How much would it cost though for parallel infrastructure that is suitable for a software driver? (better signage, rfid tags in the roads, 'smart' traffic cones, etc.) For say the Bay Area. 10 billion to a few hundred billion? Speaking for myself, I'd be happy to pay say an additional 1% sales tax if it meant facilitating an area wide 24/7 autonomous 'public transit' taxi service, presumably with at-cost per mile fares.

Then this is close to impossible :-)

The existing road infrastucture maintenance burden is already crushing financially, imagine if we add smart roads to it.

Collective action problem.

This is a form of ubiquitous public transport infrastructure. Automobiles and roads are already the most inclusive form of public transportation ever invented (measured as percent of public served), and have the cheapest per-rider cost to maintain for any government out of any infrastructure ever invented to date, while still supporting full distances and high service rates.

And while cost of vehicles and driver requirements are currently barriers -- reducing the cost of vehicles and improving their ability to self drive, would let everyone utilize and afford it.

Um, what? Lower cost to dig up a street and install infrastructure inside it, than to use the cheap and ubiquitous internet and GPS connected computers that are already in every car?

Do you realize just how extravagantly expensive that would be?

Compared to a single road paving, the hi-tech road is more expensive but this road is supposed to be more durable than traditional paved roads. That means you need to compare the cost of several road pavings to get a more accurate comparison.

The hi-tech road is supposed to be installed once for several decades, where paved roads are re-paved every few years. This increases the cost of the traditional paved road.

Also, these hi-tech roads are supposed to subsidize their cost with energy creation.

> If there was demand for putting more utility wires underground wouldn't they already be simply burying them which is much less expensive?

Burying power lines is expensive. On its own, too expensive but combined with this project, it could be fiscally sound.

Lane miles in the US are in the many millions. Each mile of track costs a million+ dollars. You're talking many trillions of dollars to railify every road in the country.

So no, there's basically no way that's cheaper than figuring out self-driving.

Same questions could have been asked about fiber optics, cable TV, electricity, telephones, water and sewers. Yet we have that infrastructure.

Also, some people believe by the time that future will come many people would opt out of buying cars, in favor of driverless taxis. These don’t need to stay parked in residential areas.

Interesting, because in the states, similar infrastructure is being deployed specifically for road pricing. I assume then we can start working on the more sensible uses you describe, but don’t have high hopes that it will be easy or quick.

So? I still think it is worth it. Also, these costs and delays are not given, they are artificially induced by mismanagement, and could be changed. I am not saying that they shouldn't build the cars, I'm just pointing out that the "solution" they are providing isn't that revolutionary.

Also, buses exist, which are much cheaper than what you are describing

> Don't let perfect be the enemy of better.

I don't really see how this is that much better than what already exists. How different would this really be from the status quo? I can already automatically hail a car which will take me where ever I need to go. Sure, autonomous cars _might_ be safer, but I doubt they will reduce congestion or travel times all that much. Plus, we'll have rolling surveillance cameras with a myriad of advanced sensors constantly driving by. I don't buy it

Not if everyone has to spend $50-100K on a car + maintenance + insurance + fuel + parking every 10 years or so and live in cities optimized for those. Regardless how much it costs to invest in infrastructure it will cost far less than equipping everyone in America with a new car at their own expense and socializing the cost of maintaining roads, highways and interstates.

Replacing each car in America today with an electric, self-driving car (using a Tesla ballpark and factoring in the aforementioned additional expenses) is $10-20 trillion dollars. Imagine the kind of public transit we could have for twenty trillion dollars invested every 10 years. China put in 24,000 miles of high-speed rail for $500B.

That sounds great, except the roads have all been built. It's prohibitively expensive and risky to try to build out your own parallel set of infrastructure, whether it's roads or cable. I mean, if Google tried and failed to do it, who else is going to be able to succeed?

Well, why would you? Then you'd have to take into account the airports and the transportation networks to get to them...

Well, car needs roads and roads are public goods. And, of course, they need a lot of public funding, planning and maintenance. All with public money.

Governments pushed for cars as a mean of transportation because in the Keynesian era was good for the whole economy (car factories employed a lot of people), and nature was less of a concern. But pushing for cars was a deliberate public policy that involved a lot of public infrastructure, city planning, etc...

Driverless cars would need a lot of infrastructure as well, but I don't think they are a good investment for the whole economy like normal cars were in the '50s. With putting a lot of public money for infrastructure to help a few companies that do not employ so many people anymore?

The future is not for cars, IMHO. But who knows...

Why should they? Roads are not there only for those actually using them: they are meant to be always available for everyone. Imagine a road that is used only from time to time, just by emergency vehicles: don't you agree that would be a reasonable way to spend tax money?

The average car user probably need to adjust their sentiments on this. Car users are being heavily invested in not only by the infrastructure they get, but also the opportunity costs of the land the roads occupy.

Even in Denmark where cars are taxed at an additional 150% (on top of a 25% VAT) I am quite sure that the regular tax payer subsidizes the car user.

I would love to see actual profitability analysis of these technologies. I am not ure the car users would benefit however.

Far, far, far wider. Reducing road deaths is a pretty well understood, political implementation is the problem.

And the simply fact is, reducing road deaths is cheap. Its very cheap. If you want to make it look good, and fancy, its a bit more expensive.

But the fact is, we know how to do it, and do it cheaply. Fancy next generation car technology is pretty terrible in terms of investment to return.

All you really need is a bunch of paint, and a few concert spectators over various shapes. Pretty much all you have to do is make cars slower, that is by far the most important factor in mixed traffic. There are many ways to achieve this.

If you want to get a bit more fancy and technical, you can make dutch intersections:

Doing things like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_intersection

> How about better public transit, encouraging people to use smaller cars, encouraging cycling with corresponding infrastructure, etc.

How about banning cars from many city centers, or only allowing commercial and people who live there.

How about REQUIRING smaller cars. A limit on car size, specially if you want to enter cities.

Yikes. Why do public goods always need to have ads to be self-sufficient?

> This can be far cheaper than tactile pavement and so more widely deployed […].

The cost of deploying low power transmitters, developing and certifying new systems (not everyone carry a smartphone) or mobile apps to receive the signal, educating impaired people across the world to use them, then regularly maintaining the electronics across a city will hardly be cheaper than passive tactile paving.