Itdp 3r Report Final
Itdp 3r Report Final
Itdp 3r Report Final
TRANSPORTATION
How to achieve the full potential of vehicle electrifica-
tion, automation and shared mobility in urban trans-
portation systems around the world by 2050
Thanks also to Jacob Teter and other staff at the International Energy Agency for insights related to the urban analysis
developed with the IEA Mobility Model (MoMo) that this analysis draws on. However, this analysis has been undertaken
by the UC Davis and ITDP, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the International Energy Agency.
Finally, the authors thank all the members of the production teams at UC Davis and ITDP who carried out editing, proof
reading, and layout of this report. This includes Stephen Kulieke, Beth Bourne, Rosa Dominguez-Faus, and Kelly Chang
(UC Davis); Jamie Knapp (J Knapp Communications); and Jemilah Magnusson (ITDP).
Many other people too numerous to name helped this project succeed, and we thank them. Of course, any errors or
flaws in the end product are the responsibility of the authors alone.
Business as Usual (BAU) Current trends continue 3 Revolutions (3R) Here, the third revolution, an
without any revolutions. ICE vehicles remain dominant increase in shared vehicle trips, is overlaid on the first
through 2050. All vehicle trips continue to require two. We view this revolution in an expansive sense:
drivers. In countries like the United States, 85% private vehicles replaced with ride hailing of TNC
of trips remain in cars (of increasing size), most vehicles, shared vehicle trips leading to much higher
frequently with a single occupant. In other countries, average vehicle occupancy, and all this coupled
public transport shares decline as ridership grows with a strong role for public transport and active
only slowly while car ownership and travel steadily travel. These all fit together well since the world with
rise. This scenario may or may not be likely, but in any more shared vehicle trips will see vastly fewer cars
case, it provides a useful basis for comparison with and open up an enormous amount of urban space
the other three scenarios. for things like walking and cycling. Of the three
revolutions, widespread shared mobility may be the
2 Revolutions (2R) In this scenario, we consider most challenging to achieve and most dependent on
electrification and automation. It is natural to think strongly supportive policies. The potential for getting
that these revolutions will co-evolve because of their large numbers of people to share rides is highly
co-benefits; electric autonomous vehicles (AVs) can uncertain, especially as travel costs drop from the
recharge themselves easily at convenient times, and other two revolutions. Strong financial incentives will
EVs can easily supply power to the hardware needed likely be needed to encourage trip sharing and use of
to automate vehicles. EVs can also help to lower the public transport in the face of otherwise cheap point-
per-kilometer travel cost of high-use AVs. Electric, to-point services in single-occupant services.
driverless vehicles likely will be expensive to produce,
at least over the next 10-20 years, but inexpensive We also briefly consider the potential impacts of the
to operate both privately and commercially. It is revolutions individually, and as suboptimized versions of
certainly possible to have one without the other (in the main scenarios.
either direction), but together they provide a true
transformative technological and travel revolution.
Much of the analysis in this paper hinges on the types of synergies that could occur by combining these
revolutions. Some of these synergies are listed below (Anair, 2017):
The U.S. Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) (U.S. Incremental Purchase Cost of Automation
Department of Transportation, 2016) defines a full range
of automation levels (SAE, 2016). Level 1 is widespread One major question surrounding AVs is their cost. There
and level 2 is rapidly being introduced in many models. is a wide range of reported costs of current prototypes
Level 3, including hands-free driving, is just emerging compared to conventional vehicles. Future cost estimates
and only legal in some areas. Levels 4 and 5, with true suggest strong reductions over time, as shown in Figure 1.
