Electric Car Programs Need to Remember the Needy

By Skip Descant

Electric vehicle car-shares, charging ports and other pieces of the green mobility future may go unused in many communities if the projects fail to understand local needs or the communities the projects hope to serve.

“I think it’s important that this is just not about, ‘Let’s put some electric vehicles where they’re going to improve the air quality for folks who have been most impacted by bad air,’” said Jeff Allen, executive director of Forth, a nonprofit trade association and advocate for electric mobility based in Portland, Ore.

“That’s part of the equation,” said Allen, speaking during a Feb. 12 webinar hosted by Forth. “But it’s also about, ‘How are we going to use these technologies to actually improve mobility options for people, and how are we actually going to use this growing industry to create job opportunities and economic opportunities for folks?’”

“Equity” is a frequent rallying cry by advocates of transit, micro-mobility programs like bike or scooter shares, as well as promoters of smart city projects. The point, said Joel Espino, environmental equity legal counsel for The Greenlining Institute in Oakland, is to devise programs that “grow justice and fairness” in cities.

“So sometimes that means making sure that the neediest and most vulnerable people in society who are facing systemic disadvantages … have the resources to catch up,” said Espino, speaking during the webinar. “So that’s really what we’re trying to do with these programs.”

A number of smart mobility programs in cities across the country have taken on equity in various forms. When San Francisco granted operation permits to Scoot and Skip to introduce electric scooters, the city’s transit officials made that decision, in part, based on the companies’ commitment to serving low-income residents.

The Charge Ahead California Initiative — passed by the California Legislature in 2014 — helped to kickstart the EV equity ecosystem in California, said Espino.

Those efforts have spurred more than 17 projects at various stages of development, attracting some $280 million of investment allocated from the state’s cap-and-trade program. Since 2015 the state has secured $540 million, in part from the Electrify America program, which has been invested in the charging infrastructure in disadvantaged and low-income communities.

“A lot has been happening since 2014,” said Espino.

An electric car-sharing program in affordable housing areas in the Bay Area received $2.25 million in funding and is set to launch later this year. Part of the project is a more thorough needs assessment to see what else is needed to improve the community’s mobility. These could include bike-share memberships, transit passes and more.

And then there’s the so-called “scrap and replace” program in Los Angeles and California’s Central Valley, which provides a voucher of up to $9,500 to help low-income drivers purchase a new or used EV. The program has received $112 million from the cap-and-trade program, with $85 million awarded.

“That’s been a really successful program. And the hope is that we’re expanding that program to the Bay Area region later this spring and also to the Sacramento region later this year,” said Espino.

In the Bay Area, participants will be able to scrap their car in exchange for vouchers valued at up to $7,500 which can be used toward transit passes or other mobility options. Other projects like a $10-a-day car-share program in Portland, Ore., which used donated electric-powered Honda Fits, taught organizers that it was a good idea to put child car seats in the vehicles.

A Look at the Green New Deal’s Clean Transportation Goals and How to Achieve Them

Greentech Media
By Emma Foerhinger Merchant

Though scant on details of what a transportation overhaul might look like, the Green New Deal — really a framework designed to generate more specific policy proposals — has already caused a partisan stir around what a remade and more just transit system might look like.

The resolution released last week from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey is, at its core, an outline to transition toward an environmentally friendly and equitable economy. Transportation makes up just one part. Politics are stacked against the deal, and it’s unlikely to pass the Republican-led Senate. But experts in the clean transportation space say it could serve as a roadmap to spur conversation and help crystallize ideas for the future transportation system.

The resolution doesn’t explicitly include transportation goals in its call for a “10-year mobilization,” but it does call for an overhaul of the transportation system and the elimination of all its pollution and greenhouse gas emissions “as much as is technologically feasible.” According to the resolution, that should happen in part through investments in zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing, public transportation and high-speed rail.

Like the other sectors the resolution addresses, transportation policies must also work to right systemic injustices. A FAQ distributed at the same time as the resolution — which is not a part of the official document — also named a goal to replace every internal combustion vehicle, put charging infrastructure “everywhere,” and create alternatives to air travel (a point that’s caused alarm among the GOP and shrugs from others).

The document, while broad, is also very ambitious. Deployment of electric vehicles and charging infrastructure, plus the decarbonization of transportation sectors like aviation and shipping, are far from reaching the levels set forth in the Green New Deal’s goals.

But experts say there are policies that can get us closer to the goals through a combination of community input, technological innovation, aggressive targets, and transparency. How quickly that can happen, however, remains unclear.

“We’re in a space right now where we’re seeing political headwinds from many different directions. But one thing that will be necessary and critical throughout is to make sure we have the foundation that can allow us to achieve these goals,” said Natasha Vidangos, vice president of research and analysis at the Alliance to Save Energy. “There are many, many ways that we could get to the level of ambition articulated in the Green New Deal document.”

A policy wish list

As Vidangos noted, there is a vast array of available options. But Hana Creger, environmental equity program manager at the Greenlining Institute, says the broad scope of the resolution is a boon rather than a burden.

“While to some folks the Green New Deal’s transportation vision seems too vague, I believe that’s really the intent,” said Creger. “There’s never going to be a one-size-fits-all solution across the board. […] The ultimate decision on how to get there should be informed by the needs of individual communities.”

In outlining the priorities that would help the country achieve the Green New Deal’s goals, experts did note a number of common policies and regulations. The top-level goals: reducing emissions, opening more transit options and electrifying as many vehicles as possible as quickly as possible, in ways that benefit all, rather than prioritizing a few.

The electrification goal applies to passenger vehicles but also heavy-duty freight, buses and off-road vehicles. Getting there requires massive rollout of charging infrastructure that can support more EVs, part of what Vidangos calls a “clean chicken-and-egg arrangement,” because it’s difficult to encourage consumers to buy more EVs if they don’t have a way to charge them.

Creger highlights the need to divert significant funds to communities that lack transportation access. Even if mandates come from the federal level, Creger said laws should prioritize local involvement to choose between clean transportation options such as biking, efficient transit, walking and electric vehicles that are most suited to the community.

Experts also say that rather than rolling back corporate average fuel economy standards, which the Trump administration moved to do last year, federal policymakers should strengthen them. The same goes for federal tax credits for electric vehicles, which now sit at $7,500 for the first 200,000 cars a manufacturer sells. Tesla and General Motors have already hit that 200,000 cap, triggering a stepdown in the incentives attached to a purchase of their vehicles.

