Can Public Transportation Compete with Automated and Connected Cars? RALPH BUEHLER, VIRGINIA TECH, ALEXANDRIA, VA Based on: Buehler, R. 2018. Can Public Transportation Compete with Automated and Connected Cars? Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 21, No.1 and research conducted for Planning for walking and cycling in an automated vehicle future sponsored by Outline o Characteristics of PT in the USA (international comparison) o Short Introduction: Automated Vehicles olevels of AVs ochallenge for PT olimitations of Increasingly Automated Vehicles o Public Transportation s Response oautomated and Connected Public Transport Vehicles ointegration of Public Transportation with other Mobility Services oregional Coordination and Integration of Public Transportation Services ocoordinating Planning for Public Transportation and Land Use o Conclusion 1
Percentage Share of Daily Trips Made by Public Transport (latest available year), 2008 2017 25 24 20 17 15 15 Percent of Daily Trips 10 5 3 6 6 8 8 10 10 12 0 USA (2017) Denmark (2016) Netherlands (2012) Finland (2011) France (2008) Norway (2014) Great Britain (2016) Germany (2016) Sweden (2016) Austria (2014) Switzerland (2015) Note: Travel survey results are not fully comparable between countries due to differences in survey methodologies and definitions. Passenger trips are reported as 'linked trips.' Source: Buehler, R. 2018. Can Public Transportation Compete with Automated and Connected Cars? Journal of Public Transportation, Vol. 21, No.118. Percentage share of PT trips by rail and bus in Germany and the USA, 2008/2009 100% 90% 29 80% 70% 60% 50% 61 Bus Rail 40% 71 30% 20% 39 10% 0% Germany USA 2
Work Share of PT Trips in Germany and the USA, 2009 40.0 35.0 Germany 2008/2009 USA 2008/2009 35.3 30.0 Percent of all trips 25.0 20.0 15.0 23.6 10.0 5.0 0.0 Work or Work Related Percentage share of trips by PT in Germany and the USA by income quartile, 2009 12.0 10.0 10.4 Germany 2008/2009 USA 2008/2009 Percent of all trips 8.0 6.0 4.0 4.2 7.2 8.0 8.4 2.0 1.5 1.0 1.1 0.0 Lowest quartile 2nd quartile 3rd quartile Highest quartile 3
Median annual family income for bus and rail passengers, compared to population average, in Germany and the USA, 2008/2009 (in 2009 U.S. Dollars) $80,000 $70,000 Germany USA $60,000 $50,000 2009 U.S. $ $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 $10,000 $0 Bus Rail Population average Percentage share of trips by PT in Germany and the USA by car ownership, 2009 30 25 25.2 Germany 2008/2009 USA 2008/2009 21.6 20 Percent of all trips 15 10 15.3 9.8 8.3 5 3.4 6.4 5.7 0 No car 0.01-0.49 0.50-0.99 1.00 >1.00 Cars/SUVs per HH member at driving age 0.7 0.3 4
Percentage share of trips by PT in Germany and the USA by urban vs. rural household location and metro area size, 2009 20.0 18.0 Germany 2008/2009 USA 2008/2009 17.7 16.0 14.0 Percent of all trips 12.0 10.0 8.0 9.5 7.3 6.0 5.9 4.0 2.0 0.0 2.9 2.4 0.2 0.4 Urban Rural <500,000 500,000+ Metropolitan area population Percentage share of trips by PT in Germany and the USA by population density, 2009 18.0 16.0 Germany 2008/2009 USA 2008/2009 16.2 14.0 Percent of all trips 12.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 6.1 5.8 7.5 10.8 4.0 2.0 0.0 1.6 0.7 0.2 <300 300-1,500 1,500-4,000 >4,000 Population per sq. km 5
Compared to PT in Germany, PT in the USA o accounts for a lower share of trips o is more commute oriented o relies more on buses o has a greater share of lower income riders o attracts a lower share of riders from households with many cars o is more concentrated in urban and higher density areas AVs: Some Observations and Predictions Levels of AVs Speed of technological change is unknown Long period of transition: reaching a nationwide fully automated fleet of cars (level 5) will take many decades Shared or Private? Key Challenges of Increasingly Automated Vehicles for PT Mimicking one of PT s competitive advantages: more convenient car travel; lower time cost of car travel Technological innovation around AVs will likely capture the imagination of the public and policy makers Key limitations of Increasingly Automated Vehicles (PT view) Roadway capacity in urban areas during peak hours Complex roadway environments in cities New technology will be expensive 6
