Grush-Kiss Your Bus Goodbye

8/10/2019 Grush-Kiss Your Bus Goodbye

1/7046

Future Mobility |

Traffic Technology International August/September 2012

www.TrafficTechnologyToday.com


2/704August/September 2012 Traffic Technology International


| Future Mobilit

Loved by many planners, the urban transit bus is outsized, ungainly,disdained, and underused. Its function is critical for cities but itsphysical and network form is increasingly undesirable. Fortunately,predicts Bern Grush , it wont be needed much longerIllustration courtesy of Ben White

your bus goodbye!KissT

he city bus is a critical urban resource. Transit systems,

including buses, stimulate economic development, create jobs, get people to work, reduce tra c congestion, fostermore livable communities, boost real-estate values, ensure

safety, and enhance mobility for those who do not (or cannot) drive.Under the right average load circumstances, they reduce energyconsumption and are easier on air quality measures. But suchconditions are seldom met in the USA, and it has been argued byThomas Rubin that relative to the personal automobile, public bus transit doesnt reduce greenhouse gas emissions either. [1]

Crucial factorsRegardless, autonomous rubber-tired transit remains crucialin those urbanizations expecting or promoting densi cation,reduction of personal automotive travel, aging-in-place andother lifestyle shifts enumerated in The Great Inversion .[2] Inversion

describes the reversal of the multi-decade trend for family, moneyand maturity to move to the suburbs. Some of this is youngerpeople who are slower than previous generations to own personalvehicles; older people embarking on their post-driving years; andthose wishing to adopt a car-free or car-sharing lifestyle. Thismatters as a portion of these people will consume more publictransportation and many hope this portion will be signi cant.

The car, too, is a vital urban resource, stimulating economicdevelopment, creating jobs, shortening travel times, increasing jobreach, providing more choice of housing location (a countervailinglivability argument among some demographic cohorts), boostingreal-estate values (albeit sprawl), and enhancing mobility for those


3/7048Traffic Technology International August/September 2012


(Right) Whenwe have 100%driverlessroadways, complextraffic managementscenes like this willbecome distantmemories as did

the 19th

centuryscenes of horse andcarriage congestion(Bottom) Busunlinked passengertrips (UPT), asdistinct from busrevenue miles,continues to falleven as totaltransit UPT growsand automotiveVMT is flat. Is thebus dying?

Ehrenhalt describes inversion as wealth moving back to the center,so to the extent he is right, the bus is further threatened as its use isnegatively correlated with wealth. Again, the bus loses to the car.

The advantages of automobility may have plateaued they arecertainly tarnished for many but they will not be wished away,and we are likely to continue seeing an outsized number of personalpassenger vehicle trips. The big question is, can we make thosetrips with fewer vehicles and with less parking?

According to the 2010 Federal Transit Administrations (FTA)National Transit Summaries and Trends, transit revenue miles (alltypes) increased by 18% between 2001 and 2010. Growth, in order ofincrease, was experienced by vanpools, light rail, demand response

(including taxis) and commuter rail. Bus revenue miles increasedthe least only 5.3%. This is comparable to the nationwide increasein automotive VMT of 6.1% over the same period. Bus use is inrelative decline even as its costs climb. What appears anomalous isthat from 2001-2010, bus revenue miles increased 5.3% (FTA) while bus UPT fell 4% (APTA) with all of the fall in 2008-2010. That couldmean fewer people use the bus, and now live further from their jobs i.e. the plight of lower-income workers in a recession. Its also beensuggested that transit riders, especially bus riders, are last hired and

rst red. Either way, its another loss for the bus.

Where from here? The buss problem is that its large, has xed routes, needs to servicenon-uniform demand, arrives infrequently, is underused, expensiveto purchase and operate and is the modality of last resort. But the

car is unsafe, congested and smothers our cities while waiting for itsowner to move it to its next parking location and is the modality ofrst choice. And both buses and cars are hard on the environment.

