ISSN 1055- 1425
March 2010
This work was performed as part of the California PATH Program of the
University of California, in cooperation with the State of California Business,
Transportation, and Housing Agency, Department of Transportation, and the
United States Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible
for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the State of California. This
report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
Final Report for Task Order 6104
CALIFORNIA PATH PROGRAM
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
EasyConnect II: Integrating Transportation,
Information, and Energy Technologies at
the Pleasant Hill BART Transit Oriented
Development
UCB- ITS- PRR- 2010- 2
California PATH Research Report
Caroline Rodier, Susan A. Shaheen, Tagan Blake,
Jeffrey R. Lidicker, Elliot Martin
CALIFORNIA PARTNERS FOR ADVANCED TRANSIT AND HIGHWAYS
EasyConnect II: Integrating Transportation, Information, and Energy Technologies
at the Pleasant Hill BART Transit Oriented Development
California Partners for Advanced Transit ( PATH) Task Order 6104
Caroline Rodier, Ph. D.
Senior Researcher, Transportation Sustainability Research Center
University of California, Berkeley
1301 S. 46th Street, Richmond Field Station ( RFS), Bldg. 190, Richmond, CA 94804
( 510) 665- 3524; ( 510) 665- 2183, caroline@ tsrc. berkeley. edu
Susan A. Shaheen, Ph. D.
Honda Distinguished Scholar, Institute of Transportation Studies, Davis &
Co- Director, Transportation Sustainability Research Center
University of California, Berkeley
1301 S. 46th Street, Richmond Field Station ( RFS), Bldg. 190, Richmond, CA 94804
( 510) 665- 3483; ( 510) 665- 2183, sashaheen@ tsrc. berkeley. edu
Tagan Blake
Graduate Student Researcher, Transportation Sustainability Research Center
University of California, Berkeley
1301 S. 46th Street, Richmond Field Station ( RFS), Bldg. 190, Richmond, CA 94804
( 415) 283- 6962; ( 510) 665- 2183, taganb@ gmail. com
Jeffrey R. Lidicker
Graduate Student Researcher, Transportation Sustainability Research Center
University of California, Berkeley
1301 S. 46th Street, Richmond Field Station ( RFS), Bldg. 190
Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
510- 295- 4411 ( O); 866- 902- 4618 ( F)
jlidicker@ tsrc. berkeley. edu
Elliot Martin
Graduate Student Researcher, Transportation Sustainability Research Center
University of California, Berkeley
1301 S. 46th Street, Richmond Field Station ( RFS), Bldg. 190
Richmond, CA 94804- 4648
510- 295- 4411 ( O); 866- 902- 4618 ( F)
jlidicker@ tsrc. berkeley. edu
December 11, 2009
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TECHNICAL REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
TR0003 ( REV. 10/ 98)
1. REPORT NUMBER
UCB- ITS- PRR- 2010- 2
2. GOVERNMENT ASSOCIATION NUMBER
3. RECIPIENT’S CATALOG NUMBER
5. REPORT DATE
November 1, 2009
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EasyConnect II: Integrating Transportation, Information, and Energy Technologies at the Pleasant
Hill BART Transit Oriented Development
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR( S)
Caroline Rodier, Susan A. Shaheen, Tagan Blake, Jeff Lidicker, and Elliot Martin
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. WORK UNIT NUMBER
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Transportation Sustainability Research Center
University of California, Berkeley
1301 S. 46th Street
Richmond Field Station ( RFS), Bldg. 190
Richmond, CA 94804
11. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Research Report
12. SPONSORING AGENCY AND ADDRESS
California Department of Transportation
1227 O Street, MS- 83
Sacramento, CA 94273 14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Smart growth policy strategies attempt to control increasing auto travel, congestion, and vehicle emissions by redirecting new development into
communities with a high- intensity mix of shopping, jobs, and housing that is served by high- quality modal alternatives to single occupant vehicles. The
integration of innovative technologies with traditional modal options in transit- oriented developments ( TODs) may be the key to providing the kind of
high- quality transit service that can effectively compete with the automobile in suburban transit corridors. A major challenge, however, of such an
integration strategy is the facilitation of a well- designed and seamless multi- modal connection infrastructure – both informational and physical.
EasyConnect II explored the introduction and integration of multi- modal transportation services, both traditional and innovative technologies, at the
Pleasant Hill Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) District station during the initial construction phase of the Contra Costa Centre Transit Village ( or TOD) in
the East San Francisco Bay Area. The project explored the integration of following in this TOD: 1) shared- use, low- speed modes vehicles, 2) electronic
lockers (“ eLockers”) with reservation capabilities: smart transit- based parking technology; 3) a protocol for a web- based information system ( Mobility
Options Protocol or MOP) to obtain information about available modal options and transportation services; and 4) innovative distributed power generation
technologies to help meet growing electrical loads associated with the introduction of advanced electronic transportation and information technology
systems.
17. KEY WORDS
Transit Oriented Development; Transit Station Access; Bike Lockers
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the
National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION ( of this report)
Unclassified
20. NUMBER OF PAGES
129
21. PRICE
N/ A
Reproduction of completed page authorized
American with Disabilities Act ( ADA) Statement
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this report is also available in Braille, large print,
on audio cassette, or computer disks, if requested. To obtain a copy of the report in an
alternate format, please call or write to the Division of Research and Innovation, P. O.
Box 942873, MS- 83, Sacramento, CA 94273- 0001, 916- 654- 8899, or use the CA Relay
Service TTY number: 1- 800- 735- 2929, or dial 711.
v
i
ABSTRACT
Smart growth policy strategies attempt to control increasing auto travel, congestion, and
vehicle emissions by redirecting new development into communities with a high- intensity
mix of shopping, jobs, and housing that is served by high- quality modal alternatives to
single occupant vehicles. The integration of innovative technologies with traditional
modal options in transit- oriented developments ( TODs) may be the key to providing the
kind of high- quality transit service that can effectively compete with the automobile in
suburban transit corridors. A major challenge, however, of such an integration strategy is
the facilitation of a well- designed and seamless multi- modal connection infrastructure –
both informational and physical. EasyConnect II explored the introduction and
integration of multi- modal transportation services, both traditional and innovative
technologies, at the Pleasant Hill Bay Area Rapid Transit ( BART) District station during
the initial construction phase of the Contra Costa Centre Transit Village ( or TOD) in the
East San Francisco Bay Area. The project explored the integration of following in this
TOD: 1) shared- use, low- speed vehicles, 2) electronic lockers (“ eLockers”) with
reservation capabilities: smart transit- based parking technology; 3) a protocol for a web-based
information system ( Mobility Options Protocol or MOP) to obtain information
about available modal options and transportation services; and 4) innovative distributed
power generation technologies to help meet growing electrical loads associated with the
introduction of advanced electronic transportation and information technology systems.
ii
iii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Smart growth policy strategies attempt to diminish increasing auto travel, congestion, and
vehicle emissions by redirecting new development into communities with a high- intensity
mix of shopping, jobs, and housing that is served by high- quality modal alternatives to
single occupant vehicles. The integration of innovative technologies with traditional
modal options in transit- oriented developments ( TODs) may be the key to providing the
kind of high- quality transit service that can effectively compete with the automobile in
suburban transit corridors. A major challenge, however, of such an integration strategy is
the facilitation of a well- designed and seamless multi- modal connection infrastructure –
both informational and physical.
EasyConnect II explored the introduction and integration of multi- modal transportation
services, both traditional and innovative technologies, at the Pleasant Hill Bay Area
Rapid Transit ( BART) District station during the initial construction phase of the Contra
Costa Centre Transit Village ( or TOD) in the East San Francisco Bay Area.
The report begins by describing the various components of the EasyConnect II project,
which included the following:
• Shared- use, low- speed vehicles ( electric bicycles, non- motorized bicycles, and
Segway Human Transporters) available for commuting from the BART station to
area businesses within approximately five miles.
• Electronic lockers (“ eLockers”) with reservation capabilities located at the station
and nearby businesses that are a unique physical and technology design solution
to the problem of low- speed mode access to traditional transit.
• Smart parking technology to provide cost- effective and space- efficient solutions
to parking at the TOD site.
• A protocol for a web- based information system ( Mobility Options Protocol, or
MOP) that allows users to reserve, pay, and access travel information, moving
seamlessly across a range of available modal options and transportation services.
• Innovative distributed power generation technologies to help meet growing
electrical loads associated with the introduction of advanced electronic
transportation and information technology systems.
This is followed by a discussion of the results of an on- line survey of current electronic
locker users (“ eLocker”) in California. The survey shows that eLockers are generally
used by work- based commuters traveling by bicycle. It is apparent from the data on travel
patterns, that the eLockers are almost exclusively serving the access side of the bicycle
commute. That is, the vast majority of eLocker users are riding from their homes to a
transit station ( usually a BART station), and parking their bicycles at the station for the
day. A much smaller contingent of eLocker users are leaving their bicycles at a remote
transit station and traveling to it to pick up their bicycles to complete the “ last mile” of
their trip. Hence, eLockers are generally used in the same manner as conventional bike
racks. But a fair number of respondents consider eLockers to be essential to completing
their commute by bicycle. Roughly 180 respondents ( about 40 percent) indicated that
iv
they would complete their trip by some mode other than a bicycle, if eLockers were not
available. Many respondents said they would shift to other modes; nearly 80 respondents
suggested that they would shift to driving alone in an automobile. Hence, it appears that
eLockers may be enabling 15 to 20 percent of the sample surveyed to use bicycles instead
of automobiles. These results suggest that the eLockers are having some positive
environmental impact by facilitating bicycling for people who would otherwise drive. In
addition, users expressed considerable satisfaction with their use of the eLockers.
Next, we report the results of in- person interviews with eLocker users who volunteered to
beta test the reservation service that was added as part of this research project. The results
suggested the following: that reservation capabilities may be an important factor in users’
decisions to bike to transit stations, particularly if they use the station during peak
demand hours and eLockers are limited; the test period allowed for significant
improvement in the user interface provided for the reservation system; and, there was
general satisfaction with current eLocker payment options.
The report concludes with a detailed discussion of the mobility options protocol.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ............................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary........................................................................................................... iii
1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Project Components....................................................................................................... 2
2.1 EasyConnect I ......................................................................................................... 2
2.2 eLockers.................................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Smart Parking.......................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Hydrogen Fuel Cell Unit......................................................................................... 4
2.4 Mobility Option Protocol............ Error! Bookmark not defined._ Toc244917619
3.0 eLocker Evaluation ........................................................................................................ 6
3.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Literature Review.................................................................................................... 6
3.2.1 The Netherland Experience............................................................................ 6
3.2.2 Availability and Importance of Bicycle Lockers ........................................... 7
3.3 Bicycle Parking System .......................................................................................... 8
3.3.1 Bicycle Locker Options ................................................................................. 8
3.3.2 Study Locker System ..................................................................................... 9
3.4 eLocker Survey Analysis ........................................................................................ 9
3.5 Conclusions........................................................................................................... 19
4.0 eLocker Reservation Service Evaluation ..................................................................... 21
4.1 Users’ Reservation Behavior ................................................................................ 21
4.2 Reservation System Satisfaction........................................................................... 22
4.3 Payment Options................................................................................................... 23
5.0 Mobility Options Protocol ........................................................................................... 24
5.1 Mobility Options Protocol System ....................................................................... 24
5.2 Travel Information Flow....................................................................................... 25
5.3 Issues with Integrating Flow................................................................................. 26
5.4 Benefits of Information Sharing and Integrating Multi- Modal Travel................. 26
5.5 Implementation Considerations ............................................................................ 26
5.6 Beyond the MOP: Current Traveler Information Activity ................................... 27
Awknowledgements........................................................................................................... 28
References..................................................................................................................... .... 29
Appendix
Appendix A: EasyConnect II: Technology and Integrated Systems Review………….. A- 1
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: Demographics of Survey Respondents............................................................ 10
Table 3.2: Trip Origin by Trip Purpose ............................................................................ 14
Table 3.3: Travel Mode Preceding eLocker Access by Trip Origin................................. 14
Table 3.4: Motivation for Using the elockers ................................................................... 16
Table 3.5: How Travel Would Change if elockers were not Present ( Transit Users) ...... 18
Table 3.6: How Travel Would Change if elockers were not Present ( Non- transit Users) 18
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Frequency of Bicycling for Transportation and Bicycling Experience.......... 11
Figure 3.2: Tenure of eLocker usage and Means of Learning of eLocker ....................... 12
Figure 3.3: Usage Frequency of elockers ......................................................................... 13
Figure 3.4: Time of Access and Duration of Rental ......................................................... 15
Figure 3.5: Respondent Satisfaction with the elocker system .......................................... 17
Figure 5.1: Travel Information Flow in a MOP System................................................... 26
viii
1
1.0 Introduction
Smart growth policy strategies attempt to diminish increasing auto travel, congestion, and
vehicle emissions by redirecting new development into communities with a high- intensity
mix of shopping, jobs, and housing that is served by high- quality modal alternatives to
single occupant vehicles. The integration of innovative technologies with traditional
modal options in transit- oriented developments ( TODs) may be the key to providing the
kind of high- quality transit service that can effectively compete with the automobile in
suburban transit corridors. A major challenge, however, of such an integration strategy is
the facilitation of a well- designed and seamless multi- modal connection infrastructure –
both informational and physical.
