Skip to main content

Tag: Shared mobility

Connecting people to jobs and services week: Rethinking shared mobility to prioritize access

Transportation is fundamentally about connecting people, but America’s transportation system focuses on moving cars instead. Madlyn McAuilffe from the New Urban Mobility Alliance (NUMO) wrote this guest post about the consequences of our misguided priorities and how we can get back to focusing on building places and transportation networks for people.

It’s “Connecting people to jobs and services week” here at Transportation for America. All week we’ll be exploring why improving access should be the goal of the federal transportation program—not vehicle speed.

Transportation has always been about connection—connecting people to places, resources, experiences, and of course, other people. Moving people—facilitating access—was the original goal. Transportation was simply the means by which we reached our destinations.

We’ve journeyed a long way since the advent of the automobile, and somewhere along the way toward creating a national transportation system, our priorities shifted to focus not on moving people but on moving cars.

Living with the consequences

The consequences of American auto-centrism have been devastating and far-reaching. Despite an urgent global climate crisis, transportation is the primary source of emissions in the U.S., and a growing source as auto sales (particularly for SUVs and trucks) rise

We’re told by $40-billion worth of endless, highly-stylized auto commercials that cars represent independence, yet they often are the largest purchases many American households will ever make. 72 months of payments, thousands of dollars of high-interest debt, and economic dependence on an inefficient and dangerous mode of transport can hardly be called freedom.

Even the metrics we use to determine the success of our transportation system are off. We measure the efficacy of our roads and policies by speed traveled (i.e., level of service) rather than by the number and diversity of people who can safely and affordably access jobs, school, healthcare, grocery stores, and community centers. Yet rather than reimagine how we fund transit projects or investigate zoning land for multiple uses, we spend outrageous amounts of money on adding lanes to highways, inducing demand for driving, and then condemning commuters to become stuck in hellish congestion.

We often hear about “crumbling infrastructure,” but rarely mentioned is the fact that transportation decision-makers invariably decide and are incentivized to expand the network of roads that are already poorly maintained rather than fix what we have already built.

It doesn’t have to be this way, but how do we begin digging ourselves out of the ditch we have created?

Any roadmap forward starts with rethinking the values underlying how we do transportation, land use, infrastructure, labor, and more. Change the values, change the system; change the system, change the world. Sounds easy, right?

The principle of the thing

A tectonic transportation value shift is already underway, though—and unsurprisingly, it’s a team effort.

Early 2017 witnessed the debut of the Shared Mobility Principles for Livable Cities, a framework for policymakers, leaders, influencers, urban designers, academics, advocates—everyone—to guide stakeholders toward the best outcomes for all people. Developed by Robin Chase and a founding coalition of global NGOs including Transportation for America, the Principles encourage us to rethink how we plan not just our mobility, but also the design of both our transportation system and cities to value inclusivity, connectivity, and shared mobility that is sustainable and just.

The first three Principles—planning cities and mobility together; prioritizing people over vehicles; and supporting the shared and efficient use of vehicles, streets, and land—are key to understanding the Shared Mobility Principles as a whole. The remaining Principles stem from the core value of access, which must also serve as the metric by which any transportation, infrastructure, or other development project must be reviewed. What opportunities will this proposed transit-oriented development project provide and to which communities of people? Will this mobility hub provide first/last-mile solutions in transit deserts? Which transportation investment will create improved access to jobs, school, and other destinations for the greatest number of people: an additional lane for single-occupancy vehicles or a dedicated bus lane for thousands of passengers each day?

Admittedly, the Shared Mobility Principles are ambitious. Relearning everything we’ve come to accept as a given in planning, developing, designing, and maintaining not just our transportation system but cities themselves is daunting. To create lasting change that reaches and improves the lives of everyone, however, we must start by rethinking our values as well as what and whom we prioritize with the policies we craft and the projects we undertake. After all, cities are built for people, not cars. If people can’t access what they need where they live…we’ve failed.

Lyft is paying people to ditch their cars. Will it work?

Lyft recently expanded its “ditch your car challenge” to 35 new cities, offering residents credits for transit and various shared mobility services in exchange for giving up their car for one month. Whether this will be good for cities, and what role they should play in it, remains an open question.

 

This year, companies such as Uber and Lyft have begun to buy and partner with other mobility services in an effort to shift away from an exclusive focus on ridesourcing and rebrand themselves as mobility platforms providing a broad array of services. Both acquired bikeshare companies in the past year—with Uber buying Jump and Lyft buying Motivate—and both are either deploying or integrating scooters into their apps along with putting a greater focus on public transit. This trend toward consolidating services points toward a future where companies offer a suite of options under their app, easing connections between different service types and becoming a one stop mobility shop.

