Implications of new transport technologies for traditional public transport operations

Transcription

1 Presentation by Graham Parkhurst Professor of Sustainable Mobility Implications of new transport technologies for traditional public transport operations Travelwatch Southwest General Meeting Taunton, 06 October 2018

2 The Smart (?) Mobility Revolution Electric Autonomous Connected Shared CAV

3 What is meant by smart? Services which combine mobility and digital technologies to deliver more personalized, flexible travel options Better quality, real-time information More flexible supply and user choices Enhanced interconnection Greater system efficiency

4 Some questions Are the aspirations realistic? o If so when might they be realised? Will smarter mobility also be more sustainable mobility? o Will it be smarter for all? What does the transition mean for public transport?

5 electrification

6 EVs & GHGs % higher efficiency than petrol % than diesel + 20% future efficiency (all pathways) The other 50% reduction required would need to come from carbon-neutral energy

7 Million tonnes CO 2 equivalent Road Transport Climate Change Emissions Treaty Target -80% Cars and taxis Heavy goods vehicles Light vans Buses and coaches Motorcycles & mopeds Other road transport emissions DfT (2017) Greenhouse gas emissions by transport mode: UK Table ENV0201 (Historic)

8 index (average quarter 1993 = 100) Index: 2010 = 100 But we could be running to stand still! DfT (2017) Road traffic (vehicle miles, Seasonally adjusted) in GB (Table TRA2502f) Cars per person 4-19% All cars 25-42% Traffic 19-55% Congestion 8-17% Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Scenario 4 Scenario 5 DfT (2015) Forecasts of road traffic in England and vehicles in Great Britain (Table TRA9905)

9 EVs & Air Pollution EVs avoid NOx emissions But 90% of ICEV PM 10 and 85% of PM 2.5 emissions NOT from combustion but from sources like tyres, brakes and resuspension EVs are (currently) 24% heavier, but use regenerative braking Particulate reduction will require lightweighting and reducing traffic Some information from Timmers & Achten (2016) Non-exhaust PM emissions from electric vehicles. Atmospheric Environment, 134,

10 Charging Capacity: Approx. one public charging point per 10,000 vehicles in Bristol subregion

11 There is no mass-market urban EV charging solution yet

12 EVs more expensive and limited standardisation

13 How smart is electrification? Light duty EV sales now a growing niche although heavy duty solutions more problematic o 20-year transition until 90-95% fleet share? Contributes to sustainability but only as part of a wider strategy o Need renewable electricity and additional solutions for traffic growth and air quality EVs are more expensive to buy but cheaper (and more acceptable?) to use o Some threat to the demand for and sustainability credentials of public transport

14 connectivity & automation

15 Automation: Most Efficacious in Every Case?

16 Will people accept them? Urry (2013) CAVs ignore just the pleasures of driving, of finding your way, and, especially for many male drivers, for driving too fast and aggressively Becker and Axhausen (2017) reviewed surveys of public acceptance: populations tended to have polarised attitudes Urry, J. (2013). Are Driverless Cars A Part of the Future? Transcript of Audio Blog. Available at: Becker, F., and Axhausen, K. W. (2017). Literature review on surveys investigating the acceptance of automated vehicles. Transportation, 44,

17 How attractive will the in-vehicle experience be? Unless the vehicle is fully automated, the driver must be engaged! Innovations in vehicle ride quality? o In order to achieve rail-like standards of comfort, speeds through network features such as signalised intersections might need to be reduced, thereby affecting network efficiency (Le Vine, Zolfaghari & Polak, 2015). Le Vine, S., Zolfaghari, A. and Polak, J., Autonomous cars: The tension between occupant experience and intersection capacity. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 52, pp.1-14.

18 Backlash? y (2017) 60% of occupations have at least 30% of ent activities that could be automated now e et al. (2017) the penetration of automation will range

19 Filton Trial: Perceived Comfort and Trust Four conditions 2 speeds (5, 10 mph) 2 seat positions (face, back) Comfort and trust ratings after were higher than before ride

20 Online survey key findings WTU & WTP for Private DV Cars DV Car

21 Online survey key findings WTU & WTP for DV Taxi DV Taxi

22 Online survey key findings WTU & WTP for DV Bus DV Bus

23 Willingness to Pay to Use AVs vs Current Costs Mode AV Car AV Taxi AV Bus Human-driven actual cost per passenger km Average W2P per km Operating cost without driver cost (assumed 50%) Implications Will pay 14% more Taxis more affordable Commercial bus network could

24 How smart are CAVs? It is not certain that go anywhere fully automated vehicles will be realised. o 5-15 years on specially adapted parts of network? All powered travel modes could become more attractive o Questions about affordability to all and status of active travel The cost structure of public transport operations could change significantly.

