National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Executive Summary
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"1 Introduction." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26053.
×
Page 26

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5 1 Introduction Up until coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) reached the United States in early 2020, an almost dizzying array of mobility options was providing travelers with new and expanded choices about how to move around. Ride- hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft, micromobility providers of shared bikes and e-scooters, carsharing companies, and microtransit providers have been growing remarkably fast because of the convenience and services they offer. Smartphones in the hands of more than three-quarters of Americans as of 20191 made these options possible through apps that simplify the pro- cess of navigating across space, choosing the mode or modes that minimize time and cost, and making the payments required.2 While the use and avail- ability of these services have been dramatically affected by the outbreak of COVID-19, their introduction and proliferation over the past 10 or more years has led to a more robust landscape of travel options. Improvements in travel benefit individuals by providing expanded ac- cess to economic opportunity, socializing, recreation, worship, and other aspects of life that people value. Collectively they could benefit society, the economy, and the environment by increasing equity, productivity, and sustainability. Mobility options that were already being used by a growing number of travelers could generate such benefits if they could 1 Pew Research. 2019. Mobile Fact Sheet. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/ mobile. 2 Shaheen, S., et al. 2016a. Smartphone Applications to Influence Travel Choices: Prac­ tices and Policies. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/ fhwahop16023/fhwahop16023.pdf.

6 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY be significantly scaled up. As examples, greater use of bikes and scooters could substitute for short trips, which are made mostly by motor vehicle, and connect travelers with public transit. Wider availability of shared bikes and scooters could improve the accessibility of neighborhoods with inade- quate transit. Greater reliance on ridehailing and microtransit could also link travelers to transit and improve mobility in areas where transit service is lacking. A substantial reduction in single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) trips, especially in peak travel periods, could reduce congestion and motor vehicle emissions of greenhouse gases and free up some of the vast amount of urban space devoted to parking. However, despite these potential benefits, many early promises have not been met. Carsharing services introduced more than a decade ago, which were seen as having many of the same promises as new mobility today, have failed to reach more than a small share of urban residents. Ridehailing services such as Uber and Lyft, sometimes referred to as transportation network companies, asserted that they would herald “the end of car owner- ship,” take millions of private autos off the street, reduce traffic congestion, and support growth in transit ridership. However, in some cases, these services have added to traffic, reduced transit ridership, and had little or no impact on car ownership, which even in the largest U.S. cities remains on par with pre-ridehailing levels. Increased use of shared bikes and e-scooters on existing roadways could increase injuries and fatalities. E-scooters and bikes left on sidewalks impede pedestrian access, particularly for those with restricted mobility. Thus, from a societal perspective there are as many concerns about shared modes as hopeful signs. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) Executive Committee has observed the advent of these expanding mobility choices and their potential to work more closely with public transit to serve societal goals. In response, it commissioned this study of the potential for more coordination and integration of shared mobility and transit services and policy options for furthering such an outcome. Specifically, the TRB Executive Committee charged the committee for this study as follows: The study committee will consider the role of new and expanding shared mobility options, such as ridehailing, taxis, carsharing, bikesharing, scootersharing, and microtransit, in the provision of transportation services as part of regional transportation systems, and specifically the relationship to and impact of these services on existing public transit. As part of the study, the committee will consider 1. How these services can improve the transportation system’s ability to further goals such as accessibility, efficiency, equity, safety, and sustainability;

INTRODUCTION 7 2. The role transit agencies and other entities could play in managing and otherwise furthering the new mobility landscape; and 3. Ways that transit agencies have coordinated with the new mobility providers both in the United States and abroad. The TRB Executive Committee conceived of this report as serving the diverse set of audiences able to influence the policies and strategies the com- mittee would recommend: Congress; the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), including the Federal Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration; public transportation agencies; metropolitan transportation planning organizations; private mobility service providers; and state and local governments. The committee interprets the Statement of Task in the following sections while providing background on shared modes, regional transportation systems and governance, and transit service and ridership. It also provides new conceptual approaches for integrating shared modes with other transportation services to serve the social goals listed in the Statement of Task. The final section of this chapter explains how the committee organized the report to respond to its Statement of Task. SHARED MOBILITY The committee interpreted its charge as applying to the rapidly expanding shared modes called out in its Statement of Task that have grown consid- erably over the past decade or more, which have provided travelers with far more options than they have had in the past. In this section are brief descriptions of these services and their recent history, but these descriptions are not full accounts of their many permutations, nor do they capture the variety of local contexts in which these services are being offered or their impacts in these settings. For such details, readers are referred to the cita- tions provided in this section and Chapter 2. Shared Mobility Services This section provides brief overviews of the main shared mobility services, with a more complete discussion in Chapter 2 of the past impacts of shared mobility and pilot efforts of public transit agencies to coordinate and col- laborate with these providers. Even as this report was being written and the impacts of the pandemic were still unfolding, shared mobility providers, the marketplaces in which they operate and compete, and the policies and regu- lations that apply to them were changing rapidly. Hence, the descriptions below should be recognized as snapshots in time of changing phenomena. They are included here to provide background for the reader on how they

