victorian electric vehicle trial mid-term report - Department of Transport

More documents

Recommendations

Info

With reference to Figure 20,households were asked to completetravel diaries for each phase of theirinvolvement in the trial – before, duringand after their EV allocation. Althoughthe completion rate of the travel diariesfell away across the phases (from 5,586trips reported in the ‘before’ phase, to4,675 for the ‘during’ phase, to 2,733for the ‘after’ phase), the percentage oftotal trips reported as using a car heldsteady at around 75 per cent – slightlyless than the Melbourne average of78 per cent. These findings providesome confidence in the comparabilityof the data across phases/householdsgenerally, and suggest that thehouseholds did not significantly altertheir travel behaviours as a result ofhaving an EV.Reported household and vehicleoccupancies support this conclusion.Households reported themselves ashaving an average of 2.87 occupants,translating to two adults with drivinglicences to operate the averageof almost 2 vehicles owned perhousehold, and one non-drivingdependent. The average vehicleoccupancy rates per trip were 1.94occupants per vehicle in the ‘before’phase and 1.85 ‘after’, compared to1.85 occupants per EV trip ‘during’their trial vehicle allocation.When considered in combinationwith the trip mode choice breakdownabove, it may be concluded thathouseholds seamlessly adopted thetrial electric vehicles into their normaltravel patterns.Furthermore, 62 per cent of all tripswere reported as using the trial vehiclein the ‘during’ phase, equating toaround two-thirds of all householdvehicle trips. This suggests thathouseholds used the electric vehicleas their first-choice for vehicle travel.This result is a strong endorsementfor the substitutability of EVs, asthe participant selection processprioritised households who alreadyowned small or medium vehicles soas to avoid a functional mismatch withthe trial vehicles.Cumulative percentage of vehicle100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%42%23%65%36%85%59%94% 98% 99%89%84%79%70%100%91% 94% 95%96% 97% 98% 98% 98%10%8%Melbourne MetroVIC EV Trial0%10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140Average daily vehicle driving distance (km)150Figure 21. Average daily driving distances for the Melbourne metropolitan area (DOT 2012a) along with ave3rage daily drivingdistances for trial household participants.
Analysis of the vehicle monitoringdata provides additional insights thatsupport these conclusions and helpsexplain the spectrum of driver opinionregarding the vehicle range limitations(refer to Figure 19). Highly reliable dataobtained from 44 household vehicleallocations of three months each foundthat the average distance travelledbetween charge events was 36.9kilometre, with a standard deviationof 8.8 kilometres.With reference to Figure 21, theaverage daily driving distance forthe Melbourne metropolitan area is35 kilometres (DOT 2012a), howeverthe distribution of average dailydriving distances reveals that thereis a significant minority who travelfurther (much further in some cases).This correlates well with the findingsabove in suggesting that the electricvehicles supported by householdcharging are sufficient for the majorityof Melbourne’s drivers, even if thereis a significant minority for whom thiswould not work.Further analysis of the vehicle usedata illustrates driver management ofrange limitations. In practical terms,the operating range of the i-MiEV isaround 90 kilometres on the highwayand 100 kilometres around town,whereas the LEAF is 110 and 120kilometres respectively. With referenceto Table 3, i-MiEV drivers on averageplug-in with less range remaining thanLEAF drivers, despite having travelleda similar distance between charging(34.3 and 35.9 kilometres respectively).Given that the distance travelledbetween charging of both vehiclesclosely approximates the average dailydriving distance for Melbourne (35kilometres), this suggests that peopleused the i-MiEV as they would theirnormal vehicle despite the reducedrange (relative to the LEAF) – inother words, they managed the rangedifference. These results also suggestthat the tension between rangeanxiety and management has beenresolved in favour of the latter for themajority of participants (refer also toSection 4.2.2).Vehicle Mitsubishi i-MiEV Nissan LEAFPractical operating range (km) 90 – 100 110 – 120Average distance travelledbetween charging (km)Average State-of-Charge atplug-in (%)Average range remaining atplug-in (km)34.3 35.957.5 5251.8 – 57.5 57.2 – 62.4Table 3. Derived average range remaining at plug-in values for the i-MiEV and LEAF,based upon the practical operating range and the average State-of-Charge at plug-in.CREATING A MARKET 39
Page 1 and 2: CREATINGA MARKETVICTORIAN ELECTRICV
Page 3 and 4: Measures which reduce electriccar p
Page 5 and 6: 5.4 Public charging 815.4.1 How muc
Page 7 and 8: The trial is a $5 millioninitiative
Page 9 and 10: In 2012, Mitsubishi, Nissan,and Hol
Page 11 and 12: 2.4 HOW DOES ELECTRIC VEHICLECHARGI
Page 13 and 14: Meter, Switch orDistribution BoardD
Page 15 and 16: It has brought together allthe piec
Page 17 and 18: Commercial negotiations and astruct
Page 19 and 20: TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION CASE STUDYMOBIL
Page 21 and 22: RACV considers electricvehicles to
Page 23 and 24: What we need from you: The particip
Page 25 and 26: Information gained fromthe cars has
Page 27 and 28: Alongside differences in utilisatio
Page 29 and 30: Evidence suggests that while purcha
Page 31 and 32: This sort of functionality is expec
Page 33 and 34: 4.1.5 What about electriccommercial
Page 35 and 36: A clearly positive influence on peo
Page 37: Having to make these considerations
Page 41 and 42: 4.2.4 How much does it costfor an a
Page 43 and 44: Experience from overseas suggeststh
Page 45 and 46: In terms of who drives the decision
Page 47 and 48: Despite this relative under-utilisa
Page 49 and 50: Within the traditional fleet assetm
Page 51 and 52: CORPORATE CHARGING NETWORK CASE STU
Page 53 and 54: Nearly 140 household, fleetand publ
Page 55 and 56: The trial charging infrastructure v
Page 57 and 58: Through these efforts, trial partic
Page 59 and 60: To support trip planning and rangem
Page 61 and 62: 5.2 HOME CHARGING5.2.1 How much doe
Page 63 and 64: The general process for the househo
Page 65 and 66: Although this outcome was a success
Page 67 and 68: The appeal of a financial incentive
Page 69 and 70: 5.2.5 What do households thinkof el
Page 71 and 72: It provides guidance on the allocat
Page 73 and 74: An example of this was theDepartmen
Page 75 and 76: Based upon the trial experience, th
Page 77 and 78: WORKPLACE CHARGING CASE STUDYVICTOR
Page 79 and 80: Workplace charging appears to be ak
Page 81 and 82: One scenario of particular interest
Page 83 and 84: Cost data obtained from various sit
Page 85 and 86: PUBLIC CHARGING CASE STUDYON-STREET
Page 87 and 88: Household participants were askedab
Page 89 and 90:
The following quote supplied to the
Page 91 and 92:
Despite these challenging figuresan
Page 93 and 94:
According to theory (Lieberman andM
Page 95 and 96:
The pushback by parking operatorsag
Page 97 and 98:
There’s a lot to like aboutincrea
Page 99 and 100:
The economic analysis hasexamined t
Page 101 and 102:
Under a ‘mid-range’ scenario as
Page 103 and 104:
6.1.3 What are the costs andbenefit
Page 105 and 106:
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS6.2.1 How
Page 107 and 108:
Based upon the limited informationa
Page 109 and 110:
6.3 SOCIAL IMPACTS6.3.1 How is comm
Page 111 and 112:
A key challenge for many electricve
Page 113 and 114:
The effectiveness ofthese initiativ
Page 115 and 116:
The supplementary data andinteracti
Page 117 and 118:
EV PROMOTION CASE STUDYELECTRIC CAR
Page 119 and 120:
In addition to the EV School progra
Page 121 and 122:
7.1.4 How has the local electricveh
Page 123 and 124:
7.2 INSIGHTS7.2.1 How do we best te
Page 125 and 126:
ISSUES ANDOPPORTUNITIESA significan
Page 127 and 128:
Issue Classification Sections Oppor
Page 129 and 130:
Issue Classification Sections Oppor
Page 131 and 132:
Drawing upon the learnings acquired
Page 133 and 134:
ACRONYMS,GLOSSARY ANDUNITS OF MEASU
Page 135 and 136:
OPEC - Organisation of the Petroleu
Page 137 and 138:
Actew AGL 2009, History of mobile p
Page 139 and 140:
Ergon 2012, Pool pump connections,
Page 141 and 142:
Smart Grid News 2012, Aussie firm u
Page 143 and 144:
EntityChargingInfrastructureHostCha
Page 145 and 146:
APPENDIX BEVS AND FLEETS 2012 PRACT
Page 147 and 148:
APPENDIX CCHARGING OUTLET ATTRIBUTE
Page 149 and 150:
Area Attribute DefinitionBilling /
Page 151 and 152:
APPENDIX EEV CHARGING COURTESY SIGN
show all

victorian electric vehicle trial mid-term report - Department of Transport

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?