Connected Institutions:
Connected Institutions:
Using Platform Powers to Advance Transport
Abstract
This article analyzes selected policy strategies for transforming transport. It identifies four primary objectives for transport system policy: enhance economic efficiency, increase equity, reduce negative externalities, and improve the user experience (4Es). It then develops the framework of persuasion, police, purse, and platform powers (4Ps) which are available to governments to implement change and pursue objectives. In a series of cases, it illustrates those powers, particularly the underappreciated platform powers, the formation and promulgation of standards, which are themselves the key technology for connecting institutions, showing how the establishment of technical standards transforms existing transport and lays the groundwork for new opportunities.
Public policy in transport frequently targets four primary objectives – economic efficiency, social equity, reduction of externalities, and enhancement of user experience. Collectively referred to as the ‘four Es,’ these goals establish a robust framework for evaluating public initiatives (Levinson and Krizek, 2007).
Economic efficiency can be interpreted in various ways. At its core, cities and transport networks are designed to optimize access – the ability for individuals to reach people, goods, and services that are important to them (Committee of the Transport Access Manual, 2020, Levinson and Wu, 2020). Urban centers are hubs where goods, services, and ideas are concentrated, making them exchange hubs that are efficiently supported by transport networks. Transport essentially enhances connectivity, bridging distances more rapidly than would otherwise be possible.
Social equity is multifaceted, often defined in various ways without universal agreement. Terms like equity, justice, and fairness lack standardized definitions but are pivotal in evaluating policy impacts. The concept of equity has both descriptive and normative dimensions. Descriptively, it relates to the systems of opportunities and the distribution of benefits; normatively, it questions whether the distribution improves or worsens outcome disparities. Questions arise about the fairness of the processes that produce outcomes, such as whether a method like a lottery, while fair in opportunity, results in significant inequities. There’s an inherent risk that efforts to enhance equity might compromise efficiency, as exemplified by the trade-off seen when spreading low-frequency bus services over extensive areas. This could result in services that are underutilized, justified on spatial equity but influenced by political motivations to ensure geographic coverage, potentially at the cost of service quality in denser areas (Taylor, 1991). Equity considerations may extend to the distribution of access across different spatial, socioeconomic, or demographic groups (El-Geneidy et al., 2016, Foth et al., 2013). Simplified measurements like a Gini-type index might represent equity as the proportion of resources allocated to a group relative to its share of the overall population (Cao et al., 2019). It might also compare the costs faced by different groups for equivalent services or access levels. Accessibility metrics, often used to measure equity, frequently analyze whether specific sub-groups (e.g., lower-income quartiles) have equitable access to jobs or other essential services compared to the broader population (Palmateer, 2018, Yeganeh et al., 2018). Studies indicate that in the US, while lower-income groups might have better public transport access, their lack of private vehicles limits their overall job accessibility, with variable results in other countries depending on residential patterns and transport infrastructure.
Negative externalities refer to unintended outcomes of economic activities, such as those arising from transport actions. These include congestion, noise, increased crash risks, environmental pollution, and carbon emissions. These are not goals of transport users or providers but are inevitable consequences of transport activities. From a societal viewpoint, access encompasses not only individual costs and times but also the broader social costs necessary to facilitate that access, including infrastructure expenses and the aforementioned negative externalities (Cui and Levinson, 2018, 2019).
User experience encompasses the subjective perceptions and interactions individuals have with the transport system. Attributes like ride comfort or user safety, often overlooked in traditional efficiency or equity analyses which tend to focus on time and cost metrics, help explain the difference between the analyst’s evaluation and actual user choices. User experience bridges the gap between subjective perceptions and objective measurements of time and costs (Carrion and Levinson, 2019, Di et al., 2017, Zhu and Levinson, 2015).
These four Es – efficiency, equity, externalities, and experience – offer a structured approach to assessing the anticipated outcomes of transport policies and projects within an access framework.
Public Powers
Traditional strategies for achieving public policy objectives typically employ three types of powers:
Persuasion powers: Exhortation and example setting, which, aside from times of crisis, tend to have limited impact.
Police powers: Regulation and enforcement, crucial in shaping urban form and affecting vehicle technology (Ben-Joseph, 2005b, 2009, Ben-Joseph and Szold, 2005). However, the influence of police powers has been curtailed in recent years as emergent technologies like Google’s automated vehicle tests in California (Markoff, 2010), Uber’s ride-hailing services (Crespo, 2016), and Tesla’s Autopilot system (Nelson, 2015) have been introduced often in defiance of existing regulations.
Purse powers: Subsidy, finance, investment, contracting, and taxation, which are typically backed by police powers and have received considerable attention as critical levers in policy implementation.
These are not the only powers though.
Standards permeate our lives and facilitate consistent communication and operation within society (Bowker and Star, 2000, Lampland and Star, 2009). For instance, the English language serves as a global standard for communication, and the QWERTY keyboard layout used in English-speaking countries has remained largely unchanged for over a century. The use of standardized mathematical notations, SI units (Alder, 2003), and universally recognized time zones (Blaise, 2011) further exemplify the widespread adoption of standards. These standards extend to the devices we use, which operate on standardized systems allowing interaction between software and hardware, and even the power outlets they plug into, albeit with variations across countries. The ubiquity of standards is also evident in the standardized shipping containers (Levinson, 2016) and adherence to traffic rules, which dictate driving on either the right or left side of the road, depending on the country.
Thus, an fourth type of governmental power should be recognized:
Platform powers: Establishing technological standards that govern the interfaces and information exchanges across systems.
While many technological standards evolve without direct governmental formulation, (the technology sector frequently views government as an impediment, analogous to a malfunctioning link in the Internet that needs to be bypassed to advance transport technologies) others are fostered through official bodies or become established through governmental intervention. Governments, especially, but not only, large national and supra-national governments, as significant economic actors (producers and consumers), possess platform powers, which are as influential as the traditional powers of persuasion, police, and purse. These platform powers involve the adoption and development of technological standards that can influence society at a level comparable to other governmental tools.
While distinctions among different types of powers can be ambiguous, the variance often lies in their applications and implications. For example, land use and zoning regulations (Ben-Joseph, 2005a) set performance standards – such as mandatory setbacks from the street or specific street widths – which might echo broader standards but differ significantly from technological standards concerning data exchange or system interfaces. Though loosely related, these rules, such as street widths accommodating vehicle sizes, are more about operational compatibility than technological communication. Performance standards, such as maintaining a road at a service level above ’D’, differ fundamentally from technological standards, which would precisely define what constitutes service level ’D’ in terms of, say, vehicle density.
