Developing An AV Vision Part 4:
Why AVs Need a Different Approach in Rural Areas
Key Takeaways
- Rural and regional transport is already broken, with poor public transport services, high car dependency, and disproportionate crash rates.
- Shared autonomous vehicles, while often promoted as the solution for rural areas, face significant economic challenges and may not be viable without government subsidies.
- Private AV ownership will be very appealing in rural areas, offering families the ability to transport children and elderly relatives independently.
- Traditional public transport in rural areas will likely face a death spiral as AVs arrive, forcing governments to choose between expensive subsidies or alternative service models.
- The most cost-effective government response may be redirecting public transport subsidies directly to low-income residents for AV access rather than maintaining empty bus services.
- Rural school buses will likely disappear as parents choose direct AV routes over long, indirect bus journeys for their children.
- AVs could deliver significant road safety improvements in rural areas where crash rates are disproportionately high.
- Resilience is a critical challenge. Rural communities face natural disasters requiring rapid evacuation, which shared AV models cannot reliably support.
- AVs may need manual driving capability in rural areas until the technology can handle adverse weather and emergency situations reliably.
- The vision for AVs must be geographically nuanced, with private ownership welcomed in rural areas while shared models may work better in dense urban settings.
What Next?
In next week’s blog, I continue the journey of developing a vision for AVs, looking at freight and logistics.
Introduction
This blog is part of a series exploring what our vision for autonomous vehicles should be. In the first three parts, I examined different aspects of AVs in urban areas (part 1, part 2, and part 3).
This week, I'm looking at AVs in a rural and regional context.
I am going to argue that the conventional wisdom about AVs needs to be turned on its head for these communities.
In cities, we worry about private AVs clogging streets and want to encourage sharing. In rural areas, the opposite may be true. Private ownership could be the better solution, while shared fleets create unexpected problems.
In cities, we want AVs to complement excellent public transport. In rural areas, AVs may signal the end of traditional public transport altogether, and that, surprisingly, may not be a bad outcome.
In cities, resilience around AVs is something we need to consider to keep a city moving. In rural areas, resilience becomes a matter of life and death during natural disasters.
The vision I'll outline in this blog challenges much of the current thinking about AVs, including my own assumptions as a public transport advocate. But the evidence points to an uncomfortable conclusion: what's right for urban areas may be exactly wrong for rural communities.
To understand why, we first need to examine the transport reality facing rural and regional areas today.
The Rural and Regional Transport World of Today
To understand why AVs require a different approach in rural areas, we need to start with the transport reality these communities face today.
Low density creates impossible economics
Rural and regional areas are characterised by very low population density with large distances between amenities. This isn't the 15-minute city. It's the 1-hour drive, if you're lucky.
This low density makes for challenging public transport economics. The subsidies required are very high. The result is predictable: infrequent services, poor quality, and aging infrastructure. The shortage of bus drivers makes matters worse.
Many of these communities once had rail lines, built in the era before motor cars. Many have been discontinued and converted to rail trails. Where rail services still operate, they're valued by communities despite poor service levels, aging rolling stock, and infrequent schedules.
Car dependency is total
Motor vehicles dominate the mode share. The one silver lining: congestion is very low.
But don't mistake low congestion for safe roads. Rural and regional areas account for a disproportionate share of road deaths and serious injuries. Potential reasons include: high speed limits on regional roads, poor road infrastructure, impaired driving, and driver complacency from encountering little traffic.
Demographics compound the challenge
The socio-demographic profile of rural areas intensifies these transport problems. Populations skew significantly older than urban areas, with lower average incomes and worse health outcomes. This means a significant proportion of residents cannot drive, yet with minimal public transport, they must rely on expensive taxi services or informal support networks.
Many rural communities faceeconomic decline. Young people leave at the first opportunity, seeking better prospects elsewhere. The population lacks reliable internet connectivity, and smartphone use is less common than in cities.
The bottom line
Rural and regional communities face profound challenges that extend far beyond transport.