8 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY were introduced, evolved, and grew and not as predictions of how they will operate or perform in the future. Carsharing Carsharing, the most mature of the new mobility services in this report, was introduced in the United States in 1994 but had existed in various permutations in Europe for decades.3 Perhaps best known is a subscrip- tion service with vehicles parked at specific locations and available for short-term access (referred to as round-trip carsharing). Company business models subsequently expanded to allow for one-way or free-floating trips, allowing users to park at their destinations instead of requiring them to return the vehicle to its starting location. In addition, a peer-to-peer varia- tion developed through which individuals share their personal vehicles for a fee on a short-term basis.4 Although growing rapidly in the United States since 2006, the growth rate of membership in traditional providers had slowed to 2.4 percent be- tween 2017 and 2018 and total vehicles available for rental declined by 11.4 percent.5 The estimated number of subscription carshare members (about 1.4 million), though still growing slightly in 2018, represents a small share of automobile users—about half of 1 percent of the number of U.S. licensed drivers. In 2019, in response to competition from other shared mode providers and for other reasons, two of the most well-known carshare providers pulled out of several cities to focus on fewer markets; a major peer-to-peer provider laid off one-quarter of its staff in January 2020; and Share Now, the merger of the former Car2Go and Drive Now carshare operators, ceased U.S. operations in February 2020 to focus on its European markets.6,7,8,9 3 Shaheen, S., et al. 2018a. Future of Mobility Whitepaper, 37. https://escholarship.org/uc/ item/68g2h1qv. 4 A much more complete review of carsharing program models is available in Shaheen, S., et al. 2016b. Shared Mobility and Guiding Principles, Appendix A, Table 6. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16022/fhwahop16022.pdf. 5 Shaheen, S., and A. Cohen. 2020. Innovative Mobility: Carsharing Outlook, Market Overview, and Trends. Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley. https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9jh432pm. 6 Korosec, K. 2019. GM’s Carsharing Service Maven to Exit Eight Cities. TechCrunch, May 20. https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/20/gms-car-sharing-service-maven-to-exit-eight-cities. 7 Matney, L. 2020. Getaround Is the Latest SoftBank Portfolio Company to Announce Lay- offs. TechCrunch, January 7. https://techcrunch.com/2020/01/07/getaround-is-latest-softbank- portfolio-company-to-announce-layoffs. 8 LaReau, J. 2020. GM to End Maven Carsharing Service After Four Years. Detroit Free Press, April 21. https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2020/04/21/gm-end- maven-car-sharing-service/2997376001. 9 Share Now Services Ending February 29. https://www.share-now.com/us/en/important- update.

INTRODUCTION 9 Micromobility Formal city efforts to encourage bikesharing in the United States began with small pilot programs in 2007 in Tulsa, Oklahoma, and in 2008 in Washington, DC, that quickly spread bikesharing to many other U.S. cities.10 Station-based (or docked) bikeshare services now exist in dozens of U.S. cities, and by 2019 accounted for 40 million trips.11 Subscribers, or short-term renters, can unlock bikes from a docking station and pay using a smartphone. About 100 cities hosted bikesharing services of some kind by the end of 2019.12 Early programs provided docking stations for bikes, usually in public space and with different models of bikeshare operator ownership, responsibilities, and public subsidy. In contrast, newer dockless bike operations allow users to pick up bikes where available and leave them at their destinations. This service model took off in 2017 when several private companies began placing dockless bikes in public spaces without permission, which resulted in a sharp increase in dock- less bike availability and use accompanied with sharp reactions in some cities, including impounding bikes and fining private operators.13 Many dockless bike providers subsequently pulled out of cities in which they were banned or because of the cost of city permits and meeting their requirements. By 2018, after about 8 years of bikeshare availability, roughly 13 per- cent of the population of 11 large U.S. cities had used docked and undocked bikes.14 However, the growth rate of shared bikes appeared to slow with the introduction of e-scooters in 2018 and the popular reaction to them. This introduc tion, in combination with quality and service issues, apparently helped lead to the withdrawal of dockless bike operators from many cities.15 At the time of this writing, relatively few U.S. cities were hosting regular dockless bikes, and, with the exception of Chicago, these services were mostly in small- to medium-sized cities with sizable university student populations.16 10 This history of bikeshare-city relationships draws on DuPuis, N., et al. 2019. Micro­ mobility in Cities: A History and Policy Overview. National League of Cities, pp. 9–13. https://www.nlc.org/resource/micromobility-in-cities-a-history-and-policy-overview. 11 NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials). 2019. Shared Micro­ mobility in the U.S.: 2019. National Association of City Transportation Officials. https:// nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2019. 12 NACTO. 2019. 13 Deighton-Smith, R., et al. 2019. Regulating App­Based Mobility Services. International Transport Forum. https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/app-based-mobility.pdf. 14 Populus. 2018. The Micro­Mobility Revolution: The Introduction and Adoption of Electric Scooters in the United States. https://www.populus.ai/micro-mobility-2018-july. 15 Pyzyk, K. 2019. Bye-Bye Bikes? Many Companies Quietly Shift Their Focus to Scooters. Smart Cities Dive, April 8. https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/bye-bye-bikes-many- mobility-companies-quietly-shift-their-focus-to-scoote/551971. 16 Mapping the Impact of Dockless Vehicles. 2020. Smart Cities Dive. https://www. smartcitiesdive.com/news/mapping-the-impact-of-dockless-vehicles/539263.

