A Region Embracing the Future: Siemens Response to … · 2018-04-18A Region Embracing the Future:...

Cities Center of Competence - Urban Development

A Region Embracing the Future Siemens Response to the Fourth Regional Plan by Regional Plan Association New York - New Jersey - Connecticut

Cities Center of CompetenceUrban Development

Siemens Corporation

Contact: Julia Thayne([email protected])

About the Response

About SiemensInfrastructure is the backbone of a city’s economy and urban development projects help to create a livable and sustainable smart city. With automated and intelligent infrastructure technologies, Siemens ex-pertise is integrating hardware and software to im-prove quality of life, capacity and efficiency in metro-politan areas. Siemens established the Center of Competence Cities (CoC) to specifically address the needs of urban planners and to enter into a struc-tured dialogue and base lining assessment with urban decision makers.

For more information about Siemens work in the New York City metropolitan region,and about this report, please contact:

David ArmourChief City Executive, New York CityCities Center of Competence, Americas(e) [email protected]

Siemens contributors to this report include:

» Julia ThayneCities Center of Competence

» Sarah BarnesCities Center of Competence

» Noorie RajvanshiCorporate Technology

Siemens would like to thank Regional Plan Association for their support in providing data and lending expertise for this response, especially Chris Jones, Rich Barone and Dani Simons.

Table of Contents

About the Response 03 – 04

Summary 05 –06

Our Analysis of the Fourth Regional Plan 07 – 10

Collaboration Across Sectors 11 – 12

Making Technology Work for You 13 – 14

Infrastructure is the Cornerstone for a Greater New York 15 – 22 Conclusion 23

End Notes 25

3 4

About the Response| A Region Embracing the Future A Region Embracing the Future | About the Response

It isn’t often that an urban area as multifaceted and chal-lenging as the tristate area is gifted with an institution devoted to its prosperity, health, equity and environment, and yet over the last century Regional Plan Association (“RPA”) has proven itself to be a steadfast patron of the region. Engaged in critical research, policy planning, and local engagement, RPA’s Fourth Regional Plan moves the dial on regional planning; it is ambitious, forward-thinking and yet extra-ordinarily sympathetic to the every-day and the every-person- a confident reminder to the entire region that the best has yet to come.

As a company with long-standing interest in the NY-NJ-CT

region, we [Siemens] reviewed the Fourth Regional Plan with a particular interest. We are a taxpayer, with more than 3,000 employees and a dozen offices in the area, including our US headquarters for our Mobility business – so how RPA views the future of employment, eco-nomic diversity, accessibility, and equity in the area matters to us.

We have also worked on projects as wide-ranging as the renovation of Carnegie Hall, the Reflecting Pools at the World Trade Center, countdown clocks in the New York City Subway, fire and life safety systems at the Empire State Building, and even an automation system for the elevators at the Statue of Liberty – so how RPA prioritizes the infrastructure investments needed for ensure the re-gion’s future prosperity matters to us.

SummarySiemens Response to Regional Plan Association's Fourth Regional Plan for NY - NJ - CT

Summary | A Region Embracing the Future A Region Embracing the Future | Summary

In addition to sitting on the Board of the RPA, we are a global company deeply vested in the future of cities, having helped more than 50 metropolitan areas with infrastruc-ture planning for energy, mobility, and the built environ-ment – so sharing best practices, across public and private sectors, across the world, matters to us, both for business purposes and for our core values of social and environmental sustainability.

We reviewed the Fourth Regional Plan with these core values in mind. Our response, articulated over the next 20 pages or so, provides analysis and commentary on those specific aspects of the Fourth Regional Plan that we best

understand: a section first on public-private collaboration, then on the use of technology in government and gover-nance, and finally on infrastructure. In our response, we quantify some of the economic and environmental impacts of specific recommendations, and consider how the plan can be further expanded based on our own experience and case studies where this work has been done before.

Overwhelmingly, we find that RPA has hit the nail on the head with its recommendations for the region, most spe-cifically with its detailed transportation proposals. Recom-mendations were clearly carefully weighed, with consider-able research done on outcomes and funding. Furthermore, recommendations respond to clear needs for current and future residents of the region, reflecting mul-

tiple years of public engagement, especially for projects as expensive and potentially unsettling to current inhabitants as, tunnels under the Hudson and East Rivers and modern-izing the subway. We agree with RPA that these projects are necessary and need to be treated as such.

However, even the best of plans have room for improve-ment, and in that spirit we offer one main critique of the Fourth Regional Plan with two related concerns. The first concern is that some of the policies, plans and new infra-structure are contingent upon new funding mechanisms and efficiencies as a product of governance and institu-tional reform across the region, and the Fourth Regional

Plan – as robust as it is – does not clearly lay out how these difficult reforms will be achieved. The second is that the Fourth Regional Plan lacks a clear call to action to rally private sector businesses to support the region where they thrive. Both of these concerns underline our main critique:

Without a major overhaul from the institutions lead-ing the region, some of the ambitious investments called for in the plan could fold from lack of support, and this support will require strong private sector involvement.

