Opportunities to Leverage Advances in Driverless Car Technology to Evolve Conventional Bus Transit Systems

Similar documents
Application of Autonomous Vehicle Technology to Public Transit

Application of Autonomous Driving Technology to Transit

The Implications of Automated Vehicles for the Public Transit Industry

Application of Autonomous Driving Technology to Transit - Functional Capabilities for Safety and Capacity

Testing Transit Bus Automated Collision Avoidance Warning Systems in Revenue Operations Active Safety Collision Warning Pilot in Washington State

Testing Automated Collision Avoidance Systems for Transit Buses

Pierce Transit: Extending the Washington State Bus Transit Experience

Planning for AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES. Presentation on the planning implications of self-driving vehicles. by Ryan Snyder Transportation Planning Expert

Parking Management Strategies

Activity-Travel Behavior Impacts of Driverless Cars

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

NHTSA Role in The Future of Automated Vehicles

Autonomous Vehicles: Status, Trends and the Large Impact on Commuting

Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions Implications for Transport Planning

US Bus and Paratransit Data Injuries/Million Passenger Miles

Redefining Mobility Ready or not: Autonomous and connected vehicle planning and policy, now and in the future

October 15, 2015 Traffic Engineering and Safety Conference Champaign, IL

Intelligent Vehicle Systems

Connected Vehicle and Autonomous Vehicle (CV/AV) Mobility and Technology

Support Material Agenda Item No. 3

Role of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles

A Transit Plan for the Future. Draft Network Plan

Road Vehicle Automation: Distinguishing Reality from Hype

Safety Considerations of Autonomous Vehicles. Darren Divall Head of International Road Safety TRL

DRAFT Evaluation Scores. Transit

Redefining Mobility. Randy Iwasaki. Executive Director Contra Costa Transportation Authority January 18, 2018

Autonomous Vehicles in California. Bernard C. Soriano, Ph.D. Deputy Director, California DMV

Technology for Transportation s Future

Policy Note. Vanpools in the Puget Sound Region The case for expanding vanpool programs to move the most people for the least cost.

Development of California Regulations for Testing and Operation of Automated Driving Systems

Proposed FY Capital Improvement Program (CIP) March 5, 2018 Capital Planning Committee 1

The Engineering Department recommends Council receive this report for information.

Downtown Transit Connector. Making Transit Work for Rhode Island

CEDAR AVENUE TRANSITWAY Implementation Plan Update

Leading the way to seamless mobility November th, 2017 Tampa, Florida

Waco Rapid Transit Corridor (RTC) Feasibility Study

China Intelligent Connected Vehicle Technology Roadmap 1

Connected Vehicles for Safety

Track: Data and Innovation

The Environmental Benefits and Opportunity of Shared Mobility

Efficiency Matters for Mobility. Presented at A3PS ECO MOBILITY 2018 Vienna, Austria November 12 th and 13 th, 2018

Service Quality: Higher Ridership: Very Affordable: Image:

Automation is in the Eye of the Beholder: How it Might be Viewed by the Traffic Engineer

Advanced Vehicle Control System Development Div.

Mobility 2045 Plan Workshop

Seoul. (Area=605, 10mill. 23.5%) Capital Region (Area=11,730, 25mill. 49.4%)

Sustainable systems benefit both the city s residents and the climate.

The City of Toronto s Transportation Strategy July 2007

REPORT CARD FOR CALIFORNIA S INFRASTRUCTURE WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT CALIFORNIA S TRANSIT FACILITIES

Smart Driving Cars Financially Attractive to the Insurer and Insuree

ITS deployment for connected vehicles and people

An Introduction to Automated Vehicles

ADVANCED DRIVER ASSISTANCE SYSTEMS, CONNECTED VEHICLE AND DRIVING AUTOMATION STANDARDS

The Age of Vehicle Automation: Opportunities for Transportation Providers. BusCon 2017 Indianapolis, Indiana September 12, 2017

Not If, but When: Autonomous Driving and the Future of Transit

The Road to Automated Vehicles. Audi of America Government Affairs

Automated driving in urban environments: technical challenges, open problems and barriers. Fawzi Nashashibi

Autonomous Vehicles. Kevin Lacy, PE, State Traffic Engineer

ROCHESTER, MINNESOTA

Executive Summary. Treasure Valley High Capacity Transit Study Priority Corridor Phase 1 Alternatives Analysis October 13, 2009.

The Boston South Station HSIPR Expansion Project Cost-Benefit Analysis. High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Technical Appendix

Three Technologies That Will Change The World

RE: Comments on Proposed Mitigation Plan for the Volkswagen Environmental Mitigation Trust

Le développement technique des véhicules autonomes

AUTONOMOUS TRANSPORT. Investment Opportunity Brief

Draft Results and Recommendations

Kendall Drive Premium Transit PD&E Study Project Kick-Off Meeting SR 94/Kendall Drive/SW 88 Street Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Study

AND CHANGES IN URBAN MOBILITY PATTERNS

Dallas Integrated Corridor Management System Lessons Learned. June 2, 2014

Metro Reimagined. Project Overview October 2017

East Turnaround. Access to Ayreswood Avenue would be restricted to right-in/rightout movements under the proposed Rapid Transit plan.