full-time driverless operation, is not known to be fully
legal anywhere in the world as of early 2017, except for A key reason for the large spread and rapid reduction in
operation by test fleets. cost estimates by 2020 is the rapid decline in some key
component costs. The cost of LiDAR (Light Detection and
For this study, when characterizing and projecting Ranging) was estimated to be near $75,000 in 2014, and
automation we only consider levels 4 and 5 driverless by early 2016, Velodyne began selling a form of LiDAR for
Figure 1. Estimates of past and projections of future incremental cost of AVs over conventional vehicles. EnoTrans
estimates are low for 2013 because they assume mass production. BCG: (Davies, 2015); EnoTrans: (Fagnant &
Kockelman, 2013); Google Car: (Googles Autonomous Vehicle, 2012); IHS: (IHS Markit, 2014); RMI: (Johnson &
Walker,2016); Tesla: Tesla lists Enhanced Autopilot for $6,000 and Full Self-Driving Capability for an additional
$4,000 on its web site when you configure any of their cars. While cars can be ordered with this functionality, Tesla
has not enabled full self-driving capability on the software end as of this papers publication.
A wide range of potential impacts of full vehicle automation have been discussed in the literature (Beiker &
Meyer, 2014). In terms of energy use (and consequently CO2), the range of potential impacts is estimated to be
wide and uncertain, due to impacts on many aspects of travel and vehicle efficiency (Brown, Gonder, & Repac,
2014; Wadud, MacKenzie, & Leiby, 2016). As shown in Figure 2, these include improved technical vehicle
efficiency, eco-driving, reduced traffic congestion and platooning. On the other hand, reductions in travel
cost and new traveler groups could lead to significantly more driving, while faster driving and increased use
of energy-using features could lead to more energy use per kilometer. The net effects tend toward significant
increases in driving and efficiency, with a wide range of possible net impacts on energy use, from large
increases to large decreases. As discussed later in the report, we use fairly conservative estimates on most of
these impacts and their combined effects, but acknowledge the uncertainty.
Shared Mobility
Shared mobility has grown substantially around the world in the past five years with the introduction and growth of
many new business models. The following definition is illustrative:
Shared mobility the shared use of a vehicle, bicycle, or other mode is an innovative transportation
strategy that enables users to gain short-term access to transportation modes on an as-needed basis.
The term shared mobility includes various forms of carsharing, bikesharing, ridesharing (carpooling
and vanpooling), and on-demand ride services. It can also include alternative transit services, such as
paratransit, shuttles, and private transit services, called microtransit, which can supplement fixed-route
bus and rail services. With many new options for mobility emerging, so have the smartphone apps that
aggregate these options and optimize routes for travelers (Shaheen, Chan, Bansal, & Cohen, 2015).
The terms ride hailing and ride sharing have become somewhat equated in common usage but should be kept
differentiated, since a hailed ride is not necessarily a shared ride.
There has become considerable confusion around and misuse of the terms ride sharing and shared
mobility in recent years. We clarify these terms here, and contrast these with ride hailing. We also
introduce the term trip sharing. There are two basic concepts:
Ride sharing (or trip sharing or shared mobility) This refers to rides or trips that are actually shared
between different individuals or different parties and paid separately. It can also more broadly include
public transit services.
Ride hailing (or ride booking) This refers to any app-based system to secure a ride from a taxi or other
on-demand ride service provider such as GrabTaxi, Uber, Lyft, Ola, Easy Taxi or other TNCs. These rides
may or may not be shared.
It is important to keep the two concepts separate. On-demand ride-hailing services are not ride-sharing
services unless they exclusively offer shared rides (such as a micro transit bus system). We consider it
misleading to use the terms ride sharing and shared mobility to refer to a ride-hailing service in a
generalized manner, and while we use these terms to refer to any situation with truly shared trips, we try to
avoid their use for the more general situation of ride hailing, throughout this report. We also use trip sharing
in this report to emphasize true shared mobility, and to avoid overuse of the terms ride sharing and shared
mobility.
