Autonomous Driving and Urban Land Use

Abstract

Mobility, transport and land use patterns in urban areas are closely bound up with each other [1]. Urban form plays an important role when households and businesses make mobility decisions, and to a considerable degree dictates transport mode choice. Compact city form with high density and mixed use provide good preconditions for short trips and efficient public transportation, promote walking and cycling, and often render daily car use unnecessary. With sprawling, sparsely populated land uses, on the other hand, walking and cycling are discouraged, while car use is favored. In turn, the availability and use of designated transport modes strongly influences urban form and the necessary infrastructures. The residential suburbanization of the latter half of last century was thus to a great extent encouraged by car availability and the expansion of the transport infrastructure for motorized passenger transport [2]. It is expected that fully automated driving will entail a completely new transport system, which will not only bring with it new possibilities in traffic management, but will also generate completely new types of transport provision that will affect the choice and use of available transport means (see Chap. 12). The idea, for example, that time in a vehicle does not have to be spent on driving-related tasks, but instead permits other activities, may instigate a complete reappraisal of the time factor (e.g. [28]). This ability to attend to other activities in an autonomous vehicle may imply that long car commutes will be considered less a burden than today. This could increase the willingness of households to locate further away from the city center where land prices and rents are lower and where suburban preferences like living in a D. Heinrichs (&) German Aerospace Centre (DLR),

Trends in integrated land use/transport modeling: An evaluation of the state of the art

“…Pedestrian route choice is particularly complex to model, as new additional variables related to the concept of walkability would be required. Similarly, the advent of autonomous vehicles and the introduction of vehicle sharing systems (Heinrichs, 2016), health impact modeling (Mueller et al, 2015) or the estimation of traffic-related emissions (Ruehr, 2016) call for additional complexity in the model.…”

Dawn of autonomous vehicles: review and challenges ahead

“…There has been much speculation concerning the land-use impacts of AVs (Alessandrini et al, 2015;Bajpai, 2016;Heinrichs, 2016), as it may trigger multiple effects. For example, a reduction in vehicle ownership will arguably decrease parking requirements, while a reduction of travel costs and travel times might induce more urban sprawling.…”

Autonomous driving, the built environment and policy implications

“…Pavone, 2016, Fagnant andKockelman, 2015;Brownell and Kornhauser, 2014). Only a few studies or papers have explored the effects on land use (Anderson et al, 2016, Chapin et al, 2016Heinrichs, 2016;Heinrichs and Cyganski, 2015;Litman, 2015), primarily in a U.S. context. They identify possible impacts on road and movement space itself such as adjustments in lane widths and layouts, removal of signage or the need for drop-off and pick-up areas.…”

“…While this does not mean that uncertainty about the future would be dissolved for good, such a proactive approach could be the basis to "develop business models and policy paths that are flexible and resilient" to uncertainties (Lyons, 2016). With respect to autonomous driving and its relation to the built environment, dealing with this uncertainty first of all requires a common and transparent understanding about plausible use cases and scenarios (including their development pathways) of the technology and its implications (Heinrichs, 2016;Fraedrich et al, 2015). The specific effects on the built environment and -what might be of even greater importance in this regard -how this could inform and support urban policy interventions and planning have not been sufficiently explored so far.…”