Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles

Chapter 5. Lessons Learned And Challenges In The Future

Shared mobility is changing the perceptions of transportation in the United States and worldwide, spawning new business models and influencing individual transportation choices and behavior. These changes are dynamic and evolving. We can expect innovations in shared mobility to continue to shape and change options for years to come. As with all new disruptive technologies and business models, there are challenges to shared mobility’s expansion and scaling. This chapter explores these challenges, along with success stories, lessons learned, and proposed solutions.

Some of the prominent shared mobility challenges discussed in this chapter include:

1. Recognizing the need for consistent public and private sector standards and definitions across a suite of shared mobility service models that guide public policy and distinguish between types of services for users
2. Developing metrics, modeling, planning platforms, and methodologies to measure the economic and travel impact of shared mobility such as VMT/VKT, person miles traveled, commute travel time, etc., such that local, state, and federal public agencies can incorporate it as an integral component of land use and transportation planning
3. Recognizing shared mobility as a key component of transportation policy and planning
4. Encouraging multimodal integration
5. Addressing potential accessibility issues as the systems expand and evolve to be inclusive of all segments of society
6. Understanding insurance issues pertaining to regulation, availability, and affordability across a wide array of existing and emerging shared business and service models
7. Balancing data sharing (open data) and privacy for individual users and companies providing the services.

Consistent Public and Private Sector Standards and Definitions

Legal definitions of different shared mobility services are essential for mainstreaming such services. Once resolved, they will enable public agencies to clarify policies related to insurance, taxation, rights-of-way, parking, and zoning. In addition to legal issues, there are also challenges related to poor public knowledge and understanding. Consumers are often unaware of the true costs of their travel behavior and as a result may perceive pay-as-you-go transportation costs that are common with shared mobility and unbundled transportation services (e.g., hourly and daily parking charges, per trip fares, and hourly usage rates) as more expensive over the longer term than more traditional transportation-related purchases (e.g., entailing household automobile purchase costs, hidden parking charges bundled with housing costs, and annual insurance premiums), when the opposite is commonly the case. Infrequent costs, such as vehicle purchases, insurance, license fees, smog checks, and maintenance, are often overlooked as consumers make mobility choices. Personal unfamiliarity with shared mobility services, confusion in terminology use among the media, and international discrepancies also contribute to user uncertainty. For example, the term "carsharing" in the United Kingdom refers to the American ridesharing or carpooling model. Car club (often referring to American Automobile Association (AAA) in the United States) is typically used to describe carsharing in Great Britain.

While a number of definitions of shared mobility have been developed to address a variety of public policy issues, there remains no commonly used federal definitions of these services. This results in various definitions across the country, often contributing to confusion over service features and public policies. Further, the blurring of lines between core transportation services and shared mobility can create additional misunderstanding where definitions may need to be developed or revised. For example, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) coined the term transportation network companies and developed the following definition:  Transportation Network Companies provide prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled  application or platform (such as smartphone apps) to connect drivers using their personal vehicles with passengers.

This definition captured the market in late-2012/early-2013 when it was developed, but changes in the marketplace exemplify how quickly regulations can become outmoded. For example, the Flywheel app (e-Hail taxi) enables customers to prearrange transportation services (via a taxi) using an online-enabled application to connect drivers with passengers. The result is the driver can conceivably offer taxi and ridesourcing services depending on the regulatory definition being applied. This can become problematic for a variety of reasons, such as taxation and insurance. For example, many jurisdictions apply taxes, fees, and surcharges to taxi fares, but unclear regulatory frameworks have created equally unclear guidance regarding the taxation of app-based for-hire vehicle services.

Examples of How Public Agencies May Take Action:

• Develop a Standard Definition for Shared Mobility Modes: The lack of formal definitions can be substantial barriers to finding partners, encouraging public-private partnerships, and recruiting early adopters. Public agencies and industry associations can work together to develop clear, concise, and uniform definitions of shared modes.
• Define Models Around Service Characteristics, Not Technologies: Public agencies and private-sector industry associations can address this challenge by working together to develop common definitions of service models that are based on service characteristics (rather than technological characteristics, e.g., apps) of the services being provided.

