I gave a presentation this month at the IQPC Seating Innovations conference in Canton, MI. This annual event draws engineers and designers from across the auto industry to discuss industry directions and new technologies. I presented an overview of research at U-M that points to a much longer phase-in for automated road vehicles than most of the industry hype would suggest. Aside from the technical challenges of handling inclement weather, road hazards, and other features of normal driving, we are looking at current mobility patterns to assess when and for whom automated vehicles would be worth the investment.
Fundamentally, we always ask the question: if the proposed application is so beneficial, why isn't it being provided currently with human-operated vehicles? Of course the answer is usually financial: the funds to pay for the application (say, small-vehicle last-mile services to connect people to public transportation) are not available. Digging deeper, though, the reality is that these services are already being provided below cost in many areas by the money-hemorraging transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft. The sobering reality is that in any sustainable model for automated vehicle deployment intended to augment public transportation, the costs must be much less than for human-operated vehicles. Given that taxis have never been a high-margin business (even in protected markets), it's difficult to envision the large capital outlays necessary to develop and maintain AV fleets to provide services for which the market price is so low. Justifying the current high stock prices for money losing TNCs requires that they succeed in obtaining sufficient monopoly power that they can raise prices to profitable levels.
Meanwhile, though, real damage is being done by the hype to support for public transportation. States are seriously looking at spending millions of dollars restriping roads to make the lines more visible to (very expensive) Level-2 vehicles rather than focusing their efforts on improving public transportation or even just fixing bridges. There is a clear and present danger that legislative and regulatory capture by flashy tech companies will divert scarce transportation funds to improving the commutes of wealthy people already exceptionally well served by the US transportation system at the expense of improving transportation for those currently poorly served.
Importantly, it doesn't have to be that way. If AVs can eventually be operated (including acquision and maintenance costs) for substantially less than human operated vehicles (and with similar robustness to weather, construction, and other disturbances), public transportation could be revolutionized in ways that improve equity, particularly for Americans who can't afford privately owned cars. But right now, Uber, Lyft, and other TNCs operating below cost are siphoning riders and revenue from public transit while increasing road congestion for everyone. This is pretty good for their users (I'm one of them), who are getting their near-term transportation services subsidized, but ominous for the transportation system as a whole. Combating the relentless AV hype machines will take data and reasoned argument, so we will collaborate with others in this domain to focus research and outreach efforts on financial realism, contextual assessment, and equity considerations around road vehicle automation. The long-term goal of AV deployment should be to improve accessibility while reducing the inequities inherent in our current system that essentially forces people to own cars.
