The smart-growth and transit revolution of the last decade or two has had only partial success. Despite some revitalized cities and some new transit, sprawl remains dominant in America.
On the heels of this incomplete revolution comes a new one: automated vehicles (AVs) that are certain to alter land use and transit.
As the predominance of Mobility Lab articles this week have reflected, AVs have a powerful ability to produce sprawl, making it easier to live great distances from jobs, recreation, and shopping. Alternatively, AVs could be used to enhance public transit and compact development, but only if wise partnerships between government and business encourage it.
Increased sprawl has pernicious long-term consequences for the environment and human well being. Sprawl made Houston more vulnerable to the ravages of Hurricane Harvey, with its acres of concrete that increased flooding. Sprawl also entices people into living where they really shouldn’t and, in a disaster, makes it difficult to rescue widely scattered individuals and property.
On a global level, sprawl fights against scientists’ recommendations to reduce greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050 for avoiding mass extinction.
That brings us back to the AV revolution, which must be managed responsibly. Acting on their own, tech and automobile companies are unlikely to develop AVs with sustainability at the top of their minds. Uber, for instance, grew exponentially through purposeful disruption, skirting existing laws and norms. Such heedlessness creates vast social and economic changes in a short timespan. This can improve people’s lives, but is problematic in maintaining social and environmental welfare. Ride-hailing companies, therefore, have arguably increased congestion and undermined public transit.
The likely impacts of the AV revolution remain hotly contested. On the dystopian side, former New York City Traffic Commissioner Sam Schwartz believes that “that the arrival of autonomous cars will increase the vehicle miles traveled (VMT), reverse the millennial trend eschewing driving, decimate public transport, and increase the occurrence of inactivity-related illnesses.”
Create fleets linked to transit
There are two keys to avoid this worst-case scenario, explains Mobility Lab communications director Paul Mackie. The first is to create a fleet model of AV-use, which means that vehicles and rides are shared as much as possible. As Mobility Lab’s Howard Jennings points out, personal AVs “will generate up to 35 percent more VMT than conventional personal cars.” Thus, government policies must discourage this model and encourage as much sharing as possible.
Along with AVs, transit needs to improve by filling up buses and trains and then, with increased demand, adding more routes and more frequent service. This is where AVs, hailed and shared, could solve the “first-mile last-mile” problem of transit, serving as short-term ferries. Transit guru Jeffrey Tumlin even calls for AV bus rapid transit (BRT), which would combine driverless vehicles with transit, efficiently moving large numbers of people. Environmentally, at least, this is the perfect model.
Think holistically about placemaking and design
Mackie’s second key, which prepares the way for shared models, is for cities to prepare early and wisely for the advent of AVs. This demands holistic thinking that connects existing and developing transportation systems. In practice, this means a somewhat different model for each city depending on its layout and existing transit. Thus, a city with an effective subway system must keep it in good repair and work to link it to AVs, while a sprawling city with little public transit may choose to develop a BRT system.
Fortunately, some of this is beginning to happen. A National League of Cities publication, Autonomous Vehicles: A Policy Preparation Guide, explains how government and transit agencies at the city level are increasingly partnering with technology and car companies to shape the future of AVs. The authors explains that:
“With the many benefits that AV technology promises, including reduction in traffic deaths, increased mobility for the disabled and seniors, reduced congestion, and enhanced connectivity for all demographics, cities have a unique opportunity to be proactive to not only engage in smart planning for AVs, but to also shape the policy around AVs to ensure such benefits are fully realized.”
Data-sharing partnerships are key
Access to data is another key issue that cities – and, indeed, government at all levels – will have to grapple with. The same NLC guide explains that data from manufacturers “could be used for traffic control, public-utilities monitoring, road-safety evaluation, and identifying infrastructure needs.” Increasing broadband capacity will be a crucial investment for cities, as cars “talk” to each other to maintain traffic flow and serve passenger needs. Cities also need to think ahead regarding how “streetscapes and rights of way can best accommodate AVs.”
Again, cooperation between government and private companies is needed. Uber, for instance, has developed a “data-sharing platform” for cities, while New York City has asked ride-hailing companies for data. Other partnerships are beginning to spring up, for instance in Singapore and Boston. The benefits of coordination are obvious, but this means that tech companies would have to leave behind the “disruption” model.
Utopia or distopia?
Will AVs drive us to a better future, or to disaster? Certainly, combining shared AVs with public transit is best for the environment. David Kirkpatrick recently wrote for Mobility Lab, “We know that making the switch to public transportation can reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Even “a simple switch to carsharing could reduce nationwide car ownership by nearly 2.1 million” and “could save $185 million in wasted fuel and result in almost 1 million metric tons of reduced carbon dioxide emissions.” Think about how those numbers could improve further and dramatically with better, more connected transit networks.
For that to happen, policies are needed that seem to contradict both human nature and the interests of auto and technology companies. The temptation will be great, once one has called up a ride-hailing AV, to use it as the single vehicle to arrive at one’s destination. It is always a time-versus-money trade off. As long as the environmental cost is not paid by the user, we will collectively get places in ways that waste energy and other resources.
The answer, it seems to me, is policies like a gas tax, a carbon tax, and/or a congestion tax combined with support for public transit. These will force us to get the most out of technology. Yet they will also be seen as intrusive and might never be enacted, or more likely will only be enacted on a piecemeal basis.
Without such policies, it seems likely that AV-hailing companies will feed consumer demand to once again disrupt conventional patterns in a way that serves short-term profit but undermines economic equity and environmental needs.
We must therefore be wary of moving too fast into the future. Speed can kill. It is better to take a deliberative approach and introduce AVs into our transportation system with due diligence for the risks they pose.
Photo of Winston-Salem, N.C., planning how to fight sprawl and build more mixed-use neighborhoods by NCDOTcommunications/Flickr.