Report 2b:City Compatibility: How AV ride-sharing could be implementedJune 2018

The MERGE Greenwich project is being delivered by a consortium led by global mobility services operator, Addison Lee, and involves expert input from Ford, TRL, Transport Systems Catapult, Immense Simulations and DG Cities. Jointly funded by the UK Government and industry, the £1 million project will take 12 months, concluding in Summer 2018.

MERGE Greenwich will simulate the way the Royal Borough of Greenwich moves today and how it could move with an autonomous vehicle ride-sharing service, which is integrated with the public transport network. The results of this project will provide a crucial first step towards mass roll-out of autonomous vehicles (AVs). By thinking through, and simulating, how an AV ride-sharing service could operate, MERGE Greenwich will pave the way for a commercial pilot, which could then develop into full-scale roll-out of AVs. AVs will use advanced technologies to operate at high levels of automation (Levels 4 and 5) without a human driver, capable of carrying multiple passengers, each with different origins and destinations.

Within the MERGE Greenwich project, AV ride-sharing is considered as a concept which links new vehicle technology with an emerging service offering:

• Autonomous Vehicles are able to operate without a driver, thanks to a high level of computerised decision-making. These vehicles are able to navigate journeys, obey traffic rules and park themselves using the latest technology.

• Ride-sharing is a service which enables two or more passengers (and potentially goods items) to share the same vehicle. These passengers will have similar trip origins and destinations, but they do not have to be exactly the same. A trip may begin with one passenger and pick another passenger up on the way. Sophisticated dispatch and allocation software is now available which matches passengers to vehicles, optimises the route and applies rules such as maximum waiting times.

MERGE Greenwich aims to investigate how to improve the way we travel around cities, increase accessibility, reduce total journey time and decrease traffic congestion and emissions. These developments offer the possibility of addressing the well documented social and environmental impacts of transport. The project will focus on how the social, commercial and infrastructure challenges of autonomous vehicles can be overcome, as well as considering consumer aspects, such as safety, ride-sharing, security and accessibility.

A critical component of the MERGE Greenwich project will be the application of next generation large-scale agent-based modelling and transport simulators to evaluate ride-share use cases and AV fleet size. Persistent and predictive simulations will be used to deliver detailed and accurate pictures of the city-wide transport ecosystem at different time periods, such as peak, off-peak and sudden changes in demand.

Developing an allocation and dispatch algorithm, which is sophisticated enough to manage demand effectively for a ride-sharing service, has been the subject of substantial research effort. To build on lessons learned from existing research and projects around the world, the MERGE Greenwich project will extend large-scale transport simulators to evaluate ride-share use cases.

Consumer and city-level research has been carried out which helps us understand how this new mobility service could be launched in the real world. The final project report, which will be published in July 20181, will provide a blueprint for an optimal operating model, to give the UK a head start in developing next generation mobility services.

About MERGE Greenwich

2 1. Please visit www.mergegreenwich.com in July 2018 to download a copy of the final project report

About MERGE Greenwich...................................................................................................................

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

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

Future context for AV ride-sharing.................................................................................................

Considerations for implementing AV ride-sharing....................................................................

Integration and interchange between AV ride-sharing and public transport services........................................................................................................................................

Evolving highway infrastructure and the built environment for AVs...........................

Telecommunications and connectivity............................................................................

Regulatory framework implications for AV ride-sharing......................................

Recommendations for implementing AV ride-sharing...........................................................

Overview of implementation timeline for AV ride-sharing.....................................................

2

4

6

7

9

9

12

30

33

37

43

Contents

3

Cities around the world are facing ever greater challenges as a result of increasing populations, growing congestion and worsening air quality. New solutions, advanced technologies and innovative transport services need to be developed in order to address these challenges and create an ecosystem which works for the city and its citizens.

Autonomous vehicle (AV) ride-sharing is one such solution which combines cutting-edge vehicle technology with an emerging business model. This new service could offer many potential benefits for cities and city sustainability, especially if it can attract people to switch from driving private, often single occupancy, cars. If implemented successfully, AV ride-sharing which is integrated with public transport could fundamentally change the way people move around and improve the efficiency of the transport network as a whole.

However, as with all significant changes, careful consideration needs to be given to the implementation of AV ride-sharing. These considerations extend to how the new service will integrate with current transport modes, the impact on urban planning and future policy, investment in future infrastructure and development of an appropriate and progressive regulatory framework. The MERGE Greenwich consortium considered the implementation of AV ride-sharing as part of the project to develop a blueprint for AV ride-sharing which integrates with public transport2. This report explores the key areas for consideration and offers some clear recommendations for government and industry.

The top 10 recommendations for implementing AV ride-sharing from MERGE Greenwich are:1. Plan ahead to enable an integrated transport system which uses a common Mobility as a Service platform2. Focus city planning on designing space for future usage – including reallocating parking space to pick up and drop off zones3. Design AV operations to meet the needs of pedestrians and the street environment4. Implement smart traffic management on targeted AV ride-sharing corridors5. Develop tools to assess the suitability of AV routes6. Scale up investment in charging infrastructure and depot space7. Develop next generation communications infrastructure to harness the power of connectivity8. Create a platform for real time data sharing between AV operators and the city which optimises the transport system as a whole9. Develop regulation to enable next generation mobility services10. Strengthen public-private collaboration to develop ambitious and integrated policies which enable the uptake of AV ride-sharing

Executive Summary

42. www.mergegreenwich.com

The headline message from MERGE Greenwich is that collaboration between public and private entities to prepare for AV ride-sharing implementation, in terms of policy and planning, needs to start now.

All of the areas listed above need careful consideration to ensure that the introduction of AV ride-sharing can realise its potential to support the strategic objectives of cities, meet the needs of the public and deliver healthier and more liveable streets. Even though AV technology is not yet ready for unrestricted use on public roads, ride-sharing services are already becoming commonplace and much of the impact AVs will have relates to long term land use and transport plans.

This report aims to guide relevant organisations through AV ride-sharing implementation considerations and to recommend short, medium and long term action which would enable the new technology and service offering to revolutionise the way our cities and people move.

5

IntroductionAutonomous vehicles (AV) ride-sharing services are considered to represent a notable mobility opportunity which could be widely adopted within the next few decades. However, careful consideration needs to be given to how AVs are integrated with today’s transport network and how appropriate ride-sharing services are developed.

The MERGE Greenwich consortium looked at how cities can ensure AV ride-sharing integrates seamlessly with the existing transport network. This report considers potential infrastructure changes required and potential policy or regulatory variations that could enable AV ride-sharing services to help solve cities’ current transport challenges. The report covers issues which could apply to any city around the world and draws on examples from London and the Royal Borough of Greenwich to illustrate key points.

To implement an AV ride-sharing service there are implications for highway and streetscape design and, in turn, the choices that are made will have implications for the type of AV services that can be operated. It is important that the introduction of AVs is compatible with other policy objectives for improving the liveability of cities, in particular the greater emphasis on prioritising vulnerable road users. There are also issues concerning the current regulation and licensing of transport services that will need to be resolved in order to allow for new types of services in the future.

This report discusses the enablers and barriers to AV ride-sharing operation that need to be considered when designing a blueprint for this type of service. The factors which will be key to determining how an AV ride-sharing service looks, where it operates and over what spatial and temporal scales it can be implemented, are:• The future context in which AV ride-sharing will operate• Integration and interchange with public transport services• Pick-up and drop-off facilities • Charging infrastructure• Telecommunications and connectivity• Highway infrastructure and design• Regulation of services and operators

These topics are the subject of significant work by others involved in research and development in AVs and there are many published reports on this topic. In particular, the Transport Systems Catapult (TSC) recently published a report on ‘Future Proofing Infrastructure for Connected and Automated Vehicles’3 and the International Association of Public Transport (UITP)4 has published a report on the relationship between AVs and conventional public transport. Digital Greenwich has prepared a White Paper on the future direction of city morphology for the GATEway project5. It is not the purpose of MERGE Greenwich to attempt to repeat this body of work, but rather to review existing information and identify the implications for shared AV services integrating with public transport, which MERGE Greenwich is seeking to inform. This report focuses on how AV ride-sharing services could be implemented and builds on the previous MERGE Greenwich report which identied how AV ride-sharing could address mobility gaps6.

63. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/media.ts.catapult/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/25115313/ATS40-Future-Proofing-Infrastructure-for-CAVs.pdf4. http://www.uitp.org/sites/default/files/cck-focus-papers-files/PolicyBrief_Autonomous_Vehicles_LQ_20160116.pdf 5. DG Cities (2018). Shaping Urban Accessibility: Technology’s Place in a Sustainable Future. Available from: https://gateway-project.org.uk/ 6. https://mergegreenwich.com/city-compatibility-how-av-ride-sharing-could-address-mobility-gaps

7

Future context for AV ride-sharing One of the difficulties in trying to assess the future implications of AV ride-sharing is that it will not be introduced in isolation from other changes to the current transport system. Instead it will be implemented alongside fundamental developments in the provision of other modes of transport, approaches to streetscape design, changes in travel behaviour and in the development patterns of cities. As part of the GATEway project, DG Cities has prepared a draft White Paper7 that discusses these implications for the context in which AV will fit. Key trends to note in this context are:

• The desire to move from urban mobility to urban accessibility, through polycentric development, whereby the city is designed to meet the daily needs of local residents and become a ‘liveable neighbourhood’ with reduced need for travel;

• The need for appropriate vehicle design for urban areas that correspond with the local mobility requirements and demands, for example, pods, cars and shuttles; and

• The importance of services to support the focus on pedestrian-friendly spaces.

With these city objectives in mind, it’s important to note that AV ride-sharing services could have different impacts on urban development. By reducing the need for city centre parking, this new service could encourage the development of both urban areas (commercial business districts), with more buildings and higher densities, and liveable neighbourhoods that have a wider range of services and jobs within a short travel distance. This would indirectly support walking and cycling for short distance travel and would therefore potentially increase sustainability.

However, if AVs make it easier to travel by car then people may be willing to live further away from city centres, leading to more dispersed, unsustainable development patterns that generate additional traffic. It is therefore essential that the right choices are made in how AVs are used so that only the positive outcomes for transport are achieved.

As local, regional and national policy develops to take account of AVs, it will be important for service providers to engage with local authorities at an early stage. This will help inform urban development and ensure infrastructure plans take account of AV services, without having a detrimental effect on development patterns in the future. If industry stakeholders and city planners are able to start planning for AVs well before the technology is implemented, it will help ensure services like AV ride-sharing are able to support policies such as the Mayor’s ambition to reduce car use to 20% of London travel, rather than undermining it by encouraging a shift to singly occupied AVs.