But to make matters worse, innovation in bus design is dwarfed by that of the personal automobile. As buses in the USA run with anaverage of only nine passengers, the environmental advantages ofthe rush-hour bus are as much overshadowed by the increasinglycleaner automobile as they are negated by the near-empty o -peak bus. Reducing o -peak bus operations to which cash-strappedtransportation authorities now resort encourages further caruse and further erodes the buss role. Both bus and car use aredominated by positive feedback cycles, and both are driven by thecars success. Each automotive advance widens the gap so the 20 th

Future Mobility |

who can a ord them. Measured by its massadoption rate relative to the bus, the car iscurrently the more critical resource.

The automobile is also undergoing farmore rapid innovation and, as Rubin pointsout, is currently the cleaner environmentalperformer per passenger mile (in the USA)compared with the bus. As we expect to movetoward increasing energy e ciency for theprivate automobile, the car-bus comparisonwill increasingly favor the car, unlessthere is a dramatic upswing in o -peak bus ridership. An increase in bus use may be what planners and urban advocateswish, but that is not what we are seeing.

Not so much to choose fromAlthough its inconceivable going forwardwithout shared, urban transit systems, the50-passenger city bus is an endangeredspecies. With few exceptions NYCis notable bus transit use continuesto erode in the USA (see graph below).Theyre getting more expensive to buyand operate, and are getting heavieras alternative propulsion systems areadopted. Theyve also lost a few seats aswheel wells intrude into seating areas tolower oors for accessible loading, andover the past decades they have generally been gett ing emptier sti ll.

The car has even more problems though.It was associated with 369,000 deaths in theUSA from 2001 to 2010. Around 50% of itstotal lifecycle footprint is in its manufactureand another portion in its disposal. And it burdens us with an additional, even larger

problem thats wildly mismanaged: parking.The average car is parked more than 95% ofits useful life if you count parking a usefulactivity and the fully accounted carbonfootprint of parking infrastructure faroutweighs the aggregated footprintof all of our automotive driving.

Giving over a large portion of urbanspace to storing privately owned carsalso distorts urban land values and rents,harming lower-income earners and pushingthem further from the urban core. But

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

2 0 0 2

2 0 0 3

2 0 0 4

2 0 0 5

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

2 0 1 0

2 0 1 1

7,000

6,000

5,000

4,000

3,000

2,000

1,000

0

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

500

0

APTA bus UPT (000,000s)

APTA non-bus UPT (000,000s)

FHWA VMT (000,000,000s)

UPT = Unlinkedpassenger tripsVMT = Vehicle miles traveled

NOTE: Two y axes usedifferent units (left = UPT,right = VMT)

Car VMT failing Total UPT rising (not shown) Bus UPT failing (includesdemand response)

Ratio of bus UPT to totalUPT fell to 55% from 62% from2001-2010 (not shown)




| Future Mobilit

(Bottom right) Shared, driverlesscars would spendmore time on theroad and less timeparked, meaningthat we would needmany fewer carsfor the samevolume of VMT

The advantages ofautomobility may haveplateaued But they

will not be wished away environments, with the same drivermentality, using the same road and parkingfacilities, and under the same drivingand parking regulations, it would simplycontinue the bully tradition of itsIC engine predecessor, albeit with feweremissions. The greater problem is thatautomotive engineering needs to lookpast the singular focus on the automotivepowertrain, or congestion will get worse.

Sebastian and GoogleBut an added, companion technology willplay a larger and even more effective rolethan eet electrication in addressing thecombined weaknesses in the competingsystems of autonomous private vehicleand city-bus transit: the driverless vehicle.

Inventor Sebastian Thrun describes thevalue of the Google Driverless Car from asafety perspective, because machines (whenperfected) do not make the number andnature of mistakes humans make. And froma congestion perspective (when pervasive),as machine reaction times would allow

us to reduce headway so that current roadinfrastructure could carry (accordingto Thruns assertion) twice the traffi c.