As this trend continues, it points to the larger question of the appropriate role that cities and transit agencies should play as they work to manage a transportation network made up of both public and private providers. And, how should this role change in an environment where there’s possibly one or two companies providing all of the non-transit services in the region?

Cities will begin to see this firsthand soon through Lyft’s “ditch your car challenge,” launched in Chicago in August. Through this challenge, in return for pledging to give up their car for one month, Lyft provided 100 residents with $550 in credit for Lyft trips, public transit, bikeshare, and carshare. This included $300 in Lyft credits, $105 for L bus and train service, $45 for a Divvy bikeshare pass, and $100 in Zipcar credits. Based on the positive results from this pilot, Lyft expanded the challenge to 35 additional cities in the U.S. The list of cities includes a wide variety of communities with varying levels of car ownership and transit access, such as Richmond, VA, Orange County, CA, Washington, DC and New York City. The stated purpose of Lyft’s challenge is to convince people to get rid of their cars by highlighting the high cost of personal car ownership and enabling access to a suite of cost effective and more sustainable transportation services.

Redefining the user experience
Lyft’s challenge is the first major attempt in the U.S. to test out a variation of Mobility as a Service (MaaS). The idea behind MaaS is to create a single access point for a suite of mobility options. This can be offered either as a subscription service or as a pay-as-you-go model. In its most developed form, MaaS allows users to plan, pay, and take trips across a number of different services, such as transit, bikeshare, scooters, Uber or Lyft, carshare or any other transportation service through a single user interface.

The first permanent MaaS deployment took off in 2016 in Helsinki. Through Whim, a consumer-facing app developed by MaaS Global, residents can access taxis, transit, car rental services, and bikeshare for a single monthly fee, with different pricing packages depending on the level of services they want, along with a pay-as-you-go option. As of July, Whim had 45,000 users in Helsinki, with 5,100 paying monthly fees. This spring, Whim also launched in West Midlands, UK, offering similar mobility options throughout the region. Other MaaS services, such as Ubigo in Sweden, have also launched pilots and are planning for full launches as well.

While Lyft’s challenge does not provide all of these services in one interface and, depending on the market, only covers one or two additional mobility services, it serves as a basic MaaS model for users, and Lyft, to test and explore. While the challenge is largely focused on car ownership and convenience, it’s also to market its available offerings and learn about how to refine these services in the future.

What’s the role for cities?
If it’s a viable model, MaaS can have clear benefits for cities, including easier access to different mobility services that may result in reduced congestion, emissions and travel time. There’s a lot for cities to consider as they think about these platforms, but as with many challenges facing them, they’ll need to use their current goals around equity, safety, congestion, or others as a guide.

Single-occupancy vehicles are the problem
Despite success in how these platforms have been tested in European cities, and their eventual plans for expansion, they’ve only been tested in dense urban environments with a strong culture of public transportation and an existing suite of readily available mobility options. In these places, residents are accustomed to being able to move from one place to another car-free without much hassle, and MaaS allows them to more easily and seamlessly take advantage of every aspect of their existing options.

But in many American cities where driving is the norm, public transit isn’t reliable or built into most people’s transportation habits and active transportation options aren’t always readily available, this type of program is much less likely to take hold as quickly. The real challenge in these communities is getting people out of their cars, especially when they drive alone, and into more sustainable options.

While Lyft has offered ride credits exclusively for shared rides in some communities, in most of their test cities, Lyft credits aren’t dedicated toward shared rides. So, in those places where more sustainable options aren’t nearly as robust as they should be, this program could simply result in participants switching out of their own car and into one being driven by someone else. While they’re out of their own cars, they’ll still be taking trips alone, which won’t help reduce congestion or solve the problems caused by single-occupancy vehicles.

Multimodal transportation should be the top priority
Understanding this, cities can’t put the cart before the horse: they need a flexible, multimodal transportation system before an app can enhance it, not the other way around. MaaS may provide better connections and access between modes, but cities will still need to ensure those other options are available in the first place, by providing them on their own or through private sector partnerships. As Lyft helps pull people away from car ownership, cities should work to ensure they’re moving toward these other services, instead of simply replacing one car trip with another car trip.

Adopt policies that incentivize sharing and help achieve outcomes
In order foster this type of modal shift, cities will need to pass policies that incentivize the travel behaviors that actually contribute to their long-term goals. While cities can’t control every aspect of how these companies operate, they should understand the various carrots and sticks at their disposal to encourage shared, active, and carbon-free transport. This could include providing dedicated curb space for pickups and drop offs for shared or pooled rides, rather than private ones, creating dedicated lane space for shared vehicles and transit, or creating new pricing mechanisms that truly accounts for the benefits and impacts of various modal choices.

