The Great Mobility Disruption and The Future of Parking in Detroit

The disruption in mobility being created by the arrival of internet-based ride-sharing services [Uber, Lyft et. al.] combined with the advent of self-driving vehicles has huge implications for everything from parking space to how people move about and, consequently, for urban planning in Detroit and our economic lifeblood auto industry.

This excellent article by Crain's Chad Livengood lays out the issue - planning for a future where we are less dependent on the single-occupant, single-destination vehicle. Consider the following.

Quote:

---

Duggan suggested last week at the North American International Auto Show that Detroit may not need thousands of new parking spaces in multistory parking garages to accommodate the influx of workers and residents to the city's central core.

"If self-driving vehicles are really close, it may not be that people are going to drive a car and store it for eight hours in a structure," Duggan said at a forum of U.S. mayors at Cobo Center. "It may be that the self-driving car drives you to work, goes back home and does errands with your spouse."

---

Quote:

---

"The difficult question is, do you build today to meet near-term demand knowing that 10, 15, 20 years from now that demand isn't going to be there?"

City Planning Director Maurice Cox said his department's change in thinking on the future of use of cars for commuting is being driven by its own employees. Of the 25 new employees hired by the planning department in the past year, only five of them drive a personal vehicle to work every day, Cox said. The other 20 are using ride-sharing services, taking a bus, riding a bike or walking, he said.

"If they are any way a reflection of the next generation of people moving to Detroit, it suggests we don't have to build parking for everyone to have a car," Cox said.

---

My take? I love my "single-occupant, single-destination" car. I love being able to hop in it on whim and pretty much drive door-to-door and back whenever I wish. But I am aging and should the future hold the difference between, say, not seeing a exhibition at the DIA, or going there via a self-driver? Hmmm...

Time to discuss what may be the most important economic factor facing Metro Detroit-Windsor - the future of mobility.

One more interesting factoid in that article is that the Q-line has resulted in the loss of 196 spaces along Woodward Avenue in Midtown alone. Midtown's Sue Mosey remains cool to talk of the need for diminished parking space. So the question also remains, how to service the present while the future arrives.

In 1975, I was flying from DC to Detroit for a meeting at the Tank-Automotive Command in Warren. Mt seatmate was from the Dept of Transportation and was going to Detroit for a meeting on something. We were both originally from Detroit and were discussing public transport in Detroit. he assured me that once gas got over a dollar a gallon that no one would choose to drive to work but would take public transport only. I said that people would never want to give up the freedom and independence of their cars.

They're going to need to build even more decks for the automated cars. Otherwise the roads will be totally impassible due to the 2 round trips each suburbanites car would make each day for work. Rush hour will expand to become rush day with all the empty cars running back and forth. It's going to be major gridlock all day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hermod

In 1975, I was flying from DC to Detroit for a meeting at the Tank-Automotive Command in Warren. Mt seatmate was from the Dept of Transportation and was going to Detroit for a meeting on something. We were both originally from Detroit and were discussing public transport in Detroit. he assured me that once gas got over a dollar a gallon that no one would choose to drive to work but would take public transport only. I said that people would never want to give up the freedom and independence of their cars.

---

That’s been my opinion then and still, but less, is now. In 1975 there was little alternative other than hiring cab or renting a car.

When I put the question to other friends of, ahem, advancing years, who are die-hard drive-your-own’s like us, as to what they would be willing to accept if they lost the ability to drive, most become less adamant.

At the other end of the spectrum we have a generation less willing and / or able to own cars who are embracing the new mobility. It will be interesting to watch this evolve and what it means for the auto industry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ndavies

They're going to need to build even more decks for the automated cars. Otherwise the roads will be totally impassible due to the 2 round trips each suburbanites car would make each day for work. Rush hour will expand to become rush day with all the empty cars running back and forth. It's going to be major gridlock all day.

---

I would think for one with a self-driver, the inclination would be to have it park itself for free on a nice side street nearby, rather than drive back home - maybe take itself for a car wash or servicing too.

I also foresee them cooperatively owned and operated as a door-to-door carpool vehicle available for doing run-arounds during work hours, or even earning ride sharing side income. This could eliminate the need for and expense of the second family car.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

I would think for one with a self-driver, the inclination would be to have it park itself for free on a nice side street nearby, rather than drive back home

---

We had that annoying problem on my block. Dang things were always coming and going creating traffic and taking up all the parking!

The solution was simple after no help from the authorities. We started placing cardboard boxes and other random objects in front and behind pinning them in until somebody finally made the trip over to free them. The software at the data centers quickly learned 'not on our street' and the problem was solved.

Not much is free these days, even less will be in the future. Parking centers will just be somewhere else on less valuable land but I doubt they will be free.

I have AAA and I did notice when I got my insurance renewal this month - it had one of those "changes to your policy" and it was simply two riders that no longer would be covered under the policy:

1) No coverage if I was drag racing
2) No coverage if I was participating in a cloud based navigation service [[e.g. Uber/Lyfft).

