Clashing Visions For Mass Transit
Autonomous vehicles that will outperform buses, cost less than Uber and travel faster than cars stuck in traffic today are two years away. Or 10. Or 30.
But visions of the future they’ll bring have already crept into public debate and decisions about what cities should build today. That unnerves planners and transit advocates, who fear unrealistic hopes for driverless cars — and how soon they’ll get here — could lead cities to mortgage the present for something better they haven’t seen.
“They have imbued autonomous vehicles with the possibility to solve every problem that was ever created in transportation since the beginning of time,” said Beth Osborne, a senior policy adviser with the advocacy group Transportation for America. “That might be a tad bit unrealistic.”
Opponents of major transit investments have argued that buses and trains will soon seem antiquated. In Silicon Valley, politicians have suggested something better and cheaper is on the way. And as New York’s subway demands repairs, futurists have proposed paving over all that rail for underground highways.
Everyone agrees that making the wrong bets now would be costly. Cities that abandon mass transit will come to regret it, some warn. Driverless car proponents counter that officials wedded to “19th- century technology” will block innovation and waste billions.
“We are definitely going to have pushback,” said Brad Templeton, a Silicon Valley software architect who sees the potential of “robocars.” (He believes the subway paved over for autonomous vehicles could transport more passengers than rail.) “I regularly run into people who even when they see the efficiency numbers just believe there is something pure and good about riding together, that it must be the right answer.”
His advice to cities: “Infrastructure plans for 2030 are sure to be obsolete.”
If you believe that autonomous cars will compete with transit rather than complement it, there is appeal in holding out now. “Don’t build a light rail system now. Please, please, please, please,”