AVs ≠ Fulfilling Every Hope and Dream for Better Transit, Shared-Use Utopias, and Livable Cities

Lately, I am seeing lots of conflation of autonomous vehicles (AVs) - or should I shift to the term automated vehicles? - with every wish for a better passenger transportation system and improvements to city infrastructure relating to livability.

AVs do NOT equal - 

Reliable, convenient, frequent, affordable and/or on-demand transportation anywhere and everywhere.

Note to society: AVs will cost money to produce, maintain, and repair. They will not be free. Therefore, whether we stick with a transportation system of mostly privately owned vehicles or we shift to shared-use and transit services, we will still have to invest resources. AND if we truly want the kind of quality transit enjoyed in major cities (and some smaller ones) in several other countries around the world, then more than wishful thinking will be required.

Accessible transportation for people with disabilities, people with strollers, people with luggage or athletic gear, or people with grocery carts. 

Accessibility of vehicles and interfaces to communicate with vehicles or request systems have nothing to do with whether a human driver or some kind of artificial intelligence software is operating a vehicle. We did not accomplish transportation equity with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) almost 30 years ago and we will not automatically accomplish it if all we do is convert conventional vehicle designs to AVs.

There are some promising signs when I look at the Local Motors' latest iteration of its Olli AV shuttle, which was designed with people who have a range of different disabilities, and the Renault EZ-Go concept AV, which shows people getting onto the vehicle with wheelchairs, strollers and luggage.

Increasing and improving rural transportation options.

Again, AVs will not be free AND profit for private operators, whether these are car companies or tech startups, will require either a certain density of population or high fares per ride. Rural communities, regions, and states will be compelled to find a different business model. Broadband is critical for AVs and for any kind of rural economic development outside of yoga or other monastic retreats. Adapting the rural cooperative model for AV shared and transit services would be a good idea - though still requiring public investment.

Rural land use decisions will also have to change. It is unsustainable for any fleet to provide separate rides to every destination for every person. The school should be located next to the supermarket, which would be next to healthcare facilities, which would be next to employment hubs, etc.

Otherwise few AVs will be seen in rural areas and those will be for long-distance tourist journeys and affluent owners of second homes.

More livable cities.

AVs have little to do with better, more livable cities, which, in terms of my transportation mind, means better pedestrian infrastructure, biking access, and public spaces. Those can be, and, in some places, are being implemented now. One aspect of the AV livability goal for urbanists is avoiding the huge mistakes of the auto revolution, which decimated most US cities.

But the true transportation livability vision with MaaS (mobility as a service) and great transit and shared-use modes, and lovely walkable streets, and pretty public spaces has absolutely nothing to do with who or what is driving the vehicles.