I’m responding to a comment on the facebook post which started with the sharing of the 13-lane animation on which I commented in my previous post on this blog. A commenter stated:
…I don’t think it oversells the space because that assumption operates on the premise that cars need to be able to go EVERYWHERE. They don’t. So while one single road may not have 13 lanes to give up, two or three collectively certainly might. Take them away, at least from through traffic. They’ll become access-only, which effectively makes them pretty empty.
Well, yes, access. Roads have gone nearly everywhere the wheel was known, for thousands of years, because motor vehicles, or wagons drawn by animals, have to go everywhere except where people and supplies are to be transported on foot, on the backs of animals, by bicycle, railroad or boat, all of which are more expensive or impractical for many destinations, loads and trips. Oh, I left out elephants, which require as much road width as motor vehicles, but you get the idea. Inefficient (largely single-occupant) use of motor vehicles, requiring enormous amounts of space for multi-lane arterial roads and for parking, is the space issue — not the existence of motor vehicles or where they can go. Overpopulation and land use also play into this problem.
Be ready for a surprise if you live long enough to see it. People who are thinking about autonomous vehicles are saying that traffic volume will actually be higher, though parking demand will be much lower because these vehicles will be in use much more of the time. Traffic, they say, will be slower but steadier. Road capacity will increase both due to reduction in parking and to more efficient use of travel space (shorter following distances, better traffic management).
I could be surprised too because I’m not sure that this is more utopian than reality will turn out to be. In particular, travel demand varies enormously at different times of day, so parking will still be needed (though fewer parking spaces per vehicle, to be sure). We can see some of the parking issue playing out with bike-share systems having to rebalance for commutes in opposite directions, morning and evening. With driverless cars, that would amount to either extra cars and parking, or extra travel. I remain unconvinced that people will be happy to carpool in driverless cars, that overall cost reduction will outweigh that consideration or the tragedy of the commons/convenience to the individual of having a personal vehicle. Urban/suburban/rural conditions will of course differ.
Where do bicycles fit into this? That not a question whose answer I know to give. I may speculate on it later.
