y vehicleautomaon$ andwhatthismeans tofutureprojec3onsendofdriving.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Two...Savannahtheoryofhappiness “…people who live in more densely populated areas

Two  markets  for  vehicle  automa3on  and  what  this  means  to  future  projec3ons    Excerpt  from:  Ontario  Must  Prepare  for  Vehicle  Automa3on  

Bern  Grush  Grush  Niles  Strategic  

An Independent Study Commissioned by

Ontario Must Prepare for Vehicle AutomationAutomated vehicles can influence urban form, congestion and infrastructure delivery

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

We  know…  

»  Vehicle automation is coming

»  It will be disruptive

»  This could go a couple of ways

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Outline  

»  Two competing markets

»  How they will diffuse

»  Two outcomes for full automation

»  Final thoughts

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

There  are  two  cri3cal  markets  from  a  social,  planning  and  regulatory  perspec3ve     SAE  

0   No  automa)on  

1   Driver  assists   Individual  controls   No  feet  

2   Par)al  automa)on  

Combined  controls   No  hands  

3   Condi)onal  automa)on  

Driver  monitors   No  eyes  

4   High  automa)on  

Driver  dispensable   No  body  

5   Full  automa)on  

Market  1  Driver-­‐in  Semi-­‐automated  

Market  2  Driver-­‐out  Full  automa)on  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

hDp://ar)cles.sae.org/15021/  

For  planners,  regulators  and  ci3es,  the  cri3cal  issue  will  be  the  level  of  household  AV  ownership  

The  progress  of  market  diffusion  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

The  two  markets  will  compete  for  users,  access,  infrastructure,  subsidies  and  urban  ideologies  

Market  1:  Semi-­‐automated,  driver-­‐in   Market  2:  Fully-­‐automated,  driver-­‐out  

Owned,  personal,  family   Public,  taxi,  shuDle,  bus  

Business-­‐as-­‐usual   Disrup)ve  

Rapid  diffusion   Slow  diffusion  

More:  conges)on,  parking,  sprawl   Less:  conges)on,  parking,  sprawl  

No  barrier  to  diffusion;  normal  next  car  purchase;  no  social  change  

Barrier:  choose  rides  over  ownership;  access  anxiety;  large  social  change  

Gov:  react,  adjust,  manage   Gov:  act,  prepare,  innovate,  leverage  

Will  dominate  in  2020s   Might  dominate  aYer  2035  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Range Anxiety vs. Access Anxiety

Range Anxiety Battery storage issue Anxiety that my EV might not reach all the DISTANCES I want to reach.

Access Anxiety Operational design domain issue Anxiety that my AV might not be able to go to all the PLACES I want to go to.

Barriers  to  deployment  of  full  automa3on  ©

Grush N

iles Strategic

“[fully-automated] cars remain a long way from commercial reality,” [Nissan’s Carlos] Ghosn said ... “They are suitable only for tightly controlled road environments, at slow speeds, and face a regulatory minefield.”

[Gordon-­‐Bloomfield,  “Nissan  Changes  Expecta?ons,  Timeline  for  Autonomous  Drive  Technology.”  July  2014]  

Q:  What  will  happen  to  car  ownership  (and  urban  density)  when…  

•  EV range exceeds 300 miles? •  Solar becomes cheaper than oil? •  Vehicle charging takes under 15 minutes? •  Market 1 (SAE Level 3) vehicles become highly reliable? •  Market 1 vehicle prices approach current average prices? •  In-city housing prices are out of reach for most families? •  It is increasingly palatable to live farther out of the city? •  It is less attractive to live in the city?

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

EV  range  ©

Grush N

iles Strategic

Solar  costs  

“The levelized cost of energy for solar systems is now comparable to that of oil”

hMp://www.wcpsolar.com/why-­‐solar-­‐energy/solar-­‐talk/41-­‐oil-­‐vs-­‐solar  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Charging  3me  

“Most new pure EVs can also use rapid charging points that can top up batteries to 80% capacity in around 30 minutes.”

hMp://www.thechargingpoint.com/beginners-­‐guide.html  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Reliability  and  affordability  

Car makers promise “self-driving cars” for 2020-2021 These will be Level 3 vehicles. If not highly reliable and affordable then, they will be soon after.

