Skip to main content

Towards a mobility operating system

Establishing a lingua franca for urban transportation

The new mobility ecosystem is rapidly expanding, with new technologies, infrastructure, providers and modes of transport. How to integrate them all and keep everything on track? With a mobility operating system.

Scott Corwin
Derek Pankratz

Introduction: Urban intermodal transportation

FOR some 200,000 years, humans were, chiefly, a rural species. Driven by the demands of hunting, gathering and eventually pastoralism and agriculture, population densities remained low. Great cities served as important hubs for exchange, to be sure—Ur, Thebes, Babylon, Athens, Rome, Chang’an, Tenochtitlan and others—but they were far from most people’s daily lives.1

Two and a half centuries ago, as the Industrial Revolution unfolded, that story began to change (see figure 1). A variety of economic, political, and technological forces converged, drawing more and more people into cities. As Sidewalk Labs CEO Dan Doctoroff notes, the steam engine, the electric grid, and the automobile “brought people and goods to cities across long distances [and] enabled them to become industrialised on a scale that was not possible before.”2 Our great migration from the countryside to ever-larger metropolises has been a defining arc in the human story. In 2010, for the first time, more people lived in urban than rural areas. Our rising urbanisation shows few signs of abating.3

These great shifts have been accompanied by tremendous opportunities—and challenges. Cities have been engines of ingenuity, innovation and economic growth and innovation. They are the centres of commerce and they have incubated many of our greatest achievements in the arts and sciences. But they face an increasingly complex set of issues associated with feeding, housing, protecting, employing and transporting a growing influx of citizens. Saddled by legacy infrastructure and limited budgets, many urban areas are struggling to keep pace with increased populations and growing volumes of freight, often leading to increased congestion, lower quality of life, lost economic potential and negative health outcomes. The contours of many cities today look far different than they did when public transit systems were first established, often decades earlier. Young families populate many neighbourhoods that once housed factories. Farm fields that grew maize now sprout subdivisions. Yet in many instances, the transportation networks serving these areas remain fundamentally unchanged, struggling with unforeseen traffic and ridership.4

More recently and partially in response, a dizzying array of mobility-related innovations have emerged that could help address many of those challenges. Many urbanites are flocking to these expanded transportation options—carsharing, ride-hailing, bikesharing, e-scooters, and others—in many cases substituting for existing outmoded, inconvenient and inaccessible transit systems. With the emergence of shared autonomous mobility, connected infrastructure and smart cities technologies, the prospects for an urban intermodal transportation ecosystem that is faster, cheaper, cleaner and safer appear closer than ever.5 Realising this vision, however, is likely to require more than a series of one-off, point solutions. Indeed, on their own, new mobility services may only exacerbate the current transportation system’s friction and inefficiencies by adding complexity and additional transaction costs while syphoning off demand from existing modes with slow-to-adjust prices (such as public coaches).

But there could be a way to achieve a Pareto-improving, more efficient outcome in the near term by overlaying onto today’s transportation system a citywide digital platform to facilitate transparency, interoperability, coordination and control: a mobility operating system.6 Without it, planners will likely struggle to see gains from new forms of mobility—and from the investments of players across the ecosystem—for a decade or more.

This article explores some of the key capabilities and technological components of an integrated mobility platform and how city leaders could deploy them now to help alleviate some of their pressing mobility challenges and accelerate systemwide gains. It also examines some of the likely essential prerequisites for implementing such a system, from data and technology to the always-thorny issues of financing, civic engagement, private investment and political leadership and courage.

Cities’ mobility challenge

While conditions vary dramatically across the globe, many of the world’s largest cities are straining to meet their citizens’ mobility needs. Fuelled by population growth, urbanisation, often-misaligned transportation systems and a shortfall of investment in public infrastructure, congestion and other transportation-related challenges are having a deleterious impact on urban life.

Urban populations have grown steadily since 1950 (see figure 2).7 Today, roughly 4 billion people live in urban areas, a number the United Nations expects to reach more than 6 billion by 2050—two out of every three people on earth.8 While most cities remain relatively small, more than 500 of them are home to at least 1 million people. By 2030, there could be 41 “megacities” with populations of more than 10 million; there are already 11 such cities in China and India alone.9 Unsurprisingly, analysts expect the demand for mobility within cities to increase accordingly, with global urban passenger-miles almost doubling across all modes by 2050 (see figure 3).10 In most cities, public infrastructure and transit systems simply cannot keep pace with the growth. There is already an estimated US$1 trillion shortfall in global infrastructure spending.11 In the absence of major policy and technological changes, by 2050, roughly 15 million additional miles of paved roads and 30,000 square miles of parking spaces could be needed to meet global demand.12

Already, many cities are experiencing the downsides associated with overloaded and inefficient roads and transit systems. In the most congested cities, drivers spend between 100 and 200-plus hours per year—two to five entire workweeks—stuck in traffic.13 The cumulative impact on US GDP of deteriorating infrastructure could exceed US$500 billion annually by 2040.14

Congestion may be the most visible symptom of cities’ mobility-related challenges, but it is by no means the only one. Based on data from roughly 3,000 cities, nearly 80 percent of people living in urban areas are exposed to air pollution—much of it attributable to vehicle emissions15—that exceeds World Health Organization recommendations, increasing the risk of a variety of respiratory diseases, heart disease, stroke and lung cancer.16 In OECD countries alone, more than 7 million years of life were lost due to ambient air pollution in 2010, about 50 percent of which comes from road transit.17 In major US urban areas, the annual health costs of congestion exceed US$30 billion.18 The act of commuting itself is associated with poorer health outcomes.19 And research suggests that access to transportation is one of the most important factors for escaping poverty in cities.20