The following section discusses the future potential of services is receiving considerable attention in the United
each shared mobility type and explores the ability of States, with a key question being whether rides tend
sharing to decrease the total number of vehicle kilometers to substitute for higher CO2 trips. At issue is whether
traveled on streets by increasing the occupancy of TNCs help cut car ownership and use rates generally,
vehicles for trips. or whether they compete with public transport, thereby
undermining CO2 benefits (Alba, 2015). Another question
Ride Hailing and Ride Sharing is whether shared rides account for a significant share of
trips.
The rise of TNCs like Ola, GrabTaxi, Uber, and Lyft has
been especially rapid since about 2012. Launched in In any case, ride sharing use is spreading to all parts of
2009, Uber reached 1 billion trips worldwide by the end the world, at least to major cities. Figure 3 shows maps
of 2015, and 2 billion within the following six months. from late 2016 for South America, China, and Southeast
Currently, the environmental impact of ride-hailing Asia reflecting the spread in these services.
Figure 3: EasyTaxi availability in South America (left); KuaidiONE availability in China (middle); GrabTaxi availability
in Southeast Asia (right)
Figure 5. AV sales shares for selected countries, vehicle types, years, and scenarios
Household-owned driverless cars will be larger and in contrast to privately owned vehicles, we assume
more comfortable. AVs may be designed to be much only a small travel increase for publicly shared AVs
more comfortable and to better support non-driving since their use will be paid per kilometer of travel.)
activities, with amenities such as mobile offices
or with home theatre video systems. We assume a The rapid rise in the use of driverless cars in
significant increase in SUV-sized vehicles (or even households precludes a rapid growth in shared
larger vehicles such as vans but with similar weight mobility. People are content to continue to travel in
and fuel economy as todays larger SUVs), offsetting their own vehicles, which are now more comfortable
some of the energy savings of electrification. And with and can be sent on errands without occupants.
the increased comfort and elimination of driving, the This reinforces the ownership model that is already
time cost of driving in AVs will be significantly lower, attractive and leads to high car ownership rates
since people wont mind being in their vehicles for worldwide by 2050, similar to the BAU. Ride hailing
longer periods of time when they do not have to drive serves a niche activity in cities as it does today.
them, and can conduct other activities.
During the transitional (roughly 2025 to 2050)
Given the reduction in time cost, people will drive time frame there remain many legacy vehicles that
in their vehicles significantly more than they do require drivers. We estimate that even with a 10- to
today. In all regions of the world, we assume a 10-15% 15-year transition in sales in the leading countries,
increase in driving per capita (and per vehicle) in there would remain significant non-AVs on roads in
personal AVs relative to BAU. This could also include 2040 and still some remaining by 2050. The mixture
increases in zero-occupant vehicle travel, as people of the two types of vehicles will create its own issues
assign vehicles to conduct tasks such as retrieving and perhaps hamper some of the efficiency and
family members or even packages. We assume congestion reduction benefits of the driverless cars.
another 5% increase in vehicle travel from this in our We do not attempt a detailed analysis of this issue but
scenarios, resulting in an overall 15-20% increase in flag it for further study.
vehicle travel, though we acknowledge the effect
could be more significant. (As described for 3R below,
Figure 6a-b. Sales of private and shared vehicles for United States and India by scenario, year and vehicle type
One major question across these types of shared mobility, in particular for ride sharing, is whether many of
these trips are truly shared i.e. by separate travelers making these services really different from classic
taxi services. The extent to which rides are shared in services in different parts of the world is not well
documented. A typical car trip in the United States has fewer than 1.3 people, while in a country like India it
might have well over two.
Many TNCs offer incentives for ride sharing, passing through the savings inherent in adding people to the
ride. Lyft has reported that up to 50% of their riders have opted for their lower-cost carpool Lyft Line platform
in cities where that option is available. If this type of sharing occurred at much higher volumes in the future
and was not the result of fewer people walking, cycling, or taking public transport, the impacts on travel
would be profound. Far fewer vehicles would be needed to move a given number of travelers.
