Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmix | Hacker News Reader

That has interesting implications for real estate. It might singlehandedly revert the trend of living in dense urban areas.

It wouldn't be as bad if cars become fully electrified and cars become smaller as they shift from individual car ownership (where you buy a 4-5 seater for edge cases but only use 1-2 seats 95% of the time).

When you order your automated fleet car to pick you up you can say I only need one seat, which will massively reduce car sizes and energy expenditures.

Self driving cars can potentially link up like trains on highways to further reduce congestion and reduce energy use.

View on HN

I could just as easily see it going the other way. With self-driving we could free up tons of urban land from being parking, as all cars can essentially valet themselves to a more optimal, consolidated parking location that may not be adjacent to your destination, or put themselves in “Uber mode” and run errand while you’re not using them. Uber becomes even cheaper, thus making it even easier for people to live in cities without a car, and greatly improving transport in places where public transit is not great.

Thus the reduced need for car ownership and all that parking that is now on the market for redevelopment should lower the cost of living in cities which is a huge deterrent that keeps people out right now.

I imagine that there will be some flux in both directions, with the less desirable suburbs being the losers in that equation.

Urban parking lots would essentially become high traffic charging stations. Those cars will need to charge every 100-200km, so owning parking lots will become highly profitable soon.

If I was a long-term real estate developer I'd be buying up a bunch of urban parking lots and converting them into charging stations. Then selling a stock of them to Tesla/Uber in 5-10yrs at a high mark-up.

Apartment/grocery stores/office/etc buildings with underground parking could technically lease out their land as well.

It would still very likely free up far more land than is needed for charging, as so much parking space is used for far longer than the average charging/waiting-for-fleet-calls would need. Not to mention the AI space optimization they would utilize.

> Those cars will need to charge every 100-200km

More like every 400-500km. Even current electric cars generally have ranges in the 350km+ range, and they're getting better every generation. Unless my work provides me free charging, I'll be charging at home where my electricity is supplied by my solar panels.

Oh wow, it was actually 200 miles for a Tesla 3 which is 350km. And it's only going to improve.

That means in an urban environment they'll be able to drive for quite a long time before charging... that's interesting as it means even less real estate needed for charging.

The implications of this technology on daily life in the next decade will be nearly as interesting as the deployment of consumer internet in the 1990s. There are so many possibilities, it's very exciting...

Interestingly That's not far off the range of an average petrol/gas car according to [0] - I can't vouch for the numbers in that article though.

[0] https://solarchargeddriving.com/2011/05/13/whats-your-gasoli...

Yeah, the demand for parking will collapse, which would bring down the value of parking lots, that's going to be a far bigger trend than space for charging.

I don’t see why they’d need to charge near demand though. Charged vehicles can move into dense areas, drive around for a couple hours and then grab one rider to go out to a charge station in a cheap area, then grab someone else and head back in to the city center.

Seems like there will be plenty of fungibility in charge locations.

It's not just charging though, space is also needed for waiting for a fleet call while conserving energy. I'm sure the usage time will be highly optimized but there are still going to be significant differences in demand/number of cars on the road between surge/peak hours and usual demand. Potentially meaning extra vehicles needed for surge are not being used 75% of the day.

It makes no sense for an individual to buy a self driving car, honestly. Remove the cost of paying for a driver from a taxi ride and taking taxis everywhere becomes much more economical.

My commute is currently around 2 hours each way. If I had a self driving car Im still probably not moving much further away, even though it would be a significant cost of living difference.

On the other hand I could see people whose commutes are 30 minutes tolerating a 1 hour self driving commute especially if it means they are paying 1/2 their rent.

> My commute is currently around 2 hours each way.

I will never understand how people do this... especially so many of them without car pooling, which means they have to focus the whole time.

I'd easily trade those hours for 100% the rent costs and half the living space.

I don't and won't understand either. My job is ~5 minutes by car, 15 by bike and I did that on purpose. To spend 4 waking hours essentially unable to do anything other than listen to music/podcasts/books while putting up with other drivers and weather would drive me insane.

I have to imagine that there are extenuating circumstances that force people into these absurd commutes.

Congratulations on your good fortune! In my case, I would either need two incomes or significantly reduce my family’s standard of living (live in a cramped apartment or townhouse) to move closer. Welcome to the Bay Area!

Self driving cars will be life changing. They can’t come soon enough.

And this is why I won't move to the bay area.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com