WALKER Consultants Autonomous Vehicles ... - dot.state.oh.us...Mar 01, 2016 ·...

WALKER Consultants

WALKER Consultants

Autonomous Vehicles: The Future of ParkingJune 2018

Copyright ©WALKER Consultants 2018. All rights reserved.

WALKER Consultants 2WALKER Consultants

Increased community

mobility achieved through

electrified, self‐driving, shared vehicle fleets

A convergence of disruptive technologiesand demographicsis happening….

How ….and when….will it impact parking?


AND EVERYONE IS TALKING ABOUT ADAPTIVE REUSE

Images: Arrowstreet


A GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Photo by Associated Press

Mercedes AV concept car first shown at Consumer Electronics Show, 1/2015

(NOT an auto show!)

• Autonomous Vehicle (AV): capable of performing all dynamic driving tasks without human intervention.• Personally owned or subscription service

• Driverless Vehicle: A vehicle operating with no human driver present. • Individual: may or may not have controls and may sometimes be driven by humans

• Subscription: may not have controlsSources: primarily SAE and Wikipedia


WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE!


CONNECTED CARS: V2X

• AVs today: operate independently of V2x• Operate now on urban roads• Operate forever on most rural roads

• But...operate best and with greatest efficiency and safety as connected cars.

And….• Likely: fees for subscription to V2I network that will pay for infrastructure.

• Change in federal and state gas taxes to fees based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)Source: Qualcomm, https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2016/06/07/path‐5g‐paving‐road‐tomorrows‐autonomous‐vehicles


L0‐L2 AVS ARE ALREADY ON THE MARKET; L4 IS IN TESTING;L5 MAY BE 2025 TO 2027… OR MUCH LATER!

Driver in complete and sole control at

all times

Driver can regain control or stop

faster than if driving without the special

function

Driver is temporarily

relieved of these driving functions

Driver must be available to take over controls

Driver not expected to take control at

any time

No Automation

1 or more specific control functions (eg. Stability control, pre‐

charged brakes)

Automation of at least 2 primary control functions working in unison (eg. Adaptive cruise

control in combination with lane changing)

All safety‐critical functions

automated (incl. steering, throttle, brake). Vehicle monitors any changes in

conditions that require a transition

back to driver control

Vehicle can perform all safety‐critical driving functions and monitor road conditions for an entire trip (incl.

driverless), but can only be operated in

particular conditions or in certain areas that are predetermined

Level 0:No Automation

Level 1:Function‐specific

Automation

Level 2:Combined Function

Automation

Level 3:Limited S‐D Automation

Level 4:Full Self‐Driving Automation

> Regulatory change required?

Vehicle >

< Driv

er

Now Now Now 2017‐2021?Source: SAE, NHTSA

Vehicle is designed to perform all safety‐critical

driving functions and monitor road conditions for an

entire trip under all conditions that a human could

traditionally drive

No driver needed

Level 5:Full Self‐Driving Automation

2025+…+++ ?


JUST TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR

• L4 vehicles • Driverless• In an area that is mapped• Until there is smart infrastructure for V2I• Operating under certain conditions, ie, NOT snow or rain until solved

• L5 vehicles will be able to go anywhere in US driverless, even rural roads.


TYPES OF RIDE‐HAILING: IMPORTANT DISTINCTIONSPrivate rides: UberX, Lyft

Shared or PooledUber Pool, Lyft Line

Eventually, these will be SAV rides

BEN

ANNAANNA

ANNA ANNA

BEN

CARL

Micro Transit: Chariot, Lyft Shuttle

ANNA

CARL

CARL CARL ANNA

BEN

BEN


KEY DRIVERS FOR PROPONENTS

1. Safety2. Safety3. Safety

And then the throwaway line comes:“Oh and it will reduce parking”To some, the root of all urban planning evils…

A “strong and clear consensus of government, regulators, and academics say we MUST move to AVs for public safety.” Source: Morgan Stanley Investor Report 3/1/2016


POTENTIAL USERS OF AUTONOMOUS CARSYoung (all?) urban dwellers…Commuters Aging baby boomers and disabled able to retain independence and mobilityTeenagers (and even younger) taken to school, practices.

Conclusion: Significant enhancement of quality of life for many.