The matrix in Figure 1 illustrates the interaction between aims and tools, providing context through illustrative applications, both successful and unsuccessful. Each scenario is tied to a specific time and place, underpinned by a distinct set of institutions (both organizations and practices).
Institutions are defined by Huntington (2006) as ‘stable, valued, recurring patterns of behavior.’
Figure 1 cross-tabulates powers versus goals, suggesting that each standard addresses a specific objective (efficiency, equity, environment, or experience). This is guided by two economic principles:
Jan Tinbergen’s rule:
“Achieving a multiple number of independent policy targets requires an equal number of policy instruments.” – (Kwan, 2005)
and Robert Mundell’s rule:
“Each policy instrument should be assigned to a policy target on which it has greatest relative effect.” – (Kwan, 2005)
Despite these simplifications, many policy strategies and standards serve multiple aims.
The 4Es and 4Ps provide a general framework applicable to any policy instrument, though one might add future aims or develop additional tools to complement these. This article applies the framework across various public policies in the transport domain to demonstrate its versatility, with a special focus on selected emerging transformative transport technologies. The discussions consider diverse contexts, including mature and emerging systems, different geographic regions (developed and developing economies), and varied market types (small/medium/large enterprises, technology producers versus importers, rural versus urban settings, and the freight/cargo sector).
The forthcoming discussion extracts cases from the matrix, organized by the type of power: persuasion, police, purse, and with extra attention, platform.
Persuasion Powers
Persuasion powers are generally regarded as ineffective within the transport community, often serving merely to satisfy political agendas without producing tangible results. An illustrative case is the ‘Bike Month’ initiative in Sacramento, designed to boost bicycle usage and enhance cyclist safety through the ‘safety in numbers’ effect. However, Malik et al. (2019) discovered that while the initiative temporarily increased bicycle use, it failed to induce lasting changes. Such short-term efforts are contrasted by more enduring programs like ‘Safe Routes to School’, which use police and purse powers to significantly alter the physical environment and consistently encourage behavioral change, leading to more sustained impacts (Boarnet et al., 2005, Staunton et al., 2003).
Other initiatives leveraging persuasion powers include ‘Clear the Air’ days, targeted at mitigating air pollution by reducing travel during adverse meteorological conditions. Studies in Salt Lake City found these efforts largely ineffective (Teague et al., 2015), echoing the outcomes of similar programs.
However, there are instances where persuasive tools can influence behavior. For example, Variable Message Signs (VMS) that alert drivers about upcoming crashes can effectively modify travel behavior by suggesting alternative routes (Levinson and Huo, 2003). The success of VMS lies in providing immediate, actionable information that benefits both the individual and society, unlike broader campaigns like ‘Clear the Air’ days, which often impose personal costs for societal gain.
Given these observations, policy makers aiming to enhance social welfare are increasingly skeptical of approaches that rely solely on rhetoric without enforcement or financial incentives. As a result, strategies often pivot towards more enforceable and incentivized interventions through police and purse powers.
Police Powers
Police powers, defined as the authority granted to governments to regulate the behavior of travelers and organizations, are fundamental in transport. These powers are underpinned by the government’s monopoly on legitimate use of force and cover a broad spectrum including driving regulations and vehicle ownership rules. This section discusses two critical areas impacted by police powers: the international market in used vehicles and parts and dockless bikesharing in China.
The International Market in Used Vehicles and Parts
The surge in electric vehicle adoption globally, particularly in Europe, has raised significant concerns about the fate of second-hand internal combustion engine vehicles. According to UNEP (2020), between 2015 and 2018, the three largest exporters of used light duty vehicles (LDVs) – the European Union (EU), Japan, and the United States – shipped 14 million units worldwide. The EU led these exports, contributing 54% of the total, with major destinations including West and North Africa. Japan and the USA followed, exporting primarily to Asia, East and Southern Africa, and the Middle East and Central America, respectively.
This trend poses substantial challenges for environmental sustainability, particularly in mitigating pollution and CO2 emissions. Used vehicles, often built under less stringent environmental regulations, tend to be less efficient and environmentally friendly as they age. Their continued operation, especially in regions with lax environmental standards and economic constraints on vehicle maintenance, exacerbates their negative externalities. A study in the Netherlands indicated that over 80% of vehicles exported to West African countries would soon fail to meet these nations’ tightening environmental standards (HTEI, 2020).
The ongoing trade in older vehicles not only undermines global environmental goals but also raises safety concerns due to the diminished efficacy of aging safety features. The UNEP report advocates for stricter international regulations on the trade of used vehicles to enforce environmental and safety standards (UNEP, 2020). However, such regulations could reduce the supply of affordable vehicles to importing nations, potentially impacting economic activity and accessibility. Balancing the environmental benefits against economic drawbacks requires comprehensive economic analysis.
An alternative approach employs purse powers like ‘cash for clunkers’ or ‘scrappage schemes’. These policies aim to phase out older, more polluting vehicles by purchasing and recycling them rather than reintroducing them into the used vehicle market. The effectiveness of these programs is mixed and requires consideration of the environmental costs associated with new vehicle production (Van Wee et al., 2011).
Another emerging challenge relates to the disposal and recycling of used electric vehicle batteries (SSATP PPIAFP, 2021). These batteries, when no longer efficient for vehicular use, can be repurposed for solar storage or require environmentally responsible recycling to recover valuable minerals and materials, mitigating the impacts of mining. This would be aided by standardizing battery sizes and interfaces, as well as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) charging interfaces, achieved perhaps with the aid of government platform powers.
Dockless Bikesharing in China
Bikesharing serves as both a direct mode of transport and a solution to the first/last-mile problem in transport, enhancing the efficiency of longer distance public transport systems. Initially, in the early 2010s, station-based bikesharing catered primarily to point-to-point travel, requiring users to pick up and return bikes at designated stations.
As depicted in Figure 2, the advent of smartphones, GPS technology, and affordable batteries catalyzed the rise of dockless bikesharing in China in late 2016 (Arthur D Little, 2017), which then spread globally. Dockless systems offer greater locational flexibility, thus serving a broader range of user needs. Studies confirm that bikesharing has bolstered public transport usage, particularly subway lines (Fan and Zheng, 2020, Guo et al., 2021).