This is not to say that these endeavors should be left be-hind; institutional reform is needed now more than ever. But the Fourth Regional Plan would be stronger if it went further to encourage support from the private sector to help pursue institutional reform, invest in regional infra-structure, and engage the public. While pursuing intensive and potentially disruptive institutional renewal (and in some cases creation), RPA should look to the private sector to advocate for the region’s needs and help fill gaps where they emerge. As evidenced by this paper, and the positive support already garnered from private sector members of RPA’s Board, we, the private sector, will respond.

Moreover, as written, the plan requires significant invest-ment (read, sacrifice) from the current generation of met-ropolitan New Yorkers. What they will receive in return for their personal inconvenience should be clearly articulated as improvements to the region’s economy, environment, and quality of life. We hope that our reflection on the plan will augment the already influential document, and en-courage RPA to consider how funding for these projects cannot just be proposed, but guaranteed.

5 6

Analysis | A Region Embracing the Future A Region Embracing the Future | Analysis

To provide an alternative view on benefits of RPA’s recommendations in the Fourth Regional Plan, we have conducted our own analysis of certain key mea-sures. The software model we used, Siemens City Performance Tool (“CyPT”), allows us to estimate the long-term impacts of investments in energy, build-ings, and mobility infrastructure on reducing green-house gas (GHG) emissions, improving air quality1, and adding local jobs2 - key indicators for the overall sustainability and prosperity of a region, which the Fourth Regional Plan does not quantify for every recommendation3.

The CyPT has the capability to compare the benefits of 73 technologies as wide-ranging as wall insulation, electric buses, smart grid technology, and automated trains. For each lever, the model estimates how its implementation will impact CO

2eq emissions and NO

X

and PM10

pollutants, both directly within city bound-aries (known as Scopes 1 and 2 emissions), as well as indirectly through the generation and purchase of electricity (known as Scope 3 emissions). Moreover, it estimates for each lever the associated capital and operating expenses, in addition to the gross number of local jobs4.

ELECTRICITY MIX

2015 BASELINE

16% Oil

7% Nuclear

68% Natural Gas

1% Import / Others

1% Photovoltaic5% Coal

2% Hydro

0% Oil0% Imports / Other0% Coal

2040 RPA VISION

ELECTRICITY MIX

21% Wind

5% Geothermal

17% Photovoltaic

7% Nuclear

50% Natural Gas

2% Hydro

0% Wind0% Geothermal

Source: RPA, 2017, with Siemens calculations based on 50% renewable electricity.

22.8 Million

TODAY RPA's 2040 VISION

26.5 MillionPOPULATION

Today to 2040: RPA's 2040 Vision

ELECTRICITY MIX

2015 BASELINE

16% Oil

7% Nuclear

68% Natural Gas

1% Import / Others

1% Photovoltaic5% Coal

2% Hydro

0% Oil0% Imports / Other0% Coal

2040 RPA VISION

ELECTRICITY MIX

21% Wind

5% Geothermal

17% Photovoltaic

7% Nuclear

50% Natural Gas

2% Hydro

0% Wind0% Geothermal

ELECTRICITY MIX

MODE SHARE

To calibrate the CyPT to the region represented by RPA, we use a number of data points for today, as well as expectations for the future, based on RPA’s 2040 Vision. Population growth projections, current and projected electricity mixes and mode shares, among others are just some of the data points need-ed to reflect the expected changes.

% of Total Electricity Generation

% of Total Passenger Miles Traveled

Once the CyPT model was calibrated to the RPA re-gion, we were able to match 11 of the CyPT model’s levers to recommendations in the Fourth Regional Plan. Energy efficiency upgrades in homes and busi-nesses (Home Automation and Commercial Building Automation, in CyPT-speak); subway modernization and transportation electrification (automated train operation and electric buses, among other CyPT levers); and congestion charges and low emissions zones for trucks are just a few examples of CyPT levers matching RPA recommendations. Where a region-wide adoption rate for 2040 was not specified by RPA, we assumed our own, quite ambitious one to reflect the overall ambition of the region.

RPA Vision 2040 CyPT Lever

Energy efficiency in home Home Automation in 60% of all homes

Energy efficiency in businesses Commercial Building Automation in 50% of all businesses