Does Uber/Lyfft provide their own driving insurance or do drivers just cross their fingers and hope for the best/no accidents?

All this talk reminds me of the 1950s when they put some wings and a propeller on a Little Crosley car and began flying it around. They made several of them and half the magazines and newspapers in the country cried that they must be regulated or they'd be flying into each other. Drivers had to have special licenses yadda yadda. It was going to change transportation across the country and it was either going to be the greatest improvement in travel since the Wright Brothers or result in carnage in the skies.

I'm sticking with my 355 hp, V-8 pick em up truck.

Interesting. That's a big exclusion if you're an Uber driver. I guess the traditional taxi drivers have an edge after all. Imagine you hit a parked car while driving someone as a Uber driver. Normally your insurance would catch that as property damage. Now you must pay the damages... or just hit and run?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by belleislerunner

2) No coverage if I was participating in a cloud based navigation service [[e.g. Uber/Lyfft).

Does Uber/Lyfft provide their own driving insurance or do drivers just cross their fingers and hope for the best/no accidents?

---

Uber requires all of their drivers to have car insurance, and provides supplemental insurance coverage, but only while the app is on. Here’s how it works: When the Uber app is off, a driver is covered by their own personal car insurance. When the Uber app is turned on, a low level of liability insurance becomes active. When a trip is accepted, a higher level of coverage kicks in and remains active until the passenger exits the vehicle. Previously Uber had only offered coverage when a passenger was in the car, but the company updated their policy after a series of accidents which resulted in various lawsuits.

https://www.answerfinancial.com/insu...r-uber-drivers

^^^ That's good to know that they [[Uber drivers) have this option.

I didn't find it that excellent of an article. To me it was another "What if Batman and Superman had a fight, who would win?" type of "journalism", so prevalent these days. I'm probably the only one missing the boat here, but what are the plans for these vehicles? Are they going to be individually owned like automobiles are now, or are there just going to be a fleet of these vehicles running around picking up and dropping people off @ the scratch of a cell phone? What is the projected cost for one of these vehicles? My guess is more then a similar vehicle costs these days. The "I don't need it, it can go home" scenario is nice and even useful, but what about fuel economy? [[battery, gasoline, or Dilithium Crystals) What about wear and tear on the vehicle? In the above scenario alone, you're suggesting doubling the amount of miles you currently put on your vehicle. How is that going to effect your insurance premiums, driving 30K a year instead of 15K? I have a lot of unanswered questions before I buy into driverless cars reducing the amount of vehicles needed. It's good though, that Duggan and his team are thinking forward.

I know this will be a couple of decades, not years, before its put to widespread use. The usual bugaboo, money, will be the biggest obstacle. Gov'ts do not have enough for crumbling bridges, let alone paved roads with appropriate markings. Just curious, when your car picks you up and you see a little blood on the bumper, do you wipe it off assuming it hit a bird or squirrel, or do you have it checked out just in case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Honky Tonk

I didn't find it that excellent of an article. To me it was another "What if Batman and Superman had a fight, who would win?" type of "journalism", so prevalent these days. I'm probably the only one missing the boat here, but what are the plans for these vehicles? Are they going to be individually owned like automobiles are now, or are there just going to be a fleet of these vehicles running around picking up and dropping people off @ the scratch of a cell phone? What is the projected cost for one of these vehicles? My guess is more then a similar vehicle costs these days. The "I don't need it, it can go home" scenario is nice and even useful, but what about fuel economy? [[battery, gasoline, or Dilithium Crystals) What about wear and tear on the vehicle? In the above scenario alone, you're suggesting doubling the amount of miles you currently put on your vehicle. How is that going to effect your insurance premiums, driving 30K a year instead of 15K? I have a lot of unanswered questions before I buy into driverless cars reducing the amount of vehicles needed. It's good though, that Duggan and his team are thinking forward.

---

Aging and disabled drivers will be the early adopters and will eagerly embrace them. Once they come into wider use their driving and safety records will exceed human drivers. That will be the tipping point.

And why not? They won't drive drunk and drugged, as an estimated 10% of human drivers are at any given time. They won't be distracted by text messages, pretty girls or boys, crying babies in the back seats, or fumble for maps or phones. They won't nod off from overdriving or intoxication and they will obey traffic laws.

There won't be a sudden overnight stampeded to self-drivers. Instead it will be a gradual trust-building seduction. It is already happening with new features of self-drivers being implemented in driver cars every day.

Who hasn't seen the Chrysler ad where the guy bitches about kids not doing things for themselves while his car is self-parking?

Backup and blindspot cameras with warning sensors are common issue. Connectivity with dashboard GPS location and routing are old hat already. Complete auto-pilot already exists in high end vehicles. Drivers love them all.

A tipping point will come where they will be demanded and. in many cases, required. Insurance premiums for choosing the option to drive yourself will skyrocket. And people will say, "Why not? I could use an extra thirty minutes sleep on the way in".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lowell

Aging and disabled drivers will be the early adopters and will eagerly embrace them. Once they come into wider use their driving and safety records will exceed human drivers. That will be the tipping point.