Sample of Shared Mobility Legislative Definitions

Cambridge, Massachusetts defines a carsharing organization "as a membership-based entity with a distributed fleet of Carsharing Vehicles that charges a use-based fee related to a specific vehicle." Cambridge further defines a carsharing vehicle as "a private passenger motor vehicle that is made available to multiple authorized users primarily for hourly or other short-term use through a self-service fully automated reservation system, but not by means of a separate written agreement that is entered into each time a vehicle is transferred to a customer. A Carsharing Vehicle may be owned, maintained or administered by a Carsharing Organization or other entity." California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) defines transportation network companies (TNCs) as "providing prearranged transportation services for compensation using an online-enabled application or platform (such as smartphone apps) to connect drivers using their personal vehicles with passengers."

Developing Metrics, Modeling, Planning Platforms, and Methodologies to Assess the Economic and Travel Impacts of Shared Mobility

Developing data metrics, models, planning platforms, and formal methodologies to measure the travel and economic impacts of shared mobility is essential for transportation planners and policymakers. Developing these tools will enable public agencies to forecast the economic and travel behavior impacts of shared modes and guide public policy development related to urban and spatial planning, rights-of-way, parking, and zoning. Two key areas that metrics, models, methodologies, and planning platforms can assist with are measuring economic impacts and travel behavior impacts.

Tracking and forecasting the economic impacts of shared mobility is important because of its potential impact on auto sales, fleet savings for governments, monetary savings to individuals and households, and broader industry growth (e.g., annual revenues by industry sector and employment figures).

Incorporating shared mobility into Gross Domestic Product (GDP) measures is one way to track and forecast the economic impacts of shared mobility.

GDP was adopted as the global standard for measuring national- and industry-level economic activity at the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944. Fundamentally, GDP is an aggregate measure of the total value of all goods and services produced by a nation within a given year. Gross domestic productivity is undoubtedly increasing, but the nation’s GDP may be underestimated by failing to account for shared products and services exchanged through the Internet and the sharing economy.

How do we capture the productivity gains from new technologies? When an individual makes a vehicle available for rent using a P2P service or a homeowner makes a room available for rent on Airbnb or Craigslist, the economic activity from these transactions are rarely captured by federal agencies, which results in an underestimation in national GDP and sector productivity measures.

How do we capture the productivity gains associated with ultra-low cost and free products and services? The rise of free and freemium service models likely also leads to an underestimation of productivity measures. In the 1980s, people purchased and developed film to take pictures and placed global calls using a landline. Today, people take digital photos, electronically share them, and communicate globally through instant messaging and video chat. These efficiency gains have undoubtedly made Americans more productive, but this is largely unmeasurable because of cashless products and services.

Similarly, because shared mobility is not incorporated into the NHTS, policymakers have very little data on the origins, destinations, and travel patterns of shared mobility consumers. The result is a growing segment of the nation using these services without any way to measure the travel and economic impacts of this sector. As such, it becomes extremely difficult to quantify the impacts of innovative services including shared mobility.

The growth of mega regions coupled with emerging social and technological changes are altering how people travel. Numerous shared modes, such as carsharing, bikesharing, and on-demand ride services, have grown in recent years. Despite this growth, traditional transportation planning methods are unable to accurately capture modal share and the impacts of shared mobility on the broader transportation network. Early four-step planning models have matured into more advanced activity-based modeling. Although planning agencies have embraced activity-based modeling as being more representative of the transportation environment, existing activity-based modeling almost always fails to incorporate shared mobility. Metrics, modeling, planning platforms, and methodologies are needed to help cities, public agencies, and regional governments understand the impacts of shared mobility and better scale and deliver these services in a variety of land-use settings.

An Example of How Public Agencies May Take Action:

• Incorporating Shared Mobility into Activity-Based Models: Developing activity-based planning models that incorporate shared mobility can aid public agencies in understanding and responding to the impacts of shared modes. Furthermore, incorporating shared modes into activity-based models can help public agencies and local governments reduce capital and operational expenditures and harness the beneficial transportation and environmental impacts often associated with shared modes.