10 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY The introduction of battery-powered bikes (e-bikes) and e-scooters in 2018 may have been a watershed event for micromobility. Standing e-scooters, in particular and in comparison to seated moped-style scooters, proved stunningly popular, reaching more than 3 percent of the population of 11 large U.S. cities within 1 year.17 In contrast with docked systems that are usually formal arrangements between cities and bikeshare operators, many private dockless operators followed the early ridehailing company model of entering markets without permission and placing e-scooters on city sidewalks with little or no advance notice to local jurisdictions. Cities’ reactions varied from outright banning and impoundment of dockless bikes and e-scooters, to allowing unregulated operation of private providers, to several pilot projects in major metropolitan areas.18 By the end of 2019, more than twice as many trips had been taken that year by e-scooters than by station-based bikesharing.19 E-bikes, mostly available in dockless systems, had also become popular, reaching 10 million trips in 2019. The convenience offered by bikesharing and scootersharing may be able to reduce SOV trips by providing first/last mile connections to public transportation.20 They can also substitute for public transportation trips, as discussed in Chapter 2. Nonetheless, competition among providers and uncertain business models led to retrenchment by some providers in early 2020 even before the impact of the pandemic was felt.21 Ridehailing Companies Ridehailing companies expanded rapidly after their introduction in 2012. Such companies, of which Uber and Lyft are the largest and best-known U.S. providers, were made possible and accessible by easy-to-use smart- phone apps, substantial levels of venture capital funding, and a near ab- sence of government licensing requirements. The introduction of ridehailing services was contentious and highly disruptive to the taxi industry (de- scribed next) but proved to be much more popular than taxis with riders. Total trips grew to 4.2 billion by 2018, often replacing trips by taxi in large cities, expanding services in cities not well served by taxis, and approaching 17 Populus. 2018. 18 DuPuis et al. 2019, p. 14. See also NACTO (2019) guidance regarding permitting and regulation. 19 NACTO. 2019, p. 4. 20 NACTO. 2019, p. 8. 21 Herrera, S. 2020. Scooter Startup Lime Exits a Dozen Markets, Cuts Jobs. The Wall Street Journal, January 9. https://www.wsj.com/articles/scooter-startup-lime-exits-a-dozen-markets- cuts-jobs-11578619517.

INTRODUCTION 11 in total scale the annual trips by public transit buses.22 Ridehailing grew rapidly for a variety of reasons, including its ease of use, quicker response time and lower cost than taxis, ability for users to avoid the cost of park- ing, and others. Although available in many cities and regions across the United States, about 70 percent of trips occur in the nine largest and most densely populated urban areas.23 Both Uber and Lyft went public in 2019 while operating at significant losses and relying on investor capital to subsidize the prices charged to consumers. They lost the great bulk of their ridership during the pandemic: 75 percent decline in gross bookings for Uber in the second quarter of 202024 and 61 percent for Lyft.25 However, they appear to be regaining a portion of their ridership as of this writing and have increased their food and goods delivery options. Questions about whether or when they would become profitable remain open at this time. As will be described in Chapter 2 in detail, consumers use ridehailing trips to replace those they might have made by personal vehicle or other modes. The companies compete with public transportation providers, while occasionally complementing or collaborating with them. As also described in Chapter 2, transit agencies have begun to partner, formally and infor- mally, with ridehailing companies to provide first/last mile connections to/from transit, replace some paratransit26 trips for disadvantaged travelers, and enhance service in areas too lightly populated to support regular fixed- route bus service.27 Taxis The taxi, sedan, and limousine industries provide precursor equivalents of today’s ridehailing trips, and had done so for decades before the technolo- gies employed by ridehailing companies greatly simplified and expedited the process of hailing and paying for rides. The complex “for-hire” industry, 22 Schaller, B. 2018. The New Automobility: Lyft, Uber, and the Future of American Cities, Figure 1. http://www.schallerconsult.com/rideservices/automobility.pdf. 23 Schaller. 2018, p. 7. 24 Savitz, E.J. 2020. Uber Stock Is Falling After Earnings Reveal a Larger Than Expected Loss. Barrons, August 7. https://www.barrons.com/articles/uber-technologies-stock-earnings- report-51596746912. 25 Lyft Announces Second Quarter Results. 2020. Lyft.com. https://investor.lyft.com/ news- releases/news-release-details/lyft-announces-second-quarter-results. 26 Paratransit is a service that supplements traditional transit service, providing individual rides without regular routes or timetables, primarily for travelers with disabilities or mobility- restricted senior citizens. 27 Curtis, T., et al. 2019. Partnerships Between Transit Agencies and Transportation Net­ work Companies (TNCs). Transit Cooperative Research Program 204, p. S-3. https://www. nap.edu/catalog/25425.

12 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY referred to in this report as the “taxi” industry for convenience, varies con- siderably in form and regulation across cities and is difficult to character- ize due its diversity across cities and a lack of comprehensive information about the industry.28 Although certainly not a new or expanding private shared mode provider, this industry is explicitly called out in the commit- tee’s Statement of Task because taxis have long played an important role in urban transportation, including for those with disabilities and low incomes, and because the industry lost most of its ridership due to the rapid growth in ridehailing. The rise of ridehailing has markedly affected traditional for-hire trans- portation providers. Total taxi ridership by the end of 2018 was estimated to be less than half of its peak volume in 2012.29 In major cities such as New York and Chicago, taxi trips have fallen steadily since the rapid growth of ridehailing.30 The traditional customers of taxis have long had a pronounced bimodal distribution: in 2009, households with an- nual incomes below $25,000 accounted for 41 percent of taxi trips and households with incomes above $100,000 accounted for 33 percent.31 For households lacking automobiles and credit cards, taxis have been an im- portant source of mobility due to their acceptance of cash payment. Transit agencies and social services agencies have routinely contracted with taxi providers to serve carless, low-income households and individuals who are unable to drive. The growth of ridehailing has significantly affected the taxi industry, whose efforts to adapt may be impeded by its much more exten- sive regulation. Even so, taxis are increasingly available through third-party taxi-hailing apps that mimic the capabilities and convenience of the apps on which companies such as Lyft and Uber rely. Microtransit Microtransit is a relatively new variation on transit that operates in be- tween fixed-route bus service and the ridehailing/taxi model.32 The concept garnered considerable attention in recent years when private providers, 28 Schaller, B. 2015. Taxi, Sedan, and Limousine Industries and Regulations. TRB Special Report 319: Between Public and Private Mobility: Examining the Rise of Technology­Enabled Transportation Services, Appendix B. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medi- cine, Washington, DC. http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/173511.aspx. 29 Schaller. 2018, Table 1. 30 See https://toddwschneider.com/dashboards/nyc-taxi-ridehailing-uber-lyft-data. 31 Schaller. 2015, p. 8. 32 The description of microtransit in this paragraph and the next draws heavily from Volinksi, J. 2019. Microtransit or General Public Demand Response Transit Services: State of the Practice. TCRP Synthesis 141. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https:// www.nap.edu/catalog/25414.

