Tag: Transportation

Will bike sharing benefit from learning some data lessons from other parts of transport?

This morning’s news that bike sharing firm Mobike was launching in the UK caught my eye.

Bicycles by Vivera Siregar, CC-BY-2.0

The story was full of excitement about the convenience and how cycling can help people becoming more active and improve air quality by reducing the number of car journeys. But the story also featured challenges: piles of bicycles on pavements and congested cycling lanes in cities not expecting an increase in traffic. Transport authorities seemed to be caught between the desire to seize the opportunities and head off the complaints.

But one thing that was missing from the story was how familiar the challenges are and how cities are already tackling them in other areas. At the Open Data Institute, where I work, we like to talk about design patterns for policies that use data to create impact. Some of the patterns needed to make bike sharing better are already in use elsewhere. Bike sharing companies and cities can learn some lessons from cars, buses and other cycling apps to tackle the challenges a bit faster and grab the opportunities a bit sooner.

What is bike sharing

Mobike is one of a number of firms offering bike sharing services. The service is simple. You download a smartphone app, request a bike, go to the location shown on the app, get the bike, cycle to where you want, leave the bike somewhere convenient and pay your fee.

The bike sharing operator will need to process orders and payments, maintain a fleet of bikes and predict demand so that they can move unused bikes to where they are likely to be needed.

The local transport authority has a different task. They need to maintain transport infrastructure to suit the different modes of transport (walking, cycling, cars, buses) that meet the needs of different groups of users (able-bodied people, people with disabilities, tourists, residents, business travellers) at different times of the day. It’s great that cities are welcoming trials of another option in this already complex system.

Some of bike sharing’s challenges can be helped by better use of data

Some of the challenges posed by bike sharing are already being helped by data. Better use of data can tackle them more easily.

Neither cyclists or bike sharing companies want congested cycling lanes. It will make it hard for people to get where they want and risks increasing accidents. That will reduce the number of people who cycle, and reduce the profits that bike sharing companies might make. Giving transport authorities access to data about where people cycle and where accidents occur will help them meet demand and create safer roads. Giving cyclists data about congested cycling routes will help them make better decisions about where to cycle and when.

The bike sharing companies don’t want piles of unused bikes on pavements. They make money when the bikes are used. Bike sharing companies won’t have data on how congested a pavement is because of other traffic: for example bicycles belonging to a competing bike sharing company or because of pedestrians trying to get to lunch. But that congestion can damage their reputation. Giving bike sharing companies access to this data will help them make better decisions about when to move bikes. Giving transport authorities access to this data will help them understand the impact of bike sharing on other types of transport.

Data isn’t a magic bullet. You can give better information to cyclists, bike sharing companies and transport authorities but there is no guarantee that they will use it or that they can even use it quickly. But it can help. We’ve seen it already. The transport sector still has lots to do to improve data but it is a sector which is ahead of most.

Learning the lessons

Many transport authorities already publish open data about congestion, accidents and road closures. Google, Uber and Strava are starting to publish aggregated open data about usage of their platforms for car and bicycle transport through the Mobility, Movement and Metro programmes. By making this data openly available then everyone can improve the service that is provided to car drivers, taxi passengers and cyclists. Openness is essential. It means that cyclists and taxi drivers can use a whole range of services to decide on a route while transport authorities can easily combine the data to give advice or decide where to build new capacity.

Pedestrians can report congested pavements using services like MySociety’s FixMyStreet. The reports are published openly so could be used by the bike sharing companies and transport authorities. If the bike sharing companies all publish aggregated data about where their bikes are left then the decision making can be further improved.

The challenge of bad data business models

Ah, I hear some readers say, but surely there’s a problem? If the bike sharing companies openly publish data about where their cycles are and the routes that people take then won’t that mean that other companies will use that data to compete with them?

Well yes, obviously. But good competitors will know already. It is fairly cheap to get a few people, or a camera or another form of sensor, hanging around major destinations to take pictures of bicycles that can be counted by machines.

