Dr Marcus Enoch
Transport Studies Group
School of Civil and Building Engineering
Email: m.p.enoch@lboro.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1509 223408
1

Presentation structure
Background
The traditional local passenger transport landscape
The rise of intermediate modes
The factors pushing towards a system change
Steps towards a modified system architecture
Framing the process of change
Implications for policy makers and practitioners
Conclusions
2

3
Research Interest Perspective

4
Research Interest Perspective
Passenger Freight

5
Research Interest Perspective
Passenger
Sea Air Rail
Freight
Road Road Rail Air Sea

Society
System
User
Research Interest Perspective
Passenger
Sea Air Rail
Freight
Road Road Rail Air Sea
6

Society
System
User
Research Interest Perspective
Passenger
Sea Air Rail
Freight
Road Road Rail Air Sea
7

The Issue
We all know that the world is changing.
Yet we assume that the transport system will stay the same as it has been since the turn of the (last) century – made up of cars, buses, taxis, trains, planes and boats.
8

Rationale and Aim
This may well be true, but it may be wildly wrong…
Hence:
This paper aims to re-imagine the future of the local passenger transport system as it may look in the future, in light of current societal trends
9

Method
Discussion paper synthesising data from:
Academic and professional literature
Interviews and discussions with industry observers and practitioners
Observations made at four sector workshops over the past 18 months or so.
10

The traditional local passenger landscape
Common carrier Paratransit
Typical modes Bus Taxi
Private transport
Car
Characteristics
Optimal operating conditions
Strengths
User rents a seat and is driven to destination.
Best service level provided demand is high.
Cost to users relatively low.
where
User rents a vehicle and driven to destination.
Supply usually responsive to level of demand.
High quality.
User owns a vehicle and is required to drive oneself.
Best service level provided where low demand.
service Service quality is very high.
Weaknesses Low service quality. Cost to users very high.
High up front cost to buy the vehicle.
User must drive/be driven.
11

The traditional local passenger landscape
Common carrier Paratransit
Typical modes Bus Taxi
Private transport
Car
Characteristics User rents a seat
Optimal operating conditions
Strengths and is driven to destination.
User rents a vehicle and driven to destination.
User owns a vehicle and is required to drive oneself.
Best service level Best service level provided where demand is high.
Cost to users relatively low.
Supply usually responsive to level of demand.
High quality.
provided where low demand.
service Service quality is very high.
Weaknesses Low service quality. Cost to users very high.
High up front cost to buy the vehicle.
User must drive/be driven.
12

The traditional local passenger landscape
Common carrier Paratransit
Typical modes Bus Taxi
Private transport
Car
Characteristics
Optimal operating conditions
Strengths
User rents a seat and is driven to destination.
Best service level provided demand is high.
Cost to users relatively low.
where
User rents a vehicle and driven to destination.
Supply usually responsive to level of demand.
High quality.
User owns a vehicle and is required to drive oneself.
Best service level provided where low demand.
service Service quality is very high.
Weaknesses Low service quality. Cost to users very high.
High up front cost to buy the vehicle.
User must drive/be driven.
13

The Rise of the Intermediate Modes
14
For details, see Table 2 in the paper.

15
Traditional and Intermediate Modes

Example of Growth
North America
900 car club members in
1998, and 908,000 in 2012
69 vehicles in 1998, and
15,795 in 2012
North America
900 car club members in
1998, and 908,000 in 2012
69 vehicles in 1998, and
15,795 in 2012
16

17
Other intermediate modes growing too
Car sharing/car club operators growing members around the world
Lift sharing operators ‘bullish’ about prospects
DRT operations becoming more commonplace
Community Transport schemes growing to fill in gaps left by drop off in tendered bus services

So Why Now?
Political factors pushing change
Choice agenda (to drive up service quality)
Desire for a more integrated total journey experience for user
Climate change, energy, congestion, safety, social reasons to reduce car use.
Recession – public sector cuts, efficiency agenda…
Reducing bureaucracy
– deregulation,
QANGOs – efficiency
Blurring of modes and large transport companies buying new mode operators
18

So Why Now?
Social factors pushing change
Less young people driving – insurance, driving tests, image…
(More) elderly people now unfit to drive – with high expectations
Rise of collaborative consumption – sharing tools, houses, cars…
19
Increased use of social media and developing attitudes to privacy

So Why Now?
Economic factors pushing change
Increased efficiencies sought at societal and system levels due to economic recession
Users always want better value for money, but particularly sensitive in times of economic recession
20

So Why Now?
Technological factors pushing change
Integration now easier
– ticketing, information
– and dynamic
New vehicle construction/propulsion technologies emerging
Driverless vehicles now being developed and mainstreamed
Internet and mobile phones combined as
‘smartphones’…
21

Steps towards a Modified System Architecture
Blue areas refer to service type characteristics available to typical users of each of the traditional modes
22

Steps towards a Modified System Architecture a) Traditional transport mode landscape of car, bus and taxi.
23

Steps towards a Modified System Architecture b) Shift from car due to rising financial and legal barriers to use and externalities.
24

Steps towards a Modified System Architecture c) Shift from bus due to desire for low cost, higher quality services being addressed.
25

Steps towards a Modified System Architecture d) Shift from taxi caused by growth in reasonable quality lower cost alternatives.
26

Steps towards a Modified System Architecture e) Traditional modes eclipsed as intermediate modes gain credence.
27

Steps towards a Modified System Architecture f) Increased autonomous vehicle use accelerates further modal convergence.
Perhaps ultimately in the form of a universal ‘dial-a-pod’ taxi system.
28

