In 2010, Google revealed they were testing their own driverless cars. Other auto makers have since joined in. They predict driverless cars (or more aptly named, autonomous vehicles) will be available for sale by 2020. Not so fast though. Not only are rules not in place yet, but cities aren’t ready for them either. And will driverless cars really be a good thing once the legal framework and infrastructure is in place?

Part 3 concludes this series with a focus on public health implications – particularly within cities.

People looking to drive less

It took more than half a century, but cities are finally starting to transition away from car-dependence. Gone are the days of new mini-mansions and cul-de-sacs 45 minutes away from the office. No more big box malls being built with giant seas of parking. Well, not exactly. This form of development is still happening, but far less than before. It’s all about making everything within walking distance now. People want more San Francisco and less Dallas.

Seniors and millenials seem to be pushing this trend. According to Stats Canada, seniors get into more car accidents and are more likely to die as a result than the rest of us. That means the communities that serve them need to have other options for getting around. Millenials are not much different in the accident department. What’s more compelling about this group though is they seem to be choosing not to bother with driving as much as other generations before them. Apparently, they’d rather get the latest phone than have their own ride. As for the rest of us, there’s a growing desire to live in places where we don’t have to jump in our car every time we want to buy milk or head to work. Consumer needs for transportation have changed and people want other options. Sprawling suburbs just don’t give them that option. But they will in the future once driverless cars arrive. No longer will people actually have to drive, but instead they’ll be driven. They won’t even have to own a car, but instead just call one using an app on their phone like they do now with Uber.

Driverless cars will work where transit won’t

Driverless cars could fill the demand for more transportation options in suburbs where transit currently fails. Seniors could stay where they are and millenials could continue to opt out of their drivers test (as they seem to be doing already). A simple request from a phone app could replace the headache and expense of car ownership. Or even worse, trekking to the nearest bus stop which isn’t so near and where buses are infrequent.

Some cities have looked at public transit options for these areas. However, they are finding it just doesn’t work with sprawly suburban context. It’s not convenient enough. Even with heavily subsidized, high frequency routes, most people will still find driving much more convenient in those areas. Not because of poor public transportation management, but because the urban design makes it nearly impossible to provide transit services that can even come close to competing with the private car. Think about it like mail delivery. If you had to choose between two different routes to deliver to 100 homes, which do you think would take the least amount of time and effort – a low density neighbourhood in Charlotte laced with dead-end cul-de-sacs or compact Brooklyn. The answer is Brooklyn. When it comes to delivering transit service, it’s the same – people have to be close by to make it work. With driverless cars, that will not be the case. They will be able to provide “public transportation” to the more than 50% of North Americans who can’t access it currently. Seniors can age in place. Youth will be provided with another reason not to bother with driving. And the rest of us will have another travel choice option. And unlike transit, a truly competitive option.

Is improving life in the suburbs a good thing?

So what’s the problem? It sounds like a solution to a problem that needs fixing anyways – taking suburban North America and making it viable for those without a car and those that don’t want one. The question is, is that what we want? To increase the viability of suburban living? Is that what is good for society at large? On one hand, it could open access to a wider range of housing for non-drivers and could perhaps take pressure off over-heated markets in more walkable and central locations. But making suburbs more attractive also counters the direction of public health and urban policy recommendations which seek to reduce car dependence. In fact, suburban sprawl plays particular havoc on an individual’s level of physical activity. It seems people don’t walk much when it can’t be of any real use on a regular basis. As a result, people in the ‘burbs are putting on more pounds than their urban counterparts and exposing themselves to greater risk of a range of issues.

In Canada, over two thirds live in car dependent suburban areas. The majority of cities across the country have developed planning policy in direct opposition to this type of growth given it’s negative impacts on public health and the public purse. In the city of Halifax, one review indicated the cost of servicing suburban areas is more than double that of urban areas on a per capita basis. More roads for fewer people. Longer travel distances for police beats. Longer pipes serving fewer people. More gas needed for school buses. Clearly, it all adds up. Policies to curtail suburban growth have been around for over half a century. However, they have only started to build real momentum in the last 10 years. The arrival of convenient driverless cars could derail that.

In short, driverless cars can increase suburban attractiveness relative to urban context and that’s counterproductive to what cities are trying to do at the moment. Compact communities are what planners are pushing and traditional suburban sprawl is the urban design opposite of that. These communities are designed in a way that fosters walking as a primary mode of travel as it has a surprisingly large and positive impact on quality of life and public health. Luckily for them, the tide has been shifting and growth of these areas has been much higher recently than in the past. But given the magnitude of potential benefits of driverless cars (see Part 2) in suburban areas, perhaps this trend will cool off and we’ll end up back on the path to anchoring the pattern of sprawl we’ve been trying to get away from.

Driverless Cars – Why the World isn’t Ready:

[Key Sources / Literature: Statistics Canada, Forbes, Sustainable Prosperity, WebMD, The Globe and Mail, Canadian Transportation Agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CityMobil, Berkeley Transportation Letter, Canwest News Service, Global Auto Regulations, The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, Insurance Bureau of Canada, ITC, Victoria Policy Institute, ITE Journal, Risk Management Journal, 24 Hours Vancouver, National Highway Traffic Administration, Ontario Ministry of Transportation, Parliament of Canada, CBC, Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, Automated Driving: Legislative and Regulatory Action. CIS The Center for Internet and Society, Transport Canada, Ultra Global PRT, Greater Greater Washington, United Nations, University of Toronto, BBC]