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Housing  affordability  Middle-­‐income  Housing  Affordability,  Canada’s  Major  Markets,  2004-­‐2015  

“High  housing  prices  are  causing  some  GTA  residents,  especially  millennials,  to  consider  leaving”  

hMp://torontosvitalsigns.ca/main-­‐sec?ons/housing/  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Housing  affordability  ©

Grush N

iles Strategic

Housing  affordability  

hMps://www.S.com/content/a08fd605-­‐ef4a-­‐331b-­‐9157-­‐7456566dd7ee  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Savannah  theory  of  happiness  

“…people who live in more densely populated areas tend to report less satisfaction with their life overall. ‘The higher the population density of the immediate environment, the less happy’ the survey respondents said they were.”

hMps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/18/why-­‐smart-­‐people-­‐are-­‐beMer-­‐off-­‐with-­‐fewer-­‐friends    Country  roads,  take  me  home.  .  .  to  my  friends:  How  intelligence,  popula?on  density,  and  friendship  affect  modern  happiness.  Norman  P.  Li,  School  of  Social  Sciences,  Singapore  Management  University,  Singapore;  Satoshi  Kanazawa,  Managerial  Economics  &  Strategy  Grp,  Dept  of  Management,  London  School  of  Economics  &  Poli)cal  Sci,  UK  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

hMps://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/03/18/why-­‐smart-­‐people-­‐are-­‐beMer-­‐off-­‐with-­‐fewer-­‐friends  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Many  posi3ve  indicators  for  sprawl  

ü  EV range exceeds 300 miles? ü  Solar becomes cheaper than oil? ü  Vehicle charging takes under 15 minutes? ü Market 1 (SAE Level 3) vehicles become highly reliable? ü Market 1 vehicle prices approach current average prices? ü  In-city housing prices are out of reach for most families? ü  It is increasingly palatable to live farther out of the city? ü  It is less attractive to live in the city?

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

2016:  largest  recorded  increase  in  US  VMT  ©

Grush N

iles Strategic

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/data/10315

Market    race  

Will Market 1 take drivers out of cities... before Market 2 takes drivers out of cars?

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

What  will  influence  market  diffusion  for  each  type  of  automa3on?  

Time >

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

ECAN:  Diffusion  from  New  to  Need  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Who  will  buy  semi-­‐automated  vehicles?  

Non-automated Vehicle ECAN

N 1945- 2020

A 1920- 1940

C 1910- 1920

E 1900- 1910

80% input

Semi-automated Vehicle ECAN

N 2029- 2034

A 2026- 2032

C 2023- 2029

E 2020- 2025

Exclusivity  —  Choice  —  Access  —  Need  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Who  will  buy  fully-­‐automated  rides?  

20% input

Fully-automated Vehicle ECAN

N 2035- 2050

A 2030- 2040

C 2025- 2035

E 2020- 2030

Users of: taxi, bus, carshares, TNCs, bikes, paratransit and sufficiently persuaded car owners

(Note: Fully automated vehicles will be range

limited for 30-40 years.)

Exclusivity  —  Choice  —  Access  —  Need  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Consume vehicles < > Consume rides

For

ces

disc

oura

ging

diff

usio

n <

> Fo

rces

enc

oura

ging

diff

usio

n

Factors that encourage the use of robo transit

Factors that encourage household ownership

Factors that discourage the use of robo transit

Factors that discourage household ownership

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Consume  vehicles  <     >  Consume  rides  

 Forces  d

iscou

raging

 diffusion  <  

>  Forces  encou

raging

 diffusion  

poor  reach  of  driverless  vehicles  

tradi)onal  transporta)on  

industry  

government  “wait  and  see”  regula)ons  

delaying    deployment  

profitability  difficult    due  to  peak  fleet  size  

spoDy  availability  

technical  challenge  

more  expensive  than  public  transit  

Rogers’  diffusion  factors:  •  rela)ve  advantage  •  compa)bility  •  complexity  •  trialability  •  observability  

status  

car  design  strong  network  effect  

“access  anxiety”  

affordability  

availability    assurance  

personal  (private    &  secure)  

feature  richness  

habit  

cheap  parking  

inadequate  transit  

car-­‐dominant  community  

high  safety  

wide  vehicle  choice  

on-­‐demand  instant  response  

24-­‐hour  availability  

convenience  

service  personaliza)on  

new  travel  bargains  

personal  security  

non  car-­‐oriented  community  

high-­‐density  

No  driver  license  

Encourage  robo-­‐transit  

Discourage  robo-­‐transit  

Encourage  household  ownership  

Discourage  household  ownership  

expensive  parking  

bothersome  tasks  and  

maintenance   land  use  regula)on  

eco-­‐consciousness  

95%  idle  falling  

disposable  income  

percep)on  of  high  cost  

urban  life  style  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

2020   2050-­‐2100  

40  -­‐  50  years  of  mixed  traffic  

Ownership  outcome  apparent  here  

Government  decides  ownership  direc?on  here  

Diffu

sion  percentage  

Time  

Aggregate  expert  consensus  chart  (uncertain  3me  scale)  

The outcome is a matter of behavoural economics; It is influenced, but not pre-determined, by technology.

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

How  soon  robo-­‐taxis  and  robo-­‐transit?  

Sooner?   …or  later?  

