Electric Cars: Can they finally become popular in the United States?

[boarder42]

In my reality people don't own cars like they do today. It will be cheaper to Uber everywhere and have things delivered vs going to a store.  Not everyone is buying an f150. The bolt is about 25k and if bidens tax credit passes it's 12500. And battery tech is getting cheaper.

You live in a dense urban environment the bulk of Americans live inland where cars are necessary for transportation. We are not densely populated in the Midwest like the coasts or Europe.

Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here

[windytrail]

In my reality people don't own cars like they do today. It will be cheaper to Uber everywhere and have things delivered vs going to a store.  Not everyone is buying an f150. The bolt is about 25k and if bidens tax credit passes it's 12500. And battery tech is getting cheaper.

You live in a dense urban environment the bulk of Americans live inland where cars are necessary for transportation. We are not densely populated in the Midwest like the coasts or Europe.

Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here

Requiring taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of an electric vehicles doesn't count. The costs are still there and someone has to pay for it. Also, the price of an Uber ride has gone up by 40% since December (https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-fares-price-driver-shortage-travel-ride-hailing-app-2021-6). Sorry to burst your bubble, but getting everything delivered will cost even more than picking it up from the store.

Don't know what you mean by "inland", but the idea that most Americans live in rural areas is false. 83% of Americans live in urban areas (http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-cities-factsheet). Coastal counties account for 40% of the population and only 10% of the land area, so that's a good place to start, right? (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html).

I'm not a public transit designer, but I will continue to advocate for it. As I have said repeatedly, a good way to design a city is to legalize building all types of housing in urban areas.

[boarder42]

In my reality people don't own cars like they do today. It will be cheaper to Uber everywhere and have things delivered vs going to a store.  Not everyone is buying an f150. The bolt is about 25k and if bidens tax credit passes it's 12500. And battery tech is getting cheaper.

You live in a dense urban environment the bulk of Americans live inland where cars are necessary for transportation. We are not densely populated in the Midwest like the coasts or Europe.

Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here

Requiring taxpayers to subsidize the purchase of an electric vehicles doesn't count. The costs are still there and someone has to pay for it. Also, the price of an Uber ride has gone up by 40% since December (https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-lyft-fares-price-driver-shortage-travel-ride-hailing-app-2021-6). Sorry to burst your bubble, but getting everything delivered will cost even more than picking it up from the store.

Don't know what you mean by "inland", but the idea that most Americans live in rural areas is false. 83% of Americans live in urban areas (http://css.umich.edu/factsheets/us-cities-factsheet). Coastal counties account for 40% of the population and only 10% of the land area, so that's a good place to start, right? (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/population.html).

I'm not a public transit designer, but I will continue to advocate for it. As I have said repeatedly, a good way to design a city is to legalize building all types of housing in urban areas.

uber prices went up b.c there arent drivers to drive self driving cars solves that.  you're assuming everyone who doesnt liver rural lives urban

52 percent of U.S. households describe their neighborhood as suburban, 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent describe their neighborhood as rural.  https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-frm-asst-sec-080320.html#:~:text=According%20to%20data%20HUD%20and,describe%20their%20neighborhood%20as%20rural.

hmm so your concept works for 27% of people

[JLee]

I will happily take advances in battery technology over the seemingly constant oil spills we have now.  Your other cost arguments are...weird. Of course EVs are expensive now - they are new.  Technology is progressing and they are getting cheaper and better with time.

I will take the option that minimizes extraction of both oil and rare earth metals.

EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are, which is over $9,000/year (https://www.aaa.com/autorepair/articles/average-annual-cost-of-new-vehicle-ownership).

Based on what facts?

Based on the fact that a multi-ton hunk of metal and fiberglass requires an absurd amount of energy and complexity to produce, maintain, and move around for the 1-hour per day that most people use their vehicles.

The burden is on you to demonstrate otherwise; "technology" is not a persuasive answer.

You made an absolute statement: "EVs will never be more affordable than new combustion vehicles currently are"

The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim. In this case, that is you.

[neo von retorch]

I think you need a new thread if you want to predict timelines on autonomous cars or "no one" owning a car (especially in the U.S.) ;)

This thread is just about predicting the hockey stick growth of electric powertrains!

(More seriously, I don't care if you derail the thread, but so much of it is trying to predict future technology or revolutionary changes to human behavior. It's hard to pull facts out that support future projections. So just remember it's largely your personal philosophy and opinion being reflected here. And don't be rude and accuse disagreements on people being unable to comprehend your arguments.)

[GodlessCommie]

52 percent of U.S. households describe their neighborhood as suburban, 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent describe their neighborhood as rural.

Not sure why you bundle suburban with rural. Sure, car-free living is nearly impossible in most suburbs now, but a drastic reduction in car ownership is absolutely possible. With a modest investment in transit and bike infrastructure, and some modernization of zoning, it will be only easier. Just one datapoint - we went from two to one cars, thinking that we'd use Lyft when needed, and haven't used it once. Deliveries are working just fine, too.

Granted, a lot of families do need a car per adult in suburbia - but a decent number don't, and only keep them out of inertia and social pressure.

[neo von retorch]

we went from two to one cars, thinking that we'd use Lyft when needed, and haven't used it once. Deliveries are working just fine, too.

2 -> 1 is so much more digestible than 1 -> 0. Let's see how long that takes across the country before we start predicting zero ownership. As one of those privileged office workers who went fully remote during the pandemic, and will remain so, I used my car a lot less this past year, and a one car household is seeming like a possibility. Meanwhile my spouse commutes. In our neighborhood, 20 minutes or more can easily pass with no cars going by. Our experience with hailing ride-shares has been to hurry up and wait a long, long time. If that's going to be fixed by EV + autonomy + not owning cars, there's going to have to be cars just sitting around idle doing nothing for big stretches of time near anyone who might need it. Seems inefficient to me... Everyone owning two cars is also often inefficient - but for those individuals, it saves time. And people often value time over money. (Well people in this forum, at least, right?) Switching to a model where you're waiting instead of getting in and going just seems like a non-starter for many people.

Deliveries are OK here for really non-perishable goods, but even things like granola bars and cereal boxes get absolutely wrecked when we try to have them delivered. But I'm sure when all the delivery drivers are robots, they'll care a lot more about the precious cargo?

[RWD]

Electric cars will increase dangerous, inhumane mining practices. The additional mines needed for raw materials would destroy our federal lands, or lands in other countries.

Or new methods will be developed that don't involve lots of land, danger, or inhumane practices.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbzL09SoHdo

Or we'll find ways to build batteries that rely less (or not at all) on difficult to mine materials.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huYXIXtCsrw

[boarder42]

52 percent of U.S. households describe their neighborhood as suburban, 27 percent describe their neighborhood as urban, and 21 percent describe their neighborhood as rural.

Not sure why you bundle suburban with rural. Sure, car-free living is nearly impossible in most suburbs now, but a drastic reduction in car ownership is absolutely possible. With a modest investment in transit and bike infrastructure, and some modernization of zoning, it will be only easier. Just one datapoint - we went from two to one cars, thinking that we'd use Lyft when needed, and haven't used it once. Deliveries are working just fine, too.

Granted, a lot of families do need a car per adult in suburbia - but a decent number don't, and only keep them out of inertia and social pressure.

We dropped to one car during covid while both working remotely and it was a non issue. Once I completely retire in 6 months we will likely go back to 1 car again. Maybe 1.5 my parents live a few doors down and we may split a 2nd car with them. In my area suburbia is about the same with car needs as rural. Mainly due to poor public transit.

[GuitarStv]

Deliveries are OK here for really non-perishable goods, but even things like granola bars and cereal boxes get absolutely wrecked when we try to have them delivered. But I'm sure when all the delivery drivers are robots, they'll care a lot more about the precious cargo?

I've seen some of the people involved with grocery delivery . . . which makes me certain that robots would care more about their cargo.  :P

[nereo]

I'm all for better mass-transit infrastructure, increased vehicle occupancy, an redesigning our cities and towns to be more conducive for living a pedestrian lifestyle. That's been our life for much of of the last 20 year (though, not without irony, not presently).  But ignoring ways of improving vehicles entirely is - IMO - a very dangerous path to follow, as they are and will continue to be one of the largest sources of pollution for quite some time..

