbone3
Taxis are already self driving cars, and affordable for parts of the
population. Those people buy cars regardless.

~~~
ehnto
Cars are definitely more than a commuting device, they are cultural.

Also I think articles like this often forget that while it would be great to
not need a car for the morning commute, people in suburbia still need to do
many other things like shopping and fetching children etc.

Many of those tasks are just easier or more preferred to be done in personal
transport. Sometimes you need to leave some shopping in the car while you go
in to sit with the kids at an after school thing, before heading past a
friends house to drop off their kids then finally heading home. A self driving
fleet could probably still achieve that in multiple trips, but how many people
want to deal with continuously pre-planning and concerting a half dozen small
trips a day?

I strongly dislike suburbia and car culture does grind my gears in various
ways, but I can't help but feel the car-in-an-app is solving the very specific
problem of short once off trips, and solving that doesn't even come close to
solving the nations transport issues.

~~~
ghaff
I suspect that a lot of people who live in cities, don't own a car, don't use
a car much, etc. don't really appreciate the degree to which people customize
cars for their needs (roof racks for sporting equipment like canoes, car seats
for kids, etc.) and use them for mobile storage. As an exurban person who does
a lot of outdoors activities, it's hard for me to imagine not having a
personal vehicle. The economics would really have to be compelling and it's
hard to imagine they will be especially if the number of miles "driven" go up.

~~~
mahyarm
You will have carseat cars, cars with sports racks, larger minivans where you
don't need the sports rack and so on. Uber today has a car seat option for
example in NYC.

I could see cars that let you just move the stroller in and lock it in with
standardized connection types in the wheels, no carseat ritual required, no
waking up the baby. I can also see cargo delivery cars that you just drop your
shit in and it delivers it securely to your house after you have gone
shopping. Or even more likely, you just use an app for that and not even go to
the store. Malls turn into showrooms.

All of that is for a self driving future.

What you do today is use something like car rentals when you want to go do
outdoor activities. A friend of mine uses uber to go kiteboarding and rents a
car with friends when he goes skiing.

~~~
Kadin
There is probably a pretty well-defined density threshold where vehicle
pooling makes sense, vs. personally owned vehicles.

In cities, pooled vehicles are a no-brainer. It's probably already faster to
have an Uber come get you than it is to park a personally-owned car in the
core parts of NYC, SF, or some other megacities. This is only going to get
better, including specialty vehicles.

But as you get out into the suburbs and exurbs, it's more challenging to
provide an acceptable level of service (max. 5 minutes from call to arrival,
or some other pain threshold that causes people to just wish they had their
own car). The economics also start to get harder: if I take an Uber (self-
driving or otherwise) out to my house in the sticks, it's a lot less likely to
get a return fare back into the city; that trip is a lot less profitable than
circulation within an area. So it's doubly bad for a self-driving car company:
you need a lot more cars/customer to provide the same service level, and
you're spending a lot more time "deadheading" with empty vehicles, or charging
extra to compensate.

That's not to say that self-driving vehicles won't significantly affect
driving and commuting patterns, even in rural areas, but the displacement of
personally-owned vehicles is going to be more challenging and may lag urban
areas by a very long time.

------
goatlover
This makes sense for big cities, but that vast territory in between, where
Trump got the majority of his support, that territory where you see lots of
trucks and SUVs, and people drive miles to Walmart or the grocery store or
baseball practice - they're going to still want their own vehicle.

~~~
waterphone
Need, not just want. For the residents of most of the surface area of America,
you cannot survive without owning your own vehicle. Stores can be 10 to 50 to
100 miles away from your home, there are no buses or taxis or Uber, you can
sometimes get a ride from a friend or neighbor but only if they're also
planning to go to town, and if you each go to town together you're usually
stuck there all day and then have to each wait long times for the other person
to do what they need to do, because you're each shopping for the next 2 – 3
weeks before you go to town again.

