 Hi everyone, we're gonna try to get things started now. I wanna welcome you this afternoon to our panel on consumers and the transportation revolution. So, what do we mean by this? So okay, well you may have heard that there is a revolution going on in how people and goods are moving. It's a technology revolution in terms of enabling shared mobility, autonomous vehicles, and vehicle electrification. But it's the way that this becomes a people revolution that's going to have the energy consequences. So, one example, last year the Department of Energy had a report out about what the likely energy consequences are of autonomous vehicles, and they came up with, well, let's see, it could be a 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions for the transportation sector, or, let's see, it could be a 200% increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector. So, you know, how do we even start to resolve some of these uncertainties? Well, this session focuses on that part, the people part, and what we know about the human side of the transportation revolution and its likely energy consequences. We're really lucky today. We have with us three experts in this. We have Chase Carpenter. He's a senior consultant at RSG Incorporated. He's gonna be particularly focusing on the autonomous side. We have Ken Karani. He's the associate researcher at UC Davis' Institute of Transportation Studies. He's gonna be focusing on the electrification side. And we have Susan Shaheen, who's the co-director of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Berkeley. And she's gonna be focusing on the shared side of this. And then we'll, everyone's gonna get 15 minutes for a presentation, and then we're gonna have a hopefully lively Q&A at the end. I just wanna tell you ahead of time that we're gonna have to really stick to the end time of, not end times, I don't know what I think. Anyway, 335 on the dot, okay? So that's what the ground rules are, and we're gonna start with Chase. We should have everything up and working now. Can you have a humor? You okay? Excellent. All right, so as Margaret said, I'm gonna spend the next 10 or 15 minutes talking about autonomous vehicles. And really when we say autonomous vehicles, I'm talking NHTSA level four, or fully autonomous vehicles, basically you hop in the back seat, tell it where you're going, and it will take off and do its thing. When we think about consumers actually getting in that car to drive, or to have someone else, or the vehicle drive itself, they're really at least three key inputs. There's the regulation and the law component. There's also the engineering capability, so technology actually has to be there. But the big wild card is what do people actually want and what are they demanding, or how will they react to the engineering and the regulation side of things. And so there's obviously a lot of interdependencies in relationships among these three pillars, and today we'll really focus on sort of the consumer aspect of that. Hardly a day or a week goes by where you don't see another big headline where there's a lot more money or additional brain power being invested into autonomous vehicle research. I grabbed a screenshot from driverlessvehiclenews.com earlier in the week, and it just so happened that each one of these headlines sort of aligns with the three pillars that I just described, and on the left, Michigan just passed a bunch of legislature that will allow autonomous vehicles to be on the road and do some testing, which is gonna be great advance and sort of a playground for them to actually have autonomous vehicles on the road. In the middle, Toyota announced earlier this week that they're making an undisclosed but apparently a pretty significant investment into Uber. Few months back, GM made a $500 million investment into Lyft, and so that actually came on the heels of a $1 billion investment from GM into Silicon Valley company named Cruise, which some of you might be familiar with. So there's a ton of money and a ton of effort going into building out the technology and a lot of work going on at both the state and the federal level to understand where will autonomous vehicles go and how do we get there. On the right is an article or a study that was just published by University of Michigan talking about a lot of things that we're interested in and it's really the consumer side of things and if you can read the headline that says does anyone really want a self-driving car? The data so far is a little mixed and it sort of gets to the heart of how you teed up the discussion is what constitutes a revolution and do you need full adoption, do you need 5%, do you need 1% and so I think the data that's out there today kind of frames that in an interesting perspective. So we'll talk a little bit more about the research that they're doing at University of Michigan. Okay, so as I said at RSC and I've been spending a lot of time thinking about what do people actually want when it comes to autonomous vehicles and so that's what we'll share today. We have some data from the Puget Sound region which is Seattle in the surrounding areas and we basically have done a pretty big large scale census type household diary study so we have a bunch of data about where people live, how they move, what's going on in their household and so in that study we captured a bunch of data about how do they feel about autonomous vehicles and sort of where do they think, how might that change in the future? This is interesting research in my opinion because the nice thing about it is that it is representative of the entire Seattle region you know where's a lot of private sector research you're interested in a specific segment. This by design was intended to capture a representative mix of everyone that lives in Seattle so to the extent that we're comfortable with Seattle being a decent proxy for the country or at least certain parts of the country this is pretty good data to sort of get a pulse check on how people feel about autonomous vehicles. Okay, so how compelling are autonomous vehicles? The answer is so-so. We had six or seven sort of attitudinal type questions asking them about how interested would you be in sort of these different flavors of autonomous and so at the top we asked people how interested would they be in commuting in an autonomous vehicle and overall about 38% of people said yeah that sounds like something I'm either moderately or very interested in and as you go down you can see sort of how that breaks out across the other flavors of autonomous that we tested so you know getting in an autonomous taxi, getting in that taxi if it was an autonomous but had a back up driver and so on. Second to the bottom is sort of an interesting one so actually owning an autonomous vehicle so you know these are people they would either replace their traditional vehicle today or perhaps supplement the vehicles that they have in their household with an autonomous vehicle. 