Future AV services could be designed to help cities achieve specific objectives as well as continue to provide customer choice. A separate report from the MERGE Greenwich project, entitled “City Compatibility: How AV ride-sharing could address mobility gaps”8 examined this topic and suggested ways in which AV ride-sharing could help cities achieve their strategic objectives. Using the Royal Borough of Greenwich as the case study, the report identified, and showed how AV ride-sharing could address, the three most prevalent mobility gaps:

• Mobility for an ageing population• Poor connectivity within the Borough• High private vehicle use

7. DG Cities (2018). Shaping Urban Accessibility: Technology’s Place in a Sustainable Future. Available from: https://gateway-project.org.uk/ 8. https://mergegreenwich.com/city-compatibility-how-av-ride-sharing-could-address-mobility-gaps

8

Taking this a step further, companies developing AV ride-sharing services in the future should focus on the specific objectives of the city they aim to operate in. In the case of London, as with many local authorities across the country, Transport for London and the Greater London Authority are striving towards ‘healthy street’ environments where space and priority for vehicles is being reduced in favour of space for people. This means new mobility services should aim to achieve objectives such as:

• Widespread adoption of 20mph speed limits • Reallocation of road space for cycle routes• Trials of share-space zones• Streetscape improvements, with de-cluttering and removal of pedestrian barriers• Adoption of the Place and Movement framework to ensure that highway design reflects

the wider needs of the community, not just the requirements of vehicle movement• Adoption of a road-user hierarchy that gives the protection of the most vulnerable

road-users paramount importance, with decreasing priority given to users according to decreased vulnerability

• Ambitious targets for modal shift away from private vehicles to active modes and public transport9

However, future operators of AV ride-sharing should be aware that there is the risk of a disconnect between the healthy streets/better places agenda and the Connected and Autonomous Vehicle (CAV) agenda10, which focuses on the development of vehicle technology and favours a street environment that places even more emphasis on the needs of machines. A key consideration for mobility providers looking to roll out an AV ride-sharing service is to ensure new offerings are compatible with the existing public transport network and avoid a reduction in active travel modes which promote liveable neighbourhoods.

Assuming a scenario where AV ride-sharing services fit in a city transport landscape, either as a taxi-like, bus-like or hybrid taxi-bus-like operation, this report focuses on identifying the enabling infrastructure and regulatory frameworks that will support a successful implementation and meet the needs of the customer and the city.

9. The Mayor’s Transport Strategy (2018) sets a target that no more than 20% of trips should be undertaken by car, including taxis and private hire.

10. “The UK government recognises the potential benefits of driverless and automated vehicle technologies, particularly the potential to improve road safety and reduce casualties. The government therefore wishes to support and facilitate the development and introduction of these technologies to our roads.” (DfT, 2015) https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/446316/pathway-driverless-cars.pdf

9

Considerations for implementing AV ride-sharingIntegration and interchange between AV ride-sharing and public transport services

Enabling AV ride-sharing users to transfer seamlessly onto public transport services is key to ensuring that this new service is complementary to public transport rather than abstracting users from it. The extent to which AV ride-sharing would compete with public transport depends on how easy it is to move between the two modes. The risk of competition arises from the fact that AV ride-sharing offers the same benefits as public transport (not having to drive or find a parking space) combined with the advantages of private cars usage (door-to-door travel, flexible timing and convenience). To ensure all modes are used as efficiently as possible, AV ride-sharing will need to be integrated with public transport (in the form of coordinated timetables, fares and payment systems) as well as benefit from seamless interchange (through appropriate information and interchange design).

Integrate public transport and AV ride-sharing systems

In order for AV ride-sharing services to be efficiently integrated with public transport, it will be necessary to consider how the two systems will connect. These systems will need to be able to share real time schedules, online booking, fares and payments. For example, public transport journey planners will need to include AV ride-sharing as an option for ‘last mile’ journeys, as this will make the public transport element of the journey more competitive in comparison with driving all the way. Similarly, booking systems for AV ride-sharing will need to inform users about how including a public transport leg in their journey will offer time or cost benefits. This would effectively require a Mobility as a Service (MaaS) platform with AV ride-sharing as one of several modes available; enabling providers to offer an integrated transport system with consistent branding, customer experience and underpinned with a reliable service.

It would be expected that the ‘front end’ for such a service would be a mobile ‘app’. MERGE Greenwich looked into how appropriate app design could facilitate the integration of these services and influence passenger behaviour in a way which improves the efficiency of the transport network as a whole, as well as improving the customer experience. Development of such an app-based service would require:

• A full end-to-end operating model • Technical platform for booking AV services and managing in real time• Access to both public transport timetable systems and real time information• Payments system linked to public transport fares system• Data exchange• Customer service capability

This could be a lengthy, complex and expensive system to set up but it is essential to operating MaaS and AV services. Customer experience across the whole booking-to-billing lifecycle is key to successful adoption of AV, particularly as there will be no driver on board to assist with journey planning or payment.

Design AV ride-sharing services to support public transport

A key opportunity for AV ride-sharing in this new approach would be a ‘feeder’ system that connects less densely populated areas, and areas without good existing public transport networks, to public transport hubs. This would be beneficial for both systems as the public transport system could extend the reach of AV ride-sharing and reduce detours, as well as AV ride-sharing bringing new customers to the public transport network. An example of this is cited in the MERGE Greenwich report How AV ride-sharing can address mobility gaps. In this example, AV ride-sharing could bridge the north to south transport gap in Greenwich, illustrating how this new service could complement rather than compete with existing public transport networks11.

Integrating AV ride-sharing in this way would be far more efficient than Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) that has been trialled at many locations in the UK over the years12; DRT has always struggled financially, not least because of the cost of providing drivers.

Address barriers to transport interchange

The process of interchange could be a major barrier to integrating AV ride-sharing with public transport as interchanges between different modes are recognised as being particularly significant13. The ‘interchange penalty’ is captured in transport modelling, where the perceived value of time spent waiting or interchanging is greater than the actual in-vehicle time. Figure 1 shows how the value of time to the user varies in an illustrative journey from a bus stop to a train, with the y axis showing the perceived value attached to time at each stage of the journey. Bus-to-rail interchange has a particularly high penalty, as shown by the higher values of time at each stage of the journey, because buses are perceived to be less predictable and reliable than rail, leading to an increased risk of missed onward connections. The higher value of time can therefore be considered to be a reflection of the risk and uncertainty that a user perceives towards travel time. The interchange penalty makes journeys involving more than one mode less attractive in comparison with driving door to door, even if the total expected travel times are comparable.

However, by providing planned and more predictable collections and drop-offs, AV ride-sharing has the potential to reduce the interchange penalty for multi-mode trips, and so facilitate greater use of public transport. The new technology also facilitates a broader systems level approach to interchange, as AVs will ultimately be connected and integrated across modes.

If AV ride-sharing can overcome the interchange barrier and integrate with public transport in this way, it would enable the delivery of ‘Mobility as a Service’: door-to-door transport provision using a range of different modes.

1011. https://mergegreenwich.com/city-compatibility-how-av-ride-sharing-could-address-mobility-gaps12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_responsive_transport13. Wardman, M. and Hine, J. (2000) Costs of Interchange: A Review of the Literature. Working Paper 546. Institute of Transport Studies, University of Leeds , Leeds, UK.

11

Figure 1. The ‘interchange penalty’: how value of time varies at different stages in a multi modal journey (illustrative values from Wardman, 2001)

Relative values of time at different journey stages

Walk to bus

4.5

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Wait for bus Bus travel Walk to train Wait for train Train travel

Key considerations:

• Develop integrated multi-modal service offerings to users, so that AV ride-sharing is offered as part of a MaaS system, for example via a mobile app, rather than as a stand-alone service in competition with other modes

• Public and private operators will need to collaborate sooner rather than later and develop integrated systems for journey planning, booking and payment

• Design AV ride-sharing services around public transport networks, focusing on providing access and addressing existing mobility gaps

• Harness the connected capabilities of AVs to improve information flow between modes of transport and overcome interchange penalties of multi-modal journeys

• Sufficient space will need to be provided at transport hubs to enable seamless interchanges between modes (this will be discussed further later in the report)

Timeframe required by: Transition period to full adoption

Action required by: Station owner/managing organisation, local authorities, service providers

12

Evolving highway infrastructure and the built environment for AVs

The focus of MERGE Greenwich is on the potential demand and hence business case for an AV ride-sharing service, rather than on the vehicle safety systems per se, therefore it is assumed that safe operation on public roads would be demonstrated and fully tested before such a service would be permitted. It is nonetheless appropriate to consider how different approaches to AV safety (personal and vehicle) might affect AV ride-sharing services, and their implications in the short, medium and long term. For the purposes of this project, these timescales are defined as follows:

• Short term: to 2025, the base year for the MERGE Greenwich project modelling; this would be a period of on-street trials leading to the introduction of an initial AV ride-sharing service

• Medium term: the timescale over which AVs are introduced into widespread use, but would be sharing roads with human drivers and subject to some restrictions as to where they can operate

• Long term: AVs are the norm on the majority of roads, human drivers are now restricted

The estimated timescale for the introduction of AVs varies significantly14 15, and it is important to note that this is not just determined by the rate of technological development. The regulatory timescales, the extent to which people accept AVs on the road and any changes in highway design will all play a part.

The important point to note is that the transition from roads dominated by human drivers to roads driven by AVs has very significant implications for the future design of highway infrastructure and the way in which it can be used. This is because of some fundamental differences between human and autonomous drivers. In particular, in comparison with humans, AVs have the following characteristics:

• Benefits of AVs over human drivers: » Fully compliant with speed limits and other rules of the road, reducing risk to occupants

and to other road users » Programmed to be ‘risk averse’ » Fast reaction times and forewarning of road conditions ahead enabling more efficient use

of roadspace and more efficient traffic management » Accurate measurements of the position and speed of nearby vehicles, enabling shorter

gaps between vehicles under certain circumstances » Potentially able to communicate with nearby vehicles to coordinate manoeuvres, making

more efficient use of road space and junctions » Instant access to mapping, enabling fast responses to congestion, roadworks etc. » Communication with roadside infrastructure, signals etc. through in-vehicle connectivity,

which has the potential to increase safety and efficiency at suitably equipped junctions.

