CPB

Corporate Partnership
BoardAbout the International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 57 member
countries. It acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transportministers. ITF is the only global body that covers all transport modes. It is administratively integrated with
the OECD, yet politically autonomous.
ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper understandingof the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social inclusion and to raise
the public profile of transport policy.
ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and pre-negotiationof policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promote exchange
among transport decision makers and civil society. ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest gathering oftransport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy.
Our member countries are: Albania, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium,
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece,
Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg,
Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland,
Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States.

Disclaimer
Funding for this work has been provided by the ITF Corporate Partnership Board. This report is published under the responsibilityof the Secretary-General of the ITF. It has not been subject to the scrutiny of ITF or OECD member countries, and does notnecessarily reflect their official views or those of the members of the Corporate Partnership Board.

www.itf-oecd.org

Foreword
The work for this report was carried out in the context of a project initiated and funded by the International
Transport Forum's Corporate Partnership Board (CPB). CPB projects are designed to enrich policy discussion
with a business perspective. They are launched in areas where CPB member companies identify an
emerging issue in transport policy or an innovation challenge to the transport system. Led by the ITF, workis carried out in a collaborative fashion in working groups consisting of CPB member companies, external
experts and ITF staff.
Many thanks to the members of the Corporate Partnership Board companies involved in this work: Ford,
Google, PTV Group, Transdev, Uber.
The report draws conclusions from a workshop held in San Francisco on 21 November 2016. Many thanks to
The City Innovate Foundation and Superpublic for hosting the workshop at their headquarters in City
Innovate Foundation. Special thanks to Kamran Saddique, Founder & Executive Director of Superpublic;
Gert Christen, Chief Operating Officer, Superpublic; and Garrett Brinker, Policy Innovation Lead,
Superpublic for their invaluable assistance.
Participants of the workshop included:
Jameson Auten, Kansas City, Missouri Area - Chief, Regional Service Delivery and Innovation Division Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, USA
Zak Accuardi, Program lead, New Mobility, Transit Center, New York, USA
Garrett Brinker, Policy Innovation Lead, City Innovate Foundation, San Francisco, USA
Andrea Broaddus, Future Mobility Research, Bosch, USA
Emily Castor, Director, Public Policy, Lyft, USA
Gert Christen, Chief Operating Officer, City Innovate Foundation, San Francisco, USA
Carlos Cruz-Casas, Assistant Director, Department of Transportation and Public Works, Miami-Dade County,
USA
Mariko Davidson, Civic Innovation & Partnerships Strategist, Microsoft, USA
Colin Hughes, Director of National Policy & Project Evaluation, Institute for Transport and Development
Policy, USA
Michael Hurwitz, Director of Transport Innovation, Transport for London, UK
Scott Mauvais, Director, Technology & Civic Innovation, Microsoft, USA
Jon McBride, Operations Director, Bridj, USA
Jerome Pourbaix, International Public Transport Association (UITP), France
Maria Rautavirta, Deputy Director of Data Unit, Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finland
Seleta Reynolds, General Manager, Los Angeles Department of Transport, USA
Bruce Schaller, Schaller Consulting, USA
Susan Shaheen, Director, Innovative Mobility Research, Transportation Sustainability Research Center,
Berkeley, USA
Paige Tsai, Transportation Policy and Research, Uber, USA
Michael Uribe, Regional Vice President, Zipcar, USA
Qianyan Xie, Smart Mobility - Asia Pacific Lead, Ford Motor Company, USA
The principal author of this report was Philippe Crist of the International Transport Forum. Special thanks to
Ann Frye for her insightful and valuable input and comments, particularly on the aspects concerning
mobility for the ageing. Many thanks to Liv Gudmundson for copy-editing.
The project was co-ordinated by Philippe Crist and Sharon Masterson of the International Transport Forum.

TABLE OF CONTENTS – 5

Table of contents
Executive summary....................................................................................... 7
1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 10
2. Getting around cities: Then, now and in the future…..................................... 12
Traditional urban transport modes: Limited choices, broad uptake ............................... 12
Innovative mobility options: More choices but an uncertain future ............................... 15
Leveraging new possibilities: “Mobility as a Service” ................................................... 22

3. Shifting the status quo: Where mobility services and public transport are
beginning to converge .............................................................................. 25
Promotions, special events and on-off offers ................................................................ 25
Formal partnerships with public transport involving subsidies and integration ............. 27
Other initiatives............................................................................................................ 29
Features of current ride service: Public transport partnerships ..................................... 30

4. Framing the convergence of ride services and public transport....................... 33
From public transport to a “Mobility as a Service” ecosystem ....................................... 33
Comparing mobility services and public transport ......................................................... 34
Managing competition between innovative mobility services and traditional public
transport ...................................................................................................................... 36
Adopting structures aligned with the range of mobility services on offer ...................... 39
Current public transport service procurement practices and ride services .................... 41
Managing risk linked to service innovation ................................................................... 43
Leveraging government assets to guide convergence ................................................... 44
Monitoring outcomes .................................................................................................... 45

5. Ensuring equitable access for an ageing population ...................................... 48
Enabling older people and people with disabilities to travel .......................................... 48
Current accessibility trends in transport ....................................................................... 49
Suggested prerequisites for inclusive mobility services................................................. 51
Can mobility services meet everyone’s needs? .............................................................. 52
What about the future? Testing equitable accessibility of shared mobility services ....... 52

Bibliography ................................................................................................ 54
Notes ......................................................................................................... 55

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

6 – TABLE OF CONTENTS

Tables1.

Characteristics of public transport and emerging mobility services ................................................ 35

2.

NACTO suggested ride service data sharing elements ................................................................. 46

Figures1.

San Francisco Bay Area mode share (2015) .............................................................................. 10

2.

Chariot app-based on-demand micro-transit routes in Austin, Texas ............................................. 18

3.

Additional travel generated by Transportation Network Companies in New York City (2016) ............. 21

4.

Uber pick-ups and drop-offs (blue) within a quarter mile of suburban rail services (black)in Portland, Oregon ............................................................................................................... 38

5

Private shuttle lines between San Francisco and Silicon Valley (2012) ........................................... 39

6.

Public service contract components for public transport services and ride services (indicative) .......... 42

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 7

Executive summary
What we did
This report investigates the convergence of public transport and innovative mobility solutions, such as ride
services, car- and bicycle-sharing, app-enabled on-demand micro-bus services, and platforms that connect
app-using travellers and drivers. It examines the role of public authorities in ensuring this convergencesupports commercial innovation as well as public policy objectives and identifies principles to guidepartnerships between innovative mobility services and public transport operators. The report also explores
where action may be needed to ensure that this convergence does not lead to reduced mobility options for
those that have difficulty using existing transport modes, and in particular, how the needs of an ageing
population may be met in an evolving mobility service landscape.
This study was organised under the auspices of the International Transport Forum’s Corporate Partnership
Board (CPB). It is based on a workshop with commercial actors, public authorities and other experts thattook place in November 2016, and interviews with various officials and experts as well as input from CPB
member companies. Additionally, extensive desk research for this study was carried out by theInternational Transport Forum.

What we foundThe rapid deployment of new types of mobility services has the potential to change the way in which urban
mobility and access are delivered. This will have an impact on the nature of public transport. The
convergence of public transport and ride services in particular provides an opportunity to deliver better
mobility outcomes for a broader share of the population. At the same time it poses clear risks to theprovision of equitable and sustainable mobility for all.
Ride services like those offered by Didi Chuxing, Grab, Lyft, Ola, Uber and other innovative mobility options- including app-based microtransit platforms like Chariot and car- and bicycle-sharing - account for a small
share of trips in most urban areas. Nonetheless, they are starting to have an impact of trip-making
behaviour where they are present and are starting to be seen as a potential complement for first and last
mile connections. In low density regions difficult to service with public transport and areas where public
transport is available but quality is perceived to be lacking, ride services may also come to be seen as analternative.
Some public transport operators and authorities are already exploring partnerships with app-enabledmobility services. Most of these initiatives are taking place in the United States – partly because of the
popularity of ride services there, partly because many urban areas there have difficulty providing attractive
public transport. Many of the partnerships described in this report are pilot projects or promotional
campaigns and at present there is no evidence for a permanent shift in public transport service delivery
towards structural partnerships with ride services. Nonetheless, authorities and ride-service operators areusing these pilots to test new ways of improving mobility outcomes where it is difficult to provide quality
public transport.
Co-operation with ride services is unlikely to save poor-quality public transport, however. Providing first andlast mile connections via ride services to poor quality (i.e. unreliable, crowded, slow, infrequent) public
transport will not suffice to attract users to public transport; it certainly seems unlikely to entice car users
to switch. Such co-operations may result in cost savings for public transport operators in certain contexts.
But introducing ride services alone will not reverse a decline in ridership if the overall service offer does not
result in improved outcomes for travellers.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

8 – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What we recommend
Focus on improving overall mobility outcomes, not just on lowering public transport costs
Replacing more expensive, less demand-responsive and less flexible public transport with less expensive,
more demand-responsive and more flexible ride services (or other combinations of innovative mobility
services) can free funds that public transport operators could allocate to improving service quality. Cost
savings should not be the only motivation for seeking synergies between ride services and public transport.
These synergies can be leveraged to provide improved outcomes for travellers while at the same timeallowing public authorities to deliver on important public policy objectives such as improved equity, reduced
congestion and improved environmental outcomes.
Set a vision for urban transport that includes full integration of innovative mobility options
Public policy is best served when it is framed within a coherent set of visions and goals. These should beincorporated into a publicly vetted plan that sets out how authorities intend to deliver on these goals
despite fast-changing circumstances. This is the case with the public policy approach to innovative mobility
services, automated driving and generally how digitally-driven changes may fundamentally challenge theconcept of public transport. One good example of this type of plan is the city of Los Angeles’ “Urban Mobility
Plan in a Digital Age” that re-orients the focus to Mobility as a Service.
Ensure partnerships between public transport and innovative mobility operators to improve mobility for all
people, including those with disabilities
If innovative mobility services complement or replace accessible mainstream public transport, they willneed to provide at least the same degree of spontaneity and flexibility to travel when the individual wants
or needs. Where frequent accessible buses and on-street hail taxis are available, licensed ride services must
not erode overall levels of accessible transport. App-based ride services can improve overall accessibility by
better matching supply of accessible vehicles and demand - but only if the design of the service and of thepartnership takes into account the specific needs of travellers with impairments.
Target low-performing or costly routes, and leverage government assets to guide convergence
Where public transport is expensive and service quality is low, replacing certain poorly-performing,
expensive bus services may increase the overall attractiveness of public transport. By undertaking
inventories of existing public transport routes to examine the potential for alternative service delivery
models, public authorities and public transport operators can evaluate where synergies with innovative
mobility services are strongest. Governments can also leverage assets they control to guide thisconvergence: Re-allocating parking space at public transport hubs, for instance, can improve theconvenience of trips by public transport combined with rides-services; as can the creation of curb-side
pick-up and drop-off zones.
Split regulatory oversight from operation of urban transport and adapt procurement practices
The governance of public transport will play an essential role in either facilitating or impeding theconvergence of traditional and innovative mobility services, and of ride services in particular. Split
responsibilities complicate the task of aligning outcomes. For instance the regulation of ride services may
be in the hands of an authority in charge of taxi or for-hire services, while public transport regulation may
fall under a completely different authority. Governance models that unify regulatory oversight and planning
functions, define quality outcomes and performance objectives, and set contractual relationships to deliver
these across a wide range of mobility operators may accelerate the integration of these into a co-ordinatedecosystem. Procurement rules for ride services and platform-based micro-transit services, however, will

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY – 9have to adapt to the specificities of these services. In particular, this will require a focus on outcomes (e.g.
average wait times) versus strict service delivery (e.g. on-time performance).
Mitigate innovation risk for new services through pilots and portfolio management
Public authorities must ensure that public expenditure delivers value to citizens. This is understandable, but
can also hamper their ability to engage in innovative arrangements where the value for the public is initiallyuncertain. Time-bound pilot projects contain this risk, and many jurisdictions in the United States haveused these. Public agencies might also create public-private “innovation laboratories” that manage aportfolio of new projects to help identify interesting initiatives. National authorities can help as well, by
creating dedicated programmes to help fund trials that have the potential for widespread replication. A good
example is the US Federal Transit Agency’s “Mobility on Demand Sandbox” programme. Another option to
avoid the risk of lock-in with single service providers is for public authorities to implement user-side
subsidies rather than supplier-side subsidies.
Incentivise age- and disability-friendly interactions in partnerships between public transport andride-service operators
Ageing has a major influence on disability trends. These, in turn, will have an impact on the ability of anageing population to remain mobile and enjoy good access to services, opportunities and other people.
Many older people are affected by impairments including loss of visual acuity, loss of hearing, short-term
memory loss or difficulties in balancing. The design and delivery of partnerships between public transportand ride services must take this development into account so as not to exclude older people and those withdisabilities. Public authorities should generally ensure that innovative services meet the needs of the
population as a whole on an inclusive basis. Incentives for ride-services to deploy wheelchair-accessible
vehicles, appropriate levels of training for drivers, call centres for bookings and questions for users withspecial needs and innovative contracts between operators and public authorities to improve para-transit
services (like in Boston) are examples for how this can be achieved.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

10 – INTRODUCTION

1. Introduction
The past few years have seen the rapid global deployment of new types of mobility services that leverageadvances in ubiquitous computing, geo-location, cashless payment. These services, ranging from car- andbicycle-sharing, app-enabled on-demand micro-bus services, and platforms that connect travellers anddrivers, are starting to significantly disrupt the mobility landscape of cities around the world. Even though
the most visible of these – ride services like those offered by Didi Chuxing, Grab, Lyft, Ola and Uber - have
had an important impact on global taxi markets, they still only account for a relatively small share of trips
in most urban areas, especially compared to trips taken by car, walking and cycling, and public transport.
In San Francisco, one of the cities where uptake of app-based ride services like those offered byTransportation Network Companies (TNCs) Lyft and Uber has been strongest in North America, these
services account for 2% of all trips though about a quarter of all residents use these services at least once amonth (Figure 1). Recent analysis from New York City indicate that additional travel generated by TNCs
account for 3.5% of overall distances travelled by all vehicles in 2016 (Schaller, 2017) (see also Box 2).
Figure 1. San Francisco Bay Area mode share (2015)

Transportation Network Company (TNCs)
2%•

Don't know
0.5%

Drive alone30%•

Carpool
16%

Taxi, carshare, other1%
Bicycle
2%

•

•

Walk
25%

Public Transport
24%•

Women use TNC’s proportionally more than men(3% and 1%, respectively),
Travelers aged 18-34 y.o. use TNCs
proportionally more than those aged 35-54 y.o.
and 55+ y.o. (3%, 2% and 1% respectively of all
trips for each age group).
Those with incomes over $75k/y use TNCs
proportionally more than those with lower incomes(3% vs. 0.5%).
In terms of newer mobility options (TNCs, carshare, bike-share, shuttle services, etc), TNC’s
are the most used of the new travel options with
23% of respondents overall, 28% of San
Francisco residents and 17% of other Bay Area
residents saying they use it at least monthly.
Of the other newer transit options, 12% percent
have tried Car Share; about 3% have tried Bay
Area Bike Share, and about 2% have tried Chariot– an app-enabled route-based shuttle service.

Source: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), Travel Decisions Survey (2015).

Despite accounting for a small share of urban trips, the popularity of app-based ride services is evident in
the rapid growth of trips in metropolitan areas where they are present, the growing volume of application
downloads, the increase of new cities serviced and in the number of competing services offered around theworld. Behind the popularity of ride services is the convenience and flexibility they afford both their users
and their drivers. This popularity suggests that these services may not only continue to have an impact on
for-hire markets, but that they may also likely disrupt public transport markets in significant ways. Theirultimate impact on urban transport, especially when combined with advances in automated driving, may be
game-changing since some of the major players in this emerging field have indicated that their goal is todeliver most urban trips in the future.
Public transport operators have typically not dealt in the kind of diffuse and fractional capacity supply
provided by many new ride services and, with some rare exceptions, have not typically seen developing
these markets as part of their core mission. The convergence between traditional public transport operatorsand many ride-sourcing and ride-sharing services, however, is no longer just a theoretical possibility. Some

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

INTRODUCTION – 11

public transport operators and authorities have already, or are currently in the process of exploring
partnerships with new, app-enabled mobility services.
There are important lessons to be learned for the governance of public transport from the on-going
confrontation of ride services with, and adaptation of, rules regarding for-hire transport. The report“Unfinished Business: A Blueprint for Uber, Lyft and Taxi Regulation” notes:
The history of taxi regulation shows the potential peril from poorly constructed
regulatory frameworks. The product of decisions made over several decades, taxi
regulations served to limit competition and innovation, compromise the quality andreliability of cab services and as a result, limited the taxi industry to niche markets
centered on business travellers and non-car owning households. (Schaller,2016)
Similarly, certain types of public transport may become marginalised in the face of new forms of mobility
services that public transport operators may fail to understand and account for. This is unfortunate since
there are many areas where traditional public transport operators can seek synergies with emerging ride
services.
The convergence of public transport and ride services in particular could potentially deliver better mobility
outcomes for a broader share of the population than currently feasible. Yet at the same time it poses clear
risks to the provision of equitable and sustainable mobility for all. These risks include replacing
well-understood business models and the regulatory framework governing them with a greater reliance on
services whose business models are in flux and whose long-term financial robustness is not yet proven.
There is also a risk that a shift in service from traditional public transport to ride services could lead to aloss of travel options for those with mobility impediments since ride services currently do not face the same
accessibility requirements as public transport. Other risks could include increased congestion andenvironmental degradation and an erosion of equitable access opportunities. These and other risks are only
potential; and in some cases, they may be overstated since the case can be made that mobility outcomesmay greatly improve through this convergence. Nonetheless, they highlight the need for properly framing
the policy principles that should guide action in this area.
This report investigates motivations guiding the convergence of ride services and public transport, the role
public authorities can play to ensure that this convergence supports both commercial innovation and public
policy objectives and what set of principles can usefully guide partnerships between innovative mobility
services and public transport operators. In addition, this report explores where action may be needed toensure that this convergence does not lead to reduced mobility options for those that have difficulty using
existing transport modes, and in particular, how the needs of an ageing population may be met in an
evolving mobility service landscape. It builds on similar work published in 2016 in the International
Transport Forum’s Corporate Partnership Board report “App-Based Ride and Taxi Services: Principles forRegulation” (ITF, 2016a).