12% of people said that was something that was very compelling to them another 15% said that was somewhat interesting and this data lines up pretty much exactly with the University of Michigan study that I referenced I think they said 16% of people showed an interest in buying an autonomous vehicle so you know again going back to the revolution I don't know if that constitutes a revolution or not but it does raise a lot of interesting questions and thoughts about shared ownership and sort of how might you interact with an autonomous vehicle in the future. A little more detail from that same study so just looking at some of the key demographics females over males were on average more interested in autonomous vehicles perhaps not surprisingly those that were 45 or younger also were roughly twice as likely to show an interest in autonomous vehicles and then finally sort of the smartphone generation people who have a smartphone technology so I think at least when I think about what autonomous vehicles might mean I essentially think of an autonomous Uber or an autonomous Lyft so having some exposure to that sort of technology today has a big impact in your stated interest in autonomous vehicles. Okay so the other thing you know it's not just you know it's not about who you are and really autonomous vehicles tie into how do you travel and how do you get around and so again this was a household diary study so we had about a week's worth of data on every trip that that person made how they made that trip where they were going and so just looking at interest in autonomous vehicles by the types of trips that people reported basically those people that are walking more and are currently making it's labeled here as HOV basically carpooling today you know these are people that are more likely to say that hey autonomous vehicles are something that I could see having a fit in my life. You know also probably not surprisingly it doesn't explicitly come out here but people who value living close to transit are more open to autonomous vehicles as well as people who are already carpooling as I mentioned. So this is not my data but this starts to tee up I think a critical question and something that we're in the middle of trying to figure out really as a society and this is really how will autonomous vehicles be adopted and so the data here comes from an article from Harvard Business Review looking at major technologies over time and basically how long did they take to become adopted and so if you go back to the 1900 telephone it took approximately 100 years for pretty much everyone to have a telephone. If you fast forward to the 1970s the microwave basically took about a decade cell phones took about five years so there's this overall trend that as we've been marching through time consumer adoption has been picking up and there's many, many reasons for this but that doesn't necessarily mean that autonomous vehicles are going to follow this exact curve and so there are at least two million dollar questions out there for consumer adoption of autonomous vehicles and this is how long is that adoption going to take? Is this five years or 50 and then on the vertical axis how many people sort of in that end state will willingly adopt an autonomous vehicle? That number depending on who you ask is anywhere between 5% and 100 but understanding both the shape of that curve and sort of where does it level out in the future has huge implications for both the public and the private sector. If you are GM, if you are Ford you're in the business of selling cars today and if we don't need 80% of the cars on the road they're probably out of business so they have keen interest in understanding sort of what the shape of that curve looks like. You know on the public sector side the demands and sort of the infrastructure that we will need to support autonomous vehicles could be vastly different. You know think about parking. You know I live in downtown Chicago there's every other block there's a huge parking structure in an autonomous world we probably don't need that. You can have your cars drive around drop you off and then go hang out in the suburbs for two hours while you go to your meeting. So these questions really span the gamut of private sector, public sector and everything in between. So to just tie it back together we started with that first slide that looked at consumer adoption of autonomous vehicles as a function of regulation, technology and consumer preferences and so that last part is really where I've been spending a lot of my time and those consumer preferences really boiled down to how much will autonomous vehicles cost? How long have they been on the market? And one of the big appeals of autonomous vehicles is the potential reduction in accident rate which sort of in an in state I think everyone can sort of get on board with but if you think about 15 years from now if 10% of the vehicles on the road are autonomous vehicles and the other 90 are traditionally driven vehicles sort of what's the interaction between an autonomous vehicle and a traditional? So that's not an easy answer either. You also get into a lot of other sort of household demographic questions about where do people live? Where do they need to go for work? What vehicles do they have in their household as well as sort of this overall state of the economy? And the last thing I mentioned there is the different ownership models that are offered. I think I'm definitely speculating here but my guess is that GM's investment in Lyft, Toyota's investment in Uber is because they see a model where we all don't own our own cars. They're essentially big fleets of vehicles that you're renting out on a paper use or paper service type model. And so they don't want to be left out in the rain if basically they're not positioned to take advantage of that change in ownership model. And so that I think is all that I had today. I think we'll turn it over to Ken now to talk about electric