• Challenges AVs face compared to human drivers: » Unable to apply context to interpretation of visual information, risk of not seeing

pedestrians, misinterpreting traffic signals or confusion at roadworks or other temporary changes, and potentially confused by objects outside the carriageway that are in the field of view

14. Raponso, M; Ciuffo B; Makridis M; Thiel C. Transitioning towards a Coordinated Automated Road Transport (C-ART) system Proceedings of 7th Transport Research Arena TRA 2018, April 16-19, 2018, Vienna, Austria

15. Litman, T Autonomous Vehicle Implementation Predictions. Implications for Transport Planning . Victoria Transport Policy Institute 2018 www.vtpi.org

13

» Unable to ‘negotiate’ with other road users, e.g. through eye contact » Unable to anticipate movements of pedestrians and cyclists away from the road (e.g. on

nearby pavements or cycle tracks) » Risk averse driving might hinder the ability to pull out into busy traffic flows at junctions

where it is difficult to define a precise safety margin for all situations, or to start moving at pedestrian crossings if pedestrians are still present

» Acceptable gaps could be significantly different from those a human driver would be comfortable with (shorter or longer, depending upon circumstances)

Some of these challenges are technical and will be resolved with greater effectiveness as AV technology is developed. However, some of the challenges arise from human behaviour and how human drivers, pedestrians and cyclists will interact with AVs. As will be discussed below, there are some fundamental differences between how these challenges can be resolved while AVs are still sharing roads with human drivers, in the medium term, and what can be done in the longer term once AVs have largely replaced human drivers. For these reasons many of the potential benefits arising from the AVs’ more efficient use of junctions and road space may not be available until the longer term, when the roads are no longer being shared with human drivers. Supporting this view, a study for the Department of Transport (DfT, 2016) concluded that AV penetration would need to reach 50 to 75% of the fleet before significant congestion benefits would appear, and that at low penetration rates, <25%, there could be some adverse effects on congestion16.

16. Research on the Impacts of Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) on Traffic Flow, DfT, 2016

14

Plan for AVs to share roads

With human drivers

In the short to medium term, the challenge will be how to enable AVs to coexist with human drivers and to ensure pedestrian safety while the new modus operandi is developing. Particular concerns are:

• Pedestrian crossings, in particular uncontrolled and informal crossings• The complexity of town centre roads and junctions and their lack of predictability• Unsignalised junctions• Accurate detection of traffic signals, which must be fail safe• Unexpected obstacles in the road which require ‘negotiation’ between drivers to get round• Differences in driving ‘behaviour’ between humans and AVs, in particular gap acceptance

Complex urban roads, especially with unsignalised priority junctions, cluttered kerbsides, parked vehicles and large numbers of pedestrians, would be particularly difficult for AVs to navigate. The RAC Foundation (2017)17 notes that: “One of the most important requirements for creating CAV-friendly road systems is achieving maximum predictability in the traffic environment.”

Pedestrian crossings are also troublesome for AVs. As noted by TSC 201718: “Pedestrian crossings are perhaps one of the most challenging everyday aspects of operating a CAV in an urban area. The pedestrians are not a compliant part of a system who can be directed and controlled and will exercise free will which will be experienced as a random and chaotic variable to the automated system.”

To make such roads ‘AV friendly’ may require greater use of traffic signals instead of priority junctions or roundabouts, and replacing uncontrolled pedestrian crossings with signals. As explained by TSC , “Signal controlled junctions and crossings are expected to be easier to handle by CAVs than other forms of junction and crossing. Highway authorities could consider moving to signals where practical, or along routes where CAVs are expected to operate.”

However, there are several difficulties with such an approach, in particular:

• Signalising junctions and crossings is very expensive; local authorities do not currently have the funding that would enable such a programme of signalisation, even if they decided it was the right thing to do

• The increased clutter and additional restrictions on pedestrian movements would be detrimental to the quality of the streetscape and the wider functions of a street as a place where people live and work

• There is no guarantee that this approach will increase pedestrian compliance with the signals

• Signalised junctions often have less capacity than other types of junction such as roundabouts, not least because a safety margin has to be allowed for traffic to clear the junction (intergreen times)

• The process of modifying junctions and assessing the suitability of streets for AVs is likely to require revisions to current highway design guidance and standards

• Greater reliance on signalised junctions will require fail safe detection of signal phases by AVs, which has not yet been demonstrated, and is likely to require additional vehicle to infrastructure equipment

18. “Readiness of the Road network for AVs” https://www.racfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CAS_Readiness_of_the_road_network_April_2017.pdf

19. https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/media.ts.catapult/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/25115313/ATS40-Future-Proofing-Infrastructure-for-CAVs.pdf

15

There are concerns that visual systems alone will not provide sufficiently reliable signal phase detection, in the short to medium term at least, so there is likely to be a need for direct communication of signal phases to the vehicle, either centrally from the traffic management system or directly from devices at the roadside (V2I communication). Speculatively, simpler solutions might involve infra-red beacons added to the signal lamp fittings, or physical methods used to make signal heads more easily distinguishable from their surroundings, for example by fitting screens or hoods to obscure their surroundings, or using barcoded signs to identify each signal. Whatever approach is taken, further work will be required and it is likely that some modifications will be needed to traffic signals on a route before it can be cleared for AV use. It will also be necessary for the location of all signals on a route to be accurately mapped so that the AV can identify where to expect a signal, and can respond safely if none is found.

An alternative approach to implementing greater degrees of signalisation and formalisation of road space would be to reduce vehicle speeds to a point where the severity of collisions is greatly reduced, and allow vehicles to proceed using their proximity sensors to avoid both other vehicles and pedestrians. This would represent a mode of operation much closer to the AV ‘pods’ that are currently being trialled in pedestrian areas, for example in the GATEway project20. This would be far more compatible with current approaches to urban design and create a far better environment for vulnerable road users. However, traffic capacity would have to be reduced if applied to busier roads.

Clearly, before any of this can be undertaken there will need to a be a clear definition of the capabilities that AVs will require before they can be allowed into general traffic without restriction, and standards will have to be agreed for supporting infrastructure and V2I communications. The process of modifying junctions and assessing the suitability of streets for AVs is likely to require revisions to current highway design guidance and standards, based on an improved understanding of AV capabilities, and a standardised assessment process will also be needed to enable routes to be approved for their use.

Consideration will have to be given to ensuring that human drivers maintain appropriate speeds in the presence of AVs, and that they comply with traffic rules and drive consistently. In the longer term it may be necessary to impose speed restriction devices or ‘black box’ driving monitors on human drivers when sharing traffic with AVs. On the other hand, there may be benefits to drivers from driver assistance and V2V systems that provide a degree of communication with AVs, for example to signal turning intentions or braking, or to identify themselves as humans to the AV so that it chooses more appropriate vehicle spacing.

In the longer term, once AV technology is sufficiently advanced and adopted so that human drivers can be largely eliminated from the roads, the infrastructure requirements should become simpler, because it will no longer be necessary to accommodate the separate needs of both humans and AVs. In theory, AVs should be able to drive safely with reduced spacing between vehicles, allowing quicker ‘start up’ times at signalised junctions and a high tolerance for accepting smaller gaps when joining traffic flows at junctions. Cooperation between AVs, without the uncertainty introduced by human drivers, would enable signalised junctions to be removed, potentially completely, enabling more efficient traffic flows and greatly reduced street clutter.

20. www.gateway-project.org.uk

16

With pedestrians

Detection and avoidance of pedestrians (and cyclists) is a significant technological challenge and, while rapid progress is being made, fully reliable systems are not yet available. However, once pedestrian protection becomes sufficiently reliable for pedestrians to feel confident that an AV will not run them over, this will raise a new set of challenges that are behavioural rather than technological. Faced with risk-averse AVs, pedestrians are likely to start asserting greater priority over road traffic in ways that will make conventional approaches to traffic management more difficult.

For example:

• When pedestrians cross a road using gaps in queuing traffic then it may be difficult for AVs to start moving again if pedestrians keep crossing

• At signalised crossings, pedestrians are likely to continue to cross following the green pedestrian phase, particularly if this is of short duration or there is a long delay between pedestrian phases, and again the AVs would be unable to start moving again as long as pedestrians are detected

• At Zebra crossings with large numbers of pedestrians, AVs would find it difficult to start moving once stopped if additional pedestrians keep moving to the start of the crossing zone

• At side-roads, if pedestrians could be sure that vehicles will give way to crossing pedestrians, as they are required to by the Highway Code but rarely do, vehicles turning into the side road would need to travel more slowly, and potentially have to wait on the main carriageway until their way is clear

• Away from formal crossings, pedestrians are likely to start to walk out in front of approaching vehicles if they are confident they will slow sufficiently or stop

This would be very beneficial for pedestrians; but it is likely to reduce traffic capacity, with implications for highway management approaches that currently rely upon restricting pedestrian movements in order to prioritise vehicle flows in the carriageway. Millard-Ball (2017)21 carried out ‘game theory’ modelling to investigate this interaction, and concluded “Because autonomous vehicles will be risk-averse, the model suggests that pedestrians will be able to behave with impunity, and autonomous vehicles may facilitate a shift towards pedestrian-oriented urban neighbourhoods. At the same time, autonomous vehicle adoption may be hampered by their strategic disadvantage that slows them down in urban traffic.”

21. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/309474883_Pedestrians_Autonomous_Vehicles_and_Cities

17

Clearly, one approach to reducing the complexity caused by pedestrian movements could be to seek to restrict them further, with physical infrastructure such as barriers, controlled crossings, segregated facilities such as subways and bridges, and, in some countries, the prohibition of ‘jaywalking’. This was the approach taken historically to enable motor vehicles to travel at higher speeds and traffic flows than would otherwise have been possible, particularly in urban areas22.

However, as noted earlier, imposing yet further restrictions on pedestrian movements in cities would be counter to the more recent shift in urban design towards lower traffic speeds and greater pedestrian permeability and accessibility, as described in the Introduction. In seeking to impose greater formalisation and restriction of the use of roadspace, there is a risk of creating less pedestrian-friendly streets that are unattractive as places and discourage people from walking, to the detriment of the community’s health and wellbeing.

Millard-Ball (2017) describes two contrasting possible responses to this conflicting demand for road space and capacity: a ‘pedestrian supremacy’ model in which motor vehicle speeds are low and pedestrians dominate; and a ‘regulatory response’ in which greater restriction on pedestrian movements are imposed, through regulation and physical infrastructure. Millard-Ball notes that the latter would represent “a return to the mid-20th Century street designs that emphasise segregation of road users.” Clearly the pedestrian supremacy model is more likely to be consistent with wider objectives for sustainable transport policy and urban design.

22. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26073797 “Jaywalking: How the car industry outlawed crossing the road”, Feb 2014

18

Consider modes of AV operation

The challenges discussed above make it unlikely that AVs will be approved to operate across the whole road network without restrictions, alongside human drivers and other road users, even in the longer term with improved technology. Although no definitive conclusions can be drawn, not least because of the limited experience of pedestrian and AV interaction, it seems likely that AV operation would be restricted to defined ‘modes of operation’ for particular corridors or zones meeting specified criteria.

For example, when sharing with human drivers, AVs are likely, at least in the short to medium term, to be restricted to roads where the highway environment is assessed to be within their capability and that are equipped with the necessary communication systems for signal infrastructure. AV shuttle services using motorways or major dual carriageways could be a viable early mode of operation, as they present simpler road environments with few junctions. An alternative potential mode of operation might be shared space operation in zones where low speed limits are imposed and pedestrians would have priority (reflecting the ‘pedestrian supremacy’ model). Operating modes might also differ according to whether human drivers are included alongside AVs in normal driving conditions, or are subject to a degree of control through driver assistance, Intelligent Speed Assistance technology, ‘black box’ data recorders etc., or excluded altogether.