Recognizing Shared Mobility as a Key Component of Transportation Policy and Planning

Transportation policy and planning is a complex process that is affected by federal, state, and local legislation, along with multiple stakeholders and public agencies. At the federal level, Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations provides guidance for metropolitan transportation planning and identifies eight factors that must be considered as part of the planning process: 1) supporting economic vitality; 2) increasing transportation system safety; 3) increasing transportation system security; 4) increasing accessibility and mobility; 5) protecting and enhancing the environment; 6) enhancing the integration and connectivity of the transportation system; 7) promoting efficient system management and operation; and 8) emphasizing the preservation of the existing transportation system. Furthermore, regions designated as air quality non-attainment areas have additional planning guidance focused on reducing criteria pollutants to achieve attainment across a wide array of air quality metrics.

Shared mobility modes, such as carsharing, bikesharing, ridesharing, and other services, have not been widely incorporated into local and regional planning processes. Because of the private sector’s involvement in shared mobility, planning frameworks, such as general plans, often fail to incorporate shared mobility even though some jurisdictions have issued RFPs for shared mobility services.

Many non-profits have begun to incorporate shared mobility into private sector planning processes. For example, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), a private non-profit that promotes sustainability in the design and construction of buildings, has incorporated shared mobility into their Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification program. LEED gives project-level certification credits for the incorporation of carsharing, bikesharing, and ridesharing services into a development project. This can include integrating measures, such as inclusionary carsharing parking, into a building’s design. Incorporating shared mobility into both public and private sector planning processes and programs is key to integrating it into the transportation network and recognizing it as one of a number of potential transportation options available.

Examples of How Public Agencies May Take Action:

• Developer and Zoning Regulations: Local governments may recognize and incorporate shared mobility into transportation policy and planning through local ordinances, such as: 1) parking reduction (i.e., downsizing the number of required parking spaces in new developments that incorporate shared mobility for localities that otherwise insist on maintaining such requirements); 2) incentivizing parking substitution (i.e., substituting general-use parking for shared mobility parking stalls, such as carsharing parking, bikesharing kiosks, ridesourcing loading zones, etc.); and 3) allowing greater floor-to-area ratios (i.e., developers can build more densely on sites that incorporate shared mobility).
• Public Rights-of-Way: Local governments may recognize and incorporate shared mobility into transportation policy and planning through the allocation of public rights-of-way, such as: 1) provisions for on-street parking or loading zones dedicated to shared mobility; 2) provisions for off-street parking (e.g., carsharing, ridesourcing waiting zones); 3) free or reduced cost parking spaces, parking permits, for-hire vehicle permits, and loading zone permits for shared mobility; 4) universal parking permits (i.e., carsharing vehicles can be returned to any on-street location); and 5) formalized processes for allocating public rights-of-way.
• Incorporating Shared Mobility into Local Planning Models, Plans, and Processes: Incorporating shared mobility into local transportation models, circulation schemes, general plans, and planning processes is another way local governments can include shared modes in transportation policy and planning.

City of Evanston’s Carsharing Parking Reduction Zoning Regulation: A Case Study

The City of Evanston, a north Chicago suburb maintains a carsharing parking reduction clause in its zoning code for the inclusion of carsharing at development sites. Specifically, the code permits a reduction in the minimum number of required parking spaces for projects that require at least five off-street parking stalls and provide at least one on-site carsharing parking space. Developers are permitted a reduction of one space for projects requiring five to 10 parking spaces. For projects entailing more than 10 off-street parking spaces, a parking reduction of 10 percent is permitted for the inclusion of carsharing. To be eligible, the developer must present a long-term lease with the carsharing operator and a description of carsharing services provided. Additionally, the property owner/developer must record with their deed a document that stipulates: In the event that carsharing services are no longer provided, the property owner will be required "to increase the amount of off-street parking by the reduction granted or be assessed a fee equal to that assessed a project that reduced on-street metered parking by that number of spaces in that location."

