IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1806.01696.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Quantitative Analysis of Possible Futures of Autonomous Transport

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher L. Benson
  • Pranav D Sumanth
  • Alina P Colling

Abstract

Autonomous ships (AS) used for cargo transport have gained a considerable amount of attention in recent years. They promise benefits such as reduced crew costs, increased safety and increased flexibility. This paper explores the effects of a faster increase in technological performance in maritime shipping achieved by leveraging fast-improving technological domains such as computer processors, and advanced energy storage. Based on historical improvement rates of several modes of transport (Cargo Ships, Air, Rail, Trucking) a simplified Markov-chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) simulation of an intermodal transport model (IMTM) is used to explore the effects of differing technological improvement rates for AS. The results show that the annual improvement rates of traditional shipping (Ocean Cargo Ships = 2.6%, Air Cargo = 5.5%, Trucking = 0.6%, Rail = 1.9%, Inland Water Transport = 0.4%) improve at lower rates than technologies associated with automation such as Computer Processors (35.6%), Fuel Cells (14.7%) and Automotive Autonomous Hardware (27.9%). The IMTM simulations up to the year 2050 show that the introduction of any mode of autonomous transport will increase competition in lower cost shipping options, but is unlikely to significantly alter the overall distribution of transport mode costs. Secondly, if all forms of transport end up converting to autonomous systems, then the uncertainty surrounding the improvement rates yields a complex intermodal transport solution involving several options, all at a much lower cost over time. Ultimately, the research shows a need for more accurate measurement of current autonomous transport costs and how they are changing over time.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher L. Benson & Pranav D Sumanth & Alina P Colling, 2018. "A Quantitative Analysis of Possible Futures of Autonomous Transport," Papers 1806.01696, arXiv.org.
    • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1806.01696
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.01696
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christopher L Benson & Christopher L Magee, 2015. "Quantitative Determination of Technological Improvement from Patent Data," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-23, April.
    2. Edward Glaeser & Janet Kohlhase, 2003. "Cities, regions and the decline of transport costs," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 83(1), pages 197-228, October.
    3. David S. Jacks & Christopher M. Meissner & Dennis Novy, 2008. "Trade Costs, 1870-2000," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(2), pages 529-534, May.
    4. Bansal, Prateek & Kockelman, Kara M., 2017. "Forecasting Americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous vehicle technologies," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 49-63.
    5. David S Jacks & Krishna Pendakur, 2010. "Global Trade and the Maritime Transport Revolution," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(4), pages 745-755, November.
    6. David Hummels, 2007. "Transportation Costs and International Trade in the Second Era of Globalization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 131-154, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ivan Yanchin & Oleg Petrov, 2021. "Validation and Refinement of a Ship Route During the Voyage," SN Operations Research Forum, Springer, vol. 2(2), pages 1-22, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jacks, David S. & Meissner, Christopher M. & Novy, Dennis, 2011. "Trade booms, trade busts, and trade costs," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 185-201, March.
    2. Patricia Sourdin & Richard Pomfret, 2012. "Trade Facilitation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14596.
    3. Abdoulaye Seck, 2017. "How Facilitating Trade would Benefit Trade in Sub-Saharan Africa," Journal of African Development, African Finance and Economic Association (AFEA), vol. 19(1), pages 1-26.
    4. Chen, Natalie & Novy, Dennis, 2008. "International Trade Integration: A Disaggregated Approach," CEPR Discussion Papers 7103, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Mario Larch & Pehr-Johan Norbäck & Steffen Sirries & Dieter M. Urban, 2016. "Heterogeneous Firms, Globalisation and the Distance Puzzle," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(9), pages 1307-1338, September.
    6. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Teti, Feodora & Yalcin, Erdal, 2019. "Rules of origin and the profitability of trade deflection," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    7. Douglas H. Brooks, 2016. "Connectivity in East Asia," Asian Economic Policy Review, Japan Center for Economic Research, vol. 11(2), pages 176-194, July.
    8. Tongsheng Xu & Xiao Liang, 2017. "Measuring aggregate trade costs and its empirical effects on manufacturing export composition in China," China Finance and Economic Review, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1-18, December.
    9. Sabaté, Marcela & Fillat, Carmen & Gracia, Ana Belén, 2011. "A gravity criterium for discriminating traditional protection measures," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(1), pages 50-53, April.
    10. Harold Creusen & Arjan Lejour, 2009. "The contribution of trade policy to the openness of the Dutch economy," CPB Document 194.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    11. Joseph F. Francois & Julia Wörz, 2011. "Shifts in International Trade and Value Added from 1995 to 2007: Insights into the Drivers of Growth," Focus on European Economic Integration, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank), issue 3, pages 37-56.
    12. Ashby, Nathan J. & Ramos, Miguel A., 2013. "Foreign direct investment and industry response to organized crime: The Mexican case," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 80-91.
    13. Frank Vöhringer & Jean-Marie Grether & Nicole A. Mathys, 2013. "Trade and Climate Policies: Do Emissions from International Transport Matter?," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(3), pages 280-302, March.
    14. Matthieu Crozet & Pamina Koenig, 2010. "Structural gravity equations with intensive and extensive margins," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(1), pages 41-62, February.
    15. Dennis Novy, 2013. "Gravity Redux: Measuring International Trade Costs With Panel Data," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 51(1), pages 101-121, January.
    16. Mora, Jesse & Olabisi, Michael, 2023. "Economic development and export diversification: The role of trade costs," International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 102-118.
    17. William F. Lincoln & Andrew H. McCallum, 2011. "Entry Costs & Increasing Trade," William Davidson Institute Working Papers Series wp1024, William Davidson Institute at the University of Michigan.
    18. Zofío, Jose L. & Condeço-Melhorado, Ana M. & Maroto-Sánchez, Andrés & Gutiérrez, Javier, 2014. "Generalized transport costs and index numbers: A geographical analysis of economic and infrastructure fundamentals," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 141-157.
    19. Jose Pulido, 2022. "Pandemic-induced increases in container freight rates: Assessing their domestic effects in a globalized world," IHEID Working Papers 24-2022, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.
    20. Alfonso Irarrazabal & Andreas Moxnes & Luca David Opromolla, 2015. "The Tip of the Iceberg: A Quantitative Framework for Estimating Trade Costs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 97(4), pages 777-792, October.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1806.01696. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.