Will self-driving cars lead to increased urban sprawl? Why, or why not?

To answer this question we have to answer first two more: (1) what is the difference between traditional and automated mobility, and (2) what solutions are possible in automated mobility?

(1) There are several differences between traditional 100-year old mobility and emerging automated solutions that may revolutionize riding and commuting. First of all there is no need of the driver, thus ride-sharing (Blabla Car, Lyft, Uber, taxi) merges with car-sharing. (Yet, we can still share a ride in shared car — let’s name it carpool) Mass transit, due to automation may be more effective travelling more often with less passengers, thus it is a more populated version of driverless car share — a driverless transit. Yet, the self-owned and self-drived automobile does not change much — instead of the revolution we have an evolution of the traditional car which can break, park or keep line automatically already in recent times.

(2) Following previous comparison we can distinguish four technical and organizational automated mobility solutions. These are: autonomous automobiles, self driving car-sharing, self-driving carpooling (late ride-sharing) and driverless shuttle. Of course you can name them differently — we will see in the next decades which names emerge and which get popular during diffusion. What is worth to mention: we can easily use the automobile without owning it, thus it makes riding easier — not only for drivers but for people who haven’t drive until now! That makes using a car more popular with all its positive and negative consequences! Self-driving carpooling is the cheaper and more efficient way of travelling by car, but who will share the car — previous car drivers/riders or commuters? Thus it could also have negative impacts reducing the number of public transit users. Yet, the transportation authorities could introduce driverless shuttles which can compete with automobiles by price and be more effective than traditional mass transit — taking 10 instead of 150 passengers, on-demand instead of on-schedule, and on flexible route instead of fixed route!

Thus we can consider two edge scenarios according to the diffusion of each technical and organizational automated mobility solution: pedestrian friendly scenario which promotes street inclusiveness, and riders friendly scenario which promotes separated roads of higher speed. Of course diffusion of each solution and emergence of each scenario depends of each other — it is a relation and constant process. Thus we have to remember there are links which work both directions:

The answer is: It depends of decisions of consumers (actually automotive industry advertising) as much as of public authorities (actually transportation and urban planners). If municipalities decide to promote so called smart growth by investing in driverless transit and reducing parking places — scenario one will emerge. If automakers decide to push on selling autonomous automobiles, the municipalities could have a problem with enough fast reaction and perhaps will lose this battle — scenario two will emerge.

I hope you are satisfied with my answer. For more readings please follow my incoming (submitted manuscripts) publications: Car-sharing: The Impact on Metropolitan Spatial Structures, Driverless Mobility: The Impact on Metropolitan Spatial Structures, or ‘Mobility’ Developer: Public-Private Partnership in Urban Traffic Management with the Use of Autonomous Automobiles, Car- and Ridesharing Modes of ‘Transport as a Service’ and more. I am looking forward to hearing your critiques.