October 5th saw the first in-person event organized by the 3RFM Program since the pandemic upended the world at the end of 2019. Our sponsors and partners enjoyed Chatham-style conversations around three topics: Mobility after the COVID-19 pandemic, mobility as a service and super app integration, and the future of vehicle automation. Here are some of the ideas discussed at the event.

 

On working from home:

There has been a sharp rise in teleworking in the US, especially among affluent communities. A UCD survey revealed about a third of its respondents plan to continue to telework after the pandemic. Media reports about “The Great Resignation” cite employees quitting their jobs for a variety of reasons, including their employers’ resistance to offer telecommuting as an option. However, how many people can realistically pursue this option? It has been estimated that only a third of the workforce could actually, potentially, work from home and, usually, only 1-2 days per week. Even if all the workers who could potentially telecommute did it, which is highly unlikely given employers misgivings, commuting trips would drop by only 12.5%. However, only about a quarter of total trips are taken for the purpose of commuting to work, so even if telecommuting were to double from 5% to 10%, traffic volume would still drop by a modest 1%. 

 

This does not account for any rebound effects. Interestingly, total VMT is back to 2019 levels. If VMT is back to normal but people are still telecommuting, what could possibly be driving VMT? It would seem telecommuters are now making specific trips for shopping and errands instead of the usual pit-stops while driving back from work. This offers the potential for time-of-day shift of trips, which could ease congestion, but is unlikely to reduce VMT. In addition, it seems those who used to commute using non-private vehicles, would now do these errands by car, inducing a shift toward more private vehicle trips. A UC Davis online survey found that the number of vehicles owned by telecommuters went up during the pandemic, both for telecommuters that rely on heavy driving and those that rely on multimodal travel. Interestingly, the more a driver expected to telecommute in the future, the survey shows, the more likely they would want to buy a new car. Thus, the initial optimism around telecommuting reducing VMT has waned.

 

Recently, auto sales have dropped due to a supply side constraint with manufacturing plants closing during the pandemic. Higher demand for vehicles and low supply have resulted in high vehicle prices, which could be inducing a shift in modal choice that favors micromobility and a major shift to online shopping. Active modes seem to have increased slightly during Covid per UC Davis surveys, and a sharp rise in demand for new and used bikes has been documented by the media. Travel behavior might have also changed due to several other coincidental factors like supply chain disruptions for cars (and bikes), stronger push for EVs by government policy, or public awareness about climate change, which also peaked during the pandemic. 

 

On ridehailing:

Data shows drivers are less multimodal than transit users and cyclists. Not surprisingly, the two latter are more likely to be ridehailing users. Unfortunately,  it would seem that over 50% of ridehailing trips are replacing more sustainable modes or creating new vehicle miles. Were ridehailing services not available, respondents without a household vehicle would be more likely to use transit and less likely to cancel a trip. So what could make ridehailing more green? California’s Clean Mile Standard (CMS) proposes several strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ridehailing, including increased pooling, decreased deadheading, connection to public transit, etc. Data suggests that solo travelers are more likely to pool with strangers than those who travel with friends or family, which are already sharing the space. Trips ending at home or trips originating in dense urban areas are more likely to be pooled. Lower- and middle-income groups, and younger individuals are more likely to pool. These pooling users as well as the multimodal segments are more likely to adopt mobility as a service (MaaS) packages when available. 

The challenge with MaaS:

The convenience offered by MaaS is unquestionable, but why aren’t MaaS taking off? Data from a European country shows that only 2% of bike share rides are booked via MaaS. For Level 3 and 4 MaaS, it is necessary to bring multiple partners, often competitors, into one platform and into sharing their data. Pricing schemes have to be right, and need to offer different payment systems to be more inclusive. Incorporating societal goals and endorsing principles of universal basic mobility, enabling access to transit, providing better health outcomes, and servicing low-income communities, might help MaaS be successful. 

 

There are several examples of transit agencies partnering with micromobility to promote bikes as a last-mile choice through a design approach. Design features and functions such as wayfinding, bikes for people with disabilities, expanding bike docks into underserved communities, micromobility, and multimodal transport surrounding transit stops are currently under consideration. Success in these types of pilots could pave the way to MaaS and even MaaS functionality within “super apps”. Apps that do not include ridehailing as mobility partners may be at a disadvantage. But there is the ethical question of whether public-private partnerships should be subsidizing the ridehailing companies.