Case Study of San Francisco’s High-Tech Company Shuttle Pilot Program

In January 2014, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) announced an 18-month pilot to enable participating high-tech company shuttles to share use of a limited number of pre-approved Muni (public) bus zones. As part of the pilot program: Eight percent (200 of 2,500) of Muni bus stops are shared by Muni and private shuttle operators; SFMTA charges the shuttle operator (or employer) $3.67 per shuttle, per each stop made. The fee is meant to cover the costs associated with the administration and program enforcement; Private shuttle providers must comply with agreed-upon guidelines, which include yielding to Muni buses and pulling to the front of bus zones to maximize boarding zone capacity; Each shuttle is issued placards to aid in program enforcement; and Shuttle providers must agree to share data with SFMTA to support transportation network management, planning, and enforcement. (San Francisco Municipal Agency, 2015)

Encouraging Multimodal Integration

Multimodal integration-the seamless connectivity among different transportation modes-is recognized as a best practice to support sustainability and encourage public transit ridership. This entails integration of mass transportation modes with one another and with first-and-last-mile services, such as taxis; walking; cycling; and the shared modes of carsharing, bikesharing, ridesharing, ridesourcing, and microtransit. Achieving multimodal integration requires three key components—infrastructure integration, information integration, and fare integration.

Infrastructure integration involves the physical and operational connection of modes. In the context of shared mobility, this could include co-locating carsharing and bikesharing with public transportation stops. Information integration is the incorporation of information systems to provide one-stop information sources for service features, such as routing, time tables, and fares. At its most basic level, information integration includes multimodal trip planners. More advanced information integration may include real-time information services, such as modal connection information (e.g., NextBus). Finally, fare integration involves the development of a single fare payment method across multiple modes.

Future Trends Impacting Multi-Modal Fare Integration

In recent years, information integration has also become fairly prevalent. Open source data are increasingly allowing mobility consumers to go online or download an app to plan multi-modal journeys, compare costs, and obtain a wide-array of real-time information services, such as vehicle/bicycle availability and public transit delays. Fare integration continues to remain a key challenge. For example, HOURCAR and Metro Transit in the Twin Cities have a partnership that allows carsharing members to use their Go-To transit cards to access HOURCAR vehicles. Emerging mobile payment technologies, such as Apple Pay, Visa’s PayWave; MasterCard’s PayPass; American Express’ ExpressPay; and peer-to-peer cryptocurrencies, such as "Bitcoins," may be able to bridge the multi-modal fare gap alleviating the need for a wallet full of mobility fare, membership cards, and key fobs. Many of these solutions provide contactless digital wallet services without the need to physically swipe or insert a credit or debit card at the point-of-sale. Bitcoin, a peer-to-peer digital currency, enables users to engage in monetary transactions without a central intermediary. In the future, strong inter-agency and public-private partnerships will likely be key to achieving full multi-modal integration.

Ensuring Accessibility to and Equity of Shared Modes for All Transportation Users

Shared mobility options that provide first-and-last-mile solutions can greatly improve quality of life for low-income households, which are generally disproportionately dependent on public transit. Offering convenient, accessible, and affordable shared mobility options may make it easier to meet the mobility and accessibility needs of low-income and other disadvantaged communities. Because many shared mobility services are provided by the private sector, ensuring service access in low-income and minority neighborhoods and ADA compliance for disabled access can be a key concern. (See below for a case study on the challenges of ADA mobility in New York City.) As discussed in Chapter 4, other innovative programs, such as Capital Bikeshare’s Bank on DC program, aim to develop partnerships between shared mobility providers and banks to provide debit card access in addition to credit card access, which is currently required for bikesharing use (Capital Bikeshare, 2015).

It is important that the public and private sector work together to ensure that all people have access to shared mobility regardless of race, color, or national origin (Title VI requirements defined by the Civil Rights Act of 1964) and disability, age, or income. Everyone should have access to services, the opportunity to participate in decisions regarding the placement of these services, and the right to participate in a host of related public policy decisions. Public agencies should ensure policies protect against "unjustified disparate impact discrimination" or policies and practices that appear to be neutral but in effect are discriminatory against protected classes. Public agencies should work toward achieving the following key accessibility and social equity goals with respect to shared mobility:

• Encourage fair placement and access to shared mobility across all socio-economic levels and minority neighborhoods
• Foster the participation of individuals affected by shared mobility services in transportation planning and decision-making processes
• Encourage access of shared mobility services to minority, disabled, and low-income populations
• Develop policies that bridge the digital divide, either by making digital services more accessible and affordable to low-income populations or by offering viable alternatives for digital-only or app-exclusive services.