Image courtesy KPMG


IN OUR OPINION, THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE AND UNKNOWN: CONSUMER ACCEPTANCE

1. AV Technology 2. Shared Rides


CONSUMER TRUST IN AVS

Are you comfortable with the idea of riding in a self‐driving car?

Watch Point: How the survey question is worded matters!

Studies – L2 cars now impact futureuse of L5 vehicles

51%1 want L2 in their next vehicle1 http://newsroom.aaa.com

AAA1 2016, 2017 22% 2018 37%

Millennials 27% 49%

Baby Boomers 15% 32%


AND DATA ON ACCEPTANCE OF SHARED RIDES

Watch Point: So why do so many people expect shared AV rides to become 90% of VMT in future?

Ride‐hailing: 2017 surveys• McKinsey survey:1• 67% prefer driving over ride‐hailing apps• 63% aren’t interested in trading their vehicles for

shared‐mobility rides—even if they’re free.• Walker: TNC riders at airport• 75% chose for convenience• 25% chose for price• Same for both residents and visitors to city

• UC Davis2 and other studies• TNCs are impacting transit, proportionately more than parking

• TNCS are taking users from car sharing services1 Grosse‐Ophoff, Hausler, Heineke and Moller, “How shared mobility will change the automotive industry”,McKinsey and Company April 20172 Clelow & Mishra, “Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization and Impacts of Ride Hailing in US, 2017. UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies

WALKER Consultants 15

WALKER Consultants

WALKER Consultants

REPORTS OF TNC IMPACT ON PARKING DEMAND …..NOW…..

HOTEL RESTURANTS & BARS

SPORTS & EVENTS AIRPORTS

Business Valet Parkers TNC Business

30‐70% 80% 3‐6% 200% 5‐20%


TNCS AREN’T JUST COMPETING WITH TAXIS

• Taxi curve has leveled a little. Reaching max saturation?

• Rental car still on same path down.

https://www.certify.com/Certify‐SpendSmart‐Report‐Story‐Infographic‐Q2‐2017.aspx

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Q1 2014 Q1 2015 Q1 2016 Q1 2017 Q1 2018

GROUND TRANSPORTATION CHARGES ON EXPENSE REPORTS

Ride Hailing Rental Cars Taxis


KEY CONCLUSIONS:•Currently, and continuing into early years of AV TNCs:• ~50% impact on transit/walking/biking.• 25% of commuting, transit is 5% of commuting.

• ~50% on private ownership.• 75% of commuting

•Once maximum “pirating” of transit/walking/biking occurs, most growth and impact will private vehicle trips. • Growth of TNC slow? AV TNC accelerate?

•Convenience important issue.• Cost alone may not drive 90% to SAV as many assume.

•Density and price of parking (which typically are linked) will also be key factors for impact on parking.


AMERICANS LOVE THEIR CARS…LIKE THEY LOVED THEIR HORSES????(Comparison reportedly first used by Morgan Stanley 2011)

Easter morning, New York City, 1900 Easter Morning, New York City, 1913 https://simplymarvelous.wordpress.com/2012/09/23/historic‐horse‐photos‐new‐york‐city/ Photo: Bain Collection


WALKER Consultants

WALKER Consultants

90% REDUCTION IN PARKING IS A GREAT DREAM, BUT A FALLACY!• Based on studies of potential widespread adoption of SAVsusing trip data from National Household Transportation Survey.• Note: this data source is widely accepted as reliable for such studies.

• Conclusions taken out of context:• Study is usually for limited area (10 m x 10m)• Considers trips within area, not all trips in City

• Studies assume everyone who could will use shared (pooled) service, aka SAVs

• 90% is reduction in trips or car ownership, not parking, by those whose trips stayed inside the area and choose to use SAVs, not all those who park today.

• SAV not used by rural residents ‐ 19% of US population

Source: US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Table 1‐36.


SO WHY ARE THE ACADEMICS AND MANY OTHERS PUSHING SAV?

• “ trifecta” of electric shared AVs has potential for huge environmental savings• “How the U.S. Transportation System Can Save $1 Trillion, 2 Billion Barrels of Oil, and 1 Gigaton of Carbon Emissions Annually,” (2015 article by Rocky Mountain Institute)

• Opposite: If AVs are not shared and electric, “more gridlock, more pollution and more emissions.”

