Connecting the Sectors: Weaving a New Transit Network (fwd)

[jbs]

Subject: Connecting the Sectors: Weaving a New Transit Network

Uber and Lyft are working with some MASS TRANSIT agencies to provide to/from service to MT stations in several cities. Probably many more to come. Can PRT compete
with that arrangement? Providing feeder/distributor service to MT stations is one of the most logical applications for PRT. Could PRT provide competitive service for
less rider cost and energy use? Are there other factors that would make it competitive? This arrangement will also probably have a major impact on urban bus systems.
In many cities patronage on bus systems is much greater than on LRT systems.  If Uber and Lyft are involved, it is OK to call the result a "new transit" network - I
guess it depends somewhat on the definition of "transit". Of course, for those few regular transit riders that can afford to pay Uber and Lyft for their whole trip,
some decline in line-haul MT use should also be expected. How will MT agencies deal with the resulting loss in patronage and revenue?  Many are not doing so well now
(i.e. on a current cost/revenue basis as well as a huge deferred maintenance and unfunded benefits issues). Comments welcome.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: "InfrastructureUSA: Citizen Dialogue About Civil Infrastructure" <donot...@wordpress.com>
To: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 9:49:55 AM
Subject: [New post] Connecting the Sectors: Weaving a New Transit Network

Content Coordinator posted: "AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION Written by Chuck McCutcheon and published in Passenger Transport, the Source for Public
Transportation News and Analysis When Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) President/Executive Director Gary Thomas appeared o"

NEW POST ON INFRASTRUCTUREUSA: CITIZEN DIALOGUE ABOUT CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE

[blavatar.png]
[8eddc6fbf805dfb6c684298a9712b91f?s=50&d=identicon&r=G]

CONNECTING THE SECTORS: WEAVING A NEW TRANSIT NETWORK

by Content Coordinator

AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION

Written by Chuck McCutcheon and published in Passenger Transport, the Source for Public Transportation News and Analysis

When Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) President/Executive Director Gary Thomas appeared on a local transportation panel in 2014, he struck up a conversation with
another panelist—a regional representative of Uber.

“I said, ‘You know, we’re missing an opportunity here,’” recalled Thomas, a former APTA chair and currently vice chair of the Mobility Management Committee. “We
talked afterward and I said that we really ought to get together and talk about synergies and opportunities that would benefit both of us.”

That led DART to join with the private e-hail taxi service on an arrangement in which the company offered discounted rides on St. Patrick’s Day to help revelers get
to and from rail stations or other locations on what typically is the agency’s busiest day of the year. It marked one of the earliest partnerships between public
transit and a private transportation network company (TNC)— and has been followed by a growing assortment of other arrangements.

Thomas and an increasing number of others in public transportation agree it’s fruitless to echo the adversarial stance that taxi companies initially adopted after
Uber came on the scene in 2009. They say the explosive popularity of Uber and other on-demand private providers such as Lyft, Bridj and Zipcar with millennials and
other potential customers compels cooperation, not confrontation.

In addition to Dallas, Uber has formed partnerships or agreements with agencies in such cities as Atlanta, San Francisco and Portland, OR. DART and several other
cities also have worked with Lyft, which launched the “Friends with Transit” awareness campaign in November as part of what company spokeswoman Mary Caroline Pruitt
called an effort to showcase “the potential in unlocking Lyft as a first-and-lastmile transportation solution.”

At the same time, public transit agencies are also teaming with other private entities. For example, Minneapolis’ Metro Transit joined with the car-sharing
organization Hourcar in September to enable the use of its Go-To transit cards—rather than the company’s key fobs—to access the companies’ vehicles.

All of this is occurring as companies are rapidly unveiling advances in tripplanning software and other features that makes it easier for smartphone users to
seamlessly integrate their bus or rail rides into their planned car or bike trips. For example, the public transportation planning app Moovit announced a new feature
in January that enables users of iOS and Android phones to look for shared bikes in more than 200 cities.

Also that month, Los Angeles’ DOT rolled out the “Go L.A.” mobile app, which lists various route options for public transit along with ride-hailing services, taxis
and other transportation modes. It ranks them not only by which is cheapest or fastest, but which is “greenest” by measuring carbon-dioxide emissions for each
option.

Jon McDonald, chair of APTA’s Research and Technology Committee, agrees that public transit has an excellent opportunity to work with TNCs. If done properly, such
partnerships “can change our value proposition” within public transit without jeopardizing ridership, said McDonald, vice president for Americas Rail and Transit
Practice-Leader, CH2M in San Francisco.