“We’re not at a point where, from a public policy perspective, we can move away from consumer incentives to support the purchase of electric vehicles,” said Drew Kodjak, executive director at the International Council on Clean Transportation.

Kodjak said the situation also requires mass education of consumers.

Right now, electric vehicles represent between 1 and 2 percent of U.S. auto sales. And even as their market share has taken off, consumers have evinced an appetite to drive more miles and purchase less-efficient SUVs. Shifting that behavior will require not only more efficient single-passenger vehicles, but also a wider array of options.

“The iron law of transportation infrastructure is: If you build it, they will come,” said Hal Harvey, CEO at Energy Innovation. “So, if you build more freeway miles, you get more cars. If you build more bike paths, you get more bikes.”

Prioritizing transportation equity

Prioritizing equitable mobility options, Greenlining’s Creger explains, is essential for any Green New Deal transportation policy. Historically, road construction and pollution have impacted marginalized communities more than wealthier and whiter ones, cutting them off from economic opportunities while harming health.

A 2006 report from the Brookings Institution showed that metropolitan planning organizations, the decision-making bodies for large sums of transportation funds, have also had a disproportionate number of white members compared to the metropolitan areas they represent.

Even now, as detailed by a March 2018 Greenlining report, “low-income communities and communities of color suffer the most from transportation-related pollution, high transportation costs, and a lack of access to safe, reliable transportation options.” Newer technologies like electric vehicles and ridesharing systems are also more accessible to affluent people, while autonomous vehicles may cause job losses that impact some communities more than others. And research has shown that access to cars is associated with low-income people finding jobs and moving into neighborhoods where they have more access to resources like better schools.

“There’s a lot of inequity in the current system and lots of situations where as we transition and transform transportation, we need to ensure that we don’t make the system even more inequitable,” said Michelle Robinson, director of the clean vehicles program at the Union of Concerned Scientists. “It’s a critical issue that should be on par with the top priorities of reducing emissions and reducing oil consumption in transportation.”

The Greenlining report, of which Creger is the lead author, cautions that without community consultation, planners could embed similar issues into future policies.

Greenlining lays out a three-step mobility equity framework that identifies a community’s needs, weighs the pros and cons of certain transportation decisions and ultimately leaves decision-making with the community. It aims to foreground community engagement to avoid the pitfalls of transit planning that leaves out the voices of what the Green New Deal calls “frontline and vulnerable communities,” such as indigenous communities and rural areas.

“We want to make sure that in creating these new transportation options under the Green New Deal, that we’re prioritizing those mobility options that are most equitable and accessible,” said Creger.

Public and private

In unveiling the resolution, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said the Green New Deal would assist in “building solutions in places where the private sector will not.”

And though the document focuses on public policy, advocates say it will require a great deal of cooperation from corporations and likely significant investment from the private sector.

“You can’t do this with the public sector alone,” said Energy Innovation’s Harvey. “Ninety-plus percent of all energy decisions are made privately.”

The clean transportation industry would have to grow significantly to help meet the goals. In 2030, energy research and consulting group Wood Mackenzie Power & Renewables forecasts that 16 percent of vehicles will be electric, including plug-in hybrids, in its base case. Producing all those batteries would require more than three Tesla Gigafactories. To get to 100 percent EV sales would require more than 20 Tesla Gigafactories, according to Ravi Manghani, director of energy storage at WoodMac.

“Neither of those numbers are insurmountable, but clearly will require massive amounts of investments from the industry,” said Manghani, who added that state policy struggles — like California’s issues with high-speed rail — expose the difficulties in transitioning the transportation sector.

“I’m not necessarily presenting a pessimistic view, but rather pitching for a massive overhaul in the current state of infrastructure investments,” he said.

So far, utilities such as Pacific Gas & Electric, along with startups like ChargePoint and Greenlots, have led initiatives to deploy more charging infrastructure. Companies such as electric bus maker Proterra have pushed electric vehicles into more segments, helped along by commitments like California’s to purchase only carbon-free bus buses by 2029. And corporations with big fleets, such as Walmart and UPS, are working to electrify, but cite issues like charging infrastructure as big barriers.

“If you think we’re going to substitute or replace the private sector’s control of the economy, we’re deluding ourselves,” said Harvey. “It’s a matter of setting public standards that are requirements.”

Kodjak at the International Council on Clean Transportation says the scope of the deal necessitates a “big, broad, bold partnership” that includes government agencies, environmental and labor groups, as well as corporate interests. That type of coalition has the best chance of crafting policies that align with the resolution’s call for just and environmentally-friendly jobs while transforming transportation.

Vidangos at the Alliance to Save Energy pointed to the collaboration between California, the auto industry, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration on auto-emissions standards as an example of how parties can work to find solutions amenable to all. “We need to see more of that kind of dialogue,” she said.

In September, the Alliance to Save Energy helped launch a group aiming to cut energy use in transportation by 50 percent by 2050. Leaders of the group include the mayor of Fort Worth, Texas and representatives from Audi and National Grid. But even achieving the 50 percent reduction goal set out by that group “requires us to basically fire on every cylinder,” said Vidangos. And, she added, “the ambition in [the Green New Deal] takes it a step further.”

Seizing the momentum

While the document continues to face serious political challenges — Sen. Mitch McConnell this week said he would put forth a vote in the Senate, where the resolution is expected to fail — experts say that doesn’t mean its proposals shouldn’t be seriously considered.

“There’s no question this is the most ambitious [climate] policy that has been advanced in the United States both in terms of the timeline and in terms of its scope,” said Dan Lashof, U.S. director at the World Resources Institute. “I’m not ready to say it’s feasible or to dismiss it as impossible at this point.”

What’s more important, experts said, is seizing the momentum the document has created to start a conversation and craft serious legislation.

“We’re not out of the starting gate yet, much less thinking about the finish line,” said Harvey at Energy Innovation. “We cannot do this by saying, ‘Let’s cross our fingers and hope by then we get it all done.’ Start now — and start with serious projects.”

California Must Address a Statewide Latino Physician Shortage

California Health Report

Despite California’s leadership in expanding health coverage to a record number of Californians, we have a crisis that hardly anyone is addressing: Our state still fails to provide the quality—and quantity—of care needed by our largest ethnic group.

According to research from the UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Initiative, Latinos represent over 40 percent of California’s population but make up less than 12 percent of graduating physicians from the state’s medical schools. At the current rate, it will take 500 years to reach a point where the number of Latino physicians is proportional to the number of Latino patients.

