Driverless Cars Are Coming, But Will Cities Be Ready?

Aaron Cole
by Aaron Cole

Probably not.

According to a study by the National League of Cities, only 6 percent of future city plans consider the potential impact autonomous vehicles will have in the next few years, including driverless car lanes and scaling back parking as ride-share services become more popular.

The study collected transportation plans of the 50 biggest U.S. cities, as well as the most-populous cities in every state. In all, 69 city plans were amassed and studied for future traffic and road plans.

Despite automakers rushing to put autonomous cars on the road by 2020, the study suggests that many cities won’t be able to adequately accommodate those cars, nor will they adapt fast enough to changing transportation modes that may challenge conventional public transportation and infrastructure wisdom.

The study also found that 50 percent of city plans call for more roadways and construction, despite fewer Vehicle Miles Traveled and changing work schedules among Millennials, which will become the largest workforce demographic when Baby Boomers retire.

“Many transportation plans which project outcomes decades into the future focus almost exclusively on the problem of automobile congestion and prescribe increased infrastructure in the form of new roads as the primary cure. However, experts and trends point to a future that will be increasingly multi-modal,” the study’s authors wrote.

By 2020, according to the study, local governments will be forced to consider VMT-based fees for tax collection. Already, Oregon is using a pilot program to calculate road use based on VMT, the study points out. Other municipalities and states may follow suit with their own versions to help offset the costs of expensive roadways and fewer drivers using them.

The gas-tax-system-for-road-improvement-dollars death spiral will continue faster as more electric cars hit the road too, according to the study.

Only 10 years later, the study suggests, fully autonomous cars will be commonplace and fewer single-occupant cars will use the roads as public and private mass transit become more popular.

(Rush hour apparently won’t exist in 2030 as millennials now work 20 hours a day to live in many cities including Austin and Denver, I guess.)

In all, the study concludes that the next 15 years of transportation will change quicker than the last 30 years because of rapid advancements in technology and the popularity of denser urban centers, where cars and parking lots just get in the way of single-speed fixies.

The whole report from the NLC can be found here.


Aaron Cole
Aaron Cole

More by Aaron Cole

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 15 comments
  • Stuki Stuki on Dec 02, 2015

    The less the idiots "plan", the better. The only outcome of "city planning", will be that the technology that actually does get developed, wants to move in a different direction that what the planners planned for. And then, to save face, the dimbulb progressive planners (are there any who are not?) will, as usual, resort to throwing the legal code at the actual future and those capable of creating it.

  • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Dec 03, 2015

    I do believe this comment is assabout; "Despite automakers rushing to put autonomous cars on the road by 2020, the study suggests that many cities won’t be able to adequately accommodate those cars, nor will they adapt fast enough to changing transportation modes that may challenge conventional public transportation and infrastructure wisdom." The comment should read; "Auto makers don't have the technology to construct autonomous cars to suit existing infrastructure". Like everything in todays world we must utilise existing infrastructure when engineering and designing for the future. A lack of existing infrastructure is also the reason behind the poor takeup of EVs, natural gas powered vehicles, etc. Why should billions be spent (subsidized via tax) to pay for these industries. Like the existing infrastructure it will take many decades to change to suit these newer technologies. If these newer technologies are not flexible enough to adapt the existing infrastructure, then they are no good at all. This stuff should really be articles of interest in a Popular Science magazine.

  • Redapple2 Cadillac, Acura and Infiniti have very tough rows to hoe.
  • Redapple2 First question: How do you define Sales Success?1 they ve lost more than 35% of all dealers in the last 5 years.2 transition to BEV will cost Billions. No money for new designs3 cars for #2 above have already been designed in BEV form and wont be redone significantly for - what- 10 years? 3b-Lyric and whatever its called are medusa level ugly. How could this design theme be fuglier than arts and science? Evil gm did though4 the market is poisoned. 1/3 of folks with $ would never consider one/ridicule the product. Under 40 yr olds dont even know the brand exists.It is dead and doesn't know it. Like a Vampire.
  • Redapple2 Focus and Fiesta are better than Golf? (overall?) I liked the rentals I had. I would pick these over a Malibu even though it was a step down in class and the rental co would not reduce price.
  • Teddyc73 Oh good lord here we go again criticizing Cadillac for alphanumeric names. It's the same old tired ridiculous argument, and it makes absolutely no sense. Explain to me why alphanumeric names are fine for every other luxury brand....except Cadillac. What young well-off buyer is walking around thinking "Wow, Cadillac is a luxury brand but I thought they had interesting names?" No one. Cadillac's designations don't make sense? And other brands do? Come on.
  • Flashindapan Emergency mid year refresh of all Cadillac models by graphing on plastic fenders and making them larger than anything from Stellantis or Ford.
Next