> For trips shorter than four miles, it is likely that travellers would opt for low-capacity autonomous taxis or shuttles rather than taking high-capacity mass transit options like buses or trains.
This is the crux if the problem. Mass transit is very inefficient for short point to point trips in many cities.
Say I want to get from the Southwest portion of a city to the Northeast, 3 miles away. A bus is probably the most viable mass transit option for this in most places. But in order to take the bus, I have to get on one and make at least one transfer. If the bus runs every 10 minutes (which is generous for the city I live), that means I'll have to walk to the bus station (possibly in a different direction) spend up to 20 minutes waiting on buses given the transfer, then walk from the destination station to my end point. All this while trying to figure out what is the actual best route. Or, as the article suggests, I can just take an AV. What is more appealing for someone working in a downtown area?
Personally, as is right now, it's a toss up between bike, walk, or ride share. But ride share is expensive, walking and biking are physical actions, and regardless of what anyone says, biking in any major downtown area of the US can be dangerous. AVs are anticipated to solve the cost problems associated with ride shares, which is good, but as the article puts it, at the cost of 5.5% increase in traffic in downtown (other areas decrease) IF policies such as repurposing street side parking aren't inacted. To me, even at a 5.5% increase in traffic, the benefits of AVs seem to outweigh the cost. The benefits being less people owning cars (freeing personal finance of that burden), fewer parking spaces needed, and the ability to work and commute at the same time (or do whatever you couldn't do while driving) just to name a few things.
This is the crux if the problem. Mass transit is very inefficient for short point to point trips in many cities.
Say I want to get from the Southwest portion of a city to the Northeast, 3 miles away. A bus is probably the most viable mass transit option for this in most places. But in order to take the bus, I have to get on one and make at least one transfer. If the bus runs every 10 minutes (which is generous for the city I live), that means I'll have to walk to the bus station (possibly in a different direction) spend up to 20 minutes waiting on buses given the transfer, then walk from the destination station to my end point. All this while trying to figure out what is the actual best route. Or, as the article suggests, I can just take an AV. What is more appealing for someone working in a downtown area?
Personally, as is right now, it's a toss up between bike, walk, or ride share. But ride share is expensive, walking and biking are physical actions, and regardless of what anyone says, biking in any major downtown area of the US can be dangerous. AVs are anticipated to solve the cost problems associated with ride shares, which is good, but as the article puts it, at the cost of 5.5% increase in traffic in downtown (other areas decrease) IF policies such as repurposing street side parking aren't inacted. To me, even at a 5.5% increase in traffic, the benefits of AVs seem to outweigh the cost. The benefits being less people owning cars (freeing personal finance of that burden), fewer parking spaces needed, and the ability to work and commute at the same time (or do whatever you couldn't do while driving) just to name a few things.