But it is not clear this will occur, at least without policy support to encourage it. For example, one dynamic
between shared mobility and automation is that driverless ride-hailing services may become so inexpensive
that the incentive to share rides to save cost will be substantially reduced. Even if most vehicle trips are
shared, if a significant portion of those trips were formerly made by walking, cycling, or public transport, the
amount of vehicle travel could increase significantly, increasing congestion and reducing the ability of many
people to access opportunities.
In designing our 3R scenario, we assume that a range of policies are implemented that promote true ride
sharing and result in 30-40% more passengers per vehicle in 2050 than in the other scenarios. (In the United
States, for example, this would represent an increase from 1.3 to 1.8 passengers per car trip.)
Figure 7. Total passenger kilometers of travel by mode, scenario, and year worldwide
On closer examination, a number of notable results The impacts on vehicle travel, taking into account the
are shown in Figure 7. In 2030, across all eight regions numbers of vehicles and their use to fulfil the projected
studied, there are still relatively few AVs plying the worlds passenger travel by mode, is shown in Figure 8. Here
roads. This reflects the fact that only leading countries the differences between 3R and the other scenarios is
are deeply into selling these vehicles in that year, and greater, since travel in the 3R scenario is supported with
the vehicles still represent a small share of stocks even fewer vehicles and vehicle kilometers carrying more
in these countries. However, by 2050 in the 2R scenario, people per trip. In fact the growth in vehicle kilometers
well more than half of private vehicles are driverless. This between 2015 and 2050 worldwide in the 3R scenario is
has the effect of increasing driving rates significantly in 2R only about 30%, even though passenger travel grows by
compared to both the BAU and 3R scenarios. Assuming over 60%. In contrast, vehicle travel grows dramatically in
the time cost of travel is halved, along with the possibility the BAU scenario and even more so in the 2R scenario,
of zero-occupant trips, we assume a 15-20% increase in with nearly a tripling between 2015 and 2050 worldwide.
driving per automated car vs. non-automated car, around The 2R scenario also reflects the rapid rise in automated
the world. EV driving after 2030. (Given the already complex nature
of the figure, non-automated EVs are not shown).
In the 3R scenario, significant shared travel does occur
by 2030, along with increased travel by minibus and
other forms of public transport, cycling and walking (in
Figure 8. Vehicle kilometers of travel by motorized mode, scenario, and year worldwide
(walking, cycling and e-bikes not shown)
The scenarios in this report depict very rapid transitions to a different future. How do such rapid transitions
occur? Clearly the new technologies and travel services must be compelling for consumers. The tipping
point concept is important here trends start slowly, technologies improve, more people learn about
them, and at some point sales expand beyond pioneers and early adopters to mass market. We depict
about a 10-year period when the market share of AVs moves from about 10-90%. This certainly reflects
a rapid increase in mass awareness of and desire to own such vehicles. Is this likely? Perhaps not, but if
these vehicles offer enough advantages at an acceptable price, this scenario seems quite possible.
Another question is whether the suite of electrification and automation technologies can evolve this
quickly and costs can come down by, lets say 2025, to support this revolution. It also depends on enabling
policies. Finally, it will depend on the ability of vehicle manufacturers to shift plants and equipment, an
investment challenge on the order of trillions of dollars. The faster this must happen, the more expensive it
could be from the point of view of both retiring useful equipment and raising capital.
Figure 9a-d. LDV sales and stock evolution in the 2R and 3R scenarios, U.S. example
Figure 11. Average passengers per LDV, U.S. and India examples
Figure 12. World energy use across all modes, by scenario and year
Many factors in our model affect energy use, either by affecting vehicle travel (and the share of travel by
different vehicle types), or the energy efficiency of that travel. Table 3 provides some key indicators, each of
which is affected by different factors.
