Disruptive Technologies: Impacts on Transportation …onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/webinars/180906.pdf• Traditionally served by taxis • TNCs greatly expanded this market • Competes

Disruptive Technologies: Impacts on Transportation Revenues

Thursday, September 6, 20181:00-2:30 PM ET

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

The Transportation Research Board has met the standards and

requirements of the Registered Continuing Education Providers Program.

Credit earned on completion of this program will be reported to RCEP. A

certificate of completion will be issued to participants that have registered

and attended the entire session. As such, it does not include content that

may be deemed or construed to be an approval or endorsement by RCEP.

Purpose

Examine the impacts of technologies such as connected/autonomous vehicles and ridesharing services on transportation revenues.

Learning Objectives

At the end of this webinar, you will be able to:

• List the impacts that new mobility services are having on revenue streams for transportation programs

• Describe the impacts of autonomous vehicles and e-commerce on local government budgeting

• Explain how transportation network companies are impacting airport finances

• Describe the key issues lenders and bondholders consider in assessing impacts of disruptive technologies

Growth and Impacts of New Mobility Services

Bruce SchallerSchaller ConsultingTRB Webinar, Sept. 6, 2018

Photo: New York Times

What’s Happening

Road Forward

Impacts in Big Cities

Source: Uber

# Uber Drivers Making at Least 1 Trip/month

+23%+34%

Source: The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber and the Future of American Cities, Schaller Consulting, July 2018.

Ridership by end of 2018:

• Taxi/TNC 4.8 billion

• Local bus 4.7 billion(Annual rate)

Trips Concentrated in Large, Dense Metro Areas


… especially downtown

San Francisco

New York

Chicago

Seattle

Sources: Shared Use Mobility Center, “Broadening Understanding,” SFCTA “TNCs Today,” Schaller “Unsustainable?”

• Affluent

• Educated

• Skew younger

TNC users characteristics

• 12-22% would not have made particular trip without app-based service

• 48% of TNC users go more places because of availability TNC ride services

• 78% of Uber users extremely or very satisfied

Sources: Kulkarni, “Uber and Ride-Sharing.” Henao, “Impacts of Ridesourcing.” Clewlow and Mishra, “Adoption, Utilization and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the U.S.”

Avoid drinking and driving

Quicker/more reliable

Transit inconvenient

Parking expensive/difficult

More comfortable

Auto users

Transit users


Reliability/comfort/easy payment Taxi users

40% would use if

TNC not available

60% would use if

TNC not available

Road Forward


What’s Happening

TNC Taxi Total

San Francisco 75 6 81 92%Seattle 20 3 23 88%Philadelphia 31 5 36 86%Boston 35 6 41 85%Washington DC 45 12 57 79%New York City 159 167 326 49%

City2017 trips (mill ions)

Pct TNC

TNCs added 976 million miles of driving to New York City streets since 2013 -Schaller Consulting report

TNC usage increased vehicle miles traveled by 85% in the Denver area

- Alejandro Henao, Ph.D. dissertation

“Ride-hailing is adding new auto trips … [and] exacerbating congestion on the region’s roadways.”

- Boston-area planning agency

Most VMT “generated by TNCs occurs during AM and PM peak hours … likely exacerbating existing peak period congestion.”

- S.F. County Transportation Authority

“Ride-hailing is likely adding vehicle miles traveled in [seven] major cities.”- Clewlow and Mishra, UC-Davis


Credit: Christopher Yuen, blog post on Human Transit

Declining Transit Ridership (2016-17)

Boston area (MBTA) rider survey:

Don’t use TNCs

Use transit less

Use transit more

No change

Age 18-44


What’s Happening

Road Forward


• Public and private contracts:Via and Chariot

• Shared• Straight line (minimize turns)• Walk to pick-up location

Uber Express POOL and Lyft SharedRides

• Bike share• Dockless electric scooters

Distinctive markets & services

• TNCs and microtransit (Via, Chariot) serve three distinct markets, each with distinctive implications for transit and city transportation systems.

