STAGE 1
Electrifying Shared Mobility in Seattle POSTER NUMBER: NPC197075 DAVID WASSERMAN, AICP, FEHR & PEERS 408.516.4421 D.WASSERMAN@FEHRANDPEERS.COM
STAGE 2 Existing EV Charger Locations
30% Accessibility to Major Highways
5% EV NETWORK DEVELOPMENT Fill gaps in existing EV charger network
Retail Amenities
›› Transportation is the second largest source of GHG emission in the U.S. after Electricity Generation. However, as electricity has been getting cleaner with increasing deployments of renewables and natural gas, the pace of transportation emissions is continuing to grow. Vehicle electrification is a key component of addressing this growth in emissions.
5%
40%
WEIGHTED COMBINED MODEL
Converting the results of the EVSE Dynamic Siting Model to a prioritization of Shared Mobility Hubs involved considering the hex grids around each hub and adjacent hubs. Additionally, given that some Shared Mobility Hubs are within a half-mile of another hub, adjacent hubs were aggregated to provide one representative location for EVSE siting prioritization purposes.
Low Income Households
5% Metric Weights
EQUITY & ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE Address air quality and environmental justice objectives
Traffic Pollution Index
5% 7.5% 7.5%
Combined Weight
7.5%
WEIGHTED COMBINED MODEL
7.5% Metric Weights
Ride-hail Demand
6.25% SHARED MOBILITY Serve locations with current high market demand for ride-hailing and carsharing services
Carshare Demand
The top 35 locations were then identified and discussed with project partners to develop a list of Shared Mobility Hubs to prioritize for electrification during Phase 1 deployments (October 2018-September 2019) and potential hubs to electrify in Phase 2 deployments (October 2019-September 2020).
20%
Parking Turnover Index
7.5% 6.25% 6.25%
6.25%
Combined Weight
The metrics were combined using a weighting system to favor important factors by scoring 10-acre hex grids developed across the City of Seattle. The weighting criteria were developed through literature review, stakeholder feedback, and an iterative process to ensure the model was representing reasonable results. With 11 metrics, a baseline weighting would apply an approximately nine percent weight to every metric. However, based on the weighting development process, certain metrics warranted a higher or lower weight, both because of the importance of the metric and to account for potential correlation between the metrics.
! !
15%
Enable better first-last mile connections to high-capacity transit
Zero-vehicle Households
! !
! !
5
All Potential Future Shared Mobility Hubs
! !
! !
5%
Combined Weight
20%
! ! ! !
Med
All Potential Shared Mobility Hub Locations
! !
Link Light Rail
5%
›› Web-based mapping tools can facilitate dynamic stakeholder engagement in decision-making. ›› While tools may change, the power of a collection of simple metrics remains in providing insight into how values and human systems integrate to guide decisionmaking.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) under the Vehicles Technologies Office (VTO) Deployment Award Number DE-EE0008261. Key Fehr & Peers Staff in Project: Aaron Gooze, David Wasserman, Corwin Bell, Marshall Ballard Key SDOT Staff: Shannon Walker, Suzy Bruzell
APA_ConferencePoster_DW.indd 1
! !
N 85th & Greenwood Ave N Aurora Ave N & N 85th St
A A
!
! !
! !
!
522
522
! ! ! !
METRIC WEIGHTS ! !
! ! !
! !
! !
!
! !
A !
!
! !
A !
! !
! !
A
! !
! !
! ! ! !
!
!
! !
! !
!
! !
! !
A
A Eastlake Ave E & E Louisa St/E Lynn St A
!
! !
!
SOURCE DATA
520
Aurora Ave N & Galer St
! !
A !
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
! !
!
5
! ! ! !
! !
! !
!
!
!
!
! !
!
! !
! !
A
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
!
!
A
Colman Dock ! ! !
99
!
!
! !
! !
E Madison St & 23rd Ave E
!
! ! !
! !
!
!
!
DASHBOARD APPLICATION
99
! !
! ! !
! !
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
5
!
! !
! !
! !
!
! ! !
! !
! !
! !
While our tools may change, it is noteworthy how much of our theory and approaches stay the same. With 2019 being the 50th anniversary of Design With Nature by Sir Ian McHarg, it is important to remember how what we call “multi-criteria overlay” analysis today and the basis of much of the geospatial technologies we use had its start with a book articulating how planners can incorporate ecological thinking into their designs. This work builds on that foundation in a new way, and demonstrates how multiple metrics, when combined simply, can help inform better outcomes.
520
!
! !
All of the spatial and tabular analysis occurred within a single Jupyter Notebook. These analytically focused documents combine Python code, charting, and geospatial operations within a single environment. These tools were critical to providing the project team the ability to rapidly iterate on metrics, divide tasks, and develop a rapid understanding of impacts related to methodological changes in the analysis process.
!
!
! !
! ! ! !
