What's the Public Sector Role in Shared Micromobility?

By
In her case study on dockless vehicles in Santa Monica, Francie Stefan mentioned what she considered the “question of the moment”: Should cities rely on a private sector company for a fundamental need like mobility and access? I reviewed the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) 2018 shared micromobility report to see perspectives on new mobility from public agencies across the US. The report focuses on shared bike and e-scooter trips - it tracks trip details, ridership and growth, and provides details on the changing landscape of shared micromobility.

NACTO staff stated their recommendation that cities should “retain authority over their streets” and that state legislation should ensure that “cities have the ability to plan, regulate, and manage shared micromobility systems.”

Some cities have not been able to regulate or adapt quickly enough to deal with the fast-changing nature of the dockless landscape. Camden, New Jersey welcomed operator Ofo in early 2018 as their bikeshare provider. Two months into their pilot, Ofo left Camden, leaving behind a fleet of abandoned bikes and no bikeshare program for the city.

In comparison to Camden, cities who expressed enthusiasm and success in shared micromobility had ownership over their programs. In Boston, 85% of residents can now walk to a public bike share station in 5-7 minutes, moving the city closer to its goal of ensuring that residents can choose to bike. In New York, bikeshare has contributed to the city’s Vision Zero goal, and accounts for nearly half the nation’s bikeshare rides. Both Boston and New York plan to expand their programs in spite of the growing private sector participation in shared micromobility. It seems as though the cities who are happiest with their shared micromobility programs are the ones who choose public/private partnerships (both cities contract with private operators for their bikeshare) over letting private operators dominate the market. NACTO staff stated that the most successful systems were “planned hand-in-hand” with cities, and that “cities, system operators, and communities” that plan together create the best outcomes for their residents.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular on the Blog

Final Policy Guidelines

By
Students, I was exceedingly pleased with the quality of your final presentations and wanted to share them publicly.  Here they are: Ridehail (TNCs) - Presentation , Guidelines Micromobility - Bikeshare and Scooter Share - Presentation , Guidelines Freight and Goods Movement - Presentation , Guidelines   Courier Network Services - Presentation , Guidelines Real Estate and Curb Management - Presentation , Guidelines Future Shared Vehicles - Presentation , Guidelines Mobility as a Service - Presentation , Guidelines
Read more

Take to the Streets! The (AV) Revolution is Coming

By
Image
When I think about new mobility and new technologies that enable it, I get most excited about the possibilities to remediate or reverse the inequities and injustices caused by our current autocentric transportation and land use regime. Our transportation system currently and historically on the biggest tools enabling systemic  injustice and exploitation in the United States and globally. Those who control our transportation system have turned it into the largest contributor to the climate emergency, perpetuator of environmental injustices, and catalyst for exploitation and expropriation of oppressed communities Consider the freeway riots, suburbanization and white flight, hyper-gentrification, and pollution burden. Transportation planning is implicated in all of these processes. It will also be instrumental in dismantling them. If we collectively organized ourselves, we could already have livable cities, mobility justice, and (significantly) decarbonized transportation system...
Read more

In TNC wage war, econ 101 is on the driver’s side

By
Image
Hold on tight, passengers, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride We frequently read and hear that ride-hailing companies like Uber and Lyft are money-losers and are unlikely to be profitable in the near future. However, given that both companies are trading on public markets with a combined worth of more than $80 billion, investors must be thinking they will reach profitability at some point. The question is whether this profit will come from higher prices charged to passengers, or lower wages given to drivers. In a recent New York Times Upshot piece, Austan Goolsbee, a well-known economist and former adviser to President Barack Obama, makes the case that, in this scenario, passengers will be footing the bill. Goolsbee substantiates his claim in a way that those of his of economics-trained ilk know how to best--via the theory of "relative price sensitivity." Economic theory predicts that those who are more sensitive to prices changes will pay less, while those who are less pr...
Read more