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

12 – GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE…

2. Getting around cities: Then, now and in the future…
Urban travel patterns differ around the world, between different cities and amongst different demographic
and income groups. People travel for different reasons, at different times and with more or less flexibility intheir trip-making choices. They also value trips differently according to convenience, speed and willingness
to pay for these and other features. And yet, despite these differences in individual trip-making patterns,
there are global similarities that broadly characterise urban transport. These include a choice-set that has
traditionally included walking and cycling, various forms of formal or informal public transportation andindividual motorcycle or car use. Historically, and in many developing countries today, as incomes rise there
is a general trend away from the former modes to the latter.
Urban mobility is the sum total of people moving in and around urban areas to access opportunities, to gain
access to each other and to gain access to the goods they wish to consume or the movement of goods totheir final point of consumption. The movement of people and vehicles through cities is perhaps one of themost dynamic and noticeable features of urbanisation. Mobility, and the access it confers, is essential indelivering agglomeration benefits that result from people crowding together in urban regions. It is also an
enduring and significant source of frustration and dis-benefits linked to the erosion of the very benefits it
helps support. Managing congestion, eliminating traffic injuries, reducing noise and environmental impacts
and improving equity outcomes all are integral public objectives that guide policy in this field.

Traditional urban transport modes: Limited choices, broad uptake
Mobility has historically been delivered by a relatively limited set of travel modes and options: active modes(walking and cycling), formal and informal public transport and individualised motorised modes covering
two- and three-wheelers and cars. For the better part of the last half-century, this choice set has been
constant across the world albeit with each mode accounting for a different share across regions, in time andfor various trip purposes.
There are a number of reasons that people choose one mode over another but at the heart of these choices
is the expected and achieved outcome and user experience. These aspects, in terms of speed, comfort,
safety, cost, accessibility, reliability and convenience, are critical in determining demand for transport
services, at least when there is a choice of alternative ways to travel (ITF, 2014). The relevant measure ofuser experience extends beyond each individual trip to the entirety of the oftentimes complex trip chainsthat characterise everyday travel. In the end, people generally choose the mode that best fits the a small
subset of their overall daily trips, either because those trips are the most important or are those for which
the fewest acceptable alternative modes exist, and then use that mode for all trips out of both convenienceand habit.
The relative simplicity and flexibility of individual motorised travel helps explain why cars dominate travel
within many urban regions (especially outside the core) across the OECD member countries and are making
rapid inroads in rapidly-developing economies around the world. While car travel in certain high-income
countries has stagnated or has even decreased recently, many people have grown accustomed to theconvenience that at least occasional car travel confers.
Convenience (e.g. faster, on-demand, perception of low cost) is one of the strongest attractions of private
cars and motorised two-wheelers in cities. Because they offer flexible and on-demand door-to-door travel
opportunities, people generally value car-based mobility highly; they are willing to put up with its costwhich is higher than walking and cycling, and often higher than the consumer-facing price of many public
transport services. They are also willing to overlook inherent inefficiencies (in terms of poor capital use
given the amount of time cars remain idle, energy efficiency and time losses due to traffic congestion at

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE… – 13

peak use periods) because of the utility they derive from travelling with these modes. This helps to explain
the persistent attraction that people have for acquiring and using cars. Associated with this preference,
many people in mid- to highly-motorised regions have made housing, employment and lifestyle choices that
require some level of access to cars.
In all of these contexts, e.g. where car use remains elevated or is becoming more popular, there will bepressure to prolong driving as long as possible in life. At the same time, those who lose the ability to safely
operate vehicles may see a reduction in their mobility options and access – especially if they live in areasthat are difficultly served by other modes. This has important policy repercussions when considering how toensure high-quality access and mobility for all, while not eroding overall gains in road safety as a result of
retaining older drivers who may no longer be able to safely operate cars.
Some see the eventual arrival of self-driving vehicles – especially those operating as shared mobility fleets(see ITF, 2016) as one way around inequitable outcomes that may arise if people are no longer able todrive cars and do not have high quality alternative options. Automated vehicle technology can potentiallyprolong car-like mobility for many, but it is not a panacea. It will require careful framing in order to noterode commonly shared public policy outcomes (e.g. congestion mitigation, use of public space, energy andenvironmental impacts).
Taxis provide many of the benefits of individually-owned car mobility albeit at a higher price for consumers
and oftentimes lower convenience than cars. This lower convenience generally stems from the lower
flexibility and availability of taxis as compared to cars, although in certain dense urban environments withelevated parking costs, taxis – especially street-hailed taxis – have provided an attractive urban mobility
option. Taxis therefore have historically become a means for those not familiar with a city to get around, forwealthier travellers to get around where car use may be inconvenient and as a way of filling the gap inpublic transport provision for those who do not have access to cars – especially in off-peak hours and todestinations not well-served by public transport.
Public transport – e.g. openly shared passenger services that are available to the general public – offer
essential mobility services in urban areas. These include the efficient provision of large-scale and mostly
frequent passenger transport across fixed-route networks that would be difficult and, in many cases,
impossible to provide otherwise. These services make living in urban areas highly convenient though inmany cases the fixed nature of both networks and schedules may make public transport itself notnecessarily convenient. This is especially the case if travel to destinations includes transfers and significant
waiting times. Public transport also provides basic mobility to those who may not have access to cars andwhose travel requirements are not suited to walking or cycling.
Public transport thus serves different populations and is characterised by different levels of service andquality. High-frequency, rapid and good quality public transport supply may compete with cars in terms of
convenience, cost and overall user experience. It does so while decreasing per-passenger land-take, energy
use and environmental impacts due to efficiencies derived from scale and electrification in the case of many
rail, trolley and electric-powered bus systems. As such, these types of public transport networks represent
an essential component in delivering more sustainable urban transport options.
Where investments in public transport have been consistent and accompanied by land-use decisions thatconcentrate populations in easily-serviced areas, core public transport networks are generally well-used andaccount for a significant mode share. These central networks (including both well-used rail and bus lines)
typically provide good service between large residential areas and employment centres, especially at peak
hours. As such, they best serve commuting trips. Other travel, especially that occurring off-peak and inlower density areas outside of these key corridors, may be more difficult to service cost-effectively. This isespecially the case for trips connecting the first and last kilometres to core public transport networks.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

14 – GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE…

Delivering these trips is generally an expensive proposition for public transport operators and often requires
some form of cross-subsidy from other more profitable services or a direct payment from public authorities.
There are real equity stakes at play since public transport services focusing primarily on peak travel alongcore networks may not adequately respond to the mobility needs of certain demographic and or geographic
groups. Women generally have complex trip-making patterns that extend beyond the pendular commute
trip. Public transport, especially in low-density urban and suburban areas, may not provide as convenient a
service as cars in those instances. Many low-income workers are employed in the service sector,
manufacturing jobs or in part-time employment. These jobs may be located in areas poorly served by public
transport or may have schedules that are incompatible with public transport services. For these
populations, a car, when they can afford it, may be the most convenient option – and a taxi, an expensive
but sometimes convenient choice.
Historically, public transport started as relatively informal systems and this continues to be the case inmany countries today, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America. Informal public transport systems (e.g.
jitneys, collectivos, matutus) have a range of characteristics that may compare favourably or unfavourablywith formal public transport systems. They generally have unpublished (or inexistent) schedules and routes,
and may change service frequently. They are largely unregulated and thus may not be safe nor offer
sufficient consumer protection. On the other hand, these services offer great flexibility at affordable rates
for many inhabitants. As micro-enterprises, they also offer a non-negligible source of income to theirdrivers. The history of public transport is marked by the gradual formalisation of these types of services toimprove co-ordination, safety and transparency but this has come at the expense of convenience for manyusers of these systems. Tellingly, many ride services mimic several of the beneficial characteristics ofinformal transport systems while delivering better safety and consumer outcomes, albeit at higher costs.
In many OECD member countries, public authorities seek to ensure that as many people as possible areafforded meaningful mobility options and are not excluded from participating in essential activities due tophysical or other impediments. The right for equitable access is codified in law building on the example of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (USA) and the U.N. Standard Rules for the Equalization ofOpportunities of 1993.
For public transport, this has led to requirements to provide services for those with a wide range of physicalor cognitive impairments. Paratransit services ensure a minimum coverage of accessible services for thosequalifying to use them but this coverage comes at a significant cost to the public authorities that subsidisethem – often at levels several times that of traditional public transport due to the need for specialised
equipment, dedicated vehicles and well-trained drivers. In the United States, paratransit services cost on
average 3.5 times the cost of providing a regular public transport trip (Kaufman et al., 2015) and thesecosts are increasing as a greater share of the population ages into impairments that require specialised
services and/or accessible vehicles. Paratransit services are also typically more cumbersome to use than
traditional public transport (requiring reservations hours and up to a day in advance) and are in some cases
less dependable.
Because of the high and growing cost of providing mandated paratransit services and the desire to ensurehigh levels of equitable access, many authorities are seeking to make the general public transport fleet
accessible to all but the most physically challenged travellers. The same is true for taxis withdisability-accessible requirements , ranging from a percentage to the whole of the fleet. In many instances,
those travelling with physical or cognitive impairments do not require the use of an expensive, dedicated,
wheelchair-accessible vehicle but could benefit from improved accessibility in other transport modes
combined with better trained operators. Thus in those regions where providing such a broad level of accesshas been a focus, public transport and taxis represent important complements to the dedicated paratransit
fleet and deliver essential services to mobility-challenged travellers.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE… – 15

Innovative mobility options: More choices but an uncertain future
The set of mobility options that have characterised most cities in the world has expanded in recent years
with the appearance of many new public and private sector services. New business models including carand bike-sharing, ride-sourcing and ride-sharing have become possible thanks to advances in technology,
algorithmic skill, ubiquitous internet access and the broad uptake of mobile computing and smart phones.
Not all of these services are new – in some instances, they have given new life to existing services likeon-demand public transport. As these services become more popular, they both complement existing
services and provide new alternatives for many travellers. The set of emerging mobility options isconstantly evolving as are the companies or partnerships providing them.
Many evolving and shifting business models
The rapid spread of these services and their sometimes unpredictable evolution underscores the limited
capacity of classic modal-based approaches to address them, especially approaches that focus on a strict
dichotomy between public and private transport. At least on a strategic level, policy can be better served byfocusing on outcomes rather than focusing on the delivery of specific services. In so doing, publicauthorities and private operators will need to account for the growing diversity of options that can bemobilised to improve mobility and access outcomes. In this context, perhaps a more relevant conceptuallens for this century’s urban transport systems is between transport using one’s own vehicle and transport
provided by personalised or shared services.
The innovative mobility ecosystem is complex and combines multiple conceptual models that bring a muchwider range of actors into play than before. Capturing the diversity of innovative mobility services is notstraightforward since business models are constantly evolving and new services are continually being
trialled - even within individual companies. These models may include formal business-to-consumer
services (commercial car-sharing, micro-transit, bicycle and scooter sharing), peer-to-peer models forsharing the use of cars or that enable the sourcing of rides, platform-based business models that connect
passengers and drivers (or goods and carriers) and hybrid models that combine aspects of some or all of
those approaches (Shaheen et al., 2016a).
From a policy perspective, the diversity of new actors and business models, their rapid flux and evolution
and the many potential deployment pathways complicate the task for public authorities seeking to create
new partnerships. This is especially true for transport authorities that are operating or contracting/procuringservices from relatively stable and established public transport operators.
At present, the evolving mobility landscape in many cities around the world includes some or all of thetypes of services outlined below and largely drawn from the work of the Transportation Sustainability
Research Center at the University of California, Berkeley (Shaheen et al., 2016a; 2016b).
Bicycle-sharing
Bicycle-sharing allows members and users to access bicycles that are available in public space. Analogue
bicycle-sharing systems have been around for decades but the arrival of IT-enabled, automatedbicycle-sharing systems has led to massive growth. In 2016, approximately 2 million shared bicycles wereavailable in second generation or later systems in 63 countries and in over 1 000 cities, municipalities or
district jurisdictions (Demaio, 2017). In sufficiently dense networks and where provisions have been madeto increase bicycle safety, bicycle-share systems can improve access and extend the reach of traditional
public transport networks.
Shared bicycle systems require registration and payment is ensured via various subscription or time-based
fees. There are several bike-share models. Currently, bike-share systems are dominated by dock-based
networks where bicycles are picked up and returned at specific stations. These systems must address some

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

16 – GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE…

inherent challenges that have an impact on their viability, including deploying a sufficiently widespread anddense network of stations and cost-effectively handling system-wide rebalancing needs. An alternative,
emerging model for bike-share is centred on dockless fleets of bicycles that can be picked up and dropped
off anywhere within a within a geo-fenced zone. In these instances, bicycles come equipped with on-board
GPS and communications equipment. Some peer-to-peer services also exist. Most IT-enabled systems haveproprietary apps that enable users to find bicycles and drop-off locations. In some cases, open application
programming interfaces (APIs) allow third party developers to include bike-share data in their applications.
A standardised bicycle data model – the General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) – has been developedin order to facilitate data-sharing and inclusion of bicycle share data in modular APIs. This specification ismodelled along the lines of the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) and may facilitate the integrationof bicycle-share services and payments with other bundled mobility services.
Car-sharing (and scooter-sharing)
Car-sharing services allow members to access cars for individual trips or short periods of time. They requireregistration and can be paid on a per-use, per-time or on a subscription basis. As with bicycle sharing,car-sharing has a relatively long history in its pre-digital form but its success has really taken off with thetransition to online and digitally-enabled platforms. As with shared bicycles, they can be station-based or
free-floating. In both instances, data is generated and logged in order to manage payment and system
operation. Some systems share this data through APIs that offer some level of integration with third-party
service providers.
Car sharing fleets can be commercially owned business-to-consumer ventures though there are many
services that facilitate peer-to-peer car sharing. In some instances, car-sharing may be bundled with othermobility services (e.g. agreements between Mobility Car Sharing and the Swiss Federal Railways). Both therange of actors involved in various forms of car-sharing and their business models are in flux with many
traditional rental car companies and automobile manufacturers creating, purchasing or taking stakes in
car-sharing companies. Common data standards might facilitate the bundling of car-sharing services withother mobility offers (including first- and last-kilometre public transport) but these are currently lacking.
Though it is too early to tell, vertically integrated models where some form of car-sharing is embedded in asuite of other mobility services offered by a single company seems to be an approach favoured by major
automotive companies.
Much along the lines of car-sharing business models, some companies offer scooter-sharing services thatare typically free-floating rather than station-based.
On-demand micro-transit
Many public transport companies, especially in low density areas in Europe, have offered on-demand public
transport services as a way of reducing the costs of fixed route services in thin markets. One example of acomprehensive, national implementation of such a platform-enabled on-demand marketplace is
FlexDanmark (see Box 1). This system builds on regulatory requirements to ensure health- andeducation-related accessibility across the country to create a nationally co-ordinated and optimised
on-demand transport facilitated by a common IT platform. By centralising information on demand andcreating a marketplace to provide flexible supply, it enables specialised trips (medical, school, etc.) to be
carried out more efficiently and at lower cost than by traditional services and allows other trips to be carriedout by shared vehicles rather than by single occupancy cars or large poorly-utilised buses.
Taking advantage of new technological possibilities and in part inspired by informal public transport systems
around the world, some companies have developed app-enabled shared micro-bus services that replicate
the flexibility of car-based travel (or taxi and ride-sourcing) in certain markets (e.g. Chariot, Didi Bus, Grab
Shuttle, Ola Shuttle, Via or Ford’s Go Ride service). Multiple business models supporting these services

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE… – 17have been developed and they encompass different approaches to service design. For example, some
operate fixed routes that are in-part crowd-sourced by users (e.g. Chariot – see Figure 2) and others offer
services where riders are directed to pop-up stops within defined geographic areas. Some companies, like
Chariot, offer a mix of crowd-sourced fixed-route services alongside point-to-point travel. For example, theChariot Direct service runs counter to dominant commuting flows in San Francisco as a way to offer more
flexible options for commuters heading away from downtown and to help rebalance (and monetise)
Chariot’s fleet. Market entry and zone coverage is also handled in many ways. Bridj, an app-based
micro-transit operator no longer in operation, gauged market entry based, in part, on app downloads andadjusts its service zones dynamically by analysing service requests from riders. Chariot, on the other hand,mixes pre-set routes based on obvious trip-generating and trip-ending destinations with crowd-sourcedroutes requests and new account sign-ins. Cashless payments, reserved seating, transfer-less rides andgeo-localised customisation are all part of the user experience for services whose public-facing cost issomewhere between traditional public transport and ride-sourcing services or taxis.