vehicles, right? Great. So great, thank you for showing up this afternoon. It's afternoon sessions or sometimes a nice place to find a shady spot and have a little snooze. Each of us, Susan, Chase and I have been asked to in some sense represent a certain technology here but to follow on Margaret's opening, we've all been asked to talk about consumers and the importance of understanding people and their response to these new technologies. I think if the three of us have been asked to represent certain technological revolutions, I think we all represent that fourth revolution I think is required, which is a better understanding, more theorizing, more study of people in all of this. I would go so far as to say that at the nexus of transportation and energy in formal policy analysis and policy making, the end users, often drivers in this case, are either implicitly ignored or explicitly assumed away out of the analyses. And I'll start with a couple of examples. I'll actually start in with conventional vehicles and then work my way into electric drive, sort of billing this case for why we would want an improved understanding, improved at theorizing about consumers and even beyond that people. I'll use two words, my background is in civil engineering, I'm gonna use two words, agency and structure, in a way civil engineers don't use those words, but in a way sociologists use those words. Agency, I'll simply defined as basically the freedom to act and structure is just all of the facilitating and constraining conditions on our freedom to act. So if we look at energy use in conventional vehicles, corporate average fuel economy standards are set in a process in which the driver is literally removed from the car. Car is driven onto a chastity dynamometer, the driver gets out and a computer runs the vehicle through a precise set of accelerations, decelerations and coastings all meant to simulate some variety of driving. Those numbers are put together and they end up on the sticker on new cars where you see the overall fuel economy estimate for vehicles along with a long paragraph telling you why any given driver should not expect to achieve those numbers and in that paragraph is the statement depending on how you drive. Eco driving in some sense is an effort to look at that variability across driver of vehicle combinations and ask the question, can we capture that variability? Can we look at the behaviors of the people getting better fuel economy than the test procedures and can we create facilitating conditions for other drivers to improve their on-road fuel economy? One of the ways people have been looking to do that is through improved energy feedback to drivers. You have to make your choice about, well, what energy are we gonna provide to drivers? What metrics are we gonna show? How are we gonna show those metrics? Are we gonna be literal in terms of numbers? Are we gonna be figurative in terms of other symbolic representations? Are we gonna show costs instead of energy use? And a bit of work that we did in Davis and by Dr. Ty Stillwater for his dissertation. We showed a population of drivers three different types of feedback. What we showed was averaging across all the feedback types and all the driver vehicle combinations. We showed about a 3% improvement in on-road fuel economy, but a tremendous amount of variation from an 18% improvement for one particular feedback design within a specific style of trip. So we also analyzed trips by whether they tended to be trips that were city trips or highway trips. So an 18% improvement from one feedback design in one type of trip to a 9% increase in energy use or a decrease in fuel economy for another feedback design and another kinds of trips. Meaning that if you're not paying attention to people and how they are responding to driving and the context in which they drive, it's very easy to create feedback that makes things worse. One of the ways that it happens is sort of now moving towards electric drive vehicles is one of the things that's different out of electric drive vehicles is that an internal combustion engine vehicle is a one-way energy conversion device. You take potential energy of the chemical bonds of a fuel and you turn it into kinetic energy of a vehicle. An electric vehicle can go both ways. You turn the chemical energy stored in a battery into kinetic energy of the vehicle. You can also use that same electric motor to recapture kinetic energy and turn it back into chemical energy stored in the battery. This gives the driver something else they can do to affect their on-road energy use. The question is, how do you feedback information about regenerative braking to them? And we've seen a couple of different instances in which the feedback design actually causes drivers to get shorter range and therefore worse energy performance because they're trying to maximize the regenerative energy feedback which you get by accelerating harder and braking more. It's like, no, no, no. You want to brake as little as possible. So even in moving to these new technologies that have the potential to be inherently more efficient, we have to pay attention to how do we represent that information to the drivers? Another way in which plug-in vehicle drivers in particular, and I'll use plug-in as a catch-all for plug-in hybrids and battery-elected vehicles except for when the difference matters. When we reviewed public charging implementation plans, we couldn't find a plan that explicitly recognized that in the end, people would use those chargers. But the chargers themselves will be sites of new social interaction between people. And the drivers themselves talked about this in terms of etiquette. What are the rules, what am I supposed to do, what can I reasonably expect other drivers to do in these situations? The energy and travel impact, of course, being that PEV drivers were less willing to rely on public charging. If you can't rely on the availability of the charger, if you can't rely on the other users to follow what you think the rules are, then you can't rely on the system and you tend to plan your travel, not assuming you can use charging away from home so you drive your electric vehicle less. In this instance, rules, etiquette at least if not actually written rules, can improve or increase the amount that plug-in vehicles are driven. We see examples of this inside of companies who have workplace charging, who can in fact create and instill a set of rules and etiquette about how to