DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulating App-Based Mobility Services Summary and Conclusions 175 Roundtable Summary and Conclusions and Summary Services Mobility App-Based Regulating 175

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulating App-Based Mobility Services Summary and Conclusions 175 Roundtable Summary and Conclusions and Summary Services Mobility App-Based Regulating 175 CPB Corporate Partnership Board Regulating App-Based Mobility Services Summary and Conclusions 175 Roundtable Regulating App-Based Mobility Services Summary and Conclusions 175 Roundtable The International Transport Forum The International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 60 member countries. It acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is the only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is politically autonomous and administratively integrated with the OECD. The ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy. The ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and pre- negotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge and promote exchange among transport decision-makers and civil society. The ITF’s Annual Summit is the world’s largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue on transport policy. The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China (People’s Republic of), Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Morocco, the Netherlands, New Zealand, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States. International Transport Forum 2 rue André Pascal F-75775 Paris Cedex 16 [email protected] www.itf-oecd.org ITF Roundtables ITF Roundtables bring together international experts to discuss specific topics notably on economic and regulatory aspects of transport policies in ITF member countries. Findings of ITF Roundtables are published in a Summary and Conclusions paper. Any findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Transport Forum or the OECD. Neither the OECD, ITF nor the authors guarantee the accuracy of any data or other information contained in this publication and accept no responsibility whatsoever for any consequence of their use. This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. Cite this work as: ITF (2019), Regulating App-based Mobility Services: Summary and Conclusions, ITF Roundtable Reports, No. 175, OECD Publishing, Paris. Acknowledgements This summary report of the ITF Roundtable on Regulating App-based Mobility Services was prepared by Rex Deighton-Smith with support from Tatiana Samsonova and Stephen Perkins, Co-Chair of the Roundtable. It draws on the input papers prepared by Ciro Biderman, Rex Deighton-Smith, Onésimo Flores Dewey and Dana Yanocha, the rich conversation which took place during the Roundtable meeting and the comments and other inputs received from participants during the drafting process. However, a wide range of views were presented and the conclusions presented in the report do not necessarily reflect the views of all participants. The ITF Secretariat wishes to thank the 35 participants, from 13 ITF member countries, who took part in the Roundtable. REGULATING APP-BASED MOBILITY SERVICES | SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS| ITF ROUNDTABLE 175 Table of contents Executive summary ............................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Taxis and ridesourcing ....................................................................................................................... 10 Regulatory restrictions on taxis ..................................................................................................... 11 Rider and driver safety .................................................................................................................. 12 Equity in service provision ............................................................................................................. 15 Economic position and employment conditions of drivers ........................................................... 19 Addressing externalities ................................................................................................................ 22 Other, sector-specific taxes or levies............................................................................................. 32 Other competition issues .............................................................................................................. 34 Bikeshare ........................................................................................................................................... 35 Regulatory objectives .................................................................................................................... 35 Regulatory initiatives ..................................................................................................................... 36 Nature and extent of the problem ................................................................................................ 38 Potential non-regulatory interventions to address issues ............................................................. 39 Potential indirect cost impacts ...................................................................................................... 40 Broader public policy considerations ............................................................................................ 40 Other app-based services .................................................................................................................. 42 Ridesharing, micro-transit and demand-responsive transit .......................................................... 44 Mobility as a Service ...................................................................................................................... 46 Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 48 Notes ................................................................................................................................................. 