The potential automation of mass transit is something we should be thinking about too. Autonomous buses could significantly alter the cost curve for operators, supporting more reliable, frequent and affordable public transit.
Relying on AVs will mean more vehicles on the street. For example, parents will send their kids off to school in their AVs (robotaxi or personal) while they commute to work in their AVs. School pick-ups will still be as insane as airport pickups. Nothing will have changed other than it's done via AVs; we can be eternally distracted, have no connection with those who can't afford AV life and depend on public transit, walking, etc, and the use of space and valuable place-making will continue to remain more or less what it is today. The safety aspect of AVs will backfire if we become dependent on AVs - speeds will increase to make them even more efficient, and pedestrians will face more "jaywalking" BS campaigns and policy and infrastructure restrictions as we did when we were sold that vehicles would save us. We are repeating the status quo just under some vehicle tech window dressing.
This is the pessimistic view and what could become reality if we don't adjust the policy framework and price the roads appropriately, as I argue. What do you think ought to be done?
I am of two minds: I think that Nicole brings up some important points, and Ryan, I share some of your optimism. Have any of the municipalities that have enabled Waymo and other AVs actually taken steps toward dismantling car-centered infrastructure so far? And if not, when should they start doing that?
VMT is right back where it was pre-pandemic, in part because people who work from home aren't cutting back on their miles, they're just running more errands or WFH means a kid gets use of a car.
I agree with you Ryan that there is so much potential here. I'd like to see more evidence that cities are going to use AVs as a way to reduce car infrastructure, otherwise I do think AVs stand to be a net negative.
I think cities should start adopting the policies I outlined now. Regardless of whether and when AVs arrive in their cities, moving away from 20th-century auto-centric planning is good policy, full stop. But getting a head start will make the adaptation smoother.
In Austin, we've already abolished parking mandates and upzoned for missing-middle housing and transit-oriented development in anticipation of a future light rail and rapid bus system, so we're doing the right things. We should already have congestion pricing around downtown, but that will take a cultural revolution at the state house, where Greg Abbott has vowed not to allow any new tolls. Cities, especially New York, also have to solve the transit safety problem (perceived or real) to make/restore it as a viable alternative to car travel; but pricing the roads there already shows that people are willing to make alternate arrangements to driving when they have to bear the cost of it. I think New York will really see a difference on transit when they charge taxis the same toll for traveling within the congestion zone.
This is all going to play out over years, and it's still early days, so the evidence either way will build—but other cities should start paying attention to those where AVs are operating now.
It's a realistic view based on past auto dominance history. Also, San Francisco is seeing with AVs & Waymo that AV use is putting more vehicles on the street due to families using an AV for almost everyone in the household.
Right, but this is in a context in which San Francisco hasn't undertaken any policy reforms beyond abolishing parking mandates. The roads remain unpriced, and the transit system has poor connections (and lingering disorder problems). If you disagree with the policies or don't think they will work, what's the alternative?
I was following up to your mention of paying attention to where AVs exists now. If it becomes abour roads being unpriced, it's safe to assume AV lobbyist will fight hard to prevent them from being priced. AVs exist in Phoenix where my family of four lives without driving because of $$$ and you don't see Waymos in west Phoenix where Streets are most dangerous for walking and transit reliability the worst. They dominate in affluent Phoenix and Phoenix Valley areas. AVs aren't affordable solutions for us poors. The wealthy, whether they pay for road use or not, will still benefit from expensive forms of transportation like they always have, including AV dominance.
The potential automation of mass transit is something we should be thinking about too. Autonomous buses could significantly alter the cost curve for operators, supporting more reliable, frequent and affordable public transit.
100%. The article from Andrew Miller that I link to at the bottom is about transit automation. There are some really interesting possibilities there.
Relying on AVs will mean more vehicles on the street. For example, parents will send their kids off to school in their AVs (robotaxi or personal) while they commute to work in their AVs. School pick-ups will still be as insane as airport pickups. Nothing will have changed other than it's done via AVs; we can be eternally distracted, have no connection with those who can't afford AV life and depend on public transit, walking, etc, and the use of space and valuable place-making will continue to remain more or less what it is today. The safety aspect of AVs will backfire if we become dependent on AVs - speeds will increase to make them even more efficient, and pedestrians will face more "jaywalking" BS campaigns and policy and infrastructure restrictions as we did when we were sold that vehicles would save us. We are repeating the status quo just under some vehicle tech window dressing.
This is the pessimistic view and what could become reality if we don't adjust the policy framework and price the roads appropriately, as I argue. What do you think ought to be done?
I am of two minds: I think that Nicole brings up some important points, and Ryan, I share some of your optimism. Have any of the municipalities that have enabled Waymo and other AVs actually taken steps toward dismantling car-centered infrastructure so far? And if not, when should they start doing that?
VMT is right back where it was pre-pandemic, in part because people who work from home aren't cutting back on their miles, they're just running more errands or WFH means a kid gets use of a car.
I agree with you Ryan that there is so much potential here. I'd like to see more evidence that cities are going to use AVs as a way to reduce car infrastructure, otherwise I do think AVs stand to be a net negative.
I think cities should start adopting the policies I outlined now. Regardless of whether and when AVs arrive in their cities, moving away from 20th-century auto-centric planning is good policy, full stop. But getting a head start will make the adaptation smoother.
In Austin, we've already abolished parking mandates and upzoned for missing-middle housing and transit-oriented development in anticipation of a future light rail and rapid bus system, so we're doing the right things. We should already have congestion pricing around downtown, but that will take a cultural revolution at the state house, where Greg Abbott has vowed not to allow any new tolls. Cities, especially New York, also have to solve the transit safety problem (perceived or real) to make/restore it as a viable alternative to car travel; but pricing the roads there already shows that people are willing to make alternate arrangements to driving when they have to bear the cost of it. I think New York will really see a difference on transit when they charge taxis the same toll for traveling within the congestion zone.
This is all going to play out over years, and it's still early days, so the evidence either way will build—but other cities should start paying attention to those where AVs are operating now.
It's a realistic view based on past auto dominance history. Also, San Francisco is seeing with AVs & Waymo that AV use is putting more vehicles on the street due to families using an AV for almost everyone in the household.
Right, but this is in a context in which San Francisco hasn't undertaken any policy reforms beyond abolishing parking mandates. The roads remain unpriced, and the transit system has poor connections (and lingering disorder problems). If you disagree with the policies or don't think they will work, what's the alternative?
I believe in the policies, not in cities need Waymo…at any point.
I was following up to your mention of paying attention to where AVs exists now. If it becomes abour roads being unpriced, it's safe to assume AV lobbyist will fight hard to prevent them from being priced. AVs exist in Phoenix where my family of four lives without driving because of $$$ and you don't see Waymos in west Phoenix where Streets are most dangerous for walking and transit reliability the worst. They dominate in affluent Phoenix and Phoenix Valley areas. AVs aren't affordable solutions for us poors. The wealthy, whether they pay for road use or not, will still benefit from expensive forms of transportation like they always have, including AV dominance.
This really made me think! I’ve always had mixed feeling on ADAS, despite working in that space. Appreciate you sharing this - food for thought!
Thanks, J! I appreciate the feedback and am glad you found it useful!