City Compatibility: How AV ride-sharing could address mobility gapsJune 2018

Executive Summary..............................................................................................................................

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................

Context........................................................................................................................................

Structure of this report...........................................................................................................

Mobility Analysis...................................................................................................................................

Context........................................................................................................................................

Current modes of transport and challenges faced......................................................

Key mobility gaps.....................................................................................................................

1. Travel needs of an ageing population.............................................................

2. Poor connectivity within the Borough..............................................................

3. Over-dependence on private vehicles............................................................

Summary of mobility gaps...................................................................................................

Opportunities for AV ride-sharing services....................................................................

Context........................................................................................................................................

Public perception of AV ride-sharing................................................................................

1. Opportunity to provide more mobility options for the elderly..............................

2. Opportunity to improve connectivity within the Borough.....................................

3. Opportunity to reduce dependence on private vehicles........................................

Conclusions.............................................................................................................................................

3

4

4

4

5

5

6

8

8

9

13

15

16

16

17

17

19

20

22

Contents

Autonomous vehicles and ride-sharing are seen by many as two silver bullets for some of the world’s transport challenges, whilst others consider these innovations to be of little value. In this report, the MERGE Greenwich consortium focuses on identifying the characteristics of mobility issues in London and discusses the potential for an alternative transport service, using autonomous vehicle ride-sharing, to alleviate them.

Our analysis of the Royal Borough of Greenwich, as the test case London Borough, has shown that the primary mobility gaps are related to people’s age (older people, often with disabilities) or the specific geographic areas where they live (no available fast connections to places of interest, low density neighbourhoods). These issues mean either that residents’ mobility, and consequently opportunities, are limited or that people are pushed to use private vehicles as their main transport mode.

Autonomous vehicle ride-sharing is a future mobility option, enabled by technological development both in the field of vehicle autonomy and fleet management practices. Services based on the new technology will be able to integrate with existing public transport in the city whilst providing targeted solutions to the mobility gaps.

A service allowing for professional assistance to older people would help to increase current mobility options for a rapidly expanding population within London. It could work as an adjunct or alternative to existing Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard services, both of which have a number of limitations, primarily related to availability and cost of operations.

To support people living with poor access to effective public transport routes, a rapid, cheap and flexible service could provide an additional travel option to existing bus services. By adapting travel routes to meet on-demand bookings with similar origins and destinations, travel times between residential areas and transport hubs, or other attractors such as health facilities, could be significantly reduced. This could help increase the reach of future transport projects such as Crossrail and allow them to maximise their benefits.

Reducing private vehicle use is a difficult challenge in areas where public transport today does not provide a viable alternative. A new ride-sharing service could allow people to keep the flexibility of travelling by car whilst reducing household costs and the overall negative impacts on the transport network. This would be achieved through more efficient vehicle movements and the reduction in parking needs, giving people the option of choosing between different services that meet different customer expectations.

Implementation of such services will require an in-depth study of infrastructure needs as well as policy and regulatory change. MERGE Greenwich has developed a report which highlights the key areas for consideration1. To facilitate adoption, it is recommended that local authorities actively engage with industry now and help the private sector develop specific services to support their residents.

Added benefits of adopting these services will not only be improved transport links but will, by aiding the reduction of private vehicle reliance, also help the city achieve its air quality, health and economic development targets.

Executive Summary

31. Please refer to www.mergegreenwich.com for the City Compatibility report on implementing AV ride-sharing

Introduction

Context

Increasing mobility for London’s residents is one of the key strategies the city is implementing to underpin its future development. The recently released Mayor’s Transport Strategy (MTS)2

looks at mobility holistically, focusing not only on a more efficient and high-quality transport network but also its links to health, enabling housing and job creation, as well as creating an improved urban environment for all.

As London looks for ways to deliver its mobility vision, it is naturally considering solutions based on technological innovations. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) are widely expected to play a role as they will enable a set of new services to become realistic options, ready to be deployed. However, before these new services roll out onto our streets, it is important to understand how they could fit within the complex urban system that exists today.

