The Autonomous Cars News, Development, and Discussion Thread

[Hatman]

I am confused why Uber has its own autonomous program seeing as they are practically owned by Google.
I did learn, from this article, that the prices being considered by Uber are amazingly cheap:

“By removing the driver from the equation (the largest cost in a taxi ride), the average cost per mile to the consumer could be 44 cents for a private ride in a standard sedan and 8 cents for a shared ride in a two-seater,” Mr. Johnson wrote. He also concluded that subtracting human drivers could drop the price of hitching a ride with Uber “well below” the current $3 to $3.50 per mile with UberX or the $1 to $1.50 per mile for an UberPool vehicle, its beta cab-sharing service.

So if you share a ride you pay $0.08 per mile. Remember that the AAA says the average cost of driving a car is $0.592 per mile, or roughly 7.4 times more!
Who would want own their own car under such circumstances?
As for a transit comparison, my local transit agency (the Utah Transit Authority) claims that a rider can be transported by rail (with a human driver) for $0.02 $0.05 per mile, assuming either everyone has a seat or the standing room is fully utilized. That is only theoretical, though; in practice, UTA's (and probably other transit agency's) numbers look like this:
(Image pulled from the Salt Lake Transit Thread)

Anyway, my prediction for the future of transit use is this: People in transit-oriented developments, and people who visit these developments (Including the commercial business district) will most likely use transit, because it will be cheaper; people who either live away from transit oriented developments, or who's destinations are not in a transit-oriented development, will use ride-sharing autonomous taxis. Transit-oriented development will be heavily promoted because of sustainability incentives and the greater tax revenue they generate for the host cities - but I foresee that most development will continue to be non-transit oriented. Autonomous taxis will make the alternative far too convenient for both developers and residents.

[Leo the Dog]

^Interesting. Only thing Id like to point out is that all the UberX rides I've taken, the fare is closer to $1.25-1.50 mile, not $3/mile.

[M II A II R II K]

Driverless taxis to become a major form of transport 'in 10 years'

Read More: http://horizon-magazine.eu/article/d...-years_en.html

People in cities will shift from using private transport to using self-driving public taxis, as fleets of shared, low-speed electric cars are introduced over the next decade, according to European researchers working on the future of automated transport. By contrast, travel in rural areas and for long journeys will continue to rely on private cars, although these will become more and more automated to increase safety and comfort.

Dr Michel Parent, an advanced road transport expert at INRIA, the French Institute for Research in Computer Science and Automation, has been working on various EU-funded projects since the 90s to develop self-driving cars that would operate in city centres. He says that fleets of on-demand driverless vehicles that pick people up from their homes and connect them with mass public transport networks could be operational within a decade.

‘I would say that in some cities we will see it in five to 10 years as a major transportation, at least the shift from private mobility to public mobility,’ he said. ‘The technology is available; we have demonstrated the feasibility and the safety of these systems. Now it’s up to the cities and up to European legislation to come up with rules to deploy these systems.’ --- In the meantime, the viability of expanding fully automated transport to entire cities is being demonstrated by the CityMobil2 project, which has already trialled self-driving vehicles in La Rochelle, France, and is now doing so in Lausanne, Switzerland.

As these systems are tested, researchers are collecting feedback to send to manufacturers and city officials. One problem has been that the cars are silent so pedestrians are often not aware that they’re moving. ‘We have identified this as a risk,’ said Dr Parent. ‘We have asked the manufacturer to make the vehicle more visible and more audible.’ --- He says the biggest aid to popular uptake would be for the EU to establish rules for how self-driving car systems would operate. ‘Cities could do it right now; they have the ability to run these experiments if they take responsibility. It will take some bold city officials to start the process without legislation.’

.....

[M II A II R II K]

Streetscapes: Driverless cars will have big impact on city streets

Read More: http://www.startribune.com/streetsca...ets/306282691/

Go out to your street and take a photo of it, because in five years — certainly 10 years — it will look very different. Just as smartphones have disrupted entire industries — newspapers, printed maps, film photography — driverless cars soon will transform the automotive industry and with it, how we will get around and what we will see out our windows.

- Far more than our driving habits will be altered by the new vehicles: Highways will change, along with parking lots, residential streets and urban densities. This became clear to everyone who attended a talk this spring hosted by the Science Museum of Minnesota and Urban Land Institute Minnesota given by John Eddy, a leader of the infrastructure practice at ARUP, the world’s leading engineering firm.