INTRODUCTION 13 armed with sophisticated new scheduling software and routing algorithms, began providing a service that allowed passengers to hail a mini-bus or small van for a shared trip via smartphone apps. These private services initially operated mostly in center cities in areas lacking easily accessible transit. The areas were thought to provide a sufficient number and density of customers to make the service profitable by offering shared rides over routes that could deviate over time and space. Several private companies have closed after attempting to provide exclu sively private microtransit operations.33,34 However, Via Transporta- tion, Inc., which relies on driver-contractors who own their own vehicles (typically vans), continues to grow and operate in many U.S. cities, often under contract in pilot tests with local transit agencies. At the time of this writing, many microtransit pilot projects are under way by public transit agencies that are testing out potential applications of this service, particu- larly in suburban areas difficult to serve effectively and affordably with fixed-route transit, as described in Chapter 2.35 Other Private Shared Modes A variety of private companies facilitate urban transportation in several different ways.36 For example, formal and informal jitneys (dollar vans) support commute trips for residents of low-income urban neighborhoods of Miami, New York, and San Francisco; employers run private shuttles from their locations to transit stops and from urban residential areas to their suburban locations; and transit agencies contract with private companies (paratransit operators) to support trips by riders with low incomes and riders with disabilities who are difficult to serve with fixed-route transit. This report, however, focuses primarily on a relatively new set of shared mobility providers, the most recent of which, ridehailing and micromobility companies, are still in the process of working out relationships with transit agencies and local governments in the United States. 33 Hawkins, A. 2019. Ford’s On-Demand Bus Service Is Going Out of Business. The Verge, January 10. https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/10/18177378/chariot-out-of-business-shuttle- microtransit-ford. 34 Schmitt, A. 2018. Streetsblog USA. https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/06/26/the-story-of- micro-transit-is-consistent-dismal-failure. 35 Volinski. 2019. 36 Feigon, S., et al. 2018. Private Transit: Existing Services and Emerging Directions. TCRP Research Report 196. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC. https://www.nap.edu/ catalog/25020.

14 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND GOVERNANCE The Statement of Task for this project calls on the committee to consider the “role of new and expanding shared mobility options, such as ridehail- ing, taxis, carsharing, bikesharing, scootersharing, and microtransit, in the provision of transportation services as part of regional transportation systems” [emphasis added]. For those readers unfamiliar with regional transportation systems, this section provides background and context on regions; modal preferences across regions; and the variety of transportation agencies and governments involved in providing, managing, and regulating transportation services at the regional scale in the United States. Use of shared modes and transit at the regional scale are themes that are examined throughout the report. Most metropolitan areas, as formally defined by the federal govern- ment, are agglomerations of jurisdictions, many of which have one or more central cities in their core and myriad cities, towns, and counties in their periphery. These metro areas vary considerably in size and population density, ranging from Los Angeles-Long Beach (with almost 7,000 people per square mile) to, for example, Center, Alabama (about 350 people per square mile).37 Regional transportation systems vary in scale and character as much as the metropolitan area or urbanized areas that they serve. Regardless of the size or character of regions, however, regional trans- portation systems are heavily oriented around highway transportation. Household travel in the United States is dominated by personal vehicle trips (83 percent of annual person-trips).38 In metropolitan areas with popula- tions of 3 million or more this figure drops, but only to 75 percent. Public transportation accounts for 2.5 percent of annual person-trips nationwide, which rises to 5 percent in the largest metropolitan areas. However, transit’s share of commute trips is much higher in the central cities of metropolitan areas. Transit accounts for 10.5 percent of all commute trips in the central cities of metropolitan areas, a share that grows to 23 percent in metropoli- tan areas of 5 million or more population.39 Even these figures understate the importance of public transit to the nation’s economy. Metropolitan areas that have emerged as leaders in the new knowledge economy are uniformly the same cities with the most extensive public transportation 37 Berg, N. 2012. The U.S. Urban Population Is Up … But What Does Urban Really Mean? Bloomberg CityLab. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/03/us-urban-population-what-does- urban-really-mean/1589. 38 In this case, the committee reports annual person-trips per household at the metropolitan statistical area (MSA) level as reported in U.S. Department of Transportation. 2018. 2017 National Household Travel Survey: Summary of Travel Trends, Table 7. https://nhts.ornl.gov/ assets/2017_nhts_summary_travel_trends.pdf. 39 Pisarski, A. 2018. Commuting in America III, The Third National Report on Commut­ ing Patterns and Trends, Table 3-23. https://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/ciaiii.pdf.