On January 15, The Greenlining Institute, the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California, and the Latino Policy & Politics Initiative hosted a policy briefing to discuss solutions to address California’s Latino physician crisis. This discussion came hours after the California Future Health Workforce Commission released its formal recommendations to modernize the state’s health workforce delivery system.

Despite an extensive analysis, the commission’s report did not adequately highlight the gravity or scale of our Latino physician crisis. To put this into context, there are approximately 405 non-Hispanic white physicians for every 100,000 non-Hispanic white patients, but only 46 Latino physicians for every 100,000 Latino patients.

It’s no coincidence that communities of color—who are underrepresented in almost all health professions—are disproportionately affected by poor health outcomes. According to the federal Office of Minority Health, Latinos suffer from heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other chronic diseases at much higher rates than whites. Furthermore, they are less likely to have health insurance and are twice as likely to live at or below the poverty level.

This health vulnerability means Latinos urgently need access to culturally and linguistically appropriate care.

Increasing the number of Latino physicians across the state will benefit all Californians. Having diverse physicians who are culturally and linguistically competent improves the quality of health care for everyone.

How can we address this crisis? For starters, the Latino Policy & Politics Initiative recently released a series of landmark policy briefs outlining the various challenges Californians face in accessing health care and the reforms needed to address the lack of Latino physicians. We need to increase medical school admissions for Latino students and Spanish speakers, incentivize Latino medical school graduates who are trained out-of-state to practice in California, certify more physicians trained outside of the United States to practice in California, and increase the number of California residency slots. One key proposal urges state legislators to appropriate at least $100 million to expand residency slots. In addition, medical schools must ensure their admissions programs robustly recruit Latino students.

So far, Gov. Gavin Newsom has followed through on his promises to make health care a priority. He released a budget expanding health coverage to undocumented young adults up to the age of 26, appointed California’s first surgeon general, and threw his support behind a flurry of proposals aimed at increasing affordability, access and quality of care across the state—all in his first week in office. This bodes well for California’s future, but it’s not sufficient to address the health needs of California’s culturally and linguistically diverse communities.

If the state continues to turn a blind eye toward the Latino physician crisis, we risk perpetuating or worsening health disparities that harm the Latino population and other disenfranchised communities. Action on this issue requires policymakers, educational institutions and health employers to prioritize racial equity and move boldly to address our critical shortage of Latino physicians.

Sonja Diaz is the executive director of the UCLA Latino Policy & Politics Initiative. Jeffrey Reynoso is the executive director of the Latino Coalition for a Healthy California. Anthony Galace is the director of health equity at The Greenlining Institute.

My Turn: Self-Driving Cars Must Not Leave the Rest of Us Behind

By Alvaro Sanchez and Susan Shaheen

Starry-eyed predictions aside, critical issues are missing from the discussion about how self-driving cars will revolutionize  transportation.

Low-income Californians cannot lift themselves out of poverty if they lack reliable transportation. Without it, they cannot gain access to jobs, education and other opportunities.

Too often, transportation decisions prioritize the movement of personal vehicles that are often out of reach of low-income households. We must break this cycle.

Available figures consistently show that lower-income Americans spend a higher percentage of their income on transportation than the wealthy do, and a Harvard study found that a lengthy commute impairs a person’s ability to escape poverty.

People who drive increasingly get stuck in traffic. No wonder many people see the coming age of driverless cars as just the sort of magic bullet that will solve these problems. They are wrong.

Self-driving vehicles won’t fix these problems. The problem is not one of technology. Rather, the problem stems from a failure to prioritize people over cars.

Many supposed transportation revolutions, from buses and streetcars, to interstate highways and Uber, have led to increased segregation and growing wealth gaps between the rich and the poor.

Self-driving technology could exacerbate entrenched social and environmental problems, if we don’t make deliberate policy choices, especially for marginalized groups.

We can easily imagine a dystopian scenario in which people with money purchase personal self-driving cars, while the rest of us are mired in congested streets, with reduced mobility as public transit gets short-changed due to ridership loss.

We could have a society of transportation haves and have-nots even worse than what we see today: The affluent few whisked around effortlessly in self-driving cars, while the less well-off struggle to get around.

Unregulated, we could see a driverless car future that increases inequality, as high-income people become the natural early adopters, with companies catering to them and leaving poor people and people with disabilities behind.

Further contributing to the wealth inequality associated with the deployment of self-driving vehicles is the potential job loss associated with automation. Our research shows this will particularly impact African-Americans and Latinos, who hold a high percentage of transportation-related jobs.

So how do we make this technological revolution work for all Californians?

  • We must seize this opportunity to create a transportation system that is rooted in people and promotes vibrant, healthy, and clean places for people to live, work, and play—places that prioritize  the movement of people over the movement of cars.

When The Greenlining Institute reviewed the issues in depth, we found that part of the answer lies in what some call FAVES–fleets of automated vehicles that are electric and shared–if governments guide their development with smart policies designed to meet the needs of all users, including marginalized populations.

  • Second, equity must be a central focus in the research, development, and deployment of fleets of automated vehicles that are electric and shared, and other forms of driverless vehicles to ensure that these emerging mobility services meet the needs of all marginalized groups.

Money saved by having driverless trains and buses can be used to lower fares for low-income riders and improve service. We might also require fleet operators to not limit their services to high-profit areas but also provide mobility in rural communities and low-income neighborhoods.

We could also mitigate job loss associated with automation by guaranteeing a just transition for impacted workers, with training programs that have real jobs at their conclusion and a strong social safety net for people who can’t find new employment.

And we should consider requiring fair labor standards for the new jobs this emerging industry will create, in addition to prioritizing the hiring of marginalized populations.

  • Third, we must embrace mobility equity. Automated vehicle technology should support and contribute to creating a just and fair transportation system that provides mobility options for underserved populations, reduced pollution, and enhances economic opportunities.

With focused policy interventions, we can create a clean transportation system that works for all, bridging the divide between rich and poor rather than worsening it. A transportation revolution is arriving. This is one time we can’t be asleep at the wheel.

Alvaro Sanchez is environmental equity director at The Greenlining Institute, alvaros@greenlining.org. Susan Shaheen is an adjunct professor in Civil and Environmental Engineering at UC Berkeley and is co-director of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center, sshaheen@berkeley.edu.