- “The first driverless cars will be part of fleets providing mobility services — sort of a cross between car sharing and a taxi service,” he said. And by “lowering the total cost of driving by 40 to 70 percent over the cost of traditional car ownership,” he added, along with rising insurance rates for those who want to keep driving and cause most of the accidents, driverless technology will see rapid and widespread adaptation.

- “Every major car manufacturer, many of their suppliers and some of the biggest tech companies,” said Eddy, “are developing fully automated vehicles to operate alongside our current fleet of manually operated vehicles.” The car industry is quickly becoming a mobility industry, selling services as much as vehicles. As happened when cars arrived a hundred years ago, driverless cars will transform many aspects of our lives.

- When car-sharing fleets have driverless cars, we will be able to buy a mobility service for about a quarter of the cost of owning and driving our own cars. And with that will go the need for parking. We will call up a car that will take us where we want to go, dropping us at our destination and then moving on to its next call, like some automated chauffeur service, as Eddy called it. This will reduce the number of vehicles by at least a factor of four, he estimates, and, except perhaps in the middle of the night, eliminate parked cars.

- Streets will also change. Unlike our current road system, designed to reduce the accidents that come from human error, driverless streets will need only two lanes each way, Eddy said, a “through lane and a drop-off lane,” each narrower than what we have now. The added space in the public right of way can then go for bike lanes, wider sidewalks and the planting strips that make walking safer and more pleasurable, and keep stormwater cleaner and more on-site.

- Driverless cars may also encourage greater density as mobility services charge by the distance vehicles travel and as response times improve accordingly. All of which will come as good news to governments struggling to maintain and repair the overextended infrastructure we have in place because of the automobile.

- The winners include the 25 percent of the population, according to Eddy, who cannot drive: the elderly, disabled and youth; the poor, who will have access to vehicles at a fraction of the cost; and commuters, who waste the equivalent of one week a year stuck in traffic. Municipal budgets, public health, urban life and the natural environment will also benefit enormously from this change, as happened a century ago when cars replaced horses.

- The losers? Those in the automotive industry who ignore the disruption headed its way; those living in remote locations who may have to pay higher rates to still drive a car, and those who deny that the American love of the automobile will ever end, something people said 100 years ago about their horses. As the Beatles put it: Love has a nasty habit of disappearing overnight.

.....

[eleven=11]

Originally Posted by eleven=11

http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg...ant-depot.html
good article about uber pittsburgh

10 blocks away APPLE CAR
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg...rds-three.html

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Streetscapes: Driverless cars will have big impact on city streets

Read More: http://www.startribune.com/streetsca...ets/306282691/

This all sounds like a taxi monopoly, with some big company raking in the cash on every trip that we make.

Where are the real savings when profit has to be built into every fare?

And the big question, how does this improve our lives when people end up with less choice in their housing? When there is a steep penalty for not wanting to live in the downtown condo? How do we benefit, when the cost increases exponentially to take a trip out into the countryside?

It all seems like we end up losing our freedom.

And how do the poor really benefit from this? Surely, the cost will be more than public transit. And this setup may end up decimating transit by taking most choice riders.

The question also remains how suddenly we end up with dramatically more road capacity? I guess vehicles can run closer together, but it also talks about higher density. It just doesn't make sense that we are moving more people in finite space. At some point you reach capacity. Are the vehicles going to be smaller? What about your stack of groceries or your trunk full of home improvement supplies and on and on.

[AaronPGH]

Originally Posted by eleven=11

10 blocks away APPLE CAR
http://www.bizjournals.com/pittsburg...rds-three.html

I can't imagine now is a good time to try to scoop robotics engineers in Pittsburgh... Uber went crazy on everyone here already. Interesting location choice though.

[Hatman]

This was an interesting find.

Google didn’t lead the self-driving vehicle revolution. John Deere did.

The self-driving technology being sold by John Deere and some of its competitors are less technically complex than the fully driverless cars that big tech companies and car manufacturers are working on. And for now, the tractors are still supposed to have a driver behind the wheel - even if they never touch it.

But they've already started to transform farming in America and abroad: John Deere is selling auto-steering and other self-guidance tech in more than 100 countries, said Cory Reed, vice president of the company's Intelligent Solutions Group.