Box 1. National platform-enabled demand responsive transport: FlexDanmark
In light of regulatory requirements to ensure public service access for people with mobility impairments, and for
medical and school-related trips throughout the country and in light of the elevated cost of doing so via
fixed-route bus services – especially in rural and peri-urban areas – a number of Danish transport operators andauthorities joined forces to put in place a nationwide IT platform and service offer for cost-effective andhigh-quality on-demand transport – Flex Traffic operated by the mixed public-private company FlexDanmark.
The service is built on demand-responsive buses and mini-buses, and for-hire vehicles and taxis ordered from theonline platform or from call centres. The centralised dispatching platform allows for contracting across multiple
agencies and operators and ensures more efficient pooling of resources and improved services for riders. In 2015,
the Flex Traffic provided 5 424 670 trips for 240 910 unique individuals using 5 162 vehicles belonging to 773
operating companies; 545 public authorities participated in the service.
At its core, Flex Traffic has facilitated the evolution of the role of the public transport organisations (PTOs) in
Denmark from control and enforcement of operators to one of auctioneer of services thus maximising quality andproductivity. Through the platform, PTOs buy resources (taxi and bus service) from private companies, and,combined with all the planned trips – generated through different remote online ordering modules used by anumber of authorities – optimise the utilisation of that capacity in real time. Because of volume discounts andauctioned prices, the PTOs realise cost-savings compared to if they had purchased these services through more
traditional procurement routes.
The Flex Traffic procurement model is two-pronged, comprising of a spot-market for services and a longer-term
fixed service contract. The spot-market seeks to ensure bids aligned with the lowest generalised cost on the basisof unit-prices (EUR per vehicle hour) submitted by operators every year alongside other factors including
estimated trip distance and duration, proximity to the customer requesting the service, special needs the customer
may have and the quality rating for participating hauliers. The longer-term market is comprised of two- tofour-year contracts guaranteeing a minimum availability and quality assurances.
Because it is platform-based and outcome-oriented, the Flex Traffic approach represents one way in whichauthorities can create an open market for paratransit and ride service trips that support public objectives.
Source: Adapted from Larsen (2016).

Private shuttle services also offer bespoke public transport-like services to their users. These are not open
to the public but in some regions and for some destinations may have non-trivial impacts in terms ofmobility outcomes (when a significant share of workers use them) or on the performance of other transportmodes (if they impede traffic or access to kerb space). Company-organised shuttles between San Francisco
and Silicon Valley are perhaps the best known of these private “shadow” public transport networks but
other examples exist including shuttles connecting residential zones to business and technology parks in
India or in Singapore, or linking rail stations to industrial parks in many European cities.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

18 – GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE…

Figure 2. Chariot app-based on-demand micro-transit routes in Austin, Texas

Source: Chariot.

Ride-sourcing
Perhaps the most visible new entrant in the urban mobility space has been commercial ride-sourcing
services (categorised as Transportation Network Companies - TNCs - in California law and often referred toas such in the North American context). These include companies operating in local, regional and global
markets (e.g. Didi Chuxing, Grab, Lyft, Ola, Uber) that have rapidly and in some cases significantly
disrupted taxi markets.
The ride-sourcing business model centres on an app-enabled platform that facilitates transactions between
registered users and vetted drivers. The model has proven extremely attractive to both users and to drivers
and the convenience it provides replicates many aspects of car ownership and use. The model’s success
rests on the technical skill with which the platform matches demand and optimises the allocation of vehicles
as well as on the ability to mobilise a sufficient number of drivers to ensure low wait times. Its commercial
success depends on lower consumer-facing prices than taxis which, at present, largely stems from lower
driver costs as compared to other options. It also depends on offering a flexible enough, attractive andremunerative option to attract sufficient drivers.
Though the technological backend of these services is sophisticated, it is not overly complicated toreplicate. The field of ride-sourcing services is expanding with some concentrated on niche services, somein regional markets and at least one with a global presence. And new entrants are arriving all the time:eCab is a taxi-based ride sourcing platform expanding in Europe; Abel is a ride-sourcing service offered byTransDev in the Netherlands; and zTrip is TransDev’s ride-sourcing platform offered in a growing number of

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE… – 19

North American cities, including in Austin where Uber and Lyft have both pulled out following a dispute withthe local authorities on applicable driver security checks.
Pricing is typically calculated on both trip duration and distance and many companies also apply variablepricing to incentivise drivers coming into service at peak times and locations and to moderate demand (e.g.
“surge pricing” or “prime time” fares). The principal cost component of this service is related to drivercompensation which has led to speculation, confirmed by market actions by several leading companies, thatride-services may seek an early uptake of vehicle automation. Such a move might change the businessmodel behind ride-sourcing (and ride-sharing – see below) from one based on a technology platform
connecting riders and independent drivers to one based on a company-owned, operated and managed fleet
of automated vehicles. If this were to happen, the service delivery model of ride-sourcing may more closely
resemble that of company-owned and managed public transport fleets.
The ride-sourcing model has clearly disrupted the status quo in the cities where it has been introduced andseveral well-publicised regulatory and legislative battles have accompanied its spread. These typically
centre on how to both license ride-sourcing services and address the possibility of unfair competition withother service providers. The arrival of ride-sourcing services has raised questions regarding the vetting ofdrivers and how to treat them from the perspective of labour law, as well as regarding the taxation statusof drivers and platforms. Some public authorities have also raised the point that, unlike public transport andtaxi services, ride services do not face requirements to provide accessible vehicles or ensure equity
outcomes, in particular regarding geographic coverage. The success of ride-sourcing services in many
metropolitan areas has led authorities to question whether their impacts on traffic may indeed outweigh themobility benefits they confer to cities. This has led some authorities to seek detailed data from companies
that may or may not be requested from other mobility service providers – or car drivers - on the same
markets. Recent investigation of this data for New York City, for example, shows mixed results as far as theimpact of ride services at an early stage of their deployment in that city (see Box 2).
In many instances, ride-sourcing offers a very flexible alternative to public transport and taxis (albeit more
expensive than public transport) and could theoretically help reduce the need or attraction for car
ownership. For this reason, some authorities are actively trialling partnerships with ride-sourcing companies
in order to both lower the cost of public transport provision and to improve mobility outcomes for those who
cannot, or choose not to, drive cars. It is also important to note that because ride-sourcing companies are
currently more flexibly regulated than public transport and taxis in many markets, they are able to trial newservices and business models — including some that have become quite popular, like commercial
ridesharing.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

20 – GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE…

Box 2. Traffic and other impacts of ride services in New York City
Independent third-party analysis of ride-service impacts has been limited in cities where these services have been
deployed. One reason for this is that ride service operators understandably want to preserve commerciallysensitive and privacy-eroding data – especially in light of the obligations that some public authorities have to
make public data they hold. Ride service companies have faced calls for detailed data release that they havesometimes accepted. At least one company, Uber, has created an on-line tool, Movement, allowing registeredusers to access some of the data Uber collects. One exception to the general rule of limited data sharing by ride
services is New York City, where the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) compels ride services to provide
detailed data analogous to the data that taxis and other traditional ride services must provide. Former New York
City Deputy Commissioner for Traffic Planning and Taxi-Transportation Network Company (TNC) expert, Bruce
Schaller, analysed this data and released a report in February, 2017, highlighting what these reveal in terms of
traffic and other impacts the growth of ride services have had in New York City.
Though data are available for taxis, TNCs and other ride services, as of 2016 comparison was difficult because
reporting requirements were not the same for each category. In particular, taxi data includes pick-up and drop-off
location, date, time, distance, duration and fares. TNC data, on the other hand, only includes date, time andpick-up location, though TNC data for selected months in 2014 and 2015 include trip destination, duration anddistance. New requirements for TNC reporting will include destination and duration from 2016 on. These data
discrepancies are important to understand since, in the absence of fully comparable data (especially as regards
travel distances), the report estimates traffic impacts on the basis of other data sources, including aggregate
travel distance data gathered from ride service odometer data.
Findings from this analysis indicate that TNCs have become an important and fast-growing part of the city's
transportation system. In 2015 and 2016, they have been the leading source of growth in non-auto (i.e.
non-personal car) travel in the city. They have also added significantly to vehicular travel and mileage on city
streets. Key findings of the report are:

TNCs transported 15 million passengers per month in Fall 2016 - nearly as many trips as served by thecity's yellow cab industry - in 43 000 licensed vehicles.



TNC ridership tripled between June 2015 (the end of the period examined by the City of New York's
For-Hire Vehicle Transportation Study) and the fall of 2016.

After accounting for declines in yellow cab, black car and car service ridership, TNCs have generated net
increases of 31 million trips and 52 million passengers since 2013.



In 2015 and to an even greater extent in 2016, growth in taxi and for-hire ridership outpaced growth intransit (subway and bus) ridership and is now the leading source of growth in non-auto travel in New
York City. This marks a reversal from the transit-oriented growth that lasted from 1990 to 2014.



TNCs accounted for the addition of 600 million miles of vehicular travel to the city's roadway network
over the past three years, after accounting for declines in yellow cab mileage and mileage in personalvehicles. The additional 600 million miles exceeds the total mileage driven by yellow cabs in Manhattan.

Total mileage of TNCs, yellow cabs, black cars and car services combined increased from 14% to 19% of
total citywide mileage from 2013 to 2016. (The industry mileage includes transportation of passengers,"dead-head" miles between dropping off one passenger and picking up the next passenger, and drivers'
personal use of driver-owned vehicles.)

In Manhattan, western Queens and western Brooklyn, TNCs added an estimated 7% to existing miles
driven by all vehicles, an increase of the same magnitude as the 2007 congestion pricing proposal would
have decreased vehicle miles travelled (see Figure 3).



Since mid-2015 TNCs have offered and heavily promoted "pooled" options such as UberPool and LyftLine.
TNC mileage nonetheless continues to grow rapidly because exclusive-ride trips still predominate, andbecause most TNC customers are coming from public transport, walking and biking. Migration from public
transport translates to increased mileage even if the trips are shared.



Growth in trips, passengers and mileage is seen throughout the city as TNCs attracted yellow cab riders,those who would otherwise use the bus, subway or their personal vehicle, and people who would nototherwise have made the trip.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE… – 21

Box 2. Traffic and other impacts of ride services in New York City (continued)

Trip growth in Manhattan has been concentrated during the morning and evening peak periods, when
yellow cab shift changes produced a shortage of cab availability, and late evenings and weekends when
passengers may prefer the comfort and convenience of TNCs over yellow cabs or transit services.

The report finds that a continuation of the type of TNC-led growth in travel the city has experienced in recent
years is not aligned with sustainability objectives (mobility, economic growth, road safety, environmental) that thecity has set. Nonetheless, the correlation the report observes with the rise of ride services and a decline in public
transport ridership may not necessarily be a causal one as there are other potential explanatory factors. Theseother confounding factors include the drop in gas prices since 2013, which has a well-documented statistical
relationship with transit ridership and an increase in the prevalence of public transport delays in the city over thisperiod. Other issues to consider may be the reports reliance on mode share data for trips that pre-dates theuptake of ride services, the degree of pooled ride service share and the possibility that since the bulk of ride
service growth occurred in the outer, more car-dependent, boroughs of the city, many new ride service trips may
indeed have disproportionately replaced single occupancy vehicle trips.
While these findings are specific to New York, the report does note that there are lessons to be drawn for othersimilar cities. The local context will also matter insofar as specific impacts are concerned. For example, in cities
with (relatively) low car use and high public transport, cycling and walking, it seems more likely that TNCs willlead to a transfer from those modes to car-based TNCs and thus lead to an increase in car travel. In cities with amuch higher reliance and mode share for single-occupancy car travels, traffic impacts may be less marked as TNC
riders would switch from single car use to TNC trips.
The report identifies a variety of steps to address the rising attractiveness of TNCs while also supporting themobility benefits that TNCs clearly offer. These include many initiatives already underway to improve the speed,
reliability, comfort and ease-of-use of bus and subway service and the comfort and safety of cyclists andpedestrians. The report also finds that continued TNC growth, particularly as that growth becomes increasingly
fuelled by low fares, will raise the broader issues of road traffic management, including, through the use of roadpricing.
The report notes that New York City authorities have historically used pricing of taxicab fares and parking todiscourage auto use in Manhattan. As they steadily cut fares, TNCs are erasing these longstanding financial
disincentives for traveling by motor vehicle in Manhattan. The report suggests that if TNC growth continues at thecurrent pace (and it finds there is no sign of it levelling off), the necessity of some type of road pricing will become
more and more evident.
Figure 3. Additional travel generated by Transportation Network Companies in New York City (2016)

Source: Adapted from Schaller (2017).

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

22 – GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE…

Commercial ride-splitting or ride-poolingSome ride-sourcing companies offer commercial ride-splitting, services (e.g. DIDI Hitch, GrabHitch, Lyft
Line, UberPool). These function are much like ride-sourcing services except that they match multiple,
unrelated individuals or parties to share the same vehicle over the course of the same ride. Ride-sharing
algorithms treat ride requests and allocate them in real time to available vehicles such that people get on
and off along the trip while minimising added travel distance and trip duration – e.g. the “insertion cost”.
Because insertion costs are contained and overall costs are split, these services provide a less-expensive
option to ride-sourcing and have proven popular in many markets. In some markets, these pooled ride
services are cost-competitive with traditional forms of public transport. These services are slightly
analogous to micro on-demand transit services although they generally remain door-to-door (and notroute-based) and typically use smaller vehicles. In some cases, access to ride-sharing services has been
bundled into a monthly subscription package (e.g. Lyft Line and UberPool pass trials).
Ride companies have tested a number of shared ride services based on fixed routes – for example, Uber’s
Smart Routes in San Francisco and Chicago and Uber Hop in Seattle. In March, 2017 Lyft announced a trialof its fixed-route shared service “Lyft Shuttle” in Chicago and San Francisco. It will offer fixed fares and nopeak demand surcharges unlike other Lyft Line services. These initiatives indicate that ride service data
reveals a potential for aggregating riders with common departure zones and destinations into shared fixedroute lines – operated by cars now but potentially involving minibuses in the future thus shifting towards
the on-demand micro-transit models described earlier. This shift also reveals potential for hybrid services todevelop that may be the basis for more formal and structured relationships with public transport operators
and authorities.
Maps, routing apps and services
Web or app-based mapping services have rapidly become an essential element in urban travel. Initiallyproviding mapping and routing information to help plan travel, they now combine real-time data on travel
conditions, available travel options and, in some cases, allow for remote booking of transport services in
response to itinerary requests. These apps can be purely third-party providers that consolidate and display
travel options from a number of other sources in dedicated way-finding apps (e.g. Citymapper, Moovit,
TransLoc). Map-based platforms like those offered by Apple, Baidu, Bing, Google and Naver have also
tapped into public transport, ride-service and other mobility provider APIs to offer alternative itinerarychoices to travellers differentiated by route, cost and travel times. In some cases these third-party apps or
platforms calculate and offer mixed-mode itineraries that combine public transport with other mobility
services (e.g. bicycle-sharing and bus, or a ride service and the subway). In-app booking is not restricted to
mapping and navigation apps. Some social media and communications platforms allow for instantride-service booking from within the chat application (e.g. WeChat in China, KakaoTaxi in Korea). From apractical perspective, this consolidation of information on available travel modes, especially when combinedwith a booking option, opens a doorway to more formal service convergence models.