~~~
monkmartinez
Agreed, I have the feeling that most people think San Francisco or New York
when they think "city"... the problem is that Phoenix exists (all 517 square
miles). There are many, many medium sized (1 million ppl +) cities that are
conglomerations of suburbs, with very little "urban" interface like Phoenix
dotting the western portion of the US.

~~~
waterphone
And there are plenty of people who do not and have no desire to live in a city
at all, and that isn't going to change. Many people retire to rural areas, or
live in smaller cities/towns. It's a deliberate lifestyle choice for many, and
these people are perfectly happy to own a vehicle of their own and use it and
it's not a problem that needs solving for them. So when urban technologists
come in and say they're going to "solve" the problem of car ownership and turn
it into a service, such people respond somewhere between mockery and outrage
at the ignorance of such people thinking their ultra-urban environment is the
only acceptable way of life.

~~~
Fricken
Do you guys hang out in the makeup department and talk about your disineterest
in lipstick? Why is every thread on this subject loaded with peanut gallery
comments from people who aren't interested in autonomous cars. If you don't
like them don't use them. They still stand to address the needs of 10s of
millions of commuters in America, and far more worldwide. It's a huge
addressable market.

~~~
probably_wrong
I think it's not disinterest, but more of a reality check. While we all agree
that self-driving cars will be a game changer, some of us think that it can be
easily blown out of proportions.

"The needs of 10s of millions of commuters in America" could have been
addressed with public transport years ago. The fact that they weren't should
tell us that there's more to it than whether someone drives the car or not.

~~~
wcummings
Basically this, combined with the fact that people who dislike public transit
for cultural reasons (see also: hate the poor) point to SDC's as a panacea for
all our transportation problems.

There was literally a post in one of these threads saying we should "screen"
people so undesirables couldn't use public transit so it would be more
attractive to yuppy scumbags.

------
mortyma
Carmakers have to adjust and prepare for a reality in which mobility is
treated as a service and cars are losing their traditional function as a
(middle class) status symbol.

I think that self-driving cars may actually increase traffic and our
dependency on cars. Just think about it:

\- If you don't have to drive yourself but can instead use the time to sleep,
watch a movie, study or shitpost on the Internet, a 1.5 hour commute to work
isn't that bad anymore.

\- Since the labor cost for operating a self-driving car is probably really
low (we'll still need mechanics for maintenance and such) and streets are
heavily subsidized by the government, self-driving cars are cheap and could be
a competitor to traditional public transport services.

\- There isn't a reason why kids, who now have to use a bike, a scooter or the
bus until they are allowed to drive a car shouldn't be able to order a self-
driving taxi; thus, they get used to being shuttled around all the time from a
young age.

~~~
white-flame
_> I think that self-driving cars may actually increase traffic and our
dependency on cars._

Exactly. Remember how computers were supposed to give us paperless offices?
They're automated paper-wasters and likely increased paper consumption in
offices incredibly during the 90s and 00s. I've not been in corporatastic
environments for a while, so I can't comment on the 10s.

~~~
Aloha
I work in those offices, paper still exists, lots of it is printed, often
though as an easy way to carry a document around for review.

------
ebbv
This headline really overstates it. Anywhere outside of a major metropolitan
center you are gonna be hard pressed to deal with day to day things like
getting groceries without a car. The nearest grocery store to my house is
about 5 miles. I can bike it but that really limits how much stuff I can get.

Similarly if you're a family with pets, particularly big dogs like mine, I
can't take them anywhere without a car.

There is no public transportation of any kind that comes to my neighborhood.

So while yes, more and more people in cities may be abandoning cars because
they have gotten more and more expensive over the last decade, there is no
near future where America as a whole is able to live day to day without a car.

~~~
djsumdog
Exactly. I lived outside of the US for fours years and never needed a car.
Even though I moved back to a city with public transport, and a single
regularly rail line, it pales in comparison to the type of transport available
is much of the developed world.

Self-driving cars are a terrible solution. They will ONLY solve the last-mile
problem, but not the missing American infrastructure. Russia is larger, less
dense and has better public rail infrastructure in terms of both commuter rail
within cities and inter-city rail including high speed expansion. The US only
has the California high speed system currently being constructed. Nothing
else.

I've written about the self-driving car problem before:

[http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-
sol...](http://penguindreams.org/blog/self-driving-cars-will-not-solve-the-
transportation-problem/)

~~~
Namrog84
Our entire system is kinda broken with how roads/parking are relative to size.
So it's not an easy problem to fix overnight. With an our established and
spread out infrastructure. But self driving cars will eventually lead to
smaller pods or smaller vehicles. Potentially fewer lanes or even allowing non
standard road shapes and straightaway and fewer parking lots. I think
autonomous vehicles is a stepping stone to a better infrastructure and
community

~~~
muninn_
I think the actual problem is a political one. Too many industries need
highways to get bigger and to have more Americans buy cars.