By 2017, Beijing alone hosted 15 bikesharing companies (Li, 2017). From its inception in April 2016, Mobike’s daily usage soared from 18,000 users in June 2016 to 979,000 by January 2017; similarly, its competitor Ofo grew from 13,000 daily users to 487,000 (Arthur D Little, 2017). At its peak in September 2017, Beijing had 2.35 million shared bikes, leading to perceptions of oversupply as many bikes went unused. In 2018, Meituan, a major online retailer, acquired Mobike for USD 2.7 billion amidst financial struggles (Zhu, 2018). As of this writing, three major companies dominate China’s market: Hello, Qingju (under Didi), and Mobike (under Meituan), each integrated with its own online payment system and varying in popularity across cities.
For instance, Hello reported having 10 million shared bikes and e-bikes across 400 cities with approximately 100 million active users in 2020, accounting for 5.1 billion bike trips at an average cost of USD 0.17 each. Notably, one in five of these trips was on an electric bike, generating total revenue of USD 926 million in 2020 (Team M, 2021).
The Beijing Municipal Government has since imposed regulations to manage the proliferation of bikesharing companies and the total number of bikes, which has been reduced to around 900,000 units (Zhang, 2020).
To maintain order and efficiency, new roles such as bike dispatchers have emerged, tasked with organizing bikes around major destinations, a response to governmental regulations (Qiu, n.d.). These dispatchers, whose numbers have significantly increased since 2017, manage bike distribution and maintenance. We note that the reuse and recycling of used shared bikes has emerged as a problem, and e-bike batteries have similar issues to to EV batteries.
The success of bikesharing correlates strongly with urban infrastructure, particularly in Chinese cities which have extensive networks of high-quality bike lanes. This legacy of urban design facilitates the integration of new mobility solutions. Conversely, cities like Sydney, lacking comparable infrastructure, have not seen similar success with dockless bike-sharing (Heymes, 2019).
The evolution of new technologies often prompts governmental regulation. Depending on the regulatory approach – whether permissive except for prohibitions, or prohibitive except for permissions – technologies can either thrive or be stifled, despite potential negative externalities like footpath congestion observed with dockless bikes.
Purse Powers
Purse powers represent the financial strategies employed by governments to initiate change, often through the allocation of funding for infrastructure projects. This approach is widely utilized, with governments often subsidizing new infrastructure to stimulate economic and social improvements.
A different example of purse power in action is the implementation of road tolls, which, while serving as a revenue-generating mechanism, also integrate police powers to enforce payment. Congestion pricing is a notable application of this strategy, although its adoption has been limited due to political challenges. Among the few successful instances, Singapore’s congestion pricing model stands out, primarily due to its unique circumstances rather than as a universally applicable solution (Theseira, 2020).
A specific illustration of purse powers can be observed through the Asset Recycling initiative in Australia.
Asset Recycling in Australia
Introduced in the 2014-2015 federal budget, the Australian government’s Asset Recycling Initiative Fund (ARIF) induced state governments and territories to privatize or lease existing assets. This initiative aimed to reinvest the proceeds into new infrastructure projects, with the federal government providing an additional 15% bonus on the sale price, anticipating future tax revenues from these assets. A budget of AUD 5 billion was allocated for this purpose.
The state of New South Wales (NSW) was a prominent participant in this initiative, selling a 99-year lease of TransGrid, its high-voltage electricity transmission network, for AUD 10.3 billion. The proceeds from this sale helped fund the Sydney Metro project.
These investments were anticipated to be funded by additional sales of utilities and other government-owned properties. However, while asset recycling generates significant immediate capital, it also poses long-term revenue risks as the government forfeits future earnings from privatized assets, barring potential taxable income. The profitability of new investments remains uncertain, introducing financial risks for the government. Moreover, the lack of transparency in privatization deals, often shielded as ‘Cabinet-in-Confidence,’ or ‘Commercial-in-Confidence’ has raised concerns about the democratic accountability of these transactions.
Another challenge is the potential for cost inflation in infrastructure projects due to simultaneous large-scale developments, which can strain available construction services and inflate prices (Terrill et al., 2021).
Platform Powers
Platform powers encompass the ability to direct long-term change by setting the rules of the game, rather than merely participating in it. This section explores various aspects of platform powers, such as failed standards , successful standards , emerging standards, and missing standards. Additionally, it examines the relationship between standards and innovation.
Failure to Launch - National ITS Architecture
Post-Cold War, the US Government initiated a national industrial policy aimed at repurposing defense contractors’ capabilities, given the reduced threat from the then-dissolved Soviet Union. One such redirection supported the development of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), with improving transport being a secondary goal. A National ITS Architecture was established to create a standardized, interoperable framework for intelligent transport across the nation. The ITS industry, leveraging a top-down systems-engineering approach inherited from defense practices, aimed to delineate how various components of the transport system would interact.
A prominent demonstration of this initiative was the National Automated Highway System Consortium’s (NAHSC) DEMO ’97 in San Diego, CA, which showcased an Automated Highway System (AHS) on the reversible High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes of I-15. This demonstration, illustrated in Figure 3, featured specially equipped vehicles maintaining close distances (6.4 m) at high speeds without driver intervention, facilitated by vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) communications and in-road magnets for lane guidance. Despite its technical success, the project was discontinued as funding was cut and the NAHSC was disbanded.
The deployment of connected vehicles (CVs or V2X), which this technology would now be categorized under, proved more challenging than autonomous vehicles (AVs). While AVs and CVs share similar technologies, CVs depend heavily on infrastructure and the widespread adoption of similar technologies in other vehicles, creating a significant ’chicken-and-egg’ problem: the infrastructure needs to be in place for the vehicles to operate optimally, yet the vehicles must be widely adopted for the infrastructure investment to be justified.
The National ITS Architecture aimed to provide a comprehensive, top-down framework for such interconnected transport systems. However, it resulted in extensive documentation that often went unread by those implementing advanced technologies. This approach contrasts with more successful, organically developed systems like the internet, which evolved through a collaborative ‘Request for Comments’ process, and the US railroad system, which did not have a national architecture until well into its decline in the 1920s.
This case study illustrates that for standards and technologies to be adopted, they must provide immediate, incremental benefits, not just potential future value. The failure of the National ITS Architecture underscores the importance of ensuring that each step in the deployment of new technologies provides tangible improvements, necessary to garner ongoing investment and interest.