Modernizing transit systems Automated Train Operation on 100% of Subway lines

Modernizing transit systems 100% new Subway cars

Modernizing transit systems Regenerative braking on Subway cars

100% transportation electrification 100% All-Electric Battery Buses

100% transportation electrification 100% All-Electric Battery Cars

Reduce congestion High Occupancy Tolling

Reduce congestion Congestion Charging

Reduce transport emissions Low Emissions Zone for Trucks

Modernize the electricity grid 100% Modernization of Electricity Grid

TRANSPORTATION MODAL SPLIT

2015 BASELINE 2040 RPA VISION


65.8% Auto

5.5% Walk4.1% Work from Home

28.2% Transit

0.4% Bike

59.1% Auto

4.7% Walk

3.5% Work from Home

32.4% Transit

0.4% Bike


2015 BASELINE 2040 RPA VISION


65.8% Auto

5.5% Walk4.1% Work from Home

28.2% Transit

0.4% Bike

59.1% Auto

4.7% Walk

3.5% Work from Home

32.4% Transit

0.4% Bike

The Region-wide Benefits of RPA's RecommendationsOur Analysis

Customizing the CyPT to RPA's 2040 Vision

7 8

This is compared to what we modeled for the region’s energy, buildings, and transportation sectors in 2015. We also find that the investments could generate as many as more than half a million person-years of employment between now and 2040 through direct, indirect, and in-duced effects of local installation, operations, and mainte-nance work - about a third of which would require skills training. This employment does not include the potentially much larger job creation that would result in permanent improvements in productivity and regional competitiveness resulting from these investments.

In part, these reductions would be achieved through shift-ing the region’s electricity grids towards renewable genera-tion and having more people move around the region by

A Region Embracing the Future | AnalysisAnalysis | A Region Embracing the Future

transit, walking, cycling, or even working from home. For example, region-wide annual GHG emissions from transpor-tation and buildings could be reduced 20% by just these two (albeit major) shifts. But modeling the addition of the other 11 recommendations heightened those impacts by as much as 50%, demonstrating the importance of taking all 61 of RPA’s recommendations as a group, where each rec-ommendation is contingent on the other for maximum impact and ultimate success. This is especially true for two recommendations we didn’t model: carbon pricing and regional rail. These recommendations would undoubtedly benefit emissions and air quality in the region, and argu-ably are imperative to implement for other recommenda-tions, like mode share shift and energy efficiency in busi-nesses, even to occur.

Based on the model calcula-tions, we find that, coupled with the proposed electricity mix and mode share shifts, the 11 measures we modeled would lead to a 37% reduction in GHG emissions, a 20% re-duction in PM10, and a 58% reduction in NOx in 2040 re-gion-wide.

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

276CO2eq

GHG Emissions (Metric Tons CO2eq)

50% Renewable Electricity and40% Mode Share from Active Transport

+11 CyPT Levers 20402015

2015 Baseline

17%

173CO2eq

20%

Region-wide Reduction in Annual GHG Emissions, by 2040:

Region-wide Reduction in Annual PM10, by 2040:

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Nitrogen Oxide (Kilotonne NOx)



2015 Baseline

20%

38%

163kt NOX

386kt NOX

Region-wide Reduction in Annual NOX, by 2040:

Top 3 Levers for Reducing GHG: 1. 100% Electric Cars 2. 60% Commercial Building Automation 3. 50% Home Automation

Why does GHG matter? Greenhouse gases (GHG) are considered to be the cause of global climate change, causing greater variation in temperature and more incidents of inclement weather.

Top 3 Levers for Reducing NOx: 1. 100% Electric Cars 2. 100% Electric Buses 3. 60% Commercial Building Automation

Why does NOx matter? Long-term exposure to NOx can decrease lung function, increase the risk of respiratory conditions, and increase the response to allergens.

Top 3 Levers for Reducing PM10: 1. 60% Commercial Building Automation 2. 50% Home Automation 3. Congestion Charging

Why does PM10 matter? When inhaled, PM

10 lodges deep

into people's lungs, causing respiratory issues. PM

10 comes

mainly from diesel trucks and buses.

50% Renewable Electricity and 40% Mode Share from

Active Travel

37%Reduction in Annual GHG

Emissions between 2015 and 2040

20%Reduction in Annual PM

10

Levels between 2015 and 2040

500kGross Full-time

Equivalent Positions between 2015 and 2040

58%Reduction in Annual NO

X Levels between

2015 and 2040

+ 11 CyPT Levers


Active Travel

+ 11 CyPT Levers

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Particulate Matter (Kilotonne PM10)



2015 Baseline

18%2%

31kt PM10

38kt PM10


Active Travel

+ 11 CyPT Levers

9 10

Collaboration | A Region Embracing the Future A Region Embracing the Future | Collaboration

When RPA says that governance reform is the key to changing course in the NY metropolitan area, we believe them: Fixing the failing institutions of our cities is the driving force of this report. But we also believe that businesses operating in the area - and benefiting from the myriad investments that regional governments are already making - must play a role in delivering critical infrastructure projects, as well as in facilitating the plan’s four key values of equity, pros-perity, health, and sustainability.

If the greater New York area is going to be successful in implementing the 61 recommendations for NY-NJ-CT suggested by the plan, the effort won’t take the proverbial village; it’ll take the villages, towns, and cities across the tristate area. A recent report we produced alongside the Brookings Institute and the Copenhagen Business School analyzes how 20 differ-ent infrastructure projects were implemented across three metropolitan areas: Pittsburgh, Manchester, and Hamburg5. Each project cost more than $6 mil-lion to complete and was explicitly linked to transpor-tation, renewable energy, or sustainable building technology - and they all leveraged varying forms of public-private partnerships.

