a new way to go

7/27/2019 A New Way to Go

1/54

Bikesha

re

BussChedule

Carsha

re

ridesha

re

traintiC

kets

nextBu

shomea

rrives2

minutes

...ne

utes...n

exttra

inarriv

es6min

utes...

Bikesha

re4Blo

Cks...

Carsha

re3Blo

The Transportation Apps and Vehicle-SharingTools that Are Giving More Americans

the Freedom to Drive Less

A New Way to Go


2/54

A New Way to GoThe Transportation Apps and Vehicle-Sharing

Tools that Are Giving More Americans

the Freedom to Drive Less

TexPIRG Education FundFrontier Group

Tony Dutzik and Travis Madsen,Frontier Group

Phineas Baxandall, Ph.D.U.S. PIRG Education Fund

Fall 2013


3/54

Acknowledgments

TexPIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group sincerely thank David Burwell, directoro the energy and climate program at the Carnegie Endowment or International Peace;Robin Chase, ounder and ormer CEO o Zipcar, Buzzcar and GoLoco; Amanda Eaken,deputy director o sustainable communities at the Natural Resources Deense Council;David Goldberg, communications director at Transportation or America; Darnell Gris-by, director o policy development and research at the American Public TransportationAssociation; Todd Litman, executive director o the Victoria Transport Policy Institute;Deron Lovaas, director o ederal transportation policy at the Natural Resources DeenseCouncil; Kirstie Pecci, sta attorney at MASSPIRG Education Fund; Susan Shaheen, co-director o the Transportation Sustainability Research Center at the University o Calior-nia, Berkeley; Serena Unrein, public interest advocate at Arizona PIRG Education Fund;and Sue Zielinski, managing director o SMART (Sustainable Mobility & AccessibilityResearch & Transormation) at the University o Michigan or their review o drats othis document, as well as or their insights and suggestions. The authors also thank GaryShepard, Berkshire, Massachusetts RTA administrator or his insights about transit in lessdensely populated areas and the many transportation industry experts and practitionerswho supplied inormation or patiently answered our questions.The authors sincerelythank Jordan Schneider and Ben Davis o Frontier Group or their editorial support.

TexPIRG Education Fund and Frontier Group thank the Rockeeller Foundation ormaking this report possible.

The authors bear responsibility or any actual errors. The recommendations are those oTexPIRG Education Fund. The views expressed in this report are those o the authors anddo not necessarily reect the views o our unders or those who provided review.

2013 TexPIRG Education Fund. Some Rights Reserved. This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives 3.0 Unported License.To view the terms o this license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0.

With public debate around important issues oten dominated by special interests pursuingtheir own narrow agendas, TexPIRG Education Fund oers an independent voice thatworks on behal o the public interest. TexPIRG Education Fund works to protect con-sumers and promote good government. We investigate problems, crat solutions, educatethe public, and oer citizens meaningul opportunities or civic participation. For moreinormation, please visit our website at www.texpirgedund.org.

Frontier Group conducts independent research and policy analysis to support a cleaner,healthier and more democratic society. Our mission is to inject accurate inormation andcompelling ideas into public policy debates at the local, state and ederal levels. For moreinormation about Frontier Group, please visit www.rontiergroup.org.

Design: Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design

Cover images:street scene, Yuri, iStockphoto.com;phone, Sunny studio - Igor Yaruta, Shutterstock.com;map & compass icon, Vladru, iStockphoto.com; travel icons, Puruan, Shutterstock.com


4/54

Table o Contents

Executive Summary 1

Introduction 6

Americas Technological and 8Social Networking RevolutionFrom Dial-Up to iPhone: America in the 2000s 8

Young Americans Have Been the First to Embrace New Technologies 9

Social Media and the Sharing Economy 10

Technology Is Changing Our Transportation Needs 11

Technology-Enabled Transportation Services: 13What they Are and Why they MatterThe Impact o Technology on Transportation Choices 13

How Technology Can Enable Car-Free and Car-Light Liestyles 14

A Field Guide to the Transportation Technology 18Revolution and its Impacts on DrivingCarsharing 18

Bikesharing 21

Transit Apps 24

Ridesharing 29

Taxi Hailing and Transportation Network Services 30Multi-Modal Apps 31

Policy Recommendations 34

Notes 41


5/54


6/54

Executive Summary 1

Executive Summary

America is in the midst o a technologi-cal revolution and a big shit inour transportation habits.

Over the last 15 years, the Internet andmobile communications technologies havetransormed the way Americans live andwork. During that same period, growthin vehicle travel slowed and then stopped,with Americans today driving about asmuch on average as we did in 1996.

Both changes have taken place mostrapidly among young Americans, who havebeen the earliest and most enthusiasticadopters o new technologies, as well asthe new social networking tools that arethe oundation o the emerging sharingeconomy. They have also been the groupthat has reduced its driving the most, withthe average American between 16 and 34years o age driving a startling 23 percentless in 2009 than in 2001.

Could these developmentsthe rapid

spread o mobile, Internet-connected tech-nologies, the emergence o social network-ing, and the recent decline in drivingberelated? And what does the uture hold?

Early evidence suggests thatnew in-novations in technology and social

networking are beginning to changeAmericas transportation landscape.New transportation services are providingpeople with an abundance o new options,helping to overcome barriers to the useo non-driving orms o transportation,and shiting the economics behind indi-viduals travel choices. Collectively, theyare also opening up the opportunity ormore Americans to adopt car-ree and

car-light liestyles with dramaticallyless driving.

America is in the midst of a techno-logical revolution.

Between 2000 and 2012, the percent-age o adults who use the Internet in-creased rom 46 percent to 82 percent.The percentage o adults who own acell phone increased rom 53 percentto 88 percent. The share o Americans

with access to high-speed Internetat home increased rom 5 percent tomore than 70 percent. And roughlyhal o Americans now own smart-phones, which did not exist in theirmodern orm in 2000.


7/54

2 A New Way to Go

These technologies are changing how

Americans live and work. Participa-tion in telework and e-commercehas increased dramatically in the lastdecade. Meanwhile, social networkinghas helped unleash an emerging shar-ing economy.

Young Americans have consistentlybeen the frst to adopt and test thecapabilities o these new technologiesand practices. As o September 2012,young adults were six times more like-

ly to have a smartphone than peoplein their grandparents generation, andtwice as likely as those between 50and 64 years o age.

Advances in the Internet and mobilecommunications technologies have

unleashed a wave of new technology-

enabled transportation services.

CarsharingClassic roundtrip car-sharing services, such as Zipcar andCity Carshareas well as newer one-way services such as car2goenablesubscribers to access cars located intheir neighborhoods and on their col-lege campuses, providing participantswith the mobility benefts o access toa car without having to bear the bur-den o owning one. As o 2012, more

than 800,000 Americans were mem-bers o carsharing services (sharing acombined eet o more than 12,000vehicles). Newer peer-to-peer carshar-ing networks enable individuals torent out their own unused vehicles topeople looking or a car.

Figure ES-1. Market Penetration of Major Technologies in 2000 versus 20121


8/54

Executive Summary 3

Bikesharing Six years ater thelaunch o the frst modern bikesharingsystem in the U.S., more than 30 citiesnow have programs where subscriberscan access bikes by the minute or bysubscription at kiosks located on city

streets. In just its frst season, NewYork Citys Citibike program enlistedmore than 70,000 annual members,with riders traveling more than4.5 million miles.

Real-time transportation informa-tion The majority o U.S. transitsystems now make scheduling inor-mation publicly available, enablingdevelopers to produce a variety o newsmartphone apps to help riders navi-gate urban transportation systems.Smartphone-based tools enable ridersto fnd the best route or their trip,track the progress o trains and busesin real time, and even, in some cases,pay their are.

Ridesharing A variety o new ser-vices across the country pair ordinarypeople with open seats in their carswith individuals who need a ride. Us-

ing the Internet and smartphones toacilitate rides enables those seekingshared rides to tap a broader pool opotential matches.

Taxi hailing and transportation net-work services New services enablepeople to hail taxis or livery vehicles,or to arrange rides with ordinary driv-ers (e.g., Lyt and Sidecar) via smart-phone, making it easier and oten lessexpensive to hire a ride.

Multi-modal tools New apps andtools also enable individuals to plantrips using several modes o transpor-tation, acilitating efcient, seamless,door-to-door journeys.

Technology-enabled transportationservices have the potential to change

Americans transportation behaviors.

Technology-enabled services caneliminate traditional barriersthat pre-

vent Americans rom taking publictransit or sharing rides and vehicles.

The array o new services can makeit easier or households to reduce thenumber o vehicles they owna step thatgenerally leads to steep reductions indriving.

Technology-enabled services canexpand the availability o transportationchoicesin places and markets wherethey are not currently available.

Access to mobile technology also en-ables riders to use their time ridingon trains or waiting or buses more pro-ductively. This provides shared trans-portation with a market advantageover driving, since the use o mobiletechnology is increasingly understoodas being incompatible with the saeoperation o a car.