"John Deere is the largest operator of autonomous vehicles," said Catherine J.K. Sandoval, a California public utilities commissioner at a recent event hosted by the Federal Trade Commission.

....

There are no federal rules specifically addressing self-driving tech for tractors, largely because farm equipment is designed for use in fields where it doesn't pose the same level of risk to other vehicles or people as a self-driving vehicle on a public road. The closest thing to national regulations are safety standards set by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, but the agency does not have any rules directly aimed at self-driving technology.

That lack of regulations is one reason that the future reached the farm first. But another is pure necessity: There's a labor crunch in rural America - young people move to the cities, leaving the average age of U.S. farmers at 58, according to the Department of Agriculture. Similar forces are pushing self-driving tech into other industrial sectors at a pace that outstrips the consumer market. Earlier this year, the first self-driving semi-truck licensed to drive on public roads in the United States made its debut in Nevada with a splashy press show. And self-driving trucks are already being rolled out for mining and oil operations in remote parts of the world.

The success of self-driving tech in agriculture could serve as a guiding post for carmakers who are now trying to figure out how to move similar technologies onto U.S. streets.

This shows it will not be a huge giant leap of innovation, regulation, or technology when cars get some of this tech too. We are so much closer to the autonomous revolution than most people realize - so close, autonomous vehicle tech already being used in mining and agriculture and has already made itself an integral part of the business in each.

Can't wait for it to trickle down the the average consumer!

[M II A II R II K]

Will autonomous cars change the role and value of public transportation?

Read More: http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2...transportation

.....

Advanced computing is slowly but surely altering the interactions between people and the transportation system, potentially with the endgame of eventually replacing most motorized modes with fully autonomous vehicles, which would represent a radical change in technology.

- But the question for our cities is how these autonomous cars will be introduced; will they simply replace today’s Uber drivers, or will they be owned by individuals? In an article in CityLab last year, Chase delved into this problem, arguing that individual ownership of self-driving vehicles would be destructive, increasing congestion and encouraging significant increases in car travel by people who order their vehicles to drop them off in front of stores, only to have the car circle the block for hours as they shop. Indeed, the ITF has modeled out scenarios showing increases in miles traveled with the rollout of self-driving vehicles.

- Alternatively, a world in which autonomous cars are shared, perhaps operated as Uber-like taxis or alternatively as some sort of publicly or cooperatively owned service, could have significant benefits for cities by reducing the need for parking, encouraging intermodal trips, and expanding mobility by providing lower-cost travel options. --- As suggested by Uber’s David Plouffe, new mobility options may be providing an important complement to existing public transport systems. Evidence from San Francisco, where technologically advanced mobility may be most instilled in the popular culture, suggests that there hasn’t been a dramatically negative effect on public transportation thus far.

- What is likely true is that the prices being charged for these taxi-like services are too high to attract most people out of public transportation for their daily trips. As Robin Chase (Zipcar) told me, even UberPool, at “Five to seven dollars a trip, is still not what people can afford to get to work. Fourteen dollars a day, that’s not happening… and that’s [Uber’s] best case scenario!” At those prices, bus and train ridership is not likely to be dramatically affected.

- On the other hand, Chase told me that she thinks that automated cars will dramatically change the equation for public transit services because of the much cheaper prices made possible when there’s no human labor involved. For Chase, “buses, shuttles, minivans, school buses [will be] all gone.” --- Because of the ability to substitute automated cars for these low-capacity transit modes, they will simply disappear from the options available in the urban environment as cities recognize the limited utility of their fixed schedules and inability to adapt to point-to-point demand. And she expects this change to come sooner rather than later.

- When I asked her about how this would alter the public sector’s role in transportation, she noted that she expected governments to switch from subsidizing service provision for all to providing vouchers for automated transportation for the poor, much in the same way that the government in the 1970s switched from building public housing to providing rent vouchers. --- I raised the prospect that this would negatively affect poor peoples’ mobility, but Chase rejected my premise, arguing that lower-income people would be able to use “the same vehicles that people who can afford it are using.

- It’s an interesting point, but it would require a very significant public role through subsidies if we’re to maintain mobility for low-income people who do not have access to their own automobiles. Are American cities ready to provide direct transportation subsidies for poor people to use self-driving cars? How would those subsidies work, and would people have access to unlimited trips and travel distances?