use the charging systems. If we ignored plug-in vehicle drivers in creating plans for rolling out charging infrastructure, we may be ignoring some plug-in vehicle drivers more than others. About half of all vehicle owners, about half of all license holders, about half of all the people who buy vehicles are women. If we look at data from the California Clean Vehicle Rebate Program, which is the program that plug-in vehicle buyers can apply to to get their state rebate, and we use that as a proxy for sales and therefore who's buying vehicles, we're about 25% of those applications or those rebates are paid to women. The question is, are we systematically selling fewer plug-in vehicles to women than we could otherwise be doing so? When we talk to plug-in vehicle owners, men and women, women are more likely to talk in terms of how am I making this thing work for me in my day-to-day life? How am I using this as a practical travel tool today? Men are more likely to talk about it as a personal research and development project. I tracked my energy when I drove the route this way, and I tracked my energy when I drove the route that way, and it was different, so now I drive that way. As an example of research and development idea, and they tend to talk about it more in terms of this is what I would like it to become. So if we have fewer women to start with, and if the conversations are systematically, and these are broad generalizations, but still, as generalizations, if the conversations we do have from men and women are shifted this way one towards, this is how I'm making this thing work now, this is what I'd like it to become, I think we run the longer-term risk of continuing to develop a system for one type of traveler or driver over another. What we know is that, again, as broad generalizations, women today still travel fewer miles on average than men do. Women on average as a broad generalization, however, still make more trips per day than men do. Women are more likely to make more trips to provide services to other household members, whether that's direct services through chauffeuring them to their activity locations or indirect services by doing the grocery shopping. These generalizations are true even when we look at heterosexual couples in which both of the men and women work outside the home and commute to work in a car. Whether they're a man or a woman, a person who makes more stops, makes multiple stops multiple days per week might want or prefer or make more use of a charging infrastructure that looks different than the person who simply commutes back and forth home to work. They might even prefer a different technology. Charging's pretty simple. You get out of the car and you make a physical connection between you and your car or the charger, but if you're making multiple stops throughout the afternoon, you might prefer an inductive charging system. You pull into the parking space, you accept an electronic handshake from the charger, you get out of your car and you walk away and you don't even take the 10 seconds it takes to plug a car in physically. So the last thing, I don't know, Jim, Margaret. You're good, four minutes and 45 seconds. Four minutes and 45 seconds. Okay, so the last two pieces then, I'll give you sort of one more set of examples and then try to make a pivot towards Susan. When we study populations of car buyers, and so now I'm moving on to, folks don't necessarily, these folks haven't bought a vehicle yet. We do a survey of new car buyers. We put them in a situation of evaluating plug and vehicle technology and whether they think it's the right vehicle for their household. And then we try to get out, if they do think so, why? What are the motivations they have? And we looked for sets of shared motivations or their clusters or groups of people who share types of motivations. And broadly across nine states where we did this, we found sort of broadly the same sets of groups and should understand I've named, there's no algorithm that gives names to these. So I've named them, so you're probably learning as much about me as you are about our respondents right now. One group I've called the pro-social technologists. Pro-social because they highly score all of the pro-social motivations. Climate, air quality, energy, supply and security, they think all of this stuff is really motivating and really is what prompted them towards a zero emission vehicle technology car, whether that, so in this case we're talking about plug-in vehicles and fuel cell electric vehicles. And they're super interested in the new technology. In contrast to them, a group I've called the Zev-Tech hedonists couldn't give a rip about any of the pro-social motivations. They don't score any of them highly. Zev technology is just going to make a great car. It's gonna be comfortable, it's gonna be safe, it's gonna be fun to drive. I might save some money on fuel, they're gonna look good, they're gonna make the right impression on people, they're gonna fit my lifestyle. The third group is the thrifty environmentalists. These people hit all of the cost motivations. I'm gonna save money on fuel, I'm gonna save money on maintenance, I'm gonna save money on the purchase cost, which may seem odd until I tell you that this is also the only group that scores the incentives highly. So the incentives are all primarily financial incentives, the federal tax credit, state purchase rebate incentive. And by rolling those into their accounting of costs, they're able to add this idea of I'm gonna save money on the purchase cost too, and they hit a couple of the pro-social motivations, mostly those around air quality and the environment. The effect of Tesla on all of this is probably seen mostly in that Zev Tech hedonist group. Tesla's changed people's imagination about what an electric vehicle can be. It's not just a city car. They can be fast cars, they can be exciting cars, they can be the long distance cars. We've talked to households who bought a Model S to be their long distance car. It's the car they drive from Sacramento to San Diego about quarterly. Tesla's also the only manufacturer, the only vehicle that gets comments such as this one. And at some point I realized I should have been keeping track of this in our interviews. When at some point a woman will say something like, yeah, my husband, boyfriend, male significant other, has a bit of a man crush on Elon Musk. We've been doing this since the initiation of sales really with the