~~~
Kadin
The problem is definitely political, but I don't think it's a corporate
conspiracy. Americans just don't like paying taxes, and aren't willing to pay
taxes at the rates that would make Euro-style public transportation (with a
mix of buses, trams, commuter rail, intercity trains, etc.) viable. Even in
the cities that have marginally-decent public transportation systems, they're
chronically underfunded.

You could probably build a hell of a public transportation network if people
were willing to pay what they currently spend on average on automobile-related
expenses (or even a substantial fraction of it) towards a shared network, but
people have been making that argument to the American public for the better
part of a century now and it's not gained a lot of traction.

I'm not sure that self driving vehicles really change the underlying political
calculus that makes Americans unwilling to pay for that sort of public
infrastructure. But they could still be an improvement, in safety and resource
consumption, vs the current status quo.

~~~
muninn_
I agree and I don't think it's a conspiracy any more than I would any other
powerful lobbying group. Autonomous vehicles, in my opinion, have the
potential, if not high probability to make things worse. Instead of increasing
population density in areas like the Great Lakes region, it'll make it easier
to commute and build expensive, no poor people allowed, suburban enclaves
filled with chain restaurants and a replica of an uptown or downtown where
people can pretend they live in a city.

Even when State or local governments have funds available, they opt not to
build out other options. I think the USDOT offered many billions to states
like Ohio to build out rail connections, but they didn't want the funds. To
add to that, the states and local governments know about things like induced
demand, but they just keep building out these giant highways any way. They
could have taken the funds and poured it into public transportation. There
isn't much politics cost to it. Traffic is always bad, and people are going to
be angry before, during and even after construction because it never solves
the traffic problem.

It makes me so sad and drives me crazy that we're doing this to ourselves.

------
godelski
I know it is a pipe-dream, but it'd be nice if all the data these cars
gathered got loaded into a central database. That way they all could improve
faster and it would increase the ability for competition. I feel right now how
we're doing it you'll get a certain brand that is definitely safer than
another, which could easily cause a feedback loop.

~~~
Kadin
If that's implemented by way of some sort of public agency which obtains,
analyzes, and releases sanitized versions of the data collected by self-
driving cars for the benefit of the public... then sure, that sounds like
something we ought to do.

But I would probably not phrase that as asking for a "central database" as
though it's being fed by the cars themselves. That sort of centralization
is... architecturally suspect, for a lot of reasons.

------
faebi
I am not shure. As a european I see the cost of public transport only rising
and at the same time I am giving up lots of flexibility. I see the option to
buy a cheap self driving for arround 10'000$ as very appealing. Public
transport is a tradeoff between cost, flexibility, time losing/saving and
freedom. A self driving car can give lots of flexibility which public
transport never can and will give. It's where I see the future of owning a
self driving car. Also I do not see lots of chances for makers of self driving
cars to differentiate between each other except the interour. About what else
should I care?