There is nothing dangerous about pointing out the flaws to the idea of electric vehicles as a panacea to our climate problems. We don't need more advocates for electric cars. The car companies in this country already have their powerful lobbyists. Where are the powerful voices for transit, walking, and biking?

There's far more danger in ignoring that our patterns of suburban sprawl development are simply incompatible with remaining below 2 degrees warming. That's why I am here to tell you all the reasons why electric vehicles cannot be a solution.

You seem to be making arguments that outside of this thread, and supposing a great deal about what the participates think with regard to broader issues like how our cities "should" be designed.  I don't believe anyone here even feigns support for the idea that EVs might be a panacea to our climate change and social problems. m

I don't believe anyone here thinks EVs are a solution, but at a minimum an honest accounting of the current technology shows them to be "less bad" than current ICE vehicles, and by a large margin. I'd also disagree strongly disagree that BEV and PHEVs are not readily affordable, and suspect you plopped the F150 Lighting there as an obvious straw man. Realize the F150 is the most popular car in the US, and that the BEV version will cost roughly the same as the current median ICE version.  As we've discussed, BEVs cost LESS to own than ICE vehicles, even if you remove the subsidies.  Sure, not everyone can own a car, but the vast majority of households can. Cost of ownership is no longer a barrier (though other factors are). 

[GodlessCommie]

In our neighborhood, 20 minutes or more can easily pass with no cars going by.

Now that is a much, much bigger lack of efficiency than any car arrangement. And it is only possible because low-density areas lord over urban, and extract heavy tribute from the latter. This power imbalance is a much bigger obstacle to EV adoption, autonomous driving, and every other change discussed here than anything else.

[windytrail]

I'm all for better mass-transit infrastructure, increased vehicle occupancy, an redesigning our cities and towns to be more conducive for living a pedestrian lifestyle. That's been our life for much of of the last 20 year (though, not without irony, not presently).  But ignoring ways of improving vehicles entirely is - IMO - a very dangerous path to follow, as they are and will continue to be one of the largest sources of pollution for quite some time..

There is nothing dangerous about pointing out the flaws to the idea of electric vehicles as a panacea to our climate problems. We don't need more advocates for electric cars. The car companies in this country already have their powerful lobbyists. Where are the powerful voices for transit, walking, and biking?

There's far more danger in ignoring that our patterns of suburban sprawl development are simply incompatible with remaining below 2 degrees warming. That's why I am here to tell you all the reasons why electric vehicles cannot be a solution.

You seem to be making arguments that outside of this thread, and supposing a great deal about what the participates think with regard to broader issues like how our cities "should" be designed.  I don't believe anyone here even feigns support for the idea that EVs might be a panacea to our climate change and social problems. m

I don't believe anyone here thinks EVs are a solution, but at a minimum an honest accounting of the current technology shows them to be "less bad" than current ICE vehicles, and by a large margin. I'd also disagree strongly disagree that BEV and PHEVs are not readily affordable, and suspect you plopped the F150 Lighting there as an obvious straw man. Realize the F150 is the most popular car in the US, and that the BEV version will cost roughly the same as the current median ICE version.  As we've discussed, BEVs cost LESS to own than ICE vehicles, even if you remove the subsidies.  Sure, not everyone can own a car, but the vast majority of households can. Cost of ownership is no longer a barrier (though other factors are).

It's definitely not a strawman to cite the best selling US vehicle for three decades as an example of a typical future EV in America. If EVs cost less to own than combustion vehicles, then why do we need to subsidize them at all? We should be directing all subsidies to alternative transportation options that benefit those who cannot afford vehicles.

[neo von retorch]

If EVs cost less to own than combustion vehicles, then why do we need to subsidize them at all? We should be directing all subsidies to alternative transportation options that benefit those who cannot afford vehicles.

"cost to own" is not the same as "cost to purchase."

And without subsidies, until quite recently, EVs were (and for now, still are) more expensive to buy when compared to the same class of vehicle/trim level/feature parity. A Nissan Versa starts at $15K USD. A Nissan LEAF starts at $31K USD. The Tesla Model 3 is a bit hard to compare because it offers a more spartan interior than the luxury sedans it competes with on price, but some advanced driver aids and promises of future technological advances. And the charging network is priced into it.

The Mach-E is a bit pricier than a Nissan Rogue or Honda CR-V or Toyota Rav4/Rav Prime.

So the Ford F150 and F150 Lightning are interesting for comparisons. They might actually have price parity, though the ICE version will likely have a better range, while the EV might have better torque, and of course some EV-specific features. But this is novel. We needed subsidies at least up until this point. We might not need them once EVs have the critical mass of acceptance and availability necessary. But the subsidies help us to get there.

[GodlessCommie]

If EVs cost less to own than combustion vehicles, then why do we need to subsidize them at all?

Because we are working against huge inertia, and we need to electrify everything that we can't eliminate way faster than we've been doing.

[AlanStache]

Thanks to MS paint I think I made a map of what you all are going on about... 

>> horizontal axis represents density, going from city to suburbia to country
>> vertical axis on the left represents the current 'need' for a personal car or one person to one car 'need'
>> vertical axis on the right represents some future 'need' for a personal car or one person to one car 'need' once self driving on demand car services are really a thing.   

I wont argue numbers or the slopes of the lines but I think this captures the basic idea, self driving on demand cars will make it viable for more areas to have a lower 'need' to have one car per one adult.

[ender]

I really think you may be underestimating how self driving cars increase demand overall.

The assumption you are making is that driving usage stays constant.

Personally, if you could work on a computer, or read a book, or nap, or exercise, etc, whatever you can do in a car when you aren't needed to drive - I'd expect people would drive considerably more unless it was exceptionally cost prohibitive.

[AlanStache]

I really think you may be underestimating how self driving cars increase demand overall.

The assumption you are making is that driving usage stays constant.

Personally, if you could work on a computer, or read a book, or nap, or exercise, etc, whatever you can do in a car when you aren't needed to drive - I'd expect people would drive considerably more unless it was exceptionally cost prohibitive.

I was not trying to show demand for driven miles, I was trying to show need for a personal car in two scenarios as a function of density.

[nereo]

It's definitely not a strawman to cite the best selling US vehicle for three decades as an example of a typical future EV in America. If EVs cost less to own than combustion vehicles, then why do we need to subsidize them at all? We should be directing all subsidies to alternative transportation options that benefit those who cannot afford vehicles.

Nope - not at all the claim you made or that I was responding to. 
Look, I agree with what seems to be your underlying belief that we need to fundamentally redesign the way we live and the frequency with which we use cars to get around.  But whether it's a lack of focus or an intentional strategy to divert the conversation, your inputs are having the exact opposite of their intended effect.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we must either put policy and subsidies behind EVs or improving mass-transit/pedestrian infrastructure, and I firmly believe that we ought to be doing both. Substantially reducing total miles driven and car dependence is a wonderful, important, and ultimately top-tier priority. But it's also one that's a generational shift under the most favorable of assumptions. Widespread EV adaptation is something that can be achieved in substantially shorter timeframe, and for all the reasons already listed it can have an immediate and substantial impact.  Recent economic-climate models even highlight how we can reach our climate transportation goals with a rather aggresive switch alone.  I for one hope we can push both measures at the same time, and the data indicate this will have the greatest impact.

[GodlessCommie]

I was not trying to show demand for driven miles, I was trying to show need for a personal car in two scenarios as a function of density.

Makes sense. And given that suburbia is (slightly) more than half the country, that's a lot of cars off the road.

Unfortunately, miles are a whole different beast, and as @ender pointed out, miles driven may go up. Part of it is the same thing we see now with Uber - it's use increases congestion. Another part is that if we do, in fact, see the promised cost reduction, it may induce demand.

One common prediction is that autonomy will enable people to live farther from work - they can use time in a car productively, so commute lime is not lost. It's more convenient than either a bus or a train, as you start right a home, end right at the office, and a schedule doesn't limit you. This only works if you own an autonomous car. You can let it go and earn some money while you are in the office, though.