INTRODUCTION 15 networks—Boston, Chicago, New York City, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC. The nation’s largest metropolitan areas, sources of a ma- jor share of the nation’s gross domestic product,40 simply could not func- tion without public transit. Outside of major metropolitan areas, myriad transit systems around the country provide essential services for popula- tions lacking other transportation alternatives. The population density and character of the built environment have considerable influence on the modes that consumers choose for their travel and, therefore, become important dimensions for understanding the poten- tial roles of shared modes and transit across the varied metropolitan regions of the country.41 As shown in Table 1-1, even among the 25 urbanized areas with the most transit, population densities vary from a low of about 1,900 people per square mile in Atlanta and Pittsburgh to more than 7,000 in the Los Angeles urbanized area.42 (Note that Table 1-1 is based on data collected in urbanized areas, which are smaller than metropolitan areas because they are based on contiguous developed areas surrounding central places of 50,000 or more population, whereas metropolitan areas include whole counties, including undeveloped areas within them.43) In the center cities in these urbanized areas, the differences are even greater. The popula- tion density of New York City is 28,000 people per square mile, more than five times denser than its urbanized area, compared with Phoenix’s popula- tion density of 3,100, which is only slightly denser than its entire urbanized area.44 Thus, as this report explores the role of shared modes and transit in serving social goals such as sustainability, it is important to bear in mind that even among the nation’s largest urbanized areas there will be consid- erable variation in the potential for shared mobility and transit services to affect the number and scale of auto trips and emissions at the regional scale in pursuit of sustainability goals. However, geography and the extent of 40 Nelson, A. 2017. Megaregion Projections 2015–2045 with Transportation Implications. Transportation Research Record, Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2645. https:// journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3141/2654-02. 41 Population density is only a rough indicator of an area’s potential for sustaining transit ridership and competing with automobiles for trips. Also important are the diversity of jobs and housing and their balance within jurisdictions, neighborhood layout and connectivity, the distance between origins and destinations, and the walking distance from home to transit. See TRB. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment. Special Report 298, p. 52. http://onlinepubs. trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr298.pdf. 42 The Los Angeles area has the highest population density at the urbanized area scale, but the population density of the center city of Los Angeles (8,500) is only the ninth highest among urbanized areas. 43 U.S. Census Bureau. 1994. Geographic Reference Manual, Chapter 10. https://www. census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geographic-areas-reference-manual.html. 44 Center city population and densities as estimated in https://www.governing.com/gov-data/ population-density-land-area-cities-map.html.

16 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY TABLE 1-1 Urbanized Areas with the Most Transit (ranked by total annual transit trips) Rank Urbanized Area Population in 2018 Population per Square Mile Unlinked Transit Trips Annual Trips per Capita 1 New York-Newark, NY-NJ-CT 18,776,233 5,443 4,176,848 222 2 Chicago, IL-IN 8,636,309 3,538 588,902 68 3 Los Angeles-Long Beach- Anaheim, CA 12,616,501 7,260 578,159 46 4 Washington, DC-VA-MD 5,051,789 3,821 420,060 83 5 San Francisco-Oakland, CA 3,565,427 6,808 414,920 116 6 Boston, MA-NH-RI 4,475,825 2,389 392,622 88 7 Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,538,175 2,795 366,970 66 8 Seattle, WA 3,513,326 3,480 215,974 61 9 Miami, FL 6,107,242 4,970 136,055 22 10 Atlanta, GA 5,098,403 1,927 133,277 26 11 Portland, OR-WA 2,075,505 3,958 112,466 54 12 San Diego, CA 3,189,835 4,349 100,582 32 13 Baltimore, MD 2,278,976 3,179 98,684 43 14 Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI 2,877,365 2,818 95,332 33 15 Denver-Aurora, CO 2,710,084 4,067 89,321 33 16 Houston, TX 5,704,641 3,434 88,907 16 17 Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX 5,888,916 3,308 73,664 13 18 Phoenix-Mesa, AZ 4,142,622 3,614 72,865 18 19 Las Vegas-Henderson, NV 2,148,170 5,151 70,351 33 20 Urban Honolulu, HI metro area 980,080 1,632 65,833 67 21 Pittsburgh, PA 1,715,050 1,894 65,206 38 22 San Jose, CA 1,805,090 6,322 45,806 25 23 St. Louis, MO-IL 2,151,139 2,330 43,146 20 24 Cleveland, OH 1,764,967 2,281 40,429 23 25 San Antonio, TX 2,045,263 3,423 37,243 18 Total 114,856,933 8,523,619 SOURCES: APTA. 2019, Table 2; and Census Reporter. 2019. https://censusreporter.org.

INTRODUCTION 17 fixed-route transit services in an area do not limit the opportunities to serve other social policies such as equity. As described in Chapter 2, there are multiple ways that existing paratransit services across the urban, suburban, and rural areas within metropolitan regions can be enhanced with creative programs to coordinate shared modes with transit services. Viewed from the sky, metropolitan areas appear as contiguous develop- ment patterns spreading out from downtowns and employment centers and interconnected by transportation networks. Viewed as a map of jurisdic- tions, metro areas are more like a quilt of different patch sizes and fabrics representing multiple cities, counties, municipalities, and special authorities. In some cases, these multiple governmental entities, averaging 104 across metro areas, can actively resist integrated solutions to many of the regional, social, and economic issues that metro areas face.45,46 The complexities increase with scale. Metro areas with 1 million or more population had an average of 372 local governments in 2012 and this number was growing— a 22 percent increase in local governments within metro areas as they expanded over recent decades.47 These multiple governmental entities have strong incentives to fragment due to political independence, competition for and protection of tax bases, and segregation by race and income. They also have reasons to cooperate to achieve economic interdependence, partly through interconnected transportation systems, and to address concerns about environmental issues that span jurisdictional borders.48 Metropolitan areas routinely compromise between the pushes and pulls at the metropolitan level to create special regional authorities to plan for and build infrastructure and for environmental protection, but these have proven to be incomplete solutions. Responsibilities for highway and transit funding and operations as major elements of regional transporta- tion systems tend to be located in different agencies, with varied levels of responsibility vested at the city, county, and state levels. The governance of regional transportation systems is fragmented, but not always in the same way across states: the legal authorities and institutional arrangements among highway and transit agencies and multiple city and county jurisdic- tions within a region vary substantially. 45 National Research Council. 1999. Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America. National Academy Press, Washington, DC. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/6038. 46 Savitch, H., and S. Adhikari. 2017. Fragmented Regionalism: Why Metropolitan America Continues to Splinter. Urban Affairs Review 53(2). https://journals.sagepub.com/ doi/full/10.1177/1078087416630626. 47 Savitch and Adhikari. 2017, Table 1. 48 Savitch and Adhikari. 2017.