Private AV travel per 15-20% higher per vehicle Same private AV increase This includes empty
vehicle than BAU in all years as 2R (but with far lower running of vehicles
private AV travel share)
Public (shared) AV travel Similar to non- Same as 2R No "induced travel" effect
per vehicle autonomous shared since travelers pay at the
vehicles (intensive travel margin for each trip
given service provision)
Non-autonomous EV Roughly 50% better than Same as 2R ICE vehicles improve
efficiency similar ICE vehicles over time, with increasing
shares of hybridized and
lighter vehicles
AV/EV efficiency 60% better (lower energy/ Same as 2R Autonomy provides
kilometer) than similar additional efficiency
conventional vehicle benefits, mostly in-use,
despite possibly higher
traffic levels
LDV shared mobility Little effect in this Up to 33% lower LDV Given up to 50% higher
scenario energy per pkm from load factors
sharing
Public transport Major improvements Same as 2R except A high share of public
from electrification and steady or increasing load transport vehicles are
automation though factors result in more automated in most
smaller decrease in energy production per regions by 2050, similar
energy per pkm due to pkm to LDVs
declining load factors
Figure 14. World CO2 emissions by scenario and year, BAU EV decarbonization cases
The climate targets the world adopted in Paris in 2015 (the Paris Agreement), include well-below 2C or 1.5C
limits to global temperature changes. To achieve 2C, a 50% reduction in CO2 by 2050 relative to 1990 levels
as an average across all energy sectors is often cited as an appropriate global target (IEA, 2016). There
are few published analyses on achieving a 1.5C target but it is not unreasonable to infer that emissions in
all sectors must be very low by 2050, headed toward zero not long after. The exact role for transportation
(and in this case, urban transportation) is uncertain, but clearly it must achieve very low CO2 emissions by
2050 to do its part to achieve the broader targets. A reasonable approximation would be more than a 50%
reduction in CO2 emissions in 2050 compared to 2015 for a 2C scenario, and something closer to zero CO2
emissions for a 1.5C scenario. In the scenarios shown in Figure 14, the 2R case appears on track to achieve
a 2C target, whereas the 3R case is more consistent with a 1.5C target. If electricity generation CO2 drops
to zero worldwide, both scenarios may be 1.5C scenarios.
Purchase cost, maintenance cost, energy cost of Finally, the method for estimating and tracking costs
private vehicles (everything from bicycles to large here is based on societal costs. We look at the fuel use
SUVs) over the entire 20-year operating span of a vehicle,
All costs associated with operating TNC services and allocate its capital cost over that same span. We
All costs associated with operating public transport do not discount costs into the future, though we use
services real rather than nominal cost estimates, accounting for
Costs of constructing and maintaining roads, inflation. Of course, private actors make decisions very
sidewalks, bike paths, and parking facilities differently, using short-term considerations, rapid payback
requirements and such. Our cost comparisons do not
We have not attempted to quantify the costs of: provide such context, and thus costs that may be lower
from a long-term, societal point of view, may not appear
Traffic congestion and the associated time delays lower to these agents. Thus policies may (among other
Traffic safety, in the form of crashes, injuries, and things) need to help better align private costs with societal
deaths costs in order to achieve the scenarios we present here.
Air pollution and its impacts on health
Noise and its impacts on health A full set of costs across cost categories and comparing
CO2 and its impacts on the climate though we across modes, for two example countries (the United
do make some cost estimates associated with this States and India) in 2030 is shown in Figure 15. These
pollutant, in the form of cost-per-ton of CO2 reduced. are estimates for BAU scenarios, and the per unit costs
per pkm do change somewhat for other scenarios, but
However, these are all important forms of societal cost generally not by a lot. These figures show some of the
that are affected by the different scenarios, and we main differences across modes and situations worthy of
consider some of the possible impacts below. note.
Most of the cost assumptions per unit (such as building Modes in OECD countries with paid drivers are nearly
The 20% overhead cost of operating and managing Costs change somewhat out to 2050, but the biggest
TNCs amounts to a significant expense; far higher impact on overall costs is how much these different
than the cost per pkm of operating public transport modes are used.
