Shared Mobility Policy Playbook December 2019

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Shared Mobility Policy Playbook December 2019 BUS Shared Mobility Policy Playbook December 2019 Susan Shaheen, Ph.D., Adam Cohen, Michael Randolph, Emily Farrar, Richard Davis, Aqshems Nichols Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) for generously funding this research. We also thank Tyler Monson, Erik Alm, Kayo Lao, and Roy Abboud of Caltrans for programmatic support. The authors give special thanks to Cayla McDonnel and Kate Meis of the Local Government Commission for their support of this research. Special thanks also go to the public agencies, private companies, and practitioners who participated in the small group discussions, expert interviews, and the shared mobility and modeling workshop. We would also like to thank the workshop and webinar speakers and moderators. The authors also thank Luyu Chen, Elaine Hsieh, Sam Klapper, Marcel Moran, Rhett-Alexander Paranay, Emma Polhemus, Valerie Tan, and Mingyuan Yang of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC) of the University of California, Berkeley for their support developing this toolkit. The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily indicate sponsor acceptance. Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Acknowledgments | 1 Table of Contents Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Shared Mobility Definitions and Key Concepts .................................................................... 8 Mode-Specific Tools Carsharing ............................................................................................................................. 20 Microtransit ............................................................................................................................ 39 Ridesharing (Carpooling and Vanpooling) ............................................................................ 50 Shared Micromobility ............................................................................................................ 68 Transportation Network Companies (TNCs)......................................................................... 90 Shared Automated Vehicles (SAVs) ..................................................................................... 111 Last-Mile Delivery ................................................................................................................. 126 Policy-Specific Tools Shared Mobility and Public Transit Integration ..................................................................... 137 Shared Mobility and Equity ................................................................................................... 148 Rights-of-Way for Shared Mobility ........................................................................................ 159 Shared Mobility and Incentive Zoning .................................................................................. 171 Shared Mobility and Data Sharing ........................................................................................ 178 Incorporating Shared Mobility into Planning & Modeling ..................................................... 191 Multimodal Tools and Trip Planners ..................................................................................... 199 Shared Mobility and Electrification ....................................................................................... 209 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 222 Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 2 Shared mobility – the shared use of a vehicle, bicycle, or other travel mode – is an innovative transportation strategy that enables short-term access to transportation modes on an “as- needed” basis. Sharing can include sequential sharing (i.e., different users share the same transportation vehicle or equipment, one after the other) or concurrent sharing (i.e., sharing of the same transportation vehicle or equipment by multiple non-household users for the same trip). Shared mobility can also include core services such as: shuttles, taxis, public transit, pedicabs, and paratransit. Although important to the shared mobility ecosystem, policies for these modes are not included in this toolkit. Please see Figure 1.1 below for the shared mobility ecosystem. Figure 1.1 Shared Mobility Service Models. Adapted from Shaheen et al., 2016 Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 3 Shared mobility can include roundtrip services (a vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or other mode is returned to its origin); one-way station-based services (a vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or other mode is returned to a different designated station location); and one- way free-floating services (a vehicle, bicycle, scooter, or other mode can be returned anywhere within a geographic area). To help manage free-floating services, cities and shared mobility operators may use technologies like geofencing. Geofencing is a technology that uses GPS or RFID technology to create a virtual boundary, enabling cities to determine when and how often vehicles or equipment cross predetermined boundaries, as well as alert riders who operate in restricted areas. A number of environmental, social, and transportation-related benefits have been reported from the use of shared mobility. Several studies have documented reduced vehicle use, ownership, and vehicle miles/kilometers traveled. Cost savings and convenience are frequently cited as popular reasons for using a shared mode. Shared mobility can also make it easier for users to connect to public transportation, potentially helping to bridge gaps in existing transportation networks and encouraging multimodality by addressing the first-and- last-mile connections to public transit. Studies indicate that shared mobility users are typically young and have higher levels of educational attainment, higher income, and are less diverse than the general population. However, there is anecdotal evidence from some