While many of these new tools are intheir infancy, several have already beenshown to reduce vehicle ownership anddriving.

Each carsharing vehicle replaces nineto 13 privately-owned vehicles, andthe average carsharing part icipantreduces his or her driving by 27 to 56percent. About 25 percent o carshar-ing participants sell a vehicle ater

joining while another 25 percent orgovehicle purchases they otherwisewould have made.1

A study o the Chicago transit sys-tem, which gradually introduced areal-time bus location inormation


9/54

4 A New Way to Go

system rom 2006 to 2009, ound thatintroducing real-time inormationincreased weekday bus ridership.

Approximately 40 percent o bike-share members report reducing their

driving, according to a 2011-2012 sur-vey o members o our North Ameri-can bikeshare services. A 2013 surveyo members o Washington, D.C.sCapital Bikeshare program ound thatone quarter reported having reducedthe number o miles they drove sincejoining the service. Five percent omembers reported having sold a per-sonal vehicle since joining the service,with 81 percent o those members re-porting that joining Capital Bikesharewas a actor in the decision. The totalreduction in vehicle travel by CapitalBikeshare members was estimated at4.4 million miles.

The cumulative impact of new trans-portation services on vehicle ownershiplikely exceeds that of the individualservices.

By providing more choices and ex-

ibility or individuals to meet theirtransportation needs, these new toolscan make it convenient to adopt car-ree and car-light liestyles.

Households that reduce thenumber o vehicles they own otendramatically reduce the number omiles they drive. Because many o thecosts o owning a car are perceivedto be fxed, vehicle owners perceivethe cost o driving an additional mile

to be artifcially low. New servicessuch as carsharing shit the cost odriving rom fxed to per-mile costs,providing an incentive or usersto drive less and allowing manyhouseholds to reduce their overallspending on transportation.

Inormation technologies make iteasier to ensure seamless connectionsbetween various modes o transporta-tion, expanding the number and typeso trips that can be completed eec-tively without a car.

Cities, states and the federal govern-ment should take a series of immediatesteps to unlock the potential of technol-ogy-enabled transportation services toprovide Americans with more and bettertransportation choices, while integratingnew technologies into transportation plan-ning and policy. Specifcally, governmentsshould:

Use information technologytoacilitate the development o technol-ogy-enabled services by providingopen access to transit scheduling andoperations data, providing real-timetransit inormation at stations, busstops and elsewhere, ensuring wi-fand/or cellular network access on alltransit vehicles, and creating multi-modal connections with emergingtransportation services.

Modernize regulations to accom-modate carsharing, bikesharing,ridesharing, and other transporta-tion services in ways that unlock thetremendous potential o these serviceswhile ensuring strong protection orconsumers and residents.

Embrace a multi-modal future.Transportation planners should seekto integrate new technology-enabledservices and existing transportation

services into systems that provideefcient, seamless, door-to-doorconnections. Ofcials should incor-porate new transportation tools intoall aspects o transportation planningand decision-making, while break-ing down outdated mode-specifc


10/54

Executive Summary

silos in transportation agenciesand fnancing. Governments shouldmake strategic investments in tools tointegrate and maximize the beneftso new transportation innovations,while also investing in the basic inra-

structuresuch as transit lines andimproved acilities or bicycles andpedestriansthat provides individu-als with high-quality transportationchoices.

Extend the use of technology-enabled tools to new communities.Local and state governments shouldexpand access to technology-enabledservices to areas beyond the majorcities in which they have taken root,surmount economic and other bar-riers to the use o those alternatives,and explore the potential uses oInternet and mobile communicationstechnologies in expanding access to

high-quality public transportation inareas that currently do not have thepopulation density to sustain suchservice.

Learn and adaptby tapping the rich

inormation oered by new technolo-gies to improve the quality o trans-portation services. Local, state andederal ofcials should also invest inresearch to explore the impact o re-cent technological changes on utureexpectations o demand or driving.

Public ofcials should also ensure thatplans or uture transit and road capacityinvestments adequately reect the emer-gence and potential o new technology-en-abled tools to reduce driving. Governmentsshould cancel plans or highway expansionprojects that no longer make sense amidrecent trends toward reduced driving andthe emergence o new technologies.


11/54

6 A New Way to Go

Most Americans want to drive less.2

For some, its a matter o eco-nomics. Transportation is the sec-

ond-largest household expenditure, ateronly housing, and ahead o ood, clothing,education and health care.3 Owning, main-taining and ueling a car is a signifcantdrain on household budgets, especiallywhen times are tight.

For others, the desire to drive less stems

rom atigue with the daily grind o com-muting. Commuting by car is a stressulexperience, one that can have a negativeimpact on overall well-being.4 Traiccongestion and unpleasant commutes areamong the major reasons that an increasingnumber o Americans fnd driving to be achore.5 At the same time, Americans areincreasingly coming to recognize that timebehind the wheel cannot also be spent stay-ing connected with others via cell phonesor the Internetat least not saely.

For still others, driving less is a way toimprove their health, or the health o theplanet. Bicycling and walking are increas-ingly seen as important ways to stay activeand healthy. Meanwhile, more than 40percent o American drivers age 18 to 34

and more than 35 percent o all other agegroupsreport that their concern or theenvironment leads them to drive less.6

Cutting back on driving isnt easy,though, especially given the transportationand land-use decisions local, state and ed-eral governments have made since WorldWar II. For decades, American communi-ties have been built on the sel-ulfllingassumption that people will drive wherever

they need to go, leaving many o us depen-dent on cars or even the most basic dailytasks. Carpooling, public transportation,bicycling and walking are important andviable options or millions o Americans,but nine out o 10 American households eelthe need to own at least one car.7

The rapid advance o the Internet ,mobile communications technologies andsocial networkingand the technology-enabled transportation services they arespawninghas the potential to expand

the share o American households withthe reedom to live without a car, or tolive with ewer cars than they own today.These new tools give Americans a broaderarray o convenient, exible transportationchoicesenabling them to drive when

Introduction


12/54

Introduction

and where they need to, share rides wherethey can, and take ull advantage o theparticular benefts o public transportation,bicycling and walking.

Many o these new services are stillin their inancy, while others are well on

their way to becoming important fxtures

o the nations transportation system. Lo-cal, state and ederal ofcials should takeimmediate steps to acilitate the growth othese services, while integrating emergingtransportation technologies and tools intoour planning and decision-making or the

uture.


13/54

8 A New Way to Go

America is in the midst o a techno-logical revolution. Over the last twodecades, American lie has been

transormed by the rapid spread o theInternet, broadband, and mobile com-munications technologies. More recently,technological advances have unleashed thepotential o social networkinga new ormo online social organization that expandsthe ability o people to share ideas andgoods with people with similar interestsand needs.

Young people have consistently beenthe frst and most enthusiastic adopters oboth new technologies and new orms osocial media.

Transportat ion is among the manyaspects o American lie being reshapedin real time thanks to technology. Toappreciate those changesparticularlyamong young peopleit is frst necessary

to grasp the broad sweep and rapid speedo Americas technological and social net-working revolution.

From Dial-Up to iPhone:America in the 2000sBy the turn o the 21st century, Americahad already been through a period orapid technological and social change thatbrought the popularization o the personalcomputer, mass access to the Internet andmobile communications, and a host oother changes.

Since then, however, the pace o techno-logical change has, i anything, accelerated.In the late 2000s, the smartphone emergedas a powerul new technology that put lo-cation-aware, Internet-connected, mobilecommunications technology in the handso millions o Americans. Consumers havebeen adopting smartphones at a pace 10times aster than they started using thepersonal computer in the 1980s, twice asast as they signed up or dial-up Internet in

the 1990s, and three times aster than theysigned up or social networking services inthe last decade.8

Americas Technology andSocial Networking Revolution


14/54

Americas Technology and Social Networking Revolution 9

The past decade has seen the rapid pen-etration o new technologies into themarketplace.

Internet use: In 2000, less than 50percent o adults in the United States

regularly used the Internet.9 By 2012,82 percent o American adults did.10

Cell phone ownership: In 2000,just over hal o adults owned a cellphone.11 By June 2013, 91 percent oadults did.12

Broadband access: In 2000, only 5percent o Americans had access toa high-speed Internet connection intheir home. By 2012, more than two-thirds o Americans did.13

Smartphones: In 2000, the modernsmartphone did not exist. By June2013, more than hal o Americanadults owned a smartphone.14

Location-aware devices: In 2000,devices that used global position-ing system (GPS) satellites were justbeginning to emerge into the mar-ketplace. GPS capability is now astandard eature o smartphones used

by tens o millions o Americans, aswell as a key technology in all acets otransportation.15

Young Americans HaveBeen the First to EmbraceNew TechnologiesAdoption o new mobile communicationsdevices is increasing across all income lev-els, races, ages, and education levels.17 Butyoung Americans have consistently beenthe frst to adopt new technologies and tointegrate them into their liestyles.