This report uses the Royal Borough of Greenwich as a case study to analyse mobility needs and provide recommendations on the type of mobility services that are required to support the city’s transport vision. These recommendations are expected to be used by the market to design commercially operated services that could be rolled out with adequate integration with today’s transport modes. The analysis describes concepts that are relevant to the whole of London as well as to other cities around the world, making the conclusions widely applicable and scalable.

Structure of this report

The report is split into two main sections. The first section details the existing transport network in Greenwich and identifies mobility gaps. This section also draws conclusions on how different parts of London or other cities worldwide might suffer from similar issues. The second section gives recommendations for providing solutions to the identified mobility gaps and offers guidance on how to develop services to maximise gains from connected opportunities. This section will also introduce the characteristics of AV ride-sharing services and will describe how they could become a viable option for operators when designing new services.

A further report within the project will look at recommendations for implementation, providing guidance for cities to enable the smooth integration of AV ride-sharing. This work will analyse necessary infrastructure changes as well as potential policy or regulatory variations that could allow this type of service to operate3.

42. https://www.london.gov.uk/what-we-do/transport/our-vision-transport/mayors-transport-strategy-2018

3. Please refer to www.mergegreenwich.com for the City Compatibility report on implementing AV ride-sharing

Mobility Analysis

Context

Like many boroughs in London, and cities around the world, the Royal Borough of Greenwich is facing challenges from a rapidly increasing population which puts pressure on its transport system. Greenwich is expected to accommodate 60,000 new residents over the next 15 years (a 20% increase), as well as provide employment opportunities in new mixed-use developments. For any urban environment to thrive under these conditions, an efficient transport network is essential.

Transport for London (TfL) expects that rail-based transport infrastructure in London will operate below maximum capacity until 2031 (Figure 1), considering both the expected population growth and new transport investments. In Greenwich this estimate is expected to be true even in the longer term, primarily facilitated by the capacity uplift provided by Crossrail when it opens in December 2018.

Figure 1. Crowding levels on rail-based public transport in morning peak (London Infrastructure Plan)

Rail-based infrastructure does not cover the entire Borough; it is radial, providing good links to Central London from the wider South East, and hence it is important to look at how the rest of the transport network operates. In the case of Greenwich, the availability of public transport is geographically inequitable. In particular, a lack of direct public transport causes problems for people travelling between the north and south of the Borough. Further, some neighbourhoods are not efficiently integrated within the public transport network, exacerbating levels of deprivation and increasing the use of private vehicles.

5

0.20

1.40

1.20

0.80

1.00

0.60

0.40

0.00

2007 2011 2018 2021 2026 2031

1-2 times per week 3 or more times per week

perc

enta

ge %

6

Current modes of transport and challenges faced

• Cars: Residents of this Borough are dependent on cars, particularly in the south of the Borough where public transport options are limited. Current demand for road-based river crossings exceeds capacity east of Central London, causing traffic congestion and impacting on local journeys. Some of London’s most congested roads are located near the Blackwall Tunnel, reducing average speeds for both cars and buses whilst also contributing to high levels of air pollution. The expected construction of the Silvertown tunnel (by 2025 at the earliest) would partially reduce the problem of queueing at the tunnel portal but conversely could exacerbate congestion on local roads and junctions; this is especially relevant in view of the potential growth in the number of private vehicles if no alternatives are found.

• Buses are a prominent mode of transport, with over 40 bus routes operating in the Borough, carrying over 200,000 passengers a day. However, certain bus routes are infrequent, with low capacity or long travel times.

• Rail links: There are three railway lines crossing the Borough in the east-west direction. These provide efficient commuting options for residents to work in Central London but do little to connect communities within the Borough itself.

• London Underground and Light Rail: Extensions to the Jubilee Line and DLR have provided much needed public transport links for residents living in parts of the Borough which previously lacked any tube stops. However, all of these stations are located in the north of the Borough and therefore do not serve the needs of all residents. Crossrail will provide additional capacity but as its two stations are also located in the north of the Borough it will not address all of the existing mobility challenges related to north-south access. We will discuss these below in further detail.

