The Roots of “Mobility Management” AASHTO SCOPT Winter Meeting December 3, 2009 Phoenix, AZ Bob Stanley Former Principal, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Principal Investigator, TCRP “New Paradigms”
Dec 25, 2015
The Roots of “Mobility Management”
AASHTO SCOPT Winter MeetingDecember 3, 2009
Phoenix, AZ
Bob Stanley Former Principal, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Principal Investigator, TCRP “New Paradigms”
Two Converging Imperatives
1. The decades long struggle to advance “service coordination,” driven by ‘internal’ concerns over costs and efficiency.
2. Lessons drawn more recently from fundamental changes across business and industry i.e. the emergence of a new mobility management “paradigm.”
Some Perspectives on Change
“It is futile…to try to ignore the changes and to pretend that tomorrow will be like yesterday, only more so.”
“The first policy…and the foundation of all others…is to abandon yesterday.”
Peter Drucker, 1999
“…[ managing mobility ] must be predicated on constant change, not stability; organized around networks, not rigid hierarchies; built on shifting partnerships and alliances, not self-sufficiency; and constructed on technological advantages, not bricks and mortar.”
Business Week, August 2000
Lessons from the Outside
• Experiences in major industriesTelecom Energy Steel
Freight Package delivery Airlines
• Experiences in public servicePostal service Charter schools Local government
• Lessons from European transit operations London Paris Hong KongHamburg Gothenburg Netherlands
• Early U.S. transportation and transit experiencesE-Z Pass Transcom SF MTCA dozen U.S. transit agencies and organizations
Fundamental Change and the Concept of “Mobility Management”
…A goal that serves broad public purposes.
…A responsibility to be shared both within AND outside the “provider” community.
…A function to be embraced and carried out as a new, strategic organizational mission, task.
…An approach that requires fundamental changes in how transportation assets and resources are managed.
The Emergent Mobility Management Paradigm
• In each case, the customer deals with the integrated service provider concerned with the door-to-door trip
• In each case, information technology is used to design, track, and evaluate the services provided
• In each case, the modal capacity need not be provided on the dedicated assets of any single company
Application ofinformation technology
Systems of routing, dispatching and
tracking are integrated
The customer-facing integrated services company serves the
door-to-door need of the customer
Modal capacity is provided by many suppliers
Understandsthe “full trip”of thecustomer
A Definition and Direction
A concept built around strategies that…
…enhance and expand local and regional transportation services and options…
…through fuller integration of services, functions and resources…
…across organizations that plan, operate, fund and influence transportation choices.
“Mobility management” is a shift away from managing the transit assets owned by individual providers to a larger, more strategic responsibility for assuring the
quality of the customers travel experience, regardless of whose assets are being used.
Moving Toward Mobility Management: Six Dimensions of Change
• Mission shift ‘Capacity provider’ to ‘mobility manager’
• Customer focus Measure quality of the customer’s travel experience
• CollaborationAcross modes, agencies, programs, jurisdictions
• Integration Of facilities, equipment, systems, services, functions, processes, resources
• “Info-structure” Universal fares, real-time info, joint scheduling and dispatching, unified accounts, etc.
• Organ. Structure Distinguishing strategic from operational responsibilities, new / reorganized functions, units, skills
Charting Change Across the Industry
Conceptualizing? Planning? Deploying? Operating?
Mission Shift
Customer Meas.
Collaboration
Integration
Info-structure
Organization Change
Early Evidence: 2003-4
Transit Agencies at the Frontier
• Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA)
• San Diego ‘Consolidated Agency,’ San Diego, CA
• Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, UT
• ValleyRide, Boise, ID
• Chatham Area Transit, Savannah, GA
• Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority
• Georgia Regional Transportation Authority
• Transit Authority of River City (TARC)
• Ann Arbor Transportation Authority (AATA)
• Twin Cities Metro Transit
• Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)
Pu
blic P
olicy
Infrastru
cture/O
peratio
ns
Lan
d U
se
Overarching Societal Goals
Implementation of Coordinated Programs
En
viron
men
tal
Application ofinformation technology
Mobility Manager Understandsthe “full trip”of thecustomer
L
and
Use
En
viron
men
tal
Mo
bility M
anag
er
Overarching Societal Goals
Implementation of Coordinated Programs
Infrastru
cture/O
peratio
ns
Pu
blic P
olicy
•Transit- oriented development
•Zoning strategies
•Locational strategies
Land Use Planning
Pu
blic P
olicy
Mo
bility M
anag
er
Overarching Societal Goals
Implementation of Coordinated Programs
En
viron
men
tal
Lan
d U
se
Infrastru
cture/O
peratio
ns
Infrastructure/Operations
•Roadway Operations
•Shared facilities
•Sidewalks
•Parking
En
viron
men
tal
Overarching Societal Goals
Implementation of Coordinated Programs
Pu
blic P
olicy
Lan
d U
se
Mo
bility M
anag
er
Infrastru
cture/O
peratio
ns
Environmental Strategies
•Clean Air
•Energy conservation
•Resource
management
Pu
blic P
olicy
Infrastru
cture/O
peratio
ns
Lan
d U
se
Mo
bility M
anag
er
En
viron
men
tal
Public Policy
•Equity
•Access
•Pricing
•Tax code
Overarching Societal Goals
Implementation of Coordinated Programs
Pu
blic P
olicy
Infrastru
cture/O
peratio
ns
Lan
d U
se
Overarching Societal Goals
Implementation of Coordinated Programs
En
viron
men
tal
Application ofinformation technology
Mobility Manager Understandsthe “full trip”of thecustomer
A “Charge” to Partners
“Servicing the public and planning performance excellence on a region-wide system requires more than equipment installation and one-time projects. A framework is needed to link ongoing actions of the many transportation operators, service providers [and partners] in a metro region.”
ITE Journal, May 2004
WHO WILL BE RESPONSIBLE TO “MANAGE MOBILITY?”
WHAT IS THE ROLE FOR STATE POLICY-MAKERS AND
PROGRAM MANAGERS?