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 !