Successful Standards
This section highlights significant successes in standardization within the transit industry over the past decade, specifically examining transit data through General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) and bikeshare data through General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS).
Transit Data - GTFS (Experience)
The General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) is a pivotal standard that transformed how transit agencies communicate schedules to software applications, enhancing route planning capabilities for users worldwide. It originated in 2005 when Google Maps engineer Chris Harrelson and Portland’s TriMet transit agency collaborated to format their schedules in a way that could be seamlessly integrated into Google Maps. This partnership marked the inception of what was then called Google Transit Feed Specification, setting a precedent that was quickly adopted by other cities (Baskin, 2018, McHugh, 2013).
Initially, GTFS provided a static representation of transit systems based on fixed timetables, significantly improving the efficiency and user experience for transit passengers. The introduction of GTFS not only filled a critical gap – given the lack of a national standard for representing transit schedules – but also facilitated the widespread analysis of transit accessibility, both in the United States and globally (Wu et al., 2021, 2019).
Recognizing the limitations of static data in a dynamic transit environment, the development of GTFS-realtime (GTFS-RT) was spurred by advances in automatic vehicle location (AVL) technology. GTFS-RT provides real-time updates on vehicle locations and projections for upcoming stop times, enhancing the accuracy of transit apps significantly. It also includes data on vehicle occupancy, which has become increasingly relevant for managing capacity and maintaining social distancing protocols during pandemics.
Today, GTFS standards are maintained and expanded by MobilityData, a nonprofit organization based in Montreal, which collaborates with major industry players including state governments, leading tech companies, and a variety of other stakeholders (MobilityData, 2021). Data compliant with these standards are typically provided by local transit agencies and have even been retroactively applied to historical data to study the evolution of transit systems (Rayaprolu, 2020).
Despite its successes, GTFS faces challenges in regions reliant on informal transit services, such as dollar vans, jitneys, and other non-scheduled transport modes common in developing countries. These services are often undocumented and operate without fixed schedules, making standardization difficult (Goldwyn, 2018, Palu, 2019). However, organizations like WhereIsMyTransport tried extend GTFS to these informal networks, enhancing accessibility and operational analysis in emerging markets (Where Is My Transport, 2021, Peralta-Quiros et al., 2019).
Proposals to further expand GTFS include GTFS-ride for standardizing ridership data and General On-demand Feed Specification (GOFS) for on-demand transit services. Such expansions underscore GTFS’s flexibility and its potential to adapt to new challenges within the transit sector.
In comparison, more complex standards like NeTEx in Europe and TransXChange in the UK have not seen wide adoption, likely due to their greater complexity and specific regional focus.
The establishment of GTFS has not only facilitated significant improvements in transit accessibility and efficiency but also demonstrated the potential for further standards development to enhance the quantification and functionality of the transport system.
Bikesharing - GBFS (Experience)
The digitally-enabled New Mobility – collectively, car-sharing, bike-sharing and shared micro-mobility (electric bikes and scooters), ride-hailing, and other services that started to expand rapidly during the 2010s – has generated a new thinking about standards.
Some shared bike and scooter companies have made their data available for government agencies and researchers. Standardizing this has value, as it reduces the number of tools that need to be developed, and time spent analyzing data, and reduces errors associated with data processing and definitions.
The real-time General Bikeshare Feed Specification (GBFS) standard, modeled on GTFS, and now used by more than 450 operators, was first drafted by Mitch Vars of Minnesota’s NiceRide bikesharing system, in 2014, and adopted by North American Bikeshare Association (NABSA) in 2015, with quick vendor uptake. It contains data including the location of bikes and stations, bike and dock availability, station status, and business rules. The GBFS standard is maintained by MobilityData on behalf of NABSA, and has been updated to account for stationless bikes. It has value for trip planning and mapping applications. Extensions include virtual stations, and other geofencing applications, to help ensure bikes are stored in regulated areas. This standard allows integration with maps, and may facilitate various Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) application.
GBFS illustrates how standards like GTFS can beget more standards, building innovations in an incremental fashion.
Emerging Standards
Building on the model established by GTFS, new standards are emerging across various sectors of urban mobility. These standards aim to enhance efficiency, improve data inter-operability, and address the unique challenges of modern transport modes. This section explores proposed standards for micromobility and ridehailing data (MDS), curbs, parking, and traffic signal status.
Micromobility and Ridehailing - MDS
The City of Los Angeles pioneered the Mobility Data Specification (MDS) to manage the rapidly expanding field of micromobility, including shared bikes and scooters, and later extended it to encompass ridehailing vehicles. This specification aims to create a ‘digital twin’ of urban mobility, accurately reflecting the real-time spatial and temporal distribution of vehicles and users (Bliss, 2019, Carey, 2020).
Initially focused on micromobility, MDS was quickly adapted to integrate ridehailing vehicles to address potential issues like zero-occupancy vehicles roaming the streets. The standard’s development was driven by the necessity to regulate new mobility services effectively, preventing problems such as improperly parked scooters and bikes that could block public pathways, create clutter, and lead to vandalism, as observed with shared bikes in Sydney (Heymes, 2019). Today, MDS is managed by the Open Mobility Foundation and includes multiple cities contributing to its governance (Bliss, 2019).
MDS has, however, raised significant privacy concerns. The standard involves tracking the detailed movements of users, which can conflict with the right to privacy and freedom of movement. Critics argue that such surveillance could be misused for discriminatory practices or excessive governmental control, echoing historical precedents where mobility data was used to oppress certain groups (United Nations, 1948, Webb, 2021).
Webb (2020) advocates for the cautious application of MDS, emphasizing the need to balance regulatory convenience with individual privacy rights. In response to privacy concerns, subsequent updates to MDS include enhanced privacy protections, although debates over their adequacy continue (OMF Staff, 2020).
The discussion around MDS also involves stakeholders like Uber, which has actively opposed broad data-sharing requirements through legal challenges and advocacy, citing rider privacy protection as a primary concern (Plautz, 2020, Zefo, 2029). The resolution of these conflicts remains a critical issue, highlighting the ongoing struggle between individual rights and societal benefits in the context of modern urban mobility.
Curb Standards
The curb, often overlooked yet a critical component of urban infrastructure, plays a pivotal role in managing public right-of-way interactions. It serves as the boundary between road surfaces and pedestrian spaces, and despite its understated presence, the management of curb space can spark intense local government debates. These discussions typically revolve around parking regulations and the allocation of curb real estate for various uses, such as bike lanes or bus lanes, illustrating its significance in urban planning.
Curb standards are essential for regulating curbside uses, including on-street parking, loading zones, and bus stops. Local municipalities traditionally handle these regulations, but there is growing interest in dynamic approaches to managing curb access, potentially increasing city revenues through charges for dynamic loading and unloading permits as ride-hailing grows.
The adoption of standardized curb management practices offers clear benefits, akin to those observed with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) established in the 1920s, which standardized traffic signs across the United States to ensure drivers understand road signs universally, reducing confusion and accidents (Hawkins, 1992, 2015). Standardizing curb data could similarly streamline software development, enhancing efficiency and reducing the need for each municipality to develop bespoke solutions for curb management.
Historically, curb regulations have been somewhat ad hoc and disjointed. For instance, while parking regulations like ‘No Parking’ signs are standardized in documents like the MUTCD, the rules can often be complex and not easily understood, as depicted in Figure 4. Moreover, these regulations frequently lack a strategic long-term vision, coherence, or even a comprehensive mapping that illustrates the collective impact of these regulations across a city.
The Open Mobility Foundation’s Curb Management Working Group is addressing these issues by developing standards that could transform how municipalities manage and represent curb space data. This initiative aims to create a framework that not only maps out physical signage but also integrates these regulations into a digital format that can be universally understood and applied.
The emerging standards for curb management are still under development, and while they promise to transform curb use and regulation, there are concerns about corporate influence in the standards-setting process. The potential for corporate capture, where private interests might dominate public policy outcomes, is a significant risk. Additionally, the landscape of competing standards could result in a fragmented approach to curb management if not carefully managed.
In essence, the development of curb standards is not just a technical endeavor but a complex negotiation involving technical, political, and corporate interests, all aiming to shape the future of urban mobility.
Parking
While on-street parking data is closely linked to curb data, a truly comprehensive parking data system also needs to encompass off-street parking to effectively serve both consumers and communities. This system should include information on parking price, availability, and utilization across various types of parking facilities.
Historically, some cities with municipal parking structures have managed to integrate these data successfully, displaying parking availability in major ramps on variable message signs to inform commuters, shoppers, and event-goers of available parking spaces, thereby reducing the time spent searching for parking.
Park-and-ride facilities, which have been part of the urban landscape since the 1930s, allow travelers to park in designated lots and connect with bus or rail services. Originally informal, these facilities were formalized by cities like Detroit in the 1930s and expanded for events like the 1939 World’s Fair by the Long Island Railroad, demonstrating their long-standing role in enhancing public transport (Bullard and Christiansen, 1983, Noel, 1988).
However, despite these advances, a standard for representing parking data across multiple cities remains elusive. The challenge is compounded in environments where private actors control parking supplies, as occupancy data are often considered commercially sensitive. While prices may be visible on platforms like SpotHero and Parkopedia, managing and paying for parking through apps like Passport Labs and ParkMobile have not been standardized, leading to a proliferation of proprietary systems (Hawkins, 2021).
The Alliance for Parking Data Standards (APDS) is attempting to address these issues by promoting an open parking data standard, akin to the GTFS for transit data. This initiative, supported by the UK Department for Transport and other stakeholders, aims to include not only on-street but also off-street parking, recognizing curbs as a unique type of parking space rather than just another lane on the road (APDS, 2021).
Specialized parking needs, such as overnight truck parking at rest areas, highlight another niche where information scarcity impacts safety and efficiency. Apps like Trucker Path provide parking data to truckers, sourcing from various regional systems like the Florida DOT’s TPAS or MAASTO’s TPIMS, but comprehensive data coverage remains incomplete. Standardizing this data could improve safety by reducing the need for truckers to drive tired in search of parking, a critical issue given the often limited availability of overnight parking (Noel, 1988).
The development of a standardized approach to parking data faces numerous challenges, from the cost of data collection to the reluctance of states to impose fees that could discourage necessary rest breaks for drivers. The balance between collecting useful data, competitive pressures, and maintaining privacy and affordability continues to complicate efforts towards standardization in the parking sector, and standards may be promulgated but not adopted.
Traffic Signals
Urban pedestrians typically spend 20% to 30% of their walking time waiting at intersections, which not only decreases their efficiency but also increases their exposure to pollution.
Consider the potential of a wearable device application, named Green Pace, which uses haptic feedback to synchronize a pedestrian’s walking speed with traffic signals. This device would adjust its feedback to encourage speeding up or slowing down based on real-time signal changes, aiming to ensure that the pedestrian hits the ’Walk’ signal at every intersection. Such technology could significantly reduce time spent waiting, decrease sidewalk crowding, and minimize exposure to pollutants at intersections. While watches with haptic feedback are already commercially available, real-time traffic signal data with up-to-date information on signal phase changes and schedules, is not, and the issue is complicated by the adaptive nature of many traffic signals.
Despite the simplicity of traffic signals, the integration of their operational data into user-friendly technologies like Green Pace remains a significant challenge. The traffic signal sector has struggled to standardize its data, which has impeded the development of applications that could enhance pedestrian mobility and efficiency.
In the late 1990s, several US-based organizations including NEMA, ITE, and AASHTO, alongside signal manufacturers, established the National Transport Communications for ITS Protocols (NTCIP). The aim was to develop a standardized communication protocol that would ensure interoperability between different traffic control equipment from various manufacturers (NTCIP Joint Committee, 2021). While the intent was to prevent technological lock-in and foster equipment compatibility, the rapid technological advances led to the creation of manufacturer-specific management information bases (MIBs), which are not inter-operable.
Efforts such as the #FreeTheMIBS campaign have emerged to address these issues by advocating for open and compatible standards (FREEtheMIBS.org, 2019). Despite these initiatives, substantial challenges remain, including the need for widespread adoption and updating of traffic signal control units to reflect new standards.
The potential to use traffic signal data for applications like Green Pace could greatly enhance urban mobility, reducing the time vehicles and pedestrians spend idling at intersections, thereby decreasing fuel consumption and emissions. However, the deployment of such technology on a large scale is still in its infancy, as evidenced by initiatives like the Audi Green Light Optimized Speed Advisory (GLOSA) system, which remains limited to a few thousand intersections (Autovision News, 2020, Hawkins, 2019).
