A certain part will indeed substitute the traffic comprising private cars and public transit, but the major part will primarily complement it4
. The progress of digitalization in
recent years has provided mani- fold possibilities for enriching the potential of shared mobility; that will continue dynamically in the future. The public transit could and should play a leading role in this context for various reasons: environment, resources and security to name but three. Several public transit opera- tors and associations in Germany have striven for years to expanding their activities in the field of compre- hensive mobility management but they are still mostly some distance away yet from exploiting the full potential - not least because they are losing efficiency through competing with entities in other regions or even within the same supply area. In Germany, the Hamburg tran-
sit authority (Hamburger Hochbahn AG, HHA) and the Hamburg transit association (the aformentioned HVV) are claiming to be a leading player in this regard – in particular since they started a project called ‘switchh’, partnering with car-sharing and car-hiring suppliers6
. Taking into
account the profile of the project, it is questionable at best (and far away from the typical hanseatic under- statement) to claim that it’s a glob- ally unique mobility offering. Below, some of the main passages
of chapters two and three of the report are cited directly or general- ized and/or commented upon. Finally the headlines of the concluding Recommendations for the Transit Community (chapter four) are cited.
INTRODUCTION OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Technology is transforming trans- portation. The ability to conveniently request, track, and pay for trips via mobile devices is changing the way people get around and interact with
74
thinkingcities.com
cities. This report examines the rela- tionship of public transportation to shared modes, including bike-shar- ing, car-sharing, and ride-sourcing services provided by companies such as Uber and Lyft. The research included participation by seven cit- ies: Austin, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle and Washington, DC. Some have predicted that by cre-
ating a robust network of mobility options, these new modes will help reduce car ownership and increase use of public transit, which will con- tinue to function as the backbone of an integrated, multimodal transpor- tation system. The objective of this research analysis, which is distilled from a larger forthcoming study on the same topic, is to examine these issues and explore opportunities and challenges for public transportation as they relate to technology-enabled mobility services, including suggest- ing ways that public transit can learn from, build upon, and interface with these new modes. To accomplish this task, the study
draws from several sources, includ- ing in-depth interviews with trans- portation officials, a survey of shared mobility users, and analysis of tran- sit and ride-sourcing capacity and
demand. Together, these elements provide a snapshot of a rapidly wid- ening mobility ecosystem at an early moment in its evolution.
KEY FINDINGS 1. The more people use shared modes, the more likely they are to use public transit, own fewer cars, and spend less on transportation overall. Super-sharers, people who routinely use several shared modes, such as bike-sharing, car-sharing (eg, car2go or Zipcar), and ride- sourcing, save the most money and own half as many household cars as people who use public transit alone (figure 3). A survey of more than 4,500 shared mobility users in the seven study cit- ies showed that rail and bus tran- sit were the most commonly used shared modes (about 65 per cent), followed by bike-sharing (12 per cent), car-sharing (11 per cent) and ride-sourcing (10 per cent). Nearly 10 per cent of all respondents can be classified as Super-sharer; Super- sharer normally use various forms of shared modes for all travel pur- poses (business, shopping, recrea- tion, social, errands); however, even 57 per cent of the super-sharer said public bus or train was the single
Figure 3: Household vehicle ownership, by shared mode experience (based on [1] )
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92