• Walking & Cycling: A key element of the MTS as well as the Borough’s objectives is to provide an environment where walking and cycling are convenient and desirable options. Alongside public transport, the target is for these two modes to be used for 80% of the trips made in London, so their importance will only increase. Urban development projects

7

have focused on implementing pedestrian friendly streets in Woolwich, Abbey Wood and Eltham, whilst TfL’s cycling highways are expected to reach further into the Borough in the coming decade.

• River services: The Thames Clipper operates between Woolwich Arsenal and Putney. Greenwich has three stops on the network (Woolwich, North Greenwich and Greenwich Town Centre), allowing people to access Canary Wharf and other locations within Central London. The service is integrated into the Oyster payment system, but carries a premium charge. Although not comparable with the tube network, river services carried 10 million passengers in 2014/15.

• Taxis: Local taxis are used by residents for a small share of the total trips (2%). Due to the non-integrated nature of these services, there is limited information available about the type of trips carried out this way.

• Emirates Air Line: Connecting North Greenwich to the Royal Docks, the cable car provides a scenic route across the Thames. Whilst it provides an easy way for people to cross the river, lack of relevant amenities for residents means that most of its users are tourists. Weekly passenger numbers range between 15 and 50 thousand, with more trips occurring during the summer. The service is also able to accommodate Oyster payments, but like river services carries a premium. Frequent users enjoy a multi-journey discount, and bicycles are carried free of charge.

As a summary, Figure 2 shows the proportion of trips carried out using available transport modes in London today, as well as the overall target projections set for the city in its transport strategy. Reference figures for Greenwich are also presented. The plan envisages a steady reduction in the use of private vehicles and an increase in both walking and the use of public transport.

Figure 2. Figure indicating transport mode shares in 2015 and 2041

The analysis in this report aims to outline these mobility issues in more detail before suggesting ways in which an AV ride-sharing service could help solve some of them.

35%

28%

37%

45%

20%

35%28% 30%

42%

Public transport Walking and cycling Car

Greenwich 2015 London 2015 London 2014

8

Key mobility gaps

An in depth qualitative transport analysis of the Borough has identified that there are three key mobility issues which, if addressed, would ensure travel provisions are made for all residents. These are:

• Travel needs of an ageing population

• Poor connectivity within the Borough, and

• Over dependence on private vehicles.

This research seeks to identify the specific characteristics of these mobility gaps, using qualitative analysis of existing data and the modelling of future scenarios.

1. Travel needs of an ageing population

Context

Around the globe, people are living longer. Mobility is often a major concern to these people, whose needs are not met by the most widely available transport modes.

In Greenwich, the older population will be the fastest-growing age group during the first half of the 21st century (Figure 3.) There are close to 30,000 people above the age of 65, a figure that is predicted to increase by close to 30% by 2025.

Figure 3. Greenwich predicted population change between 2016 and 2026

Older residents are distributed unevenly in the Borough, with more older people living in the south of the Borough compared to the north (Figure 4.)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

All Age groups65+16-640-15

Cha

nge

%

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

All Age groups65+16-640-15

2016 2026

Figure 4. Proportion of older people (65+) within wards of Greenwich

Mobility situation of older people

Research by TfL showed that older people (considered to be 65+ for the purposes of this report) take fewer trips compared to people in younger age groups (Figure 5.) This is attributed to a changing daily routine which excludes the need to commute to work. Data for this age group also show a particularly rapid decline in trips taken by car and an increase in trips made by bus and walking. The vast majority of trips taken by the elderly are for shopping (60%) or leisure purposes (20%). These trips do not exhibit a morning/evening peak, instead the time-of-day profile is flatter, with most between 12:00 and 13:00.