50 References ........................................................................................................................................ 53 Annex: List of participants ................................................................................................................. 60 4 © OECD/ITF 2019 REGULATING APP-BASED MOBILITY SERVICES | SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS| ITF ROUNDTABLE 175 Executive summary What we did App-based mobility services have a brief history which essentially commenced early in the current decade. But these services have grown exponentially and now constitute a significant part of the urban mobility landscape. The ITF Roundtable on which this report is based focused primarily on ridesourcing and bikeshare, as these currently constitute both the most-developed and the most controversial parts of the sector. Emerging services such as e-scooters, vanpooling and demand-responsive transport were also discussed and their potential future role in the urban mobility landscape addressed. The Roundtable discussed experiences in these areas, including the different and sometimes rapidly evolving regulatory responses to app-based mobility services. It sought to identify key lessons learned and, on this basis, set out relevant regulatory principles that can help to ensure that the consumer benefits of app-based mobility are maximised and that they contribute effectively to the achievement of wider public policy objectives. What we found App-based mobility services have brought substantial consumer benefits. They have expanded choice and enhanced important aspects of service quality including availability, timeliness, comfort and the subjective customer experience, while often driving down prices.1 These benefits derive in part from the technological innovation they embody. For example, they have allowed rapid and reliable matching of services and customers, provided for reliable, cashless payment and enabled effective identification of riders and drivers and recording of journeys. GPS location and app-based communication and payment services have also enabled new business models in several sectors. The welfare gains also derive in part from these innovations sweeping away major regulatory failures in many jurisdictions and bringing transformative change to the urban mobility sector. They have effectively unblocked some long-standing political economy problems. For example, ridesourcing pioneer Uber was founded as a response to the sustained failure of the taxi industry and its regulators to meet passenger demand in San
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Why Mobike Is a Hit by Lin Chen
    COVER STORY 14 Why Mobike is a Hit By Lin Chen icycles with bright orange wheels Mobike’s operational model is simple: perfectly in line with the post ’80s are now a common sight along download the app, deposit RMB300 and ’90s generation lifestyle trend of Bthe streets of Shanghai and and then pay RMB1 per half-hour “own nothing, reject nothing and be Beijing. It began last fall when mobike ride. The app provides the location of responsible for nothing”. became all the rage. But why has this nearby bikes and they can be dropped Tencent Holdings-backed start-up become off anywhere after use. One reason Thus despite the fact that the such a hit? behind mobike’s success is that it mobike business model is makes customers feel as if they are commercially illogical in many ways, getting a great bargain, paying RMB1 it has sparked public interest with to enjoy a RMB3,000 bike. Second, some even going as far as calling the mobike looks cool and many it a Unicorn in the making. But users have taken to sharing WeChat is mobike really a money-making Moments of themselves riding them. machine? Mobikes have now become a kind of social currency, synonymous with According to the company’s own cool, green (environmentally friendly) projections, its annual profit may and definitely in. Finally, the mobike be as much as RMB1.6 billion yuan; was destined to be a hit because of that’s more than the profit level of its flexible return system which is 90% of A share listed companies! “Own nothing, reject nothing and be responsible for nothing.” Lin Chen is Assistant Professor of Marketing at CEIBS.
    [Show full text]
  • Platform Innovation in Urban Mobility Transitions the Case of Dockless Bike Sharing
    platform innovation in urban mobility transitions the case of dockless bike sharing arnoud van waes colofon Dit proefschrift werd (mede) mogelijk gemaakt met financiële steun van de Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (NWO) als onder- deel van het onderzoeksprogramma Smart Urban Regions of the Future (no. 438-15-160 397). Platform innovation in urban mobility transitions: The case of dockless bike sharing. PhD thesis. Author: Arnoud van Waes Bookdesign & illustrations: Ilse Schrauwers; isontwerp.nl Printing: Gildeprint Enschede; gildeprint.nl ISBN: 9789492303424 © Arnoud van Waes, 2021 All rights reserved. No part of this production may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without prior written permission by the author. Platform innovation in urban mobility transitions The case of dockless bike sharing Platform innovatie in stedelijke mobiliteitstransities Een studie naar innovatieve deelfietssystemen (met een samenvatting in het Nederlands) Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Universiteit Utrecht op gezag van de rector magnificus, prof.dr. H.R.B.M. Kummeling, ingevolge het besluit van het college voor promoties in het openbaar te verdedigen op donderdag 27 mei 2021 des ochtends te 10.15 uur door Arnoud Harry Marianne van Waes geboren op 21 oktober 1987 te Terneuzen promotor Prof. dr. R.P.J.M. Raven copromotoren Dr. J.C.M. Farla Dr. A. Nikolaeva manuscriptcommissie Prof. dr. N.M.P. Bocken Prof. dr. M.C.G. te Brömmelstroet Prof. dr. C. Castaldi Prof. dr. ir. Q.C. van Est Prof. dr. A. Meijer 1 content Preface .