He also imagines you could take adriverless vehicle to work, disembark,then send it home to take the kids to school.That would save a parking spot, reducethe family car count by one, but generatemore traffi c. It is also nave to assumethat a signicant number of families couldschedule a couple of jobs and a school ortwo so cleverly that a single vehicle wouldreadily work out. Although some driverlessvehicles will certainly be privatelyowned (and parked 95% of the time), this

technology will have its most dramatic

Dr Sorensen is a researcherand associate director of theTransportation, Space, andTechnology Program at theRAND Corporation

The vision of driverlesscars replacing buses isintriguing, appealing onmany fronts, and perhapsinevitable. With the rapidrate of progress being madeby Google and others, its

not difficult to imagine thatthe technology required tosupport fleets of self-drivingvehicles will be in place by2025. Far less clear, though,is whether our regulatorysystems will be able toadapt by then. Developing alegal framework to addressliability issues should be apriority for policymakers.

In addition to supplantingunderutilized bus transit,

it seems likely thatautonomous vehicles willresult in a merging of car-sharing and taxi serviceas well (with the formeradvancing to replace thelatter). The resulting servicewould be cheaper than a taxi no need to pay for a driver and more convenient thancurrent car-sharing, with theability to be picked up anddropped off anywhere.

Driverless car-sharingwould also eliminate thehigh fixed costs of autoownership, to be replacedby higher marginal costs foreach trip. For current vehicleowners switching to car-sharing, this would createan incentive to reduce totalvehicle travel, potentiallyhelping to mitigate trafficcongestion. This effectis uncertain, though, as

driverless car-sharing couldalso increase vehicle travelamong those who do notcurrently own a car.

And it would be anexcellent market for EVs.The cost of electricity on aper-mile basis is much lessthan gasoline or diesel topower a conventional vehicle,but EVs also cost much moreand offer relatively limitedrange between recharging.

The ideal application for EVsthus involves relatively shorttrips between rechargingopportunities combinedwith high annual mileage toamortize the vehicle pricepremium very differentfrom the travel patterns ofa typical prospective owner,but just what you wouldsee in a fleet of sharedautonomous vehicles servingurban mobility needs.

Dr Paul Sorensen

century bus cant win in the 21 st century city without governmentcoercion. In any case, the 21 st century city will remain dominated by the 21st century car, so how can we x the 21 st century bus?

With an environmental focus, attention has been lavished andhope pinned on the electric vehicle (EV), which is expected to makeautomobility more sustainable, i.e. environmentally less harmful. Itwill also make automobility yet more desirable, again favoring theprivate automobile in the bus-versus-car debate. This will redoublethe positive feedback loop for automobility and worsen roadand parking congestion. If the EV is deployed in the same urban




advantage for shared vehicles especiallytaxis, vanpools, jitneys and other demandvehicles that now require dedicated,expensive and imperfect drivers.

The driverless jitneyA fantasy since at least the 1939 Worlds Fair,the driverless car has a strong pedigree.It was funded in numerous universityresearch programs since the 1980s, withmore than US$1 billion invested into theEuropean Commissions road safety-focused EUREKA PROMETHEUS Projecton autonomous vehicles from 1987-1995.

Thrun started his robotic car researchin 2004, entering the DARPA GrandChallenge prize competition for thedriverless vehicle. A year later, ThrunsStanford team beat Carnegie Mellons team by a slim 11-minute margin over sevenhours. Two more entries followed 10 and15 minutes later. Although several othergroups are making headway in solvingthis problem, the DARPA margins alonesay there is ample room for competition

and innovation and that Thrunsachievement is one whose time has come.We can count on this with or withoutThruns undoubted genius and tenacity.

Driverless societyMost see the automobile as technology whether cool, horri c or just utilitarian. Butautomobility is a sociological force, and thedriverless vehicle will end up being muchmore about society than technology. Thecar we have known structures our cities,accelerates environmental harms, organizesus demographically, breeds obesity, isolatescommunities, provides greater job reach

and opportunity, expands lifestyle choices,in uences attitudes and entitlements, and

many things we often lose sight of. It even indirectly justi eswars, hence ironic that the US$2 million DARPA prize Thrun wonin 2005 was from the US Department of Defense.