Figure 1. Market Penetration of Major Technologies in 2000 versus 201216


15/54

10 A New Way to Go

Internet use: Young Americans werethe frst to embrace the Internet. In2000, young people were fve timesmore likely to use the Internet thanpeople in their grandparents gen-eration.18 Internet use is now nearly

universal among young people, withnearly 95 percent o young adults be-tween the ages o 18 and 29 using theInternet on a daily basis.19

Smartphone adoption:As o Sep-tember 2012, just over fve yearsater the introduction o the AppleiPhone, two-thirds o young adults(18-29 years old) owned some varietyo smartphone.20 Young adults weresix times more likely to have a smart-phone than people in their grandpar-ents generation, and twice as likely asthose between 50 and 64 years o age.

Texting: In a 2011 Pew ResearchCenter survey, 18-24 year olds

reported sending or receiving anaverage o 110 text messages per day.These youth text message at doublethe requency o 25-34 year olds, andmore than 20 times the rate o adultsolder than 64.21

Social Media and theSharing EconomySocial networking barely existed a decadeago. Today, Americans collectively spendapproximately 24 billion hours per year onsocial networking.23 More than 40 percento Americans are daily Facebook users.24

Social media has acilitated the emer-gence o a growing sharing economy,which has been defned as an economicmodel based on sharing, swapping, barter-ing, trading or renting access to products asopposed to ownership.25

Figure 2: Young Adults Almost Universally Use the Internet, at Rates Well Ahead ofTheir Elders22


16/54

Americas Technology and Social Networking Revolution 11

Wikipedia, or example, has become adominant reerence source by crowdsourc-ing inormation. Entertainment ecosys-tems have blossomed around widespreadswapping o pictures, videos or songs.Meanwhile, growing rom roots in Web-

based services such as Craigslist and eBayin the 1990s, the arrival o smartphones andsocial networking has kicked the sharingeconomy into overdrive, allowing ordinarypeople to sell or share unused items or excesscapacity.26 People can fnd eager takers ora summer cottage, spare bedrooms, powertools, designer gowns, arm produce, a baby-sitter, or seats in a caryielding additionalcash and sometimes the benefts o humaninteraction.

New technology tools have made iteasy to disseminate inormation aboutavailable opportunities, to sort amongcompeting oers and to better trust thatanonymous strangers will behave civillyto protect their online reputations. Forexample, where a person might once havetried to organize a carpool with a ewriends rom work or posting yers in co-ee shops, today Americans in some citiescan arrange ridesharing with hundreds oriends or even trusted strangers at the

click o a button.Young people were the frst to embracesocial networking and have been amongthe earliest participants in various aspectso the sharing economy.

By 2006, nearly hal o young adults(18-29 years old) who used the Internetwere participating in a social networkingservicethree times the rate o Internetusers as a whole. By 2010, more than 90percent o college students used socialnetworking on a daily basis.27

Young people have also been the frstadopters o new social media platorms.For example, as o the end o 2012:

27 percent o Internet users aged 18to 29 used Twitter, compared with 16percent o all Internet users;

28 percent used Instagram, comparedwith 13 percent o all Internet users;

13 percent used Tumblr, comparedwith 6 percent o all Internet users.28

Members o the Millennial generation(those born between 1983 and 2000) arealso among those most attracted to thesharing economy, second only to memberso Generation X (those born between 1965and 1982).29 According to one recent sum-mary o trends in the sharing economy,Millennials [are] more likely to eel posi-tive about the idea o sharing, more opento trying it, and more optimistic about itspromise or the uture.30

Technology Is ChangingOur Transportation NeedsA variety o interact ions that were onceprimarily conducted in person are nowincreasingly taking place online, as pow-erul new technologies change the wayAmericans work, shop, relax and connect

with one another.

Telework: In the last decade, thenumber o Americans working romhome at least one day per weekincreased by more than 40 percent,as measured by the U.S. CensusBureau.31 By 2010, 9.5 percent o allworkers worked rom home at leastpart o the time.32

E-commerce: Shopping online is

becoming an increasingly importantpart o the American economy. Retailsales happening online have increasedfve-old in the last decade.33 About 5percent o all retail sales now hap-pen online.34 Purchases via mobiledevices, in particular, are growing


17/54

12 A New Way to Go

at a rate o more than 80 percent peryear.35

Americas technological revolution hasreshaped the nations lie. Industries thathad seemed invulnerable little more than

a decade agorom the recorded musicindustry to newspapers to the postal ser-vicehave had their business models up-ended. The ways in which Americans work,

shop and socialize have changed dramati-cally. Those changes have been especiallyrapid among the youngest Americans.

Transportation has not been immune tothe massive changes unleashed by the growtho the Internet and mobile communications

technology. The next section discusses thepotential o these new technologies to disruptexisting arrangements in ways that reducedependence on the automobile.


18/54

Technology-Enabled Transportation Services: What They Are and Why They Matter 13

Americas technological and social net-working revolution is changing everyaspect o American lieand trans-

portation is no exception. One o the mostimportant changes has been the emergenceo a variety o new technology-enabledtransportation services, which take advan-tage o mobile communications technologyand social networking tools to provide newtransportation choices to Americans.

By empowering Americans with ad-ditional transportation choices and en-hanced ways to navigate these choices,new, technology-enabled transportationservices could reduce the need or manyAmericans to own a personal vehicle,thereby resulting in a signifcant reductionin vehicle travel.

The Impact o Technologyon Transportation ChoicesTechnological changes can aect transpor-tation choices in a variety o ways. Overthe past several decades, transportationexperts have studied how advances such

as the Internetand technology-enabledchoices such as telecommutinghavechanged transportation behaviors.

The primary ocus o those studies hasgenerally been on whether Internet-con-nected technologies result in more or lesstravel. In some cases, technology substi-tutes or travelas when a telecommuterreduces the number o days on which heor she drives to work, or a person swaps

a trip to the store or a purchase via anonline retailer.

Technology-EnabledTransportation Services:

What They Are and Why They Matter

The ability to stay connected en route is a keyadvantage o public transportation, with anincreasing number o transit agencies providingwi-f and other orms o mobile connectivity toriders. Credit: Matt Johnson.


19/54

14 A New Way to Go

A 2004 review o 20 studies rom aroundthe world on the impact o telecommutingound that on days employees worked romhome, they took 27 to 51 percent ewertrips, and logged 53 percent to 77 percentewer miles traveled.36 Other research

suggests that telecommuting very likelyreduces overall vehicle travel.37

suggest that users who perceive public tran-sit as providing an opportunity to multi-task may be more likely to choose transitover driving.39 A study o the inclusion owi-f on Amtrak trains in Caliornias Capi-tal Corridor estimated that the addition o

the service increased the number o trips by2.7 percent, with the greatest impact beingon new riders.40

Both o these possible impacts otechnology on transportationthe abil-ity o telecommunications to substituteor work, shopping or recreational visitsthat might otherwise occur by car, and theability o mobile Internet technologies toenable productive use o time on publictransportationare o critical importanceand have the potential to aect how andwhen people choose to travel.

In this report, however, we ocus on theimplications o what we call technology-enabled transportation servicesser-vices that assist travelers or enable neweconomic models or transportation, andthat are made possible by the Internet and/or mobile communications. More specif-cally, we ocus on those services related tomodes o transportation other than drivingin a personal vehicle.

How Technology Can EnableCar-Free and Car-LightLiestylesNew, technology-enabled transportationservices have the potential to reshapeAmericas transportat ion system. Indi-

vidually, these services have the potentialto reduce or eliminate key barriers to theuse o non-driving modes o transportation.Collectively, they may make it easier orhouseholds to construct viable car-ree orcar-light liestyles that are less dependenton privately owned vehicles. And they may

A study o the inclusion o wi-f on

Amtrak trains in Caliornias Capital

Corridor estimated that the addition

o the service increased the number o

trips by 2. percent, with the greatest

impact being on new riders.In other cases, however, technology gen-

erates new travelor example, by makingit easier or individuals to fnd cheap airights online, to discover new destinationsthat require travel, to avoid trafc jams bytaking more circuitous routes, or to engagein consumer-to-consumer transactionsthat require additional travel. In general,technology has been seen by researchersto substitute or travel in the short run and

stimulate travel in the long run.38

The availability o Internet connectionson a mobile, on-demand basis has the po-tential to inuence transportation choicesin important new ways.

Smartphones, or example, provide trav-elers with access to voice and text commu-nications, inormation and entertainmenten route, enabling time spent waiting orbuses or riding on trains to be used morepleasantly or productively than beore. Theability to stay connected while in travel is

an important selling point o public trans-portation ridership relative to automobiledriving, especially considering the increas-ing alarm o transportation saety ofcialsabout the perils o distracted driving. (SeeStaying Connected, page 16.)

Preliminary results rom recent research


20/54


expand access to non-driving alternatives togroups o people who do not currently haveaccess to them by making those alternativesless expensive, more efcient or both.

