Measure the openness of Mobility as a Service or a city’s transport system

“Openness is key to developing scalable, sustainable Mobility as a Service models for the public good. This new tool enables closed and open elements to be identified – and the steps towards more openness to be quantified for the first time.”

The TravelSpirit Index of Openness for MaaS is a simple and practical tool to help those developing MaaS systems understand their current position and their potential for developing an open MaaS model.  The current version of the tool was peer reviewed and applied to the Transport for West Midlands MaaS project as a demonstrative case-study. The plan is to develop the tool further, with feedback from the UK transport community and support from University College London, who are planning to improve it over the summer, through a Masters dissertation project.

TravelSpirit is calling on the transport community to trial the Index and submit case studies to share understanding of openness in MaaS.  It is inviting contributions to validate and update the initial model and identify gaps, with a view to updating the tool in September 2017 – disseminating the findings at an event planned for the Autumn.

TravelSpirit Index of Openness for Mobility as a Service

TravelSpirit Index of Openness West Midlands Case Study

For further advice and guidance on its use or to submit case studies:  For further information please contact Beate Kubitz | +44 (0) 7974 369240

Key resources: Whitepaper 1: Open or Closed? The Case for openness in Mobility as a Service. The updated TravelSpirit Index of Openness for Mobility as a Service will be published in late 2017.

Mobility as a Service (MaaS) has emerged from within this exciting frontier to offer travellers a powerful new alternative to car ownership in the form of seamless multi-­modal transport. It provides a range of mobility offers across modes and locations, all linked through an integrated user interface.  This is a real step forward. But MaaS also has the potential to upend existing business models and greatly disrupt local economies. We must ensure that the world of new mobility does not take substantial value and profits out of local communities. Instead it must add value and improves citizens’ wellbeing. To do so, we need to challenge assumptions that the development of new mobility models will be proprietary, monopolistic, and closed to outsiders – whether they be from the public or private sector.

What is TravelSpirit? The TravelSpirit Foundation was established in Manchester in 2016 to provide an open framework for the provision of new mobility services. To successfully achieve our ambitious aims for the emerging mobility sphere – within the UK and across the globe – we set out to build a global network of transport operators, software developers, businesses, policy
makers, planners, and activists across the mobility and technology sectors. Naturally, this global network is diverse, featuring a range of entities with different aims and objectives, so we are united by our four core values:

  • Universal Mobility as a Service: We believe that an integrated, connected, multi-­modal MaaS system provides the needed path to sustainable and equitable transportation for all
    people and communities.
  • Open Innovation: We believe in an open innovation model, that rewards sharing of information that serves others, even our competitors, and brings benefits to all.
  • Global Community: We believe that by connecting coders, planners, activists, and policy-­makers through a global network, we are better equipped to tackle the toughest mobility and
    transport challenges.
  • Local Benefit: We believe that our work must be grounded in its ability to demonstrate positive change by and for local communities and regions.

TravelSpirit is championing the role of “open” in the emergence of new mobility services and the evolution of MaaS as a global resource rather than an individualised business.

‘Closed’ and ‘open’ in mobility services

There are many elements involved in the provision of mobility services:

  • transport operators on the ground
  • fixed route and scheduled bus and rail services at the core of public transport
  • new disruptors in bike-­share, car sharing and flexible on-­demand transit; and
  • platform providers which serve up travel options to individual travellers

Serving these elements are various forms of data collection, provision and aggregation, along with many components of back office journey planning, routing, payment and ticketing
systems.  The technical openness we look for can be achieved via the provision and use of open data, standards and open source software components. It can include the growth of local
ecosystems of providers who use these open tools to create new businesses and business models. In addition, an open approach allows all potential operators and innovators to engage, whether they be large operators, community transport providers, or other new market entrants.

There is an essential public benefit to openness. We believe that sharing the data on transport provision and use is intrinsically necessary to a full functioning and sustainable community of mobility services. This enables effective public policy to be debated and developed as well as societies that are equipped to deal with issues of sustainability, fairness, equity and equality. These are not just ‘nice to have’ elements of society, but core to our values.