Nissan Leaf and Volt. So this is right at the turn of 2010 to 2011. At this point we've been in hundreds of households of people who bought plug-in vehicles. No one has ever said that their husband, boyfriend, male significant other, has a man crush on Carlos Gone. So Tesla has captured the imagination of the public in a way that it's the name. If people know the name of an electric car, Tesla is one of them. They might know the Nissan Leaf, those are the two that people tend to know if you look just a battery like in vehicles. And they've changed the imagination of people about what the cars can be even amongst the PEV buyers. Many of them will say, I'm waiting for the Model 3. That's gonna be my next car. And they're still gonna wait, but at least we've seen some evidence that the Model 3 is gonna happen. To pivot right now just to Susan to wrap up. We have heard a few spontaneous discussions of car sharing, ride sharing from households in this process. In San Diego it was an example of competing models of vehicle ownership and use. There was a large car sharing organization, business in San Diego that used electric vehicles. And there was a great deal of competition at the public charging networks between conflicting models of who should be able to use this thing. The complaint from the people operating with the model of I own my car and I drive my car versus I'm sharing this car was that that business was using a public resource and to the extent that the private vehicle owners were being excluded from it. The ultimate, at least short-term solution was car to go, installed a lot more chargers around San Diego. The only other example is a good deal more positive and more interesting in that we've talked to PEV drivers who have chosen to become Uber and Lyft drivers precisely so they could use it as a platform to evangelize about plug-in vehicles. You called me to give you a ride. Let me tell you about my car. All right, so good afternoon. And thank you Margaret for the invitation to be here. I have spent a lot of time looking at sharing. I have not looked a lot at sharing EVs and automation together, but I'm going to talk quite a bit about some research, particularly modeling based research that has done the three to sort of bring us to the ultimate convergence. We have looked at sharing and electric vehicles and interesting we should compare notes can because we are studying car to go in San Diego. And we have not heard about issues associated with competition for the charging. What we've heard a lot about is lack of charging, period. And so that's really impacted actually the economics and profitability and potentially demand of the type of service like car sharing which being now coupled with electric vehicles. So that's something I can just say on that front. But what I wanted to do today was talk about the convergence, which I think we now know what that means. Talk a little bit about some of the documented or stated pros and cons on EVs. And then move into the literature that actually pulls some of these things together. The first study specifically does not address electrification, but the second study does. And then I want to talk also from that literature about cost savings, safety benefits, parking benefits and overall impacts. So I think we know why we're here today. This was Margaret's vision, I believe, to bring the convergence of these items together, culminating in what could be shared, automated, connected electric vehicles. There's lots of different people forecasting the future of automation. This was, I think, a vision that people were pretty comfortable with maybe 12 months ago. I don't know if people think that the time horizon is shrinking down for fully automated. Some people think it goes out all the way to 2050. In fact, some colleagues at UC Berkeley would state that there's so many different sociological related issues, not even things to do with insurance or how we manage these on our highways or rights away, but just issues associated with ethics. How do we feel about a car that has the capability of making a choice about killing a cat or a nun is a famous example that's often used. So I'm not trained in assessing those things, so I'm just going to move on to the AVs and their potential benefits. So colleague of ours, Jeff Greenblatt, had the pleasure of working with him on the idea of bringing these ideas together, and so I'm borrowing a few of Jeff's slides. And some of the non-energy-related benefits, I think we've heard a little bit about, increased safety. It allows us to do other things, and so there's a lot of people pontificating on what those other things might be, which gets pretty amusing. In my case, it would probably just be working, so it'd be fairly boring. But other people might be exercising or doing other things in these vehicles. There's a lot of discussion about how this could affect our land uses and how that could affect parking, and could it reduce our insurance costs and our overall parking costs because these things could be continually moving. And then energy-saving effects, particularly the work that Jeff Greenblatt has done is really looked at the energy impacts of these things, and they range from everything from a smoother acceleration deceleration to the ability to optimally trip-plan the location of these vehicles, so essentially logistics management, fleet management, which is a lot of what I do in the sharing space. Slower speeds, reduce congestion, particularly if these are traveling close to each other or are logistically managed to reduce congestion or optimize the use of the road space. And then potentially because these vehicles have connected vehicle technology or are purely autonomous, could we actually reduce the weight or the mass of these cars? And then moving to the more, perhaps, negative view of automation, are we gonna produce latent demand? Are there gonna be a great deal of interest in having people move further away and taking a lot more trips that they might not otherwise take? Or does this car take you to work and drive back home? Are we gonna be potentially increasing speeds? Are we gonna have these vehicles that allow us to exercise and sleep or have restaurants on board? So are we gonna actually increase the mass of these vehicles? And are we gonna avoid parking altogether? So when we bring all these things together with shared automated, so necessarily we're not quite all the way to shared automated and electric, a lot of people purport that there's going to be a benefits for greenhouse gas emission reduction. And as an expert in car sharing, I'll tell you that most of the research we've done so far has indicated that sharing vehicles, car sharing, so something like a zip car type function around trip-based model, is gonna result in an average, about a 27% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. And so that's not automated at all. So we could probably take that one step further through efficiencies in logistics management and fleet management and assume that that might be the case. Also, can we increase the capacity of these vehicles, make them higher occupant vehicles? I think that's a really provocative and interesting thing that I'm fascinated by these days. The idea of pooling or car pooling in these vehicles. Might we be increasing auto sales, but particularly leaning on the fleet side because these vehicles are gonna get a lot of mileage on them? So how is that gonna affect the overall market? Reduce our per mile cost, and I'll talk a lot about that in some of the findings from Jeffrey's work. Opportunity to reassess our land use. Could we get rid of parking altogether? And San Francisco has a vision that ultimately they'll end up with shared automated, connected and electric vehicles, and they'll be able to remove parking. And then they can bring in more low income housing to benefit the city or create parklets, areas where people can enjoy San Francisco more. And ultimately, I think this is one of the really fascinating parts of looking at the sharing economy from our research is how providing consumers with choices, so not keeping them in a binary system that limits them to private vehicle ownership and riding traditional transit, but providing them with a range of options so that they can choose not between options, but among options. Does this open up an opportunity to really think differently about private vehicle ownership and use altogether? And also some of the potential challenges are some of these cars. I've seen ranges in costs of 80,000, up to $220,000 from one of these vehicles. So if this represents about 18% of a household's budget in San Francisco, a car ownership, what is that gonna do to the household budget if everybody is now owning one of these vehicles? I've already alluded to the fact that this could result in latent demand or increased use, longer commutes. And then ultimately, do we end up with people owning fewer cars? So as I mentioned, what I wanna do now is talk about some of the shared automated vehicle research that's been done and a couple of our colleagues, Dan Vagnette and Kara Cochleman, put together a study based on agent-based modeling in the Austin, Texas area that was really quite provocative work and really looked at, well, if we coupled the idea of a one-way, so not a round-trip car sharing fleet, but a one-way car sharing fleet that is now automated, what would be the impacts, particularly on the environment? And so they modeled a small grid-like area in Austin, Texas. They used national household travel survey data from 2009, which represented about 3.5% of all trips of about, I think roughly 20,000 individuals. And this study, one of the things that's very important for you to note is it does not account for shared rides. So I don't wanna confuse you by that. These are car sharing vehicles, which are inherently shared, but they are not pooled. So one person is gonna get in it, followed by another person. And some people refer to that as sequential sharing. So in these conditions, basically what they found out was that each shared automated vehicle could result in up to 12 vehicles being taken off the road. That is actually in line with some work that we did many years ago on round-trip car sharing that showed the range on aggregate at about nine to 13. Quite brilliantly, the average wait time was approximately 20 seconds, which is fairly amazing, and well below the wait times of Uber and Lyft, which are typically clocked at about three minutes. I think they set the algorithms not to go any lower than three minutes. And they were serving about 31 to 41 travelers per day in a shared automated vehicle. So these vehicles are getting a lot of space, or a lot of, serving a lot of people, getting a really high resource use instead of sitting unused in a parking space 95% of the time. And then what they found was that this resulted with efficient vehicles, but not electric vehicles, about 5.6% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. So now moving on to Geoffrey's work and Sam Sikina's work from Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, is they also did a modeling exercise. And their motivation was to look at this notion of shared automated taxis. So again, a sequential sharing model, so it doesn't take into effect any of these pooling notions that are quite fascinating, but really just looks at the sequential sharing, which I think also restricts their potential environmental benefits. They found decreases in greenhouse gas emissions. And one of the things that they really did in this work that I thought was quite interesting is, yes, they assume electrification. They also looked at electric drive technologies fueled by hydrogen. And then they also looked at all the trip making of people in the United States. And they concluded that there was this huge opportunity to downsize the vehicle, or I guess what Geoff and Sam would say, right size the vehicle for one to two passengers. They also looked at the idea of latent demand, so this could result in higher trip making and probably well, particularly if they're getting 20 second wait time similar to Vagannette and Cochleman's work. Increases in vehicle efficiency and overall improvements in cost effectiveness. So basically the results are quite promising and exciting for those of us that kind of geek out on the sharing space with electric vehicles being in a shared automated fashion. And again, this isn't even pooled. This is sequential sharing 63 to 80% lower GHGs per mile than a privately owned gasoline electric hybrid. And half those savings are attributed to the right sizing of the vehicle. And I think this is a really fascinating concept for us to think about is does everybody have to have a sedan or a minivan? You know, what is the right sized vehicle for the time of day you're traveling and in the particular spatial environment in which you're traveling? And I think that's some of the work