Reducing Barriers to Non-Driving

ModesThere are numerous barriers that havetraditionally prevented people rom usingnon-driving modes o transportation.Public transportation use, or example, isoten limited by:

Perceptions o security;

Lack o timely and accurate inorma-tion about the service;

The availability and convenience othe serviceincluding concerns aboutreliability and wait times.41

Mobile, Internet-connected technologyhas the potential to address each o thesebarriers. Security concerns may be allevi-ated by the ability o riders to photographand report incidents by cell phone. Real-time trip planning and vehicle trackingapplications can overcome inormation

barriers and address concerns about reli-ability and wait times. (See page 24 ormore inormation on these new tools.)

In the past, or example, transit usersneeded to consult conusing paper mapsand timetables to plot their trips. In a 2005study, 180 peoplemade up o a mix otransit users and non-userswere taskedwith using paper system maps and timeta-bles to plot a transit trip. Only 52.5 percento those taking part were able to plan theirtrip successully.42 Today, in many cities,

an individual could undertake the sametaskwith ar greater accuracyby sim-ply plugging an address into a mobile appor an Internet site such as Google Maps.The benefts o these services are evenmore proound when they enable users toconstruct trips that use several transit lines

or multiple modes o transportationtripsthat would have been exceedingly difcultto plan without automated tools.

Survey research by Latitude, a consultingfrm, suggests that providing inormationabout transportation options via the Inter-

net and mobile technologies can give peoplethe same sense o mobility and reedom thatcomes with owning a car.43 The researchersconcluded that new orms o inormationaccess enable choice; they can aid with smartplanning and in-the-moment decision-mak-ing, reduce users rustrations, and sotenpreconceived notions about the downsideso more sustainable transit options whencompared with driving.44

In short, technology-enabled transpor-tation choices can help people target andovercome barriers that might previouslyhave deterred them rom taking publictransportation, sharing a ride with a riend(or a trusted stranger), or biking or walkingto their destination.

Reducing the Need forVehicle OwnershipMost Americans ace a stark choice whenit comes to transportation: either buy orenter into a long-term lease o a car, and

obtain reliable, 24-hour access to automo-bile mobility, or orgo buying a car and risknot having access to one at all. Even manypeople who might generally be willing andable to travel by means other than drivingace certain situationssuch as the needto travel in the rain, or carry packages, ortake the occasional long-distance tripinwhich access to a car is desirable.

It is no surprise that, under those cir-cumstances, the vast majority o Ameri-cans have elt the need to own a personal

vehicledespite the tremendous burdenvehicle ownersh ip places on householdbudgets. According to a 2010 poll conductedor Transportation or America, nearlythree-quarters o Americans surveyed saidthey had no choice but to drive as muchas I do.45


21/54

16 A New Way to Go

Staying Connected:Mobile Technology Makes Time Spent on Transit

More Valuable

Americans increasingly eel the need to stay connected with email, social net-works and the Internet wherever they go. The increasing importance o mobileconnectivity to Americans has the potential to shit traditional conceptions o howindividuals value their timemaking time spent connected to mobile technologieswhile waiting or a bus or riding a train more valuable than it might previously havebeen.

The use o mobile technology on public transportation has become extremelycommon. An annual observational survey o Chicago-area commuter rail ridersound that the percentage using portable electronic devices en route increased rom26 percent in 2010 to 48 percent in 2013.50 More than hal o the riders on Amtraks

Acela high-speed rail service in the Northeast use laptops, tablet computers, or otherelectronic devices at any given time during travel.51 Surveys conducted by research-ers in Great Britain have ound that 80 percent o business travelers riding on trainsworked during their journey, with those who worked spending 57 percent o theirtime working.52

Drivers also attempt to remain connected while at the wheel. Surveys show thatabout two-thirds o drivers have used a cell phone while driving. On the order oone in 10 drivers is using a cell phone at any given time.53 More than 10 percent odrivers responding to one survey reported texting while driving.54

It is becoming increasingly clear, however, that driving and mobile connectivitysimply dont mix. Studies o this behavior show that cell phone use increases crashrisk. Texting while driving recently supplanted drunk driving as the number one

cause o teenage driving deaths.55 Hands-ree devices do not appear to oer anyconclusive saety advantage.56 A large scale study conducted by the American Auto-mobile Association, ollowing similar fndings by the Texas Transportation Institute,ound that even with hands-ree technology, communications technologies suchas texting, cell phone calling or dictation are highly dangerous.57

Some states have outlawed talking or texting on hand-held devices while driving.58

Additionally, the National Transportation Saety Board has recommended banningcell phone use while drivingincluding with hands-ree devices.59

While it is possible that the advent o autonomous vehicles (see page 33) may makeit easier or drivers to remain connected while driving, the ull penetration o thosevehicles is at least a decade away and likely longer. For the time being, the ability tostay connected while in transit is a market advantage or non-driving modes in rela-tion to those where drivers must spend time ocusing on the road ahead.


22/54


New technology-enabled servicesreduce barriers to non-driving modes otransportation and provide a greater rangeo transportation choicespotentiallygiving many Americans the reedom toconstruct viable liestyles that do not

include car ownership. By creating morealternatives to car ownership, these newservices can change how people considerdriving among other transportation op-tions.

The High Fixed Costs of VehicleOwnership Encourage DrivingThe economics o vehicle ownership tendto artifcially encourage Americans to drivemore than they would otherwise. The vastmajority o the costs o driving are incurredin large lump sums that are not directly tiedto the number o miles driven. They arewhat economists call fxed costs. Vehicleowners must purchase, fnance or lease thevehicle, pay or insurance, and secure aplace to store the vehicle. These costs tendnot to change much regardless o how arthe car is driven.46

When most automotive costs are fxedand the remaining marginal costs or eachmile o additional driving are small, people

are artifcially encouraged to drive more.An individual may choose to drive to adestination rather than take transit becausehe or she perceives the marginal cost othe additional vehicle trip to be near zero(perhaps limited only to the cost o uel),while the transit trip will require paymento a round-trip are. Even when the alter-native trip is also cost-ree (as in biking orwalking), the presence o an auto in thedriveway represents a constant invitationto maximize its use.

Research validates that people who owncars are likely to use them more requentlyand other modes o travel ar less re-quently.47 In sum, once a person becomes acar owner, economic incentives encouragehim or her to use their vehicle as much aspossible.

Shared Transportation ChangesEconomic IncentivesTechnology-enabled services such as car-sharing upend these economic incentivesin ways that can reduce automobile travel.Instead o purchasing a car or personal

use, participants in carsharing servicesbuy access to a car through their annualmembership. Typically, this results in car-sharing participants receiving the beneftso car access, but at a signifcant overallcost savings.

Carsharing and ridesharing servicesshit many o the costs o vehicle travelrom fxed, upront costs associated withownership to variable costs that are deter-mined by the number o miles driven. Theewer trips an individual makes via car, theless he or she has to pay. This creates anincentive or users to consider alternativemeans o making tripssuch as publictransportation, biking and walkingor toavoid some discretionary trips by vehiclethat were once perceived to be nearly reebut now bear a per-trip cost.48

Participants in carsharing services tendto reduce the number o vehicles they own.(See page 18.) Even though consumers per-ceive the per-trip cost o carsharing trips to

be higher, eliminating the cost o vehicleownership oten leads to dramatic overalltransportation cost savings.49

Carsharing and ridesharing programscan easily provide Americans with accessto cars when they need them, providingattractive alternatives to car ownershipand shiting economic incentives in waysthat reduce driving. At the same time, toolssuch as real-time transit inormation andbikesharing can also contribute to chang-ing decisions about vehicle ownership by

expanding the number o viable alterna-tives to driving. The cumulative impact othe emergence o a variety o technology-enabled transportation services on vehicleownership and driving is thereore likelyto be ar greater than the impact o anyindividual new technology-enabled tool.


23/54

18 A New Way to Go

Technology-enabled services are help-ing Americans get where they aregoing more quickly, easily, saely

and aordably. Automobile drivers wereamong the frst to beneft rom the tech-nological revolution, enjoying the easeand security o in-car GPS navigation andreal-time trafc inormation delivered viaroadside signs, GPS devices and smart-phones. More recently, however, therehas been an explosion o new technol-ogy-enabled transportation services andinormation tools that make it easier orAmericans to travel by means other thana personal vehicle.

This sec tion provides a brie ieldguide to these technology-enabled op-tions and enhancements as o mid-2013.It covers: carsharing (both eet-based andpeer-to-peer), ridesharing, taxi and trans-

portation network services, bikesharing,multi-modal apps, and tools to enhancepublic transit, such as navigation apps,real-time vehicle location inormation, andmobile ticketing.

CarsharingUntil recently, having reliable access to acar required owning or leasing one. Eitheroption required a signifcant commitmento money (in the orm o up-ront costs orobtaining and insuring the vehicle) as wellas a place to park it. Carsharing gives indi-viduals access to the mobility benefts o a

car without requiring them to own one.