Figure 5. London residents' trip rates (average day, seven-day week) by mode and age, 2011 (TfL)

Underground and DLR

Car driver

Car passenger

Walk

Rail

Cycle

Bus (including tram)

9

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+

Trip

s p e

r pe

rson

per

day

Age

5%

10%

15%

10

Another key thing to note are the barriers to using public transport which older people face. A detailed TfL study in 2009 found that there are certain physical (long distance to a bus stop), emotional (fear of crime) and informal (journeys restricted to the ones most frequently used) barriers affecting this age group. Similarly, research in the US (TransitCentre) found that when asked about improving transport services, people prioritised comfort features such as bus shelters and available seating.

Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) analysis is based on the proximity, number and frequency of TfL links at any given point. In the case of Greenwich, the very low PTAL ratings shown in Figure 6 suggest that the areas of the Borough where the elderly live (southern wards) are not well connected by public transport. To overcome the low public transport accessibility in these areas, car ownership and use is high.

Figure 6. PTAL averages in Greenwich (2015) and number of cars per household (2011)

Whilst car use is a viable alternative, the general decline in car use by the over 60’s shown in Figure 5 suggests that older people are less likely to use a car for their travel needs. It is expected that this is partly linked to the decreased number of trips required, as well as high costs and health conditions. It may also be partially attributed to free, unlimited access to public transport for all Londoners over the age of 60. In areas where the PTAL is low and the private car is the only option, older people are, potentially, left without an affordable mobility option.

A number of financial support schemes are available London-wide for the elderly to meet their mobility needs. Many of these options are designed for both the elderly and people with disabilities. The 60+ London Oyster Card is available to all residents, the Freedom pass is issued to disabled resident of all ages and replaces the 60+ card when residents reach 66. These schemes allow free travel on all TfL services4 for residents over the age of 60 and people with disabilities. Whilst financial support might help some, the cost of travel is not necessarily the main issue in the areas with low PTAL, as shown in Figure 7 (median income is high in the wards in question.) The main problem is the lack of public transport access, which is not resolved by a free travel pass.

1

3

6

0.5

0.8

1.1

4. Residents of London Boroughs also qualify for a 60+ photo ID Oyster, giving similar benefits.

11

Figure 7) Yearly median income in Greenwich wards

Alternative transport options

Taxicard and Dial-a-Ride are two additional services that support increased mobility and provide specific door-to-door services within London.

• Taxicard is issued to people with disabilities and provides a subsidy on a finite number of trips taken by normal taxi services. The coverage is approximately 1 trip per month (12 in a year).

• Dial-a-Ride is available for people with a Taxicard or any resident above the age of 85. It allows for pre-booked journeys (day before), is based on availability and offers free door-to-door transport.

• However, due to the limited fleet size, it is often difficult to get access to these services and they are expensive for boroughs to operate.

2. Poor connectivity within the Borough

Context

Greenwich has an efficient radial transport network that provides good connectivity to Central London, allowing neighbourhoods close to railway stations or the tube network easy access to jobs and services. Neighbourhoods without a station nearby, however, suffer from poor connectivity, as the public transport system is inefficient in providing fast links to nearby stations or any alternative routes. The greatest difficulty in the Borough is encountered when travelling north-south, either to reach transport hubs or to access the main metropolitan hub in the Borough (Woolwich). Since north-south travel is restricted by the river as well, residents of the Borough are limited in the areas they can easily access.

£30,000

£40,000

£50,000

12

Local connectivity issues

Limited direct local links between neighbourhoods reduces the ability of residents to travel to GP practices, schools, shops or any other places of interest. Bus routes operating today are generally lengthy and indirect, making journey times long and unreliable.

Thamesmead is a prime example in the Borough of a poorly connected neighbourhood. Although it was originally planned with railway station access and a Thames tunnel, its 40,000 residents are only served by six bus routes. These routes connect to Woolwich and Abbey Wood stations; however, due to the nature of the development, bus size is constrained and routes are not direct. A total of 25 million passengers per year are still carried on these six bus routes, showing the important function these services provide. Investment in Crossrail aims to provide additional capacity and reduced travel time for residents, but the challenge is often to reach the stations. Increased bus services are currently being considered to link Thamesmead with the Abbey Wood station, providing better access to the transport hub. It is questioned, however, whether new bus services will be able to provide the flexibility and efficiencies required by residents.