Ah, I hear other readers say, but surely the bike sharing companies will be planning to sell the data as part of the data monetisation strategy that everyone is recommending nowadays?

Well yes, they may think they can sell it. But data monetisation is not a very clever strategy for these companies. That isn’t only because their users might prefer the data to be used to benefit their community but also because their users are carrying the smartphones that they used to get the bike. Google, Apple, and the telecoms operators have similar same trip data. It has negligible value.

In a world where data is abundant then data monetisation will work when you can add value to data. For example, it will work for data aggregators, like TransportAPI and ITOWorld, but only occasionally for data publishers. Instead bike sharing companies should open up the data to improve the service.

Data is not oil but it is infrastructure

In the 21st century when it is so cheap to get and use data, business models based on the scarcity of data are generally going to fail. That is one of the many reasons why “data is oil” is an utterly utterly terrible analogy. The smart bike sharing companies will open up aggregate data about usage and the locations of bicycles. They will compete on the quality of services. That competition and focus on services can benefit their users and the wider transport network.

But what happens if bike sharing companies aren’t smart? If they choose to impair the service they give to their users because of a lack of understanding of data and bad business models?

Well, that’s the final data lesson for this post. Data is a new form of infrastructure. Governments are realising that this infrastructure needs to be as open as possible, while respecting privacy, so that businesses can be built and services improved.

The UK government and local authorities tried, and failed, to persuade bus companies to open up data so are now legislating to force it to happen. That legislation will improve services for bus passengers by making it easier for services like Google Maps, Apple Maps and CityMapper to help people decide on their journey.

If the bike sharing companies don’t decide to be smart then I suspect the genuinely “smart cities” will make the decision for them. Bike sharing companies will be welcomed, but only the companies that decide to provide better services by opening up their data. Smart companies will learn the lessons and get ahead of that particular game.

Hacker Noon is how hackers start their afternoons. We’re a part of the @AMI family. We are now accepting submissions and happy to discuss advertising & sponsorship opportunities.

If you enjoyed this story, we recommend reading our latest tech stories and trending tech stories. Until next time, don’t take the realities of the world for granted!

The people’s railway will need to start soon

Railway ticket prices in the UK have risen by 25% in the last 5 years. This yearly rise in prices, and continued complaints over punctuality, has led to the usual yearly rise in news stories about the UK’s railways.

There were 1.6 billion passenger rail journeys in the last 3 months. In addition to passenger journeys railways also transport the food we eat, the material that is used to build our houses and our post and parcels around the country. More than 190,000 people work on the railways to deliver these services.

In 2014 60% of the public were in favour of railway nationalisation believing that it would lead to greater accountability, cheaper prices and better services.

Nationalisation will take at least a decade. Technology driven change in transportation is moving faster than this. The UK needs to look for a different path.

The UK debate over public or private ownership of railways

Railways are a highly efficient and environmentally friendly form of long distance mass transit. The UK led the way in innovating and building railways during the industrial revolution.

Early and marvellously innovative train Stephenson’s Rocket on display in London’s Science Museum. Image by Paul Williams CC-SA-2.0.

In recent years, with the exception of Northern Ireland (*), the UK’s long distance railway network has operated with a model of publicly owned tracks used by privately owned train franchises that lease trains from other companies. This model is not generating the right results. The incentives are flawed. The parts do not work together for the common good. The whole is less than the sum of the complex parts.

In 2015 we also had a mid-year rise in news stories about railways. Following his recent victory in the Labour Party’s leadership election Jeremy Corbyn confirmed Labour would renationalise the railways if it won a general election victory in 2020 by building railways that are cooperatively run by government, workers and passengers. Labour has stated that nationalisation will lead to cheaper and better services.

Many other countries successfully run their railways under full or partial public sector ownership. The East Coast mainline was run very well by the public sector until recently. The previous owner of the franchise, National Express, walked away as they were not making sufficient profit. The public sector took over, successfully ran the franchise and made a net contribution back to the Treasury. Contributions from publicly owned transport can be reinvested in building better infrastructure.

The digital age will beat a steam age policy

Unfortunately beneath the headlines I expect that Labour’s plan will fail to deliver what people want: greater accountability with cheaper and better services.

Rail franchise schedule as of November 2015 (source). The Scotland franchise is not shown in the schedule but a 10-year contract was awarded in 2014.

The policy will not have any effect unless Labour win a general election in 2020 and it will then require contracts for existing railway franchises to expire before the new government would bring the franchise back into public ownership.

Nine railway franchises are due to be awarded before 2020 and the likely 10-year terms of the contracts will run beyond a 2020–2025 parliament. Nationalisation by this approach will take decades.

It will run at the speed of the steam age rather than the digital age.

Long-distance transport in the digital age

Passengers are unlikely to wait. The move to build cheaper and better services will be faster.

The existing train services rely on passengers purchasing and showing a paper ticket at a time when a growing number of passengers have a smartphone or contactless bank card in their purse/wallet. The franchise operators have failed to invest in modernisation and building a better user experience. There is good evidence that that UK public sector knows how to use technology to transform mass transit services but, unlike the rail franchise operators, some private sector companies also know how to do this.

The technology companies that have been reinventing transportation in our cities will soon start to focus their efforts on long distance travel whether it be through personal services such as ride sharing and automated cars or new forms of mass transit.

If those services are cheaper and better than railways then people will choose them. People are currently complaining that the UK’s railways are run from France and Germany, soon they will find themselves complaining that their transport is run by technology giants in the US or China.

Some passengers will get the benefits of modernised services that are cheaper and better but we risk losing the environmental benefits of mass transit, the accountability that people say they want and benefits for all. You cannot use Uber unless you are online and many UK adults are not.

The UK Government currently has a permissive approach to regulating these services so unless the technologies companies choose to open up, be more inclusive and become more accountable to governments, passengers and workers then we need to consider a different path.

Taking the cooperative path and using the market

The franchising system allows people to organise and use the market to take power.

A cooperative could be formed that includes local government, devolved governments in Wales and Scotland, workers, freight companies and passengers. This cooperative could work together to bid for franchises as they are put out to tender. The cooperative model brings the accountability that we risk missing out on if we wait a decade for nationalisation. It can still provide money back into the public sector that can be reinvested in building better infrastructure.

Bidding for a franchise is not cheap. Experts in railways, technology and running cooperatives will need to be employed to pull a bid together. It is reported that Virgin spent £14m on their failed bid during the disastrous West Coast mainline franchising process in 2012. There were 1.6 billion passenger rail journeys in the last 3 months. Modern digital approaches can be used to crowdsource money and build scale fast. If people can crowdsource $100m for a computer game then people should not be frightened of raising money to bid for a railway franchise.

New cooperative railways could build on the expertise gained through the extremely effective running of the East Coast mainline; connect with the new Transport for North initiative; and work with city-regions to support their need to integrate national transport infrastructure with local transport options such as cars, buses and trams.

Concept image for Elon Musk’s hyperloop project by Camilo Sanchez, CC-SA-4.0. Why couldn’t a cooperatively run transport system raise money to build one in the UK? Or branch out in buses?

Even without the involvement of national government a cooperatively run railway that bought in expertise from the public and private sector could deliver on the promise of greater accountability coupled with cheaper and better services.

That is what people want and need. The new franchises can be open, inclusive, innovative and modern at a time when the UK’s privately run railways are not.

There remains the chance that government will put new requirements into the next round of franchises; that the existing rail franchise operators will modernise and become more accountable; or that the new technology companies will choose to open up.

If they don’t a people’s railway will continue to be demanded but it will need to start soon if it is to have a chance of success.

(*) curiously most UK debate over railways does not seem to recognise that in Northern Ireland the railway is publicly owned.

In 2017 there are expected to be three invitation to tender (ITT) and two annoucements of who will run rail franchises in England. (Source)

[Update 5 Jan 2017 as various news stories emerge about the usual annual increase in rail fares here is the latest rail franchise schedule from the Department for Transport. Three new invitations to tender are expected this year. I wonder if any mutual organisations will bid.]

© 2021

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