18 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY Metropolitan Planning Organizations Although they play an important role in metro area development, special regional transportation agencies have limited authorities. Metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have influenced the planning for, and devel- opment of, integrated road networks at the regional scale, and they allocate some federal highway funds. However, with limited exceptions, they have little or no direct influence over the building of systems or the operation of road networks and transit agencies,49 nor do they typically have influence over shared mobility permitting and regulation or the zoning and other local regulation that affects the density of development needed to support transit or requirements for parking that favor automobile over transit trips, as explored in Chapter 5. Public Transit Agencies Within Regions A small number of states, such as Maryland and New Jersey, provide sys- tems that operate bus and rail systems offering statewide service. A few very large metropolitan areas, such as those including the cities of Denver, Las Vegas, and Philadelphia, have single regional public transportation agencies that provide all, or most, fixed-route transit within their regions.50 Other large regions, such as the Washington, DC, metro area, have a single regional rail metro system and a regional bus system that focuses on major routes, but counties outside of the District of Columbia operate their own independent bus systems as well. The norm for the 200 largest urbanized areas is to have multiple transit agencies, each of which is responsible for transit operations within their jurisdictions. The 200 largest MSAs aver- age having 3 different transit agencies, but among the 10 largest MSAs by population, the total ranges from 6 different transit agencies in the Dallas- Fort Worth and Philadelphia metro areas to 21 in the Los Angeles and 23 in the Miami metro areas. Although many of the 200 largest metro areas (37 percent) have a single transit agency, its service area is often limited to a single jurisdiction within the area, such as a center city or central county. The typical proliferation of systems results in requirements for multiple tickets or lack of coordination on transfers and routes and schedules to 49 Sciaria, G.-C. 2017. Metropolitan Transportation Planning: Lessons from the Past, Insti- tutions for the Future. Journal of the American Planning Association 83(3). https://www. tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2017.1322526. 50 This paragraph draws heavily from Weinreich, D., et al. 2019. Overcoming Local Barriers to Regional Transportation: Understanding Transit System Fragmentation from an Institutionalist Framework. Center for Transportation Equity, Decisions and Dollars, The University of Texas at Arlington. https://ctedd.uta.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/ OvercomingLocalBarriers_Weinreich_CTEDD_2019.pdf.

INTRODUCTION 19 make transfers efficient, lack of scale economies in purchasing equipment, and lack of coordination in transportation to large events and responding to catastrophes, among other issues.51 State Departments of Transportation State departments of transportation (DOTs) typically manage most major routes within a state and control the majority of road and highway fund- ing from federal and state sources. The roles of state DOTs within metro areas, however, vary widely. MPOs typically have had the ability to pro- gram certain federal highway funds since 1991, but state DOTs carry out construction and maintenance and operate major state highways and Inter- states, including those that serve metro areas. Many of the major highways serving a region were planned by state DOTs before MPOs existed in their current form. State DOTs also have varied relationships with large cities and urbanized counties, described next. City and Local Transportation Agencies Unless a state or county route runs through a local government’s jurisdic- tion, the local government will be responsible for roadway operation and regulation that affect the flow of both personal vehicles and transit buses. The largest cities and urbanized counties have departments of transporta- tion with scopes of responsibilities and scale that are comparable to those of some state DOTs. Large city or county transportation agencies or offices are typically responsible for establishing permits for shared mode providers, but this function may be carried out by other city or county offices. Summary Regional transportation systems, primarily made up of highway systems and train and bus operations, are managed by multiple different agencies, and responsibilities often change as myriad jurisdictional lines are crossed within regions. Although regions have MPOs that plan for system expan- sion and influence the distribution of federal funds, state DOTs, as well as city and county transportation agencies, play major roles in highway network operations, construction, and maintenance. Relationships between state DOTs and the MPOs within their states vary so much as to defy generalization. A small number of states provide statewide transit service and some regions have regional transit agencies, but most regions have multiple transit agencies that lack effective coordination of fares, routes, 51 Weinreich et al. 2019, p. 28.

20 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY and schedules. Regional, state, and local agencies receive separate streams of federal and state funding for highways and transit that include strictures on how funds can and cannot be spent, which limits flexibility and oppor- tunities for coordination at the regional scale. Regulatory oversight of shared modes can be vested in state agencies, counties, or cities depending on the state. Collaboration of all the required agencies and jurisdictions on regional issues such as transportation can be stymied by competition among jurisdictions for economic growth and by racial and income disparities. In responding to its charge to address the role of shared modes and transit as part of regional transportation systems, the committee describes the regional scales of such services in Chapter 2 and issues of coordination among various transportation providers and local government regulators, particularly in Chapter 5. However, it does not address how governments and agencies could be reorganized or reformed to better integrate shared mode and transit services into regional transportation systems. Independent of transportation, there certainly have been reforms in local government to in- crease efficiency across jurisdictional boundaries, such as the merger of cities and counties in some states, the creation of special authorities at the regional scale, and the coordination of transportation operations across juris dictions. Government and institutional reforms that might be necessary to improve the ability of regions to manage the integration of shared modes and transit into regional transportation systems, however, are beyond the scope of this report. TRANSIT AGENCY HETEROGENEITY AND RIDERSHIP Public transportation agencies in the United States are as varied as the metro- politan and rural areas in which they operate. At one extreme, the Metropoli- tan Transit Authority of New York City alone accounts for almost one-third of all trips by transit, with the nine next largest agencies accounting for an additional 30 percent.52 At the other extreme are thousands of small systems providing bus and paratransit services in small towns and rural areas. The largest transit agencies provide both rail and bus operations, with almost 90 agencies including rail services, but few have the extensive rail networks of the 10 largest metropolitan areas. Almost all urban areas’ transit networks are heavily dependent on bus and paratransit systems and smaller cities and towns are exclusively so. The importance of public transit as a component of regional transporta- tion also varies widely. Transit trips range from a high of 222 annual trips per person in the greater New York City region to only about one-tenth as 52 Unless otherwise noted, the statistics in this section are derived from American Public Transportation Association (APTA). 2019. APTA Fact Book 2019. https://www.apta.com/ wp-content/uploads/APTA_Fact-Book-2019_FINAL.pdf.

INTRODUCTION 21 many in the smallest of the 50 largest urbanized areas (see Table 1-1). This range is partly driven by the history and density of urban development. Cities that developed around transit are much more transit dependent than newer urbanized areas that grew around automobile transportation. Cities with sub- stantial urban cores, however, remain the transit capitals of the country. Per capita transit trips in the New York City urbanized area, for example, are al- most five times greater than in the decentralized Los Angeles urbanized area. Of particular note is the considerable variation in reliance on transit across urbanized areas. Even the 25 urbanized areas with the most tran- sit trips are themselves quite different. The New York City urbanized area is in a class by itself, not just in terms of the magnitude of its total transit trips but in its wide variety of transit modes: heavy rail, commuter rail, bus, commuter bus, ferries, and more. The extent of the New York area’s transit and its built environment is reflected in the nation’s highest level of per capita transit trips (222, as shown in Table 1-1). The next nine urban- ized areas with the most transit also have multiple modes of transit services, but the magnitudes of their transit trips and per capita transit trips are far less than in the New York area and they are less consistently reliant on rail (see Table 1-1). Among these next nine urbanized areas, trips by rail exceed those by bus in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, whereas the Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Seattle urbanized areas are much more dependent on bus transit than on rail. After the top 10 urban- ized areas, trips by bus have by far the largest share of transit trips, and, other than the 25 with the most transit trips, almost all other urbanized areas rely almost exclusively on road-based transit modes. The significance of this is developed further in Chapter 5. The point to carry forward while reading the rest of this report is that the opportunity to coordinate transit services with new mobility services is highly dependent on the nature, extent, and quality of transit in the urban- ized areas in which they operate and on the transit-supportive public poli- cies at the local, state, and federal levels. For example, policies and their implementation may differ greatly in large urban areas with robust rail and bus transit systems as compared to smaller urban areas with limited bus or paratransit services. Transit agencies have a growing interest in collaborating with shared mobility providers in part to serve broad social goals but also because of concerns about declining transit ridership. National transit ridership (all modes) generally increased each year from 1996 to 2014, after which it began declining (see Figure 1-1).53 Bus ridership increased until 2006, after which 53 Unless other sources are cited, this paragraph draws heavily from Watkins, K., et al. 2019. Analysis of Recent Public Ridership Trends. TCRP Research Report 209. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Washington, DC. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/25635.

22 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY FIGURE 1-1 Trends in transit ridership. SOURCE: Watkins et al. 2019. it began to decline steadily.54 Rail ridership continued to grow steadily until 2015, after which it also began to decline, though more modestly. These ridership declines were occurring even as total revenue miles of service increased (by bus transit since 2012 and by rail transit since 1996). Overall funding for transit from all sources also grew steadily through 2016 before dipping slightly in 2017.55 Population has also increased in metropolitan areas across this period. The trends in ridership are generally consistent across metropolitan areas of all sizes and clustered by areas with similar characteristics in both road-based transit and fixed-guideway transit (typically rail-based modes). Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic beginning in early 2020, possible causes include multi-decade historic low unemploy- ment leading to increased auto ownership, increased ridership on shared modes (especially ridehailing), and demographic changes within metropoli- tan areas (movement of transit-dependent populations away from center cities and into suburbs less accessible to transit). Transit ridership increased slightly in 2019, especially on systems that included subway systems.56 This 54 Watkins et al. 2019, Figure 1, for trends; and APTA. 2019, p. 12, for percentage changes. 55 APTA. 2019, p. 22. 56 APTA Third Quarter 2019 Transit Ridership Report. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/ uploads/2019-Q3-Ridership-APTA.pdf.

INTRODUCTION 23 rebound, however, is mostly attributable to the return of passengers to New York City and Washington, DC, metro systems after they addressed significant reliability and maintenance issues.57 The impact of shared modes on transit ridership is explored in greater depth in Chapter 2. MOBILITY MANAGEMENT Mobility management, as defined for this report, is a deliberate effort to influence the direction and growth of shared modes to enhance public policy goals such as mobility, equity, safety, and sustainability. In looking toward the future and in response to its Statement of Task, the committee views mobility management as a promising framework within which to consider “the role transit agencies and other entities could play in manag- ing and otherwise furthering the new mobility landscape” as required by the committee’s Statement of Task. The mobility management concept long predates smartphones and travel apps, and was conceived of as a service for matching travelers with suppliers via a clearinghouse by a broker or aggregator.58 In the United States, it was applied by transit agencies to provide populations with special needs, such as people with disabilities, senior citizens who cannot walk easily to transit stops, and those with low incomes, with service by modes appropriate to their circumstances. As shared modes have grown, evolved, and become a part of the mobility landscape, the concept of mobility management has also evolved. As used in this report, and described in more detail in Chapter 3, mobility management is an even broader conceptualization of how cities and regions can offer and support modes that meet the personal travel demands of all of their citizens through a wide array of public investments, oversight, infrastructure operations, subsidies, and other strategies. The committee’s vision of mobility management has many similarities with the Mobility on Demand (MOD) Operational Concept developed by the USDOT,59 as described in greater detail in Chapter 3. The “management” to be accom- plished is not of individuals’ travel, but of the entire system to ensure that individuals have a range of choices that suit their personal and geographic context while also serving public goals. Appropriate public policies, innova- tive coordination between public and private providers, and leadership in 57 Bliss, L. 2020. Behind the Gains in U.S. Transit Ridership. CityLab, January 19. https:// www.citylab.com/transportation/2020/01/public-transit-ridership-data-bus-subway-metro- train- nyc-dc/604846. 58 Hensher, D., et al. 2020. Understanding Mobility as a Service: Past, Present, and Future. Elsevier, p. 16. https://www.elsevier.com/books/understanding-mobility-as-a-service-maas/ hensher/978-0-12-820044-5. 59 Shaheen, S., et al. 2017. Mobility on Demand Operational Concept Report. U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation. FHWA-JPO-18-611. https://rosap.ntl.bts.gov/view/dot/34258.