Public agencies should also ensure that other vulnerable populations outside of statutory protected classes have access to shared mobility. Vulnerable populations may include:

• Senior citizens
• Populations without access to private automobiles
• Single-parent households
• Populations with housing costs in excess of one-third of household income
• Adult populations without a high school diploma
• Populations that do not speak English.

All of these groups may face mobility challenges for a variety of reasons.

Challenges of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Mobility in New York City

In July 2008, New York’s Taxi and Limousine Commission began a two-year pilot program to assess demand for wheelchair-accessible taxicabs (Taxi and Limousine Commission, n.d.). Its report, published in 2010 includes statistics on the state of ADA compliance in New York City.Key findings include: Subway: In New York City, the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) operates 230 miles (370 km) of rail service with 490 stations. As of 2010, only 16 percent (78 of 490) of stations were fully wheelchair accessible and offered features to assist customers with visual, auditory, and mobility impairments in compliance with the ADA. Because the majority of subway stations are not wheelchair accessible, many wheelchair users in New York City are simply unable to use the subway system Bus: MTA also operates 6,000 buses on 300 bus routes throughout New York City. As of 2010, MTA’s entire bus fleet was wheelchair accessible, and the majority of the fleet was equipped with a kneeling feature (that lowers the bus for easier access and egress) to assist customers with impaired mobility. Approximately 94 percent of the city is within ½ mile (.8 km) of a MTA bus stop. Flexible Transit Service: MTA operates a flexible transit service, known as Access-A-Ride. As of 2010, MTA’s Access-A-Ride service provided 7.3 million rides to 142,000 users. However, as of 2010, only 72 percent of the Access-A-Ride vehicles were wheelchair accessible. The remaining 28 percent of the fleet was comprised of Crown Victoria sedans. Taxis: As of 2010, 1.8 percent (240 of 13,237) of the taxis in New York City were wheelchair accessible or approximately 1 out of 55 taxicabs. In 2004, the city’s Taxi and Limousine Commission began issuing reduced-cost medallions for wheelchair accessible taxis to encourage ADA-available taxicabs. For-Hire Livery Services: As of 2010, only six of the 36,000 for-hire livery vehicles in New York City were wheelchair accessible.

Examples of How Public Agencies May Take Action:

• Employ Multilingual Marketing Materials: Multilingual marketing, apps, and websites are one way that public agencies and shared mobility providers can meet the mobility needs of individuals and households with language barriers. Shared mobility operators can also form funding, joint-marketing, risk sharing, and other partnerships with public and private stakeholders. Additional research can aid public-private partnerships in identifying areas where new services in disadvantaged communities can be most successful.
• Explore Policies to Mainstream Services: The public and private sectors may work together to develop policies and programs that mainstream shared mobility to special needs populations. Examples many include incentives, tax credits, pilot programs, discounts, etc.
• Develop Strategies that Address the Digital Divide: The public and private sectors may work together to develop mechanisms for addressing the digital divide. For example, the use of kiosks and screens to aid in routing and to display travel information may be one mechanism for ensuring populations without smartphones still have access to key travel information.

Case Study of How Paratransit, Microtransit, and Ridesourcing Can Be Applied to Meet the Accessibility Needs of Special Populations

Paratransit services have historically played a critical role in bridging mobility gaps for disabled populations. Innovative mobility services, such as Bridj, a shuttle operator that uses real-time information to generate shuttle routes, and a variety of for-hire vehicle services, may be able to serve special needs populations. For example, Lift Hero in San Francisco allows users to hail for-hire vehicle services with specially trained medical professionals, and Shuddle also in San Francisco provides paratransit services for children through the use of licensed childcare providers (Wagstaff, 2014). UberX, a ridesourcing company, has launched services that allow users to request a wheelchair accessible vehicle. UberASSIST is another service with specially trained drivers that aid riders into and out of vehicles and manage wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters. Taxis also provide these services.