North-south issues

Whilst Thamesmead is located in the north of the Borough, where much of the fixed transport infrastructure is, other areas of the Borough are in an even more difficult situation. The Borough lacks any north-south fixed transport links, hence commuting between residential neighbourhoods in the south (Kidbrooke, Eltham) and major attractors in the north (Woolwich or North Greenwich both for employment/services and transport links) is difficult. Similarly to Thamesmead, these neighbourhoods are often difficult to access efficiently with conventional buses, leaving people with very limited transport options (Figure 8). There are only five bus routes that travel north-south in the Borough, carrying 19 million passengers per year. Comparatively, there are 36 million trips carried out in the Borough in the east-west direction, even with the existing high capacity rail links in place in the same direction. The map also highlights that only one bus route crosses the river, limiting the options for residents to work in neighbouring Boroughs such as Tower Hamlets, Newham or Barking.

13

Figure 8. PTAL map of Greenwich (0 meaning no public transport options, 6b meaning many available options) with north-south bus routes

3. Over-dependence on private vehicles

Context

As previously discussed, private car usage tends to be higher in areas where public transport links are weaker. Greenwich is a prime example of this and Figure 9 shows how journey times can vary significantly, even within one borough.

Figure 9. Travel times from the south to the centres of Woolwich and Greenwich by public transport (left) and car (right)

6

6b

N-S bus routes

Woolwich

Greenwich

Eltham

0

2

4

<10 min

10- 25 min

>25 min

Greenwich boundary

14

Taking this a step further, we can see how travel times to other boroughs are usually faster in private vehicles compared to public transport, with slight differences based on whereabouts in Greenwich you start from (Figure 10).

Figure 10. Travel distance to other London boroughs from Eltham, Greenwich (town centre) and Woolwich

100 min

Eltham - Car travel times

Eltham - Public transport travel times

Greenwich - Car travel times

Greenwich - Public transport travel times

Woolwich - Car travel times

Woolwich - Public transport travel times

60 min 20 min

As travelling around certain areas of the Borough is easier by car, there is a big difference between the modes that people use to commute into and out of the Borough. In the case of Greenwich, people leaving the Borough tend to prefer public transport (68%) whilst cars are used 26% of the time. Whereas, when people travel into the Borough, 59% use a private vehicle, 34% travel by public transport. Figure 11 indicates where people go to and where they primarily come from. Most of the people who commute to Greenwich come from neighbouring boroughs, without good public transport links, hence they need to drive. Jobs in this area are also more scattered and less focused in a few high-density locations, which is the case within the centre of London (DG Cities analysis based on data from LondonDatastore5). This scattered nature of the origins and destinations makes these commuting routes very difficult to serve with conventional public transport.

5. https://data.london.gov.uk/ 15

Figure 11. Left: Commuting out of Greenwich (90,000 people per day total) Right: commuting into Greenwich from outside the Borough (40,000 people per day total)

It is also important to note that a lot of trips carried out by private vehicles in the Borough do not originate here but are linked to people travelling through and accessing the limited Thames crossings available in East London. Whilst this may not be directly linked to the public transport issues within an area, the effects of congestion and air pollution are nonetheless felt by the local population.

Summary of mobility gaps

This chapter demonstrated that there are several key mobility gaps which all urban environments need to address, especially as populations are set to increase, in order to ensure access to public transport remains high and levels of deprivation are minimised. Providing better services to meet the needs of the older population, serve currently underserved areas and reduce private vehicle usage are all challenges that have not been met to date. Without significant investment in new public transport infrastructure and the development of new bus routes within the Borough, transport authorities will need to look at innovative solutions which could bridge the gaps. The next chapter discusses one potential solution – autonomous vehicle ride-sharing.

