[ad_1]
It is often claimed that autonomous vehicles (AVs) will reduce urban traffic and thus make our communities safer. But while the trend away from driver-owned and operated vehicles makes sense for our crowded, polluted cities, there’s a logical fallacy in believing that autonomy will somehow equate to emptier, more pedestrian-friendly streets.
As motoring organization the RAC explained at the Urban Mobility Conference in March 2021, the average British car today sits idle 90 per cent of the time – not because it’s stuck in traffic, but because it’s parked. Put simply, most driver-owned cars are nothing more than depreciating statues over nearly their entire useful life.
So while reducing the number of cars owned by drivers may make economic sense, it understandably offers no guarantee of reducing downtown traffic. In fact, the promised future of autonomous modules that summon apps that speed you to your destination—regardless of your age, sobriety, or disability—may cause a net increase in downtown traffic.
Why? Because those vehicles are likely to be in constant traffic even when empty, instead of rusting in driveways. Indeed, figures presented at the same conference – from a study by transport modeling experts PTV Group – suggest that the increase in urban traffic from the mass adoption of AVs could be as much as 50%.
It wouldn’t be the future the techno-evangelists promised us – despite the undoubted benefit of AVs in eliminating the cause of most fatal accidents: human drivers.
And that’s not the only problem with AV’s vision of the future. Speaking at the 2021 event, Andrew Pearce, head of the UK and Europe intelligent and smart technology practice at engineering giant Atkins, argued that the rise of large-scale autonomy would also negate the need for traffic lights, pedestrian crossings and even street lighting, which would save cash-strapped authorities hundreds of millions of pounds in driver infrastructure costs.
Maybe. But it’s hard to see how this would benefit pedestrians, cyclists, micro-mobility users and others who actually live in cities, rather than passing through them in AVs. Arguably, this is a vision of urban centers designed around the needs of smart machines, not people. That would be the opposite of the main benefit of driverless transportation: making our communities better and safer for people.
The financial impact of AVs also needs to be carefully considered. For example, what would fill the hole in municipal finances from lost parking fees? According to the RAC Foundation, UK councils generated revenue of £1.7 billion from on- and off-road parking in 2019 and 2020. In London’s Hammersmith & Fulham council, for example, parking generated revenue equal to 46% of revenue from council tax. Lost revenue on that scale would mean lost services to citizens.
Consider the potential effects of other visions of urban mobility—a sky filled with thousands of noisy drones, for example—and it’s hard to avoid the impression that tech innovators are largely ignoring residents when it comes to quality of life in the future of cities.
In that seemingly frictionless world, passengers and packages can rush to their destinations 24 hours a day, but would anyone really want to live in such places – especially when the necessary in-flight security for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) would direct them over quiet residential areas areas or parks to reduce drone operators’ insurance costs and increase their profits?
In short, would human beings have even a moment of peace from roads and skies full of autonomous machines? Shouldn’t those machines exist in a world designed primarily for humans – including many who can walk, bike or scooter?
What are we trying to achieve?
The good news is that there seems to be a growing awareness among urban transport planners that some future visions are either based on false premises or are simply nonsense when viewed in isolation and at scale.
Speaking at last Friday’s Westminster Energy, Life and Transport Policy Forum on the next steps for urban mobility, Martin Tugwell, chief executive of regional body Transport for the North, said:
Basically, if we’re talking about a place-based approach now, we’re thinking about what it means to be in a city or a city center. And only then should we think about how to bring people there and from there.
My observation about transportation in general is that we are very good at coming up with ideas that this or that is the right solution. I always remember talking to the former Minister of Transport, who said that the reason it was so difficult to pick a winner was because there was no single solution.
So what we are talking about is not ‘what technology do we need’? It’s ‘what are we looking for in our places?’ And ‘what do we want to create for our users?’ That is where we could then do more to leverage innovators and entrepreneurs.
We have to have a different way of thinking. I often think that if a technology company was tasked with getting people to and from services, opportunities and places, then we wouldn’t have the transportation system that we actually have.
We need to free our thinking about what we are trying to achieve first. Only then can we make some differences.
Christian Bode, Roads Director for construction company AECOM added:
That really raises concerns about what AV will actually mean. I certainly have concerns about them, that they are not necessarily the panacea that certain groups think they are.
We really need to consider what the implications of any new mode of transport are and how we want our streets to work.
So one theme emerging from these discussions is that the focus needs to shift away from technology as an end in itself and towards an approach that is more based on outcomes for citizens.
For innovators, therefore, the key questions should be: What are we trying to achieve in our communities? For whom? And why? Only when those questions can be answered should technological innovators be brought in to help.
Despite the vision of AV companies, autonomous transportation alone is unlikely to take control of today’s oil-guzzling driver-owned cars. Our future urban transport mix will include electric vehicles of every kind, many of which are connected and still manage a driver or rider on a shared journey towards Net Zero.
Matt Dale is Head of Transport Consulting at strategic outsourcing and energy services company Mitie. He said at last week’s conference:
We are aware that switching cars from internal combustion engines to electric cars will not solve everything. For example, congestion will remain a major problem. The transition to EVs will take many years. Even with the band coming in 2030, we’ll still be at just 11 million electric vehicles [in the UK] until that date.
Our reliance on the car is clearly too great. We all know it, we accept it and it is in our hands to do something about it. But one thing we’re pleased to see is that businesses aren’t just thinking about electric vehicles now as they decarbonize their fleets. They are becoming more aware, especially of Scope Three emissions, which is the commuting and business travel part [of the puzzle].
We are currently working with a high street bank to reduce their Volume 3. They encourage employees to find different ways to travel and understand [the impact of] that trip. They are installing charging points to prepare for electric scooters, so they can help employees move away from full combustion engine vehicle parking to decarbonized electric vehicle or bike and scooter parking.
They also harken back to the good old days of car sharing. They actively encourage it and put in place the infrastructure to support it. They also make sure that everyone has access to it.
You often see electric vehicle charging stations in locations buried in a dark corner under some trees. But these guys don’t do that. They bring them to the fore, they make sure that people with disabilities have full access and that the infrastructure can be used by people with disabilities.
We also come across buyers looking to rationalize their buildings and move back into town centres.
For example, we are working with one client who is moving from the periphery to the center, while reducing the parking available to their employees and moving to a location that is convenient for public transportation. They encourage employees to leave their cars at home, or take them for a short trip, then use a park-and-ride solution, or go entirely by public transport and micro-mobility.
Micro-mobility is increasingly being talked about in this arena, driven by the desire to reduce the carbon footprint. Now this is starting a lot of conversation.
My attitude
It’s time to put aside grand visions of an autonomous future for personal transportation and start thinking about how human beings actually use cities—to live and work in them, not just pass through them on their way somewhere else.
The future of transportation will be diverse, just like our cities, not the autonomous monoculture that some technology evangelists predict
[ad_2]
Source link