Forces of Change

These partnerships and other innovations are being fueled by two unmistakable trends—evolving technologies and changing demographics, both of which are challenging
the industry to be nimble and flexible and are key strategic goals of APTA.

“Staying smarter is how the best organizations succeed and the most dynamic industries grow,” said APTA President & CEO Michael Melaniphy. “It starts with knowing
what’s around the corner and how the market is changing.”

What’s around the corner, he said, are new technologies. “This can only be good news for our industry if we look for synergies beyond the boundaries of public
transportation.”

APTA has been taking the lead in bringing together members, researchers and TNCs to better understand these changing dynamics and how the industry can maximize these
opportunities.

At its October 2015 meeting, the APTA Board of Directors developed a policy framework that can guide its members in navigating those shifting boundaries. The APTA
Policy Framework/Principles: Integrated Mobility/ Transformative Technologies identifies key questions and details principles to “help shape the evolving new
frontiers in mobility and public transportation and assure that the public is served with efficient, equitable, and convenient travel choices.” (See related story,
page 9.)

In addition, baby boomers and millennials are opting out of the driver’s seat and into passenger seats on buses and rail in growing numbers, making integrated
mobility increasingly important to the industry, said Marlene Connor, chair of APTA’s Mobility Management Committee.

“[T]he drivers of this are the two groups—the boomers, who are moving back to places and not driving a car, and a lot of young people who aren’t getting drivers’
licenses,” said Connor, principal at Marlene Connor Associates LLC in Springfield, MA. “It’s a great opportunity for public transit to say, ‘Hey, we have the answer
here.’”

Both Connor and McDonald are part of a multi-committee APTA working group exploring the issue. Connor said the group has reached out to the Transportation Research
Board, National League of Cities, Institute of Transportation Engineers, AARP and ITS America, among other entities, “to create a dialogue with APTA as a thought
leader in this area.”

As part of that effort, the working group—which includes broad representation from many of APTA’s committees— conducts monthly calls with experts in this area,
including Steven Polzin, University of South Florida’s Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR); Susan Shaheen, Institute of Transportation Studies’
Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC), University of California, Berkeley; Joshua Schank, Los Angeles County Metro; and Mobility Lab’s Howard
Jennings.

Mutual Curiosity

Private providers are anxious to keep the discussion going with public transit agencies, emphasizing that the partnerships are a start toward reducing overall car
ridership and encouraging more transit use—while providing them with a possible well of new customers.

“There’s been a lot of mutual curiosity,” said Peter Gould, Uber’s senior transportation policy associate. “We’re excited about having these conversations and having
these connections, and talking to each other about the other not in a negative sense, but about how we complement public transit and the impact of Uber.”

Joshua Cohen, director of strategy and partnerships at the Durham, N.C., transportation technology firm TransLoc Inc., agreed. “The pace of change we’re seeing now
is faster than I’ve ever seen it. Even talking six months later to the same transit agencies, their perspective has changed.”

In January, APTA member TransLoc and Uber (soon to be an APTA member) unveiled a pilot program that the companies said they hope prove influential in bridging the
first mile/last mile challenge. TransLoc will integrate Uber into the TransLoc Rider app, a smartphone application that provides real-time bus tracking and route
planning. The integration is scheduled to begin in mid-February with Raleigh-Durham’s GoTriangle and Tennessee’s Memphis Area Transit Authority.

“With ride sharing, its strength is the distributed network, where you have all these options to get you to that first mile, last mile,” said Cohen, whose company
has seen its technology yield promising results with several college shuttle-bus services.

“What’s its weakness? Cost. It’s not going to take you 20 miles. But it’s perfect for a one-, two- or three-mile trip that might take 15 minutes. That’s where we’re
excited about the potential of this—the connection of taking what is harder for public transit and supplementing it with what’s easier for ride-hailing companies and
vice versa,” he added.

Download full issue: Public Transport Volume 74, Number 3

About the American Public Transportation Association
www.apta.com
APTA is the leading force in advancing public transportation...To strengthen and improve public transportation, APTA serves and leads its diverse membership through
advocacy, innovation and information sharing. APTA and its members and staff work to ensure that public transportation is available and accessible for all Americans
in communities across the country.

