50
Cloud Commuting and Mobility-as-a- Service David Levinson University of Minnesota University of Sydney
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
Vehi
cle
Kilo
met
ers
Trav
eled
pe
r Cap
ita
0
4,500
9,000
13,500
18,000
Pass
enge
r Trip
s by
Pub
lic
Tran
sit p
er C
apita
0
35
70
105
14019
0019
0519
1019
1519
2019
2519
3019
3519
4019
4519
5019
5519
6019
6519
7019
7519
8019
8519
9019
9520
0020
0520
1020
15
Vehicle Kilometers of Travel Per CapitaPassenger Journeys by Public Transport Per CapitaUnlinked Passenger Journeys by Public Transport Per Capita
Figure 1.2 Roadways per Capita in US (m)
0
10
20
30
4019
60
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Unpaved Roadways per CapitaPaved Roadways per Capita
Figure 1.3 Registered motor vehicles in US
Mot
or V
ehic
les
per C
apita
0
0.225
0.45
0.675
0.9
Reg
iste
red
Mot
or V
ehic
les
in
US
0
75,000,000
150,000,000
225,000,000
300,000,000
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
2013
Registered motor vehicles in USMotor vehicles per capita
Figure 1.4 Total Time Spent Traveling per capita
(minutes)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
Personal CareEating and DrinkingHousehold ActivitiesGoods and ServicesCare and Helping Household MembersCare and Help Non-household MembersWorkEducationOrganizational, Civic, and ReligiousLeisure and Sports
Figure 1.5 Person Trips per Day by Age and Year of Birth
0123456
Age (lower bound)
18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88
Born Before 1924 1924-19331934-1943 1944-19531954-1963 1964-19731974-1983 1984-1993
Figure 1.6 Average Trip Distance by Age and Year of
Birth Cohort (Miles, All Purposes)
0
2
4
6
8
10
Age (lower bound)
18 28 38 48 58 68 78 88
Less Traffic is a Good Thing
• Cars Crash
• Cars Pollute
• Noise Annoy
• Cars Consume Lots of Space (US Parking = Virginia)
• Cars Isolate
Table 1: Deaths per 100,000 peopleRoad injury + other transport injury
Total air pollution
Deaths per year 15 36
Years of life lost per year 653 565
What Killed America’s Traffic?
Changing DemographicsFigure 3.1 Population of Age Groups in US 2014
100+90-9480-8470-7460-6450-5440-4430-3420-2410-14
0-4
14,00
0,000
10,00
0,000
6,000
,000
2,000
,000
2,000
,000
6,000
,000
10,00
0,000
14,00
0,000
Male Female
Changing Nature of WorkFigure 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 WorkingFigure 3.4 Telecommuting in Minneapolis- St. Paul Region
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
2001
2011
4-5 days per weekOnce per week or moreOnce per month or moreA few times per year or moreOnce a yearNever
Online ShoppingFigure 3.5 Time Spent Shopping per Day in Minneapolis St. Paul Region (minutes)
0
15
30
45
60
1990
2001
2011
Female NonworkersMale NonworkersFemale WorkersMale Workers
Figure 11.1 East Brainerd Mall on Black Friday (28 Nov 2014)
Figure 11.2 Food and alcohol expenditures (by share)
00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.9
1
1869
1897
1907
1917
1927
1937
1947
1957
1967
1977
1987
1997
2007
Food at home Food away from home Alcohol
Virtual ConnectivityFigure 3.7 Travel by Purpose per
household (km)
0
15,000
30,000
45,000
60,000
1983
1990
1995
2001
2009
To/From WorkWork Related BusinessShoppingOther Family/Personal ErrandsSchool/ChurchSocial and RecreationalOther
A License to Roam
Fuel PricesFigure 3.8 US Retail Gasoline Price (Dollars per Gallon)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Apr 0
5, 1
993
Apr 0
3, 1
995
Mar
31,
199
7
Mar
29,
199
9
Mar
26,
200
1
Mar
24,
200
3
Mar
21,
200
5
Mar
19,
200
7
Mar
16,
200
9
Mar
14,
201
1
Mar
11,
201
3
Mar
09,
201
5
Competing ModesFigure 3.9 Mode Shares in Minneapolis - St. Paul Region,
Summer 2001 vs. Summer 2011
2001
2011
Mode Share, all trip purposes
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Auto Transit Bike Walk School Bus Other
Figure 3.10 Billions of Pieces of Mail Handled Per Year: US Post Office (1926-2009)
0
50
100
150
200
250
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
2015
5. Transitioning Toward Electric Vehicles
Figure 5.2 Lithium Ion Battery Pricing by Cell Type (2009-2020) ($/kWh)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Consumer Electronics Li-ionLarge Format Li-ion
