Equity and Shared
Mobility Services
Working with the Private Sector
to Meet Equity Objectives

Acknowledgements
November 2019

SUMC expresses appreciation to interviewees from the following organizations: Chicago Departmentof Transportation, District of Columbia, Center for Community Transportation (Ithaca Carshare),Ridecell, Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority, Capital Metro, Zipcar, Kansas City Area Transportation
Authority, and HourCar.
Sarah Jo Peterson, 23 Urban Strategies, LLC, led the research for SUMC, which also included
researchers Brian Holland, Erin Evenhouse, and Peter Lauer, under the direction of Ellen Partridge
and Sharon Feigon. The paper was edited by Leslie Gray.

© 2019 Shared-Use Mobility Center. All Rights Reserved.

Shared-Use Mobility Center
Chicago, IL
312.448.8083
Los Angeles, CA
818.489.8651
www.sharedusemobilitycenter.org

Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
Equity in Shared Mobility Services: What Is It?

01
06
07

Types of Equity Initiatives and Programs
Equity Analysis across Multiple Dimensions

08
08

Understanding Public-Private Partnerships

12

Best Practices for Public-Private Partnerships

13

Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives:
Vehicle Sharing

15

Permitting and Partnerships
Concerns for Low-Income Communities
Focus on Bikeshare: Activists Organize to Advance Equity
Case Example
Focus on Carshare: Model Programs for Low-Income Drivers
Case Example
Vehicle Sharing as Part of a Multimodal Lifestyle

16
18
20
21
26
27
29

Opportunities to Meet Equity Objectives:
Sharing the Ride

30

The Public Sector’s Role: Owner and Purchaser
Buying Rides and the Promise of Neighborhood Circulators
Improving Mobility for Paratransit Customers
Case Example

30
32
34
37

Using Public-Private Partnerships to Improve
Mobility and Equity

39

Checklist for Achieving Equity Objectives and Outcomes
Case Example
Further Evaluation and Research Needs
Conclusion

39
41
43
43

Endnotes

44

Executive Summary
Equity in Shared
Mobility Partnerships
The shared mobility industry—carshare, bikeshare, scootershare, ridehailing, microtransit,
paratransit, taxis, and fixed-route public transit—is in a period of rapid experimentation and change.
It is a fertile time to apply the experiments and channel the changes to support low-income andtransportation-disadvantaged communities.
In what ways can the public sector and the private sector work together to enhance shared mobility
services for all? There are distinct opportunities across the shared mobility categories defined here:• “Vehicle sharing” includes carshare and micromobility such as bikeshare and e-scooters.
• “Ride sharing” includes ridehailing services such as Uber, Lyft, and traditional taxis; shuttles or
microtransit services that provide shared rides via flexible routes and/or schedules, including
on-demand rides; and fixed-route public transit services including paratransit.
Transit remains the backbone of a multimodal system. Yet too often, the original “sharing the ride”—
buses and trains—have times and places where services are inadequate or non-existent. A variety ofshared modes can be a powerful tool to fill gaps in transit services that may have limited use cases
and not always be accessible to all ages and abilities.
Shared mobility partnerships require holistic assessments of mobility needs and priorities. We offer
broad lessons to factor into a context-based approach to partnership, offering recommendations
that stem from research, interviews with industry experts, and deep staff expertise.

1

Best Practices for PublicPrivate Partnerships
and Equity Initiatives
The following approaches help create the conditions forfinding the best fit with a private sector partner and an
environment that supports mutually desired outcomes.
Define partnership broadly and set clear objectives
Public-private partnerships work best when the
public sector begins with clear objectives and uses thepartnership process to develop and execute a detailed plan
to meet them.
An agency can build a better shared mobility public-private
partnership by:• Building trusted partnerships• Creating a shared vision• Doing their homework• Keeping the lines of communication open
• Accepting unsolicited proposals• Employing a performance-based RFQ/RFP process, if
appropriate• Treating partnership as one phase of a longer process• Staying current with the mobility industry• Effectively engaging the community
Recognize equity along multiple dimensions
Low-income and transportation-disadvantaged
populations face a number of barriers, and equitable
solutions are equally multifaceted, ranging from wherea service is located, when it operates and its travel time,
to affordability and financial access, physical access, andany number of social and cultural influences. Table 1, on
page 10 of this paper, summarizes the STEPS frameworkfor Equity Analysis for Low-Income Groups Using Shared
Mobility.

2

To mitigate challenges and barriers along these dimensions, partners can develop focused programsfor selected populations or neighborhoods, or initiatives designed to make services that are open
to the general public more inclusive. Partners who approach equity along multiple dimensions
have greater success in improving options for low-income and transportation-disadvantaged
communities.
The following checklist supports the process of developing equity objectives:• When developing equity objectives, public sector decision-makers should take a multi-dimensional
approach that looks at spatial, temporal, economic, physiological, and social barriers to using
sharing mobility services.
• Focus services to target specific objectives: Equity programs start with a defined group orneighborhood and build a service specifically designed to meet their needs. The community
should be involved in this process.
• Consider annual permitting or licenses: Many local governments are responding to competing
private sector providers by regulating them through annual permit processes or licenses.
Equity objectives can become part of the regulations or competitive permitting process.
• Lower barriers of entry by ensuring inclusive access: Some programs offer reduced fares or fees,
options for cash payment, smartphone workarounds, and encourage wheelchair accessible
and adaptive vehicles. Other vehicle sharing services dispense with membership andapplication fees altogether. Also used are equitable distribution requirements and policies
enforcing non-discrimination.
• Consider third-party funders, supporters, and champions: Community-based groups, businessgroups, and local political champions are vital for widespread support as are third parties —governments, foundations, and corporations —that provide grant or seed funding.
• Engage the community at every stage: Programs for focused services and inclusive accessshould include significant marketing and outreach efforts that are culturally appropriate forthe groups targeted to use the service.
• Think ahead to mobility-as-a-service: Public-private partnerships will be foundational to amobility system where people travel by accessing a full range of right-sized shared mobility
services paid for through a combination of monthly subscriptions and pay-per-trip options.
3

Both Sectors Can Learn From Each Other
Some technologies and services advanced by the vehicle sharing industry have equitable andaccessible benefits imperative for public agencies as well. There are models to help low-income
and transportation-disadvantaged communities access their services: these include workarounds
for smartphones and credit cards, and mechanisms to offer discounts to low-income users. Many
partners have devoted attention to the fair distribution of vehicles. Municipalities use theirjurisdiction over the streets, sidewalks, and public parking facilities that the industry needs forparking to integrate equity requirements into both annual permitting processes and long-term
public-private partnerships.
Members of the vehicle sharing industry, including carshare and bikeshare, have also taken strides toenhance inclusivity through hands-on, culturally appropriate approaches to community engagement.
Whether through regulatory requirements or public-private partnerships, this category of industries
has expanded into transportation-disadvantaged neighborhoods. Some new services, such as BlueLA
carshare, are launching first in these neighborhoods. In many efforts, the public sector definespriority communities for investment along such criteria as low-income communities of color or highlevels of transit dependency, and facilitates building relationships between the industry and local
communities, including through local non-profit organizations.
For “sharing the ride,” the public sector is experimenting with buying rides on the private sector’s services.
In the consumer ride industry (ridehailing in taxis, Uber, Lyft; shared-ride shuttles and microtransit;
fixed-route public transit), public sector agencies have formalized private sector partnerships forfocused low-income programs, such as Pinellas County’s TD Late Shift Program. Local governments arealso experimenting with neighborhood circulators that use new on-demand technologies and routing
algorithms to provide local service in areas with suburban development patterns.
Partnerships that add on-demand ride options are letting American Disabilities Act (ADA)
paratransit customers travel more spontaneously. Pilot projects that enhance the public sector’s
ADA paratransit services have revealed sizeable unmet demand. They offer the potential toreduce the high and growing cost of paratransit for agencies. These partnerships typically use
transportation network companies (TNCs) and taxis for ambulatory service, i.e., for patrons who do
not use wheelchairs. TNCs, however, have been slow to make their platforms accessible to riders
who require wheelchair accessible vehicles. RideKC’s Freedom on Demand, through a partnershipwith a locally-based TNC, offers on-demand rides to all types of customers.
4

Shared Mobility Partnerships Can Help Create
Our Multimodal FuturePartnerships must recognize that low-income and transportation-disadvantaged communities thatuse shared mobility services lead multimodal lifestyles and neither vehicle sharing or ride sharing
will address all mobility needs. Given the impossibility of creating a single, one-size-fits-all service,
shared mobility partnerships that create a multimodal system are building blocks for a future when
consumers can easily access a full range of right-sized shared mobility services bundled across public
and private providers (mobility-as-a-service).
As the vehicle sharing and ride sharing industries work to make this vision a reality, now is a criticaltime to develop programs that will ensure equitable, accessible mobility for all.

Note:
“Public-private partnership” can refer to a form of procurement often used for large public infrastructuredevelopment projects. Typically shortened to “P3,” this type of partnership assigns tasks to the private
sector, such as securing financing or operating and maintaining the facility for a number of years after
construction, that traditionally had been the responsibility of the public sector. This concept paper
uses the term “partnership” more broadly than simply as public-private partnerships for infrastructure
projects.

Partnerships must recognize that
low-income and transportationdisadvantaged communities that use sharedmobility services lead multimodal lifestyles
and neither vehicle sharing or ride sharing
will address all mobility needs.
5Introduction
There has never been a better time to examine the attributes and offerings of public-private
partnerships in providing affordable, equitable mobility for all. Partnerships can make existing
services more inclusive, help reduce the impact of air pollution in highly affected areas, and create
new pilots that focus on the needs of low-income or transportation-disadvantaged populations. If
implemented with care, they are a crucial part of our multimodal future.

Shared Mobility and the Public andPrivate Sectors: Major Actors
Public-private partnerships for shared mobility services typically involve one of three groups:
Shared mobility providers in the public sector. These providers are usually municipal governments or
special-purpose authorities, such as transit authorities. Municipal governments have jurisdiction
over other transportation infrastructure and services, such as streets, sidewalks, or public parking
facilities, that shared mobility services require. State governments typically have jurisdiction overcertain roads and highways and may also provide shared mobility services.
Shared mobility providers in the for-profit and non-profit sectors. Both for-profit and non-profit
organizations provide shared mobility services on the business-to-consumer model. In addition,these organizations also operate shared mobility services on behalf of government.
Third-party supporters of shared mobility. Third parties can play crucial roles in launching andextending shared mobility services by offering financial and in-kind support. Such support includes
grants or in-kind donations. Third parties may also be partners in project planning, implementation,and operation as well as participating in a community needs assessment, conducting educational
outreach, and facilitating community participation in the planning phase.
Shared mobility can be further divided into two major categories: vehicle sharing and sharing the ride.
Because of the significant differences between vehicle sharing businesses and services that share
the ride, they are covered in separate sections of the concept paper.
6Equity in Shared
Mobility Services
What Is It?
How can my transit agency provide service for workers whose shifts extend outside the hours for fixedroute service?
How can our city provide people needing rides in wheelchair accessible vehicles the ability to travel
spontaneously?
How can we encourage people with lower incomes to take better advantage of bikeshare?
How can we fill gaps in public transit service for a low-income neighborhood?
Considerable debate can ensue over whether the proper goal for public-private partnerships isequality of opportunity or equality of outcome. “Every neighborhood in the city should be served bybikeshare” is an equality of opportunity objective. “Everyone should be able to travel spontaneously”
is an equality of outcome objective.
As discussed in the next section, public-private partnerships function better when the public sector
actor begins by engaging stakeholders on needs at the outset, develops clear objectives that meetthese needs, and then uses the partnership process to clearly articulate how the program willachieve them.

7Types of Equity Initiatives and Programs
Equity initiatives typically fall into one of two categories:
Focused equity programs build a mobility service specifically designed to meet the needs of a selectedgroup of people, certain neighborhoods, or trip purposes. Examples include mobility services open
only to low-income customers or demand-responsive ride services for neighborhoods without
frequent fixed-route bus or rail service.
Inclusive access initiatives seek to make a mobility service open to the general public more accessible
and welcoming. Examples include special discounts on fares or fees, culturally appropriate outreach,and distribution requirements for vehicle sharing.
Strategies to advance both types of initiatives target either people or neighborhoods. Typical groupsof people are defined by income, age, disability status, or other transportation disadvantage.
Targeted neighborhoods can be selected through an analysis of demographic variables, by a lackof transportation services, or a history of discrimination and disinvestment. Successful equity
initiatives and programs often deploy multiple strategies that target both people and neighborhoods.
Whether a person or neighborhood is transportation disadvantaged depends on context. For the
purposes here, it means a person who cannot achieve, or a neighborhood that cannot provide, a highquality of life without relying on personally owned motor vehicles. This includes people who live inan area with robust shared mobility options, but who cannot use them because the services are notaccessible to those with disabilities or are not available for regular use because of other limitations.
This dependency on personal motor vehicles creates hardships for those with low incomes, but also
for the elderly, teenagers, and anyone else who cannot or prefers not to drive.

Equity Analysis across Multiple Dimensions
Analyzing equity across multiple dimensions should be incorporated into community needs
assessments and program evaluations. In its “STEPS to Transportation Equity” the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) outlines a framework for considering equity in shared mobility services.
“STEPS” is a mnemonic for five barriers to accessing preferred destinations or shared mobility
services: Spatial, Temporal, Economic, Physiological, and Social.
Shared mobility services help remedy or mitigate some barriers, but they can also raise their own.1
The STEPS are summarized for shared mobility services and applied to equity objectives for lowincome populations in Table 1.

8Spatial Barriers include long distances between origins and destinations and hostile landscapes thatmake walking, waiting at transit stops, or bicycling unsafe or uncomfortable. In addition, all sharedmobility services depend to varying extents on urban density to generate demand for trips and thus
revenue.
Temporal Barriers include the inability to complete time-sensitive trips, travel spontaneously, or maketrips at certain times of the day or week. Fixed-route transit service is not usually available 24-hours
a day and typically has reduced service frequency outside of peak travel periods and on weekends.
Economic Barriers are travel costs that prevent a person from buying other necessities or cause
them to forgo a trip in the near term that makes them worse off in the long term. Examples of thelatter include cancelling doctor’s appointments, failing to fill prescriptions on time, rejecting a job
interview or offer, on giving up on educational opportunities.
Physiological Barriers are physical and cognitive conditions that make using some transportation
options uncomfortable, difficult, or impossible. This includes disabilities recognized under theAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but also may be related to age, physical fitness or capabilities,
and willingness to risk injury.
Social Barriers are aspects of a person’s social or cultural contexts that make certain shared mobility
options less likely to meet their needs or feel like an acceptable option. This category also includes
histories of discrimination and lack of trust in the institutions providing or supporting the sharedmobility service.

9

Table 1 summarizes one set of dimensions for equity considerations in transportation, the STEPS
framework, with examples for shared mobility modes.

Table 1: STEPS Equity Analysis for Low-Income Groups Using Shared Mobility
EQUITYDIMENSIONS
Spatial Barriers(Is it where I needit to be?)Temporal Barriers(Can I use it when
I need it?)Microtransit

RidehailBikeshare• Size and locationof service area

Physiological
Barriers(Am I capableof using it?)• Am/pm
placement andservice area

• Location of
approved
parking: private
or public?

• Travel time orout-of-direction
travel to accessvehicle• Travel time toaccess vehicle• Time cost ofshared ride

• Travel time orout-of-direction
travel due toineffectivebalancing• Service hours• Free ride time

• Smartphone or• Smartphone
concierge
service• Un/under banked• Un/under banked
cost• Membership and• Un/under banked
trip fees• Cost of trip

• Smartphone• Smartphone• Un/under
Banked• Un/under
Banked• Driver’s license• Driver’s License• Insurance• MembershipFees, Trip fees

• Walk/roll to/from pick up/
drop off• Presumed
physicalcapability ofrider• Presumed
physicalcapability ofrider• Capable ofdriving• Safety/comfort
affected byweather• Safety/comfort
affected byweather• Risk of minor
injuries• Risk of minor
injuries• Coordination
with fixed-routeservice• Wait time

• Wheelchair
accessible
vehicle• Wheelchair
accessible
vehicle• Strollers

Social Barriers(Is it desirable andapproachable?)Threshold• Location of
docks or am/pm
placement andservice area

• Smartphone

Economic Barriers(Am I able to pay
for it?)Micromobility(e-scooters)• Safety/security in • Fear of traveling • One-personclose quarters
alone with driver,travel only
especiallyamong• Privacy of home
• Culturally andwomenlocationdemographically•
Culturally
andappropriate• Culturally anddemographicallyoutreachdemographicallyappropriate
appropriate
outreachoutreach• One-person
travel only
• Legal rules
murky: riders
risk fines• Culturally anddemographicallyappropriate
outreach• Wheelchair
accessible
vehicle• Car/Booster
seats for children• Car ownershiptied to personal
identity• Culturally anddemographicallyappropriate
outreach

Adapted from FHWA, Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, August 2017,https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/otps/shared_use_mobility_equity_final.pdf.

10

One aspect missing from STEPS is equity related to the planning and management of a mobility
service. Community involvement has an equity component beyond sound outreach and marketing
practices as the communities affected by public sector decisions should have an opportunity toparticipate in the decision-making process. Private sector involvement should not mean bypassing
public sector accountability typically achieved through public meetings, votes by appointed andelected officials, complaint mechanisms such as 311 lines, and oversight processes.
In addition to equity for users and potential users, equity concerns can also attach to otherpractices of the private sector partner. Workforce development opportunities, inclusion of local ordisadvantaged businesses for contracting/sub-contracting, and the treatment of labor may find theirway into shared mobility service discussions and contracts.
For mobility services that are primarily provided by the private sector, public-private partnerships
and government regulation can raise equity concerns if governmental action fosters a monopoly orotherwise encourages uncompetitive behavior that results in higher consumer prices. Government
subsidies or preferences for privately provided mobility services that come at the expense of cuts
to or revenue reductions for other governmental services should also be examined from an equity
perspective.2

Lessons Learned• To improve mobility for low-income and transportation-disadvantaged communities throughpublic-private partnership, the public sector should develop equity objectives.
• Equity may be addressed through focused programs for selected populations orneighborhoods or through initiatives designed to make services open to the general publicmore inclusive.
• The STEPS process provides a structure for a multidimensional analysis of equity in mobility
services.

11Understanding
Public-Private
Partnerships
Public-private partnerships that support equity
in the shared mobility industry cover a rangeof relationships between government andbusiness. These relationships may be definedby elaborate, long-term contracts or they
may be direct subsidies or incentives fromgovernment to business. They include more
informal cooperative activities, such as comarketing agreements or industry consultation
before and after issuing new regulations.

Table 2: Specific Drivers for
Public-Private Partnerships
The Public
Sector Wants• Shared mobility
service• Access to publicly-owned space(e,g., streets, sidewalks, parking)• Technology• Access to new market segments(e.g., defined through governmentsocial programs)• Knowledge• Cost structures

Before engaging in a partnership process,both the private business and the public entity
should determine that a partnership approachhas the potential to achieve their objectives
better than through normal regulatory
or procurement processes. Research andinterviews revealed a long list of possible
partnership drivers, which are summarized inTable 2.

