AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES TRANSIT LEAP


SIDEBAR 7: THE EMERGING CONSENSUS ON AUTOMATED VEHICLES AND VMT by Robert W. Poole, Jr, Reason Foundation, Surface Transportation Innovations, April 2016


In the initial rush of enthusiasm for the potential benefits from a tran- sition to mostly autonomous vehicles, reduced congestion and vehicle miles of travel (VMT) came in as a close second to reduced deaths and injuries from traffic accidents. But a growing array of studies suggests that a majority of researchers now think VMT will increase in an AV world, possibly by a great deal. In the January issue of the Surface Transportation Innovations news-


letter, I noted a report from KPMG (The Clockspeed Dilemma: What Does It Mean for Automotive Innovation) that used extensive focus group data to project large increases in VMT primarily due to increased personal vehicle travel by those unable or unwilling to drive today: teenagers and children, elderly people, and disabled people. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. A paper published in February in Transportation Research Part A, by


Zia Wadud and several academic colleagues, analyzed potential US car and truck energy demand by 2050, assuming significant AV market pene- tration. They estimated percentage ranges for a variety of energy-saving factors (including platooning) and reduced congestion, but did likewise for an array of possible energy-increasing impacts. These included peo- ple shifting from rail and airlines to AV travel, people living farther from work since they can be productive while commuting in an AV, and net new car travel by the kinds of people noted by the KPMG study (though their estimates on this were far lower than KPMG’s). Overall, they concluded that the net impact of these factors could


be increased or decreased energy use (and correspondingly increased or decreased VMT). A major factor in the outcome will be the extent to which people do or don’t shift from vehicle ownership to vehicle sharing. A 2015 OECD International Transport Forum project simulated a possible


AV fleet serving Lisbon, Portugal. It found that if shared-use AVs reached 50% of total vehicles, with the rest being human driven, total VMT would increase between 30 and 90 per cent. A panel discussion at an Eno Center


CONNECTED CANADA SUPPLEMENT 26


for Transportation conference last month again identified the ride-sharing question as the largest factor in the extent of VMT change. Eno Transporta- tion Weekly summarized the discussion on the question this way: “With regard to the VMT question, the underlying assumptions about


ridesharing versus single-use vehicles make an enormous difference in the outcome. . . . [A]utonomous vehicles could eventually result in a lot of people owning and operating cars that would be unable or unwilling to operate a conventional auto. Alternatively, the assumptions about AVs leading to lower overall VMT involve a mass migration from personal car ownership to shared-ownership or for-hire fleets.” A new overview report, Driving Towards Driverless: A Guide for Gov-


ernment Agencies, by WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff, concludes that, “No matter the scenario, there are a few impacts that are likely in a future driverless vehicle society, including increased safety, increased VMT, and reduced GHG emissions… VMT will likely increase as the cost of travel decreases and more people choose to drive.” Researchers with a planners’ mentality are unhappy with that likely


outcome. The author of the WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff report presents it as the “Driverless Nightmare” scenario, in which the demand for high- ways increases and the dreaded “urban sprawl” gets even sprawlier. She contrasts this with a “Driverless Utopia” scenario in which shared use of non-individually owned AVs plus expanded mass transit lead to more- compact, “smart growth” metro areas. In the Policy Activities section, the author writes, “This guide assumes that local, regional, and state gov- ernments will want to take actions that encourage moving toward the ‘driverless utopia’ scenario,” via such policies as disincentives for driving, enforcement of urban growth boundaries, increasing taxes on personally owned vehicles, and enacting legal limits on parking capacity. The Transportation Research Part A authors agree, saying that it may


be necessary to financially intervene in [people’s] transport decisions. Don’t say you weren’t warned.


www.thinkinghighways.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30