cities that indicates the user base of shared modes (e.g., bikesharing and scooter sharing) may be more diverse than other shared modes, as dockless bikes and scooters may have greater success reaching underserved areas of communities. Shared mobility presents an opportunity to provide additional mobility to populations who may be underserved by traditional transportation options or who may be unable to afford the high cost associated with vehicle ownership. Shared mobility can provide numerous economic benefits to communities, such as cost savings for users and increased economic activity near multimodal hubs. Development of this playbook was made possible by the public and private stakeholders who participated in workshops and webinars, small group discussions, and surveys throughout the development of this document. It is important to note, however, that shared mobility is rapidly evolving, and this playbook represents current understanding at the time of publication. This Shared Mobility Policy Playbook provides an introduction and definitions of shared mobility services, mode-specific resources for agencies looking to develop policies in their community, and policy-focused tools demonstrating case studies and best practices for Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 4 shared mobility. Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 5 How to Use This Playbook This Shared Mobility Policy Playbook has been designed for individuals and practitioners who want to know more about shared mobility and to communities interested in incorporating shared mobility into their transportation ecosystem. This playbook is a practical guide with resources, information, and tools for local governments, public agencies, and non-governmental organizations seeking to incorporate and manage innovative and emerging shared mobility services. The following are suggested uses of this playbook: • Access shared mobility resources including: opportunities, lessons learned, and best practices for deploying shared mobility across the United States. • Use this playbook as a guide for strategic transportation planning and incorporating shared mobility into transportation plans and models. • Reference best practices, lessons learned, and case studies to aid public policy development. Figure 1.2. Protected bike lane and loading zone in a city street. Photo Courtesy of Flickr/Sergio Ruiz Shared Mobility Policy Playbook - Introduction | 6 Policy Playbook Overview This playbook presents an overview of current practices, lessons learned, and guiding principles for public agencies to advance shared mobility policy and planning. The playbook is organized into three distinct sections: 1) Shared Mobility Definitions, 2) Mode-Specific Tools, and 3) Policy-Specific Tools, outlined below: • Shared Mobility Definitions • Mode-Specific Tools: Carsharing Microtransit Ridesharing (Carpooling and Vanpooling) Shared Micromobility (Docked and Dockless Bike and Scooter Sharing) Transportation Network Companies (TNCS, also known as ridesourcing and ridehailing) Shared Automated Vehicles (SAVs) Last-Mile Delivery • Policy-Specific Tools: Shared Mobility and Public Transit Integration Shared Mobility and Equity Rights-of-Way for Shared Mobility Shared Mobility and Incentive Zoning Shared Mobility and Data Sharing Incorporating Shared Mobility into Planning and Modeling Multimodal Tools and Trip Planners Shared Mobility and Electrification Shared Mobility Policy Playbook
Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • The Basics of Micromobility and Related Motorized Devices for Personal Transport
    INFO BRIEF The basics of micromobility and related motorized devices for personal transport www.pedbikeinfo.org 1 Introduction With a surge of new personal transportation weight categories. Cities or other jurisdictions devices coming to market, some integrated into can define the weight and width limitations for shared ride systems (such as bikeshare programs), different types of roadway facilities. there is a need to establish a common vocabulary for these options, and provide basic information This info brief specifically focuses on micromobility about how these devices are classified and devices used for personal transportation on regulated. This info brief provides an overview of paved roads, sidewalks, and paths, and does not powered forms of micromobility and compares cover devices used for vocational purposes and features of micromobility with a spectrum of other commercial goods/services delivery or for off- traditional and emerging forms of transportation. road or air-based travel. While pedestrians and It references and builds upon micromobility bicyclists—including those using nonmotorized definitions created by the Society of Automotive bikeshare bikes—might share similar Engineers (SAE), a standards-developing characteristics (such as small size and low travel organization and professional association. speed speed) as well as use the same facilities where micromobility devices are operated, they Powered micromobility devices, sometimes called are already well-defined by most regulatory, personal e-mobility devices, share
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Bus Rapid Transit Feasiblity Study
    TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1 2 MODES AND TRENDS THAT FACILITATE BRT ........................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.1 Microtransit ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 2.2 Shared Mobility .......................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.3 Mobility Hubs ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Curbside Management .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3 3 VEHICLES THAT SUPPORT BRT OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Automated Vehicles .................................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Matthew Daus Monthly Column
