Convergence: Shared Mobility, EVs & Automation
4 likes1,325 views
The document discusses convergence between shared mobility, electric vehicles, and vehicle automation technologies and the opportunities and challenges they present. It summarizes existing literature on shared autonomous vehicles (SAVs), including findings that each SAV could replace up to 12 privately owned vehicles and 11 parking spaces. Studies estimate SAVs could reduce greenhouse gas emissions significantly through smaller and more efficient electric vehicles and increased vehicle utilization. However, challenges include higher vehicle costs and potential increases in vehicle miles traveled.
Convergence: Shared Mobility, EVs & Automation
- 1. Convergence: Shared Mobility, EVs & Automation Susan Shaheen, Ph.D. Co-‐Director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center Adjunct Professor, University of California, Berkeley
- 2. Presentation Overview • Convergence • AV Pros and Cons • Existing Literature • Opportunities and Challenges SAVs • Cost savings • Safety and cost savings • Parking • SAV impacts
- 5. A V : P r os a nd C ons L A R G E R C ON T E X T Non-‐Energy Benefits: • Greatly increased safety • Frees driver to perform other tasks • Reduction or elimination of parking space • Lower costs, e.g., reduced insurance, parking, etc. Greenblatt, 2016
- 6. A V : P r os a nd C ons L A R G E R C ON T E X T Energy-‐Saving Effects: • Smoother acceleration/braking • Optimal trip planning • Slower speeds (if driver permits) • Reduced congestion due to cooperative behavior (in large numbers) • Reduced mass due to enhanced safety (in large numbers) Effects That Could Increase Energy Use: • Longer driving distances/more frequent trips (possible rebound effect) • Increased speeds (maybe) • Larger vehicles = “mobile offices/bedrooms/restaurants” • Vehicle “cruising” to avoid parking Greenblatt,2016
- 7. SAV Opportunities Potential Benefits: • Reduce GHG emissions • Increase capacity (smaller vehicles, closer spacing, shared rides, etc.) • Increased auto sales (higher fleet turnover from increased vehicle use) • Reduce per mile cost (over privately-‐ owned vehicles) • Opportunity to add density through redevelopment • Downsize the number of privately owned household vehicles E X I S T I N G L I T E R AT U R E
- 8. SAV Challenges Potential Challenges: • Higher upfront vehicle costs • Increased VMT (due to lower costs, increased use, modal shift away from public transit, longer commutes, roaming AVs, etc.) • Will people give up private ownership? E X I S T I N G L I T E R AT U R E
- 9. Fagnant and Kockelman, 2014 Methods: • Developed trip generation and distribution model • Asserts SAVs have potential to mitigate environmental impacts of private auto travel but more research needed • Modeled daylong SAV passenger pick-‐up and drop-‐off scenarios within a 10-‐by-‐10-‐mile radius in Austin, TX • Represented ~3.5% of all trips on a given day • Does not account for shared rides E X I S T I N G L I T E R AT U R E
- 10. Fagnant and Kockelman, 2014 Key Findings: • Sample population served by ~20,000 vehicles could be served with 1,700 SAVs • Each SAV removes up to 12 vehicles from the road • Average wait time 20 seconds • 31-‐41 travelers per day per SAV • 5.6% lower GHGs (metric tons) E X I S T I N G L I T E R AT U R E
- 11. Greenblatt and Saxena, 2015 Methods: Estimated 2014 and 2030 GHG emissions and costs of automated taxis Documented: • Decreases in GHG emissions and smaller vehicle sizes through right sizing, • Increases in VMT (latent demand), • Increased vehicle efficiency, and • Improvements in cost effectiveness E X I S T I N G L I T E R AT U R E
- 12. Greenblatt and Saxena, 2015 Key Findings: • Per-‐mile GHG emissions of an SAV (electric) would be 63-‐82% lower than a privately-‐owned hybrid vehicle • Half of savings attributable to “right-‐sized” vehicle based on trip needs • Economic analysis concluded that private ownership of EVs more expensive than a gasoline vehicle in 2030 (based on 12,000 miles/year) • For taxis (40-‐70,000 miles/year), fuel cell or electric battery most cost effective E X I S T I N G L I T E R AT U R E
- 13. Private Vehicle Costs vs. SAVs Average 5-‐Year Per Mile Driving Cost: 2030 Private Vehicle: • Human Driven -‐ $0.59 per mile (HEV) • Automated -‐ $0.70 per mile (HEV) Shared Taxi (based on 70,000 annual miles): • Human Driven – $0.34 per mile (HEV) • Automated -‐ $0.29 -‐ $0.34 per mile (BEV) Greenblatt and Saxena, 2015
- 14. Safety and Cost Savings • 93% of crashes between 2005 and 2007 were human caused (NHTSA) • NYDMV estimates 78% attributable to human error • Reduction in vehicle accidents could save $280 billion annually (NHTSA, DOE) • Parking, insurance, and foregone congestion could save between $2,960 and $3,900 per vehicle annually (Eno Transportation Foundation) E X I S T I N G L I T E R AT U R E
- 15. Parking Impacts • Fagnant and Kockelman found each SAVs can replace 11 parking spaces • Potential impacts on land use through increased road use and reduced parking (e.g., conversion of on-‐street parking to other uses) • Parking adds 1.3 to 25 grams of CO2 equivalent/ passenger-‐km to total lifecycle GHG emissions of vehicle transport (Chester et. al.) E X I S T I N G L I T E R AT U R E
- 16. SAV Impacts • Fagnant and Kockelman found each SAV can replace up to 12 privately-‐owned vehicles and up to 11 parking spaces • Greenblatt and Saxena found relying on small vehicles for 87% of US trips taken by 1 or 2 people could reduce fleet average energy consumption by almost a factor of two • SAV lifecycle GHG emissions per mile or km could fall by roughly 90% relative to today’s average passenger vehicle E X I S T I N G L I T E R AT U R E
- 17. Key References Fagnant, D. and K. Kockelman“The travel and environmental implications of shared autonomous vehicles, using agent-‐based model scenarios,” Transportation Research Part C. March, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2013.12.001 Greenblatt, J. and S. Saxena “Autonomous taxis could greatly reduce greenhouse-‐gas emissions of US light-‐duty vehicles,” Nature Climate Change. July 6, 2015. doi:10.1038/nclimate2685 Chester, M., A. Horvath, and S. Madanat. “Parking infrastructure: energy, emissions, and automobile life-‐cycle environmental accounting,” Environmental Research Letters. July 29, 2010. doi:10.1088/1748-‐9326/5/3/034001
- 18. Website: http://tsrc.berkeley.edu Email: sshaheen@berkeley.edu Twitter: SusanShaheen1 LinkedIn SusanShaheen