The New York Times Drops the Ball on Automated Vehicles
By Baruch Feigenbaum
At times the popular media coverage of transportation makes me
cringe. Many news outlets lack a dedicated transportation reporter, and
the person whose job it is to cover the story often has little
background and even less interest in transportation policy. Automated
vehicles, in particular, seem to bring out some of the oddest, most
uneducated assertions of all areas in transportation.
Exhibit A is Emily Badger’s
New York Times piece,
“Pave Over the Subway? Cities Face Tough Bets on Driverless Cars”
(July 20, 2018). The article confuses facts and makes bizarre
assumptions but its biggest weakness is leading those with limited
knowledge to think her piece represents mainstream AV thinking.
Princeton AV expert Alain Kornhauser described the piece as “not even …
half-baked.”
Several times Badger takes the viewpoint of a small minority and
presents it as mainstream. Beth Osborne of Transportation for America
argues that city council members, state legislation, and decision-making
have been unduly influenced by people who “have imbued autonomous
vehicles with the possibility to solve every problem that was ever
created in transportation since the beginning of time.”
AVs by themselves don’t solve problems; good policy solves problems.
And if most people thought that AVs by themselves could fix all of
our transportation issues,
that would be a problem. But most
people don’t. In fact, polls show that more Americans fear AVs than
welcome them. Sixty-four percent of millennials don’t think automated
vehicles are safe. Some futurists may have an unrealistic view of AVs,
but the public as a whole does not.
Badger repeats this problem with transit—twice. First, she uses the
opinion of one person to argue that cities will have to pave over
obsolete heavy-rail lines such as the New York Subway. That person, Brad
Templeton, is a pioneer AV thinker who comes up with many creative
ideas, but he is an expert in technology and software, not mass transit.
Ten out of 10 transit experts will tell you the New York City subway
will never be paved over. Heavy rail, where it works, transports huge
numbers of people. In very dense central cities rail simply cannot be
replaced with bus, and I say this as a member of a Transportation
Research Board bus transit committee.
Badger then uses Templeton’s idea to suggest that opponents of light
rail projects in Detroit, Indianapolis, and Nashville are falling for
the “AV will fix everything” argument. Detroit, Indianapolis, and
Nashville are nothing like New York City. New York has the
super-high-density to make heavy rail work, a large number of jobs and
residents near the central business district, and geographic boundaries
(rivers) that make car travel challenging. The other cities have very
low densities, very few jobs or residents in the central business
districts, and no geographic boundaries. As a result, the three struggle
to make even quality bus service work. In fact, the transit experts in
those three metro areas did not recommend light rail; they recommended
bus. Yet, Nashville’s political leadership chose to ignore the
recommendation and place a light rail measure on the ballot that polling
indicated would fail—as it did.
The lack of understanding that not every U.S. city has the spatial
structure of New York or Washington, DC, is pervasive throughout the
article. For example, Las Vegas is lauded for planning a light rail
line, because there will not be space in downtown for everybody to drive
their own AV. Yet no one is suggesting most folks will drive their own
AVs. Early predictions are for a large increase in ride-sharing, as
automation significantly reduces its cost. But even if many people buy
their own AVs, Las Vegas could build a BRT line for less than one-third
the cost of a rail line. Las Vegas already has a successful BRT line
starting in downtown and running along the Vegas strip. Similar to
Nashville, Las Vegas does not have the density to support light rail.
Badger makes one good point about the inflexibility and lack of
creativity of many transit agencies. Twenty years ago, city manager
Frank Martz of the Orlando suburb Altamonte Springs suggested using
computers or kiosks to let people order smaller vehicles with optimized
routes. But the leadership of the local transit agency, Lynx, was
focused on buses, unions and drivers. The agency simply could not
conceptualize on-demand transit. Finally, 20 years later, the city
completed a two-year pilot program where it offered discounts on Uber
rides. If transit agencies lack creativity and have made mistakes in the
past, doesn’t it make sense to consider the uncertainties of automated
vehicles when deciding on a transit technology?
This isn’t the first time
The New York Times has published a
poor transportation article. Earlier this year the newspaper argued
that the Nashville rail plan (that the city’s own transit experts argued
was bad policy) lost at the polls not because it was bad policy but
because Americans for Prosperity bankrolled a campaign of
transit-haters. The newspaper mentioned Randal O’Toole’s Nashville
speech that compared rail transit to a diamond-encrusted watch. But it
did not mention my Nashville presentation on why a bus-based system was a
better alternative or other presentations from transit experts on
automated vehicles and personal mobility.
The
Times should re-assess its goals in transportation
policy. If its goal is to run balanced, intelligent articles that are
well-respected by professionals, it should follow the lead of the
Washington Post
(and many other newspapers) and hire one or more dedicated
transportation reporters to write balanced feature articles on
transportation policy. If the newspaper’s goal is to produce flashy
headlines with little substantive news, it should stay on its current
track (irony intended). But the
New York Times’ leadership should not be surprised when transportation professionals continue to dismiss its work as drivel.