The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape (2021) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Mobility Management, Part 1: A Focus on the Traveler
4 Mobility Management, Part 1: A Focus on the Traveler
Pages 89-116
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 89... ...
MOBILITY MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK A customer-centered, multi-modal system, with an emphasis on transit and shared mobility, would be built around providing travelers with choices about the modal attributes they value, such as convenience, versatility, comfort, price, and travel time -- while potentially also furthering social goals such as reduced emissions, safety, equity, and efficiency. A framework to support mobility management would identify needed capabilities, lay out strategies to create, or further, these capabilities, and indicate the entities 4 Mobility Management, Part 1: A Focus on the Traveler
|
From page 90... ...
A complete mobility management framework for achieving a customercentered, multi-modal system requires the following capabilities: A Easily accessible information for all customers about options for origin-to-destination (O-D)
|
From page 91... ...
Social costs are those paid by society at large, and thus only indirectly by the traveler; not all travelers will consider these costs as highly as those they pay directly, but the provision of information about social costs such as greenhouse gas emissions may subtly encourage the traveler to consider the societal implications of their individual actions.1 In the aggregate, those individuals choosing the option with lower societal costs may have a noticeable impact on the optimization of the transportation system. As noted, the provision of information is but a first step in affecting travel choices; also important are public policies that enhance the availability and performance of shared modes and transit and charge drivers for the social costs of road use and parking, as described in the next chapter.
|
From page 92... ...
Providing additional information would help many travelers and influence their travel choices. The most obvious information is the set of travel options available to go from origin to destination.
|
From page 93... ...
Data Standardization Apps can aggregate and share information if the basic elements of the information are provided in standardized formats as described below, and if the jurisdictions that allow mobility providers to operate within their
|
From page 94... ...
Standardization is largely the case today for static information about transit routes, schedules, and modes and for trip information by shared mobility providers, but real-time performance of elements of the system is not as commonly provided. The following transportation data standards are in relatively common use at the time of this report.
|
From page 95... ...
MDS is primarily used for shared bikes and scooters as of August 2020.8 Unlike GBFS, it provides trip-level data for the vehicles, and cities generally require these data from mobility providers to be real time to within a matter of minutes.9 Some mobility providers and privacy advocates have questioned the legality of cities requiring such data, citing 4 See https://gtfs.org.
|
From page 96... ...
As described in the next section, the data that some cities are requiring from mobility providers are not necessarily the same as those required for mobility management. It may be important for a city to have data on 10 Hawkins, A.J.
|
From page 97... ...
Shared mobility providers have real-time information about the location, position, and availability of their vehicles and devices and, other than ridehailing companies, are usually required by cities to provide key data as a condition of permits to operate. Transit agencies generally have real-time information about how their rail networks are performing and, to a degree, how bus systems are performing.14 Agency contracts with private entities provide means of gathering information.
|
From page 98... ...
RealTime System Information Transit passengers benefit from having real-time information about their transit options.20,21 These benefits include both real and perceived decreased wait times, reductions in overall travel time, increased satisfaction with the transit service, and an increased sense of personal security when waiting for and riding transit. All these benefits increase use of transit.22,23 Automatic vehicle location sensors, mounted in or on a transit vehicle, generally provide this information.
|
From page 99... ...
As discussed above in the data standards section, this information is widely available today through navigation apps that are both stand-alone and built into vehicles, and through an ever-evolving array of parking availability apps and websites. Providing this information alongside equivalent realtime information about transit, shared mobility, and any other available travel options would make a traveler's options clear and comprehensive and has been shown to have a measurable, if generally small, effect on traveler behavior.28,29 25 Altinkaya, M., and M
|
From page 100... ...
However, a "proliferation of mobility apps" required to understand one's travel options may prove to be as burdensome for travelers as was the difficulty in acquiring information pre-smartphone.30 "App fatigue" is when many smartphone owners feel that they are overwhelmed by the number of apps required to accomplish a task.31,32 In the case of travel, this could include a few apps for direction and mapping, multiple transit agency apps for real-time information and/or payment, half a dozen scooter apps, a bikeshare app or two, ridehailing apps, and more. There is a growing interest among consumers in coordination among transportation services so that fewer apps can serve their needs.
|
From page 101... ...
The platforms that currently exist or that are being developed consist of a variety of organizational models for providing both ends of the operation.35 It is typical for private companies to provide the customer-facing front end by developing and providing the app used by the traveler to plan, book, and pay for a trip.36 Private companies who are not the mobility service providers themselves have long competed with one another in providing trip planning platforms in individual markets and across multiple markets, and their competition has spurred continual innovation in consumer-facing trip planning applications. But while competition for users can bring about more innovative and consumer-friendly front-end apps by private frontend operators, there is no assurance that the offerings displayed will fully inform the consumer about all possible travel options.
|
From page 102... ...
