Opinion

One is the Loneliest Number

Recently the Reason Foundation released a thought-provoking article about the decline in carpooling and the need to convert high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes into high-occupancy toll (HOT) lanes. We at Carma Technology Corporation have more than a decade working to promote and encourage the development of carpools, and while we generally agree with the author’s recommendation to expand HOT lanes, several viewpoints expressed invite further conversation.

Support for Carpooling

The author describes the noticeable decline in carpooling around the nation despite decades of federal support. We’d like to start by recognizing the initial point made: yes, carpooling is in decline. Over the past several decades the rate of carpooling has reduced to half of what it was. The reasons for this decline are numerous, but the primary reason, as discussed in a 2018 Reason piece, is a changing economy. Technology advances and a changing workplace have made our jobs and lives more dynamic. This, in part, explains why carpooling may have declined, whereas the percentage of American’s teleworking has increased.

However, it’s our belief that it has been the failure of policy leaders to embrace innovation and technology that has also led to a reduction in carpooling.

How to Support Carpooling

Let’s address the second part of the author’s opening statement regarding decades of federal support. This is where we have a stark difference of opinion with the author. Federal authority to construct HOV lanes is not exactly what we call policy support.

HOV (and HOT lanes) are incredibly important physical aspects of creating a policy environment that supports carpooling. While the author correctly describes many HOV lanes as either being too hot or too cold, the author fails to recognize that a carpool lane, whether too hot or too cold, still carries more people per lane-mile than a regular, general purpose lane. It is our hope that policy makers see moving people as a far more important metric than moving vehicles.

Supportive carpooling policies are more than support for physical infrastructure. First, there need to be policies in place to encourage and incentivize carpooling. A TRB research report 2021 found that access to an HOV lane was the primary factor leading an individual to carpool (Li 2007). HOV lanes provide an inherent time saving, but only if there is integrity. As the author correctly states, many HOV lanes do not provide time savings because they are filled with violators. However, the answer to this problem isn’t to add more vehicles, rather it’s to restore integrity and ensure that only those who should be using the lane have access to the HOV lane. We believe that the best way to do that is through automated vehicle occupancy detection, about which we will be releasing a separate paper in the near future. We also believe that, once integrity is restored, it should be possible for excess capacity to be sold to drivers who drive alone. But the key to any HOV or HOT lane is integrity and verifying occupancy. It is critical that any HOV or HOT system effectively addresses this issue. 

Effective Transportation Systems Require More Than Infrastructure

Now to deal with HOV lanes that are too cold – the author spoke of several regions that have a network of HOT lanes that effectively move lots of people and we agree with him. However, in addition to allowing solo drivers to pay for use of the HOV lanes, many of them also have in place policies and programs that create a supportive carpool environment. The HOV lanes that are too cold are too cold because they are isolated lanes, not fully connected and not supported by additional State, regional, or local efforts.

Getting people to share a ride requires more than simply laying asphalt. Seattle, Houston, LA, and others have numerous policies and programs in place that incentivize commuters, work with employers, and truly support carpooling. It’s policies like the Washington State Commute Trip Reduction law that should serve as a model for other regions and are what we call real policy support. The Washington State Commute Trip reduction policy creates an environment in which the public and private sector work together to encourage transportation alternatives -- without placing needless burdens on the private sector. According to the Washington State CTR annual reports, every dollar invested has led to $19 of private investment in alternatives. It should be noted that over the past ten years the Puget Sound has seen rapid growth, however congestion has remained largely stagnant and in some terms improved.

Given current federal fiscal restraints and the current state of our infrastructure, we believe that federal policy makers should be looking to the Washington State law, amongst others, as an example.