The rst response to the self-driving vehicle is usually fearof not being in control. Thrun points out that the tolerance foraccidents while under driverless control will be far less than thatunder human control, and we know that all 369,000 of the US tra cdeaths in the decade ending in 2010 involved human control. Thedriverless vehicle will have to evidence a near-zero accident ratefor millions of miles in all sorts of conditions before it becomespervasive. This may take another ve to seven years. Thrunhimself said, The car will be ready when the car is ready, as hepointed out that his team still needs to address driving in snowand avoiding obstacles such as a mattress in the roadway.

The second response, Not for me I enjoy driving, may betrue but three things will change this attitude. People who giveup driving will have more time for other work, social or leisureactivities while traveling already a reason the iPad generationprefers public transit. Secondly, those in driverlesscars will notice trips are more time- andpower-e cient due to constant optimization.But most importantly, insurance rates will belower as death and injuries fall dramatically.

The third response Itll never beallowed is evaporating as one state,

Automobility is a sociologicalforce, and the driverless vehicle

will end up being much moreabout society than about technology

Phil Charles is professor ofTransport at the Universityof Queensland, Australia

Although similar interms of standard ofliving, Australia hasmany differences to the USA a much lower populationdensity and tax base;vehicles, labor and fuel

are more expensive; andthere are fewer freeways.In the eight-year period to

2008 , public transport (busand rail) grew by 24.9% inAustralian capital cities dueto many factors, primarilyincreased investment bygovernments into publictransport service levels andincreasing road congestion.

Urban public transport isabout moving large numbers

of people. Current systemsand technologies need toevolve to be effective into thefuture. Having large busesserving fixed routes andproviding services that dontmatch demand must change and in Australia they are.Different types of services,routes and frequencies arebeing deployed to match

demands with much success.There is no simple answerto the challenge of movingpeople in major urban areas.A combination of large buses(200-seater buses are inregular use in Brisbane),regular-sized and smallerbuses are needed to matchdemand. Frequency ofservices varied according todemand, with greater use ofdemand-responsive services

during certain times of theday and in specific areas.

Increasing patronagerequires improved levels ofservice one major shiftavailable from technologyis providing comprehensive,accessible and real-timeinformation on services.Reliability of services,smooth interchanges and

comparable travel timesto the car are critical.Work patterns should

change to spread the demandand avoid the super peakperiods, developing dispersedemployment activity centersacross the city, to move awayfrom a few concentratedbusiness districts.

Reports of the death ofpublic bus transport aregreatly exaggerated!

Professor Phil Charles

| Future Mobilit

(Top left) SebastianThrun was directorof the StanfordAI Lab (SAIL) inCalifornia andwon the 2005DARPA GrandChallenge alongwith the StanfordRacing Team andStanley (Belowleft) Thrun wouldlater go on to helpdevelop Googlesmuch-publicizedDriverless Car


6/7

Traffic Technology International August/September 2012

www.TrafficTechnologyToday.com052

Nevada, has provided the rst license forone of these machines as of May 7, 2012.

2020-2030

Once the EV becomes a staple of oururban transportation eets, self-drivingEVs (SDEVs) operated by entities such asZipcar, Hertz or Yellow Cab and by ourmunicipalities will soon form the bulk ofnon-rail public transit in most cities, withlarge-format buses relegated to increasinglyspecialized roles. Theyll cluster aroundcharging stations or battery swaps. Theyllautomatically respond to calls then returnto a charging station or continue to anothercall. Theyll self-distribute and self-assign based on distance, residual charge andcustomer demand. Time and energyuse would be optimized subject only tocustomer service performance. Vehiclesizes might range from 2-10 passengersand likewise be optimally assigned. Vehicleload-balancing among operators wouldfurther optimize energy and congestion.SDEVs would also know when to takethemselves to maintenance bays.

Depending on willingness to pay,some riders might specify no sharingor an upscale vehicle; others the opposite.In the event of sharing, the vehicle would be able to divert from a direct path to pick- up or drop-o a passenger along a route(shared taxi). This would be constrained by pre-agreed performance criteria, withpenalties involving reduced fares or futurecredits 30 minutes or free, for instance.

