The Market for Transit

1. Reinventing Mobility in New York StateWorkshop on Exploring the Long-Term Impacts of Shared, Connected, and Automated E-Vehicle Transitions in New York StateNew York Institute of Technology - May 11, 2018Transit – Disrupting an industry and saving lives Dr. Jerome M. Lutin, Senior Director of Statewide & Regional Planning, New Jersey Transit (Retired)

2. The Market for Transit Transit riders generally fall into two categories, captive and choice • Captive riders – cannot drive or do not have access to a car • Choice riders - generally do own cars, but choose transit when it can offer a faster, cheaper or more convenient trip. Choice riders can avoid congestion, use time on transit to read, work or sleep, and can avoid parking costs and hassles at their destinations.

3. The Market for Transit and Competition from Ride-Hailing and Autonomous Driving • Ride-hailing services, such as Uber and Lyft, are already drawing riders from transit, already accounting for a six percent reduction in bus ridership. • Ride-hailing companies are making significant investments in autonomous driving - Lyft, Uber and Waymo, • OEM’s Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Mercedes, Tesla, and Volvo are already offering partially automated “semi-autonomous” driving assistance system (ADAS) packages on some models. • Scenario modeling in which autonomous vehicles would be available choices for travel: “Total transit trips declined by a range of -8% to -43%.” • “Rridershipdeclines ranged from -26% to -47% for bus trips and -13% to -40% for rail trips.”

4. Economics of Transit versus Automated Driving • Average 2016 transit bus operating expense per passenger mile = $1.22 • cost for labor, salaries and fringe benefits = 75% • operating cost covered by passenger fares = 24% • average fare per passenger mile = $.30

5. Economics of TransitDisabled/demand responsive service • Average operating expense per passenger mile = $5.08 • Disabled fares covered six percent of the cost, = $.312 per passenger mile. • In many instances paratransit service is far inferior to regular scheduled bus service from the customer perspective. • Reservations are required 24 hours in advance and pickup time windows can span two hours. • high cost and poor service offered to disabled passengers by conventional paratransit services point to need for better solutions, which may be facilitated by autonomous driving.

6. Economics of Automated Driving versus Transit • ARK Investment Management LLC (ARK Invest) projects autonomous taxis in commercial service by 2019. • ARK Invest also projects by 2020, the total operating cost per mile for autonomous taxis will be $.35 per mile compared with $3.50 per mile for taxis today.

7. Impact of Self-Driving Cars on Transit • Self-driving cars will offer mobility to those transit captives who cannot drive, and, in conjunction with car-sharing, can offer mobility to those who do not have ready access to a car. (30.9 million in US, includes 24.8 million age 10-15 and 6.1 million visually impaired adults) • For choice riders, self-driving cars can offer amenities similar to those of transit in terms of how one can use time while traveling, to read, sleep or work. • According to studies, automated cars could double highway capacity. Couple that with the ability to self-park, and the transit advantage could melt away. • So the impact on many transit systems could be huge.

8. What should transit do? • Technological Response • Institutional Response

9. August 19, 2016 Newark, NJ

10. Driver killed, 18 injured after 2 NJ Transit buses crash in Newark Newark bus crash victims to sue for at least $115M for 'catastrophic' injuries

11. Technological Response - Safety • Bus and paratransit incur about 15,000 injuries and 100 fatalities per year • Bus and paratransit casualty and liability expenses total about $700 million a year • Testing showed Collision Avoidance Warning and Automated Emergency Braking have potential to mitigate 65% of insurance claims

12. PPotential to Add Peak Period Capacity at Less Cost Peak Period Off-Peak

13. A Capacity Bonus for NJ TRANSITExclusive Bus Lane (XBL) to New York City

14. Potential Increased Capacity of Exclusive Bus Lane (XBL) Using Cooperative Adaptive Cruise Control (CACC)(Assumes 45 foot (13.7 m) buses @ with 57 seats)

15. Lane Transit District Emerald Line (EmX) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – Eugene OregonMagnetic lane guidance for dedicated BRT lanePrecision docking

16. Precision Docking Achieved by the Vehicle Assist and Automation VAA Pilot

17. Light Rail is great, but can be $$ expensive Bus Rapid Transit is much less expensive to build but has less capacity

18. Recommendation - Transit Institutional Response • Promote shared-use autonomous cars as a replacement for transit on many bus routes and for service to persons with disabilities • Exit markets where transit load factors are too low to justify operating a transit vehicle • Concentrate transit resources in corridors where more traffic and parking will be too costly and too congested, and where transit can increase the people carrying capacity of a lane beyond that of a general traffic lane

19. Lets Talk About Land Use

20. Just When We Seem To Be Getting It Right… • Mixed Use Transit Oriented Development Streets for All Users Google Happens!

21. Recommendation - Transit Institutional Response- Continued Focus attention on land use and Healthy Transportation – work with partners to create Development that limits the need for driving and where trip-end density will provide enough riders • Make streets pedestrian and bike friendly • Manage parking ratios and configuration • Create compact activity centers • Promote mixed use development

22. Thank You Jerry Lutin Jerome.Lutin@Verizon.net