1. Premium door-to-door service (mostly not shared or subsidized)

• UberX and Lyft• Traditionally served by taxis• TNCs greatly expanded this market• Competes directly with PT





2. Trips difficult to serve with fixed-route services (generally subsidized but mostly not shared)

• Senior and disabled (except wheelchair) programs• Dispersed trip origin/destinations• Examples: Arlington (Tx), Innisfil (Ontario), AC Transit, OCTA and LA pilots, MBTA paratransit pilot• Complement PT







3. Shared, subsidized, straight-line service (generally need subsidies)

• Chariot, Via, UberPOOL Express, Lyft Shared Rides• Jitney-type service enhanced by smartphones and routing algorithms• ~ 4-20 passenger vehicles• Complement or compete with PT depending on situation







3. Shared, subsidized, straight-line service (generally need subsidies)

• Chariot, Via, UberPOOL Express, Lyft Shared Rides• Jitney-type service enhanced by smartphones and routing algorithms• ~ 4-20 passenger vehicles• Complement or compete with PT depending on situation

• Need public policy intervention to ensure that new services serve the goals of mobility, safety, equity and environmental sustainability. Includes regulation, street allocation, subsidies/pricing.

• All of this must, fundamentally, be built around attractive high-capacity PT network

© 2018 – Urbanism Next, University of Oregon

Urbanism NextNico Larco, AIA

Director, Urbanism Next CenterProfessor, Dept. of Architecture

Co-Director, Sustainable Cities InitiativeUniversity of [email protected]

@nicolarco

New Mobility Impacts on Municipal Budgets

mailto:[email protected]


Urbanism Next



MaaSBikeshareScootershareCarshareRideshareTransit(AVs)


MaaS

ElectrifiedMobility

VehicleCitations

Numberof Cars

Amount ofParking

BikeshareScootershareCarshareRideshareTransit(AVs)


Transportation Fiscal Impacts

$- $400,000 $800,000 $1,200,000 $1,600,000 $2,000,000

Parking Fees and Citations

Vehicle Impounding Fees

Traffic Citation

Vehicle Registration Fees

Gasoline Taxes

25 Largest US Cities, FY16, Governing.com

$697 Million

$677 Million

$593 Million

$81 Million

Impacts on Municipal Budgets


$- $400,000 $800,000 $1,200,000 $1,600,000 $2,000,000

Parking Fees and Citations

Vehicle Impounding Fees

Traffic Citation

Vehicle Registration Fees

Gasoline Taxes

25 Largest US Cities, FY16, Governing.com

$697 Million

$677 Million

$593 Million

$81 Million

$2.8 Billion

Transportation Fiscal Impacts



10% Reduction IN Parking Revenue in Past 2 years

San Francisco


10%-25% Reduction of TOTAL Transport Revenue

Credit: Rebecca Lewis, University of Oregon

PORTLAND, TIGARD, TUALATIN PROJECTION



Existing Mechanisms- Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Fees- Cordon Pricing- On/Off Ramp Fees

TRANSPORTATION REVENUE OPTIONS



NEW Mechanisms

TRANSPORTATION REVENUE OPTIONS

- Empty Seat Tax - Fleet Parking Fees- Use of Curb Access- GPS and Data Fees

-Mobile Business Tax- Electricity Fees- Charging Stations- Advertisement Tax


Non-Transportation Fiscal Impacts




SF: Average Const. Cost/Unit = $550/gsfSF: Average Const. Cost/Stall = $130/gsf= 24% burden on unit costs @1.5 spaces/unit

Gerry Tierney, Perkins + Will

Sightline















Dispersion / Sprawl- Reduced ‘Friction’ of Travel Cost- Appetite for Further Commute- What Will Limit Urban Dispersion?

Zhang – Georgia Tech



Avs are nota Transportation Issue

Urbanism Next University of Oregon


Cities that think ahead,stay ahead

Urbanism Next University of Oregon

© 2018 – Urbanism Next, University of Oregon http://urbanismnext.com


THE IMPACTS OFAUTONOMOUS VEHICLES AND E-COMMERCE

on Local Government Budgeting and Finance

SUSTAINABLE CITIES INITIATIVE

UNIVERSITY OF

OREGON PORTLAND

BENJAMIN Y. CLARKSCHOOL OF PLANNING, PUBLIC

POLICY & MANAGEMENTe | [email protected]

NICO LARCOSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE &

ENVIRONMENTe | [email protected]

ROBERTA F MANNSCHOOL OF LAW

e | [email protected]

urbanismAUGUST 2017

URBANISMNEXT.UOREGON.EDU

THE IMPACTS OFAUTONOMOUS VEHICLES AND E-COMMERCE

on Local Government Budgeting and Finance

SUSTAINABLE CITIES INITIATIVE

UNIVERSITY OF

OREGON PORTLAND

BENJAMIN Y. CLARKSCHOOL OF PLANNING, PUBLIC

POLICY & MANAGEMENTe | [email protected]