    Matthew W. Daus, Esq. President, International Association of Transportation Regulators http://iatr.global/ Transportation Technology Chair, City University of New York, Transportation Research Center at The City College of New York http://www.utrc2.org/ Partner and Chairman, Windels Marx Transportation Practice Group http://windelsmarx.com Contact: [email protected] 156 West 56th Street | New York, NY 10019 T. 212.237.1106 | F. 212.262.1215 {11878124:1} 1 Taxi & For-Hire Business Opportunities with Government & Public Transit Agencies in 2021 and Beyond Public transit agencies – and state and local governments – are hurting now because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, and they will need new efficiencies and revenue sources. The pandemic has wreaked havoc on the global economy, with a devastating impact on the national and local economies. This has triggered a severe budget crisis for cities and states across the United States.1 New York City projects an $8.33 billion shortfall in its 2021 fiscal year budget,2 and the National League of Cities predicts that cities, towns, and villages can expect to face a cumulative $360 billion budget shortfall from 2020 through 2022. The severe decline in public transit ridership will also have devastating effects on transit agencies. When New York City emerged as an epicenter of COVID-19 in mid-April, subway ridership dropped 92% and commuter train ridership dropped 98%.3 Service has yet to return to anything near pre-pandemic levels, and the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) November Financial Plan (the “November Plan”) estimates deficits of $2.49 billion in 2020, $6.12 billion in 2021, and multibillion-dollar deficits through 2024.4 Cuts have already begun.5 The MTA has focused on three areas to cut costs including non- personnel expenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Matching the Speed of Technology with the Speed of Local Government: Developing Codes and Policies Related to the Possible Impacts of New Mobility on Cities
    Final Report 1216 June 2020 Photo by Cait McCusker Matching the Speed of Technology with the Speed of Local Government: Developing Codes and Policies Related to the Possible Impacts of New Mobility on Cities Marc Schlossberg, Ph.D. Heather Brinton NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITIES nitc-utc.net MATCHING THE SPEED OF TECHNOLOGY WITH THE SPEED OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT Developing Codes and Policies Related to the Possible Impacts of New Mobility on Cities Final Report NITC-RR-1216 by Marc Schlossberg, Professor Department of Planning, Public Policy and Management University of Oregon Heather Brinton, Director Environment and Natural Resources Law Center University of Oregon for National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 Portland, OR 97207 June 2020 Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. NITC-RR-1216 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date June 2020 Matching the Speed of Technology with the Speed of Local Government: Developing Codes and Policies Related to the Possible Impacts of New Mobility on Cities 6. Performing Organization Code 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Marc Schlossberg Report No. Heather Brinton 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) University of Oregon 1209 University of Oregon 11. Contract or Grant No. Eugene, OR 97403 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered National Institute for Transportation and Communities (NITC) P.O. Box 751 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Portland, Oregon 97207 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract Advances in transportation technology such as the advent of scooter and bikeshare systems (micromobility), ridehailing, and autonomous vehicles (AV’s) are beginning to have profound effects not only on how we live, move, and spend our time in cities, but also on urban form and development itself.
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Virtual Conference Sponsorship Deck
    2021 NABSA Virtual Conference Sponsorship Packages and Pricing The Future is Shared ABOUT THE CONFERENCE The NABSA Annual Conference is the only conference of its kind globally. The NABSA conference is an international cross- sector convening of all sectors involved in shared micromobility planning and implementation-- host cities, equipment manufacturers, operators, technology providers, consultants, data analytics companies, and other service providers that all contribute to realizing shared micromobility in communities. Sponsorship provides multiple venues and collateral items to connect you to the people you want to know, and who want to know you. Gain exposure to city officials, operators, and private industry professionals, and make your mark in the shared micromobility industry. The Future is Shared ABOUT THE CONFERENCE The NABSA conference is a global stage. The NABSA Conference is the longest-running and only conference of it’s kind globally. Professionals from all over the world attend this must-go event! The 2020 NABSA virtual conference had 400 attendees. The 2018 & 2019 in-person NABSA conferences had between 300-350 bikeshare and shared mobility professionals in attendance - government officials, private industry and non-profit professionals. NABSA’s annual conference is the best way to connect with the leaders, influencers and decision-makers that are driving shared micromobility forward. Attendees include representatives from many cities across North America engaged in shared micromobility, and looking to implement and
    [Show full text]
  • Electric Mobility = Micromobility (Not Just Electric Cars) (Behrendt 2017; Cairns Et Al 2019)
    Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends ELEVATE - Our new micromobility project: https://gow.epsrc.ukri.org/NGBOViewGrant.aspx?GrantRef=EP/S030700/1 Frauke Behrendt, Associate Professor Transitions to Sustainable Mobility [email protected] @FraukeBehrendt Technology, Innovation & Society Group Covid Paris 2 Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends @FraukeBehrendt Micromobility “will continue to transform These “innovative how people travel, goods are technologies will likely have a delivered, streets are disruptive impact” designed, and cities evolve.” (Shaheen & Cohen, 2019) 3 Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends @FraukeBehrendt What is Micromobility? Micro e-cars E-Skatebaords Cargo e-bikes Monowheels Etc… 4 Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends @FraukeBehrendt Classifications • Definitions, classifications and regulatory frameworks for micromobility vary across the world (e.g. EU L categories) • A range of micro-vehicles – such as standing e-scooters, e-skateboards and self-balancing vehicles – is often excluded, or classified as toys 5 Micromobility - Emerging Urban Transport Trends @FraukeBehrendt Proposed Definition Type A: Under 35kg, power supply (if any) is gradually reduced and cut off at a given speed limit, no higher than 25 km/h Overall: Devices/vehicles weighing up to 350 kg and whose power supply (if any) is gradually reduced and cut off at a given speed limit, no higher than 45 km/h. Types A-D Includes exclusively human-powered, e.g. bicycles, skateboards, scooters. Note: account for
    [Show full text]
  • Title: Flexible Carpooling to Transit Stations / GO Transit Prepared By
    Title: Flexible Carpooling to Transit Stations / GO Transit Prepared By: Paul Minett / GO Transit Auckland, New Zealand / Canada Experiment: On Five Seattle-Area Transit Station Parking / Smart Commute Tool Objective is to investigate and define flexible carpooling service to increase the amount of carpooling to transit stations, and designed a field operating trial to test the concept. Many transit stations are overflowing therefore, Transit ridership could be increased/ the effectiveness of investments in parking at transit stations must improve, only if mechanisms could be developed that encourage more people to carpool to stations. There are two types of Carpooling defined in this article, one is Flexible Carpooling which is characterized by an absence of the trip by trip rearrangement found in other carpool formation systems, relying on sufficient people arriving at the meeting place seeking rides by lining up by the station. The other type is Informal Flexible Carpooling, which is seen as evidence that the underlying behaviors can occur, and that this style of carpool formation, without the complex matching systems found in other carpool solutions, this method can attract significant numbers of users. If a transit station is at a ‘high volume destination’, then they could create a system, so it can be established in which people would form flexible carpools and enable a greater number of people to access any given transit station and therefore increase transit ridership. It could the equivalent of a slug-line be established (a “formal flexible carpool” because it would be part of the formal public transport system) to get people to transit rather than all the way to a final destination.
    [Show full text]
  • Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future Nelson D
    This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Berkeley] On: 06 January 2012, At: 11:09 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Transport Reviews Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ttrv20 Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future Nelson D. Chan a & Susan A. Shaheen a a Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of California, Berkeley, Richmond, CA, USA Available online: 04 Nov 2011 To cite this article: Nelson D. Chan & Susan A. Shaheen (2012): Ridesharing in North America: Past, Present, and Future, Transport Reviews, 32:1, 93-112 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2011.621557 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and- conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
    [Show full text]
  • New IDEAS for Transit
    IDEA Innovations Deserving Exploratory Analysis Programs TRANSIT New IDEAS for Transit Transit IDEA Program Annual Report DECEMBER 2019 TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2019 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: Victoria A. Arroyo, Executive Director, Georgetown Climate Center; Assistant Dean, Centers and Institutes; and Professor and Director, Environmental Law Program, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C. VICE CHAIR: Carlos M. Braceras, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Neil J. Pedersen, Transportation Research Board MEMBERS Michael F. Ableson, CEO, Arrival Automotive–North America, Detroit, MI Ginger Evans, CEO, Reach Airports, Arlington, VA Nuria I. Fernandez, General Manager/CEO, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, San Jose, CA Nathaniel P. Ford, Sr., Executive Director–CEO, Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Jacksonville, FL A. Stewart Fotheringham, Professor, School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University, Tempe Diane Gutierrez-Scaccetti, Commissioner, New Jersey Department of Transportation, Trenton Susan Hanson, Distinguished University Professor Emerita, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester, MA Stephen W. Hargarten, Professor, Emergency Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Chris T. Hendrickson, Hamerschlag University Professor of Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA S. Jack Hu, Vice President for Research and J. Reid and Polly Anderson Professor of Manufacturing, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Roger B. Huff, President, HGLC, LLC, Farmington Hills, MI Ashby Johnson, Executive Director, Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Austin, TX Geraldine Knatz, Professor, Sol Price School of Public Policy, Viterbi School of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles William Kruger, Vice President, UPS Freight for Fleet Maintenance and Engineering, Richmond, VA Julie Lorenz, Secretary, Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka Michael R.
    [Show full text]