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Scooters and Micro-Mobility in Michigan
    CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series Number 46 December 2018 Electric Scooters and Micro-Mobility in Michigan Perry Holmes, University of Michigan This paper is available online at http://closup.umich.edu Papers in the CLOSUP Student Working Paper Series are written by students at the University of Michigan. This paper was submitted as part of the Fall 2018 course PubPol 475-750 Michigan Politics and Policy, that is part of the CLOSUP in the Classroom Initiative. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy or any sponsoring agency Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy University of Michigan Perry Holmes December 10, 2018 PUBPOL 750: Michigan Politics and Policy Final Research Paper Electric Scooters and Micro-Mobility in Michigan This paper examines the emerging international trend of dockless electric scooters and evaluates how Michigan’s state and local policymakers can best respond. While there are important public safety and other concerns that must be addressed with regulation, the scooters are a promising last-mile mobility option. Communities should aim to address these concerns while allowing the scooter companies to operate safely and optimize their services. BACKGROUND The scooters, the companies, and their business model 1 Electric scooters are battery-powered, internet-enabled personal vehicles. They typically have a brake on one handle, an accelerator on the other, and a small kickstand that allows them to be parked upright. The maximum speed is around 15 miles per hour, with a range of 20 miles, although most rides are much shorter.2 The two largest scooter companies in the country are Bird and Lime, but several other startups are operating in cities across the country.3 In Michigan, Bird, Lime, and Spin are 1 Bird, https://www.bird.co 2 Lime, https://www.li.me/electric-scooter 3 Irfan, Umair.
    [Show full text]
  • Niche Innovation Dynamics and the Urban Mobility Transition the Case of Dockless Bike-Sharing in London
    Niche innovation dynamics and the urban mobility transition The case of dockless bike-sharing in London Russell Cannon Urban Studies Master’s Programme (Two-Year) 30 Credits VT2019 Supervisor: Désirée Nilsson 1 Abstract This thesis seeks to provide a detailed understanding of the introduction of dockless bike-sharing to London. As part of a wave of new smart and shared mobility services that are aiming to transform the way people move around cities, this emerging form of transport has created disruptions in London since its launch in 2017. This study aims analyse to what extent dockless bike-sharing aligns or conflicts with the aims and objectives of local authorities governing public space in London. In doing so, it also aims to reveal insights into transformations in contemporary mobility by exploring the dynamics of niche innovations within socio-technical transitions, thus contributing to knowledge in the field of transition studies. To do this, a qualitative case study methodology was employed using document analysis and interviews with four stakeholders integrally involved in the case study, representing both public authorities and a private sector dockless bike-sharing operator, Mobike. The findings demonstrate that dockless bike-sharing is well aligned with the city’s explicit objectives to reduce car dependency and encourage active travel. It has particular potential to make cycling more accessible by bringing bike-sharing to parts of the city that do not have access to the pre-existing, docked bike-sharing scheme, operated by the central transport authority, Transport for London. Despite this, dockless bike-sharing, as a niche innovation, has struggled to break into the existing urban mobility regime.