- Paratransit services provided by many cities already offer people with limited personal mobility a point-to-point alternative similar to that which could be offered by automated cars. Today, paratransit trips cost the public purse more than three times as much to provide as regular bus and rail services according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, but that’s in part because of the low capacity of paratransit vehicles, high labor costs, and their non-fixed-route services. Eligible customers in most regions are allowed to take as many trips as they’d like upon advanced reservation, generally at a per-ride fare on par with traditional transit.

- But paratransit has been implemented thanks to a federal government mandate resulting from the Americans with Disabilities Act. Without a similar requirement, will cities have the incentive to subsidize poor peoples’ trips? Or will they simply abandon traditional transit and leave those people to fend for themselves, at whatever price point charged by the companies operating automated vehicles? --- Chase’s vision—that low-capacity transit operating on fixed routes will be replaced by automated cars that allow point-to-point trips—has become a commonly cited argument among those who suggest that governments cease investment in public transportation. To them, why spend any public money on transportation if all our problems will be solved with driverless cars?

- Eliminating bus lines would disassemble the transit grid that makes the network work in most places. A large share of transit users rely on buses to take them to the train, or vice verse. Automated cars could fill some of that gap, but it’s hard to see them replacing local transit routes entirely. --- In addition, eliminating bus routes as a component of the urban transit system could terminate one of the biggest perks of living in many cities: the unlimited-ride fare card. For tens of thousands of people—even millions of people in some cities—the unlimited ride card allows people to move about their city on public transit at one fixed price per month, giving them the ability to take side trips and explore new parts of the region. Could trips in automated vehicles be incorporated into such a system?

- For Chase, “major, hard routes” like subways and elevated lines—and probably bus rapid transit, though she did not name it—would remain important even with the mass use of automated vehicles. The most heavily trafficked transit corridors, with more than 5,000 people moving per direction per hour, cannot be handled by automated vehicles alone. When operating in its own lanes and in a dedicated right of way, transit also has the potential to be quicker than automated vehicles. So for dense urban neighborhoods and major job centers, public transit will likely remain a fact of life.

- It’s also worth emphasizing that any advances in technology that provide for automated cars could also result in automated public transport vehicles, potentially saving significantly on the cost of operations by eliminating the need for driver labor (it could also reduce the cost of shipping by, for example, eliminating the need for truck drivers). Automated trains are already common for new subway and elevated rail systems, and some train lines in cities like Paris have been converted from driver to automated operation. --- Buses moving around the city with no drivers could be more frequent because of reduced labor costs, and certain bus lines could probably be operated profitably. In other words, automobile automation could have a genuine competitor in automated public transport.

- Automated cars could also devalue urban cores by making biking and walking, or waiting for transit, less appealing when a robotized car can arrive practically instantly at the touch of a button. But Chase’s sense is that people “really enjoy clusters.” People like living and working near one another, and that has led to the renaissance many American central cities are experiencing today. Uber itself seems convinced of that fact; the company is planning a huge headquarters complex in the heart of San Francisco filled with walkable shops and restaurants and—intriguingly—it will be directly adjacent to the T-Third Street light rail line. In its urban perspective, the complex is diametrically opposed to the suburban, generally car-oriented campuses under construction by fellow tech giants Apple, Facebook, and Google.

- Chase notes that the real benefits of the autonomous cars will actually be to the currently less-accessible parts of dense cities. Today, she argued to me, “If you live in Brooklyn, and you live three blocks from the A [Subway] train, your house is more valuable than if you live within 15 blocks of it,” but with the automated car, people there will feel like they are much closer to the Subway stop and therefore their home values will increase. But living in the exurbs, with no effective public transport available, will remain unappealing to many.

.....

[Hatman]

^^^
Cool article.

It's a good thing no one ever took me up on my bet, that Singapore would be the first place to fully implement an autonomous taxi fleet:
http://www.citylab.com/tech/2015/06/singapore-is-already-planning-for-a-future-of-driverless-taxis/396707/

This summer, Google will begin testing its custom-made self-driving car on the streets of Mountain View, California. That’s a big step forward for autonomous technology, but there’s arguably a bigger one brewing in Singapore, at least as far as the future of cities is concerned. Officials there are expected to authorize an on-demand driverless taxi trial on public roads—a concept that could change the very nature of urban mobility, with shared autonomous vehicles operating as a sort of point-to-point transit system.