Self-Driving Cars Need to be Steered in a Climate-Smart Direction

Union of Concerned Scientists
By Don Anair

The roving autonomous vehicles on the streets of San Francisco are one of the frequent reminders on my daily commute that our transportation system is changing. But will self-driving cars be good or bad for climate change?

Imaginations can run wild with “heaven or hell” scenarios of automated cars.  Imagine zooming around uncongested roads and highways while passengers attend to their social media, relax with friends, or take in a movie in a clean, electric vehicle.  Or, in the darker vision, zombie cars with no passengers are clogging roads and spewing pollution, urban sprawl is given a new life, and marginalized communities continue to lack good transportation options. As this technology comes to market, it will be up to decision makers to set us on the right course with smart policies.

Some researchers have been putting pen to paper to better understand the potential climate risks of self-driving cars (or autonomous or automated vehicles (AVs) as they are otherwise called) as well as their potential climate benefits. This research is providing important insights into the potential for building a modern transportation system that is less polluting, less congested, more equitable and more efficient than what we have today. It also highlights the significant risks of inaction and the difficulty of achieving the best outcomes.

3 Revolutions and a Multi-Modal Future: Autonomous, Electric, and Sharing Rides

Let’s start with the positive vision first. Self-driving car technologies are paired with electric vehicles, which we’ve shown have lower carbon emissions no matter where you live in the U.S.  In addition, AVs usher in a new wave of transportation services—think Uber and Lyft 2.0—where rides are more convenient than individual vehicle ownership and are cost-competitive.  This leads to a reduction in personal car ownership, since not owning a car is now a more viable, cheaper option for households.  Reduced car-ownership alone doesn’t solve the problem, but when paired with increased access to mobility options like shared bikes, scooters, and efficient mass transit, individuals now choose from a variety of options for each trip, rather than always defaulting to the car formerly parked in their driveway. Sharing or pooling of rides is seamless and offers a lower-cost option, access to faster moving car-pool lanes and lower tolls, while reducing the number of cars on the road.  This ideal future of clean, equitable, and accessible mobility is one of autonomous, electric, and pooled car trips combined with urban design and infrastructure that supports walking, scooters, bikes, and mass transit, and pricing signals that steer choices towards the cleanest, most efficient modes of travel.

What happens to climate emissions in this future? Researchers at University of California Davis and Institute for Transportation & Development Policy examined a future scenario where AVs are incorporated into a highly shared, multimodal, and electric urban transportation system.  They found, globally, urban transportation pollution could be reduced by 80 percent by 2050 and massive increases in congestion could be avoided, with vehicle miles traveled actually declining by 25 percent instead of increasing by 50 percent in the business as usual case (see figure).

This scenario of a future transportation system meets the travel demands of a growing population while driving down climate emissions.  And it requires coordinated policies to work, including compact development as well as policies that make the lowest emission and most efficient modes of transport the most attractive.  But what if that’s not what happens? What if we don’t make the decisions necessary to support the future described above, and instead take a hands-off approach to AV deployment?

The nightmare AV future: More vehicle miles, more congestion, more pollution, less equity

As wonderful as the vision of “three revolutions” is, it would be foolish to think that this vision of the future is likely—or even possible—without a lot of work. Here are a few ways that things could go wrong.

AVs could dramatically increase driving

If AVs primarily enable increased single occupancy vehicle trips, we are in trouble. One widely-cited study looked at a wide range of impacts AVs could have on energy consumption, travel and carbon emissions.  And there are many factors (see figure). Everything from the energy savings of robot eco-driving to energy and travel increases from newly empowered individuals who previously did not have the ability to drive their own vehicle. There are several potential impacts on both sides of the ledger, but the biggest potential increase in energy use (and by association, emissions) comes from a behavioral response to AVs.  If driving can now be productive time, longer commutes, for example, may not be the burden they once were.  This is one way in which AVs could reduce the time-cost of driving (see “travel cost reduction” results in the figure) and increase overall vehicle travel – as much as 60% according to the study.  Recent modeling of possible AV deployment in the Washington, D.C. metro region showed similar results, estimating that vehicle miles traveled could increase 46-66% with the introduction of self-driving cars.

So will people really drive that much more? Some researchers did an experiment to see what would happen to a household’s vehicle travel if they had access to a vehicle and a driver for a week – mimicking life with a self-driving car. Not surprisingly, most households used the vehicle more often (83% average increase in miles traveled), and even sent the car and driver out on errands (21% of the increase was zero-occupancy).  While there were only 13 participants in the study, which limits the generalization of the findings, the experiment does illustrate the potential behavioral shifts when a vehicle that can drive itself is introduced into a household. Why not send the car to pick-up your dry cleaning or take that trip to Aunt Esmerelda’s you’ve been putting off?

AVs could increase congestion and undermine transit, instead of complementing it

Pooling rides is essential to making AVs deliver on their potential to be clean, equitable and efficient.  Pooling rides for people with similar origins and destinations can deliver more passenger trips from fewer vehicle trips, which is key to making efficient use of vehicles (reducing pollution per trip) and roads (reducing congestion per trip).  But while pooled AVs could help increase the average occupancy of cars, they could also undermine our most important current source of pooling, mass transit.  A car with 2-3 people sharing a ride is an improvement over each person driving alone, but it is a lot more vehicles, pollution and congestion than 30 people in a bus, or several hundred in a subway or train.

Based on the current evidence, especially in larger cities where mass transit is especially important, ride-haling is pulling more people from modes like transit, walking and biking than it is pooling passengers who would otherwise drive alone. This mode shift, along with additional trips that that wouldn’t have been made in the absence of ride-hailing options, is leading to increases in congestion and increased vehicle miles traveled.  (See research by Clewlow & Mishra, Schaller, and University of Kentucky) Moreover, reduced ridership on mass transit hurts the economics of these critical systems as they lose fare revenue.  Adding AVs to ride-hailing fleets could drive down ride costs and exacerbate the changes in vehicle travel and transit impacts we are already seeing.

Roads snarled in congestion are not a good outcome for anyone, including companies that want to use these roads to sell people rides, pooled or otherwise.  So, new rules and incentives will be needed to efficiently manage transportation networks as private companies operate what are in effect private transit systems with occupancy sometimes higher than today’s cars but most often lower than today’s mass transit. Policy-makers will need to prioritize the movement of people over vehicles with policies that favor higher occupancy trips and modes. These could  take the form of preferential pricing, access to restricted lanes and ensuring that the financial model of mass-transit adapts along the way

If we don’t succeed in ensuring rides are largely pooled in both cars and in mass transit modes like rail and subway, not only will congestion get worse, but we will fail to reduce climate emissions to safe levels as electrifying our transportation system is simply not enough.   In the UC Davis/ITDP study, a “2 Revolution” scenario with AVs and widespread electrification but WITHOUT significant pooling of trips resulted in emissions reductions globally in 2050 by only 45% – far less than needed to stabilize our climate.