A
25th Ave NE & Montlake Blvd NE/NE 45th St
!
Fremont Ave N & N 35th St
! !
METRIC DEVELOPMENT & ASSOCIATION TO STUDY HEX GRID
A
! !
!
!
! !
!
90
! !
! !
! !
A
! !
A
!
90
Sodo Station
• Provide a tool to identify the best locations to place chargers by neighborhood and zip code.
!
! !
!
! !
!
! !
! !
!
California Ave SW & SW Alaska St
A !
! !
• Enable EV charging stakeholders to develop alternative weighting scenarios for sensitivity analysis and identify different criteria to place subsets of chargers.
A
!
! !
!
! !
AS Bailey St & Stanley Ave S
! !
• Make our analysis accessible enough to facilitate discussions by the public and project stakeholders.
A
!
! ! ! ! ! !
A !
A !
5
! !
!
A
! ! !
5
!
! !
! !
! !
Miles
0
1½
3
509
! !
A !
! !
!
A !
! ! !
A !
! !
! !
The result was a dashboard application with multiple layers that complemented our overlay analysis alongside a series of dynamic charts that updated based on the current map view. One of the key features was the deployment of a geoprocessing tool over the web that enabled stakeholders to develop alternative weighting scenarios (in red), and compare them with the baseline multi-criteria analysis.
!
!
! !
After developing our weighted overlay model we identified the need to develop an application that would:
!
! !
! !
!
!
A
! !
A
NE 45th St and Brooklyn Ave NE (U-District)
! !
! ! ! !
! !
!
15th Ave NW & NW Market St
! !
! !
NE 65th St & NE Ravenna Blvd !
!
! !
METRIC DEVELOPMENT
›› Existing publicly available data and suitability analysis tools can be applied to virtually any geography in the U.S.
A
!
!
High
›› Fehr & Peers, SDOT, and Regional Partners worked together to prioritize EVSE where ride-hail and car share vehicle demand is high, a gap in the EVSE network exists, and deployment of the EVSE could be both equitable and result in a positive impact on a community.
›› Cities have an opportunity to align multiple goals with EV charger siting.
!
!
! !
›› The focus of the study was on how to electrify Shared Mobility Hubs – places such as major transit centers where transportation connections, travel information, and community amenities are aggregated into a comfortable, seamless, understandable, and on-demand travel experience.
MAIN TAKEAWAYS:
!
! !
! !
!
5 !
! !
! !
GP SERVICE FOR MODEL WEIGHT EDITS
!
Top 35 Consolidated
! !
WEB APP BUILDER FRONT END INTERFACE & DASHBOARD
A
!
!
Low
SERVER HOSTING OF DATA
15th Ave NE & NE 145th St
A A !
A
! !
! !
›› Current barriers to the electrification of shared mobility services include high vehicle costs, a lack of awareness around electric vehicles (EVs), limited access to home charging, and a lack of reliable public charging which causes drivers “range anxiety.” The lack of a consistent network of easily accessible and public EVSE limits the ability for ride-hailing services and car share providers to substantially increase their EV fleets.
A !
EVSE Prioritization Score
Metric Weights
GAPS IN TRANSIT ACCESS
! !
! !
Low-frequency Transit
15%
Developing the first phase of Shared Mobility Hubs for EVSE deployment involved reviewing the highest ranked Shared Mobility Hub areas and identifying logical locations to ensure expanded coverage and increased density of the EVSE network. Generally, Shared Mobility Hubs scoring in the top 30 percent were considered for electrification and if a location was selected, other locations within one-half mile were deprioritized for Phase 1 deployments. A collaborative multi-week process with City stakeholders and private partners included a detailed review of the top scoring sites to determine potential site priorities and alternatives for specific areas.
20% Link Light Rail
KEY POINTS ›› The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), in close collaboration with other City and external partners, developed this Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment (EVSE) Roadmap for Shared Mobility Hubs (“EVSE Roadmap”) to provide improved connections to public transit via electrically-powered shared mobility services such as car share and ride-hail services.
5%
Combined Weight
PRIORITIZING SHARED MOBILITY HUBS
7.5%
Intersecting trends of an increasingly decarbonized grid and the evolution of shared mobility services in urban areas provides a unique opportunity to reduce transportrelated emissions. Fehr & Peers and SDOT leveraged a McHargian decision-making process to guide an electric vehicle charger deployment that would support shared mobility, fill transit gaps, develop a robust charger network, and provide community benefits equitably. The siting model and its deployment provide a powerful example of how automation, targeted metrics, scenario oriented workflows, and value-driven decision making can help inform stakeholders about the best opportunities to electrify shared mobility systems.
30%
5%
Minority Households
ABSTRACT
Metric Weights
! !
!
! !
!
° N
Miles
0
1½
3
509
!
A
A !
!
!
° N
4/8/2019 3:56:10 PM