When considering how these different operating modes might be chosen for particular locations it is helpful to consider the ‘Movement and Place’ framework that has become widely used in urban planning, and has been adopted by Transport for London in its ‘Streetscape Guidance’, illustrated in Figure 2. The concept recognises that a road usually does not simply have a traffic ‘movement’ function, but might also be a people-focused environment where people live, work, shop, or spend time in recreation or social interaction, i.e. having a ‘Place’ function. The ‘regulatory model’, prioritising vehicle movement over pedestrian access and comfort, would be detrimental to the viability of streets that have a high ‘Place’ function.

By considering the balance between a street’s ‘Movement’ and ‘Place’ functions, appropriate decisions can be made about which of the different AV operating modes would be chosen. Where ‘Place’ dominates then the slow speeds, shared space and pedestrian priority would be most appropriate; but where the primary function is ‘Movement’ then the ‘regulatory model’, i.e. measures that give motor vehicles priority, could be considered. Figure 2 has been annotated to illustrate how AV operations might sit in relation to the TfL streetscape matrix.

19

It is important to note that the measures required to restrict pedestrians so that AVs have priority are likely in practice be considered to be unacceptable on all but a core network of major roads.

Figure 2: Streetscape Matrix (Transport for London, 2016)23 annotated to demonstrate possible fit of future AV implementation in different types of street according to their Movement or Place functions

Movement refers to priority given to the passage of traffic along the street

Place refers to the priority given to the needs of people living, working, shopping or socialising on the street

The greatest difficulties will be encountered in the locations that have both significant movement and place functions, in particular busy high streets with limited carriageway space where segregation would be difficult but imposing very low speeds would have traffic capacity implications. However, there are examples of ‘shared space’ schemes that have high traffic flows, suggesting that creating low speed shared zones may be practicable on many busy urban roads. One such example is the Ashford Ring Road, where textured paving, removal of lights, railings and kerbs gave the sense of shared space and led to enough ambiguity such that people were more aware and alert and traffic drove more slowly24.

Although many shared space schemes now exist, in particular in other European countries such as the Netherlands, with good safety records and evidence that vehicle flows can be maintained even with large numbers of pedestrians, many vulnerable road users (in particular those with impaired vision) are concerned about the risks from vehicles. With low speeds enforced by technology and the expected development of highly effective pedestrian detection, shared spaces in an AV environment could work better, addressing many of the concerns that people with impaired vision have with current shared space schemes. Furthermore, the infrastructure changes required for the ‘regulatory model’, in particular the significant increase in the use of traffic signals, would be far more expensive to implement, so lower speed pedestrian priority models would be preferable from a cost as well as a streetscape perspective. 23. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/boroughs/street-types

24. http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/10116/Case-Study-Ashford-Ring-Road-PDF-7.pdf

Core road

Connector

Local street

Place

Movem

ent High road

High street

Town square

City hub

City street

City place

M3/P1

M2/P1

M1/P1

M3/P2

M2/P2

M1/P2

M3/P3

M2/P3

M1/P3

Motor vehicle priority corridor opportunity areas

Slow shared zone opportunity areas

20

Decide on the most appropriate AV operating mode

From the previous discussion it is clear that the requirements of AV services cannot by themselves determine how decisions about high infrastructure and streetscape design are made. The design of the AV and its operation will need to adapt to the needs of the city as well as the city adapting to the needs of AV ride-sharing. The appropriate operating mode for a particular location will therefore take account of a wider range of needs - those of the community, the function of the street and different road user groups. Adaptation can therefore be considered on three dimensions:

• The vehicle (operating speeds, detection, communications, cooperation etc.)• The highway environment (junction design, lane widths, cycling and pedestrian

infrastructure, parking provision etc.)• The user (who has priority, restrictions on access, speed limits, etc.)

The decision making process will have to take account of constraints and capabilities on each dimension and then identify an operating mode that is appropriate and takes full account of the different needs. The operating mode in turn defines what is required by way of adaptation for each: the AV, the street, the road user. This can be summarised by the process shown in Figure 3. Clearly, where new approaches are needed to highway design, or new restrictions or regulations affecting road users and vehicles, then additional standards, regulations and guidance is likely to be required to enable them.

Hybridised audit methodologies may be employed in the future by public and private bodies to determine the risks associated with routes chosen for CAV operation, with a focus on road safety and exposure for vulnerable road users. These assessments could be used and highlight possible mitigations to safety issues. Such assessments may allow the deployment of AV zones in city centres before they are seen in the wider road environment, by certifying that the selected route can be navigated by the commercially available technology of the day.

Implications for the roll out of AV ride-sharing

MERGE Greenwich is developing a business model for an AV ride-sharing service which integrates with public transport systems. Some service offerings may depend upon the ability of AVs to travel anywhere currently accessible by the public road network. Clearly if AVs are restricted to defined corridors or zones, at least in the early years, then some potential business models may become less commercially viable.

On faster, vehicle-priority corridors, shuttle type AV ride-sharing services could provide hub-to-hub travel and link major origins and destinations that are close to the major road network. Their role as ‘feeders’ to public transport would be limited by not being able to reach residential streets unless these are within low speed zones that are accessible from the vehicle corridors. They would however be ideal for linking larger stations to major destinations, e.g. business, leisure, retail sites, universities etc., that are not currently well connected to public transport. These corridors would also be good candidates for higher capacity intermediate modes, such as Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), which could also be operated by AVs, so AV ride-sharing would be in competition with these. Many more recent ‘out of town’ sites have poor public transport but are served by major roads that would be suitable for AV corridors; for example, the proposed INNOVATE UK trial of an AV link between Didcot Parkway Station in Oxfordshire and the Milton Park business estate two miles away25.

21 25. http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/news/2018/2018-02/government-green-lights-first-use-autonomous-vehicles-uk-roads

AV capabilities (pedestrian dectection,

signals, co-operation etc.)

Idenitification of approprite AV operating modes

(slow pods, AV only, vehhicle priority etc.)

Definition of requirements specific to chosen operating

mode (what needs to adapt to what)

AV requirements (e.g. operating speeds V2G

capability, detection capability etc, range, mapping)

Vehicle approval, standards etc

Highway infrastructure requirements (additional signalling,

V2I comms, mapping segregated cycle tracks, parking restrictions etc.)

Highway infrastructure design guidance and

standards

Road user restrictions (e.g. on pedestrians, on parking,

on access, speed limits, requirements for human drivers e.g. speed limiters, black boxes)

Street assessment process and tools

Streetscape requirements (e.g. Movement/Place function)

Road user behaviours and needs

Constraints Selection of operating mode Requirements Tools and policies

Figure 3: Considerations in deciding adaptation route for AVs

Within slow, shared zones, AVs would be able to provide door-to-door services; however these would necessarily be limited to within the zone, unless there is a connection to an AV corridor. Such services could support local journeys to work, school and to local shops and services; and would provide feeders to local railway stations. As the vehicles would be limited to low speeds they would be less competitive with cycling and walking over short distances, so there would be less risk of abstracting from active travel. This model of AV ride-sharing would be more compatible with the broader approach to city morphology that is currently being advocated by the urban design community. It is likely therefore that future AV ride-sharing service providers need to plan for operating at lower speeds than is currently the case.

Reallocate parking space to enable AV ride-sharing

One of the major attractions of AV ride-sharing, both to users and to transport planners and urban designers, is the potential to greatly reduce the space currently dedicated to parking cars. This applies both to formal car parks, which use valuable land, and to on-street parking, which impedes traffic flow, obstructs deliveries and makes it harder to provide high quality dedicated facilities for cyclists and pedestrians.

In the case of AV ride-sharing specifically, conveniently located and accessible drop-off and pick-up places are essential. Allowing for such pick-up and drop-off locations could become a key enabler for AV services and may require a shift in the current allocation of space in our cities. MERGE Greenwich has identified three types of location where parking space could be reallocated: public transport interchanges, on-street parking and car parks at major destinations.

Public transport interchanges

Although a large number of passengers park their car at railway stations, there are often as many, or even more, that are dropped off, as illustrated in Figure 4. This is not however reflected in the allocation of space at most stations, where the emphasis has been on providing large car parks, and dropping-off spaces are often constrained, competing for space with taxis and buses and causing congestion at station entrances. There is therefore already a case for reallocating space currently used for car parking to dropping off, and this case will be considerably strengthened as AV ride-sharing is introduced.

Figure 4: Access modes to example stations serving Greenwich area

22

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

New Cross Hither Green

Woolwich Arsenal

Lewisham Blackheath DeptfordGreenwichAbbey Wood

Waterloo East

Other

Car (parked)

Car (picked up/dropped off)

Taxi

Walk

Underground or DLR

Bus

Bicycle on train

Bicycle parked

It is worth noting that retrospectively adapting existing town centre interchanges, where space is limited, to accommodate AV drop-off, is complex. As an example, at Woolwich Arsenal station in Greenwich, the main entrance leads out directly onto the town centre’s main square, with already very limited space for bus stops. Taxi ranks are located in an adjacent side road, which also leads to the station car park. The car park has 100 spaces but, as shown in Figure 4, this provides only a small share of access trips. In locations like this, it may be possible to re-dedicate the car parking space to drop-off zones, as the same space used for ride-sharing could potentially result in easier access to the station for a greater number of people, compared to when this space is used only for car parking.

It is worth noting that there are several guidance and best practice documents concerning the design of successful transport interchanges, such as those by Network Rail26, Transport for London27, and European Commission funded research projects such as City Hub28 and NODES29. However, these documents will need to be updated in order to successfully design AV ride-sharing services and facilities into transport interchanges.

One issue that rail operators and local authorities will need to address is that car parking charges currently provide a lot of revenue, which would not be provided by drop-off facilities. However, car parking space could also be reallocated to other revenue-earning functions such as station retail.

On-street parking

Different challenges are presented by the requirement for pick-up facilities at the roadside and the opportunities AV ride-sharing presents for reducing the amount of road space used for parking. If the use of AV ride-sharing increases at the expense of private car use, then demand for conventional car parking spaces would decline, leading to a ‘virtuous circle’ enabling roadside parking spaces to be reallocated, thus encouraging further growth in AV ride-sharing. It is feasible that a policy-backed prioritisation of AV drop-off/pick-up in future streetscape design would be balanced with a reduction in provision of roadside parking.

It may be advantageous to create dedicated dropping-off and pick-up bays at the side of the road, rather than simply rely on stopping at the kerbside. Dedicated bays could help minimise interference with traffic flow and be located to minimise the impact on pedestrians. Potentially they could become more like buses, with shelters, seating and CCTV to improve comfort and security for people waiting to be collected.