EasyConnect II explored the introduction and integration of multi- modal transportation
services, both traditional and innovative technologies, at the Pleasant Hill Bay Area
Rapid Transit ( BART) District station during the initial construction phase of the Contra
Costa Centre Transit Village ( or TOD) in the East San Francisco Bay Area. The project
explored the integration of the following elements:
• Shared- use, low- speed vehicles ( electric bicycles, non- motorized bicycles, and
Segway Human Transporters) available for commuting from the BART station to
area businesses within approximately five miles.
• Electronic lockers (“ eLockers”) with reservation capabilities at the station and
nearby businesses, which provide a unique physical and technological design
solution to the problem of low- speed mode access to traditional transit.
• Smart parking technology to provide cost- effective and space- efficient solutions
to parking at the TOD site.
• A protocol for a web- based information system ( Mobility Options Protocol, or
MOP) that allows users to reserve, pay, and access travel information, moving
seamlessly across a range of available modal options and transportation services.
• Innovative distributed power generation technologies to help meet growing
electrical loads associated with the introduction of advanced electronic
transportation and information technology systems.
This report includes the following sections: 1) a description of the components of the
EasyConnect II project; 2) an analysis of surveys of eLocker users; 3) a description of the
results of in- person interviews with eLocker reservation users; and 4) a description of the
mobility option protocol.
2
2.0 Project Components
Building on EasyConnect I, a first- and last- mile low- speed mode service, the
EasyConnect II project explored the implementation and integration of the following four
elements at the Pleasant Hill BART station TOD: 1) electronic bike lockers including
reservation capabilities, 2) improved transit parking information, 3) a hydrogen fuel cell
power source, and 4) a protocol for a web- based service that provides detailed
information on available modal options. Each project component is described in more
detail below.
2.1 EasyConnect I
EasyConnect I was a field operational test that introduced shared- use electric bicycles,
non- motorized bicycles, and Segway Human Transporters ( HTs) ( known as “ low- speed
modes”) at the Pleasant Hill BART station, to allow commuters to connect to surrounding
employment centers within approximately five miles. Commuters were able to ride the
units from the BART station to their offices in surrounding employment centers in the
morning and back to the station at the end of the day, i. e. for “ commuter use.” The
devices were also used to run personal and business errands during the day, i. e. for “ day
use,” when stored at the work place. In addition, some units were located directly at
employment locations ( e. g., the Contra Costa Centre) to provide day- use options for
those who commute by vanpool or carpools.
There is an extensive paved trail network in the Pleasant Hill BART area. The East Bay
Parks District granted permission to use the electric bike and Segway HT on the Iron
Horse and Canal Trails. Access to the trails greatly enhances BART, employment, and
shopping connections.
The Contra Costa Centre assumed operation of the day use portion of EasyConnect I at
the end of the field operational test.
2.2 eLockers
Traditional bicycle lockers are relatively inefficient because each locker is usually
reserved for an individual who has pre- paid for the locker on a yearly basis. As a result,
lockers often sit empty and unused. A shared- use, technologically advanced electronic
locker system (“ eLockers”) can increase by approximately five- fold the number of
cyclists ( and other low- speed mode users) served by traditional lockers. Secure eLockers
work like metered curbside parking: users only pay for eLockers when they are using
them. The lockers are accessed using specially designed smartcards.
The EasyConnect I program placed electronic eLockers at the Pleasant Hill BART station
to enable commuters to travel from the station to places of employment. The lockers were
originally secured through donations by the Contra Costa Centre, Contra Costa 511,
County of Contra Costa, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, and the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District. Half of the 24 lockers were used for the EasyConnect I
3
program, and the other half were available for public use. By the end of the EasyConnect
I project, the public eLockers were full most days. At the completion of EasyConnect II,
the majority of the eLockers were transferred to BART for public use. Two eLockers
were reserved for continued use by Contra Costa Centre employees.
The eLockers are part of a network of bicycle lockers at BART stations across the San
Francisco Bay Area. Patrons purchase a BikeLink smart card in order to access the
lockers. At the Pleasant Hill BART station, a charge ( three cents per hour) was deducted
from the card’s value. These funds enabled provision of user support services. Within a
few months, eLockers were filled by bicycle commuters most days. Initially, all of the
eLockers were access on- demand: commuters arrived at the station each morning and
accessed the eLockers without prior reservations or information about availability of the
eLocker.
The EasyConnect II program added a web- based advanced reservation component to the
eLockers. The reservation system, which was linked to the BikeLink care, enabled
patrons to reserve an eLocker, ensuring they would have a place to park when they
arrived at the station. In addition, this system allowed for remote access of detailed use
information.
eLocker reservations could be made on the same day, if space was available, or for dates
in the future. The system sent a confirmation to the patron approximately 12 hours before
the reservation time, and the reservation was considered completed when the bicycle was
parked in the eLocker. If a reservation was not completed within two hours of the
reservation, the eLocker reverted to on- demand status.
The operation of the eLocker reservation system, as demonstrated at the Pleasant Hill
BART station, allowed for system improvements based on user feedback, including
increased efficiency in inputting user and credit card information, reminder notification
and confirmation emails, and timeframes for holding reservations.
The reservation system was well received by bicycle commuters at the Pleasant Hill
BART station ( see discussion in 3.0). However, the field test experience pointed to an
upgrade needed for cost- effective implementation of the system in the absence of plug in
power sources ( i. e., 110 volt). A battery powered eLocker reservation system was
installed at the station, which turned out to require frequent and costly battery changes
that could not be sustained though existing operational revenues. As a result, the
manufacturer has now designed ultra- low power consumption electronic hardware and
built- in solar charging for the eLocker reservation systems. These new systems will be
deployed in 2010.
2.3 Smart Parking
Closely related to providing multi- modal station access is the need to address station
parking demands. Smart parking ( broadly defined as the use of advanced technologies to
help motorists locate, reserve, and pay for parking) holds the potential to optimize
4
parking services. During EasyConnect II, a smart parking system was installed by the
Transit Village developer in an existing parking structure at the Pleasant Hill BART
station. However, the system was not fully operational during most of the project period.
The system included space sensors and changeable message signs at the garage entrance
to indicate if the garage was full so that patrons would not waste time searching in the
garage and would seek parking elsewhere at the station. An operational smart parking
system was eventually installed at the existing and new parking structure at the station at
very end of the EasyConnect II study.
2.4 Hydrogen Fuel Cell
The “ CleanCharge” program was designed to demonstrate the ability of hydrogen fuel
cells to produce power for remote and emergency back- up use. The fuel cell system
works by using hydrogen from cylinders stored in the fuel cell cabinet that react with
oxygen in the fuel cell stack to provide electricity. The resulting power source is
significantly cleaner and quieter than conventional generators without the longevity
issues of battery- based systems. And, to re- fuel, only the cylinders need to be replaced.
The system installed at the Pleasant Hill BART station consisted of a mobile hydrogen
refueling trailer, a small ( five- kilowatt) stationary fuel cell system, and 110- volt electrical
outlets for electric vehicle charging. The research team used CleanCharge to charge
components of the EasyConnect II project because a power supply was not available at
the Pleasant Hill BART station.
CleanCharge was installed on a small area of the surface parking that was not under
construction. The system was designed to charge the EasyConnect II units providing
connectivity to the Pleasant Hill BART station ( Segway HTs and electric bicycles). A
neighborhood electric vehicle ( NEV) was added to the Contra Costa Transit Village fleet
( Segway, HTs, and electric bicycles) and charged using this technology.
The BART permitting process for the operation of the CleanCharge system proved more
difficult and time consuming than anticipated. The original plan involved operating the
CleanCharge system for one year. Unfortunately, it was operational for only three months,
because by the time the system was permitted and installed, construction was beginning
in the area around the unit. The CleanCharge unit was moved to Berkeley to continue
operation at an electric car dealer.
2.5 Mobility Options Communications Protocol
EasyConnect II included the development of a Mobility Options Communications
Protocol ( MOP) designed to enable a web- based information system allowing users to
reserve, pay, and access travel information online. Through this system, a range of modal
options and transportation services could be linked over the Internet in formats accessible
to users, vendors and project planners. The MOP addressed the challenges of providing
information about multiple modes and connections through a web- based interactive
system. Smart parking information was included in the MOP. The MOP research for this
study is described in 5.0. See Appendix A for a comprehensive review of numerous
5
technologies and innovative strategies to support the MOP by researchers at the
University of California at Riverside. Since the research team had prior experience in
smart parking systems, they were able to incorporate this concept into the MOP. See the
detailed discussion of the MOP in section 5.0.
6
3.0 eLocker Evaluation
3.1 Introduction
Over the last decade, a number of forces have united to accelerate a revival in the
popularity of non- recreational or utilitarian bicycling in the U. S. ( Moritz 1997).
Constituencies concerned about climate change view bicycling as a sustainable transport
mode capable of displacing many motor vehicle trips. Public health advocates view it as a
healthy transport mode enabling people of all ages to lead a more active life. Since the
early 1990s, more federal and local funding has been invested in communities to expand
bicycle facilities.
Available research indicates that secure bicycle parking at trip destinations may be a key
factor in the choice to bicycle for utilitarian travel ( Martens 2007; Pucher and Buehler
2008; Taylor and Mahmassani 1996, Hunt and Abraham 2007). In the U. S., Federal
Bureau of Investigation crime statistics estimate that a total of 220,000 bicycles were
stolen in 2007. The average value of a stolen bicycle was 240 U. S. dollars in 2004, the
last year this data was collected, and the overall loss exceeded half a billion dollars ( Dept.
of Justice 2008).
Recent advances in locker technologies have created new opportunities for transit
agencies to address the problem of bicycle theft and cost- effectively expand bicycle
access and transit, particularly when ridership is constrained by automobile parking
capacity ( Taylor and Mahmassani 1996). Automobile parking can cost six to 20 times the
cost of secure bicycle lockers ( Schneider 2005).
The evaluation of the eLockers includes the results of an on- line survey of users at the
Pleasant Hill BART station as well as other transit stations in California. The evaluation
begins with a review of the literature. The eLocker parking system is described. The
survey data and the results of the analysis of the survey data are presented. Finally,
conclusions are drawn from the analysis.
3.2 Literature Review
3.2.1 The Netherlands’ Experience
In the Netherlands, bicycling has the highest overall modal share of any developed
country: 27 percent of all trips are made by bicycle ( Martens 2007). The Dutch
experience indicates that often the simplest way of increasing bicycling mode share is to
install more and better parking capacity at key destinations ( Martens 2007). The
Netherlands has invested substantial resources to provide large quantities of bicycle
parking at transit stations ( Pucher and Buehler 2008). The Dutch transportation agency
has set guidelines for bicycle parking at transit stations including type, capacity, location,
and design parameters for parking facilities ( Martens 2007). Approximately, 91 percent
of Dutch citizens have secure bicycle parking at their home stations, and 25 percent of
7
Dutch commuter trips use a bicycle in conjunction with transit, primarily as an access
mode ( Brons et al. 2009).