Norwegian Electric Vehicle Market Share
0
7.5
15
22.5
30
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015Norwegian 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
0
150,000
300,000
450,000
600,000
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2015
Hybrid EVBattery EVPlug-in EV and Extended Range EV
Autonomous Autos
Benefits and Consequences
• Safety
• Vehicle Form
• Parking
• Capacity
• Cars without People
• Mobility for the Immobile
• Costs
• Right-of-Way Retrofit
• Roadspace Reallocation
• Nomadism
• Ownership
• Activity-in-Motion
• Status
Box 7.1: NHTSA (2013) Policy on Automated Vehicle Development
No-Automation (Level 0): The driver is in 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 specific control functions. Examples include electronic stability control or pre-charged brakes, where the vehicle automatically assists with braking to enable the driver to regain control of the vehicle or stop faster than possible by acting alone.
Combined Function Automation (Level 2): This 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 2 system is adaptive cruise control in combination with lane centering.
Limited Self-Driving Automation (Level 3): Vehicles at this level of automation enable the driver to cede full control of all safety-critical functions under certain traffic or environmental conditions and in those conditions to rely heavily on the vehicle to monitor for changes in those conditions requiring transition back to driver control. The driver is expected to be available for occasional control, but with sufficiently comfortable transition time. Google’s converted test vehicles are an example of limited self-driving automation.
Full Self-Driving Automation (Level 4): The vehicle is designed to perform all safety-critical driving functions and monitor roadway conditions for an entire trip. Such a design anticipates that the driver will provide destination or navigation input, but is not expected to be available for control at any time during the trip. This includes 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
0
600,000
1,200,000
1,800,000
2,400,000
3,000,000
2010-10 2012-08 2013-03 2014-04 2015-05 2016-04
US Vehicle Fleet by NHTSA Automation Level
0
25
50
75
100
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
Fleet with Level 0Fleet with Level 1Fleet with Level 2Fleet with Level 3Fleet with Level 4
• 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
• A limited set of personal care activity including dressing & grooming, health-related self care, personal/private activities;
• A limited set of child care activities including reading to/with children, home schooling, and arts and crafts with children;
• Eating and drinking; • Tobacco and drug use; and • Participation in religious practices.
New activities becoming possible after self-driving cars (minutes)
0.00
17.50
35.00
52.50
70.00
Eatin
g and drinkin
g
Tobacco and drug use
Participatio
n in re
ligious p
ractic
es
Child care
Personal c
are
46.0118
3.1552.55320.3672
66.6522
Fan (2016)
A Cambrian Explosion of Vehicle Forms
“Google Car”
Shape-Sifting
MIT “Stackable City Car” Concept
Smaller
Toyota iRoad
GM Lean Machine
Gogoro
“Toyota Swagger”
And Bigger
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
0
30
60
90
120
0
150
300
450
600
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
CumulativeNumber Added
Figure 5.3: Car2Go
Car2Go | Smart Fortwo
Figure 8.2 North American Carsharing Growth
0
7,500
15,000
22,500
30,000
0
450,000
900,000
1,350,000
1,800,000
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
MembersVehicles
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• Up: Less vehicle ownership with
increased use of MaaS in cities, raising the value of cities.
• Driverless cars which can be summoned 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• Out: More vehicle travel with increased
exurbanization.
• Fast, driverless cars that allow their 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
• Traffic signals and stop signsFigure 12.1 Narrowly marked street lane in Palermo, Italy.
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