Our own work with a regional employer in the Dallas region shows how effective targeted programs can be. https://www.gocarma.com/corporate-rideshare  even in a car centric state like Texas.  In this project hybrid vehicles placed in suburban neighborhoods with large concentrations of Toyota employees. Through an extensive and targeted campaign, the project was able to yield an average of 3.1 occupants per vehicle per trip (to/from employment campus), almost triple the national average.  In this pilot, participants actually paid $2-3 for the one-way service (based upon route). The benefits expressed by the users include time & money savings, front row parking on campus (saving ~:10/day), productive time during commute and networking with colleagues.

Why A Supportive Carpool Policy Matters

Why should the federal government invest in a supportive carpool policy? In short, because it’s in the federal government’s best financial interest. Decades of under-investment and dependence on an infrastructure-only policy has created a transportation system that is in disrepair and cannot handle future economic expansion. In short, we have a dollars’ worth of need and a dime in our pockets. If for no reason other than necessity, federal policy-makers must look for ways to get more people through the existing infrastructure. Therefore, we respectfully recommend the following:

  • Establish  policies that encourage integrity and time-savings along HOV and HOT lanes. Agencies should begin to move away from enforcing HOV policies and instead look to verifying occupancy using automated technologies.

  • Encourage and invest in new HOT lanes and convert (where there is capacity) HOV lanes into HOT lanes.

  • Require future priced facilities that leverage  federal assistance to require HOV and time-of-day discounts.

  • Establish and fund planning, support, and incentive policies such as the Washington State CTR.

  • Create a Federal Congestion Relief program that uses funds to increase the capacity of the existing system using technology, operations and better management. 


The recommendations above match closely those of the 2013 FHWA study of casual carpooling. We are grateful to the Reason foundation for initiating such a thought-provoking piece and look forward to working with policy makers and other stakeholders to improve our transportation system.

What is our plan for zero-occupancy vehicles?

This opinion piece was written by Carma’s Chief Product Officer and initially appeared in Fast Company.


In the transportation world, there has always been consensus that there is nothing worse than the single-occupancy vehicle. But there soon could be.

A common techno-utopian vision of the near-future city is one where automated vehicles come when called and whisk you to your destination, as you sit, relaxed and untroubled by traffic. But consider the opposite vision, that gridlock will be made worse by autonomous vehicles, which will spend much of their time driving around the city with no passengers. There is simply nothing about a vehicle being autonomous that makes it more likely to achieve higher occupancy. In fact, the current trajectory of AV deployment roadmaps and our transportation policy response ensures its average occupancy will be lower.

Car occupancy has always been pretty stable, with an average of 1.1 occupants at peak travel times. Outside of a limited number of areas where there are high-occupancy vehicles lanes or toll discounts, little effort has been made to incentivize a behavioral change. A small upward change of average vehicle occupancy (to, say, 1.2 or 1.3) would completely eradicate traffic congestion in our cities. Similarly, a small downward change (say 1.0 or 0.9) will be devastating.

1_Eo5Ei5DLuZ9b3xArdk7zEw.jpeg

Now consider our driverless utopia: a fleet of cars that we can summon at the touch of a button. Consider that these cars will be empty most of the time –repositioning, waiting, traveling on deadhead return trips. Consider that travel demand spikes predictably two times per day, that cars are idle 95% of the time, and that most people live in suburbs or exurbs. How do empty AVs sitting in traffic impact our largest transportation problem? They make it much worse. Faith in driving pattern algorithms alone reducing traffic is misplaced given the relative sensitivity of congestion to occupancy versus to driving skill. And so a correction of priorities is required.

LEVEL 5 IS THE WRONG DESTINATION

Today the dominant framework for understanding the development of AVs is what’s called the SAE Levels of Automation. It has been wholeheartedly adopted by everyone from auto companies to the highest levels of transportation authorities, including the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). It is a staple of almost every presentation you will see on AVs. And level 5 autonomy is presented in our media as the pinnacle of disruptive mobility ,  as though we are more likely to carpool simply because a car is autonomous.