Since commuter trains run at higher speeds than metro or bus lines, they tend to have
larger catchment areas and naturally attract more bicyclists ( Martens 2004). For Dutch
metro stations, more than 60 percent of bicyclists live within 2 kilometers ( 1.2 mi) of the
station, while 70 percent of bicyclists live at least 2 kilometers ( 1.2 mi) away from the
train station they use. In the latter case, bicycles are much more likely to replace a car as
the station access mode. In fact several Dutch case studies show that about 50 percent of
bicyclists who ride to train or metro stations also own a car. Bicycling to transit is also
more popular in suburban areas relative to urban areas, in part because of safer traffic
conditions, lower levels of local transit service, and longer station access distances.
Netherlands’ example shows the potential of bicycles to play an important
complementary role with high- speed transit in addition to serving as an important general
transportation mode. ( Martens 2004)
3.2.2 Availability and Importance of Bicycle Lockers
A number of studies have assessed the availability and importance of bicycle lockers.
Moritz’s ( Moritz 1997) analysis of an internet and mail- based survey of U. S. bicycle
commuters ( n= 2,374) found that only 15 percent of respondents had bicycle lockers
available at their travel destinations.
Hopkinson and Wardman’s ( Hopkinson and Wardman 1996) analysis of surveyed
households near bicycling routes in the U. K. ( n= 513 with a 50 percent response rate)
found that secure bicycle parking was the fourth most important factor, after better safety,
lower traffic speed and volume, and intersection safety; 63 percent stated that it would
increase their bicycling frequency ( Hopkinson and Wardman 1996).
Stinson and Bhat ( Stinson and Bhat 2004) used an ordered probit choice model to analyze
results of an online survey of both bicycle and non- bicycle commuters in the U. S.
( n= 2,822) to predict the frequency of bicycle- commuting. They found that the presence
of bicycle racks or lockers at work, or at least the knowledge of them, has a strong
positive effect, one that is equivalent to four miles in distance from a destination and
more than five years of bicycle experience ( Stinson and Bhat 2004).
Givoni and Rietveld’s ( Givoni, M. and P. Rietveld 2007), and later Brons et al.’ s ( Brons
et al. 2009), analysis of a Dutch Railway customer satisfaction survey ( n= 2,542) failed to
find a significant relationship between bicycle parking and bicyclists’ satisfaction with
rail services. However, both studies suffer from problems of endogeneity between
satisfaction and mode choice.
Taylor and Mahmassani ( Taylor and Mahmassani 1996) developed a choice model based
on stated preference surveys ( n= 814) of Texas Bicycle Coalition members, and showed
that high- quality bicycle parking contributes significantly, not only to the likelihood of
choosing bike- and- ride to access transit, but also to respondents’ likelihood of choosing
8
transit over driving to their final destination. The utility coefficient estimates indicate that
the availability of bicycle lockers has greater impact than clothing comfort, lack of a
household car, and gender on the biking versus driving ( Taylor and Mahmassani 1996).
Hunt and Abraham ( Hunt and Abraham 2007) conducted a stated preference paper survey
of bicycle commuters in Edmonton, Alberta ( n= 1128). The authors’ logit model indicated
that bicycle parking is a much more important factor than showers as a destination
amenity. One of their five final models indicated that secure bicycle parking at the rider’s
destination is worth almost more than 100 minutes of riding in a bicycle lane for all age
groups and more than 50 minutes of riding on bicycle paths. This study also investigated
the relationship of bicycle cost to demand for secure parking. Dummy variables recorded
the effect of bicycle price ranges on secure parking demand and found that even
somewhat inexpensive bicycles are highly valued by their owners and the risk of theft or
vandalism is considered to be high by most cyclists ( Hunt and Abraham 2007).
Wardman et al. ( 2007) also addressed the role of bicycle parking in mode choice
decisions and constructed a hierarchical logit model using data from the British National
Travel Survey. The study found that only 35 percent of commuters surveyed currently
have secure parking. They estimated that better parking facilities could raise bicycle
mode share by nearly a full percentage point ( 14 percent increase) from the reported 5.8
percent ( Wardman et al. 2007).
3.3 Bicycle Parking System
3.3.1 Bicycle Locker Options
Several types of bicycle parking options are available for use at transit stations, and each
have relative advantages and disadvantages. Lockers offer higher security and are
important in areas with high theft rates or where many people use more expensive
bicycles. Lockers are also good for overnight storage. Bicycle racks are less expensive,
but are more appropriate for users who only park during the day or for short periods of
time. Bicycle cages offer greater parking capacity and are relatively inexpensive to install,
but they often require an attendant, and can be less convenient for users who are often in
a hurry at transit stations.
New electronic lock systems for lockers allow bicyclists to use any available locker while
maintaining the security of the facility by tracking users. These lockers allow operators to
implement a payment scheme that discourages extended use of lockers and enables their
efficient use. Electronic lockers have the added benefit of better data collection, which
can allow better characterization of bicycle parking demand. Lockers do require some
cleaning and maintenance, but agencies can often contract with the locker manufacturer
or another party to take care of these needs. Experience shows that bicyclists’ willingness
to pay for the lockers can cover these costs ( Schneider 2005). The location of the bicycle
lockers relative to the station platform is an important factor in customers’ satisfaction
and perceptions of convenience. Cyclists want a quick and convenient transfer experience
( Martens 2007).
9
3.3.2 Study Locker System
The BikeLink electronic bicycle storage lockers, also called “ eLockers,” were first
installed in El Cerrito, California in June 2004 ( Pullen 2004). The technology uses a
simple, single button interface in conjunction with a smart card to facilitate quick locker
rentals at any eLocker location. Users may sign up for an account online and receive their
card in the mail. BikeLink typically charges a flat hourly rate for use of the eLockers
( between $ 0.03 and $ 0.05 per hour). The user reserves a certain amount of time in
advance and then begins the rental. If the user returns early, any difference in the cost is
debited back to the user. However, if the user overstays his reserved time, then the rate
usually rises to a higher level, but the bicycle remains secure. This pricing system
encourages users to return promptly, and allows the lockers to become available for
others’ use. BikeLink members can add value to their smart cards online at the BikeLink
website, or over the phone. Smart card technology for the eLocker enables flexible
pricing strategies to: promote short or longer term use depending on the locker location;
allow advance rental; differentiate by user group; and, vary pricing policies by time. The
company that manufactures the eLockers, eLock Technologies, LLC, has plans to permit
greater compatibility with other smart card systems including regional fare cards.
3.4 eLocker Survey Analysis
This analysis is based on data collected from an on- line survey of active eLocker users at
transit stations between December, 2008 and April, 2009 in California. The email survey
invitation provided a link to an online survey instrument. Of the approximately 1,303
valid email addresses, the survey received 789 responses. Only 620 of these were
complete and of those, 454 indicated that they had used the bike lockers and answered a
sufficient number of questions to be included in the analysis. The final survey response
rate was 35 percent. As can be expected with any voluntary survey, some self- selection
bias is expected. But the bias will likely tend towards infrequent users of the bike lockers.
The survey also may not be representative of bicyclists in general. Table 3.1 presents the
basic demographics of the core respondents.
10
Table 3.1: Demographics of Survey Respondents
The data show that eLocker users are relatively educated: roughly 90 percent have a
degree beyond high school and about 40 percent have a Bachelor’s degree or better. The
age distribution suggests that eLocker users are mostly middle- aged, with 60 percent of
users between the ages of 30 and 50. The household income of eLocker users is also
skewed towards the upper brackets: more than 40 percent were from households that
earned over $ 100,000, while median fell within the $ 75,000 to $ 100,000 category.
The bicyclists using the eLockers had a variety of experience riding a bicycle for
transportation. This would be natural, in part due to the diversity in the age of
respondents. But the eLockers were predominantly utilized most by very new riders and
very experienced riders. Figure 3.1 shows the distribution of the weekly or monthly
11
frequency of bicycling for transportation and by the years they have been bicycling for
transportation.
Figure 3.1: Frequency of Bicycling for Transportation and Bicycling Experience
As is apparent in Figure 3.1( a), the majority of respondents are avid users of bicycles for
transportation: nearly 50 percent of respondents used the bicycle for transportation five
times per week. But many of the respondents were also relatively new to bicycling for
transportation. Figure 3.1( b) shows the wide distribution of experience. The first and
third largest categories include those who had one year and 20+ years of experience
respectively. The “ NA” response consists of those who did not use the bicycle as a
regular transportation option. Another important characteristic of this sample is that
nearly 50 percent of respondents had experienced a bicycle stolen or vandalized at least
once in the last 5 years. The other 50 percent had not had any crimes against their bicycle
during this time period.
At the time of the survey, respondents had used the eLockers for a wide distribution of
tenure. Figure 3.2( a) shows tenure of eLocker use and the means by which users learned
about them. More than a quarter of respondents used eLockers for less than one month
and more than half had actively used eLockers for 6 months or less. Figure 3.2( b) shows
that most respondents learned of eLockers simply by seeing them, while others learned
through social contacts or public media.
12
Figure 3.2: Tenure of eLocker usage and Means of Learning of eLocker
Figure 3.2( b) also shows that a fair share of respondents learned of the eLockers through
“ Other” means, which most commonly included, “ had one of the previous lockers,” “ was
on the waiting list for a bike locker,” and “ through the East Bay Bicycle Coalition.” As
shown in Figure 3.3, respondents also demonstrated a similar diversity in the frequency
of eLockers use. More than 20 percent of respondents used eLockers five days a week or
more. Another 40 percent used eLockers on a weekly, but not daily basis. Twenty- five
percent of respondents used eLockers monthly, and the final 15 percent used eLockers
less than once per month.
13
Figure 3.3: Usage Frequency of eLockers
Respondents were asked about the number of different eLocker locations that they used
over the course of the past three months. Figure 3.3( b) indicates that nearly three- quarters
of respondents used only one eLocker location, while 15 percent used eLockers at
multiple locations. Consistent with Figure 3.3( a), 11 percent of respondents had not
accessed an eLocker at any location over the past three months.
In terms of travel patterns, the respondents indicated that they overwhelmingly used the
eLockers to support home- originating trips to work. That is, most respondents traveled
from home to the locker by bicycle before starting the next leg of their commute. Table
3.2 illustrates this dynamic with a cross- tabulation of two key questions.
14
Table 3.2: Trip Origin by Trip Purpose
Nearly 80 percent of respondents primarily used the eLockers to begin trips at home for
their commute to work. Overall, 96 percent of respondents used eLockers for trips that
began at home. This is an expected result given that the commute to work almost always
starts from home, except in cases of a second job. But, while Table 3.2 presents important
baseline insights, it does not show whether the eLocker is servicing the end of the “ first
mile” of the commute or the beginning of the “ last mile” of the commute. That is, with an
eLocker, people may ride their bicycles to take transit, or they may ride transit to pick up
their bicycle. The eLocker facilitates the latter especially well compared to a regular bike
lock. However Table 3.3, a cross tabulation of trip origin and the mode used immediately
before accessing the eLockers, shows that very few respondents are using the eLocker to
facilitate traveling the last mile of their trip.
Table 3.3: Travel Mode Preceding eLocker Access by Trip Origin
Table 3.3 provides a more detailed insight with respect to how respondents are
integrating the eLockers with their trips. The results suggest that a vast majority ( 90
15
percent) of respondents start their trips from home and access the eLocker on a bicycle.
Hence, eLockers are overwhelmingly used as part of the access leg of the trip, serving as
the terminal end of a bicycle trip that starts at home. A much smaller share of no more
than five percent of all respondents use the eLocker as a part of the egress leg of their trip.