NICO LARCOSCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE &

ENVIRONMENTe | [email protected]

ROBERTA F MANNSCHOOL OF LAW

e | [email protected]

urbanismAUGUST 2017

URBANISMNEXT.UOREGON.EDU

urbanismnext.uoregon.edu/research-papers/


Urbanism NextNico Larco, AIA

Director, Urbanism Next CenterProfessor, Dept. of Architecture

Co-Director, Sustainable Cities InitiativeUniversity of [email protected]

@nicolarco

New Mobility Impacts on Municipal Budgets


0

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK COMPANIES: Revenue Impacts, Challenges, andOpportunities for Airport Operators

Peter Mandle

Disruptive Technologies: Impacts on Transportation RevenuesSeptember 6, 2018

1

Today’s Presenter

• Executive Vice President, InterVISTAS Consulting

• Over 30 years of experience helping airport’s address their ground transportation and parking challenges

• Former Chair of TRB Aviation Group and Committee on Terminals and Ground Access

Peter Mandle

2

Airport Operating RevenueParking, rental cars, and ground transportation contribute 60% of non-aeronautical revenues and more than 25% of overall airport operating revenues

Aeronautical Revenue$11,751

54%

Non-Aeronautical

Revenue$10,083

46% Land & Non-Terminal, $749 ,

7%

Retail & Duty Free, $774 , 8%

Food and Beverage, $803 , 8%

Services, $482 , 5%

Hotel, $227, 2%

Parking & Ground

Transportation,$4,228 , 42%

Rental cars,

$1,843 , 18%Other,

$978 , 10%

Total 2017 Operating Revenues for all U.S. Commercial Service Airports (in millions)

Source: FAA, AAS-400, CATS Report 127.

Total Operating Revenue: $21,834

Total Non-Aeronautical Revenue: $10,083

3

Two Airline Rate Setting Methods

Residual

Risk of lower non-aeronautical revenue

• Airlines agree to pay any costs not allocated to other users

• Airlines assume financial risk• Airport is guaranteed to break even

Higher airline rates & charges leading to potential loss of air service

Compensatory

Risk of lower non-aeronautical revenue

• Airlines pay a set rate• Airport assumes financial risk • Airport has opportunity to earn

higher revenues

Insufficient airport revenue to pay operating expenses, debt service, or fund capital improvements

4

ACRP Synthesis 84 Research Approach

• At time of research, TNCs were permitted to operate at >90 U.S. airports, but few for more than 18 months

• Little available relevant literature

• Limited before/after data available

• Conducted original surveys:– Online survey of the 100 largest

U.S. airports (73 responded)– Telephone interviews with/additional

data gathered from 18 airports

• Analyzed and summarized results

Notes: • Data in this presentation was current as of Fall 2016; rapid changes in industry • Updated data, being gathered as part of ACRP 01-35, to be available later this year

5

Airport Fees Charged TNCs

98% of airports with a TNC permit charged one or more of the following fees:

Per-trip fees (87%)

• Pick-up only (59%)• Drop-off and pick-up (41%)

Annual permit fees (21%)

• 60% less than $2,000/year• 40% greater than $2,000/year

(maximum $12,000)

Activation fees (17%)

• Most less than $10,000• Three more than $50,000

Annual permit fees (21%)

• Per-trip fees exceeded MAG at all airports

6

Survey Data Summarized by Airport Hub Size

FAA defines airport hub size by the proportion of annual U.S. commercial aircraft boardings an airport serves

S

Small hub: At least 0.05% but less than 0.25% (28

respondents)

M

Medium hub: At least 0.25% but less than

1.0% (20 respondents)

L

Large hub: 1.0% or

more (24 respondents)