2326. NetworkRail, 2011b. Guide to Station Planning and Design. Issue 1, Part B – Design Guidelines, London.27. https://tfl.gov.uk/info-for/urban-planning-and-construction/interchange 28 http://www.cityhub-project.eu/29. http://www.uitp.org/nodes-new-tools-design-and-operation-urban-transport-interchanges

Car parks at major destinations

There will also need to be a reallocation of car parking spaces at major destinations where drivers use dedicated car parks, for example at retail, business, leisure or hospital sites. Freeing car parking space for other purposes would allow more efficient use to be made of valuable land. The reallocation of parking space will need to be considered as part of planning authorities’ spatial strategies and planning guidance for future developments, in particular major schemes that would be expected to last for many decades into the future. Car parking provision is a significant part of current planning guidance, with requirements often specified for minimum or maximum levels of provision, and on providing road capacity and access to parking spaces. With a future shift to AV ride-sharing these aspects of planning guidance will need to be revised, to focus instead on the provision of suitable pick-up and drop-off space.

Key considerations:

• Develop common standards and regulations to specify the operating modes and associated infrastructural requirements under which AVs will be permitted to use public roads

• Update highway design guidance to reflect different modes of AV operation, consistent with good practice in streetscape design, such as the road user hierarchy and Movement/ Place framework

• Recognise that lower speed ‘pedestrian priority’ models are likely to be preferable from both cost and streetscape perspectives, so prioritise AV networks and services based on this mode of operation

• Develop assessment methods for identifying and approving routes to be used by AVs (taking account of proposed mode of operation and local streetscape context)

• Undertake research to identify where driver assistance and V2V communications could help human drivers to share roads with AVs

• Consider the removal of traffic signals and other forms of infrastructure from busier/higher speed roads in AV-only zones in the longer term once there is no longer a need to coexist with human drivers

• Update planning and development guidance to prioritise space for ride-sharing rather than parking for private vehicles

• Utilise space currently used for on street parking for AV ride-sharing pick-up and drop-off points or zones

• Station forecourt designs should increase space available for pick-up and drop-off facilities, potentially reallocating space from car parking

Timeframe required by: Piloting stage in localised zones with implementation required to a larger scale during transition period to full adoption

Action required by: Local authority, transport regulator, rail operators, government, AV ride-sharing service providers

24

Charging infrastructure for AVs

It is anticipated that AV ride-sharing services of the future will operate using a fleet of electric vehicles (EVs). For this reason, the MERGE Greenwich consortium considers the availability of suitable charging infrastructure as a fundamental requirement for the introduction of AV ride-sharing services.

The type and scale of charging infrastructure will need to provide sufficient scale and flexibility to meet the operational requirements of the AV ride-sharing fleet. Some specific considerations that feed into the level of charging infrastructure needed are discussed below.

Operational requirements – these include daily mileage, the number of bookings provided by the ride-sharing vehicles within a 24-hour period, the operational hours each day and maintenance schedules. Service locations and vehicle depots where vehicles are parked during maintenance periods, or when waiting for a booking while in service, have significant influences on the charging infrastructure implementation.

Vehicle specifications – in particular the vehicle driving range (kms), the usable battery capacity (kWh), and maximum charging power (kW). There is a trade-off between battery capacity and vehicle weight and cost, which means we cannot assume all vehicles in the fleet will be designed for maximum range or battery capacity.

Grid power capacity availability – this will be determined by the Distribution Network Operator (DNO) and can influence the number and location of charging points that can be installed. Consequently this has an impact on the cost of implementing the charging infrastructure, such as low voltage/high voltage connections and the requirement for substation upgrades. Faster charging systems draw a higher current and hence require greater supply capacity.

Available charging technologies which are commercially suited to the operational model used for the fleet. Based on current charging technologies and market development, 120kW (‘rapid’) charging is extremely expensive to implement because, in addition to greater charger equipment costs, there is also likely to be need for new power substations. The 350kW (‘ultra-rapid’) charger is still in the prototype stage and its technology readiness level and market readiness level are still not fully reached to be commercially sensible. AV service charging models that would require the availability of very fast charging are therefore unlikely to be viable, at least in the early years of implementation. Fast chargers would tend to be needed for on street charging during operational hours, slower chargers for depot-based charging when out of service.

Another important consideration is where to deploy charging infrastructure. There are several potential locations, some examples of which are discussed below.

An off-street designated parking depot would be ideal for a cluster of vehicle charging bays or a large fleet. If considering an AV ride-sharing service, AVs could be serviced and maintained at these depots while charging. The length of time vehicles spent at these depots would depend on the operational model. If the proposed fleet operation can make use of depot-based charging using slow chargers then this has the advantage of being able to use lower-cost equipment with least and most predictable impact on the supply network. There is also the potential to make use of ‘smart charging’ demand management services, with favourable tariffs, or even ‘vehicle to grid’ services that might become available in the future.

Residential parking bays or on-street parking would be another preferable location for one or two AVs out of the fleet, but only for charging and quick service. This approach is already utilised by car clubs.

25

Parking areas within commercial and business parks might be used when people use AV ride-sharing services for commuting to work. A cluster of vehicle charging bays could be installed and AVs could charge whilst waiting for evening commuters to return home or after dropping off passengers at the office. It might be feasible for business operators to provide service and maintenance at these locations.

Public car parks, hospitals, supermarkets and hotels could be regarded as locations for a quick turnaround service and maintenance. These locations would be ideal for high frequency visits. However, this may be constrained at hospitals given their expected limited reduced availability of a high power supply.

Railway stations and park and ride areas could also be regarded as a ‘depot’ where a cluster of vehicle charging bays could be installed for AVs waiting to pick passengers up. The difference between the off-street designated parking depot and the park and ride scenario is the distance to the areas of high demand for ride-sharing.

Taxi ranks or equivalent could also be considered if the rank is run by the AV service provider. The viability of the location would be dependent on service demand.

A major disadvantage of all public charging infrastructure is that it would not be possible for the AV ride-sharing operator to guarantee optimal availability of charging points at the times and locations needed for most efficient operation. The operator would also not be able to supervise the charging process, which introduces risks as the vehicle would need to have the capability to connect itself to a charger (or position itself correctly for charging systems using inductive loops or conductors embedded in the road).

26

Scenarios for AV ride-sharing charging strategies

The following scenarios have been developed in order to capture the possible vehicle operational models that might fit an AV ride-sharing service. These four scenarios envisage different fleet sizes and the complexity level would be different for each operation.

Scenario 1: Return to depot only at scheduled times (e.g. overnight) for recharging, servicing and other scheduled activities

• Under this model, the number of vehicle trips to depot is minimised• The total daily distance of all vehicles is below the maximum EV range; this would

probably require vehicles that have electric range of at least 200 miles • All vehicles leave the base depot at the start of service and stay out until end of

service • Servicing, maintenance, cleaning etc. would be planned to take place in the depot

during the out of service period to maximise on-road availability• Different vehicles may have different operational windows in order to ensure

vehicle availability in the evening or throughout the night to provide 24 hr services, and to match availability of service to demand during the day. To operate an AV ride-sharing service in Greenwich, the fleet would likely require one or two relatively large depots from which all vehicles can operate. Once a vehicle is back at the depot it is likely to remain there for a prolonged period of time, around 7 hours minimum.

Scenario 2: Return to depot throughout the day

• Under this model, vehicles gradually leave the depot throughout the day, based on current demand for the service

• Vehicles stay out as long as there is demand and return to depot if the demand drops, for servicing and recharging

• Vehicles can make multiple returns to the depot throughout the day, based on demand and need to recharge and/or service and clean the vehicle

• Under this operational model, vehicles still need to have a long EV range to cope with times of high demand, when return to depot would be detrimental to service quality (i.e. longer waiting times for some users) but not as long as in Scenario 1

• A range of around 100 miles should be adequate• A larger number of smaller depots would be required than in Scenario 1, to allow

for more options and quicker access to depots throughout the day • It is likely that in addition to spending up to 7 hours for overnight charging,

cleaning and servicing, vehicles will also spend between a few minutes and 2 hours in the depot at various points throughout the day

• It is also likely that the number of return trips to the depot will vary considerably between vehicles, depending on their journeys and service demand

27

Scenario 3: Return to depot supplemented with ‘satellite’ servicing facilities at major destinations

• Vehicles in this Scenario would operate as under the model described in Scenario 1• However, in order to facilitate a larger proportion of longer trips, additional servicing

facilities would be made available at key destinations that are further away from the main depot; for example, this might include airports, major train stations and major retail hubs, etc.

• These additional facilities would be much smaller, designed to accommodate 2 to 3 vehicles at a time but with a high turnover of vehicles throughout the day

• Vehicles could be serviced, cleaned and charged at these small depots and would not be expected to stop at these locations for more than 30 minutes

• The purpose of these stops would be to gain opportunistic charging if remaining EV range is not sufficient for return trip and/or waiting for customers requesting the service nearby

28

Scenario 4: A car club-like operational model with a large number of dedicated parking spots throughout areas of service operation plus a large depot

• A main depot is still expected where vehicles would return at the end of daily service in order to be recharged, cleaned and checked

• This depot could be substantially further out from the main area of service operation than in other scenarios because throughout the day the vehicles would not be reliant on it and instead utilise dedicated parking spots

• Each urban or depot parking spot would provide the opportunity to recharge the vehicle and a conveniently located parking space in which to wait if service demand is low; typically, a vehicle would not be expected to be at the parking space for more than 1 hour

• Vehicles operating under this model could have substantially smaller electric-only range (and therefore smaller batteries) of 50 to 60 miles, utilising opportunistic / top-up charging throughout the day as necessary

• Once a vehicle is back at the depot it is likely to remain there for a prolonged period of time, around 7 hours minimum.

