It would be a ridiculous stupid party that stopped private investment over spending tax payers money instead. And not a party I can see anyone voting for. So I can't see any party putting that forward in its manifesto.
I'm saying, if people who can't drive/don't have a car can get a driverless car cheaper than the train fare, why wouldn't they?
And get stuck in all of the same traffic? Why would it be cheaper than the train fare. It'll be cheaper than a taxi, but not drastically so, the investors will want to get their capital back.
Not to mention it won't be quicker in a car than a train over many routes.
On this basis cars have far more economic and social value as they provide transport for the vastly greater number of people who cannot conveniently use trains for the journeys they wish to undertake. Cars would therefore deserve the larger subsidy.
I can't wait to see how they cope with narrow country lanes.
Something that everyone else has been able to do for years using Google Maps among others and which is naff-all use if all of the potential alternatives are also jammed. This being the key issue - driverless cars don't solve congestion, they just save a few parking spaces.
A bit like being on public transport then (with everything that involves). Except that your daughter is now stuck in a confined space with a strange man. At least on trains you're rarely alone with just one other person.
What private investment?
And just like with satnav you`ll end up creating further traffic issues elsewhere when the main routes becomes blocked. The technology has been there for years as it has with electric cars. That doesn't mean a thing.
He's not unusual in that respect.
But driverless hire cars will be able to get passengers in both directions and maximise their time on the road, and encourage car-sharing will reduce the numbers of cars on the road.
Lots and lots of firms have committed millions in investment. Some big household names you wouldn't think would be interested.
The aim is to make them cheaper than owning a car. That's the market they are after cracking. They are electric and take themselves off for charging when needed, but they'll do impressive distances without. But it then essentially removes the need for government to fund public transport. The private sector has done it by default.
All sounds rather nice, but rather unrealistic at least in my lifetime.....
You would also get the productivity gain which the train offers now - you can do your emails or a Zoom meeting in a driverless car and you would have more privacy.
I don’t think cars should be subsidised. Neither should trains. Road traffic should pay its full external costs, which would mean there is no reason for subsidising trains.
Not all rural areas have "low passenger numbers as you put it.
Of course they'll be cheaper for all bar high-mileage users. Most private cars are really unproductive.
No it doesn't. Other than a slightly reduced need for parking, driverless cars don't make congestion any better, they still take up roughly the same road space.
Come on then, do tell us, how will driverless cars behave on narrow country lanes? What will they do when they encounter another vehicle, will they know to back up into the passing space right behind them?
Heard of buses?
They'll behave as per the rules of the road. What were you expecting them to do??
I am in favour of road user charging, which should vary by location, vehicle weight and emissions, and by time of day, to reflect external pollution and congestion costs. Pretty neutral on rail privatisation - can run either way with or without subsidies. But hard not to notice the trend increase in passenger numbers following privatisation - either doing something right, or coincidence?
