Three revolutions in the world of transportation
Tuesday, 6 June 2017
- Electrification: a shift from internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles to electric vehicles (EVs)
- Automation: a shift from human-piloted vehicles to automated vehicles (AVs) that drive themselves
- Ride-sharing: a shift from privately owned, often single-occupant vehicles to fleets of shared cars, vans, and small and large buses
There has been a great deal of discussion about how these revolutions will proceed. Among the questions are how fast they will develop and how they will interact with one another and with current infrastructure.
Urbanists - two futures
Urbanists, who have been fighting for decades to shift the focus of urban planners away from cars to a more holistic vision, with a wider variety of transportation options (“multimodal”) and more land devoted to pro-social uses, are particularly interested in these interactions.
For urbanists, these coming transportation revolutions might portend heaven — fewer cars, less parking, more places for biking, walking, and gathering — or they might portend a hell of more cars, more vehicle miles traveled, worse congestion, and more sprawl.
Which of these two futures comes to pass, or what mix of the two, does not depend on technology. It depends on us — our willingness to discuss, debate, and plan for the future we want.
Three transportation revolutions
Late last month, the University of California Davis and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy released a report, “Three Revolutions in Urban Transportation,” that attempted to put some numbers on how these revolutions will play out.
- In the first, business-as-usual (BAU) scenario, there are no revolutions. Privately owned, low-occupancy ICE vehicles continue to dominate, meeting the surging growth in demand in the developing world.
- In the second, two revolutions (2R) scenario, electrification and automation take off. EV sales rise from 750,000 in 2016 to 5 million in 2020 and rocket up thereafter. Full automation becomes commercial around 2020 and takes off in 2025. In both cases, costs fall rapidly and automated electric vehicles (AEVs) dominate new car sales by 2040. Oh, and the electricity sector mostly decarbonises (an important caveat!).
Meanwhile, ride-sharing does not take off and most cars remain privately owned and low occupancy. Because automation makes personal vehicle travel easier and more convenient, there is a 10 to 15 percent increase in overall vehicle travel and no reduction in the number of cars on the road.
- In the third, three revolutions (3R) scenario, electrification and automation take off and ride-sharing is prioritised, alongside a suite of policies that encourage multimodal urban transportation, resulting in “an ‘ecosystem’ of public transport and ride-hailing services that are harmonious and complementary.” Private ownership declines precipitously, the average occupancy of vehicles rises, and the number of cars on the road plummets.
Obviously, none of these scenarios is likely to play out as described. It is impossible to predict how policy, technology, and social change will develop and interact, especially in a time of such tumult.
But the scenarios can serve as signposts, rough indicators of the consequences of various choices. And they can tell us a lot about the political economy of the changes to come.
Three key lessons;
- Lesson one: the carbon work is mostly done by electrification, the urbanist work by ride-sharing.
- Lesson two: the scenario with the greatest social benefits requires the most policy support, scenario 3R. What’s the catch? It also requires the most policy support.
- Lesson three: geometry requires sharing. The question is; How do we make cities better? And when it comes to cities, there are simple limitations of geometry.
Scenario 3R requires the most policy support.
All things being equal, if AEVs get comfortable and affordable, people will want to own one. The more affordable they get, the more tempting individual ownership will be. The only way to counteract that is through policy to “discourage or restrict private ownership of AVs,” like it says on the list — or to develop shared alternatives that are so convenient and attractive that private ownership declines naturally.
Extract from VOX.