    [Show full text]
  • City of Del Mar Staff Report
    City of Del Mar Staff Report TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Clem Brown, Environmental Sustainability/Special Projects Manager Via Scott Huth, City Manager DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJECT: License Agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC to Operate the North County Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff requests that the City Council approve a license agreement with Gotcha Ride LLC (Attachment A) to operate the North County Coastal Bike Share Pilot Program in the City of Del Mar and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement. BACKGROUND: The City of Del Mar is committed to reducing local greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to limit the effects of climate change, while also offering viable transportation alternatives to driving. Del Mar has adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that establishes a number of strategies to meet GHG emissions reduction targets, including facilitating safe, convenient, and affordable alternative transportation options. Specifically, Goal 14 in the CAP includes a strategy to “explore implementation of a bike share program…to provide another transportation alternative for traveling in town.” Transportation, especially travel via single occupancy vehicles, is a major source of GHG emissions in Del Mar and the other north San Diego County (North County) coastal cities. Offering and promoting programs like bike share, that replace vehicle trips with bike trips, is one way Del Mar can help to reduce emissions while offering more efficient and more affordable transportation modes for residents, employees, and visitors. Bike share is a service by which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a very short-term basis, allowing them to borrow a bicycle at one location and return it either to the same or an alternate location within a defined geographic boundary.
    [Show full text]
  • Smart Bike E-Bike Your Bike-Sharing
    facilitatesfacilitates sustainable sustainable mobility mobility YOUR BIKE-SHARING SPECIALIST SMART BIKE E-BIKE 20 cities 40 000 43 millions kms in zero 10 countries bikes 2018 emissions SMOOVE : THE INTERNATIONAL BIKE SHARING SPECIALIST FOR CITIES Smoove designs, installs and manufactures bikesharing solutions and mobility services, integrated in a multimodal and digital offer for cities and companies. We are the only company to offer ultra-innovative bikes, with on-board technology and a patented security system that makes our bikes and stations highly secured. Our range can suit any smartcities from light, mechanical and sunpowered stations to our new generation of hybrid E-Bikes. 6 Smoove E-Bike 8 3 1 10 7 4 11 9 5 2 1. The mixed frame with low step-over complies with mountain 7. Front and rear LED lights are always illuminated while bike standard EN14.764. The single-size, aluminium alloy you ride, and rear lights stay on when the bike is stationary. 6061-T6 frame is compatible with electrically-assisted bikes, holding the battery and controls in its main tube. 8. The front basket surpasses the requirements of standard NF-EN 14872 for bike racks. 2. Wheels are 26 inches with 6061-T6 aluminium double-walled Carrying weights of up to 10kg, it highlights the system’s rims, stainless steel rings and 36 stainless steel reinforced communications features. spokes, plus puncture-resistant tyres and inner tubes. A mobile phone holder suitable to any mobile size. 3. The comfortable saddle keeps out bad weather and is 9. Front wheel motor : 250 watts / weight: 2.2kg vandal-resistant, as well as being easily adjustable to suit users from 1.40 to 2m tall.
    [Show full text]
  • Intention to Use Obike Among University Students in Malaysia Chai Yat Ling Chin Pui Nee Tan Hui Bing Woo Ke Ni Yong Yon Yang Ba
    MK004/1805 INTENTION TO USE OBIKE AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN MALAYSIA CHAI YAT LING CHIN PUI NEE TAN HUI BING WOO KE NI YONG YON YANG BACHELOR OF MARKETING (HONS) UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING APRIL 2019 MK004/1805 INTENTION TO USE OBIKE AMONG UNIVERSITY STUDENTS IN MALAYSIA BY CHAI YAT LING CHIN PUI NEE TAN HUI BING WOO KE NI YONG YON YANG A final year project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of BACHELOR OF MARKETING (HONS) UNIVERSITI TUNKU ABDUL RAHMAN FACULTY OF BUSINESS AND FINANCE DEPARTMENT OF MARKETING APRIL 2019 Intention to use oBike among university students in Malaysia. _______________________________________________________________________________ Copyright @ 2019 ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this paper may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, without the prior consent of the authors. ii Intention to use oBike among university students in Malaysia. _______________________________________________________________________________ DECLARATION We hereby declare that: (1) This undergraduate research project is the end result of our own work and that due acknowledgement has been given in the references to ALL sources of information be they printed, electronic, or personal. (2) No portion of this research project has been submitted in support of any application for any other degree or qualification of this or any other university, or other institutes of learning. (3) Equal contribution has been made by each group member in completing the research project. (4) The word count of this research report is 10,724 words.