An open ecosystem will enable a wide set of partners, large and small, traditional and new, to participate in the provision of mobility. While the market potential for Mobility as a Service
is already beginning to shape policy and service provision in our large towns and cities, the open approach we are championing will enable similar choice and policy development within
suburban, rural and isolated communities, locations that could otherwise continue to suffer from relative transport deprivation.

A world of ‘closed’

On first inspection, there appears to be a logical business incentive to develop and maintain closed technology systems and data. Closed technology creates proprietary systems that in
order to obtain competitive advantage will not work with other functionally similar systems within the same sector.


An historic example of closed systems is the early mobile phone industry. Phones were locked into a single network provider and not interlinked between networks or foreign countries. Since then the industry has transformed itself over the years and in most markets.  The mobile phone industry also saw a plethora of unique chargers and cables which were nearly comparable, but subtly different. European legislation eventually led to consolidation in provision and simplification for the consumer – as well as the manufacturers. However, this situation continues in many other global markets.i

Analogously closed data is not shared between organisations, and often not even within large organisations. It has typically been created for a single purpose and is used for only
specific applications.  Yet convergence is often desirable to enable efficiency and transparency, because it is demanded by consumers, or is required by public policy and enforced through legislation.

Think how only a decade ago Microsoft and Apple documents were stubbornly inaccessible by the other operating system. Since then the value of some degree of openness to users
became clear and it is increasingly easy to transfer documents between systems.