Content Coordinator | February 17, 2016 at 12:49 pm | Tags: American Public Transportation Association, APTA, Lyft, Public Transport, Ridesharing, Uber | Categories:
Infra Views, Public Transportation, Transit, Urban Planning | URL: http://wp.me/p4gI01-7KK

Comment
   See all comments

Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from InfrastructureUSA: Citizen Dialogue About Civil Infrastructure.
Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://www.infrastructureusa.org/connecting-the-sectors-weaving-a-new-transit-network/


[b.gif?blog=63087729&post=29806&subd=www.infrastructureusa.org&ref=&email=1&email_o=jetpack&host=jetpack.wordpress.com]

[Jerry Roane]

Jerry

High speed guideway can join with Lyft and Uber to let the drivers make more money per hour thus improving the service in all ways.  Today if I go downtown Austin and turn on my Uber app I can pick up a rider in about 20 minutes of dead time on average.  My gas is still running out of my UberX car and the air conditioning is still on, using apparently 25% more gas (cough cough) but I am not getting paid for the dead time.  Once I connect with a ride I still don't get paid while I drive over to the customer in heavy insane traffic congestion.  What is great about big data is they do link your car position with the nearest ride request so the drive to the customer is usually less than 5 blocks in downtown or 3 miles outside of the hotel center.  These are typical days.  So once the customer is located (not an easy process just yet) the ride starts and the money rolls.  Uber gets their cut and the driver gets the rest.  That is unless you are picking up from the Austin airport and then Austin gets a dollar.  So far so good.  Now everything is great till you pull away from the curb or undouble park and head out.  On average Uber drivers are making $15 an hour.  They talk a good game about peak times but in Austin reality it is about one in 30 rides that cracks the peak rate and then only for two rides in a row then back to cheap.  The average speed in the congested parts of the city is about 17 mph or bus speed.  That is because buses are constantly in the way and they slow all traffic down to their pace.   

What guideway can do?  At 180 mph instead of 17 mph the $15 per hour is now $158.82 per hour for an UberX driver.  Not only is the driver making crazy money but the number of cars on the road and on guideway is less since fewer drivers are serving far more customers.  I proposed this to an Uber exec at the failed Austin City Council roast of Uber and Lyft but he was seriously distracted by Ann Kitchen and the mayor that I am sure he did not fully register what I was showing him on my cell phone animations.  Maven (GM trying to be Uber and horn in) may be able to push this further too.  The idea that an Uber driver can be making $158.82 per hour is quite appealing and in a free market what that translates to is instead of an Uber driver (also a free market) will charge less and still make more than before guideway was built AND the customers are far better served AND there are less cars on the roads and less on the combination of roads and guideway to boot.  If Uber drivers are making more then Uber will make more too since they are skimming off the top.  There is no downside for this guideway/Uber/Lyft/Maven.  All the downsides are for Russia and Iran trying to crash the oil prices to put fracking and Canadian tar sands out of business.  Once they have accomplished their mission of hurting American oil entrepreneurs then they will crank the price way up past the $100 mark again where tar sands make money.  Bottom line if guideway and Uber were to combine TODAY then by the time they crank up the oil prices to crushing levels we won't need their damn oil.  It does take action TODAY for this to work out well.  The alternative is to wait a year more and let Uber drivers drop off loosing their ass trying to drive for Uber while their gas prices and oil for the crank case prices explode.  At $15 per hour that is a fragile line they walk and any disruption on the negative like oil manipulation will put them under and crater Uber based on that thin line of available workers.  They can buy new employees with their promotions using investor dollars short term but long term the price of oil will blow their mansions away.  If they actively convert to pure electric even if they don't do TriTrack they have a chance of moving past cheap oil into the next era of very expensive oil.  

My ranting today will read well in the future when the games the big boys are playing are over and it is checkmate on America.     Uber will be part of that strategic defeat.  No one today seems to be able to play a strategic game.  Everything is hand to mouth and that will fail in a big way. 

Jerry Roane   

[WALTER BREWER]

Jerry/Jerry
I agree with this guideway/Call0Up comcept,9cotnedessarily these numbers), as best public transportation for the future, and the best way to incorporate superior principles of PRT/ATN. Continuing to prop up mass transit, when faster single vehicle doorstep to real destination is not in the public best interest.
Common vehicles, self driving or not, should be a common achievement for max environmental advantage.

