Advertisement

Autonomous Vehicles and the Built Environment: Exploring the Impacts on Different Urban Contexts

  • William Riggs
  • Nico Larco
  • Gerry Tierney
  • Melissa Ruhl
  • Josh Karlin-Resnick
  • Caroline Rodier
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)

Abstract

Autonomous Vehicles (AVs) offer a new entryway into society-wide conversations regarding transportation, functions of cities, the use of streets and, ultimately, urban sustainability. AVs are likely to disrupt urban spaces from city centers to the suburbs and rural edges of cities. This chapter focuses on these places. It tests potential changes to the built environment in two different urban contexts; a street-car suburban location (circa 1920s–30s) and a post-war suburban location. The outcomes from these tests are used to offer insight into how autonomous technology may have different impacts across space. The outcomes also reveal AVs may impact modal decisions differently based on location, and how planners and policy makers might frame built environment solutions to promote sustainable and livable urbanism.

Keywords

Autonomous vehicles Built environment Cities Urban planning 

References

  1. 1.
    Fagnant DJ, Kockelman KM (2014) The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-based model scenarios. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 40:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guerra E (2015) Planning for cars that drive themselves: metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation plans, and autonomous vehicles. J Plan Educ Res 1:15Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Riggs WW, Boswell MR (2016) No business as usual in an autonomous vehicle futureGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Riggs W, Boswell MR (2016) Thinking beyond the (Autonomous) vehicle: the promise of saved livesGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Riggs WW, LaJeunesse S, Boswell MR (2017) Autonomous vehicles: turn on, tune in, drop out? PlanetizenGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Riggs WW, Boswell MR (2016) Why autonomous vehicles probably won’t induce sprawlGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lipson H, Kurman M (2016) Driverless: intelligent cars and the road ahead. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Guerra E (2015) Planning for cars that drive themselves metropolitan planning organizations, regional transportation plans, and autonomous vehicles. J Plan Educ Res, p 0739456X15613591, Nov 2015Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Airbib J, Seba T (2017) Rethinking transportation 2020–2030: the disruption of transportation and the collapse of the internal-combustion vehicle and oil industries. RethinkX, 2017Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson JM, Nidhi K, Stanley KD, Sorensen P, Samaras C, Oluwatola OA (2014) Autonomous vehicle technology: a guide for policymakers. Rand CorporationGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Litman T (2014) Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions. Vic Transp Policy Inst 28Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crayton TJ, Meier BM (2017) Autonomous vehicles: developing a public health research agenda to frame the future of transportation policy. J Transp Health 6:245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    de Correia GHA, van Arem B (2016) Solving the user optimum privately owned automated vehicles assignment problem (UO-POAVAP): a model to explore the impacts of self-driving vehicles on urban mobility. Transp Res Part B Methodol 87, pp 64–88, May 2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rayle L, Dai D, Chan N, Cervero R, Shaheen S (2016) Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transp Policy 45:168–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shaheen S, Chan N (2016) Mobility and the sharing economy: potential to facilitate the first-and last-mile public transit connections. Built Environ 42(4):573–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rassman CL (2014) Regulating rideshare without stifling innovation: examining the drivers, the insurance gap, and why Pennsylvania should get on board. Pitt J Tech Pol 15:81Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Clewlow RR, Mishra GS (2017) Disruptive transportation: the adoption, utilization, and impacts of ride-hailing in the United States. University of California, Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies, Davis, CA, Research report UCD-ITS-RR-17-07, 2017Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Riggs WW, Boswell MR, Zoepf S (2017) A new policy agenda for autonomous vehicles: it’s time to lead innovation. PlanetizenGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang W, Guhathakurta S (2017) Parking spaces in the age of shared autonomous vehicles: how much parking will we need and where? Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2651:80–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lavieri PS, Garikapati VM, Bhat CR, Pendyala RM, Astroza S, Dias FF (2017) Modeling individual preferences for ownership and sharing of autonomous vehicle technologies. Transp Res Rec J Transp Res Board 2665:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harb M, Xiao Y, Walker J (2018) Projecting travelers into a world of self-driving cars: naturalistic experiment for travel behavior implications. In: Proceedings of the 97th transportation research board, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schlossberg M, Riggs WW, Millard-Ball A, Shay E (2018) Rethinking the street in an era of driverless cars. UrbanismNextGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Appleyard B, Riggs W (2017) Doing the right things’ rather than “doing things right: a conceptual transportation/land use framework for livability, sustainability and equity in the era of driverless cars. Social Science Research Network, Rochester, NY, SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3040783, Aug. 2017Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Clark B, Larco N (2018) The impacts of autonomous vehicles and e-commerce on local government budgeting and finance. UrbanismNextGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Harrington A, Schenck S (2017) The driverless horseless carriage: steering the anticipated environmental impacts of autonomous vehicles. Nat Resour Environ 31(4):24Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Leung MW, Yen IH, Minkler M (2004) Community based participatory research: a promising approach for increasing epidemiology’s relevance in the twenty-first century. Int J Epidemiol 33(3):499–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Minkler M (2000) Using participatory action research to build healthy communities. Public Health Rep 115(2–3):191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Marshall B, Cardon P, Poddar A, Fontenot R (2013) Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in is research. J Comput Inf Syst 54(1):11–22Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Crouch M, McKenzie H (2006) The logic of small samples in interview-based qualitative research. Soc Sci Inf 45(4):483–499CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Flyvbjerg B (2006) Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qual Inq 12(2):219–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Larco N (2017) Micro-transit is not a free-for-all | Urbanism Next. Urbanism Next, July 2017. Available: https://urbanismnext.uoregon.edu/2017/07/10/micro-transit-is-not-a-free-for-all/. Accessed: 31-Oct-2017
  32. 32.
    Zhang W, Guhathakurta S, Fang J, Zhang G (2015) Exploring the impact of shared autonomous vehicles on urban parking demand: an agent-based simulation approach. Sustain Cities Soc 19:34–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Carlson G, Larco N (2017) Re-Imagining Retail. UrbanismNext, Portland, ORGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Warren EC (2017) A new vision for Los Angeles streets. Emily Castor Warren, 18-Sept-2017Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ge Y, Knittel CR, MacKenzie D, Zoepf S (2016) Racial and gender discrimination in transportation network companies. National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Connect SF (2017) Connect SF: a vision for moving San Francisco into the future—Connect SF. Available: http://connectsf.org/about/components/vision/. Accessed: 02-Feb-2018]
  37. 37.
    SFMTA (2017) Guiding principles for emerging mobility services and technology. SFMTA, San Francisco, Nov 2017Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    NACTO (2016) NACTO policy statement on automated vehicles. National Association of City Transportation Officials, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    NACTO (2017) Blueprint for autonomous urbanism. National Association of City Transportation Officials, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zmud J et al (2017) Advancing automated and connected vehicles: policy and planning strategies for state and local transportation agencies. Transportation Research Board, Washington DCCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kelly J (2011) The impending robopocalypse. Wired MagazineGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wilson DH (2012) Robopocalypse. Vintage BooksGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Ellul J (1964) The technological society. Jonathan CapeGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Handy S (2017) Thoughts on the meaning of Mark Stevens’s meta-analysis. J Am Plann Assoc 83(1):26–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Riggs
    • 1
  • Nico Larco
    • 2
  • Gerry Tierney
    • 3
  • Melissa Ruhl
    • 4
  • Josh Karlin-Resnick
    • 5
  • Caroline Rodier
    • 6
  1. 1.University of San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.University of OregonPortlandUSA
  3. 3.Perkins + WillSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.San FranciscoUSA
  5. 5.NelsonNygaardSan FranciscoUSA
  6. 6.UC DavisDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations