 Aeolusys has been a distinguished academic. He is a full professor of transport at the Technical University of Lisbon. He has been the service director of the MIT Portugal Transport System focus area and chairman of TIS Portugal Consultants. He advised governments and international institutions on key transport projects and policies. In 2015, I believe you were appointed a member of the UN Secretary General's High Level Advisory Group on Sustainable Transport, which published a report that year. The ITF, I should say, is an organisation with some 59 member countries administratively associated with the OECD, but I think from the policy point of view independent, and I'll leave it to you to tell us what you wanted rather than my anticipating what it is that we have a type of shared mobility as a key instrument for better quality for urban life. So, thanks for the invitation. I'll be speaking about shared mobility, not only because this is something on which the ITF has been the key player in bringing this to the discussion around the world, but also because Dublin is one of the three cities that has taken a step of asking us to do, for them, a study similar to the one we had published. Lisbon was not politically involved in this, I just happened to have a data from my epidemi past with a letter from the mail at the time I was saying that I could use the data for whatever research purposes I would think adequate, and this was certainly very high. So, this is our own entry. Let me just briefly tell you about the ITF. This is an intergovernmental organisation with 59 member countries. We just got two new member countries in our ministerial council last night, Kazakhstan and United Arab Emirates. As you can see, we cover virtually all of the northern hemisphere with a few, few exemptions. We have vastly more than DBCD. We are administratively integrated with DBCD, but we are totally run by our council of ministers, who meets once a year in the summit, which is on the Atlantic. Ireland will hold the presidency basically two years from now, starting in May 19. Currently, the presidency is with Latvia. This is a picture of the ministerial meeting in Leipzig. This is not from this May, but from last 2016 summit. This year we had 1400 people, mostly from government, NGOs, academia and big companies. And it's a very high level political discussion around one scene every year. This year is governance of transport. Next year will be safety and security in transport. Let me now go to the theme. All of us are worried about the quality of urban mobility. It's one of the most prevalent claims of citizens all over the world. People claim that movement in cities is difficult, is not pleasant. And if we want to sum it up, what should it be then? I'm calling it the new urban mobility. I don't know how some people are calling it mobility 4.0 just to copy the revolution 4.0, the industry 4.0, whatever. There are three main aspects that I think have to be considered. High quality of service should be at the basis. We all want to have mobility that is easy, pleasant. We need to have sustainability and we need to have social inclusion. And as I will show you with some data from Lisbon, this is found everywhere we analyze it. Today we have very poor social inclusion. Even in cities where public transport is good. And I'll show you why. All of this is something that we have a better chance now because we have information technology, intelligence transport systems available, which were not available 10 years ago. So this gives a new possibility of development of new concepts and supplies. All cities we look at have some issues in common. First one is Manchester. It's always the first in the complaints of citizens. But then you have problems of accessibility in public transport. People complain. Air quality as well. It's always a problem. Sometimes more, sometimes less. And then also of course road safety. These four aspects are always present in any mid-size or bigger city. If we look at what is the difficulty of replacing this, of changing from this. We find that the main barrier to change is the fact that over the last six or seven decades we have grown our urban tissue and our own lifestyle in alignment with the car. We have reorganized the city and reorganized ourselves to be a good fit with the car. And so if you try to do something to break that dependence on the car, that alignment with the car, you will face massive resistance. And it won't work. So what we try to do is to find a solution that allows you to still have essentially the same type of mobility by offering you in a more sustainable, inclusive, smarter way all the predicaments that you have with your car. But without having your car. Many services have been done around the world. What do you value most in your car? The words are not exactly the same in all different languages, but it's about convenience. Availability. When I leave it, it's there. And it's always close to me. And then it's relatively fast. And it takes me not exactly door to door because I don't always find a parking place exactly at the door, but from this neighborhood to the neighborhood I want to go. No transport. All this kind of things. So we started our design around this concept by saying, what if we had something like a taxi? It's a efficient supply that it will always come to you with very short waiting time and taking you to the destination. But then to make it more efficient, why shouldn't it be shared? I started working on this problem in 2007 on a rainy day. I was just outside my university campus going to a meeting of the MIT Portugal program and many taxes were passing in front of me. 95% of them would run passenger. I was going to a meeting in a place where it is impossible to park, so it had to be like that. And public transport took all their expense. So it had to be like that. And I thought, more than 50 taxes have come in front of me, it is not possible that none of them would be going in that direction. And this was the spark. Why don't we use IT? This was by coincidence one month after the iPhone had been announced. So maybe I was still under this impression of what the iPhone could do. And this was really what motivated it. So let's see what is the new approach. And we start with something very non-technological, which is focused on access. Access of who to what, people to their jobs, to the public services, to social interaction, wherever you want to go. Mobility, just like transport, are not the objectives. They are instruments. You only move because the thing that you want is not here, otherwise you don't have to move. And if it is sufficiently close, you move by walking. You don't need a motorized transport solution. And it is amazing how you can change the formulation of the problem, of the technological problem, if you start by this simple differentiation. The key objective is to provide access. And I would say equitable access. And you will see in a few minutes how much difference it can make. The other one is to recognize that so many things will be changing in the near future. Electrification, the digital connectivity, automation, etc. So many things will be changing that we should be opportunistic and say, since you are changing a lot, use that turbulence to twist the thing a little to the side. I'll do a very bold maneuver now. I hope this is after lunch so it's a bit risky. But this is a small audience you will forgive me. Imagine I want to turn 20 degrees to my left with my feet on the ground. I have friction. What happens if I jump and turn 20 minutes around? The amount of energy required to jump or to jump and turn 20 degrees to the left is virtually the same. You see? As you are in the turbulence, you can use that energy that in any case will be done, will be deployed. Just a bit to the side. This is the kind of concept that says this is only possible because those changes will already leverage a level of political discussion that you can add these little correct developments and make it happen, make it possible. So reorganize the mobility system. Now bear with me a little because this is essentially about the combination of different things that we all know are happening. We all know these three things. Digital connectivity is already there, but getting further penetration, electrification and automation. They're not coming at the same speed at the same time, but we all recognize that within 10 years most of our transport systems will be going with some component of this. Now let's see some implications. From electrification it has lower emissions. Good. From the automation you will have better road safety. Good. But also a lower perception of in-vehicle time because you will be using your time in the vehicle to do other things. From the digital connectivity we already have today, visible today, preference for sharing and fruition, not necessarily depending on ownership. And from that comes something which is the attraction of ride services, mobility as a service, Uber's and things like that. Now because of electrification we need to have a change in the fiscal regime of road transport. Today no country in the EU gets less than 6% of the total fiscal revenue of the state from fuel duties or whatever the name of the different countries. The average is about 8, but no country gets less than 6%. 6% of the total fiscal income of the state is huge. If you have a ballpark number that the fiscal revenue of the state represents about 50% of GDP, this is 3% of the GDP, the famous 3% of mass risk criteria. So no country is in a position to say, okay, but it's for a good cause. I'm losing 3% of my GDP, I'm losing 6% of my fiscal income, but it's for a good cause for sustainability. You will not hear a single finance minister say that because they need the money. So the money has to be collected and in a previous research project I did for the commission about 6 or 7 years ago related to this, we went through all the sectors of society in Europe and we saw no other sector is in a position to receive this burden on their back. This is huge, I mean, depending on the countries, this is either the number 2 or the number 3 source of income. It's VAT, personal income and fuel duties in all the countries. So if this is collected on the gasoline and diesel oil, essentially, and they are going out, what can you do? And this is an area in which I am very, very worried and I've been speaking to a lot of ministers and people in NGOs. We must absolutely avoid that the decision on how to change this is falling exclusively on the finance ministry. Because if they do it, they will be looking how we have to the revenue and to minimize transaction costs. And we have a huge opportunity to do it in a way that is also good for the transport system. We need to have some change, some smart changes. And I will speak a little about that later on. Sorry, I went on the wrong error. If you connect digital connectivity and automation, you will have a much lower cost of professional rights services. In a taxi or a bus, just like a long-distance freight, the driver represents typically around 50% of the cost. It depends from 35 to 65. It's always a very significant part. So those things will be a lot cheaper. If you put these two together, it will become so cheap that you have to question, should I pay to have a car? If I have one of these things always available. It's not like I whistle but I go and happen, it comes. The problem is that when you bring this together with a lower perception of in-maker time, a lot of people will say, well, since I can work, I will be living 120 kilometers from here. Or I can have a car take me to my job, then go home, take my wife to her job, then go home, take the kids to school and then go run the errands and this and that. So very simply, by having these two things together, vehicle kilometers, it's very easy to produce a realistic scenario in which vehicle kilometers double or are divided by two. Really, it depends on small political choices. And the key for this is vehicle occupancy, share drives. Having more people in the same vehicle and this can be fueled by a fiscal machine. The most powerful lever we have to influence vehicle occupancy, besides the good service of course. So, let me tell you now about the share movement. We've simulated this for Lisbon as the case is and we're now doing it for three cities, Dublin, Helsinki, Finland and Auckland, New Zealand. And we're in conversations to do it to two big cities, one in Europe, one in the United States. For the case of Lisbon, we tested what was the relevance of the public transport system offer we have. And we found that the metro should be kept because it has high capacity, high frequency, but none of the regular scheduled bus lines. All of them were less good than what we call the taxi bus. So this is not to destroy public transport, this is to redesign public transport. What is a taxi bus? It's a non-shadowed service that responds to demand, quasi real time. You have to walk to a stop, which are previously designated in the city, you have kind of virtual stops. You ask for a bus, you say when you want to go and the computer algorithm will match you with other people wanting to go along more or less the same directions. And something like ten minutes before the time at which the bus is coming to your stop, you get a message saying your bus will be coming to this stop at this place in eight minutes. Please be there. This is the shared bus. So it's not door to door, it's street corner to street corner. The walking distance, the stimulation with this relation was a maximum of 400 meters. Then the shared taxi, which is more conventional if you will, it's a normal taxi service, you call it. And it comes and it may be empty and then with you on board goes to pick up or deliver somebody else or pick up in this case if you're alone or you may have somebody else in the taxi. We've designed a system with very strict limitations on how much could be the waiting time and the total lost time between the waiting time and the detour time. You have an idea for the case of Lisbon for trips below five kilometers, which is the vast majority of the trips in Lisbon. You will have a maximum waiting time of seven minutes and a maximum wait plus detour time of ten minutes. Which means if you have waited four minutes you can have a detour of six, but if you are unlucky to have seven minutes wait, your detour will maximum be three minutes. No more than that. And with that we get incredible results. So these are two sevens plus the metro, we've kept the metro. These are the two reports we published. This one in 2016, Lisbon City, the core. This is 2017, so just published last May, looking at the whole of the metropolitan area and including some questions about transition and also the service to people with mobility difficulties. And in both cases we have great convenience. As I've told you, we've dimensioned the taxi supply so that you have very short waiting time and it's door-to-door service. No transfers. I forgot to say that about taxi buses. Everybody gets a direct ride. In my earlier studies at the university I looked at a number of cities and I looked where is the market share of public transport lower. And without exception is with the origin destination pairs in which you have two or more transfers. If the transfer is good people can take one, but as soon as one of the two lines starts being irregular people start thinking maybe I could use my car. Two transfers or more only the people who have no money to even think about owning a car. The market shares are always very very low. So again, on this thing let's try to do something which gives people very good service. No transfers is an absolutely needed component. And then something which was not by design but as a consequence, because we had very high efficiency in putting all this matching together, we got to very low prices. All of these studies are downloadable for free on our site. I would encourage you to read them. But to give you an idea for the taxi of today, sorry the taxi in this system, the share taxi would cost less than 30% of what the tax of today costs. Including a professional driver paid with the Portuguese rules and all the legal constraints about working times and all that. For the share bus it costs something like 40% of the ticket of today. But if you include the subsidy that is paid today would not be needed tomorrow, it costs 26%. And you can say what's the miracle? Simple. Efficiency. Occupancy. There's something that is important to understand. We've had a very inspired idea that sometimes when you ask for a taxi bus, if it is in an area of low demand or period of low demand, it might be very expensive to send you a taxi bus. So what we did, we give you an upgrade. We promote you to business class which means share taxi. And you pay the taxi bus price. Because from the supply side it's so much cheaper to send you a small vehicle and you will probably get another. It gets occupied with a much smaller number of people. The taxi buses for the case of Lisbon, they gave the ideal size being 80% seats for 80% of that fleet. And 16 seats for 20% of the fleet. But then the very positive social outcomes. Emissions and congestion. The number of 80km is reduced by something like 35%. So one third reduction. No other solution can bring so quickly such a reduction. And this is with the technologies of today. The other one accessibility, I'll show you the next slide. It's mind blowing what this provides. It was the most surprising result even for us. And I think you will be impressed as well. How much space do we need? I think it was you over lunch who mentioned how much space. You know how much of tea. How many vehicles do we need to put this in operation? In relation to the number, we have very detailed data for little. The percentage of shared taxes in relation to the number of vehicles that are used today in Lisbon on a daily basis is 4%. But each of these vehicles runs many more kilometers per day, of course. They are used in average 10 hours per day. And they do per day an average of something like 360km. They do 90,000km per year. And this has another good effect, which is if vehicles keep on more or less the same duration in kilometers, the rotation of the feed will be