A Study of Equity Issues by the San Francisco County Transportation Authority (SFCTA)

SFCTA recently conducted an equity analysis that identified three key disparities in San Francisco County: Banking: SFCTA found that 5.7 percent of San Francisco households are unbanked and 13.6 percent of households are underbanked. Technology: The SFCTA study identified that less than half of low-income Californians have a smartphone; and Information and Access: The SFCTA study found that low-income ridesourcing users are underrepresented in San Francisco. Source: Shaheen, Christensen, & Tierney, 2015

City CarShare’s Programs for Special Needs Populations: A Case Study

San Francisco-based non-profit City CarShare offers a number of innovative programs meant to enhance transportation access to special needs populations. Founded in 2001, City CarShare is the nation’s largest non-profit carsharing program with over 60 percent of its fleet located in designated low—to moderate—income neighborhoods. In 2008, City CarShare partnered with the City of Berkeley to create AccessMobile, the nation’s first wheelchair accessible carsharing vehicle. In addition to AccessMobile, the operator’s CommunityShare program offers subsidized membership fees and driving costs for low-to moderate-income members referred to City CarShare by one of seven local partners. In December 2014, City CarShare announced it would expand its low-income, ADA, and electric vehicle programs in collaboration with the Contra Costa Transportation Authority, the Bay Area Climate Collaborative, and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission under a new program, called CarShare4All.

Insurance Regulations, Availability, and Affordability

Insurance remains a key challenge for many shared mobility operators. In the early years of carsharing, cost and insurance availability were notable challenges. As carsharing grew, insurance became more widely available and affordable. Concerns over the cost and availability of insurance partially focused on special populations, such as younger adults (college students). Allowing younger adults (ages 18 to 25) to use carsharing was critical to the development of the now very large college/university campus carsharing market.

Insurance has been a consistent challenge with the launch of innovative shared modes and service models. The advent of P2P carsharing, or short-term access to privately owned vehicles, in around 2010 brought new challenges. Early P2P vehicle sharing owners confronted the risk of canceled personal automobile insurance policies or the reclassification (and repricing) of their policies for commercial vehicle use. Three states (California, Oregon, and Washington) enacted legislation to address these challenges. As a result, all three states require commercial insurance coverage when a personal vehicle is being rented out and prohibit cancellation of (or other lesser consequences related to) personal lines of insurance for vehicle owners who sometimes make their vehicles available through a P2P carsharing service. For the vast majority of the country, however, these challenges have not been addressed by legislation, leaving P2P vehicle sharing owners susceptible to coverage cancellation or reclassification.

Case Study of California Assembly Bill 1871

California Assembly Bill (AB) 1871 prohibits private motor vehicles from being classified for insurance purposes as commercial vehicles when used in a personal vehicle sharing program. AB 1871 also limits the circumstances in which a vehicle owner’s personal automobile insurance is subject to liability and prohibits such policies from being canceled, voided, terminated, rescinded, or not renewed solely on the basis that the vehicle is made available in a personal vehicle sharing program. Source: Gorenflo, 2010

A number of insurance challenges associated with ridesourcing and P2P carsharing remain. Personal auto insurers are often concerned that for-hire and P2P vehicle services translate to increased risk from: 1) additional VMT/VKT and/or additional drivers; 2) geographic hazards associated with urban locations because ridesourcing and P2P carsharing services are often marketed in high-traffic urban centers; 3) unfamiliar roadways (either for ridesourcing drivers or P2P renters); 4) driver distraction associated with ridesourcing apps; 5) higher vehicle occupancy translating into more people that can be injured, if a collision occurs; and 6) pressure-based risk factors associated with rushing to accept matches and pick up passengers (in the ridesourcing context) or to return a carsharing vehicle to avoid additional time-based fees, although traditional car rental and carsharing include this same risk (National Association of Insurance Commissioners, 2015).

Balancing Data Sharing with Privacy

The lack of data on emerging travel options as part of the NHTS makes it difficult to understand the size and impact of shared mobility on the broader transportation network. This lack of understanding also makes it challenging to incorporate the services into planning processes and to identify service and accessibility gaps in the transportation network. Sharing of shared mobility data (either publicly or with public agencies), where such data do exist, is an important strategy that can be used to overcome these challenges.