1_GlMJXgbzFn1oenv_sDfqJQ.jpeg

However, it’s important to note that SAE stands for the Society of Automobile Engineers. The prism through which we view the development of autonomous mobility is an engineering framework. It simply describes a roadmap for the technical features of a vehicle, as they progress through stages of development. Its relevance is limited to auto company development teams and their competitive positioning, not to transportation authorities and their planning priorities.

We already have a long-standing hierarchy with which to guide our transportation planning decisions. It prioritizes pedestrians and cyclists over transit, which it in turn prioritizes over cars. The SOV sits appropriately on the bottom rung. And yet now our traditional frameworks and rules are being bypassed in an attempt to accelerate the introduction of autonomous mobility. AVs are not discussed in relation to their level in a hierarchy. This risks diverting our focus from planning a smart, efficient transportation ecosystem.

1_O-wgo2WgY00kuQRunk19wQ.jpeg

Governments today compete over deregulation measures for AV deployments, creating an express lane for the SAE vision. USDOT’s latest policy document, now a “de facto global standard”for AV deployments, has prioritized modernizing or eliminating “outdated regulations that unnecessarily impede the development of automated vehicles.” It describes “voluntary technical standards” and “voluntary guidance,” as well as an AV “exemption process” from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. USDOT’s new Nontraditional and Emerging Transportation Technology Council further aims to cut any red tape that may impede AV deployments.

All this is part of an understandable step toward enabling technological advancement, but it is a huge mistake to omit a strengthening of core transportation planning principles. While USDOT briefly acknowledges this risk in its voluntary guidance for state and local governments to “consider the potential for increased congestion, and how it might be managed,” it is negligent in applying traditional measures for mitigating this risk. Federally funded transit or vanpool projects, for example, are required to regularly submit NTD reports on performance, including vehicle occupancy.

REINVENTING THE PYRAMID

And so we risk a transportation system that elevates AVs, including those with zero occupants, to the tippy-top of our planning hierarchy. AV manufacturers are accelerating toward this goal, as evident in our vehicle-centered connected infrastructure terminology such as “vehicle-to-everything” and a vehicle “green wave.” To avoid a likely negative impact on traffic congestion, transportation planners should commit to a renewed emphasis on occupancy-based planning for all modes, new and old – a re-affirmation, rather than an-upending, of the existing rules of the game.

1_fzyBdwDOkMmHsQt426PUZA.jpeg

There is simply no excuse today for not enforcing occupancy-based performance measures for all transportation modes, including AV deployments. A vehicle with zero occupants should not be treated the same as a vehicle with one occupant, or two occupants, regardless of its level of automation. The existence of reliable consumer technology for verifying occupancy means that there is no longer any excuse for federally sponsored AV deployments to be exempt from reporting on occupancy. Such a course correction will result in new opportunities for local and state agencies to safeguard and improve the performance of their road networks, and for auto companies to fully participate in solving the problem of traffic congestion.

A Course Correction for Autonomous Mobility

In the transportation world, there has always been consensus that there is nothing worse than the Single-Occupancy Vehicle (SOV). Well, now there is.


The Arrival of the Zero Occupancy Vehicle

Afew years ago I wrote an article about the Zero Occupancy Vehicle (ZOV) — how gridlock will be augmented by empty autonomous vehicles (AVs). There is simply nothing about a vehicle being autonomous that makes it more likely to achieve higher occupancy. In fact, the current trajectory of AV deployment roadmaps and our transportation policy response ensures its average occupancy will be lower.


Why Occupancy Matters

Car occupancy has always been pretty stable, with an average of 1.1 occupants at peak travel times. Outside of a limited number of areas where there are high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or toll discounts, little effort has been made to incentivize a behavioral change. A small upward change of average vehicle occupancy (say 1.2 or 1.3) would completely eradicate traffic congestion in our cities. Similarly, a small downward change (say 1.0 or 0.9) will be devastating.