Require data from providers
As part of this, cities should ensure they can use the data these platforms produce. MaaS could put all available services under one umbrella, allowing cities to gather additional data on how each service is operating and how they’re interacting with one another, creating opportunities for better transportation planning. But, odds are they won’t get this data, as some of these platform companies haven’t freely shared data on their operations. Cities are getting valuable data from shared active transportation companies today, but this movement towards mobility consolidation raises the question of whether cities will continue to get these data once they’re acquired or included under a larger MaaS platform. To be sure, cities should adopt data sharing standards for every provider and service that will allow them to better understand these services are being used and how they themselves will need to evolve as a result.

Like many aspects of smart mobility, MaaS isn’t a silver bullet that will fix a city’s transportation challenges. In order to make these successful, they’ll need to stick to their goals and outcomes and consider how these platforms will work for them, not the other way around.

“Deciding what kind of city we want to be” with the Smart Cities Collaborative

While fighting to stay ahead of a transportation and mobility landscape that changes by the day, 70+ people representing 23 cities gathered in Pittsburgh last week for the third meeting of our Smart Cities Collaborative to band together to solve problems and learn from each other.

While we were in Pittsburgh, Seattle Department of Transportation’s Benjamin de la Peña gave an interview to Seattle Business Magazine about automated vehicles that nails what the Collaborative is all about: “We do not want the technology to decide what kind of city we want to have. We need to decide what kind of city we want and have the technology adapt to that city,” he said.

Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto

This is the core mission of the Smart Cities Collaborative, and why we gathered again for three days in Pittsburgh last week. We were incredibly fortunate to have Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto kick things off for us with a stirring reminder of the aim for all of this work, which was embedded in the motto for their application to USDOT’s Smart Cities Challenge from 2016: “If it’s not for all, it’s not for us.”

Thanks to support from AARP’s Public Policy Institute and Jana Lynott, we started trying to put that maxim into practice right out of the gate with a tour of two particular intersections in Pittsburgh that could stand to have some major improvements made to better serve everyone who needs to use them.

As biking rates continue to go up and eventually shared bikes or scooters from companies like JUMP or Lime roll out, the city will continue having to carefully navigate the tension between allowing a market to develop and thrive, while also ensuring that new options also help the city accomplish their very ambitious goals. Goals like eliminating all traffic fatalities (Vision Zero), giving everyone access to fresh food within 20 minutes without having to use a car, and making every trip under a mile most enjoyably achieved by walking or biking, to name just three.

As the rain poured down, Karina Ricks, the director of Pittsburgh’s Department of Mobility and Infrastructure, described some of the challenges with a particular intersection in Pittsburgh to the Collaborative members.

So we toured these two intersections above (during a crazy week of floods in metro Pittsburgh) and then spent some time in a charrette discussing practical design changes for them, the endless tradeoffs that have to be made, and how to prioritize the city’s stated goals and values. How can cities make value-based decisions about what to prioritize? And how do you engage the public when making those difficult decisions?

All too often these days, city transportation departments are just like the surfer desperately fighting just to stay ahead of the break of a mammoth wave. As we heard during one session about e-scooters, they’re here, the cities didn’t ask for them, and it often feels like the challenge is best stated as “they’re here and we have to find a way to deal with them.”

But instead of merely “dealing” with these new services, how can cities work to harness their potential—whether ridesourcing, automated vehicles, bikes and scooters—to accomplish something good and advance their city’s overall values, rather than just avoiding the bad outcomes? And how can cities create flexible regulatory frameworks that can be applied broadly across new mobility models as they develop?

The pace of change is perhaps the biggest part of the challenge. The best way to describe the process when cities roll out a new transit service, for better or for worse, is pretty slow and methodical. Years can pass between the day when someone first drew a new line on a map and the day that a new bus or train starts picking up passengers. But with new mobility options, it feels like the time between ideation and rollout is measured in days, not years.

To better prepare for these new services and this pace of change, we spent the better part of half a day working in groups trying to craft an ideal, holistic policy for shared active transportation—the docked or dockless bikes and scooters that are popping up rapidly in cities from coast to coast.

We were glad to be supported by Emily Warren and the team from Lime, one of the biggest companies in the U.S. providing shared bikes and scooters, to kick things off with a look at some of the hot button issues like fleet size, requirements for locking technology, and how to proactively ensure that their services are available to everyone in a community.

