MULTIMODAL TRAVEL: TRANSIT AND RIDE HAIL - March 14, 2023 SMART Webinar Series Webinar #2
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
MULTIMODAL TRAVEL: TRANSIT AND RIDE HAIL March 14, 2023 SMART Webinar Series Webinar #2
TODAY’S SPEAKERS
JEFF JOSHUA ANNA
GONDER AULD SPURLOCK
Group Manager, Mobility Behavior Group Manager, Transportation Deputy Department Head, Sustainable
and Advanced Powertrains Systems & Mobility Energy and Environmental Systems
NREL ANL LBNL
2
PREVIOUS & UPCOMING WEBINARS
FEBRUARY APRIL JUNE AUGUST
OVERVIEW, MULTIMODAL TRAVEL CAVs and Intelligent ELECTRIFICATION
KEY METRICS Micro-mobility Transportation Systems EV charger deployment
AND INSIGHTS Drones Transportation system impact, Grid impact
SNEAK PEEK Induced VMT, parking, curb
management, land use, policies
TODAY 2023
MARCH MAY JULY
MULTIMODAL TRAVEL CONNECTED & FREIGHT
Transit & Ridehail AUTOMATED VEHICLES Last mile delivery
(CAVs)
Vehicle and powertrain Control
Traffic signal control Webinar
Materials
3
IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGIES AND
POLICIES ON TRANSIT AND RIDE HAILING
How important is transit? How can we reduce ridehail
How can we improve transit VMT and empty VMT?
ridership (frequency, bus rapid How do we minimize BEV
transit, new lines)? fleet downtime?
What are the impacts on What are the impact of fleet
energy and GHG across a size and price on pooling and
metropolitan area? underserved communities?
What are the challenges
resulting from electrification?
How can we increase transit How can transit and ridehail
impact further? be synergistic?
4
TRANSIT IS CRITICAL TO THE
OVERALL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Drastic reduction in overall activity and travel speeds with no transit
Baseline transit in OVERALL ACTIVITY
Chicago has 6-7%
mode share. NON-WORK TOTAL Chicago
Without transit, 26% of
non-work activities (17%
-26% -17%
of total) would be
cancelled.
Despite fewer overall AVERAGE SPEED
trips, speeds would CITY METRO AREA
reduce by 28% in
the city & by 12%
in the entire region.
-28% -12%
5
CHANGE IN MODE USAGE PATTERNS WITH
NO TRANSIT ILLUSTRATES POTENTIAL EQUITY ISSUES
% ∆ in Auto Mode Share % ∆ in TNC/Taxi Mode Share % ∆ in Non-motorized Share
High income
areas deflect
to car when
needed
Equity issues, Many wealthy
low-income and downtown
areas forced areas have high
into taxi/TNC accessibility
due to low meaning walk /
auto ownership bike is a viable
alternative
Metra
commute
areas
6
PERSISTENT REDUCTION IN TRANSIT HAS
MAJOR ECONOMIC IMPACT
Source: Crain's Chicago Business
Potential service ∆ in Avg Trip Duration (%) Annual Regional Economic Impact
cuts driven by reduced POTENTIAL POTENTIAL
transit ridership during ECONOMIC LOSS JOB LOSS
COVID lead to job and -$327M
wage losses and drop Discretionary trips
-3,594
revenue / jobs
in discretionary trips. Travel time
Total impact of $1 Billion First order
wages / jobs
to $3.4 Billion economic -$2,513M
loss when service is -6,763
reduced by 20-50%.
-$566M
-$3.4B -10.4K
Sources: APTA TRED tool, Argonne Labs Regional Model,
Standard Value of time assumption
7
TNC GROWTH CAN ALSO IMPACT TRANSIT
RIDERSHIP, CONGESTION AND EMPTY VEHICLE
MILES TRAVELLED (VMT)
Drastic growth in ride
share trips between 2,000,000 2,000,000
2014 and 2018.
1,600,000 1,600,000
Potential for increased
TAXI / TNC TRIPS
congestion in dense
CTA TRIPS
urban areas and 1,200,000 1,200,000
reduction in transit use.
800,000 800,000
360% growth in Taxi/TNC
since 2014 while transit 400,000 400,000
has dropped 7%.
- 0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Chicago
8
TRANSIT OPTIMIZATION IMPROVES
RIDERSHIP UP TO 11% AT MODERATE COST
Increased bus
frequencies or new ∆ Chicago Transit Ridership
Bus Rapid Transit 25%
(BRT) improves transit
user experience (less 2X + BRT
% Change in Ridership
20%
waiting & travel times).
15%
Suburban agencies 2X
could focus on 10%
Optimized
increasing frequency. BRT
5%
Agencies operating
in high density urban 0%
Baseline
areas could implement 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%
new routes and BRT. % Change in Operational Cost
9
.
