09 26 urban mobility - michigan state university urban mobility.pdf · 46 chicago 47 washington dc...

29
Urban Mobility

Upload: others

Post on 04-Jul-2020

2 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Urban Mobility

Page 2: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Our Topics

Urban mobility = automobiles!

Urban mobility

Future of Mobility 3.0

Models for change

Page 3: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Urban mobility = automobiles!

Page 4: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89
Page 5: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89
Page 6: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Urban mobility

Urban mobility considers the ease/difficulty

of moving

o individuals

o groups of people

o freight/goods

into,

out-of,

around-in an urban environment.

Page 7: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Urban transportation modes

o Individual people move by

foot, bike, auto, taxi, bus, train

o Groups of people move by

auto, taxi, bus, train

o Goods move by

van, truck, train, bike

Since these modes tend to operate

independently, coordination is a major challenge.

Many trade-offs are required.

Page 8: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Urban mobility safety challenges

Specialized services exist to provide safety.

o Police cars

o Fire engines

o Ambulances

o Auto wreckers

Challenges:

o Disaster evacuation

o Parades, marches, riots

o Sporting events, concerts

o Weather-related events, power outages

Page 9: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Future of Mobility 3.0 - ADLittle

Maturity: 36 points max

walking, cycling, public transport, initiatives for

improvement

Innovation: 24 points max

car-sharing penetration, e-hail services,

autonomous driving vehicles

Performance: 40 points max

efficiency, effectiveness, environmental

impact, safety

Page 10: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Top Ten Cities globally

Page 11: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89
Page 12: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Some US city rankings

Average:

28 San Francisco

38 New York 43.9

44 Boston

46 Chicago

47 Washington DC

55 Portland OR

71 Los Angeles 38.6

Below average:

77 Miami 38.2

80 Philadelphia

89 Dallas

93 Houston

99 Atlanta 28.0

Page 13: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Hypothetical ‘best-in-class’ city

o As affordable as Hong Kong

o Air as pure as Stockholm’s

o Cycling like Amsterdam

o As safe as Copenhagen

o Bike sharing like Brussels and Paris

o Public transport frequency like London Tube

o Car sharing like Stuttgart

o Minimum impact on environment like Wuhan

o Short travel times like Nantes

Page 14: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Bottom Line

Most cities are still badly equipped to cope

with the challenges ahead.

Page 15: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Mobility sub-systems

o Trains: local and suburban

o Busses: local and long-haul

o Taxis, limos, Uber-type

o Private cars

o Foot and bike traffic

o Parking, repair, and maintenance services

o Airports, seaports

Diverse needs must be met effectively to

implement a SUMP (sustainable urban

mobility plan). Coordination of

Page 16: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Models for change

o The Amazon model

o The Apple model

o The Dell model

Page 17: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Amazon Model

o Aggregator of third-party services

Ex. smart card for one-stop travel needs

o Has potential for ‘retro-fitting’ existing

systems

Page 18: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Apple Model

o Deep vertical integration of services

o Very difficult to apply because of

current state of development and

operation

o Good for brand new development

Page 19: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Dell Model

o Improve existing (sub-)systems

on an incremental basis

o Fits well with existing situations

o Can be integrated with an

Amazon-type approach

Page 20: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Mobility is a top priority for urban

economic development

o Mobility: 27 *

o Security: 9

o City management: 6

o ICT: 6

o Education: 6

Urban mobility infrastructure is the

number one priority area for cities in

attracting investors.

* Measure of relative importance

ICT: Info and Comm Technologies

Page 21: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Highest need for investment in cities

2007-2017

o Mobility: 86% *

o Education: 77%

o Environment: 77%

o Health: 74%

o Security: 71%

* % saying high need for investment

Page 22: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Mobility technology:

vehicle automation

Cars Drivers

o Google: 48 186

o Tesla: 12 18

o Mercedes: 5 13

o Volkswagen: 3 30

o Nissan: 3 18

o Bosch, Delphi, Cruise: 2 12,9,6

State of automation (Sep.2015)

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/17/self-driving-cars-

california-regulation-google-uber-tesla

Page 23: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Mobility technology:

vehicle automation

o Google: first to

move to scale in cars and drivers

move from highway to city

build purposed vehicles

o Hi-tech venture capital

o Hi-tech engineers, roboticists

o GoMentum Station test center (state)

o Development-minded government

California leads the pack. Why?

Page 24: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Mobility technology:

vehicle automation

Earlier this year, a Google-branded self-driving car was

involved in its first and only at-fault accident when it hit a

public transit bus while attempting to navigate around a

sandbag in the middle of the road.

This latest incident wasn’t the autonomous car’s fault,

though. In a statement issued to 9to5Google, the

company revealed that the traffic light was green for at

least six seconds before the vehicle entered the

intersection.

Page 25: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Mobility technology:

vehicle automation

It then went on to add that “thousands of crashes happen

everyday on U.S. roads, and red-light running is the

leading cause of urban crashes in the U.S. Human error

plays a role in 94% of these crashes, which is why we’re

developing fully self-driving technology to make our

roads safer.”

Page 26: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Mobility sub-systems: financing

o Trains: local and suburban

o Busses: local and long-haul

o Taxis, limos, Uber

o Car sharing

o Bike use

o Street grid and traffic lights

o Parking

o Air travel

o Pedestrians

Which of these have a financial incentive

for improvement?

Page 27: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

New technology could be a

game-changer

Page 28: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Summing up urban mobility

Urban mobility plays a critical role in

urban economic development.

It involves a large number of sub-

systems, typically ‘independent’.

Mature cities often have an existing

situation that can make steps toward

integration difficult.

Financing is a problem.

Page 29: 09 26 Urban Mobility - Michigan State University Urban Mobility.pdf · 46 Chicago 47 Washington DC 55Portland OR 71 Los Angeles 38.6 Below average: 77 Miami 38.2 80 Philadelphia 89

Thanks for listening with ‘joy’