....

Link to Citylab aricle

[Hatman]

This happened today:

Google's autonomous 'pod' cars hit the road

[Hatman]

Chris Urmson: How a driverless car sees the road
• Video Link

[Hatman]

Google's autonomous taxis may be FREE TO USE, and will earn Google a profit with advertising rather than fares:

Draper Fisher Jurvetson partner Steve Jurvetson recently appeared on Bloomberg West, and he had some truly interesting things to say about Google’s self-driving cars.

The source of his information is unclear, but Jurvetson spoke very matter-of-factly about Google’s plans, claiming that the company is considering an app and service called “Free Ride” that would allow users to hail a self-driving Google taxi and take a ride for free.

“Google may very well beat them at their own game because they can get down to zero. They can take zero cut and offer a free app, which they are considering launching, called Free Ride, so this game could get very interesting,” Jurvetson said.

When asked to clarify,Jurvetson continued, “They are considering it. They’re debating it. They’re on the fence as to whether they should offer it. But the go to market would be, offer the free app, get people used to it while there are still human drivers, and then flip them over to the Google autonomous cars.”

LINK

[Hatman]

How To Cut Vehicle Emissions 90 Percent: Get Rid Of Human Drivers

The most straightforward way to reduce automotive emissions is probably to just get rid of cars.

But what if you kept the cars, and eliminated their drivers instead?

Acolytes of self-driving cars have held up fuel efficiency as one of their potential benefits, although it's hard to quantify the benefits of a technology that remains largely theoretical.

Researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory believe they have a good estimate, though.

A recent study claims that replacing most private cars with a fleet of self-driving electric taxis could cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 90 percent, reports Popular Science.

Using electric powertrains would also basically eliminate oil consumption in cars, researchers argue.

They claim this would not only be the greenest solution, but also the cheapest.

Even assuming a cost of $150,000 per self-driving electric car, they say, autonomous electric taxis could pay for themselves within five years.

That's because in addition to cutting the cost of fuel and eliminating the cost of a driver, cars could run 24 hours a day, seven days a week--increasing the number of fares.

Presumably, that economy would also translate into low usage fees for passengers.

The relatively limited ranges of most current electric cars reportedly wouldn't be an issue either.

Because the majority of cars would be operated as part of a coordinated fleet in this scenario, a car needing to recharge could simply be replaced in the field by another.

That assumes the taxis will primarily operate in urban areas, where the distance of a single trip is unlikely to exceed a car's range.

And with the first mass-priced 200-mile electric cars arriving within two or three years, the need for a taxi to recharge during the 8- to 12-hour shift of today's typical taxi driver will be reduced or eliminated.

If nothing else, this concept would essentially leapfrog the issue of gaining consumer acceptance for electric cars, by encouraging consumers to give up their cars entirely.

But the study also assumes technological advances that may not come to pass for a decade or more.

Certain carmakers--including Mercedes-Benz, Nissan, and Tesla--have promised to put autonomous cars on sale by 2020.

Yet all of these models will likely require a human presence behind the wheel for certain situations. Many in the industry suggest that truly autonomous cars are not likely to arrive until 2030.

Even after 100-percent autonomous cars appear, it will take considerable time for their technology to disseminate across the industry.

The wholesale replacement of millions of private cars with a large number of electric drone vehicles will take even longer than that.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/...-human-drivers

[Jasonhouse]

On the other hand, Chase told me that she thinks that automated cars will dramatically change the equation for public transit services because of the much cheaper prices made possible when there’s no human labor involved. For Chase, “buses, shuttles, minivans, school buses [will be] all gone.” --- Because of the ability to substitute automated cars for these low-capacity transit modes, they will simply disappear from the options available in the urban environment as cities recognize the limited utility of their fixed schedules and inability to adapt to point-to-point demand. And she expects this change to come sooner rather than later.

What do these geniuses think happens when transit costs are also pushed down by having no labor charge to be driven?

Where do they think the cars will be stored? X number of people trying to move around is still a certain number of people, and they would need a certain number of cars to move in, and those cars take up a certain amount of space. There will never be 200-300 cars that can fit in the same space as a train that carries that many.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by Jasonhouse

What do these geniuses think happens when transit costs are also pushed down by having no labor charge to be driven?