This is the broken system that AVs will enter. Will they fix it or make it worse?
AV Rural and Regional Experiences To Date
Rural and regional areas have seen AV trials, but they've followed a different pattern than urban deployments.
In cities, tech companies and venture capital fund pilots. In rural areas, governments typically foot the bill, which tells you a lot about the expected commercial viability.
The complexity is different, not simpler
At first glance, rural areas seem easier for AVs. Fewer vehicles. Fewer pedestrians. Less chaotic interactions.
But trials have revealed a different set of challenges that more than compensate for the simpler traffic environment.
Unpaved roads are common. Vegetation encroaches on lanes, obscuring boundaries. Wildlife and farm animals appear unexpectedly.
Then there's connectivity. Many AVs require 5G networks for remote monitoring, something rural areas often struggle with.
The commercial reality
The result of these technical and economic challenges is that there are essentially no genuine commercial AV services operating in rural and regional areas anywhere in the world.
The trials that do exist are subsidised experiments, not sustainable businesses.
This is the situation today. But our task isn't to describe today, it's to envision the future.
So let's assume AVs eventually master rural and regional driving conditions. Let's assume connectivity improves. Let's assume the technology matures.
What happens then? What should our vision be for AVs in these communities?
The scenarios that follow explore these questions.
Why Shared Robotaxis Won't Save Rural Transport
When advocates discuss AVs in rural areas, they typically arrive at the same vision as in urban areas: shared demand-responsive transport (DRT).
The pitch is compelling. Remove the driver costs that make rural transport uneconomic. Deploy fleets of small robotaxis that arrive on demand. Provide better, cheaper, safer transport for everyone, including those who cannot drive.
It's an appealing vision. Does it hold water?
Assumption 1: People will share
The first problem is the assumption that people will share rides.
I'm sceptical of widespread ride-sharing in cities, where it's been tried repeatedly with limited success outside traditional public transport. People share when they have something in common, same workplace, same university. But strangers sharing trips? The evidence suggests people strongly prefer travelling alone or with their own group.
Rural areas might be different. The culture is different. People know their neighbours. Social cohesion is stronger. Sharing with people you know feels less intrusive than sharing with strangers in a city.
But this is still speculation, not evidence. And it matters enormously for the economics.
Assumption 2: Shared AVs won't cannibalise public transport
The second problem is more serious.
Who will use these new AV services? Optimists assume people will leave their cars at home. But this seems wildly unrealistic in the short to medium term. Why would someone who owns a car suddenly abandon it for a shared service?
The more likely scenario: AV demand-responsive services will pull passengers from existing taxi services (manageable) and from public transport (problematic).
Public transport economics in rural areas are already terrible. Now imagine making them worse. Fewer passengers. Higher per-passenger costs. Pressure to cut services. Which leads to even fewer passengers. The death spiral accelerates.
Some people will inevitably become AV-dependent as public transport disappears. The equity implications depend heavily on AV pricing relative to current public transport fares. Some argue AVs could be price-competitive with buses, especially for shared trips. Without government subsidies, I'm sceptical.
The autonomous bus fantasy
Some people are arguing that public transport will also become autonomous, that costs will fall and services expanded.
I examined this claim closely when analysing urban scenarios and wasn’t convinced.
The cost savings assume you can remove the driver. But you'll still need safety personnel on rural buses, especially during off-peak hours when passenger numbers are minimal. People need to feel safe. Remote monitoring adds costs rather than removing them. And resilience issues, which I'll address shortly, are even more important in rural contexts.
Autonomous buses might deliver marginal cost savings. They won't fundamentally change the economics.
Government's impossible choices
This leaves governments facing deeply uncomfortable options as shared AVs undermine public transport:
Option 1: Find money to maintain public transport despite worsening economics.
Option 2: Cut services to reduce costs, accepting the death spiral this creates.
Option 3: Raise public transport fares, which accelerates the shift to AVs.
Option 4: Abandon traditional public transport and run AVs as a government service.