Vehicle throughput versus person throughput

Now consider our driverless utopia — a fleet of cars that we can summon at the touch of a button. Consider that these cars will be empty most of the time — repositioning, waiting, traveling on deadhead return trips. Consider that travel demand spikes predictably 2 times per day, that cars are idle 95% of the time, and that most people live in suburbs or exurbs. How do empty AVs sitting in traffic impact our largest transportation problem? They make it much worse. Faith in driving pattern algorithms alone reducing traffic is misplaced given the relative sensitivity of congestion to occupancy versus to driving skill. And so a correction of priorities is required.


Level 5 is the Wrong Destination

Today the dominant framework for understanding the development of AVs is the SAE Levels of Automation. It has been wholeheartedly adopted by everyone from auto companies to the highest levels of transportation authorities, including the US Department of Transportation (USDOT). It is a staple of almost every presentation you will see on AVs. And level 5 autonomy is presented in our media as the pinnacle of disruptive mobility — as though we are more likely to carpool simply because a car is autonomous.

SAE Levels of Automation

However, it’s important to note that SAE stands for the Society of Automobile Engineers. The prism through which we view the development of autonomous mobility is an engineering framework. It simply describes a roadmap for the technical features of a vehicle, as they progress through stages of development. Its relevance is limited to auto company development teams and their competitive positioning, not to transportation authorities and their planning priorities.

We already have a long-standing hierarchy with which to guide our transportation planning decisions. It prioritizes pedestrians and cyclists over transit, which it in turn prioritizes over cars. The SOV sits appropriately on the bottom rung. And yet now our traditional frameworks and rules are being bypassed in an attempt to accelerate the introduction of autonomous mobility. AVs are not discussed in relation to their level in a hierarchy. This risks diverting our focus from planning a smart, efficient transportation ecosystem.

Which way to intelligent autonomous mobility?


A Crossroads for Transportation Authorities

Governments today compete over deregulation measures for AV deployments, creating an express lane for the SAE vision. USDOT’s latest policy document, now a “de facto global standard” for AV deployments, has prioritized modernizing or eliminating “outdated regulations that unnecessarily impede the development of automated vehicles”. It describes “voluntary technical standards” and “voluntary guidance”, as well as an AV “exemption process” from Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. USDOT’s new Nontraditional and Emerging Transportation Technology Council furtheraims to cut any red tape that may impede AV deployments.

All this is part of an understandable step towards enabling technological advancement, but it is a huge mistake to omit a strengthening of core transportation planning principles. While USDOT briefly acknowledges this risk in its voluntary guidance for state and local governments to “consider the potential for increased congestion, and how it might be managed”, it is negligent in applying traditional measures for mitigating this risk. Federally-funded transit or vanpool projects, for example, are required to regularly submit NTD reports on performance, including vehicle occupancy.


Reinventing the Pyramid

And so we risk a transportation system that elevates AVs, including those with zero occupants, to the tippy-top of our planning hierarchy. AV manufacturers are accelerating towards this goal, as evident in our vehicle-centered connected infrastructure terminology such as “vehicle-to-everything (V2X)” and a vehicle “green wave”. To avoid a likely negative impact on traffic congestion, transportation planners should commit to a renewed emphasis on occupancy-based planning for all modes, new and old — a re-affirmation, rather than an-upending, of the existing rules of the game.

Extending the transportation hierarchy.

There is simply no excuse today for not enforcing occupancy-based performance measures for all transportation modes, including AV deployments. A vehicle with zero occupants should not be treated the same as a vehicle with one occupant, or two occupants, regardless of its level of automation. The existence of reliable consumer technology for verifying occupancy means that there is no longer any excuse for federally sponsored AV deployments to be exempt from reporting on occupancy. Such a course correction will result in new opportunities for local and state agencies to safeguard and improve the performance of their road networks, and for auto companies to fully participate in solving the problem of traffic congestion.