The Private Sector Wants• Finance and funding
mechanisms• Revenue• Political advantages• Grants/fee waivers/tax breaks tomeet funding gap• Regulatory relief• Winner-take-all licensing or
exclusive permitting• Real-world situation to test newtechnologies or services• Platform or opportunity for
publicity and marketing• Political leadership and champions• Potential for widespread impact

12

Best Practices for Public-Private Partnerships
As a whole, an agency can build a better shared mobility public-private partnership by:• Building trusted partnerships• Creating a shared vision• Doing their homework• Keep the lines of communication open
• Accepting unsolicited proposals• Employing a performance-based RFQ/RFP process, if appropriate• Treating partnership as one phase of a longer process• Keeping up and keeping in touch with the mobility industry• Effectively engaging the community
On a deeper level, use the following recommendations to guide your partnership development.
Define partnership broadly and set clear objectives: Public-private partnerships work best when the
public sector begins with clear objectives and uses the partnership process to develop and execute a
detailed plan to meet them. Mutual desired outcomes create both the conditions for finding the best
fit with a private sector partner and the environment to foster creative problem solving.
Create a shared, informed vision: Market analysis, planning, business principles, and stakeholder/community participation should inform this vision. No two low-income or transportationdisadvantaged neighborhoods are the same and low-income and transportation-disadvantaged
persons live and travel to and from many different types of neighborhoods.
Be open to unsolicited proposals: In this current period of rapid innovation, both the public sector
and the private sector have had success reaching out to each other with ideas and partnership
opportunities. LA Metro’s Office of Extraordinary Innovation is the most widely known example of apublic entity that advertises its welcome of unsolicited proposals. It accepts proposals that advancea broad set of publicly available goals.3
Consider a performance-based RFQ/RFP process: Selection should be based on the best fit for thedesired outcomes and willingness to enter a relationship built on trust because significant decisionmaking typically happens after the partnership is formed. A performance-based partnership aligns
incentives with desired outcomes and service standards. Performance-based contracting requires
a way to measure performance, which may require the private sector entity to share data or
information that they would usually be reluctant to share.4

13

Recognize partnership may be one phase of a longer process: Public sector regulatory and procurement
processes that require formal communications or competitive proposals are important and protect
both public sector and private sector participants.
Be committed to a fair deal: The public partner needs to be able to show that the partnership
advances key objectives, and the private partner needs to make a return on its investment inproportion to level of risk. Partnerships for shared mobility services, as they mature, should also
develop common understanding of how to assess risk and reward.
Stay in touch with the mobility industry in your community: Both public sector and private sector
leaders should stay abreast of what is going on in the mobility industry, including national trends, butalso local changes.
Use the public sector’s best practices for community engagement: Because shared mobility services
are often experimental and quickly evolving, equity in service planning and management requires
careful handling of their temporary nature, including their termination or transition to regularservice status and changes in price.

Lessons Learned• Define partnership broadly to include “creative alliances” between the public and private
sectors to reach objectives that neither sector could achieve on their own.
• Use the partnership process to develop the details of focused equity programs or inclusive
access initiatives.
• Follow best practices for public-private partnerships.

14

Opportunities to
Meet Equity Objectives:

Vehicle Sharing
Vehicle sharing, which includes car-, bike-, and scootersharing, offers the chance to level the playing
field and create the right environment for mobility and opportunity for all. Carshare promises a
convenient and spontaneous solution to get around and for trip purposes that would be difficult toaccomplish via public transit. Bikeshare and scootershare fill the gaps between comfortable walking
trips and longer public transit and ridehailing trips. The amount of government involvement for eachmode depends in part on the amount of space needed for parking, which in turn depends on thebusiness model:
Round trip vehicle sharing, typical of first generation carshare, requires only one designated parking
space per vehicle. If the home parking spaces for these vehicles are on private land, the service may
be an entirely private sector activity. However, the most convenient and desirable parking spaces areoften located on the street or in public parking lots. In addition to permission to use public parking
spaces, the spaces require signage and coordination with city services such as street cleaning andwith parking restrictions such as snow emergencies.
Point-to-point, one-way vehicle sharing, where vehicles are only “at home” if parked in designatedareas such as docks, racks, or parking spaces served by electric charging infrastructure, requires
more space allotted to parking than round-trip vehicle sharing. One-way, point-to-point vehicle
sharing is likely to need on-street parking or designated sidewalk areas to function.

15

Free-floating vehicle sharing, with large “home zones” for parking vehicles on the streets or sidewalks,
will require significant coordination with government. Free-floating vehicle sharing is designed to be
used for one-way trips, but can also be easily used for round trips. Dockless micromobility falls into
this category.
In the past, the public sector helped support vehicle sharing by covering some of the capital
expenditures required to launch the services. Federal, state, and local government funding
was seeded to non-profit organizations, and local governments have even owned the services
themselves. When private businesses entered the market, public sector incentives in the form offinancial assistance declined. However, the public sector’s interest in encouraging carsharing using
electric vehicles that require charging infrastructure may be renewing a more proactive public
sector role.

Permitting and Partnerships
Because of the need to access publicly owned space, the vehicle sharing industry has a history ofentering into both regulatory and partnership relationships with government. The current trend leans
toward regulatory relationships. For free-floating bikeshare, scootershare, and even carshare, cities
are opting for annual permitting approaches that lay down requirements and assess fees. Governments
ration space by limiting parking locations and/or capping the number of permitted vehicles.5
For the private sector, their perspective is reasonably straightforward. The business, whether forprofit or non-profit, wants to be able to put the right number of vehicles in the right number oflocations at a cost that will make their business model work.
The government’s objectives however could vary widely, which is why a partnership built on
trust and honesty is important. Does the government want to encourage this business? Or is
the government only willing to tolerate this business as long as it covers its cost burdens? Is thegovernment’s willingness to encourage this business primarily as a desired service for constituentsor as a source of revenue? Or, is the government willing to encourage this business only as long as it
helps meet other objectives, including equity objectives?
Governments using the regulatory approach can, and have, simply ordered the permittee to meetrequirements built around equity. Equitable distribution requirements can set minimum thresholds
for how many shared vehicles must be in all neighborhoods, or target specific neighborhoods
that the government worries would otherwise be underserved. Sometimes equitable distribution
requirements come packaged with requirements that the permittee engage in outreach to targetedgroups. Equitable distribution requirements have proven difficult to enforce. App data is not always
reliable. Some cities have even resorted to in-person spot checks. There are, however, emerging
technology-enabled models for data access and sharing.6

16

Governments, if so inclined, can utilize multiple tools
at their disposal to encourage vehicle sharing under apartnership approach. They can go easy on the fees or
waive requirements to be compensated for lost parking
revenue. They can enforce parking violations thatinterfere with spaces designated for vehicle sharing andexplore co-marketing opportunities. If the government
desires a location that the provider fears may be a losing
proposition, the government (or another third party) can
guarantee a minimum level of revenue. Governments
can help with capital investments for the vehicles andinfrastructure and foster operating organizations.
Governments can even own the systems themselves.7
For small-vehicle sharing, the dockless, free-floating
revolution seemed to be an easy solution to uneven
distribution created by the costs of siting expensive
docks in a limited number of locations. Concerned about
clutter and access to sidewalks, however, cities appear
to be leaning towards requiring designated parking
areas or lock-to vehicles that must be parked at a rack.
Regulations requiring designated parking areas, although
not as infrastructure intensive as the bike share stationsof the early 2010s, bring formal siting processes andparking enforcement issues back into play.

17Concerns for Low-Income Communities
Improving Economic Access
Fees for application, membership, and trips, plus requirements for smartphones and credit or debit
cards raise economic barriers to using vehicle sharing. Vehicle sharing services need ways to holdusers accountable for the vehicle and encourage good behavior during the trip. The more valuable
the vehicle and the more dangerous the consequences of bad behavior, the more important theseaccountability mechanisms become. These mechanisms range from extra penalty fees to being
banned from the service.
Vehicle sharing services also pioneered substituting technology for the human interaction that until
then had facilitated renting a vehicle. This use of technology pre-dated smartphones, but nearly
all of this technology has now migrated to smartphones. Some services can only be accessed via
smartphone.
The vehicle sharing industries have developed methods to make it easier for people with limited
economic means to use their services. Waiving or dispensing with application fees, discounting
memberships or fees based on income, providing affordable options for occasional use, anddiscounting vehicle trips originating in specific neighborhoods have all have been used with somesuccess.
Although the discounts themselves may not be much of a cost burden, administratively thesemethods can lead to “high touch” situations that can tax staff resources. In addition, by encouraging
low-income populations to use their services, cities and providers should anticipate that they bearsome responsibility some of the standard fees and penalties when something goes wrong.
Much of the impetus for carshare and bikeshare arose out of environmental concerns, not equity.
Before for-profit businesses got involved, the public sector often expected that while government
grants might help with capital expenditures, these systems would and should be operationally selfsufficient. This economic model is regularly being tested. For businesses, siting vehicles and stations
in transportation-disadvantaged communities who often have less purchasing power and fewer
insured drivers may result in tension making ends meet.
Community Engagement Practices
Advocates for bikeshare and carshare have put considerable resources into community outreachto boost use by under-represented groups, including low-income populations, people of color, andimmigrant populations. They have emphasized hands-on approaches that work with and throughcommunity-based organizations and that hire people from the community. Still, community
engagement and outreach can be one of the most difficult pieces of the equity puzzle.

18Knowing this, select cities have required that private businesses implement outreach andengagement plans and have even mandated meetings with community groups. They have alsooffered businesses the option of an in-lieu fee that would go to the city’s own outreach programming.
Overall, commitment and sincerity are vital for successful outreach and for sustaining long-term,
trusted relationships.8
Safety and Security
There are concerns widespread among marginalized and low-income groups that community
outreach can help address. These communities are often targeted by the police and ticketed forminor infractions, regardless of ability to pay. Because vehicle sharing takes place on public streets
and requires users to follow numerous legal rules, promoting its use can have the unintended
consequence of making certain users, often people of color, vulnerable to dangerous interactions
with the police and financially burdensome fines. In Chicago, for example, black neighborhoods havereceived the most tickets for biking on the sidewalk.9 Concerns such as this can lead to reticence on
the part of people to participate in new mobility programs.
Another factor in the shared mobility and equity scenario is the impact of injuries from using
vehicles. The effects of even relatively minor accidents can be economically devastating for lowerincome individuals, given the limited to non-existent social safety nets in the United States. Indeed,
when asked, lower income individuals identified fear of injury as a barrier to using bicycles. Safety
and security also appeared as major concerns in focus groups of those living in disadvantaged
neighborhoods. Although insurance is bundled into trip fees for car sharing, insurance is not offered
for bikesharing and scootersharing.10

There are concerns widespread among
marginalized and low-income groups that
community outreach can help address.