Option 5: Abandon traditional public transport and franchise AV services with mandated fares, letting operators bid on required subsidies.
Option 6: Abandon traditional public transport, allow market-priced AV services, and redirect subsidies directly to low-income residents.
Option 7: A hybrid of Options 5 and 6 - franchise AV services but allow operators to set fares within boundaries, while subsidising low-income residents directly.
From a pure cost-effectiveness perspective, Option 6 or 7 makes the most sense. Stop subsidising increasingly empty buses. Give the money directly to people who need affordable transport.
However, there may not be commercial AV services in rural areas without government intervention. The economics that make public transport difficult also make commercial AV fleets marginal.
This suggests Option 7 - franchising with flexible pricing and direct subsidies to low-income residents might be the pragmatic solution.
Would road pricing help?
One of my key recommendations for urban AVs is implementing road user charges. Would this change the equation in rural areas?
It depends entirely on the pricing structure.
A simple distance-based charge would be devastating for rural communities. People drive long distances out of necessity, not choice. Charging per kilometre would impose disproportionate costs.
But suppose road pricing emphasises congestion and vehicle weight, with distance as a minor factor. Rural AVs would face minimal charges; there's little congestion to price.
Now imagine that AVs pay significantly higher road charges than buses, creating a revenue stream to maintain public transport. Would this deliver better outcomes than abandoning public transport entirely?
The comparison becomes: maintain public transport with higher AV charges versus no public transport with low AV charges (especially for low-income residents).
The answer probably depends on specific contexts. Some well-patronised bus or train services at peak times are worth preserving. But overall, I suspect welfare improves by shifting the balance heavily toward AVs and away from traditional public transport.
This won't be the most environmentally friendly solution. But I don't believe the environmental differential is large enough to justify making rural residents significantly worse off overall, nor do I think it would be politically sustainable.
As a public transport advocate, writing this feels uncomfortable. Please let me know if I've missed something in my reasoning.
The case for private AVs
We've focused on shared AVs. But private ownership deserves separate consideration.
Some people will inevitably buy private AVs when they become available. These vehicles offer capabilities impossible with human-driven cars.
You can send your AV to transport children to school. Or elderly parents to medical appointments. Or to collect groceries from a distant town, all saving significant time. Home deliveries that aren't economically viable today suddenly become possible through your own vehicle.
The school bus question
Consider regional school buses. Many rural children travel long distances on buses with highly indirect routes. A trip that might take 30 minutes directly can take over an hour on a school bus picking up children spread across vast areas.
Parents with private AVs might prefer sending their children directly to school, perhaps having them do homework during the journey (if they don't get car sick). This would concentrate all AV arrivals at schools simultaneously, a traffic management challenge that doesn't exist today.
But examine the trade-offs. If the bus adds 5 minutes to the journey, children should use it. If it adds an hour, the calculation completely changes.
School buses will probably see steady passenger losses. At what point do you cancel the service? Is one remaining passenger enough to justify running it? The last few children will probably end up in robotaxis if their parents lack private AVs.
I believe the regional school bus is doomed. It's just a question of timing.
Safety benefits are real
Road safety deserves emphasis. Whether AVs are currently safer than humans is debatable. But AVs will improve while human drivers won't.
Eventually, AVs will be definitively safer. For rural communities with disproportionate crash rates, this matters.
The safety case for AVs is stronger in rural areas than in cities.
Private vs shared: The verdict
Private AVs offer significant benefits that shared fleets cannot match, even at lower prices. The flexibility, the convenience, the safety improvements, they're compelling for rural households.
This leads to an uncomfortable conclusion: rural and regional areas might become heavily dependent on AVs, whether shared or private.
Which brings us to the critical issue of resilience.
Resilience
AVs have an Achilles heel that's especially dangerous in rural areas: they're not resilient.
Current AVs stop operating in relatively mild adverse weather.
Human drivers handle these conditions routinely. AVs don't.