AVs could exacerbate or perpetuate inequities in our current transportation system

Our current car-ownership-based transportation system does not serve all communities in an equitable way. Lower income households spend a larger share of their income on transportation than wealthier households. Those who cannot afford a car, or are too old or young to drive, or have physical handicaps to driving, have to rely on a transit system that often doesn’t meet their needs.

AVs could improve mobility for communities historically underserved by our current transportation system – if the technology enables greater access to affordable, accessible and reliable transportation. If, however, AV technology is primarily relegated to private car ownership and leads to increased congestion or undermines public transit, as described above, the current inequities will be exacerbated.

A new report by the Greenlining Institute describes in more details the health, economic and mobility risks of AVs for marginalized groups like people of color, the poor, the elderly, and those with disabilities, and offers a list of recommendations to policymakers for ensuring the rollout of AVs leads to greater mobility options for all. UCS will also be releasing a report soon with results from an analysis of the Washington DC metro area and how the rollout of AVs in that region could impact transportation equity.  This research is important for informing the policies necessary to maximize the benefits of self-driving technology.

Now’s the time to get on the right path

Research is providing some helpful insights on understanding the potential role of AVs in a transportation system that cuts climate emissions and improves mobility.  It also offers a cautionary tale of the potential for AVs to dramatically increase emissions and exacerbate congestion if decision makers are not proactive and thoughtful about putting in place the policies that will lead us to the best outcomes.

We are starting to see some positive action on this front.  In California, legislation (SB1014) signed into law last year requires state agencies to develop standards to ensure ride-hailing companies are moving towards greater shared, zero-emission trips. Since AVs are likely to be rolled out in ride-hailing services, these rules will affect AV deployment.  But that’s only a drop in the bucket. Developing effective public policy to ensure AVs deliver climate and transportation system benefits requires shared goals, effective interagency coordination, and development and implementation of effective policy at different levels of government.  In California, UCS is sponsoring legislation with CALSTART (SB59 authored by Senator Ben Allen) that would get the ball rolling at the state level and ensure proactive policies can be deployed as AV technology is hitting the street.

Smart policies are critical for ensuring self-driving car technology ushers in a new era of clean, affordable, and efficient transportation rather than the zombie car apocalypse.  AVs may be able to drive themselves, but it is up to us to steer them in the right direction.

Electric Vehicle Advocates Say Newsom’s Budget Falls Short on Clean Transportation Funding

Politico Pro
By Colby Bermel

SACRAMENTO — Electric vehicle advocates warned this week that Gov. Gavin Newsom’s budget proposal lacks sufficient funding for their efforts and called on state lawmakers to find more money to support clean transportation.

Presenting to legislative aides Wednesday at the Capitol, a coalition of environmentalists celebrated a 2014 law that gave big boosts to the nascent EV industry. But more progress needs to be made, the group contended, especially as state regulators prepare to update tailpipe standards, lawmakers start reviewing Newsom’s proposed budget and California spars with federal officials over state mandates.

Emily Fieberling, a conservation fellow at Environment California, said Newsom is a “champion” on EVs, but his January budget “doesn’t include and cover all the key programs that we need to have funded.” While she and others were optimistic that the governor will include more money in his May revision, she said that “we’ll be calling on folks in this room to get this done.”

Compared to Gov. Jerry Brown’s final budget, Newsom’s plan would increase funding for the California Air Resources Board’s clean vehicle rebate project. But it would also slash cash for clean trucks, buses and off-road freight equipment; CARB’s enhanced fleet modernization program; and school buses and transportation equity projects. Money for agricultural diesel engine replacements and upgrades would also see a significant decline.

Department of Finance spokesperson H.D. Palmer said the disparity is due to fluctuations in proceeds from California’s cap-and-trade auctions, which fund CARB and other agencies. In the 2018-19 fiscal year, the auctions generated $2.6 billion in revenue, while the 2019-20 fiscal year’s auctions are slated to net $2.1 billion, he said.

Newsom’s proposed budget is “not a ‘cut’ in the sense of a policy decision to reduce spending, but a reflection of aligning expenditures with projected proceeds,” Palmer wrote in an email. “As with all other revenue projections in the January Budget, we will review them in the spring and, if warranted, adjust them accordingly in the May Revision.”

Advocates were particularly worried about the possible loss in the equity category, arguing that disadvantaged and low-income communities have been disproportionately affected over the decades by vehicle-produced pollution. Funds designated for those populations were included in CA SB1275 (13R), designed to accelerate electrification of the transportation sector and provide access to that cleaned-up system for those in need.

“We’ve created a patchwork of activity across the state,” said Greenlining Institute legal counsel Joel Espino. “We’ve done a good job in terms of integrating some of these things along the way, but there’s still a lot of gaps that we need to fill,” including education and outreach efforts to affected communities, along with more charging infrastructure in their neighborhoods.

But that equipment isn’t coming online fast enough due to lengthy siting delays at local governments, said Carl London, a lobbyist for Volkswagen’s Electrify America program, which is spending $800 million in California as part of a settlement over the emissions test cheating scandal.

Union of Concerned Scientists senior engineer Dave Reichmuth cautioned that CARB’s EV goals could be difficult to achieve, as the allotment of federal tax credits for new Tesla buyers has already been depleted in California, with the incentive for General Motors and Nissan customers set to run out in the coming years. Two-fifths of current EV owners in the state say they don’t have a place to park their vehicles, Reichmuth added, further compounding the situation.

Such issues necessitate state and local action, he argued.

“We want that clear signal from manufacturers that we not only need to go electric, but a lot faster than we are now,” Reichmuth said in an interview. Regardless of automakers’ speed on the matter, he said advocates are looking beyond EV ownership to hasten the sector’s decarbonization solutions, including EV rentals, emissions-free ride-hailing services, and more electric bikes and scooters. CARB is also weighing whether to electrify airport shuttle buses, major sources of air pollution.