History and BackgroundCarsharing made its inroads in the UnitedStates in 1998, about a decade ater it tookroot in Europe, as emerging technologiessuch as the Internet and wireless data trans-mission enabled consumers to reserve carsor daily or hourly rentals online and gainremote access to their vehicles with a radiorequency identifcation (RFID)-enabledcard. In recent years, new models o car-

sharing have emerged in which consumerscan rent vehicles or one-way trips acrosstown or even rent out their own vehiclesor use by other individuals.

Carsharing has emerged rom a small,niche option into a big business. By 2012,the largest carsharing frm, Zipcar, had

A Field Guide to the TransportationTechnology Revolution and itsImpacts on Driving


24/54

A Field Guide to the Transportation Technology Revolution and its Impacts on Driving 19

767,000 members in 20 major cities and at300 university campuses.60 According toSusan Shaheen and Adam Cohen o theTransportation Sustainability ResearchCenter at the University o Caliornia,Berkeley, membership in carsharing servic-

es increased 44 percent rom 2011 to 2012,rising to about 800,000 Americans, sharinga eet o approximately 12,000 vehicles.61Consulting frm Frost & Sullivan expectsthe number o people joining carsharingservices in North America to rise to 15million by 2020.62 A RAND Corporationreport ound that, with policies supportingcarsharing, participation could reach 4.5percent o U.S. driverswith a maximumpotential o more than 12 percent o alldrivers.63

VariantsThere are two types o carsharing in theUnited States: eet-based services (bothround-trip and one-way) and peer-to-peernetworks.

Fleet-BasedThe eet model o car sharing is by ar themost prominent in North America. Thereare two types o eet-based carsharing ser-vices in the United States: round-trip andone-way. Round-trip services require users

to return a vehicle to its original locationwhen their trip is complete, while one-wayservices enable users to leave the car parkedanywhere within a designated zone.

Classic round-trip carsharing is themodel ollowed by long-standing servicessuch as Zipcar and City CarShare. Round-trip carsharing services station vehiclesin designated parking spots throughouta city, oten within walking distance odense residential or commercial areas.Members o a carsharing service use theInternet or a smartphone application tolocate and reserve available cars nearby.Members can open the car doors using acard containing an RFID chip that the carcan recognize, or by using a smartphoneapp. Cars are available or use 24 hours

Indianapolis will become the frst American city with an electric vehicle sharing servicea businessmodel pioneered by Paris Autolib program (above). Photo: Mario Roberto Duran Ortiz, viaWikimedia, under Creative Commons license.


25/54

20 A New Way to Go

a day, with rentals by the day or by thehour.

One-way carsharing is newer to theUnited States and is exempliied bycar2go, a service run by car giant Daim-ler, which oers two-seat Smart cars

or rental by the minute, allowing usersto pick up a car and leave it at any legalparking space near their destination, aslong as it is within a region covered by theservice. The service operates in seven U.S.cities, including Seattle, where 18,000members signed up or the service in itsfrst 90 days in 2013.64 In France, a similarservice called Autolib allows users to rentelectric cars at one o a number o curbsidecharging stations (similar to bikesharestations, see next page) and return themto any station with an available parkingspace.65 In June 2013, the French companythat created Autolib announced its frstrollout o the service in the United States,with a 500-car program to be launched inIndianapolis in 2014.66

Round-trip and one-way carsharingservices fll dierent transportation needs.Round-trip services, with their hourly ordaily rental rates, appeal primarily to driv-ers making longer trips, including those

that go beyond city boundaries. One-wayservices, with their by-the-minute rates,are designed to acilitate short-hop tripswithin cities, akin to those made in taxisor via bikesharing.

Major car rental companies see a uturein the market or on-demand carsharing,possibly signaling a convergence betweentraditional car rental and on-demand carsharing services. For example:

Avis, one o the largest rental car com-

panies in the United States, boughtZipcar in 2013.67

Hertz has plans to equip its entireNorth American eet o 370,000 carswith hourly rental technology during2013.68

Enterprise bought startup carsharingservices Mint and WeCar, along withPhiladelphias PhillyCarShare.69 InMay 2013, Enterprise also purchasedChicagos nonproft iGo carsharingservice.70

As the se major player s move intocarsharing, more people are likely to beexposed to the technology, increasingpublic acceptance and use o carsharingservices.

Peer-to-Peer CarsharingSince 2010, a new model or carsharing hasemerged in the United States. Peer-to-peercarsharing uses an Internet-based serviceto match ordinary individuals interestedin renting their cars with willing renters.As o May 2012, there were 10 peer-to-peer carsharing services active in NorthAmerica and three more planned.71

Major examples include RelayRides,GetAround, and JustShareIt. These ser-vices allow personal car owners to renttheir cars to other drivers on an hourly,daily, or weekly basis at rates they setthemselves. While the main role o thecompanies oering these services is to

act as a matchmaker, they all provideadditional support services designed toensure that the transaction between twostrangers comes o without a hitch. Eacho these services provides car owners withindependent insurance and drivers with24-hour roadside support.72 They alsoenorce standards or the saety o vehiclesand pre-screen would-be renters.

New variations on peer-to-peer carsharing continue to emerge. A companycalled FlightCar now rents the cars o

those traveling out o town rom majorairports to incoming passengers. Thecompany lures vehicle owners with theprospect o ree airport parking and a reecar washwhich are provided regardlesso whether the car is rentedand attractsrenters with low rental rates.73


26/54


According to an internat ional survey,participants in peer-to-peer car sharing ar-rangements are typically young urbanites.The average user is 35 years old. Users ownsmartphones at double the rate o the aver-age population, and they more requently

use social media tools like Twitter.74

Impact on DrivingResearch into the impact o carsharing inNorth America has ound that each car-share vehicle removes between nine and13 privately owned vehicles rom the road,as carsharing members sell o vehicles ororgo vehicle purchases.75 A 2008 surveyo North American carsharing membersound that about 25 percent o memberssold a vehicle, while another 25 percentdid not purchase a vehicle they wouldotherwise have considered purchasingwere it not or carsharing.76 Carshar-ing membership was associated with areduction in miles driven o 27 percent(observed impact) and 56 percent (ullimpact, including the eect o orgonevehicle purchases).77 The total reductionin driving attributable to carsharing hasbeen estimated at 1.1 billion miles as oearly 2013.78

Carsharing participants also increasetheir use o non-driving transportationmodes. One year ater joining, Zipcarmembers in Baltimore reported takingewer driving trips and driving ewer

miles.79 Fourteen percent reported bikingmore, 21 percent reported walking more,and 11 percent reported using public trans-portation more.80

Similarly, San Franciscos non-proitCity CarShare reports that its members

increase their use o transit, walking andbiking by up to 49 percent ater joining.81Researchers at the University o Caliorniaat Berkeley studied the service in 2003,fnding that 18 months ater joining:82

30 percent o households sold one ormore cars;

67 percent avoided purchasing a newcar;

Overall automobile travel amongmembers dropped 47 percent, whileuse o transportation alternatives,including walking, biking and transit,increased.

Researchers at the University o Caliorniaat Berkeley anticipate that uture growth incarsharing services in the United States islikely to consist o households that alreadyown a vehiclewhich could increase the

rate at which carsharing services reduceoverall automobile ownership and cartravel.83

BikesharingPeople traveling in and around cities otenfnd themselves needing to make trips thatare too long to be made comortably onoot and are not well served by existing

transit. Taking a taxi may be an option,but it is oten expensive.

Bicycling oers a quick, exibleandoten untransportation solution orthese intermediate-length trips. Tomake these trips by bike, however, onemust have a bike available. Bikeshar-

A 2008 survey o North American

carsharing members ound that

about 2 percent o members sold a

vehicle, while another 2 percent did

not purchase a vehicle they would

otherwise have considered purchas-

ing were it not or carsharing.6


27/54

22 A New Way to Go

ing programs overcome this barrier bymaking bicycles available or one-way orround-trip rental at stations throughoutan urban area.

History and Background

The frst bikesharing programs emerged inEurope in the 1960s. The idea was simple:bikes would be let throughout a city andanyone could pick them up and ride themto their destination, where they would belet or the next user. These early bikeshar-ing programsalong with somewhat moresophisticated coin-operated systems in the1990sell victim to thet and vandalism,as there was no way to track the locationso the bicycles or to enorce accountabilityon those who used them.84

In 2005, the frst modern bikesharingprogram was launched in France. Modern

bikesharing programs use communicationstechnology to rent bikes to members, whopay membership and usage ees. Bikesalso are oten ftted with location awaretechnology. These additions help to pre-vent bike thet as well as acilitate system

management.The frst bikesharing program taking

advantage o modern communicationstechnology launched in the United Statesin 2007.85 By 2013, more than 30 such ser-vices existed across the country.86 Bikeshar-ing services are now operating in numerouscities, including Boston, Chicago, Denver,Des Moines, Honolulu, Miami Beach, NewYork, San Antonio, Washington, D.C., andthe San Francisco Bay area.