Four percent of all respondents accessed the eLocker after riding BART, indicating that
the eLocker served as a storage facility for their bicycles closer to their destinations. The
remaining share includes those who used Caltrain, bus, or other light rail before reaching
the eLockers. Thus, for this small minority of users, eLockers are likely facilitating the
use of the bicycle as a “ last mile” mode of travel.
In terms of time and duration of use, the eLockers are used in a fashion that is consistent
with people commuting to work by bicycle with the support of transit. The eLockers are
generally accessed in the morning, and held for the duration of the work day. Figure 3.4
shows the distribution of time accessed and the duration of the rental period.
Figure 3.4: Time of Access and Duration of Rental
The stated motivations respondents report for using the eLockers vary. But it is important
to note that among the population using eLockers, travel by bicycle is more driven by
volition and the utility of the bicycle than by stated economic constraint. Table 3.4 shows
the distribution of answers respondents gave to a direct question asking them why they
use the eLockers.
16
Table 3.4: Motivation for Using the eLockers
More than 70 percent of respondents elected reasons that related to personal health,
environmental concerns, or the convenience of the bicycle. Roughly 15 percent stated
that their choice was related to lack of a car or to avoiding the expense of an existing car.
Thus, the survey showed that most people using bicycles and eLockers are driven by non-monetary
motivations. Users also expressed a relatively high level of satisfaction with the
cost, safety, and operation of the lockers. Figure 5 illustrates the distribution of responses
to a series of Likert scale questions that probed the overall satisfaction of users with the
system.
17
Figure 3.5: Respondent Satisfaction with the eLocker system
Specifically, respondents were asked to “ Select the responses in the table below that best
describe your level of satisfaction with the eLockers in the categories provided.” Along
most every metric, more than three- quarters of respondents indicated that they were at
least somewhat satisfied with the eLocker system. The only exception was customer
service, which received a high number of neutral responses, possibly because these
respondents never needed customer service.
The survey also asked respondents how they would react if the eLockers were no longer
available. That is, they were asked how they would change their travel patterns. The
question initially split the respondents into two separate groups. One group used
eLockers in conjunction with transit, while the other group did not. The reason for this
split was to permit the respective groups to be probed more appropriately given their
specific travel circumstances. Among those who integrate eLockers with their transit trip,
the results indicate that about half of the respondents would continue to ride their bicycle
to the station even if the eLockers were no longer present. Other respondents indicated
that they would change their travel in the absence of eLockers. As a follow- up these
respondents were asked which mode they would switch to. Table 3.5 offers a cross
tabulation of these responses for those that use transit with eLockers.
18
Table 3.5: How Travel Would Change if eLockers were not Present ( Transit Users)
Table 3.6: How Travel Would Change if eLockers were not Present ( Non- transit Users)
19
The results show some interesting modal shifts, as 102, or about 20 percent of total
respondents, would use a different mode to get to their transit stations. About half of the
respondents would use public transit or walking to access stations, while the other half
would use some form of automotive access. The 41 respondents who would drive alone
are intriguing because these respondents represented an environmental impact that was
avoided as a result of the eLockers. Other respondents indicated that they would no
longer use transit, and would drive all the way to their final destinations. Again, roughly
half of these respondents indicated that they would do so through some form of
automotive travel. Finally, 28 respondents would use a different transit station, with a
quarter of respondents selecting automotive travel as their next alternative. Because a
follow- up question regarding the alternative mode was irrelevant for the other three initial
responses, no question was asked of the other half of respondents selecting one of these
three options.
The other group of respondents, those who do not integrate their trip with transit, is
smaller ( 122 respondents). Most of these respondents indicated that they would either
continue riding their bicycles or shift to walking or transit. But a few did indicate that
they would shift to an automotive mode. The answers to this question are shown in Table
3.6, which shows a cross- tabulation of responses. The table is split into two sections
because respondents who stated they would continue bicycling would see the mode- shift
question as irrelevant. Instead, these respondents were asked how their bicycle parking
would shift if the eLockers were no longer available. Of the 52 that would continue
bicycling, most would park in the same location. Overall however, the share of this
cohort is roughly 11 percent of the total sample size. Among the cohort that would
change modes, a little less than half would shift to an automobile if the eLockers were no
longer available.
3.5 Conclusions
In this study, the results of an on- line survey of current electronic locker users
(“ eLocker”) in California are used to develop models that test the significance of factors
contributing to bicycling choice and bicycling frequency. This study is unique in that a
consistent set of policy- relevant variables are tested— in both choice and frequency
models— to understand their relative importance in different decision contexts.
The survey shows that eLockers are generally used to support work- based commuters
traveling by bicycle. Data on travel patterns show that the eLockers are almost
exclusively serving the access side of the bicycle commute. That is, the vast majority of
eLocker users are riding from their homes to a transit station ( usually a BART station),
and parking their bicycles at the station for the day. A much smaller contingent of
eLocker users are leaving their bicycles at a remote transit station and traveling to it to
pick up the bicycle to complete the “ last mile” of their trip. Hence eLockers are generally
used in the same manner as conventional bike racks. But a fair number of respondents
consider the eLocker to be essential to completing their commute by bicycle. Roughly
180 respondents ( about 40 percent) indicated that they would complete their trip with
some other mode other than a bicycle if eLockers were unavailable. Thus the eLockers
20
are facilitating bicycle travel for a sizeable share of the sample. Many of these
respondents would shift to other modes, and nearly 80 respondents suggested that they
would shift to driving an automobile alone. Hence, based on these results, the eLockers
may be enabling 15 to 20 percent of the sample to use a bicycle instead of an automobile.
These results suggest that the eLockers are having some positive environmental impact
by facilitating bicycling for people who would otherwise drive. In addition, users
expressed considerable satisfaction overall with respect to their use of the eLockers.
21
4.0 eLocker Reservation Service Evaluation
From December, 2008 to January, 2009, researchers conducted a series of interviews
with eLocker users to beta test its reservation service. A total of ten participants in the
beta test were interviewed individually, all of whom used the service at least once per
month in the time leading up to the interviews.
While most participants were avid cyclists, their use of the eLockers varied: A couple of
respondents only used the lockers a couple times per month, while others used it every
day. One participant used the service only during warm months, accessing BART three
days per week to get to Emeryville. Most of the users interviewed had been biking for
utilitarian travel for many years. However, one participant had only begun biking for
non- recreational purposes nine months prior to the interview, but used the lockers four
days per week to access BART travel to San Francisco. Another began biking for
utilitarian purposes four months before the interview and now does so everyday. Most
users said eLockers helped them bike more often. Almost all the respondents used the
lockers primarily to commute to Oakland, Emeryville, or San Francisco.
4.1 Users’ Reservation Behavior
Some users did not perceive any eLocker supply problems, but those who used them at
peak hours felt strongly that availability was limited. A regular user, who arrived at the
peak hour in the morning, always made a reservation because the lockers were so heavily
used at that time. Several indicated they would consider using the nearby Walnut Creek
BART station if eLockers were provided there. Many participants said that the occasions
when eLockers were not available caused major problems. Several participants avoided
biking to the BART station if they did not have an eLocker reservation. It appears that the
reliability of finding an available locker may affect users’ travel choices. Most users
would like to see more eLockers at the station. Several expressed a willingness to pay a
higher rate for lockers if necessary.
Another noteworthy trend is that competition for eLockers rises over the summer. Several
users said they took more care to make a reservation in the summer months because of
higher demand. It was also noted that demand is lower in the wetter and colder months.
Even the most committed daily users sometimes balk at bad weather, and several
interview participants said their cycling drops off in rainy weather.
Most participants did not consider locking their bikes to a rack an acceptable parking
option. The availability of secure parking is a key component to their decision to bicycle.
One participant had not experienced any problems getting a locker, but said he would
consider driving if he could not be certain of having a secure locker. Another did drive
occasionally when he could not reserve a locker. One said that he simply brings a bike
lock when he cannot make a reservation, but sometimes he gets a ride to the station from
his wife. Usually he brings the bike on board all the way to the office if he can. Another
user also said he was dropped off by car when he could not make a locker reservation.
Only one respondent seemed unconcerned about having to use the regular bike racks if
22
she could not find an available locker. However, she always checked locker availability
first before locking her bike at a rack. She particularly liked the reservation service
because it allowed her to leave her heavy bike lock at home. Users who are very
concerned about bike security especially appreciate the certainty of a secure parking.
These users would not consider leaving their bikes with only a bike lock to secure it. In
fact, one respondent’s last bicycle was stolen at the Pleasant Hill BART station.
Obviously, bike security is the primary factor driving use of the lockers, but when there is
excess demand for the lockers and users cannot bring their bikes onboard BART, they no
longer have an acceptable parking option. If there is no possibility of installing additional
secure bike parking, locker reservations or at least availability information is a critical
necessity for many cyclists.
When asked about using lockers at other locations, the ability to reserve a locker
remained a key factor for many respondents. One user said he would not risk biking or
traveling farther without being sure of having a secure location to store his bike at his
destination. The respondent said he would bike nearly everyday if he were always certain
of finding an available locker. For him and other users, having a reservation for a locker
would make them more comfortable traveling to more distant locations by bicycle. Most
interview participants stated that more locker locations, especially with reservations
available, would allow them greater flexibility and increase their frequency of biking.
However, most users admitted they would primarily use the lockers only at a single
location. In fact, several users said they probably never used the lockers at more than one
location. For these users, their bicycles fit a very specific purpose in their overall
transportation needs. Many users seem to regard BART stations as a natural location for
eLockers and would like to see them at more stations.
4.2 Satisfaction with the Reservation System
While most users who were interviewed used the reservation service frequently, many
thought the system had room for improvement. In particular some users wished they
could make last- minute reservations when they were certain of their travel plans. Many
noted that they experienced some inconvenience waiting for a confirmation email or
having to attempt to make a reservation multiple times. The time respondents took to
complete a reservation varied. On the high end, one user said it typically took three
minutes. One occasional user found the reservation service to be unreliable and often not
worth the hassle since it took about two minutes to complete and usually was not
successful. Other participants said they usually made reservations in under a minute.
Most used home or work computers. The beta testers traveling at peak hours in the
morning were most likely to make a point of reserving an eLocker to be assured of an
available locker for their bikes. One user said he would reserve a locker for the entire
summer if he could. Some of the participants interviewed tried to make multiple
reservations at once. Some people reserved their lockers up to a week in advance, while
other made a single reservation every day the night before. Several users said they always
tried to make a reservation, but often forgot.
23
Users typically made the locker reservations from their homes or work computers. One
respondent said he used a smart phone to reserve an eLocker, and thought the BikeLink
website should have better compatibility with smart phones. Two other users also
mentioned interest in using a website with better phone compatibility. One respondent
said he appreciated the simplicity of the website, and almost all the users indicated they
had no problems with the reservation interface.
The survey also asked participants about eTokens, eLock’s system to encourage users to
honor their reservations and show up. Most participants felt the penalty for missing
reservations was fair, but several respondents stated they would like it to be easier to
work out misunderstandings and user error. One user noted that buying the eTokens
required for a reservation was an annoying process. Several participants noted that the
eToken system does not allow for cancellations or early arrivals. These and other users
wished the system were “ smarter” and could respond flexibly to their travel behavior. For
example, a user who showed up early for a reservation was charged an eToken, because
he technically did not use his reservation. One participant noted that he preferred making
multiple reservations at a time, but without sufficient eTokens, he could not do this.
Several users mentioned their interest in reserving specific lockers.
4.3 Payment Options
All interview participants said they were comfortable with the online credit card payment
system, but many expressed interest in alternate payment options. Most did not like using
credit cards directly with the machines, or worried about forgetting their card. At least
one user admitted to having left his smartcard in the locker interface; another suggested a
noise reminder if a card is left in the locker interface too long. Many interviewees did like
using a Translink, BART EZ Rider card, or other smart cards with the BikeLink system.