19Focus on Bikeshare:
Activists Organize to Advance Equity
In bikeshare, advocates made progress on equity in shared mobility services. Bikeshare as
implemented in the United States in the early 2010s deployed first in dense cores of cities and inplaces already attractive to bicyclists. Activists, backed with data, soon protested that these systems
were disproportionately used by young, white males. Many lower income neighborhoods were far
from stations. Early membership-based fee structures, secured by credit card, raised additional
barriers to transportation-disadvantaged populations using the systems. These systems were often
paid for with federal grants and received operating funds from the cities.11
Activists mounted various efforts to draw attention to these equity issues including founding
the Better Bike Share Partnership in 2014. Funded by the JPB Foundation, the collaboration’s
four partners, the city of Philadelphia, the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia, the National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and the PeopleForBikes Foundation, work
to build “equitable and replicable bikeshare systems.” They conduct research and award grants todevelop stations in underserved neighborhoods, to “identify and address the structural racism that
may hinder efforts,” and to develop best practices for educational and outreach programs.12
To a remarkable extent, these activists succeeded in opening additional avenues to participationin bikeshare programs. They developed methods and best practices for income-based discounted
memberships, for low fees for occasional use (single rides), and for cash payment. Their methods
have spread throughout the industry. In 2014, Bcycle’s bikeshare equipment depended on credit
cards. Today, the company, which has launched over 50 systems in the United States in partnershipwith local operators, advertises that its dockless model can be accessed with cash.13
Scooter and e-bike businesses have also embraced cash options and income-based discounts. Cashoptions typically use PayNearMe, a technology solution also used by many transit agencies, whichenables adding cash to accounts (or paying bills) by visiting convenience stores. Private companies,
such as Lime’s Access and Jump’s Boost programs, offer income-based discounts on memberships
and fees with proof of participation in a government assistance program.

20

Case Example: Four Approaches to Equity in Bikeshare

Chicago
The city of Chicago is building an e-bike offering as an extension of its existing public-private partnershipfor docked bicycles, Divvy, launched in 2013. Under the original public-private partnership, the city
contracted with what is today known as Motivate International Inc. to operate the bikeshare system. The
city of Chicago owns the equipment, and federal grants funded much of the capital expenditures. The cityand Motivate shared risks on operating revenue. Motivate took all revenue from memberships and ridegenerated fees, and the city took all the revenue from sponsorships and advertising. Motivate absorbed acertain percentage of operating losses and then the city covered the rest.14
Divvy for Everyone is Divvy’s formal equity program. In 2015, the Better Bike Share Partnership awarded
the city a grant that funded a citywide program discounting the first-year membership fee, from $99 to $5,
for people below an income threshold. The grant funding covered the costs of the non-profit organizationthat handled enrolling low-income members and outreach activities to encourage ridership in low-income
communities. Motivate and the city absorbed the costs of discounted memberships. Motivate took thelead in adapting its technology and training the nonprofit organization’s staff and their own call center
workers to handle income-contingent membership discounts and cash payments. Eventually, Motivate
staff took over enrolling Divvy for Everyone members, at the nonprofit’s offices and community events.
Between 2015-2017, 5,000 Divvy for Everyone members cycled through the program.
Also in 2015, Divvy began the first major expansion outside of the dense downtown core and in 2016,
began reaching lower-income neighborhoods. The system grew from 300 to 600 docking stations and to
6,200 bicycles. The city, as the owners of the equipment, controlled the siting of the new stations, whichwere placed in areas at a lower density than in the original core. These stations have struggled to attract
customers, especially in low-income and African-American neighborhoods.
Also addressing equity, the city and Motivate negotiated a new pricing structure as part of a 10-year
contract extension in 2018, introducing a single ride at $3.00 for 30 minutes, no membership required.
This change made the service more accessible to lower income customers, who are less likely to want tocommit to membership and are more likely to live in lower density parts of the city.
In the second half of 2018, the TNC Lyft bought Motivate, bringing new resources to the table. Lyft
proposed an expansion of the bikeshare partnership, offering to invest $50 million for an additional
10,500 bicycles and 175 stations. All new bicycles were to be e-bikes capable of being locked to any bikerack, making it feasible to serve all of Chicago by 2021. The city also negotiated an expansion of Divvy for
Everyone, an adaptive bicycle program, and a jobs program for youth and ex-offenders.
In return for the exclusive right to bikeshare and the Divvy brand, Lyft would give the city $77 million
over nine years earmarked for transportation projects. They proposed to keep all bike-sharing revenues
up to $20 million annually, with the city sharing 5% of everything over that. Chicago taxpayers would also
receive $1.5 million a year in minimum guaranteed revenue from advertising and promotions.15

21

Minneapolis
Nice Ride inked a similar deal with Motivate in 2018. A nonprofit organization active in Minnesota’s Twin Cities area, Nice
Ride had launched bikeshare in 2010, both owning and operating
the system. Funds from its title sponsor, Blue Cross Blue Shield,
and federal grants paid for the equipment, and revenue fromriders and station sponsors covered operating expenses. Whenthe 2017 dockless revolution began, Nice Ride had 200 stations
and 1,850 bikes, but it also saw the potential that docklessbikes—if done right—had for expanding the reach of bike sharing
at lower costs.16
With an exclusive bikeshare license from the city of Minneapolis
through 2021, Nice Ride issued an RFP for potential private
sector partners to take over operations and invest their own
capital to expand the system, “to serve and promote ridership indiverse communities.” This included Nice Ride’s existing service
in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty, community outreachtechniques, and subsidized subscriptions.
In the partnership, Nice Ride maintains the exclusive bikesharelicense and Motivate is the sub-licensee. The contract calledfor Motivate to invest to expand the system by at least 3,000
dockless bicycles by 2019, and Motivate will be introducing
e-bikes for the 2019 season. The contract shares revenue andcosts, split by equipment ownership. Nice Ride achieved its goalof dropping prices, including pegging the single ride fare to thecost of local rush hour bus fare.
Nice Ride’s contract with Motivate includes a three-part equity
plan. For workforce issues, the plan covers wages and benefits,
performance expectations for workforce diversity, and training
providers. On affordable pricing and access, the contract
requires Motivate to replicate Divvy for Everyone for Nice Ride,
equitably rebalance bicycles, conduct outreach in identified
communities including hiring local ambassadors, explore acash-payment option, produce materials in multiple languages,
advocate for bicycle safety, and other provisions. Finally,
Motivate is required to expand to underserved parts of the city.

22Seattle
Following the closure of Pronto!, Seattle’s discontinued docked bikeshare program, city officials
were approached by dockless bikeshare companies looking for a new city to begin operations. In
2018, the city announced that they would accept up to four providers for the 2018-2019 permit
year and then permitted three businesses to offer up to 5,000 bicycles each after payment of a $50
annual fee per bicycle.
Permit conditions included a requirement to locate “no less than 10 percent of its deployed fleet”
in “Equity Focus Areas” defined by the city and to offer certain customer communications in eightlanguages, also selected by the city. The permit also required a reduced-fare program for lowincome persons and at least one method for renting a bicycle for customers without a smartphone,bank account, and credit card.17
Seattle also required an equity plan, which was scored as part of the permit evaluation. The plan’s
additional requirements focused on communicating and marketing the service to the widest
number of groups in the city, including “staffing policies” and “incentives, disincentives, rewards,
or penalties to shape rider behavior.” The permit application also asked for an “optional” plan foradaptive bicycles and awarded two “bonus” bicycles for every adaptive bicycle deployed.
As of July 2019, the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) determined that nearly 900,000
trips were taken in the first half of the year. SDOT is on track to add parking for 1,500 bikes by theend of the year and they have partnered with the non-profit Outdoors for All to increase accessto their adaptive cycle fleet, which includes hand-cycles, tandems, and other cycles designed forpeople with various disabilities.

23

Washington, DC
Washington, DC also decided to manage free-floating bike and scootershare through an annual
permit system, even though the city already had a large docked bikeshare system. For the freefloating system, the terms and conditions related to equity require offering a cash payment option
and the ability to locate and unlock a bicycle without a smartphone. Providers must serve all of
the city’s eight wards and must have at least six vehicles in each ward by 6:00 am. Providers areencouraged to make their vehicles available at all times of day.18
The permit application also explicitly addresses “equitable distribution and access” through requiring
descriptions of plans to make vehicles “equally accessible” in all wards and inquiring about the pricing
structure, any reduced fee plans, the availability of information in multiple languages, and any plans
for adaptive vehicles. The permit application also asks “How will the applicant promote the use of
dockless sharing vehicles among low-income residents and in communities of concern?”
Finally, the permitting process rewards high-performing providers with additional bicycles above
the initial cap of 600. Two of the 11 performance criteria include “trips originating or terminatingin Equity Emphasis Areas,” which are defined by the district, and adaptive vehicles in operation. The
District of Columbia also charges an annual fee of $60 per bicycle or scooter. As of September 2019,
one bikeshare company and eight scootershare companies are operating in the city with approval andtwo with conditional approval.

24Lessons from Bikeshare
The equity provisions incorporated into the annual permit approach used by Seattle and DC and into
the longer-term public-private partnerships in Minneapolis and Chicago cover similar territory. For
Seattle and DC, the annual permit approach allows them to incorporate lessons learned from year toyear and avoids the city having to align itself with only one business. However, the short-term natureof the permit may deter businesses from making longer term investments in community outreach.
As the industry consolidates, the power dynamic between regulator and regulated could rapidlychange.
A city’s willingness (or legal ability) to use the power of the exclusive license can reap considerable
rewards. As the system expands in Chicago, the city will be working with a trusted partner witha shared understanding of what works and what doesn’t when conducting outreach in the city’s
different communities. Nice Ride too translated their equity objectives into specific, unique contract
provisions applicable to specific Minneapolis neighborhoods. Moreover, the work done to create
Divvy for Everyone and by others in longer term public-private relationships opened the way forother cities to simply require income-based discounts and cash payments as part of the permitting
requirements.
However, future evaluations will be needed to ascertain how different approaches—annual
regulatory permits and exclusive long-term partnerships—best serve low-income populations andtransportation-disadvantaged communities.

