[aidenn0]

I don't think there will be fewer total cars (unless as a sibling asserts, they will be significantly more expensive), but I admit the possibility. Many (but not all; cf. parking) of the issues of cars in urban areas are related to cars being on the road, not being owned.

[dragonwriter]

> Many (but not all; cf. parking) of the issues of cars in urban areas are related to cars being on the road, not being owned.

Parking is an extremely major urban land use issue, and its related to, well, not ownership per se but vehicles being possessed and stored by the usual occupant. On-demand use of not-personally-stored (whuch probably means fleet-owned) AV’s is radically freeing for urban land use, and is probably one of the least disruptive ways to transition from car-dependent to not-car-dependent urban design, with on-demand AVs as a bridge technology.

[spankalee]

I believe that resistance to transit and pedestrian oriented policies is higher when car ownership is higher. If you get more families to not need multiple cars or not need cars at all, then they may be more favorable to things like less street parking, no parking minimums in new buildings, protected bike lanes, fewer slip lanes, eliminating turn-on-red, etc.

[fluoridation]

Sure, but the person you were replying to specifically said ownership not usage.

[stouset]

Okay, but that’s irrelevant to basically anyone’s concerns. Active road use and parking area required are.

Are you saying we should not debate the meaningful impacts here because OP mentioned a related aspect that has little to no impact?