Key considerations:

• Charging provision needs to be designed to meet the requirements of the proposed service, not the other way around

• Depot-based charging is best in terms of the operator having full control over charging and using lower cost equipment, but the ability to rely upon this is dependent on fleet size and requirements

• There is a trade-off between the cost of using batteries sufficiently large for typical daily mileage that can be charged overnight using lower cost chargers and using smaller, cheaper batteries that would require opportunity charging while in operation, using more expensive equipment

• Distributed or ‘satellite’ charging depots, mostly using slow charging but with the availability of a small number of fast chargers, would provide the greatest operational flexibility

• While the use of public charging infrastructure would have significant disadvantages in the early years of operation, in particular the risk of insufficient availability and the greater complexity of scheduling, it could be useful for opportunity charging in the longer term if an extensive public charging system becomes available

Timeframe required by: Piloting stage with further implementation in the transition period

Action required by: AV ride-sharing service provider; charging equipment providers; highway authorities where on street charging is proposed

29

Telecommunications and connectivity

Connectivity will be a key requirement for the effective operation of a shared-access urban transport network like an AV ride-sharing service. Connectivity is required by a number of elements of the system that are considered below:

• Ride hailing, enabling users to inform the system that they wish to make a journey• Tracking and scheduling of the AVs, where the central allocation and dispatch logic plans

journeys for the AVs• Personal safety of users, so that users sharing the vehicle with strangers can be confident

that they are safe• Monitoring of the AVs, so that faults can be detected and dealt with in a safe and timely

fashion• Vehicle control, both for navigation and their safe operation on the road

Ride-hailing app and booking platform

As with existing ride-hailing and ride-sharing service, users will have an expectation that they are able to plan a journey using AVs in advance. This means they must have the means to tell the system when and where they require a vehicle, and their destination. The communications requirements for this are not dissimilar to a wide range of services which smartphone users currently take for granted (e.g. journey planners, food delivery etc.), and the existing cellular network is able to cope with this type of communications traffic. Users are also easily able to cope with occasional lack of coverage, which they accept is a normal aspect of cellular phone usage. However, ride-sharing introduces additional requirements arising from the potential need to schedule additional collections or drop-offs after a ride has been booked, as well as functionality associated with passenger comfort and security, such as real-time links to the AV service provider’s support staff. This is discussed in more detail below.

Allocation and dispatch of the AVs

Over and above requirements for a ride-hailing service today, AV ride-sharing would require more sophisticated allocation and dispatch services. Again, existing cellular services are well able to cope with the communications traffic required; however one significant aspect to consider is how the vehicle will cope with being out of coverage of the cellular network. AVs will need to constantly monitor their connectivity, and when they detect themselves being out of coverage, move to an area where coverage is regained. They would need to be able to operate autonomously, with locally stored maps and navigation ability.

A risk mitigation, to minimise the chances of being out of coverage, is for the service operator to use multiple mobile network providers.

The AVs would also need to cope with complete loss of coverage due to a technical fault, in which case they should have a fall-back mechanism, with priority being given to achieving a minimal risk condition. This would normally involve navigating to a location where the vehicle poses the lowest possible risk to its passengers and other road users. In the context of a communications failure, it will of course not be possible to notify its control centre of its status, so navigating to a depot for repair is likely to be the action of choice.

30

Real time data sharing between operators and the city

When AV ride-sharing becomes commonplace, significant volumes of data will be constantly generated by the AVs and their passengers. For cities seeking to optimize their transport systems by applying real time policies, this data will be essential. It will allow transport operators to balance supply and demand across different modes and ensure AV ride-sharing supports, rather than competes with, other modes of transport. Being able to capture and analyse data will also help operators and cities understand how to plan for and improve the adoption of AVs overall.

The data collected through AVs will include many street-level data points, on all aspects from usage volumes, peak periods, routing patterns and traffic speeds, to connection with other modes of transport. This AV data, when aggregated with data from other transport modes, will become a powerful tool for cities seeking to better manage and inform transportation as a whole.

To have access to this type of data platform, cities will need to collaborate with private operators and ensure data sharing happens in an effective and responsible way. Data from AV useage would need to be anonymise and presented in a way that allows it to be aggregated with other transport data, to effectively illustrate the movements of the city in real time, but also to enable tracking of transport usage trends which can inform future city planning decisions.

The private sector benefits from a wealth of expertise regarding data sharing platforms which cities should leverage in order to support the deployment of AVs. Third party data platforms will enable cities to anonymise sensitive data, aggregate big data sets and present information in a way that can be used and acted on quickly and easily.

Personal safety and comfort of users

A key aspect to the success of this type of service is the confidence of the users in their safety while using the service. As users will be expected to share vehicles with strangers, they will need to feel that they are able to be safe. Market research undertaken as part of the MERGE Greenwich project found that users were more concerned by the perceived risks of ride-sharing with strangers than with the idea of vehicles without drivers. This can partially be solved by using technology to assure users that they are at all times able to call for assistance, and even that the inside of vehicle is being monitored. In-vehicle audio and, in particular, video would place a far higher load on the communications network than the tasks discussed in previous sections. Such communication links could be via the app or using systems in the vehicle; however the demands upon mobile data networks would be the same.

Audible monitoring requires a fairly low bandwidth, well within the capability of 4G and even 3G cellular networks. Continuous video monitoring places a far greater load on the network, and is really only feasible with 4G networks. Continuous video monitoring of all vehicles may not be desirable from a privacy point of view but the capability for live video communication whenever desired by users would be very beneficial for user security. Assuming an advanced compression technology is used, and that high resolution and frame rates are not required, future 5G networks will be able to cope with this type of load with ease, even if large numbers of vehicles are deployed, over the timescale likely for AV deployment.

Continuous video monitoring would have to cope with out-of-coverage areas. As long as these are not extensive, which is likely to be the case in urban areas, this could be dealt with by video buffering. As long as the users are not aware that monitoring has been interrupted, safety will not be significantly compromised. No existing CCTV system guarantees that all cameras are monitored 100% of the time. 31

Monitoring the AVs

Autonomous vehicles will require continuous remote monitoring of their operational status. Faults will need to be detected and reported to the operator, and the vehicles taken out of service for any fault which compromises user safety in any way.

It is expected that vehicles of this type will be able to operate with a fair degree of autonomy, and that on-board sensors and computational ability will be able to monitor the health status of on-board systems. This means that the requirements for connectivity will be quite low, and well within the capability of existing cellular networks, so no additional capacity would be required for shared AV services.

Vehicle control

AVs need a high degree of awareness of their environment. They must be able to detect all obstacles in their path, monitor surrounding road users (cars, cyclists etc.), as well as nearby pedestrians, roadside furniture, lane markings, etc. Much of this monitoring will be done using on-board sensors like cameras, radar, LIDAR, ultrasonic sensors and microphones. Most vehicle manufacturers have stated that they are aiming to make their vehicles able to operate in normal road environments without additional infrastructure, including communications infrastructure. Nonetheless, it is well accepted that connectivity is able to provide an extra layer of safety to the operation of AVs. Until there is more experience of AV operation on normal roads, the extent of additional connectivity required is unknown.

All AVs require an on-board digital map of the road network, and must have the ability to update these maps as road layouts and priorities change. However, these changes are not very frequent, so could reasonably be expected to use cellular networks, access to which AVs will require anyway for the services mentioned in previous sections.

• A major part of future vehicle services is expected to be delivered through what are called Connected Intelligent Transport Systems (C-ITS), which will require connectivity well beyond what is capable with current cellular networks. The connectivity required for these services is both vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I). The infrastructure requirements for V2V are less than for V2I because no additional communications infrastructure is needed, whereas V2I is likely to need equipment at the roadside or added traffic signals and signs. V2V and V2I provide the capability for vehicles to take data beyond the range of their own sensors, which would be helpful at higher speeds, and also to ensure that AVs are able to detect traffic signals accurately. There may also be a role for V2V to help human drivers and AVs interact on the road, providing more efficient signalling of intentions to AVs and enabling AVs to adapt their driving to human preferences, for example on gaps between vehicles.

These issues are discussed further in the next section of this report.

32

Regulatory framework implications for AV ride-sharing

Separately from the AV-specific questions about where and under what conditions AVs would be permitted to operate on public roads, it is necessary to consider how the ride-sharing service itself would be regulated or licensed, and how this would relate to the existing regulatory frameworks for public service buses, taxis and private-hire minicabs. This will have a bearing on the type of services that might be offered through AV ride-sharing as different levels and scales of service could have different regulations and licensing requirements. For example, services carrying more than eight passengers can fall within public bus service regulations if they offer a fixed route and timetable. This is different from the requirements for operating a private hire taxi. Possible consequences are either that some kinds of future AV ride-sharing service may need to be registered as forms of bus service, or even that the Government will need to revise the regulatory processes to take account of growth in AV ride-sharing services that bridge the gap between buses and taxis.

Key considerations:

• In general, current or expected mobile communication systems are expected to be sufficient for the anticipated needs of AV ride-sharing; however consideration should be given to initially focusing provision of 5G in areas of high AV ride-sharing fleet capacity

• Ride-sharing creates some additional communication requirements in addition to those that would be needed for AV, or for conventionally driven ride-hailing services

• Provision for real-time audio and video communication is necessary for passenger comfort and security during shared journeys

• Service providers, town planners and local authorities need to work together, sharing vehicle position and movement data to provide more accurate real time information on road traffic flows, congestion and the location of roadworks

• Accurate maps, updated in real time, will be needed for details of road works, junctions, crossings, parking restrictions, obstructions and narrowings etc.

• Assess what requirements there may be for V2I communications for signalised junctions

• Assess the potential for V2V communications to help human drivers to share space with AVs, including the use of retro-fit equipment

Timeframe required by: Transition period to full adoption

Action required by: Local authorities, AV ride-sharing service providers, local developers

33

Public bus services (outside London) are defined in DfT guidance on the registration of local bus services30: “A local bus service is where a Public Service Vehicle (PSV) is used to carry passengers at separate fares”. A PSV licence is required either to:

• operate a vehicle for hire or reward (payment or payment in kind) that can carry nine or more passengers; or

• operate a smaller vehicle carrying passengers and charging separate fares for the journey

It is also necessary to consider the different regulatory framework that exists for buses in London, where all bus services are specified by Transport for London, compared with elsewhere in the UK where bus services are deregulated and any operator can register a service as long as they have a public service vehicle licence.

The issues for AV ride-sharing are similar to those that have already had to be considered in the development and trial of Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) and other similar services that come under the heading of ‘community transport’. DRT involves providing a bus service that doesn’t follow a fixed route, but rather picks up and drops off in response to bookings or requests made by passengers wishing to use it. This introduces a ‘grey’ area of regulation, because the service combines elements both of a public bus service and of a private hire cab service; there is usually some form of schedule and a defined network of routes in which DRT operates; there is the potential to carry larger numbers of passengers; and passengers can get on the bus without booking if they are at a stop when it arrives. However, DRT also allows for bookings to be made that alter the route and allow collections/drop-offs at the door, in the manner of a private hire car.

DfT provides guidance on the registration of ‘flexibly routed local bus services’31. This defines a flexible bus service as:

• serving one or more local communities or neighbourhoods within a specified geographical area

• being so flexible that it is not practicable to identify in advance all the roads to be used at any given time

• being provided primarily to carry passengers who have booked in advance and whose collective requirements determine the route of each journey even though other persons may also be travelling

• requiring separate fares to be paid which do not vary according to the number of passengers carried on the journey

There are also issues relating to the eligibility of bus services for fuel duty grants, which are not available to taxis or private hire. Community transport groups that are operating on a not-for-profit basis can apply for permits to carry passengers in a bus or minibus without holding a Public Service Vehicle operator’s licence; however this is currently the subject of a DfT consultation32, which is driven in part by concerns that such services are undermining commercially provided bus services and are in conflict with EU competition rules.