PARKING BETWEEN RIDEHAILING
TRIPS COULD DECREASE EMPTY VMT BY 25%
Compared to driver cruising
Driver cruising lowers TRAVELER FLEET IN-SERVICE
traveler wait time at the WAIT TIME VMT TIME
expense of increased VMT
and in-service time.
Driving to parking between DRIVER -16% +33% +17%
trips would decrease empty CRUISING
VMT by 25% in urban dense
areas with 18% increase in
traveler wait time.
ENFORCING
Cities could start
tracking parking and
PARKING +34% +7% +7%
improve use of limited
resource through curb
management. IDLE IN PLACE
10POOLING AND GEOFENCING CAN
HELP REDUCE RIDESHARE VMT BY 3%
Pooling trips can
help lower regional VMT VMT SAVINGS
for those that opt in. Pooling Geofence Pooling + Geofence
Geofencing reduces
operating area,
making trip-matching
more efficient. -1.3%
Up to 3% savings
observable when combined.
-2.2%
Fleet operators could
consider a variety -2.6%
of policies with
synergistic benefits.
11TNC CORNER-TO-CORNER (C2C)
ROUTING CAN SAVE UP TO 11% VMT
TNC vehicles stay on
more direct routes, saving
time & lowering congestion. Fleet Size (veh)
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
C2C is more effective -6%
VMT Savings from C2C
at low supply & high
-7%
demand levels.
-8%
Sharing rides boosts
benefit compared to solo -9%
travel by an additional 3%.
-10%
Rideshare providers
-11%
could incentivize use
No Pooling Pooling
of C2C where applicable -12%
to improve performance
and user experience.
12COORDINATED REPOSITIONING AND CHARGING
REDUCE EV TNC FLEET DOWNTIME BY UP TO 84%
While also decreasing empty VMT by 8%
Electrified fleets need
10 30%
dedicated management
% Empty VMT (added congestion)
to improve service
Avg. Charging Downtime (in hr)
9
25%
for daily operation. 8
7
20%
Focusing on charging 6
only increase traveler
5 15%
wait time up to 15%.
4
10%
3
Fleet operators
could simultaneously 2
5%
consider wait time 1
and charging needs 0 0%
to minimize downtime Baseline Demand Optimization Joint Optimization
and empty VMT. Avg. Charging Downtime %eVMT
13SUBSIDIZED FMLM HAS STRONG
POTENTIAL TO INCREASE TRANSIT USE
AND REMOVE AUTO COMMUTING TRIPS
Paid first- Free FMLM Largely used to Potential to
mile-to-last-mile increases use reach commuter remove 100K
(FMLM) boosts of rideshare-to- rail stations— auto-based
transit use from transit by 76% increases commuter trips
4.5% to 5.0%, catchment area
free FMLM up to 1.8 miles
to 5.6% for those
without autos
CHICAGO METRO
14INVESTING IN TRANSIT OR FMLM SUBSIDIES
CAN IMPROVE RIDERSHIP UP TO 15%
Subsidized FMLM increases CHICAGO – 2035 AUSTIN – 2035
boardings by 7–8%.
Boardings Boardings
40% higher budget increases 3.54M 3.56M
ridership by 10%. 3.48M 110K
102K 104K
Combined effect of FMLM 3.22M 95K
and transit investment is 11%
in Chicago and 15% in Austin.
FMLM subsidization has a
much higher return on
investment in Chicago, while % Increase in Ridership % Increase in Ridership
in Austin frequency increase per % Increase in Investment per % Increase in Investment
is more efficient 74%
24%
Agencies could target 25% 21% 10% 13%
specific solutions for
their areas.
15INCREASED TRANSIT SERVICE CAN HAVE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON ENERGY AND GHG IN
TARGETED AREAS
Modest reduction in overall
regional energy use and 1% reduction
GHG for Chicago of 1%
with subsidized TNC and in energy / GHG
Disadvantaged
increased transit budget. areas
Significant improvements % change in
centered in disadvantaged energy vs base
communities and outlying
areas along commuter rail.
Energy increases along
circumferential highways
not served by rail and
wealthier areas. Metra
commute
Agencies could consider areas
local impact and
unintended consequences.
16~50% TRANSIT ELECTRIFICATION REQUIRES
~20% FLEET INCREASE TO MAINTAIN SCHEDULES
Conventional buses can be
% Change in Total Number of Buses
mostly driven as long as labor
26%
regulations allow
19%
Electric buses have limited
range and need to return to
their depots to recharge every
~2 to ~5 hours.