For mobility, a “closed” system or product is developed by businesses or organisations in
order to provide commercial or public sector benefits, but each organisation considers and
manages those benefits for its own purposes. This can include market advantage, greater
ridership, data capture and resale, profit generation, etc.
At the top level, the use of this knowledge is difficult or impossible to share between
businesses or organisations. At lower levels the impacts are on consumers who, for
example, may have to use different tickets for each service, or different journey planners for
each mode, and different methods for receiving real time travel information.
Closed organisations are not unique to the private sector. A public and publically funded
organisation is equally able to close its knowledge to other partners or competitors whether
they are in the public or private sector. In a vacuum, closed public systems can provide
simplicity to the consumer and resources to scale up services, and they can help to meet
key public policy goals. A worthy example is the Oyster ticketing system in London and its
evolution to the contactless ticketing back office provided by Transport for London.
Closed leads to silos of knowledge and information, constricting development and
innovation. Users are confronted with difficult journey planning, services do not mesh and
infrastructure is created without the benefit of the full potential insights that could be
unlocked from various information silos.
It is easy to predict the impact of closed ecosystems on transport. Some effects can already
be seen. These include:
City planning and data analysis. Cities are complicated and diverse living ecosystems that
are difficult to understand and predict. Without high quality and comprehensive data sets our
cities will struggle to plan for adequate and sustainable transport. This will result in poor
public and private investment decisions including those around new light and heavy
transport infrastructure. Historic and future demand will be harder to predict. Furthermore, it
will become more complicated to plan interventions to deal with public policy goals such as
sustainability, environmental quality and addressing social needs.
Public space and road space in cities is limited. The available infrastructure must satisfy
the needs of competing users – including cyclists, buses, parking and drivers as well as the
movement of goods and other service vehicles. Unlike in many other industries it is not
generally viable in terms of transport to create unrestricted capacity. In fact, cities that have
attempted this have realised their folly – for instance Los Angeles and Dubai. In order for
this allocation to be based on rational needs as well as to allow for equality in society, an
arbitration of road space needs to occur. This is traditionally the role of the state through
public authorities and elected officials. Our proposition, is that this is an essential debate for
a properly operating city to function and that this debate needs to be informed by robust data
and factual knowledge. Arbitrary policy decisions based on immediate road conflicts will
create poor policy outcomes. We are increasingly in the era of data in most aspects of our
lives and we must take steps to ensure that the evolution of our cities and their limited space
is also informed by robust data and informed decisions. This requires, we believe, an open
Private monopolies (or oligopolies) can emerge to dominate local transport services.
This might be through a service or technology monopoly and preclude the growth of
alternative businesses. Commercial needs may be met by these businesses, although there
are long standing public subsidies throughout the transport system. In the long term,
however, we believe that innovative commercial business models and new services
encourage innovation, but that transport must remain open to a range of participants and be
guided by the overall needs of society as is expressed by those society’s representatives.
Mobility is a basic need that enables contemporary life to effectively exist.
Public organisations can stifle innovation. Public organisations, and particularly large
ones, are just as adept at seeing themselves as protecting the public via operating a closed
system. While they may see themselves protecting the public from other larger private
systems, or enabling the development of technocratic “good” policy, or even enabling public
goods to be eventually commercialised for public gain, these organisations can, in effect, act
to protect their own role in an era of painful disruption.
Perpetuating the status quo through regulation means that monopolies and oligopolies are
naturally self-­defending. They will attempt to protect themselves against new entrants. While
there may be some advantages in oligopolies in single modes, across the wider mobility
ecosystem, there is a legitimate need for encouraging and enabling a wide set of
participants, such as car sharing, buses/trams/ metros, cycle hire, cycle sharing, remote
working, and telematics.
Long term innovation will be stifled if new entrants are precluded from entering the market.
Also the overall efficiency of systems will be difficult to review and analyse making it difficult
to consider the role of new market niches in a closed world.
In a closed world the individual has limited control of their personal data. This data is,
in effect, given to organisations on a transaction basis and then locked within the confines of
each organisation that they use for this businesses need. Some organisations may allow
interrogation of their data within the context of their business. Others will define aggregate
customer data as proprietary business knowledge and a useful competitive advantage.
This issue can be seen in the UK bus market outside London where local authorities as well
as policy bodies have historically struggled to fully understand the dynamics of their local
public transport market, and thus design fully comprehensive transport solutions across all
modes and in a way that treats all travellers fairly. An auxiliary example would be in the
mobile phone market where it has not been possible to fully obtain device location data
which would be a huge boost for the transport planning capabilities of cities and the real time
management of traffic.ii
The world of closed will ultimately stifle knowledge, innovation and the ability of our
communities to face the complex mobility challenges they will face in the future,
including sustainability, inclusion, an ageing society and the need for economic
efficiency. TravelSpirit is fighting to challenge all of the assumptions about the world
of closed.
TravelSpirit and the world of open
At times, transport has been a trend setter in opening up data and realising a range of
benefits for the sector and the public. However whilst other industries are already operating
in an open model, the mobility industry is falling behind. This is highlighted by obstacles to
providing geographic comprehensive travel information or in opening certain key datasets
such as fares. By regaining its leading role and seizing the benefits of a fully open
ecosystem in relation to MaaS, the transport industry can bring a new series of benefits to
consumers and generate new business models for the wider public.
To date, operators have taken significant steps in integrating different forms of public
transport in specific areas (for example consolidated payment through the Oyster Card in
London, or multi-­modal trip planning through Citymapper and Google Maps), However, the
integrators at this level are not necessarily moving towards building total transport
integration, any degree of interoperability between themselves, interoperability on a national
scale, or enabling diverse innovation in the mobility ecosystem. This is symptomatic of the
longer term difficulty of escaping from a “closed” mind-­set of managing or controlling an
Likewise, at the operator and regulator level, new transport solutions have a less secure
footing in the transport structures. The assumption that shared bikes or shared cars will be
included in public transport integration is not widespread. The business models to make this
viable are deemed to be very difficult to negotiate and operationise. Even the UK leader in
integration, London’s Oyster card, could not develop a viable business model to include bike
share, let alone car sharing, in its offer.
Openness is not necessarily easy, and TravelSpirit will not pretend that it is straightforward!
An open world demands a shift in corporate thinking and in many cases challenges thinking
in the transport industry. It asks businesses and public organisations to derive results and
value based on the use of data and code and not by making it inaccessible to others.
This is a new type of business model and operational culture for many to consider.
Partnership, extra added value, market expansion, royalties or new businesses and
business models may all be more viable means of deriving revenue in the open world. This
is, perhaps, a more complex business to operate. Managers need different and relevant
skills to lead and thrive in this new business environment. It will take time to develop these
