The Role of Transit, Shared Modes, and Public Policy in the New Mobility Landscape (2021) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
5 Mobility Management, Part 2: Transportation Supply and Management
5 Mobility Management, Part 2: Transportation Supply and Management
Pages 117-158
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 117... ...
The multiplicity of identified entities that have authority over some elements of policy, particularly when considered at the regional scale, highlights the need for the agencies and jurisdictions to develop shared goals and collaborate on strategies for achieving them. In addition to describing mobility management as it might be applied by local governments or transit 5 Mobility Management, Part 2: Transportation Supply and Management
|
From page 118... ...
With regard to urban transportation and the disruptive effects on incumbent services of ridehailing and other shared modes, policy makers have had to balance the benefits these services provide while attempting to minimize their social costs. For ridehailing, and for some versions of micromobility, private companies exploited seams in regulations to meet demand without public-sector involvement or permission or simply began offering their services in places where no regulation had existed and even, in some cases, where it was illegal for them to operate (sometimes garnering cease-and-desist orders)
|
From page 119... ...
Transit agency partnerships with shared mode providers to expand paratransit and replace withdrawn fixedroute services. Local, state, and federal funding to pay for subsidies.
|
From page 120... ...
The third addresses strategies to ensure that road space is allocated to all modes to enhance the quality and safety of transportation supply responses. The fourth discusses strategies to achieve policy goals to reduce emissions caused by ridehail vehicles, and the fifth discusses safety policies and regulations to address the risks of ridehailing and micromobility.
|
From page 121... ...
This approach is by no means uniform across micromobility services, as many cities with dockless bike services lack regulations and many that do have regulations nonetheless have vague policies.1 Many cities raced to keep up with dockless e-scooters after they were introduced, while others adopted a laissez-faire approach.2 National organizations have offered regulatory guidance to cities that could lead to more robust and consistent policies across the country.3 In this evolving context of private entrepreneurship and public-sector regulation, there is an open question about whether dockless operator registration fees, additional fees applied on vehicles, limits to areas of operation, and other regulation of dockless vehicles are overly constraining supply generally.4 There are also counterarguments that allowing open entry results in too much supply and not enough opportunity for operators to be profitable, particularly in less dense cities and in suburbs.5 As with other shared modes, the e-scooter industry appeared to be struggling in early 2020, with many companies laying off staff and pulling their operations 1 Wood, J., and S Hamidi.
|
From page 122... ...
Assessments of pilot e-scooter programs in the United States illustrate how cities can set goals for equitable access to micromobility and use data provided by vendors to assess the success in achieving their goals. Strategies to Encourage Supply and Competition in Ridehail Markets In most states, ridehailing suppliers serve market demand in accordance with the requirements of state ridehail-enabling legislation that gives local jurisdictions limited leverage over whether, where, and how much ridehail service is provided.7 In contrast, a few states, such as New York and Washington, provide local jurisdictions with considerable discretion.
|
From page 123... ...
Local jurisdictions could revise taxi regulations in ways meant to allow this industry to compete more effectively with ridehailing companies.13,14,15 Allowing all of these for-hire vehicles to compete on a more equal footing by, for example, allowing taxis to vary their fares with demand as ridehailing companies are able to do would both discipline prices and help ensure the equity benefits taxis provide. However, equalizing ridehail–taxi competition is neither simple nor straightforward due to the asymmetry between the business models of ridehail companies and taxis.
|
From page 124... ...
Some cities have attempted to address the congestion problems caused by both ridehail and taxis by placing caps on taxi and ridehail drivers, but these do not address the other personal vehicles that make up the vast majority of trips and cause most congestion. Options to manage traffic congestion more generally are addressed in the second major section of this chapter.
|
From page 125... ...
To meet the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) , public transportation agencies have served wheelchair users at least in part through their paratransit services, which, in turn, have contracted with taxi companies and other specialized service providers to operate WAVs.
|
From page 126... ...
As noted by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) , "From 2000 to the end of 2017, 52 new systems and 124 extensions (both rail and busway)
|
From page 127... ...
Several transit agencies have been redesigning their bus networks in response to changes in development since networks were established years ago,38 as well as to respond to declining ridership and to accommodate new light-rail lines.39 Some of these changes involve shifting from a radial bus network designed to bring residents into the urban core to more of a grid network that facilitates both trips across the city and feeder service to other transit modes. These revised routes often include increased service frequency on high-volume bus routes and other service changes.
|
From page 128... ...
Both the safety and consumer appeal of bike and scooter operations can be enhanced by the provision of bike lanes, particularly bike lanes that are physically separated from traffic lanes, and by design elements for intersections to reduce conflicts with motor vehicle turning movements.42 Analytic techniques can help cities evaluate bike lane designs and choices of streets for bike lanes, but the traffic impacts and costs of adding protected bike lanes in congested city centers have to be considered and tradeoffs evaluated.43 Despite controversy and opposition, large cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, New York, San Francisco, and Seattle have removed through automobile traffic from key downtown streets and replaced automobile lanes with dedicated bus and bike lanes.44 This reallocation of public space may be accelerated or decelerated by the 2020 pandemic, but, as of the writing of this report, it is too soon to know with certainty. Long-run effects of these reallocations of road space for transit and shared modes are not yet 40 Byala et al.
|
From page 129... ...
