Mar 6, 2014 - individuals less likely to own a smartphone than younger, more educated individuals. While the percentage
Is The Future Of Urban Mobility Multi-Modal And Digitized Transportation Access? Susan A. Shaheen Co-Director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley Susan Shaheen is an adjunct professor in the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department and an associate research engineer at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California, Berkeley. She is a co-director of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center. She has a Ph.D. in ecology, focusing on technology management and the environmental aspects of transportation, from the University of California, Davis (1999) and a Masters degree in public policy analysis from the University of Rochester (1990).
Matthew Christensen Researcher, Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley Matthew Christensen joined the Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC) of the University of California, Berkeley in 2014. He is the former Managing Editor of Bikeshare.com and specializes in bicycle and bikesharing research and planning. He is an expert in bikesharing metrics, station siting, contracts, program management, data analysis, and public and private funding mechanisms. Matt received a master’s degree in Planning from the University of Southern California and holds a bachelor’s degree in Environmental Studies from UC Santa Barbara.
Abstract: Our cities are undergoing a dramatic shift in urban mobility. Changing demographics, economies, technologies, and environmental pressures have altered traditional travel demand to more sustainable transportation modes. This article examines the present and future of urban mobility, specifically in regard to public transit and shared-use mobility services (e.g., carsharing, bikesharing, and ridesharing), as well as multi-modal transportation. Multi-modal means having access to multiple modes in making a trip. We examine organizations and governments that are currently pursuing multi-modal transportation options and explore a more idealized transportation platform that draws on multi-modalism, technology, demand, and other trends. We argue that the US is at the forefront of what we call “digitized” transportation access. In the last fifteen years, notable developments
compact electric vehicles (EVs). Even Ford’s
have occurred within urban mobility and
CEO, Alan Mulally, stated at the Detroit Auto
sustainable transportation in the United States
Show in early 2014 that the future of our cities
and abroad. Owning an SUV is no longer a
will depend on personal mobility and adding
key element in achieving the American Dream.
more cars is “not going to work”1. Meanwhile,
Paradoxically, being car-free or car-light is
the bicycle has undergone a rebirth as a viable
becoming more commonplace. Today, every
means of urban transportation, and governments
major automobile manufacturer is producing
on all levels are using transportation funding
This article is part of a series about the future of urban mobility prepared for Cities on the Move, a one-day event organized by the New Cities Foundation and hosted by Google on March 6th, 2014 in Mountain View, California. 1. Schmitt, Angie (January 22, 2014). “Ford CEO: More Cars in Cities ‘Not Going to Work’”. Streetsblog. http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/01/22/ -ford-ceo-more-cars-in-cities-not-going-to-work/. 1
to
support
transit
infrastructure.
executive editor of Wired, Kevin Kelly 4.
others
working
in
As more and more individuals are using public
transportation, has recognized that socio-
transit and shared-use modes to get around,
economic
are
transportation systems are becoming cheaper
changing the way people think about how they
and more efficient. According to a 2013
move within cities. According to the World
survey for Capital Bikeshare in Washington,
Health Organization, approximately 50% of
D.C., members save approximately US $800
the world lived in urban environments in 2010,
annually on transportation costs5. Martin and
and that number is expected to increase to 70%
Shaheen’s (2011) research on carsharing
by 20502. With road and highway networks
in North America demonstrated that 50% of
already struggling to meet transportation
carsharing members either sold or postponed
demand, more people are turning to alternative
a car purchase, and for every carsharing
transportation
recently
vehicle in a fleet, 9 to 13 personal vehicles
published by the American Public Transportation
are taken off the road. Furthermore, of those
Association shows that “millennials”, the
autos shed, carsharing vehicles average about
biggest and most diverse generation to date,
10 miles per gallon better on fuel efficiency 6.
Mulally,
public
like
many
and
population
modes.
A
pressures
report
tend to choose between different modes for a given trip rather than defaulting to the private
Shared-use
automobile like many of their predecessors3.
complement public transit by addressing the
One reason for this is the emergence of the
first/last mile problem and, thereby, enable
sharing economy and shared-use mobility
households
(i.e., carsharing, scooter sharing, ridesharing
dependence. According to a recent study
{carpooling and vanpooling}, bikesharing,
published
private shuttles, and on-demand ride services).
Institute, bicycle-friendly transit policies greatly
Millennials now have “access” to many modes
increase the catchment area of transit stops 7.
without having to sustain the burdens of
Public bikesharing, in cities like Washington,
“ownership,”
originally
D.C., functions in the same way to encourage
founding
individuals to use shared bicycles to access
posited
in
a 2009
concept by
the
mobility
to by
services
reduce the
their
Mineta
can
also
automobile Transportation
2. World Health Organization. “Global Health Observatory.” http://www.who.int/gho/urban_health/situation_trends/urban_population_growth_ text/en/. 3. American Public Transportation Assocation (October 2013). Millennials and Mobility: Understanding the M¬illennial Mindset. http://www.apta. com/resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Millennials-and-Mobility.pdf. 4. Kelly, Kevin (January 2009). “Better than Owning”. http://kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2009/01/better_than_own.php. 5. 2013 Capital Bikeshare Member Survey Report (May 2013). http://capitalbikeshare.com/assets/pdf/CABI-2013SurveyReport.pdf. 6. Shaheen, Susan and Elliot Martin (2011). The Impact of Carsharing on Household Vehicle Ownership. ACCESS. http://www.uctc.net/ac cess/38/access38_carsharing_ownership.pdf. 7. Flamm, Bradley and Charles Rivasplata (January 2014). Perceptions of Bicycle-Friendly Policy Impacts on Accessibility to Transit Services: The First and Last Mile Bridge. Mineta Transportation Institute. http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/170216.aspx.
