Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2018

Home

Partial automation features such as dynamic brake support and crash - imminent braking have been available in the U.S. for more than a decade, and major automakers have committed to installing automatic emergency braking systems in all new cars by 2022. time. On the other hand, the U.S. currently has 264 million non -AV cars. So even if 5o percent are AVs by 2040, there will still be 132 million non -AV cars on the road. To make things more complicated, those cars will vary between AV levels one and four. They will have a range of capabilities. For planners, this is a key fact. It means that for the foreseeable future we will be planning for cities, streets, and mobility for a mixed AV/non-AV system. (See "Here Come the Robot Cars," Planning, April zo17: plan- ning.org/planning/zo17/apr/robotcars.) For the rest of many of our professional careers, we will need to identify and respond to the different housing, working, and mobility needs of our citizens who use AVs while also responding to the needs of those who don't. Streets will be shared by cars with and without drivers (not to mention bikes and pedestrians); parking garages will probably not go the way of the dinosaur; and housing markets will continue to reflect the needs of those who want to live close to work and those who don't. This AV/non-AV mix will no doubt foster lots of innovative products and services, but it also carries the seeds of long-term conflicts that will need to be resolved. This key point may be the most important one for planners —but it is one that is rarely discussed in the news. Third, a Lot Depends on Who Owns the AVs There are two common visions about how AVs will operate. In the first vision, ride ser- vice firms will make fleets of AVs available to people needing mobility and will perfect and operate software that optimizes the efficiency of the fleet so that a subscriber's wait and trip will be as short as possible. This would be a super -efficient system that decreases the need for individual car ownership, shortens trip lengths (and greenhouse gases), reduces the need for parking spaces (because the cars are mov- ing about most of the time), and reduces the "waste" of today's cars sitting still while we work or shop or play. The second vision is one of private individual ownership; a vision where I will trade in my non -AV car for an AV that will provide individual services to me. It will be just like my current car except I don't need to drive it, and it knows when it could take my significant other somewhere and get back before I need it again —potentially allowing me to own fewer vehicles. In this vision, I stilt commute to work, so my AV occupies street space (just like my non -AV used to do). When there are no other family members to serve, it also sits still somewhere (just like my non - AV used to do). When the AV is not shared with a big group of people -that need it in different places and times, the opportunities fora more efficient transportation system are reduced. It's sort of like today's world; I just don't have to drive. Since we live in the U.S.—a country that prides itself on allowing individual freedom —it is very unlikely that any level of government will prohibit private ownership of AVs for individual use. In fact, in September zo17 the U.S. government relayed the Trump administration's goal to take a hands -off approach to regulation of AVs with the release of Automated Driving Systems 2.o: A Vision for Safety. So not only will we have a mix of AV and non -AV cars on the road, we will have a mix of system -oper- ated AVs operating on software designed to maximize their efficiency (or profitability) and individually owned AVs carrying out the unpredictable mix of commuting, shop- ping, errands, and pleasure trips that they do today. While the first vision is more efficient, both raise concerns for planners. First, both visions could be tempting alternatives to public transit. Those who ride the bus for non-sustainability reasons (they don't like to drive, they can't drive, or they like to work white they commute) may decide that AVs offer them the same choices plus privacy. Lower public transit ridership creates finan- cial pressures on transit systems and could mean that more transit riders are those with no other mobility options. Second, both visions may tend to feed sprawl. If I can work while I commute in a private vehicle, maybe I don't hate commuting as much as I thought, so maybe I want to move further from my job. It wouldn't take a big shift toward longer commutes to undo years of slow progress in trying to reduce vehicle miles travelled. The point is that —despite the media hype —planners who make and implement ZONINGPRACTICE 12.17 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page3