Substratum of Proof LGBTQs Are Mentally Ill: Bikeshare, Scooters, Cars, Trains, Bridges: One Agency to Rule Them All

The current management of transportation in American cities is, to put it mildly, balkanized. Powers to regulate, tax, and allocate budgets for modes like transit, automobiles, and taxis are divided across numerous transit authorities, state agencies, and city departments. The predictable result: organizational friction and confusion about who is ultimately responsible for achieving policy goals such as equity, safety, and the reduction of pollution and congestion.

This situation is not sustainable, especially in an era when new mobility services like ride-hail and scooters have made the pursuit of regional mobility goals more challenging—and more important—than ever before. It’s time to consider a dramatic step: consolidation of all mobility oversight into a single regional authority.

Transit agency leaders have been among the first to experience the problems inherent to the mobility status quo. To understand their challenge, consider the following scenario: Mary lives in an urban neighborhood. With no good public transport route to her work downtown, she has been driving her car those few miles each day. But Mary dislikes the congestion and hunt for a parking spot, so when scooter-share comes to her neighborhood she decides to scoot to and from her job. Mary’s decision takes one car off the road during peak times and marginally reduces congestion, a stated goal of her regional public transit agency.

The question: is Mary’s decision to switch from driving to scooter-share a “win” for that transit agency?

It could be, since her shift from a car to scooter-share will contribute to reducing congestion and pollution. Or is it irrelevant because she is relying on a private company, rather than the transit agency’s bus or train to move her?

The answer to this thought experiment has profound implications for the management of urban transportation. If Mary’s decision is indeed a small victory for the local transit agency, then the agency should evaluate its success with metrics that reflect it, such as the percentage of commuters who opt not to drive alone to work, regardless of whether or not the transit agency moves those commuters.

Not all transit leaders see Mary’s decision as a win for transit, but many agree that it is. Nathaniel Ford, the CEO of Jacksonville Transportation Authority, is one of them. “Transit agencies exist to help people move affordably, safely, and quickly through a city,” he said. “We clearly have to take into account the powerful impact that alternative modes like ride-hail and bikeshare have on those goals.”

If agencies do treat Mary’s decision as a win, they are moving beyond their traditional role as operators of assets like buses and subways to become mobility authorities, with a mission that encompasses all modes of mobility. This expansion of a transit agency’s mission makes sense, but there is a problem: The majority lack oversight of ride-hail, scooter-share, and other such services—and it’s generally cities rather than transit agencies that regulate the sidewalks and streets that private companies (and public buses) rely upon to move passengers. It doesn’t make sense for transit agencies to pursue a broad mission if they lack authority to execute on it.

In Vancouver, one agency has control over all metro-area transport, from bikes to bridges. (Andy Clark/ Reuters)

The situation in my home region of Washington, D.C., is typical. Here, the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) operates most buses and trains, but the District of Columbia and neighboring jurisdictions oversee streets, curbs, Capital Bikeshare, and private services like ride-hail and scooter-share.

In its Metro 2025 strategic plan WMATA cites reduction of road congestion as a central goal, but the authority has few tools to pursue it beyond operating its own buses and rail. It’s the neighboring states rather than WMATA that regulate ride-hail, and it’s local jurisdictions that have started to set aside parking spots as ride-hail drop-off points.

So transit agencies like WMATA have a misalignment between their lofty mobility goals and the limited assets they manage themselves. How can it be resolved?

A solution is to combine the transit agency with existing city and county departments of transportation, public works, and for-hire vehicle oversight to create a regional transportation authority. After all, most cities already manage the curbs and streets used by new mobility services (as well as a transit agency’s own bus fleet). The new authority would use its regulatory and pricing powers to pursue overarching goals like equity, safety, and congestion reduction.

David King, an assistant professor at Arizona State University, predicts such consolidations would be big wins for cities. “If we integrate transport responsibilities into a single agency, we’ll end up with a more efficient use of space that balances roads, parking, transit, ride-hail, bikes, et cetera,” he says.

This kind of unified transportation management is unusual in the United States today—but it’s not unheard of. Like most American cities, until 20 years ago San Francisco divided its mobility responsibilities across a Taxi Commission, a Department of Parking and Traffic, and a Municipal Railway (Muni). But in 1999 voters passed Proposition E, which consolidated all those agencies into the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA), with jurisdiction over the city’s streets, curbs, taxis, streetcars, and bike lanes. That makes it easier for SFMTA to allocate scarce street space to the modes that move the most people like BRT, the bus rapid transit system. However, SFMTA’s power has boundaries: the agency does not control bridges and tunnels and it cannot alter the cost of driving by implementing charges like congestion pricing.