Lessons Learned• A multidimensional equity analysis can lead to combining strategies—dock location or
distribution requirements, ride price, ride length, membership discounts, cash payment
options, adaptive vehicles, and specialized community outreach—to make mobility strategies
more inclusive.
• Equity mechanisms can be included in both long-term partnerships with exclusive licenses
and competitive annual permitting processes.
• More research is needed on whether exclusive long-term partnerships or competitive annual
permitting is more successful at reaching equity objectives.

25

Focus on Carshare:
Model Programs for Low-Income Drivers
For over ten years, carshare businesses have offered subsidized rates for increased use.
Zipcar, a twenty-year old business owned by Avis Budget Group and offering round-trip car sharing
in cities across the United States and internationally, offers special pricing for its own equity
initiatives. In a partnership with the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), Zipcar waives theapplication fee and the first year of membership fees for residents of NYCHA properties. It also
provides a one-time $20-driving credit and offers reduced trip fees for using cars parked on NYCHA
property.19
In addition to lower usage fees, these businesses have also experimented with techniques favorable
to people with lower incomes. Ithaca Carshare, a nonprofit organization that is now part of theCenter for Community Transportation, initiated its Easy Access program with a federal grant. The
program waives application fees that are normally used to cover the cost of verifying driving records.
Easy Access still charges $10 per month in membership fees, but program members accrue $15 permonth in driving credit. Unused credit is rolled over to the next month, allowing members to save up
for longer trips. Ithaca Carshare also allows prepayment of trip fees in cash. While Ithaca Carshare
lost funding when the federal government changed the grant program’s allowable uses, they havemaintained a smaller version of Easy Access on their own.20
GIG, a relatively young for-profit carshare operating in the San Francisco Bay area, does not charge
application or membership fees, lowering economic barriers to use for all, and BlueLA offers
unbanked customers a way to get a free bank account.
These various approaches show that many carshare providers believe there are untapped markets
among lower income and transportation-disadvantaged communities that they could reach if they
could afford to offer lower price points. However, the issue is not only finding a business model but
also increasing community utilization rates to offset the loss in revenue from lower fees.
While government subsidies or third-party seed funding can fill this gap, there are differing opinions
as to whether private services should receive direct subsidies. In addition, businesses are wary of
expending resources—theirs or a government’s—on locations that they predict will generate few trips.

26

Case Example:
Setting the Stage for One-Way Carshare in Oakland, CA and Beyond
In 2015, the city of Oakland, California began
developing policies and ordinances to prepare
the way for carsharing businesses to set up shop.
A grant from the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission supported the effort and also
funded outreach to Oakland’s low-income
neighborhoods.21 Soon, two round-trip carsharebusinesses set up small fleets in the city, mostly
parked on private land. The city then wanted to
expand the availability of carsharing citywide, ina cost-neutral manner, and became interested in
the one-way carshare model, which requires thatvehicles be allowed to park in metered spaces orresidential zones beyond duration limits.
For one-way carshare, the city developed
required qualifications for carsharing companies
and annual parking permits, including fees.
The Free-Floating Zone Parking Permit allows
carshare vehicles to be parked in two-hourmetered parking for up to 72 hours, after
submitting a map of the Free-Floating Zone Area
for approval. Twenty percent of the zone area
must encompass designated Communities ofConcern, which are defined by a combinationof low-income, racial, or ethnic minority
populations, or other disadvantages (seeTable 3). The carshare business pre-pays themeter fees based on estimated usage and thenperiodically reconciles payment for actual usage.

27

Table 3: Communities of Concern
Framework for Plan Bay Area 2040
Definition – census tracts that have a concentrationof BOTH minority AND low-income households,
OR that have a concentration of three or more of
the remaining six factors (#3 to #8) but only IF theyalso have a concentration of low-income households.

Disadvantage Factor

Threshold

1. Minority

70%

2. Low Income30%

3. Limited English Proficiency

20%

4. Zero-Vehicle Household

10%

5. Seniors 75 Years and Older

10%

6. People with Disability25%

7. Single-Parent Family

20%

8. Severely Rent-Burdened Household

15%

Source: MTC, “Equity Analysis,” Plan Bay Area 2040,
https://www.planbayarea.org/2040-plan/plan-details/
equity-analysis.

For the Master Residential Parking Permit, a flat fee per vehicle allows parking in all restricted residential areas for
up to 72 hours.
Carshare providers are also required to hold at least one meeting with affected neighborhood associations andbusiness groups for the initial zone map and before any proposed zone changes. To stay in good standing, thesemobility services must also respond to complaints from neighborhood associations and business groups.
Although the carshare company that Oakland hoped to attract withdrew from the California market, GIG Car
Share, a homegrown entry, stepped up to the plate. GIG is affiliated with AAA Northern California and a productof A3Ventures, AAA’s innovation arm. GIG is modeled after Evo Carshare, run by British Columbia AA. Because
Berkeley, Oakland’s northern neighbor, adopted similar carshare permitting policies, GIG was able to launch 250
vehicles with a home zone covering both cities in 2017. Since then, GIG has expanded its home zone throughout
the Bay area with a fleet of nearly 500 Toyota Prius vehicles. GIG offers free memberships with no application fees
and issues RFID cards that can be used instead of smartphones to start and end trips.22
GIG’s next market was Sacramento, where it offers Chevy Bolt electric vehicles in a partnership with Electrify
America. Despite the need to charge the vehicles, GIG has continued the free-floating fleet, large home-zone modeland does not depend on users to re-charge its vehicles.23

Lessons Learned•

Governments can lay the groundwork for mobility businesses by developing regulatory requirements inadvance, considering the conditions needed for business success.

•Carshare businesses are experimenting with foregoing membership fees, which could make their services
more affordable and accessible to lower income customers.

•

Free-floating, one-way carshare with large home zones can make it easier to serve a wide range ofneighborhoods and destinations.

28

Vehicle Sharing as Part of a Multimodal Lifestyle
In today’s multimodal neighborhoods, partnerships can offset the limits of existing services.
For instance, the cost of carshare prohibits regular use by low-income households. For people
comfortable using bike and scootershare, the service is inappropriate for many trips, including trips
with children, during adverse weather, during an illness or when injured, while under the influence ofdrugs or alcohol, and when hauling even modest amounts of stuff.24 When a range of services work
together in a single area, the community benefits from greater mobility access and coverage for arange of conditions.
Many private sector companies now provide multiple modes of vehicle sharing, a fact that points
to the importance of broader partnerships. Agreements with public agencies give private providers
inherent reach and scale, and in the process support other shared mobility services; advance safety
for walking, biking, and other vulnerable forms of transport; and contribute to a more equitablemobility landscape.

Lessons Learned• Vehicle sharing services, mostly owned by the private or non-profit sector, can be powerfultools to fill gaps in the shared mobility system.
• Solutions exist that encourage customers with low incomes to take advantage of vehicle
sharing-services.
• Vehicle sharing and equity raises questions about the larger context of mobility inneighborhoods and regions:— When is vehicle sharing the most appropriate response to pressing mobility needs,
especially given limited government resources?
— Is equity best served by ensuring equal access to a mobility type or by tailoring services toresident needs?

29

Opportunities to
Meet Equity Objectives:

Sharing the Ride
For shared mobility services that share the ride, the customer takes a ride in a vehicle operated
by the consumer ride industry and open to the general public. Services that share the ride include
ridehailing services such as Uber, Lyft, and traditional taxis and shared or pooled options fromthose services (e.g., Uber Pool and Lyftline); shuttles or microtransit services that provide sharedrides via flexible routes and/or schedules, including on-demand rides; and fixed-route public transit
services, including on-demand services. These services may have quite different congestion andenvironmental implications, depending on how and where they are used.
In public-private partnerships for “sharing the ride” the public sector buys rides for its constituentsfrom privately owned and operated businesses in order to provide better services to low-income
or transportation-disadvantaged communities. This may include ADA paratransit users, using
ridehailing to fill gaps in fixed-route service, and neighborhood circulators.

The Public Sector’s Role: Owner and Purchaser
Up to this point, public-private partnerships have taken two forms: government agencies, usuallytransit agencies, encouraging or buying rides on taxis/TNCs and public sector experiments withmicrotransit. Although shuttles, vans, or small buses offering shared, on-demand rides aren’t new,30

what is sparking renewed interest today is that technology entrepreneurs at companies such as Via
and Ruby Ride are convinced that smartphone apps and new algorithms for rider aggregation anddynamic routing will give this old service type new life.
However, purely private sector attempts at microtransit have failed to get beyond the dense cities
that have long supported dollar vans or jitneys, private transit services operating on fixed-routes fora flat fare. The question isn’t whether microtransit service will need public sector support to survive,
but how best to deliver public sector support for optimal results.25
For equity objectives, programs and initiatives for low-income and transportation-disadvantaged
groups typically come out of public transit or social service agencies. Thus, these equity programs
are in the context of limited budgets and customer bases that are already largely made up of
lower income and transportation-disadvantaged populations. In addition, the politics of spending
taxpayers’ dollars dictates that buying rides from private ride services should meet a compelling
objective that furthers the public interest.

The question isn't whether
microtransit service willneed public sector support
to survive, but how best to
deliver public sector support
for optimal results.