One pilot participant thought it would be convenient to be able to add value at the
eLockers. A couple of users noted that they liked the pay- as- you- use element of the
eLockers, because they would never pay for time they did not use.
Although about half of the beta test participants interviewed said that they had
experienced serious technical issues with the eLockers on at least one occasion, all
expressed a high level of satisfaction with the service. Technical issues included cards not
working on wet days and certain lockers not working on the coldest days of the year.
Several users expressed concern about difficulties undoing mistakes made using the
machine. However, none of these incidents appeared to affect participants’ use of the
eLockers. Most users appreciated how easily and quickly they could put their bicycles in
the lockers and get into the BART station. They were very satisfied with the technology
on location.
24
5.0 Mobility Options Protocol ( MOP)
EasyConnect II investigated the integration of multiple strategies designed to enhance
transit at the Pleasant Hill BART District station and Contra Costa Centre Transit Village.
A central component of this research was the development of the MOP. The MOP
addressed challenges of providing information about multiple modes and connections
through a web- based interactive system. Researchers at the University of California at
Riverside have completed a comprehensive review of numerous technologies and
innovative strategies to support the MOP. The full report is provided in Appendix A.
The MOP is a web- based information system that allows users to reserve, pay, and access
travel information online. Through this system, a range of modal options and
transportation services are seamlessly linked over the Internet in formats accessible to
both users and project planners. This system allows various transportation providers to
publish information on the web in a format that can be recognized and interpreted by
automated agents, such as trip planning applications. The MOP extends traditional trip
planning tools beyond fixed- route, fixed- schedule carriers and incorporates real- time
status, last- mile providers, and reservations for vehicles, rides, and parking. Essentially,
the MOP includes informational infrastructure that facilitates travel options such as
walking, bicycling, carsharing, and other supportive transit modes. This system is
designed to manage the resulting multi- modal, multi- vendor data in a commercially
feasible manner. The specific objective is a system that:
• Provides a seamless experience for end users to view or reserve modal
options;
• Attracts new modal choice vendors who may join the information web;
• Requires little administration by the operating agencies; and,
• Offers opportunities to distribute information and data to interested parties.
5.1 Mobility Options Protocol System
The MOP is a fully distributed web protocol. Information is listed by individual vendors
and linked together through a central portal rather than a central computer server. But the
information is not centrally controlled. Anyone can create a central portal and make it
available. Once the information is published using the MOP protocol, it is available
publically to any vendor or publisher. This system provides more flexibility in adding or
modifying information. After the information about a required trip and mode choices is
entered, details about specific connections, modes and routes are presented seamlessly to
the traveler.
The MOP includes five levels. They can be implemented together, or individually.
• Level 1: Basic contact information and locations of services provided
• Level 2: Adds real time status
• Level 3: Allows availability of service through queries of future dates
• Level 4: Includes reservation services
• Level 5: Integrates fare payment
25
Level 1 is the most basic implementation of the system. Data about actual transportation
hubs is provided. Tools that display MOP data operate by using the most specific
information available. Providers who offer services at fixed locations fill in " point"
elements, indicating service availability at each location ( e. g. at each bike locker or rental
location). The location of a point can be specified in terms of an address, in proximity to
a landmark ( e. g. a rail station), or via geographic coordinates ( latitude/ longitude).
Providers who pick up or drop off travelers can specify a designated service area by
utilizing a list of zip codes, cities, or a set of boundaries that indicate where the service is
provided.
Level 2 adds real time status to the basic information provided in Level 1. A user could
access the current parking space availability at a garage, or lot, in the system.
Level 3 builds upon the innovations of previous MOP levels by allowing users to inquire
about future service availability. These requests typically involve a place and time. For
instance, a user would be able to inquire whether a bicycle locker would be available at a
specific time and location in the future, such as the Pleasant Hill BART station on May 1
from 5pm to 7pm.
Level 4 incorporates a reservation system whereby users can create, modify and cancel
reservations. This level also introduces a process of verifying that a traveler has a pre-existing
relationship with a service provider and thus can streamline the process by only
presenting a username and password for service use.
Level 5 is the most complex stage of the system. At this level, the MOP incorporates a
scheme for integrated fare payment. Examples of the complexities include maintaining an
audit trail, and processing refunds and reconciling corrections. While transit fare
integration with different providers is operational, it is more complicated to integrate
across services.
5.2 Travel Information Flow
The aim of the MOP is to help travelers combine different modes of transport in a single
trip. The ability to make efficient connections requires coordinating schedules, status,
reservations, and payment information from different sources. In order to seamlessly
facilitate inter- modal access, options, and efficiency, the MOP allows travelers to interact
with varying levels of information sharing. At the most basic MOP level, travelers and
transportation providers can share contact information and locations of service providers.
At its most sophisticated level, the MOP provides travelers and transportation providers
with a system that facilitates service reservations. The system is accessible to both
travelers and transportation providers. Shared information creates an annotated
information platform whereby transportation providers contribute information about
services such as bike rentals, smart parking, taxis, and carsharing. Travelers can also
contribute transit information that is not necessarily provided by transportation providers,
such as walking routes, carpools, taxis, and personal bike usage.
26
Figure 5.1 provides a visual graphic for travel information flow in a MOP system.
Figure 5.1: Travel Information Flow in a MOP System
5.3 Issues with Integrating Flow
Integrating travel flow is challenging because not all modes can be incorporated easily, or
use the same communication mechanisms. The MOP addresses these issues by allowing
travelers to share and augment information. Users can provide recommendations for
routes, such as walking paths, not available through transportation providers. The ability
to add a map with highlighted routes also assists travelers using alternative methods.
5.4 Benefits of Information Sharing and Integrating Multi- Modal Travel
Intermodal travel shifts the emphasis from focusing on route and mode to connection
points. Information sharing and multi- modal travel creates a seamless experience where
travelers would only have to look up connection point schedules once a destination has
been chosen.
The MOP integrates project component technologies into a simplified, web- based
interface while seamlessly facilitating inter- modal access, options, and efficiency. The
MOP addresses the following types of information components, allowing users to make
efficient connections that require coordinating schedules: status, reservations, and
payment information from different sources.
5.5 Implementation Considerations
During the EasyConnect II project, the MOP was designed, but did not reach the
operation phase. The ability to implement the MOP would require a location where the
multiple modes were all in operation, with real- time information and reservation
capabilities. The Contra Costa Transit Village services were not advanced enough to
launch this project. Furthermore, during the planning it became evident that further
programming resources and a more in depth data related to travel across multiple modes
and points connecting these transportation options was necessary. The following
elements were identified as important considerations to implementing a new MOP or
27
augmenting an existing traveler information system with information collected during the
MOP planning process:
• Keep it simple and easy to use;
• Focus on commercial viability, adoptability;
• Conduct review of current ( and past) applications;
• Incorporate enough connection points to be useful to users;
• Test the system with actual transportation vendors and portals;
• Maintain vendor neutrality based on open standards ( XML, RSS, SOAP);
• Utilize individual portals, not a central information server; and,
• Consider compliance for eventual adoption as a Federal DOT Intelligent
Transportation Systems ( ITS) standard.
5.6 Beyond the MOP: Current Traveler Information Activity
The MOP introduces an informational infrastructure to effectively link multiple modes of
transportation. While the MOP was in development, other traveler information sites
began expanding their services to include considerations addressed during the MOP
planning process. While these programs do not include all the elements ( i. e., reservations),
they do include multi- modal trip planning options.
Expanded traveler information services include Google Transit and 511 sites. Google
Transit, for example, provides many of the same basic functions for the traveling public
as the MOP. Google Transit includes walking, driving, and public transportation ( i. e.,
BART and AC Transit). Google Transit does not include a system that allows users to
reserve a future service and does not include an integrated fare payment system ( Levels 4
and 5). A number of the 511 systems also are proving traveler information services that
include multiple modes and connection points. In the MOP vernacular, these systems
currently operate at Levels 1, 2, and partially at Level 3. They do allow users to access
information about multiple transportation modes, including real time status information,
and allow future queries as to availability of service. But they do not include reservation
or payment capabilities.
The MOP is based on an open source system, allowing users to share information as well
as access it. This capability enables the expansion of the system with up- to- date
information – the basis of the MOP concept. While the EasyConnect MOP was not
actually deployed, the investigation resulted in innovative ways of addressing multi-modal
trips. These elements can inform future iterations of currently deployed multi-modal
travel planning tools.
28
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans)
for funding this research. In particular, we would like to thank Bob Justice, the Caltrans
Project Manager. The authors would also like to thank Nathan McKenzie and Linda
Novick of the Transportation Sustainability Research Center. The project would not have
been possible without the contributions of the following: Alan Lee of the Bay Area Rapid
Transit District ( BART); Mark Farrar of Millennium Partners; Mickey Oros of Altergy
Corporation; Lynette Tanner- Busby from Contra Costa Centre; Jim Kennedy of Contra
Costa County; Corinne Dutra- Roberts of 511 Contra Costa; Harold Brazil of the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission ( MTC); Michael Murphy, Jean Roggenkamp,
and Henry Hilken of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District ( BAAQMD); and
Steven Grover of eLock Technologies, LLC.
29
REFERENCES
Brons, M., M. Givoni, and P. Rietveld. Contemplating Cycling to Work: Attitudes
and Perceptions in Different Stages of Change. Transportation Research. Part A:
Methodological , Vol. 43, No. 2, 2009, pp. 136- 149.
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation. ( n. d.). Uniform Crime
Reports. Federal Bureau of Investigation, September 2008,
http:// www. fbi. gov/ ucr/ ucr. htm. Accessed October 18, 2008.
Dill, J. and K. Voros. Factors Affecting Bicycling Demand: Initial Survey Findings
from the Portland, Oregon, Region. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 2031, TRB, National Research Council, of the
National Academies, Washington, D. C., 2007, pp. 9- 17.
Givoni, M. and P. Rietveld. The Access Journey to the Railway Station and Its Role
in Passengers' Satisfaction with Rail Travel. Transport Policy , Vol. 14, 2007, pp.
357- 365.
Hopkinson, P. and M. Wardman. Evaluating the Demand for New Cycle Facilities.
Transport Policy , Vol. 3, No. 4, 1996, pp. 241- 249.
Hunt, J. D. and J. E. Abraham. Influences on Bicycle Use. Transportation , Vol. 34,
No. 4, 2007, pp. 453- 470.
Martens, K. The Bicycle as a Feedering Mode: Experiences from Three European
Countries. Transportation Research. Part D: Methodological , Vol. 9, 2004, pp. 281-
294.
Martens, K. Promoting Bike- and- Ride: the Dutch Experience. Transportation
Research. Part A: Methodological , Vol. 41, 2007, pp. 326- 338.
Moritz, W. E. Survey of North American Bicycle Commuters: Design and Aggregate
Results. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research
Board, No. 1578, TRB, National Research Council, of the National Academies,
Washington, D. C., 1997, pp. 91- 101.
Pucher, J. and R. Buehler. Cycling for Everyone: Lessons from Europe.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2074, TRB, National Research Council, of the National Academies, Washington,
D. C., 2008, pp. 58- 65.
Pullen, S. Chronicle Watch, Working for a Better Bay Area. San Francisco
Chronicle. 2004, June 22.
Schneider, R. J. Synthesis 62: Integration of Bicycles and Transit, Transit Cooperative
Research Program ( TCRP), Transportation Research Board, 2005.
30
Stinson, M. A. and C. R. Bhat. Frequency of Bicycle Commuting. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1878, TRB,
National Research Council, of the National Academies, Washington, D. C., 2004, pp.
122- 130.
Taylor, D. and H. Mahmassani. Analysis of Stated Preferences for Intermodal
Bicycle- Transit Interfaces. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, No. 1556, TRB, National Research Council, of the
National Academies, Washington, D. C., 1996, pp. 86- 95.
Wardman, M., M. Tight, and M. Page. Factors Influencing the Propensity to Cycle to
Work. Transportation Research. Part A: Methodological , Vol. 41, 2007, pp. 339-
350.