10 Policy Changes for a Better Climate

A multi-agency government report released last week provides a stark reminder about the impact climate change will have on the global economy. That report signaled that unless immediate steps are taken, the impacts of climate change could reduce GDP by as much as 10%, or twice that of the 2008 recession. The report outlines not only the far-reaching impacts on our economy, but also how climate change will impact our health, transportation system, and military capabilities.

This report follows the publication last month of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report, with its stark description of a rapid acceleration in global warming and the urgent need for emissions to reach net zero.

Transportation remains the single largest greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter, responsible for 28.5% of all emissions in the United States (EPA, 2016). Making our transportation system more efficient will not only aid the climate, but it will also improve the transportation system, reduce congestion, and enhance our quality of life.

While steps are being taken to make transportation cleaner, there are actions policy makers need to take to begin reducing GHG emissions immediately.  

Here are 10 policies lawmakers should implement

Reduce GHG emissions by increasing average vehicle occupancy - Incentivizing carpooling and vanpooling will increase average vehicle occupancy. Fewer cars on the roads means less GHG being emitted, it also means less congestion which benefits everyone. Policy makers should expand regional vanpool programs and create incentive programs that reward commuters who carpool

1. Municipal governments with tolled or priced facilities should provide preferential pricing for verified carpools.

2. Cities that do not have tolled or priced facilities should consider implementing a rewards program that financially (or otherwise) rewards individuals who carpool or vanpool to work.

Make sure autonomous doesn't mean empty

3. Initiate a verification system which requires autonomous vehicle operators to periodically report on average vehicle occupancy. As policy makers look to move away from a gas tax and towards a vehicle miles travelled tax, the policy should incentivize higher occupancy and deter vehicles with zero or one passenger.

Integrate and enhance transit operations with shared services such as bikeshare, carshare, and other shared mobility options.

4. Creating integrated and multimodal networks will provide people with options other than driving alone. Numerous studies have shown that access to carshare, bikeshare, and other mobility-on-demand services, coupled with transit, leads to reduced driving.

Price transportation – reward high occupancy vehicles

5. Pricing is a critical tool that can impact transportation usage. Integrating pricing strategies that reward high occupancy vehicles will encourage shared rides and reduce the burden placed on the transit system.

Work with Employers

6. How and when people commute to work can be influenced by employers. Employers should be provided with the tools and resources to encourage non-solo commutes. A number of policies and resources should be provided to employers including

a. Telework resources and training

b. Transit benefit ordinances and tools

c. Incentives to encourage non-solo commutes

d. On-site information for employees to choose the best way to travel

Electrify

7. Continue to build out electric infrastructure and incentivize developers, employers, and even gas stations to include recharging facilities for electric vehicles.

8. Continue to expand tax incentives for the purchase of electric vehicles including in fleet operations.

Land-Use and Parking

9. Reduce parking limits and instead reward developers for integrating multi-modal transportation options such as carshare, bikeshare, transit, and other services that get drivers out of a car.

Work with the private sector

10. Work collaboratively with companies that can provide solutions to congestion and improved transportation. Create procurements that look to solve problems, not purchase products.

These 10 policies and solutions are common sense steps that any municipal governments can take to make an impact.  

Carma and Toyota Double Car Occupancy

Carma and Toyota Double Car Occupancy

PLANO, TX (Nov. 13, 2018) – Carma Technology Corporation and Toyota Motors North America are successfully concluding a pilot demonstration of traffic-busting technology that provided shared transportation services for team members at Toyota’s North American headquarters in Plano. The pilot focuses on measuring and growing car occupancy rates, thereby reducing impact on local traffic congestion, air pollution and parking demand.

Autonomous Cars Will Get Road Rage Too

Picture the scene. It’s a typical morning commute, marked by traffic congestion and frustration. Except this time it’s not drivers complaining to each other about the traffic, it’s autonomous cars. That sounds ridiculous, but it is the current trajectory for the future of personal mobility. The allure of Elon Musk’s vision for autonomous vehicles is understandable, particularly with proclamations that “within two years you’ll be able to summon your car from across the country”, all of the obvious safety benefits to come, and all the cool tech that goes with that.