25 shared mobility

26 But Will We?

27 The sharing economy mostly concerns assets Is the transport sector likely to be very different?

28 Effects of car sharing clubs Millard-Ball et al. (2005) 1 CSC car substitutes 9-13 private cars Martin & Shaheen (2011) mean vkm per year by members decreased 27%. Muheim (1998) 10-30% of members reduce car ownership when join Ter Schure et al. (2012) members 40% less likely to drive alone for trips than non-members Millard-Ball, A. et al. (2005). Car-Sharing: Where and How It Succeeds. Transportation Research Board (TCRP Report, 108). Martin, E., Shaheen, S. (2011). Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impacts of Carsharing in North America. Report Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University, Calif., edu/project/0911.html Muheim, P. Carsharing: The Key to Combined Mobility. Swiss Federal Office of Energy, Bern, Switzerland, Ter Schure, J., et al. (2012) Cumulative impacts of carsharing and unbundled parking on vehicle ownership and mode choice. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2319(1),

29 What can we learn from the experience with Transportation Network Companies? Standard Uber and Lyft services represent asynchronous sharing Uber Pool and Lyft Line are synchronously shared but are only offered in the largest metropolitan areas Rayle et al. (2016) found a special appeal for a group of (generally) younger, well-educated urban travellers with a high value of time o special in the sense that the offer was not replicated by other modes Hall et al. (2017) considerable variability on the impact of Uber on transit services in US metropolitan areas o on balance they found a complementary effect Rayle, L., Dai, D., Chan, N., Cervero, R. and Shaheen, S., Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis, transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transport Policy, 45, Hall, J.C., Palsson, D., and Price, J., (2017) Is Uber a substitute or complement for public transit? University of Toronto.

30 Take a chance on me a synchronously-shared CAV fleet would require only 10% of the number of current vehicles to provide for existing mobility an exclusively-used collective fleet would still require 77% of current vehicles... Overall traffic and peak congestion increases in the ridesharing option would be modest (6 and 9% respectively). Exclusive use would effectively double both measures. International Transport Forum (2015) summarised by Parkhurst, G. and Lyons, G. (2018) The many assumptions about self driving cars Where are we heading and who is in the driving seat? Available from: automation might plausibly reduce road transport GHG emissions and energy use by nearly half or nearly double them depending on which effects come to dominate Wadud, Z., MacKenzie, D., Leiby, P. (2016) Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated vehicles. Transportation Research A, 86, 1 18.

31 Online survey key findings WTU & WTP for Shared DV Taxi Shared-DV

32 How smart is shared mobility? Smart shared taxis currently only viable in largest urban areas o AV shared taxis would change costs radically, but barriers to deliverability and acceptance Sustainability contribution only with max synchronous sharing and active travel encouraged o High risk of social exclusion Small, shared vehicles would not be sufficient to meet current levels of peak demand in an efficient way

33 Still a strong case for traditional public transport in high-demand corridors! Parkhurst, G., Seedhouse, A. (in press). Will the smart mobility revolution matter?

34 Bath: Car Park / P&R User Origins Clayton et al. (2014) Where to park? A behavioural comparison of bus-based park and ride and city centre car park usage in Bath, UK. Available from:

35 Medium-range trips contribute most carbon UK DfT (2009) Delivering Sustainable Low Carbon Travel. Figure 2.1

36 P&R Integrated with Bus Services: Link & Ride P&R site road network user-origin urban area bus service 4 km 5 km 5 km 5 km 5 km Parkhurst, G. (2000) Link-and-ride: A longer-range strategy for car-bus interchange. Traffic Engineering & Control, 41 (8). pp Available from:

37 Leigh-Manchester Busway P&R 130 P&R 45 P&R 250 2km 8km 10km

38 East of Bath Potential Integrated Transport Corridors

39 MetroBus Stop Accessibility Analysis by Clayton for the Urban ID Project

40 % of respondents 30 seconds 1 minute 2 minutes 5 minutes 10 minutes 20+ minutes On-Bus Survey How long will it take you to walk to the nearest MetroBus stop? Spring 2017; six routes 53.2% of 1,085 respondents aware of MetroBus Of those: o 25% aware and 7% very aware of where it would run o 23% aware of nearest stop to home Of those: half would have to walk more than 10 minutes Estimated time (N=169) Calvert & Parkhurst (2018). Bristol On-Bus Survey Report of the MODLE Project, UWE Bristol. 27

41 0p-50p 51p More than 5 % of respondents % of respondents On-Bus Survey findings How likely would you be to use a local on demand shared-taxi service to connect to a nearby MetroBus stop? Very unlikely Quite unlikely Neither likely nor unlikely N = Quite likely 3.9 Very likely How much would be reasonable to charge for a one-way journey using the shared-taxi service? N =

42 Completing the Missing link

43 =BKXTTqL1xQ4&feature=youtu.be

44 Included in First network tickets Currently included in bus fare: Day 4 Week 17 Month 66

45 Presentation by Graham Parkhurst Professor of Sustainable Mobility