31

Buying Rides and the Promise of
Neighborhood Circulators
Transit agencies have partnered with TNCs, taxis, and microtransit providers for numerous pilot
projects in recent years. Pinellas County, Florida is home to a program that is specifically built aroundthe needs of late-night workers who have no other transportation options (see case example).
Neighborhood circulators, using the new technologies, could dramatically improve low-income
customers’ access to local community services and institutions. Most of these experiments, however,
have involved first mile/last mile service to/from rail stations or bus transit centers.
Motivations for first mile/last mile partnerships to transit stations have ranged from growing
ridership, compensating for cuts in fixed-route service, and avoiding the cost of constructing
additional parking. At the low end, these partnerships are simply cooperative marketing efforts, withno public subsidy of private sector services. Some of the subsidy programs for trips to/from transit
stations have targeted neighborhoods or populations that are at some transportation disadvantage(low-income neighborhoods, students, etc.). Although equity objectives are not necessarily theintent of the partnership, provisions for low-income and transportation-disadvantaged groups show
up in associated requirements such as requirements for a call center, cash payment options, and tomeet federal regulations requiring an option for people needing wheelchair accessible vehicles. A
local taxi or medical transport provider, secondary to the main TNC providers, is often the solution.26
Despite the focus on first mile/last mile solutions, partnerships for microtransit services are
actually heading in a much more promising direction with neighborhood circulators. These sharedride services, which can be tailored for people using wheelchairs and other accessibility devices,connect homes with nearby shopping and community services. Neighborhood circulators can
combine fixed-route service that stops at major community destinations with on-demand service
through residential areas. Or, the service can be completely on-demand. The algorithms may evenbe powerful enough to be able to cost-effectively meet local trip needs in places with suburban
development patterns, though this has not been proven.
Arlington, TX ended its single, fixed-route bus line for on-demand, shared ride service in 2018 andhas renewed the one-year contract with microtransit provider Via for 2019. In this public-private
partnership, Via provides rides in a defined area within Arlington, promises a wait time of 10-12
minutes, and offers some wheelchair accessible vehicles. Trips are ordered and paid for through Via’s
app or by calling the call center, and cash payments require buying a pre-paid credit card. Via retains
all revenue from the flat $3 fare, but the vast majority of funding comes from the city of Arlington
and federal grants. The vans and app bear Via’s branding as prominently as Arlington’s, and even
Arlington’s website calls the service Via Rideshare, instead of “Arlington On Demand.”27
The District of Columbia’s Neighborhood Ride Service is an exception to the “buying rides” model ofpartnership. The District’s Department of For-Hire Vehicles supported fixed-route neighborhood

32

circulators with a capital grant to the local taxi industry. The funding paid for the vans, with astipulated requirement to cap fares at $5.00. At roll out, the fare was $3.25. (For comparison, thefare for travel on Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority buses is $2.00, and the mayor
recently announced that the city’s fixed-route DC Circulator buses will be free.)Without funds for ongoing operating assistance, however, the taxi company needs the service toat least break even. They sought and tested routes in areas poorly served by fixed-route transit
including in DC’s most disadvantaged wards, but routes in these wards didn’t make the revenue
target and were cut in the second phase in 2017. The second phase incorporated street hails andvirtual bus stops through the app. The driver accepts cash, credit cards, and Apple Pay, but not theregion’s mass transit card. The service survives as two routes that run for limited hours, MondayFriday. A third phase incorporating on-demand routing is still in the planning stage.28
Public-private partnerships are also being used for trials of on-demand neighborhood circulatorsin Austin, Texas and Johnson County, Kansas. The technology companies are providing planningsupport, routing technology, and the customer app for free or at significant discounts, but the
local governments are providing the vehicles and drivers. If the local governments decide to go
forward with permanent service, a competitive procurement process will be required. In Austin, if
the services go forward, the plan currently is that they will be part of their regular transit service
offerings.
Neighborhood circulators and first mile/last mile services have the potential to improve masstransit’s ability to serve a broader range of customers and trip needs. Whether these services
will make mobility in a community or in a region more equitable depends on the details. Still to be
determined too is whether a public-private partnership model is the best approach or whether these
services should be operated as part of the public transit agency’s portfolio.29

33

Improving Mobility for ADA Paratransit Customers
One of the most successful use cases has been using ridehailing businesses to provide on-demandrides for those who qualify for paratransit service under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
However, as TNCs have opened up new freedom for some ADA riders, they have been slow towelcome those needing wheelchair accessible vehicles to their platforms.30
For people served by fixed-route transit but in need of door-to-door paratransit, current federal
minimum standards allow ADA paratransit providers to require reservations at least one day inadvance and also allow providers to negotiate a pickup time up to one hour before or after thecustomer’s desired departure time. (For example, for an appointment on Wednesday at 4:00 pm
requiring an estimated one hour of travel time, you would order a ride on Tuesday for Wednesday
at 2:00 pm. You could wind up with a scheduled pickup time anywhere between 1:00-3:00 pm and a
wait time at your destination of up to two hours.)31
Transit agencies look to ridehailing companies to offer their paratransit users at least the option
to make spontaneous trips. Transit agencies also look to taxis and TNCs to save costs. Because
ADA paratransit service is often designed around the customer with the most extensive needs
for support, it can be very expensive. Generally, transit agencies hoping to save costs on ADAparatransit by using TNCs or taxis repeatedly discover that an on-demand option boosts ridership.
Although cost savings may be minimal, the revealed demand for higher quality service among thetransportation disadvantaged has been striking.
For ambulatory ADA customers, subsidizing the use of taxis and TNCs to provide on-demand rides
is relatively straightforward. For customers using wheelchairs, tapping into the private sector toprovide timely rides in accessible vehicles has been more of a challenge.

34

At one end of the spectrum of buying rides for ADA paratransit service are transit agencies
that turn to TNCs to supplement the fleet providing regular ADA service. Central Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority has a service agreement with both Uber and Lyft to help the agency meetpeak demand. The rider served by a TNC vehicle doesn’t receive the benefit of on-demand ordering,
although all peak period ADA paratransit customers are presumably better off.32
At the other end are transit agencies that have turned to TNCs for much of their ADA paratransit
service. The municipal transit agency in Santa Monica transitioned to Lyft for all of its ambulatory
ADA service, with provisions for a call center and cash accounts. The program has been deemed
successful, although some ambulatory customers still call for wheelchair accessible vehicles because
Lyft’s curb-to-curb service (as opposed to ADA’s door-to-door service) does not meet their needs.33
In 2017, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA) piloted on-demand rides for ADA
customers as a premium service in addition to its regular ADA service. KC Freedom on Demand
operates through a partnership with the Kansas City Transportation Group (KCTG), a locallyoperated subsidiary of the Transdev conglomerate. It uses a smartphone app developed by Transdev.
Transdev also has significant experience providing regular ADA paratransit service in the UnitedStates, including for KCATA.

35

KC Freedom on Demand charges $5 for the first five miles and $2 per mile thereafter and subsidizes
up to 60 one-way rides per month for ADA paratransit customers and adults over age 65. The service
is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and zTrip also provides trips in wheelchair accessible
vehicles and with drivers trained to serve people with disabilities. Riders can use the app or callcenter to order a ride and can pay with cash, credit card, or through the app. KCATA’s regular ADA
paratransit service, requiring reservations 24 hours in advance, costs $3 per trip, takes exact-fare
cash only, and operates when and where fixed-route bus service operates. Taking the bus, if possible,
is free for ADA-eligible customers.34
The popularity of KC Freedom on Demand led to its expansion throughout the Kansas City region.
After a trial period of low fares to determine demand, which outstripped expectations, KCATA
settled on the current fare structure and subsidy level, which it believes will be sustainable for theforeseeable future.
As partners, KCATA and KCTG/zTrip/Transdev had a history of working with each other andwith ADA-paratransit clientele. KCTG/zTrip/Transdev brought unique strengths to the table, as
it combines a local company committed to the Kansas City area community with the resourcesof a multinational corporation. The inclusion of wheelchair accessible vehicles on zTrip—for
ADA-paratransit users and the general public—is a notable success worthy of further evaluation.
Currently, zTrip is available in over 15 American cities.35

Lessons Learned• The current focus of public-private partnerships in the consumer ride industry involves the
public sector encouraging or buying rides on the private sector’s shared-ride or microtransit
services.
• Neighborhood circulators, using new technologies and offering on-demand rides, may be a
promising way to fill gaps in fixed-route services and connect customers to local destinations
and transit stations.
• Buying rides from ridehailing companies is a way for transit agencies to meet the sizeable
unmet demand for affordable, on-demand rides for people who qualify for ADA paratransit
service, including those who need wheelchair accessible vehicles.

36Case Example:
Using Ridehailing to Get Home from the Late Shift
Pinellas County, Florida is a tourist destination filled with jobs that cater to night life, yet its fixed-routebus service doesn’t meet the ridership benchmarks that justify late night service. Could ridehailinghelp fill the gap? Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority (PSTA) won a grant to test the idea from Florida’s
Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Program, which arranges transportation for people with no othertransportation options and for trips to “medical appointments, employment, educational, and other life
sustaining services.”36
PSTA’s regular TD program already offered its participants heavily discounted bus passes. For the cost ofa bus pass ($11.00) plus a premium ($9.00), TD participants can enroll in TD Late Shift and use ridehailingfor 25 trips to or from work each month. Trips must take place, between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. PSTA
holds participants accountable through registering their employer’s address. Trip data from ride providers
show whether participants are making trips to or from their employer’s address.
Launched in August 2016, TD Late Shift hit a peak of 4,730 rides in April 2018. When demand outstrips
funding, PSTA has periodically closed enrollment and used attrition to manage the limited budget.
Participants choose their ride provider from among a taxi company, TNC, or a wheelchair ride provider
that has signed on to the program, and then PSTA reimburses the provider. Giving riders their choice ofproviders was important to PSTA, although the agency works with participants to help them use the mostcost-effective ride provider for their trip.
PSTA, however, has no direct relationship with the employers who benefit from staff with reliabletransportation. PSTA contacted employers when doing initial outreach, but employers are at this point
an untapped resource. Without grant funding, funding from employers or business organizations may
become necessary to continue the program.

37

Although PSTA encourages participants to use the bus for one direction of their commute, they discovered thatmany shifts didn’t fit neatly into this pattern. Participants use a range of strategies to get to work: the bus, rides
from friends, sharing rides with co-workers, and the TD Late Shift option. For unexpectedly short shifts, a worker
might need to call on TD Late Shift twice in one night. Because of TD Late Shift, PSTA has learned more about how
late-night workers actually make their commutes.
Buying rides—leveraging the capacity of the private sector—has allowed PSTA to meet the needs of some of its
most transportation-disadvantaged customers.