Capital Bikeshare in Washington,D.C., is one o the largest bikesharingprograms, serving nearly 35,000 annual

Washington, D.C.s Capital Bikeshare program was one o the frstand most successulmodernbikesharing programs in the United States. Capital Bikeshare members have reported reducing theirdriving by roughly 4.4 million miles since the program began. Credit: Mario Roberto DuranOrtiz, via Wikimedia, under Creative Commons license.


28/54


members. (See Table 1, page 23.) Dur-ing its frst year, ending in September2011, the program acilitated 1 million

ridesdoubling initial projections.87 Theprogram has since expanded into nearbyWashington suburbs.

In May 2013, New York launched itsCitibike bikesharing program. In the pro-grams frst our weeks, more than 100,000people signed up or annual or casual mem-bership in the program, biking more than1 million miles.88 A month later, Chicagolaunched its new Divvy bikeshare service.Both serviceslike most urban bikesharesystems in the United Statesare supportedin part by revenues rom advertising onbicycles and docking stations.

Impact on DrivingBikesharing can reduce driving by provid-ing an alternative to the use o a car or spe-cifc trips and by providing an additionaltransportation option that reduces the needor vehicle ownership.

Modern bikesharing programs are intheir inancy in the United Statesthe

oldest is just six years oldmeaning thatthere has been little time or study o theirimpacts on driving. Several bikesharingservices, however, have conducted surveyso their members that shed some light onthe degree to which those services arealtering transportation decisions.

A 2011-2012 survey o members o ourNorth American bikeshare services oundthat 40 percent reported driving less as aresult o bikesharing. About 5 percent obikeshare members reported having soldor donated a personal vehicle since joiningbikesharing, with about 55 percent o thoserespondents stating that bikeshare playeda very important or somewhat importantrole in their decision.90

A 2013 survey o members o one o theoldest modern bikesharing programsWashington, D.C.s Capital Bikeshareound that one quarter reported having

reduced the number o miles they drovesince joining the service. Five percent omembers reported having sold a personalvehicle since joining the service, with 81percent o those members reporting thatjoining Capital Bikeshare was a actor inthe decision. The total reduction in vehicletravel by Capital Bikeshare members wasestimated at 4.4 million miles. 91

Oicials in Boston estimate that 13percent o all trips taken in the frst twoyears o the citys Hubway bikeshare system

replaced trips that would otherwise havebeen taken by car, translating into a totalo more than 87,000 averted car trips.92 Asimilar survey o members o Madison,Wisconsins B-cycle system ound that 28percent o bike trips replaced trips thatwould have been taken by car.93

Year Annual CumulativeCity Program Began Members Miles Traveled

Washington, D.C. Capital Bikeshare 2010 34,985 4.1 million(as of May 2013) (as of March 2013)

New York City Citibike 2013 71,760 4.5 million(as of 8/16/13) (as of 8/16/13)

Boston Hubway 2011 8,100 1.2 million(as of July 2013) (as of July 2013)

Chicago Divvy 2013 4,000 325,000(as of August 2013) (as of August 2013)

Table 1. Participation in Selected U.S. Bikeshare Systems89


29/54

24 A New Way to Go

Transit AppsNavigating public transportation once re-quired consulting maps and timetables, andcarrying exact change, tokens or passes.

To daily transit users, these tasks quicklybecame second nature. But or noviceusersor even some experienced transitriders making trips on unamiliar routesor in new citiesthey oten presented abarrier to transit use.

In recent years, the arrival o real-timenavigation, route planning and paymentapps has equipped even novice transit userswith the tools they need to navigate a cityspublic transportation network. It has madeit easier or people to expand the number

o routes and neighborhoods where theyeel comortable taking transit, or or railriders to explore and learn unamiliar bussystems. With smartphones and GPS tech-nology, riders can even track the progresso a train or bus toward their location ordestination in real time.

History and BackgroundIn the 1990s, the spread o vehicle loca-tion technology and the emergence o theInternet opened up new possibilities ortravelers to access inormation about tran-sit service. Transit agencies began to make

system maps and schedules available onlineand to use the Internet and text messagingto share inormation about system prob-lems and delays. In addition, some transitagencies began to provide real-time arrivalinormation through the use o electronicsigns at transit stops.94

The true potential o technology tohelp riders navigate public transportationbegan to be tapped in 2005, when Googlelaunched the frst online transit mappingand scheduling application. Google TransitTrip Planner originally provided transittrip planning unctionality or the Port-land, Oregon metropolitan area.95

This was something that no one hadheard o beore, said Bibiana McHugh,director o Inormation Technology atPortlands TriMet transit agency. Peopleloved it. We watched the usage go up andup and up.96 In June 2006, Google in-tegrated the service into Google Maps.97By the end o 2006, fve additional transit

agencies provided usable data online, ex-panding Googles transit planning serviceto Honolulu, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Tampaand Eugene, Oregon.98 By June 2008, tran-sit agencies in more than 50 cities aroundthe world had signed on.99 By early 2013,Google published schedules or transitservices in about 500 cities around theworld.100

The availability o open-source transitdataincluding, increasingly, real-timevehicle location dataled to an explosion

o new mobile transit apps. Transit agen-cies were surprised as sotware developerswho were riders began requesting data andcreating web-based tools.101 As more transitriders began to take advantage o real-timeinormation, transit agencies began ex-perimenting with new ways to use mobile

The provision o open data on transit opera-tions has resulted in a variety o new tools to

supply transit inormation to riders. Here, ascreen with real-time bus arrival inormationis shown in the window o a Seattle depart-ment store. Credit: Seattle Department oTransportation


30/54


technology to help transit riders, includingthrough mobile ticketing, the frst U.S. ap-plications o which began in 2012.

Variants

Trip Planning and Navigation AppsTransit agencies supply two kinds o inor-mation to users: static and real-time. Staticinormation essentially provides data rombus schedules and maps to users in a moreconvenient and user-riendly ormat. Butwhile static inormation shows when thebus is supposed to arrive based on a sched-ule, real-time inormation shows wherethe bus actuallyis, using GPS systems tocommunicate to users the current status othe transit system.

The advent o the smartphone meant thatriders didnt just have access to trip-planningand scheduling inormation at their homecomputers, but also in waiting areas and ontransit vehicles themselves. In 2008, Googleincorporated transit planning unctionalityinto its Google Maps application or mobiledevices.102 This made it possible or users toplan trips and reer to inormation while onthe go. It also meant that i they missed aconnection or got o at the wrong stop, they

could easily reroute. Because smartphonesare location-aware, people could also gettransit directions to a destination rom theircurrent location without having to knowwhere they were.103

The provision o static transit inorma-tion via electronic means is increasingly be-coming the nationwide norm85 percento transit agencies supply schedule and/orrouting inormation electronically. Morethan two-thirds o all agencies providetheir data or Google Transit directions

and 60 percent have trip planners on theirwebsites. Roughly two-thirds o all agen-cies also make inormation available tothird-party developers or the creation oapps and other tools or transit users.104

Increasingly, transit agencies are alsosupplying real-time inormation on the

location o transit vehicles. More than 60percent o the transit agencies with thetechnology to track their vehicles nowsupply real-time arrival inormation tothe public.105

The availabil ity o real-time schedule

and navigation inormation and smart-phones ueled an explosion o new appscreated by third-party developers. In Port-land, Oregon, developers have built morethan 50 applications using TriMet data.106Some o the apps are so clever, McHughsays. For example, a college student madean app called iNap to allow him to sleep onthe bus. The application tracks where thebus is and alerts the user when his or herstop is approaching.107

In addition to Google Maps, more than200 transit planning applications nowexist, ranging rom applications ocusedon a single transit agency to applicationsthat cover hundreds o cities across theworld.108

Real-Time Arrival and DepartureInformationIn the 1990s, U.S. transit agencies beganexperimenting with ways to keep track oservice perormance on bus and train lines

in real time. By installing GPS devicesand connecting buses to a communicationnetwork, agencies could begin to provideriders with instant inormation about howlong it would be beore their bus or trainarrived to pick them up. Initially, thisinormation was made available throughelectronic signs at bus stops and stations,then via the Internet, and fnally via smart-phone.

NextBus was one o the frst services tocapture this inormation and make it avail-

able to transit riders. The serviceavailableor more than 100 transit agencies as o early2013helps keep riders inormed aboutwhen their bus or train will arrive througha website, smartphone applications, textmessages or phone call alerts.109

Portland, Oregon, San Diego and San


31/54

26 A New Way to Go

Francisco were the frst cities to publishreal-time system perormance data onlinein a standardized ormat, open and avail-able or anyone to use. In 2011, Googleand other third-party developers beganincorporating this data into transit route

planning services to provide users with the

most up-to-date inormation possible abouttravel times and schedules.110

Real-time inormation revolutionizedthe experience o riding the bus in Boston,says Joshua Robin, Director o Innovationat the Massachusetts Bay Transportation

Authority (MBTA). It really changes how

Tapping the Potential or Transit Service in Rural Areas

While new technology-enabled transportation services and tools are starting tomake an impact in major cities, the biggest payo may turn out to be in lessdensely populated areas. Technology-enabled services have the potential to improvethe transit-riding experience or rural and suburban users and to improve efciency

in ways that expand the number o areas where transit service can be provided cost-eectively.