7

Per-trip Fees Charged TNCs – Pick-up Only

0

1

2

3

4

$1.00 -$1.49

$1.50 -$1.99

$2.00 -$2.49

$2.50 -$2.99

$3.00 -$3.49

$3.50 -$3.99

$4.00 -$4.49

$4.50 -$4.99

$5.00 -$5.49

Num

ber o

f Airp

orts

Large-hub Medium-hub Small-hub

Note: 2016 data, more airports now charging >$3.00 per trip

8

Per-trip Fees Charged TNCs – Pick-up and Drop-off

0

1

2

3

4

$1.00 -$1.49

$1.50 -$1.99

$2.00 -$2.49

$2.50 -$2.99

$3.00 -$3.49

$3.50 -$3.99

$4.00 -$4.49

$4.50 -$4.99

$5.00 -$5.49

Num

ber o

f Airp

orts

Large-hub Medium-hub Small-hub

Note: 2016 data, more airports now charging >$3.00 per trip

9

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Less than $100,000

$100,000 to $1,000,000

$1,000,000 to $5,000,000

$5,000,000 to $20,000,000

More than $20,000,000

Number of Airports

Large-hub

Medium-hub

Small-hub

Annual Revenue Received from TNCs

• Depends on types of fees, number of passengers

• Revenues expected to increase as market matures

• Of 31 reporting airports, 14 received over $1,000,000/year

10

Impacts on Airport Operations

10% to 30%decrease in taxicab trips

18% to 30%decrease in shared-ride customers

10% to 20%decrease in private vehicles

5% to 10%decrease in parking transactions

4% to 13%decrease in rental car transactions

46% reported an increase in roadway congestion

When adjusted for changes in terminating airline passengers, the data showed:

11

Impacts on Airport Revenues (Original Survey)

Based on the limited sample:

• While many airports receive significant revenuefrom TNCs, these revenues are less than the foregone parking and rental car revenues at most airports

• The decline in airport revenues is expected to increase as more passengers use TNCs

12

Impacts on Airport Revenues—Informal Update

• Since 2016, more airports recognize adverse impacts of TNCS

– Decrease often masked by increases in passenger volumes, parking rates, and rental car fees

– Some locations report decline in total revenues, not just per passenger

– Rate of decline is less year over year, but continues

• To recoup lost revenues, seeking new business and revenue models:– Increasing fees charged TNCs – Differential TNC fees—higher fees for use of prime location– Fees for use of curbside areas (all vehicles)– Fees for airport access (all vehicles)– Differential airport access fees—higher fees for use of primary curbside

13

Status of Airport TNC Research

• Synthesis 84 available for free on the TRB website:

http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/176493.aspx

• ACRP Oversight Committee decided to expand upon and update the data collected (as recommended by the research panel)

– Transportation Network Companies (TNCs): Impacts to Airport Revenues and Operations(ACRP 01-35)

– Rethinking Airport Parking Facilities to Protect and Enhance Non-Aeronautical Revenue (ACRP 03-47)

• Research initiated in March 2018, ACRP 01-35 survey data to released this fall.

14

Thank youPeter Mandle

InterVISTAS Consulting Inc.

[email protected]

Strategic policy in the era of Uber, Lyft, and Microtransit

Chris Pangilinan | Program Director | TransitCenter@cap_transport | @transitcenter

Space is a precious resource in cities

Transit makes the best use of scarce city space

6 September 2018TRB Webinar: Disruptive Technologies: Impacts on Transportation Revenues2

Why tech won’t kill transit:

Via City of Meunster, Germany; in Planetizen: https://www.planetizen.com/node/80084/nimby-obstruction-and-density-paradox

3 6 September 2018TRB Webinar: Disruptive Technologies: Impacts on Transportation Revenues

Via Jon Orcutt


5

Graph courtesy of Bruce Schaller; data from Uber

Uber et al. are growing rapidly# Uber drivers making at least one trip per month

6 September 2018TRB Webinar: Disruptive Technologies: Impacts on Transportation Revenues

Public transit

Taxicab

Personal auto

Walking/Biking

Not make the trip

15-33%

1-40%

7-40%

10-24%

8-22%

Sources: Clewlow and Mishra, “Adoption, Utilization and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the U.S.” Henao, “Impacts of Ridesourcing.” Rayle, et. al., “Just a Better Taxi?” Adapted from Schaller Consulting: http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/index.html

TNCs instead of…


http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/index.html

What does new tech bring?• Apps make it easier to call on-demand options• “Improved customer experience”• AVs will bring down cost of access (someday?)

Opportunity to create *people-oriented* transportation policy in general—not just policy “for Uber, Lyft, AVs, and ‘Microtransit’.”


Disruption isn’t just technological:

8

Delay: More cars, double-parking = more congestion

Equity: increasingly unequal access

Livability: More driving, more air pollution

Safety: Uber/Lyft blocking bike lanes, crosswalks


What else is being disrupted?