[windytrail]

Nope - not at all the claim you made or that I was responding to.
Look, I agree with what seems to be your underlying belief that we need to fundamentally redesign the way we live and the frequency with which we use cars to get around.  But whether it's a lack of focus or an intentional strategy to divert the conversation, your inputs are having the exact opposite of their intended effect.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we must either put policy and subsidies behind EVs or improving mass-transit/pedestrian infrastructure, and I firmly believe that we ought to be doing both. Substantially reducing total miles driven and car dependence is a wonderful, important, and ultimately top-tier priority. But it's also one that's a generational shift under the most favorable of assumptions. Widespread EV adaptation is something that can be achieved in substantially shorter timeframe, and for all the reasons already listed it can have an immediate and substantial impact.  Recent economic-climate models even highlight how we can reach our climate transportation goals with a rather aggresive switch alone.  I for one hope we can push both measures at the same time, and the data indicate this will have the greatest impact.

Which economic-climate models are you talking about? Everything I've read suggests that widespread adoption of EVs alone comes terribly short of solving catastrophic climate change. (https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/112490-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/electric-vehicles-alone-won-t-stop-climate-change; https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/electric-vehicles-emissions/; https://conorbronsdon.com/blog/why-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/climate/electric-vehicles-environment.html; https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2021/04/13/dont-count-on-evs-to-solve-climate-change/). And there can be no reduction in vehicle miles traveled without addressing our patterns of city development. Far from being a "diversion," housing policy and transportation emissions are inextricably linked.

I also disagree that replacing the entire fleet of combustion vehicles with electric vehicles is faster, easier or less expensive than changing land use patterns, zoning laws, and road design to be more environmentally friendly.

[JLee]

Nope - not at all the claim you made or that I was responding to.
Look, I agree with what seems to be your underlying belief that we need to fundamentally redesign the way we live and the frequency with which we use cars to get around.  But whether it's a lack of focus or an intentional strategy to divert the conversation, your inputs are having the exact opposite of their intended effect.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we must either put policy and subsidies behind EVs or improving mass-transit/pedestrian infrastructure, and I firmly believe that we ought to be doing both. Substantially reducing total miles driven and car dependence is a wonderful, important, and ultimately top-tier priority. But it's also one that's a generational shift under the most favorable of assumptions. Widespread EV adaptation is something that can be achieved in substantially shorter timeframe, and for all the reasons already listed it can have an immediate and substantial impact.  Recent economic-climate models even highlight how we can reach our climate transportation goals with a rather aggresive switch alone.  I for one hope we can push both measures at the same time, and the data indicate this will have the greatest impact.

Which economic-climate models are you talking about? Everything I've read suggests that widespread adoption of EVs alone comes terribly short of solving catastrophic climate change. (https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/112490-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/electric-vehicles-alone-won-t-stop-climate-change; https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/electric-vehicles-emissions/; https://conorbronsdon.com/blog/why-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/climate/electric-vehicles-environment.html; https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2021/04/13/dont-count-on-evs-to-solve-climate-change/). And there can be no reduction in vehicle miles traveled without addressing our patterns of city development. Far from being a "diversion," housing policy and transportation emissions are inextricably linked.

I also disagree that replacing the entire fleet of combustion vehicles with electric vehicles is faster, easier or less expensive than changing land use patterns, zoning laws, and road design to be more environmentally friendly.

More to the point, replacing many ICE vehicles with EVs is possible in the immediate future and is an improvement over where we are today.

Changing land use patterns, zoning laws, road design, and building all of the new housing required to achieve your goals?  Not possible in the immediate future.

[boarder42]

Nope - not at all the claim you made or that I was responding to.
Look, I agree with what seems to be your underlying belief that we need to fundamentally redesign the way we live and the frequency with which we use cars to get around.  But whether it's a lack of focus or an intentional strategy to divert the conversation, your inputs are having the exact opposite of their intended effect.

It's a false dichotomy to suggest that we must either put policy and subsidies behind EVs or improving mass-transit/pedestrian infrastructure, and I firmly believe that we ought to be doing both. Substantially reducing total miles driven and car dependence is a wonderful, important, and ultimately top-tier priority. But it's also one that's a generational shift under the most favorable of assumptions. Widespread EV adaptation is something that can be achieved in substantially shorter timeframe, and for all the reasons already listed it can have an immediate and substantial impact.  Recent economic-climate models even highlight how we can reach our climate transportation goals with a rather aggresive switch alone.  I for one hope we can push both measures at the same time, and the data indicate this will have the greatest impact.

Which economic-climate models are you talking about? Everything I've read suggests that widespread adoption of EVs alone comes terribly short of solving catastrophic climate change. (https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/112490-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-how-electric-vehicles-help-to-tackle-climate-change; https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-23/electric-vehicles-alone-won-t-stop-climate-change; https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/electric-vehicles-emissions/; https://conorbronsdon.com/blog/why-electric-cars-wont-solve-climate-change; https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/02/climate/electric-vehicles-environment.html; https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaellynch/2021/04/13/dont-count-on-evs-to-solve-climate-change/). And there can be no reduction in vehicle miles traveled without addressing our patterns of city development. Far from being a "diversion," housing policy and transportation emissions are inextricably linked.

I also disagree that replacing the entire fleet of combustion vehicles with electric vehicles is faster, easier or less expensive than changing land use patterns, zoning laws, and road design to be more environmentally friendly.

More to the point, replacing many ICE vehicles with EVs is possible in the immediate future and is an improvement over where we are today.

Changing land use patterns, zoning laws, road design, and building all of the new housing required to achieve your goals?  Not possible in the immediate future.

What's the carbon cost to completely rebuild society a new way?  Let alone the time and societal change. People in this forum can't even wrap their head around autonomous cars. The world wouldn't just buy into this new shove everyone as close together as possible.

I'm retiring at the end of the year. Our miles driven will be next to 0 compared to our pre covid levels with commutes.

Automobiles account for 25% of CO2 electrifying goes a long way towards helping that. And no my lifestyle is not condusive to living in a concrete jungle I live on a lake.

Instead of hoping for your internal utopia embrace a large step towards mitigating climate change.

[neo von retorch]

Can someone please explain what "People in this forum can't even wrap their head around autonomous cars." implies? I'm too stupid to understand.

[ender]

Can someone please explain what "People in this forum can't even wrap their head around autonomous cars." implies? I'm too stupid to understand.

Numerous posters saying they can't or won't exist ever.

[neo von retorch]

I don't recall seeing that in this thread much if at all. Just recalling recent history where predictions have been pretty bad about the future timeline.

[gooki]

For people who believe we'll have autonomous/on-demand vehicles with no private ownership, how do you anticipate natural disasters/emergencies going?

- Let's assume full autonomy means 80% less cars.
- How far away do you need to travel to escape a natural disaster? It depends on the disaster but let's assume 250 miles/4 hours driving.
- In a 24 hour period that means a single vehicle can do 3 complete rescue trips there and back.
- Average US household is 3.15 people per family. If an autonomous vehicle can take 5 people, that's 1.59 families per trip.

So in a 24 hour time period we can now rescue 95.4% of the population.
We avoid people being stranded in traffic because there's 80% fewer cars on the road.

How to you manage the evacuation. Software. It roughly knows how many people are at each household, so it can group rides.  It knows where the safe evacuation points are. It knows the location most at risk, so prioritises them. It knows how many cars are on the road so can prioritise to avoid gridlock. It knows ahead of time when it's going to pick you up and will notify you to get ready.

Is this better or worse than the current situation?

[gooki]

If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work.  Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog.  Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks.  There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are.  There would not be people clamoring to hire them.  Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks.  The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.

Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion.  I'm not sure how.  Training could be offered.  Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties.  These folks are more difficult to train.  Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.

In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized.  This certainly wasn't always the case.  Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.

Correct, millions truck drivers will be out of jobs. But it won't happen overnight. It'll take time for the fleet to be replaced. For those that are wilfully ignorant of the impeding change it will appear as if it happened overnight. So what do we do, start sending out the warning signs. Give them time and resources too retrain on their terms. Give them time to plan for the future, pursue FIRE, because in 10 years time there's a high chance well only need 10% of the truck drivers, petrol station owners, taxi drivers, we have today.