2
transit. The 2013 Capital Bikeshare Member
enables users to find the closest vehicles
Survey Report found that 54% of Capital
available. These apps are on the forefront of
Bikeshare members use it in tandem with
“digitized” transportation access and will play
public transit for multi-modal trips. Similarly,
a growing role in urban mobility in the future.
Penn Station in New York is host to one of the most used Citi Bike stations during morning
The smartphone, however, has its limitations.
commutes as commuters exit the station and
First, “points of access” can present a problem
use bikesharing to complete their work trips8.
for public transit providers. Bus and rail transit services are typically equipped to provide
Multi-modal new
tripmaking
demand
for
has
enhanced
created
a
access via an RFID card or ticket. Retrofitting
integration
public transit stations with the ability to accept
among transportation options. At present,
payments
from
smartphones
would
take
the vast majority of transportation systems
significant investment. Second, the smartphone
require that travelers use transit smartcards,
has cost barriers for many. Of individuals
bikesharing key fobs, and carsharing mobile
making less than US $30,000 per year, less
apps and/or smartcards to access modes
than half own a smartphone. Conversely,
independently. This can create a disarray
over 78% of people earning US $75,000
of memberships and hardware. Instead,
or more own a smartphone9. Educational
users are in need of an integrated platform
attainment and age also show a similar
that enables them to seamlessly compare
correlation, with older and less educated
(cost, route, time spent, etc.) and access
individuals less likely to own a smartphone
and pay for different transportation services.
than younger, more educated individuals. While the percentage of smartphone owners
The smartphone is one tool likely to have an
will increase in the years ahead within all
increasing role in multi-modal transportation.
socio-demographic
Mobile apps like RideScout and Nimbler,
remain a prominent issue without subsidies.
cohorts,
equity
will
which aggregate public transit and shared-use mobility services into one map, allow users
Apart from the smartphone, RFID technology
to find the various modes available nearby
may also play an increasing role in multi-
and even book and pay for some. Similarly,
modal transportation in the future. Unlike the
Red Ride aggregates ridesharing, on-demand
smartphone, most public transit services, many
ride services, and carsharing services and
carsharing, and several bikesharing providers
8. Goldmark, Alex (July 2013). “At Penn Station, the Early Bird catches the Citi Bike.” WNYC. http://www.wnyc.org/story/307783-early-birdcatches-citi-bike/. 9. Smith, Aaron (June 2013). Smartphone Ownership 2013. Pew Research Center. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/06/05/smart phone-ownership-2013/
3
currently enable user access through an RFID
This, however, presents another hurdle for
card, and some partnerships have already been
an integrated multi-modal platform that is
formed. For instance, in 2009 the Chicago
either RFID or smartphone based: revenue
Transit Authority (CTA) and I-Go Carsharing
sharing among service providers. Different
began offering a joint carsharing and public
fee structures and membership options among
transit pass. In New York, San Francisco, and
existing services can make the sharing of
Chicago, bikesharing systems are equipped
revenue exceedingly difficult. In other cases,
with RFID card readers in anticipation of a multi-
some service providers may not find it in
use RFID card. Similarly, B-cycle bikesharing
their best interest to list pricing options due
equipment, which can be found in over 15
to the ability to directly compare costs across
cities across the United States, features RFID
modes and providers (i.e., competition). Not
card readers. And in London, the Oyster card
surprisingly, institutional barriers also exist
has set the precedent for RFID admission as
in integrating services across organizations
cardholders are able to access local and
(e.g., data privacy concerns, Application
regional forms of the transportation network
Programming
Interfaces
{or
APIs},
etc.).
with a single card, including the subway, light rail, regional rail, trolleys, and buses.
Despite these hurdles, steps are already being taken to create a single platform for multi-
While multi-modal RFID cards are already
modal transportation. Such a platform would
helping users access multiple transportation
exponentially increase the value of sustainable
modes,
limitations.
transportation modes through ease of use,
Most apparent: RFID cards are unable to
accountability, and by creating virtual and
show expected trip times or give users an
physical connection points. As shared-use
understanding of where the closest available
mobility continues to grow, so will the demand
bikesharing bicycle or carsharing vehicle is
for seamless multi-modal transportation access.
located. Recognizing this gap, the company
Ultimately, a fully integrated transportation system
TransitScreen developed a kiosk for public transit
would create a more efficient, environmentally
destinations that enables users to find which
friendly, and economical solution for users
transportation options are available nearby.
in cities across the globe in the future.
they
too
have
their
Hypothetically, a cardholder would be able to find their mode(s) of choice on TransitScreen − or a similar kiosk − and use a single RFID card to access them, regardless of the mode.
4
February 2014 © 2014 New Cities Foundation www.newcitiesfoundation.org RIGHTS AND PERMISSIONS Please cite the work as follows: Matthew Christensen, Susan A. Shaheen, (2014), “Is the future of urban mobility multi-modal and digitized transportation access?” in Cities on the Move, New Cities Foundation, Geneva. If you create a translation of this work, please add the following disclaimer along with the attribution: “This translation was not created by the New Cities Foundation and should not be considered an official New Cities Foundation translation. The New Cities Foundation shall not be liable for any content or error in this translation.” All queries on rights and licenses should be addressed to the New Cities Foundation:
[email protected]. Design and Layout: Rachel Dare.
5