24 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY coordinating among the complex set of jurisdictions and public authorities of America’s regions could bring this goal closer to reality. A centerpiece of both mobility management and the MOD Operational Concept is the role of information and communications technology (ICT) and smartphone apps that provide consumers with a range of choices for meeting their mobility needs. Perhaps the most comprehensive concept for integrating service across multiple modes is mobility as a service (MaaS), which offers consumers access to a combination of modes through a smart- phone app that includes a trip planner, ability to make reservations and pay- ments, and other features.60 Governments around the world are promoting MaaS as a means of allowing travelers to purchase transportation services rather than owning and operating their own motor vehicles.61 Users can pay as they go or purchase a subscription or a bundle of services, some at a dis- count. European countries, in particular, have emphasized MaaS approaches and built toward them for decades, as described in more detail in Chapter 3. The ideas that motivate MaaS and make it possible are elements of the broader mobility management framework developed in Chapters 4 and 5: (1) making customer choice a central feature of public policy and making that possible with complete, real-time or near-real-time, information about modal options, travel times, and costs; (2) providing simple and easy means of ticketing and payment; and (3) managing transit, roads and highways, parking, and development of the built environment in accordance with social costs and benefits. ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT Chapter 2 of this report addresses the committee’s charge to “examine the role of new and expanding shared mobility options ... in the provision of transportation services ... specifically the relationship to and impact of these services on existing public transit.” It also summarizes “ways that public transportation agencies have coordinated with the new mobility providers.” The Statement of Task asks for review of experience in the United States and abroad; experience in the United States is covered in Chapter 2. This chapter is largely based on empirical evidence. It draws on recent scholarly literature about shared modes and their impacts on transit and case studies of various forms of public transportation coordination with shared mobility providers reported in academic journals and conference papers and recent Transit Cooperative Research Program and related reports. 60 Jittrapirom, P., et al. 2017. Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, As- sessment of Schemes, and Key Challenges. Urban Planning 2(2). https://www.cogitatiopress. com/urbanplanning/article/view/931. 61 Hensher et al. 2020.

INTRODUCTION 25 Whereas Chapter 2 draws on recent historical experience, Chapter 3 is more forward looking and speculative. In response to the committee’s charge that it consider “the role transit agencies and other entities could play in managing and otherwise furthering the new mobility landscape,” Chapter 3 describes how ICT and the smartphone apps that have helped make shared modes popular could encourage wider consumer use of shared modes and transit rather than trips in personal vehicles. The chapter exam- ines the emergence and early experience with MaaS and transit agency roles in MaaS development. Rather than examine the voluminous international efforts to coordinate shared modes with transit in other countries as called for in the committee’s Statement of Task, the committee chose to focus on international transit agency participation in MaaS, which itself can facili- tate the integration of shared modes and transit. In doing so, the chapter draws on the insights gained from the participation of the committee chair and study director in an international study tour organized by APTA that investigated public transit’s role in MaaS development in Austrian, Finnish, and German cities.62 The chapter also explains and compares the USDOT’s MOD Operational Concept and the committee’s concept of mobility man- agement. Both of these conceptualizations integrate MaaS, or MaaS-like user interfaces, with public policies and management of transit and high- way infrastructure and services. The chapter also introduces a mobility management framework, which is intended to serve as a template for local and regional agencies to use in identifying and implementing policies and strategies to realize mobility management at the local or regional scale. Chapter 4 focuses on two essential attributes of customer-centered mobility management: easy access to information about multi-modal travel options and easy means for payment that reduce the information and time barriers that inhibit use of unfamiliar modes. The discussion includes ad- dressing issues of equitable access to information and provision for means of payment by those lacking smartphones and bank accounts. Chapter 5 continues the description of the framework for mobility management by examining the framework’s other key attributes: provision of multiple travel options for consumers, enhanced extent and quality of transit service, and land use development patterns to support transit and shared modes. The chapter provides background on the many policies and strategies local and regional governments can pursue and identifies tradeoffs and uncertain- ties in doing so. Although both Chapters 4 and 5 are forward looking and speculative, they draw on empirical evidence, when available, of the 62 APTA. 2019. Being Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) Ready: APTA International Study Mission/June 2–8, 2019, Vienna, Hamburg, Helsinki. https://www.apta.com/wp-content/ uploads/MaaS_European_Study_Mission-Final-Report_10-2019.pdf.

26 THE ROLE OF TRANSIT, SHARED MODES, AND PUBLIC POLICY potential efficacy of implementing individual components of the mobility management framework. Appendix A provides biographical statements of the committee mem- bers responsible for this report. Appendix B provides the agendas, presen- tation titles, and presenters of committee meetings, outreach sessions, and site visits between 2018 and 2020.

Next: 2 Shared Mobility and Public Transportation »
The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

If combined with public transit and increased in scale, shared modes of transportation, such as ride-hailing, scooter sharing and bike sharing, can enhance mobility, equity, and sustainability in metropolitan areas. Cities, transit agencies, and shared mobility providers should collaborate in goal-setting, experimentation, testing, and implementation.

These are among the findings in TRB Special Report 337: The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape, from TRB of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

The report's authors recommend deliberate and strategic measures in order to realize the full and potentially transformative benefits of shared services. These measures include providing travelers with real- or near real-time information on combinations of available price and service offerings, smartphone applications that simplify the process of arranging and paying for the use of multiple transportation modes for a single trip, and more public sector coordination of services across modes and jurisdictions.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!