[gooki]

All extremely speculative at this point. I live in a semi rural place on the fringes of a city of 2 million people. Taxi/Uber service is extremely limited to my home. It's going to take a long time and require lots of planning for either one to get to my house. The only way an autonomous taxi is better is if it's sitting idly nearby but that seems wasteful. And that's if any of them can even find my house. It's 2021 and there's not even a google street view of my house. Even though my street number is pretty clearly marked on my home, it's typical for delivery drivers and various food delivery app workers to mistakenly leave things at my house that are meant to be left several houses down because the GPS or app that they're using isn't perfect. There are no lane markings or street lights on my road, and it's relatively low priority for snow removal. Autonomous taxis can't function properly in this type of situation, and it's a fairly common scenario even in a prosperous country that's essentially been built around the automobile like the US has. A lot has to change for autonomy to become widespread just in the US, let alone on the global level where infrastructure may be even spottier.
They also seem far less convenient to me in this situation than just owning a personal vehicle. If I could send my own private autonomous vehicle with my kid to practice, that might be convenient for me, but it's still the same single passenger issue that doesn't really benefit anything environmentally and likely leads to more miles being driven.

The brilliant thing about autonomy is it only needs to get to your house successfully once, and then every other autonomous vehicles knows how to do it.

With your private car ownership you may even provide the autonomous system the training it needs to get to your house without you ever knowing or doing anything special.

But right now Uber doesn't pay for most of those things. They pay for the app, and they pay their drivers minimally. The human driver currently shoulders the cost of vehicle purchase, maintenance, insurance, charging/fueling, and cleaning in between fares. If Uber or some other app-based taxi company wants to eliminate the drivers they'll need to pay a lot of money to buy, insure, and fuel/charge a massive fleet of vehicles that can be ready at a moment's notice. And they're still going to have to pay a human to plug them in/unplug them for charging, clean them in between each fare, and maintain them whenever that's needed. They may even need to buy real estate so their fleet has guaranteed parking/charging locations near busy hubs so they may meet customer demand at a moment's notice, or so they may be cleaned quickly between fares.

If the rate UBER compensate drivers isn't sufficient to cover the costs then they will quickly have 0 drivers.

How is the inconvenience of carpooling any different if a robot is driving vs a human? If you're still sharing a vehicle with others that you'd rather not share with, or waiting around for the ride to show up that's the inconvenient part.

The inconveniences are, the effort required to make the arrangements, and humans aren't reliable. The person doing picking up is often not on time, the person getting picked up is often not ready.

If there has to be a car available at a moment's notice for pretty much every person out there, then we're really not changing much are we? The vehicle fleet stays the same size. There's little incentive for ride sharing or mass transit. We'd rent a vehicle when needed vs just walking out to our own personal vehicle with no wait time or planning.

Not everyone has to go places at the same time, combined with ride sharing for those that are happy to pay less makes for a lower total fleet size. I'd expect a reduction of 3:1 or 5:1.

Speculating on future pricing for tech that doesn't currently exist seems like a fool's errand to me.

That works both ways. Your assumption that prices will remain static would then to be a fool's errand.

It seems like you're claiming that autonomous taxis will be both more convenient for people and more environmentally friendly than the current ownership model but those two objectives seem diametrically opposed to me. You either prioritize the environment and force your customers to deal with some inconveniences by limiting trips or grouping passengers, or you prioritize the convenience to your customers and have excess vehicles on standby to service anybody's immediate needs anytime and anywhere with private pods that carry individual families or people.

Yes, I agree that's were we differ. Yes I believe they will be more convenient, lower cost and more environmentally friendly. And that combination will drive explosive growth in electric autonomous vehicles which is how electric cars will finally become popular in the United States.

[pecunia]

If all cars were self driving, there would be beau coup truck drivers out of work.  Yeh - I can see there being some political pressure to not jump into this thing whole hog.  Then there are all those truck stops that sell diesel, the bad food and the useless knickknacks.  There would be an enormous ripple effect. Lots of these guys are not educated in computer science as you folks are.  There would not be people clamoring to hire them.  Some of them own their own businesses, their trucks.  The displacement by this new technology would be doubly damaging.

Uh - Maybe this time the transition should be made in a humane fashion.  I'm not sure how.  Training could be offered.  Like many people who have lost their vocations since the age of Reagan, some of these folks are in their fifties.  These folks are more difficult to train.  Even if they are trained, companies aren't going to hire them due to perceived inflexibility.

In past generations, the upper class referred to themselves as civilized.  This certainly wasn't always the case.  Maybe this time around we truly can be civilized and help some to adapt to the new times.

Correct, millions truck drivers will be out of jobs. But it won't happen overnight. It'll take time for the fleet to be replaced. For those that are wilfully ignorant of the impeding change it will appear as if it happened overnight. So what do we do, start sending out the warning signs. Give them time and resources too retrain on their terms. Give them time to plan for the future, pursue FIRE, because in 10 years time there's a high chance well only need 10% of the truck drivers, petrol station owners, taxi drivers, we have today.

That does sound better than the plant closings that have happened over the past 40 years or so.  One advantage is that truck drivers are not concentrated in one area so the affect will be dispersed.  It will not be like closing an automobile plant, paper mill or a mine.  Entire towns can become ghost towns on those events.  However, the flip side of this is that it will be far to easy to ignore the plight of these dispersed people.  Your ideas about investing in people seem like good ones.

[Chaplin]

Fascinating thread - thanks to the OP for starting it in an open-ended way that led to an interesting discussion, including some interesting tangents like autonomy.

My take on the original question (can EVs finally become popular in the US) is that "finally" implies that it's both overdue and something that's binary - popular or not. The best description I've seen of how technical revolutions take place is Adoption Curves:



EVs will probably follow an adoption curve of some sort, rather than switching from not-popular to popular at a distinct moment. That's another way of saying that they will become popular (or normal, or dominant) gradually and at different times for different people it will suddenly seem like they're everywhere, just as we saw with each major technological change.

This thread also reminds me of William Gibson's most famous quote:

The future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed.

Some places have high EV adoption, like Norway. In North America, British Columbia has the highest uptake of EVs. Not that it's relevant, but William Gibson happens to be a BC resident, I think.

I live in BC and have driven my EV 51,000km and have followed EVs out of interest for many years. That doesn't make me an expert but perhaps it gives me some experience and perspective. BC is a pretty ideal place for EVs. Someone seeking to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and reduce their overall energy consumption has many options, but two big ones are EVs and/or solar power. It would be nice to do both, but in BC we have low electricity prices (and our electricity is hydroelectric - and yes, there are issues with that too) and relatively low solar potential, especially in the winter, so EVs are the better of the two options. In other places, perhaps in the US south, there's great solar potential, higher electricity cost and higher carbon electricity, so solar power makes more sense.

I have a few observations of this thread that I think are worth pointing out:

1. "Absolutism" and "whataboutism" do not reflect well on their purveyors. Climate change and other major challenges are complex problems that won't have simple solutions - they will require many, many contributing improvements and steps forward. Absolutist positions like "EVs won't fix this particular issue so they should be entirely rejected" neglects that they can be a step in right direction. And "whataboutism" in the form of "this edge case that applies to me and 10% of the population means that the entire thing is stupid" while ignoring that it might move 90% of the population in a better direction is evidence of overly parochial thinking. These are big problems that require thinking on a society-wide level.

2. There are many legitimate concerns to be raised with the electrification of transport. Unfortunately, that opens the door to legitimate-sounding concerns distracting from truly legitimate concerns and questions of relative harm. These legitimate-sounding concerns are exploited for all they are worth by the industries and people that have vested interests in avoiding a shift away from fossil fuels. Seeing some of the arguments used by these Merchants of Doubt repeated here speaks to the effectiveness of their campaigns.

Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here

Hey @boarder42, I saw on another thread that you were going to save your energy for important fights - I'm glad to see you taking this one on. Your point illustrates something very important. Retrofitting a transit system onto a city that wasn't designed for transit is either impossible or next-to-impossible. While we should want to design cities from the ground-up to include better transportation options, we need to work with what we've got, while also looking at what we want the future to look like. Some cities, given how they are right now, can be made a bit better by adding autonomous taxis, others might be made better by change X, others by change Y, but ultimately we need to see that cities and transportation systems aren't separate things - they are integrated systems and decisions about the city shape the transit, and decisions about the transit shape the city. I can't recommend the YouTube channel "Not Just Bikes" enough. It really explains this in a wonderful way. This one is a good starting point (even though the narrator says to watch some others first), but I recommend binging the entire channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

[nereo]

Thank you for that thought out post @Chaplin.
I love the graph of adoption curves, both because I love graphs, and because we were discussing that (briefly) earlier in the thread, but without much data to back it up (never the best strategy). 
Looking forward to exploring the YouTube channel “Not Just BIkes” and reading up a bit more on Willam Gibson.

[Paper Chaser]

The brilliant thing about autonomy is it only needs to get to your house successfully once, and then every other autonomous vehicles knows how to do it.

With your private car ownership you may even provide the autonomous system the training it needs to get to your house without you ever knowing or doing anything special.

Valid point. But it doesn't address the lack of infrastructure that autonomous vehicles need to operate. Lines aren't painted on the roads here because it doesn't really make financial sense to do that. Snow plows come here after they've cleared more densely populated spots for the same reason. Implementing and then maintaining the infrastructure necessary for wide spread autonomous vehicles is going to require massive change to public funding, and likely higher taxes. Even if those changes sped through legislation, it would still take lots of time to actually implement them on a broad scale.

But right now Uber doesn't pay for most of those things. They pay for the app, and they pay their drivers minimally. The human driver currently shoulders the cost of vehicle purchase, maintenance, insurance, charging/fueling, and cleaning in between fares. If Uber or some other app-based taxi company wants to eliminate the drivers they'll need to pay a lot of money to buy, insure, and fuel/charge a massive fleet of vehicles that can be ready at a moment's notice. And they're still going to have to pay a human to plug them in/unplug them for charging, clean them in between each fare, and maintain them whenever that's needed. They may even need to buy real estate so their fleet has guaranteed parking/charging locations near busy hubs so they may meet customer demand at a moment's notice, or so they may be cleaned quickly between fares.

If the rate UBER compensate drivers isn't sufficient to cover the costs then they will quickly have 0 drivers.

Can you explain what you mean here, and how it impacts something like a robo-taxi company's need for massive amounts of capital that they don't currently need?

How is the inconvenience of carpooling any different if a robot is driving vs a human? If you're still sharing a vehicle with others that you'd rather not share with, or waiting around for the ride to show up that's the inconvenient part.

The inconveniences are, the effort required to make the arrangements, and humans aren't reliable. The person doing picking up is often not on time, the person getting picked up is often not ready.

So what do you think is a reasonable amount of time for your robo-carpool vehicle wait for a rider before leaving? If it waits 2 minutes for the human that's not ready at each stop then it's delaying the final rider by 8-10 minutes? A human driving a carpool vehcile can keep a strict schedule just like a robo driver would right? And if the autonomous vehicle is flummoxed by lacking infrastructure, or weather conditions that can add delays too, just like with human drivers. And what would the rider left behind do if they missed their carpool? They'd probably just summon another ride right? And that ride would likely be an empty vehicle rushed over, or a nearby carpool that drives out of it's way and adds miles, while also inconveniencing the riders of that carpool. All of that increases the miles driven, offsetting at least a portion of the efficiency gain of the carpool in the first place.

If there has to be a car available at a moment's notice for pretty much every person out there, then we're really not changing much are we? The vehicle fleet stays the same size. There's little incentive for ride sharing or mass transit. We'd rent a vehicle when needed vs just walking out to our own personal vehicle with no wait time or planning.

Not everyone has to go places at the same time, combined with ride sharing for those that are happy to pay less makes for a lower total fleet size. I'd expect a reduction of 3:1 or 5:1.

But you have to be prepared for the highest demand. Or you keep the current private vehicle ownership model and just make them autonomous. Both of them are wasteful in some way.

Speculating on future pricing for tech that doesn't currently exist seems like a fool's errand to me.

That works both ways. Your assumption that prices will remain static would then to be a fool's errand.

Predicting future events based on past events is kind of how this whole investment thing works isn't it? Things like the 4% rule and investing in index funds are the key to mustachianism actually working and both make predictions based on historical data. I don't see a logical way that a robotaxi could be cheaper than a current taxi or ride hailing service based on what we've seen historically and what we know about their current costs and likely future costs. I'd be interested to hear your explanation for how you think something like Uber will be able to pay for operating all of these vehicles (that they don't currently pay for) and charge less at the same time. They'll still need humans to do tasks on the vehicles (charging/cleaning/maintaining), they'll need places to do those tasks (that they don't currently pay for), and they'll need time to complete them too (an autonomous EV taxi would need to charge for X hours per day, and will likely require some short downtime in between rides where they wouldn't be available too). All of that means less efficiency, more total vehicles needed, and/or more miles driven.

It seems like you're claiming that autonomous taxis will be both more convenient for people and more environmentally friendly than the current ownership model but those two objectives seem diametrically opposed to me. You either prioritize the environment and force your customers to deal with some inconveniences by limiting trips or grouping passengers, or you prioritize the convenience to your customers and have excess vehicles on standby to service anybody's immediate needs anytime and anywhere with private pods that carry individual families or people.

Yes, I agree that's were we differ. Yes I believe they will be more convenient, lower cost and more environmentally friendly. And that combination will drive explosive growth in electric autonomous vehicles which is how electric cars will finally become popular in the United States.

EVs are coming a lot sooner than autonomous vehicles. The new EV F150 seems to have reached price parity with similar ICE models, and that's before considering a lower total cost of ownership with the EV version. It could be an inflection point, and there are some truly compelling new electric vehicles set to be available in the next 24 months from more and more manufacturers. I think the next 5 years will see some pretty impressive gains in popularity for EVs (assuming manufacturing isn't constrained in some way)

But that doesn't mean that autonomy is even close to the same maturity level, or going to automatically be adopted at the same rate. Waymo is very likely the most advanced autonomous driving company right now, as the only ones operating at Level 4 on public roads. And they're locked in to a relatively small area of a single city with ideal conditions. They build a highly accurate 3d model of the city so the vehicles know where everything is before hand and can then simply navigate the environment and focus the onboard sensors on anything that might come up (which is an awful lot of things to be fair). It's going to take some time to model basically everywhere with a road down to fractions of an inch. And then those models have to be constantly updated as infrastructure changes too. GM's Cruise division is taking a similar approach, but will their vehicles be able to use Waymo's maps and models? Vice versa? Or will each company have to fully model their entire service area? And that's just the prep work to put the vehicle in a given environment. It's going to take some time for the onboard tech to be able to handle adverse weather conditions like snow/ice, or things like poor lane markings. And all of this assumes that there aren't legislative delays, and that public perception of things like carpooling and vehicle ownership suddenly change in ways that they haven't at any time in the past. I guess I'm expecting evolution of the current model more than revolution to a completely new model. Not saying that another way better in some ways, but the current model is going to be really hard to stray from for a number of reasons.

[GodlessCommie]

For an additional datapoint, 23.5% of new cars sold in Germany last month were either fully electric, or plug-in hybrids: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/07/05/germany-at-23-6-plugin-ev-share-in-june-tesla-model-3-bestselling-ev/

I think people who compare EV adoption with cellphone/internet/LCD TV adoption are mistaken. Landline->cell is a quantum leap. No internet->internet is a quantum leap. Fat tube TV -> flat screen TV is a big and clear improvement.

ICE->EV, from a regular consumer perspective, is no improvement or marginal improvement at best. It comes with a significant drawback - charging infrastructure isn't as ubiquitous as gas station. People don't think in terms of total cost of ownership, they think in terms of monthly payments. For the most part, people aren't willing to sacrifice even minor convenience for environmental benefits. They choose car for a variety of downright stupid reasons that are on full display in car commercials. Market forces alone will not make EV adoption anywhere near as fast as we wish. Countries that succeeded in EV adoption succeeded through government policy.

Autonomous cars, on the other hand, are a quantum leap. If the promise of autonomous driving is fully realized - even if only in regions without snow - they can act as a gateway drug to wider EV adoption through consumer demand.   

