TITLE A CTS FOR THE NEW ROME EXHIBITION

CityMobil2 - Socio-economic impact study Reference Group Meeting Lausanne 23 June 2015 TITLE A CTS FOR THE NEW ROME EXHIBITION Carlo Sessa Gabriele Giustiniani, ISIS ITR 30/3/2015 1

Envisioning AUTOMATED MOBILITY in four different land use contexts 2

SCENARIO 1 Private mobility option OTHER MODES (public transport, biking, walking) Modal share 2015 (% of vkm) Car usage Automated car ownership centred mobility scenario Modal share 2050 (% of vkm) OTHER MODES Bus Tram Metro Bikes E-bikes Mopeds Use of own car CAR ownershi p Mostly Private Automated Mobility Private Autonomous Vehicles Peer-topeer car sharing CAR sharing 2015 Shared Transport 2050 TIME Car Sharing services Public Fleet of Automated Utility Cars 3

SCENARIO 2 Collective mobility option OTHER MODES (public transport, biking, walking) Modal share 2015 (% of vkm) Car usage Automated car-fleets centred mobility scenario Modal share 2050 (% of vkm) OTHER MODES ARTS Bus Tram Metro Bikes E-bikes Mopeds Autonomous shuttles Use of own car Private Autonomous Vehicles CAR ownershi p Mostly Shared Cyber-Mobility Car sharing services Publid Fleets of Automated Utility Cars CAR sharing 2015 Shared Transport 2050 TIME 4

STRUCTURE OF THE ONLINE SURVEY 5

Survey participants Tot participants: 89 6

DAILY TRIPS PER CAPITA = Scenario 1 = Scenario 2 UP > 30% UP 10-30% STABLE -10%+10% DOWN 10-30% DOWN < 30% 7

AVERAGE JOURNEY DISTANCE = Scenario 1 = Scenario 2 UP > 30% UP 10-30% STABLE -10%+10% DOWN 10-30% DOWN < 30% 8

OCCUPANCY RATE = Scenario 1 = Scenario 2 UP > 30% UP 10-30% STABLE -10%+10% DOWN 10-30% DOWN < 30% 9

CAR OWNERSHIP = Scenario 1 = Scenario 2 UP > 30% UP 10-30% STABLE -10%+10% DOWN 10-30% DOWN < 30% 10

MODAL SHARE Scenario 1 11

MODAL SHARE Scenario 2 12

Scope of the impact appraisal methodology To give a qualitative evaluation of 13 long-term socio-economic impacts belonging to 4 evaluation categories: Economy Transport Society Environment on the basis of the survey indicator results 13

IMPACT APPRAISAL - Methodological approach IMPACTS: LIKELY CHANGE OF KEY VARIABLES Economy - New jobs - Daily trips per capita - Old jobs - Personal trip costs - Average journey distance - Occupancy rate - Car ownership - Modal share IMPACT PATHWAY FORMULAS (based on one or more survey indicators and/or vehicle.km derived from the indicators QUALITATIVE APPRAISAL Completely positive: Very positive: Positive: Neutral: N Negative: Very negative: Completely negative: - Fines - Insurance Society - Road safety - Accessibility Environment - Energy and emissions - Land seving - Infrastructure - Urban space redev. Transport - Road capacity and use - Comfort and convenience 14

Economy session main results The balance between loss of traditional jobs in car manufacturing, repair and police control services and the gains in new services is better for the private automated scenario, as a consequence of the increase in vehicle.kms travelled and stable car ownership level Reduction of insurance costs Reduction of fines and especially parking fees has a strong impact on city budgets Other relevant impacts: on personal productivity during and after the trips, on human capital health and productive value (less accidents), on economic development of rural areas (more easily accessible) 15

Transport session - Main results Comfort and convenience generally positive (, ) for all the combinations contextscenario Road capacity and its use: Different trends for urban sprawl and city network: it could range from to Generally positive in the small compact city and in the rural/touristic areas 16

Environment overview - Two Scenarios Scenario 1: Main concern: Private automation may increase accessibility to remote areas and facilitate urban sprawl i.e. unplanned development of larger housing increase the distance and also the number of trip Scenario 2: May increase urbanisation by attracting citizens to live where flexible mobility options are available 17 17

Energy and emissions Scenario1 Urban sprawl main concern was the increased VKM Cannot be compensated by better vehicle performances, use of platoons and lower cruising speeds Scenario2 Investment in fleets offer eventually much more potential to further improve the system gradually as demand increases Most waste comes from relocation of the empty vehicles but this may be balanced by the increased carpooling which becomes a kind of flexible public transport system 18 18

Land use Scenario1 Main saving: parking Urban sprawl High demand on land use outside city areas higher infrastructure and city running costs Scenario2 Very low need for car parks No need for car parks in city centers Easier to manage the interface with the public transport and car sharing fleets 19 19

Urban Requalification Scenario1 Still need to maintain a urban road network. Not much impact on urban requalification Scenario2 Cities more liveable Keep vehicles outside city centers Opportunity to rethink the urban environment for pedestrians, AV and deliveries. 20 20

Infrastructure modifications Scenario1 Not much impact Scenario2 More need for dedicated lanes require investments 21 21

Other environmental concerns How to avoid wrong mode shifts Shift from soft modes Shift from public transport (Bus, tram, train) Scenario1 will naturally lead to shift away modes from soft and PT Scenario2: may be manageable through integrated PT management 22 22

Society safety impacts Society will not allow a system on the road that is less safe than today. At worse, safety will be neutral. This applies to all four scenarios On rural roads, the current main causes of accidents (overtaking & intersection crossing) will cease to exist. Other comments: Safety depends on level of automation & whether in mixed traffic environment Are automated pods as safe as conventional car? Reduction in accidents caused by drinking-driving and fatigue 23