Figure 15. Cost per passenger kilometer by mode, 2030, U.S. and India examples
(Note: y axes are not aligned; Indian costs are far lower than U.S. costs)
Again, these cost results do not include things like air pollution or traffic congestion impacts. They also ignore the value
of time, and the disutility of travel that may change considerably due to AVs or, for that matter, higher quality public
transport systems. But they do give a rough idea of the out-of-pocket costs to travelers and taxpayers associated with
building and operating, and using urban transportation systems. This also raises an issue that is beyond the scope
of this study: who pays? Some costs, such as the purchase and use of private vehicles or the fares paid for public
transport and on-demand mobility services, are borne by travelers. But other costs are paid by governments (and thus
taxpayers). These costs include highway infrastructure and often public transportation infrastructure. Thus savings in
each of these areas accrues to different types of agents; there would likely be winners and losers. All of these details
are beyond the scope of this analysis but would be areas for additional research.
Vehicle automation
* Maintain or slowly relax existing barriers to automation
* New restrictions added in some places to protect jobs
2R Scenario Policy Narrative Countries like Norway, with very high incentives to
purchase EVs, have shown that it is possible to achieve
The 2R scenario is focused on achieving rapid global high market shares (EV sales shares there reached 30%
adoption of EVs from 2020 onward, and a breakout and in 2016 (Lutsey, 2017). In major markets, ongoing strong
rapid growth trajectory for AVs beginning around 2025. purchase incentives must be accompanied by significant
This scenario is otherwise similar to the BAU scenario in use advantages (such as preferential parking) and an
the continuation of existing trends for vehicle sharing, ongoing increase in public and workplace charging.
public transport use, and urban planning. Many of the These types of incentives must continue until EVs become
measures described here would logically be undertaken market dominant and the costs of the incentive systems
at a national level; however some (such as restrictions on become unworkably high. Hopefully by that point the
ICE vehicles, coordination of EV charging infrastructure, tipping point toward a rapid increase in sales will be
etc.) would more logically be implemented by cities reached. Much of this cost of maintaining incentive
themselves. systems can be funded through differential taxation
systems, for example, feebates or French style bonus-
Electrification malus policies that tax the highest-emitting vehicles and
subsidize the lowest-emitting vehicles, which would
In both OECD and non-OECD countries, the short term include EVs (at least in countries with clean electricity).
push for electrification takes the form of policies that
reduce barriers to electrification and actively, often In the longer term, completely decarbonizing electricity
directly, support the decarbonization of electricity generation may require active closure of all carbon-
production. This includes government support and direct emitting power plants and their replacement with
provision of EV and clean power infrastructure. It also renewable power sources. Transitioning to a 100% EV
includes taxes and other market-driven schemes that fleet may require banning ICEs and government buyouts
restrict more polluting vehicles and power sources. of existing vehicle fleets.
Continuation of existing policies on sharing, public transport, urban planning (see BAU scenario)
No particular policy preference to increase EV or AV uptake by commercial operations over households
New policies supporting vehicle electrification and decarbonization of electricity production
* Carbon tax and heavy investment in very low carbon (e.g. renewable) electricity generation
* Subsidies to offset EV purchase costs; could be generated via cap-and-trade, feebates or other
market-driven schemes
* Elimination of subsidies for fossil fuels, making EVs more cost-competitive
* Require automated vehicles to be electric drive
* Support for public EV charging infrastructure
* Policies dedicating space for EV charging in cities
* Encourage smart charging of private and commercial EVs, at off peak times or otherwise in better
concert with electricity grid management systems
* Low emission zones and other policies to encourage EV use and/or restrict operation of ICE vehicles
in cities or their central business districts, or even broader bans on ICE vehicles
* Government research support for battery development and other new technologies such as
contactless charging to reduce charge time and increase driving range
* Government buyouts of polluting vehicles and subsidies for vehicle replacement
New policies supporting vehicle automation
* Remove major legal restrictions to AV use
* Develop comprehensive safety and liability regulations as consistently as possible across
jurisdictions
* Develop data policies to protect private travel data
* Support research into automation technology
* Set framework for AV testing and type approval
TNCs must be encouraged to prioritize ride sharing over single-occupant rides, and to promote sharing as a preferred
option. Much of the 3R scenario outcomes, particularly in car-dominant countries, depend on the higher occupancy
rates of these cars. As cars become automated, and the per-trip costs drop, pricing incentives will likely become even
more important to encourage people to share trips. Zero-occupant trips by AVs (TNCs or private) must also be heavily
discouraged, probably through pricing, though the mechanisms for achieving this are not fully clear at this point.
