For An Equitable AV Future, Cities Need a Long-Game Approach
Cities have a strong interest and understandable concern around making sure autonomous vehicle (AV) deployment is done equitably. AVs need to improve transportation for everyone and not only serve, for instance, wealthy and predominantly white areas. What has become absolutely clear in the Knight Foundation AV Initiative project is that achieving that equitable deployment goal needs to have a long-game approach. There is a lot to learn about AVs and it is impossible to learn it all in any one pilot or at any one time. On the one hand, cities need to learn how to engage communities around AV topics and understand the most pertinent equity-related issues around AV deployment. On the other, cities need to understand how best to engage with the private sector and with state and federal government leaders to shape what vehicle deployment will look like. This includes understanding the roles government might play (e.g., enabling these new technologies, strictly regulating, or taking financial positions in deployment) as well as developing a clear understanding of the various tools and levers at cities’ disposal.
The AV future is a complicated ecosystem that local governments are just starting to wade into, with many moving parts, a lot to learn, and a delicate balance that needs to be found between engaging with and learning from disadvantaged communities, while also not exposing them to unnecessary and potentially damaging risk. The best way to get to this seems to be a series of pilots, some specifically equity focused and some not, that chip away at the wide range of lessons to be learned.
Equity focused pilots are not always a great idea. While engaging disadvantaged communities to understand their needs and challenges is absolutely essential, doing this through equity-focused AV pilots can sometimes be counterproductive. AVs are still largely an untested technology and pilots do, by definition, often include a higher level of risk and a higher chance of failure. This creates substantial risks for communities that are already systematically disadvantaged. Putting resources and community trust into a pilot that fails in a marginalized community can have painful consequences. It often means taking resources away from other transportation options that might be the only means some people have for getting to jobs, schools, or the grocery store. Testing the technology in lower risk settings may help communities learn about how AVs work without having high-stakes consequences.
For instance, while the City of Pittsburgh has considered leveraging AV food delivery technology to help disadvantaged communities, their early pilots have focused on delivering take-out orders to college students. If someone doesn’t get their burrito, will they be disappointed? Absolutely. But it’s better than a homebound older adult not getting their Meals on Wheels delivery because the technology just didn’t work. If we want to learn about the technology, it may be better to test it in a lower risk environment and work towards more critical uses once the technology has proven itself reliable.
Successful pilots, however, can also cause problems as they often have funding related end-dates and hence, an end to the very services people have come to rely on. This means that services that are valued and useful, could suddenly disappear, again leaving the most vulnerable without means to get to the places they need to go. Even outside of the AV tech world, this story has played out numerous times around the country as well-intentioned and ambitious transportation pilots run into harsh budget or business strategy realities that pull the plug on innovative programs. Maven had exactly this experience in the Osborn neighborhood of Detroit, offering car-share to residents in this economically disadvantaged area. Even though the program was gaining traction with residents, the service went away when GM decided to close down Maven nationally in the wake of the pandemic. People who had come to rely on this service were now left in the lurch. This can lead communities to rightfully feel like guinea pigs being experimented upon without a clear sense that they’ll stand to benefit in the long run.
To get to equitable outcomes with AVs, cities need to take the long-game approach. They need to understand the key areas they need experience in, they need to create a roadmap of pilots and engagements that can help them gain that knowledge, expertise and trust, and then they need to shape specific pilots to get them to the next round of learning. Some of those pilots may directly engage disadvantaged communities, but it may be better in the long run to test emerging technology pilots with populations that have less at risk.