Where do they think the cars will be stored? X number of people trying to move around is still a certain number of people, and they would need a certain number of cars to move in, and those cars take up a certain amount of space. There will never be 200-300 cars that can fit in the same space as a train that carries that many.

The ignorance of the geometric issues you cite is only part of the problem. It's a shame there is so much technical talent and public discussion being wasted right now on the arrogant futurism of this supposedly imminent revolution that completely ignores well over a hundred years of technical and human factor experience in providing urban transport.

To be clear, I'm glad there are R&D efforts in autonomous driving, but much in the same way I'm glad NASA exists while having no expectation that NASA's efforts will lead us to a Jetson's future or space travel for the masses. It is important to push the boundaries of what is technically possible but that doesn't make it economical, inevitable, or even desirable for mass adoption. The technical issues of mass autonomous driving can certainly be overcome. It's all the other issues (economic, geometric, and human factor) that mean it won't happen in our lifetimes and I would argue that we shouldn't delude ourselves that it will.

Though I'd be happy to have my opinions changed.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

The ignorance of the geometric issues you cite is only part of the problem. It's a shame there is so much technical talent and public discussion being wasted right now on the arrogant futurism of this supposedly imminent revolution that completely ignores well over a hundred years of technical and human factor experience in providing urban transport.

To be clear, I'm glad there are R&D efforts in autonomous driving, but much in the same way I'm glad NASA exists while having no expectation that NASA's efforts will lead us to a Jetson's future or space travel for the masses. It is important to push the boundaries of what is technically possible but that doesn't make it economical, inevitable, or even desirable for mass adoption. The technical issues of mass autonomous driving can certainly be overcome. It's all the other issues (economic, geometric, and human factor) that mean it won't happen in our lifetimes and I would argue that we shouldn't delude ourselves that it will.

Though I'd be happy to have my opinions changed.

I found this transit mode share list in an old thread. Most of the cities listed are under 10%, and most are under 5%. Most U.S cities have a very low transit mode share. The physical constraints are barely there. If autonomous cars can double road capacity, almost every city in North America can replace their public transit systems with a fleet of driverless cars.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by logan5

I found this transit mode share list in an old thread. Most of the cities listed are under 10%, and most are under 5%. Most U.S cities have a very low transit mode share. The physical constraints are barely there. If autonomous cars can double road capacity, almost every city in North America can replace their public transit systems with a fleet of driverless cars.

But will they really expand road capacity? It's technically possible of course but how would that actually be implemented?

My assumption is that over time, autonomous vehicles will adhere to a few basic "fail safe" principles that also apply to e.g. railway signalling:
- The default state is that you cannot proceed, unless you receive affirmative indication that the road ahead is clear to proceed into.
- Maximum speed is limited both by road geometry and by the need to maintain separation (or headway) from the vehicle ahead, which includes a continuous calculation of the minimum safe stopping distance.

If cars are purely autonomous and not connected to each other or to a wayside signal system, they will drive in a manner that makes the slowest most cautious grandmas on the roads today look like wild speed demons due to the "worst possible" assumptions the vehicles must make to adhere to both of the above fail safe principles. In practice, railway signalling achieves safe operation by reducing capacity/throughput and speed when compared to the wild old days of purely human-controlled "dark" operations.

However, if cars are connected to each other and to a way side system ... actually, why continue that train of thought, since there isn't even the political will to maintain the roads and signals we have... nor maintain existing vehicle inspection regimes... so when or why would that change?

Again, it's all technically feasible, but what's the practical path from here to there? And is it still economical for mass adoption once all these hypothetical public investments are made to support it?

[Hatman]

As I see it, here's how it all shakes down:

1) Driver assistance features become more and more complex, creating public trust in autonomous features on their own automobiles. These features will be like Tesla's Autopilot or GM's Supercruise, which both will allow the driver to take their hands off the wheel and feet off the pedals on arterial roads.

2) Entirely autonomous cars are released onto public streets. These cars will not be sold to the public, but will instead operate in corporately-owned taxi fleets. Many types of services will be offered by various corporations, from subscription-based service to individual ride-based service to unlimited-miles monthly membership service, etc.