Final Report: CA VII
A- 1
Appendix A
EasyConnect II:
Technology and Integrated Systems Review
FINAL REPORT
prepared for
California PATH
September, 2007
Bourns College of Engineering
Center for Environmental Research and Technology
University of California
Riverside, CA 92521
Final Report: CA VII
A- 6
Summary
UCR has completed a comprehensive review of numerous technologies and innovative
strategies to support the EasyConnect II program. A Mobility Options Protocol ( MOP) is
a proposed open source protocol for linking information across a broad range of mobility
options to trip planning systems and travel information aggregators across the internet
and digital communication networks. The primary focus is on the following systems with
respect to MOP integration:
• Communication Hardware;
• Communication Protocols and Standards;
• Electronic Fare Payment and Access Control;
• Reservation Systems and Trip Planners.
The communications hardware section of this report summarizes the common hardware
configurations utilized in digital network applications. Special focus is given to wireless
network devices suitable for communication with individual MOP integrated devices ( e. g.
electronic bike lockers). While the MOP will function primarily over Internet compatible
hardware devices, several end devices may require specialized hardware and network
considerations.
One of the key primary considerations in the development of a MOP is the inherent
interoperability. The universal acceptance of a protocol involves the standardization and
acknowledged acceptance by the respective experts in the field. The automotive,
computing, communications, and electronics industries all possess nationally and
internationally recognized bodies for the development, evaluation, approval, publication,
and dissemination of protocols and standards. The extensive amount of MOP relevant
activity in standardization of communication protocols is addressed in the Protocols and
Standards section of the report.
The development of electronic payments and digital access control is allowing a merger
of the two technologies for transportation purposes. The evolution of digital keys ( e. g.,.
proximity cards) and electronic payment ( e. g., smartcards) has created an overlap suitable
for transportation applications. The electronic fare payment devices are successfully
being utilized for access control in transit environments. The associated hardware and
software of various combined electronics fare payment and access control applications is
discussed.
Interoperability of transit services utilizing a MOP will be fully achieved if the relevant
travel information can be shared between reservation systems and trip planners. This
type of interoperability has been achieved in some travel industries. A review of
reservation systems, trip planners, and associated standards are discussed in the final
section.
Final Report: CA VII
A- 7
The resulting technology review should provide insight into the current conditions within
the transportation industry relative to development of a MOP. Portions of the industry
have developed compatible hardware, architecture, and standards while others require
significant advancement. This review will help select a path for MOP development.
Acknowledgments
This report was prepared at the University of California, Riverside, Bourns College of
Engineering- Center for Environmental Research and Technology ( CE- CERT).
Contributors to this report include Michael Todd and Matthew Barth. Special thanks go
to the development team for their patience in awaiting the results of this report.
The statements and conclusions in this report are those of the authors. The mention of
commercial products, their sources, or their uses in connection with material reported
herein is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endorsement of such products.
Final Report: CA VII
A- 8
Introduction
The initial technology implementation at the Pleasant Hill Bart Transit Oriented
Development ( TOD) is attempting to integrate several mobility options within a single
transportation Mobility Options Protocol ( MOP). The purpose of the protocol is to create
a standard method of integrating mobility options suitable for disseminating transit
information, expanding services, and allowing open access to services provided.
The initial architecture proposed for the Pleasant Hill TOD includes a Local Area
Network ( LAN) which interconnects the hardware technology options, software
applications, and provides communication between electronic devices being utilized or
accessed for transit purposes and Internet- linked transit oriented applications.
The electronic devices and services being integrated within the LAN may include:
• Informational kiosks and access display terminals;
• Electronic bike lockers;
• Electronic access mechanisms for Segway Human Transporters ( HT);
• Smart parking spaces and meters;
• Power station performance interface;
• Reference databases for transit service web portals ( e. g. 511. org);
• Electronic reservations and scheduling;
• Transit ( bus/ train) schedules with arrival/ departure tracking; and,
• Carsharing.
The report is organized into the following sections:
Technology Background – provides a review of suitable reference models,
technologies, and network architectures upon which network- based applications
operate;
Communication Hardware – present MOP- suitable communication methods for
interconnecting digital devices;
Communication Protocols and Standards – summarize MOP- relevant protocols
and standards for communication devices and integrated systems;
Electronic Fare Payment and Access Control – review MOP- suitable fare
payment and access control technologies;
Reservation Systems and Trip Planners – evaluate reservation techniques and
trip planners in the context of implementing a MOP;
Conclusions – summary of significant findings from each technology section; and,
Annotated Bibliography – provides keys details regarding relevant references.
Final Report: CA VII
A- 9
This technology review for MOP implementation encompasses numerous communication
technologies, systems, methods, and protocols. To properly present the most recent
developments in these technology areas, a thorough understanding of previous and
current implementations is required.
Final Report: CA VII
A- 10
1. Background
This background section presents the key areas of development which have enabled
MOP- style architectures to be proposed, developed, and implemented. The background
review discusses the following technology areas:
• Reservation applications and vehicle management;
• Digital communications;
• Fare payment and access control;
• Reference models; and,
• Standards bodies.
Previous applications of mobility- related reservation and vehicle management systems
will be reviewed, describing what level of technology has been previously implemented.
Additionally, the communications industry has been rapidly evolving and growing. This
continued expansion requires a thorough understanding of previous developments.
Background for fare payment and access control is presented to clarify evolution of these
technologies. The integration of communication methods, protocols, hardware, and
applications requires some type of organizational method to describe how the technology
components relate within a data- oriented communications network. A suitable reference
model is the International Standardization Office ( ISO) Open Systems Interconnections
( OSI) Reference Model ( ISO/ IEC 7498, 1994). Details regarding the OSI reference
model are provided to allow for presenting relationships of key technology components
suitable for MOP related integration. The background review finishes with a presentation
of relevant government bodies and agencies responsible for developing standards and
protocols which influence the implementation of a MOP for shared- use mobility
applications.
1.1 Mobility Reservation Applications and Vehicle Management
In recent years, numerous shared- use vehicle services have developed that reflect
different operational models and market segments. A classification system for
categorizing different shared- use vehicle system models, ranging from neighborhood
carsharing to station car systems, was developed in 2002 ( Barth et al., 2002b). The
predominant shared- use vehicle model is neighborhood carsharing, where individuals in
dense metropolitan areas access shared- use vehicles distributed throughout neighborhood
parking lots. Indeed, this is the prevailing approach in Europe and commercial shared- use
services in North America. Station car systems are another model, where vehicles are
closely linked to transit stations to enhance access. Some of the more innovative shared-use
vehicle service providers today are combining elements of both traditional carsharing
and station cars, forming what are called “ hybrid” models ( Barth et al., 2002b). As of
January 2007, there were 18 car- sharing programs domestically, boasting 134,094
members, according to Innovative Mobility Research, a group that researches
environmentally- friendly transportation alternatives. Those members shared 3,637
vehicles — roughly the equivalent of 37 users per car ( Scherzer et al., 2007).
Final Report: CA VII
A- 11
One of the key elements of modern- day shared- use vehicle systems is the application of
intelligent transportation system ( ITS) technologies. These technologies can enhance
shared- use vehicle services by improving their overall efficiency, user- friendliness, and
operational manageability. Dispatching and reservation systems so that users can obtain
system information, check- out vehicles, and make reservations over the web, by phone,
by kiosk, or other remote means, have been widely implemented. Much of this advanced
technology has been developed and applied in shared- use vehicle research programs,
such as the UCR IntelliShare testbed ( Barth et al., 2000) and the Carlink II program
( Shaheen, 2000). Evaluation of previous commercial implementations has demonstrated
that individual entities have implemented proprietary systems for managing reservations
and vehicle usage leading to a segregated customer base.
Commercial carsharing organizations as of 2005 in North America have increased
technology penetration in their systems, where 70 percent of U. S. shared- use vehicle
organizations have advanced operations and 11.5 percent still utilize manual services
( Shaheen, 2006). Previous carsharing technology evaluation ( Shaheen, 2002) has shown:
manual operations include operator phone services and in- vehicle trip logs; partially
automated systems are automated reservations via touch- tone telephone or Internet or
both; and advanced operations involve smartcard access, reservations, billing, automated
vehicle location, and cellular/ radio frequency communications. As shared- use vehicle
systems continue to expand and multiply, the penetration of ITS technology is increasing
since manually managing larger fleets and more diverse user markets ( e. g., one- way trip
rentals) becomes more difficult with increased scale. The high initial cost of establishing
advanced operations is decreasing relative to the benefits added.
As shared- use vehicle services continue to grow, there will be an increasing need for
interoperability among shared- use vehicle systems and providers. This continued push for
interoperability has provided significant motivation for development and implementation
of a MOP. While development of a MOP is key for interoperability in mobility
operations, there are two additional areas where development of standards would be
beneficial that are outside the scope of a MOP.
Customer Interface Standards— from the customer’s perspective, it is beneficial for
shared- use vehicle system operators to provide a high degree of interoperability
and consistency among various shared- use vehicle systems, as well as with transit.
A key example in this case would be a single access mechanism ( e. g., smartcard
and/ or key fob) that could be used among many shared- use vehicle systems and
other mobility services such as transit and parking management. Billing could
also be made uniform across many programs, so that one monthly bill is received
rather than several from various organizations. Operational consistency among
several systems is also key, so that customers do not have to re- learn different
operational procedures.
Vehicle Standards— many automobile standards are already in place for safety,
consistent operation, and interoperability of components. With the addition of
shared- use on- board electronics, some standards will likely emerge so that
automakers can produce vehicles that more easily integrate and operate more
Final Report: CA VII
A- 12
consistently among many shared- use vehicle programs. As an example, shared-use
vehicles might have a common interface ( i. e., connector) for on- board
monitoring and control electronics. Shared- use vehicle technology manufacturers
could also benefit by adopting some uniform components for the growing shared-use
vehicle market segment ( e. g., smartcard readers placed in vehicles).
This review details technology issues and operational methodologies that have been
emerging in the shared- use vehicle arena. This discussion spans the elements of vehicle
management and system operations relative to MOP development. In this discussion,
various trade- off issues are described and qualitative benefits are compared among
different system designs.
1.1.1. Shared- Use Vehicle Management Background
Prior to describing a variety of reservation systems at various levels of technology
application, it is first necessary to address some implementation of shared- use vehicles
themselves. As mentioned previously, automobiles are almost always considered to be
the “ vehicle” in a shared- use system. However, this is not necessarily true— these
systems can include other transportation modes such as bicycles and scooters. In fact,
shared- use bicycle systems often come to mind when individuals are first introduced to
the carsharing concept. The MOP- related technology review being completed evaluates
ITS technologies suitable for a wide range mobility options ( e. g. autos, NEVs, bicycles,
Segway HTs, and scooters).
In the simplest of systems ( i. e., “ manual” operation), a user can call a reservation center
( system management center) and request a vehicle for a trip. An operator then checks
previous reservations for the vehicle( s) of interest and if a time slot is available, the
reservation is recorded. Over the last several years, there has been significant
development and proliferation of automated reservation systems throughout society in
general. For example, lodging, traditional car rental, and the airline industries now
employ automated reservation systems that can be accessed both from the phone
( entering data via a touch- tone pad) and from the Internet. For shared- use vehicle systems,
it is a natural fit to have both phone- and/ or internet- based automated reservation systems.
Generic automated reservation systems can easily be modified for shared- use vehicle
systems, little specialization is required for this implementation. Most on- line automated
reservation systems show a calendar with dates and times for which there are available
vehicles and have a simple intuitive interface.
Reservations provide users with the comfort and security of knowing that a vehicle is
available for them at a specific time and place. Reservations are also useful for system
management, allowing the system to maximize vehicle usage throughout the day. For
multi- nodal shared- use vehicle systems where one- way trips are common, reservations
can play an important role in maintaining a proper distribution of vehicles at all stations
throughout the day. By knowing the travel demand ahead of time via reservations, it is
possible to estimate when a lack of vehicles may occur at any one station and corrective
action can take place ( Barth et al., 2001). With reservations, three general steps taken are:
1) reservations are submitted ( on- line or phone); 2) at the time of the trip, a user
Final Report: CA VII
A- 13
approaches the vehicle and obtains access; and 3) the user carries out the trip. At the
completion of the trip, trip data are recorded ( either manually or via communication
between the vehicle and system).
