Search

Scholarly Works (18 results)

Sort By:

Show:

Article

Local Policies for Better Micromobility

White Papers (2021)

This report highlights key themes from a series of ten interviews with U.S. cities with micromobility programs in their jurisdictions (Atlanta, GA; Austin, TX; Chicago, IL; District of Columbia; Denver, CO; Los Angeles, CA; Oakland, CA; Portland, OR; San Diego, CA; Seattle, WA). The research aims to shed light on both the regulatory process and identify best practices for dockless bike and scooter sharing policy. The following themes emerged among the cities interviewed: a) Data-sharing requirements for scooters and dockless bikes are critical for evaluation and monitoring for compliance with policies like equitable distributional requirements; b) Clear parking regulations for dockless bikes and scooters must balance flexibility and preserve community space ; c) Fines are effective tools to reduce bad behavior from users of micromobility devices, e.g., incorrect parking, or reckless riding behavior; and d) Clear classifications of micromobility devices will allow cities to target guidance and update regulations over time to improve clarity and outcomes. Finally, the paper concludes that more research is needed to refine these findings in this new and rapidly growing micromobility marketplace.

Cover page: Local Policies for Better Micromobility

Article

What Will a Transition to Digital Transit Payments Mean for Un- and Underbanked Transit Passengers?

Policy Briefs (2022)

The more than 350 transit agencies in California currently offer a patchwork of payment options, including cash, contactless payments, and a multitude of agency-issued cards. This inconsistency across transit operators acts as a barrier to the use of public transit. The California Integrated Travel Project (Cal-ITP) was established in 2018 to create an integrated, statewide payment system to make travel simpler and more cost-effective. Cal-ITP is pursuing open-loop payment systems, which offer a suite of digital payment options such as credit and debit cards, prepaid debit cards, app-based wallet systems, and peer- to-peer payment apps.

However, questions remain about whether open-loop payment systems would accommodate all travelers, particularly those who are unbanked (i.e., do not have a bank account) or underbanked (i.e., have only a savings or checking account, but not both) and typically rely on cash. Researchers at the University of California, Davis partnered with Cal-ITP to study how transit fare payments could be modernized while remaining accessible to unbanked and underbanked riders. This policy brief summarizes the findings from that research and provides policy implications.

View the NCST Project Webpage

Cover page: What Will a Transition to Digital Transit Payments Mean for Un- and Underbanked Transit Passengers?

Article

Mobility Data Sharing: Challenges and Policy Recommendations

Policy Briefs (2019)

Dynamic and responsive transportation systems are a core pillar of equitable and sustainable communities. Achieving such systems requires comprehensive mobility data, or data that reports the movement of individuals and vehicles. Such data enable planners and policymakers to make informed decisions and enable researchers to model the effects of various transportation solutions. However, collecting mobility data also raises concerns about privacy and proprietary interests. We argue that a middle-ground approach, in which data are shared in specific contexts and managed by a trusted third party, can capture the benefits of data sharing while minimizing risks. This brief provides an overview of the top needs and challenges surrounding mobility data sharing and presents relevant policy strategies.

Cover page: Mobility Data Sharing: Challenges and Policy Recommendations

Article

Sharing Mobility Data for Planning and Policy Research

Policy Briefs (2020)

A California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) rulemaking and possible legislative action in 2020 could affect data sharing requirements, with implications for shared mobility providers. The purpose of this brief is to inform this regulatory and legislative decision-making. We solicited policy and planning questions and data needs for shared mobility from within the University of California Institute of Transportation Studies research network. We defined shared mobility as including shared mobility devices, such as e-bikes and e-scooters, and transportation network companies (TNCs). We evaluated whether data shared in accordance with each of six mobility data specifications could be used to support analyses that would answer these questions. We then defined three approaches to data sharing and analysis to address these and other questions, presenting the advantages and disadvantages of each. This brief does not address the full breadth of the questions raised in the CPUC rulemaking nor does it introduce the complexities of this topic. Beyond the scope of this brief are issues of user privacy, the legal authority for sharing data, and contractual or requirements for each possible model of data sharing and analysis.

Cover page: Sharing Mobility Data for Planning and Policy Research

Article

Mobility Data Sharing: Challenges and Policy Recommendations

White Papers (2019)

Dynamic and responsive transportation systems are a core pillar of equitable and sustainable communities. Achieving such systems requires comprehensive mobility data, or data that reports the movement of individuals and vehicles. Such data enable planners and policymakers to make informed decisions and enable researchers to model the effects of various transportation solutions. However, collecting mobility data also raises concerns about privacy and proprietary interests. This issue paper provides an overview of the top needs and challenges surrounding mobility data sharing and presents four relevant policy strategies: (1) Foster voluntary agreement among mobility providers for a set of standardized data specifications; (2) Develop clear data-sharing requirements designed for transportation network companies and other mobility providers; (3) Establish publicly held big-data repositories, managed by third parties, to securely hold mobility data and provide structured access by states, cities, and researchers; (4) Leverage innovative land-use and transportation-planning tools.

