Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday March 12 2019, @10:46AM   Printer-friendly
from the unparktilect:-the-wheelbound dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984

Stingy driverless cars will clog future streets instead of parking

It's a nightmarish vision of San Francisco's future, like something out of science fiction: streets full of driverless cars, crawling along implacably but at a snail's pace, snarling traffic and bringing the city to a standstill from the iconic Ferry Building to Union Square.

But according to Adam Millard-Ball, associate professor of environmental studies at the University of California, Santa Cruz, this scenario could come to pass simply as a result of rational behavior on the part of autonomous vehicle owners. Congestion pricing that imposes a fee or tax for driving in the downtown core could help prevent this future, but cities need to act fast, before self-driving cars are common, he argues.

Those conclusions emerge from an analysis published in the journal Transport Policy, in which Millard-Ball used game theory and a computer model of San Francisco traffic patterns to explore the effects of autonomous vehicles on parking. He found that the gridlock happens because self-driving cars don't need to park near a rider's destination – in fact, they don't need to park at all.

The autonomous vehicle parking problem (DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.01.003) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13 2019, @07:23AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 13 2019, @07:23AM (#813611)

    (the EV fans tell us).

    Isn't it great?
    When someone on my side says something, I need to make sure it's actually true, or at least reasonable, before using it as a premise; such a nuisance. But if I catch some guy on the other side (no matter how dumb he is) saying something useful to my argument (no matter how absurd it is), I can always use that. I only need to cite the source with a "(those guys say)", an "(I am told)", or some such formula, and it's fair game.
    After all, if you didn't wanna be proven wrong, you shouldn't have let that idiot agree with you.