Preference for AVs in public (shared mobility) rather than private hands is also likely to be important in this regard, to
avoid the higher driving levels of the 2R scenario.
Finally, policies will be needed to ensure that TNC vehicles work in concert with public transport and other highly
efficient modes, rather than compete with them. Policy options could involve possible restrictions on operations within
certain corridors, along with incentives to serve stations. Support for small bus and van programs that can provide on-
demand and at least near door-to-door service may also hold major potential for improving system efficiency.
Continuation of policies that support vehicle electrification and automation, as in the 2R scenario
New policies on EVs and AVs
* Discourage or restrict the operation of zero-occupant vehicles
* Discourage or restrict private ownership of AVs
Strong support for trip sharing, public and active transport
* Fees added for vehicular travel, or vehicle kilometers traveled, potentially variable to achieve the
desired level of movement, and with higher fees charged for vehicles with lower occupancies and
higher negative environmental and traffic impacts
* Conversely, vehicle kilometer subsidies could be applied to very high-occupancy vehicles (buses
and trains), particularly during high-congestion times on more congested routes
* Support and incentives for public transport operators to better match passenger demand with
vehicle size, through smaller automated electric vans and shared taxi-like vehicles
* Government support for driverless buses and rail, dramatically reducing the operating costs and
fares, while improving frequency and reliability for these shared modes
* As the nature of transit services changes, ensure mobility opportunities remain available and
affordable for traditional transit customers and for those with disabilities, older adults, and low-
income passengers
* Close attention to the labor and equity impacts of automation and shifts to shared mobility; ongoing
tracking and research into minimizing negative societal impacts of these revolutions
Policies on urban planning
* Mixed use, transit-oriented planning to encourage shorter, less car-dependent trips
* Better metropolitan area coordination of regional land-use and transportation decisions
* Increased, ongoing investments in walking, cycling, and public transport infrastructure and systems
* Improved safety as well as legal protection for walking, cycling, and public transit users
* Implementation of bike and e-bike sharing programs in urban areas with sufficient density
* Elimination of policies that increase motor vehicle use, such as minimum parking requirements, free
parking on public streets, and fuel subsidies
* Government coordination of mobility-as-a-service, linking many transportation options into a
seamless network of trip planning and payment via a single interface
* Increased use of local development impact fees; e.g. charges that account for car dependence and
other negative externalities, and these fees fund investment in sustainable transport
* Global institutions, such as development banks, change lending practices to shift investment from
urban roads toward public transport, walking, cycling, and other more sustainable modes
Automated Driving: Levels Of Driving Automation Are Defined In New SAE International Standard J3016. (2016). Global
Ground Vehicle Standards.
Retrieved from https://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf
Beiker, S., & Meyer, G. (2014). Disruptive Innovation on the Path to Sustainable Mobility. Road Vehicle Automation.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05990-7
Brown, A., Gonder, J., & Repac, B. (2014). An Analysis of Possible Energy Impacts of Automated Vehicle. Road Vehicle
Automation, 6170. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-05990-7
Campbell, A. A., Cherry, C. R., Ryerson, M. S., & Yang, X. (2016). Factors influencing the choice of shared bicycles and
shared electric bikes in Beijing. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies, 67, 399414.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2016.03.004
Cohen, S., & Shirazi, S. (2017). Can We Advance Social Equity with Shared, Autonomous and Electric Vehicles?