PT s Response? Public transportation agencies and governments can shape PT s future attractiveness and competitiveness with the car Automated and Connected Public Transport Vehicles Integration of PT with other Mobility Services Regional Coordination and Integration of PT Services Coordinating Planning for PT and Land Use Automated and Connected PT Vehicles Automated feeder buses can increase the catchment area of PT in the suburbs, help solve the "last mile" problem, and allow PT agencies to get closer to serving passenger trips from origin to destination Increasing connection to and information exchange with public infrastructure and other PT vehicles can help increase PT s attractiveness Connected bus vehicles can trigger advanced green lights or communicate about passenger transfers with other vehicles at important transfer nodes Automated and connected PT vehicles can take advantage of special lanes designated for the sole use of AVs speeding up and increasing the reliability of buses But, slow automated PT in complex urban areas 7
Integration of PT with Other Mobility Services Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Integrate information about PT, bikesharing, carsharing, and ridesharing services in an online platform PT operators have to link into MaaS like services to connect with potential riders and to provide access and egress options from transit through bikesharing, carsharing, or ridesharing Some public transportation providers could become MaaS operators themselves PT passengers are by definition multimodal, because of access and egress trips made by modes other than public transportation. Thus, combining information about PT with data on other modes will greatly enhance the convenience of PT Coordination & Integration of PT o One key element will be the coordination of PT services across jurisdictional boundaries and between operators o Integrated monthly and annual tickets mimic the cost structure of automobile use, where most of the cost occurs up front, such as the car purchase, registration fees, insurance, or filling up the gas tank o Special fares 8
Entire City of Vienna for 365 Reduction from 449 Among cheapest annual tickets in Europe Jump in annual tickets from 363k in 11 to 650k in 14 Senior ticket 224 per year Student ticket (high school): 60 Overall: 875 to 940 million trips per year ( 11 15) Source: Krone.at Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Duemmler, O. (2018). Verkehrsverbund: The Evolution and Spread of Fully-Integrated Regional Public Transport in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation. 0 Discounts for Monthly, Annual, and Special Group Tickets, 2016 Monthly vs. Single Tickets Annual vs. Single Ticket Seniors* University Students* School Students* 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 HVV (Hamburg) MVV (Munich) VOR (Vienna) VBB (Berlin) ZVV (Zurich) VRR (Rhein Ruhr) Source: Buehler, R., Pucher, J., Duemmler, O. (2018). Verkehrsverbund: The Evolution and Spread of Fully-Integrated Regional Public Transport in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation. 9
Coordinating Planning for PT and Land Use odemand for PT is highest in urban areas with greater population densities and a mix of land use oadvantages over AV may be greatest in these areas Conclusions PT most competitive compared to AVs in urbanized areas and during commute hours PT will retain its important role in assuring mobility for all (high cost of AVs) PT and governments will have to make PT more attractive to compete effectively with cars that are more convenient: o Automated and Connected PT Vehicles o Integration of PT with other Mobility Services o Regional Coordination and Integration of PT Services o Coordinating Planning for PT and Land Use o Cost of driving Requires customer orientation and a focus on how to make PT most attractive and competitive compared to the car Customers of the future, as today, will ride PT if it is fast, convenient, reliable, safe, clean, and attractively priced 10
Ralph Buehler, Associate Professor, Urban Affairs and Planning http://ralphbu.wordpress.com THANK YOU 11