Cloud Commuting and Mobility-as-a- Service
David Levinson University of Minnesota University of Sydney Climbing Mount Auto: The Rise of Cars in the 20th Century Figure 1.1: Climbing Mount Auto 140 18,000
105 13,500
70 9,000 per Capita 35 4,500 Transit per Capita Transit Passenger Trips by Public Trips Passenger 0 0 Traveled Kilometers Vehicle 1900 1905 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Vehicle Kilometers of Travel Per Capita Passenger Journeys by Public Transport Per Capita Unlinked Passenger Journeys by Public Transport Per Capita Figure 1.2 Roadways per Capita in US (m) 40
30
20
10
0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
Paved Roadways per Capita Unpaved Roadways per Capita Figure 1.3 Registered motor vehicles in US 300,000,000 0.9
225,000,000 0.675
150,000,000 0.45 US
75,000,000 0.225 Motor Vehicles per Capita Motor Vehicles Registered Motor Vehicles in Registered Motor Vehicles 0 0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2013
Registered motor vehicles in US Motor vehicles per capita Figure 1.4 Total Time Spent Traveling per capita (minutes) 80
70
60 Leisure and Sports 50 Organizational, Civic, and Religious Education 40 Work Care and Help Non-household Members 30 Care and Helping Household Members Goods and Services 20 Household Activities Eating and Drinking 10 Personal Care 0
2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 Figure 1.6 Average Trip Distance by Age and Year of Figure 1.5 Person Trips per Day Birth Cohort (Miles, All by Age and Year of Birth Purposes) 6 10 5 8 4 6 3 4 2 1 2 0 0 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88 Age (lower bound) Age (lower bound) Born Before 1924 1924-1933 1934-1943 1944-1953 1954-1963 1964-1973 1974-1983 1984-1993 Less Traffic is a Good Thing
• Cars Crash
• Cars Pollute Table 1: Deaths per 100,000 people Road injury + other transport Total air pollution injury
Deaths per year 15 36 • Noise Annoy Years of life lost per year 653 565
• Cars Consume Lots of Space (US Parking = Virginia)
• Cars Isolate What Killed America’s Traffic? Changing Demographics
Figure 3.1 Population of Age Groups in US 2014
100+ Male Female 90-94 80-84 70-74 60-64 50-54 40-44 30-34 20-24 10-14 0-4
6,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 6,000,000 14,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 14,000,000 Changing Nature of Work Figure 3.2 US Labor Force Participation Rate: 1948-2015
1948
1953
1958
1963
1968
1973
1978
1983
1988
1993
1998
2003
2008
2013
58 60 62 64 66 68 At Home Working
Figure 3.4 Telecommuting in Minneapolis- St. Paul Region 100%
Never Once a year 75% A few times per year or more Once per month or more Once per week or more 4-5 days per week 50%
25%
0%
2001 2011 Online Shopping
Figure 3.5 Time Spent Shopping per Day in Minneapolis St. Paul Region (minutes)
60 Female Nonworkers Male Nonworkers Female Workers 45 Male Workers
30
15
0
1990 2001 2011 Figure 11.1 East Brainerd Mall on Black Friday (28 Nov 2014) Figure 11.2 Food and alcohol expenditures (by share) 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Alcohol 0.2 Food away from home Food at home 0.1 0
1869 1897 1907 1917 1927 1937 1947 1957 1967 1977 1987 1997 2007 Virtual Connectivity Figure 3.7 Travel by Purpose per household (km) 60,000
45,000 Other Social and Recreational 30,000 School/Church Other Family/Personal Errands Shopping 15,000 Work Related Business To/From Work
0
1983 1990 1995 2001 2009 A License to Roam Fuel Prices
Figure 3.8 US Retail Gasoline Price (Dollars per Gallon) 5
4
3
2
1
0 Apr 05, 1993 Apr 03, 1995 Mar 14, 2011 2013 Mar 11, Mar 31, 1997 Mar 29, 1999 Mar 26, 2001 Mar 24, 2003 Mar 21, 2005 Mar 19, 2007 Mar 16, 2009 Mar 09, 2015 Competing Modes Figure 3.9 Mode Shares in Minneapolis - St. Paul Region, Summer 2001 vs. Summer 2011 Auto Transit Bike Walk School Bus Other
2001
2011
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Mode Share, all trip purposes Figure 3.10 Billions of Pieces of Mail Handled Per Year: US Post Office (1926-2009) 250
200
150
100
50
0
1925193019351940194519501955196019651970197519801985199019952000200520102015 5. Transitioning Toward Electric Vehicles Figure 5.2 Lithium Ion Battery Pricing by Cell Type (2009-2020) ($/ kWh) 1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800 Consumer Electronics Li-ion 600 Large Format Li-ion 400
200
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Norwegian Electric Vehicle Market Share 30
22.5
15
7.5
0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Norwegian Electric Vehicle Association, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/business/international/norway-is-global-model-for-encouraging-sales-of-electric-cars.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share&_r=0 Figure 5.1 US Sales of Electric Vehicles 600,000
450,000 Plug-in EV and Extended Range EV Battery EV 300,000 Hybrid EV
150,000
0
1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 Autonomous Autos Box 7.1: NHTSA (2013) Policy on Automated Vehicle Development
No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in Benefits and complete and sole control of the primary vehicle controls – brake, steering, throttle, and motive power – at all times.
Function-specific Automation (Level 1): Automation at this level involves one or more Consequences specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with • Safety braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting • Right-of-Way alone. • Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This Vehicle Form Retrofit level involves automation of at least two primary control functions designed to work in unison to relieve the driver of control of those functions. An example of combined functions enabling a Level • Parking • Roadspace 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering.
