Why Cities Should Support Right-of-Way Charging
Throughout history, cities have invested in programs and infrastructure to support the efficient movement of people and goods. Once upon a time, this meant regularly cleaning up after horses and providing tethering rings. Over time, streetcar tracks ran down city streets. Then those were paved over to make way for cars to drive and park. As cities began focusing more on livability and embraced “new urbanism” approaches to revival, streetcar tracks began to return alongside dedicated bus lanes, bike racks, and dedicated bike lanes.
Cities now face a number of new demands on their public rights of way. It will take new forms of urban design and management to accommodate the next generation of mobility services like bike share systems, car sharing, micro-mobility services, and rideshare services. Broader smart city technologies like parking management, way-finding, and citizen engagement technologies will also factor into the design process.
Cities that are serious about tackling climate change are also recognizing that they need to electrify everything that moves. This includes private passenger cars, and requires making room for electric vehicle charging infrastructure in the public right of way.
Cities that have been most successful in promoting cycling, like my home town of Portland, have invested in bike racks, dedicated bike lanes, and other infrastructure that is ubiquitous, convenient, and highly visible. Likewise, cities that want to reduce air pollution and meet carbon goals by accelerating transportation electrification need to invest in electric vehicle charging infrastructure that is ubiquitous, convenient, and highly visible, using public rights of way.
Why Cities Should Support Right-of-Way Charging
To meet clean air and carbon goals.
Cities that are serious about reducing carbon pollution from transportation need to promote walking and biking, expand transit and micro-mobility services, manage development, and use pricing to reduce traffic and parking congestion.
Many of these steps are designed to reduce the use of single occupancy cars. At the same time, though, cities will also need to electrify everything that moves, including those passenger cars. Just as our approach to solid waste requires a “reduce, reuse, recycle” approach, city transportation policy needs to pursue a “both-and” strategy. Making it easier to use an electric car does not conflict with encouraging alternative transportation options, any more than making it easier to recycle conflicts with discouraging single-use packaging.
Out of sight, out of mind.
Research by UC Davis in California shows that most consumers do not realize that electric vehicles are available, and that public awareness has barely budged over the last six years. Highly visible charging on the street can be a very effective way to increase awareness. Cities that are serious about promoting cycling paint colorful bike lanes, replace car parking with large bike racks, and encourage drivers to “start seeing bicycles.” We need to help gas-car drivers “start seeing electric cars.”
Care for your “garage orphans.”
Charging at home is simple if you own a home with a dedicated parking spot and electrical service. However, some 20% of Americans, and an even higher percentage of low- and moderate-income drivers, are “garage orphans” who live in apartments or condominiums. Urban policy to promote sustainability and density are steadily increasing this percentage, while also steadily reducing the amount of parking provided in new construction. Public charging for these drivers will be increasingly important in cities.
Electrify shared mobility.
Delivery vehicles, carshare services, and drivers for rideshare services like Uber and Lyft can easily travel 50,000 miles a year or more, some five times more than an average commuter. If cities want these services to electrify, it is important to recognize that time is money for these drivers, that they will need to charge multiple times in a day, and will want to be able to do so as quickly as possible. They will need fast charging that is centrally located and easily accessed.
Recommendations for Cities
As part of our work with multiple cities through the Bloomberg American Cities Climate Challenge, Forth has recently published a report that offers a toolkit for cities seeking to provide ubiquitous, convenient, highly visible, and affordable charging options in busy urban areas. Forth’s report includes a wealth of additional detail, but our recommendations begin with a few basic suggestions.
Start with high level policy.
To meet our climate goals, all new cars sold must be electric within the next decade. Cities should start by adopting a policy recognizing this imperative and committing the city to support this transition. City departments can then develop specific policies and programs to meet this goal, but with clear direction and support from political leadership.
Think bike racks, not gas stations.
Public electric vehicle charging generally won’t be profitable until there are far more electric cars using it, yet cities sometimes approach charging companies as if they were entering franchise negotiations with profitable technology companies, or regulating undesirable gas stations. To create the best environment for creative problem solving, cities should think of public charging as an important public service that they provide their citizens through public-private partnerships.
To make charging easier, cities will need to collaborate across internal departments, but will also need to work closely with their local electric utility and with private charging companies. Mobility technologies and needs are evolving quickly, creating new challenges and opportunities. Convening a cross-functional stakeholder group can be a great way to brainstorm ideas and to shape and evaluate programs.