Electrification beyond 50% is EV's with 150 mi. range EV's with 60 mi. range
very challenging under current
ranges and charging times. Fuel Type Distribution
Transit agencies could 48% 40%
100%
consider electrification 52% 60%
impact on number of No EV EV's with 150 mi. range EV's with 60 mi. range
vehicles, depots
and operations. Conventional Buses Electric Buses
17TECHNOLOGY IMPACTS ARE UNIQUE TO
EACH METROPOLITAN AREA
FMLM has no impact in Austin, but helps in Chicago with priced cordon
In Austin, transit frequency % Change in regional travel time given investment in:
alone is ineffective, but Austin Chicago
works well with a cordon. Transit 0.0% -0.8%
In Chicago, transit frequency, FMLM 0.3% -0.3%
FMLM subsidies and cordon
Transit + Cordon -1.2% -0.5%
pricing work together to
reduce travel times 2.4%. FMLM + Cordon 0.0% -1.1%
Teleworking negates
And for different demand scenarios:
some of this benefit
Austin Chicago
Agencies should Transit + Teleworking 0.7% 0.6%
not assume existing FMLM + Teleworking -0.1% 0.2%
deployed policies will
have similar impact. Transit + CACC/EV 0.1% -0.5%
18A HOLISTIC APPROACH IS REQUIRED TO
INCREASE TRANSIT IMPACT FURTHER
Car owners will continue to % of miles traveled by mode:
use them, except for some SCENARIO AUTO-OWNERSHIP TRANSIT SOV ACTIVE OTHER
shift to commuter rail.
Auto owners 4.6% 81.5% 3.7% 10.2%
Non-auto household shift
Baseline
trips largely from active Non-owners 52.3% – 23.2% 24.5%
modes, with some reduction
in shared-auto. Auto owners 5.3% 81.1% 3.3% 10.3%
Transit
When auto ownership and FMLM
Non-owners 55.9% – 20.2% 23.9%
stays the same, transit
growth is limited. Auto owners 0.6% -0.4% -0.3% 0.1%
% point
New policies needed change
Non-owners 3.6% – -3.0% -0.6%
to reduce auto ownership
and influence long-term
decisions.
19INCREASING PUBLIC TRANSIT SYSTEM
CAPACITY CAN IMPROVE MOBILITY
Some projects increase service quality; others expand access
Four new transit projects considered:
SF Muni Central Electrify Caltrain
Subway Project – 20% increase in service
– New underground light rail frequency reduces travel
route: 4 stations, 1.7 miles times 15%
SF Muni Van Ness AC Transit 1TEMPO Bus
Avenue Bus Rapid Rapid Transit “Light”
Transit “light” line line
– Improvements cut – Operational changes
travel times 32% increase speed 18%
20FINDING 1: IMPROVEMENTS RESULT
IN MEANINGFUL INCREASES IN TRANSIT USE
Central Subway CHANGE IN RIDERSHIP
increases Muni light rail
ridership 10%
+60.3%
Increased travel speed
and run frequency from
Caltrain electrification
and the planned
frequency of AC Transit
BRT increase ridership
14% and 21% +20.6%
SF Muni BRT line +9.9 % +14.1%
increases ridership 60%.
SF Central Caltrain AC Transit SF Muni
Subway BRT BRT
21FINDING 2: NEW PROJECTS ALLOW
RIDERS TO BOTH SHIFT FROM OTHER
MODES AND REOPTIMIZE WITHIN TRANSIT
90% of users on new
projects in dense urban
areas come from other
transit lines, 5% from
personal and ridehail
PREVIOUS MODES
vehicles.
USED BY NEW
Electrification of Caltrain TRANSIT USERS
(less dense areas, fewer DUE TO TRANSIT
transit options) resulted EXPANSIONS
in 15% of new users
coming from personal
and ridehail vehicles.
Fewer come from pre-
existing transit service.
22FINDING 3: THE IMPROVEMENTS IN TRAVEL
EXPERIENCE AND OPTIONS FOR USERS
VARY BY NEW PROJECT
Central Subway, which saw the
largest increase in ridership,
increased Potential INEXUS
(person-trip based accessibility
measure) the most (6%), driven
in part by a 21% reduction CHANGE IN
in trip duration. DISTANCE,
Caltrain electrification enabled DURATION AND
longer distance and much faster ACCESSIBILITY
trips for users, increasing
Potential INEXUS 4%. OF USERS OF
For the BRT projects, while NEW SERVICE
there was relatively little change OPTIONS
in trip distances, durations and
Potential INEXUS. The
opportunities riders were able to
access increased ridership 20%
to 60%.
23FINDING 4: NEW SERVICE EXPANSIONS
SERVED DIFFERENT SUBPOPULATIONS
IN THE REGION
The SF Muni projects
and the Caltrain
project served users
with incomes at or
above the average
of regional travelers. AVERAGE
INCOME OF
The AC Transit BRT NEW USERS
project in Oakland OF SERVICES
increased options for
users with incomes on
average or almost half
of the region average.
