by Alain L. Kornhauser, PhD Professor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering Director, Program in Transportation Faculty Chair, PAVE (Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering) Princeton University Presented at American Planning Association 2014 Annual Conference Atlanta, GA April 26, 2014 Appropriate Modelling of Travel Demand in a SmartDrivingCar World
53
Embed
by Alain L. Kornhauser, PhD Professor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering Director, Program in Transportation
Appropriate Modelling of Travel Demand in a SmartDrivingCar World. by Alain L. Kornhauser, PhD Professor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering Director, Program in Transportation Faculty Chair, PAVE (Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering) Princeton University Presented at - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
by
Alain L. Kornhauser, PhDProfessor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering
Director, Program in Transportation Faculty Chair, PAVE (Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering)
Princeton University
Presented at
American Planning Association2014 Annual Conference
Atlanta, GAApril 26, 2014
Appropriate Modelling of Travel Demand in a SmartDrivingCar World
Transit’s Fundamental Problem…• Transit is non-competitive to serve most travel demand
– Travel Demand (desire to go from A to B in a time window DT)• A & B are walk accessible areas, typically:
– Very large number of very geographically diffused {A,B} pairs
• DT is diffused throughout the day with only modest concentration in morning and afternoon peak hours
• The conventionalAutomobile at “all” times Serves…– Essentially all {A,B} pairs demand-responsively within a reasonable DT
• Transit at “few” times during the day Serves…– a modest number of A & B on scheduled fixed routes– But very few {A,B} pairs within a reasonable DT
• Transit’s need for an expensive driver Forces it to only offer infrequent scheduled fixed route service between few {A,B} pairs– But… Transit can become demand-responsive serving many {A,B} if the driver is
made cheap and it utilizes existing roadway infrastructure.
0.25 mi.
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles Level 0 (No automation)The human is in complete and sole control of safety-critical functions (brake, throttle, steering) at all times. Level 1 (Function-specific automation) The human has complete authority, but cedes limited control of certain functions to the vehicle in certain normal driving or crash imminent situations. Example: electronic stability control 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. Enables hands-off-wheel and foot-off-pedal operation. Driver still responsible for monitoring and safe operation and expected to be available at all times to resume control of the vehicle. Example: adaptive cruise control in conjunction with lane centeringLevel 3 (Limited self-driving) Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. Human can cede monitoring authority to vehicle, which must alert driver if conditions require transition to driver control. Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google carLevel 4 (Full self-driving automation) Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. The human provides destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for control during the trip. Vehicle may operate while unoccupied. Responsibility for safe operation rests solely on the automated system
Smar
tDriv
ingC
ars
& T
ruck
s
What is a SmartDrivingCar?
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What is a SmartDrivingCar?
Level “Less” Value Proposition Market Force Societal Implications
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What is a SmartDrivingCar?
Level “Less” Value Proposition Market Force Societal Implications
0 “55 Chevy” Zero Zero Zero Zero
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What is a SmartDrivingCar?
Level “Less” Value Proposition Market Force Societal Implications
0 “55 Chevy” Zero Zero Zero Zero
1 “Cruise Control”
Infinitesimal Some Comfort Infinitesimal Infinitesimal
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What is a SmartDrivingCar?
Level “Less” Value Proposition Market Force Societal Implications
0 “55 Chevy” Zero Zero Zero Zero
1 “Cruise Control”
Infinitesimal Some Comfort Infinitesimal Infinitesimal
2 “Collision Avoidance & Lane Centering”
Infinitesimal Much Safety(but Consumers don’t
pay for Safety)
Needs help From “Flo & the Gecko” (Insurance incentivizes adoption)
“50%” fewer accidents; less severity-> 50% less
insurance $ liability
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What is a SmartDrivingCar?
Level “Less” Value Proposition Market Force Societal Implications
0 “55 Chevy” Zero Zero Zero Zero
1 “Cruise Control”
Infinitesimal Some Comfort Infinitesimal Infinitesimal
2 “Collision Avoidance & Lane Centering”
Infinitesimal Much Safety(but Consumers don’t
pay for Safety)
Needs help From “Flo & the Gecko” (Insurance incentivizes adoption)
“50%” fewer accidents; less severity-> 50% less
insurance $ liability
3 “Texting Machine”
Some Liberation (some of the time/places) ; more
Safety
Consumers Pull, TravelTainment Industry
Push
Increased car sales, many fewer insurance claims, slight + in VMT
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
What is a SmartDrivingCar?
Level “Less” Value Proposition Market Force Societal Implications
0 “55 Chevy” Zero Zero Zero Zero
1 “Cruise Control”
Infinitesimal Some Comfort Infinitesimal Infinitesimal
2 “Collision Avoidance & Lane Centering”
Infinitesimal Much Safety(but Consumers don’t
pay for Safety)
Needs help From “Flo & the Gecko” (Insurance incentivizes adoption)
“50%” fewer accidents; less severity-> 50% less
insurance $ liability
3 “Texting Machine”
Some Liberation (some of the time/places) ; more
Safety
Consumers Pull, TravelTainment Industry
Push
Increased car sales, many fewer insurance claims, slight + in VMT
4 “aTaxi “ Always Chauffeured, Buy Mobility “by the
Drink” rather than “by the Bottle”
Profitable Business Opportunity for
Utilities/Transit Companies
Personal Car becomes “Bling” not instrument
of personal mobility, VMT ?; Comm. Design ?
Energy, Congestion, Environment?
Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles
• Assuming PLANNERS continue to PLAN as they do now. – How will people “get around”?
• Assuming this new way of “getting around” offers different opportunities and constraints for PLANNERS to improve “Quality of Life”. – How will Zoning/Land-Use Change?– How will people “get around”?
What about Level 4 Implications on Energy, Congestion, Environment?