Moreover, broader issues such as data privacy, equitable access to technology, and the potential monetization of traffic signal data pose additional hurdles to the universal deployment of these innovations. As the sector evolves, the development of open standards that can adapt to technological advances and address these concerns will be crucial for the future of urban transport networks.
Missing Standards
This section discusses various domains within urban and transport planning that still lack comprehensive standards. These include street cross-sections, traffic count and speed data, and real-time toll and pricing data.
Cross-sections
Despite some municipalities providing open public data on street cross-sections, detailed descriptions of lane widths, markings, medians, footpaths, and verges are typically absent in resources like OpenStreetMap. A standardized representation of these elements would not only facilitate planning and engineering but could also regulate more precise vehicle movements, such as lane changing. This becomes increasingly crucial with the advent of automated vehicles, potentially enhancing their efficiency and integration into urban traffic systems (Ji and Levinson, 2020).
Traffic Count and Speed Data
Traffic data, encompassing vehicle counts, turning movements, speeds, and precise vehicle locations, is invaluable yet inconsistently tracked. Systems like California’s PEMS and Minnesota’s IRIS have provided robust data on freeways since the 1990s, but comprehensive coverage across all road segments is lacking. This data is crucial not only for traffic management but also for integrating with modern navigation systems that rely on GPS data from smartphones and other devices. Despite the reliability of in-road sensors, the lack of a standardized data format across different traffic organizations diminishes its overall utility, complicating data integration and tool development (Ji and Levinson, 2020).
Real-time Tolls and Road Prices
While systems like E-ZPass in the northeastern United States demonstrate some level of standardization in electronic toll collection, significant gaps remain in toll interoperability both nationally and internationally. For instance, an E-ZPass tag is not compatible with California’s FasTrak system. This lack of standardization extends to fare collection in public transport, where separate fare media are often required for different systems, although some progress is being made towards compatibility with generic payment methods like credit and debit cards.
Moreover, discovering the actual toll costs for a specific route remains a challenge. While map services may indicate the presence of tolls on a route, they do not systematically provide specific cost information. Each toll-operating entity typically maintains its pricing information independently, without a standardized method for dissemination. This inconsistency not only complicates travel planning but also represents a missed opportunity for enhancing travel efficiency and transparency. The absence of a unified data feed for toll pricing mirrors broader issues in transport data standardization, which, if addressed, could significantly lower real-world costs and improve system efficiency.
Is Standardization the Enemy of Innovation?
Standards have long been integral to transforming transport and expediting the delivery of new mobility services such as electrification and automation. They are foundational, not just in the transport sector but across various industries, helping to lower deployment costs and streamline the design process. Standards enable mass production, which reduces costs not only for the final design but also throughout the engineering process. Imagine if every engineer had to rediscover the principles of physics and mathematics independently – progress thrives on building upon the foundations laid by predecessors, adapting their achievements rather than starting anew.
In transport engineering, numerous standardizing documents centralize decision-making beyond the individual engineer to include collective wisdom codified in various handbooks and standards. Prominent standardizing organizations in the United States include:
TRB - Transportation Research Board
Highway Capacity Manual editions across decades
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Policies and standards ranging from rural highways to urban streets
ITE - The Institute of Transportation Engineers
Various editions of Trip Generation and Parking Generation manuals
FHWA - The US Federal Highway Administration
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices through multiple editions
NACTO - National Association of City Transportation Officials
Guides on street, bikeway, and transit street design
CoTAM - Committee of the Transport Access Manual
Transport Access Manual (2020)
While these standards form the backbone of public policies and are respected in academia and practice, they are not without critique. For example, the Trip Generation manual has faced significant scrutiny, and the NACTO guides can be seen as a critique of AASHTO’s approach, suggesting a need for more tailored applications in urban contexts.
The shift towards standardization has transformed many transport professionals into technicians who apply standard manuals rather than innovate from first principles. This necessary stage of mass production excludes the room for 19th-century levels of individual genius, as seen with figures like Isambard Kingdom Brunel, whose innovative but non-standard railway gauge had costly implications.
Standardization does remove certain degrees of freedom, potentially stifling creativity and innovation. It solidifies specific rules and practices that may become outdated as new technologies, like autonomous vehicles, emerge. For instance, road designs that cater to the variability of human drivers may be unnecessarily wide for automated vehicles, leading to inefficient use of space and increased environmental impact.
As we advance, it is crucial to continually adapt and refine standards to keep pace with innovation. Governments can play a pivotal role by adopting and promoting open standards for information interchange, benefiting all stakeholders – users, providers, and regulators alike. The negotiation and emergence of these standards through consensus are essential to balancing innovation with the established benefits of standardization.
Discussion and Conclusions
In today’s global economy, the seamless and efficient flow of information – both inter-institutionally (I2I) and between institutions and people (I2P and P2I) – is crucial for achieving the Four Es: efficiency, equity, reduced negative externalities, and enhanced user experience. Information must flow as freely and efficiently as the people and goods in transport systems, with each disruption or inefficiency requiring users to expend more effort to navigate from point A to point B.
Modern society comprises various institutions. These institutions, whether governmental bodies, corporations, or standards organizations, often operate semi-independently with their trajectories, occasionally intersecting through shared goals or regulatory requirements. This decentralized structure offers resilience, preventing a single point of failure from having widespread detrimental effects.
However, institutions are not isolated entities; they depend on each other for essential inputs, particularly information. The ideal state of information transfer would be complete, accurate, real-time, and high-resolution. Yet, achieving this state is challenged by various factors including technological limitations, privacy concerns, and institutional inertia.
Lessons Learned:
Our exploration into the realm of standards in transport – spanning successful, failed, and emerging standards – yields several insights:
Standards facilitate efficient information exchange between institutions, fostering the emergence of new entities within the information ecosystem.
Standardized data allows for the development of applications that can leverage this information to provide enhanced services, eliminating the need for repeated data processing adaptations.
Openness must accompany standardization; data should be freely accessible to maximize societal benefit, characterized by both gratis (free of charge) and libre (free to use creatively).
Standards require champions and must evolve from industry-led, bottom-up initiatives.
Standards are dynamic, requiring ongoing revision and adaptation to remain relevant and effective.
The establishment and maintenance of standards requires a long-term commitment, often beyond the typical scope of individual organizations.