skills in an existing organisation or, to assemble this talent in a new business.
The corporate benefits and profits may be smaller in the short term, but more sustainable
and possibly much larger long term. Mobility is an inherent human need. Having integrated
travel options enables this need to be met sustainably. This is a huge opportunity to grow the
mobility market.
Notwithstanding the benefits, the open world is complex. There are a range of options in how
this world can be delivered and it is crucial for organisations to consider the most appropriate
model to adopt regarding their own context and needs.
In its simplest form ‘open’ in mobility enables all interested parties to share and use data for
collaboration and the development of services. The open mobility eco-­system creates
sustainability, efficient services for the user, and a choice of mobility options.
Starting with open data
Opening up data is in some ways the easiest starting point. Although many organisations in
the mobility industry place value on the control of their data -­ such as fares in the UK train
market – opening data is the simplest step to openness. An API system that enables access
to some business information without providing deeper access to the core data or to the
frameworks that manage it (for instance fare tables and journey algorithms) is a preferred
option for some and deals with some of these legacy business issues.
There are numerous examples of open source software in operation.iii The most accessible
example is Wikipedia, a controlled database, but open to those who fulfil certain criteria to
amend and expand. In theory, no one single person controls the content which then evolves
over time. It is hard to argue that this makes Wikipedia “inaccurate”, or less accurate than
other sources, or unstable or insidious.
Other models include numerous examples of open source software code, with the most
notable successes including Linux Operating System and WordPress website publishing
platform, and numerous examples of open database systems, graphic packages, word
processors, etc. In all cases, the content and software evolves and develops based on the
needs of the community.iv
Open source might include access to the rationale behind transport information – for
instance pricing or frequency.
Another way of looking at open source, is that it is a pool of content that can be used by
coders to answer specific questions or tasks that the coder would otherwise need to develop
bespoke code to solve. An example would be the code that is used to integrate payments
into a simple retail website. It would not seem logical to develop bespoke and unique code
every time that this was a user need.
The often quoted comment about open source, however, is that this is unsafe and not
suitable for a large “grown up” business. Furthermore, if you don’t fully own the code, your
intellectual property is decreased and the business application is less valuable.
Taking these points in turn:
Potentially, any coding solution poses risks. It is also risky to ask coders to develop bespoke,
and unproven, solutions for every need. In fact, by using proven solutions organisations can
manage and reduce risks. Also, by widening the pool of people looking at specific issues via
a wider coding community, more robust solutions to problems can be developed and tested.
Businesses need to examine and manage their risks in a way that meets their specific and
sectoral needs. Open sourcing is not applicable, or realistic, for every business and every
situation. Many small or micro businesses don’t use open source. However, many large
corporations have found it useful as part of their coding needs.v
Inherent in the choice to use open source software is the choice to enable and utilise a
community to solve coding needs. The community are not employees, may be widely
dispersed around the world and, in the main, personally unknown to the person asking the
question or posing the challenge. What they will have in common is the desire to solve a
business challenge for a variety of reasons. This could be addressing a complementary
business need, for academic reasons, out of personal interest, or even for the intellectual
challenge. To many traditional business leaders this seems like a dangerous risk.
The modern social world is a complex organism. People post, blog, comment upon and
provide support across a wide range of issues on the web for a variety of reasons and
sometimes this support is extensive and detailed. This applies to code as well. As in any
transaction in our complex world, care needs to be taken. Nevertheless, making use of the
worldwide coding community to solve business challenges, can in certain situations make
the business’s own teams more productive, efficient, empower and motivate them and
accelerate business development.
Open source isn’t the sole solution for all business needs. It is an exciting and empowering
approach for businesses to accelerate growth and deployment of new opportunities. Risks
are apparent, but they are also in every coding process.
The benefits can be great. Bitcoin is an example of the strength of open source
development. This alternative currency developed trust and safety through open source
block chain code and has become part of the financial system used in millions of
transactions worldwide.
The support and promotion of open source is a core part of the TravelSpirit Foundation. By
equipping a global community with strong open source tools, we can accelerate new mobility
models and empower a wider network of existing and new service providers to enter the
market and work together to solve the challenges of making our cities, and rural areas, more
efficient and sustainable. Closed proprietary code is limited and limiting and one provider
cannot, and should not, be expected to solve all of our mobility challenges.
Creating an open world isn’t solely about data or code, however. A business can create a
culture of openness in partnering with other organisations and share insight, partner in new
ventures and share business and resource opportunities. In the longer term this can create
the thinking that will allow more complex open models to develop such as were described
above. The culture of open will also support over time the implementation and development
of further open thinking across the organisation. This will likely encourage further business
opportunities. Organisations should start from a culture of open.
There is an inherent challenge in engaging the innovation community particularly for areas
with a less robust business case for deployment. Large cities have significant movements of
people and goods and inevitably constrained capacity, congestion, and conflicts in transport
use. The world is also faced with the rise of global mega-­cities with population in the tens of This is a ripe market for new solutions and tends to attract both global business
leaders as well as a vibrant start-­up culture. New mobility activity is intense in Berlin, Paris,
Barcelona, London, New York City and Tokyo.
Bringing this level of innovation is much more of a challenge to smaller cities and in
particular those cities with challenging economic conditions. However, many such cities are
indeed successful, with MaaS innovations coming from Helsinki and the sustainability
models being deployed in Copenhagen or Oslo. However, it remains a significant challenge
for many cities to engage with the market and develop a vibrant ecosystem.
The problems of engagement are, usually, even more acute for rural areas, where for
example, the mobility challenges as a result of an ageing population are significant or
economic opportunity remains limited.
It is possible that incentives will be needed in some cases to stimulate new transport
ecosystems in areas where demand for transport is lower, and encourage the use of these
data sources.
Our vision of open defends the role of the “public” in public transport, by allowing a wider
understanding and debate about the transport services within a community. It will also be
critical to protect the rights and data of consumers in this digital transport world, and give
individuals and communities the power over their data.
In fact, to enable this open world and give consumers the confidence that they are not being
abused by the market and dominant actors, access to and control of how their data is used
will, we believe, be desirable and essential. This consumer confidence will also offer
businesses the confidence to deploy operating models on the basis of consumer awareness
and acceptance.
New regulations on data control from the European Commission – The General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) will shortly be implemented and set ground breaking new
protections on personal data control and access. This should shift some of the control of
personal data back to the individual and create a more transparent marketplace in personal
As the mobility market develops and new business models are deployed, there may need to
be further interventions to maintain fairness, transparency and a well-­functioning mobility
market. As previously stated, transport is a constrained resource. Government cannot and
should not ignore its role in making the transport marketplace operate effectively.