Airline Reservation Systems Background
The airline industry has been the dominant presence of digital networked reservation
systems for nearly 50 years. The original systems created by the airline industry preceded
the prominence of the Internet and the online travel agencies ( e. g., Expedia, Orbitz,
Travelocity etc.). Nearly every aspect of online Internet- based reservations has evolved
around or is intricately tied to the airline industry reservation system, which is referred to
as the Global Distribution System ( GDS).
Since the airline- based travel systems preceded the international deployment of the
Internet as a distribution channel for travel, this discussion starts with an understanding of
the existing airline electronic distribution infrastructure, the Global Distribution System.
The airline industry created the first GDS in the 1960s as a way to keep track of flight
schedules, availability, and prices. Although accused of being outdated due to their use of
legacy computer system technology, the GDSs were actually among the first e- commerce
companies in the world facilitating business- to- business ( B- 2- B) electronic commerce as
early as the mid 1970s, when SABRE ( owned by American Airline) and Apollo ( United)
began installing their propriety internal reservations systems in travel agencies. It is these
original, legacy GDSs that today provide the backbone to the Internet travel distribution
system ( Das, 2002).
At its inception, the Global Distribution System ( GDS) represented a closed, dedicated
connection of terminals displaying travel information about airlines, hotels, car rentals,
cruises and other travel products. Used almost exclusively by travel agents, the GDS
created a distribution chain that was relatively linear, allowing each chain player to
collect a portion of the transaction. Today, however, the GDS has been reduced to just
one component of a much larger ecosystem of networked travel information with
advances in communication and software. It is this larger structure - the Global
Distribution Network or GDN - that is dramatically affecting how business is done in the
hospitality and travel industries. This emerging distribution model might be more closely
described as a multi- dimensional flow of information and transactions with any
intermediary in the channel able to distribute travel information and complete a
transaction directly with the customer.
Traditionally, the travel reservations were made utilizing one of two methods: either at
the travel agent’s desktop or at the reservation center of individual suppliers ( i. e.,
accessed by consumers via the telephone). The airline or hotel supplier was connected to
travel agents through the GDS, which created a straightforward variable cost structure to
sell travel products. Although designed for the airlines, the GDS’s widespread
distribution ( 40,000 terminals worldwide in 2002) attracted other hospitality and travel
companies to list their inventory ( Das, 2002). Since their information is displayed in a
similar format to airlines, hotel, car rental, and tour wholesaler products utilize the GDS
to manage reservations. The inventory is essentially on consignment to the GDS at a pre-
Final Report: CA VII
A- 14
determined price, regardless of market fluctuations after the product allotment was made
available.
There are currently four major GDS systems:
1. Amadeus
2. Galileo
3. Sabre
4. Worldspan
In addition, there are several smaller or regional GDSs, including SITA’s Sahara, Infini
( Japan), Axess ( Japan), Tapas ( Korea), Fantasia ( South Pacific), and Abacus
( Asia/ Pacific) that serve interests or specific regions or countries ( Das, 2002). Focusing
on the four major GDS’s provides sufficient background and understanding of the
evolution of reservation systems and how to best interface new technologies.
With the evolution of the Internet and having GDS’s already exist, there was the
opportunity for greatly improving the airline reservation methodology. Orbitz was
originally conceived by the major airlines in the early 1990’ s when the Internet was in its
humble beginnings as a retail medium and airlines still paid hefty commissions to travel
agencies. At the time, three major travel agencies ( American Express, Carlson Wagonlit,
and Rosenbluth) controlled a majority of airline ticket sales. The four computerized
reservation systems ( Sabre, Galileo, Worldspan and Amadeus) provided the automation
for the 80 percent of airline tickets sold through the travel agency channel ( Castleberry,
1998).
Microsoft, being heavily involved with the inner workings and displays of most personal
computers, was quickly involved in the online travel agency development and
deployment. Microsoft as a result created and developed Expedia. The advantage of
Orbitz, Expedia, Travelocity ( which is part of Sabre), or any other online travel agency, is
that they serve as consolidated online travel stores, offering flights and fares from
multiple vendors for a one- stop travel planning and purchasing experience. As time
passed, Travelocity and Expedia became smaller threats to airline costs as ticket
commissions became a smaller component of airline ticket sales. The online travel
agency sites currently make money from other commissions ( like car rentals, hotels,
cruises) or from advertising and special preferred relationship deals with various travel
suppliers, and user fees ( Castleberry, 1998).
1.2 Communications Background
Critical to many ITS applications is the ability to communicate between different devices
and/ or users. A high degree of development in the mobile wireless communication arena
has occurred in recent years with the proliferation of cellular devices, personal digital
assistants ( PDAs), and other mobile computing platforms. Much of this development has
Final Report: CA VII
A- 15
been associated with the information needs of consumers, such as messaging, sending
and receiving emails, mobile computing, and downloading information from the Internet.
There has also been a good deal of activity in the communications arena of ITS. Five
general types of communications linkages have been defined for ITS, which include:
 Wide Area Broadcast Communications;
 Wide Area Two- Way Wireless Communications ( e. g., cellular);
 Dedicated Short Range Communications;
 Vehicle- to- Vehicle communications; and
 Wireline communications [ US DOT, 2005].
These communication linkages involve numerous ITS applications for a variety of
purposes, such as safety, remote diagnostics, maintenance, and entertainment. In general,
ITS applications have different communication requirements in terms of bandwidth,
latency, and quality of service ( QoS). For example, vehicle- to- vehicle communications in
an automated highway system scenario will require local high bandwidth
communications, while applications such as remote emergency diagnostics will need a
low- bandwidth, highly available connection. It is important to note that the wireless
network architecture developed for personal data communication needs ( e. g., Internet-capable
mobile phones) won’t necessarily be able to satisfy all ITS communication
requirements. As a result, specific wireless communication architectures and methods are
being developed and tailored for various ITS applications ( e. g., see ( Bana & Varaiya,
2002; Lee et al., 2001; Punnoose et al., 2001; and Munaka, 2001)).
Wireless communications will play a significant role for MOP development within
transit- oriented developments, particularly in communicating information between users,
the system, and vehicles. Much of the communications needs make use of the Internet,
since it is often widely available and a variety of Internet- based communication protocols
have already been established. Using the Internet as the backbone for communications, a
variety of architectures are applicable for TODs. For example, an architecture for generic
local communications between a “ system” and vehicles is shown in Figure 2.1. This
architecture is useful for vehicle ( or any other shared resource) access control, as well as
for uploading and downloading vehicle information. This architecture is not well suited
for real- time applications unless the resources ( vehicles in this case) do not travel far
from a local short- range communications unit.
Cellular based communications can be used to send wireless messages between the
system and the resources. General Packet Radio Service ( GPRS) communications,
considered as wireless IP networks, are now widely accepted standards in North America.
They primarily provide packet data service for mobile users by automatically utilizing
idle cellular phone channels to send packet data traffic. GPRS has been the primary target
of ITS applications that require Wide Area Network ( WAN) data communications. A
mobile end system communicates with the GPRS network via a 19.2 kilobits per second
or greater raw duplex wireless link, which is shared by several mobile end systems.
Final Report: CA VII
A- 16
Additional intelligent wireless techniques such as frequency hopping, RS code, roaming,
and dynamic channel relocation are used to provide a fairly robust data channel ( Lin,
1997). When implementing such a wide- area communication architecture, a monthly
subscription fee must be paid. Further, a wide- area cellular system will always have a
certain degree of data packet loss and data packet latency, which might affect shared- use
vehicle system operations ( see ( Barth et al., 2002)).
Figure 2.1. Generic local communication architecture.
The MOP development requires Wide Area Network communication utilizing Internet-accepted
communication standards and protocols. Various wireless WAN communication
methods exist such as, cellular, satellite, and regional wireless ( Wi- Max). The technology
evaluation relative to WAN integration focuses first on wired WAN and wired LAN
connectivity and integrates wireless solutions when necessary. The wired LAN and WAN
hardware and software have been proven and tested as the most cost effective and reliable
network communication methods. WAN technology integration utilizing wireless data
transmission is proposed and evaluated when wired connectivity is not feasible due to
hardware infrastructure limitations. Wireless WAN communications vary regionally and
performance is often variable depending upon site specific characteristics such as signal
strength, usage demand, and RF interference.
1.3 Background of Digital Devices for Fare Payment and Access
Control
The two technology areas of fare payment and access control are being evaluated
together for the purposes of this review. While each have their own protocols, standards,
and development history, the technologies are beginning to merge for the purpose of
mobility applications. Tokens and methodologies utilized by patrons of mobility services
for gaining access to a vehicle or service are also being utilized to identify the users
respective account and levy charges for services provided. For this reason, the devices,
Final Report: CA VII
A- 17
protocols, and standards that serve this dual purpose are being evaluated in this review.
Examples of these technologies include smart cards, proximity cards, magnetic strip
cards, RFID, and Personal Area Network ( PAN) based wireless electronic payment.
1.3.1. Vehicle Access Control
Coupled with reservations and/ or on- demand check- out procedures, there are several
different ways to control vehicle access. There have been several methods developed in
different shared- use vehicle system models:
Lockbox: All users can carry a single key that allows access to a lockbox located at a
shared- use vehicle system site. In the lockbox, the car- keys of the different
vehicles are available. Many systems have taken this a step further by using
common smartcards to access the lockboxes ( e. g., COCOS) ( Britton, 2000).
Common Key: In this scenario, all of the shared- use vehicles are re- keyed so that a single
key can be used for all vehicles. All users then have a copy of the same key and
can access any of the vehicles ( e. g., CarLink II) ( Shaheen, 2004).
Smartcard Open Access to All Vehicles: Instead of a common key, on- board electronics
( i. e., card reader secured to a door lock mechanism) can be used to read
smartcards issued to the users. In this scenario, all vehicles would unlock using
any system smartcard. Once in the vehicle, a permanently mounted or tethered
key would be used to start the vehicle ( or ignition pop- up key featured in Honda’s
Diracc program in Singapore ( hondadiracc. com). This method, along with the
common key and lockbox methods, depends on users following an honor system
to enforce reservations, since any user can access a vehicle at any time.
Smartcard Exclusive Access for Specific Users: Similar to that above, smartcards are
issued to users. Each smartcard has a specific code, and when vehicle access is
requested, only the designated smartcard ( with the associated PIN code) would
release the requested vehicle for use. This vehicle access control requires that the
smartcard code be transmitted to the vehicle prior to the time of vehicle access for
that user. Once in the car, the user can start the vehicle, again using a permanently
mounted or tethered key.
Smartcard Exclusive Access for Specific User with PIN Confirmation: This method is
similar to that above where smartcard codes are used to enable specific user
access for each trip. However, an additional step is required in that once the user
is in the car, he/ she has to enter a personal identification number ( PIN) on an
input device ( or message display terminal, typically mounted on the dashboard) to
enable the ignition system. This is similar to bank automated teller machines to
help prevent fraudulent use of lost or stolen cards.
In all of the smartcard options, key “ fobs” ( i. e., small devices that can hang from a key
chain) can also be used. The largest U. S. carsharing service providers are using such key
fobs, supported by the AWID standard. Furthermore, PDAs or other wireless devices
Final Report: CA VII
A- 18
could be used for keyless access by performing short- range communication ( e. g., infrared
or bluetooth) with the vehicle.
All of these vehicle access solutions have tradeoffs in convenience, security, and cost.