that was really fascinating here. And from an economic perspective, one of the things they looked at too was just the cost effectiveness of an electric vehicle in the context of private vehicle ownership. They found that with a 2030 time horizon based on about 12,000 of miles use per year, which is a little even on the high end for some people like myself. Don't spend a lot of time in private vehicles. EVs weren't cost effective. However, if EVs were put in a taxi environment in which they were working a lot, like taxis do or car sharing vehicles do with about a 40,000 to 70,000 mile yearly average, and Jeff and Sam were right in the right ballpark for shared vehicles there, that this was a really cost effective solution for deploying electric vehicles. Just brilliant. And they went even further than that. They did some economic analysis for us and you can see that the per mile driving cost for private vehicles, even in the automated context, is much higher for a hybrid electric vehicle in contrast to their shared taxi scenario with the assumption about 70,000 annual miles per year. And you can see here that automated battery electric operated vehicles could go as low as 29 cents per mile. So pretty interesting results. And by the way, I wanted to just go back to that. The 29 cents is lower than the 34 cents because he's assuming again, the right sizing of the vehicle and that the majority of those trips are gonna come from essentially one to two people being in those particular vehicles. So the right sizing is important. So other things that we've learned from the literature is that 93% of crashes according to NHTSA could possibly be eliminated because they're human caused accidents. And New York DMV is also attributed about 80% is due to human error. So we could be saving lives and ultimately reducing congestion, parking costs as you can see. From the two studies that I highlighted, Faganett and Cochleman found that each shared automated vehicle was replacing about 11 parking spaces. And I've already noted that you could use land use quite differently in this scenario. And Mike Chester and several of our colleagues at UC Berkeley did a life cycle analysis on parking. You can see that parking is adding CO2 emissions per passenger kilometer mile as well to transport. So to remove parking demands could be helpful. And that just sort of wrapped this up. Shared automated vehicle impacts. Again, Faganett was showing up to 12 privately owned vehicles could be taken off the road, 11 parking spaces, Greenblatt and Saxena's work, roughly 87% with one to two people. And then they further calculated the life cycle GHG emissions per mile or kilometer could fall roughly 90%. And I believe Margaret, you shared that very statistic when you kicked off this session. So I'm gonna wrap up and just wanna leave you with some of these studies in case you wanna delve in a little bit deeper because they're quite fascinating. So thank you. I'm gonna ask if there's one thing you'd like to change that could affect energy use and transportation given all of these trends, what would it be? And this doesn't have to be limited to consumers or to autonomous or shared or electrification but just one thing to change about energy use and transportation. You guys, I think they're all live. Yeah. Well, I think, I'll go to the technology I was asked to spend most time on and generalize from electrification to the sources of electricity which is renewables. I think electric drive is going to overtake transportation eventually anyway. We have a policy window which is driving it perhaps faster than it might, electric drive technology might overtake the vehicle applications. But I think if Elon's taught us anything is that electric drive can make better vehicles. It is then essential that that electricity be produced and I understand you had quite an interesting discussion about this at lunch as cleanly as possible. The cleaning up renewable clean electricity will do as much to alter the effects of energy consumption in transportation as maybe anything else we could do. Well, as a sharing person I'd say I think the most revolutionary concept in this context is to really shift from an ownership based mindset to an access based mindset. I might take a little bit of the cop out because you mentioned doesn't have to relate to the consumer side and to me there's so much technology both in automation and in hybrid technology that could be applied to the movement of freight and goods could be done much more efficiently, much cheaper and this technology by and large already exists if you look at the off highway vehicle market things like mining applications and other big agriculture and construction equipment. It's being used today and it works and so that's to me I see that sort of a low hanging fruit that could have a huge and immediate impact on our energy demands. Great, okay. To me I think one of the big drawbacks for electric cars are the charging times you have to have even if you have access to plenty of chargers still takes 20 minutes or something to charge one with a 240 volt source or whatever it is. Are there alternate technologies such as super capacitors that you could use to store energy and be able to charge them extremely quickly because they're electronic, they're not ionic? Yes, so there are alternative electricity or energy storage. Media, hydrogen is one of them for fuel cell vehicles to repeat or to go back to Susan's point about different models of using vehicles. If you're a shared vehicle user and you're not responsible for charging the vehicle it's not your problem. The problem of charging or having electric drive vehicles have sufficient energy to fulfill their missions becomes part of the operation of the business. So there are a couple of ways into your question I think and one is yes there are other storage media and yes there are other ways of using cars and trucks. I have a quiz question. Next week there is a conference in a country in Europe which declared that they want to go into electromobility and they ask me, I don't know what reason, have five minutes speech about how would I see from Silicon Valley the most effective way of getting there? What's your advice? I think I revealed my bias in my talk. I think figuring out how to put electric vehicles into fleet settings where they can become highly efficient and they don't have to be a drain on people's household budgets and on our land use would be a wonderful way to