Leveraging new possibilities: “Mobility as a Service”
Clearly, much of the potential for improved mobility outcomes as compared to today stems from people
being able to access the whole range of mobility options seamlessly and reliably according to their specifictrip purposes and requirements, preferences, willingness-to-pay and superior user experience, as well asavailability of each of those options at the time and place desired by the user. The convergence of andco-ordination among services, business models and disparate actors in today’s rapidly evolving mobility
landscape may lead to a situation where consumers no longer purchase and use vehicles or depend solely
on providers of traditional public transport services to get around. Rather, people would purchase

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE… – 23

broker-bundled subscriptions of trip services delivered by a number of service providers much as they
currently purchase bundled internet and telephone subscriptions.
The formal concept of “Mobility as a Service” (MaaS), first developed in Finland, encapsulates this approachthat is gaining traction across some public agencies (e.g. Los Angeles Department of Transport, Helsinki
Regional Transport Authority). Perhaps more telling is that 9 out of 15 of the world’s largest automobile
manufacturers (and four out of the top five) have announced a new focus on “mobility services” rather thandepending only, or sometimes even principally, on vehicle sales and maintenance. In some cases,
manufacturers have stated that a shift to selling mobility services to consumers will gradually become theircore strategic focus (e.g. Ford, Daimler, PSA). Other companies beyond the automotive industry haveannounced visions that centre on rolling out fleets of shared and perhaps automated vehicles that will
obviate the need for car ownership in many cities (e.g. Lyft, Uber and Waymo).
At its base, MaaS is not strictly a new concept. Examples already exist of bundled mobility packages
bringing together public transport, car-share, taxi, etc., like those offered in Brussels (MOBIB), Hannover(HANNOVERmobil), Montpellier (EMMA), Vienna (Smile), and across Germany via Moovel or Deutsche
Bahn’s Qixxit. These packages tend to be regionally negotiated and cover different models and are thus notnecessarily designed for broad scalability. What is new is the emergence of technology-empowered mobility
brokers that can define, assemble and offer compelling packages of reliable multi-modal services in a waythat promises to be as compelling an option as private car ownership.
More recently, the city of Gothenburg housed a small MaaS trial project for 70 households from November
2013 to April 2014. Participants purchased bundled mobility services from operators allowing them to tailor
their service packages to their needs – though one result of the trial was that many households had unused
travel allocations left at the end of every month, perhaps indicating the value of having mobility “on call”,
similar to cars that lay unused (Hensher, 2017). MaaS Global, perhaps the best publicised “new” MaaS
service, has developed a blueprint for developing mobility as a service packages. This blueprint integrates
an app-based consumer interface, cross-modal routing algorithms and application programming interfaces(APIs) allowing transport service providers to seamlessly handle bookings and interact within theapplication space. In this context, MaaS Global serves as a technical platform and as a mobility broker
negotiating the on-boarding of all participating service providers. The company has announced thedeployment of its first service offers - “Whim” - in Helsinki and the West Midlands in the United Kingdom.
An alternative approach adopted by some automotive equipment manufacturers is to deploy a suite ofvertically integrated services that cover a range of mobility options. This approach is illustrated by Ford’s
move to federate bicycle-sharing (Bay Area Bike Share), on-demand minibuses (Chariot), and ultimately
fleets of automated self-driving cars in an enclosed ecosystem. Yet another approach is to offer subscription
packages to a range of services facilitated on an on-line ride-matching platform. Both Lyft and Uber are
testing subscription packages in selected markets for their ride-sharing products Lyft Line and UberPool.
These and other bundled services are likely to play an important role in the convergence between
traditional subscription-based public transport packages and new ride services and other emerging mobility
options.
The broad uptake of mobility as a service business models will depend on deploying easy-to-use andreliable consumer-facing gateways while at the same time successfully negotiating the back-officeco-ordination amongst service providers. The back-office challenge is not trivial and is not solely
technological. The physical production of co-ordinated and joined-up services is a complex task but one thatis not necessarily difficult to implement. Ensuring reliable service performance is perhaps more complicatedand requires building-in redundancies or back-up measures (e.g. guaranteed ride services) for whenservices break-down. Handling back-office payment options and negotiating revenue allocation amongst
participating companies will also be challenging. Perhaps the most daunting task will be to convince people

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

24 – GETTING AROUND CITIES:THEN, NOW AND IN THE FUTURE…

to try these packages and to retain them once they have by providing a more compelling value-for-money
proposition than public transport (since these services will be more expensive than a public transport pass)and car travel (MaaS will have to offer services that are judged competitive with car ownership and use). It
is unclear at this stage where the potential for MaaS market share ultimately lies but, where it is
implemented, MaaS will define new service delivery models that combine the best aspects of public
transport and novel ride services.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

SHIFTING THE STATUS QUO: WHERE MOBILITY SERVCES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ARE BEGINNING TO CONVERGE – 25

3. Shifting the status quo: Where mobility services andpublic transport are beginning to converge
Ride-sourcing, commercial ride-sharing and other innovative mobility services have only recently appearedin the urban mobility landscape and yet it hasn’t taken long for many to point out the possible synergies
between these services and other more traditional public transport options. This is in part because the riseof the range of innovative mobility options is itself often directly related to some of the shortcomings ofexisting transport options. High costs, long wait times, uncertain quality and limited competitive pressure in
the taxi sector has contributed to the rise of ride sourcing and ride sharing in many markets, especially attimes and in areas where public transport performs poorly. Bus services, in particular, have a hard timeoffering quality services in thin markets outside of core routes; a recurrent problem in these markets is toprovide a sufficiently compelling and affordable (to both consumers and public authorities) alternative tosingle occupancy car use. Public transport services may be reduced to a minimum level of “coverage”
routes and schedules that provide extremely limited and inconvenient service. The dilemma facing many
authorities in low-density areas is that car use and car dependency rises, increasing congestion and otherimpacts (even in mid-sized urban areas) which, in turn, puts pressure on authorities to provide sufficiently
compelling public transport options to attract car drivers. Quite often, such options are unaffordable ascurrently delivered or undeliverable as currently priced.
So it is understandable that some authorities facing this dilemma have started to experiment with otherways of providing the services currently delivered via oftentimes mediocre public transport options andindeed, have sought to improve mobility outcomes overall through innovative partnerships. The genesis of
this convergence between two putatively competitive services comes not solely for the public sector – many
early initiatives were launched by ride-sourcing companies based on the realisation that a significant shareof their traffic originates or terminates at public transport stops. Public authorities have been instrumental,
however, in seeking out more formal partnerships that may eventually mark the urban mobility landscape.
The following section looks at a range of experiences in this area as of Spring 2017. Because it catalogues
where these partnerships have been deployed, it focuses largely on North American examples where manyof these pilot programmes have been initiated.

Promotions, special events and on-off offers
At a very basic level, some public transportation operators and agencies have integrated a ride-sourcing orcommercial ride sharing within their bespoke trip planner applications and web-based portals. Examples
include Lyft (and Uber, at the outset) offered as an option in Los Angeles Department of Transport Go LA
app designed by Xerox and in the Dallas Area Rapid Transit trip planning app. These initiatives areanalogous to those offered by several commercial third-party routing apps described in Chapter 2.
Going beyond simply providing an in-app booking option, several initiatives and nascent partnerships havefocused on providing discount codes for one-off events or promotions linked to public transport services. In
some instances, these discount codes may help compensate for a temporary lack or loss of service. The
focus here has often been to get people to start using combined ride-sourcing and public transport trips or
to ensure that public transport remains a compelling choice even at times when service is infrequent orafter hours. Many of these promotional offers are limited to specific geographic locales and/or times of day– features that are easy to set up within the platform and deliver to consumers in the app. Examples
include:SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

26 – SHIFTING THE STATUS QUO: WHERE MOBILITY SERVCES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ARE BEGINNING TO CONVERGE

In conjunction with the opening of the Los Angeles Metro Expo Line extension, Uber partnered withLA Metro to offer a USD 5 discount off UberPOOL (Uber’s commercial ride sharing service) startingor terminating at any new Expo Line Station 20-22 May 2016 (Friday-Sunday).



In July 2016, in time for several large regional events, San Diego Metropolitan transit operator(MTS) partnered with Uber for a 17-day promotion. Travellers starting or ending trips atparticipating MTS Trolley or Rapid stations could enter a promotion code to receive USD 5 off an
UberPOOL ride.

During August 2016, Uber put in place the uberTREIN promotion whereby riders received
discounted trips to and from the airport while the rail corridor linking Schiphol airport toAmsterdam was undergoing maintenance. Uber fares were capped at the cost of the train ride
(EUR 16.80), approximately 30% lower than the un-capped average Uber fare on the same route.

On weekends in December 2016, Australia Capital Territory (ACT) Government and Transport
Canberra partnered with Uber to ensure late-night, last-mile connections from Night Rider bus
stops between 22:00 and 2:00. Using in-app geofencing and a promotion code, riders requested
UberX service from within 20 metres of designated Night Rider stops to any location within one ofthree geographic zones. Qualifying rides received a AUD 10 discount covered half by the ACT
Government and half by Uber.

Starting in 2015, Uber started offering a one-time USD 20 discount for travellers going to or
leaving from a MARTA Metro station in Atlanta. Uber has other one-time promotions in Des Moines,
Iowa, and Dallas, Texas.



Uber started a programme in Portland in 2015 where for every first ride a customer took, Uber
donated USD 5 to the Westside Transportation Alliance to work on sustainable transport options.



For a limited time in August-September 2016, Miami-Dade county and Uber experimented withoffering UberPOOL rides a flat USD 3 fare for rides connecting to Metrorail stations during Metrorailhours of operation. During the same period, Uber also helped distribute (via their drivers) freepre-loaded EASY public transport passes to encourage riders to try mixing Uber and Metrorail.

During the closure of the Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle in April-May 2016 the Seattle Departmentof Transport partnered with Uber to offer flat-rate USD 2.50 UberHOP (a route-based ride-sharing
service that was the predecessor to UberPOOL) rides between the central business district andSouth Lake Union as well as to and from a selected group of water taxi stops.

When the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) curtailed late night services on the
T line in March, 2016, both Lyft and Uber initiated temporary discounts for night ride services toand from T stations. For several weeks between 00:30 and 4:00, Lyft offered up to a 75% discountfor shared Lyft Line rides along the T line and Uber offered a flat USD 5 UberPOOL fare.



The town of Evesham, New Jersey, started a unique programme in October 2015 to cover the costof free rides home with Uber from selected bars, restaurants and other establishments from 21:00
to 02:00 in a bid to reduce drink-driving.

In some instances (e.g. Evesham and Seattle), local authorities temporarily helped cover the cost of
ride-service trips when they met specific conditions.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

SHIFTING THE STATUS QUO: WHERE MOBILITY SERVCES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ARE BEGINNING TO CONVERGE – 27

Formal partnerships with public transport involving subsidies andintegration
Many of the promotions described above are time-bound or very limited in their area of application. They
represent very early experimentation by companies and public authorities seeking synergies between thetypes of services provided by ride-sourcing and commercial ride-sharing companies and public transport
operators. Many of these initiatives seem to focus more on marketing the notion of combining ride service
and public transport trips to the public than on replacing certain public transport services with ride services.
They do not represent a structural shift in the way public transport is delivered though they do open adoorway to exploring further, more formal partnerships. This is what has happened in several jurisdictions
as described in the following examples.
Altamonte Springs, Florida
In March of 2016, the City of Altamonte Springs, Florida – a low-density city near Orlando - started a pilot
programme to subsidise 20% of the cost of every trip beginning and ending within city limits. In addition,
the city subsidises 25% of the cost of all Uber trips starting or ending at the Altamonte Springs SunRailstation. In July, 2016, the pilot was expanded to four neighbouring communities.
Centennial, Colorado
From August 2016 to February 2017, the City of Centennial ran a six-month pilot programme offering freerides to and from the Dry Creek Light Rail Station within a geofenced area. The Go Centennial pilot
temporarily replaced the Dry Creek Call-n-Ride service with a shared Lyft Line or Via Mobility Service (aparatransit service provider) rides. In addition to those ride-service companies, the Go Centennial
partnership also included the City of Centennial, CH2M, the Denver South Transportation Management
Association (DSTMA)/Southeast Public Improvement Metropolitan District (SPIMD), and Xerox (Conduent).
The service was accessed through the Lyft app or through the Xerox-developed Go Denver app as well as
through a call response centre supported by Lyft. Available Monday through Friday from 5:30 to 19:00, thepilot sought to increase ridership on the light rail system and decrease car use for accessing the rail station
or driving to Denver. The programme is currently (Spring 2017) under evaluation having run its initiallyplanned course.
Dublin, California
In early 2016, the Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA) and their transit operator, Wheels,
started investigating ways to better serve connections between low-density suburban neighbourhoods andthe East Dublin/Pleasanton BART metro station. Bus service was costly in those areas and in August 2016
LAVTA shut down an underperforming bus line1 with an eye to replacing it with ride-sourcing and taxis.
In January, 2017, LAVTMA signed agreements with Desoto cab, Lyft and Uber to launch the Go Dublin!
Rideshare pilot set to initially run through June, 2017. This pilot offers a 50% reduction on all Desoto taxi
Share, Lyft Line or UberPOOL rides (up to USD 5) taken anywhere within Dublin, including to and from theEast Dublin/Pleasanton BART metro station. Lyft, Uber and Desoto all offer booking apps that process credit
card payments and Desoto also allows telephone booking and cash payments. Based on average distancesand costs, LAVTA estimated its average subsidy coverage required would be USD 5 per trip. Funding for thepilot came equally from Wheels (USD 100 000) and from a grant from the Alameda County Transportation
Commission (USD 100 000).
Pinellas County, Florida
In January 2016, the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) expanded a smaller Uber-PSTA pilot
programme to the entire county and extended it to other ride services and taxi companies, including

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

28 – SHIFTING THE STATUS QUO: WHERE MOBILITY SERVCES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ARE BEGINNING TO CONVERGE

paratransit operators. The expanded Direct Connect service links locations within the county to designatedbus stops. PSTA estimates users will pay USD 1 on average with the authority covering up to USD 5 per
ride. The new service covers rides taken with Uber, Lyft, United Taxi, and Care Ride and Wheelchair
Transport. The latter two offer specially-equipped paratransit vehicles, the latter three accept telephone
reservations and United Taxi accepts cash payments. A special promotion offered free bus rides for thoseusing the service in its opening month. The Direct Connect pilot is slated to run six months and will be
re-evaluated. Part of the motivation for the initial pilot was the rejection by local voters of a referendum in2014 that would have helped to fund an expansion of the county’s bus service and build a 24-mile light railsystem.
San Clemente, California
In October, 2016, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) started a new exclusive partnershipwith Lyft in low density neighbourhoods previously served by two fixed-service bus routes. The rationale forseeking out this arrangement was the high cost of operating the services for too few riders and to free up
these resources for better service and higher frequencies elsewhere in the OCTA network.
Using an in-app promotion code, riders benefit from reduced-price Lyft fares. Depending on distance, riders
picked up or dropped off at stops along the old bus route from 6:00 to 20:00 pay USD 2- 5 for rides that
otherwise would have cost USD 5- 14 using Lyft’s regular pricing. The City of San Clemente subsidises thedifference until the approximately USD 100 000 budget allocated for this pilot is exhausted. Additionalsources of revenue for the programme are being explored by both Lyft and OCTA to extend the pilot’s
duration. The programme requires using the Lyft app on a smartphone but since not all Orange County
residents own a smartphone or have an adequate data plan, City officials will help qualifying residents
purchase government subsidised smartphones. In order to monitor the impact of the pilot, Lyft provides
monthly ride statistics to OCTA.
Town of Innisfil, Ontario, Canada
The town of Innisfil has entered into a partnership with Uber to provide its 36 000 residents guaranteed
rates and rides through the Uber app. As part of this partnership, the town will provide CAD 100 000 in2017 and CAD 125 000 in 2018. Residents will pay base fees for trips to key locations in Innisfil, and thetown will pay Uber the balance. For example, Innisfil residents will pay CAD 3 per person for any trip to orfrom the Innisfil Recreational Complex and Town Hall area, and the town will cover the remainder of thefare, from CAD 6-9. Residents will also be able to book a trip from Innisfil to anywhere they wish andreceive CAD 5 off their fare.
City of Summit, New Jersey
The City of Summit Commuter Ridesharing Pilot Program, a six-month pilot started in October 2016, covers
the full cost of Uber rides to or from the Summit light rail station (in fact, to and from a specified pick-up
and drop-off zone adjacent to the rail station) for Summit residents who have paid their monthly parking
pass at the rail station. This is because the programme aims to reduce the number of commuter cars left inparking lots during workdays. The pilot is limited to 100 participants who are either parking passsubscribers or non-parking pass subscribers. Parking pass subscribers receive free trips to and from thestation and non-parking pass subscribers will be charged a flat USD 2 rate per ride. Because the focus is on
work commute trips, rides are limited to two per workday per person and from only 5:00 to 21:00.
Partnerships to provide paratransit services: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) has partnered with both Lyft and Uber to offer
subsidised paratransit trips via each ride service company’s platform during a year-long pilot starting in

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

SHIFTING THE STATUS QUO: WHERE MOBILITY SERVCES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ARE BEGINNING TO CONVERGE – 29

September 2016. Registered users of MBTA’s THE RIDE paratransit service will now be able to bookon-demand service via their smartphone instead of having to call in advanced reservations. Phone booking
is also offered for Lyft rides via their call-in centre and Uber is making available a limited number ofsmartphones for qualifying riders. Riders will pay the first USD 2 of the trip with MBTA covering up to USD
13 extra; although riders must cover any remaining trip costs, MBTA believes the majority of trips will fallwithin the USD 15 overall rider plus subsidy cost. This compares to rider costs of USD 3.15-5.25 for RIDE
trips before the pilot and an average trip cost of USD 31.The pilot will offer instantaneous booking and low
wait times in contrast with minimum one-day advance reservation and one half hour pick-up windows. The
service covers the greater Boston area with the exception of Logan Airport. Both ride service companies
offer wheelchair equipped vehicles, Uber through its UberACCESS programme and Lyft through apartnership to provide Lyft drivers with wheelchair-accessible rentals. MBTA offers an additional USD 12 percompleted trip to Lyft drivers renting wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Finally, both Uber and Lyft will provide
free training to RIDE pilot drivers to help mobility or otherwise impaired customers get into and out of theirvehicles.

