This document discusses how public transit agencies can attract new riders through integrated mobility services. It argues that agencies should take a customer-centric approach by understanding travel patterns, setting service standards across all modes of transportation, and creating a total service offer with integrated fares and a single user interface. This will position the traveling public as the winner by improving overall convenience and quality of service. The challenges involve determining who can play a coordinating role to set open standards and balance the interests of different mobility providers. Case studies from cities that have successfully implemented integrated mobility programs through collaboration and leadership are presented.

1. ATTRACTING NEW RIDERS
THROUGH INTEGRATED MOBILITY
Arjan van Andel
GIRO

2. Agenda
GIRO at a glance
Trends and examples
The challenge
Creating a total offer
Key takeaways

3. GIRO: Maker of HASTUS Software
340+ employees in North America
35 years of expertise and innovation
Planning, scheduling, operations and
customer-information software
LA Metro, CTA, NYCT, NJT, Metro Minneapolis,
MBTA, King County Metro, TriMet, Stockholm, Sydney,
and more
Continuously developing
30% of resources allocated to R&D

4. A PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

5. A Workday… Using Public Transit

6. A Workday… Looking for Alternatives
ctbythenumbers.info

7. TRENDS AND EXAMPLES
Mobile devices and multi-offerings

8. Mobile Phone: The Mobility Broker
IBI trends report

9. Helsinki: Mobility as a Service
Integrated user
interface
Various mobility
operators
Pay for the total
service
Governmental
support
MaaS.fi

10. Multiple Options for Travel
IBI trends report

11. TriMet: Customer-centric Approach
Dmytrok via Flickr (CC BY-ND 2.0)
Regular
public/private
collaborations
• Google Map
• Waze
• Parking Panda
• Uber
• Car2Go
• Ride Connection
• Zipcar
• And more…

12. Convenience is What People Want
1. Travel time
2. Quality of service offer
3. Availability of rail services
4. Congestion
5. Transit ticket price
6. Distance of travel
7. Security
8. Street infrastructure
9. Price of gasoline
10. Comfort
11. Marketing campaign
12. Environmental awareness
13. Being able to do other activities during travel
Strong Infl. Medium Infl. Low Influence No Influence
No. of cities
Influence on Mobility Behavior Top 3:
1. Travel time
2. Service quality
3. Availability
MAN Corporate Communications
#5:
Price
(less than 50% of
votes)

13. Hanover: Integrated Mobility Account
Public
Transport
Car
Sharing
Taxi Train
Hannovermobil 1.0
Intended for those
who need everything
Hannovermobil 2.0
Appeals to all users of
mobility services
Hannovermobil 2.0
• Free PT card
• Car-sharing access &
discount on rentals
• Taxi discount
• 25% rail discount
UITP Trends Report 2015

14. THE CHALLENGE
”Manchester Bus Wars” or Integrated Approach?

15. The Challenge
Who should be the
integrator?
• Is it a collectively
desirable solution?
• Does it serve the public
interest?
• Is data freely available?
• Are interfaces open?

16. The Challenge
• Google car?
• Google mobility?

17. The Challenge
• Cars as shared service?

18. The Challenge
• Setting service standards?

19. The Challenge
Transit
Operator
Can the Transit
Operator influence the
other options?
Will the operator
expand its portfolio?

20. The Challenge
MPO
Transit
Authority
Can MPO or Authority
play a coordinating
role?
Mobility provider?

21. London: Putting Mobility Planning First
Integrated mobility
management
• Roads
• Parking
• Public transport
• Multiple operators
• Single fare
• Economic benefit as
basis
Service standards for
operating companies
• Excess wait time
• Mileage operated
• Customer-service level

22. HOW TO CREATE A TOTAL
OFFER?

23. Evaluate the Demand
Motorized individual Public transit Bicycle Pedestrian
MAN Corporate Communications
Know why people
are not using PT
Know your potential
customers
Know the travel
patterns

24. Evaluate the Supply
Capacity in passengers per hour in 2 directions
UITP Trends Report 2015

25. Set the Service Standards
Frequency
+
Capacity
+
Total Travel time
________________
Service quality
Service costs
Ridership/revenue
Social and economic
benefits
Network data
Fleet(s) data
Supply
AVL data
Fare-card data
Demand
APC data
Mobile data

26. Evaluate the Various Options
Fleet Fleet Fleet Fleet Fleet System
riders
Fare
recovery
Service
Quality
Current 100 800 120 0 0 50% 30% 50
Scen. 1 +50 -20 +30 +80 +50 95% 75% 80
Scen. 2 +10 +20 -15 +20 +100 70% 50% 70
Scen. 3 0 +100 +20 0 0 65% 45% 90

27. Effective Leadership
• Balanced approach and building of trust
• Promotion of open standards
• Facilitating neutral platform
• Setting the service standards
• New performance indicators

28. KEY TAKEAWAYS

29. Making the Traveling Public the Winner
• Customer-centric approach
• Know your (potential) customers
• Know their travel patterns

30. Making the Traveling Public the Winner
• Customer-centric approach
• Set service standards for all modes
• Every 10 minutes
• <400 Yards walking
• The whole day
• Reliable
• Total time of travel close to car travel

31. Making the Traveling Public the Winner
• Customer-centric approach
• Set service standards for all modes
• Consider economic benefits of services
• New Key Performance Indicators
• Passenger total travel time
• Wait time
• Comfort

32. Making the Traveling Public the Winner
• Customer-centric approach
• Set service standards for all modes
• Consider economic benefits of services
• New Key Performance Indicators
• Single user-interface, integrated fares
• Open standards between solutions
• Effective leadership to balance interests
• Share best practices

33. Thank you
THANK YOU
Arjan van Andel
Director of Business Development
arjan.vanandel@giro.ca
www.giro.ca
+1 514.383.0404
linkedin.com/company/GIRO