Orson Aguilar to Transition Out of Role as Greenlining Institute’s President at the End of April

Aguilar Spent 20 Years with Greenlining; Organization Begins National Search for New Leader

Contact: Bruce Mirken, Greenlining Institute Media Relations Director, 510-926-4022; 415-846-7758 (cell)

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA – The Greenlining Institute’s Board of Directors announces that after nearly two decades with the organization, the last eleven years as its President, Orson Aguilar will transition out of this role at the end of April.

“Watching Orson emerge from Greenlining’s Leadership Academy as a young man two decades ago and go on to take a variety of roles and eventually become Greenlining’s leader has been remarkable,” said Board Co-Chair George Dean.

Under Aguilar’s leadership, Greenlining has grown significantly in size and impact. Greenlining has helped draft and pass critical legislation bringing new resources into communities of color, graduated over 150 Leadership Academy participants, established the Greenlining 360 Center as a hub for community organizing in Oakland, and seen its annual budget grow from $3.5 million to $7.3 million.

“Orson’s leadership has helped Greenlining become a powerful and influential organization, successfully mainstreaming racial equity,” said Ortensia Lopez, the Board’s other Co-Chair.

With Aguilar at the helm, Greenlining’s team of advocates have played a lead role in framing key economic decisions with a racial equity framework.

“Today, people look to Greenlining for bold, race-forward ideas and action to address economic inequality. I am so proud of the organization we have advanced together, and of our collective work to build a nation where communities of color thrive and race is never a barrier to economic opportunity,” Aguilar said.

During Aguilar’s tenure as President, Greenlining:

  • Worked in coalition with key allies to pass vital legislation bringing resources into underserved communities, including CA Senate Bill 535 (De Leon) and CA Assembly Bill 1550 (Gomez), which direct cap-and-trade funds to underserved communities; CA Assembly Bill 53 (Solorio), which created a system of reporting and transparency designed to encourage major California insurers to contract with diverse small businesses; and CA Senate Bill 1275 (De Leon), jumpstarting California’s effort to make the benefits of electric vehicles available to low- and moderate-income Californians.
  • Launched the Greenlining 360 Center in downtown Oakland as a hub for community gathering. Over half the building is leased as long-term affordable office space for community nonprofit tenants or provided as affordable community meeting space. In less than two years the building has provided free or low-cost meeting and event space for some 250 events put on by over 100 different organizations.
  • Graduated 43 Fellows and 114 Summer Associates from its Leadership Academy, and has seen Academy graduates rack up achievements including an appointment to the California Supreme Court, winning local government seats, running nonprofit organizations, and securing influential positions in all sectors.
  • Negotiated community benefit agreements with banks such as City National, Cathay Bank, Union Bank and Flagstar Bank to bring tens of millions of dollars in investment into communities of color.
  • Worked with the California Public Utilities Commission and regulated utilities to protect low-income consumers from power shut-offs, provide PG&E billing in Spanish and Chinese, and create electric vehicle charging infrastructure in disadvantaged communities.
  • Challenged multiple corporate mergers that could harm communities of color, including playing an instrumental role in arguing against the proposed AT&T/T-Mobile Merger in 2011.

Aguilar has also been asked to serve on numerous advisory boards to institutions such as Bank of America, J.P. Morgan Chase, BBVA Compass, and the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.

Aguilar has not yet decided what will come after Greenlining. For now, he looks forward to spending time with his wife and three children before deciding on a next step in his career. “Although I am transitioning from Greenlining, my mission and Greenlining’s mission remain the same,” Aguilar said. “I am committed to fighting injustice and inequality throughout my career.”  The community will celebrate Aguilar at Greenlining’s 26th Annual Economic Summit, happening April 26, 2019 in Oakland.

The Greenlining Board of Directors has begun a nationwide search for Greenlining’s next president and is committed to finding a successor who will continue the organization’s mission to build a nation where communities of color thrive and race is never a barrier to opportunity.


A Multi-Ethnic Public Policy, Research, Advocacy and Leadership Development Institute

Medicine won’t be able to progress until it surrounds itself with women of color

As a woman of color in medicine, I rarely see women who look like me in my medical school faculty.

The Tempest
By Bernadette Lim

When I first applied to medical school, I came in with a simple intention: to heal.

As the first in the family to become a physician, being a doctor to me means more than learning all the up-to-date biomedical knowledge and diagnoses. Rather, training to become a doctor is my lifetime commitment to underserved communities across the world who face health injustices and do not have quality healthcare services.

As a woman of color in medicine with Filipino and Chinese immigrant heritages, I rarely see women who look like me in my medical school faculty. I am currently a second year at the 5-year, dual-degree Joint Medical Program with UCSF School of Medicine and UC Berkeley School of Public Health, and I’ve witnessed how my hopes to learn how to heal and care for the underserved are not prioritized by medical education and oftentimes left to student-initiated electives and optional seminars. Rigorous rote memorization of diseases, drugs, and diagnoses are seen as the priority rather than regular conversations about health injustices faced by underserved communities and tools on how to put forth empathy in patient encounters.

While the American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) has celebrated the fact that women now comprise over 50% of medical students, a seminal report called “Breaking Down Barriers for Women Physicians of Color” by the Greenlining Institute and Artemis Medical Society found that only 11.7% of active physicians are women of color, challenging whether such celebration by the AAMC is too premature.

The report by the Greenlining Institute and Artemis Medical Society named specific barriers that impeded the entry of women of color into medicine including the expenses of the medical school application process, tokenization (i.e. being the only woman or person of color asked to be present or serve on various initiatives to fill diversity quotas), and overt instances of racism by medical school faculty.

In addition, racist tropes about people of color continue are to be taught as a critical part of medical school education. Race, a social category that has no biological basis, is seen as a risk factor for many diseases. Rather than naming the embodied effects of racism, one’s race is wrongly taught as an inherently biological risk factor for diabetes, hypertension, asthma, birthing complications, and kidney failure, among many others.

In spite of communities of color facing disparities in health outcomes, medical education does not center teaching about the psychosocial and environmental effects on health including embodied effects of racism (structural, institutional, and interpersonal), trauma, adverse childhood experiences, and poverty. In spite of evidence that the majority of health issues stem from and are perpetuated by socioeconomic factors, As a medical student, I am not given the frameworks or tools on how to address these issues in a critical way.

Without the inclusion of more women of color in medicine, these narrow and outdated perspectives on health, disease, and well-being will continue to go unchallenged. In addition, the hierarchical nature of medical training will continue to leave aspiring women of color physicians feeling isolated, unmotivated, and burnt out. As training physicians, failure to challenge the current state of medical education will continue to cultivate miseducation of individuals of color as hallmarks of disease rather than humans bearing the consequences of inequality, poverty, and oppression.