1_3l3ojN-en99HFkpQetmkJQ.png

However, a missing dimension when we paint this vision is our daily pattern of car utilization. The efficiency of our transportation system doesn’t improve simply because cars will drive themselves more efficiently than we can. A predictable tidal wave of traffic congestion will still hit all of our cities every weekday morning and evening. In fact, it will get worse.

The pervasive wisdom is that autonomous cars will appear and disappear as we wish, wherever we go. Our primary transportation resource (256 million cars and counting) will essentially live in the cloud. Personalized mobility on demand. Most articles written on the subject portray a transportation system that is seamlessly efficient, the ultimate product of the sharing economy. And a recent article in the Wall Street Journal explains that “Twenty-five years from now, the only people still owning cars will be hobbyists, hot-rodders and flat-earth dissenters.” Common perception is, therefore, that this version of the future is inevitable. It is not.

Today, the average occupancy of a car is 1.1 people at commute time. That’s the reason you waste a week of your time every year simply sitting in traffic. Research has shown that even a small (2–5%) reduction in traffic volumes can lead to a giant reduction in total traffic delay (25–27%). And yet, instead of our cities competing on commute-time occupancy scores for federal transportation funding, we continue to invest $80 billion annually on new roads and $87 billion in wasted fuel and lost productivity. Not to mention the harmful impact on local air quality, with the American Lung Association reporting that almost half of us are breathing air polluted enough to make us sick.

At the same time as making these investments, we celebrate the arrival of the autonomous car as the solution, with President Obama recently announcing $4 billion over the next 10 years on autonomous vehicle technology. That $4 billion is largely earmarked for safety features, a very worthy cause — but auto and tech companies need to also start investing in better understanding car utilization patterns. Without learning today how society can better use cars, the autonomous car of the future is unlikely to have a greater occupancy at peak travel times, and it will be riderless a large portion of the time, as it moves to and from the “cloud”, thereby driving occupancy rates down further.

Today, the average American household has 2.28 cars, each one sitting idle 95% of the time. For most Americans, there is no alternative. Most people live and work in America’s suburbs and exurbs; they don’t take Uber to get to work, and they don’t live near a transit stop. They’ve been left behind by a downtown mindset in mobility innovation and neglected in our collective vision for Shared Autonomous Cars, if we even have one. A recent MIT studyshows that the entire population of Singapore could be served by approximately 1/3 of the total number of passenger vehicles currently in operation — but getting to that point requires a giant collaborative effort, fueled by Tesla-levels of iteration and inspiration, and ultimately leading to societal behavior change.

There is, therefore, an urgent and fundamental need to change our long-established car utilization patterns. The same (high-occupancy) car that takes you and your neighbors to work must be the same car that takes your colleagues to off-site appointments during the day, and your family to a restaurant or Ikea or the beach in the evening.

At Carma, we're proud to be working with Toyota to make this a reality. Our fleet of Toyota hybrid vehicles are available to Toyota team members for a shared commute to work, and for private errand trips during the day. The logistics are challenging and we learn new lessons every day, but we believe that car utilization patterns are fundamental to the efficiency of our wider transportation system. Not just for the next generation, but for today’s.

Image uploaded from iOS (6).jpg

Surely it’s time for Silicon Valley to apply the same urgency to ensuring cars are shared and filled throughout the day as it has to summoning a car from 3,000 miles away. The conversation around autonomous cars has to start encompassing the logistics of how a car gets utilized for 24 hours, not just for 1. That technological and behavioral challenge is one that faces us today, not just in 10 or 15 years time. If we don’t change course, we’re heading towards a future in which zero occupancy vehicles further clog up our already congested roads. And nothing is more likely to trigger robots taking over the planet than having robot cars stuck in traffic every day, right?

A version of this post first appeared in Fast Company (Co.Exist).

Emmett Murphy is Chief Product Officer at Carma