Shared mobility operators typically track several important key data points—the origin and destination of shared services (e.g., the pickup and return location for a carsharing vehicle, bikesharing bicycle, or ridesourcing passenger); travel time; and trip duration. A number of shared mobility service providers have shared data with public agencies either voluntarily or as part of a regulatory mandate. Chapter 4 of this primer highlighted a few of these data-sharing efforts.

Industry-wide research cooperation, either through trade associations or through governmental regulation, can aid in the development of clear and consistent data standards, data sharing protocols, and privacy protections to ensure open data, protection of consumer and proprietary operator data, interoperability, and comparability across a wide array of platforms.

Case Study of California Assembly Bill 83 Personal Data (Proposed)

In January 2015, California State Assembly Member Gatto introduced an information practices and personal data protection bill. The bill (pending as of July 2015) requires businesses to enhance privacy standards for the storage of all personal information including: social security numbers, driver’s license numbers, financial information, medical information, and geolocation travel information. The bill provides specific protections to geophysical location information, including "any location data generated to assess the past or current location of, or travel by, an individual, including, but not limited to, geographic coordinates, street address, or WiFi positioning system." Finally, the bill also requires that businesses take measures to identify and respond to "foreseeable" internal and external privacy risks. As of Summer 2015, the bill has failed to pass California’s Senate Judiciary Committee as amended. Source: Gatto, 2015

Case Study of the City of Boston and Uber Data Sharing Agreement

In January 2015, the City of Boston entered into an agreement with Uber to share anonymized metadata including: zip code origins and destinations, distance traveled, duration time, and trip date and time. Public-private partnerships to share travel data can assist public agencies to better understand the impacts of shared mobility and assist local governments with their transportation policy and planning.

Conclusion

Shared mobility is a transportation strategy that planners might consider to support municipal and regional transportation and land use goals related to congestion and parking mitigation; air quality improvement and reduction of GHGs, particulate, and criteria pollutant emissions; and "smart city" and sustainable design initiatives. Although numerous challenges exist and understanding of the impacts is still limited, this chapter covered some of the best practices, lessons learned, and proposed solutions from across the United States.

Key takeaways include:

• Shared mobility is an emerging area that is continuing to evolve and change. Thus, this primer represents a starting point in this evolutionary process as typologies and definitions, public policy, and best practices will continue to develop.
• There is a need for consistent public and private sector standards and definitions.
• Metrics and models should be developed to assess the economic and travel impacts associated with shared mobility.
• It is important to recognize the role of shared mobility in transportation and incorporate it, as appropriate, into transportation policy and planning.
• Multimodal integration is a key strategy for providing seamless transportation options, including shared mobility.
• It is critical to ensure accessibility to and equity of shared modes for transportation users.
• Insurance is a key component of shared mobility and should be accessible and affordable for shared mobility consumers and operators.
• It is crucial to balance data-sharing needs with consumer protection, while at the same time recognizing proprietary considerations.

References

Capital Bikeshare. (2015). Bank on DC. Retrieved from Capital Bikeshare: https://www.capitalbikeshare.com/bankondc

Gatto, M. (2015, July 15). Assembly Bill No. 83. Retrieved from California Legislative Information: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB83

Gorenflo, N. (2010, September 29). California’s P2P Car-sharing Bill Signed Into Law. Retrieved from Shareable: http://www.shareable.net/blog/californias-p2p-car-sharing-bill-signed-into-law

National Association of Insurance Commissioners. (2015). Transportation Network Company Insurance Principles for Legislators and Regulators. Kansas City: National Association of Insurance Commissioners.

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. (2015, October 19). SFMTA Proposes New Shuttle Rules. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from https://www.sfmta.com/about-sfmta/blog/sfmta-proposes-new-shuttle-rules

Tierney, G., Shaheen, S., and Christensen, C. (2015, February 18) Crossing the Digital and Income Divide: Making Mobility Innovations Accessible to All. Agrion Smart Cities Series Workshop Summary.

Wagstaff, K. (2014, February 17). Uber for kids: Shuddle wants to shuttle your children. Retrieved from NBC News: http://www.today.com/money/uber-kids-shuddle-wants-shuttle-your-children-1D80240006