Commuter railway services can multiply their catchment area - and revenues - by 6. Here’s how.

Physical distancing for the prevention of the COVID-19 pandemic is causing the revenues of public transport to melt like ice-cream under the sun. In a previous article, we showed how suburbs in Europe were a large, unexploited market for transit, potentially able to compensate the loss of revenues of public transport services, especially those of commuter and regional railway services. 

The catchment area of commuter rail is limited to an acceptable walking distance. For an acceptable walking time of 15 minutes, this represents 1 km (0.6 mi) radius around the station. In dense areas, this works as public transport’s main revenue source because a large number of people live in that small perimeter. But in suburban, low population-density areas, this represents a smaller number of customers. These are some examples: In Milan, the density in the suburban area is 24% of the density in the core, in Zaragoza this ratio is of 26%, and in Rotterdam and Northampton, this ratio is of 16% [1]. To bring an equivalent number of customers to commuter rail in suburban areas, while keeping a reasonable travel time (10 minutes), the catchment area would have to be multiplied by 4.1 in Milan (5.33 km), by 3.8 in Zaragoza (5 km) and by 6,25 in Rotterdam and Northampton (8.1 km). Buses can increase the catchment area, but under this 10 minutes travel-time constraint they cannot produce enough revenues to cover their costs.

At SuburVAN, we believe that commuters in suburbs will only switch to public transport if it provides them a better commute experience (and a higher commercial speed) than their own car

At SuburVAN, we believe that commuters in suburbs will only switch to public transport if it provides them a better commute experience (and a higher commercial speed) than their own car - not by constraint (although congestion IS a constraint that helps us, and limited parking space in central areas contributes as well). So we decided to build a solution that provides that convenience for suburban commuters: optimised waiting times, real-time coordination with trains, limited walking distances, and a 10-minutes travel time. The cost of an autonomous minivan providing such convenience must be out of reach to public transport authorities and operators, or it must be decades away, right? What if, instead, a solution with a neutral, and even positive TCO for suburban municipalities and transport operators was available?

What if, instead, a solution with a neutral, and even positive TCO for suburban municipalities and transport operators was available? 

When we started SuburVAN, we knew that and autonomous minivan solution would never reach the market it if was unaffordable to public transport authorities and operators. So we set cost as the bottom-line, to guarantee that the service’s revenues would cover them. In the next article, we describe how we have combined the level of performance of our autonomous minivans and the affordability constraint to meet the needs of public transport in the suburban market. Click here to access it.

Footnotes

[1] OECD Stats, OECD, 2018.

Disclaimer: As you may have guessed, I'm the CEO and co-founder of SuburVAN, a startup building the autonomous vehicles that cities and public transport operators need to operate in suburbs. I’m passionate for mobility and I’ve worked on driving automation since 2004, because I believe shared autonomous electric vehicles can improve people’s daily lives, the way we move and the air we breathe in cities :)