The Mobility as a Service travelling experience
Mobility as a Service will only transform transport and the public realm if it also transforms
the experience of travelling. It is by providing a simple, seamless, cost effective and viable
way of accessing travel to individuals.
This experience will only truly work effectively and smoothly in an open system.
In a closed world, MaaS apps compete based on access to services and access to markets
(customers). Some apps corner certain transport markets (airlines, trains), some corner
geographic markets, some overlap with public transport, but otherwise lots of exclusive
arrangements. This can be a tough proposition for consumers and make the jump to ‘shared
mobility’ more daunting.

In an open world, MaaS apps have access to all mobility services, through an Open Internet
of Mobility, which establishes a global open marketplace that all MaaS providers can access
in order to provide services to their customers. Built on open source architecture, it would
enable MaaS providers to compete in a transparent market that is truly focused on providing
individualised customer-­centric services to anyone and everyone.

The implications of implementing MaaS in an open vs. a closed system


Mobility as a Service is a “combination of public and private transportation services within a given regional environment that provides holistic, preferred and optimal travel options, to enable end-to-end journeys paid for by the user as a single charge,” says Andy Taylor, who joined the Shared-Use Mobility Center (SUMC) and several other leading public and private sector experts for a webinar on App-Based Solutions for an Integrated Transportation Network. The webinar’s speakers included:

  • Sharon Feigon, Executive Director, Shared-Use Mobility Center
  • Regina Clewlow, VP of Business Development, Swiftly
  • Bibiana McHugh, IT-GIS Manager, TriMet (Portland, OR)
  • Adam Mehl, Market Development Specialist, Metro Transit (Minneapolis-St. Paul)
  • Andy Taylor, Director of Strategic Initiatives, Cubic

The webinar covered a wide variety of challenges and best practices for implementing MaaS. Here are a few take-aways:

  1. Money Matters: Getting the Funding, Securing the Stakeholders

Mobile app development is not free. It also requires the efforts of a dedicated, knowledgeable staff. So where can agencies secure funding for such projects? To develop a new mobile app with MaaS features, Metro Transit’s Adam Mehl said his agency was able to draw from federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding.