Barriers to ‘Progress’
Public resistance – safety, loss of freedom
Political resistance – institutional inertia, threat to transport jobs
Economic issues – what would real cost be? Who would pay?
Social impact – potentially inequitable.
Environmental effects – more efficient system may lead to less efficient lifestyles
Transport system concerns – uncertainty, implementation,
29

Framing the Process of Change:
Multiple Streams Framework (Kingdon, 1984)
Problem stream
Politics stream
Policy stream
30

Framing the Process of Change
Streams pushed in various directions by different problem, policy and politics pressures.
31

32
Framing the Process of Change

33
Framing the Process of Change

Framing the Process of Change
Until perhaps a
Policy Window emerges when the streams overlap.
Kingdon argues that this is the point when change is most likely to occur.
Policy Window
34

Framing the Process of Change
Problem stream
Policy stream
Politics stream
35
Forces pushing change
•
Economic recession
•
Threat to energy security
•
Threat of climate change
•
Health barriers to car access
•
Financial barriers to car access
•
Blurring of ‘modal boundaries’
•
Operators see market niches
•
ICT revolution
•
New transport technologies
•
Public spending cuts
•
Promotion of choice agenda
•
Desire for better integration
•
Collaborative consumption
•
Promise of significant benefits
Forces resisting change
•
Uncertainty over operational impacts
•
Institutional barriers to change
•
Uncertainty over operational issues
•
Implementation issues
•
Fears of system safety
•
Removal of freedom to drive
•
Trades Unions concerns.

36
Comments on Implementation
Two interesting dimensions to consider:
Degree of interoperability between no automation (i.e. manual) vehicles, and limited, semi and fully autonomous vehicles.
In other words, ‘big bang’ or incremental introduction?
Level of individual versus ‘system’ or shared ownership

37
Incremental Approach
If an incremental approach, (perhaps more likely out of ‘closed’ environments), then likely to be slow to start with, and then accelerated as it picks up pace.
Interesting to consider that just under half of all UK new vehicles currently are introduced by lease car/rental car providers – huge influence on the car parc, and easily able to kick start ‘new developments’.
Moreover, cars tend to ‘die’ at 15 years, so…

Stage 1: Current Vehicle Fleet
38
Degree of Automation

Stage 2: Slow Shift from No
Automation to Limited Automation
39
Degree of Automation

Stage 3: Rapid Shift to Limited Autonomous and Slower Shifts to Semi and Fully
Autonomous
40
Degree of Automation

Stage 4: Rapid Shifts from Fully and Limited
Autonomous to Semi Autonomous and Slow
Shift to Fully Autonomous
41
Degree of Automation

Stage 5: Rapid Shifts from Limited to Semi and Fully Autonomous
42
Degree of Automation

Stage 6: Rapid Shift to (Almost)
Fully Autonomous
43
Degree of Automation

44
Changes in Level of Ownership
Probably not much difference in ownership levels from no automation through limited and semi-automation.
However, when fully automated vehicles emerge, then ownership maybe becomes less important – because it can be ‘on demand’.
Also, step change in cost from semi to fully automated, so utilisation levels crucial, thus suggesting different ‘ownership’ pattern.

Implications for Practice and Policy -
Challenges
Potentially significant benefits – enhanced efficiency, safety, environmental and social.
But likely unforeseen issues too - more dispersed development leading to more travel overall, no jobs for drivers and insurance sellers.
Implications too for other modes and facilities such as bus stations, park-and-ride sites, light rail routes (and high speed rail and airport expansion schemes)...
45

Implications for Practice and Policy -
Challenges
Looking beyond passenger transport, parallel developments occurring in freight
(maybe more rapidly)
And what about interurban and international transport too? Anyone for a pod to
New York?
46

Implications for Research
One need is to quantify how much individual users and non-users, operators, business and society more generally might benefit (or dis-benefit) from such a system. In other words, is such a system desirable, and if not then how could we modify it?
One presumes that studies on traditional transport modes would also need to be adapted to take account of the changed transport landscape.
And then there are specific questions about the system…

Implications for Research
System design: what would the system look like? How it would work?
Implementation: how it would be introduced?
Operation: how it would be organised, managed, priced, funded, regulated, licensed, taxed, insured?
Stakeholder involvement: what organisations would be involved? When? How?
User responses: how would users respond to such a system, and what would the implications be for each of the previous research questions?
48

A last point: Horse transport in New York City
Morris (2007) cites example of horses in New York City in year
1900.
Huge insoluble problems – fuel, parking, accidents, emissions, public health, congestion…
Yet issues had largely disappeared by 1920…
Switch could be even more rapid this time due to technology etc
49

Conclusions
A whole series of intermediate modes is emerging
These are converging on a point which is of higher quality than the bus and yet cheaper than the taxi, whilst not requiring the traveller to be able to drive.
Shift is likely to pick up pace as vehicles become increasingly automated.
Taken together these shifts suggest a new convergence mode, most likely a form of automated, universal taxi or dial a pod service, is on the way in the near future.
50

Conclusions
From a policy perspective this potential change has massive implications.
Yet so far we have been relatively slow to respond and this needs to change if we are to remain relevant.
Simply, we need to WAKE
UP! The next mobility revolution is already here
51

Further information
Dr Marcus Enoch
Transport Studies Group
School of Civil and Building Engineering
Loughborough University
Email: m.p.enoch@lboro.ac.uk
Tel: +44 (0)1509 223408
Internet: http://www.worldtransportpictures.com
52