.46 Pursuant to this law, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) will propose regulations by 2021 requiring ridehailing companies to meet greenhouse gas (GHG)
|
From page 130... ...
These safety and personal security measures include myriad policies and regulations for operators, vehicles, and infrastructure that are too numerous and varied to mention in this report. Safety requirements, in general, are much more stringent for commercial and public transportation operations than for personal operations, although shared modes are blurring former distinctions in a variety of ways, as described in the next two subsections.
|
From page 131... ...
In addition, the exclusive reliance of ridehail companies on electronic payment minimizes the robbery risks that taxi drivers face because of the prevalence of cash transactions. Less contentious than driver screening are issues such as vehicle inspections and insurance requirements, for which most states set minimum standards through state enabling legislation.56 Both taxi and ridehail companies prohibit impairment from drugs and alcohol, but random drug testing to enforce this policy is rare in either case.
|
From page 132... ...
from a nationwide survey, the aggregate per-trip fatality risk of cycling is roughly double that of traveling by motor vehicle, about 1.5 times that of walking, and many-fold higher than riding in a transit bus.60 The most common cause of death for a cyclist is being struck by a motor vehicle.61 Rates of risk and the cost-effectiveness of safety measures, however, are likely to vary considerably across urban areas of differing traffic densities and designs, and large gaps remain in understanding best practices and the context in which they would be most cost effective. General safety policy guidance for micromobility emerging from European experience62 and provided by the National Association of City 58 NASEM.
|
From page 133... ...
For personal e-vehicles, general guidance also includes limiting speeds to those comparable to cycling and enforcing this with geofencing64 and speed limiters on e-vehicles. NACTO encourages cities to provide bike lanes and restrict sidewalk use by e-vehicles.65 It also recognizes, however, that (1)
|
From page 134... ...
A high level of automation in public transportation could be transformative if it leads to sharp reductions in labor expenditures, which represent 60 percent of transit agency operating costs.69 Transit agencies have experimented with Level 1 and 2 driver-assist technologies such as emergency braking, collision avoidance warning, and lane-keeping assistance to enhance the safety and efficiency of operations.70 A few cities have been pilot testing experimental, low-speed Level 5 automated shuttles capable of carrying 10 passengers on prescribed pathways in downtown areas or on closed campuses, and many more cities plan to do so. Transit agencies have many questions about the safety of higher levels of automation, and, for now, most transit managers believe that even Level 5 automation would require an operator on board to interact with customers and monitor the operating environment.
|
From page 135... ...
The wide range of governments and agencies that have authority to exercise the individual strategies described speaks to the challenges of mobility management at the local and regional scales. Local governments have authority over micromobility permitting and road and sidewalk space allocation.
|
From page 136... ...
There are multiple angles of attack on this problem: • Improving road traffic flow through operational improvements, pricing, and increased pooling of rides will improve bus speed and schedule reliability as will provision of dedicated bus lanes and other strategies in congested city centers; • Improving the frequency of transit service will reduce the transfer delays and annoyance passengers experience in connections to transit from shared modes and providing for and managing curb space for shared modes will improve the quality and safety of access/ egress to these modes; and • Providing for seamless transfers across modes and transit providers can reduce the delay and consumer resistance to making transfers. These strategies, summarized in Table 5-2, are briefly described in the following subsections.
|
From page 137... ...
Transit agency partnerships with shared modes. Data sharing.
|
From page 138... ...
Experience in Singapore, which started its program in 1975, as well as more recently in London, Milan, and Stockholm, has reduced congestion and vehicle emissions by reducing the number of SOV trips in central areas and shifting demand to transit and carpooling.77,78,79 Cordon pricing may be most promising and politically acceptable in large cities with good transit service to provide alternatives for travelers priced out of SOV travel. 73 Deighton-Smith et al.
|
From page 139... ...
Paul showed increases in personal and transit vehicle speeds and throughput on priced lanes and positive consumer acceptance.82,83 Context and design of express lanes clearly matter, however, as an evaluation of the introduction of express lanes in Atlanta did not find similar benefits, although the program was introduced during a period of considerably dampened travel demand caused by the Great Recession.84 Whatever its form, congestion pricing faces considerable public and political resistance for a variety of reasons. Much of this derives from the unpopularity of charging for the use of a road that was formerly perceived as "free," although this argument ignores the significant time penalties and emissions that unpriced roads impose on users and the public.
|
From page 140... ...
As congestion pricing concepts are tested and evolve, cities and regions can also consider parking pricing, which has some of the same benefits as road pricing and fewer technological and implementation challenges. Parking pricing Large cities around the nation increasingly realize that more effective parking management is central to encouraging more pooling of rides, fewer SOV trips, and improved traffic flow.89 An effective parking management approach would have multiple components.
|
From page 141... ...