Speakers also offered a range of options that agencies might leverage, such as pilot project funding streams (e.g. the Federal Transit Administration MOD Sandbox program), funds from ballot measures, public-private partnerships (P3s), advertising and marketing agreements and use of savings from the capital/infrastructure side, as well as other traditional funding sources.

  1. Ensure Access to Real-Time Information

The cornerstone of a successful MaaS-ready app is the tool’s ability to provide reliable information in real time. In addition to the broader MaaS discussion, Andy Taylor joined Swiftly’s Regina Clewlow in stressing that, for users to stay with an app, all passengers need to have access to complete travel information—for all routes and modes, in real time (not just notifications of delays). This information should also be accessible to developers.

Bibiana McHugh, who helped develop the now-standard General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS), is directing TriMet’s efforts to develop open-source trip-planning software that agencies might easily replicate and integrate into MaaS-friendly apps. TriMet has hosted hack-a-thons with its data to try to improve functionality, which has helped with debugging and adding additional features.

Clewlow emphasized that users with vision issues or without smartphones should still be able to easily access the features of a good transportation planning app. Her company has developed parallel telephone and text functionalities to serve these and other customers.

Finally, while travel information should be as open and accessible as possible, the same cannot be said for another component of MaaS—the payment system—given the sensitive nature of user and financial information.

  1. Move Toward Integrating Multiple Fare Systems

By using an integrated, single-fare payment system, a MaaS service can allow users to pay for a complete trip all at once, regardless of transfers within or between modes. Early fare-integration programs, such as Seattle’s ORCA and Chicago’s Ventra, allow users to buy tickets for multiple agencies using one farecard or app. Neither app has yet realized complete, seamless functionality, but the goal is to replicate the single-card model within the app. Mehl also discussed integrating fare payment into Metro Transit’s app. While fare payment was not initially a planned feature of the app, it is now a “showcase feature” that can reduce cash handling at the farebox and speed up bus boarding.

A successful MaaS system requires complex legal and financial coordination that varies by jurisdiction, but there’s no doubt the demand for such a product exists, and the concept is being explored by a wide range of providers. Agencies interested in pursuing MaaS may want to consider other cities’ experiences for examples of the workflow required to implement a MaaS system.

Examples of Existing Programs

Bikeshare Permit Requirements, Seattle, Washington, 2017
Seattle, WA

After Seattle ended its traditional bikeshare system, Pronto, several private “dockless” bikeshare operators announced their interest in the city. The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) responded by opening a six-month pilot program that established a regulatory framework for private bikeshare operators. The program features several stipulations, such as granting SDOT the right to “geo-fence” where the shared bikes may be parked, mandating that companies keep records of maintenance activities, and requiring them to share real-time location data for every bicycle parked in the Seattle operational area.

Currently, there are three dockless bikeshare companies operating in the city: Spin, LimeBike, and Ofo. Garland, Texas-based VBikes has also filed for a permit to operate in the city but has not yet set a launch date. The new program as already grown to 3,000 bikes—compared with Pronto’s 500—and could soon double in size to 6,000.

Pickup by Capital Metro (Austin, TX), 2017
Austin, TX

Austin’s transit agency, Capital Metro, partnered with ride-hailing company Via to launch Pickup, a door-to-door, on-demand public transportation service. Riders in Northeast Austin can use the Pickup app to hail a pooled ride from one of two nine-passenger vans. The service will operate from 9am to 6pm on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, with an estimated wait time of 15 minutes per ride.

Operated by Capital Metro with back-end support provided by Via, the program marks the first time that Via’s on-demand transit technology will be deployed in a public transit context in the U.S. Pickup, which replaces CapMetro’s Metro Flex Upper Eastside pilot route, is free  of charge for a limited time.

RTD GO! Partnership between Uber and Regional Transit District, San Joaquin County, California, 2017
San Joaquin, CA

The San Joaquin Regional Transit District (RTD) launched “RTD GO!” in partnership with Uber on July 3, 2017. The pilot program will allow passengers taking a trip from outside the normal RTD service area to hail an Uber ride at a discount of 50 percent (up to $5) to reach one of eight local transit centers. The service will be available Monday through Friday, 6 a.m.-10 p.m. This one-year pilot aims to provide first/last mile connections to make it easier for residents who live in remote parts of San Joaquin County to access public transit.

