3 ms·

> Though automatic driving should increase capacity... Even if the advent of autonomous cars results in any increase of road capacity there is not likely to be

> Though automatic driving should increase capacity... Even if the advent of autonomous cars results in any increase of road capacity there is not likely to be any difference in traffic congestion. Things are likely to be the same as they are now, if not worse. In general autonomous cars are a nightmare scenario for people who fight against the spread of automobile oriented infrastructure and urban sprawl. The main problem is that autonomous cars massively incentivize car use, and the result of this will be that more people will choose to drive cars. This factor, combined with induced demand and combined with the unchangeable physical constraints of our built environment and car size, means that the roads will be just as gridlocked as they are now if nothing changes, and they'll be worse if politicians make the wrong decisions and expand road capacity. Some of the main things that discourage car ownership and use are costs, such as parking costs and insurance costs. The author points out these things are decreased or go away entirely with autonomous cars. Additionally the total potential group of drivers is increased, as you no longer need a license to drive. Now the very young and very old can also drive and the total potential amount of drivers increases. Urban politicians are best off pretending autonomous cars don't and won't exist because it's not going to be a solution to any of their problems. > What exactly are the differences in traffic dynamics between a Lyft Line shuttle with 5 passengers and a municipal bus with an off-peak load of 10? I'm pretty sure transportation experts already know the answer to this given that independent small bus transit of the sort Lyft Line replicates is the norm in many third world countries. Given that first world countries have universally moved to centralized routes of large capacity buses it's surely more efficient. Tech companies should really at least talk with some people in the field they seek to disrupt before working on reinventing the wheel.

mikeash 10y ago
My counter would be: what are the reasons to fight against automobile oriented infrastructure and urban sprawl? If it's pollution, the move towards electric vehicles and clean energy will hopefully put that to rest before too long. If it's cost or fairness, if autonomous cars really do enable lots of ride sharing services, that should come way down. If it's accessibility, all those people who can't drive will be able to use autonomous cars. I'm sympathetic to the desire for walkable areas. I love a good walkable area myself. But cars are great too. People want them, because they want the things they enable. Even countries that are big on walking and biking and public transport still have a ton of cars. A future with sprawling cities where people have lots of space, things are far apart, and people get around in cheap, efficient autonomous cars sounds pretty good to me.
- stouset 10y ago
  Regarding pollution, Jevon's paradox comes to mind. Electric cars still pollute — just less. But the increased efficiency and decreased cost will drive up use: more people will be willing to live further away from jobs, more people take long car trips knowing they don't need to be awake behind the wheel the whole way, and more people (the young and elderly) will be able to use cars. Is it totally unrealistic to expect that the net of these two advancements is an increase, or at least not a decrease, in carbon emissions? This is a genuine question — I haven't done the math. I'm also conveniently ignoring the inevitable existence of automated gasoline-powered cars, which I'm not convinced will be an insignificant fraction of the market. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
  - mikeash 10y ago
    EVs still pollute, for now. How long will that remain true? One way or another, we need to greatly reduce emissions from electrical generation. EVs should help a lot with this, both by being a relatively flexible load and by helping to push energy storage technology. It seems like it comes down to this: if we can get transportation cleaned up, then having more of it is good. If we can't, we're screwed regardless. Either way, autonomy doesn't change the larger outcome much.
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  > My counter would be: what are the reasons to fight against automobile oriented infrastructure and urban sprawl? Well for one thing there was a study that found that divorce rates spike 40% when commutes exceed 45 minutes! There’s a wealth of data out there that indicates that compact communities are better for people’s health, well-being, and they’re cheaper on municipalities too. I don’t really know how to answer because questioning whether sprawl is bad is a bit akin to asking a climate scientist if CO2 emissions are bad. There’s a broad consensus amongst urban planners on the overwhelming benefits in all sorts of categories of compact communities. I haven’t seen anyone promoting suburban sprawl as a superior alternative. You’re right that autonomous vehicles could mitigate some of the downsides of sprawl. For example many communities are “car captive” in that they have no amenities and to escape this amenity desert and do any errand a car is required. This obviously becomes a big problem when one becomes elderly and is no longer legally able to drive. Autonomous cars are a solution to this problem. Another solution however, is to design communities such that common errands can all be easily accomplished within a 20 minute walk. This solution has the added benefit of allowing people to be active, which improves health and mobility as one ages. One negative point about sprawl I will specifically point out is that it’s simply a waste of land. In certain areas this may not matter so much, but in some places the land has real value beyond urban uses. Vancouver for example is surrounded by an agricultural land reserve. The area of prime agricultural land produces 7% of North America’s cranberry crop. Real estate is incredibly expensive in Vancouver and I’m sure there are a lot of real estate developers that would love to pave over that land and build more suburbs. If this occurred however that export crop would be lost forever and there would be a real reduction in the economic potential of the region.
benedictevans 10y ago
Thanks for reading! I discussed both of the lines you quoted at some length, bringing up and discussing all of your points, I think, and linking research from experts in the field.
- Tiktaalik 10y ago
  I appreciate that you brought up induced demand, as I've read too many articles about the future of autonomous vehicles and cities that never even raised the subject. I think it’s an angle that people need to consider much further. I believe its impact will utterly dominate any road capacity gains that come from reducing “phantom jams” and related inefficiencies that come from human drivers. In the worst case an autonomous car is just as space efficient as a human driven car (ie. a single person in a compact car still takes up quite a bit of room) and if this case is fairly prevalent it’s hard to see how traffic congestion changes much. Even if parking goes away, city councils may be eager to reclaim that space for pedestrians, cyclists, and parklets. The question I’m most interested in is whether city governments will accommodate the increased demand that autonomous cars potentially induce with more road capacity, leading more cities down the path of Houston and LA with more and more land used for highway construction, or whether cities will take the approach of Vancouver and Paris, establishing policies to freeze and reduce the land space allocated to automobile exclusive transportation.