Broken up into small groups, Collaborative members chose two policy topics they wanted to develop, like equipment and safety, operations, data standards, and equity, to name just a few. Over the space of half a day, Collaborative members explored the core components of a comprehensive policy and identified key policy areas to consider, set a recommended policy floor (a fundamental basic level of policy that all cities can and should adopt), and highlighted a few options for differing levels of action in each policy area.

The exercise illustrated the power of cities coming together to solve problems, learn what’s working (or not working), and learn from each other. This is the true strength of the Collaborative and the reason we’ve continued this work for nearly two years now.

With the help of our colleagues at Smart Growth America and the National Complete Streets Coalition, we closed out the three-day meeting with a look at each city’s equity guiding policy and examined how they translate those policies into action in their projects.

Each participant shared their department’s or agency’s equity policy—or their lack of one—what that policy meant to them and how they’ve tangibly incorporated it into their projects. Participants worked to identify gaps and areas for improvement as they move forward with their projects to ensure equity and access for everyone. It was a refreshing discussion that illuminated the ongoing difficulty in applying ambitious principles to policies and then to actual projects on the ground.

Participants getting a tour of some of the experiments going on in downtown Pittsburgh, including a painted bus lane through the incredibly busy corridor, parklets along the curb lane, artistic interventions, and a raised bus bump-out to make bus boarding easier.

The Collaborative reconvenes this December in Atlanta, just before Transportation for America’s Capital Ideas conference, which will also tackle this issue of new mobility. At Capital Ideas (open for registration now!), we will be focusing on the states’ role and how they can lead the way while also working in partnership with the providers and cities to create a transportation system that works for everyone.

Join us in Atlanta for Capital Ideas this December! Psst, find out what’s on the agenda here.

Ding, Ding! Round one of dockless scooters

The deployment of dockless, electric scooters in cities across the country has been hectic to say the least. What’s been happening, what lessons are cities learning, and how can these systems be deployed in ways that serve the public and the cities’ goals?

Dockless, electric scooter-sharing systems are exploding in popularity since first arriving in U.S. cities nine months ago, and for good reason. Along with dockless bikeshare, scooters have highlighted the desire by many residents to cover short distances quickly and easily.

In April, the scooter-sharing company Bird released ridership data showing that over 30 days and 100,000 rides, its users averaged 1.5 miles per trip in San Francisco. With 35 percent of U.S. vehicle trips two miles or less in length, there’s not only market potential, but also a clear opportunity to shift many of those trips to a cleaner, more sustainable mode. Frankly, they’re also fun.

Just like Uber or other new providers, the scooters have also come with their fair share of controversy. Often dropped overnight in cities in huge numbers without any regulations in place and without approval, they’ve been scattered across sidewalks, blocking the right-of-way and even found discarded in rivers and fountains.

These issues and others are forcing cities to develop regulations on the fly to manage their impacts and also to integrate them into their transportation networks — another strain on cities and transportation departments across the country. In the past two months, both San Francisco and Austin have passed emergency ordinances to begin the process of setting up regulations and set caps on how many scooters can operate in their communities.

The rapid pace with which new transportation technologies are being introduced into our cities not only highlights the need to create flexible regulatory frameworks that can be applied broadly, but also the need for private sector companies to come to the table as true partners and work with cities.

When companies don’t take this approach, it’s often more expensive, takes longer and is less productive for everyone. To say nothing of the distrust this behavior creates or the negative precedent they set for long-term cooperation or partnerships between the public and private sectors.

Whether scooters or something else, as new technologies multiply and private sector companies continue to operate with a “move fast and break things” ethos, cities will need to proactively develop flexible, but consistent, processes that will help them integrate new technologies into their communities on their own terms.

Nine of the 24 cities participating in our Smart Cities Collaborative this year already have scooters operating in their communities. We spoke with three of them to get a better sense of how they are dealing with scooters and summarize their experiences into a few clear lessons for other cities.

Santa Monica, CA

The first system of dockless scooters in the U.S. launched in Santa Monica in September 2017. Like many scooter launches to follow, Bird had spoken with city officials beforehand and the city responded by asking for Bird’s help in determining what changes to their city code would be necessary to allow them to operate. Unfortunately, soon after this conversation, but before any regulatory changes could be made, Bird deployed their scooters on city streets.

After a few months of scooters clogging sidewalks, causing safety hazards and failing to acquire a business license, Santa Monica passed an emergency ordinance. Through the ordinance, the city created a temporary framework to allow scooters to operate. “We modified our existing vending permit since this was the most applicable permit as it is usually issued to businesses selling anything mobile,” said Francie Stefan, Mobility Division Manager with the City of Santa Monica. This gave Bird, and other companies, the ability to operate on private property, but also allowed the city to impound and collect a fee on scooters parked in the public right-of-way.