AUTONOMOUS & CONNECTED VEHICLE (ACV) READINESS. CCOG Annual Conference

The Implications of New& Emerging Transportation Trends for Florida Main Street Businesses

Will self-driving cars help or hurt efforts to cut emissions? Don MacKenzie Civil & Environmental Engineering

Impact of Autonomous Vehicles on a Typical Canadian City

Financial Planning Association of Michigan 2018 Fall Symposium Autonomous Vehicles Presentation

2030 Multimodal Transportation Study

CITY OF LONDON STRATEGIC MULTI-YEAR BUDGET ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS BUSINESS CASE # 6

AMTRAK ENVISIONS WORLD CLASS HIGH-SPEED RAIL Washington to Boston in about three hours at up to 220 mph (354 kph)

Citi's 2016 Car of the Future Symposium

July 24, Rhode Island Transportation Innovation Partnership AUTONOMOUS VEHICLE MOBILITY CHALLENGE

CONNECTED PROPULSION - THE FUTURE IS NOW

Automated Vehicles, the Hype, the Reality, and Possible Futures

* Presented at 2011 World Bank Transport Forum, March Jaehak Oh. Director, Global Research Office for Green Growth & Convergence

BRT: What is it & Where Does it Fit? Sam Zimmerman

QUALITY OF LIFE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REPORT I O N S TAT I O N

Near-Term Automation Issues: Use Cases and Standards Needs

Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority

APCO International. Emerging Technology Forum

HOT Lanes: Congestion Relief and Better Transit

Intelligent Drive next LEVEL

Findings from the Limassol SUMP study

Smart City/Smart Mobility Strategy. Hans Larsen, Fremont Public Works Director May 2, 2018

MARTA s blueprint for the future. COFFEE AND CONVERSATION Kyle Keahey, More MARTA Atlanta Dec. 5, 2018

AUTONOMOUS VEHICLES: PAST, PRESENT, FUTURE. CEM U. SARAYDAR Director, Electrical and Controls Systems Research Lab GM Global Research & Development

on the Real Estate Industry Rutt Bridges

STRATEGIC PRIORITIES AND POLICY COMMITTEE MAY 5, 2016

G4 Apps. Intelligent Vehicles ITS Canada ATMS Detection Webinar June 13, 2013

Seoul Transportation

Disruptive Technology and Mobility Change

Transcription:

Opportunities to Leverage Advances in Driverless Car Technology to Evolve Conventional Bus Transit Systems Podcar City 7 Symposium Emerging Transportation Technologies R&D George Mason University, October 24 2013 Jerome M. Lutin, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Director of Statewide & Regional Planning NJ TRANSIT (retired)

Transit and Autonomous Vehicle Technology Impact of Self-Driving Cars on Transit Opportunities for Autonomous Driving Technology in Transit

The Market for Transit Transit riders generally fall into two categories, captive and choice Captive riders cannot drive or do not have access to a car Choice riders - generally do own cars, but choose transit when it can offer a faster, cheaper or more convenient trip. Choice riders can avoid congestion, use time on transit to read, work or sleep, and can avoid parking costs and hassles at their destinations.

NHTSA Preliminary Policy on Automated Vehicles Level 2 (Combined function automation) Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations. Level 3 (Limited self-driving) Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google car Level 4 (Full self-driving automation) Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. Vehicle may operate while unoccupied.

Impact of Level 2 Technology - Cars Jam assist Adaptive Cruise Control Lane-keeping Fewer crashes Lower Stress Some increase in auto commuting trips

Impact of Level 3 Technology - Cars Automatic Valet Parking Limited Self-driving freeways, pre-mapped or programmed routes, good weather Significant reduction in center city parking time and cost Drivers safely can do some non-driving activities Increases in longer auto commuting trips

Impact of Level 4 Technology - Cars Unrestricted self-driving Empty vehicle movements permitted Growth in shared automated taxi services Non-drivers can make low-cost individual trips Time spent in motion no longer wasted in-vehicle experience is transformed Vehicle trips may exceed person trips

Could This be the Future of Self- Driving Cars?

The self-driving car as an extension of living or working space

I could live in this.

Impact of Self-Driving Cars on Transit Self-driving cars will offer mobility to those transit captives who cannot drive, and, in conjunction with car-sharing, can offer mobility to those who do not have ready access to a car. For choice riders, self-driving cars can offer amenities similar to those of transit in terms of how one can use time while traveling, to read, sleep or work. According to studies, automated cars could double highway capacity. Couple that with the ability to self-park, and the transit advantage could melt away. So the impact on many transit systems could be huge.

Potential Applications of Autonomous Driving Technology to Bus Transit How can transit benefit?

Use Autonomous Collision Avoidance Technology to Address a BIG CURRENT Problem

Good News! Travel by Bus is getting safer!

Good News! Injuries have been trending down!

Terrible News! Claims are going through the roof!