While each project was governed a little bit differ-ently, one overall finding for the report is that bring-ing in private partnerships at the start of projects allows for them to get off the ground faster, and then transitioning the ownership and power back over to the city down the road maintains urban agency with-out the same level of initial risk.

While the Fourth Regional Plan places heavy empha-sis on governance reform, including creating new agencies and task forces to work on, for example, the overhaul of the Subway system or an inter-utility renewable energy strategy, it places very little em-phasis on discussion between public and private sectors. In developing strategies to tackle topics as wide-ranging as sustainability, resilience, and acces-sibility, we recommend that RPA also consider estab-lishing inter-sector working groups.

Those who likely will be responsible for delivering infrastructure projects should have a hand in design-ing them, guided closely by the public sector’s input on target customers/users and key metrics for suc-cess. Some initial topics that RPA could consider for inter-sector working groups include transportation electrification (known colloquially as eMobility) and land use planning and autonomous vehicles.

These inter-sector working groups should extend to discussions around how to pay for infrastructure. Many of the sections within the Fourth Regional Plan include a [quite short] “Paying for It” addendum, which outlines possible additional expenses, rev-

Piecing together the puzzle of public-private partnerships

Good governance requires help from everybody Building the relationships to enable action

enues, and implicit benefits associated with investing in transportation and energy networks, as well as in organizational changes within government entities. Although additional taxation and user fees will be necessary, there is some evidence that the United States, including the tristate area, is underutilizing private finance for infrastructure projects.

For example, the 2016 white paper, “SmartStart: Modeling private sector finance adoption for Smart-Start cities,” looks at nine types of “Smart City” proj-ects for which private financing is accessible6. Based on findings from a model built on real-life experience and official statistics, the white paper estimates that roughly $35 billion of additional private financing would be available for those nine types of projects, just in the top 40 percent of cities in the US alone. Furthermore, only one of the types of projects (im-proved medical technology) is not recommended by RPA’s Fourth Regional Plan: the other eight – energy efficiency in buildings, citizen self-service online, vehicle routing, parking systems, road pricing, mobile workforce enablement, eBuses and eVehicles and low-energy street lighting – are all represented in some form or fashion.

Changing behavior towards more sustainable activity, advo-cating for and investing in infra-structure projects, and with-standing the growing pains of undergoing massive infrastruc-ture overhaul are just three ways that the private sector can sup-port the NY metropolitan area as it reforms its governance struc-tures to fit 21st century needs.

Collaborating Across SectorsThe Role of the Private Sector in Supporting Regional Prosperity

11 12

Technology | A Region Embracing the Future A Region Embracing the Future | Technology

Siemens works with local governments around the world in multiple capacities to help cities (and our company) understand how infrastructure and tech-nology can make tangible, positive impacts on air quality, jobs creation, congestion, safety, and other key targets for metropolitan decision-makers. This is an especially important exercise to undertake before costly investments are made, and digital planning tools, such as the CyPT model used in this report, are particularly helpful in prioritizing current and future projects based not solely on cost, but on overall eco-nomic and environmental benefit today and in the future.

Given the tall order presented to RPA of fitting 20 years’ worth of recommendations into a 250-page plan, a digital planning tool, like Siemens City Perfor-mance Tool, might be helpful to apply in each RPA jurisdiction so that strategic plans can be laid based

Embracing the possibilities of digitalization

on the specific interests of each part of the tristate area. For example, it is very likely that the benefits of electric vehicles might be higher in some parts of the NY-NJ-CT area might be felt more quickly and keenly than, say, faster, more reliable Subway service, so for that jurisdiction, investing in electric charging infra-structure might take precedent over other considered projects.

For the scale of change proposed by RPA’s Fourth Regional Plan, however, more than just high-level and static strategic plans – whether created by digital tools or not – will be needed. Ongoing, iterative plans, contributed to by multiple agencies and orga-nizations and updated to reflect new priorities and technologies, will be key to ensuring inclusive growth results from the process of designing and building infrastructure.

Mindsphere: A Digital Layer for CollaborationAs an organization, Siemens has brainstormed a lot on how to furnish cities with a digital layer for collab-oration, landing on the concept of Mindsphere. One example of how Mindsphere is being used is our ca-pacity to measure when train doors need to be re-placed prior to them actually breaking down and caus-ing delays while in operation. We do this by embedding various sensors into the doors which col-lect information about train speed, interferences with the door, heat, and so forth, then feed the data back through the cloud and on to innovators who can de-termine degrading door performance from the data.

