The difference is SDC taxis are already in operation in the wild. Maybe it's only in a small part of Phoenix but its happening right now. Full SDCs in all developed high density urban areas will probably be a thing in this decade and the next decade for sure.
This market is manned and a serious challenge. The trial is Arizona is in an extremely quiet, predictable suburb as well as being small scale; unmanned but not as serious a challenge.
Each of these is different but neither's existence by itself proves unmanned in challenging locations is right around the corner. It's kind of an exercise in Baysian statistic, how much more likely this makes one think unmanned taxis in serious location is depends on what one thinks the initial probability is.
I think the typical SDC taxi will be a two seater. Getting rid of the driver not only saves on wages, but also space, weight, fuel etc.
By "unreliable" I mostly meant the primitive "call your local monopoly, and they may or may not send you a car in 1-30 minutes, so just stand there and wait and worry" system as opposed to the quick and visible Uber/Lyft experience.
I agree that taxi could work like that, I've just gotten used to the thoroughly rotten SF taxi system.
Sound like a nice idea, but unfortunately taxis are a regulated industry in most major cities (e.g. NYC, Boston, Chicago). The difference between a taxi and non-taxi are usually that a taxi license or medallion is required in order to legally stop for somebody hailing down a cab on a street.
If this service became at all popular, it is very likely that cities would immediately include "mobile hailing" as also requiring a license. The entrenched interests of the taxi companies are simply too big (and they have the political clout) to let this one slide under the radar.
Do I taxis certainly aren’t just one man’s dream. Whether not not they are possible in the next 50 years is another matter, but plenty of people want them and are willing to invest in developing them.
A taxi is still one per person at any point in time.
The only difference is the amount of parking needed.
Had the city been built for that (ie. A few floors of underground parking under every building) it would be fine. Some cities in Poland do this. Clearly retrofitting that isn't practical.
…if ‘fully’ means ‘remotely operated, when the going gets tough’, such as, I guess, in bad weather (rare in Phoenix), or when there is a lot of traffic in one place, times when demand for taxis is highest.
Unlike a privately owned autonomous vehicle, a taxi has very little need for environment flexibility. The article says they're planning to start in a "sunny city like Las Vegas", where there's unlikely to be much black ice... and even if they operate solely in such sunny cities for a decade, there's still enough market for them to grow huge. Of course, anyone who can make a vehicle that can handle white-outs will have an advantage, but I haven't heard even Google claiming to have a handle on that.
Taxis are not mass transit, but they are public transport per the definition.
Obviously this will not be comparable in capacity to a metro, but it can conceivably be comparable in capacity to bus lines which tend to operate at very low load factors in US cities, by virtue of being much faster to complete the same journey.
I'd be more impressed if this wasn't puffing future tech, and was instead committing to ratcheting efficiency requirements across their drivers' vehicles.
reply