Driverless Traffic
I have repeatedly written about (blog 729) the disruptive revolution that is upon us: Electric, Autonomous, Driverless Vehicles. In this article in The Conversation an aspect is brought up that I hadn't thought about:
The ambition is to allow all users to share road space much more safely than they do today. But, if a driverless vehicle will never hit a jaywalker, what will stop every pedestrian and cyclist from simply using the street as they please? Some analysts are predicting that the new vehicles will be slower than conventional driving, partly because the current balance of fear will be upset.
This quite likely will mean very strict traffic rules for jaywalkers (I confess: Like me): Absolutely no crossing of roads anywhere, unless at a traffic light or zebra crossing!
That'll be tough.
I can't
help myself but to comment on driverless traffic: It is being said in some of
the research that it will mean more roads, indeed more traffic. Myself, I don't
agree, I believe vehicles will be used much more economically and private
ownership of cars will be reduced in due time. One aspect I deem important,
though: I think the current investment in Sydney's very expensive light rail (trams) is ill
advised ... that mode of transport will be redundant very soon, probably right after they're up and running.
From The Conversation:
We must plan the driverless city to avoid being hostage to the technology revolution
Trials of
autonomous cars and buses have begun on
the streets of Australian cities. Communications companies are moving to deploy
the lasers, cameras and centimetre-perfect GPS that will enable
a vehicle to navigate the streets of your town or city without a driver.
Most
research and commentary is telling us how the new machines will work, but not
how they might shape our cities. The talk is of the benefits of
new shared transport economies, but these new technologies will shape our
built environment in ways that are not
yet fully understood. There’s every chance that, if mismanaged, driverless
technologies will entrench the ills of car dependency.
As with Uber
and the taxi industry, public sector planners and regulators will be forced
to respond to the anger of those displaced by the new products the IT and
automobile industries will bring to the market. But can we afford to wait?
Three
competing interests
Three
distinct groups are giving form to the idea of driverless vehicles. Each has
its own corporate proponents and target markets, and its own, often competing,
demands on citizens, regulators and planners. Each will make its own demands on
our streets and public spaces.
First,
the traditional car makers are adding “driverless” features to their existing
products. They have no compelling interest in changing the current individual
ownership model. Their target consumer is someone who values private vehicle
ownership and enjoys driving.
These
carmakers’ challenge is to win over drivers sceptical about “their” car doing
things they can’t control, whether that is behaving differently in traffic or
performing unescorted journeys. But, if successful, these new cars will make
driving easier and so encourage more travel and ever-expanding suburbs.
Second,
cashed-up IT disruptors like Google and Uber see new types of vehicles and new
patterns of ownership as the basis for new transport economies. They want
lightweight, utilitarian “robo-taxis” owned by a corporation and rented by the
trip. Travellers will use phone apps or their next-generation successors to do
this. This, in the jargon, is “mobility
as a service”.
These
companies’ ambition is to carve out a large niche in competition with private
cars, taxis, conventional public transport and even non-motorised transport.
Fleets of shared vehicles in constant circulation can reduce the number of
individually owned cars and, in particular, the need
for parking.
In some
circumstances, this may support more compact urban forms. But while
sustainability or social objectives might be part of the pitch, the profit
motive remains dominant.
Third,
public transport operators can see opportunities and challenges in driverless
technologies. Already, Vancouver reaps the benefits of lower operating costs
for its driverless elevated-rail system.
Savvy
operators understand that new vehicle technology is only valuable if it is
integrated with traditional public transport services and with cycling and walking.
This means central coordination. Vitally, it also requires control of the
information platforms needed to provide multimodal mobility.
Such
levels of planning and regulation conflict with Google’s “disruptive”
free-market ambitions. European operators, who are in a more powerful position
in economic and social life than their Australian counterparts, are already mobilising for this contest.
Whatever
the technology, transport needs space
Many
claims for the benefits of driverless technologies rely on the complete
transformation of the existing vehicle fleet. But the transition will not be
smooth or uniform. Autonomous vehicles will face a significant period of mixed
operation with traditional vehicles.
Freeways
are likely to be the first roads on which the new vehicles will be able to
operate. Promoters of these vehicles might join forces with the conventional
car lobby to demand extra lanes. This would dash the hopes of many that
driverless cars will lead
to reduced space for mass movement of cars.
After the
freeways, the next objective will be to bring driverless cars, trucks and buses
onto city streets. This will require complex systems of sensors and cameras.
The
ambition is to allow all users to share road space much more safely than they
do today. But, if a driverless vehicle will never hit a jaywalker, what will
stop every pedestrian and cyclist from simply using the street as they please?
Some analysts are
predicting that the new vehicles will be slower than conventional driving,
partly because the current balance of fear will be upset.
Already
active travellers are struggling to assert their right
to the streets of Australian cities. Just imagine how much worse it would
be if a dominant autonomous-vehicle fleet operator demanded widespread fencing
of roadways to keep bikes and pedestrians out of the way.
The
presence of driverless cars cannot alter the fact that space for urban
transport is severely constrained. For travel within and between compact urban
centres, we will need more and better high-capacity mass transit as well as
first-class conditions for walking and cycling.
The
integration of conventional public transport networks with shared autonomous
vehicles, large and small, offers many opportunities for a much improved
service. But that will happen only if this objective is the major focus of
investment, innovation, planning and regulation.
Researchers
and policymakers need to move rapidly to gain a holistic and systematic
understanding of the multiplicity of driverless-vehicle scenarios and the
potential harm that some might contain. The technologies are not an unalloyed
good, and governments will need to do more than just be “open
for business”.