expose people to this new technology. I think that's one of the things to expose people to this new technology but there are issues of practicality. So either battery swapping or fast charging or additional vehicles have to be in the fleet so that you can get the vehicles charged. So those are some logistical things that have to be worked out but I really do think that sharing provides a fabulous platform to get people accustomed to this technology to scale it and to make it cost effective. So you are suggesting that you can change culture fast enough to get the effect that we are expecting. You don't know unless you try. Thank you. Did you guys want to take a crack at that question also? That was a good question. It's a good question, yeah. Agency and structure are different in different places and different in different cultures and Europe is not one thing and it's certainly not... There may be enclaves of Europe that are like much of the US but most of it probably isn't. There are a variety of experiments being undertaken in Europe right now. There were three brand new papers in the literature just last week on the effect of incentives in Norway. So there's a lot of work going on in a lot of research going on in Europe right now about how to affect greater change or higher speed of introduction of the technology. My answer is to not really answer your question but to go to the people who are studying, if you've been asked to talk specifically about electrical mobility in Europe, there are people in Europe who have much better answers to that than I can give you. Hi, Tom Harrington from Intuit and I have a question more for Susan and Ken. EVs, if I'm wearing my sustainability hat, I absolutely love what they do for carbon emissions. If I'm wearing my transportation hat and I'm looking at what they do for traffic congestion, it's killing me because 10% of my workers are driving to work in single occupant vehicles. Question for you two is, we're about up on the white and green stickers for HOV lanes for EVs. What do you two folks both think about that? Should we extend the deadline and help promote more EVs or should we curtail it or maybe even change it to have a true EV high occupancy lane? I don't think there's a limit on HOV stickers for battery electric vehicles until... The law is coming close on sunset. It goes through, I think 2017, I think is where it is. So we're talking about the overall, not the numbers of, because there was a limit on the number of stickers for PHEDs, that's not okay. You could continue that program by in effect allowing PEV drivers themselves to ration those stickers by offering people the choice of a state rebate or the sticker. The people who value that sticker really, really value it. Most people in the state don't. Why are we giving, there are zero lane miles of HOV lanes in Fresno, California. Why are we giving HOV stickers to those people? We're also giving them considerably more money in terms of the local incentive. So why are we doing both of those things in particular when the HOV sticker has no value? So in terms of the issue you didn't ask me about, which was the limited number of stickers for PHEDs, we could be, users themselves could be rationing them. They are highly valued. I would have wished to have one today getting here from Sacramento. I think that they've, and they've had tremendous effect as part of an overall discussion for when are we going to ramp down incentives. I think we're not there yet. One of the lessons from places like Japan who had high consistent incentives for hybrids is to look at the share of hybrids in their fleet, which is well up into the double digits in terms of the total on-road fleet of vehicle being hybrids. Part of how they got there was consistent incentives for year after year after year after year. If there's a lesson there is I think we're not ready to really talk about rolling back incentives. We can change the structure, but I think we're going for a ride for a while longer on incentives. What I would add is that the regulatory motivation for high occupancy vehicle lanes is air quality, and when those lanes were not fully used, I think there was a pivot towards trying to incentivize gasoline, electric hybrids to use them when this was initially passed and started out. I think it's really important to look at the use of those lanes when we adjust our policy framework because if they become clogged, then the incentive to buy a battery electric vehicle or a hydrogen vehicle to use that lane goes away. The other thing that I think is really interesting is that we are moving into an era where people, some people in society are moving towards pooled vehicle services, and perhaps we should consider using the lanes to incentivize different types of behavior. Do you think any predation between increase of the usage of public transportation with autonomous vehicle could give more chance of success? And is Europe or Japan better positioned for success than circumventable? Yeah, I mean, I think this is a really big question about any shared mode, period, or more convenient form of transportation. Can it compete? Does it compete? Or does it complement our existing legacy public transport systems? I think there's absolutely huge opportunities with shared automated mobility to create those critical first mile, last mile connections, to fill gaps in our service networks where services don't exist at all, or where services just aren't operating because we just can't afford to provide those headways. I think that our land use being more sprawling in many places throughout the US perhaps provides a really great opportunity for complementarity in areas that are more dense. In some of our research and sharing suggests that when you come up with something that's more cost effective or efficient, you don't have to transfer lines, for example, that you might end up with something that's more competitive with the transit system. So I think where I'd like to leave you with it, my response to this is I think spatial scale, temporal scale really matters when we look at these things. But again, our research which suggests that where sharing could be the most beneficial coupled with automation, maybe in those areas where there is really virtually no connectivity to public transit. And so it could be a big win overall. Okay, with that I hope we've all had an interesting afternoon. I want to thank everyone for getting here and then facing the traffic later.