[paulmd]

Increasing the efficiency of a process also tends to paradoxically increase its utilization (Jevon's Paradox). So it's entirely possible that automated trucking will actually increase total traffic volume.

Still though, even a few vehicles "eating traffic waves" can break up a traffic jam. I've heard the number put at 3-5% of traffic being self-driving would prevent phantom traffic jams.

So overall I would say that self-driving cars could help reduce phantom traffic jams, but they may actually increase real traffic jams caused by overcapacity.

[maxerickson]

Tariffs. If people want access to a congested zone, charge them for it. Dynamically adjust the tariff based on the level of congestion.

Of course people hate this and wail that it isn't fair, but it is among the more fair solutions to the immediate problem and inflicting traffic jams is probably not a good way to address economic inequality.

[SilasX]

Agree. Tolls (assuming they means the same thing as tariffs) can also create the critical mass necessary for commuter bus lines to work, thereby allowing people to spend only a little more than they do now on commuting but get there faster since the roads are cleared. (The per person effective toll would be lower on a bus, even if they are charged by size.)

But they would have to be much higher than in most proposals, and they should be much lower or non-existence during hours when they're not choked despite the zero price.

[maxerickson]

Yes, toll is the better word. For a system with dynamic pricing, once you have a critical mass of vehicles with some sort of system to notify the drivers, you can even set the toll experimentally.

[aab0]

Tolls could even be done after the fact. Imagine a special tax on self-driving cars and trucks: 0.0x cents per mile if driven between 9AM and 5PM, based on mileage logs and all miles assumed to be driven then. If a corporation wants the discount, it can produce GPS logs showing its vehicles were logging all that mileage during off-peak hours.

[rando18423]

So the poor person who needs to get to the doctor should take the slow lane, and the rich person who wants to get to the next bar faster should take the fast lane? Public utilities INTENTIONALLY are not and should not be run according to the principles of profit maximization.

[SilasX]

The poor person should take the bus, which could actually be a fast option if the streets weren't choked at critical times. That's what a sane utility looks like. (If they're not choked, no congestion charge.)

I'm not a big fan of the mentality that the transportation system should suck just so we can avoid the rich have better options than the poor. Taken seriously, that would mean a ban on air travel because the poor can't have as much.

If you meant emergency vehicles, those always have priority :-p