The Berkshire Regional Transit Authority in mostly rural western Massachusettsserves an area the size o Rhode Island with buses that typically run at hourly in-tervals. Much o the agencys resources are dedicated to paratransit minibuses thatrespond to requests to pick up the disabled, elderly or injured or appointments anddo not ollow a fxed route.

Gary Shepard, the authoritys administrator, sees the potential or new technolo-gies to help him customize and target the routing and timing o transit vehicles.Shepard sees potential in deviated route service, in which drivers o regular fxed-route buses would have the exibility to respond to paratransit requests en route.Doing so would save the agency lots o money, he said, since paratransit trips areexpensiveand saving money would allow him to run more routes or to improvethe requency o service throughout the county.

Inormation technology and improved communications could also make it possibleto schedule and coordinate transit schedules to pick up paratransit passengers moreeasily, and to reduce the steep costs o paratransit no-shows by having telephonesystems call back a rider to veriy a pickup request that had been made on a previ-ous day.

In addition, the benefts o real-time arrival inormation are likely to be greateror riders o rural transit systems, which experience less-requent service, than orusers o urban systems. A mobile app that might enable a transit rider along a re-quent route in Boston to save 10 minutes by arriving just in time or his or her bus

might save a similar rider an hour in Berkshire County.Technology-enabled transportation options may make other non-driving modeso transportation possible in areas that are not dense enough to support traditionaltransit service. Transit agencies that support ridesharing, or example, oten do soto provide some measure o service to outlying areas that may not be dense enoughto support fxed-route transit service.115


32/54


people relate to the bus, he said.111One transit planning application called

NextTime stands out as particularly in-novative. NextTime uses real-time buslocation coupled with the location-awarecapability o the smartphone, notiying

a user when to leave his or her currentlocation, wherever they are, in order tomeet a selected bus at the nearest stop ontime.112 With this service, transit userscan greatly minimize the hassles o transitusewaiting or a long time at a stop, orailing to catch the bus at all. Eective useo the application can greatly increase theperceived reliability o transit as a means toget around eectively. The app currentlyworks with transit systems in Boston, SanFrancisco and Washington, D.C.

In addition to using data provided bytransit agencies, smartphones can alsocrowd source data rom riders them-selves. Some applications pull inorma-tion rom Twitter postings made by userson messaging channels established or aservice line. Other applications use datagenerated by other smartphone users. Forexample, an application called Tiramisudraws inormation rom the universe oall Tiramisu users about where their bus

is, how ast it is moving, and how manyopen seats it has.113 A similar service calledMoovit launched in late 2012, recruitingmore than 400,000 users in its frst twomonths.114 These types o services dependon having a dense network o users in orderto provide quality inormation.

TicketingFor 100 years, transit agencies have hadto basically issue their own currencyto-kens, passes, are cards, and the like,

according to Joshua Robin, Director oInnovation at Greater Bostons MBTAtransit agency. Maintaining this paral-lel system was both expensive or transitagencies and cumbersome or riders, whoneeded to understand and master the pro-cess o paying or their trip.

Relying on cash payments is little bet-ter, slowing the progress o buses as ridersumble or payment, burdening driverswith the need to issue transers, and orc-ing riders to bring exact change or riskoverpaying or their trip.

Electronic ticketing via smartphoneshas the potential to reduce the hassle,delay and cost o paying transit ares byseamlessly linking are payments to a creditcard account or other digital paymentmethod. These services use smartphones asboth the vending machine or ares and asthe ticket itsel. These services reduce linesat traditional ticketing locations, simpliythe process o boarding, and reduce theneed or riders to carry cash or have correctchange.

The simplest services work like airlinee-tickets. For example, Amtrak launched anational e-ticket program in 2012deliv-ering tickets purchased online by e-mail.However, the newest services are taking theorm o user-riendly smartphone apps.

Ultimately, according to the MBTAsRobin, mobile ticketing will enable usersto use transit services in a more seamlessway, increasing convenience. Being able tosimply walk through a are gate or board

a bus with [the smartphone] you alreadyhave in your pocket will really change theexperience, Robin says.116

Robin led the deployment o the nationsfrst mobile ticketing program or transit,which launched on MBTA commuter railservice in November 2012. In its frst threemonths, the app generated $1 million, ac-counting or 10 percent o all commuterrail ticket sales.117 Sales have been steadilyincreasing over time.

It took o wildly, Robin says. It is the

most successul thing weve done in yearswith commuter rail.118

The MBTA chose the mobile ticketingoption or three reasons. First, technologyhad advanced to the point where mobileticketing was possible. From user surveys,the agency knew that its riders were rapidly


33/54

28 A New Way to Go

adopting the smartphone. As o late 2012,more than three-quarters o MBTA ridersowned a smartphoneup rom two-thirdsin just one year.119

Second, mobile ticketing saved the agen-cy money. Hundreds o MBTA commuter

rail stations are open to the outdoors, andinstalling vending machines or the exist-ing CharlieCard smartcard paymentsystem at all stations would have cost morethan $50 million. The mobile ticketingprogram, by contrast, had no up-rontcost. Instead, the third-party vendor thatdesigned the program is paid 2.8 percento each ticket purchase. The MBTA doesnot anticipate passing that cost onto transitriders.120

Finally, the mobile ticketing programwas very quick to deploy, taking about sixmonths rom design to launch. I youthink about transit projects youve heardo, usually it takes about six months just toormally say youre going to actually do aproject youve all agreed to do, Robin saidin an interview with The Atlantic Cities.

Transit agencies in New York Cit y,Portland, Oregon, and New Jersey aredeveloping similar applications in responseto demand rom transit riders.121

Impact on DrivingTransit apps aect vehicle travel by re-ducing inormation barriers, reliabilityconcerns and other hurdles to the use opublic transportation. Survey research andobservations by transit agency ofcials sug-gest that real-time transit inormation is avaluable amenity to transit riders and onethat can increase transit ridership.

A study o ridership on the Chi-cago transit system, which graduallyintroduced a real-time bus locationinormation system rom 2006 to2009, ound that introducing real-timeinormation increased weekday busridership on the order o 2 percent.122While that impact appears small, itis likely greater today, as convenientsmartphone-based tools were onlybeginning to become available by theend o the study period.

A survey o users o the Universityo Marylands campus shuttle serviceound that real-time data increased rid-ership on the service by 23 percent.123

A study o Seattle-area bus userswho used real-time perormance in-ormation through a service calledOneBusAway ound that 90 percentreported that the service reduced theamount o time they spent waiting orthe bus, with an actual reduction in

wait time averaging 2 minutes. Real-time inormation was also responsibleor a reduction inperceivedwait timeso about 13 percent.124 More than 30percent o respondents reported thatthe service induced them to ride thebus more oten.125

Bostons MBTA enables commuter rail riders topurchase tickets online, reducing are collectioncosts and making payment ar more convenientor riders.


34/54


A survey o bus riders on a New YorkCity bus line ound that, just sixmonths ater providing real-time in-ormation, more than hal o all ridershad used the inormation, with morethan hal o those riders consulting

the real-time inormation on everytrip. Riders who used the real-timeinormation reported that they per-ceived spending less time waiting orthe bus than non-users, even thoughthe amount o time they actually spentwaiting was the same.126

Bostons transit agency, the MBTA,has cited the availability o real-timetransit inormation or buses as oneo the reasons why the agency set15 monthly ridership records in arow rom 2011 into 2012. In a June2012 press release, General ManagerJonathan Davis said Were absolutelyconvinced that the widespread avail-ability o real time bus data is mak-ing public transit a more convenientoption or commuters. More than100,000 smartphone users have down-loaded apps that provide arrival timeinormation or more than 180 MBTA

bus routes.127

In addition, researchers rom Massa-chusetts Inst itute o Technology surveyedriders the day beore and the day ater theMBTA installed digital train arrival count-down signs in several subway stations inthe summer o 2012. Because o the signs,customer satisaction with the overall trainservice went up by 15 percent, and ridersperceived wait times went down by severalminutes.128

RidesharingCatching a ride with a riend or a co-worker has long been a way or Americans

without carsor those simply looking tosave on gas or share company on the rideto workto get where they are going.With the emergence o mobile technology,ridesharing can be arranged easily and withless advance planning. Moreover, with hun-

dreds or thousands o users, the chance ofnding a driver or passenger who is goingyour way is dramatically increased.

