6 Principles to Make Self-Driving Cars Work for Cities, Not Against Them

Self-driving cars are coming, and maybe sooner than we think. But the question of how they will shape cities is still wide open. Could they lead to less traffic and parking as people stop owning cars and start sharing them? More sprawl as car travel becomes less of a hassle? More freedom to walk and bike on city streets, or less?

How will self-driving cars impact cities? Hopefully federal regulators won't ignore this question. Photo: Wikipedia
Photo: Wikipedia

The answers depend in no small part on how federal and local policy makers respond to the new technologies. The National Association of City Transportation Officials wants to get out ahead of these changes with a statement of policy recommendations to guide the deployment of autonomous cars in cities [PDF].

Here is what NACTO proposes.

1. Cars should be fully autonomous, not partly

If cars have some automated features but still require human drivers to occasionally take control, safety could suffer. NACTO cites research that shows semi-automated vehicles actually increase driver distraction, lulling motorists into thinking they can pay less attention to the road. But fully automated vehicles should be able to achieve much better safety outcomes than human drivers.

2. Maximum speeds on city streets should not exceed 25 miles per hour

Self-driving cars should be programmed not to exceed 25 mph in urban areas. Controlling speed is one way self-driving cars could yield enormous safety benefits. But it will require regulators — with support from the public — to insist on putting safety above speed, which, historically, America has failed to do.

3. Reconsider highway expansions

Automated cars will increase the capacity of any given road by reducing the buffer distance between vehicles. The upshot is that they could make “new physical capacity unnecessary in the near future,” NACTO says. Current highway expansion projects may prove completely unjustifiable, and planners should consider how self-driving cars might disrupt the “market” for highway lanes.

4. Require vehicles to gather important public data

The computers operating self-driving cars will have the capacity to gather all sorts of information about travel patterns, traffic speeds, and how people use cars in general — information that public agencies currently collect at great expense and with less precision. Regulators should insist that self-driving cars provide data that can optimize the transportation system and help governments make the most of their resources, NACTO says, while preserving privacy.

5. Study how vehicle automation can improve transit

Automated vehicle research is being led in large part by automakers. But it would be a mistake to overlook the potential benefits to transit, NACTO says. Self-driving vehicles could be useful in providing “first and last-mile” service to transit stations, or make point-to-point services like paratransit more cost-effective and robust.

6. People should use automated vehicles to build the cities they want, not build cities to accommodate automated vehicles

The big picture message from NACTO is that cities have to avoid the same trap they fell into with cars in the last century. Designing cities around the perceived needs of automated vehicles is the wrong way to go about it. Instead, cities have to lay out broad priorities and aspirations, then determine how automated vehicles can help achieve those goals.

“We need to adapt new transportation technologies to our cities in ways that make them safer, more efficient, and better places to live and work,” said NACTO Chair Janette Sadik-Khan in a statement. “Autonomous vehicles offer a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reset our streets and address the fundamental issues of traffic safety, congestion, and mobility as our cities grow ever larger.”

63 thoughts on 6 Principles to Make Self-Driving Cars Work for Cities, Not Against Them

  1. That’s just fine because space for parking private cars which aren’t used more than 90% of the time is primarily an issue in cities, as is congestion.

  2. If speeds are really hard limited to 5 or 10 mph then I have no problems with manual driving in places where fully autonomous operation won’t work. On public roads though it shouldn’t be an an option at all.

  3. How about bicyclists? They would interfere with the smoothly computerized flow of traffic, unless they are also self-driving.

    And how about pedestrians? They could do things like crossing the street in a crosswalk, interfering with the smoothly computerized flow of traffic. We would be better off if we got rid of humans and replaced them with robots, which could be networked in with the cars.

    And how about induced demand? Have you considered that greatly increased highway speeds would cause people to drive longer distances.

    I think that, if people spend a lot of time stuck in traffic, their minds are affected, so they think they must be some technological silver bullet that will end their misery.

  4. For all the talk of self-driving cars, they can’t seem to get self-driving *trains* down, and *that* ought to be infinitely easier! I would focus on the here and now before we start dreamily speculating upon what might be, or might not be, in the far future.

  5. Can we get Drivers to Pay to clean my Apt from The dust They generate ? once a week Is fair

  6. Add one more point, please: Ensure that a pay-as-you-go road-use charging is built into the AV ecosystem. This can be done transparently, at low cost, demand-based and with privacy protection.

  7. The general tenor of your “rules” and the truly appalling comments here prove one thing; self-driving cars mean increasing the power of the state over individual human beings. Also; “fuck you poor people, get ready to have to pay at least ten grand in order to be able to get anywhere at all.” (The gloating how mandatory insurance laws could be used to force people to stop driving their own vehicles is truly despicable. I have no problem with self-driving cars, assuming they worked, they were sold to people who make a free choice in a free market. But if you needs a cop to be your salesman, you are no longer a businessman – you are a thief, no better than any common burglar. And yes, this is just as true of insurance companies now who profit from mandatory insurance.)

  8. For better or worse, car development has long been a higher priority for Americans than transit development. And now we have a good number of entities in the private sector trying to one-up each other to get an autonomous car to market first.

    I agree that automated trains should be easier to implement in theory, but there’s far less competition in the rail industry than in the automobile and tech sectors and less profit motivation for the rail industry to try new things.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


How the Self-Driving Car Could Spell the End of Parking Craters

Here’s the rosy scenario of a future where cars drive themselves: Instead of owning cars, people will summon autonomous vehicles, hop in, and head to their destination. With fewer cars to be stored, parking lots and garages will give way to development, eventually bringing down the cost of housing in tight markets through increased supply. […]

Tesla’s Vision for the Future of Autonomous Cars Should Scare Us

What impact will self-driving cars have on cities? The range of potential outcomes is enormous. In the best-case scenario, private car ownership gives way to shared fleets of autonomous cars, freeing up vast amounts of land that used to be devoted to vehicle storage. Then there’s the scenario promoted by Tesla, in which everyone owns their personal autonomous […]