 

Super apps are very popular in other countries:

Super apps integrate multiple functionalities into one app and they are very popular in Southeast Asia. A super app was launched in 2010 in Jakarta which integrates several services, including mobility. A UC Davis survey found that women use the super app much more frequently than men. Data from 10 countries shows there is inequity in the use of these services, driven by access to the internet and levels of literacy. Also, these apps sometimes compete with current transport modes. Why are super apps not catching on in the US? Could it be due to the regulatory framework? In Southeast Asia, the super app is driven by demand and, interestingly, regulators are not equipped with expertise in how to monitor and regulate those services. It seems these apps are still not aggregated enough to offer bundled transport services such as the MaaS concept.

 

About Automation:

Automation will likely increase VMT, due to induced demand and the added miles from deadheading, but if AVs are also electrified, the net effect could be a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. Increased VMT is good news for some users, such as the elderly and other groups with mobility limitations, which could see their mobility options expanded.  There are many unknown issues around AVs. A world of automated  drivers could be safer than a world of human drivers, but what happens in a world with both automated and human drivers? Companies are logging millions of automated miles and the number of situations in which an AV is safe is growing. Some segments might be more amenable to AVs, such as low-speed shuttles in retirement communities or with fixed routes, such as to and from airports. They will be adopted if they are convenient, which will be a function of cost, time, and comfort. Level 5 automation will need to be first implemented at low-speed operations to be proven safe, and then it will be scaled for high speeds. 

 

What are some policy and research questions that need answers? Will AVs increase congestion? Looking for a spot, or skipping parking altogether to save on parking fees, might induce zombie miles. These are known issues but there are also many unknowns that haven’t been identified yet. Regulations will be needed with specific goals in mind. For emission reductions, there is CA SB 500, which requires all new automated vehicles to be electrified by 2030 and with increased occupancy, but additional regulations might be needed. One important issue is disability access. AVs present an opportunity to serve groups with limited mobility and these innovations can provide unforeseen benefits. For example, a new level boarding design for trains originally made for people with disabilities resulted in benefits to the broader community. Further policy issues involve questions about socioeconomics. Owner/Operator truck drivers are currently the largest group of small business owners and truck driving is a top paying occupation for males without degrees. By introducing lower-cost AVs, what are the impacts to these livelihoods? There are also issues with data collection and privacy of users, security, insurance and liability, and right pricing.

 

Policies will be necessary to ensure AV adoption risk is minimized while also taking a holistic approach to avoid unintended consequences. HOV lanes ended up inducing demand when implemented without complementary policies. Pricing strategies could be a better way to achieve desired outcomes. Pricing strategies would include road pricing, VMT pricing, gas pricing. A Cornell study estimated a $.35/mile for externalities of deadheading. If this was priced into TNC, for example, it would disincentivize their use. It will be important to address funding as the gas tax fund is broken (EV not paying in and current tax levels are increasing with need).

It is also important to consider that different policies are most effective at different levels of government. The Federal level is probably best for emissions and safety, state level for handling tax gas issues, and local level for congestion. Consumers have different preferences for pricing. We usually don’t like marginal cost pricing, we tend to prefer memberships or monthly charges. It is possible to do “precise pricing”, as TNC have demonstrated. It is important to calculate the right discount for higher occupancy, as COVID-19 trends have shown, given current conditions, this discount needs to be higher. Equity concerns need to be considered in all pricing policies as pricing policies inherently benefit the rich given the proportionally smaller effect on their income.

 

Life after the pandemic:

Normal activity is resuming as we enter the endemic phase of COVID-19, where a state of co-existence with the virus is reached. Vaccines will control the spread of the virus, its severity, and reduce its lethality but will not eradicate the virus altogether. Most importantly, the psychological effects of the pandemic might hinder people for years to come. Public transit may take a permanent hit--there might be fewer commutes and we could see more suburbanization. But crises also offer opportunities. Micromobility and the reclamation of public spaces for people might be some of the silver linings of this pandemic. Since we have gone through a major disruption and given the progress in EV technology, barriers to change may end up shifting, and we may see a decline in resistance to electrification. The future could see higher or lower VMT, but it will at least be electrified. Furthermore, future conversations will likely focus on congestion and the use of public space.