Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Mike Hyland's avatar

Great work!

All else being equal, I think it is almost always preferable (from a societal perspective) for an empty AV to be parked rather than cruising. In both cases, the vehicle is occupying valuable public space. However, the cruising vehicle consumes more energy, emits more pollutants, occupies more space, and increases the risk of collisions for other road users.

To your point about curb space being scarce in business districts, when (and where) curb space is scarce, road space is also scarce, except for around 10-11:15am when demand for AV ridehailing in business districts is also minimal.

Looking at it from another perspective: AV fleet operators are definitely repositioning their vehicles to meet anticipated demand. Because they don't internalize the costs of emitting pollutants or occupying public space (but do internalize energy costs and the risk of collisions), and they don't have to pay for road use, I would expect them to spend more of their P1 time cruising/repositioning than the social optimum.

We recently did a related study, funded in part by Waymo. We analyzed how curb parking restrictions for SAVs in SF would affect VMT, curb usage, customer wait time, and request matching rate. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5526419

Sam Penrose's avatar

Great work! Now do TNCs, noting that the P1 and P2 times for every human-driven car affect the driver:

1. they are sitting

2. they are breathing air pollution

3. for P0, they are stuck not earning

4. for P1, they are risking a collision

5. their car is depreciating

7 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?