But, that doesn’t mean the city is actively impounding all scooters parked on sidewalks. “Council directed staff to enforce when there were immediate ADA or safety risks—but, this has also created some difficulty around enforcement, especially when the scooters are moving around more quickly than officers can get to them,” according to Stefan. The ordinance is temporary—it will expire on January 1, 2019—and the city is currently developing a pilot for these scooters to inform a final permitting process.

San Francisco, CA

Similarly to Santa Monica, in March, San Francisco was suddenly confronted with scooters from Bird, LimeBike and Spin on their streets and sidewalks. While many residents were excited, complaints also poured in about scooters blocking the right-of-way and creating unsafe conditions on streets and sidewalks. After the San Francisco Attorney General sent out a cease and desist letter, the Board of Supervisors quickly established a requirement that any scooter would need a permit to park on a sidewalk.

In response, the city set up a new pilot program for permitting. The one-year pilot regulates the number of scooters each operator can have and the type of data operators need to share, requires operators to provide membership options to low-income individuals, and gives operators clear instructions on how these vehicles can operate safely.

San Francisco got all of this done in a couple of weeks, but according to Warren Logan, Senior Transportation Planner at the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA), it wasn’t a choice. But, given their history of other mobility providers deploying on their streets without permission, they were prepared.

“Our hand was forced to move very quickly on this issue,” says Logan. “Everyone is trying to be the next Uber, but it’s a different landscape now that we know the playbook.”

Austin, TX

While the city was in the middle of developing a pilot program to regulate both dockless bikes and scooters, Bird—and later LimeBike—launched in early April without receiving approval. The challenge facing Austin was a loophole in the city’s code giving scooters the ability to legally operate and left the city with no authority to impound them. “We had outdated ordinances that were originally designed for vending in the right-of-way,” says Karla Taylor, Chief of Staff at the Austin Department of Transportation. “These ordinances were written 20 years ago and were not written with dockless in mind.”

To fix this, the Austin City Council pushed back its proposed pilot timeline and passed an emergency resolution banning the presence of dockless scooters in the right-of-way until a permitting process could begin and gave the city the authority to impound vehicles. After the resolution passed, Bird and LimeBike promptly pulled their scooters from Austin’s streets until they could go through the permitting process, which will now begin on May 15th.

What can other cities learn from these cities’ experiences?

Be proactive

Whether cities are ready for them or not, scooters are coming. Fast. Over the last few weeks alone, other systems launched in Atlanta, Nashville and Charlotte despite receiving a cease and desist letter in Nashville and a forced shutdown in Charlotte.

While cities like Austin and San Francisco were caught off guard when scooters launched, they were able to act quickly in part because they were already thinking about how to address these issues—and related ones. “We know the playbook,” as SFCTA’s Logan said. Austin was actively working on an implementation plan and San Francisco had a proposed resolution to create a permitting process just a few weeks before the launch.

According to Karla Taylor in Austin, the best move for cities is to open up their code. “Cities should look at their governing ordinances. A lot of cities will not have the legal capabilities to manage this.” Taylor notes that if the city doesn’t figure out where the holes are, the private sector will. “These companies know where there’s a weakness, and they’ll exploit this weakness,” as they deploy into new communities. Without an understanding of what their options are to regulate, cities won’t be able to effectively manage them.

Even with preparation and planning, both cities were forced to be reactive when scooter systems launched. This should be a signal to other cities to begin this process now. There’s no longer an excuse for being caught off guard.

Don’t reinvent the wheel

These cities were on their own when it came to the first wave of dockless scooters. But, given that they’ve had to figure out how to approach this problem, other communities should start with a much better understanding of what will be necessary and learn from them. While no city claims to have the perfect formula yet, they’ve tried and tested various approaches and each of the cities we spoke with expressed a willingness to help others.

And, as these cities start to gather data on how their operations are affecting the mobility landscape, they’ll learn more and more about the impacts of scooters on access, safety and modal shift giving them more information and tools to hone their regulations.

Develop flexible frameworks that can govern any new mode—not just scooters

When one scooter company deploys, others tend to follow. “We’re being circled actively by every other provider I can think of,” said Francie Stefan in Santa Monica about the constant push to deploy more scooters since Bird’s launch last year. San Francisco reflects a similar sentiment. “If one of these companies launches, they all have to launch,” says Warren Logan at SFCTA.

When cities show they’re open for business, other companies come knocking at the door as well. And while some the challenges that have come with the introduction of scooters are unique to scooters, they’re also reflective of what cities face with the introduction of new mobility options and technologies.