• “To avoid the latter, public policy and regulations will have to force• EVs, • limited miles driven empty and• incent SAV rides.”

Source: Http://e360.Yale.Edu/features/will‐self‐driving‐cars‐usher‐in‐a‐transportation‐utopia‐or‐dystopia

Watchpoints: Subsidies for EVs haven’t worked…..<200,000 plug ins /260 million cars on road today,New York has been trying for 15 years to do a congestion tax in Manhattan, andWe can’t raise the gas tax to pay for crumbling bridges and roads…..


THE MORE LIKELY SCENARIO THAN 90% SAV TRIPS:

LOTS of choices, and behaviors: • SAV for commuting and/or all rides• Private TNC rides for some trips for car‐free life• One owned AV (long commute), TNC (short trips), Reverse• Long commute

• One owned AV for all trips, returning home between• Commute by AVs and gain productivity time• Park on the perimeter not at workplace.

• Move farther out but use personal AV to make longer commute acceptable• Many transportation officials/academics worry about this.

Impa

ct on pa

rking de

man

d

‐90%

‐0%


WALKER CONCLUSIONS: A MORE REALISTIC PROJECTION

• MAXIMUM parking demand reduction nationally is 40% per unit land use (per residence, per sq ft floor area office or retail.)

• Significant variation based on residential density:• City by city• Neighborhood by neighborhood

• Variations also based on:• Land use (e.g. office versus entertainment) • Geographic areas (e.g. Massachusetts vs Montana) too

WALKER Consultants

TIMING PROJECTIONS:WIDE RANGE ( ) OF MARKET SHARE OF L4/5 AVS (SALES)

Article does predict:• 15% new cars sold in 2030 Avs

• 2/3 or 10% to TNCs • Sales not all vehicles on road

http://www.mckinsey.com/industries/high‐tech/our‐insights/disruptive‐trends‐that‐will‐transform‐the‐auto‐industry

HI

LO


A MUCH SLOWER GLOBAL TIMELINE

• Global not US• Production not sales• Green line is L2

• L4/L5: 5% in 2030, 60% in 2050

Source: The Growing and Transformative Impact of Technology on the Auto Industry, Brian Doherty Chief Technology Officer, Motor and Equipment Manufacturers Association, Automotive News webinar April 26, 2018


WALKER SALES PROJECTION, US

L4/5 AV sales:• 15% AV by 2030, 12% TNC*• 90% AV by 2040, 33% TNC

• practical limit based on multiplier of TNC miles/vehicleBased on:• 5 year life of TNC AVs, then scrapped & replaced.• High Disruption Scenario per McKinsey

• including ‐2.3 personal car sold per TNC AV sold• Population growth per US Census Bureau* 10% TNC didn’t make sense with curve shape and assumption that L5 AVs aren’t available until 2027.

Scrappage for private vehicles = 4.5%1 per year+ 150 million more non‐AVs sold through 2030= AVs “on the road” will lag…..a lot

• At full adoption:• Vehicles on Road: 2/3 private, 1/3 TNC• VMT: 72% TNC, 28% private

1 http://news.ihsmarkit.com/press‐release/automotive/vehicles‐getting‐older‐average‐age‐light‐cars‐and‐trucks‐us‐rises‐again‐201

‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Passenger Vehicle Sales

Private AV TNC AV Non‐AV

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Vehicles on Ro

ad (M

illions)

Passenger Vehicles on Road

Private AV TNC AV Non‐AV

Cars sold between now and 2035


IMPACT ON PARKING DEMAND: NATIONALLYNOT 90% REDUCTION….SOMEWHERE BETWEEN ‐10% AND ‐40%

Property with fixed quantity of land use, i.e., office building, apartment complex.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

2047

2049

Perce

nt of D

eman

d with

uot A

Vs

Parking Demand (Without Population Growth)

High Disruption Low Disruption0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

2047

2049

Percen

t of D

eman

d with

uot A

Vs

Parking Demand (WIth Population Growth)

No Disruption (Background Growth)

High Disruption

Low Disruption

Uses/areas where activity and parking demand grow with population growth


WHAT HAPPENS IF TIME LINE IS SLOWER?THE CURVE STRETCHES OUT!