------
throwaway13337
Americans may be over the car but our infrastructure doesn't really agree.

~~~
jonknee
Did you read the article? Americans are over _owning_ a car, not mobility in
general (the simple problem of when cars drive themselves you probably don't
need one full time).

------
graycat
Decades ago when I was in Indiana, which liked and still likes cars, I knew
some people from NYC, and they hated cars, any and all cars. Ever since then,
NYC has had a lot hatred for cars. NYC just doesn't like cars. And, no
surprise, now the NYT from NYC doesn't like cars.

I've lived in Tennessee, Indiana, Maryland, and upstate NYS, and all those
places like cars, and those places have liked cars for all the decades NYC
hated cars.

So, the OP is from the NYT in NYC and is about hating cars. So, from the
decades of history, I'm not surprised or impressed.

E.g., I have a car in my garage. I own it 100%. It costs me $500 or so a year
in auto insurance. Since I drive it about 5000 miles a year, there is nearly
no cost for maintenance and the insurance costs me, what, about 10 cents a
mile. The gasoline costs me about 17 cents a mile. So, all things considered,
we're looking at ballpark 30 cents a mile.

And the NYT wants me to replace my car with what? No thanks.

Yes, it's easy for NYC and its NYT to believe that they have the right answers
for everything for everyone on the two coasts and everywhere between. Alas,
mostly NYC and the NYT are in an echo chamber and at odds with nearly everyone
else in the US except for parts of a few of the largest cities and some of the
West Coast.

Long ago I concluded that quite broadly NYC and the NYT are out of step with
nearly all the rest of the US. So, the NYT doesn't like cars -- I didn't
expect anything else and am not influenced at all.

Of course, there is the old screaming that humans are evil, sinners, that
humans are doing terrible transgressions against kittens, puppies, flowers,
the grass, the air, the water, the land, the oceans, the great natural order,
etc. and that these transgressions are leading quickly to terrible
retributions. Then, the claim goes that if we act quickly, we can achieve
redemption. Of course, the redemption will require sacrifice. It's a trilogy
-- transgression, retribution, redemption. And we can add on sacrifice. I'm
not nearly the first person to think of such things! So, we hear from the NYT
that cars show that humans are evil, sinful transgressors .... Gee, not nearly
new.

I'm having a tough time finding what the NYT is good for. Apparently so are
many others since, IIRC, now the NYT is planning to shrink its staff, vacate
several floors of its main building, and lease the space to others. The NYT
used to have some utility: It was printed on paper which was good for starting
fires, wrapping dead fish heads, and in the outhouse out back.

Whatever side one was on in the election, everyone can see that the NYT was
strongly on the side that lost. Since I put new batteries in my loser
detector, it has been making loud noises in response to any mention of the
NYT!

To me, the NYT fills a much needed gap in journalism and would be illuminating
if ignited and still printed on paper. I continue to pay attention to the NYT
occasionally, first, to remind myself of how much I miss good journalism and,
second, to have details to argue that the NYT should just go out of business.

~~~
bogomipz
>"So, the OP is from the NYT in NYC and is about hating cars. So, from the
decades of history, I'm not surprised or impressed."

Except the article is using Los Angeles as an example and the train picture
and two of the women they spoke to in the article were Angelinos. This is is
significant because Los Angeles has traditionally been an epicenter of "car
culture."

Also since you seem to be implying an editorial bias against cars I will add
that NYTimes has a regular automotive section of their paper, where they cover
the industry and do new car reviews and quite decently at that. This article
is from that automotive section.

[http://www.nytimes.com/pages/automobiles/index.html](http://www.nytimes.com/pages/automobiles/index.html)

~~~
graycat
Again, the OP NYT article saying that people will be buying fewer cars is
because the NYT hates cars, cars not just in NYC but also cars in, in this
case, LA. The NYT and much of NYC believe that cars and gasoline are sinful
and evil.

------
internaut
As much as I endorse concepts like Minimalism, Tiny Houses and Ride Sharing
for reasons of practicality/economy, it should be abundantly obvious we're
getting poorer.

It is not even subtle and a good portion of us are pretending it's about
lifestyle choices.

~~~
antisthenes
Wages have been stagnant since the 1980s. The perceptible poorness, or rather
lack of increasing prosperity is anything but subtle.

But the American 50-70s have only been possible due to an anomalous rise in
oil consumption per capita. Energy = wealth.

~~~
internaut
I see that. I don't see a lot of urgency in our societies either. Perhaps you
have seen this:

[https://i.redditmedia.com/LkKBNe1NW51Wh-8nLSTRdQtTha2sV1yY46...](https://i.redditmedia.com/LkKBNe1NW51Wh-8nLSTRdQtTha2sV1yY46vhUWcu_6g.png)

I blame the television and the media, they have sunk the population into a
hypnotic stupor.

