Lecture II September 23 rd 2014

1. Lecture II September 23rd 2014

2. Outline • Student Assignment • Themesfor Case studies • Carsharing • Extreme weatherevents • ElectricVehicles

3. Student Assignment

4. In short… • Investigation of a case study with MATSim • Groups of 1-2 students • Total workload of 60 hours (2 Credits) • Results in a scientific paper • Grade determined by report, paper and presentation

5. Goals • Become a MATSim-Superuser • Investigate a Research Question in a Case Study • Produce a Research Paper • Present your Paper as in a Conference

6. Structure of Student Assignment Four Tasks: • Task 1 – Development of a Research Question • Task 2 – MATSim-Introduction • Task 3 – Case Study • Task 4 – Presentation Semester plan:

7. Task 1 – Development of a Research Question • Starts Today! • Three different case themes will be introduced. • In your group you select one of them and get more detailed information on it. • Then you have 2 weeks to: • do a literature and background research on the case theme, • develop a research question in your case theme, • and write the introduction of your paper. • The introduction is due in week 4!

8. Task 2 – MATSim-Introduction • Goal: Preparation of MATSim for the main study • Consists of a mini case study which is the same for all • Exercises: • Installation and set-up of MATSim and of a suitable IDE to develop in JAVA • Do the mini case study and thus learn to run simulations with MATSim • Visualize the results and prepare a short report • The short report presenting the mini case study is due in week 7. The report is expected to contain meaningful visualizations which supports the main conclusions of the case study.

9. Task 3 – Case Study • Goal: Work on your research question and develop the required tools • Kick-off is in week 7 of the semester • Duration: 6 weeks (30 workhours) • ToDos: • work on the case study • answer the research questions • write a research paper (specifications given in week 7) • Full research paper is due in week 13, the second last week of the semester

10. Task 4 – Presentation • Goal: Presentanddefendyourpaper in a conferencelikepresentation • Preparationofthepresentation: Fromweek 13 toweek 14 • Presentation: In week 14 • Template forthepresenation will behanded out in week 13

11. Grade Weighted average of: • 2 x Mini case report grade • 6 x Paper (incl. Introduction) grade • 2 x Presentation grade No session exam. After the presentation you have holidays!

12. Task 1 – Administration • Starts Today! • ToDos: • do a literature and background research on the case theme • develop a research question within your case theme • write the introduction of your paper • The introduction (pdf-document) is due in week 4.

13. Task 1 – Writing an Introduction I A good Introduction… • puts your work in a given context: • start with an overview of the field • narrow it down to your research question and your hypothesis • contains a literature review: Mention the most important literature and work already done in the field and explain how you differentiate your work. Why is your work important? • gives an overall summary of the paper • explains how the research problem is solved (in your case: broadly how you plan to solve the problem with MATSim)

14. Task 2 – Writing an Introduction (II) Paper Specifications: • A paper should have the following parts: abstract, introduction, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion and references. • Your paper, including the abstract, text, references, figures, and tables, must not exceed 7,500 words. Each table, figure, or photograph counts as 250 words. For example, if two figures and three tables are submitted, the abstract, text, and references may total no more than 6,250 words.

15. ThemesforCase Studies

16. Verkehrsingenieurtag – 6. March 2014Carsharing: Whytomodel carsharing demandandhow F. Ciari

17. Outline • Introduction: What’sgoing on in the carsharing world? • Why to model carsharing demand? • Modeling carsharing with MATSim • Summary andfuturework

18. Introduction: What’sgoing on in the carsharing world? • Why to model carsharing demand? • Modeling carsharing with MATSim • Summary andfuturework

19. Worldwide growth of carsharing • Carsharing in terms of members / vehicles is growing fast • Source: Shaheen and Cohen, 2012

20. Actors • The actors involved are increasingly large • Car manufacturers  Daimler, BMW, Peugeot • Traditional car rental companies  Avis, Sixth • Public transport operators  DB

21. Competition • The level of competition on the market is increasing • At the start of modern carsharing operations (90’s Switzerland and Germany) and until recently, operators mostly were “local monopolists” • Now many cities boast several carsharing operators

22. Services • The world of shared mobility is evolvingfast and newservices are coming to the market to challenge/complement the oldones • Round trip-based carsharing (Mobility) • One-way (station based) carsharing (Autolib) • Free-floating carsharing (Car2go, DriveNow) • Peer-to-peer carsharing (RelayRides) • Bike-sharing • Carpooling • Dynamic ride sharing • Slugging • …

23. Introduction: What’sgoing on in the carsharing world? • Why to model carsharing demand? • Modeling carsharing with MATSim • Summary andfuturework

24. Why do we need to model carsharing demand? • Models are used to get insight on the behavior of a transportation system under given circumstances but Is carsharing relevant?