With the right data processing platforms, and a will-ingness to share these data with the private sector and the public, cities have the opportunity to see new solutions to age-old problems, all the meanwhile pro-moting the economy a spirit of innovation, and trans-parency. With regards to the Fourth Regional Plan’s recommendations, coordinating the transition to elec-tric transportation is just one area where a digital lay-er for collaboration will be essential. In this scenario, a non-profit organization and/or a university, like the Regional Census RPA suggested, would be responsible

Mindsphere is an open-source, Internet of Things (IoT) cloud-based platform originally developed for factories, which leverages data collected from a broad swath of technology (e.g., trains, street lights, or electric substations), then connecting these data to app developers to consider how this informa-tion can be better utilized.

Making Technology Work for YouDigital Layers for Collaboration on Private Assets for Public Good

for collating cross-sector data from agencies around the region. Electricity consumption, bus service, passenger miles traveled, and rideshare rides, among other data points, could be sourced from electric utilities, transit agencies, depart-ments of transportation, fleet operators and pri-vate companies, while being stored securely and being accessible to researchers.

A database of this sort would be unprecedented: It could serve as the basis for modeling tools, which tie grid function with people’s patterns of movement or suggest public-private collabora-tion for electric micro transit routes, among oth-er possibilities. Deployed successfully, it could also be used beyond the planning phase, allow-ing for joint operation by multiple agencies and companies, something that is very difficult to do under today’s more digitally siloed approach to IT.

13 14

Infrastructure | A Region Embracing the Future A Region Embracing the Future | Infrastructure

Measuring Up

Charts comparing critical infrastructure in the NY-NJ-CT region to metropolitan regions around the world (and pulled from an “Infrastructure Blueprint” we wrote for the Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Region) testify to the fact that, especially when calculated on a per capita basis, the tristate area’s ports and rail networks are less efficient, less con-nected, and less busy7.

We can directly compare the New York and New Jersey ports to some of the busiest ports across the world. For example, while Rotterdam has nearly double the container traffic it emits just over 1 per-cent of the emissions produced by NY and NJ ports. This makes the port more efficient and enables it to thus move significantly almost quadruple the amount of cargo which adds to the ports overall revenue and Rotterdam’s productivity. When trans-lated into revenue and returns, this means that the port and businesses which rely on them, aren’t getting the best deal. With better technology and management, the ports could easily handle more container traffic, reduce their annual emissions, and improve their bottom line along the way.

Given that the tristate area contains of significantly more metro rail lines than any other U.S. city, it is almost depressing that this infrastructure is so poor-ly managed and maintained. Despite its breadth, ridership, and investment, the Subway system fares poorly against cities such as London, Paris and Hong Kong, which operate with similar levels of ridership and investment (and fewer stations!) but provide more efficient and enjoyable experiences, as evi-dence by the Urban Mobility Index8.

Transportation infrastructure acts in many ways like the vessels in our bodies which help to pump blood to our hearts, ensuring our capacity to go about living our lives. When our vessels are clogged or pumping blood slower than usual our whole bodies are affect-ed. Similarly, when transport networks are heavily congested, or poorly taken care of (read: underfund-ed and left to decay) the city system shuts down too. A region cannot operate to its full potential without a sound and healthy transport network; in fact a region will typically underperform without this.

The advantages of transportation infrastructure are felt almost immediately by people as well as business communities across the world - they bring increased accessibility, connectivity and efficiency to the entire region, even those who do not interact with the new infrastructure directly. Better transportation infra-structure and access to it helps to reduce road con-gestion, increase passengers travelled on public transport, and support healthier lifestyles - all of which circle back into the economy through increased productivity. This is especially true if the infrastruc-ture is paired with mixed-use developments that include housing, jobs as well as social services such as schools, health centers and high quality green space.

Moreover, infrastructure, especially transportation infrastructure, is inextricably linked to economic growth. Investing in it has to be a top priority - full stop – even if it means enduring growing pains as systems are extended or reworked.

Worthy growing pains for much-needed mobility upgrades

InfrastructureThe Cornerstone of a Greater New York

The Fourth Regional Plan points out that the region is falling behind with regards to the performance of its ports, airports, and rail networks. That’s correct. It is.

15 16

Global Comparison of Metro-Rail Networks

City

Hong Kong 1 11 93 1,949 1,262

Paris 7 16 300 1,520 2,178

London 9 11 270 1,378 4,756

São Paulo 34 5 61 1,107 749

New York City

35 25 472 1,757 3,263

Washington, DC.