Other initiatives
Platform-based microtransit: Kutsuplus, Helsinki
Kutsuplus was a three-year trial of a pop-up bus service offered by HSL, the Helsinki-Area public transport
operator. Based on app-ordered minibus services that optimised routes in real-time, the service promised
flexible, on-demand microtransit in central Helsinki at an attractive price for riders. Trips cost a base fee of
EUR 1.50 plus an additional EUR 0.15 per direct-route kilometre (due to the nature of the service, actual
service deviated from the direct route due to additional pick-ups and drop-offs). The project was the first of
its kind bringing together microtransit and an app-enabled on-demand booking/payment environment but
ultimately was not renewed in 2016 due to uneconomic performance linked to two design flaws. The firstwas that too few vehicles were deployed and the second was that the trial area was too large. Together,
this meant that wait times were unacceptably long and the service never gained commercial traction (HSL,
2016). The dispatching algorithm and the app itself were seen as innovative and valuable and the
IT-company behind both is still involved in other ride-service initiatives.
Platform-based microtransit: RideKC Bridj, Kansas City
Bridj was a platform and app-based microtransit service that offered on-demand micro-bus services within
and between set zones. Users requested service via the app and were directed to a pop-up stop where thebus picked them up. The service offered guaranteed seats, free Wi-Fi, no transfers and fewer stops along
the way. The flexibility of Bridj’s platform, in use in Boston and at least briefly in Washington, DC, led
Kansas City, Missouri, to develop a pilot program around it to offer new commuter services between areasof the city that had been difficult to service with traditional buses. The exact service boundaries are flexible
and Bridj’s platform allows for real-time adjustments to meet where people are requesting rides.
The RideKC pilot ran from March 2016 to March 2017 and built on a partnership between the Kansas City
Area Transportation Authority (KCATA), Ford Motor Company (for the American Disabilities Act-compliant
mini-buses) and Bridj for the app-based ride matching platform. The drivers were KCATA drivers that had
volunteered to participate in the pilot. The service was offered during the morning and evening peakcommute periods and cost riders USD 1.50 per ride (with the first 10 rides free). The remaining costs werecovered by KCATA who spent USD 1.3 million on the pilot programme.
In the end, the pilot was not extended as it had only generated 1 480 rides over the course of the year – anextremely small uptake in a city of more than 2 million people. There were numerous reasons for the pilot’s
poor performance. Too few people knew about the service – approximately 40% of the people in the pilot

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

30 – SHIFTING THE STATUS QUO: WHERE MOBILITY SERVCES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ARE BEGINNING TO CONVERGE

service areas had not even heard of the service. Rider retention also posed challenges – nearly half of all
riders only made one trip with the service and only 9% of all riders made 10 trips or more. Reasons for thislow retention rate included the fact that services didn’t go where riders wanted to travel or at the times
they wanted to travel (especially late at night). Riders noted that the service was attractive because it wasless expensive than alternatives. Survey evidence six months into the pilot found that riders used theservice instead of a car trip (~30%), a bus trip (~30%) or a ride service (in this case, Uber – ~22%)(Marshall, 2017; Shaheen et al., 2016c). KCATA plans to use the lessons learned in the pilot to deploy an
app-enabled service targeting riders in need of accessible paratransit services at subsidised fares but open
to all potential riders without fare support.
Bridj itself ceased operations in April, 2017 after three years of operations as a result of a cash shortfall
that resulted when the company was unsuccessful in attracting new capital. Following on the demise of
Kutsuplus, the closure of Bridj, which had been highlighted as one of the more innovative start-ups in the
ride-service and public transport field, underscores the difficulty that app-enabled on-demand micro-bus
shared ride services face at present. Whether the difficulty rests in service design, poor implementation,
context-specific challenges or fundamental challenges related to this type of ride service model remains tobe seen.
Real-estate developer incentive to use ride services with public transport
Developers often face costs associated with providing a legally mandated minimum number of parking
spaces for their properties. It is in their interest therefore to reduce those costs but they will only do so if
inhabitants or tenants have sufficient alternatives to car use such that the commercial value of the realestate does not suffer in the absence of sufficient parking. Maximus Real Estate Partners, the developer of
ParkMerced in San Francisco, is experimenting with offering residents a USD 100 per month stipend tocover multimodal transport, including Uber and public transit. The stated goal of the initiative is to makecar-free living as easy and convenient as possible. Uber is partnering with ParkMerced by capping uberPOOL
fares to and from nearby the Daly City BART, Balboa Park BART, and Westportal MUNI public transport
stations at USD 5.

Features of current ride service: Public transport partnerships
Though the previous examples show a great diversity in the types of services being offered and the rangeof partners involved, there are a few key characteristics emerging from the admittedly restricted set of
mostly North American initiatives. The first is that there are a great number of temporary, one-timepromotions being trialled by both commercial ride service companies and local authorities. These seemlargely to either serve a particular need for extra capacity due to disruptions to public transport systems(e.g. in Seattle and in Amsterdam) or as a way to help travellers learn new behaviours combining ride
services and public transport. These are interesting in that they allow a lot of creative trialling of services
but unless they are extended and incorporated into a more formal partnership, they are unlikely to durably
impact behaviour.
Most of the more extended formal partnerships between ride services and public transport, with the
exception of the Boston MBTA’s RIDE paratransit service (and similar initiatives planned in New York City
and Washington DC), have occurred in smaller, low-density, suburban towns. This is understandable given
the elevated cost of providing fixed bus service in these geographic contexts and also because of thesimplicity of organisation and governance at that scale. Because of this, these geographic contexts arewhere these services may naturally develop and possibly be confined. However, ITF analysis from previous
Corporate Partnership Board reports indicate that exclusive deployment of shared mobility systems has
potential to handle all trips across entire urban regions with significant benefits (ITF, 2016c). If this were to
be the case, then the nature of these early pilots, and the regulatory frameworks surrounding their
SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

SHIFTING THE STATUS QUO: WHERE MOBILITY SERVCES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ARE BEGINNING TO CONVERGE – 31

deployment, will have to adapt to situations where they potentially play a greater and greater role ineveryday mobility across wider urban regions.
All of the initiatives currently underway are organised as pilot programmes. This is to enable learning fromthe exercises and to mitigate some of the potential risk if the pilot does not perform as expected andhoped. Pilots allow a safe, time-bound, space for experimentation and ensure that ex-post evaluation
occurs before the initiative is prolonged, adapted or terminated. Perhaps one of the most compelling
reasons, however, that these initiatives are run as pilots is that they allow public authorities to enter into
contractual agreements with service providers without going through typical procurement processes. This isdue to the limited budget involved which in most instances is below the threshold for formal bid processes
and due to the temporary nature of the partnerships. In some instances, however (the RIDE partnership in
Boston), the pilot is run through a bid-based procurement process. Another aspect of some pilots is thatthey are open in that any provider meeting the criteria can participate (up to the exhaustion of theallocated budget if a subsidy is involved). This also allows authorities to test new service configurations
without going through a formal procurement of exclusive services.
Finally, it is worth noting that the pilots described in this section are embedded in a US-specific public
transport agency context where funding is generally lacking, where political support for public transport andtrials are sometimes mixed and where agencies are burdened with constraining procurement processes andare generally risk averse.
US Federal Transit Agency guidance on shared mobility and public transport
Since many of these experiments are taking place in the United States, the Federal Transit Agency (FTA)
has issued guidance to local authorities to help them design ride service – public transport partnerships.
Issued on 30 January 20172, this guidance takes the form of several frequently asked questions (FAQs)
seeking to clarify requirements for shared mobility alternatives regarding funding eligibility under federal
public transportation law for FTA grant programs and compliance with federal requirements, such as theAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The FTA defines public transport as “regular, continuing shared-ride surface transportation services that areopen to the general public or a segment of the general public defined by age, disability or low-income”(FTA, 2017), and finds that ride services may qualify for funding depending on the nature of the service
provided. In particular, FTA makes the distinction between “shared-ride” service and “exclusive ride”
service. The former are services where open sharing of the ride occurs by design and passengers or drivers
cannot limit who comes on board if there is capacity, conditioned on certain operational, safety or security
considerations. Ride services which can be reserved for the exclusive use of individuals or private groups,
either by the operator or the first passenger’s refusal to permit additional passengers, are considered
exclusive-ride services (FTA, 2017). Generally, exclusive ride services are not eligible for funding throughFederal grant programmes (with some limited exceptions where the exclusive ride service is part of a
specific programme supporting alternatives to public transport – like some job access programmes).
Both operational and capital expenditures are allowed for shared ride services. The former may involve
infrastructure modifications for pick-up and drop-off zones and the latter may involve reimbursing a public
transport operator or a public agency for the costs associated with subsidising first and last-mile access to a
public transport network using ride services. FTA rules, however, prohibit the direct payment to ride service
companies.
The January 2017 guidance also helps US authorities determine how to reconcile Federal requirements
regarding access for the disabled enacted in the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ride service
partnerships. Generally, all fixed-route public transport services must be provided with ADA-compliant
vehicles whereas all non-fixed route services must themselves be ADA-compliant. This distinction means

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

32 – SHIFTING THE STATUS QUO: WHERE MOBILITY SERVCES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT ARE BEGINNING TO CONVERGE

that a ride service based on fixed routes must employ vehicles that enable, for example, wheelchair access.
On-demand services, on the other-hand, must allow convenient, affordable and timely access towheelchair-accessible vehicles though not all vehicles deployed in the service must meet these criteria aslong as the vehicles have a capacity of less than 16 people including the driver.
For instance, the services operated by Chariot, described in Chapter 2, use vehicles with a capacity of lessthan 16 people and thus the rules state “the vehicles must be accessible unless the fixed route system,
when viewed in its entirety, provides equivalent service to persons with disabilities, including wheelchairusers” (FTA, 2017). In the case of the KACTA-Bridj trial, vehicles were ADA-compliant whereas Bridj’s
Boston service and Chariot’s services, the overall service, but not necessarily every vehicle, provide “ADA
equivalent” service. In this context, the service design and the involvement of partners with sufficiently
large fleets of wheelchair-accessible services, can ensure conformity with ADA requirements. Arguably, theflexibility and effectiveness of platform-based ride sourcing allows better deployment and use of theaccessible fleet as compared to single operator paratransit services. Platform-mediated ADA vehicle
requests also enable the pooling of adapted vehicles across multiple suppliers. The potential increase inefficiency and improvement in wait times and other outcomes are what motivated MBTA to pilot its RIDE
service with Lyft and Uber in the first place.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT – 33

4. Framing the convergence of ride services and public
transport
From public transport to a “Mobility as a Service” ecosystem
Public policy is best served when it is framed within a coherent set of visions and goals. This ensures thatspecific initiatives, measures and partnerships contribute to shared and clearly articulated outcomes. This isespecially important in complex situations where there is a risk that uncoordinated policies may serve
counter-purposes or even may erode generally shared but poorly articulated objectives. A
commonly-referenced framework vision also helps ensure consistency and complementarity in investment
and planning decisions that may span decades. Because it is complex and subject to so many influences,urban transport policy is one area where these risks are elevated and the need for correctly framing policy
is clear.
Many urban regions, especially in Europe, have a long tradition of carrying out co-ordinated urban mobility
plans that frame transport decision-making and investment. In France, Germany and certain othercountries, these plans are required by national law; they must conform to specific methodologies and theoutcome of the plans are linked to legally enforceable decisions. Outside of Europe, India and Brazil have
put in place national requirements for urban mobility planning though their implementation remains
challenging. Many urban regions also create long-term strategic plans in order to help guide transport andland-use policy and, in some cases, as in regional metropolitan planning organizations in the United States,
to help meet requirements in order to gain access to national funding sources.
These plans require a lot of input, and may be time-consuming to develop but once completed, serve as acommon reference until they are updated or replaced. There is a risk in this context that these plans may
not adequately address fast-changing circumstances and emerging phenomena. This seems to be the casewith the treatment of innovative mobility services, the potential impact of automated driving and how
digitally-driven changes may fundamentally challenge the concept of public transport. Plans that addressthese issues and provide guidance in dealing with uncertainty regarding the way in which urban transportecosystems will evolve can frame policy addressing the evolution of public transport. The city of Los
Angeles’ Urban Mobility Plan in a Digital Age, for example, illustrates one such comprehensive andfuture-proof vision-setting exercise (see Box 3). Another good example is Finland's Strategic Growth
Environment Plan For Digital Transport that also addresses multimodal regulatory and market accessissues, and data accessibility; it paves the way to automation and nationwide Mobility as a Service
platform.
The convergence of public transport and emerging mobility services opens up innovative mobility options
for many people. The upside potential of this convergence is difficult to realise under traditional public
transport service delivery models. This is because that potential rests on leveraging synergies between
legacy systems and emerging technologies, between operators that may display considerable institutional
inertia and more agile new players and because the very service being “produced” by public transport
operators may no longer represent the best option for delivering satisfactory outcomes to travellers incertain circumstances.
At the very top level, reforming governance structures for transport services should as much as possible
seek to gather responsibility for all aspects of transport service provision under one coherent framework.
This may be a specific agency or an oversight committee that sets objectives and policies, in some cases
carries out operations or licensing/contracting, monitors outcomes and follows up with adjustments asnecessary.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

34 – FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

One of the first challenges facing authorities will be to re-evaluate what constitutes public transport, what
outcomes authorities should work towards and how to ensure that these outcomes are aligned with what
people want. Equitable access will be part of the equation, as will efficiency improvements that deliver costsavings – but the fundamental building blocks of this vision should be structured around the provision of acompelling user experience irrespective of service delivery mode or operator. Initiatives to facilitate
mode-agnostic Mobility as a Service ecosystems will be important and will require re-visiting and possibly
adapting many of the rules and governance structures that frame urban transport policy.

Box 3. Los Angeles’ vision for a digitally-enabled transport system
Urban Mobility in a Digital Age is a transportation technology strategy that is meant to guide the City of Los
Angeles and its Department of Transportation (LADOT) as regulator and transportation service provider in acomplex and evolving ecosystem of public and private services. It focuses on building a solid data foundation,leveraging technology and design for a better customer experience, creating partnerships for more complimentary
shared services, establishing feedback loops for services and infrastructure, and preparing for an automatedfuture. Urban Mobility for a Digital Age seeks to position LADOT as a platform for mobility innovation that supports
better transport options by targeting three impact goals:
Goal 1: Data as a Service
LADOT must be able to provide and receive real-time data from an increasingly complex marketplace of public andprivate transportation service providers, other jurisdictions, and connected and automated vehicles to maximise
the efficiency and safety of the road and transportation networks. This requires a seamless data exchange with avariety of partners and stakeholders, privacy and security protections, the capacity to analyse data from a varietyof resources, and the ability to integrate this insight into a data-driven decision-making process at the level ofelected officials and department management.
Goal 2: Mobility as a Service
Mobility as a Service seeks to develop a single platform and payment system that offers access to a suite oftransportation mode choices, often bundled together in packages in order to improve transport outcomes forpeople. LADOT has already partnered to make it easier for customers to evaluate transportation options through atrip planning application, Go LA, which compares mode options for the fastest, cheapest and/or greenest routes.
Additionally, LADOT has piloted a mobile payment application for its transit services and there are plans to expand
Go LA to include reservation and payment capabilities in Summer 2016. LADOT is committed to being a leading
advocate for expanded access through a series of actions to better connect and integrate the existing marketplaceof public and private services.
Goal 3: Infrastructure as a Service
Infrastructure as a Service proposes that the use of public infrastructure should be subject to pay-as-you-go user
fees that more closely align the costs associated with providing the infrastructure itself to how the infrastructure is
being used. Infrastructure as a Service more transparently reflects the costs to build, maintain and operate public
infrastructure by charging fees for this service. With a solid data baseline, this approach can also support tiered
fees to ensure there is equity in access to the public right-of-way. Infrastructure as a Service can help shift
behaviour by incentivising shared mobility, promoting staggered commute times and other active transportation
alternatives.
Source: Adapted from LADOT (2016).

Comparing mobility services and public transport
The innovative mobility services outlined in Chapter 2 help people travel without needing to own a car. As
with good quality public transport, these services help make it as easy to live without a car as with one –and in some cases, more easily. While a car-free city may not be possible or even desirable in many areas,
the wide palette of newly available mobility options allows metropolitan areas to flourish even as they
mitigate the negative impacts of exclusive, and possibly excessive, car use. And while public transport also
contributes to this goal, it displays several characteristics that differentiate it from emerging mobility

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT – 35

services. Table 1 highlights many of the main differences between the two (the author of the source
recognises some over-generalisation).
Table 1. Characteristics of public transport and emerging mobility services
Public transport

Emerging mobility services

Modes

Bus
Rail
FerriesParatransit

Ride-sourcing, commercial ride-sharing
App-based microtransit
Car-share
Bicycle-share

Service design

One size fits all:
Spread over service area
Typically constrained byadministrative boundaries
Partial focus on basic access andpublic service obligations

Differentiated by:
Quality
Price
Shared/exclusiveConvenience

Service delivery

Scheduled
Network-based mass movement of people(especially for rail-based systems and Bus
Rapid Transit)
Feeder services to core networks
More diffuse bus-based networks
Route and station/stop-based

On-demandMix of:
Diffuse, point-to-point or
door-to-door services

Station-based vehicle pick-up anddrop-offNon-hierarchical networks

Planning process

Often uncoordinated decisions:Mode, fares, service areaService coverageService becomes sum of thesedecisionsEnd-to-end customer experience:Ease-of-use
Reliability
Consistency
Transparency

Regulation

Generally mode-specific,
Regulation in return for delivering
minimum coverage for unprofitable
services

Operational licensing
Driver vetting
SafetyAccess to public right-of-way andinfrastructure

VehiclesHigh-capacity buses and trains
Paratransit vans

Diversified:
Seating capacityBasic or luxury

IT technology

Overlaid onto existing systems(Generally) data-poor

Integral to operations and customer
interfaceData-richWorkforce

Full-time
Often unionised

Mix of full-time and part-time
Independent contractors and non-union
employees
Various levels of professional competence

Fares and prices

Fixed fares
Low fares and social pricing models
Bundled subscriptions

Distance and time-based prices
Variable pricing to modulate demand andmanage capacity
Some fixed prices and subscriptions

Focus of funding

Large-scale marquee projects

Maximise growth and market share

Source: Based on Schaller (2016b).