much faster. Because if you have to replace these vehicles after 200,000km, that's two years. So new generations of vehicles will come much faster. But the parking space we need is 95%. It's humongous. For the case of Lisbon it means all parking space at the surface and half of the parking space in buildings. All the parking space is released. It's totally transformative. So imagine what you can do for pedestrians, for cyclists, for little plazas. Even in some neighborhoods you can redesign it to include there some social services which are not present in some neighborhoods today. For the case of Lisbon, which is a city of 86km2, the absolute number we got from this is 4km2 of new urban land available. That I hope will not be totally built. But of course the temptations will be there. And then of course the affordability already spoke about it. At these prices, you don't need to subsidize it. Because it's so much cheaper than it is today. Now accessibility. Look at these maps. Lisbon has a decent public transport system. Not fantastic but good. These maps we have several other maps in the report. This looks at what is the percentage of the jobs in the city that are reachable by public transport within 30 minutes. Starting from each of these little cells, we divided the city itself of 200x200 years. And you look at the situation today. Those of you who are minimally familiar with the city, you will recognize that the dark red, which is more than 75%, is more or less aligned with the metro network. But the vast majority of the city is in the two lower categories. Less than 25% or 25% to 50%. Why transport? For instance the United Nations or the World Bank has one index of public transport accessibility to public transport. It says what percentage of the population has a public transport stop within 1000 meters? It's not bad but it's very weak. Because you may have a bus there but the bus goes there and my job is there. And so I have to go there and then transfer and go there and if I'm a bit unlucky I still have a second transfer. So in less than nothing you're one hour away. Now look here. This is only the taxi buses, not shared buses, just taxi buses and the metro. And you see that the vast majority of the city is on the 75% and plus. And then the second crowd, if you will, on the second category is only here on this side. It's lower but here the problem is that we were only counting the jobs in the city. In the report we have this year it's the metropolitan area. So these guys they have few of the access to the jobs in the city because the jobs are mostly there. If you include the jobs in their neighborhood outside of the municipal border they're not as bad as that. So this is a question of border quality. And this is how it looks. And what you see here is that direction is no longer an issue. It's distance. Why? Because the shared taxi buses they go in your direction. In serving a predefined direction they go in your direction. And that's the trick. Now look at this number. This is the 90th percentile divided by the 10th percentile. Let me put it a bit more in layman terms. If you look at all the cells, the 10th cell with the highest number of jobs accessible within 30 minutes is the 90th percentile. The 10th percent best cert. The 10th percent lowest cert. So the one that has from the bottom in the 10th percent position with the least number of jobs accessible. That's the 10th percentile. If you divide one by the other and then the number of jobs today, 17.3 times more in the 90th percentile cell than the 10th. This isn't 1.8. Now that's a revolution. This is totally transformed. If 35% less congestion is good, this is the record. Really. When we saw these numbers, I must say the feeling I first thought was, wow. But then the second one was of shame. How can we have allowed the public transport system of listener to be so badly serving so many of its population? Simply because we have not focused on access. We have been focusing on the productivity of the bus lines. If you do these maps, if you start looking, and then guess what? Most of the people who do these calculations in the municipality and the university, the consultants, they either travel by car or they live here. So they don't feel the problem. If you don't feel the problem, if you don't study the problem, the problem does not exist. Right? And simply the way to ask the question leads you to this, for me this is a map that brings me shame because I've been working on this for 20 or 30 years. And I have never looked at it from this perspective. Even without knowing that this map was possible, this would be something that said, we are really not doing good service to our citizens. Now, second engine. So I said there were two concepts and three instruments. The first instrument is shared mobility. Alone it doesn't work, or it doesn't work as good as you want to get to this new mobility paradigm. The second one is smart road charging. I already mentioned about this. The fuel duties were a very smart thing to do when it started because they were not connected from each of you. They were collected at the exit of the refinery or at the port. So in terms of transaction costs, they are incredibly smart. You get a load of money and you charge four or five companies, that's all. And it's very difficult to escape because all the petrol is coming either from the port or from the refinery. If we want to do it smart, we have to avoid that this is an exclusive decision of the Ministers of Finance. We have to say, yes, we want to keep the revenue, yes, we want to keep transaction costs low. But we want to have this aligned with the quality of service. People have to understand that they are paying in exchange for getting good service. But also to align it with the externalities they cause. So inducing alignment of individual behavior with public interest. Which for instance says, if your vehicle is in shareable mode, even by coincidence in this taxi, you are a single passenger at this moment, it's not your fault. But the taxi and yourself, you are available to how other people come. It should be