Bellow is a suggestion sent to ATRA a few weeks back. Urgency is obvious in light of APTA objectives,

Walt Brewer

However I suggest there is an elephant in the room that requires a city-wide system study to accommodate inputs for both on-call personal service,(the elephant, Lyft, Uber, etc,.) and ATN.
The doorstep/random access by OCP, and general familiarity with automobile ravel produce a potential dominant mode serving urban areas. ATN guideways are likely more accessible than mass transit, has instant vehicle availability, but requires getting to/from statiions. Nass transit has poor access,(Even $40billion major overlay in San Diego's Plan, shows autos with 3 times better access) offers r slow start stop transfer service principally to non-drivers. Though new mass transit costs/pass-mile approach current CUP, high subsidy produces low fares.

Thus the model and operation for evaluation would be:
Growing communities.
Merged OCP and ATN. Guidways for travel growth perhaps converting some roads.
Work toward OCP vehicle guideway compatibility, and maximum efficiency.
Eliminate new mass transit, and phase out most of old**. Principal phasing consideration to non-drivers.
Phase subsidies to maintain OCP fares at other plans projected values.

Principal results would be:
Cost comparisons with current plans. And using forward-looking performance.
Speed and quality of service.
Phasing schedules
Introduction of driverless road vehicles.#
** Retain "legacy" cities mass transit; Manhattan, Chicago, erc.
# "Driverless vehicles " have drivers, they just are not human. Maybe too late, but suggest "Self Driving Vehicles, SDV, as more descriptive.
Probably OCP will find roads insufficient, especially for growing cities already congested. Thus importance of guideway and ATN. Considerable depends on effectiveness to reduce deadheading, amount of vehicle dharing.

Talent: Doesn't ATRA have several academia connections student projects. And I remember Stan's comments about Shannon McDonald for planning; in St Louis I believe?
A source if numerical data is the regional plans for specific metro areas. I would think Lyft and Uber wound be willing to pitch in.

Considering the $billions going into urban transportation, it is unfortunate USDOT does not have n objective facts-based center to look ahead to evaluate and create new combinations evolving. USDOT is organized by devices involved, not system functions. Thus same old hardware appears.













--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 2/17/16, Jerry Roane <jerry...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: [t-i] Connecting the Sectors: Weaving a New Transit Network (fwd)
To: "transport-innovators" <transport-...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Wednesday, February 17, 2016, 2:29 PM

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the
Google Groups "transport-innovators" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to transport-innova...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to transport-...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/transport-innovators.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Eric Johnson]

One has to wonder how many folks use the "kiss and go" option where the spouse drops them off??? That's cheaper and more convenient than Uber any day...

Eric

[jbs]

Subject: Re: Connecting the Sectors: Weaving a New Transit Networ

I agree that the cost of UBER and other services is an important factor to consider when thinking about the impact of to/from services to conventional rail and bus
stops on conventional MASS TRANSIT operations. I note that in Austin, UBER is now trying something they call UBERPOOL which might produce reduced fares and higher
revenues due  to increased vehicle occupancy. They are also experimenting with using driven motorcycles as vehicles in SE Asian cities. Maybe they will also
reintroduce jitneys as well.

I also think that building elevated PRT in dense locations is likely to be much more costly that some of the cost/mile estimates we typically see and I would expect
that larger vehicles (GRT) might well be required in such areas. I recall the Cincinnati experience - where street level businesses were fierce opponents of the
proposed elevated guideway - same in India.

Jerry

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Catherine G. Burke" <cbu...@usc.edu>
To: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>
Cc: "Peter Muller" <PMu...@PRTConsulting.com>, "Ingmar Andreasson" <ing...@logistikcentrum.se>, j...@uw.edu
Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2016 11:54:43 AM
Subject: Re: Connecting the Sectors: Weaving a New Transit Network

I agree with Peter, but would add that Uber/Lyft are too expensive, especially for people who ride buses.  It’s not willingness to pay; it’s ability to pay.  In Los
Angeles, our MTA says the average annual salary for its riders is just over $15,000 per year.  Driverless vehicles will also be more expensive, whether for
individual purchase or if managed as a fleet.  I’m not sure how much competition can drive down costs.  Uber drivers (per LA Time article) are already concerned
about their costs for gas, maintenance, insurance, etc.  One driver said, in the end, he worked long hours and made very little money and had no benefits — health
insurance, retirement, etc.
While there is tremendous hype about driverless vehicles, there is the issue of congestion, and there are also issues of GHG unless the vehicles are all electric.
 There is also the issue of insurance and who is responsible for an accident with a human driven vehicle.  Even now, some manufacturers are advertising that their
automatic systems can stop a car more quickly than a human can.  What happens to the human driven car behind the one that stops that quickly?  These are mere
details, but there are a number of them that may make the use of such vehicles a bit further into the future than the hype would suggest.

