CyberCars and CyberMove User Needs Analysis

1. User Needs Analysis Tom Voge, TRG Kerry Malone, TNO

2. Contents • Introduction • CyberCars User Needs Analysis • Objectives • Methodology • Analysis Framework • Activities • Results • Summary and Conclusion • CyberMove User Needs Analysis …

3. Introduction [1/2] • User needs analysis carried out in both projects • Both projects examine CTS, but different focus • Different objectives, methodologies and results • Results complement each other and also relate to other project activities (e.g. evaluation) • Ongoing survey on user perception for Antibes application (questionnaires, technology-related)

4. Introduction [2/2] • Overview:

5. CyberCars User Needs Analysis Tom Voge, TRG

6. Objectives • Examine CTS User Perceptions • Analyse CTS User Requirements • Focus on General System Level • Use of Market Research Techniques to involve Users in the Analysis • Qualitative Approach/ Analysis chosen due to the Innovative Characteristics

7. Methodology • Literature Review on Related System  DRTS, AHS, PRT, APM, ADAS, Carsharing • Develop Framework of Potential User Groups and Application Areas • Choose Market Research Techniques (Focus Groups, Interviews) for different User Groups according to their respective Characteristics

8. Analysis Framework [1/2] • CTS User Groups • System End-User - Potential User - Non-User • Decision-Maker - Elected - Non-Elected • System Operator - PT Operator - Service Provider • Decision-Maker/ Operator combined  Relates to various Private Sites

9. Analysis Framework [2/2] • CTS Application Areas • Public Application - City-wide for general - City Centre or special - Periphery user group • Private Application e.g. Airport, Theme Park, Large Business, University Campus, Exhibition Centre, etc.

10. Activities

11. Results [1/4] • Group ‘End-User’ • Speed perceived as Positive/Negative • Technology safer than Manual Operation • Personal Safety Concern without Driver • Concern over CTS in Mixed Traffic • Short Distance/ Targeted Application • Dedicated Lanes/ Elevated Structures • Careful Network Design/ Operation

12. Results [2/4] • Group ‘Decision-Maker’ • Low Image of PT  Private Car Society • CTS as Feeder System/ P&R Application • Favouring Application in Contained Areas (e.g. Car Park, Airport, Exhibition Centre) • Certification of System Safety/ Reliability • Funding for Initial System Implementation • Specify Role in Planning/ Policy

13. Results [3/4] • Group ‘System Operator’ • Potential to solve various present Transport- related Problems (e.g. System Flexibility) • Personnel Costs Savings through CTS • High Risk for Initial System Implementation • Prove of Reliability and Economic Efficiency required (Experience/ Certification/ Study) • Use of CTS to cover ‘Last Mile’

14. Results [4/4] • Group ‘Decision-Maker/ Operator combined’ • Walking Distances between Facilities • Potential to solve site-specific Problems • Advantage of lower Operating Costs • CTS is more useful for Peak-Demand Application than manually operated System • Concern over very high Demand (Airport) • Experience with Automated Systems (e.g. APM in Airports)

15. Summary and Conclusion • Analysis of User Needs for CTS • Use of Qualitative Market Research • Development of Analysis Framework • Various Potential Niche Applications • Technology Experience/ Certification • Education of the Market • Raise End-User Familiarity

16. CyberMove User Needs Analysis Kerry Malone, TNO

17. Interactive Questionnaire • User Needs Analysis amongst potential end users

18. Why ? • To strengthen the conclusions from the UNA Focus Groups with more details and quantitative information • one can imagine a CTS… • it has to be safe and reliable • its transport services should be OK

19. What ? • Spatial setting • Design of the CTS • Travel services • Respondents information,including current travel mode • … and: would they use it ?!

20. Virtual Sites 1. Between central car park and historic city centre 2. Between central car park and business park

21. Virtual Sites 3. At a holiday park 4. From railway station to university

22. Virtual Sites 5. From railway station to departure terminal airport 6. From central car park to central business district

23. Virtual Sites • Demand characteristics: • spreading in time (y/n) • spreading in space (y/n) • activity density (y/n) • car use (y/n), parking problems (y/n) • Supply characteristic: • individual   collective • Six promising combinations

24. Response

25. Considering your own situation…

26. Would you use it ?

27. Preference related to current mode

28. Preference related to current mode

29. Parking problems

30. The preferred CTS • A bus shelter at the stop • Actual travel information at the stop • A toilet at the stop • A modern appearance • Vehicles with 5 to 10 seats • A non-transparent vehicle (windows only) • Doors on both sides

31. The preferred CTS • A scheduled transport service • At origin/destinationstops within a 5-minutewalking distance • About 50% of the respondents is willing to pay 2 Euro per trip (€ 0,13/km)

32. The Cyber Move pilot sites

33. Recommendations • More pilot sites • Matching pilot sites with User Needs • Stated preference research at specific sites • Experiments with transport services • Focus on transport demand characteristics • Study on urban area developments