Perhaps the most fundamental difference between public transport and the business models of many
emerging mobility providers is that the provision of public transport is almost always seen as necessary toprovide a minimal level of service to a portion of the population. At the same time, where markets are
sufficiently dense and the context supports it, high-quality public transport is also perhaps the only way toprovide access-improving mobility efficiently and affordably. For both of these reasons, public authorities
strictly regulate public transport while, at the same time, accept paying for the broader services it provides
beyond what is covered by farebox revenues. Public authorities consider these payments necessary in order
SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

36 – FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

to sustain minimum service coverage, to keep fares affordable for those that depend on public transportand because they consider that public transport delivers external benefits.
This is a quite different approach from the way that many emerging mobility services have been treated inpublic discourse and in policy-making. Initially, few authorities saw these services as threatening public
transport and its various missions. However, as taxi markets are increasingly disrupted by ride service
companies, there is an increasing realisation that public transport may be next and that authorities mustre-evaluate their stance on the whole mobility ecosystem in a unified and coherent manner. There aremany reasons that this will not necessarily be straightforward, not least of which is that some see emerging
mobility services, and ride services in particular, as increasingly competing in the same space as public
transport (and potentially for certain pedestrian and cycling trips).

Managing competition between innovative mobility services andtraditional public transport
A recurrent fear raised in discussions surrounding the convergence of public transport and ride services isthat the latter will cannibalise the former, drawing away riders (especially “premium” riders) and revenues,
and ultimately eroding the capability for public transport to provide quality services and contribute toequitable outcomes. This, if true, would certainly counter stated policy objectives for many publicauthorities and would require strong action to prevent such a loss. This framing of the question – ride
services and public transport competing for a uniform, fixed and possibly even shrinking market, however,belies the reality in many cities.
In low-density and thin bus markets, many public transport operators are struggling to offer services thatare competitive with car use. In those areas, those who can afford cars, who find them a more convenient
option to low-frequency, inflexible bus services and who can safely operate them have already largely
abandoned bus services – even if these services may feed into higher frequency and better quality public
transport networks. Those bus users who remain are often captive users who have few alternatives.
As noted earlier, not all trips are the same and many are quite expensive to supply via traditional, often
bus-based, services. In these contexts, ride services can be (and have been) seen as a way to deliver thesame trips as those delivered by some bus services but at lower overall costs. This motivation – to use ride
services as a way to reduce public transport operating costs and subsidies in thin markets – seems largely
to have been the motivation for several recent trials like those described in the previous chapter. It is
important to note, however, that these cost savings are driven by the shift to more variable cost factors,
including labour, which can be directly matched with any revenue gained from operations. Ride service
models clearly leverage capital cost savings from switching from large public transport vehicles sized forpeak demand to smaller vehicles that can more flexibly handle most demand. Ride services also benefit
from lower variable costs savings related to lower labour-related costs. These result from most ride services
employing a business model that depends on using independent, oftentimes less trained and sometimes
less skilled drivers in place of full-time, generally more skilled and organised labour. With the collective
bargaining power of the latter also comes defined benefits, including pensions, that independent contractors
lack. There are exceptions to this rule, for example KCATA’s use of the agency’s unionised bus drivers for
the Bridj pilot described in the previous section.
Cost savings are therefore an important motivation for seeking to replace certain expensive public transportroutes with ride services. They are also an important motivator for early action as they provide a tangible
reason to act. But going forward, it is not clear that cost savings are either a sufficient motivation or even amajor motivation for seeking better synergies between ride services and public transport – at least where
there is a desire to improve mobility and access outcomes for as broad a group as possible. That is because
these synergies, if well managed, can be leveraged to provide improved outcomes for travellers while at the

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT – 37

same time allowing public authorities to deliver on important public policy objectives such as improved
equity, reduced congestion and improved environmental outcomes.
One key factor to consider is that replacing more expensive, less demand-responsive and less flexible public
transport services with less expensive, more demand-responsive and more flexible ride services or othercombinations of innovative mobility services can free funds that public transport operators could allocate toimproving the quality of core services. Under this framing of the question, the potential for ride services
and other innovative mobility options to draw away riders from specific routes does not necessarily imply
that overall ridership would drop. In fact, if core services are improved and the convenience of using public
transport as part of a trip chain increases, then overall ridership may even increase. In the broader picture,adding a more convenient mobility choice into the mix may improve overall access and mobility outcomeseven as it reduces the need to own a car.
A recent survey of the trip behaviour of users of ride-sourcing and other emerging mobility services in the
United States indicates that this potential is real though the extent of this synergy – especially if ride
services significantly increase their overall mode share – is uncertain. According to (Feigan and Murphy,2016), those who use emerging mobility services – and especially those who use many of these services in
conjunction with each other – are likely to be heavy users of public transport as well. This is partly a resultof lower car ownership amongst this subset of the population. The survey also found that use of innovative
mobility services often complements public transport use (see Figure 4) – but that at certain times of the
day and for certain trips, these modes compete for the same riders. Ride services are most used for
non-work trips, especially recreational trips, and off-peak hours – especially at night. These are precisely
the types of trips that public transport operators find impossible to provide or that are extremely costly to
do so. Public subsidies to operators disproportionately cover these low frequency services in thin markets.
Replacing these trips with less costly and possibly more convenient options could also free up publicresources for other uses.
In other related studies, Feigan and Murphy (2016) found that bicycle-sharing in the United States often
serves to access or to extend public transport trips and that car sharing typically occurs in off-peak hours
for non-work trips. According to the survey, car-sharing and ride-services were generally seen as competing
more with taxi and private car use than with public transport.
There is admittedly insufficient empirical evidence on the impact of ride services and other innovative
mobility options on public transport ridership, especially outside of North America. Even if there were, itwould be difficult to generalise at this stage on how this impact, either positive or negative, might evolve as
more and more people use ride services. But at present, there seems to be evidence that in certain
contexts – especially where the provision of public transport services is expensive and quality is low –well-targeted policy to replace certain poorly-performing and expensive bus services may indeed increase
the overall attractiveness of public transport. In these cases, public authorities and public transport
operators can start to evaluate where these synergies are strongest by undertaking inventories of existing
public transport routes and services to evaluate the potential for alternative service delivery models –including those based on co-operation with ride services. These inventories would be best served byseeking improvements in overall outcomes rather than only looking solely at cost savings.
Further evidence-based analysis of the interaction effects between ride services and public transport, andthe overall impact on mobility outcomes can also help guide policy-making in this area. This will require
perhaps more information from rides services than they have typically provided in the past (we discuss dataand performance indicator frameworks later) but can lead to better framed policy discussions.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

38 – FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Figure 4. Uber pick-ups and drop-offs (blue) within a quarter mile of suburban rail services (black) in
Portland, Oregon

Source: Uber (2017).

The investigation of employee shuttle services between San Francisco and Silicon Valley is one example ofthis type of evidence-based investigation of the impacts of innovative mobility services. Prior to 2014, a
number of bus and mini-bus based employee shuttles proliferated throughout the city bringing workers in
the tech industry from their residences in San Francisco to their places of employment in Silicon Valley.
Individual companies organised entire networks of routes and stops using public street infrastructure,including marked loading areas and public transport stops, and thus offered a “shadow” public transport
network that rivalled that of established services (see Figure 5). These private shuttles were controversialin that boarding and off-loading hampered public bus service and disrupted traffic due to inconsistentenforcement and confusing rules, or the lack thereof. Many felt that these shuttles not only drew riders
away from existing public transport services eroding their revenue base but that the shuttles also prioritised
the travel of relatively better-paid tech workers over more captive users of traditional public transport.
Starting in January 2014, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) initiated a pilot
program that streamlined and enforced rules and monitored performance in co-operation with shuttle
operators. The programme found that while 29% of the shuttle riders would otherwise have used public
transport to get to work, nearly half (47%) would have driven alone to work along an already very
congested route. While the employee shuttle fleet did draw some riders away from public transport, it drew
many more people out of cars and thus had a positive impact on peak hour traffic. This analysis led SFMTA
to recommend that the shuttles be allowed to operate albeit under tighter regulatory control to ensure as
little impact as possible on public bus services in San Francisco (SFMTA, 2015). Such an open-ended,
flexible and evidence-based trialling of new rules could also be a model for authorities seeking synergies
between ride services and public transport.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT – 39

Figure 5. Private shuttle lines between San Francisco and Silicon Valley (2012)

Source: Stamen Design (2015).

Adopting governance structures aligned with the range of mobility
services on offer
The governance of public transport, and of transport services more generally, will play an essential role ineither facilitating or impeding the convergence of traditional and innovative mobility services – and of ride
services in particular. In the first instance, the licensing of innovative mobility services and their regulation
is a role conferred to governments. These roles may be unified within one level of government or agency
but in many instances it may be spread across several levels (national, regional or local). Even at any given
level, responsibility may be spread across several departments or services with little top-level co-ordination.
This complicates the task of aligning outcomes in, say, the regulation of ride services that may fall underthose in charge of taxi or for-hire regulations and public transport regulation which may fall under acompletely different authority.
Secondly, initiating outreach to ride services typically comes from public authorities or public transport
operators and in many instances, this may be stymied by internal resistance to what may be perceived as
direct or unfair competition with public transport services. It may also be difficult since, under the current
framework of public transport provision, the less regulated ride service sector may be seen as running

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

40 – FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

counter to the public service component of existing services. If transport governance structures contributeto this friction, it may be very difficult to even broach the subject of synergies between ride services andpublic transport, let alone experiment with them. This is certainly the case where, for any number ofreasons, new ride services are prevented from operating or face constraining conditions. At a very basic
level, split responsibility and split levels of decision-making may hamper the trialling of innovative newarrangements.
There is a great diversity of governance structures for public transport around the world and the enactmentof this governance rests on a wide variety of legal arrangements. These may include authorisations,licences, concessions, contracts or hybrid arrangements built on multiple instruments. Because of thisdiversity, it is hard to generalise on what seems to be the most effective form of transport governance,
especially since this diversity generally rests on local or regional characteristics. Nonetheless, there arethree broad service delivery models around the world that necessitate slightly different governancestructures.
The first model is characterised by a privatised public transport operator that has significant freedom tomake operational decisions and strategic investments. These operators may be fully privatised, as in thecase of the Tokyu Corporation providing metropolitan rail services in the Tokyo region, or may consist ofoperators established as private companies with public shareholders, as in the case of the Mass Transit
Railway (MTR) Corporation that operates rail and bus services in Hong Kong. These types of arrangements
have led to a certain degree of innovation with regards to funding models that generate revenue fromcommercial services and real estate linked to public transport networks. Such operators have a strong focus
on the profitability of their services and have extremely limited recourse to public subsidies. Because theyrun generally profit-clearing services, the cost-savings attraction of partnering with innovative mobility
services may not be very compelling. But there is room for seeking out partnerships to improve certain
operational aspects of services – especially if they attract riders out of congested networks at peak times.
A second, relatively widespread model, for the organisation of public transport is one where the operator isfully under the direct control of a government body and indeed may even be a government agency.
Self-provided services are common feature in North America and, to a lower extent, elsewhere. These typesof operators have generally emerged from the privatisation of commercial operators when these lost market
share in the face of rising car use.
The rationale for bringing public transport under direct government control was to ensure the provision ofminimum levels of service, coverage and controlled fares as a safety net to ensure mobility for those unable
or unwilling to use cars. These types of operators are governed directly by regional/local transport
authorities who define the level of service, fares and coverage. In some instances, national authorities also
set requirements for these operators, especially in return for payments and subsidies.
In the United States, government agencies and operators delivering public transport services have beenamong the first to seek out partnerships with ride services and other innovative mobility operators as
outlined in Chapter 3. However, this model may harbour some inherent tensions in that officially partneringwith innovative mobility operators, especially those that have limited or no public service obligations, may
be seen as running counter to the agency mission. This is one of the reasons the US Federal Transit
Administration has issued guidance on the matter. Because of this inherent tension, the scalability of
public-private partnerships bringing together public transport with other mobility services may becompromised beyond a limited set of innovators and small- to medium-sized pilot programmes.
A third common model, especially prevalent in Europe (but not exclusively: Los Angeles and Portland areNorth American examples) is one where transport authorities define the strategic and tactical objectives for
public transport but the actual operation of these services is contracted out to independent operators. As
described by the UITP, “Organising Authorities are organisations which act in the public interest to ensure a

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT – 41

well-functioning, attractive, and integrated transport system. They provide the framework for successful
public transport directed at economic, social, and environmental value for citizens and business” (UITP,
2009). Conceptually, this model provides greater flexibility for integrating new types of services into theurban mobility mix. FlexDanmark’s Flex Traffic platform is one example of this type of approach for
integrating on-demand services (see Box 1).
In Europe, this model typically revolves around a competent authority at a regional or metropolitan levelthat establishes public service contracts with operators to carry out transport operations. The authority is
not a public transport operator but, as described in a report from the New Cities Foundation, is a “mobility
orchestrator” establishing a mix of contract-based mobility options for the region (Lindsay, 2016). These
contracts are subject to public tender and the operators may be commercial entities or publicly-owned
companies. European legislation allows for exemptions to the tendering process where the operator isowned by the authority and where such exemptions are not prohibited by national law. In those cases,
strict legal obligations on payment, performance and service quality frame the contract.
Because the responsibility for goal-setting and oversight is split from operations and service delivery, thistype of model intuitively makes sense for contracting out or procuring services from ride companies. Someof the inherent conflicts that may need to be overcome in the previous two models are not necessarily
present and the potential contribution of ride services to an overall vision and objectives for transport canbe more objectively assessed and acted upon. This is in theory at least, because in practice, public
transport organising authorities in Europe have been particularly loathe to seek out partnerships with ride
services and most of the innovation in this field comes from North America. This may stem from thestrength and effectiveness of traditional public transport service in European countries as well as from an
institutional bias in favour of traditional public transport service delivery models. Yet, even in metropolitan
areas with well-functioning public transport networks, operators must often cross-subsidise lower
performing routes with revenues derived from core services. Innovation in service delivery in those markets
may increase the overall function of the network and improve customers’ outcomes.

Current public transport service procurement practices and ride services
Because many partnerships between public transport agencies and rides services are currently run as trials
or on a small scale, they don’t necessarily require completely revisiting procurement rules or contracting
practices. If these arrangements are to scale up or become an integral part of the transport options
overseen by public contracting agencies, adjustments will likely be required to procurement. It is probably
too early at this stage to specify what form or forms those contracts and practices should take and thediversity of local conditions would suggest that multiple models may emerge – much as they have for thecontracting of public transport services. Further experimentation with procurement rules may even be
beneficial as long as risks are identified and contained.
Generally, however, a few elements in the procurement/contracting framework for public transport willneed to be adjusted – especially as concerns public service contracts. Public service contracts establish therights and obligations of both transport authorities contracting services and the operator providing thoseservices. They typically cover a wide range of aspects relevant to the delivery of fixed route public transport
services as illustrated in Figure 6. Not all of these areas are necessarily relevant for the oversight ofpublic-private partnerships (where the public transport operator is a public agency or under its effective
control and where the ride service operator is a commercial venture) to deliver ride services in conjunction
with, or as a replacement for, public transport. In particular, public service contracts typically specify thequantity of services to be provided (in terms of frequency, coverage, vehicles, etc.), may grant exclusivityof fixed routes, set fares, specify how revenue is to be allocated and identify responsibilities forinfrastructure investments in return for payments or subsidies for service from the public authority. These

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

42 – FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

contract components do not necessarily apply to the provision of ride services as they are typicallycharacterised by routeless networks (with the exception of some microtransit services), fares and revenues
are normally the sole responsibility of the ride service (though the difference between the public-facing
price and the full cost to the ride service may be part of the contract since this determines the level of
public subsidy) and no infrastructure expenditure. Ride service contracts may grant exclusivity to ride
service platforms or operators and may specify a geographic scope where the contract and its provisions
are enabled.
How contracts and procurement rules specify quality objectives for ride services will likely diverge fromtraditional bus and rail-based public transport. The latter typically look at specifying operational aspects ofservice provision: on-time performance, availability of service, location of stops and even detailed
schedule-based frequency. These are adapted to the type of services route-based bus and rail services
provide but make little sense for platform-based ride services. Coverage of services, average wait times(and their distribution) for both regular services and for accessible services, for example, all focus more on
the outcomes that ride services can contribute to and may be more relevant for contracting with theproviders of ride services.
An additional element to consider is the allocation of risk in contracting arrangements. Currently, most of
the pilots looking at the delivery of ride services allocate risk to the public authority contracting the service.
Authorities accept this since they realise substantial cost savings with these arrangements as compared totheir prior arrangements. This may need to evolve.
Figure 6. Public service contract components for public transport services and ride services(indicative)

Bus or rail-based public transport

Ride services

Payments for the services from thecompetent authority

Payments for the services from thecompetent authority

Quality of services

Quantity of services

Quality of services

Exclusivity of routes

Roles and tasks ofparties

Exclusivity of service

Roles and tasks ofparties

Fares and allocationof revenues

Allocation of
infrastructure costs

Monitoring andcontrol

Contractmanagement

Monitoring andcontrol

Contractmanagement

Service area
Source: Based in part on Bruggerman (2014).

