A world with autonomous vehicles could be a heaven with safer streets for walking and bicycling, and convenient lower-cost mobility accessible to all – but only if policies keep up, according to Professor Daniel Sperling of UC Davis at a forum last week, in a talk based on his recent book. If not, says Sperling, we’ll have a “hell” scenario with 50% to double the amount of driving, more traffic congestion, and even less equitable access to transportation and opportunity.

The key, according to Sperling, is pooling – more people in each vehicle.  But pooling, said Sperling, is not a done deal. Increased pooling would have to reverse the trend over the last 30 years where carpooling has declined to 9% from 20% in the 1980s.

So how can we get closer to the heaven scenario? Sperling says that the action will be at the level of local policy, so the people in the room on Thursday – and the people reading this blog post – active interested citizens, will be important to increase the likelihood of a good outcome.

Policy changes that could make a difference.

A lively panel discussion including Sperling, and a panel moderated by Prof. Billy Riggs of UCSF, with Debs Schrimmer of Lyft and Clarrissa Cabansagan of TransForm discussed a range of policies that could make a difference at a local, regional, state and even federal level.

Managing Curb Space

As the use of shared services increases, cities will need to change the way they manage curb space as a limited resource.  Debs Schrimmer of Lyft noted that cities tend to undervalue curb space and give it away for free, or deeply subsidized, for private vehicle parking. Some places are already starting to see a dropoff in private vehicle parking with the rise of transportation network alternatives. Schrimmer noted that ride sharing and microtransit need safe space for pickup and dropoff, to avoid competing with transit and creating safety hazards by double-parking in the bike lane.   

Billy Riggs noted that cities have are opportunities for “tactical urbanism” – experimenting with paint and temporary signs to test solutions for curb space.

Charging to reduce congestion and mileage

Audience members – including a representative of the SamTrans transit union – posed questions about how to ensure that transportation network companies (Lyft, Uber, and their self-driving future progeny) pay for the costs they impose on cities by increasing congestion and competing with transit; and about examples of other cities such as New York and Chicago that are assessing fees on TNCs to help fund the public transit system.

Riggs observed in response that when we as drivers get into a vehicle and drive on the roads, we are already not paying fully for the cost of the infrastructure and roadways are heavily subsidized.  Even more of a challenge, the trend toward electric vehicles will make it harder to fund infrastructure, since gas taxes will decline. A model to watch is the State of Oregon which is piloting a Vehicle Miles Travelled fee to replace a gas tax. 

Schrimmer strongly concurred that charging fees focused on TNCs misses the lion’s share of cars on the road.  She noted that the social costs of solo driving, and future “zombie trips” with nobody in the car – are issues with all vehicles, not only transportation networks like Lyft and Uber.

“It’s a pivotal moment”, said Schrimmer, to consider congestion pricing to manage the flow of vehicles (or to use a new more positive term, “decongestion pricing”). This mechanism hasn’t been implemented yet in the United States – London and Stockholm are successful international examples. Lyft supports decongestion charges for all vehicles, with financial incentives to carry more passengers per vehicle; with provisions for the funding to be used for transit and bike lane infrastructure to further reduce congestion; and to make sure the system works equitably for people of all income levels.

Cabansagan noted that in Sacramento this session there was a bill (AB3059) to enable decongestion pricing pilots in Northern and Southern California. Unfortunately, the bill was withdrawn from committee on April 25, but is expected to be back in the fall of 2018. 

Incentives for sharing

Panelists gave a variety of examples of incentives to increase sharing.  Clarrissa Cabansagan noted that BART instituted a pilot program with the Scoop carpool service.  A passenger who carpools to BART using Scoop can get a coveted, reserved parking permit. 

Another example, noted Cabansagan, is San Francisco’s partnership with Lyft to provide a shuttle service in the Bayview that doesn’t duplicate Muni routes.  Schrimmer added that Lyft is partnering with transit agencies including SMART in Marin and LAVTA in Eastern Alameda County that are subsidizing passengers who take LyftLine to the train instead of driving and parking. 

Riggs noted that historically, transit agencies haven’t done much in the way of “transportation demand management” – programs to reduce solo driving.  Also, notes Riggs, prices aren’t always the most effective motivation to change behavior (think about car ads that sell the feeling of racing down a country road on holiday with a sexy companion, when most driving is a slog in rush hour traffic, driving alone). To encourage more people per vehicle, it’s important to draw on the power of emotion, not just pricing trips.

Accessible to all

In his presentation, Professor Sperling explained that automated, shared fleets of vehicles could bring transportation costs down from 55 cents per mile today, to 15 cents per mile, making transportation more financially accessible to people with lower incomes, while increasing mobility for people who don’t drive for reasons of age and physical ability. For this to occur, it is important for shared-ride business models to be mainstream.

The panel discussed a variety of issues to consider in making shared transportation work for people with differing needs. For example, people have concerns about sexual harassment, safety, and privacy.  Sperling noted that design could take privacy into account. For example, – in business class air flight, there are screens that separate passengers. To address safety and behavior concerns, services can have passenger ratings and emergency call buttons.

Cabansagan shared research indicating that a major contributor to transit ridership decline has been the displacement of lower income residents who are most likely to use transit and own fewer cars.  Affordable housing near transit, and anti-displacement policies, are important strategies to maintain and increase the use of shared transportation.

TransForm is working with affordable housing developers to develop incentives to reduce driving and increase use of transit and shared transportation. One proposal they are considering – to offer a discount on rent for tenants who drive less.

Because of displacement, lower-income people are more likely to move far away from their jobs, and face long-distance, multi-county commutes.  There is room for alleviating the cost of these transit trips with means-based fares, and in improving the efficiency with better transfers.

The future of transit in question

Before he had to leave early to catch a flight, Prof Sperling made some provocative statements that I wish the panel had a chance to explore. He said that the future of pooling includes traditional trains and buses – but he is much more pessimistic about the role of transit than he was even a few years ago. “We need to give up on the idea that transit will solve the problem.”

Where does transit have the opportunity to improve and compete in a world with shared, autonomous technology, and where might it be displaced by competition, and where are there opportunities for new hybrids? This is a topic where there is substantial debate – for example, Jarrett Walker’s assessment that “microtransit” has fundamental limits imposed by land use and street geometry.  

We’re considering bringing a similar panel back for another session in Santa Clara County – would you be interested?