    [Show full text]
  • Innovation Briefinnovation Brief Regulating Dockless Bike-Sharing Schemes
    Innovation briefINNOVATION BRIEF Regulating dockless bike-sharing schemes The bike-sharing (bike hire) concept has by solutions allowing flexible parking of bikes been available for decades, but since the at public spaces and relocating them, while ac- turn of the millennium such systems have cess is offered more and more via the users’ spread across the globe and have become own smartphones (most commonly apps). part of the sustainable mobility offer for many As technology made so called ‘dockless’ (or cities. These schemes traditionally provide ‘freefloating’) solutions possible, such bike- public hire bikes at bike ‘docking stations’ sharing providers have emerged and boomed throughout the city. With the rapid develop- in the second half of the 2010s, with especially ment of technology and new business mod- high penetration in China. Their business model els, dockless bike-sharing1 providers have was based on introducing much larger bicycle emerged and boomed in the second half of fleets at a much quicker pace, allowed by free- the 2010s, with especially high penetration floating technology (as there was no need to in China. However, their rise in cities glo- deploy expensive docking stations) and making bally did not exploit the full potential of the use of the unclear regulation of the use of pub- concept in improving mobility, and has also lic space. Ofo started in October 2015 in Beijing with 2,000 bikes, while at the end of 2016 it had caused negative externalities, which made 85,000 bikes in China, and in 2017 it deployed necessary for cities to develop regulations. more than 10 million bikes in 250 cities globally.
    [Show full text]
  • Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Section 1
    Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Section 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility Version 2 September 2019 1 Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility 1. Regulating Shared Micromobility 5 a. What is Shared Micromobility? 5 b. City Authority for Regulation 6 c. Options for Regulation 7 2. General Terms and Conditions 9 a. General Provisions 10 b. Insurance, Bonds, and Fees 11 c. Enforcing Permit Terms 12 3. Scope & Operations Insight 15 a. Fleet Size 16 b. Fleet Removal/Relocation 18 c. Rebalancing & Fleet Distribution 19 d. Equipment and Vehicle Maintenance 20 e. Customer Service 23 f. Staffing and Workforce Development 24 g. Pricing 25 4. Public Engagement 27 a. Staffing & Events 28 b. Outreach Materials & Campaigns 28 c. Pricing & Discount Programs 29 5. Mobility Data & User Privacy 31 6. Infrastructure 35 a. Shared Micromobility Parking 36 b. Providing Safe Place to Ride 40 c. Restricted/Limited Access Areas 41 7. Current State of Practice 43 a. Vehicle Requirements 44 b. Fleet Requirements 45 c. Data Requirements 48 d. Fees 49 e. Employment Requirements 51 f. Adaptive Device Requirements 52 g. Discounted Pricing Programs 53 h. Multi-Language Requirements 54 i. Parking Requirements 55 2 Cover credit: San Jose Guidelines for Regulating Shared Micromobility About Developed for cities, by cities, this guidance outlines best practices for cities and public entities regulating and managing shared micromobility services on their streets. While many of the issues covered are applicable to all forms of shared micromobility, this document is explicitly meant to help cities establish guidelines for formal management of public-use mobility options that are not managed through traditional procurement processes (the management mechanism for most docked bike share programs in North America).