And why not? They won't drive drunk and drugged, as an estimated 10% of human drivers are at any given time. They won't be distracted by text messages, pretty girls or boys, crying babies in the back seats, or fumble for maps or phones. They won't nod off from overdriving or intoxication and they will obey traffic laws.

There won't be a sudden overnight stampeded to self-drivers. Instead it will be a gradual trust-building seduction. It is already happening with new features of self-drivers being implemented in driver cars every day.

Who hasn't seen the Chrysler ad where the guy bitches about kids not doing things for themselves while his car is self-parking?

Backup and blindspot cameras with warning sensors are common issue. Connectivity with dashboard GPS location and routing are old hat already. Complete auto-pilot already exists in high end vehicles. Drivers love them all.

A tipping point will come where they will be demanded and. in many cases, required. Insurance premiums for choosing the option to drive yourself will skyrocket. And people will say, "Why not? I could use an extra thirty minutes sleep on the way in".

---

For the most part, old people will leave the City for greener acres after a certain age, because for the above reasons you've cited, City life isn't as appealing as it once was. But for the most part, I do agree with your post. Cost-effectiveness is going to be the biggest factor IMO. There are boatloads of uninsured motorists driving in lower income neighborhoods as it is. The people that have done well for themselves will be able to afford and have these vehicles. I can see, "eventually" driverless vehicles being the norm, but I don't see them causing a significant elimination of parking spaces in the Downtown/Midtown area.

Self driving cars are not appealing to me.

Also, its kinda dumb to survey a room full of planners and make planning decisions based on what that one group does.

1953

Let's not forget that self-driving cars have been around for a while. For the rich. It's called chauffeurs. I enjoy driving but having a chauffeured car at my whim? Yeah I could deal with that.

Self-drivers will bring chauffeur service to the middle class. They will have huge appeal and that's why vehicle manufacturers are going all in on them. Oh, and one will still be able to drive them if one gets nostalgic.

There are a lot of issues with self-driving cars that could make them big challenges for cities:

- If we assume that there will be some sort of network of shared cars driving around, then we need to know who is paying for this. And remember that Uber lost $2 billion last year. Building our cities around the assumption that cheap individual taxis will be available to everyone might not be so smart.

- More likely, people will still buy their own cars because they want them to not have other people's trash, smell, etc. in them and want them to be available at all times rather than waiting on the curb for an available car to drive up. Then, you still need parking. A few people might send their cars home for the day or out to do errands [[though this means the car isn't available if they suddenly need it), but now you're just increasing traffic.

- Cities are dense. Cars are big and take up a lot of space. In a major city, self-driving cars will be just as out of place as human-driven cars are today. You cannot physically fit the number of cars needed for everyone to commute by car into a city's downtown. We will still need transit to serve these areas effectively, and self-driving buses would allow us to run twice as much bus service at the same cost as today [[most of the cost is the driver), but self-driving cars are already being used as the newest "don't bother investing in transit" excuse.

- To the degree that self-driving cars give everyone a "personal chauffeur," they will also make traffic worse for everyone. Currently, the annoyance of driving is an incentive to limit your trips. Better to make one trip with three stops. Once you can just surf the net or read or sleep or whatever while your car drives, why not just take three trips? When driving becomes costless in terms of time, people will drive a lot more.

On the other hand:

- A lot fewer people will die in accidents.

- Old, disabled, and young people living in areas that make their residents captive drivers [[e.g. suburbs with no other realistic transportation options) will have much more freedom.

- Everyone can check Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram instead of being forced to observe the world around them while driving.

So there are a few positives.

Every time cars have been made more consumer friendly the number cars jumps. Electric start, power brakes and power steering all increased the number of people who were capable of driving.

Robocars will just allow another group of people access to vehicles. The number of cars sold and the traffic congestion are only going up.

Once you have driverless cars, what stops some parents from buying their 10 year old a car to get to school and sports. I know many moms who would love to not have to shuttle there kids around all day. Just think of how bad the school drop-off zones are going to become.

GOOD!We need LESS parking and more walkable urban streets.

Cars do not provide independence or freedom, it is nothing but a ball and chain, you are a slave to congestion, people in compact and transit-oriented cities have much more "freedom".

Completely driverless cars for individuals are still quite a ways off I think. But I also think that Lowell is right that we are going to continue to see an ever greater incorporation of automated technologies into human-driven vehicles. And that as the safety benefits of driverless vehicles become more and more apparent we are going to reach a tipping point where demand for them will zoom up and insurance costs will render driving your own car into a prohibitive luxury for most people.

But, while the form and contours of the new personal transportation culture are still difficult to fully see or predict, something that does seem certain, and approaching quite a bit more quickly, is the replacement of vehicles operated by paid drivers with driverless ones. Taxis and ride-shares like Uber and Lyft, buses both private and public, and most especially trucks will all go driverless well before it hits much of the mainstream private car market.

The savings and profit potential are way too obvious and huge to be left on the table for long once the technology becomes viable. Operators of these businesses are already preparing, and licking their chops, for this onrushing future.