In order to operate its Chariot bus service, Ford was required to obtain a London Service Permit, which sets out requirements that must be complied with concerning the nature of the service, vehicle and emission standards, accessibility, information provision and impacts on other transport services and other road users.

It is also important to consider how private hire vehicles (PHVs) including taxis are regulated at present and how regulations are starting to change in order to facilitate ride-sharing. This kind of service is being considered as part of the MERGE Greenwich project.

30. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/542918/local-psv-service-registration.pdf 31. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/555828/registration-flexibly-routed-local-bus-services-guide-for-operators.pdf 32. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/680319/section-19-section-22-permits-consultation.pdf

34

In London, PHVs are particularly closely regulated33. Private hire operators, drivers and vehicles are licensed under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. However, the 1998 Act does not include regulation specific to the type of service provided (for example, a minicab, or ride-sharing, etc.). According to the Act, a PHV may be used to transport passengers at separate fares in situations where all passengers book their journeys ahead of time and consent to sharing and payment terms when they book. It also states that “advance booking of shared hiring does not involve standing or plying for hire and it is therefore open to PHV services as well as taxis”.

The Transport Act 1985 was used to make it easier for taxis and PHVs to be used to provide shared services and includes provisions specifically relating to ride-sharing using taxis or PHVs. With respect to ride-sharing schemes using taxis, Transport for London currently authorises these under the 1985 Act; however, should circumstances change as they are expected to in the near future, additional requirements and conditions can be introduced under the 1985 Act for ride-sharing services which use PHVs. A similar situation could unfold with the roll-out of AVs and AV ride-sharing.

Transport for London is already starting to look to a future that includes new technologies and ride-sharing. In the latest ‘Policy statement: Private hire services in London’ published in February 201834, it was highlighted that safety will be a key focus in ‘new or novel areas where there is little existing evidence of what happens in practice’, which is likely to cover AV ride-sharing. In accordance with this, Transport for London has indicated the intention to seek further regulatory change in the future, specifically to:

• Improve safety and customer service• Support the Mayor’s Transport Strategy• Enhance accessibility• Share data with Transport for London

Following on from the Mayor’s Transport Strategy and the Mayor’s Taxi and Private Hire Action Plan, it should be expected that PHV licensing will require further changes, specifically to cover ride-sharing and to ensure that safety and security of passengers is maintained for these types of journeys. Much of the current taxi and private hire regulatory system is concerned with the driver, not least because of the need to protect the personal safety of passengers. Clearly driver regulation is not relevant in the case of AV ride-sharing, so regulation will need to focus on how passenger security is provided with no driver, or with on-board, non-driving, ‘stewards’.

Existing regulations will probably cover most of the AV ride-sharing service offerings that are being considered in MERGE Greenwich; and there are suitable regulatory frameworks that would cover the more ‘bus like’ services. Nonetheless, consideration will need to be given in the implementation of individual service offerings to ensure that the appropriate regulatory route is followed. It would also be helpful for those involved in delivering such services to engage with DfT in any further revisions to the regulatory framework for shared vehicle passenger services. Regulatory support for ride-sharing services using larger vehicles/small buses would be consistent with the Mayor’s target for a modal shift away from car travel.

The availability of AV ride-sharing services may help to stimulate demand for shared transport on corridors not currently well served by public transport, which could lead to a progression from AV ride-sharing to more bus-like services using larger vehicles. This would be a progression through different regulatory models, something that transport authorities and regulators will need to respond to flexibly if the full benefits are to be realised.

33. Transport for London regulations of taxi and private hire are available at: https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/taxi-and-private-hire 34. http://content.tfl.gov.uk/private-hire-policy-statement.pdf

35

Key considerations:

• Regularly review the impact of nationally determined regulations that affect flexible transport services with the aim of reducing barriers to the operation of ride sharing services, consistent with the aim to encourage modal shift away from car travel

• Update the definitions of bus and private hire services to reflect the reality of online booking and fare systems

• Review regulatory implications of having no driver to license, but an ongoing need to provide passenger security and the potential for non-driving staff to be present

Timeframe required by: For national legislation, transition period to full adoption; legislation is already in place for piloting

Action required by: Local authorities, AV ride-sharing service providers, local developers

36

Recommendations for implementing AV ride-sharingFor cities around the world to benefit from the advantages of AV technology and the efficiencies of ride-sharing, a number of challenges will need to be overcome. This report has explored what these challenges are and this section aims to suggest ways in which local and national governments, as well as mobility service providers, can start planning for the future now. It is worth noting that not all of these challenges are technological; many arise from human behaviour and solutions will need to address both in equal measure. However, if these challenges are successfully overcome, and if services using AV technology are designed to serve the needs of the city, rather than the other way around, AVs and ride-sharing will radically change how people move about and have the potential to enhance the transport system as a whole.

1. Plan ahead to enable an integrated transport system which uses a common Mobility as a Service platform

To deliver a new mobility service which complements, rather than competes with, existing public transport, a complete service offering will need to be developed and integrated with current systems.

Creating a unified Mobility as a Service (MaaS) platform, which includes AV as one of the modes, will enable an integrated transport system that provides consistent branding, ensures good customer experience and underpins a reliable service. Aside from fleet management, the new service will require a full end-to-end operating model, allocation and dispatch platform, journey planning and booking capability, a payment mechanism and complete service wrap to meet customer expectations. All of these will need to integrate seamlessly with systems which support existing modes of transport. This is lengthy, complex and expensive to set up but it is essential to operate Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and AV services. Customer experience across the whole booking to billing lifecycle will be key to successful adoption of AV ride-sharing, particularly as there will be no driver on board to provide assistance.

MERGE Greenwich research also revealed the power of purpose-designed apps to influence consumer behaviour. By presenting information in a particular way, MaaS providers could optimise the transport network as well as improve the customer experience. Applying ‘gamification’ techniques to the app, which allow passengers to score ‘points’ by choosing particular routes or modes of transport, could encourage modal switches which result in shorter journey times and balance the demand across the transport network. Again, this requires a level of integration between public and private transport modes which doesn’t exist today and will need dedicated attention in the coming years.

MERGE Greenwich suggests governments and mobility service providers need to begin collaborating now to ensure this level of systems integration and app development is in place before AV technology comes to market, in order to avoid any delays to the benefits of AV ride-sharing being realised.

37

2. Focus city planning on designing space for future usage – including reallocating parking space to pick-up and drop-off zones

Widespread AV adoption is likely to involve significant changes in how roadspace is used. Historic urban design has allowed for a significant level of car parking. MERGE Greenwich suggests future plans need to shift the balance from parking space to pick-up and drop-off space. One particular area for immediate focus would be major transport hubs such as rail stations, which currently favour car parking over space dedicated to pick-up and drop-off zones, but are struggling to provide sufficient parking capacity to meet future growth.

Reallocating parking space to allow for more temporary usage would increase the number of users benefiting from that space, which would create a virtuous circle by encouraging the use of shared vehicles and deincentivising the use of private cars. This would also make it easier for passengers to use AV ride-sharing for the ‘first or last mile’ and public transport for the majority of their trip, instead of driving all the way.

In addition to this, new, localized transport hubs could be created by repurposing sections of on-street parking to pick-up and drop-off bays. In neighbourhoods which are currently underserved by public transport these new bays would enable an AV ride-sharing service to be implemented swiftly and at relatively low cost (compared to the cost of installing fixed infrastructure such as a new tube station). Designated pick-up and drop-off bays on busy streets would avoid disrupting traffic flows and could be considered as an alternative revenue opportunity if a charge applies to ensure fair use. Town planners are encouraged to consider this, particularly for new developments which could set a new standard for allocation of parking space.

3. Design AV operations to meet the needs of pedestrians and the street environment

Pedestrians represent a particular challenge to AVs, because of the unpredictable nature of their behaviour and because, if pedestrians perceive that AVs are ‘risk averse’, they will be able to assert greater priority over the new vehicles at side roads and when crossing the road. This may hinder the AVs’ ability to make progress when large numbers of pedestrians are around.

However, it would be detrimental to the vitality and quality of the environment to impose greater restrictions on pedestrians in order to facilitate mass roll out of AVs. For this reason, on most urban streets, the most appropriate response would be to implement much lower speed limits. In these areas, AVs would be expected to travel slowly and stop frequently, which would minimise the likelihood and severity of collisions, resulting in an environment more like ‘shared space’ zones.

MERGE Greenwich recommends that changes made to highway infrastructure which accommodate AVs should fully reflect the wider community needs of a street rather than solely meeting the objective of accommodating the new technology. This report suggests that the Movement and Place framework which is increasingly being used in urban design would provide a basis for making decisions about the balance between pedestrian and vehicle priority in different locations.

38

4. Implement smart traffic management on targeted AV ride-sharing corridors

On major roads, where traffic flow is a priority, AVs have the potential to benefit the transport system as a whole in the long term. AVs will be able to make more efficient use of junctions and road space, for example by not requiring traffic signals, travelling closer together and coordinating their movements with other vehicles.

However, for the medium term, AVs will still need to coexist with human drivers which, paradoxically, may require greater use of signalised junctions and crossings to make the highway environment more predictable for driving at current traffic speeds, and to optimize traffic capacity. To manage the transition to full automation and gain the greatest benefit from AV operation it will be necessary to plan for and implement smart signalling systems, and associated V2V and V2I communications that would enable AVs and human-driven vehicles to interact efficiently with each other. Clearly this has cost implications, and investment in equipment will need to be targeted at corridors where it would have the best business case.

It is therefore likely that adaptation of major roads for AVs will need to be undertaken progressively, targeting routes that are identified as priority for AV introduction, such as those identified as priority corridors for AV ride-sharing. The likelihood that AVs would be restricted to defined corridors or low-speed zones limits the potential areas of operation for AV ride-sharing; however, operating on defined networks is less of a constraint for a ride-sharing scheme designed for integration with other modes than for privately owned AVs, which would be expected to allow universal AV operation.

5. Develop tools to assess the suitability of AV routes

When planning AV networks, it is important to recognise that AVs are, at least in the short to medium term, likely to be restricted to a limited network of routes that have been adapted for AV operation. These routes will have either vehicle or pedestrian priority, and the latter is likely to be most appropriate within cities, except on major roads.

Developing tools to assess routes, in order to determine their suitability for use by AVs, will be essential to ensure a consistent and robust approach is taken during the transition period. This will need to include the identification of appropriate infrastructure changes to permit AVs to operate and an audit or assessment process equivalent to the current Safety Audit that is already undertaken.

MERGE Greenwich recommends that transport and town planners focus on developing a toolkit to assess traffic rules, land usage and routes or zones suitable for AV operation.

