Encouraging the Sustainable Adoption of Autonomous Vehicles for Public Transport in Belgium: Citizen Acceptance, Business Models, and Policy Aspects

Several mobility-related issues persist in and around urban areas. Autonomous vehicles promise substantial environmental, safety, and economic benefits but may also cause unintended adverse effects that stem from single-passenger mobility becoming more affordable and accessible. While using them for public transport (i.e., autonomous shuttles) can help avoid such downsides, there are many challenges to their adoption, particularly ones that are related to citizen acceptance and economic aspects. Based on a novel survey of Brussels’ citizens, we provide insights from user opinions on last-mile autonomous shuttle services and analyze the effect of various attitudinal and socio-demographic factors affecting such acceptance. Our respondents exhibit an overall positive acceptance albeit with a limited willingness to pay for it. In addition, based on expert interviews, we provide a discussion on appropriate business models and policy recommendations to help ensure the timely adoption of AVs in Belgium that adapts to mobility needs and policy goals.

Beyond the dichotomy: How ride-hailing competes with and complements public transport

Since ride-hailing has become an important travel alternative in many cities worldwide, a fervent debate is underway on whether it competes with or complements public transport services. We use Uber trip data in six cities in the United States and Europe to identify the most attractive public transport alternative for each ride. We then address the following questions: (i) How does ride-hailing travel time and cost compare to the fastest public transport alternative? (ii) What proportion of ride-hailing trips do not have a viable public transport alternative? (iii) How does ride-hailing change overall service accessibility? (iv) What is the relation between demand share and relative competition between the two alternatives? Our findings suggest that the dichotomy—competing with or complementing—is false. Though the vast majority of ride-hailing trips have a viable public transport alternative, between 20% and 40% of them have no viable public transport alternative. The increased service accessibility attributed to the inclusion of ride-hailing is greater in our US cities than in their European counterparts. Demand split is directly related to the relative competitiveness of travel times i.e. when public transport travel times are competitive ride-hailing demand share is low and vice-versa.

Exploring the Energy Saving Potential in Private, Public and Non-Motorized Transport for Ten Swedish Cities

Transport energy conservation research in urban transport systems dates back principally to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries’ (OPEC) “Arab Oil Embargo” (1973–1974) and the Iranian revolution (1979), when global oil supplies became threatened and costs rose steeply. Two subsequent Gulf Wars (1991 and 2003) highlighted the dangerous geo-political dimensions of Middle-Eastern oil. In latter times, the urgency to reduce global CO2 output to avoid catastrophic climate change has achieved great prominence. How to reduce passenger transport energy use therefore remains an important goal, which this paper pursues in ten Swedish cities, based on five scenarios: (1) increasing the relatively low public transport (PT) seat occupancy in each Swedish city to average European levels (buses 35%, light rail 48%, metro 60% and suburban rail 35%); (2) doubling existing PT seat occupancy in each Swedish city; (3) increasing existing car occupancy in each Swedish city by 10%; (4) decreasing existing energy use per car vehicle kilometer by 15%; (5) increasing existing modal split for daily trips by non-motorized modes to 50% in each city. A sixth “best-case scenario” is also explored by simultaneously combining scenarios 2 to 5. The data used in the paper come from systematic empirical research on each of the ten Swedish cities. When applied individually, scenario 2 is the most successful for reducing passenger transport energy use, scenarios 1 and 4 are next in magnitude and produce approximately equal energy savings, followed by scenario 5, with scenario 3 being the least successful. The best-case, combined scenario could save 1183 million liters of gasoline equivalent in the ten cities, representing almost a 60% saving over their existing 2015 total private passenger transport energy use and equivalent to the combined 2015 total annual private transport energy use of Stockholm, Malmö and Jönköping. Such findings also have important positive implications for the de-carbonization of cities. The policy implications of these findings and the strategies for increasing public transport, walking and cycling, boosting car occupancy and decreasing vehicular fuel consumption in Swedish cities are discussed.