Today, large groups of people are

constrained to use speci c routes. Breakingthese into smaller groups provides moreroom for optimization, each passengertraveling fewer miles as routes become moree ectively optimized segments. No oneneed wait through a 10-mile trip to completea seven-mile journey (an unconsideredaspect in assessing the relative footprintof bus use). SDEVS can stop in many morelocations for both pick-up and drop-o ,with your front door e ectively becomingyour own bus shelter in bad weather. Theycan also be constrained to paved, markedroads to ensure safety.

Variable trip pricing can spread peak-hour loads, so therewould be no need to replace traditional buses on a seat-count basis, meaning the 50-seat bus that carr ies 70 riders for 60 minuteseach day would need far fewer than 50 seats in replacement.

Most SDEV trip segments would be relatively short. Theydconnect with both light and heavy rail lines and could connect atSDEV hubs for cities without rail. Alternatively, convoys of SDEVscould complement or replace light rail, reducing the cost of mid-volume transit while greatly increasing its exibility. For rail fans,some SDEV trips could even be intercity, using platooning. Thesewould feature three to four vehicles and would reduce headwayspace in the urban core and intersection controls can be managedto favor transit convoys as they do now for buses. On the highway,

of course, dozens or hundreds of vehicles could be convoyed.Personal safety would be managed by video cameras, andmotion and sound detectors. Labor costs per passenger mile woulddrop, but a dramatic increase in passenger miles would counter thatto retain employment numbers. The big loser would be parking. Butunless municipalities change the parking model, its already a loser.

Communities of 100 families could set up a mobility co-opwith 30 vehicles and a charging station access restricted tofamilies and guests, and mileage-based user fees assessed atthe cost of operations and debt retirement. A new type of dailyself-reorganizing carpool would evolve. With social media, travelerscan list preferences non-smoking, female-only, etc to ndstrangers to share. Such agglomerations would blur the distinction between mass and personal transport, providing most of the bene ts and fewer of the downsides of each.

The skeptic will no doubt nd fault with the enthusiasm forsuch a vision but the optimist is more likely to see opportunities.Vitally, there is no reason to think that the public transportationof 2025 should be any less changed than the automobility of 2025.Innovation, cost, convenience and consumption preferences willdrive these changes more than will sustainability. The driverlessvehicle can soon align these forces to move in the same direction.

Bern Grush is the principal of Bern Grush Associates, Toronto

References[1] http://reason.org/news/show/does-bus-transit-reduce-greenhouse[2] Alan Ehrenhalt, 2012

Future Mobility |

(Right) Many autoexecs believe theindustry is on thecusp of welcomingvehicles thatmake the idea ofkeeping both handson the wheel an

anachronism

Self-driving EVs would soon formthe bulk of non-rail public transit inmost cities, with large-format buses

relegated to increasingly specialized roles

In the SARTREproject, on theroads outsideBarcelona, Volvorecently used threevehicles that droveautonomouslyfollowing a truckfor 200km at85km/h


7/7

A virtual realityW aut us a s w

b s t a w t

Relieve the pressureIs a aptiv a -ti sigt t b st ITS t i v s

August/September 201

| Out of nowhereWhy North Carolinas first-evercashless toll road, TriEx, is athree-pointed star in the making

| Fotis KaramitsosI predict well start thinkingabout electric road trains forfreight before passenger vehicles

A r t ic les i ns ide o n N YC s

M id to w n i n Mo t io n ,

COS MO, f o recas t i ng

f o r ma nag ed la nes

a nd m uc h,

m uc h mo re!

| Dial for emergency HeEROs Andy Rooke divulgesthe prospects and challengesahead of a mandated eCall

As B G us s ati s ipwit u ba a t a sit s u s,

v a s w s a i g i vwit iv ss t i v i s

Kiss yourbus good bye!

PLUS

WWW.TrAffIcTechnoloGyTodAy.com

Grush-Kiss Your Bus Goodbye

Documents

Transcript of Grush-Kiss Your Bus Goodbye