Lessons Learned•

There is an unmet need for mobility services at affordable price points outside the service hours of
traditional mass transit.

•

When designing new equity programs, leave flexibility to incorporate lessons learned about targeted users
and their service needs.

•

The private sector can be a source of untapped mobility capacity that is easily deployable and does not
require the public sector to make long-term commitments.

38

Using Public-Private
Partnerships to
Improve Mobility
and Equity
Public-private partnerships work better if the public sector partner has clear objectives that create
the conditions for finding the best fit with a private sector partner and the environment to foster
creative problem solving. The following approaches can support this process.

Checklist for Achieving
Equity Objectives and Outcomes
When developing equity objectives, public sector decision-makers should take a multi-dimensional
approach, such as the STEPS framework. Simply designing a program around economic issues orgeographic disparities alone will miss opportunities to create a more fair and just transportation
system.
Focus services to target specific objectives: Equity programs such as TD Late Shift, BlueLA, Kansas City
Freedom on Demand, and neighborhood circulators start with a defined group or neighborhood and39

build a service to meet their needs. Community involvement and marketing also target the selectedgroup or neighborhood. The solution that is designed for a specific group may also serve a larger
constituency.
Consider annual permitting or licenses: Many local governments are responding to competing private
sector providers for bike share, scootershare, and carshare by regulating them through annual
permit processes or licenses. Equity objectives can become part of the regulations or competitive
permitting process, but whether these regulatory processes can reap the benefits of long-term
partnerships is yet to be seen.
Lower barriers of entry by ensuring inclusive access: Programs that aim to make a mobility service
more widely accessible typically offer reduced fares or fees, options for those wanting to pay cash,
smartphone workarounds, and they encourage wheelchair accessible vehicles and adaptive vehicles.
Some vehicle sharing services dispense with membership and application fees altogether, loweringbarriers for everyone to try the service. Equitable distribution requirements and policies enforcing
non-discrimination rules can come into play too.
Consider third-party funders, supporters, and champions: Public-private partnerships often involve
additional participants and partners as external support. Community-based groups, business groups,
and local political champions can be crucial to success. Especially important have been third-parties—governments, foundations, and corporations —that have provided grants or seed funding to launch
projects or equity programs.
Engage the community at every stage: Programs for focused services and inclusive access should
include significant marketing and outreach efforts that are culturally appropriate for the groups
targeted to use the service. Staff dedicated to outreach and trained in reaching out to diverse
communities are a must. Non-profit organizations have also been formally integrated, throughgrants, in community engagement efforts.
Think ahead to mobility-as-a-service: Public-private partnerships will be foundational to a mobility
system where people travel by accessing a full range of right-sized shared mobility services paid forthrough a combination of monthly subscription and pay-per-trip options.

40

Case Example:
BlueLA’s Electric Vehicle Carshare in Disadvantaged Communities
In 2016, the City of Los Angeles embarked on an electric vehicle (EV) carsharing pilot project through agrant from the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The city’s grant proposal, “L.A. Leading by Example:
Partnering to Pilot EV Carsharing in Disadvantaged Communities,” was developed by the city with support
from lead technical partner the Shared-Use Mobility Center and submitted to CARB in April 2015. Itemphasized serving low-income residents and reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs). Implementing
a progressive EV carshare pilot in a historically-steadfast car culture such as LA would prove to bechallenging for a variety of reasons, but BlueLA EV Carshare (BlueLA) has already begun delivering results
to Angelenos through reducing GHGs and providing a new mobility option. As of June 30, 2019 , BlueLAhas 2,400 BlueLA members who have taken over 22,000 trips in 100 vehicles that can park at 25 multispace charging stations.37
BlueLA was chosen as the private sector partner after a competitive RFQ/RFP process. The city chose aone-way, point-to-point car sharing service that requires vehicles parked at each station to be connected
to charging infrastructure. BlueLA promised $10,000,000 in private investment in equipment in returnfor exclusive use of dedicated public parking spaces for an initial term of five years with three two-year
options. CARB funding, $1,669,343, covered community engagement, consultant technical services, andparking conversion costs. The city contributed $1,180,000 in fee waivers and Los Angeles Departmentof Water and Power rebates. In addition to LADOT and the mayor’s office, five other city agencies wereinvolved in the complex partnership negotiations.
The CARB grant could be used only for service in disadvantaged communities, defined by a combination ofthresholds for income and exposure to air pollution. BlueLA keeps all revenue that the service generates
and can expand its charging infrastructure to non-targeted neighborhoods at its own expense. BlueLA also
can open its charging infrastructure to private vehicle owners.
A Steering Committee hired a grant-funded Outreach Manager and worked according to a self-developed,
goal-oriented community plan that called for aggressive community outreach. The partners heldcommunity forums and participated in community events, and BlueLA hired local Street Ambassadors.

41

As additional encouragement to use the service, BlueLA discounts “Community Memberships.” Qualified lowincome customers pay a membership fee of $12/year billed at $1/month and 15 cents/minute, as compared toStandard Membership of $60/year billed at $5/month and 20 cents/minute. Community Members also receive the
2nd and 3rd hours of a reservation for free.
BlueLA does require all members to secure their account with a credit or debit card. However, for customers
without bank accounts, BlueLA has partnered with Motiv, which offers no-fee bank accounts and debit cards toparticipants in partner organizations. In effect, the $12 annual membership fee comes with a free bank account anddebit card.38
In April 2019, CARB announced $3 million in additional funding to expand BlueLA in Los Angeles.

Lessons Learned•

The use of grant funding, fee waivers, and parking preferences can leverage significant private investment
in carsharing and electric vehicle infrastructure from the private sector.

•

Disadvantaged neighborhoods can be the starting place for new shared mobility investments.

•

Successful community engagement involves significant resources and may be best served by a partnershipapproach with non-profit organizations as well as the private sector mobility provider.

•Engaging the community in decision making from the start creates buy-in and better design for end users.
Continue involvement throughout the development process with decisions around price, selection ofvendor, locations, and marketing approach.

42

Further Evaluation and Research Needs
Below are five areas where the industry is at a crossroads regarding service models or where
solutions are still wanting for low-income and transportation-disadvantaged communities.
Free-floating versus point-to-point vehicle sharing: Further research needs to be done to determine
whether free-floating fleets or one-way, point-to-point service is the better model for equitablemobility, and under what circumstances.
First-mile/last-mile service versus neighborhood circulators: Which better serves the needs of lowincome or transportation-disadvantaged persons?
Solutions for the unbanked and underbanked: While customer workarounds for smartphones (callcenters, RFID cards) are relatively straightforward, solutions for those who want to pay cash often
involve multiple steps in multiple locations. More evaluation is needed of solutions for those without
credit cards as well as of new techniques that instead provide bank accounts tailored to the needs ofpeople with lower incomes.
Services for all ages and abilities: The private sector’s shared mobility services are too often
inadequate for disabled persons. More evaluations are needed of successful and attempted
efforts to make vehicle sharing and ridehailing services more inclusive and also of the appropriate
government role in public-private partnerships.
Community outreach, including marketing: Although a body of best practices for community
involvement, including needs assessments and community surveys, has developed for the planningand siting of shared mobility services, successful marketing techniques are less certain. Publicprivate partnerships present an opportunity for cross-fertilization and co-learning on marketingstrategies and shaping service to demand.

Conclusion
Public-private partnerships for shared mobility services in the US are expanding in response totechnological advances and new private sector business models, making this an opportune time totest how well shared mobility services can meet equity objectives.
In the face of high unemployment and rising income inequality, transportation equity is more
important than ever before in creating a level playing field where everyone can access the means tolive well. All shared mobility services have roles to play in creating this system, essential for a justsociety.

43

Endnotes
1 FHWA, Travel Behavior: Shared Mobility and Transportation Equity, August 2017,https://www.fhwa.gov/policy/otps/shared_use_mobility_equity_final.pdf.
2 Transportation Research Board, “Between Public and Private Mobility: Examining
the Rise of Technology-Enabled Transportation Services,” Transportation Research
Board Special Report 319, The National Academies Press, 2016.
3 LA Metro, “Partnerships and Unsolicited Proposals,” accessed December 11, 2018,https://www.metro.net/projects/oei/partnerships-ups/.
4 Greg Lindsey, “The State of Play: Connected Mobility in San Francisco, Boston, andDetroit,” Citylab Insights, accessed December 11, 2018, https://www.citylab.com/
sponsored/state-play/the-state-of-play-connected-mobility-in-san-francisco-bostonand-detroit/235/.
5 See for example: LADOT, “LADOT Expands Dockless Scooter and Bicycle Program
to be Largest in Country,” March 22, 2019, accessed April 3, 2019, https://ladot.
lacity.org/sites/g/files/wph266/f/LADOT%20Expands%20Dockless%20Scooter%20
and%20Bicycle%20Program%20to%20Be%20Largest%20in%20Country.pdf.
6 Transportation for America, “Equity” in Shared Micromobility Playbook, accessed April
3, 2019, http://playbook.t4america.org/; NACTO, Guidelines for the Regulation andManagement of Shared Active Transportation, 2018, p. 27.
7 Susan A. Shaheen, et al, Carsharing and Public Parking Policies: Assessing Benefits,
Costs, and Best Practices in North America, MTI Report 09-09, Mineta Transportation
Institute, 2010.
8 NACTO, Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation,
2018, p. 38; NACTO and Better Bike Share Partnership, Strategies for Engaging
Community: Developing Better Relationships through Bike Share, 2017; Joel Espino
and Vien Truong, Electric Carsharing in Underserved Communities: Considerations for
Program Success, The Greenlining Institute, 2015; Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration
Corporation and NACTO, Bringing Equitable Bike Share to Bed-Stuy, March 2017;
California Air Resources Board, “Low-Income Barriers Study, Part B: Overcoming
Barriers to Clean Transportation Access for Low-Income Residents: Final GuidanceDocument,” February 21, 2018.
9 Mary Wisniewski, “Black neighborhoods still see most bike tickets, police data
show,” Chicago Tribune, February 12, 2018, accessed April, 2019. https://www.
chicagotribune.com/business/ct-met-bike-tickets-getting-around-20180211-story.
html.