Charging can be integrated with high-efficiency lighting, mounted on power poles, combined with parking control systems, integrated into multimodal “smart mobility hubs,” or used to offer Wi-Fi and other smart city services. Some companies offer free charging services supported by advertising, others operate smart networks that generate valuable data, and others simply sell non-networked hardware. In short, there are a variety of technologies and business models that should enable cities to develop a strategy that supports their other mobility priorities.
When a city is ready to proceed, it should create clear and simple parameters and processes to minimize the transaction costs for participants. Small pilot programs that are clear, fast, and well defined are nearly always better than sweeping plans that are vague and overly ambitious without implementation strategies behind them. Simple applications with the potential to request additional information are generally better than asking participants for comprehensive information up front. Sometimes, the most impactful thing a city can do is simply get out of the way by reducing permitting or planning barriers, or identifying specific locations for innovation.
Think big, but start small.
Meeting our carbon reduction goals will require all new cars sold in the US to be electric within the next decade or two. On the one hand, this means that cities need to be prepared to accommodate and charge a fleet that is 100% electric. On the other hand, it means that there is time to plan. Cities do not need to rush to tear up streets just to install charging. They can begin to incorporate charging into their long-term plans for the urban streetscape, incorporating charging naturally as streets are renovated along with lighting, sidewalks, bike lanes, and other aspects of modern urban mobility.
In many progressive cities, it is increasingly easy to find a well-marked bike lanes and convenient bike parking corrals in place of car parking spots. To address the climate crisis, cities need to make it just as easy to find electric car charging. A key element in that strategy will be making that charging available at street parking spaces. We hope our report provides helpful case studies and recommendations to cities as they innovate towards that goal.
Leave your comment below, or reply to others.
Please note that this comment section is for thoughtful, on-topic discussions. Admin approval is required for all comments. Your comment may be edited if it contains grammatical errors. Low effort, self-promotional, or impolite comments will be deleted.
Read more from MeetingoftheMinds.org
Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology
I spoke last week with Krishna Desai from Cubic Transportation, and we discussed three big problems facing transportation, and the ways that Cubic is approaching these challenges:
1) If (or when) more workers return to traditional on-location jobs, but feel a lingering distrust of crowded spaces, people who can afford it may opt for private cars instead of using public transit for their commute. This will create a massive influx of cars on roads that were already crowded, and more financial woes for transit agencies already dealing with budget shortfalls. Krishna told me about a suite of optimization tools Cubic is deploying in places like Mexico and San Francisco to make public transit more efficient, more transparent, and, overall, more attractive to riders.
2) For the time being, though, we’re dealing with the opposite problem. How can transit agencies find ways to influence user behavior in a way that complies with social distancing and capacity requirements? How can you incentivize riders to wait for the next bus? (In a way that doesn’t alienate them forever – see #1). Cubic has deployed a loyalty/advertising program in Miami-Dade County that was originally intended to increase ridership, but is now being used to help control crowding and social distancing on transit.
3) Transportation infrastructure, in generally, was not built to accomodate 6-feet of separation between riders – or between workers. Little things like, for example, opening gates, requires workers to be closer than 6-feet to riders, and there are examples like that throughout every transit hub. Technology can help, but creating and implementing software/hardware solutions quickly and efficiently requires experience with innovation, deployment, maintenance and more. Cubic has a program called Project Rebound that shows the possibilities.
Advanced Urban Visioning offers a powerful tool for regions that are serious about achieving a major transformation in their sustainability and resilience. By clarifying what optimal transportation networks look like for a region, it can give planners and the public a better idea of what is possible. It inverts the traditional order of planning, ensuring that each mode can make the greatest possible contribution toward achieving future goals.
Advanced Urban Visioning doesn’t conflict with government-required planning processes; it precedes them. For example, the AUV process may identify the need for specialized infrastructure in a corridor, while the Alternatives Analysis process can now be used to determine the time-frame where such infrastructure becomes necessary given its role in a network.
The introduction of intelligent transportation systems, which includes a broad network of smart roads, smart cars, smart streetlights and electrification are pushing roadways to new heights. Roadways are no longer simply considered stretches of pavement; they’ve become platforms for innovation. The ability to empower roadways with intelligence and sensing capabilities will unlock extraordinary levels of safety and mobility by enabling smarter, more connected transportation systems that benefit the public and the environment.