The lockbox technique provides a small amount of security in that users have to go
through an extra step to gain access to the vehicle keys. The common key method is the
least secure method, since any lost key could be found and used for an entire fleet of
vehicles. The smartcard- open- access method provides a small increase in security since a
person who finds a lost card won’t necessarily know how to use it. The smartcard-exclusive-
access method provides significantly more security but at the cost of requiring
the ability to communicate smartcard codes to the vehicle. The smartcard- exclusive-access-
with- PIN provides the most security and has the added cost of requiring a PIN
input device inside the vehicle. The majority of mobility or transit based systems of any
significant size or complexity are transitioning towards RFID, contactless, or smartcard
access systems.
1.3.2. User Identification and Fare Payment
Numerous technologies have traditionally been utilized for user identification and fare
payment. These technologies include:
• Bar Codes
• Magnetic stripes
• Ibuttons
• Chip Cards
• RF Tags
Bar code systems which are traditionally associated with retail inventory management
and register systems have been utilized successfully for product identification. The usage
of bar codes within the transportation sector requires the utilization of electro- optical
readers that must address issues of readability. The readability of a bar code is dependent
upon scanning speed, scanning angle, contrast, and lighting conditions.
Magnetic stripe systems utilize similar principles as the bar code but incorporate
magnetic readers versus optical readers. This technology has universal use within the
credit/ debit card arena and is well integrated within the consumer market. Magnetic stripe
systems have been incorporated into transit systems with some success. The magnetic
stripe cards can be issued on plastic credit card specification stock or on disposable paper
stock. Magnetic stripe systems are impacted by weather, dirt, and degradation of cards.
Ibuttons entered the market with the goal of alleviating some of the optical and magnetic
reader issues associated with bar codes and magnetic stripe systems. The Ibutton systems
have entered the transportation sector for controlled parking, transit, and meter systems.
Ibutton applications are expanding to include read/ write capability and fare payment
activities. While Ibuttons have overcome some of the traditional issues associated with
bar codes and magnetic stripes, the read process still requires physical contact between
Final Report: CA VII
A- 19
the Ibutton and reader. Technologies such as the Ibutton and magnetic stripe technologies
are discussed generally but not in depth since the majority of ITS transportation- related
efforts are transitioning towards contactless technologies.
Smart cards utilize smart chips that are read/ write capable and come in contact or
contactless configurations. The contactless configurations generally fall under ISO/ IEC
14443 international standards and operate at a distance of less than 10 centimeters
utilizing the 13.56 MHz frequency. Contact smart cards utilize the ISO/ IEC 7816
standard and require electrical contacts between the reader and the card. Smart cards have
been utilized successfully for numerous combined access and fare payment applications
( smartcardalliance. org, 2007).
RFID tags have widespread use in supply chain applications for tracking inventory. Two
general categories exit for RFID technologies: passive and active. Passive RFID tags
utilize the reader’s broadcast frequency to generate sufficient power within the card to
then broadcast identity information within the proximity of a reader. Active RFID tags
broadcast a signal through their own power source and transmitter. A reader then receives
the broadcast and identifies the identity of the tag. Generally, the passive RFID tags are
less expensive and are utilized in high volume inventory applications. The active RFID
tags are typically utilized in applications of lower volume and higher transmitting range
requirements. RFID tags have been successfully implemented for automated toll
collection within the ITS arena ( ITS America, 2001).
1.4 Network Reference Model Background
Understanding and knowledge of digital communication network models proves very
useful for evaluating and comparing digital protocols, hardware, and software. These two
reference models are the ISO OSI 7 layer reference model and the 4 layer TCP/ IP
reference model. The two models are further described below. While most digital
communications network protocols refer to the OSI 7 layer model, Internet
communications primarily utilize TCP/ IP.
1.4.1. OSI Reference Model Layers
The OSI Reference Model consists of seven conceptual layers, each assigned a numerical
value from one to seven. Each progressive layer number represents the system hierarchy
and indicates proximity to the actual hardware used to implement a network. The first
and lowest layer is the physical layer, which is where signal transmission and hardware
are implemented. The seventh and highest layer is the application layer, which deals with
high- level applications utilized by end users and the operating system software. The
MOP being developed within this program will be used by applications operating in the
seventh layer and communicate with hardware implemented at the physical layer. The
technology being implemented for interfacing with mobility control devices ( e. g. bike
lockers, Segway access mechanisms, vehicle telematics) operate down to the lowest layer
of signal transmission ( physical layer).
Final Report: CA VII
A- 20
This seven layer OSI Reference Model defines how the vast majority of the digital
networks currently function. OSI was an effort formed by the International Organization
for Standardization in 1982 with the goal of producing a standard reference model for the
hardware and software connection of digital equipment ( ISO/ IEC 7498, 1994). The
important concept to realize about the OSI Reference Model is that it does not define a
network standard, but rather provides guidelines for the creation of network standards
and integration relationships.
Transitioning up from the first layer to the seventh represents moving up the layer stack
and therefore, increases the level of abstraction. This means that the higher a layer is in
the stack, the more it incorporates logical concepts and applications, and the less it deals
with the hardware of a network.
The OSI Reference Model does not formally define any relationship between groups of
adjacent layers. The OSI Reference Model is frequently divided into two layer groupings:
the lower layers, and the upper layers. Figure 2.2 provides a visual representation of the
OSI Reference Model with the separation of application and transport layers.
Figure. 2.2. OSI Reference Model layers ( Cisco, 2006).
Lower Layers ( Layers 1, 2, 3 and 4) — The physical, data link, network and
transport layers are primarily concerned with the formatting, encoding and transmission
of data over the chosen network. The tasks don’t discern by data purpose or application,
the tasks are only responsible for transmitting data between devices. The communication
tasks are implemented in both hardware and software, with the gradual transition from
hardware to software occurring as you proceed up from layer 1 to layer 4. Layer 4 is
often considered a transitional layer between the transport of data between devices and
how a device is utilizing the data ( application).
Upper Layers ( Layers, 5, 6 and 7) — The session, presentation, and application
layers of the model are the ones that are associated primarily with interacting with the
user, and implementing the applications that utilize the network. The protocols that run at
higher layers are minimally concerned with the low- level hardware details of how data
gets sent from one place to another. The upper layers rely on the lower layers to provide
Final Report: CA VII
A- 21
delivery of data and are primarily implemented as software running on a computer or
other hardware device.
Figure. 2.3. Network data transfer within the OSI Reference Model ( Cisco, 2006).
Figure 2.3 shows a representation of digital communication between two networks
utilizing the OSI Reference Model. Each layer attaches a header to provide identification
and instruction for subsequent operations. Only headers are evaluated as packets
transition through the transport process, data begins to be interpreted in the application
layers. While the OSI Reference Model is a conceptual framework for digital
communications, TCP/ IP has evolved to be the most widely utilized digital
communications standard.
1.4.2. TCP/ IP Suite
TCP/ IP is the widely accepted standard utilized to provide network- layer and transport-layer
functionality. Its widespread use and nearly universal acceptance has been due to a
number of important factors, not the least of, is the fact that it is tied to the Internet as the
primary internet communication protocol method. A brief list of TCP/ IP qualities
includes:
• TCP/ IP defines a structured method for identifying and addressing devices on
both small and large networks. The addressing system also consists of a
centralized administration capability for the Internet, to ensure that each device
has a unique address.
• TCP/ IP is specifically designed to facilitate the routing of information over a
network of varying complexity. TCP/ IP routers enable data to be delivered
between devices on different networks by moving it incrementally from one
network to the next.
Final Report: CA VII
A- 22
• TCP/ IP operates primarily at layers three and above, and includes provisions to
allow it to function on almost any lower- layer technology, including LANs,
wireless LANs and WANs of various sorts. This flexibility means that one can
mix and match hardware that implement a variety of different underlying
networks and connect them all using TCP/ IP.
• One of the most valuable characteristics of TCP/ IP is how scalable its protocols
have demonstrated to be. Over the decades it has proven its worth as the Internet
has grown from a small network with just a few machines to an enormous
international inter- network with millions of hosts.
• The TCP/ IP standards are open standards freely available to the international
public. Furthermore, the process used to evolve and develop TCP/ IP standards is
also completely open. TCP/ IP standards and protocols continue to be modified
using the unique, democratic Request for Comments “ RFC” process, with all
interested parties invited to participate.
TCP/ IP standards are being reviewed and updated to facilitate improved communications
and technological growth. The current TCP/ IP standard in broad use incorporates IP
Version 4. The continued migration to the new IP Version 6 ( IPV6) protocol is in its
early stages. It is likely that TCP/ IP will remain a big part of networked systems for the
foreseeable future as improvements and enhancements are incorporated. Technology
evaluations will consider the relationship to current TCP/ IP standards.
1.5 Bodies for Standards Development
Numerous national and international organizations, groups, committees, institutes,
consortiums, and commissions exist with the premise of promoting, creating, and
implementing standards within the computer, electronics, and transportation industries.
The groups listed below have a history of standards development which overlap
significantly with the goals of MOP development.
• AASHTO ( American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)
• ANSI ( American National Standards Institute)
• APTA ( American Public Transportation Association)
• ASC X12 ( Accredited Standards Committee)
• ATIS ( Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions)
• DISA ( Data Interchange Standards Association)
• ETSI ( European Telecommunications Standards Institute)
• FIPS ( Federal Information Processing Standard)
• IATA ( International Airline and Transportation Association)
• ICAO ( International Civil Aviation Organization)
Final Report: CA VII
A- 23
• IEEE ( Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers)
• ISO/ IEC ( International Standards Organization/ International Electrotechnical
Commission)
• ITE ( Institute of Transportation Engineers)
• ITU ( International Telecommunications Union)
• NTCIP ( National Transportation Communications ITS Protocol)
• SAE ( Society of Automotive Engineers)
• ITS ( US Department of Transportation Intelligent Transportation Systems)
• W3C ( World Wide Web Consortium)
The protocols, standards, and efforts of these groups ( and many others) have been
evaluated relative to MOP development and integration. Once a standard is widely
adopted on a national or international level, standards are approved by one of several key
agencies. Relative to MOP, these agencies have the greatest influence: IEEE, ANSI,
ISO/ IEC, ITS and IATA. Standards currently in place with these key agencies will be
briefly reviewed.
1.5.1. International Standards Organization ( ISO)/ International Electrotechnical
Commission ( IEC) Standards
ISO/ IEC is one of the worldwide standard- setting bodies for technology, including plastic
cards. The primary standards for smart cards are ISO/ IEC 7816, ISO/ IEC 14443,
ISO/ IEC 15693 and ISO/ IEC 7501.
ISO/ IEC 7816 is a multi- part international standard broken into fourteen parts. ISO/ IEC
7816 Parts 1, 2 and 3 deal only with contact smart cards and define the various aspects of
the card and its interfaces, including the card’s physical dimensions, the electrical
interface and the communications protocols. ISO/ IEC 7816 Parts 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13 and
15 are relevant to all types of smart cards ( contact as well as contactless). They define the
card logical structure ( files and data elements), various commands used by the
application programming interface for basic use, application management, biometric
verification, cryptographic services and application naming. ISO/ IEC 7816 Part 10 is
used by memory cards for applications such as pre- paid telephone cards or vending
machines. ISO/ IEC 7816 Part 7 defines a secure relational database approach for smart
cards based on the SQL interfaces ( SCQL).
ISO/ IEC 14443 is an international standard that defines the interfaces for a “ close
proximity” contactless smart card, including the radio frequency ( RF) interface, the
electrical interface, and the communications and anti- collision protocols. ISO/ IEC 14443
compliant cards operate at 13.56 MHz and have an operational range of up to 10
centimeters ( 3.94 inches). ISO/ IEC 14443 is the primary contactless smart card standard
being used for transit, financial, and access control applications. It is also used in
electronic passports and in the FIPS 201 PIV card.
Final Report: CA VII
A- 24
ISO/ IEC 15693 describes standards for “ vicinity” cards. Specifically, it establishes
standards for the physical characteristics, radio frequency power and signal interface, and
anticollision and transmission protocol for vicinity cards that operate to a maximum of 1
meter ( approximately 3.3 feet).
ISO/ IEC 7501 describes standards for machine- readable travel documents and has made
a clear recommendation