Why the insistence on "driverless" ? Everyone knows that better organization of public transport (aided by technology) and abandonment of private cars should result in the huge gains described in the article.

If it hasn't happened in the decades since these ideas were first proposed - thanks to the auto-industrial-complex and our love affair with cars - what difference will "driverless" make?

Three years ago when driverless cars were first making the news, I wrote that this would happen, that driverless cars would swarm the city - and up the sides of buildings - like ants, as well as change the meaning of "home." http://seer.ws/no-hands "In fact, it appears to me that much of the middle class won’t have their own vehicles. Instead they’ll rely on a robust public transportation system, a network of hundreds of thousands of automated cars swarming around the city like ants. The middle class traveler will always have an automated car less than a few minutes away—awaiting his/her beck and call like a faithful dog."

People would be FREE! to shoot at each other on freeways and city streets, for one.

I don't think "eliminating 90% of cars on the roads" is a good summary. In some scenarios you get 10% of the number of cars, doing more than 10x the current distance travelled each (if you have high capacity Public Transport available i.e. trains). They note the transition phase will be challenging.
Certainly looks like there will be significant benefits.

Errol, speaking as a native from Lisbon, I can assure you that rogue parking and extremely narrow curbs (and damaged ones on account of the aforementioned rogue parking, at that) are the bane of our collective existence…

Lisbon is, much like most cities in Europe, populated by ever-growing numbers of elderly people who have special mobility needs. Also, cyclists are, unlike in the more civilized Netherlands, treated like second-class citizens (nay, like garbage!). Getting rid of 90% of *parked* cars, building larger curbs and/or a more extensive cycling lane network would, indeed, increase our quality of life manifold.

And you are ignoring the fact that *a lot* of cars around here carry only their drivers; carpooling would bring massive environmental and economic benefits as it would, indeed, also reduce the number of cars *on the road* at any given time.

As for trains, something tells me this study is outdated already. Monthly passes in Lisbon already include trains, so those thirteen train stations that were disregarded as negligible *should* have been lumped together with the Metro network. Lisbon, right now, is just lacking a few interfaces like the planned ones (but never actually built) at Alvito and maybe Chelas, some Metro renovations and extensions but *especially* an investment on light rail, with the reactivation of tram #24 and new tram links on the suburbs, maybe following the example of Croydon. Oh, and the obvious: buses every 5 minutes at every time of the day *and* night like in London, not this 15-30-60 minute waiting times nonsense we're getting right now at some spots.

The economic benefits are going to be huge. Americans spend around $700 billion for gasoline every year. The amount of electricity to move the same mass of vehicles would cost less than 20% of that using 100% renewable energy. That's close to half a trillion dollars of savings to American consumers every year.

Also, the value of property on what are currently high volume roads will increase substantially. With fewer cars, virtually no pollution, and very little noise, those streets, roads and avenues will be much more pleasant places to live.

I would think Uber could self-insure. Taxibots will be so safe that any accident will be the fault of the human driver in the other car. No need to pay for insurance if there are no accidents. Pass the savings on to the consumer.

By the way, thanks for coming up with "taxibots". I was tired of writing autonomous cars.