RP2021e: Greening Inner-urban Travel with Sharing Economy Mobility Services Servicing the needs of Major Inner-urban Trip Generators Final Report Barriers to the provision of shared mobility services 1 1 Authors Dr. Andrew Allan, Dr. Ali Soltani Title Servicing the Needs of Major Inner-urban Trip Generators ISBN N/A Date August 2019 Keywords Shared mobility; trip generators; mobility service provision; transport users Publisher CRC for Low Carbon Living Preferred citation Allan, A. & Soltani, A. 2019 Servicing the needs of Major Inner-urban Trip Generators, CRC for Low Carbon Living, Sydney, Australia Servicing the needs of major inner-urban trip generators 2 Acknowledgements This research is funded by the CRC for Low Carbon Living Ltd supported by the Cooperative Research Centres program, an Australian Government initiative. Disclaimer Any opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the CRCLCL or its partners, agents or employees. The CRCLCL gives no warranty or assurance and makes no representation as to the accuracy or reliability of any information or advice contained in this document, or that it is suitable for any intended use. The CRCLCL, its partners, agents and employees, disclaim any and all liability for any errors or omissions or in respect of anything or the consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document. Peer Review Statement The CRCLCL recognises the value of knowledge exchange and the importance of objective peer review. It is committed to encouraging and supporting its research teams in this regard. The author(s) confirm(s) that this document has been reviewed and approved by the project’s steering committee and by its program leader. These reviewers evaluated its: originality methodology rigour compliance with ethical guidelines conclusions against results conformity with the principles of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC 2007), and provided constructive feedback which was considered and addressed by the author(s). Servicing the needs of major inner-urban trip generators 3 Executive Summary This report explores the role of commercial shared was not yet complete and its opening was delayed by mobility services in supporting the needs of major trip more than 6 months into 2018 which may have influenced generators, using the inner urban Adelaide as a case survey respondents’ perceptions regarding public study. The commercial shared mobility services covered transport accessibility to and from the University of in this report are characterised by carshare (such as Adelaide. The remainder of this Executive Summary GoGet), rideshare (UBER), bicycle share (dockless within describes the content of the 5 Chapters contained within the context of Adelaide provided by OfO and OBike) and the report. shared e-scooters (such as provided by Lime, Beam and Chapter 1 provides a rationale for the choice of Adelaide Ride). Major trip generators described in this report are as a case study for investigating shared mobility, characterised by festivals, sporting events or public reviewing the policy environment, its socio-economic facilities (such as hospitals, universities and transport background and contemporary travel behaviour. The interchanges) that attract relatively high numbers of inner suburban areas of Adelaide and its CBD are shown participants and workers. to present a jurisdiction with considerable potential for During the preparation of this report, shared mobility innovative shared micro-mobility solutions to succeed services underwent cataclysmic upheaval in late 2018, because of its concentrated dense population within a with the effective collapse of the dockless share bike compact CBD, its younger and well educated business model locally and the withdrawal of dockless demographic, its wealth, its abundance of amenity of bikeshare systems in many cities internationally. metropolitan-wide significance, the concentration of However, car share and ride share schemes continue, varied employment opportunities, and its high density of and dockless share micro-mobility options continue in public transport provisioning. Adelaide in the form of e-scooters (currently provided by Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive literature review Beam and Ride). covering the concept of shared mobility in urban settings, During the research phase of this project, OfO had just the evolution of bike share systems, car and ride share commenced trial operations of a dockless share bike systems, the emergence of autonomous vehicles and scheme in Adelaide in 2017, but a year later had electric cars, culminating in discourse on modal shift effectively ceased to operate as a business locally, and towards sharing mobility services. exited in controversial circumstances in Australian cities Chapter 3 provides an overview and comparison of with dockless bikeshare being discredited because of the international and local data on the rapidly emerging clutter they created in city streets. When the travel phenomenon of sharing-mobility. Bike-sharing and other behaviour survey of over 400 participants for this study forms of mobility sharing are not a particularly new was conducted in early 2018, it was within the context of phenomenon, however, what is new is the incredible dockless bikeshare just having been introduced in computing processing power, high data handling capacity Adelaide, with bright prospects for universal uptake and the geo-positioning capability afforded by today’s across metropolitan Adelaide and as an enduring ‘active smart devices (such as smart phones), which has transport’ micro-mobility option, particularly suited to short enabled complicated customised apps with powerful ‘on urban trips and solving the ‘first mile-last mile’ conundrum the fly’ processing power that can manage commercial of urban travel. Hence, interpretation of the survey results transactions in real-time. needs to be viewed within the context of shared mobility being seen as a viable transport choice. Chapter 3 provides an international perspective of the rise and rise of the bike-share phenomenon and provides This project focused on the role of major trip generators international case studies of bike share, such as London’s in supporting shared mobility services and vice versa, ‘Cycle Hire’, Chicago’s ‘Divvy’ and Budapest’s MOL Bubi. because successful transport services are most viable Bikeshare is a global phenomenon, however, 2019 has where there are large numbers of trips generated. For the proven to be a watershed year for shared micro-mobility sake of simplicity in the research design, the choice of with many dockless bikeshare companies withdrawing major trip generators (and conversely, trip attractors), was from many cities both in Australia and internationally or determined by areas of the City of Adelaide that create switching their business focus to micro e-mobility the largest flows of participants (specifically Rundle Mall, services, predominantly in the form of e-scooters, and in Adelaide Oval, the Royal Adelaide Hospital, The some cases e-bikes. The dockless bike share University of Adelaide, Adelaide Central Railway Station phenomenon survives in Sydney (Mobike and Lime e- and the Adelaide Central Markets) rather than districts or bikes), but it is a shadow of its former self when it was zones of high density commercial and residential launched with much fanfare in 2017. The failure of developments. It should also be noted that at the time the dockless share bike schemes may be due to problems survey was conducted, the North Terrace tram extension Servicing the needs of major inner-urban trip generators 4 with the business model, however, vandalism in all of the which suggests that UBER is succeeding, however, Australian city markets and community hostility to the Adelaide’s low density urban environment and plentiful random parking of share bikes created a challenging parking has yet to present a convincing case for GoGet to operation environment. It is probably too early to say provide a substantial share of mobility needs. This may whether the bikeshare phenomenon can survive in the change as residential development in Adelaide’s CBD longer term or whether micro e-mobility in the form of e- becomes denser and parking becomes scarcer and more scooters and e-bikes (which are much more easily expensive. The Chapter concludes with discussion on controlled by the share mobility operator), will be the way the likely policy implications, particularly with regard to forward for dockless share micro-mobility in Australian planning changes, infrastructure improvements and cities. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the types of facilitating modal shifts to more environmentally users and usage patterns for dockless share bikes based sustainable travel modes. on international experience. Chapter 3 then concludes By itself, shared mobility in the context of Australian cities with an overview of carshare and its current state of may not attract sufficient market share to provide operation in Adelaide. Service provider GoGet’s significant carbon emissions reduction, however, when penetration and acceptance in the Adelaide market is combined with medium to long term changes in urban relatively limited compared to what has been achieved in form (particularly the creation of transit oriented Sydney and Melbourne. However, with the legalisation of developments), shared mobility in