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

2015

2017

2019

2021

2023

2025

2027

2029

2031

2033

2035

2037

2039

2041

2043

2045

2047

2049

Percen

t of D

emand

withu

ot AVs

Parking Demand (Without Population Growth)

High Disruption Low Disruption


WE CAN…AND SHOULD… THINK/PLAN/DO NOW

• Avoid over supply of parking• Provide just enough for commerce to thrive• Shared parking & mixed uses…. not chicken pox

development!• Provide flexibility in planning and design to

increase or decrease supply

Image per Google Earth


COMING SOONER: “AUTONOMOUS PARKING”

This will happen faster than driverless private AVs on streets.

Reduction in area required for parking those cars that do park • Tighter spacing• Vehicles may get smaller• Perhaps 4 cars in 3 of today’s stalls• By 2025 or 2030, dedicate areas for AV parking w/flexibility• Initially, autonomous parking by car (sensors and programming.)• Over time, cars parking will be increasingly connected to IT system. Plan for this in new facilities, although technology could change.

WATCH POINT: Capacity of existing parking goes up as demand goes down


LONGER TERM: MULTI‐PARKING FACILITY SYSTEMS

• Decreased importance on parking close to destination• More parking on perimeter of downtown, campus and remote airport facilities, less needed in core

• Campuses, hospitals, downtowns, large mixed use• Surface lots will be redeveloped first• Oldest and/or deteriorated stand‐alone garages may be removed and replaced by new buildings with little or no parking.

In other words, parking market will likely absorb most of the changes in demand over time.

Downtown Indianapolis Parking


US Ski team training in Slovenia

https://www.wsj.com/articles/this‐u‐s‐olympic‐team‐practices‐in‐a‐refrigerated‐parking‐garage‐in‐slovenia‐1519039660?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=1

INNOVATIVE ADAPTIVE REUSE TODAY


ANOTHER HOT TOPIC….DESIGN FOR FUTURE CONVERSION• Clients and cities are asking about conversion to other uses when less parking is needed

• ULI article Jan 2015 and a number of others since argue for designing whole garage for conversion. Concept has appeared in lots of other planning forums.

In our opinion, underplayed costs, and issues. Minimum cost now = much higher conversion cost in future.

• Walker Task Force has completed position paper and cost analysis

• Walker has prepared several studies for design for significant conversion• No client has elected to design for 100% conversion.


Repurposed parking area

Relative Adaptive Reuse Design Premiums Above New Structure Cost


CONVERSION EXAMPLE


CASE STUDY: DESIGN ½ STRUCTURE FOR CONVERSIONInitial Construction Costs:• Additional floor‐to‐floor height: <1%• Express ramps in lieu of parking ramps: 10 to 15%• For conversion in future:• More drains to reduce cost of leveling floor• Heavier structure• Removeable parking bay for future courtyard• Removable/adaptable exterior façade• Initial Cost for Future Conversion +32%

Future cost of conversion to cold dark shell:• Demolition• New façade• Added stairs and elevators• Remove and replace grade slab• Roof treatment• Future cost to convert: $36.15/sf.

Total cost of conversion (net of normal parking $)+$ 49.32/sf of initial area designed for conversion.

Total cost of cold dark shell $92.30/sf(including initial cost for parking area.)


WALKER Consultants

WALKER Consultants

CASE STUDY: DOESN’T THIS MAKE MORE SENSE?• Provide

expansion joint for ease of future demolition

• Construct ideal building to suit the market…and add demand for parking, in 20 or 30 years.


WALKER Consultants

WALKER Consultants

IN SUM, 100% CONVERSION MAY NOT BEAPPROPRIATE FOR MOST PARKING STRUCTURESAny site/area with multiple parking structures: Tear down oldest, poor parking than convert newer, state‐of‐the‐art parking. If consider conversion of logical areas in any new facility: • Future retail at grade

• 15’ min fl to fl height, express ramp to P2• Future additional occupied floors

• Cost of foundation and column increases• Alternate uses on roof

• Cost of foundation, column and top floor framing increases• Future residential wrap

• Underutilized site opening day, careful planning of openness to keep natural ventilation

• Horizontal “un‐expansion”• Double‐column expansion joint

WALKER Consultants Autonomous Vehicles ... - dot.state.oh.us...Mar 01, 2016 ·...

Documents

Transcript of WALKER Consultants Autonomous Vehicles ... - dot.state.oh.us...Mar 01, 2016 ·...