Whose streets?
A people-first approach to the arrival of
Automated Vehicles
Automated vehicles (AVs) have the potential to radically transform the way that people, goods and services move around. This in turn has the potential to reshape our cities – for better or for worse.
AVs could greatly increase the number of vehicles on the road, worsen congestion, undermine the public transport network and contribute to air pollution. Without proactive regulation, automated vehicles could be a threat to our journey towards more sustainable transport and more liveable cities.
In order to reap any potential benefits on road safety, accessibility and urban space, cities must regulate the operations of AVs, and prioritise AV use cases that support a more sustainable transport network. Shared and public transport AVs could help to reduce the number of private vehicles on the road, in turn reducing congestion and freeing up space for more active and sustainable journeys, leaving our streets more accessible and safer for everyone.
City leaders that are committed to improving the health and quality of life of their citizens must understand the potential impacts of AVs; and be proactive in minimising the risks. Local and Transport Authorities must have the powers they need to set the parameters of how, where, when and how many AVs – and robotaxis in particular – operate.
AVs should be shaped by our cities, not the other way round.
Four areas for action
Improving public health
Automated vehicles must be seen as one part of the transport mix, and not undermine other healthier and more climate-friendly ways to get around. Robotaxis in particular have the potential to divert people from public transport, and increase congestion. Cities should act to ensure public transport and active travel are safe, accessible and attractive options for everyone, whilst ensuring the accessibility needs of disabled people who rely on private vehicles.
- Continue to reallocate roadspace away from private cars and towards public and active travel, to help contain any increase in overall traffic that AVs might otherwise create.
- Expand the coverage of bus priority measures such as bus lanes to ensure that public transport is time-competitive with robotaxis.
- Ensure robotaxi services support public transport rather than detract from it, by focusing operations in areas and times where public transport is less available, and limiting robotaxi operation in places with widespread and accessible public transport (especially city centres).
- Enact a special congestion charge for non-public transport AVs, with the income allocated to improve more sustainable modes of transport. Cities should set the charge to ensure that public transport fares are more competitive than a similar journey by robotaxi. The charge should be dynamic to heavily discourage empty vehicle miles and incentivise shared journeys, and should include exemptions for disabled users who rely on motorised transport.
- Plan for AVs beyond the robotaxi model; such as shuttle services, public transport and car club-equivalent models of AV fleets.
Reducing road danger
Safety has often been presented as a key justification for pursuing AV rollout. While collision data suggests that an AV may be safer than a human driver in an equivalent vehicle, it is not necessarily safer than a shift toward fewer vehicles altogether. Cities should commit to eliminating road danger through a Vision Zero approach, and pursue proven policy changes to save lives.
- Expand the roll out of 20mph limits to maximise the safety benefits of AVs, which should be regulated to never break the speed limit.
- Continue to reduce road danger by redesigning streets, junctions and road networks to prioritise people walking, wheeling and cycling.
- Require robotaxi companies to use vehicles suitable for urban streets and not contribute to the trend of ever-bigger cars (known as ‘carspreading’).
- Ensure that companies operating AVs have robust data sharing agreements in place with authorities so that near misses and potential incidents can be interrogated to avoid future collisions. Beyond safety incidents, data to support transport planning should also be shared with authorities, whilst protecting user privacy.
- Monitor AV performance locally and collaborate with central government to uphold the principle that AVs should always be significantly safer than a careful and competent human driver. Cities need to be aware of the potential for software updates that could alter the behaviour of AVs after approval has been granted.
- Cities should scrutinise companies operating AVs to ensure that they have taken steps to prove their safety record with different demographics. For example, recognising street users with mobility aids, adapted cycles, or children and those with unusual movement patterns.
Protecting public space
A sudden proliferation of AVs that need drop off and waiting space could dominate public spaces, and increase danger to people walking, wheeling or cycling. However, if AVs are designed to help reduce private car ownership, they could free up kerbside space for the public good.
- Develop or update a kerbside strategy to ensure that public space prioritises active, shared and public transport and that uncontrolled parking is reduced.
- Ensure cycle lanes and pavements don’t become dangerous drop off zones by enforcing access and parking restrictions, and building physically protected infrastructure.
- Ensure automated vehicles use kerbside space legally, responsibly and safely.
- Accelerate investment and space reallocation at the kerbside towards sustainable and accessible transport modes such as bike lanes and storage, mobility hubs, car clubs and publicly accessible charging. This investment must also protect spaces for disabled people, such as for adapted cycles and storage, and disabled parking.
Boosting accessibility
The legislation and policies governing AVs must be developed through a formal co-design process with disabled people and disabled people's organisations, embedding lived experience at every stage of the policy development process.
- Ensure that all residents, especially public transport users, disabled people and people who walk, wheel and cycle, are involved in planning so that AV rollout makes healthy and sustainable transport more accessible. For robotaxis, we suggest conditions are attached to the approval process which mandate a certain percentage of vehicles in a fleet are wheelchair accessible. For some, the presence of a driver is what makes a journey accessible so it’s essential to ensure that a sufficient service of human-driven taxis, PHVs and Assisted Transport Services is always maintained.
- Congested streets are less accessible, particularly for disabled people and people walking, wheeling and cycling. Accessibility must consider all street users and not just those inside of a motor vehicle.
- Never adapt infrastructure to the needs of AVs at the expense of other road users. Changes should never be made to our streets to help AVs operate that make journeys harder for other users.
- Ensure that AVs expand transport opportunities in places that are currently underserved. Companies operating private automated services should incentivise connections with public transport stops or multi-modal journeys.
CONTACT US
If you’re interested in supporting or learning more about our work on Automated Vehicles, please get in touch.
