Interview with Prof. Moshe Givoni

Fleischer, Torsten; Schippl, Jens; Givoni, Moshe · 2018 · OpenAlex-citations

DOI: 10.14512/tatup.27.2.68

archive: archived pipeline: cataloged verified

Get this paper ↗ (DOI — opens at the source; we link to it, we don't host it)

Summary

This interview features Professor Moshe Givoni, Torsten Fleischer, and Jens Schippl discussing the implications of automated and driverless vehicles for sustainable transport. The discussion is motivated by the prevailing hype surrounding autonomous technology and the critical question of whether automation will support or hinder the transition toward more sustainable mobility systems. The participants examine whether the narrative surrounding automated driving is uniform globally or if it varies by region, concluding that the "business as usual" model of private car-centric mobility is being reinforced rather than transformed. The analysis identifies three competing mobility paradigms driving the development of automated vehicles. The first is the traditional car-centered model, where manufacturers integrate automation into their existing business of selling private cars. The second is the sharing economy model, driven by platform providers like Uber and Lyft, which aims to disjoin populations from car ownership through ride-sharing services. The third involves cities and public transport providers using autonomous technology for specific low-ridership scenarios, such as night traffic or sparsely populated areas. Givoni argues that while automation has potential as a public transport tool, commercial interests currently dominate, leading to an intensification of private mobility reliance rather than a structural change in how mobility is organized. The participants find that automated vehicles are often misapplied as solutions to urban problems like congestion and parking. Givoni contends that the driver is not the primary issue; rather, the problem is excessive driving and inefficient vehicle use. He warns that autonomous vehicles may exacerbate congestion by encouraging "cocooning" in private cars and cannibalizing public transport, particularly in small and medium-sized cities where public transit is less robust. While there are indicators of reduced car ownership interest among younger adults in large urban areas, the technology itself is not the direct driver of this trend. Instead, the development is largely funded by public money to support industrial interests, despite the technology not addressing core transport policy goals. The significance of the discussion lies in the call for proactive policy intervention. The authors conclude that policy makers and planners must actively shape the development pathways of automated vehicles to ensure they support sustainable goals, such as expanding public transport and sharing schemes, rather than reinforcing private car dominance. They argue that current transportation policies lack definitive roles for autonomous systems, leading to a focus on the "smart" aspects of technology while overlooking negative impacts. The interview emphasizes that without clear political will and strategic planning, automated vehicles risk undermining efforts to create car-free zones and promote walking and cycling, ultimately failing to solve the fundamental issues of urban mobility.

Provenance

The full processing record for this entry. Every stage of this paper's journey through the pipeline is logged — what ran, with which tool and model, how many attempts it took, and when it last completed.

Summary generated by qwen3.6-27b-prismaquant on 2026-06-26; verification: verified.

Topics

Ranked by relevance to this paper. Hover a topic for its definition.

• acceptance adoption