Self-Driving Ride-Share Service ‘Waymo One’ Has Launched: What’s Next for Cities?
On December 5, 2018, Waymo launched ‘Waymo One’, the first commercial ride-share service utilizing self-driving cars in the US. This long-awaited service fulfills the company’s self-imposed deadline to start a commercial ride-share service by the end of 2018. Waymo, Google’s self-driving car project, has been operating in the Phoenix metropolitan area since 2016 and is an industry leader in autonomous vehicles, with over 10 million miles driven on public roads, and nearly 7 billion miles driven in simulations. The launch of Waymo One does come with limitations. It is only available to existing Waymo early-riders, a program which has allowed approximately 400 people to use Waymo ride-share since 2017 while the company continued to test its technology. The only thing that has really changed is that now these early-riders must pay for the ride-sharing service. Additionally, safety drivers will be in each Waymo One vehicle, so while the vehicles can drive themselves in nearly all situations, a human driver can take over when needed.
Though the plans for expansion of the service remain uncertain, the launch of Waymo One is a significant milestone and one that cities need to take note of. AV technology has rapidly advanced in the last decade, but until now, AVs have only been in the testing phase. In many places, they have been confined to closed campus areas, but increasingly over the last few years, they have been tested on public roads (where allowed), especially in California and Arizona. Many argue that more rigorous safety standards are needed before AVs should be allowed on public roads, but the only way to know how an AV will operate in the real world is to put them in it.
In the 1920s, when the automobile became widespread, cities had to quickly adapt and the same is true now. The automobile reshaped urban infrastructures, planning, and how we live. It also created cities that are car-dependent, huge public health costs from local air pollution, and has been a major contributor to climate change. While plenty of uncertainties remain about the maturation of AV technologies, that should not be an excuse for inaction. The question now, is how can we use these early moments in the development and deployment of AVs to map out the policy, planning, and infrastructure changes that need to happen to guide a mobility transition that leads to better, more livable and sustainable cities?
At the Center for Smart Cities and Regions at Arizona State University we have been working with local governments and industry representatives to identify the opportunities and risks that AVs present to cities. This work has identified early partnership opportunities, policies, and potential pilot projects that should be developed to ensure that AVs work for urban communities. These are based on interviews with decision-makers and urban planners, public and expert forums, and research on emerging city, regional, state and federal policy regarding AVs. Here, we share some of these results, identifying four core challenges for communities and several ways citizens and governments can develop approaches to AVs now that will help ensure they work for them.
The proponents of AVs and the many companies developing them often cite the numerous benefits AVs will have. These include safety, and the potential to remove human error from driving, which is the cause of over 90 percent of all crashes. Additionally, they tout the fact that AVs will eliminate congestion, something that traffic engineers have longed to do for nearly a century without success. Many of the AV companies also claim that there will be benefits to existing infrastructure, especially public transportation, since AVs can be utilized to get people to and from mass transit. Lastly, they claim that a reduction in cost of ride-share by AVs will allow more people to transition away from private car ownership. However, none of these outcomes is guaranteed, and for each point, the opposite outcome is perhaps more likely, unless cities step in to ensure they do not.
Our research has identified four core challenges regarding how AVs can help cities meet their goals and it comes as little surprise that these mirror the four points above, which proponents claim AVs will address.
1. AVs are not a technological fix to congestion problems.
An AV is still a car, takes up the same amount of space and has the same requirements for parking. As suggested above, AVs might be able to address congestion and traffic issues if they are primarily shared (which seems to be the favored option for now), but there are numerous academic studies showing this is not necessarily the case and that even a ride-sharing model of AV use can increase traffic and not help with congestion.
2. AVs are not a magic bullet to achieving vision zero goals.
Many of the sensors used in AVs still do not correctly identify pedestrians and cyclists, which poses serious safety concerns to these vulnerable street users, especially since the first use of AVs will be in more dense urban centers where people walk and bike more. As the Uber collision in Tempe last March as well as other autonomous vehicle failures, including airplane crashes, demonstrate there is still plenty of room for new kinds of technological failures as well as human error.
3. AVs do not automatically support public transit.
Many companies claim that their AVs will help people reach public transit which will boost ridership, when in reality, people are much more likely to use an AV to get all the way to their destination and not switch between modes. This is the case for the same reason a majority of people already do not ride public transit – driving is simply a faster and more convenient way to travel in most US cities. The places where this might actually work are where public transit is as fast or faster than driving, which means continuing to invest in quality public transit should remain a goal of many cities and regions.
4. Equity and accessibility are the most pressing issues facing AVs.
Waymo One looks to cost about the same as Uber or Lyft at present. Without lowering this cost, the service will not benefit low income households. If AVs remain exclusively priced so that only those who can afford to use them benefit, we will see existing inequities in transportation persist. AVs and ridesharing might also alter investments in public transit with significant equity and access impacts.
So, given these challenges, what can cities do?