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT – 43

Managing risk linked to service innovation
Government subsidies or payments for public transport involve taxpayer revenues and because of this,authorities have limited appetite for “risky” investments. If these investments do not provide expectedvalue, the public may feel authorities have squandered taxpayer revenues. This limits the ability for
authorities to seek innovative arrangements that may only provide uncertain, or at least, untested value atthe outset. Public-private partnerships typically seek to balance risk amongst both parties but are often
seen as a way to unload risk to private enterprises in return for which they are compensated throughbeneficial revenue allocation arrangements. The treatment of risk, both on the cost and on the revenue side
is important to consider when looking at the future potential for linking ride services to public transport. In
most (temporary) initiatives reviewed here, much of the risk is borne by the contracting public agency orauthority.
Risk on the cost side is relatively contained for ride service operators and the platforms they operate, andthe remittances they provide drivers are largely covered by general revenues they derive from theircommercial services. While there may be some debate on just how profitable different ride service models
are, the services they provide in conjunction with public transport options remains a minuscule part of theiroverall costs. In some cases operators do invest in dedicated services and facilities as Lyft has done inorder to provide or pay for call centres. These costs are covered by the ride services. Risk on the cost sidefor public agencies is also contained since most of the services to-date are time bound pilots with fixedbudgets for subsidy payments – once the money runs out, so too does the service unless additional funds
are allocated through the budget process. And the pilots typically allow public agencies and operators toenact sometimes substantial cost savings.
Revenue risk is also relatively well contained, since costs are generally contained and marginal revenues
cover additional services generated through the pilot programmes. Revenue estimates also oftentimes
correctly assume a rise in ridership linked to the greater convenience and contained costs of services
offered – especially in comparison to the pre-existing public transport-alone offer.
While risks are contained by design in the case of the pilots described previously, this may not hold true asservices scale up and are extended to a broader field of application. In this case, alternative risk mitigation
structures may be necessary on the public side. Innovation management is not limited to efforts seeking toreconfigure the provision of mobility services; it is something public agencies are facing across a broad
spectrum of fields including broadband access, water services and housing, for instance. In these instances,it may be worthwhile to think about alternative structures that enable sustainable risk-taking in public
governance.
One possible approach is to mimic the portfolio approach adopted by many venture capital firms. Thesefirms invest in a broad range of potential new businesses with the expectation that many will fail sometimes quickly; lessons will be learnt and incorporated into new business models and eventually, asufficient number of ideas take hold and generate adequate returns to sustain and grow the overall portfolio
value.
A slightly analogous “innovation finance agency” or “urban mobility lab” could help bring this type ofapproach to public expenditures in the field of urban mobility innovation. Under this framework, theindependent agency might pool public and private monies with an eye to investing in a wide range ofinnovative services with the expectation that many will fail leading to higher and higher skill and that this,in return, will ensure that some projects succeed, maximise overall return on taxpayer investments andlead to innovative new offers. This approach likely falls outside of the comfort level of many public agencies
but some are starting to investigate governance models to help generate innovative services. For example,
Metro, Los Angeles’ public transport operator, has put in place a programme to receive, evaluate and act
upon (if needed) completely unsolicited innovative ideas from the public and from the private sector.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

44 – FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

Box 4. US Federal Transit Agency (FTA) Mobility on Demand Sandbox programme
The FTA Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox is a federal funding programme aiming to investigate how public
transport agencies can develop synergies with, and best manage the disruption caused by, emerging innovative
mobility services. The programme helps feed the FTA’s research on how new service options in combination withavailable technologies allow for greater individual mobility. Goals include:Improve transportation efficiency by promoting agile, responsive, accessible and seamless multimodal
service inclusive of transit through enabling technologies and innovative partnerships.

Increase transportation effectiveness by ensuring that transit is fully integrated and a vital element of aregional transport network that provides consistent, reliable and accessible service to every traveller.

Enhance the customer experience by providing each individual equitable, accessible, traveller-centric
service leveraging public transportation’s long-standing capability and traditional role in this respect.

FTA developed the MOD initiative to envision a multimodal, integrated, automated, accessible and connectedtransportation system in which personalised mobility is a key feature. FTA’s MOD Sandbox programme provides avenue through which integrated MOD concepts and solutions – supported through local partnerships – aredemonstrated in real-world settings. The MOD Sandbox also provides FTA the opportunity to measure project
impacts and assess how existing FTA policies and regulations may support or impede these new service
transportation models through evaluation of all project efforts. The objectives of the programme are to:Enhance transit industry preparedness for MOD.



Assist the transit industry to develop the ability to integrate MOD practices with existing transit service.

Validate the technical and institutional feasibility of innovative MOD business models and document MOD
best practices that may emerge from the demonstrations.



Measure the impacts of MOD on travellers and transportation systems.

Examine relevant public sector and federal requirements, regulations and policies that may support or
impede transit sector adoption of MOD.

Eligible activities include all those leading to the demonstration of the innovative MOD and transit integration
concept, such as planning and developing business models, obtaining equipment and service, acquiring/developing
software and hardware interfaces to implement the project, and operating the demonstration. Eligible recipientsare providers of public transportation, including public transit agencies, state/local government DOTs, andfederally recognised Indian tribes. Each recipient must identify one or more strategic project partner(s) with asubstantial interest and involvement in the project. These partners may include private for-profit and not-for-profit
organizations, including shared use mobility providers, and technology system suppliers; operators oftransportation services, such as employee shuttle services, airport connector services, university transportation
systems, or parking and tolling authorities; State or local government entities; and other organisations that may
contribute to the success of the project team including consultants, research consortia or not-for-profit industry
organisations, and institutions of higher education.
Source: Adapted from FTA (2016).

Another approach to manage more “risky” initiatives is to use dedicated funds and programmes toincentivise innovative projects. The United States Department of Transport has used this approach in its“Smart City” Grant programme and its Federal Transit Agency uses a similar approach in its Mobility on
Demand (MOD) Sandbox programme (see Box 4). This program provides up to 80% matching federal funds(up to the programme budget of USD 8 million) for innovative new integrated mobility-on-demand concepts
and solutions. The goal of the programme is to investigate how public transport agencies can develop
synergies with, and best manage the disruption caused by, emerging innovative mobility services.
A final risk category to consider is that posed by the “lock-in” of a particular service provider through publicagency contracts. Single-provider contracts may make sense but these raise risks of monopolistic behaviour
and may prevent more innovative services or providers from entering markets. These risks can be
mitigated in a number of ways, for example by shortening the contract period, putting in place

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT – 45

performance-based contracting with bonuses and penalties for meeting/surpassing or falling short ofobjectives or splitting the market. Another approach to consider, especially when public authorities provide
payments or subsidies for services is to put in place user-side subsidies which allow the private sector toinnovate and seek out users who then allocate public funds.

Leveraging government assets to guide convergence
Public authorities control a substantial amount of infrastructure that can be used or re-configured to help
guide the convergence of ride services and public transport. Preferred access to managed lanes, priority
given to commercial ride sharing vehicles in publicly owned parking facilities and reconfiguring public street
space for pick-up and drop-off zones are all areas where public action can help leverage ownership ofinfrastructure to support a greater diversity of mobility options.
One issue to consider is that many local authorities derive revenue from infrastructure, especially fromparking. A move towards greater reliance on ride services and public transport will likely reduce parking
revenues, or at least shift where these are generated. This is in itself not a problem if the costs borne by
the public sector also decrease obviating the need for that revenue. But if cost recovery is still required on
the part of public authority, it is unlikely that revenue derived from storing inactive vehicles will suffice if arising share of vehicles provide ride services and therefore only stop briefly at the curb.
In this context, new revenue models may be needed – such as a “kerb-kiss” fee levied for pick-up or
drop-off at the kerb applicable to all vehicles (ride services, public transport, goods delivery, etc.) but thiswould suppose a technological platform able to track and correctly charge these fees in a trustworthy andtransparent manner. This may be easier to do at some point in the future, especially with a greater
penetration of potentially fully-automated vehicles, but it is worth starting to investigate these models
already today.
Another aspect to consider from the public transport operator side is that parking connected to certain
stations may also be a constrained resource. In these cases, operators may need to invest significant
resources to increase parking capacity for stations servicing extended and low-density catchment areas. As
some of the cases outlined in Chapter 3 indicate, partnering with ride services to provide better car-based
connectivity to these stations may be in the operator’s best interest as this solution can help increaseridership on core services while obviating the need to invest in expensive parking capacity.

Monitoring outcomes
As noted earlier, there is insufficient reliable evidence on the impacts of joining ride services and public
transport, or of using the former to replace the latter. This is precisely why there are so many pilots – they
serve as learning exercises both in the organisational aspects of such programmes but also on theirimpacts. Monitoring outcomes is key at this early stage. However, the metrics used to monitor outcomesshould not be limited to those traditionally used by public transport operators in reference to traditional
service models. These types of metrics may include on-time performance, average headways, and otheroperational aspects of public transport production. These are important but they do not capture how the
public views the services being offered. Other metrics relating to wait times (average and distribution),frequency, the “feel” of the trip experience (e.g. Los Angeles is tracking transport “happiness”), overall
convenience, etc., may be as, or more relevant. These are important metrics that allow agencies andauthorities to understand how well users view the mobility offer on hand and whether or not it is compellingenough to effectively compete with car transport.
Another aspect to keep in mind is that even the “production” indices related to ride services are likely to bequite different from those used for public transport. This, in conjunction with the great amount of data

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

46 – FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT

produced by app-based ride service platforms, has led to calls for ride services – especially (but not only)
those engaged in pilots with public transport services – to provide a large amount of data. This typically has
occurred in an uncoordinated manner across different cities and countries but there are increasing calls forsome form of standardised data-sharing from ride service companies to cities. Certain cities, like New Yorkand London, have compelled ride services to share data in return for operational licensing, while yet others
have been unsuccessful with the same companies – possibly because of a poorly structured or overly broad
data requests. ITF (2016b) notes how public interest data sharing must balance private security,commercial secrets, valid public insight into the impact of operations and technical capacity on the part ofpublic agencies. It also points out how data sharing – as currently construed – is not the only way, nor evennecessarily the best way, to extract useable and trustable insight from ride service data. Nonetheless, thecalls for data sharing continue, prompting at least two interesting responses.
In the first instance, Uber has offered to share anonymised trip data with cities through its Movement data
platform announced in January 2017. This platform provides city officials and regulators with data on trips
in areas where sufficient density allows adequate anonymisation. Information on individual trips is notprovided. Movement will give insight into traffic flow speeds and locations where trip density is elevated. It
will also provide insights into the manner in which events and other disruptions impact street traffic.
Table 2. NACTO-suggested ride service data sharing elements
1. Better data for transportation
planning

Speed

CorridorVolumeTravel time
Pick-up location and time

Block faceDrop-off location and time

2. Equity in mobility options

Vehicle occupancy

Corridor

Non-revenue vehicle miles traveled

Log: Miles/month

Vehicle dwell time

Log: Hours/month

Number, date, and time ofunfulfilled rides

Log: Number/quarter

Number, date, and time of declined
rides
Number, date, and time of cancelledrides

3. New tools for safety

Vehicle availability by typeGPS location data

Collision occurrence

GPS location data

Collision severity
Rapid acceleration
Rapid deceleration
Autonomous vehicle operation
disengagement

Time, location,and protocol

Source: NACTO (2017).

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

FRAMING THE CONVERGENCE OF RIDE SERVICES AND PUBLIC TRANSPORT – 47

Also in January 2017, the US National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) released its City
Data Sharing Principles. These principles cover a much broader set of data than released by Uber throughits Movement platform and, for instance, while it may be analogous to some of the data that taxis may
have to provide in New York City, it represents a broad expansion of data requests in relation to ride
services. This, NACTO states, is necessary in order to enable cities to better carry out data-driven planningand policy decisions, and to help them redesign streets to meet modern needs. Ride services view thisexpansive data request as over-reaching what might constitute reasonable data sharing on their part.
Especially as concerns the potential for the release of privacy-eroding or commercially sensitive data.
Furthermore, it isn’t clear if all ride service providers even collect some of the data elements specified in the
NACTO list, especially as concerns accelerometer data. Very likely that data in particular, will be
increasingly generated and stored by vehicles themselves and data discovery will involve automobile
manufacturers rather than ride service companies.
Irrespective of the specification for data elements to be shared by ride service companies, there is the issue
of fairness in data discovery requirements. The vast majority of traffic entails privately owned vehicles andthere are no requirements on these to provide the type of data outlined in the NACTO guidelines. That ispartly because there is no defined regulatory mandate to do so. People acquire a right to drive based on
passing a minimum skills test and are not restricted in where they may drive except as determined by therules governing road use. This may change as higher levels of automation come about and there is a needto understand how algorithms operate in traffic – especially as concerns safety outcomes. Public transport
and taxi services do operate in a licensed environment and it makes sense that, in return for operations,they too provide the same type of data as being sought from ride services in many cities. This may be anarea where further cross-modal harmonisation is required in gathering data for public or commercial
services operated on public roads.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

48 – ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR AN AGEING POPULATION

5. Ensuring equitable access for an ageing population
One of the recurrent questions in discussions regarding the convergence of innovative mobility services andpublic transport relates to the broader equity impacts of this convergence as they relate to equitable
access. Equity issues extend to many potential groups, including low-income groups, minorities, part-timeworkers, people with physical and cognitive impairments and the elderly. The Institute for Transport andDevelopment Policy has issued useful guidance in addressing how innovative mobility services can also
provide opportunities for low-income households (Kodransky and Lewenstein, 2014). This chapter focuseson what it would take to make innovative mobility services accessible and acceptable to, and useable by,older people and people with physical, sensory or cognitive impairments.
This is an important question and one that will become even more relevant over time. This is due to a close
correlation between age and disability; as populations age, disability becomes more prevalent. Virtually
every country in the world is experiencing growth in the number of older people in their population.
Between 2015 and 2030, the number of people in the world aged 60 years or over is projected to grow by
56% from 901 million to 1.4 billion, and by 2050, the global population of older people is projected to morethan double its size in 2015, reaching nearly 2.1 billion.
Global ageing has a major influence on disability trends. The relationship is straightforward: there is higher
risk of disability at older ages. Informal estimates suggest that some two-thirds of people with disabilities
are over retirement age and that one-third of older people have some kind of disability. The prevalence andseverity of disability increases with older old age (currently 80 years plus).
Data on disability reveals that across the age spectrum mobility impairments are the most common
problem, with difficulty lifting and carrying, poor manual dexterity and problems with communication andmemory loss also significant factors. Many older people are affected by a range of impairments including
some loss of visual acuity, some loss of hearing, short term memory loss and difficulty gripping, climbing(steps) and balancing. There is also a clear link between a loss of mobility and a decline in physical andmental health and wellbeing. An OECD report noted that “even though disability prevalence rates havedeclined to some extent in recent years in some countries, the ageing of the population and the greater
longevity of individuals can be expected to lead to increasing numbers of people at older ages with a severe
disability” (Lafortune and Balestat, 2007).
In terms of providing adequately equipped vehicles, it is important to note that only a small proportion ofpeople with disabilities are wheelchair users. In addition to those with mobility or sensory impairments,
many have “hidden” conditions including cognitive and mental health issues. Dementia in all its many forms
affects a growing number of people. UK figures indicate that dementia and related neurological conditions
affect around 10% of people aged over 65 and around 50% of those aged over 80.

Enabling older people and people with disabilities to travel
There are a number of key factors to be considered before designing or committing to any transport service
or system:

Low levels of Internet and smartphone access and usage among older people and those with low
income (which includes many people with disabilities) (see section below).



Discomfort/lack of confidence with using on-line systems even if people have access.



Strong preference for human contact as means of booking trip/seeking advice during trip. In thiscontext services provided in future by driverless vehicles could present particular challenges to theconfidence of older people.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR AN AGEING POPULATION – 49

Reluctance to use automated answering systems/push button options for correct department, etc.,
which many older and disabled people lack confidence to understand or physical ability to use.

Concerns about giving out personal/bank information/data.

Concerns for personal safety (exacerbated by being alone in a vehicle with an unknown driver).



Need for social interaction that comes with mainstream bus/train travel.

Physical accessibility of vehicles (more difficult in smaller vehicles). Features need to include:
wheelchair access (not necessarily all vehicles but see next point), low level entry, grab handles,
swivel seats, colour contrast, arm rests.



Availability of vehicles for spontaneous travel: Many cities in Europe and North America now havemainstream public transport that is accessible to many people with disabilities, including wheelchairusers. If that is replaced by on-demand mobility services, the same level of accessibility/availability
will be needed.

Another key consideration relating to the delivery of app-based ride services is whether or not current andsuccessive older populations are capable of using these services – are they technologically savvy? This is an
important consideration since increasingly, internet and/or smartphone access is needed to organise
spontaneous travel and to get the best price deals on trips. For many older people this represents a major
barrier:

44% of Americans aged 65 and above are not on-line.



Only 27% of Americans aged over 65 have a smartphone (compared with 85% of those aged
18-29. Although this might suggest that the next generation of older people will be more
comfortable with technology, note the final bullet in this section.

Some of the difficulties for older people using technology include:poor manual dexterity affecting ability to use keyboard and touch screenvision problems affecting ability to read screens and keyboards

confusion and short-term memory loss making on-line transactions difficult and stressfulconcern about data security and reluctance to disclose personal information.

These difficulties are likely to persist even as currently technologically savvy generations age. It is likelythat as each generation reaches old age, it will face similar difficulties as the pace of technology moves
faster than people’s ability to stay ahead of it mentally and physically. Given the likely increase inprevalence of digital interfaces – especially in the context of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) – designing
services that are accessible for as wide a population as possible will become a core concern. This is alreadythe case for Finland, a pioneer in MaaS policy and deployment (see Box 5).