44

10 California Air Resources Board, “Low-Income Barriers Study, Part B: Overcoming
Barriers to Clean Transportation Access for Low-Income Residents: Final GuidanceDocument,” February 21, 2018; Nina Hoe and Talar Kaloustian, “Bike Sharing in LowIncome Communities: An Analysis of Focus Groups Findings,” Institute for Survey
Research, Temple University, 2014.
11 C. Scott Smith and Ripley O’Neil, Dimensions of Divvy: Exploring the Social, Spatial andTemporal Performance of Bikesharing in a Period of Growth and Expansion, Chaddick
Institute of Metropolitan Development, DePaul University, 2018, p. 3-4; Steven
Howland, Nathan McNeil, Joseph Broach, Kenneth Rankins, John MacArthur, andJennifer Dill, “Current Efforts to Make Bikeshare More Equitable: Survey of System
Owners and Operators.” Transportation Research Record 2662, no. 1 (January 2017):
160–67.
12 Better Bike Share Partnership, “About Us,” accessed April 2, 2019, http://
betterbikeshare.org/about/.
13 Bcycle: leadership and innovation in bikesharing, updated February 2014, accessed
April 2, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20140626140808/https://www.bcycle.
com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=bVmw2q5kbYw%3D&tabid=1213; Bcycle, “bikes
and stations,” accessed April 2, 2019, https://www.bcycle.com/top-nav-bar/bikesstations.
14 John Greenfield, “After a 2016 Slump, 2017 Was Divvy’s Most Profitable Year
Ever,” Streetsblog Chicago, December 4, 2018, accessed April 2, 2019, https://chi.
streetsblog.org/2018/12/04/after-a-2016-slump-2017-was-divvys-most-profitableyear-ever/; C. Scott Smith and Ripley O’Neil, Dimensions of Divvy: Exploring the Social,
Spatial and Temporal Performance of Bikesharing in a Period of Growth and Expansion,
Chaddick Institute of Metropolitan Development, DePaul University, 2018; Mary
Wisniewski, “Divvy to lower daily prices and add longer-ride option,” Chicago Tribune,
January 24, 2018; City of Chicago, Divvy Contract Amendment as Introduced,
March 12, 2019; “Mayor Emanuel and CDOT Propose $50 Million Expansion andModernization of Divvy Bike Share System,” City of Chicago News Release, March
13, 2019, accessed April 2, 2019, https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/cdot/
provdrs/bike/news/2019/march/mayor-emanuel-and-cdot--propose--50-millionexpansion-and-modern.html; John Greenfield, “CDOT Unveils E-Divvy Design,
Debunks Uber’s ‘Fake Propaganda’ at City Hall Hearing,” Streetsblog Chicago, March
28, 2019, accessed April 2, 2019, https://chi.streetsblog.org/2019/03/28/cdotunveils-e-divvy-design-debunks-ubers-fake-propaganda-at-city-hall-hearing/.
15 Fran Spielman, “City Council makes Lyft exclusive operator of Divvy bike-sharing for45

nine years,” Chicago Sun-Times, accessed April 10, 2019, https://chicago.suntimes.
com/2019/4/10/18327553/city-council-makes-lyft-exclusive-operator-of-divvybike-sharing-for-nine-years/.
16 Nice Ride, “Request for Proposals for Transition of Twin Cities Bike
Sharing System,” September 14, 2017, accessed April 2, 2019, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b840bcf45776e48dcfeb53a/t/5b99d4434d7a9ce10e14a9e7/1536808004070/RFP-for-Transition-ofthe-Twin-Cities-Bike-Share-System---FINAL.pdf; Minneapolis Bike
Share Program and Pilot Agreement, Nice Ride, accessed April 2, 2019,https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b840bcf45776e48dcfeb53a/t/5b99d5c8cd836605b061617c/1536808394511/
MTV+Nice+Ride+Program+Agreement+6.14.18+Fully+Executed.pdf.
17 Seattle Department of Transportation, “Free-Floating Bike Share Program Permit
Requirements,” November 16, 2018.
18 “Government of the District of Columbia Department of Transportation Washington,
D.C., Terms and Conditions for the Public Right-of-Way Occupancy Permit,” and“Dockless Sharing Vehicles Permitting Application: 2019 Application Year,” accessed
April 1, 2019, https://ddot.dc.gov/page/dockless-vehicles-district.
19 Zipcar, “Zipcar for NYCHA Residents,” accessed April 3, 2019, https://www.zipcar.
com/partners/nycha.
20 Ithaca Carshare, “Rates & Plans,” accessed April 3, 2019, https://www.ithacacarshare.
org/rates/community/.
21 City of Oakland, “Adopt A Car Sharing Policy, Ordinance, Master Fee Changes,
and External Funding,” February 5, 2015; City of Oakland, Free-Floating Zone
Parking Permit (FFZPP) and Master Residential Parking Permit (MRPP) Terms
and Conditions, 2/28/2017, http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/ceda/
documents/policy/oak064363.pdf.
22 “AAA to offer one-way hourly car rentals in East Bay,” SFGATE.com, April 17, 2017,https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/AAA-to-offer-one-way-hourly-car-rentalsin-East-11074604.php#photo-12717497; GIG Car Share, accessed April 26, 2019,https://gigcarshare.com/.
23 Stephen Edelstein, “VW's Electrify America Plans Sacramento Electric Car-Sharing
Services,” The Drive, June 14, 2018, https://www.thedrive.com/tech/21522/vwselectrify-america-plans-sacramento-electric-car-sharing-services.

46

24 April 22, 2019, https://www.li.me/user-agreement; Bird, “Bird Rental Agreement,
Waiver of Liability, and Release,” accessed April 22, 2019, https://www.bird.co/agreement/.
25 Linda Poon, “Bridj Collapses After Just 3 Years,” CItylab, May 1, 2017, https://www.
citylab.com/transportation/2017/05/bridj-collapses-after-3-years-microtransitbus/524955/; Aarian Marshall, “Ford Axes Its Chariot Shuttles, Proves Mobility Is
Hard,” Wired, January 10, 2019, https://www.wired.com/story/ford-axes-chariotmobility-is-hard/.
26 Taxi Transportation, Neighborhood Ride Service, accessed April 4, 2019, http://
dctaxionline.com/neighborhood-ride-service/.
27 “Arlington’s Via Rideshare Transportation Program to Continue in 2019,” City of
Arlington, December 6, 2018, accessed April 4, 2019, https://www.arlingtontx.
gov/news/my_arlington_t_x/news_archive/2018_archived_news/december_2018/
arlington_s_via_rideshare_transportation_program; City of Arlington, Via
Rideshare, accessed April 4, 2019, https://www.arlingtontx.gov/cms/one.
aspx?pageId=14984341.
28 Taxi Transportation, Neighborhood Ride Service, accessed April 4, 2019, http://
dctaxionline.com/neighborhood-ride-service/.
29 For a critique of microtransit, see Jarrett Walker, “Is Microtransit a Sensible Transit
Investment?” Human Transit, February 20, 2018, https://humantransit.org/2018/02/
is-microtransit-a-sensible-transit-investment.html.
30 Uber and Lyft both have pilot projects offering on demand rides in wheelchair
accessible vehicles in only a handful of cities. Uber, “Uberwave,” accessed May 15,
2019, https://www.uber.com/ride/uberwav/; and Lyft, “Accessible Vehicle Dispatch,”accessed May 15, 2019, https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013081668Accessible-vehicle-dispatch.
31 Federal Transit Administration, “Americans with Disabilities Act: Guidance,” Circular
FTA C 4710.1, November 4, 2015, Section 8.4.5 Trip Reservations and Response
Time, https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/Final_FTA_ADA_
Circular_C_4710.1.pdf.
32 T. Curtis, M. Merritt, C. Chen, D. Perlmutter, D. Berez, and B. Ellis, “Partnerships
Between Transit Agencies and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs),” Prepublication draft of TCRP Research Report 204 (Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2019), Chapter 4: Case Studies.

47

33 T. Curtis, M. Merritt, C. Chen, D. Perlmutter, D. Berez, and B. Ellis, “Partnerships
Between Transit Agencies and Transportation Network Companies (TNCs),” Prepublication draft of TCRP Research Report 204 (Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2019), Chapter 4: Case Studies.
34 KCATA, “Ride KC Freedom,” Customer Ride Guide, 2019, accessed April 26, 2019,http://ridekc.org/assets/uploads/documents/RKC_Ride_Guide.pdf;
35 zTrip, “Wheel Chair Accessible Services,” accessed April 26, 2019, https://www.ztrip.
com/wheel-chair-accessible-vehicles/.
36 Florida Commission for the, “About Us,” accessed April 4, 2019, https://ctd.fdot.
gov/aboutus.htm; Dave Zipper, “Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority’s TD Late Shift
Program,” APTA Mobility Innovation Pilot of the Month, February 25, 2019.
37 “BlueLA Electric Vehicle Carshare Pilot a success after one year – awarded $3
million to expand to three additional disadvantaged communities in Los Angeles,”Shared-Use Mobility Center, April 23, 2019, https://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/
bluela-electric-vehicle-carshare-pilot-a-success-after-one-year-awarded-3-millionto-expand-to-three-additional-disadvantaged-communities-in-los-angeles/; Electricand Equitable: Learning from the BlueLA Carsharing Pilot, Shared-Use Mobility Center,
April 2019, https://learn.sharedusemobilitycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/NewFile_
SUMC_04.15.19.pdf.
38 Blue LA, “About,” accessed April 3, 2019, https://www.bluela.com/faq; Motiv FAQ’s,
accessed April 3, 2019, https://www.motivmoney.com/faqs.

48

Policy Paper

312.448.8083
www.sharedusemobilitycenter.org
Chicago | Los Angeles