Shared Autonomous Vehicle
System in Residential
Suburban Areas
Yefang Zhou, Hitomi Sato and Toshiyuki Yamamoto
Nagoya University

1Introduction to Case Study of Smart City

Kasugai City• https://www.jasca2021.jp/practices/area/japan/#case321

2

From Public Transport to Transport for Public
Easy
accessRe-define “(road) public transport” mainly in EU
Sharedtaxi

BusTaxi
Registerandeasy use

Bikeshare

Car
share

Car
rentalContractinadvance

Ridehailing

DRT

Hiredservice

Coach

Passenger transport business
Small vehicle

Large vehicle
Source: Nakamura (2022)

3

CASE•Connected•Autonomous•Shared•ElectricCEAS“Connected, Autonomous, Shared, Electric: Each of these has the power to turn ourentire industry upside down. But the true revolution is in combining them in acomprehensive, seamless package.” by Dr. Dieter Zetsche (Chairman of the Board ofManagement of Daimler AG)

4

Shared Autonomous Vehicle (SAV)
Autonomous

Owned AV

SharedAV
Asset shared

Asset owned

Traditional

SharedeconomyHuman driver5

Intention for autonomous vehicle
ownership & shared use (N=803)
Don't own &use sharedcar
32%
Own carw/o share55%

Own car &share it
13%

6Current car use (or non-use)
Drive frequency

Car at garage (hours/day)

No license

Z Z z…

24

No drive
Less than above21

1 day/year

18

1 day/half year

15

1 day/2-3 months
1 day/month12

1 day/2-3 weeks

9

1 day/week6

2-3 days/week
4-5 days/week3

Almost everyday

Not fixed
050

100

150

200

250

050

100

Weekend

Weekday150• 14 & 13 hrs. at garage on weekday and weekend on average• 10% & 14% of households don’t use car on weekday andweekend

7Motorization, suburbanization and ageing
Automobiles:• widely spread & increasing• become daily necessities→dependency on automobile

Land use:• population central → suburbs• suburban sprawl→inefficient public transit service

Ageing society

Mobility poor at suburban area8

Focus1. combination of P&R and AV in suburbs• P&R → offer sustainable mobility service in suburbs• mass transportation megacities→ solid fundamental

2. mobility challenged people (aka, transportation poor in Japan)• AV → high safety, convenience9

Proposed SAV System
3 Groups:
1. Park & Ride commuter• Transfer at selected stations• Depart out of target areas• Access mode private vehicle

2. Inbound commuter• Destination within target areas• Egress mode private vehicle

How to find supply/demand?
SupplyDemand:within area

3. Elderly & disabled residents• Residents within target areas• Mobility difficulties• Age over 70
11Proposed SAV System
AV: beginning&cornerstone

P&R commuter
Commuting trip
Time-shareInboundcommuter

Elderly & disabledresidents

12Study cases

NagoyaMetropolitan
Area18

Study cases

NagoyaMetropolitan
Area19Study cases

CaseboundaryKozoji Newtown

Selectedstations

Meito

20

Simulation

Figure 5. Interface of agent-based simulation(source: artisoc)

23

P&R combined SAVsystem• Background• Objective• Simulation• Results• Conclusion and limitation

24

Results—Demand and supply during daytime
Demand trips and 100% fleet size during day timenumber of tips or vehicles

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
5

67

8

910

Meito_Demand

111213

Meito_Fleet

14
Hour

1516

Kozoji_Demand

1718

19

Kozoji_Fleet

2021222327

Results—Operation Ratio
100%
13,2%

90%
80%

37,6%

25,7%

29,9%

19,7%

18,5%
21,3%

60%

26,2%

50%
40%

4,1%
3,9%

7,9%

9,7%

12,0%

70%
Operation ratio %

8,2%

10,0%

74,8%

51,6%

30%

20%

25%

92,0%

61,8%

53,0%

43,9%

20%

80,3%

83,9%

10%
10,8%

0%
10%

20%

25%

50%

10%

Meito

50%

KozojiFleet size %
idle

empty drivein service

Figure. Operation ratio of Meito’s various fleets

29

Ride-sharing ElectricAutonomous Vehicle System• Background• Objective• System & Study cases• Simulation• Results and conclusion

30

Study Cases—Charging Scenario 1: base caseMeito

3 chargers

Kozoji-Newtown

2 chargers

35

Study Cases—Charging Scenario 2: additional chargers
Meito:Chargers in zone

10 chargers

Kozoji-Newtown:Chargers in zone

6 chargers

36

Results: Idle ratio by demand per vehicle
idle time ratio by demand/fleet
80%

70%

idle time ratio

60%
50%

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
01020

30

40
50
Demand/fleet

60

7080

90
37

AverageResults: idle, utilized time ratio
idle time ratio by demand/fleet

In service ratio by demand/fleet

80%

70%70%

60%

60%

50%

idle time ratio

In service ratio

50%
40%
30%

40%

30%

20%

20%
10%

10%

0%

0%

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00 50,00
Demand/fleet

60,00

70,00

80,00

90,00

SoloRide-Meito3/Kozoji2-chargers

SoloRide-Meito10/Kozoji6-chargers

Rideshare-Meito3/Kozoji2-chargers

Rideshare-Meito10/Kozoji6-chargers

010

20

30

SoloRide-Meito3/Kozoji2-chargers
Rideshare-Meito3/Kozoji2-chargers

4050
Demand/fleet

60

70

80

90

SoloRide-Meito10/Kozoji6-chargers
38
Rideshare-Meito10/Kozoji6-chargers

Results: times of charging by charger
coverage
Times of charging per charger by charger coveragein MeitoTimes of charging per charger by charger coverage inKozoji
250

times of charging/charger

times of charging/charger

250

200

150

100

500200

150

100

50

0
0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0area/charger (km2)

4,5

5,0

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,04,5area/charger (km2)

SoloRide 10% fleet

SoloRide 20% fleet

SoloRide 10% fleet

SoloRide 20% fleet

Rideshare 10% fleet

Rideshare 20% fleet

Rideshare 10% fleet

Rideshare 20% fleet

395,0Results: times of charging by charger
coverage fleet/charger
Charging times per charger by fleet/charger
200charging times per charger

180160140120100
8060

Significant electricity demand
concentration if fewer charging spots

40
2000,050,0

100,0150,0fleet/charger
Meito

Kozoji200,0250,040

Results: charging performance
Times of charging from 9 to 23
140117120

Peak concentrated
during afternoon

100Earlier peak Meito
80
60
40
2009101112131415161718192021

22

SoloRide-Kozoji-6chargers-10%Fleet

ShareRide-Kozoji-2chargers-20%Fleet

SoloRide-Meito-10chargers-10%Fleet

ShareRide-Meito-3chargers-20%Fleet

VKT highest

23

VKT lowest
41

Conclusion—P&R SAV system: case & implication• Meito: 20% to 25% fleet, about 400 vehicles, canprovide a quick response service for over 10000• average wait time: about 2 min;

• Kozoji Newtown: fewer than 400 shared AVs canperform more than 6000 trips, with wait time:• approximately 95% of trips → less than 6 min,• all trips → approximately 1 min as an average

42Conclusion—SAEV system: overall• The proposed system is capable of providing users with an acceptable service intwo cases.
• Potential correlations:• demand per vehicle• the higher demand per vehicle, the higher completed trips/vehicle·hour• ratio of utilized time increases while idle time decreases• VKT also rises• charger coverage• Times of charging per charger increase with higher charger coverage• Electricity demand concentration
43