Scoop and Contra Costa Transportation Authority Partnership
Contra Costa, California

Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) and Scoop Technologies debuted a pilot program in May to encourage carpooling in the San Francisco Bay. Through this partnership, CCTA will leverage 511 Contra Costa (the local transportation demand management program) to offer $2 off Scoop carpool rides (normally $5) for local commuters. To schedule carpools, passengers can download the Scoop app and enter their commute details either the night before (for morning commutes) or a few hours in advance (for afternoon commutes). The Scoop app will then match them with another commuter driving along a similar route. The aim of the program, which is supported by funds from Measure J, a half-cent sales tax for transportation, is to reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and alleviate traffic congestion.

Portland (OR) Adaptive Bikeshare Pilot, 2017
Portland, OR

The Portland Bureau of Transportation (PBOT) launched a pilot project to integrate adaptive bicycling options to complement the city’s 1,000-bike Biketown bikeshare system. The new program, “Adaptive Biketown,” allows residents with disabilities to access a variety of bikes—including hand-cycles, trikes and tandems—at Kerr Bikes, located in downtown Portland. First-time users make an appointment for an initial orientation and adaptive bike fitting, after which their “rider profiles” are saved for future use. The program includesshort-term (1 to 3 hours) adaptive bike rental, bike helmet rental, and storage of a user’s mobility device or service animal during rental time.

Go Denver App
City: Denver, CO
Date: February 2016

The City of Denver partnered with Xerox to launch the Go Denver app, which allows users to search for the best route to their destination using multi-modal transportation options. The app also allows users to choose between the quickest, cheapest, or least carbon-intensive route to their destination. Besides traditional public transportation, the app lets the user choose from among walking, biking, and driving as well as shared mobility services such as Lyft and Zipcar.

Divvy Bikeshare-Transit Fare Integration
City: Chicago, IL
Date: October 2016

The Chicago Transit Authority received a $400,000 grant from the Federal Transit Administration, through the Mobility On Demand Sandbox program, to modify the existing Ventra app to allow users to more easily access Chicago’s Divvy bikeshare system. The new features will allow Ventra users to locate Divvy bike share stations, view bike and dock availability, and seamlessly pay for Divvy passes through the app using Ventra transit value.

TriMet Open Trip Planner
City: Portland, OR
Date: 2017

TriMet has plans to partner with several organizations, including Conveyal and IBI Group, on its Open Trip Planner Shared-Use Mobility pilot program. The pilot aims to create a platform that integrates transit and shared mobility options to enable seamless, multimodal trip planning.

ORCA (One Regional Card for All) Fare System
City: Seattle, WA
Date: 2009

The Seattle area successfully integrated payment systems from across the region into the ORCA Card. A report on the Central Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination Project explores the feasibility of the integrating the fare systems of King County Metro Transit (the largest agency), Community Transit, Everett Transit, Kitsap Transit, Pierce Transit, Sound Transit and the Washington State Ferries. A single fare card (implemented as ORCA-“One Regional Card for All”) allows users access to any of the partner organization’s facilities. The report outlines the necessary backend measures necessary for successful implementation, including partnerships with contractors.

Metro Transit Mobile Application
City: Twin Cities, MN
Date: 2014

Metro Transit used a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant to fund the development of a mobile app with the aim of improving access to transportation information, providing an integrated view of transportation options, increasing the number of residents and visitors using public transit, and as a tool to collect travel patterns to improve planning. The proposal was funded in 2014 for $300,000, covering 80% of the mobile app development costs.

MetroLINK’s TransLoc Rider App
City: Quad Cities, IA-IL
Date: 2017

Quad Cities MetroLINK and TransLoc have partnered to develop a new transit app for the Illinois Quad Cities community. As of March 7, Metro bus riders can use the TransLoc Rider app to look up bus schedules, access route information, and receive trip notifications and other service alerts. With this app, riders will be able to get real-time bus information to better know when and where the bus they need will arrive.

More information on these and other case studies is available in SUMC’s Shared Mobility Policy Database, now home to more than 800 relevant policies, plans, RFPs and more. You can also view the speakers’ PowerPoint presentations and access the recorded webinar here.