Being clear about long-term outcomes (such as safety, equity, or mode shift) and how new technologies can contribute to those goals is a great way to get started. It’s also important for cities to understand what they want and need out of any new technology or company (such as placement, data or fare structures) as the regulations are developed. Collaborating with and learning from other cities’ experiences can help crystalize the issues at hand and accelerate the process.

As cities manage the introduction of dockless scooters – and other new mobility options in the future – they’ll need clear, flexible processes to ensure it’s on their own terms and helps achieve their outcomes.

Want more news from the Smart Cities Collaborative in your inbox? Sign up here.

Sign up

Part 2: Options for all: Serving the elderly and disabled with shared-use mobility

Transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft and bike-share providers like Zagster improve options and expand accessibility. Can they support the needs of vulnerable populations and smaller markets? Transportation for America attended the Shared Use Mobility Summit to learn more. (This is the second post of a two-part series. Read Part 1 here.)

In our last post, we discussed some of the innovations that transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft are pioneering, and how niche solutions are popping up to serve an increasingly diverse base of customers.

While added choice is generally good news for the consumer, these programs do raise new issues for government agencies.

“There are underlying differences in the traditional service vs. new TNCs,” says Jana Lynott, senior policy advisor for AARP’s Public Policy Institute. “For one, TNCs do not do fingerprint background checks. The Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) compliance office has also raised concerns that they do not do drug and alcohol testing. And the FTA has even questioned whether it’s legal per federal rules for federally funded transit agencies to sign these types of contracts.” Additionally, despite their concerns, FTA is also trying to figure out their role and the impacts these projects can have on communities. Earlier this year, through their Mobility on Demand Sandbox grant, they awarded $8 million to transit agencies across the country to test some of these innovative projects.

Data concerns

 Another challenge for public agencies is that TNCs typically don’t share their ridership data, which would have immense value for local leaders, policymakers and planners.

For large cities trying to forecast trips, lack of data from TNCs hinder their ability to forecast ridership and plan accurately. “We can’t model what we don’t know,” says David Leininger, Executive Vice President of Dallas Area Rapid Transit. “Supposing all these innovations work, how does it affect our traditional methods of analysis? We don’t know the market share of these trips,” he says. That makes it harder to plan around them. Across the summit, many participants expressed a desire for public agencies to access TNC trip data.

    PC: Trillium Transit

Data challenges are just as pronounced with rural and paratransit services. Major transit providers use a common standard for public transit timetables: the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS). Using GTFS data, apps and extensions is how services like Google Maps can make it easy to map, plan, and track trips across a wide range of providers and transit services. There is no such common language for paratransit.

“We’ve created a system where human service agencies have to buy proprietary software packages that don’t talk to each other well,” says Lynott. Now, a group has formed for software developers, transportation professionals, and other interest parties to work together and develop and propose common data specifications. And the Transportation Research Board is currently studying an open-data specification for transit providers, Lynott reports.

Equity issues

Data is only the tip of the iceberg for skeptics of TNCs. There are legitimate and growing concerns about how they are subverting existing markets and their ability to truly meet the needs of vulnerable populations. Many advocates and industry veterans are about the suitability of TNCs in this space.

          PC: Gamaliel

“The idea of having on-demand services provide paratransit is unacceptable,” says Carol Tyson, transportation equity advocate.

Tyson reports that to discuss concerns over a request for proposals that the District of Columbia put out for TNCs to provide paratransit service. The assembled group demanded widespread wheelchair access, enough training for drivers to work with people with disabilities, performance measures to gauge wait times and fares, and protections against cuts to bus lines. Most of all, they want a seat at the table. “The people who rely on these services are often missing from the discussion,” says Tyson.

Also often missing in these discussions are the drivers and their perspectives. Advocates demand living wages, paid sick leave and fair hiring policies. Their anxieties are likely to grow as TNCs embrace a future of automated vehicles that would remove the driver entirely along with their associated costs. That would end hundreds of thousands of U.S. jobs. Economic concerns have led Zipcar founder Robin Chase to champion an unconventional policy: a universal living wage.

Watch a video that Robin Chase shared at the Summit about the future of autonomous vehicles: https://youtu.be/DeUE4kHRpE

Bike-share considerations

As TNCs look toward smaller markets, bike-share providers have followed suit. “People often think about systems in New York City, Washington D.C., or Chicago, but it’s actually thriving in a lot of places,” says Nate Taber, head of marketing for the Zagster bike-share company. Zagster operates 142 systems in North America. The company works around the challenges of smaller marketplaces — including lower density and tax bases — by developing service-based purchasing, locating near parks and major destinations, centralizing its operations, and working with community partners to attract sponsorships.

