But not if your automated car can drive straight through: It would take a day and an half. Four fueling stops. That's enough not to need the loo built-in. With two passengers, the economics are compelling.
Airlines better figure out a way to reduce the overhead around air travel or they are toast.
The US has poor rail connections from airports. Airport security adds uncertainty to making one's flight and making international to internal connections. Airlines have cut their redundancy to the bone, so cancellations and missed connections can turn into an extra day of travel, rather than just a changed flight.
Of course, I hadn't considered stepping out of the terminal at ABQ and into a robo-chauffeured rental that arrives precisely when I'm ready to go. So perhaps the drive at the end of a long day of air travel turns into a restful nap.
Still, being able to travel privately, quietly, directly, and whenever in the day makes it most convenient makes elapsed-time comparisons not always valid: Any distance where you could step into a robo-car in the evening and wake up at your destination would become tough for airlines to claim greater practicality, never mind comfort.
This won't change just by making mobile homes autonomous. It will still be cheaper to have a stationary home and a cheap car, autonomous or not.
Also, there an elephant in the room: The RV. It's great for road-trip holidaying, but not practical for living. I don't see how driver-less-ness changes that value-proposition drastically - although a road trip holiday with most of the driving done at night, while you're sleeping, could be awesome.
Even the top tier of business travelers, who fly first class or business and stay in very good hotels, tend to prefer being home. I don't see how a driver-less car makes "being on the road" a zero-drag experience.
Thanks for discussing, everyone.
Now, that I agree 100% with.
I feel like the OP article's "futurist" has a decent grasp on HOW, but completely disregards WHY.