Retrieved March 20, 2017, from https://3rev.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/3R.Equity.Indesign.Final_.pdf
Davies, A. (2015). Turns out the hardware in self-driving cars is pretty cheap. Retrieved from https://www.wired.com/2015/04/
cost-of-sensors-autonomous-cars/
Elgowainy, A., Han, J., Ward, J., Joseck, F., Gohike, D., Lindauer, A., Wallington, T. J. (2016). Cradle-to-Grave Lifecycle
Analysis of U.S. Light-Duty Vehicle-Fuel Pathways: A Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Economic Assessment of
Current (2015) and Future (2025-2030) Technologies.
Fagnant, D. J., & Kockelman, K. M. (2013). Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles. Transportation Research Part A
Journal, 77(October), 132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.04.003
Fulton, L. M., Seleem, A., Boshell, F., Salgado, A., & Saygin, D. (2017). Electric Vehicles: Technology Brief.
Garrick, D. (2016). Car2Go switching electric cars to gas. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from https://www.iea.org/topics/
transport/subtopics/mobilitymodelpartnership/
Googles Autonomous Vehicle. (2012). Retrieved March 23, 2017, from http://googlesautonomousvehicle.weebly.com/
technology-and-costs.html
Handy, S. (2017). Active Transportation in an Era of Sharing, Electrification and Automation. Retrieved from https://3rev.
ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/3R.Active.InDesign.Final_.pdf
IEA. (2016). Energy Technology Perspectives 2016 Towards sustainable urban energy systems. Executive Summary.
Retrieved March 20, 2017, from https://www.iea.org/etp/etp2016/
IHS Markit. (2014). Self-Driving Cars Moving into the Industry's Driver's Seat. Retrieved March 23, 2017, from http://news.
ihsmarkit.com/press-release/automotive/self-driving-cars-moving-industrys-drivers-seat
Mason, J., Fulton, L., & McDonald, Z. (2015). A Global High Shift Cycling Scenario: The Potential for Dramatically
Increasing Bicycle and E-bike Use in Cities Around the World, with Estimated Energy, CO2, and Cost Impacts.
Institute for Transportation & Development Policy.
McFarland, M. (2015). The $75,000 problem for self-driving cars is going away.
Retrieved March 1, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2015/12/04/the-75000-
problem-for-self-driving-cars-is-going-away/?utm_term=.1d1814825145
McKerracher, C., Itamar, O., Wilshire, M., Tryggestad, C., Mohr, D., Hannon, E., Moeller, T. (2016). An integrated perspective
on the future of mobility. Retrieved from https://www.bbhub.io/bnef/sites/4/2016/10/BNEF_McKinsey_The-Future-of-
Mobility_11-10-16.pdf
OECD - International Transport Forum. (2015). Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How shared self-driving cars could change
city traffic. Corporate Partnership Board Report, 136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-016-2048-3
Polzin, S. E. (2017). Three Transportation Revolutions: Synergies with Transit. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from https://3rev.
ucdavis.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/3R.Transit.Indesign.Final_.pdf
Replogle, M. A., & Fulton, L. M. (2014). A Global High Shift Scenario: Impacts and Potential for More Public Transport,
Walking, And Cycling With Lower Car Use. Institute for Transportation & Development Policy.
Schaller, B. (2017). Unsustainable? The Growth of App-Based Ride Services and Traffic, Travel and the Future of New York
City. Retrieved March 20, 2017, from https://www.iea.org/topics/transport/subtopics/mobilitymodelpartnership/
Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Bansal, A., & Cohen, A. (2015). Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding.
Retrieved from http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SharedMobility_WhitePaper_FINAL.pdf
Wadud, Z., MacKenzie, D., & Leiby, P. (2016). Help or hindrance? The travel, energy and carbon impacts of highly automated
vehicles. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 86, 118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2015.12.001