42 6 91 180 1,200

Los Angeles 67 6 93 416 2,091

Global Ranking Volume

Urban Mobility Index

Number of Metro Rail Lines

Number of Stations

Annual no. of Passengers (in millions)

Annual Average Spend, $USD, Millions

Sources: Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority, New York Metropolitan Transit Authority, Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority, RATP, Transport for London, Seoul Metro, Tokyo Metro, Transit Chicago, Urban Mobility Index, and U.S. Census Bureau


Global Comparison of Strategic Ports

City Annual Capital

Budget

Annual

Emissions

Shanghai 1 36.54 646.51 2,479 0.05

Rotterdam 11 12.23 466.36 211.4 0.001

Antwerp 14 10.04 208.42 175.8 0.06

Hamburg 17 8.82 137.82 417.3 0.02

Los Angeles 19 8.16 54.6 210 0.01

Long Beach 20 7.19 70.91 499.8 0.11

New York - New Jersey

23 6.37 114.93 110 0.10

Global Ranking Total Cargo

Volume

Container Traffic

(by Container Traffic, 2015)

(Million TEU, 2015)

(Million Tons, 2015)

($USD 000s, 2016)

(CO2e tonnes,

per container, 2014-2016)

Sources: WorldShipping.org; American Association of Ports; Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Rotterdam, Hamburg, Antwerp, and New York-New Jersey

Capital

Investments

17 18

There is an opportunity for the tristate region to embed on-demand electric public transport ser-vices into their networks; this style of transporta-tion can help to streamline mass transit by match-ing service levels more closely to demand, embedding flexibility into a historically rigid sys-tem. Because the minibuses operate where de-mand is high, the cost of operation is lower while access and rider-experience improves significantly. The improved experience of taking the bus can also entice drivers out of their cars and into a shared vehicle, which reduces both congestion and GHG emissions.

This service can also replace underused fixed-route services, which may no longer be economi-cally viable due to low ridership, meanwhile mak-ing public transport more attractive, accessible, and cheaper for users. Furthermore, this system can bring transportation to towns or rural commu-nities where bus service was never viable due to low densities.

In a recent paper with World Resources Institute’s Ross Center for Sustainable Cities, McKinsey’s Center for Business and the Environment, and the


Coalition for Urban Transitions, we modeled the results for integrating electric, on-demand mini-buses operated privately with other forms of public transit.

In the 21st century, someone who commutes in from New Jersey by bus, arrives at the Port Author-ity Bus Terminal, hops on the Subway, and then takes a Citibike to get to work should only have to pull at one “tap” card, or better yet, just a phone, to plan and pay for his/her trip. This idea of “seamless” travel may seem a distant mirage, and it is - if the “pace at which [transit agencies adopt] technologi-cal innovations is glacial” (Fourth Regional Plan, p. 119) and if governance structures and digital plat-forms for interagency coordination are limited.

In the same paper, Connected Urban Growth, we look at the costs and benefits of transit agencies partnering with developers on dynamic trip-plan-ning and ticketing apps for multi-modal travel (e.g., these enablers of seamless travel). Our calculations show that a dynamic trip-planning would cost between $4 and $8 million, but lower operating costs by $7 to $20 million each year, generating

Making Public Transit Personal

Welcoming a 21st century transport system

When it comes to constructing future transportation infrastructure in NY-NJ-CT, the answer unfortunately isn’t going to be as cut-and-dry or as easy as either/or. It’s both/and. In order for the tristate area to accom-modate its anticipated population growth, it will need to renovate and expand all of its existing transporta-tion modalities, in addition to building new mobility networks. It will also need to proactively address how new tracks, stations, depots, lots, trains, and vehicles will interact with emerging technologies, such as autonomous vehicles, digital operating systems for multi-modal travel, and electrification. Ensuring seamless connection between infrastructure, old and new, should allow the region to deliver on its goals for sustainability, resilience, and accessibility.

Three of RPA’s recommendations provide opportuni-ties for applying best practices Siemens has seen in its global experience: 1) Modernize transit systems, both within and outside New York City, 2) Charge drivers to enter Manhattan, price highways, and transition to vehicle-miles tolling; and 3) Build a second bus terminal under the Javits Convention Center.

Modernizing transit systems doesn’t have to mean foregoing old technologies for new, like replacing rail with autonomous pods. In some cities, street cars have been shown to unlock significant economic investment9, and time-tested technologies, such as Communications Based Train Control, have improved service and reliability on existing rail networks and induced greater ridership. In other cities, simply moving to on-demand, dynamic minibus shuttle service, also known as micro transit, might make more economic and environmental sense than build-ing out capital-intensive rail networks not supported by the (low) density of the area. Consumers globally are rethinking the way they move about a city; the transition towards a Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) model means that even when a plane, train or bus isn’t available, some mode of mobility is. Given the diversity of the geographies within the Fourth Re-gional Plan, it will be imperative to choose the right technology for each use case.

additional revenues of $7 to $70 million per year, within five years, due to increased ridership.

Evidence that dynamic trip-planning and ticketing apps pay dividends is already apparent in Siemens project with RTA: S’hail, the travel companion for Dubai. The app integrates metro, tram, buses, waterbuses, taxis, rideshare companies, and even-tually, air taxis and limousines, allowing users to plan and pay without bias towards mode. This is helpful to travelers, for sure, and because the app is run by the RTA, the RTA has a direct interface to its own customers and, importantly, direct access to all of their mobility data.