    [Show full text]
  • APPENDIX B. FLM STRATEGIES TOOLKIT Introduction to the FLM Strategies Toolkit
    APPENDIX B. FLM STRATEGIES TOOLKIT Introduction to the FLM Strategies Toolkit This toolkit provides detailed information on 37 REUSE OF EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION SERVICE discrete FLM strategies. The toolkit is organized by FLM strategy theme. • Curbside Management • On-Demand Microtransit Each toolkit sheet includes: • Innovative Park-n-Ride Management • Shuttle Service • Support Implementation of Micromobility Service • Description of the strategy • Car Share Parking • Applicability of the strategy to each FLM • Preferential Parking for Car or Vanpool Vehicles • Special Event Transit Service typology • Prioritization of RTD Owned Land and Parking • Autonomous Transit • Applicability of the strategy to any of the six • Point-to-point Car Share FLM overlays • Provide Power • Key implementing agencies • Round-trip Car Share • Potential funding sources • A case study or resource pertaining to the strategy, including a link for more information NEW INFRASTRUCTURE TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT • Bicycle and Micromobility Parking and Storage • Creation of EcoPass District • Multimodal Maps and Wayfinding • Bicycle Education and Encouragement Programs • Bike End-of-Trip Facilities and Amenities • Promotion of RTD Discount Passes • Website or App • Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) • Variable Message Signs FIRST AND LAST MILE GENERAL GUIDANCE • Dynamic Carpooling to Transit • Transit Access Marketing Plan • Pedestrian-Scale Lighting • Commuter Expert or Commuter Buddy • Improve Bicycle and Micromobility Infrastructure • Parking Cash-Out
    [Show full text]
  • Mobility Payment Integration: State-Of-The-Practice Scan
    Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the-Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 Federal Transit Administration PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center COVER PHOTO Courtesy of Edwin Adilson Rodriguez, Federal Transit Administration DISCLAIMER This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for its contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. Mobility Payment Integration: State-of-the- Practice Scan OCTOBER 2019 FTA Report No. 0143 PREPARED BY Ingrid Bartinique and Joshua Hassol Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 55 Broadway, Kendall Square Cambridge, MA 02142 SPONSORED BY Federal Transit Administration Office of Research, Demonstration and Innovation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 AVAILABLE ONLINE https://www.transit.dot.gov/about/research-innovation FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i Metric Conversion Table SYMBOL WHEN YOU KNOW MULTIPLY BY TO FIND SYMBOL LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm ft feet 0.305 meters m yd yards 0.914 meters m mi miles 1.61 kilometers km VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL gal gallons 3.785 liter L ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3 MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg megagrams T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 Mg (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o 5 (F-32)/9 o F Fahrenheit Celsius C or (F-32)/1.8 FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION i FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ii REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
    [Show full text]
  • What Killed Ofo? Efficient Financing Pushed It Step by Step Into the Abyss
    2018 International Workshop on Advances in Social Sciences (IWASS 2018) What Killed ofo? Efficient Financing Pushed it Step by Step into the Abyss Nansong Zhou University of International Relations, China Keywords: ofo, Efficient Financing, dilemma Abstract: ofo is a bicycle-sharing travel platform based on a “dockless sharing” model that is dedicated to solving urban travel problems. Users simply scan a QR code on the bicycle using WeChat or the ofo app and are then provided with a password to unlock the bike. Since its launch in June 2015, ofo has deployed 10 million bicycles, providing more than 4 billion trips in over 250 cities to more than 200 million users in 21 countries. However, negative news coverage of ofo has increased recently. In September 2018, due to missed payments, ofo was sued by Phoenix Bicycles In the same month, some netizens claimed that ofo cheats and misleads consumers. On October 27, another media outlet disclosed that the time limit for refunding the deposit was extended again, from 1-10 working days to 1-15 working days. Various indications suggest that ofo is in crisis. What happened to ofo? How did the company come to be in this situation? This paper will answer these questions. 1. Introduction Bicycle sharing is a service in which bicycles are made available for shared use to individuals on a short-term basis for a price or for free. Such services take full advantage of the stagnation of bicycle use caused by rapid urban economic development and maximize the utilization of public roads. The first instance of bicycle-sharing in history occurred in 1965 when fifty bicycles were painted white, left permanently unlocked, and placed throughout the inner city in Amsterdam for the public to use freely.
    [Show full text]