History and BackgroundOnce upon a time, a person looking toshare a ride might have had to call througha list o riends by telephone, consult abulletin board at work, or take the risko hitchhiking. Despite those challenges,carpooling was once an extremely com-mon way or Americans to get to work. Asrecently as 1980 (in the midst o the secondoil crisis), roughly 20 percent o workingAmericans shared rides to work. By 2010,however, that share had been cut in hal, to10 percent, as a variety o actors, includingthe increased prevalence o more complexcommutes that oten involve side trips,worked to discourage carpooling.129

New technological tools create the po-tential or Americans to share rides in waysthat werent previously possible. In the

1990s, Internet-based rideshare matchingservices began to help commuters organizecarpools between their homes and placeso work such as ofce parks. Now, newerservices are streamlining ridesharing andexpanding the pool o potential riders.

VariantsRidesharing services pair those needing aride with those going in the same direc-tion. As with peer-to-peer carsharing ser-vices, ridesharing services play the role o

matchmaker, but also provide toolssuchas reputation or report card systems thatenorce accountability among drivers andriders (similar to the accountability mecha-nisms that have long been successully usedby eBay)to acilitate sae and eectivetransactions.


35/54

30 A New Way to Go

Ride MatchingSome new technology-enabled servicesimprove upon the online ride matchingservices launched in the 1990s by stream-lining the creation o carpools and pairingdrivers and riders or trips that are planned

in advance. As o 2011, there were just over400 ride matching services in the UnitedStates.130

Zimride is an example o such a ser-vice.131 This service started by acilitatingcarpooling within individual universitycommunities. The business then expandedto working with companies and other largeinstitutionseventually expanding to 130college and corporate campusesollowedby a long-distance ridesharing option avail-able to anyone.132

Zimride allows users to post a plannedtrip, selling seats in their vehicle. Theservice requires users to log in throughFacebook, and it enables people to postproiles about themselves and to leaveeedback about drivers and riders. TheZimride website and smartphone app helpdrivers and riders get in touch with oneanother and acilitate payment. From 2007to mid-2012, Zimride recruited more than360,000 members and enabled nearly 200

million miles o carpooling.133

On-DemandOn-demand ridesharing is the newest ormo ridesharing, allowing drivers and ridersto arrange shared rides in real time. Ser-vices such as Carma (ormerly Avego) uselocation-aware mobile devices, enablingdrivers to locate nearby passengers andpick them up.

On-demand ridesharing services act asthird-party platorms to acilitate connec-

tions between drivers and riders, ensurethe saety and security o the transactionthrough driver background checks, reputa-tion systems and other means, and oten tocollect payment.

Impact on DrivingRidesharing tends to reduce vehicle travelby using spare capacity in existing ve-hicles to serve travel demand. Not everytrip shared is an auto trip completelyavoidedsome trips served by on-demand

ridesharing services might require driversto travel out o their way to pick up riders,thereby requiring them to log more miles atthe wheel.134 Other trips may take the placeo a bus or walking. The key determinanto the impact o ridesharing on driving willlikely be the level o participation in theservices. Attracting more participants willboth make on-demand ridesharing moreefcient (by increasing the likelihood thatdrivers and riders will share origins anddestinations) and maximize the potentialimpact on vehicle ownership.

Taxi Hailing andTransportation NetworkServicesTaxis have long been a transportation back-stop or those without access to a vehicle.Taxi service in many cities, however, isquite expensive and taxis arent necessarilyavailable immediately when and where youneed them. New technology-enabled ser-vices make hailing a car more convenientand have opened the door to alternativesto traditional taxi services.

Variants

Taxi Hailing and Livery Car ServicesSeveral new services help riders hail tra-

ditional taxis using smartphones. Theseservices include ZabKab, Flywheel, Taxi-Magic and Hailo, each o which has a di-erent reach, geographic area o operation,and target market.

The smartphone app Uber allows usersto have a livery sedan and driver come pick


36/54


them up, either at a designated location andtime, or wherever they happen to be at thatmoment. The app enables users to pay witha click o a button, without the hassle oneeding cashor even a credit cardonhand. The smartphone app can even in-

orm the rider where his or her pickup caris in real time. The service also recruitstraditional taxi cabs to participate in somecities. It operates in Boston, Chicago, SanFrancisco, Sacramento, Washington, D.C.and Toronto.135

Transportation Network ServicesNew services such as San Francisco-cen-tered Lyt and Sidecar allow riders toarrange rides in real-time with ordinarydrivers who provide a ride in exchange orpayment. These services have spread tonumerous U.S. cities in recent years, withLyt reporting that it now acilitates morethan 30,000 rides per week.136

Impact on DrivingTaxi and transportation network servicescan have mixed impacts on driving. To theextent that the services are used to substi-tute or trips that might occur by transit, onoot, or in a shared ride, they may increase

driving. However, by providing reliable,aordable on-demand access to a vehicle,these services may give individuals greatercomort in moving toward a car-ree orcar-light liestyle.

Multi-Modal AppsIn addition to technology-enabled carshar-ing, ridesharing and bikesharing services,and new technology options to help makepublic transportation easier to use, a num-ber o new apps are being developed thatknit the entire transportation experience

Mobile apps can help travelers make connections between dierent modes o transportation. Thismobile app helps Chicago-area bicyclists navigate bike routes and trails and fnd local bikeshare sta-tions, and displays the location o transit stations. Credit: Steven Vance, Chicago Bike Guide,www.bikechi.com.


37/54

32 A New Way to Go

togethertaking a multi-modal approachto helping people get places in the astest,cheapest, most convenient way possible.This is par ticularly important becausespecifc services may only be convenient orpeople under certain circumstances, whenthey are traveling to certain neighbor-hoods, or in certain weather. The broaderthe spectrum o overlapping choices avail-

able to travelersand the easier it is to fndthe best potential optionthe easier it isor people to consider a car-ree or car-light liestyle.

Portlands TriMet transit agency, orexample, introduced a multi-modal tripplanning tool on its website in 2011. Thetool enables users to plan trips that couldinclude a mix o walking, cycling, buses,trains, bikesharing and carsharing. It evenallows cyclists to choose routes basedon personal preerences such as speed,

availability o bike trails or bike lanes, orminimizing hil l climbing.137

Bibiana McHugh, Director o Inorma-tion Technology at TriMet, says multi-modal planning is crucial or commuters,

who sometimes need extra guidance abouthow to travel the last mile rom their transitstop to their place o work.138 She has alsobeen working with Zipcar and car2go to putinormation into the planner about wherecarsharing vehicles can be picked up.

Because the trip planning tool is open-source, other developers have begun tobuild on TriMets work to create multi-

modal trip planning tools in cities aroundthe country. As o February 2013, suchtools are being deployed in Florida, Ten-nessee, Washington D.C. and New YorkCityas well as in 11 other countriesaround the world.139

Other app developers have taken on thechallenge o helping consumers navigatethe wide array o new transportation op-tions available. RideScout is a mobile appthat aggregates inormation about all o thevarious transportation options available in

a given city. A RideScout user simply entersin his or her destination and is providedwith a menu o real-time transportationoptionsincluding transit, taxi service,carsharing or ridesharing.141

Figure 3: Portland TriMets Multi-Modal Trip Planning Tool Helps People Get fromPoint A to Point B, by Foot, Bike, Bus, Train, and/or Carsharing140


38/54


What about Sel-Driving Cars?

T

he advent o autonomous (sel-driving) vehicles has been touted as a possible

counterweight to the role that mobile technology currently plays in encourag-ing alternatives to driving. I drivers can use the time currently spent behind thewheel working or relaxing and be assured o getting to their destination saely andwith the minimal investment o timeall potential outcomes o a driverless caruturewouldnt they drive more? And wouldnt we thereore need more and biggerhighways to accommodate them?

It is ar too early to tell what orm a transportation network based on sel-drivingvehicles would take. Fully autonomous vehicles are not expected to hit the road insignifcant numbers until 2025, though their ull impact may not be elt or anotherdecade or two into the uture, when autonomous vehicles become the norm onAmerican roads rather than the exception.142 A system based on autonomous vehiclescould, paradoxically, open up new opportunities or greater sharing o vehicles and

rides that might look a lot like public transit. Systemic changes could also makenon-driving orms o transportation more attractive and allow or reduced autoinrastructure.

In a world with sel-driving cars and spreading acceptance o ridesharing andcarsharing, it is not hard to imagine a system in which a eet o shared automated carsis available to be summoned on demand. Some trips could be served by individualvehicles (as is currently done with carsharing), others in small shared vehicles (aswith ridesharing) and still others by high-capacity vehicles (as with transit). Such asystem could reduce the need or private cars (which typically sit idle approximately90 percent o the time) and reduce the need or parking inrastructureenablingmuch o the space currently used or warehousing vehicles to be used or otherpurposes, such as housing, parkland, bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks and new com-

mercial buildings. Such a system might allow or the more intensive use o urbanspace and saer non-motorized travelexpanding the ability o individuals to travelsaely on oot or on bike.

Regardless o whether automated vehicles are primarily personal or shared, thosevehicles may eventually be able to travel

a new way to go

Documents