One of the main regulatory concerns of Lyft, Uber, and other ridesharing services operating in cities is the companies’ lack of data transparency, especially with transit agencies. It is incredibly difficult to measure or regulate these trips, despite the grow-ing need. By owning the trip-planning and pay-ment app, as well as the back-end engine, transit agencies are able to reclaim ownership of passen-ger data. One possible outcome could be better congestion management.

Based on our estimates, the cost to set up the on-demand mini-bus service ranges from $2 mil-lion to $4 million, with a break-even period between 3 and 4 years. These minibuses not only would extend coverage to un-derserved areas while lowering cost of service, but also would lower emissions dramatically: 66 to 99 percent fewer GHGs and 95 to 99 percent fewer NOx emissions10.

19 20

Getting Cars off the Road May Mean Pricing the Road


Our initial estimates of congestion charging for cars, high occupancy toll-ing on highways, and low emissions zones for trucks demonstrate that those three measures alone could reduce region wide GHG emissions from the transportation sector by 15% from a 2040 business-as-usual scenario, with only slightly lower reduc-tions in NO

X and PM

10.

Road pricing is one the most effective mecha-nisms to fund road repairs, as well as investment in active transportation, such as building bike lanes, expanding public transportation network, or electrifying bus fleets. It places the cost of driving onto the drivers themselves, resulting in policy that is more equitable and fair than most other methods.

Cities such as London, Singapore and Tel Aviv have seen great success implementing variations on this model. London established its Conges-tion Charging Zone (CCZ) in 2003 and its Low Emissions Zone in 2015; prior to this the city was losing between £2 to £4 million per week due to congestion13. Using more than 1,300 Automatic Number Plate Recognition (APNR) cameras locat-ed around the city, the system is able to capture over a million license plates every day and recog-nize if the driver has paid the congestion charge. Between 2003 and 2013 the congestion charge created net revenue of £2.6 billion, with roughly £1.2 billion invested into public transportation infrastructure.

During this same period, traffic levels dropped 10 percent compared to baseline analysis in 2002, and vehicle miles travelled in the entire city saw a reduction of 11 percent. Since 2007, CO2eq lev-els have also decreased by 20 percent, while cy-cling in the city has increased by 83 percent.

Lessons learned from London highlight that road pricing needs to be dynamic and flexible, and that ultimately there should be very little exclu-sions in place to ensure the city and transport agencies are capturing as much capital as they can from these policies. This means adapting a Vehicles-Miles-Travelled (VMT) scheme as RPA recommends in the Fourth Regional Plan, with a more comprehensive system in place that charg-es based on distance and occupancy, the results will likely go beyond what has been seen in tradi-tion congestion charging zones.

Where congestion is concerned, one has the impres-sion that the tristate area is being choked by its own success. Traffic in the region has slowed 23 percent in the last decade, currently vehicles move at a snail’s pace of approximately less than five miles per hour during the work week in Manhattan11. Without man-aging the number of cars on the road, reducing the overall number and splitting the remaining cars among multiple passengers, roads will no longer be a viable transportation option for the 5.7 million people who use them everyday today, let alone the million more people RPA forecasts to use them in the future12. Siemens is supportive of congestion charging, road pricing, and high-occupancy tolling on highways as mechanisms for raising funds in cities and reducing overall congestion and raising transportation funds for NYC.

Moreover, establishing digital systems now, which manage congestion, facilitate road pricing, and start to track distance traveled and occupancy of vehicles, will smooth the transition to autonomous vehicles. One major concern about introducing autonomous vehicles into the Greater New York Area is that their

existence will induce latent demand for vehicles, increasing congestion and the number of vehicles on the road, rather than curbing them. By implementing digital networks, which track vehicle and passenger miles traveled and price them (e.g., congestion pric-ing), local governments are setting themselves up to be able to manage, through pricing, policy, and auto-mated technology, autonomous vehicles in the fu-ture.

The Fourth Regional Plan calls for a bus terminal under the Javits Convention Center, referencing an expected 38 percent increase in bus travel over the next 30 years as the acute need. What the Fourth Plan does not call out, however, is that any bus termi-nal, newly constructed or existing, should take advan-tage of software that optimizes parking, fleet man-agement, and loading/unloading of passengers. A new bus terminal should also be based on a design amenable to the rapid introduction of eBuses and eBus chargers (powered entirely on electric engines): If the tristate area wants to meet its GHG emissions targets and improve local air quality, it will need to transition all fleets driving into and out of the City to low carbon vehicles.

21 22

Conclusion

A plan to be proud of The benefits detailed by RPA’s Fourth Regional Plan are far-reaching, and well worth the cost of pursuing; if implemented together and in full, these recom-mendations will ensure a prosperous, competitive, healthy and sustainable future for the region and all of its communities, rural and urban. This response is Siemens first step in extending a helping hand to RPA, the institutions of the tristate area, and its citi-zens, with much more support to be offered along the way as these recommendations are driven for-ward.

