Presented at the AITPM 2017 Conference by Darryl Patterson

1. Autonomous car Sharing
or “caramaggedon”
Darryl Patterson Dylan Melsom
2017 AITPM National Conference,
Melbourne

2. Ready or not, here they come…
 Appropriate policy intervention and guidance is needed
 The rapid approach means this guidance is required urgently to guide
implementation, but:
 Government is lagging behind in incorporating AVs into planning and
policy-making
 There is a lack of understanding of
implications for cities; particularly
parking and infrastructure provision

3. 3
3
 Parking infrastructure being planned and built now will
coexist with AVs
 What are the implications for parking supply?
 How do we maximise the potential benefits of AVs and
guard against the disadvantages?
?

4. Objectives
1. Understand the car-oriented Perth context
2. Investigate and define the range of potential end-impact scenarios with AVs
3. Analyse the current parking supply model in Perth
4. Determine the current modal breakdown in Perth for a range of land uses
5. Estimate the modal breakdown at each end of the range of AV scenarios
6. Recommend changes to the current parking supply process in Perth to
support AV implementation.

5. Methodology

6. Perth car-dominated Context
 Car-based planning in Perth began in 1955
 Significant problems with low-density urban
sprawl
 High levels of vehicle ownership and use
 Costly congestion and outer suburban growth
 Car-dominated cities like Perth could thus stand
to gain the most from AVs

7. Parking Supply
 Minimum parking requirements commonly used
 This has lead to a dramatic oversupply of parking
 Parking supply policy in WA:
− Planning Schemes, Structure Plans establish requirements and
parameters
− The first level assessment can be required at is Development Application
− Parking is only considered late in the planning process

8. Planning framework in WA

9. Implementation Scenarios

10. Implementation Scenario: trips
 Current vehicle trip format

11. Implementation Scenario: trips
 Private AV Use (Scenario 1) vehicle trip format

12. Implementation Scenario: trips
 Shared AV Use (Scenario 2) vehicle trip format

13. Transport modes
 Modal splits analysed for 2011 base year across 6 land use types
 Based on STEM model

14. Transport modes
Private vehicle sole occupant
Zero occupancy
Private vehicle car passenger
Shared vehicle
Bus
Walk/ cycle

15. SO,
36%
CP, 11%
B, 1%W/C, 4%
ZO,
47%
Transport modes
SO, 59%
CP, 25%
B, 3%
W/C, 13%
SO, 5%
SV, 65%
B, 7%
W/C,
14%
ZO, 9%
2011
Scenario 1
(Private)
Scenario 2
(Shared)
Residential land use

16. Roadmap Policy Goals
The example
text goes
2
3
Moving towards shared mobility
Building less parking
Improving parking management
1
2
3
1

17. Outcomes and recommendations
• Creation of an updated Metropolitan Transport Plan at State/ Metropolitan
region level;
• Updated criteria for TIAs and parking assessments incorporating
consideration of potential future mode shares
• Updated Local Parking Plans to detail how Local Authorities will implement
the items contained in the Metropolitan Transport Plan; and
• Updated Town Planning Schemes reflecting the revised requirements for
the provision of car parking associated with different land uses.

18. Further research required
• Impacts of pricing – travel decisions, particularly those for commuters, are
generally based on cost/utility of the trip.
• Kerbside/drop off/pick up management – how Scenario 2 may impact on
the management of pick up/drop areas in CBD environments
• Creating flexibility in current parking structures and planning to allow for
the possible 2 scenarios