PRT is a far simpler system with the need to deal with traffic, congestion, stop signs, distinguishing between a puppy and a paper bag, etc.  It can also immediately
help with the last mile problem of existing transit.  As a public system, it can provide service to the poor as well as the rich.  I’ve even been at a meeting where
someone (don’t remember who) suggested that a lane of the freeway be reserved for driverless vehicles (not sure which lane it would be or how vehicles would get into
and out of that lane).

As you say, Jerry, there are a lot of moving parts, but I still think PRT has a place in the mix.

Catie

 
On Feb 17, 2016, at 1:52 PM, j...@peak.org wrote:

To all,

In the near term (next 5-10 years) it seems to me that major effect will be on urban bus system patronage - unless the cost of Uber/Lyft is more than many bus
riders are willing to pay. I have ridden some buses lately and my impression is that many to most)  of the riders I saw don't appear to be very well off. Of
course, Uber/Lyft could also supply to/from service at the busier bus stations as well as at MT stations. Perhaps U/L will get their to/from patronage from the
better off patrons (depending on their cost). If so, the bus patronage would decline slightly putting more revenue pressure on the transit agencies which might
be offset a bit by higher levels of patronage on the MT routes that are much more attractive to those able to afford the new to/from 1-transfer service. There
will be more companies competing with Urban/Lyft in the future (there are already). As competition rises, their costs may decline. Beyond 10 years, driverless
cars may be operating in quantity and we will know more about their effects on to/from travel and overall congestion levels. Lots of moving parts for sure. If
congestion levels grow and PRT is viewed as desirable solution in dense, congested locations, building it in such areas could to be quite costly and
difficult. 

Jerry

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
From: "Peter Muller" <PMu...@PRTConsulting.com>
To: "Jerry Schneider" <j...@peak.org>, j...@uw.edu
Cc: "Ingmar Andreasson" <ing...@logistikcentrum.se>, "Catherine G. Burke" <cbu...@usc.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:31:03 AM
Subject: RE: Connecting the Sectors: Weaving a New Transit Network

Jerry, my view is that Uber and Lyft will provide great service (even better when they are driverless) in this type of scenario when there is no congestion.
When there is congestion, PRT will be the better solution.

 

I believe driverless cars are going to greatly increase VMT. Ridesharing may offset this effect slightly but not nearly enough. Congestion is going to get
worse at an increasing rate. This is the fundamental reason why we need PRT and why we need PRT that is relatively high capacity and high speed.

 

Best regards,

 

Peter Muller P.E.       
President 

 

<image002.jpg>  

 

 

 


1340 Deerpath Trail, Suite 200 | Franktown, CO 80116   
303.532.1855 (p) | 303.309.1913 (f) |720.318.4795 (m)
pmu...@prtconsulting.com | www.prtconsulting.com

 

From: j...@peak.org [mailto:j...@peak.org] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2016 11:25 AM
To: j...@uw.edu
Cc: Peter Muller <PMu...@PRTConsulting.com>; Ingmar Andreasson <ing...@logistikcentrum.se>; Catherine G. Burke <cbu...@usc.edu>
Subject: Connecting the Sectors: Weaving a New Transit Network

 

Uber and Lyft are working with some MASS TRANSIT agencies to provide to/from service to MT stations in several cities. Probably many more to come. Can PRT
compete with that arrangement? Providing feeder/distributor service to MT stations is one of the most logical applications for PRT. Could PRT provide
competitive service for less rider cost and energy use? Are there other factors that would make it competitive? This arrangement will also probably have a
major impact on urban bus systems. In many cities patronage on bus systems is much greater than on LRT systems.  If Uber and Lyft are involved, it is OK to
call the result a "new transit" network - I guess it depends somewhat on the definition of "transit". Of course, for those few regular transit riders that can
afford to pay Uber and Lyft for their whole trip, some decline in line-haul MT use should also be expected. How will MT agencies deal with the resulting loss
in patronage and revenue?  Many are not doing so well now (i.e. on a current cost/revenue basis as well as a huge deferred maintenance and unfunded benefits
issues). Comments welcome.