Despite the apparent benefits, implementing standards is not straightforward. The contrast between the bottom-up success of the General Transit Feed Specification (GTFS) and the top-down failure of the National ITS Architecture underscores the importance of how standards are developed. Moreover, the patchy standardization in areas like traffic data highlights significant gaps that persist in transport information systems.
We must consider what other domains could benefit from a ‘GTFS’ approach. How do we foster such initiatives? What current efforts show promise, and why have standards not been established in other areas? Successful standards function as platforms, facilitating transactions in two-sided markets. They must offer clear advantages to both data users and providers.
While companies often prioritize quarterly financial returns, governments are ideally positioned to mediate the establishment of standards. However, even public entities are constrained by election cycles and may lack the long-term focus necessary for standard development.
Standards, especially those that facilitate information sharing like GTFS, not only improve current systems but also enable future innovations. For emerging economies, adopting existing standards can leapfrog development stages, avoiding the inefficiencies that more developed countries had to endure.
Ultimately, standards are about creating a framework that supports continuous improvement and adaptation to new technologies and challenges. They are living entities within the technological ecosystem, requiring ongoing care, revision, and advocacy to remain relevant and beneficial.
References
Alder, K. (2003), ‘The measure of all things: The seven-year odyssey and hidden error that transformed the world’.
APDS (2021), ‘Alliance for Parking Data Standards’.
Arthur D Little (2017), The rapid growth of bike sharing in China—Good news for city mobility?, Technical report.
Autovision News (2020), ‘Audi Traffic Light Information: A Brief History and How It Works’, Autovision News .
Baskin, J. (2018), ‘Why there’s no GTFS for curbs (yet)’, Coord .
Ben-Joseph, E. (2005a), The Code of the City: Standards and the Hidden Language of Place Making, MIT Press.
Ben-Joseph, E. (2005b), ‘On standards’, Regulating Place: Standards and the Shaping of Urban America pp. 1–13.
Ben-Joseph, E. (2009), ‘Commentary: designing codes: trends in cities, planning and development’, Urban Studies 46(12), 2691–2702.
Ben-Joseph, E. and Szold, T. S. (2005), Regulating place: standards and the shaping of urban America, Psychology Press.
Blaise, C. (2011), Time lord: Sir Sandford Fleming and the creation of standard time, Vintage.
Bliss, L. (2019), ‘Why Real-Time Traffic Control Has Mobility Experts Spooked’, CityLab .
Boarnet, M. G., Anderson, C. L., Day, K., McMillan, T. and Alfonzo, M. (2005), ‘Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School legislation: urban form changes and children’s active transportation to school’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28(2), 134–140.
Bowker, G. C. and Star, S. L. (2000), Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences, MIT press.
Bullard, D. L. and Christiansen, D. L. (1983), Guidelines for planning, designing and operating park-and-ride lots in Texas, Technical report, Texas Department of Transportation.
Cao, M., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Li, S. and Hickman, R. (2019), Using different approaches to evaluate individual social equity in transport, in ‘A companion to transport, space and equity’, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Carey, C. (2020), ‘How Los Angeles took control of its mobility data’, Cities Today.
Carrion, C. and Levinson, D. (2019), ‘Over-and under-estimation of travel time on commute trips: GPS vs. self-reporting’, Urban Science 3(3), 70.
Committee of the Transport Access Manual (2020), Transport Access Manual: A Guide for Measuring Connection between People and Places, Technical report.
Crespo, Y. (2016), ‘Uber v. regulation:’ride-sharing’creates a legal gray area’, U. Miami Bus. L. Rev. 25, 79.
Cui, M. and Levinson, D. (2018), ‘Full cost accessibility’, Journal of Transport and Land Use 11(1), 661–679.
Cui, M. and Levinson, D. (2019), ‘Measuring full cost accessibility by auto’, Journal of Transport and Land Use 12(1), 649–672.
Di, X., Liu, H. X., Zhu, S. and Levinson, D. M. (2017), ‘Indifference bands for boundedly rational route switching’, Transportation 44(5), 1169–1194.
El-Geneidy, A., Levinson, D., Diab, E., Boisjoly, G., Verbich, D. and Loong, C. (2016), ‘The cost of equity: Assessing transit accessibility and social disparity using total travel cost’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 91, 302–316.
Fan, Y. and Zheng, S. (2020), ‘Dockless bike sharing alleviates road congestion by complementing subway travel: evidence from Beijing’, Cities 107, 102895.
Foth, N., Manaugh, K. and El-Geneidy, A. M. (2013), ‘Towards equitable transit: examining transit accessibility and social need in Toronto, Canada, 1996–2006’, Journal of transport geography 29, 1–10.
FREEtheMIBS.org (2019), #FREEtheMIBS, Technical report.
Goldwyn, E. (2018), ‘Anatomy of a new dollar van route: Informal transport and planning in New York City’, Journal of Transport Geography .
Guo, Y., Yang, L., Lu, Y. and Zhao, R. (2021), ‘Dockless bike-sharing as a feeder mode of metro commute? the role of the feeder-related built environment: Analytical framework and empirical evidence’, Sustainable Cities and Society 65, 102594.
Hawkins, A. J. (2019), ‘Audi’s traffic light sensor gives you the power to catch as many green lights as possible’, The Verge .
Hawkins, A. J. (2021), ‘Google Maps will now let you pay for public transportation and parking through its app 3’, The Verge .
Hawkins, G. (1992), ‘Evolution of the MUTCD: Early standards for traffic control devices’, ITE Journal August 1992, 23–26.
Hawkins, G. (2015), ‘The MUTCD turns 80: Time for a makeover?’, ITE Journal 85(11), 14.
Heymes, C. (2019), ‘Stationless in Sydney: The Rise and Decline of Bikesharing in Australia’, Transport Findings .
HTEI (2020), Used vehicles exported to Africa: A study on the quality of used export vehicles, Technical report.
Where Is My Transport (2021).
Huntington, S. P. (2006), Political Order in Changing Societies, Yale University Press.
Ji, A. and Levinson, D. (2020), ‘Estimating the social gap with a game theory model of lane changing’, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems .
Kwan, C. H. (2005), ‘A Foreign Exchange Policy Cannot Solve Structural Problems: A policy-mix approach is needed’.
Lampland, M. and Star, S. L. (2009), Standards and their Stories: How Quantifying, Classifying, and Formalizing Practices Shape Everyday Life, Cornell University Press.
