I was looking at Google Maps the other day and mistakenly asked for the driving directions from Massachusetts to Taos, New Mexico. Absurd! It would take four days, at least!
But not if your automated car can drive straight through: It would take a day and an half. Four fueling stops. That's enough not to need the loo built-in. With two passengers, the economics are compelling.
Airlines better figure out a way to reduce the overhead around air travel or they are toast.
It's a three hour drive to Taos from ABQ. Depending on where you start, there are no direct flights to ABQ. Flight schedules often require traveling during the day, and when you can travel at night, a seat that's comfortable enough for a good night's sleep is expensive. I have experienced two hour delays at the car rental desk at ABQ. There are many places where air travel is long and inconvenient.
The US has poor rail connections from airports. Airport security adds uncertainty to making one's flight and making international to internal connections. Airlines have cut their redundancy to the bone, so cancellations and missed connections can turn into an extra day of travel, rather than just a changed flight.
Of course, I hadn't considered stepping out of the terminal at ABQ and into a robo-chauffeured rental that arrives precisely when I'm ready to go. So perhaps the drive at the end of a long day of air travel turns into a restful nap.
Still, being able to travel privately, quietly, directly, and whenever in the day makes it most convenient makes elapsed-time comparisons not always valid: Any distance where you could step into a robo-car in the evening and wake up at your destination would become tough for airlines to claim greater practicality, never mind comfort.
> Any distance where you could step into a robo-car in the evening and wake up at your destination would become tough for airlines to claim greater practicality, never mind comfort.
You can work/sleep while on the flight. So now it come down to 2 x 2 hours of lost time vs. 36 hours in which you're surely not as productive/relaxed as you would be in your home or office.
Even the top tier of business travelers, who fly first class or business and stay in very good hotels, tend to prefer being home. I don't see how a driver-less car makes "being on the road" a zero-drag experience.
Yeah, I don't think this will happen. Why is this different than current mobile homes? Why don't "20-something's and college students" widely adopt mobile homes? Because they're inefficient and you don't need to bring all of your stuff with you everywhere.
This won't change just by making mobile homes autonomous. It will still be cheaper to have a stationary home and a cheap car, autonomous or not.
I think for most people this will be true, but with an truly autonomous car, it would be possible to construct a sort of "capsule hotel" on wheels. For a certain class of people that is an attractive value proposition.
Precisely. Lugging around all the amenities from the article has a huge fuel cost, and they don't compare to the quality of their stationary counterparts.
I feel like the OP article's "futurist" has a decent grasp on HOW, but completely disregards WHY.
I can see driverless cars being designed for more household-like activities, as many will want to travel while they sleep, etc. Whether or not that prompts many to abandon their homes remains to be seen, but the changes could make it a more comfortable living space than a car of current design.
A driverless car still has to obey the laws of physics - it has to be aerodynamic. Sure, the interior of the car will change, but compare with other modes of transport that you can be on without driving: fights, trains, busses, even being a passenger in a car. I don't think it's a coincidence that in all of them, you're sitting or lying still in varying degrees of comfort, while working and/or being entertained.
Also, there an elephant in the room: The RV. It's great for road-trip holidaying, but not practical for living. I don't see how driver-less-ness changes that value-proposition drastically - although a road trip holiday with most of the driving done at night, while you're sleeping, could be awesome.
But not if your automated car can drive straight through: It would take a day and an half. Four fueling stops. That's enough not to need the loo built-in. With two passengers, the economics are compelling.
Airlines better figure out a way to reduce the overhead around air travel or they are toast.