This vision is being somewhat differently articulated by the National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO), the American Planning Association (APA), and AARP, among others. For AARP, this means universal MaaS, designed to maximize mobility for the one-third of Americans - including many seniors - who do not drive. For NACTO, it means prioritizing pedestrians, transit, and biking.
These dreams do not actually have anything to do with AVs in particular, but with the hopes that:
- AVs will be expensive to own, will be operated in fleets, and will mostly provide shared rides, whether on a route or on demand. Thus, it is hoped, there will be an environment ripe for fostering more local and regional transit-based or transit-like transportation systems. Yes, but - While we might not have to pay for a driver, there will be other costs, and those should not be ignored. We also do not know whether prices to own AVs will come down quickly to levels that mimic our current auto-based transportation system.
- AVs will promote better cities. When one looks around the world, there are wonderful examples of vibrant cities with fabulous networks of pedestrian infrastructure, public spaces, transit, and supplementary taxi and ridehailing services. There are also examples of the opposite. The political will and public support to achieve urban transportation vibrancy has nothing to do with whether a human being or software is doing the driving.
- AVs will promote Mobility as a Service (MaaS). Just as likely at this point are a continuation of a transportation network that relies mainly on privately owned automobiles OR a frequent-flyer-type system where transportation companies, including transit - offering one or more modes - offer loyalty rewards. Yes, we might end up with a world of nice integrated, coordinated, and transportation-mode-enhancing MaaS packages of multi-modal choices, but this is NOT guaranteed.
Not a legal brief
In a legal brief it is advisable to address the other's side's argument and why it does not work. But in the utopian visions that have been rolled out in the last couple of years, we only see the world through urbanist rose-colored glasses. Since the US in particular is not, on the whole, a particularly urbanist place, unlike much of Europe and limited parts of Asia and the UK, it is quite possible that we will see something different than a rational, equitable, accessible, blah, blah, blah, transportation system.
On the road now
How do AV pilots square with the urbanist utopias being dreamed up for livable cities and suburbs of multi-modal choices, on-demand availability of transportation, and a walking paradise?
In the US, we are seeing mainly suburban first-mile/last-mile shuttles, such as those in California and Texas. True center city use is only happening in Las Vegas. We are seeing university campus shuttles in Michigan and plans for a Delaware campus. Yes, and lots of demos here and there. We are seeing AV-as-private-taxi for single rider use in Arizona by Waymo, but also in Village retirement communities in Florida and California.
It is way too early to assume that those one-third of Americans whom AARP states do not drive, whether because of young or old age, disability, license revocation, illness, expensive parking, or preference, will have good affordable, accessible, frequent, and reliable transportation options when AVs arrive en masse.
Beyond the rant
If we want the urbanist dream, and I am partial to it, then it cannot only be argued for, but also shaped with private companies that are designing vehicles and software. Politicians in places beyond a relatively few transit-rich cities will need public support and dedicated advocacy for us to realize a better transportation system than we have now. And, really, this has nothing to do with whether there is a human driver or an AV. AV is the excuse for change, but we could change right now. (Yes, there are some changes now and in many places, but I don't see huge percentage modal shifts yet.)
No comments:
Post a Comment