However, recent research has shown that high numbers of users of pooled ridehailing are switching from public transit, thereby adding to congestion.97 It may all be for naught in any event: previous research has illustrated a general rider disinclination to pool ridehail trips98 and recent research reveals a similar disinclination among ridehail drivers to offer pooled rides.99 A stated preference survey of residents of highly urbanized areas in the Netherlands, combined with 92 Hampshire, R., and D Shoup.
|
From page 142... ...
Lifting restrictions against pooled rides by taxis would be one option for incentivizing taxi companies to adjust their pricing to encourage more pooling.101 Another would be to incentivize ridehailing companies to encourage pooling more aggressively. Such incentives could perhaps be achieved by providing discounts on fees and taxes for companies that reach certain thresholds for pooled trips; subsidizing pooled trips by low-income riders; giving preferential treatment to pooled, shared rides at airport dropoffs and pick-ups;102 or by increasing fees on ridehail trips with a single passenger.103 Implementation of such fees to date has been limited.
|
From page 143... ...
B.2. Convenient Transit Service A good argument can be made about the importance of service frequency in sustaining and growing transit ridership, particularly in walkable, highdensity areas,111 although there are questions about just how large its influence is on peak commute trips.112 In any event, higher frequencies than usual in many transit systems would be important for attracting auto users to replace auto trips with shared mode–transit trips.
|
From page 144... ...
This includes providing parking for micromobility vehicles near transit, allocating curb space for access/egress to shared modes, and making ticketing and payment simple and convenient. Mobility hubs that bring together shared mode services at transit stations with wayfinding and information about transfers are being experimented with to encourage multi-modal trips.115 In congested areas, transit agencies would require cooperation with local jurisdictions for parking and curb space management at transit stations.
|
From page 145... ...
2020. Transit in Flex: Examining Service Fragmentation of new Appbased, OnDemand Transit Services.
|
From page 146... ...
Arguably, of these strategies, only the transit agency partnerships with shared mobility providers are largely within the domain of transit agencies. Much of the influence over the introduction of demand-management strategies, curbside management, and integration of schedules, routes, and ticketing across regional transit agencies resides with local jurisdictions and, for some policies, states.
|
From page 147... ...
metropolitan areas outside of concentrated areas of development are difficult for public transportation to serve cost effectively. Encouraging denser development along transit lines and stations, particularly for rail-based transit, is one strategy for encouraging transit and shared mode use and reducing reliance on personal automobiles, although its effects on overall congestion and transit use may be modest given the character of the built environment in most U.S.
|
From page 148... ...
Local parking authorities; local jurisdictions with control of zoning; cities and states.
|
From page 149... ...
lack of coordination among local and regional land use planning and transportation agencies could be overcome.127 Concerns about gentrification and displacement of lower-income groups emerged later.128 Case studies of cities served by rail transit in the greater Los Angeles region indicate that many of the cities in the region have land use and TOD plans and supportive policies and programs (parking management, bikesharing/ bike lanes, inclusionary zoning, and financial incentives) , and collaborate with LA Metro in plans for development around rail stations.
|
From page 150... ...
Such efforts would include both plans to increase development densities around transit stations and supportive policies, such as parking management, inclusionary zoning, and financial incentives. Parking management is a particularly important supportive policy, but it would need to overcome the extreme fragmentation of parking both across the public and private sectors and within the public sector itself.132 FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS This chapter defines major elements of a mobility management framework that would provide A
|
From page 151... ...
A variety of subsidies are being offered to docked bikeshare operators, to ridehail and taxi companies in provision of paratransit services and WAVs, and for other public purposes. Unanswered questions are society's commitment to provide the funding for such subsidies and who should pay what kinds of taxes, charges, and fees to fund them.
|
From page 152... ...
5.1.8. Road and sidewalk space allocation for shared modes will expand supply and safety.
|
From page 153... ...
Separated bike lanes, helmet use, and reduced motor vehicle speed limits are among proven effective measures. Research is under way to address data gaps and identify additional effective measures.
|
From page 154... ...
Making transfers convenient includes providing parking for micromobility vehicles near transit, providing mobility hubs to facilitate transfers, and managing curbspace for access/egress to/from shared modes.
|
From page 155... ...
5.3.2. Parking management by cities, including setting maximum rather than minimum parking requirements in new and redeveloped properties, is an important and valuable strategy supporting TOD for reducing SOV trips in cities and encouraging mode shifts to transit and shared modes.
|
From page 156... ...
Even while contemplating policies and strategies to integrate shared mobility into multi-modal mobility management, the shared mobility landscape is shifting and evolving rapidly. The private-sector models for ridehailing companies and micromobility operators are changing, possibly combining, and their economic viability is being tested.
|
From page 157... ...
5.4 Partner for paratransit services: Transit agencies should take action under their own authorities to improve mobility options and choices for riders by partnering with ridehailing companies, taxis, and other providers. 5.5 Test and analyze: All entities involved in a partnership with transit or shared modes should pilot test, evaluate, and share best practices.
|
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.