24RIDEHAIL SERVICE EXPANSION,
PRICE CHANGES HAVE IMPORTANT IMPACTS
MARKET
COMPETITION
etc…
LYFT Price
LYFT
CRUISE
WAYMO
UBER
Number of
etc…
UBER vehicles
Can pooling mitigate negative outcomes?
25FINDING 1: OPERATING MORE RIDEHAIL
VEHICLES INCREASES SERVICE QUALITY AND
MODE SHARE, BUT ALSO ENERGY AND DEADHEADING
Doubling size of existing
Uber and Lyft fleets:
30% Pooled ridehail
wait times
2x Pooled ridehail share
>50% Solo ridehail share
63% Deadheading VMT
System transportation
1% energy
26FINDING 2: MORE SEPARATE
RIDEHAIL SERVICES ADD INEFFICIENCIES
Fracturing fleet coordinating pooling becomes more difficult
Increasing number
of fleets from 2 to 5:
Pooled ridehail
5-10% wait times
7% Pooled ridehail
share
27FINDING 3: LOWER PRICES INCREASE
SOLO RIDEHAIL BUT CAN DECREASE POOLING
There are limits to how much pooling can mitigate inefficiency of expanding ridehail service
Reducing ridehail prices:
Pooling hits limits even when free
Initially increases 5 fleets, 5 fleets,
mode share of both solo baseline
no. vehicles
4X no.
vehicles
and pooled ridehail
RH Pooled: mode
share when same 0.2% 0.6%
But eventually pooling prices as today*
will decrease as demand RH Pooled: mode
strains the system share when only 0.7% 3.1%
pooling is free*
Total System
Energy (% change
relative to
today) when
-0.6% 2.6%
only pooling is
*Likely underestimates magnitude due to differences in free**
pooling algorithm and simulation limitations.
**Assumes same vehicle technology mix as today.
28FINDING 4: EQUITY BENEFITS ACCOMPANY
INEFFICIENCIES FROM INCREASED COMPETITION
Lowest income travelers benefit the most when ridehail fleets compete and reduce prices
If ridehail prices reduce:
INEXUS accessibility
Solo Ridehail
(% change relative to baseline prices)
(especially Price multiplier
lowest income group)
Potential INEXUS
Lowest Income Travelers
Solo ridehail mode
share for lowest
Income group
Pooled Ridehail
Lowest Income Travelers
Highest Income Travelers
29SUMMARY OF KEY INSIGHTS AND
ACTIONS: TRANSIT
Optimization improves ridership Suburban agencies could focus on
up to 11% at moderate cost increasing frequency.
Increased transit service can Agencies operating in high density
have significant impact on energy urban areas could implement new
and GHG in targeted areas routes and BRT.
~50% transit electrification Agencies should consider
requires ~20% fleet increase – local impact and unintended
to maintain schedules consequences.
– electrification impact on number of
A holistic approach is required vehicles, depots and operations.
to increase transit impact further
New policies needed to reduce
auto ownership and influence
long-term decisions
30SUMMARY OF KEY INSIGHTS AND
ACTIONS: RIDEHAILING
VMT reduced up to 3% with Fleet operators could
pooling and geofencing, 11% – incentivize corner-to-corner
with corner-to-corner. in dense urban areas
– encourage pooling while
Empty VMT decrease by 25% considering its limits
by parking. when expanding services
BEV fleet downtime reduced – support BEV drivers
by up to 84% through coordinated to minimize downtime
and empty VMT
repositioning and charging
Lower prices increase solo Cities could
ridehail but can decrease pooling – start tracking parking &
improve use of limited
Lowest income travelers benefit resource through
disproportionally when ridehail curb management.
fleets compete and prices reduce – facilitate TNC competition
31CLOSING THOUGHTS
Transit and ridehailing Agencies should
can be complementary – target specific solutions
– Investing in transit or FMLM for their areas
subsidies can improve – not assume existing
ridership up to 15% deployed policies will
Technology impacts have similar impact
are unique to each
metropolitan area
32PREVIOUS & UPCOMING WEBINARS
FEBRUARY APRIL JUNE AUGUST
OVERVIEW, MULTIMODAL TRAVEL CAVs and Intelligent ELECTRIFICATION
KEY METRICS Micro-mobility Transportation Systems EV charger deployment
AND INSIGHTS Drones Transportation system impact, Grid impact
SNEAK PEEK Induced travel, parking, curb
management, land use, policies
Up
2023
Next
MARCH MAY JULY
MULTIMODAL TRAVEL CONNECTED & FREIGHT
Transit & Ridehail AUTOMATED VEHICLES Last mile delivery
(CAVs)
Vehicle and powertrain Control
Traffic signal control Webinar
Materials
34You can also read