3,8006,800

17,000

5,7005,4005,700 3,300 3,000

5,800 10,800

16

Opportunities for AV ride-sharing services

Context

Autonomous vehicle ride-sharing is a mobility service option that is expected to be available for wide-scale operations within the next decade. Autonomous vehicles (AVs) use advanced technologies including full autonomy (level 5) and are expected to be electric vehicles. The ride-sharing aspect relies on integrated management of large fleets of vehicles, efficient route allocation and a simple booking platform for customers. In general, AV ride-sharing is expected to deliver a safer, cheaper and more efficient transport network leading to reduced congestion.

Today, services offer ride-sharing to passengers with similar (but not identical) origins and destinations. An AV ride-share service would be a similar concept, with one key difference: the presence or not of a human operator. This has direct implications on the customer experience, operating costs, safety and the servicing of vehicles between trips.

In order to develop the right sort of services, policy makers and transport authorities can assist operators in developing tailor-made solutions for any identified mobility gaps. Acting as customers rather than recipients of industry-preferred technologies, cities will be able to make use of innovation and direct it to meet the city’s strategic objectives.

176. Merge Greenwich – Customer Attitudes to AV ride-sharing: https://mergegreenwich.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2018/04/MERGE-Greenwich-Consumer-attitudes-to-AV-ride-sharing-3.pdf

Public perception of AV ride-sharing

Research carried out by the MERGE Greenwich consortium, and detailed in an earlier report6, highlighted that the public is generally more concerned with the ride-sharing part of the new service than the fact that the vehicles would be autonomous. Research participants indicated that their confidence in autonomous vehicles is based on a belief that authorities will only license self-driving services once they are safe.

The concern relating to ride-sharing was based on insecurity or fear of strangers occupying a confined space within today’s car designs. These findings highlighted the need for city operators to address the concerns with ride-sharing in order to encourage people to use the asset-efficient service and therefore reduce congestion.

1. Opportunity to provide more mobility options for the elderly

As previously discussed in Section 2, transport accessibility is particularly important for the elderly population and people with disabilities. For those who do not live in areas with wide-spread public transport coverage, access to an on-demand AV ride-sharing service could improve accessibility and reduce the reliance on private cars.

Current issues faced by elderly passengers

Often cited issues for the two door-to-door services operated in London today are:

• Poor reliability as the service often arrives outside of planned times and commute times are long

• Booking refusals as current targets only aim to serve 90% of requests

• Journey length limited to a maximum of 5 miles

• No integration with other services as a separate booking system is in place for Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard for instance. Mode changes along the route are also not an integral element of journey planning

• Lack of disability awareness with some taxi operators

18

Cost is not a user issue as these services are provided free of charge but cost definitely poses difficulties for the operator. Dial-a-Ride costs TfL £35 million a year to deliver 1.3 million trips. That is approximately £27 per trip, much higher than other transport modes within London and even higher than taxi services. Taxicard manages another 1.3 million trips a year using licensed London taxis. The funding for this service comes from TfL and London boroughs and amounts to approximately £12 million per year (TfL contributes up to £10.80 per trip). In addition to the TfL funding, users of the service pay a £2.50 flat rate per journey and any additional charges if the journey total is over £10.80.

Finally, it is likely that there is latent demand in the city that would be induced with the availability of a better service. People who are not subscribed to the Dial-a-Ride and Taxicard schemes or have lost faith in the service could benefit from a service better tailored to their needs. Barriers identified by older people should also be reconsidered, by focusing on high levels of safety and making transport access comfortable. If services were better designed, it is expected that there would be an increase in the number of daily trips in the network and that the quality of life of new users would improve as well.

How AV ride-sharing could provide a solution

Based on the above, the ideal transport option would be a reliable on-demand service, providing a full door-to-door journey (with potential mode changes integrated). Personalised assistance should also be provided when required by customers. Regarding pricing, lowering the overall cost would not only benefit the operators but would also free up resources to provide for more services to be delivered. It could also be considered that some older people contribute towards their travel costs, especially when using vehicles with special facilities.