As an example, micromobility providers have withdrawn from MaaS platforms that include their competitors, and ridehail companies have acquired micromobility and microtransit providers to create "walled gardens" where consumer-facing apps only show their own service offerings.37 Competition among private companies, whether mobility providers or not, may not lead to front-end functionality that furthers the broader public interest -- for instance, by directing more travel to energy-efficient modes and services. Some MaaS platforms, such as HannoverMobil, which is managed by the Hannover regional transportation association and public transit operator, and S'Hail, which is managed by Dubai's public transport operator, rely on a government agency or public transit operator to provide the front-end operation.38,39 The public sector serving in this capacity could seek to further such societal interests.
|
From page 103... ...
.44 An example of a MaaS platform in which the back-end operator is a private company that provides mobility services is Uber, which opened its platform to include public transit operators.45 There are potential advantages and disadvantages to these public- and private-sector back-end models. By operating in many markets, private companies such as MaaS Global and Uber can reap economies of scale and scope, and may be compelled to be more innovative in competing for the business of front-end operators and market share.
|
From page 104... ...
Recent privacy policies include the General Data Protection Regulation, implemented in 2018 and addressing personal data protection in the European Union and the European Economic Area, and the California Consumer Privacy Act, which enhanced privacy rights and consumer protections for residents of California and became effective on January 1, 2020. Because sharing of data is the underlying basis for a MaaS system, providers and users of the data must allow a traveler to have control over the tracking and potential "profiling" of their trips and of their financial and social network information.49,50 The types of data covered by these policies include geolocation and personally identifying data that are often found in trip records of shared mobility providers.
|
From page 105... ...
Regional agencies can ensure that local residents without smartphones or bank accounts gain access to the information provided by smartphone apps through the same strategies used in the pilot projects of shared mobility–transit partnerships described in Chapter 2. These strategies include ensuring that retail outlets sell prepaid debit cards purchased with cash and providing subsidies for these and for low-income residents' access to smartphones.
|
From page 106... ...
In all these cases, a single region-wide entity that is tasked with establishing these goals and policies will be vital to achieving an integrated transportation system. Regions with multi-modal metropolitan transportation authorities or regional transit authorities could turn to such organizations to host a MaaS system.
|
From page 107... ...
, transit agencies, toll authorities, parking operators Credit card payment systems Transit agencies, toll authorities, parking operators 2. Protection of personal information Requirements for protection of personally identifying information Transit agencies, shared mobility providers 3.
|
From page 108... ...
The process of payment convergence will be different for all transit agencies as each works to coordinate with the shared mobility providers. Many transit agencies' current fare payment systems are card based, developed in the 1990s or 2000s, and bespoke, based on "proprietary system architectures that do not conform to common interface protocols"56 and leading to costly and potentially disruptive transitions to a new system.
|
From page 109... ...
The experiences that transit agencies and shared mobility providers have had throughout both Europe and Asia is being incorporated into the products being offered by the private sector in the United States.62 Paying for shared mobility providers is one of the innovations that first set Uber, Lyft, and other ridehailing companies apart from taxi competition. When the user attaches a credit card to their account, all trips are automatically charged to that account, negating the need for either an in-person cash transaction or processing a credit card with the driver at the end of the individual trip.
|
From page 110... ...
For example, in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, travelers can pay for parking at transit stations with their transit fare card (or with a separate credit card) .66 Most toll roads also have an electronic pass system allowing contactless toll payment across multiple toll road systems.
|
From page 111... ...
In addition, most states have implemented different laws and regulations about the amount of time that state and local government agencies may retain PII and other personal information.73 Although their protection of PII is not perfect, with regard to payment data, shared mobility providers have achieved broad consumer acceptance of use of credit card transactions by private entities.
|
From page 112... ...
Some regions in the United States are already moving toward uniform payment systems for parking, tolls, transit, and more. Some transit agencies already have smart fare cards that can be used for more than fare payments; for example, the Bay Area's Clipper Card, offered by the region's Metropolitan Transportation Commission, works on trips across all transit agencies throughout the Bay Area and the Ford GoBike bikesharing system.
|
From page 113... ...
4.3.2. Payment processing will require the coordination of transit agencies, ridehailing companies, shared mobility providers, and toll and parking operators.
|
From page 114... ...
However, aggregation by a single app covering all public and private options may require private companies to disclose information about the availability of shared mode options that some companies may consider proprietary. If consumer-facing systems evolve into private providers' walled gardens, this concern for companies would be resolved, but it could also result in individual systems that lack all options consumers might want to use.
|
From page 115... ...
RECOMMENDATION The committee recognizes that there are uncertainties going forward for juris dictions and agencies attempting to implement the mobility management framework identified in this chapter. The committee, however, judges that the following recommendation would be an appropriate next step to take while evaluating and sharing the results of early experience.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.