6. Scale up investment in charging infrastructure and depot space

For AVs to deliver maximum benefits to the city and citizens, the fleet will need to be electric. This will require significant investment in charging infrastructure as well as the allocation of space for AV servicing and repair depots. The latter can often be overlooked in service design and town planning but will need to be thought through in order to deliver a full and reliable service.

From MERGE Greenwich research, which considered likely operational scenarios, a combination of on-street and depot-based charging would be required to support the AV ride-sharing fleet. However, the consortium’s fleet simulations35 and an assessment of charging technology available has revealed depot-based charging should be sufficient for most of the charging demand expected for this kind of fleet. This has the advantage of reducing the need for a dispersed charging network and allows the operator an opportunity

35. Further details will be included in the final MERGE Greenwich report, to be published in July 2018. Please visit www.mergegreenwich.com to download the full report. 39

to carry out service and maintenance in an efficient manner, i.e. when the vehicle is charging at the depot.

MERGE Greenwich recommends that city planning efforts focus on depot-based charging, with smaller scale provision of on-street charging, to support AV ride-sharing services. This could be in the form of scattered or ‘satellite’ depots, as well as larger depots further from urban centres, in order to provide greater operational flexibility. These additional on-street fast chargers would allow for a small proportion of vehicles to recharge during operational hours.

7. Develop next generation communications infrastructure to harness the power of connectivity

The connectivity potential of AVs is beyond that of today’s vehicles but a certain level of communications infrastructure is required to realise this potential. Furthermore, AV ride-sharing will require a greater level of communications infrastructure than privately operated AVs. This is mostly due to the need for real time communications between passengers and customer support staff for the purposes of passenger comfort and security.

Encouragingly, it is expected that the fundamental communication needs of AVs can be met with existing mobile data services or those that are expected to be introduced over a similar timeframe as AVs. This communications capability means AVs could offer a new level of interaction with human drivers through vehicle to vehicle (V2V) communications.

For example, AVs could use V2V communications to signal their intentions and adapt their following distances to ones which other road users felt comfortable with.

However, next generation communications infrastructure will require further development in oder to deliver even greater benefits from enhanced connectivity. Vehicle to infrastructure (V2I) communication, for example at traffic signals, has the potential to improve efficiency of a city’s transport system but will need a level of connectivity which is above and beyond the current provision. MERGE Greenwich suggests collaboration between industry and government bodies will be essential to ensure any communications infrastructure developed now uses common standards and is future proofed to cope with new technologies and services, such as AV ride-sharing.

8. Create a platform for real time data sharing between AV operators and the city which optimises the transport system as a whole

Huge amounts of data will be constantly generated by AVs and their users. This data can be used by cities to balance supply and demand across different modes. For example, cities could optimize their transport systems by invoking policies in real time, which influence modal choice and ensure AV ride-sharing complements other transport investments. Having operational data insights is also key to understanding how to plan and improve the adoption of AV ride-sharing overall.

An open data sharing platform, potentially created through public-private collaboration, will enable AV data to be accessible and formatted in a way that helps both the city and operators make the best decisions for management and deployment of the service. Such a data sharing platform would support real time decisions as well as planning future services or wider adoption of the technology. MERGE Greenwich suggests the creation of a real time data sharing platform has the potential to radically improve the accessibility, efficiency and cost of running AV ride-sharing at scale alongside other modes of public transport.

40

9. Develop regulation to enable next generation mobility services

Some AV ride-sharing services may have characteristics of both bus and taxi services, which means future mobility service offerings may need be registered as flexible bus services for regulatory purposes. In this scenario MERGE Greenwich does not expect regulation to be a major barrier to the introduction of ride-sharing but, nonetheless, it has to be taken into account when services are designed and implemented.

In another scenario, it is possible that the availability of AV ride-sharing services may stimulate demand for shared transport on corridors which are not currently well served by public transport. This could lead to a progression from AV ride-sharing to more bus-like AV services using larger vehicles. In this instance, the type of vehicle and service may fall under different regulatory models, which transport authorities and regulators will need to respond to flexibly if the full benefits of AVs are to be realised.

Another consideration would be the geographic boundary of AV services. Currently local authorities are responsible for regulation; however this may well need to change in the long term if AVs are able to operate in any location, possibly crossing traditional operational boundaries. At this stage, it would be advisable for national government to become involved in regulation to ensure a country-wide framework was in place which supports a flexible and wide-reaching service.

MERGE Greenwich suggests AV ride-sharing providers work with DfT and regulatory authorities to ensure that the future requirements of AV ride-sharing are taken into account now so that bus and private hire regulatory frameworks can be tailored accordingly. The regulatory framework will need to cover all areas mentioned above, including the integration of booking/payment systems, the use of pick-up and drop-off space, implementation of traffic management measures and the requirement for V2I communication capability.

10. Strengthen public-private collaboration to develop ambitious and integrated policies which enable the uptake of AV ride-sharing

In order for the recommendations above to be implemented effectively, so that the uptake of AV ride-sharing can meet a city’s wider societal, economic and environmental objectives, there is a set of cross cutting essential enablers which will need to be in place. These include:

Design strong policies to shape the use of AVs around the goals of the city, not the other way around

The challenges faced by cities are increasing, as is the pace of technology development If ambitious policies can be focussed on ensuring AV technology developments are applied directly to address these city challenges, it is far more likely that AV ride-sharing could deliver the significant benefits which are discussed at the beginning of this report and avoid the negative impacts that have been identified.

Create a private-public working group focused on AV to ensure that the measures needed to implement AV are fully integrated with other policy objectives: urban planning, sustainability, transport safety and accessibility, socal inclusivity, economic development

This working group would need to involve industry operators, town and transport planners and regulators to ensure a truly joined-up approach is taken to AV development. This, coupled with the clear policy guidance mentioned above, would produce a powerful driving force for effective change.

Continue to invest in existing public transit modes to ensure quality is maintained and avoid mass switching to AV ride-sharing

41

In order to avoid the unintended consequence of developing AV ride-sharing services which compete with public transport, it will be important for public transport modes to continue to be improved. This will require continued investment in existing infrastructure by, for example, maintaining the interiors of buses and tubes to ensure the level of customer experience remains on a par with new vehicles which enter the market. It is particularly important that buses are given priority on the road (bus lanes, priority signals etc.) and that they also adopt the benefits of AV technology so that they are not left behind by private AVs or AV ride-sharing services.

Limit investment in roads and infrastructure for private car use

To support measures which promote the use of public transport and AV ride-sharing, stronger measures will be required to disincentivise private car use, through a package of policy tools such as the allocation and pricing of parking spaces, low emission zone restrictions, congestion charging or road pricing. MERGE Greenwich research has shown that this ‘carrot and stick’ approach accelerates the impact of AV ride-sharing and enables a far greater impact to be achieved for cities and their citizens.

In conclusion, mass adoption of AVs and ride-sharing will radically change the way people will move around, presenting risks as well as great opportunities for urban development. Cities need to embrace and plan ahead for AV ride-sharing in order to maximise the potential benefits and avoid any delays to the implementation of this new technology and service model offer.

The forward planning required includes designing strong policies to shape road space usage and infrastructure design in a way which encourages new services to help achieve the goals of the city as well as meet customer needs. This means there is an urgent need to integrate AVs into urban planning and policy. If this is achieved effectively and in a timely manner, the introduction of new technology and services will reduce private vehicle use, improve the efficiency of the transport network as whole and make the AV experience cost-effective and safe for passengers as well as other road users.

Cities which adopt an ambitious and proactive approach to planning for future mobility solutions will stay ahead of the transport challenges, meaning cities and their citizens will benefit from being at the forefront of implementing AV technology and ride-sharing.

42

Overview of implementation timeline for AV ride-sharing

Piloting stage (by 2025)

Transition period (medium term-to 2050?)

Full adoption (long term future)

National legislation and regulation:

• Standardisation of technology; where AVs can and cannot go; conditions of AV operation, e.g. situations or circumstances when automation should be reduced for safety precautions such as icy conditions; segregation or shared space design; speeds; signage and signals required; liability and insurance in the case of a collision; cybersecurity and privacy protocols and standards are all needed

• Review of existing taxi and bus regulation to take account of AV ride-sharing services

Action required by: National government, regulators

Pick up and drop off zones:

• Utilise space currently used for on street parking for AV ride-sharing pick-up and drop-off points or zones

• Avoid locations that will cause conflict with other modes, e.g. cycle lanes• Scale should match demand• Significant reduction of car parking requirement in long term, space can be reallocated

Action required by: Local authority, service providers, rail operators

Transport planning and street design:

• Infrastructure design must take account of characteristics of both AVs and human drivers

• Pedestrian and cycle detection and avoidance a significant challenge• Assessment needed of suitability of roads for proposed AV networks, selection of

appropriate operating mode, identification of infrastructure requirements • Low speed shared space zones particularly in residential areas and around

transport hubs• Infrastructure modifications on traffic corridors, e.g. new and modified signals,

signs and road markings • Improved pedestrian and cycle routes should be implemented to provide

segregation from higher speed AV corridors where necessary

Action required by: Local authority, transport regulator, government, AV ride-sharing service providers

Transport planning and street design:

• Infrastructure can be designed solely for AV characteristics

• Dependable pedestrian avoidance enables pedestrians to take greater priority over road traffic, enabling improved streetscape but potentially reduced traffic capacity

• Removal of traffic signals and other infrastructure could improve efficiency

• Congestion reduction benefits start to appear on major raods

Action required by: Local authority

Telecommunications and connectivity:

• Focusing provision of 5G in areas of high AV ride-sharing fleet capacity initially, either in shared space zones or along AV priority corridors

• Work with local authorities, sharing data to provide more information on traffic flows and congestion

• Modification of existing traffic lights with Bluetooth or equivalent technology

Action required by: Local authorities, AV ride-sharing service providers

Telecommunications and connectivity:

• Aligning with urban planning and upcoming developments to maximise the opportunity to build in rather than having to retrofit

Action required by: Local authorities, AV ride-sharing service providers, local developers

Integration with public transport services:

• AV ride-sharing provision should be considered as part of the interchange zone; station forecourt redesign to increase pick-up and drop-off facilities and space for AVs carrying passengers to and from stations

Action required by: Station owner/managing organisation, local authority, service providers

Transport planning and street design:

• Definition of infrastructure requirements for different modes of AV operation in different street enviroments

• Development of assessment methodology to identify routes and requirements for AV access

• Design services to minimise modal shift from public transport to AV ride-sharing

Action required by: Local government, transport regulators, e.g. Transport for London, bus and rail operators

Charging infrastructure:

• Depot charging infrastructure is best in terms of the operator having full control, but this is dependent on fleet size and requirements

• In the future could make use of on street facilities

Action required by: AV ride-sharing service provider

43