The characteristics of an AV ride-sharing service indicate a potential fit for these. Ordered through a single platform, requests for assistance (help needed with wheelchair, heavy bags, etc.) requirements could be submitted and flexible routing of vehicles would ensure the right vehicle arrives. Planning a full journey through a platform which integrates AV ride-sharing with public transport could help customers to make modal changes and find the most efficient trip options in terms of time and comfort. The service could build up knowledge of customer preferences over time, ensuring an even more convenient route selection.

In place of the driver, an assistant could provide continuous support to passengers in the vehicle, maximising customer care and increasing safety whilst reducing waiting times (faster on-off loading). The shared nature of the vehicles could also make them more cost efficient compared to taxi services provided by Taxicard today.

197. https://www.london.gov.uk/press-releases/mayoral/mayor-sets-out-plans-to-increase-bus-ridership

2. Opportunity to improve connectivity within the Borough

In poorly connected areas the lack of mobility options has a negative impact on the socio-economic level of residents and constrains social inclusion. Investing in new transport infrastructure would alleviate these issues but traditional public transport solutions can be costly and take many years.

Current issues relating to connectivity

Bus transportation in London follows a set of principles which ensure an inclusive and reliable service provision, but do not necessarily serve the dynamic demand placed on the system by today’s customers. Buses in London today:

• Operate on fixed routes

• Follow set distances between services

• Stop at every bus stop, often only a few hundred metres apart

• Have fixed operational times

As a result of these problems, bus ridership in London has been falling since 2014 (2.3% decline is forecasted from 2016/177), mainly related to the fact that congestion on the road network makes bus journeys longer and less predictable. The hopper fare and a general fare-freeze by the current Mayor have reduced costs for users; however these measures have not looked at resolving the deeper issues related to the efficiency of the service. Trials in alternative bus services such as Citymapper’s C2 bus route or the Chariot shuttles operated by Ford are ongoing, but their impacts are yet to be understood.

20

How AV ride-sharing could provide a solution

A potential solution is a service designed to operate with neither fixed routes nor fixed schedules. Pick-up and drop-off points could be identified so that customers would potentially have to walk a short distance to limit the number of stops required. Hence the service could then operate faster, delivering customers to transport or economic hubs at a reduced time compared to ordinary bus services.

AV ride-sharing could provide such a flexible, on-demand service, primarily through the connected fleet and demand management capabilities. The ability to re-route during the day would mean that the AV fleets could follow shifting demands within the city. Morning peaks would likely occur within residential areas, where demand would be reduced rapidly between 9 and 10am as all commuters have reached a major transport hub and continued their journeys. As employers continue to allow more flexible hours for their staff, this morning peak (as well as the evening one) might also be extended. Demand for the AV ride-sharing service during the day would come from people travelling for work within the city centre, b2b meetings, customers accessing services etc. This demand has a different geographic distribution to the morning peak, hence vehicles could be deployed to new hot-spots. As the working day comes to an end, demand in residential areas will peak again, requiring the service to carry out reverse routes compared to the mornings.

3. Opportunity to reduce dependence on private vehicles

In residential and business areas with low population density, public transport is unable to operate at scale to provide efficient connections which travellers can rely on. This makes private vehicles often the only option. AV ride-sharing could radically change the way we travel, by providing the benefits of point-to-point journeys on demand, without the downsides, such as having to park a private vehicle.

Current issues faced in cities

Owning and using a private vehicle has clear advantages in providing freedom of travel for individuals, but there are several disadvantages, both for the individuals and the city:

Disadvantages for the individual:

• High cost of asset and ongoing operational costs• Safety• Low usage rate of asset• Time spent commuting in traffic and looking for parking

Disadvantages for the city:

• Pressure on parking spaces• Pollution• Congestion• Accidents• Higher cost of doing business

21

How AV ride-sharing could provide a solution

A solution would be to give people a viable alternative to private vehicles. An AV ride-sharing service could still offer individuals the flexibility of travelling in an on-demand vehicle without owning that asset. It is possible that a tiered service (basic to premium) could meet different customer expectations, allowing for comfort and convenience to match the individual’s purchasing power.

