Shared Mobility as a key instrument for better Quality of Urban Life

Transcription

1 Shared Mobility as a key instrument for better Quality of Urban Life José Viegas Secretary-General Institute of International and European Affairs Dublin, 20 July 2017

2 Intergovernmental Organisation 59 member countries (24 non-oecd) Politically autonomous, administratively integrated at the OECD Council of Ministers of Transport, rotating annual presidency Ireland will hold Presidency in 2019

3

4 MAIN REQUIREMENTS Supported by ITS Sustainability New Urban Mobility Paradigm (Mobility 4.0) Social Inclusion High Quality of Service

5 Some issues common to all large cities 5

6 Main Barrier to Change in rich Countries: Legacy, inertia 6

7 The new Approach 7

8 8 Focus On Access (mobility is an instrument) Leverage on the upcoming radical changes radically reorganise to the mobility system

9 Impact Chain Preference for Sharing and Fruition Attractive Ride services (MaaS) 9 Electrification Lower emissions Digital Connectivity Automation Fiscal Regime of Road Transport Better Road safety Lower cost of professional ride services Lower perception of in-vehicle time Vehicle Occupancy! (Shared Rides) Longer distances Less need to own a car VKM?

10 10 Two road-based demand responsive modes plus the existing Metro Shared taxis Simultaneous ride-sharing Door-to-door service Taxibus Optimised on-demand bus Street corner-to-street corner No transfers Three main instruments 1. Shared Mobility

11 Three main instruments 1. Shared Mobility High Quality for users: Great Convenience No transfers Low prices through good occupancy Very positive social outcomes: Emissions and congestion Accessibility Public space released Affordability 11

12 12 Percentage of jobs within 30 min by public transport Current public transport + walking Taxibus + Metro + walking Inequity Indicator Current PT + Walk Taxibus + Metro + Walk P90/P10 Gini coeff Impacts of Shared Mobility on Accessibility - Jobs

13 Tax revenues from fuel duties 13 Currently at least 6% of total fiscal revenue in all EU countries Blunt instrument, adequate for earlier technology Replace by smart distance-based charge: Aligned with Quality of Service Inducing alignment of individual behaviour with public interest Not just carbon pricing Three main instruments 2. Smart Road Charging

14 From car oriented to people (Access) oriented 14 Key Ingredients: Density and Functional diversity Good design for use of active modes Quality of public areas Three main instruments 3. Sustainable urban planning

15 Current conditions compared to Lisbon (metro areas in both cases): Lower density, higher market share of private car, lower of PT Same avg. distances but better speeds / less congestion Focus Group shows: 15 Convenience, total travel time are key attributes for acceptance of SM by current car users Cost is key attribute for current PT users For Shared Taxis, preference for solo ride but if in a group, larger set of co-travellers better than a smaller one Overall, favourable conditions. Design specs similar to Lisbon Possible need for calibration of wait & detour time vs. party size (or market segmentation) Conditions for Shared Mobility in Dublin?

16 16 Massive changes Technological change cleaner and safer transport But not enough to ensure better quality of life Many stakeholders Governance fragmentation, horizontally and vertically Coherence, the critical ingredient Inclusive political leadership will be essential

17 17 Common and differentiated challenges Use turbulence from technological revolutions to introduce other dimensions of change Shared Mobility, Smart Road Charges, Sustainable Urban Planning Coherence of actions is critical Coherence over time is also critical: Address short term challenges in alignment with the vital issue of climate change Transitions must produce positive results at each step of the way to keep popular support Conclusions: Strategic Change

18 Thank You Thank you