[pecunia]

A lot of stuff for cars is sold on a secondary market.  Those of you who may have received J. C. Whitney catalogs in years past will know what I mean.  They used to sell car stereos and retrofit kits where you could add cruise control to cars that never came with it.  Air conditioning retrofit was another retrofit product.  I wonder if it will be possible to retrofit older cars to have autonomous driving.  Perhaps, the regulations will be too intense.

I believe electric cars will have massive sales prior to their release of commercially available autonomous driven cars.  Electric cars appear to have a very long life.  Will they be candidates for a retrofit?  How about the 1948 Willys Jeep noted a few posts back?

This is certainly putting the cart before the horse, but so what,......

Our society is focused on the idea of throwing stuff away and replacing it rather than retrofitting or repair.  This is not so kind to the world's resources.

[neo von retorch]

There are kits like that - obviously not working autonomous driving, but attempts to retrofit driving aids by adding cameras and connecting a computer module to the car's existing or retrofitted electronic controls. It's kind of important to remember the distinction between powertrain and control mechanisms.

An electric motor and battery replaces an internal combustion engine, gas tank, and the engine accessories specific to the heat generation, like the radiator, alternator, water pump, ignition coils, spark plugs, etc. Regenerative brakes aren't 100% coupled with EVs, but they tend to only make sense when you have a huge battery instead of a basic car starter battery. For the average consumer, the car "works" the same way, except they either need to change some habits around plugging in at home or find charging stations, instead of gas stations. When buying something new and different some people are all about change and the improvements it can bring, while some people are more influenced by their doubts and fears. EV adoption will likely follow the aforementioned curves because you've reached enough early adopters over a long enough time to start easing the fears of the mainstream. If several neighbors have continued to rave about the lifestyle improvements at every BBQ for years, your doubts and fears begin to ease.

Of course, there still has to be an EV you like at a price you like next time you go car shopping. I've said this in this very thread already, but car buyers love choice. Maybe this will change - smartphones seemed to have a lot of choices, but the current reality now is that most people either buy a Samsung, Apple or Huawei. But technology advancements often pair with accelerating costs, forcing consolidation. This is one of those things people see in Tesla when thinking about them like the next Apple/Google/Microsoft instead of the next Honda/Subaru/Kia. But for the most part, choice doesn't need to go away for EVs to succeed. Battery production might have a few big players, and electric motors might have a few big players, but the cars themselves can still be designed, assembled and sold by a variety of brands. Of course they lose some drivetrain differentiation if this happens, but for the largest portion of car buyers, that's mostly behind us already. We also know that this shift to EVs has highlighted the charging network as a potential differentiator, but my personal opinion is that this is generally terrible. This is coupling car choice with power sources. Would anyone want to buy their car from Exxon-Mobile or Lukoil? I'd really rather not. Let me buy my car and go anywhere for power. Charging networks should not be a part of the EV sales industry. The United States really isn't learning it's lesson here in recent years. Everything is being consolidated. People buy their phone, watch, laptop and keychain from the same company. And they love it. I think it's a disaster.

Anyway, the point being that driver aids capable of increasingly advanced and autonomous control of the vehicle, in the car world, are a bit like going from manual cars to automatic. There were hold outs that preferred to shift, but in today's world, that's a tiny niche. Over a long enough timeline, we're likely to see the same with cars, but edge cases have a very, very long tail.

[windytrail]

Fascinating thread - thanks to the OP for starting it in an open-ended way that led to an interesting discussion, including some interesting tangents like autonomy.

My take on the original question (can EVs finally become popular in the US) is that "finally" implies that it's both overdue and something that's binary - popular or not. The best description I've seen of how technical revolutions take place is Adoption Curves:



EVs will probably follow an adoption curve of some sort, rather than switching from not-popular to popular at a distinct moment. That's another way of saying that they will become popular (or normal, or dominant) gradually and at different times for different people it will suddenly seem like they're everywhere, just as we saw with each major technological change.

This thread also reminds me of William Gibson's most famous quote:

The future is already here - it's just not evenly distributed.

Some places have high EV adoption, like Norway. In North America, British Columbia has the highest uptake of EVs. Not that it's relevant, but William Gibson happens to be a BC resident, I think.

I live in BC and have driven my EV 51,000km and have followed EVs out of interest for many years. That doesn't make me an expert but perhaps it gives me some experience and perspective. BC is a pretty ideal place for EVs. Someone seeking to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels and reduce their overall energy consumption has many options, but two big ones are EVs and/or solar power. It would be nice to do both, but in BC we have low electricity prices (and our electricity is hydroelectric - and yes, there are issues with that too) and relatively low solar potential, especially in the winter, so EVs are the better of the two options. In other places, perhaps in the US south, there's great solar potential, higher electricity cost and higher carbon electricity, so solar power makes more sense.

I have a few observations of this thread that I think are worth pointing out:

1. "Absolutism" and "whataboutism" do not reflect well on their purveyors. Climate change and other major challenges are complex problems that won't have simple solutions - they will require many, many contributing improvements and steps forward. Absolutist positions like "EVs won't fix this particular issue so they should be entirely rejected" neglects that they can be a step in right direction. And "whataboutism" in the form of "this edge case that applies to me and 10% of the population means that the entire thing is stupid" while ignoring that it might move 90% of the population in a better direction is evidence of overly parochial thinking. These are big problems that require thinking on a society-wide level.

2. There are many legitimate concerns to be raised with the electrification of transport. Unfortunately, that opens the door to legitimate-sounding concerns distracting from truly legitimate concerns and questions of relative harm. These legitimate-sounding concerns are exploited for all they are worth by the industries and people that have vested interests in avoiding a shift away from fossil fuels. Seeing some of the arguments used by these Merchants of Doubt repeated here speaks to the effectiveness of their campaigns.

Please design a public transit system that is more economical for a typical Midwestern city that doesn't rely on any automous or electric powered vehicles. I'll wait over here

Hey @boarder42, I saw on another thread that you were going to save your energy for important fights - I'm glad to see you taking this one on. Your point illustrates something very important. Retrofitting a transit system onto a city that wasn't designed for transit is either impossible or next-to-impossible. While we should want to design cities from the ground-up to include better transportation options, we need to work with what we've got, while also looking at what we want the future to look like. Some cities, given how they are right now, can be made a bit better by adding autonomous taxis, others might be made better by change X, others by change Y, but ultimately we need to see that cities and transportation systems aren't separate things - they are integrated systems and decisions about the city shape the transit, and decisions about the transit shape the city. I can't recommend the YouTube channel "Not Just Bikes" enough. It really explains this in a wonderful way. This one is a good starting point (even though the narrator says to watch some others first), but I recommend binging the entire channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IsMeKl-Sv0

No one is saying to entirely reject electric cars.  At any rate, from an individual perspective "rejecting" something does not change it. The question is whether to continue subsiding the automobile way of life at the federal, state, or local governmental level, or to stop subsidizing it and start increasing subsidies for more sustainable ways of life. No, this does not mean demolishing the suburbs, but it does mean legalizing housing in urban areas and building up transit in places where it makes sense.

Again, you, like another poster here, seem to pull this 90%/10% figure out of thin air. Where does that come from, that only 10% of the population can be served by alternative transportation options?

Cities, even here in the US, were not originally designed for the car. That changed following WWII. You should know this from Not Just Bikes episodes. The only cities that were not designed for transit are the ones that did not exist pre-WWII (hint: all of the major US metros are older than that).

This was a massive federal push and still exists to this day, including billions in subsidies for mortgages and road building. At the local level, zoning laws prevent housing from being built in urban areas. And of course we bailed out the auto industry following the Great Recession. This is not the free market, folks. Decisions at the governmental level matter, a lot. We can change it if we want to.

You accuse me of "whataboutism" and "absolutism" but your problem seems to be a lack of imagination that anything other than the personal automobile can be a serious form of transportation in the US.

[neo von retorch]

No one is saying to entirely reject electric cars.  At any rate, from an individual perspective "rejecting" something does not change it. The question is whether to continue subsiding the automobile way of life at the federal, state, or local governmental level, or to stop subsidizing it and start increasing subsidies for more sustainable ways of life.