Coalitions of community groups and businesses are key to success in these markets, and they take part for good reason. “We have seen communities use bike-sharing as more than a new mode of transportation, but as an amenity and a way to be more competitive,” says Taber. “Cities use it as a lever to draw in new businesses.”

         PC: Zagster

But bike-share systems, too, pose hurdles for elderly and disabled populations. For one, most standard bike-share bikes are heavy. Providers are working to develop new, lighter-weight models, but they are built heavy for a reason; it reduces theft and can withstand lots of wear and tear. Zagster also offers a line of accessible bikes. These include hand-cycles for people with disabilities, and tandems that allow people who travel with a guardian the ability to use the program. One small pilot program recently launched in Rome, New York, includes a three-wheeled bike with two seats for this purpose.

Making bike-share accessible is especially important as more communities realize its public health benefits. Recognizing that higher active transportation levels lead to reduced rates of chronic disease, local health insurance companies often co-sponsor bike-share systems. In some places like Corvallis, OR, Medicare will reimburse recipients the cost to use the system. In our forthcoming policy paper on Healthy MPOs, we outline how leaders in Corvallis took several steps to make bike-share convenient for people in need, such as incorporating easier-to-ride tricycles, locating stations near Medicare recipients’ homes, and allowing users to check out a bicycle via text message.

Looking ahead together

More communities are partnering with shared use mobility providers. The market is expanding to meet diverse geographies, age groups, and ability levels. The private sector is powering ahead, promising new options, service improvements, and cost savings. These options raise questions about equity, access and data. And the public sector must strike a balance.

We can learn from other leaders.

In Boston, MA the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority worked directly with disability advocates on a program to incorporate TNCs. In Detroit, MI the Department of Public Health piloted a program to provide transportation for individuals with HIV/AIDS. In Portland, OR, the nonprofit Ride Connection taps a robust volunteer network to serve people with limited options. And Marin County, CA has implemented over a dozen strategies to improve mobility, led by a diverse set of stakeholders.

Cities will need to take the reins to ensure these monumental shifts in transportation doesn’t shape their cities without their input and produce a new generation of transportation haves and have-nots. And with so many new questions looming over the impacts these projects will have, working together to solve these challenges will be crucial.

These are just some of the challenges that T4America’s Smart Cities Collaborative is beginning to work on. Cities are partnering together to explore the positive and negative impacts of these new transportation models, develop appropriate policies, and test on the ground solutions because change is coming….Fast.

 

 

Options for all: Serving the elderly and disabled with shared-use mobility

Transportation network companies (TNCs) like Uber and Lyft and bike-share providers like Zagster can improve options and expand accessibility. Can they support vulnerable populations and smaller markets? Transportation for America attended the Shared Use Mobility Summit to learn more. (This is part one of a two-part series.)

PC: Marin County Media

In the United States, individuals miss over 3.6 million medical appointments every year due to lack of transportation, according to a 2013 article in the Journal of Community Health. And according to the Kessler Foundation, access for people with disabilities has not improved since 1998; it’s actually getting harder to get around. This has a disproportionate impact on vulnerable populations.

Senior shuttles and paratransit fill some of these gaps in access, which are growing unfortunately, but they are often limited in the populations, destinations and hours that they serve. These services can be expensive for providers, and inconvenient for customers, who often need to order a ride 24-48 hours in advance.

In towns, cities and places of all sizes, questions are emerging about the role of new mobility providers like Uber, Lyft and other TNCs in filling these gaps and becoming part of how we ensure mobility for these groups of people. What would it look like? What are the concerns that cities need to be aware of as they think about using any of them to help meet their needs?

The Centennial pilot

Centennial, CO, a suburb 13 miles south of Denver, has a fairly typical first- and last-mile problem; its Denver Regional Transportation Authority light rail station is far away from its residential, retail, and job centers. Cost and hour-plus wait times have made its dial-a-ride service unappealing. But in August of 2016, the city partnered with ride-hailing service Lyft to launch a six-month pilot program in an effort to change that. (Centennial is also one of the 17 cities in our Smart Cities Collaborative, and we heard a great deal about these efforts during our inaugural meeting back in November.)

The Go Centennial pilot allows residents to catch a free (subsidized by the city) Lyft ride to or from the light rail station. A local paratransit company has also joined the Lyft platform with accessible vehicles to enhance service. And to help serve people who would prefer to call for a ride rather than using a smartphone application, the city has partnered with a developer to create a web application that the city can use to dispatch rides to those customers.

PC: Peter Jones, Villager Publishing

For Centennial, the project has so far been a fiscal success: total project costs for the city have been about half of subsidizing the previous dial-a-ride service.

