UWE Autonomous Vehicle Research and Implications for Future Mobility Management SUSCOM Meeting Dartington Conference Room, 19 May 2016 Graham Parkhurst [email protected]Professor of Sustainable Mobility Centre for Transport & Society Department of Geography and Environmental Management
29
Embed
UWE Autonomous Vehicle Research and Implications for ... 19 05 16... · UWE Autonomous Vehicle Research and Implications for Future Mobility Management SUSCOM Meeting Dartington Conference
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
UWE Autonomous Vehicle Research and Implications for Future Mobility Management SUSCOM Meeting Dartington Conference Room, 19 May 2016 Graham Parkhurst [email protected] Professor of Sustainable Mobility Centre for Transport & Society Department of Geography and Environmental Management
Overview
• Brief introduction of Venturer + Overview of Flourish
• A bit more detail on Social/Behavioural Research within Venturer
Customer Needs & Experience: Innovation Through Application
Stern (2014) CUBI Model
Venturer social and behavioural research:
1. expectations/acceptance of the AV concept and market opportunities
2. Handover from AV to human driver in the urban context
3. Interactions on urban roads between AVs and other road users
7/
Expectations/Acceptance of AVs • Literature review • Stakeholder interviews • Online survey and debates • ‘Pod’ perception experiments
8/
Acceptance: summary findings • Awareness high
– Schoettle and Sivak (2014) 2/3rds in US/UK/AU • Opinion survey findings inconsistent and
variable – Vary by country, driver status, gender, personality – Influenced by question framing – ‘Driver experience’, control, security strongest
negatives – Safety and full automation strongest positives
9/
Expectations: summary findings • Howard & Dai (2014) ‘multi-tasking’ and not
having to park as positives • Schoettle & Sivak (2014) 41% expected to
‘watch the road’ (8.3% would read) • Casley (2013) fuel efficiency, shorter journey
times, environmental credentials more important than productive use of travel time
• Wide range of estimates of willingness to pay – One outlier study indicated a $30k premium, but
several others only around $1-3k more 10/
Handover • Literature Review • Simulator Experiments • AV Experiments
11
Merat et al. (2014): at 70mph, 35-40 secs to
achieve stabilised lateral control of vehicle even if
planned
STISIM Simulator
12/
Williams Evoque simulator
13/
BAE Systems Bowler Wildcat
14/
Interactions on the public highway
• Literature Review • Focus groups • Experiments into passenger and non-user
acceptance of AV decisions
15
5.3 Interactions on the public highway: AV+ HDV @ Junction
• Are there important differences between AV and human driver behaviour at T-junctions and roundabouts that have implications for safety/roads design/driver training? – AV interaction with human-driven vehicle in
different scenarios: simulator then campus roads
16
5.3 Interactions on the public highway: Other combinations (scenarios under development)
• E.g. acceptance of AV passing distance of cyclists by AV passengers and cyclists?
• E.g. AV gap acceptance waiting to pass stationary vehicle e.g. bus of AV passengers?
17
Highway code to become an operating manual?
18
AVs – natural users of shared space or technologically challenged?
19/
Is this a dream scenario?
20
Publicised benefits
21/
The Pathway to Driverless Cars: A detailed review of regulations for automated vehicle technologies
But AVs will have a long transition
22/
Level 5 might just be starting by 2030 according to KPMG!
• ‘Pods’ in limited niches e.g. city centres – new transport mode/option
• Gradual development and exploitation of road-going car technology – current ownership and use model continues
24/
Possible outcomes • car ownership and traffic increase
– L4/L5 AV empty running?
• public transport use, car occupancy fall • Increased mobility for those with restrictions on
driving capabilities (if able to afford an AV) – But social exclusion of those without car access?
• Worse urban living conditions – More vehicles parked – Limited decongestion/emissions benefits of AVs offset
• Public health threat of reduced active travel? • Pressure for regulation of other road users? 25/
“Collective Efficiency” Scenario
• Higher L3 capital cost favours collective ownership of vehicles
• L4 link vehicles further favour collectivity – ‘driver experience’ no longer a factor in ownership – Immediate availability achieved through summoning rather
than own car – Removal of owner-driver vs guest-passenger distinction
encourages collective use • Fleets (commercial, public, third-sector) offer a range
of automated mobility services – Differentiated by price and service attributes
26/
Possible outcomes • Efficient ridership + collective ownership minimise vkm
– Absolute fall in traffic possible – Emissions benefits maximised by smoother, lighter traffic
• Parking at origins/destinations largely eliminated – Accessibility of city centres favoured – Residential streets decluttered
• Social inclusion enhanced by more flexible ‘public’ transport e.g. in low density areas – Accessibility and perhaps mobility increased
• Concerns about levels of active travel remain – But walking and cycling for part of journeys more possible
with collective ownership 27/
Implications for mobility managers • Parking
– In the long run demand might fall – In the short run may increase – Pod systems enable relocation of parking? – Automated parking more space efficient
• Car use: Much depends on adoption scenario • Public transport use
– Labour costs (60%) largely eliminated? – Early adopter niche? – Many more smaller vehicles to manage on sites?
28/
Implications (cont.) • Walking and cycling
– Might lose users to AV public transport fleets? – Will AVs need more segregated, less shared
space? • Implications for labour market
– Fewer driving jobs? – More AV technician jobs?
• What new infrastructure required? – Who will pay for it?