My question is - why bring this question to a thread specifically about mass adoption of electric vehicles? You have a political agenda, and that's fine - we are entitled to such things - but unless you are against the conversion of vehicle powertrains from combustion engines to electric, why are you trying to sidetrack the discussion in a thread devoted to guessing how quickly the United States is going to migrate on this path? If you take away subsidies specific to this migration, you are fighting against the migration. If you want subsidies for your separate political agenda, is this the place you want to take those subsidies from? That seems unwise.

[windytrail]

That's fine, you can keep your thread on track. But the hype surrounding electric vehicles is not simply because of their awesome technology; it's also the perception that their adoption will solve many of our societal problems, which I've shown is still contested. But it's your thread, so feel free to keep it on track about when electric vehicles will become dominant.

[Chaplin]

You accuse me of "whataboutism" and "absolutism" but your problem seems to be a lack of imagination that anything other than the personal automobile can be a serious form of transportation in the US.

I didn't accuse anyone specifically. It's something I see in lots of discussions about these topics, not just here. As neo says, this thread is about EVs becoming popular in the US, not whether it's a good thing or whether there are alternatives, or about autonomy, so I think that where some of the tension is coming from.

I think that you and I agree on way more than we disagree on, it's just that we've approached this thread differently. I firmly believe that increasing the mode share of bikes, transit, and walking is far superior to just making better cars. Because that takes commitment and time, and is so dependent on the influence of government, I'd also like to see cars improve at the same time. I would also prefer to see commercial vehicles (local delivery vehicles, taxis and other fleet vehicles, etc.) be electrified first rather than personal vehicles since they do way more distance, but that will happen anyway because commercial fleet operators will soon see numbers they can't resist. And that's also something I think is important - the numbers will have to make sense since only a small percentage of the population will do things for altruistic reasons at a cost to themselves.

Despite having an EV I walk or bike everywhere I can. I think it's the right thing to do, but it's also generally much more pleasant so it's an easy decision. It also makes it apparent how much city design matters (yes, Not Just Bikes was very enlightening on how city design changed after WWII). In North America, Victoria is about as good as it gets for both, but the transit is only moderately good. Previously I lived in Vancouver and I loved the transit there, but found it wasn't as bikeable except within certain pockets - crossing town was a pain. I've lived in a bunch of other cities and travelled extensively in North America and haven't found anywhere else that comes close, and it's way more about urban design than climate or any other factors.

[RWD]

But the hype surrounding electric vehicles is not simply because of their awesome technology; it's also the perception that their adoption will solve many of our societal problems, which I've shown is still contested.

I really don't think this is a common perception of electric vehicles at all. Basically all the hype I've heard is about their environmental benefit (no societal change required) and better experience (more responsive acceleration, charge at home, quieter, etc.).

[neo von retorch]

I don't want to get in the way of progress or good discussion. I agree with Chaplin here. For the sake of environmentalism, there's a broad set of improvements that can be made, with varying costs, impact, timelines and overall feasibility. It's interesting and worth pursuing. Of course, I think a good proportion of political ideating is being populated into a void on a forum like this. The real world changes are, in my opinion, probably not moved forward appreciably in this kind of discussion.

That's not to say that there's much value in my own prognostication on United States car buyer habits. It's largely entertainment. So I guess, if the thread stops being entertaining but rather gets aggravating, I get annoyed :)

[gooki]

Valid point. But it doesn't address the lack of infrastructure that autonomous vehicles need to operate. Lines aren't painted on the roads here because it doesn't really make financial sense to do that.

Why do you believe autonomous cars need painted lines to operate?

Can you explain what you mean here, and how it impacts something like a robo-taxi company's need for massive amounts of capital that they don't currently need?

If the rate UBER pays today is so low that the UBER drivers expenses are not covered, there would be no UBER drivers.

So what do you think is a reasonable amount of time for your robo-carpool vehicle wait for a rider before leaving?

1-2 minutes seems reasonable.

And what would the rider left behind do if they missed their carpool? They'd probably just summon another ride right? And that ride would likely be an empty vehicle rushed over, or a nearby carpool that drives out of it's way and adds miles, while also inconveniencing the riders of that carpool. All of that increases the miles driven, offsetting at least a portion of the efficiency gain of the carpool in the first place.

Yes, the next ride may be empty or shared. They'll also be penalised for missing the first ride so this behaviour doesn't continue (requesting rides when user aren't ready), so efficiency of the system remains high.

But you have to be prepared for the highest demand. Or you keep the current private vehicle ownership model and just make them autonomous. Both of them are wasteful in some way.

The highest demand today is when we experience peak single occupant vehicle use. Ride sharing and higher utilisation is how autonomy will reduce vehicle fleet size.

Predicting future events based on past events is kind of how this whole investment thing works isn't it? Things like the 4% rule and investing in index funds are the key to mustachianism actually working and both make predictions based on historical data.

Correct. So in the past we had horses and the cost of transport by horse was $1.70 per mile, then we had cars and the cost of transport by car was $0.70 per mile, human operated taxis at $3 per mile, and in the long term we'll see autonomous electric vehicle transport costs of $0.25 per mile.

EVs are coming a lot sooner than autonomous vehicles.

Yes, EVs are here today at scale.

I guess I'm expecting evolution of the current model more than revolution to a completely new model. Not saying that another way better in some ways, but the current model is going to be really hard to stray from for a number of reasons.

And normally I'd say you're right. What different this time is the convenience factor is so high for those that are typically the most resistant. The freedom autonomous electric vehicles gives the elderly will speed up its transition. It's also what will get the majority of the elderly into electric vehicles faster.

[Abe]

I for one would love an autonomous vehicle, but due to the nature of my job would need a private one for (literal) emergency use. That being said, the number of people in my specific situation is low, but I anticipate there will be many who have (figurative) emergencies and won’t be willing to go fully ride-share autonomous. Also car seat installation sucks, so that leaves out parents of young kids. The elderly will probably be the first to take up this option, and maybe also teens.

Regarding electric cars popularity: my new VW is awesome. It is very popular amongst my friends.

[Paper Chaser]

Why do you believe autonomous cars need painted lines to operate?

Because they all currently do? Autonomous tech is really just integrating existing driving aids to work really well together. Things like adaptive cruise control, emergency braking, blind spot monitoring, and lane keeping assist are the metaphorical eyes and ears of an autonomous vehicle. They use cameras for most of these things and radar/lidar for some others. Tesla's system is entirely camera based. If the lanes aren't clearly marked, the vehicle can't safely stay in the lane. At least with current tech that's foundational to all of the autonomous vehicles being developed. Here is some more info:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-autonomous-infrastructure-insig/wheres-the-lane-self-driving-cars-confused-by-shabby-u-s-roadways-idUSKCN0WX131

https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2018/wp29grva/s1p5._Eva_Ambrosius.pdf

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/research/RFP/Lit/LS562.pdf

Can you explain what you mean here, and how it impacts something like a robo-taxi company's need for massive amounts of capital that they don't currently need?

If the rate UBER pays today is so low that the UBER drivers expenses are not covered, there would be no UBER drivers.

Uber counts on their drivers not really doing the math, while simultaneously relying on tons of speculative VC cash to keep them afloat. They highlight the cash flow to their drivers and completely ignore the more discrete costs of driving and operating a vehicle (insurance, maintenance, depreciation, storage, etc). The entire equation changes when they suddenly have to foot the bill for an entire fleet of vehicles and associated costs while being profitable at the same time.

So what do you think is a reasonable amount of time for your robo-carpool vehicle wait for a rider before leaving?

1-2 minutes seems reasonable.

I agree. That also means some minor delays for any other riders in the carpool. Are people in a human driven carpool more likely to wait longer than this on a frequent basis?

And what would the rider left behind do if they missed their carpool? They'd probably just summon another ride right? And that ride would likely be an empty vehicle rushed over, or a nearby carpool that drives out of it's way and adds miles, while also inconveniencing the riders of that carpool. All of that increases the miles driven, offsetting at least a portion of the efficiency gain of the carpool in the first place.

Yes, the next ride may be empty or shared. They'll also be penalised for missing the first ride so this behaviour doesn't continue (requesting rides when user aren't ready), so efficiency of the system remains high.