“Public-private partnerships with aging, disability, and other groups have become a growing mandate as we come to realize how much we have in common,” says Andrew Salzberg, head of Transportation Policy and Research at Uber. Uber is currently partnering with 20 cities to provide wheelchair accessible vehicles & lease them to drivers. Many cities have joined Centennial in subsidizing TNC services to supplement paratransit service.

A pioneering transit agency

Some cities are working to get ahead of the curve by developing their own solutions. Kansas City, Missouri partnered with Bridj to pilot an app-based, on-demand shuttle service in select areas of the city to make it easier for people to get around.

“We have to look beyond traditional transit, even reinvent what transit agencies are,” says Robbie Makinen, president & CEO of the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA), showing a remarkable amount of foresight to think outside the conventional work of a transit agency. “As we explore new mobility options the opportunity to partner with the private sector is tremendous.” he says.

PC: Daily Republic

This winter, the KCATA will launch an on-demand paratransit service called RideKC Freedom. “RideKC Freedom is going to start with the paratransit piece and build out, which is the opposite of what typically happens,” he says. While many transportation systems offer paratransit as a supplementary service, the goal of RideKC Freedom is to begin as a paratransit service before eventually expanding as a shuttle service intended for all users.

Makinen believes that for too many years, the most vulnerable riders have been left to navigate a transportation system that limits their ability to access opportunities. “We will leverage our private sector partnerships to reduce per trip paratransit costs, and then expand RideKC Freedom into serving the broader retail market, he says.” This business model is designed to eliminate social stigmatism associated with using paratransit service, and create a new funding stream.

Service for seniors

Based in San Francisco, CA one company fills a special niche. SilverRide provides call-ahead, escorted rides for senior citizens or anyone who needs additional help due to physical or cognitive challenges. Drivers receive extra training from the company on how to handle common medical conditions and provide physical assistance. The service also provides notes about any special help passengers may need.

“Seniors and those with disabilities tend to need more hand-holding than the general public,” says SilverRide CEO Jeff Maltz. That’s why passengers receive personalized customer care and frequent reminders about their scheduled rides. And the escort aspect ensures those who need door-through-door assistance can use the service.

SilverRide comes at a slightly higher price tag, which Maltz says is the necessary to provide a resource tailored to serve populations with different needs.

“Any service that offers the extra assistance to accommodate folks who have special needs has added cost to accommodate the extra need.  We have removed as much cost as possible by offering a TNC-plus model that can plug into any system in a variety of ways to make sure the needs of all riders are met.” He notes that a one-size-fits-all approach has traditionally led to poorer service and higher costs, and argues that tailored solutions combined with technology and improved regulations are a better approach.

PC: Ride Connection

Designing for the elderly and people with disabilities is important in all systems, notes Sarah Rienhoff. Rienhoff is the public sector lead at Via, another TNC. Her perspective is informed by her past experience working at the global design and innovation firm IDEO. “We should aim to design for inclusivity, looking at ‘extreme’ users, the elderly in this case, to guide our work,” she says.

Rienhoff explains, “When designers take on a problem, they spend time in the edges of the bell curve, with the extremes. By designing for people that most acutely experience the positives or negatives of a product or service, you can also benefit the middle, people who likely experience those same positives or negatives, but to a lesser degree. Rienhoff argues that this is something that many of our transit agencies already do well. “They think about designing services to be universally accessible,” she says.

Maltz agrees it is wise to take best practices from each tailored solution and incorporate those across the board where improvements can be made.  he says. And Jana Lynott, senior policy advisor for AARP’s Public Policy Institute, reconciles, “While public transportation should be designed to serve the needs of everyone, there may be cases where older adults are too frail or suffer from dementia where it would not be safe for them to use fixed route public transit on their own.”

Services like SilverRide and Via, when licensed to a transit provider, can serve an important niche. “We also need to design for caregivers,” she says. “They want to be able to schedule rides remotely and track that progress as well.”

Rural coverage

As TNCs grow into smaller cities and suburban markets, options for rural regions lag behind. Uber, for example, considers regions just under 100,000 in population its smallest market.

PC: Zagster

Lynott notes that more services are coming online in rural areas. The national franchise ITN America is the nation’s largest provider of transportation for seniors, providing demand-response service, and more recently Liberty Mobility Now has launched a ride-sharing service intended to compliment the existing transportation in rural communities and provide gap coverage.

 

As more services come online, it is clear that the market is adapting. But what challenges does that present? And can the public sector and local stakeholders keep up? In our next post, we’ll take a closer look at some of the issues these new TNCs pose. We’ll also review how the bike-share market is responding to different market considerations.