NTD 2011 Bus Casualty and Liability Expense for All Transit Agencies Casualty and Liability Amount General Administration Vehicle Maintenance $432,228,288 $50,847,722 Sub-Total Casualty and Liability $483,076,010 Maximum Available Buses 59,871 Sub-Total Casualty and Liability Amount Per Bus $8,069

Casualty and Liability Claims are a Huge Drain on the Industry For the 10 year period 2002-2011, more than $4.1 Billion was spent on casualty and liability claims For many self-insured transit agencies these expenses are direct out-of-pocket Large reserves for claims must be budgeted Claims experience also is reflected in insurance premiums There are gaps in data reporting

Potential Impact for Transit Level 2 Automation Claims Reduction Blind spot monitoring (for vehicles and pedestrians) Driver fatigue and attentiveness monitoring Adaptive Cruise Control Autonomous emergency braking Lane keeping assistance Collision warning and mitigation Obstacle detection

The Cost of Installing an Autonomous Collision Avoidance System on a Bus Could be Recovered in as Little as One Year Through Reductions in Casualty and Liability Claims

Potential for Cost Savings in Annual Claims Paid by Installing a Collision Avoidance System on NJ TRANSIT Buses Collision Avoidance System Installation Costs Based on Mercedes Intelligent Drive System Estimated Average Annual Claims Reduction per Bus $2,800 per Bus 2014 Base Price $5,600 per Bus 2x Base Price $8,400 per Bus 3x Base Price $11,200 per Bus 4x Base Price $14,000 per Bus 5x Base Price (%) ($) Estimated Years to Recoup Installation Cost 10 484.60 5.8 11.6 17.3 23.1 28.8 20 969.20 2.9 5.8 8.7 11.6 14.4 30 1,453.80 1.9 3.9 5.8 7.7 9.6 40 1,938.40 1.4 2.9 4.3 5.8 7.2 50 2,423.00 1.1 2.3 3.5 4.6 5.8 60 2,907.60 1.0 1.9 2.9 3.9 4.8 70 3,392.20 0.8 1.7 2.5 3.3 4.1 80 3,876.80 0.7 1.4 2.2 2.9 3.6 90 4,361.40 0.6 1.3 1.9 2.6 3.2

Potential Impact for Transit Level 3 Automation Co-operative Adaptive Cruise Control Lane keeping Precision docking Increased capacity in high volume bus corridors

A Capacity Bonus for NJ TRANSIT Exclusive Bus Lane (XBL) to New York City Source: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) New York City Source: Google Maps 2013

Potential Increased Capacity of Exclusive Bus Lane (XBL) Using Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC) (Assumes 45 toot (13.7 m) buses @ with 57 seats) Average Interval Between Buses (seconds) Average Spacing Between Buses (ft) Average Spacing Between Buses (m) Buses Per Hour Additional Buses per Hour Seated Passengers Per Hour Increase in Seated Passengers per Hour 1 6 2 3,600 2,880 205,200 164,160 2 47 14 1,800 1,080 102,600 61,560 3 109 33 1,200 480 68,400 27,360 4 150 46 900 180 51,300 10,260 5 (Base) 212 64 720-41,040 -

Potential Impact for Transit Level 4 Automation Bus capable of fully automated operation Unstaffed non-revenue operation Paired or bus train operation possible BRT systems can emulate rail in capacity at less cost

Connected Vehicle and Autonomous Driving Technology for Bus Platooning Leader/Close-Follower Concept Schematic Wireless Short-Range Connections Between Busses Interface with Automated Driving and Passenger Systems Functions

Opportunities for Autonomous Driving Technology in Transit - Recommendations Institutional Response Technological Response

Recommendation - Transit Institutional Response Promote shared-use autonomous cars as a replacement for transit on many bus routes and for service to persons with disabilities Exit markets where transit load factors are too low to justify operating a transit vehicle Concentrate transit resources in corridors where more traffic and parking will be too costly and too congested, and where transit can increase the people carrying capacity of a lane beyond that of a general traffic lane

Recommendation - Transit Institutional Response- Continued Focus attention on land use work with partners to create Transit-Oriented Development that limits the need for driving and where trip-end density will provide enough riders Create compact activity centers Allow higher density Promote mixed use development Make streets pedestrian and bike friendly Manage parking ratios and configuration

Recommendations- Transit Technological Response What we need to do

Prepare for Technological Evolution and Obsolescence Buses last from 12 to 18 years or more Computer technology becomes obsolete in 18 months to two years Expect to replace components and systems several times during the life of a bus Do not expect replacement parts to still be available Sometimes stuff does not work as expected

Need Open Architectures and Standards Avoid problems of legacy systems and sole source procurements Modular systems and components Standard interfaces between systems and components Multiple sources and innovation from vendors Plug and play

Conclusion - Research Needs Estimating market penetration for autonomous vehicles absorption rates, ownership models, and patterns of use Integration of car-sharing with transit Allocation of transit resources to priority corridors Advancing Transit Oriented Development Estimating benefits of adopting collision avoidance technology Opportunities to enhance performance and capacity by using autonomous technology Specifications and standards for new technology

Thank You Jerry Lutin Jerome.Lutin@Verizon.net