mikeash 10y ago

My counter would be: what are the reasons to fight against automobile oriented infrastructure and urban sprawl? If it's pollution, the move towards electric vehicles and clean energy will hopefully put that to rest before too long. If it's cost or fairness, if autonomous cars really do enable lots of ride sharing services, that should come way down. If it's accessibility, all those people who can't drive will be able to use autonomous cars. I'm sympathetic to the desire for walkable areas. I love a good walkable area myself. But cars are great too. People want them, because they want the things they enable. Even countries that are big on walking and biking and public transport still have a ton of cars. A future with sprawling cities where people have lots of space, things are far apart, and people get around in cheap, efficient autonomous cars sounds pretty good to me.

stouset 10y ago
Regarding pollution, Jevon's paradox comes to mind. Electric cars still pollute — just less. But the increased efficiency and decreased cost will drive up use: more people will be willing to live further away from jobs, more people take long car trips knowing they don't need to be awake behind the wheel the whole way, and more people (the young and elderly) will be able to use cars. Is it totally unrealistic to expect that the net of these two advancements is an increase, or at least not a decrease, in carbon emissions? This is a genuine question — I haven't done the math. I'm also conveniently ignoring the inevitable existence of automated gasoline-powered cars, which I'm not convinced will be an insignificant fraction of the market. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- mikeash 10y ago
  EVs still pollute, for now. How long will that remain true? One way or another, we need to greatly reduce emissions from electrical generation. EVs should help a lot with this, both by being a relatively flexible load and by helping to push energy storage technology. It seems like it comes down to this: if we can get transportation cleaned up, then having more of it is good. If we can't, we're screwed regardless. Either way, autonomy doesn't change the larger outcome much.
Tiktaalik 10y ago
> My counter would be: what are the reasons to fight against automobile oriented infrastructure and urban sprawl? Well for one thing there was a study that found that divorce rates spike 40% when commutes exceed 45 minutes! There’s a wealth of data out there that indicates that compact communities are better for people’s health, well-being, and they’re cheaper on municipalities too. I don’t really know how to answer because questioning whether sprawl is bad is a bit akin to asking a climate scientist if CO2 emissions are bad. There’s a broad consensus amongst urban planners on the overwhelming benefits in all sorts of categories of compact communities. I haven’t seen anyone promoting suburban sprawl as a superior alternative. You’re right that autonomous vehicles could mitigate some of the downsides of sprawl. For example many communities are “car captive” in that they have no amenities and to escape this amenity desert and do any errand a car is required. This obviously becomes a big problem when one becomes elderly and is no longer legally able to drive. Autonomous cars are a solution to this problem. Another solution however, is to design communities such that common errands can all be easily accomplished within a 20 minute walk. This solution has the added benefit of allowing people to be active, which improves health and mobility as one ages. One negative point about sprawl I will specifically point out is that it’s simply a waste of land. In certain areas this may not matter so much, but in some places the land has real value beyond urban uses. Vancouver for example is surrounded by an agricultural land reserve. The area of prime agricultural land produces 7% of North America’s cranberry crop. Real estate is incredibly expensive in Vancouver and I’m sure there are a lot of real estate developers that would love to pave over that land and build more suburbs. If this occurred however that export crop would be lost forever and there would be a real reduction in the economic potential of the region.

benedictevans 10y ago

Thanks for reading! I discussed both of the lines you quoted at some length, bringing up and discussing all of your points, I think, and linking research from experts in the field.

Tiktaalik 10y ago
I appreciate that you brought up induced demand, as I've read too many articles about the future of autonomous vehicles and cities that never even raised the subject. I think it’s an angle that people need to consider much further. I believe its impact will utterly dominate any road capacity gains that come from reducing “phantom jams” and related inefficiencies that come from human drivers. In the worst case an autonomous car is just as space efficient as a human driven car (ie. a single person in a compact car still takes up quite a bit of room) and if this case is fairly prevalent it’s hard to see how traffic congestion changes much. Even if parking goes away, city councils may be eager to reclaim that space for pedestrians, cyclists, and parklets. The question I’m most interested in is whether city governments will accommodate the increased demand that autonomous cars potentially induce with more road capacity, leading more cities down the path of Houston and LA with more and more land used for highway construction, or whether cities will take the approach of Vancouver and Paris, establishing policies to freeze and reduce the land space allocated to automobile exclusive transportation.