National

Last week, New York City passed the nation’s first cap on new licenses for ride-hailing vehicles, like those driving for Uber and Lyft, citing in part concerns over worsening congestion and declining transit ridership. The decision represents the culmination of alarm over app-based ride-hailing companies and could serve as a blueprint for cities across the U.S.

Yes, but: Privately owned vehicles driven for personal use still dominate our transportation system, in large part because using one is cheap, fast and comfortable after the initial investment. Any regulatory solution to congestion must focus on personal vehicles first. Short of that, placing limits on Uber or Lyft will be a mere drop in the gas tank.

Despite rapid ride-hailing growth over the past few years, over 75% of all passenger miles in the U.S. are traveled in personal vehicles, and over 90% when air travel is excluded. By comparison, taxis and ride-hailing vehicles account for less than 0.5% combined, and all public transit less than 5%. Even in the New York City metropolitan area, personal vehicles account for over 75% of all land travel, versus 1.2% for taxis and ride-hailing vehicles. 

Meanwhile, with the advent of self-driving cars, many of the reasons people currently take taxis or public transit — such as disability, aversion to driving, and difficulties with parking — might begin to disappear within the next few years. While some have predicted that autonomous vehicles will lead to the end of private ownership as we know it, this is hardly inevitable: No fleet operator will ever provide the same convenience of having a robot chauffeur in your driveway whenever you need it. And any cap on shared vehicles will make personal vehicles even more desirable.

Fixing transportation will require cities to foster alternatives to personal vehicles by incentivizing shared rides and integrating ride-hailing with public transit, and then implementing congestion pricing and eliminating parking in areas where people no longer need to drive. Otherwise, by the time personal automated vehicles develop a constituency, it will be too late.

The big picture: A new age of transportation is dawning, and we have a choice to make: Rethink the necessity of personal vehicles, or let their share of the transportation pie continue to grow larger and larger while public transit and ride-hailing fight over the diminishing crumbs.

Gordon Bauer is a National Science Foundation Research Fellow in the Energy and Resources Group at UC Berkeley.

Ride-hailing caps don't address the root causes of urban congestion

Taxis and ride hails account for less than 0.5% of passenger miles.

A Lyft ride hailing vehicle moves through traffic in Manhattan on July 30, 2018 in New York City.

A Lyft ride-hailing car moves through traffic in Manhattan on July 30, 2018, in New York City. Photo: Spencer Platt via Getty Images

Politics

Ride-hailing

Expert Voices

Technology

Business

Transportation

Future

Last week, New York City passed the nation’s first cap on new licenses for ride-hailing vehicles, like those driving for Uber and Lyft, citing in part concerns over worsening congestion and declining transit ridership. The decision represents <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="the culmination of alarm over app-based ride-hailing companies " data-vars-click-url="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/falling-transit-ridership-poses-an-emergency-for-cities-experts-fear/2018/03/20/ffb67c28-2865-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?utm_term=.8c26f6cdd104" data-vars-content-id="081d9bfc-9a9f-4694-a3a5-df8bf031c000" data-vars-headline="Ride-hailing caps don&#x27;t address the root causes of urban congestion" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/falling-transit-ridership-poses-an-emergency-for-cities-experts-fear/2018/03/20/ffb67c28-2865-11e8-874b-d517e912f125_story.html?utm_term=.8c26f6cdd104" target="_blank">the culmination of alarm over app-based ride-hailing companies </a>and could serve as a blueprint for cities across the U.S.Yes, but: Privately owned vehicles driven for personal use still dominate our transportation system, in large part because using one is cheap, fast and comfortable after the initial investment. Any regulatory solution to congestion must focus on personal vehicles first. Short of that, placing limits on Uber or Lyft will be a mere drop in the gas tank.

From the Valley to D.C., Big Tech players like Facebook, Google and Amazon are under more scrutiny than ever as new technology develops and privacy and antitrust concerns grow in lockstep with companies’ ambitions.

Today's AVs aren't ready to drive themselves in all situations, but they could be enlisted to make traditional car-sharing services more efficient.

Why it matters: Companies like Zipcar and Car2Go could lower their operating costs and edge into the autonomous driving world by using early-stage AVs to navigate between rental customers. And every mile driven by a person would still be a mile the AV learns, helping to map roadways.

Background: Current AVs are not ready for full autonomy (the robo-taxis in Waymo's Arizona service, for example, reportedly avoid highways and sometimes require human assistance). But they do, hypothetically, have the capability to travel autonomously over short distances.

Early-stage AVs could potentially be deployed by traditional car-sharing companies to drive themselves between customers, who would then take the wheel. The cars could take less direct routes when needed to avoid challenging driving scenarios.

Operating the AVs autonomously only when there isn’t a passenger inside delays negotiating certain trade-offs between safety and comfort, like AVs' propensities to brake suddenly and take roundabout routes to stick with mapped out roads. 

Once in the car, the customer would drive, with the help of any advanced sensor and safety systems in place, while allowing the car's AI to learn from the customer's driving.