3) At this point the exodus will begin, and people will stop buying cars for general travel. Why would you want to own a car and pay insurance on it, parking for it, and be licensed and registered for it, when hailing a car is so much cheaper and easier? If you want a bigger car to take home your groceries, order one, you don't need to own one (assuming you don't already have your groceries sent home via a driverless delivery van). You want an SUV to go on a skiing trip for a weekend? Rent one; it comes to your house, it's clean as new and has all the newest features, and its far cheaper than owning one year-round just for your skiing trips. And many more possibilities. Car sales will plummet as cars become objects of utility rather than individually-owned status symbols.

4) The new autonomous taxi industry sets standards for its cars, such as communication standards for V2V communication. They do this on their own because they see how much better service they will be able to offer once all vehicles are 'smart' rather than 'dumb'. The government needs not be involved, except as a last regulatory oversight.

5) As people's daily connection with roads fades (they're in their driverless car watching TV, not involved with traffic), support for huge road subsidies begins to fade. Governments grow tired of paying huge amounts of money to support huge roadways that are designed for the over-sized 20th century standards, rather than the more efficient 21st century, and will want to sell off their largest money-losers. Similar to how railroads were down-sized and consolidated in the 1970's and 80's, governments will downsize roads (which can now carry more vehicles on far less pavement area). Many roads will be 'privatized,' or leased out to private operators who can more efficiently adapt roads to autonomous-only design.

6) Car-ownership becomes like horse-ownership; it becomes a hobby for rich people to do out in the country, away from populated areas. Cities become entirely void of human-driven vehicles, both road and transit. bicycles are the exception, and with bicycle lanes expanding rapidly into the far emptier roads, bicycle usage in urban areas rises; urban bike sharing - driven by new developments in self-driving bicycles (yes that's a thing!) - explodes in popularity.

7) Transit use expands. Driverless cars become ideal first-last mile solution, and private autonomous transit operators will be able to coordinate with other companies to offer 'packaged' transportation offers. Where it becomes too slow/expensive to offer direct service into downtown, a packaged solution of car to transit, transit to downtown will be very popular.

8) Governments, at the lobbying of transportation providers, will cease to subsidize transportation based on mode, but rather by service. Rather than picking a favorite between road and rail (or water or whatever), governments that thing subsidizing transportation is important will reimburse a transportation provider for a service completed. Whether you run on roads or rails, the government will pay you X amount of dollars for Y people (or Z cargo) you carry, and let the free market determine how much or little infrastructure is needed. Private investment in infrastructure rises, and inefficient pieces of infrastructure are abandoned and reclaimed.
A true transportation UTOPIA!

I'm probably wrong in many specifics, but I cannot see governments leading this. There is too much profit to be gained by this. Corporations will lead this transition, and it will be the speed at which regulations can be overcome that will determine how quickly we are able to transition to a future in which transportation is considered simply another 'utility,' just like power, water, internet, etc. That is the long-term end-game solution.

[Hatman]

This news surprised many people:
Google has its own car company called 'Google Auto'

Google has quietly been running its self-driving car program under a subsidiary company called Google Auto LLC, according to documents obtained by The Guardian.

The subsidiary was created in 2011 when Google replaced its self-driving Priuses with Lexus SUVs. In the documents, Google Auto is listed as the official manufacturer of the company's 23 autonomous Lexus cars, including the ones that were involved in recently publicized accidents. Google Auto was also used to apply for each car's vehicle identification number (VIN).

By running the whole self-driving project through a subsidiary, Google presumably could have helped protect itself from risk. Had lawsuits been filed over the recent accidents, Google Auto would have assumed the liability instead of Google, and Google's financial assets would have been protected, according to The Guardian.

We also now know a little more about the newer, cuter self-driving cars: they're rear-wheel drive, and are powered by a 20-30kW electric motor, based on the paperwork that Google Auto filed with the NHTSA. (For reference, Tesla's engines hover around 300kW.)

Google started testing its self-driving cars on public roads in June, but the LLC's existence doesn't mean Google is any closer to its goal of making the cars commercially available. Even with hundreds of thousands of test miles logged, the cars are still experimental. Whenever that day does come, it might be a "Google Auto" car that picks you up to go to work.

It's a small matter of paperwork, sure, but it has huge implications. So far, 'Google Auto' is the only spin-off company the GoogleX project has created, and it is a necessary step Google would need to take if it plans to use its autonomous cars in a commercial way. So far it is really looking like Google is going all-in on this plan, rather than developing it as a proof-of-concept.
This is very encouraging news!