In late October, my colleague and I launched Woke WOC Docs, a podcast about the lives of women of color in medicine/health justice, including their unique experiences, viewpoints, and struggles in medical education, research, and practice. This is initiative was also part of an initiative we started in January 2018 called the Freedom School for Intersectional Medicine and Health Justice, a community of students, professors, and community members dedicated to creating an intersectional medicine and public health that is community-centered and advocates for the collective liberation and healing for all people.

By interviewing women of color of various stages and specialties of medical training, Woke WOC Docs hopes to reveal the insights we as women of color uniquely have on how medicine can transform to end health injustices and be a better institution of health, well-being, and healing.

In addition, we want to initiate a conversation on how medicine can better work with underserved and underrepresented communities to end health injustices rather than perpetuate them. Topics covered in most recent episodes include activism in medicine, addressing imposter syndrome, naming privilege while fighting against oppression, issues of race-based medicine, and social justice in clinical experiences.

Just as Dr. Zoë Julian articulated in a Woke WOC Docs episode entitled “Decolonizing Ourselves and Medicine”, medicine will never know its blind spots unless it surrounds itself with women of color who have been historically excluded from its doors. The opposite of racism is not diversity: it is anti-racism. The time to change the face of medicine is now.

Will Self-Driving Cars Take Us to Utopia or Urban Hell?

By Mike Ludwig

Despite public trepidation, self-driving cars are now debuting in San Francisco and Phoenix, Arizona. These robot taxis are required to have human backup drivers for now, but “autonomous vehicle” technology is quickly improving as major corporations such as Uber, Google, Apple and Tesla continue to invest.

RehtinkX, an independent tech think tank, estimates that 95 percent of passenger miles traveled in the United States will be served by automated taxi services by 2030. Analysts and transportation advocates are no longer questioning whether self-driving cars, buses and delivery vehicles are going to a viable part of our transportation future. Instead, they are debating what that future should look like.

Environmental equity researcher Hana Creger has two distinct visions of a future where self-driving vehicles are part of everyday life. She warns that if policy makers allow the market to make decisions without regulation, taxation and community input, we could be headed toward “transportation hell.” In this scenario, self-driving cars are used mainly by those wealthy enough to afford a luxury replacement to personal vehicles, leaving everyone else with congested streets, heavy traffic, longer commutes in sprawling cities and a deteriorating, underfunded public transportation system. Meanwhile, opportunities to cut climate-disrupting carbon emissions would be lost.

On the other hand, Creger also envisions a modern landscape where self-driving cars are part of a cleaner transportation system built for everyone. In this scenario, fleets of electric automated vehicles are shared by commuters, reducing traffic and air pollution, and providing mobility that everyone can afford — including working people who currently use public transportation rather than personal cars and may not have immediate access to the latest smartphone or digital gadget. Self-driving taxis compliment walking, biking, and traditional bus and train routes rather than encourage urban sprawl and crowded highways.

This is Creger’s “transportation heaven” scenario, where energy is conserved, transportation workers still have jobs, and lower-income families, the elderly and people with disabilities have better options for getting around. Precious urban space formerly used for parking is freed up, and city streets encourage biking and walking — thanks to predictable traffic patterns and the advanced computerized sensors installed in self-driving cars.

“In transportation heaven, autonomous vehicles are designed to meet [people’s needs] and move as many people as possible,” Creger told Truthout. Such vehicles could include “self-driving trains and buses in city centers, self-driving shuttles to connect suburbs to transit hubs, and a self-driving personal vehicle for someone in a rural area who needs their own car.”

Creger is the author of a new report on self-driving vehicles released this week by the Greenlining Institute, a California-based think tank focused on racial and economic justice. “Greenlining” is a response to “redlining” — the practice of denying services and economic opportunity to specific neighborhoods, particularly low-income communities of color. The report received input from a number experts working at the intersection of transportation, environmental sustainability, racial justice and disability rights. Self-driving cars and freight vehicles, the report states, have the potential to address inequality or further widen the economic gap between the privileged and the underserved.

“Self-driving cars are just kind of seen as this new, cool technology, but in reality we need to also be thinking about how to make bus stops better, and how to make our cities less polluted, and how to provide safe, affordable mobility to everyone,” Creger said. “It’s not just about revolutionizing vehicles, it’s about revolutionizing the transportation system they are operating in.”

Automated Injustice?

The United States has a long history of redlining and unfair housing practices that have pushed people of color into undesirable areas with low levels of environmental quality. Highways connecting cities to the suburbs were built right through urban communities of color, displacing residents and shuttering local businesses.

Today, full-time workers of color make 23 percent less than their white counterparts, and the poorest Americans spend up to 40 percent of their income on transportation compared to the 13 percent spent by the wealthy, according to the Greenlining Institute’s report. Now, urban gentrification is pushing lower-income people into the suburbs and farther from workplaces, social services and public transit. Self-driving cars could be used to remedy these problems, but they could easily make them worse.

Creger lives in works in the Bay Area, where the tech industry has dramatically reshaped San Francisco and Oakland with an influx of white-collar workers, skyrocketing housing prices and other signs of intense gentrification. Creger said self-driving cars are “everywhere” in the Bay Area nowadays, and she has taken a test drive herself. Despite a few high-profile accidents, Creger said it’s easy to see how, once fully developed, self-driving technology could make life safer for pedestrians and cyclists who share the road with automobiles. It’s also easy to see how self-driving cars could exacerbate inequality in cities dominated by the tech industry.

Creger explained that there are already two distinct transportation systems in San Francisco, where Google and Apple buses delivering employees to the companies’ offices along established bus routes have enraged just about everyone elseChariot, a luxury commuter service operating in cities like San Francisco, Austin and New York, often duplicates existing public transportation routes, allowing those who can pay to commute with each other (and enjoy high speed wi-fi) instead of finding a seat on the train or bus. When more commuters turn to private services, revenue and investment for public transit suffers.

“If we’re not careful, this will outcompete public transit ridership and lead to the deterioration of service,” Creger said.

Then there’s Uber and Lyft, the two major “ride sourcing” services under fire for unfair labor practices and the bane of traditional taxi drivers everywhere. Both companies perpetuate the “gig economy,” where stable employment is replaced by temporary jobs with few benefits. Despite a fatal accident in Arizona, Uber is pushing ahead with plans for self-driving fleets. The company has already disrupted the transportation labor market, so what will happen to Uber drivers replaced by automation? Could public transit workers lose their jobs when self-driving vehicles become the next big thing?