Current accessibility trends in transport
Against the background of the discussion on mobility services, it is important to understand both thehistorical context and the current situation on transport accessibility. Over the past 30 years, in North
America, Europe and elsewhere there have been developments, initiated by the civil rights movement andincreasingly enshrined in law, to require all public transport to be designed and operated by vehicles andsystems accessible to people who use wheelchairs, have walking difficulty, impaired sight or hearing, etc. In
many towns and cities 100% of public transport is now accessible. These developments have opened up

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

50 – ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR AN AGEING POPULATION

opportunities for people with disabilities to live independent lives, to enjoy spontaneous travel and to accessemployment, education and social activities freely.

Box 5. Mobility as a Service and accessibility: Experience and guidance from Finland
Finland is an early leader in terms of integrating the concept of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) into regulatory
frameworks, data structures and systems, operational rules and commercial deployment. Government policy aims
to ensure that the deployment of these services does not exclude people requiring assistance to travel or thosewith various physical and cognitive disabilities.
In Finland more than 19% of the population is considered disabled and 1.2 million people are over 65 years old.
Any system inaccessible to these people prevents their contribution and equitable participation in society.
Digitalisation of information acquisition about, and the purchase of, transport services has led to great efficiencies
but simultaneously, has eroded the ability for the non-digitally savvy or those who cannot use non-accessible
digital interfaces to travel easily. This trend in digitalisation has been accompanied by a reduction of personalcustomer service in vehicles, terminals, service centres and call centres. This increases the risk of marginalisation
for those that those who cannot use mobile devices due to age, disability, language skills, or other reasons.
There is a strong push in Finland to ensure that MaaS deployment also includes accessibility considerations. Thistakes several forms at present:

There is a need for structured and standardised data to be communicated across the range of MaaS
actors regarding travel route accessibility and vehicular accessibility and capacity. This data should be an
integral part of the data package provided by transport operators to MaaS operators and eventually tocustomers. This data is required by law to be available in machine readable format through open
interfaces by 1 January 2018. These essential accessibility data elements via open interfaces are requiredby the Finnish Transport Code (TC) coming into force in 2018 and covers all transport modes andservices. However each transport mode have their mode specific data attributes, so additional work isunderway to define “agreed minimums” for the most critical data.

Data regarding passengers special needs should be delivered in standardised form from MaaS operators
to the producers of transport services. The MyData model (https://mydatafi.wordpress.com/) thatemphasises the users right to limit or share the use of their personal data, could allow even more detailed
health and personal data to be communicated via application programming interfaces. Model interfaces
are being developed under a implementation project for the Finnish TC.

Accessibility should be designed into user interfaces from the outset using existing and accepted
standards.

Additional services, e.g. call centre and alternative sales channels, will be needed for those who cannot
use digital user interfaces. Responsibilities in organising these additional services will need to be allocatedbetween public and commercial actors according to common rules. The new Finnish TC gives public
entities more flexibility to purchase or cover additional expenses to organise rural area or night duty
coverage for people with special needs.

Source: Adapted from Somerpalo et al. (2017).

Door-to-door or paratransit services, common in North America and many parts of Europe, which were thestarting point for accessibility for older and disabled people, are increasingly seen as a complement torather than a substitute for accessible public transport. In some cities (for example Barcelona and London),the transport operator encourages people to use public transport rather than “special” services by providing
a mentor or companion to travel with them until they are comfortable with the route and the process.
For those older people who have never been public transport users, the prospect of giving up driving isoften very frightening and as a consequence, many stay behind the wheel longer than they should. Manyare deterred by the complexity of accessing and understanding bus or rail timetables or purchasing tickets.
At the same time, they may feel intimidated by ride services that combine technological elements that they
may poorly master and the need to provide banking details in advance.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR AN AGEING POPULATION – 51

Suggested prerequisites for inclusive mobility services
Taking on board the points set out above, if mobility services complement or replace accessible mainstream
public transport, they would need to provide at least the same degree of spontaneity and flexibility to travel
when the individual wants or needs. In cities where frequent accessible buses and on-street hail taxis areavailable, this would mean ensuring that ride services licensed by public authorities provide services asaccessible as those they complement or replace and that drivers are sufficiently trained. This may mean asubstantial number of vehicles deployed would meet international accessibility standards. On-going
monitoring of these outcomes is necessary.
However, in places without this tradition of high levels of accessibility, or where on-street hailing is lessfrequent and bus service headways poorer, a proportion of accessible vehicles could probably meetdemand, although defining the optimum number would depend on the efficiency of booking and vehicle
location systems. This seems to be the case for many of the US-based pilot programmes. As part of thisprovision, real-time mapping system would need to be able to locate and book the nearest accessible
vehicle. In all circumstances and situations, an adequate pool of accessible vehicles would need to beavailable at all times so that people with disabilities did not have to wait (much) longer than other people to
make their trip. There is some experimentation underway (e.g. Uber in New York City) on mixing
short-term leases for accessible vehicles, a flat incentive payment for drivers undertaking those trips andreduced commissions by the ride service platform. In contexts where accessibility requirements impose thatall public transport vehicles are accessible and public transport frequencies are high, a move to longer wait
times for accessible ride service vehicles will represent a retrograde step.
Drivers providing accessible services would need to have specialist training in understanding and meetingthe needs of older people and people with disabilities. This would include both disability awareness training
and job specific practical training in areas such as guiding a blind person, assisting a wheelchair user,
understanding and supporting a person with dementia.
Furthermore, a system would need to be set up that incentivised companies/drivers to purchase more
expensive accessible vehicles and that compensated them for making fewer trips because of the time taken
to assist a passenger with a disability. These are the principles that guided the development of MBTA’s RIDE
pilot.
Close monitoring and a contractual framework would need to be in place to ensure that drivers/companies
were not avoiding the calls from people with disabilities (there is some evidence of this from theintroduction of accessible taxis is the UK and elsewhere).
For younger people with physical or sensory disabilities (at least in the developed world), internet accessand smartphone use is generally not a problem with new technology compensating for lack of manual
dexterity or vision, etc. Provided that vehicles were suitable and drivers were trained, they would mostly
adapt without difficulty. For those with learning disabilities or mental health issues, the challenges would
include understanding how to use the system and being able to trust the driver (police checks as well as
training would be necessary for all drivers dealing with vulnerable passengers). Non hi-tech systems suchas those suggested below for older people might also be helpful to those with learning disabilities.
For older people without access to the internet or without the skills to make bookings and othertransactions, alternatives could include:a phone line, staffed by people (Lyft has put in place this service in some of its paratransit pilots in
the United States)

access points in local shops and cafés where people would be available to help with the transaction

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

52 – ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR AN AGEING POPULATIONa simple means of data protection that would give older people the confidence that their personal
finances were not being compromised

enabling people to travel with a companion at no charge or reduced charge to give people theconfidence to make the journey (particularly important for those with dementia and a common
policy among mainstream local transport providers).

Can mobility services meet everyone’s needs?
The section above sets out some of the basic parameters for accessibility, acceptability and usability byolder people and people with disabilities. Some other issues also need to be addressed, such as consistencyof service, equality and social issues.
For many older people, particularly those living alone, using public transport may be the only opportunity
for social interaction and is an important part of retaining their ability to live and to function independently.
Social interaction is a major factor in preventing both physical and mental decline (which represent a hugeeconomic cost to society, as well as social and personal cost to the individual). Travelling as the only
passenger is a vehicle will not provide the same stimulation and may cause anxiety, which leads to apreference for inclusive services, covering all users including those with access needs. Also, the ability totravel with a companion (at no extra costs) would help with this concern both for older people and for thosewith mental health issues or learning disabilities.
One of the key achievements of the past 30 years (in Europe and North America among others) has been toachieve harmonised and consistent rules on what accessible vehicles should look like so that people withdisabilities can travel with confidence knowing that they will be able to complete all stages of their journey.
It will be important for the criteria for vehicle accessibility to be clearly defined and non-negotiable
otherwise there is a risk of sending an “accessible “vehicle that cannot accommodate, for example,
someone travelling in a large wheelchair or with a mobility scooter.
To avoid a major backlash from the disability community that 30 years of campaigning for civil rights has
been thrown away, it is vital that mobility services are promoted and introduced as a new way of travel forthe population as a whole and one that is as universally accessible as public transport has increasingly
become. There is otherwise a risk that it will look as if there is a regression back to the days of separate
specialised transport.

What about the future? Testing equitable accessibility of shared mobility
services
Going forward, it seems clear that urban mobility markets will undergo significant changes as ride services
and other, innovative, mobility services are developed in conjunction with, or as competition to, existingtransport options including personal car use, taxis and public transport. At the same time, as mentioned in
the opening of this report, there is considerable uncertainty regarding which business model (or models)
will prevail and what role public authorities will play in facilitating, guiding or blocking new initiatives fromthe private sector. This uncertainty extends to the ability for new business models to address the mobility
and accessibility needs of the entire population. In order to help reduce some of this uncertainty, ITF has
investigated the extent to which shared mobility systems as modelled in previous work (see ITF 2015;
2016c) could handle the needs of a population requiring special assistance or accessible vehicles to travel.
It finds that under certain configurations, deploying a fleet of fully accessible vehicles is an attractive andcost-effective solution (see Box 6). While the shared mobility services modelled in the work represent justone potential mobility market in the future, the work suggests that pro-consumer innovation can, when

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

ENSURING EQUITABLE ACCESS FOR AN AGEING POPULATION – 53

carefully and purposefully designed, also result in better outcomes for all urban travellers – including thosewith physical or cognitive disabilities.

Box 6. Inclusive mobility services based on shared rides
The ITF has undertaken extensive modelling of optimised shared-use mobility services in urban areas (see ITF,
2015; 2016d) as a way of re-thinking the nature of urban public-transport-like services. This work has shown how
the flexibility and convenience of demand-responsive shared mobility solutions can lead to better mobility,
congestion, environmental and spatial accessibility outcomes.
But what about the potential contribution of such systems to improved access for older people and those with
reduced mobility, including individuals with physical, sensory, or cognitive disabilities or travellers carrying heavybags or accompanying young children? ITF proposes a framework to value the social and economic benefits ofimproved access, including time savings, greater convenience, more employment opportunities and savings acrossthe social care and health sectors (ITF, 2016d).
A new ITF report (ITF, 2017) assumes that 10% of all trips in an urban simulation will be generated by people
requiring accessible vehicles, and that these trips are carried out only by on-demand, door-to-door, Shared Taxi
services. Other trips are handled by demand-responsive mini-bus services, high-capacity public transport, walking
as well as by Shared Taxis. Accessible service trips are carried out by vehicles fitted with a ramp (or a lift), a wider
door (on the side or on the back) and a safe place to anchor a wheelchair along the lines required by the US ADA(Americans with Disabilities Act)(United States Access Board, 1991) or other applicable national standards. Not all“accessible” trips require wheelchair access vehicles but for the purposes of the exercise, the ITF only modelled
one accessible vehicle class.
Wheelchair accessible vehicles have a higher capital cost (the report assumes 40% more) and have higher fuelcosts (10% more in the simulation) due to the higher weight. In addition, the longer boarding and alighting times
for people with special mobility needs can imply somewhat lower service productivity. For these two reasons,delivering a disability-accessible service costs a bit more in the modelling exercise than a service that has noaccessible vehicles.
In cities that provide on-call paratransit services travellers requiring accessible vehicles often have 24-houradvance reservation requirements. In this case, the model specification was set such that people requiring
accessible vehicles would face the same (rather low) maximum acceptable waiting times for all other travellers.
The most optimal approach to ensure this was to model a Shared Taxi fleet that was 100% accessible – as is thecase in certain cities around the world.
Taking all of these considerations into account, the report finds that, when modelling a scenario considering that
10% of the travelling population has special mobility needs and including 100% accessible Shared Taxis, thebreakeven price per passenger.kilometre (including overheads and profits) was only a bit higher than in the
scenario with no accessible Shared Taxis, and still at 60% of the current equivalent price for public transport.
International evidence also points to the potential of accessible transport systems to generate large economic
benefits (ITF, 2016d).
The main reasons for the quite small increment in the price per passenger.kilometre in spite of the 40% higher
capital costs and 10% fuel costs of the adapted vehicles, are the large distances run each day by these sharedvehicles and the relatively large part of the costs corresponding to labour.
These results confirm the high value of shared solutions also for this particular segment of the urban mobility
market, and thus a promising option offering high levels of personal accessibility in an inclusive and very efficient
scheme.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

54 – BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bibliography
Demaio, P. (2017), “Year-end wrap-up”. LLC MetroBike. 10 January 2017. http://bikesharing.blogspot.com/2017/01/2016-year-end-wrap-up-will-appear-at.html (accessed 8 February 2017).
Feigan, S. and C. Murphy (2016), "Shared Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit.".
FTA (2016), Mobility on Demand (MOD) Sandbox Program. https://www.transit.dot.gov/researchinnovation/mobility-demand-mod-sandbox-program.html (accessed 10 May 2017).
FTA (2017), Shared Mobility Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.transit.dot.gov/regulations-andguidance/shared-mobility-frequently-asked-questions (accessed 10 May 2017).
Hensher, D.A. (2017), "Future bus transport contracts under a mobility as a service (MaaS) regime in thedigital age: Are they likely to change?" Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 98 .
ITF (2017), "Introducing Shared Mobility: How cities can manage the transition to new, more inclusive,transport services." International Transport Forum Policy Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris.
ITF (2016a),”App-Based Ride and Taxi Services: Principles for Regulation”. International Transport Forum
Policy Papers, No. 22, OECD Publishing, Paris.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvz87ngvf-en
ITF (2016b), "Data-driven Transport Policy." International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 20, OECD
Publishing, Paris.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvz8g4vbs-en
ITF (2016c), "Shared Mobility: Innovation for Liveable Cities." International Transport Forum Policy Papers,
No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvz8bd4mx-en
ITF (2016d), “The Economic Benefits of Improved Accessibility to Transport Systems.” International
Transport Forum Policy Papers, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://www.itfoecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/economic-benefits-improved-accessibility_0.pdf
ITF (2015), "Urban Mobility System Upgrade: How shared self-driving cars could change city traffic."
International Transport Forum Policy Papers, No. 6, OECD Publishing, Paris.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5jlwvzdk29g5-en
ITF (2014), Valuing Convenience in Public Transport, OECD Publishing, Paris.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789282107683-en
Kaufman et al. (2015), Intelligent Paratransit, Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management,
New York University, New York City.
Kodransky, M. and G. Lewenstein (2014), Connecting Low-Income People to Opportunity with Shared
Mobility. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York.
Lafortune, G. and G. Balestat (2007), "Trends in Severe Disability Among Elderly People: Assessing the
Evidence in 12 OECD Countries and the Future Implications", OECD Health Working Papers, No. 26, OECD
Publishing, Paris.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/217072070078
Larsen, N.T. (2016), "Adapting the best elements of the Danish approach to combine several types oftransportation." Transportation Research Board, International Conference on Demand Responsive
Transportation: Paratransit from Dial-a-Ride to Technology Enabled Services. Breckenridge.
Lindsay, G. (2016), "Now Arriving: A connected mobility roadmap for public transport." New Cities
Foundation (October).
Marshall, A. (2017), How a Failed Experiment Could Still Be the Future of Public Transit.
https://www.wired.com/2017/03/failed-experiment-still-future-public-transit/ (accessed 23 March 2017).
NACTO (2017) NACTO City Data Sharing Principles. https://nacto.org/policy-2016/city-data-sharingprinciples/ (accessed 10 May 2017).

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

BIBLIOGRAPHY – 55

Schaller, B. (2017), "Unsustainable? The Growth of App-Based Ride Services and Traffic, Travel and the
Future of New York City.": Schaller Consulting, Brooklyn (February 27).
Schaller, B. (2016a), "Unfinished Business: A Blueprint for Uber, Lyft and Taxi Regulation." Schaller
Consulting, Brooklyn (September 20).
Schaller, B. (2016b), "Living in an App-Enabled World: Implications for transit agency leadership,
management and service delivery." Transportation Research Board, International Conference on Demand
Responsive Transportation. Breckenridge.
SFMTA (2015), Travel Decisions Survey 2015, San Francisco: San Francisco Municipal Transportation
Agency.
Shaheen, S., A. Cohen and I. Zohdy (2016a), Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles. US
DEpartment of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Shaheen, S., A. Cohen, I. Zohdy and B. Kock (2016b), Smartphone Applications to Influence Travel
Choices. US Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC..
Shaheen, S., A. Stocker, J. Lazarus and A. Bhattacharyya (2016c). RideKC - Bridj Pilot Evaluation:Impact,
Operational, and Institutional Analysis. Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC), UC Berkeley..
Somerpalo, S., T. Tamminen and P. Alinikula (2017),. "Advancing accessibility of digital transport services."
Helsinki: Finnish Ministry of Transport and Communications, 24 January.
Stamen Design (2015), The City from the Valley. https://hi.stamen.com/the-city-from-the-valley57e835ee3dc6 (accessed 23 March 2017).
Tsay, S.P., Z. Accuardi, B. Schaller and K. Hovenkotter (2016), Private Mobility, Public Interest: How Public
Agencies can work with Emerging Mobility Providers. New York City: Transit Center.
UTTP (2009), Organising Authorities Committee, Organising Authorities Mission Statement, Union
Internationale des Transports Publics, Brussels.

Notes

1

According to Wheels, Route 3, which connected suburban residential areas in West Dublin to BART during peak times, carried
approximately five passengers per hour and had a subsidy of over USD 15/passenger trip
(http://www.wheelsbus.com/services/wheels-on-demand/).
2

For more information: https://www.transit.dot.gov/shared-mobility.

SHAPING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND INNOVATIVE MOBILITY – © OECD/ITF 2017

2017-05 /Photo credit: Westend61 GmbH / Alamy Stock Photo