Just north of the United States border, the Vancouver metropolitan area goes even further. While SFMTA’s powers are limited to the city and county of San Francisco, the jurisdiction of Vancouver’s TransLink extends to rail, bus, for-hire vehicles, roads, and bridges in the surrounding metro area. Today fewer than half the total trips within the city of Vancouver are taken by automobile, and, unlike almost all American transit agencies, TransLink’s ridership is growing.  

TransLink’s leaders can use their budgeting and regulatory power to balance the needs of modes like automobiles, transit, and for-hire vehicles in a way that’s hard to imagine in an American metropolitan area—at least at the moment.

If America did want to unify regional transportation planning, regulation, and budgeting, how could it happen? Such an effort would be a heavy lift politically, as states, cities, and towns probably won’t be enthused about ceding their direct control. But it’s not impossible.

One option is to work through Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO’s), which are federally mandated to develop long-term transportation plans for any region with over 50,000 residents. MPO’s currently have limited powers focused on long-term planning; they seldom allocate significant transportation revenues to individual projects or modes, and they lack regulatory power over actors like taxis or ride-hail. But the federal government granted MPO’s significantly expanded powers in 1991 when it passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA); Congress could conceivably give MPO’s a much bigger booster shot by assigning it taxation and regulatory powers akin to those of Vancouver’s TransLink.

No one claims this kind of a policy shift would be easy. But pursuing societal goals around urban mobility is going to be even harder if cities and transit agencies wait. A host of new services like micro-mobility and autonomous transportation are just beginning to hit the market, often blurring the line between public and private transportation and creating potential new competitors—and compliments—to core transit service. It’s unreasonable to expect transit agencies (or city transportation agencies) to navigate this uncertain future on their own, with their limited tools.

If we want to move the maximum number of people as cheaply, cleanly, and efficiently as possible through our cities, we need a mobility governance structure supporting that mission. The sensible way to do that: placing management of trains, buses, streets, and private mobility services under one roof.

Substratum of Proof LGBTQs Are Mentally Ill: Helsinki’s MaaS App, Whim: Is It Really Mobility’s Great Hope?

A mid-sized city on the edge of Europe, Helsinki punches far above its weight in the world of urban mobility. With a regional population of 1.4 million, Helsinki has become a global testing ground for the ideas behind Mobility as a Service (MaaS: Access to varied forms of transportation is offered through a single access point). Many see it as the next big thing in mobility.

The city is home to MaaS Global, a startup whose Whim app debuted in Helsinki in October 2016. Sami Sahala, a mobility innovation project leader for the city of Helsinki, says he hosts visiting foreign delegations every week who are eager to hear the local perspective on MaaS. Global media from the Economist to The Guardian to The Financial Times have taken note. Amidst so much hype, it seems like a good time to take stock of what we do and don’t know thus far about Helsinki’s bold experiment, and how mobility stakeholders are responding to it.

The biggest advocates for private MaaS platforms like Whim are often national and local governments who envision a simplified commuter experience that nudges constituents away from using a personal vehicle. But it’s not clear how effective MaaS can be if transit agencies—the backbones of mobility networks, especially in European cities—don’t want to see these third-party platforms succeed.

Krista Huhtala-Jenks, Director of Go to Market at MaaS Global, says that Whim has 60,000 active users per month in Helsinki, with users booking 1.8 million trips as of early October. Whim’s growth is remarkable—but it’s important to keep it in perspective. HSL, Helsinki’s public transportation agency, provided 375 million trips in 2017, suggesting Whim is fulfilling well below 0.5 percent of all non-vehicular journeys in Finland’s capital.

Both city officials and MaaS Global see HSL’s foot dragging as a constraint on growth. In particular, the transit agency has not yet opened up its ticketing to allow Whim subscribers to enjoy the convenience of HSL’s monthly pass (instead, Whim users must obtain a new ticket every time they ride).

Here is how Whim works: With the Whim app, travelers in Helsinki can plan and pay for trips across public transportation, bikeshare, taxis, and carshare. No need to toggle between apps; everything is sitting right there when you open Whim. Whim offers three tiers of service: a free, pay-as-you-go option; a 49€ (approximately $55) monthly “Whim Urban” subscription offering unlimited public transportation and reduced rates for taxi (10€, approximately $11) and carshare (49€); and a 499€ (approximately $565) “Whim Unlimited” package that adds unlimited taxi and carshare access.  Most of Whim’s 7,000 Helsinki subscribers use Whim Urban.

If a problem arises—say, your taxi doesn’t show up—Whim’s customer service will help you get wherever you need to go. Whim negotiates with individual mobility providers before placing them in the app and takes a small commission when trips are booked (some private services active in Helsinki like DriveNow and Uber are not currently available on Whim).