25. Because… • Still small but conceptually “mainstream” (“Shared economy”) • Fits well with some societal developments (“Peak car”) • Is often mentioned when it comes to make transport more sustainable (but the mechanisms aren’t clear)

26. …and also because… • The actors involved are increasingly large Able to have a “big bang” approach, implies large investments • The level of competition on the market is increasing  Higher investment risk • The world of shared mobility is evolvingfast Incertitude about integration/competition among different modes/systems

27. Research Goal • Build a predictive and policy sensitive model that can be used by practitioners (operators) and policy makers

28. Methodology: Observations • Inherent limitations of traditional models representing carsharing – the importance of CS availability at precise points in time and spaceis not fitting with vehicles per hour flows • Travel is the result of the individual need performing out-of-home activities at different locations – this matters for carsharing even more than for other modes! (according to the length / location of the activities)

29. Introduction: What’sgoing on in the carsharing world? • Why to model carsharing demand? • Modeling carsharing with MATSim • Summary andfuturework

30. MATSim • It sketches individuals’ daily life using the agent paradigm. • Agents have personal attributes (age, gender, employment, etc.) which influence their behavior • Agents autonomously try to carry out a daily plan being able to modify some dimensions of their travel (time, mode, route, activity location) • High temporal and spatial resolution • MATSim= Multi-agent transport simulation (www.matsim.org)

31. Carsharing model in MATSim – Current status • Traditional carsharing + Free-floating • Agents always walkfrom the starting facility to the closest car • Time and distance dependent fare • Stations are located at the actual carsharing locations in the modeled area • Carsharing is available only to members • Actual vehicle availability is accounted for

32. Test Case 1 - Berlin • Part of a German project called “Berlin elektroMobil”  Berlin, Germany as a test case • Goals: • Understand the behavior of the whole transportation systemunder different carsharing scenarios • Finding strategies to extend the carsharingsupply in Berlin and get hints on how to combinefree-floating (FF) and station-based(SB) carsharing

33. Scenarios • Scenario I: SBCS (Basis, station based only, reflecting actual supply) • Scenario II: Expanded SBCS (Station based only, additional stations and members) • Scenario III: Scenario II + Free-floating

34. Statistics overview • Over-proportional increase of SB rentals (increasing stations / cars) • Trips (distance and travel time) essentially unchanged • Adding FFCS (2’500 cars)  • ~ 10’000 additional trips and SBCS grows • SB (S III) shorter trips (distance), FF slightly longerbutfaster trips.

35. Purpose • FF CS has moreWork and lessLeisure travel compared to SB CS

36. Modal substitution • Mode substituted by free-floating carsharing  • Car travel is the mode which is reducedthe most (> 30%) of the free-floating trips were car trips before its introduction • Overall car travel (VMT) grows with FF compared to SB only  modal substitution patterns for free-floating carsharing might be problematic • Relatively few agents changed from SB to FF carsharing

37. Conclusions • Untapped potential for SBCS in Berlin – Over-proportional growth of SB doubling # carsharing cars • SB carsharing is used more intensively after FF carsharing is introduced • Some differences in the use of the two CS modes (purpose, time, distance) • Substitution patterns are a possible concern for FF • Apparently FF and SB are rather complementary

38. Test Case 2 - Zürich • Goals: • Understand the behavior of the whole carsharing systemunder different (carsharing) pricing scenarios • Get hints on the interactions between traditional station based carsharing and free-floating carsharing under such scenarios

39. Scenarios

40. Vehicles in Motion

41. Modal substitution Modes substituted by free-floating carsharing in scenarios II to V as compared to scenario I. The secondary axis shows the number of free-floating rentals for the scenario

42. Rentals spatial patterns

43. Purpose of the rental

44. Conclusions • The impact of different pricing schemes is not limited to increasing or reducing the aggregate level of usage • Pricingstrategy structurally affects the interactions between the two carsharing types • Complex interactions between spatiotemporal availability of carsharing vehicles and users are observed • The realism of some aspects (i.e. purpose, modal substitution) is still unclear

45. Introduction: What’sgoing on in the carsharing world? • Why to model carsharing demand? • Modeling carsharing with MATSim • Summary andfuturework

46. Summary • Carsharingisgrowing fast andisbecoming «mainstream» • Instruments for the modeling of carsharing are becoming necessary • Traditional modelsarenotwellsuitedtomodel carsharing • MATSim is already able to simulate carsharing and to evaluate complex scenarios… • …but thereare still manylimitations

47. Ongoing work • Improving the existing membership model • Testing our implementations of free-floating and one-way carsharing

48. Future work • Further validation of the existing results with empirical data • Applying the tool for analysis on new scenarios, possibly relying on new empirical data • Improve the simulation with better behavioral models • New case studies where different shared mobility options (Autonomous Vehicles, Ride Sharing) are combined

49. Thank you for your attention! www.matsim.org

50. ModelingImpactsofWeather TransportMicrosimulations Conditionsin Agent-Based AlexanderStahel Francesco Ciari 93rd TransportationResearchBoard January2014 AnnualMeeting