cheaper than if you're traveling with lockdown. So this is much more than carbon pricing. It's carbon pricing and urban space pricing, if you will. And inducing people through the mechanism of the price of the charge or whatever you want to adapt their behavior in the social interests. I must insist, please, let's help ourselves. Let's avoid that this is a decision of the Ministers of Finance alone. And this is not easy to do, because they are very powerful guys that we all know. And the Ministry of Finance to look at this is what is the revenue today. Let's get to another solution. So we will be charged so much per kilometer or whatever. So we have to be very vocal on this. Third one, land use planning. So stay aware of the planning. And the key for that is that we have to look at this going from car oriented to people oriented to access. Let's do those access maps. And that does it wonders. And for that we need density and functional diversity. It's not density alone is not enough. If it is a model functional density, it's a nightmare like we have in suburbs of Paris. These huge social housing places with no jobs, no shops, no culture, nothing. And where people feel isolated. We need to have good designs for the use of active roles at the walking and cycling. And we have to have quality and public areas where people like to have that space. And they are the main defenders of that space because it is so pleasant to have it. So this is the third answer. Now, what about shared mobility in Dublin? I've told you that the study is now very advanced. And it was agreed with the people here in Dublin that we will start doing the details after the summer break. We already have some numbers in the office, but I've asked my colleagues not to tell them so they will not be put into pressure of telling any numbers. But I can tell you the following. The conditions compared to Lisbon, and both have been done as a metropolitan area, is that here you have a lower density and the higher market share of the product card, lower market share of public transport. Curiously, the distances traveled are very similar. But here there is less congestion, so the speed is a little higher. It shows that there is greater potential for reduction in the wake of the lockers. We had focus groups, so we did a focus group and then a stated preference survey. And in the focus groups, it came something that is very similar to Lisbon, which is that convenience and total travel time are key attributes for acceptance of shared mobility, particularly shared taxing, by current car users. So we want to have a very convenient system, and total travel time should be not much more than what we have today. In fact, for the case of Lisbon, it's about the same. Even if you have those detours, you know why? Because there is no congestion, so you travel faster. Even if you have a longer route, the total number of minutes is about the same. Cost is the key attribute for the current public transport users. So then something very interesting, which is for the people who were car riders, and if they're looking at going on a shared taxi, some of the questions were about how many people shared the tax with you. And they said preferably many. We don't like to be in a small confined space with only one or two people, because we might have to talk to them. And that's sometimes unpleasant. But this raises a very interesting question. If you want to have, it's very easy for us in the moment, to have more people in the car. But that means a longer waiting time, or a longer accepted detour time, so that you have the time to collect your people in the car. So it may even be that in the end, the fine design solution has two segments within the shared taxi. The ones who favour the speed, and the ones who favour the group size. I want to have a very low probability of finding myself with one or two people in the car. I want three and above. Are you willing to have another five minutes or six minutes in your waiting time, a detour time, so that we can amass more people to develop the vehicle? And if you are, okay, it might even be cheaper, because if the vehicle is more occupied, it's more efficient. But this is something that inevitably will be different from one city to another. It is local calibration, and you don't even have to do it exactly right the first time. The market will find ways over time. Now, the biggest thing, the biggest difficulty here for all this transformation is coherence. Why? Simply because many changes involved, many stakeholders involved, a lot of interesting parties. And in many cases, there will be even government fragmentation, vertically, national and local, and horizontally, Minister of Finance, Minister of Planning, I don't know the names here, Minister of Transport. So to bring all of these people to basically sync by the same songbook, it's something which is far from easy. And that's why I wanted to talk to you about more than just the shared mobility. It only plays well if you play all these instruments together. That makes it more difficult. So to conclude, we have common and differentiated challenges. We should use the turbulence of the changes to do this thing that I did with my little jump, and then the coherence of the actions is critical. But then another dimension, which is coherence over time is also critical. This is something that you don't do with one law in Parliament. This takes several years of a sequence of decisions and adaptations from the private sector, from the citizens, from the law. So we should address the short-term challenges in a way that is compatible with the long-term, particularly with climate change. We must not lose sight of that. But at the same time, the long-term challenge cannot be totally dominating because otherwise, if you do not satisfy people in the short-term, you lose your constituency. You will not have your team with you. So it's really being coherent, transversal in time, but also longitudinally in time. And that makes it even a little more complicated. But that's why it's so fun to work with this thing. Thank you for your attention.