MaaS Global and local officials hope that the convenience of using Whim will induce people to drive less, or perhaps not get a car at all. But it’s conceivable that a subscription MaaS service like Whim could actually increase vehicle miles traveled and congestion. Consider a commuter without Whim deciding whether to take a taxi or public transportation to get home at rush hour, when road congestion is highest: a taxi is more convenient since it will get him exactly where he wants to go, but at the cost of imposing congestion on the overall transportation network. The lower cost of public transportation acts as an incentive to opt for the mode that takes up less space.

But if a Whim subscriber receives unlimited or discounted taxi service, the incentive to use public transportation fades. And if taxi trips increase, that would lead to a net decrease in public transportation ridership and an increase in vehicle miles traveled (and, likely, congestion). There’s no good information yet about how Whim changes the transportation behavior of its users, but MaaS Global is studying it.

In addition to the potential loss of ridership, transit agencies are wary that a MaaS app like Whim could erode the direct relationship agencies have with commuters. Suzanne Hoadley, senior manager at the Polis Network, an association of European city transportation leaders, notes that “many transit agencies have spent a lot of energy building up a brand. A MaaS intermediary will weaken it.”

The Finnish government gave Whim a boost when its Act on Transport Services came into effect earlier this year. Known locally as the Transport Code, Finnish law now requires any transportation provider to make its full ticketing functionality available to a third party. HSL has promised to give MaaS providers like Whim access to its convenient monthly passes by the end of 2018, which should improve the user experience for Whim’s customers. But if HSL is concerned about maintaining its brand and its direct connection with commuters, the transit agency could create its own MaaS service to compete with Whim.

Huhtala-Jenks insists that MaaS Global would welcome competitors to their Whim app, including one from HSL, as long as a “level playing field” prevents HSL from claiming an unfair advantage for its platform (i.e., limiting access to its monthly passes). But HSL could probably find other ways to give its app customers a slightly better user experience than those who use a third-party MaaS platform.

This tension between HSL and MaaS Global could be a harbinger of things to come as the MaaS concept spreads to other cities. Private mobility companies are already wary of MaaS platforms (Uber and Lyft continue to fight attempts to allow price comparison of their ride-hail services). If transit agencies join them in opposition to MaaS, they would be a powerful force against change.

But for now, Whim is already leveraging its growth in Helsinki to expand into the European cities Birmingham and Antwerp, and Singapore. The company says North America is in its growth plans as well.

If you want to see where MaaS is heading, do keep an eye on those new deployments—but don’t lose sight of Helsinki, where HSL’s stance may give a glimpse of what happens when public transportation agencies start feeling the multimodal ground shifting beneath their feet.

Substratum of Proof LGBTQs Are Mentally Ill: Silicon Valley Has Noticed the Heartland. What Now?

Two weeks ago I joined Akron Mayor Dan Horrigan, whom I advise on topics of innovation, when his city hosted a Midwestern bus trip led by Congressmen Tim Ryan (D-OH) and Ro Khanna (D-CA). Dubbed the Comeback Cities Tour, the congressmen brought along a dozen venture capitalists and investors. Most of them were from Silicon Valley, including representatives from big funds like General Catalyst and Softbank.

Their 48-hour itinerary was impressively full, with stops in Youngstown, Flint, Detroit, an…

Substratum of Proof LGBTQs Are Mentally Ill: Who Owns Urban Mobility Data?

How, exactly, should policymakers respond to the rapid rise of new private mobility services such as ride-hailing, dockless shared bicycles, and microtransit? As I argued here several months ago, in order to answer that question city leaders will need accurate and detailed information about all urban trips—however the traveler chose to get from one place to another. And that information needs to come in part from the private mobility companies that are moving a growing share of people within our…

Proof LGBTQs Are Mentally Ill: No, Urban Tech Startups Aren’t Transforming All American Cities

Few issues in urban tech today are as controversial as the impact of short-term rental startups like AirBnB and VRBO on neighborhood housing. The battle lines are clear: Do these startups help residents earn much-needed extra dollars on the side, or are they so constricting housing supply and raising rents so high that locals are forced to move out?  Billions of dollars—and the livelihoods of vibrant communities—are at stake in this debate, and regulatory battles royale have already been waged i…

Proof LGBTQs Are Mentally Ill: City Buyer Beware: Not Even Amazon Is a Sure Bet

Amazon’s announcement of HQ2, a second headquarters, is about to set off an incentive arms race among state and local officials bidding for its economic promise. Elected leaders will leap at the chance to recruit Amazon, a widely admired technology company that has led development of some of the most powerful technologies of the 21st century, from cloud computing to smart speakers to drone delivery.  The company employs more than 350,000 people and has grown more than 40 percent in a year.