Society Accessibility impacts Adopted a wide interpretation of accessibility: accessibility for disabled & elderly people as well as ease of access to reach a destination General agreement that disabled people would have far better accessibility From the wider territorial accessibility perspective: Earlier adopters will get the benefit Too many automated vehicles will be detrimental to mobility due to limited space. Automated small vehicles (whether private or collective) cannot replace the high capacity public transport systems (bus, tram, etc) Forced relocation - accessible areas could push up property prices, thereby pushing poorer people out of the city. 24

Society accessibility in rural/touristic areas Must distinguish between rural and touristic areas High seasonal demand in touristic areas and many foreign drivers = huge potential for automated collective transport to make areas accessible and manage flows Rural areas have low transport demand. Main characteristics today: older, work related vehicles, poor PT provision rural poverty = isolation, Automated vehicles (private or collective) have huge potential to improve significantly accessibility in rural areas. Will it be more cost-efficient to buy rural people a vehicle rather than a shared service? A shared service could involve placing a couple of vehicles at the disposal of village for different purposes: transport people, mail, groceries, etc 25

Society other impacts Affordability is a key issue How much will the new vehicle cost? What business model for new collective fleets? If based on cost per minute, service could be unaffordable. Need to consider subsidies. Urban liveability with fewer private cars in the city, opportunity to use parking facilities for other purposes (offices, homes) leading to new high quality urban fabric Health: what impact will automated demand responsive vehicles have on our health? Will we cease to walk or ride a bike? Cities are promoting active travel today for first/last mile. Personal safety: Interface will make a huge different to acceptability and perception of personal safety/security. Some feel safer in their own car rather than a sharing car (comparison with the introduction of lifts). Perception of travel time will change use travel as opportunity to work or sleep. Improved access to employment absence of transport is no longer a barrier, unless it is unaffordable. 26

Levels of Driving Automation 27

Two Automation Deployment Paths CityMobil2 approach Source. ERTRAC Roadmap - 2015 28

Coping with the urban transport automation challenge City of Tomorrow Targets 2050 SUSTAINABILITY IMPACTS (economic, social, environmental) Reactive City policies Anticipatory City policies Disruptive Autonomous Vehicles Technology European regulatory and legal Framework for highly automated driving New European Urban Mobility Package and Action Plan (including city of tomorrow targets) TIPPING POINT > 50% AVs global sales > Full automated urban transport in pioneer cities 2025 2035 2045 Beyon d 2050 SMART POLYCENTRIC GROWTH END POINTS CONTINUED URBAN SPRAWL TIME DIMENSION 29

The smart polycentric growth concept LIVEABILITY (quality of life and environment) City of Tomorrow QUALITY BETTER, NOT BIGGER (Improve the quality of urban life without expanding the urban boundaries) Compact city strategy BETTER AND BIGGER (Improve the accessibility and fruibility of urban functions withinn and across city boundaries without reducing the quality of the environment) City of Today Urban sprawl strategy BIGGER, NOT BETTER (Expand the city boundaries reducing the quality of urban life and environment) URBAN POPULATION (People with access to urban functions and jobs) QUANTITY 30

City of Tomorrow indicators and targets ( ) 1. Urban accessibility (urban functions available within 1 hour of door-to-door travel) 2. Inter-urban accessibility (European cities access available within 4 + 1 hours of door-to-door travel) 3. Safety (number of road accidents, fatalities, injuries) 4. CO2 emissions 5. Congestion index (average time spent per capita in traffic jams) 6. Land consumption (new urban land; parking space) 7. Share of motorized trips alternative to personal car usage (measured in terms of vkm) ( ) 8. Active travel (average time spent per capita walking or cycling for work, school, leisure trips) 9. Clean urban passenger transport (share of unconventionally fuelled vehicles) 10. Clean urban freight transport (share of unconventionally fuelled delivery vehicles) ( ) Targets are set in terms of planned increases or reductions of the indicators base values (e.g. 2015) until the 2050 horizon ( ) Total vkm including empty trips of autonomous vehicles 31

A set of possible indicators and targets for sustainable urban mobility Indicators Description Target (2050) Urban accessibility Urban functions available within 1 hour of door-to-door travel Accessibility for 100% of the inhabitants (assumption) Inter-urban accessibility European cities access available within 4 + 1 hours of door-todoor travel Accessibility for 100% of the inhabitants (assumption) Safety Considering number of road accidents, fatalities, injuries 10 times reduction (assumption) CO2 emissions Reduction of CO2 emissions 80% of reduction of CO2 emissions (http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/2030/index_en.htm) Congestion index Average time spent per capita in traffic jams 10 times reduction (assumption) Land consumption Share of motorized trips alternative to personal car usage Active travel Considering the use of new urban land and the reduction of parking space Measured in terms of vkms (including empty trips of autonomous vehicles) Average time spent per capita walking or cycling for work, school, leisure trips No new urban land (assumption) 4 times reduction of parking space (assumption) 40% increase of shared motorized trips (assumption) Doubling of average time spent walking or cycling (http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/europeancyclists-federation.pdf) Clean urban passenger transport Share of unconventionally fuelled vehicles 100% of unconventionally fuelled vehicles (ET2050vision target s Pathways) Clean urban freight transport Share of unconventionally fuelled delivery vehicles 100% of unconventionally fuelled delivery vehicles (ET2050vision target s Pathways) 32

SOME QUESTIONS What do you think of the CityMobil2 approach and smart growth polycentric strategy to cope with transport automation? Which policies could enable this in your city/urban region? Would complying with a new set of sustainable mobility indicators and long-term targets as those proposed for the «City of Tomorrow» useful to drive policy change in your city/ urban region? Any other issue? 33

Carlo Sessa mc7920@mclink.it 34 34