Levinson, D. M. and Huo, H. (2003), ‘Effectiveness of variable message signs using empirical loop detector data’.
Levinson, D. M. and Krizek, K. J. (2007), Planning for Place and Plexus: Metropolitan Land Use and Transport, Routledge.
Levinson, D. M. and Krizek, K. J. (2017), The End of Traffic and the Future of Access: A Roadmap to the New Transport Landscape, Network Design Lab.
Levinson, D. and Wu, H. (2020), ‘Towards a general theory of access’, Journal of Transport and Land Use 13(1), 129–158.
Levinson, M. (2016), The Box: How the Shipping Container Made the World Smaller and the World Economy Bigger-with a new chapter by the author, Princeton University Press.
Li, K. (2017), Research on problems and development strategies of bike-sharing in Beijing from multiple perspectives (In Chinese), Technical report.
Malik, J., Circella, G. and Alemi, F. (2019), ‘Travel Behavior Impacts of Transportation Demand Management Policies: May is the Bike Month in Sacramento, California’, Submitted for presentation at the 2019 hEART conference, Budapest, Hungary .
Markoff, J. (2010), ‘Google Cars Drive Themselves in Traffic’, New York Times . 24
Martino, M. (2019), ‘Can you decipher these confusing parking signs?’, ABC News.
McHugh, B. (2013), Pioneering open data standards: The GTFS story, in ‘Beyond transparency: open data and the future of civic innovation’, Code for America Press San Francisco, CA, pp. 125–136.
MobilityData (2021), ‘Members | MobilityData’, MobilityData .
Nelson, G. (2015), ‘Tesla beams down ‘autopilot’ mode to Model S’, Autonews .
Noel, E. C. (1988), ‘Park-and-ride: alive, well, and expanding in the United States’, Journal of Urban Planning and Development 114(1), 2–13.
NTCIP Joint Committee (2021), How to Get MIBS, Technical report.
OMF Staff (2020), ‘Announcing the MDS 1.1.0 Release Candidate’, Open Mobility Foundation .
Palmateer, C. R. (2018), The Distribution of Access: Evaluating Justice in Transport, PhD thesis, University of Minnesota.
Palu, D. S. (2019), Introducing bus stop policy in Samoa, Master’s thesis, University of Sydney, School of Civil Engineering.
Peralta-Quiros, T., Kerzhner, T. and Avner, P. (2019), Exploring Accessibility to Employment Opportunities in African Cities: A First Benchmark, The World Bank.
Plautz, J. (2020), ‘Uber, privacy groups form coalition to fight city data collection’, Smart Cities Dive .
Qiu, M. (n.d.), ‘How shared bikes are dispatched’, Southern Metropolis Daily .
Rayaprolu, H. (2020), ‘Sydney’s transit access: 1925 – 2020’, Transport Research Association of New South Wales (TRANSW) conference .
Sperling, D. (2018), Three Revolutions: Steering Automated, Shared, and Electric Vehicles to a Better Future, Island Press.
SSATP PPIAFP (2021), Managing motor vehicle stocks in developing countries and the global trade in 2nd-hand vehicles and vehicle parts that supply them, Technical report.Staunton, C. E., Hubsmith, D. and Kallins, W. (2003), ‘Promoting safe walking and biking to school: the marin county success story’, American Journal of Public Health 93(9), 1431– 1434.
Taylor, B. D. (1991), ‘Unjust equity: An examination of california’s transportation development act’, Transportation Research Record 1297, 85–92.
Teague, W. S., Zick, C. D. and Smith, K. R. (2015), ‘Soft transport policies and ground-level ozone: An evaluation of the “Clear the Air Challenge” in Salt Lake City’, Policy Studies Journal 43(3), 399–415.
Team M (2021), ‘Hello S-1’, The Micromobility Newsletter .
Terrill, M., Emslie, O. and Fox, L. (2021), Megabang for megabucks: driving a harder bargain on megaprojects, Technical report, Grattan Institute.
Theseira, W. (2020), ‘Congestion control in Singapore’.
UNEP (2020), Used vehicles and the environment: A global overview of used light duty vehicles: Flow, scale, and regulation, Technical report.
United Nations (1948), Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Technical report.
Van Wee, B., De Jong, G. and Nijland, H. (2011), ‘Accelerating car scrappage: A review of research into the environmental impacts’, Transport Reviews 31(5), 549–569.
Webb, K. (2020), ‘Local power in the age of digital policing’, Triangulator .
Webb, K. (2021), Personal correspondence, Technical report.
Wu, H., Avner, P., Boisjoly, G., Braga, C. K. V., El-Geneidy, A., Huang, J., Kerzhner, T., Murphy, B., Niedzielski, M. A., M.Pereira, R. H., Pritchard, J. P., Stewart, A., Wang, J. and Levinson, D. (2021), ‘Urban access across the globe: An international comparison of different transport modes’, NPJ Urban Sustainability .
Wu, H., Levinson, D. and Sarkar, S. (2019), ‘How transit scaling shapes cities’, Nature Sustainability 2(12), 1142–1148.
Yeganeh, A. J., Hall, R. P., Pearce, A. R. and Hankey, S. (2018), ‘A social equity analysis of the us public transportation system based on job accessibility’, Journal of Transport and Land Use 11(1), 1039–1056.
Zefo, R. (2029), ‘Standing Up for Rider Privacy in Los Angeles’, Medium .
Zhang, J. (2020), ‘Shared bikes in Beijing subject to new policies’, China Daily .
Zhu, L. (2018), ‘Meituan acquires Mobike for $2.7b’, China Daily .
Zhu, S. and Levinson, D. (2015), ‘Do people use the shortest path? an empirical test of Wardrop’s first principle’, PloS one 10(8), e0134322.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank Wenxin Qiao, Cecilia Briceno-Garmendia, Fernanda Ruiz-Nunez, Jacob Baskin, Kevin Webb, Yadi Wang, and Blaine Leonard for their comments and feedback on sections of this report. The author remains solely responsible for the content.
An earlier version of parts of this text appears in Chapter 5 of “Qiao, Wenxin; Briceno-Garmendia, Cecilia. 2024. Global Report - “Transformative Technologies in Transportation”. Washington, DC: World Bank. http://hdl.handle.net/10986/41440 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.”
FIN.
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Transportist to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.