Today car clubs are often cited as having an impact on car ownership already, as they provide a similar alternative to private vehicles. In Greenwich experience shows that, for every car club vehicle, 6-8 private cars are given up. AV ride-sharing could accelerate this trend by providing yet another alternative to journeys made in private cars.

As London’s centre is well served with fast public transport connections, AV ride-sharing services are likely to benefit Londoners in outside Boroughs. People currently using a private car to commute have yet to find an alternative travel mode as their needs are not served by existing public transport services. Based on our analysis an AV fleet would have the potential to become a real option for people, allowing them to give up their private vehicles. Benefits of this would be felt city wide as well, with reduced traffic (ride-sharing, no time spent looking for parking), less parking need (ability to repurpose space), less pollution (electric vehicles), fewer accidents and overall more efficient asset use.

As car ownership shifts to usership, a number of opportunities open up for the city. For example, by keeping the fleet of vehicles in circulation, cities may be able to reduce the amount of space allocated to parking, potentially repurposing space in urban centres. Further, as vehicles would be owned as a business asset, it would allow for more structured maintenance and fleet renewal practices. Newer and better maintained vehicles would cause less pollution whilst operating more efficiently and safely.

22

Conclusions

In London, the key themes of the Mayor’s Transport Strategy are looking at creating a healthy environment, a good public transport experience and unlocking growth potential for new homes and jobs. To make this vision viable, several transport issues will have to be resolved, often using a new set of mobility services developed using innovative technologies.

Our research identified three key mobility gaps in cities which could be reduced through the introduction of a new AV ride-sharing service.

Mobility gap Issues to address

Older people Poor reliability of current services, no integration with other transport modes

Unconnected neighbourhoods No direct links between local neighbourhoods

North to south linkage No fast and reliable connection to transport and service hubs in the north of the Borough from the south

High private vehicle use High operational costs, negative effects on the city through congestion and parking demand

The vision for the set of services to fill these gaps looks similar to options available today and would cater for all customer price points and expectations:

Service requirements

• Basic, cost effective shared services with wider coverage with or without assistance on board for elderly people

• Low cost, on-demand shared services with wider coverage enabling faster, more direct connections between neighbourhoods

• Combination of the above with new, faster ‘arterial’ services linking major travel destinations in the north and south

• Flexible, on-demand services to match the convenience of private vehicles ownership but at a lower cost to the customer

A common requirement for all these services will be the need to integrate with the existing transport network, allowing simple connections and interchanges to be managed.

We expect that new services would not only meet existing demands but would allow for new demand to be generated as people would have the opportunity to more readily access transport. It could provide older citizens with the option to remain active and integrated in urban life, something that is increasingly difficult with age.

www.mergegreenwich.com

ImmenseEnabling Intelligent Mobility

Consortium members

23

Introducing new mobility services would also contribute to a healthier population. Older people as well as the disabled would get more opportunities to move and access services such as routine medical check-ups, community centres, etc. User preferences set in the booking app (for passengers of all ages) could include the willingness to use active transport modes where possible, such as cycling or short walks, to arrive at pick-up points. An efficient and reliable service could reduce waiting times on the network by asking people to reach a more convenient location for pick-up.

A more efficient transport service would also have added benefits in terms of linking parts of the city that have been less well connected until now. Difficulty of access has been proven as a major barrier that stops investment into areas. Unlocking that potential can trigger economic growth, benefiting communities by bringing in jobs and elevating asset values. From a broader urban planning view, ease of access can facilitate the emergence of multi-centric cities, where only local travel is necessary to reach jobs and services.

AV ride-sharing also has the ability to create a healthier environment. Newer and better maintained fleets, especially if operated with electric vehicles, would reduce pollution. This would be an immediate benefit, further increased as AVs would allow for a more efficient transport network, reducing congestion.

Overall, if well integrated within the urban system, multiple benefits of AV ride-sharing services can be gained by inhabitants. The aim is to develop these services in close coordination with local authorities, to allow for their inputs and reflect their specific needs.