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

hDps://www.rolandberger.com/publica)ons/publica)on_pdf/  roland_berger_tab_automo)ve_intransi)on_20160404.pdf  

Pop  (e.g.  San  Jose)    1,000,000    veh  per  capita      0.85    

VMT/veh    15,000    occupancy    1.30    total  PMT    9,808,000,000    

robo  percent    27%    robo  PMT    2,648,000,000    

robo  VMT/annum    90,000    VMT/day    246.6    

speed  mph    15.0    duty  hours    16.4    occupancy    2.0    

robo  veh  needed    14,712    capex  per  robo  veh    $85,000    

total  veh  capex    

$1,250,000,000    

x4  (5  year  exp)    

$5,002,000,000    $/mi    0.38    

2015 2025 2030

PKT by robocab worldwide

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Extrapolate  this  to  the  en3re  US  

»  Population 325 million

»  27% PKT market penetration

»  4.8 million vehicles

»  1.6 trillion dollars (estimated 5-year cost)

»  5.3% of 2015 world vehicle production

»  1600% of 2015 world BEV production

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

From:  “Autonomous  vehicles:  a  poten)al  game  changer  for  urban  mobility”,  Policy  Brief  of  UITP,  the  Interna)onal  Associa)on  of  Public  Transport.  Jan  2017  

SWOT:  What  shared  AVs  represent  for  the  future  of  our  ci3es          From:  “Autonomous  vehicles:  a  poten?al  game  changer  for  urban  mobility”  A  Policy  Brief  of  UITP,  the  Interna?onal  Associa?on  of  Public  Transport”  Jan  20  

Compe33on    Private,  Shared  or  Integrated?            From:  “Autonomous  vehicles:  a  poten?al  game  changer  for  urban  mobility”  A  Policy  Brief  of  UITP,  the  Interna?onal  Associa?on  of  Public  Transport”  Jan  20

 Level  1  

Driver  Assists  

 Level  2  

Par)al  Automa)on  

 Level  3  

Condi)onal  Automa)on  

 Level  4  

High  Automa)on  

 Level  5  

Full  Automa)on    

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

Transit  Leap:  Alternate  path  to  full  automa3on  

Leap  1    

Fixed  Loop  ShuDle:  parking,  shopping,  tourist  

Leap  2    

Small  Area  Campus;  First/Last  

Mile    

Leap  3    

Large  Area  CBD;  borough,  

island    

Leap  4    

City      

Leap  5    

Mega-­‐region  

 [2km2]  

 Driverless;  short  trips;  repe))ve  

[5km2]

Self-optimizing; flexible;

constrained areas

Feature  Creep  (SAE  Levels):  Add-­‐by-­‐feature—consumer-­‐by-­‐consumer—high  ownership—low  density  

Transit  Leaps:    Add-­‐by-­‐spa)al-­‐aggrega)ons—transit—sharing—low  ownership—high  density  

[50km2]    

Rich-­‐connect  with  rail;  strong  

tailoring;  stop  at  most  addresses  

[500km2]    

Any  address;  any  trip  in  single  vehicle;  high  tailoring;  high  transport  equity  

[5,000km2]    

Any  )me;  any  where,  any  distance  

[5km2]    

Self-­‐op)mizing;  flexible;  

constrained  area       ©GrushNiles

No  effect  on  current  transit  

All  Level  5  vehicles  (No  driver,  some  stewards,  secure  opera)ons,  constrained  applica)ons)  

Now

2020

2030

2040

2050

Final  thoughts  

»  Driving will continue past mid century

»  World VKT will quadruple over the next 40-45 years

»  Significant complexity with mixed driving environments

»  Traffic will get worse before it gets better

»  Significant ownership drop only via comprehensive robo-taxi & robo-transit fleets

»  Letting Detroit & Silicon Valley decide the future of urban transportation puts livability & social equity at risk

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

An Independent Study Commissioned by

Ontario Must Prepare for Vehicle AutomationAutomated vehicles can influence urban form, congestion and infrastructure delivery

© G

rush Niles S

trategic

   Bravo!    This  is  a  really  excellent  report.  Probably  best  that  I’ve  seen.  The  Key  Findings  &  Recommenda?ons  …    Ch  5.1:  Tension  between  the  two  [markets  for]  vehicle  automa?on…    and,  of  course  Ch  10:  Ownership  (the  business  model)  is  more  important  than  technology.  

Alain  L.  Kornhauser,  PhD,  Professor,  Opera?ons  Research  &  Financial  Engineering.  Director,  Transporta?on  Program.  

Faculty  Chair,  Princeton  Autonomous  Vehicle  Engineering      

Everyone  involved  with  planning  the  transporta?on  infrastructure  for  the  next  40  years  should  download  and  read  this  very  important  study.  

Robert  W.  Poole,  Jr.,  Reason  Founda?on      

This  is  an  excellent  report  –  one  of  the  best  I’ve  seen  on  the  topic.  Bravo!!!  

Michael  Roschlau,  President  &  Chief  Execu?ve  Officer  Canadian  Urban  Transit  Associa?on  1998-­‐2015.  

A  fascina?ng  and  carefully  argued  report.  Maclean’s  Magazine,  Editorial,  Nov  28,  2016  

T h a n k   y o u !