Details: This model could bring additional benefits to car-sharing services and their customers.

The AVs could refuel when idle, which could ease the shift to electric vehicles.

They could redistribute themselves in anticipation of demand patterns, reducing wait times and increasing vehicle use.

They could potentially be safer, too, thanks to more sophisticated sensor technology than today's standard safety equipment.

AVs could also park in low-cost areas and drive themselves to maintenance centers, reducing both labor and parking costs for car-sharing operators.

Yes, but: With the industry racing for full automation, there has been little discussion of possible applications of partial automation, which would require careful consideration of liability, the conditions in which an AV should operate autonomously, including weather, traffic, and location. 

Early stage AVs could make car-sharing companies more efficient

Autonomy could help cars refuel and travel between customers.

Ride-sharing

Today&#x27;s AVs aren&#x27;t ready to drive themselves in all situations, but they could be enlisted to make traditional car-sharing services more efficient.Why it matters: Companies like Zipcar and Car2Go could lower their operating costs and edge into the autonomous driving world by using early-stage AVs to navigate between rental customers. And every mile driven by a person would still be a mile the AV learns, helping to map roadways.

As housing prices in the Bay Area have skyrocketed, more people have moved to peripheral cities and seen their commutes lengthen as a result. Between 2005 and 2016, the number of people in the region who commute more than 90 minutes per day increased 113%.

The big picture: Once autonomous vehicles come to market, this issue will only get worse. As spending time in a car becomes less onerous, the tradeoff of moving a few hours away to save money on rent will look increasingly favorable. Aside from its environmental impact, this shift could also lead to increased income inequality: Recent studies have uncovered an inverse relationship between time spent commuting and economic mobility.

Despite the environmental effects of “super commutes,” climate-minded policymakers have paid it little attention. At the Global Climate Action Summit (GCAS) in San Francisco last week, Governor Jerry Brown signed an array of clean transportation bills, but speakers were almost silent on the issue of housing. Even as electric and hydrogen fuel-cell vehicles proliferate, California will still have to contend with this central issue: More sprawl equals more miles traveled, and more miles traveled equals more emissions.

There is a simple solution: More affordable housing close to employment centers. The Bay Area has performed particularly poorly on this count. Whereas most cities have added roughly one unit of housing for every two jobs added since 2010, the San Francisco–Oakland metropolitan area has added only one unit for every five jobs. Geography plays a role, but Seattle, a city with similar geographic constraints that is also experiencing a tech boom, added almost twice as many housing units over the same period. Even Portland added more units than the Bay Area, despite strict urban boundary laws and less than half the job growth.

Much more important than geography is policy. The Bay Area was one of the first areas in the country to establish zoning regulations, often with an intent to exclude minorities and low-income families. To this day, local politicians continue to fight affordable housing projects and policies that could make a significant difference.

The bottom line: Any climate policy without housing policy remains incomplete. If no action is taken, the combination of AVs and continued housing pressure could erase many of the benefits gained from other clean transportation policies.

As housing costs rise, AVs could raise commute times, CO2 emissions

AVs will make moving farther to save money on rent an easier tradeoff.

Cars drive northbound on the Golden Gate Bridge May, 8, 2008 in Sausalito, California. 

California's Golden Gate Bridge, which connects San Francisco and Sausalito. Photo: Justin Sullivan via Getty Images

As housing prices in the Bay Area have skyrocketed, more people have moved to peripheral cities and seen their commutes lengthen as a result. Between 2005 and 2016, the number of people in the region who commute <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="more than 90 minutes" data-vars-click-url="https://www.sfgate.com/traffic/article/Bay-Area-commute-San-Francisco-traffic-12861808.php" data-vars-content-id="fb628c6c-0794-4502-a7d4-a07bab1e6e09" data-vars-headline="As housing costs rise, AVs could raise commute times, CO2 emissions" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.sfgate.com/traffic/article/Bay-Area-commute-San-Francisco-traffic-12861808.php" target="_blank">more than 90 minutes</a> per day increased 113%.The big picture: Once autonomous vehicles come to market, this issue will only get worse. As spending time in a car becomes less onerous, the tradeoff of moving a few hours away to save money on rent will look increasingly favorable. Aside from its environmental impact, this shift could also lead to increased income inequality: <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="Recent studies" data-vars-click-url="http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/mobility_geo.pdf" data-vars-content-id="fb628c6c-0794-4502-a7d4-a07bab1e6e09" data-vars-headline="As housing costs rise, AVs could raise commute times, CO2 emissions" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="http://www.equality-of-opportunity.org/assets/documents/mobility_geo.pdf" target="_blank">Recent studies</a> have uncovered an inverse relationship between time spent commuting and economic mobility.

Sections

Axios Local

Axios gets you smarter, faster with news & information that matters.

About

Subscribe

Gordon Bauer

Stories

Early stage AVs could make car-sharing companies more efficient

As housing costs rise, AVs could raise commute times, CO2 emissions

Ride-hailing caps don't address the root causes of urban congestion