Near-Term Action Items for Cities
First, cities need to think beyond seeing AVs as only cars. Many of the AV companies, such as Local Motors and May Mobility, developing this technology are developing small shuttles, neighborhood circulators, and other types of micro-transit. These have the ability to travel on neighborhood streets, move multiple passengers and truly transform mobility, especially in sprawling urban areas such as Phoenix. One way to explore these benefits is to build partnerships with AV companies – both those developing micro-transit and those developing more traditional ride-share services.
While many cities are limited in what they can do to regulate AVs, partnering with the AV companies in ways that are mutually beneficial is a viable option, and one that many AV companies are willing to pursue. Local Motors just announced the winners of the Olli Fleet Challenge. In the Phoenix area, Waymo has partnered with the regional transit agency, Valley Metro, to help use AVs to meet first/last mile goals. In Grand Rapids, MI, May Mobility is partnered with the city to conduct a one year pilot to test their AV shuttles as a supplement to existing public transportation.
These types of projects allow cities to rethink how people get around the city and envision a future with more transportation options. Simultaneously using AVs to reduce automobile dependence will also enable cities to rethink roadway infrastructure. Some talk about the ability to utilize AVs to move more cars in the same amount of roadway space, but another option allows cities to move the same or fewer cars in less roadway space, meaning that cities can reclaim parts of the public right-of-way for non-automobile uses, whether it is for wider sidewalks, bike paths, or even green infrastructure.
Cities must not lose sight of their core goals and values. Cities need to take the time now to re-articulate these goals and envision how AVs and other emerging mobility technologies fit into the city and how they might help or hinder the city from achieving their goals. Cities like Portland, OR and Seattle, WA have been proactive in doing just this, with the Smart Automated Vehicles Initiative (SAVI) in Portland and the New Mobility Playbook in Seattle.
In articulating their goals in relationship to AVs and other emerging technologies, cities should pay particular care to several core concerns. These include:
- Ensuring AVs promote an equitable and accessible transportation system
- Developing governance structures for the collection, use and sharing of data (both of individuals and from vehicles and companies)
- Promote public safety by developing training protocols and integrating public safety into partnerships and pilot projects
- Review infrastructure, zoning and land use requirements for AVs and ensure that they promote innovation while also supporting sustainable, mixed-use urban centers
- Put in place the mechanisms required to learn from pilot projects and be able to easily adapt and modify the transportation system based on what is learned
Autonomous vehicles are a rapidly emerging technology that has the ability to transform transportation and cities in ways that are difficult to predict. Many uncertainties exist as to the impacts that AVs will have on society, on individuals, on work, on travel, on cities, for sustainability, and many other areas. But, what is clear, is that if cities are going to benefit from the introduction of autonomous vehicles, they need to take a leading role in guiding the use of this emerging technology and creating a new urban transportation future.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
Since historically marginalized communities are already being disproportionally impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, I am frustrated to see these communities also negatively impacted by the lack of on-the-ground public engagement. While I realize the threat of COVID-19 and the associated restrictions make conducting on-the-ground public engagement challenging, I want to encourage fellow planners to think more creatively. I will admit that I struggled to think creatively when I first heard that Clackamas Community College (CCC) would continue having mostly online classes in Spring Term 2021. CCC has had mostly online classes since the end of Winter Term 2020 when COVID-19 first started impacting Oregon. CCC’s decision about Spring Term 2021 became more stressful when Clackamas County staff told me that public outreach for their new shuttles could not be delayed until next summer.
A new toolkit has been developed to help businesses think through strategies to decrease mobility barriers to the workplace, which reduces turnover. When workers can reliably get to work regardless of their personal circumstances, it provides employment stability and the opportunity to build wealth. It’s a win-win. Developed through a partnership between Metropolitan Planning Council and a pro bono Boston Consulting Group team, the toolkit includes slide decks, an overview report, customizable templates, a cost calculator, and instructional videos walking a company through the thought process of establishing a baseline situation, evaluating and selecting a solution, and standing up a program.
Depending on the employer’s location and employees’ needs, solutions may range from helping with last-mile transportation to the transit system, to developing on-demand vanpools, to establishing in-house carpool matching systems. The ROI calculator gives employers the ability to determine the break-even cost—the subsidy amount a company can manage without hurting the bottom line.
Housing that is affordable to low-income residents is often substandard and suffering from deferred maintenance, exposing residents to poor air quality and high energy bills. This situation can exacerbate asthma and other respiratory health issues, and siphon scarce dollars from higher value items like more nutritious food, health care, or education. Providing safe, decent, affordable, and healthy housing is one way to address historic inequities in community investment. Engaging with affordable housing and other types of community benefit projects is an important first step toward fully integrating equity into the green building process. In creating a framework for going deeper on equity, our new book, the Blueprint for Affordable Housing (Island Press 2020), starts with the Convention on Human Rights and the fundamental right to housing.