The technology will improve over time. But AVs could become ubiquitous in rural areas before they become truly resilient.
When disaster strikes
Rural and regional areas face significant consequences from natural disasters, such as bushfires, floods and severe storms.
The standard advice: evacuate in advance.
Today, people who own cars can leave when authorities issue warnings. They load their families and essential belongings into their cars and drive to safety.
Now imagine a community dependent on shared AVs.
Everyone receives the evacuation order simultaneously. Everyone needs transport at the same moment. The shared fleet, sized for normal daily demand, is woefully inadequate.
Some people won't be able to leave.
This is life-threatening.
The contingency problem
Could we maintain backup evacuation capacity?
In theory, yes. In practice, it will put pressure on emergency response teams.
The gradual crisis
Not every adverse condition justifies evacuation. Some simply make travel difficult rather than impossible.
Consider significant snowfall, the kind currently affecting parts of the United States. Human drivers adapt.
AVs faced with these conditions usually don't operate.
Imagine rural residents who cannot leave home because their AVs won't function in snow that human drivers would consider manageable. Emergency services become overwhelmed supporting people facing AV limitations.
The private AV question
What about private AVs that cannot be manually driven?
If you own a fully autonomous vehicle with no manual controls and the weather prevents autonomous operation, you're stranded. One or two people in this situation might be manageable. But if substantial numbers of residents own such vehicles, the problem becomes systemic.
Emergency services cannot support everyone who's simply unable to use their vehicle because of the weather.
The uncomfortable conclusion
Both shared AV fleets and fully autonomous private vehicles create dangerous dependencies in rural areas until the technology achieves true resilience.
Shared fleets cannot scale rapidly enough for mass evacuations. Fully autonomous vehicles without manual controls leave residents stranded during adverse conditions that wouldn't stop human drivers.
If AVs become widespread before achieving weather resilience, we're creating vulnerabilities in communities already exposed to disproportionate natural disaster risks.
Our vision for rural AVs must account for this reality.
Until AVs can handle the full range of conditions rural areas experience, including the extreme weather that necessitates evacuation, we need to ensure alternative mobility remains available.
Conclusion
So what does this all mean for developing a vision for AVs in rural and regional areas?
The case for AVs in these communities is actually stronger than in urban areas. The potential benefits are greater: significant improvements in road safety, better transport access for those who cannot drive, and solutions to the driver shortages plaguing public transport. Meanwhile, the negative consequences we worry about in cities, congestion, reduced walking, and loss of street life, are largely irrelevant in low-density rural settings.
However, the pathway to realising these benefits looks radically different from urban areas.
Shared AVs, often promoted as the ideal model, face fundamental challenges in rural contexts. The economics are questionable without subsidies. More critically, making communities dependent on shared fleets creates dangerous vulnerabilities during natural disasters when everyone needs transport simultaneously for evacuation.
Private AV ownership, conversely, makes far more sense in rural and regional areas than in cities. It enables families to transport children and elderly relatives without a driver. It provides resilience during emergencies. It allows people to maintain independence in areas where distances are vast and alternatives are scarce.
A key challenge for governments will be managing the transition period. Traditional public transport, already struggling, will face even greater pressure as AVs arrive. The most cost-effective approach may be redirecting public transport subsidies directly to low-income residents to access AV services, rather than propping up increasingly empty buses and trains.
This feels uncomfortable to write as a public transport advocate. But the welfare gains from this approach appear too significant to ignore.
The critical caveat is resilience. Until AVs can handle adverse weather conditions reliably and until we have robust contingency plans for emergencies, we cannot allow rural communities to become completely dependent on autonomous technology, whether shared or private.
Our vision for AVs must be geographically nuanced. One size does not fit all. Rural and regional areas will benefit from a vision that prioritises private ownership, maintains resilience, and accepts that traditional public transport may not survive in its current form. This is almost the exact opposite of what is required in urban contexts.
Next week, I will look at how AVs in freight and logistics should inform our overall AV vision.