{"text":[[{"start":5.15,"text":"About a century ago, when cars began invading urban areas en masse, many cities made a disastrous choice. They reconfigured themselves to favour vehicles over people. The extreme case is the US, which now devotes more space to parking each car than housing each person, writes Henry Grabar in Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World. Cars don’t suit cities, and humans never got very good at driving them. The arrival of driverless vehicles gives cities a second chance to manage cars."}],[{"start":37.6,"text":"Robotaxis are already common in several Chinese and American cities. They are now hitting the streets of the late-adopting continent, Europe, from Zagreb to London, where Google’s robotaxi start-up Waymo has begun piloting its vehicles. Meanwhile, robobuses putter through some European cities. "}],[{"start":55.25,"text":"The driverless era could work out brilliantly or terribly, depending on how cities handle it. Here are two scenarios. "}],[{"start":62.2,"text":"In the good scenario, cities are proactive. That might happen. After all, the coming of driverless vehicles has been trumpeted for years, giving cities time to prepare. And governments have agency here: they will need to rewrite laws to let in the new creatures. In this scenario, they encourage robotaxis, robobuses and autonomous delivery vehicles, but discourage private ownership of driverless cars. "}],[{"start":87.1,"text":"If that happens, the number of cars in cities collapses. Anyone needing an individual ride will simply hire a robotaxi. These vehicles will drive around nonstop, or park outside town at night. Almost all urban parking spaces would then become redundant, and could be converted into parks, bike lanes or housing. Streets themselves can shrink, as driverless vehicles can drive very close together. Many will be tiny, designed to carry one person. In short, robotaxis could let cities redistribute their most precious commodity, space, from cars to people."}],[{"start":122.1,"text":"Robotaxis will be electric, slashing emissions. Urban air will become cleaner. And because robotaxis have far fewer accidents than human drivers, streets will be safer. City dwellers will save money: the cost of owning and operating a new car in the US was $11,577 last year (before gas prices soared), estimated the American Automobile Association. By contrast, robotaxis will cost less than today’s Ubers, as there will be no driver to pay. "}],[{"start":152.54999999999998,"text":"Cities can insist that robotaxi companies share valuable data on urban traffic flows. The companies should also pay tax to use urban streets — including for “deadheading”, when cars travel empty. Cities can use part of the funds to help the low-skilled workers who will lose their jobs as drivers of buses and taxis. Some can be retrained as remote-assistance operators, fleet co-ordinators and maintenance technicians for autonomous vehicles. That transition will still hurt, though."}],[{"start":179.74999999999997,"text":"Crucially, in the benign scenario, each city must restrict the number of robotaxis. Otherwise people will use them for every trip, jamming roads and starving public transport of funding. After all, the cheapest and least space-consuming ways to move around cities will still be walking, cycling and public transport. Robotaxis should be merely an additional support, as human taxis are now. They could cater chiefly to old and disabled people. In outlying suburbs, robobuses and shared robotaxis can connect isolated homes to public transport. "}],[{"start":213.29999999999995,"text":"In the benign scenario, city life improves. However, in the bad scenario, cities don’t regulate the new technology. There are many precedents for this: just as cities let cars take space from people, they later let Airbnb take homes off the housing market and allowed Amazon to wipe out shopping streets."}],[{"start":231.49999999999994,"text":"In the bad scenario, cities allow not just robotaxis and robobuses, but also countless privately owned driverless cars — initially, mostly bought by rich people. In this scenario, parking spaces will remain necessary, and car owners will drive more, because driving becomes painless once you can do it while you sleep. Privately owned driverless cars will compete with trains and planes. Roads will become clogged. Underused public transport will lose funding, forcing more people to buy cars. Sprawl will worsen, as people accept longer commutes once they no longer need to drive. That will make it harder to sustain the infrastructure of a dense city. In the bad scenario, the biggest losers are poor people who cannot afford cars. In other words, if driverless vehicles flood cities in unlimited numbers, existing urban problems will worsen."}],[{"start":283.69999999999993,"text":"Cities have a chance to rectify their relationship with cars. Or they could make the same mistakes again. "}],[{"start":290.6499999999999,"text":"Find out about our latest stories first — follow FT Weekend Magazine on X and FT Weekend on Instagram"}],[{"start":304.0999999999999,"text":""}]],"url":"https://audio.ftcn.net.cn/album/a_1777800990_7081.mp3"}