I felt this TechCrunch article “Ride Sharing Will Give Us Back Our Cities” jumped the gun for me on issues of land use equity. Planners have to be skeptical about how technology will change the landscape. Our own foray into technology, the freeway, created an unforeseen sprawl landscape and car-centric culture. Currently, the decoupling of home, work, and play is making it difficult to predict successful fixed-route transit. Ride sharing as a permanent altering of transportation habits and infrastructure? Let’s think about it.
Our cities, our cars?
The article is a bit confusing, because it advocates that residents give up their cars and then states those residents must adopt car-share. This quandary reflects the assumptions made:
- People still need cars, just cars that are not their own.
- This is a highly loaded topic with geographical and racial implications. TechCrunch’s audience, white, smart and well-to-do, needs to ditch their spoils, but then who are the ones offering their cars as tribute to the carless? The cited studies suggest merely mode shift to other people’s cars, not giving up ownership. It seems to me that we’re merely shifting car usage to another group of people, the rideshare chaffeurs.
- Concentrating on helping urban residents.
- Traffic is primarily an intercity (suburban to urban), not intracity problem. Too many people in large machines wish to move between two somewhat distant locations and are funneled into one corridor. It is not the same to state that 50,000 residents in the nearby suburb can easily give up their cars. Existing “urban” residents (likely the author means those living in pre-war city blocks) are probably not the ones causing headaches for state transportation planners.
Cars as intracity (neighborhood to neighborhood) problem.
- The hidden assumption is that car-use is inherently an inner city problem, that of a driver going from the Sunset District to SOMA, or Columbia Heights to McPherson Square, or Highland Park to the U of M. Inefficiencies are abound when city residents literally drive the route of a bus or rail line. These people can avoid freeways, people in Menlo Park, Manassas, and Maple Grove will not. We’ve gotten urbanites onboard rideshare, but we still have increasing number of cars on city streets.
- The urban fabric will change.
- The article suggests when people travel, they visit pedestrian-friendly places. About 40 million people each visit Las Vegas and Los Angeles annually, both of which are hardly Jane Jacob’s favorite places. New York gets 56 million. Tourism is not a good gauge of transportation-land use policy. Public Works departments are reinventing roads for the people they serve, not for visitors.
- Millennials want experiences, not things.
- I’m a millennial, this is not true, and the surveyors agree. Millennials would love to own their car and own their house. They just can’t. Things also enable experiences, like spontaneously driving your car on a road trip and not worrying about when to return it. Millennials want detachment from responsibility, and car-share is like driving your parent’s car. Lastly, why is this unique to millennials, shouldn’t everyone in a healthy city want great experiences in life.
City Policy vs Startup Hacking
The article does get it right in declaring the problem at hand:
Considering the inefficient use of the personal automobile, its exorbitant cost, the sheer volume of urban land devoted to serving that inefficient use and the material efficiencies achieved through ride-sharing and ride-hailing services, we just might have a chance to radically redesign our cities. If the 20th century was devoted to building the infrastructure to service the personal automobile, then perhaps the 21st century will be devoted to undoing most of it.
Public Works officials have already begun road diets for its “inclusive” mode design (see Fresno, CA, Louisville, KY). It’s design is intentionally to slow vehicle traffic. With AirBnb having defeated a major city’s ordinance, how will ride-share startups respond to future infrastructure policies (see Los Angeles’ Highland Park).
The article suggest road diets could be an outcome of ridesharing. Arguably road diets have actually emerged from Vision Zero to eliminate pedestrian-vehicle deaths. How will rideshare companies respond when parking/stopping lanes are removed along money-making corridors, or when travel times are slowed across important thoroughfares which could affect their algorithms. Local startup Split caters to this point of friction and curates required pick-up and drop-off locations near addresses.
So the article speaks for a car-less future with cars. It would be like suggest e-cigarettes (vaping) will herald the end of smoking. In actuality the future urban fabric may be fully to eliminate the car itself. Currently, it would be more important to see rideshare’s effect upon transit, if it’s complementary or in actuality duplicative. In 2012 TCRP wrote a 72 page report on ridesharing only to conclude:
Evidence that ridesharing complements public transit is limited, according to this examination of the state of the practice. Even though ridesharing has been around for decades as a travel mode and despite the benefits that a number of agencies have experienced a good deal of skepticism about combining ridesharing and public transit still exists.