> The less of a pain it is to take a car somewhere, the more often people will take cars places.
That’s an increased use not increased ownership argument.
The reduced ownership argument is that AVs make on-demand use without ownership easier, reducing the degree to which regular use necessitates ownership.
> It's very slightly possible that there will be fewer total cars all running at a higher utilization, but the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up.
Sure, but that's a different issue. On the flip side, casual AV use doesn’t require parking at either end of the users trip (it still needs some place to park when idle and to the extent that is remote you get extra empty travel distance, but that’s still a lot more urban spacr use flexibility than traditional auto usage.
That’s an increased use not increased ownership argument. The reduced ownership argument is that AVs make on-demand use without ownership easier, reducing the degree to which regular use necessitates ownership.
> It's very slightly possible that there will be fewer total cars all running at a higher utilization, but the mean number of cars on the road at any given time would seem like it would only go up.
Sure, but that's a different issue. On the flip side, casual AV use doesn’t require parking at either end of the users trip (it still needs some place to park when idle and to the extent that is remote you get extra empty travel distance, but that’s still a lot more urban spacr use flexibility than traditional auto usage.