Shared mobility and accessibility Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) has been used to offer accessibility to mobility impaired people, to people living in rural areas and to the urban poor. However, the cost of provision of DRT services appears to be high. Modern communication technology holds the promise of improving the efficiency of DRT or other alternative transit systems. Modern ITS has also been a major catalyst for the growth of shared mobility services such as carsharing and ridesourcing offered by Transportation Network Companies (TNCs). There are numerous policy possibilities for local government to require mobility sharing platforms to improve accessibility, whether directly or indirectly. • Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) has been used to offer accessibility to mobility impaired people, to people living in rural areas and to the urban poor • Modern communication technology holds the promise of improving the efficiency of DRT • Local government can require mobility sharing platforms to improve accessibility • Modern ITS has also been a major catalyst for carsharing and ridesourcing Until recently, the mobility of elderly or mobility impaired people confronted governments with two costly options. Either they could require buses and trams to be made accessible to everyone, or they could organise Demand Responsive Transport (DRT). DRT has also increasingly been seen as means to provide accessibility in rural areas, and to cater to the needs of the urban poor who are not well served by traditional public transport by providing feeder services to conventional public transport (Mulley et al., 2012; Wright, 2013). The “first/last mile” is indeed an important barrier to mobility for poor households who cannot afford private cars. Access to mobility in turn affects access to jobs if there is an important spatial mismatch in job accessibility, and the “last mile” problem can effectively worsen the employment prospects of poorer people (Chetty et al., 2014). However, the cost of provision of DRT services appears to be high, and, in some countries, the supply of these services has been discontinued (Wright, 2013). Strict eligibility restrictions for DRT targeting audiences such as the mobility impaired can also lead to higher costs of provision. In some European countries, specialised flexible services have become increasingly generalist by broadening the eligibility restrictions (Battellino and McClain, 2011; Schotman and Ludden, 2014). As a result, resources can be shared between services and the utilisation rates of the assets have increased, lowering costs for the operators (Ronald et al., 2015; Neven et al., 2015). Modern communication technology holds the promise of improving the efficiency of DRT or other alternative transit systems, because they enable the grouping of rides that have similar origin-destination pairs and to dynamically adapt routes to changing demand. Preliminary work by the ITF (2016) confirms that such types of shared mobility can improve accessibility to jobs, healthcare and schools. Shared mobility could thus play an important role in the fight against social exclusion. However, the impact of modern ITS on accessibility goes further than improving the efficiency of DRT. Modern ITS has also been a major catalyst for the growth of shared mobility services such as carsharing and ridesourcing offered by Transportation Network Companies (TNCs). Indeed, for mobility impaired people, sharing a car that is wheelchair accessible allows the spread the (high) acquisition cost of this car. Both commercial carsharing platforms and peer-to-peer services could exploit this possibility. Moreover, as DRT services are often provided by taxis, this naturally raises the question whether TNCs could also be involved in this market segment. In the United States, for instance, some cities are working on regulations that would ensure that TNCs also provide services to people with physical impairments. While some cities have considered mandating a minimum percentage of wheelchair accessible vehicles in the fleet of each TNC, this has not yet been implemented in practice, mainly due to the possible practical difficulties. An alternative approach is to “include a general clause in the transportation ordinance that explicitly stated TNCs could not deny service to those requiring special assistance. If a particular TNC does not have wheelchair accessible vehicles readily available, they have the option to refer passengers to another company that can provide wheelchair accessible cars” (Rainwater et al., 2015). Another approach is to require “TNCs to pay into an accessibility fund (…) which will be used for the purchase, operation, training and use of wheelchair accessible for-hire vehicles” (Rainwater et al., 2015). At the other end of the spectrum, some have suggested that public transport companies should outsource all DRT activities to TNCs, because TNCs would be better equipped to use the latest technologies than the public transport operators. However, this idea is controversial. For instance, it can be doubted that the typical targets of DRTs (elderly and disabled people) would be willing to adopt the smartphone-centred approach of the TNCs. In summary, new technological developments and new business models are likely to improve general accessibility for vulnerable groups in our population, at least if an appropriate regulatory framework is implemented. Battellino, H. and McClain, K. (2011), Community Transport in NSW – Broadening the Horizon, Australasian Transport Research Forum 2011 Proceedings, http://www.patrec.org/atrf.aspx Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P. & Saez, E., 2014. Where is the land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 129(4), pages 1553-1623 International Transport Forum (ITF) (2015) How shared self-driving cars could change city traffic? Corporate Partnership Board, http://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/15cpb_self-drivingcars.pdf Mulley, C., Nelson, J., Teal, R., Wright, S., Daniels, R., Barriers to implementing flexible transport services: An international comparison of the experiences in Australia, Europe and USA, Research in Transportation Business & Management, Volume 3, August 2012, Pages 3-11, ISSN 2210-5395, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.04.001 . Neven, A., Braekers, K., Declercq, K., Wets, G., Janssens, D., Bellemans, T., Assessing the impact of different policy decisions on the resource requirements of a Demand Responsive Transport system for persons with disabilities, Transport Policy, Volume 44, November 2015, Pages 48-57, ISSN 0967-070X, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.06.011 Rainwater, R., Hirshon, L., Jones, M., Levin, D., McCarthy, K., Morano, B. & Simon S. (2015), Cities, the Sharing Economy and What’s Next, National League of Cities report, http://www.nlc.org/Documents/Find%20City%20Solutions/City-Solutions-and-Applied-Research/Report%20-%20%20Cities%20the%20Sharing%20Economy%20and%20Whats%20Next%20final.pdf Ronald, N., Thompson, R. & Winter, S. (2015), Simulating Demand-responsive Transportation: A Review of Agent-based Approaches, Transport Reviews, 35:4, 404-421, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2015.1017749 Schotman, H. & Ludden, G.D.S. (2014) Demand responsive transport as a social innovation – the case of Skewiel mobiel. In: 9th International Conference on Design & Emotion: Colors of Care, 06-10-2014 – 09-10-2014, Bogotá (pp. 70 – 78). Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Bansal, A. & Cohen, A. (2015a), Shared Mobility: Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding Bikesharing, Carsharing, On-Demand Ride Services, Ridesharing, Shared-Use Mobility http://innovativemobility.org/?project=shared-mobility-definitions-industry-developments-and-early-understanding Wright, S. (2013) Designing flexible transport services: guidelines for choosing the vehicle type, Transportation Planning and Technology, 36:1, 76-92, DOI: 10.1080/03081060.2012.745757