Okay I read it. Now I wanna know your takeaways.
I found it to be rather...underwhelming? It feels a lot like a safe committee consensus as opposed to a grand vision of the future that I was hoping for. They basically say that AVs will either not exist, not be taken into account or will be taken into account. And to get to the third scenario, cities must invest in proven policies and be aware of major trends that are super-obvious to anyone in the field (i.e. the rise of EV and carsharing). Focus on demand (shift traffic away from peak), on supply (infrastructure), and on efficiency, they say. no shit, Sherlock. Now that the AV hype seems to be positively tempered, I notice more people coming to the conclusion that the dream of infinite AVs everywhere is just that, a dream. It's gonna be applied more selectively and more slowly than people (myself included) would want. But this report feels like it focuses on only the most moderate possible outcome. I am largely undecided on whether I'm the problem or this report is. Are my expectations of AV tech and its implications too high? Or my expectations for a McKinsey report, now that I'm a bit more well-read in transport policy compared to a few years ago?
See, and what I got out of it was if you want traffic to go down you need a systems-based approach that supports flocking. They didn't seem to really consider AVs in and of themselves to be world-changing outside the fact that they increase the efficiency of road utilization when operated as a system. I'm noticing a pattern amongst the think tanks: 1) Assert everything will be fine with massive government intervention 2) Disregard the unlikelihood of massive government intervention 3) Provide no commentary as the media observes a rosy future Now, with AI and AVs I can see how a large company such as Google or Oracle or the like could use a report like this to push a systems-based traffic control system that favors AVs during certain periods. If you've got a semi-autonomous vehicle and you've got an AV lane on the freeway that's only open to vehicles compatible with your Google/Oracle system, you've got a marvelous money-making GDP-swelling system that would actually cut down on commuter times. Which, hey, in the United States the freeways are state projects with federal money so maybe this gives cover to everyone.
Yeah, I think we're on the same page - my immediate reaction to "we need massive government intervention to do X" is to disregard whatever follows. Which does not leave much if anything interesting left in this report. I think it's interesting that even with something like AVs, which just for their safety benefits alone can bring a tremendous positive influence, I am still pessimistic about big changes coming top-down. What I'm hoping is that some serious disruption will wake people (/policymakers) up, and I would put my money on 'AV trucks' to fit that role.
There were a couple things in there that would be easy and painless - "night delivery zones" doesn't seem crazy controversial. And I can see trunk-slammer outfits pitching the AV lane the way they pitch traffic cameras and toll carpool lanes: "give us the goahead, we'll do all the investing and give you a cut." The basic issue, as I see it, is that for now, AVs are "isn't this cool? of COURSE we'll do it!" instead of "who is going to pay for this and why?" I can see a reason for municipalities, auto makers and software companies to agree on a standard that will allow anything compatible to swarm. Maybe this is a first step.