Creger’s report argues for robust training programs and strong unions to help workers transition into the new transit economy, and she is not alone. Last year, delegations of urban planning and transportation experts from cities in the US and the European Union gathered for a symposium on the socioeconomic impacts of “automated and connected vehicles.” Susan Shaheen, co-director of the University of California, Berkeley’s Transportation Research and Sustainability Center and a member of the US delegation, is studying employment and other “social equity” concerns closely.

“There are a lot of people who are drivers. … What happens to those jobs?” Shaheen said. “What happens to public transportation if these vehicles are no longer driven by human beings? How are we going to train the next workforce?”

The Pathway to an Automated World

Shaheen said the conversation around self-driving cars has been dominated by utopian and dystopian visions of the future, much like Creger’s “heaven” and “hell” scenarios, which draw from a vision first laid out in 2014 by transportation expert Robin Chase. However, the experts at the symposium were reluctant to look at the issue in such stark terms as they built a framework for studying the automated future. Instead, they predict a slow and steady transition toward automated transport, shaped by a mix of regulatory and market forces, depending on where you are in the world.

“It’s not going to be like waving a magic wand, and everything will be automated,” Shaheen said.

Experts still have more questions than answers. Will self-driving taxis make people feel more isolated, and will a credit card and a smartphone be required to hail a ride? Will passengers want to board a taxi without a driver and sit next to someone they do not know in the middle of the night? Shaheen pointed to elevators, a mode of transport that had human operators for several decades before we began pushing the buttons ourselves.

“There is a lot discussion about how quickly this is going to happen, but a lot of experts believe that it will be a long transition, and one that is not as simple as utopia or dystopia,” Shaheen said. “To get to utopia, you have travel through something. It’s the pathway to the fully evolved, automated world, right?”

Creger argues that it’s crucial that social justice advocates use this transition period to ask serious questions about how autonomous vehicles will impact low-income people, communities of color, people with disabilities and the elderly. For now, self-driving cars appear to be moving in the right direction; the first self-driving permits issued to companies like Waymo and Zoox are for robot taxi services that pool riders, not for personalized vehicles for the wealthy.

The tech entrepreneurs at RethinkX argue the market will continue to push the industry in this direction, but urban planners and community advocates must pay attention and work to sustain affordable public transit and prevent future transportation injustice. The time to act is now, as dozens of states have already introduced legislation to regulate autonomous vehicles.

“Is it integrating with public transit? Is it connecting biking and walking?” Creger said. “For me, it’s not enough that a car can drive itself; it should be making our entire transportation system better.”

Autonomous Vehicles Will Lead to More Traffic, Pollution, Sprawl — Unless We Act Now, Study Says

The Mercury News
By Erin Baldassari

In one version of our autonomous vehicle future, the wealthy have driverless cars that double as offices, hotels or entertainment centers, whisking them to their destinations on-demand, while the working class live far from city centers, commuting long hours and suffering from worsening pollution.

In another, urban areas offer affordable housing to working class and low-income residents, and everyone has access to self-driving cars at reasonable prices. Nearly all the rides are shared, all the vehicles are electric and public transit is both reliable and ubiquitous.

Transportation experts say the latter vision could be a green alternative to the soul-sucking traffic congestion already forcing Bay Area residents to spend long hours on gridlocked highways, while also improving access to jobs, housing, health care and education.

But right now, we’re heading in the wrong direction, said Hana Creger, co-author of a report released Wednesday from the Oakland-based public policy advocacy organization, the Greenlining Institute. Still, it’s not too late, she said, to shift toward a greener, more equitable future.

REPORTAutonomous Vehicle Heaven or Hell? Creating a Transportation Revolution that Benefits All

“There’s no doubt autonomous vehicles are not only coming, but they’re already here,” Creger said. “If we’re not intentional about shaping this autonomous revolution, then all the existing inequalities will be exacerbated.”

To do that, autonomous vehicles need to be shared and electric, she said. But getting there isn’t as easy as it sounds, says Susan Shaheen, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Berkeley.

Although the Bay Area’s first bike-share operator, Motivate, was a public-private partnership, it didn’t take long for purely private players to enter the scene and “disrupt” years of planning and community outreach with dockless bikes and scooters — and cities are still scrambling to keep up. Some transportation advocates have complained that those bikes and scooters have not reached low-income communities in the Bay Area.

Now companies such as Waymo, Apple and Tesla are leading autonomous vehicle deployment in much the same way, she said, leaving the public to wait and see what happens.

In the Bay Area and across the nation, low-income communities of color saw freeways physically segregate their neighborhoods from the rest of the city, making it harder for those residents to reach jobs, education and health care,  said Richard Ezike, with the Union of Concerned Scientists. Those same freeways encouraged middle and upper class white residents to move to suburbs, spurring housing developments that were much more difficult for public transit to reach.

Now, he said, the reverse is happening as wealthier people move back to cities and low-income communities of color leave urban centers in search of cheaper housing in the suburbs and exurbs.

Will autonomous vehicles result in the wealthy moving outside the city or further exacerbate the development of low-income housing along urban fringes? No one can say, but transportation experts agree: Autonomous vehicles are likely to make car travel more attractive, and that will induce sprawl.

Whether autonomous vehicles end up being a salvation or a scourge depends on what policy makers do to prepare for the driverless fleets of the future, Creger said. That means reclaiming streets for pedestrians, cyclists and scooters while at the same time discouraging single-occupancy car use.

Controlling access to the curb, such as with drop-off spaces or parking, is one way to do that, said Dan Sperling, professor of civil and environmental engineering at UC Davis, by prioritizing multi-passenger vehicles, charging a fee for single-occupants or limiting the ability to park.

Charging higher tolls during peak commute times for solo passengers is another way, Ezike said, as is offering discounts to pooled rides and clean-air vehicles or dedicating lanes to their use — an extension of the way the Bay Area’s Express Lanes now operate. And maybe it also includes making hard choices about where people are allowed to live by prohibiting the development of forest or agricultural land, he said.

“People look at autonomous vehicles as this magical solution, when in reality, it’s our car-oriented culture that’s the problem,” Creger said. “But all that hype and focus on the technology is becoming a distraction. We need to focus on the human implications.”