Siemens is an advocate for the Fourth Regional Plan - supporting the recommendations even though they may be perceived as complex, expensive, or atypical compared to other urban strategies - because we know the region will reap remarkable benefits for all people through these initiatives. Further, Siemens offers its support in: convening working groups, financing projects, enabling infrastructure improve-ments which are faster, less costly and higher quality, or simply continuing to voice our support for RPA and its Fourth Regional Plan.

A Region Embracing the Future | ConclusionInfrastructure | A Region Embracing the Future

Everyone involved in the development of this plan, from the community, public sector agencies, RPA board members, are responsible for what is, argu-ably, the most comprehensive, earnest, and trans-formational regional plan seen in America - if not the world, in the 21st century. It will become a benchmark for other cities to aspire to globally.

A modern grid for a modern metropolis

Determining how to modernize old, complicated, electricity grids to meet the needs of future urban populations is perhaps the challenge we hear most often from our city clients. Whether in the U.S., Eu-rope, or further afield, utilities in metropolitan areas are struggling to work out how they can simultane-ously incorporate renewables, provide energy for existing demand, give greater transparency on use and pricing utilizing new software systems and con-nected infrastructure, plan for a future of all electric mobility - AND go about their day-to-day business of delivering electricity to all who need it.

The Fourth Regional Plan lacks research to consider what type of energy should be produced, when the new loads will need to be supported by the grid, and how much will be need to be produced to support all of the initiatives recommended in the plan, not to mention the amount needed to reduce GHG emis-sions 80% by 2050. Initial modeling done by Siemens using the CyPT indicates that a 50% renewable port-folio standard (RPS) isn’t sufficient to meet the re-gion’s 80x50 target for reducing GHG emissions. [In fact, it gets the region only about half of the way there.] And even if a portfolio with a higher content

of renewables is coupled with investments in 100% electric vehicle fleets, including both cars and buses, and energy efficiency measures for homes and busi-nesses, 80% is still not attained - at least, in our ad-mittedly rudimentary model for this response.

So although the Fourth Regional Plan’s call for invest-ments in renewable energy, energy storage, and a smart grid that facilitates dynamic, transparent pric-ing are steps in the right direction, they are not suf-ficient to establish a pathway that the region can follow towards more sustainable sources of energy, powering more sustainable ways of living. Each of the recommendations made, whether it is electrifying buildings, electrifying vehicles, moving large energy users onto their own decentralized grids, or capping GHG emissions on buildings, merits at least a sepa-rate working paper, if not its own regional plan. RPA isn’t responsible for building out those energy plans on its own, however, and in fact, the Fourth Plan rightly places responsibility for modernizing the grid on electric utility companies, as well as public and private sector leaders. Generating clean electricity when people need it and at prices they can afford is a problem borne by both public and private sectors.

23 24

References and Notes 1 Represented by NO

x and PM

10.

2 Represented by gross full-time equivalent positions (2,080 person-hours of work per year). 3 More information about how the CyPT model works, as well as what scopes of pollutants it includes and where it has been used, is available on our website at www.siemens.com/cypt. 4 “Jobs” in this case refers to full-time equivalent positions (2,080 hours of work per year), and is a gross, not net, number encompassing installation, operation, and maintenance. Manufacturing jobs are not accoun- ted, because many of the CyPT technologies may be produced outside the metropolitan area, with no local benefits to the economy. 5 Siemens, Brookings Institute, Copenhagen Business School (2017). Governing City Infrastructure: Who drives the urban project cycle? 6 Siemens Financial Services (2016), accessible online at: https://www.siemens.com/global/en/home/products/financing/whitepapers/whitepaper-smartstart.html 7 The cities or metropolitan areas highlighted in the tables were chosen based on a variety of characteristics, including population size, metropolitan GDP, and global importance of their critical infrastructure (such as the Port of Hamburg). 8 The Urban Mobility Index was created by UITP and the global consultancy Arthur D. Little. It uses 19 criteria to assess the maturity and performance of mobility networks in 84 cities, examining criteria such as travel times, emissions and air quality impacts, and mode share, among others. 9 A 2-mile streetcar route in the City of Atlanta famously encouraged $400 milion of private investment in real estate along the corridor. (Siemens, Accessed 2017, https://w3.usa.siemens.com/mobility/us/en/trends and-topics/case-studies/Pages/Atlanta-Streetcar-Case-Study.aspx) 10 Diego Canales et al. (2017). Connected Urban Growth: Public-Private Collaborations for Transforming Urban Mobility. 11 New York Times (2017). De Blasio’s Five Point Plan Aims to Reduce Traffic Congestion. 12 MTA (2017). Facts and Figures: http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ 13 Centre for Public Impact (2016). London’s Congestion Charge

25 26

A Region Embracing the Future: Siemens Response to … · 2018-04-18A Region Embracing the Future:...

Documents

Transcript of A Region Embracing the Future: Siemens Response to … · 2018-04-18A Region Embracing the Future:...