Or, instead of having to deal with the time wasting of waiting for another ride, and the financial penalty, people will just want to keep owning their personal vehicles so they may go anywhere they want, anytime they want, without penalty or inconvenience. Probably in less total time than the carpool too. They can listen to what they want, and not have to hear somebody else vent about their day or smell somebody's gross breakfast or whatever. A huge reason that carpooling and mass transit aren't currently more popular in many places is the human interaction that comes with sharing a small space with other people. The increased travel time, and potential for time spent waiting on others to get into or out of the car/van/bus/train is a relatively minor part but it also makes the whole experience less appealing to many. Autonomy isn't likely to really change any of that as far as I can tell.

But you have to be prepared for the highest demand. Or you keep the current private vehicle ownership model and just make them autonomous. Both of them are wasteful in some way.

The highest demand today is when we experience peak single occupant vehicle use. Ride sharing and higher utilisation is how autonomy will reduce vehicle fleet size.

See previous point about reasons why carpooling hasn't already become more popular. An autonomous driver doesn't solve the human issues that put so many people off in the first place.

Predicting future events based on past events is kind of how this whole investment thing works isn't it? Things like the 4% rule and investing in index funds are the key to mustachianism actually working and both make predictions based on historical data.

Correct. So in the past we had horses and the cost of transport by horse was $1.70 per mile, then we had cars and the cost of transport by car was $0.70 per mile, human operated taxis at $3 per mile, and in the long term we'll see autonomous electric vehicle transport costs of $0.25 per mile.

We'll just have to disagree here and move on. I can see increased safety as a possible selling point of autonomous vehicles, and they're certainly targeting that as a goal. But outside of that I'm not sure we're likely to see widespread change or improvement in environmental aspects or costs to travel.

I guess I'm expecting evolution of the current model more than revolution to a completely new model. Not saying that another way better in some ways, but the current model is going to be really hard to stray from for a number of reasons.

And normally I'd say you're right. What different this time is the convenience factor is so high for those that are typically the most resistant. The freedom autonomous electric vehicles gives the elderly will speed up its transition. It's also what will get the majority of the elderly into electric vehicles faster.

So you're relying on the demographic that's least comfortable with technology to be the early adopters? That seems suspect to me. The elderly can call human cabs or ride mass transit (where it exists) right now can't they? Isn't that essentially the same amount of freedom with the same amount of work? If they can't do those things now, would they be willing/able to hail autonomous taxis?

[Chris22]

Seeing a lot of “we’ll kick people off, we’ll penalize people, we’ll force them into xxx behavior…”

Aside from just sounding adversarial and unpleasant, you’re rapidly going to build up a group of people who are either ineligible to use it because they made a mess, or are financially disincentivized from doing so because of penalties etc.

I think people here vastly over estimate the willingness of people to sacrifice their freedom of movement, to go anywhere any time with few/no restrictions and not have to share space with anyone else. I also think a system that mostly preserves the flexibility we are used to will have near zero cost savings (or is possibly more expensive) and a system that is much less flexible will not save a significant amount of money.


But as others have pointed out, this is all tangential to the relevant conversation about EVs and autonomous cars is a side bar.

[pecunia]

Painted roads for autonomous vehicles.  Hmmmmmm

Are the roads built for vehicles or are the vehicles built for the roads?

Seems like all you'd need is a wire in the road for tracking.  It wouldn't wear out like paint.  The autonomous vehicle would just need some sort of sensor, yeh like a humbucking guitar pickup.  Then you would be good for Winter.

You folks probably don't like this ides, but that's OK.  You didn't like my idea of current in the road charging the car batteries either.

[AlanStache]

It seems some here are thinking it would have to be 100% car pool 100% of the time, why?  Would a privet car not be an option for an increased fee?  Again this is not about absolutes but percent's.

Seeing a lot of “we’ll kick people off, we’ll penalize people, we’ll force them into xxx behavior…”

Is it so crazy to charge a cleaning fee to someone who makes a mess or set up some three strikes or time out system for those to behave poorly.  Facebook/youtube have these systems, they seem to be doing fine. 

I do have little problem with expecting the elderly to be early adaptors, in may ways it is perfect for them.  But anecdotally my grandparents never really took to technology and it may seem like a small thing but there eye sight and finger dexterity are not great so using a cell phone app is hard.  I guess an audio system could be made but I dont think uber/lyft have done that so maybe that would not be so easy?

Re painted lines on roads: while current systems use a painted line as reference we humans are more than capable to use the roads uneven shoulder for reference.  There is no reason the machine vison systems could not be trained to detect an uneven shoulder especially as the current systems get used in more places there will be places that have both center line and uneven shoulders that can serve as training data. 
crawl -> walk -> run;    center line and shoulder lines  ->  center line only  ->  no lines

There is no reason the tech has to remain static or reason to think the tech wont make incremental improvements, this is not binary :-)

[neo von retorch]

Is it so crazy to charge a cleaning fee to someone who makes a mess or set up some three strikes or time out system for those to behave poorly.  Facebook/youtube have these systems, they seem to be doing fine. 

Yeah - I don't use Facebook. Back when I did... it didn't seem to be doing fine. Not sure that's a great example :) I run my own web site. Do you think it should be illegal to run your own web site, and you have to use Facebook, follow their rules, or you cannot have a web presence? All those extra web servers are wasting electricity and destroying the environment!

I'm not a parent, though I am a dog dad, and hell if I want to deal with a service with strict rules every time I want to go to the park. Gee I've got 1 minute to set up my dog's steps, get her up into the car; then unload her in a minute and make sure I don't leave any hair or drool behind? Oh I can just pay extra for that service? Screw you I have my own car :-)

Maybe 80% of people are happy to be worker bee robot sheep that fall in line and just act as drones for the corporate overlords. I'm not in that 80%. I didn't think we'd find anyone else in it here on MMM. Though, yes, MMM encourages environmentally positive decisions. So it is fun to imagine a future where software runs our lives in a more efficient, more environmentally-friendly manner. A chill runs down my spine. Automation kicks people off services they use without valid causes, closes their financial accounts without giving them their money, ships them the wrong product and refuses to refund them, etc. I work in software. I'm human and make mistakes. And most of my contributions software is unrelated to machine learning, logistics, safety...

We created the environmental problems with technology, and god damn it, we're going to solve them with technology, even if it kills us.

EVs are exciting because they can be real improvements to the lives we already live without major disruptions. Autonomous cars are a paradigm shift, especially if they take away ownership and control. It's probably been said a dozen times in this thread alone, but the American dream of owning a car (dense populated areas aside) is because it represents freedom. The ability to make decisions for yourself. To make mistakes like spilling a coke or dropping a french fry that you'll find two years later. To speed off on a romantic fling on a moment's notice. God to think about moments where I got off a phone call with my gf (now wife) and hopped in the car to go see her (in a snowstorm)... but replace that memory with pressing a button on an app, waiting 15 minutes for a car to arrive, paying the snowstorm 3x fee for the autonomous snow-tire equipped Uber Black Tahoe Offroad Edition... sitting in the back seat twiddling my thumbs impatiently.

OK fine the future people that replace me will make different memories than I do, and be happy to be driven everywhere like the ultra-rich. I can see how that works reflecting my childhood in a family of six with a barely double digit hourly wage and frequent lay offs. We can't use the cheap used car we already paid for and a few cents of gas to go get groceries. We have to pay The Service. And because our farm was 15 minutes from civilization... *shudder* We really believe that the autonomous car/taxi mega corporations are going to inexpensively service the impoverished rural citizens. Hmmm... Or we don't care if they got lost in the shuffle, because the algorithm has decided it's inefficient to spend resources and time sending cars into their area when there are priority transportation needs of the rich to tend to! Efficiency at all costs!

[Chaplin]

Lane lines were already not needed two years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6APlaHOW8g

I've done the same test in my car. I don't have autopilot (bought before it was standard and don't want to pay to upgrade unless I start doing longer road trips as an alternative to flying), but I've had the free trial for several weeks. It does a good job of inferring where they should be, which is what a human driver does.

Sorry about further the derail into autonomy when the thread really has nothing to do with that. In general though this is a good example of how a lot of (seemingly reasonable) assumptions get put forward as facts. Please, if you want to discuss the evils of autopilot, including how it's named, I would suggest starting a different thread.