9

Parking Revenue

Urban Indy: http://www.urbanindy.com/2012/01/27/friday-fun-downtown-indy-parking-lot-map/


Taxi revenue

Fare revenue

http://www.urbanindy.com/2012/01/27/friday-fun-downtown-indy-parking-lot-map/

Cities have solutions on handStructure pilots to measure impact through careful design and by collecting baseline and performance data

Align new services and technologies with public sector goals via transportation policy and street management

Regulate to protect the public and maximize learning opportunities (e.g. via data reporting requirements)


Look to safe streets movement for strategic inspiration

11Photos via Curbed: https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15358234/times-square-snohetta-before-after-photos

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/19/15358234/times-square-snohetta-before-after-photos

Pilots: Need to ask “why” before “how”

• No special treatment for “emerging” services

• What problem(s) might emerging mobility services help solve?

• Use public procurement process to ensure pilots’ goals are met


Pilots should lead to learning

13

• Centennial, CO, hired a consultant to analyze data from first- and last-mile pilot

• Lyft agreed to share data with the consultant

• Final report reports on progress in meeting concrete goals articulated before pilot

Via City of Centennial: http://www.centennialco.gov/uploads/files/Government/Iteam/Go%20Centennial%20Final%20Report_for%20web.pdf


http://www.centennialco.gov/uploads/files/Government/Iteam/Go%20Centennial%20Final%20Report_for%20web.pdf

Don’t hold your breath for the data

14

• Try negotiating for it but… • …don’t expect to get it• Cities can collect their own

data• Cities can choose only to work

with companies who share• Cities can sue >>>


Major policy levers (“how”)Street space allocation

Pricing + incentives

Establishing values

15

Via SFMTA: https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around-san-francisco


https://www.sfmta.com/getting-around-san-francisco

Street space allocation• Parking rule changes• Dedicated travel lanes (bus,

HOV, taxi)• Curbside access

DC DOT• Worked with BID to ease

late-night FHV drop-offs• Repurposed parking spaces

during late night hours

16

Curb Appeal. NACTO, 2017. https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/NACTO-Curb-Appeal-Curbside-Management.pdf


https://nacto.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/NACTO-Curb-Appeal-Curbside-Management.pdf

Pricing and Incentives• FHV trip fees• Tolling• Charging for curbside access• Cordon pricing• Mileage-/hourly-based use

charges


Chicago (Mayor’s Office)• Private data reporting required• Recently increased fee assessed per trip;

revenue funds transit

New York (Taxi & Limousine Commission)• Public data reporting required• Accessibility requirements• New fee on Manhattan trips; revenue

funds transit• New vehicle license cap (WAV exception)

and minimum wage

Establishing ValuesSFMTA and SFCTA Emerging Mobility Guiding Principles


Cities have powerful tools at their disposal, but have not been assertive in using them. That’s starting to change.

• Develop pilots strategically, to learn and build momentum• Implement policies to prioritize people, not vehicles• Use the regulatory authority you have

Chris Pangilinan | [email protected] | @cap_transport

Slides by Zak Accuardi @zaccuardi19 6 September 2018TRB Webinar: Disruptive Technologies: Impacts on Transportation Revenues

http://www.transitcenter.org/

Today’s Speakers• Nate Macek, WSP, [email protected]• Bruce Schaller, Schaller Consulting,

[email protected]• Nico Larco, University of Oregon,

[email protected]• Peter Mandle, InterVistas Consulting, Inc., [email protected]• Chris Pangilinan, TransitCenter,

[email protected]






Get Involved with TRB• Getting involved is free!• Join a Standing Committee (http://bit.ly/2jYRrF6)• Become a Friend of a Committee

(http://bit.ly/TRBcommittees)– Networking opportunities– May provide a path to become a Standing Committee

member• Sponsoring Committee: ABE10• For more information: www.mytrb.org

– Create your account– Update your profile

http://bit.ly/2jYRrF6

http://bit.ly/TRBcommittees

http://www.mytrb.org/

Receiving PDH credits

• Must register as an individual to receive credits (no group credits)

• Credits will be reported two to three business days after the webinar

• You will be able to retrieve your certificate from RCEP within one week of the webinar

Documents

Disruptive Technologies: Impacts on Transportation …onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/webinars/180906.pdf• Traditionally served by taxis • TNCs greatly expanded this market • Competes