Reallocation Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the • Capacity driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental • Nomadism conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those • Cars without conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently People • Ownership comfortable transition time. Google’s converted test vehicles are an example of limited self-driving automation. • Mobility for the • Activity-in-Motion Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions Immobile for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation • Status input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes • Costs both occupied and unoccupied vehicles. Google’s new “bug-like” car design without a steering wheel or brakes is an example. Figure 7.1 Cumulative km traveled in Autonomous Mode by Google Self-Driving Car 3,000,000
2,400,000
1,800,000
1,200,000
600,000
0 2010-10 2012-08 2013-03 2014-04 2015-05 2016-04 US Vehicle Fleet by NHTSA Automation Level 100
Fleet with Level 4 Fleet with Level 3 Fleet with Level 2 Fleet with Level 1 75 Fleet with Level 0
50
25
0
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 • Level 2, 2.5 Now (Tesla Auto-Pilot, etc.)
• Level 3 ("limited self- driving automation") autonomous vehicles will be on the market by 2020.
• Level 4 will be available in 2025 and required in new US cars by 2030, and required for all cars by 2040.
• In other words, human driven vehicles will eventually be prohibited on public roads (aside from special events).
Tesla S New Activities in Motion
New activities becoming possible after self-driving cars (minutes) 70.00 66.6522
52.50 46.0118 • A limited set of personal care activity including dressing & grooming, health- related self care, personal/private activities; 35.00 • A limited set of child care activities including reading to/with children, home 17.50 schooling, and arts and crafts with children; 2.5532 3.155 • 0.3672 Eating and drinking; 0.00 • Tobacco and drug use; and • Participation in religious practices. Child care Personal care
Eating and drinking Tobacco and drug use
Participation in religious practices
Fan (2016) A Cambrian Explosion of Vehicle Forms
“Google Car” Shape-Sifting
MIT “Stackable City Car” Concept Smaller
GM Lean Machine
Gogoro Toyota iRoad And Bigger
“Toyota Swagger” with Fewer Wheels?
Ryno Impacts: Longer trip distances & durations Mokhtarian and Salomon (2001): Excess travel is more likely to occur as people increase the perceived positive utility of activities
Fan (2016) MaaS Transport
Figure 8.3 Growth of Bike Sharing Systems Globally 600 120
450 90 Cumulative Number Added 300 60
150 30
0 0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 5.3: Car2Go
Car2Go | Smart Fortwo Figure 8.2 North American Carsharing Growth 1,800,000 30,000
1,350,000 22,500 Members Vehicles 900,000 15,000
450,000 7,500
0 0
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 Cloud Commuting
• Smaller, more modern fleet (fleet in motion more, wears out faster)
• Coverage, logistics (wider coverage than transit, MaaS best serves non-work trips, load-balancing and dead- heading issues)
• Costs (lowered labor costs)
• Electrification (less range anxiety)
• Street Design (accommodate pick-up/drop-off … the network as a taxi-stand) Land Use Consequences (MaaS + AVs)
Up and Out: The Future of Travel Demand and Where We Live • Up: Less vehicle ownership with increased use of MaaS in cities, raising the value of cities.
• Driverless cars which can be summoned Up on demand allow people to avoid vehicle ownership altogether.
• This will reduce vehicle travel, as people will pay more to rent by the minute than they do when they own.
• Since total expenditures on transport are saved, additional funds are available to pay for rent in cities, and more trips are by walk, bike, and transit.
• People who seek the set of urban amenities (entertainment, restaurants, a larger dating pool) will find these amenities increasing in response to the population.
• The greater value in cities with the new more convenient technology leads to more and taller development. (Hence the use of the word “Up”.) • Out: More vehicle travel with increased exurbanization.
• Fast, driverless cars that allow their Out passenger to do other things than steer and brake and find parking impose fewer requirements on the traveler than actively driving the same distance.
• Decreases in the cost of traveling (i.e., availability of multitasking) makes travel easier.
• Easier travel means increases in accessibility and subsequently increases in the spread of development and a greater separation between home and work, (pejoratively, sprawl), just as commuter trains today enable exurban living or living in a different city.
• This reinforces the disconnected, dendritic suburban street grid and makes transit service that much more difficult (as if low density suburbs weren’t hard enough).
• People will live farther “Out”. Reduce, Reuse, Bicycle
• Most roads are under-used most of the time. There is ample capacity outside the peak.
• Most of the pavement is unused even at peak times; there are large gaps between vehicles both in terms of the headway between vehicles and the lateral spacing between vehicles. Americans drive 6 foot wide cars in 12 foot lanes, often on highways with wide shoulders.
• Most seats in most cars are unoccupied most of the time.
• Most cars contain far more weight than required to safely move the passenger. While bigger cars might be safer for the occupants, they are less safe for non- occupants. This is an inefficient arms race.
• Many roads are so wide we use them for storage of vehicles most of the day.
• There is excessive delay at traffic lights, especially during off-peak periods, wasting time and space. Dimensions
• Vehicle width/ Lane width
• Vehicle weight
• Vehicle occupancy
Figure 12.1 Narrowly marked street lane in Palermo, Italy. • Traffic signals and stop signs Redeeming Transport
• How can we still get the gains of auto-mobility without the costs?
• Change from outside rather than inside (DOT follows, does not lead) Policy Implication:
• Increased throughput per square meter of pavement (along with flattened demand) indicates fewer square meters of pavement are required. Thank You
• Questions???
• David Levinson: [email protected]
• davidlevinson.org
• transportist.org
• Twitter: @trnsprtst