Article

Un- and Underbanked Transit Passengers and the California Integrated Travel Project

Research Reports (2022)

Transit agencies are looking for ways to save costs and improve transit rider experiences. One strategy to accomplish this is to replace legacy payment systems that accept cash and in-network agency-issued tickets or cards with fully digital open-loop payments systems, which accept all debit, credit, and mobile payments and are more readily interoperable between different transit agencies and shared mobility operators. This transition will not come without confronting a number of equity and logistical challenges to ensure all riders benefit from this transition. The state of California’s California Integrated Travel Project (Cal-ITP) aims to help transit agencies make this digital payment transition. Researchers at UC Davis partnered with Cal-ITP to explore this question: how can California transit agencies modernize fare payment while ensuring transit systems are open and accessible to un-and underbanked riders? Researchers collected 200+ intercept surveys in the Davis-Sacramento-Woodland area of California to assess the potential for un-and underbanked passengers to use digital payment tools, such as contactless cards, and smartphone-based apps. This research finds that among unbanked riders who typically pay with cash, more than half of respondents would be open to paying with a prepaid debit card or a prepaid government-issued debit card, and about a third are open to paying with a mobile phone.

View the NCST Project Webpage

Cover page: Un- and Underbanked Transit Passengers and the California Integrated Travel Project

Article

Equitable Congestion Pricing

ITS reports (2020)

Congestion pricing can be an equitable policy strategy. This project consisted of a review of case studies of existing and planned congestion pricing strategies in North America (Vancouver, Seattle, and New York) and elsewhere (Singapore, London, Stockholm, and Gothenberg). The analysis shows that the most equitable congestion pricing systems include 1) a meaningful community-engagement processes to help policymakers identify equitable priorities; 2) pricing structures that strike a balance between efficiency and equity, while encouraging multi-modal travel; 3) clear plans for investing CP revenues to equalize the costs and benefits of congestion relief; and lastly, 4) a comprehensive data reporting plan to ensure equity goals are achieved. This project was developed to support the San Francisco County Transportation Authority in its efforts to conduct the Downtown Congestion Project.

Cover page: Equitable Congestion Pricing

Article

How Seven Cities Are Exploring Congestion Pricing Strategies

Policy Briefs (2024)

Congestion pricing is a vehicle tolling system that imposes fees to drive within a congested area, typically a downtown district. Cities that already have congestion pricing policies in place have been studied extensively. Notable examples are Singapore, London, Stockholm, Milan, and Gothenburg. These cities have appreciated a range of benefits from congestion pricing, including reductions in peak traffic, vehicle miles traveled, and emissions, as well as increased revenues for transportation investments.

Cover page: How Seven Cities Are Exploring Congestion Pricing Strategies

Article

Lessons from Cities Considering Congestion Pricing

ITS reports (2022)

Congestion pricing (CP) is widely considered to have significant potential for effectively reducing vehicle miles traveled, reducing emissions, and providing a reliable revenue source for transportation investments. This study evaluated cities interested in CP—five in the U.S. (Boston, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco, Seattle) and two in other countries (Vancouver, Canada, and Auckland, New Zealand). This study examines the following features of a CP system for each of these cities: 1) duration of CP investigations, 2) equity mitigations, 3) range of alternatives considered, 4) public engagement, and 5) importance of emissions reductions. Timelines are impossible to predict with certainty, but New York and Auckland appear closest to implementation. Vancouver, San Francisco, and Seattle are well into the process; and Boston and Los Angeles are early in the process. Other key findings include that most of the cities start considering a range of options before narrowing down to comparing more detailed CP systems. Vancouver and San Francisco have made public engagement a cornerstone of their plan development, using polls and workshops to finetune the details of their CP proposals. In contrast, Auckland, while still engaging with stakeholders and experts for guidance, has mainly focused on how to ensure public support and understanding of the proposals they recommend. In terms of equity, discounts are a common and primary strategy proposed among the cities, but some also develop a more comprehensive set of equity policies to accompany a CP system.

Cover page: Lessons from Cities Considering Congestion Pricing

Article

Local Policies for Better Micromobility

Policy Briefs (2021)

The rapid growth of micromobility, which includes shared e-scooters and bicycles, seems poised to continue. There is a distinct need to understand which policies are most effective in maximizing the benefits and minimizing the issues for micromobility services. There is also a need to understand how different micromobility policies affect broader transportation systems, and to identify best practices for policy consistency across jurisdictional boundaries.