Harnessing the future of mobility

In most cities, a reincarnation of New York “master builder” Robert Moses’s vision will not solve this problem; simply building more roads is as likely to exacerbate the issues as alleviate them.21 With constrained budgets and finite space, cities must figure out how to enable greater throughput—moving more people and goods through either the existing transportation system or by adding additional capacity (without creating more traffic)—across the entire transportation system. This will likely require significant modernisation of the entire network and managing mobility holistically as a “system of systems.” Today’s system is far from optimised; there are massive costs associated with the imbalances between supply and demand. Through a combination of new forms of mobility, more flexible and adaptive pricing and digitisation of the entire system, an extraordinary opportunity exists to reach a new, more efficient equilibrium point that could enable travelling faster, cheaper and more conveniently than today.

As many private-sector actors have sought to capitalise on the inefficiencies and gaps in existing transportation networks, new mobility-related services and solutions have proliferated. Responding to market need, these new offerings cover the gamut of urban concerns: traffic efficiency, public safety, commerce, sustainability, accessibility, equity, and health and welfare. As Ramayya Krishnan, dean of the Heinz College of Information Systems and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, notes, “Technology has transformed and is continuing to enable rapid innovation in mobility services. Government has to innovate on policy but has not done so. In the meantime, people are adopting services based on their individual cost-convenience trade-offs.”22 The last several years have seen significant advances in:

  • Trip planning and dynamic routing, including multimodal trip planning, wayfinding, freight routing, real-time traffic management and data analytics. A number of cities, including Helsinki, Paris, Los Angeles, and Singapore, are experimenting with mobility-as-a-service (MaaS), which relies “on a digital platform that integrates end-to-end trip planning, booking, electronic ticketing and payment services across all modes of transportation, public or private.”23 All of these are aimed at reducing vehicle traffic and optimising an individual’s journey, not the city’s transportation system and so do little to improve systemwide inefficiencies.
  • Vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure connectivity and smart infrastructure that can help smooth traffic flow (through smart traffic lights), reduce the number of accidents (for example, through vehicle connectivity and smart pedestrian crossings), lower electrical consumption (via smart street lights), monitor air quality, and service a growing fleet of electric vehicles (through electric charging stations).
  • New modes of mobility—notably, carsharing, bikesharing, e-scooters, ride-hailing and microtransit. The growth of electric vehicles and the emergence of autonomous vehicles could dramatically reshape urban mobility options.
  • Real estate utilisation, including smart curbs, smart metering and smart parking. There could be more than 1 million on-street smart parking spaces globally by 2026.24
  • Payments and ticketing, which encompasses the ability to pay for an entire multimodal trip with a single charge (unified payment) and the adoption of surge- and usage-based pricing.

While promising, deploying uncoordinated and isolated point solutions is likely to leave many of the systemwide benefits unrealised—“imagine a passenger-less autonomous vehicle being sent to pick up dry cleaning during rush hour,” notes mobility expert and MIT executive director John Moavenzadeh.25 Indeed, it is possible that adding self-driving cars and other solutions could exacerbate, rather than alleviate, a city’s mobility challenges. Transportation network companies’ services have already added 5.7 billion miles of driving in the nine largest US cities.26 New modes of mobility interact with existing public transit in complex ways and, in some cases, could cannibalise usage or fail to serve populations most in need.27 In New York, 50 per cent of ride-hail trips would have otherwise been made using transit, according to the city’s surveys.28

Greater than the sum of its parts: The mobility operating system

To truly harness emerging technologies to solve the most vexing problems, cities would need a comprehensive, integrated system that transcends existing infrastructure, drives standardisation and interoperability, enables value creation by key parties and cultivates technological advancements. In other words, a city would need a mobility operating system (mOS): an integrated platform that brings together physical infrastructure (roads, rails), modes of transport (cars, public transit, ridesharing, bike sharing, etc.) and transportation service providers (aggregators, public transport system) and creates greater throughput and optimisation systemwide through market clearing mechanisms (see figure 4).

The platform combines advances in Internet of Things technology, big data, and cognitive analytics to more efficiently align supply and demand, while catering to individual preferences and optimising transport resources to improve urban life. At its core, it is enabled by a dynamic nerve centre that:

  • Provides a central data exchange for the various types of mobility-related data generated by sensors, transponders, and via electronic transactions throughout the city;
  • Creates visibility into network capacity across modes;
  • Shows real-time consumption of different forms of mobility by mode and location;
  • Enables historical analyses of supply and demand to adapt the transportation system to be more fit for future purposes;
  • Creates market-driven incentives to shift consumption choices; practically, that could mean offering discounts for people to opt for less utilised and perhaps slower routes, or to shift their travel to off-peak times;
  • Offers a transaction platform that creates a new source of income for the city and expands the market for transit service companies and passengers by offering a wider array of choices to travel from point A to point B seamlessly; and
  • Smooths out peaks and valleys in demand, creating greater throughput and system optimisation.

The capabilities of an integrated mobility platform can benefit a wide range of stakeholders.

City transportation managers can gain a real-time perspective of the entire mobility network, as the system would ingest data from multiple sources, including vehicle- and infrastructure-based sensors (such as GPS-based city coach tracking and smart traffic lights that monitor vehicle flow) and citizens’ digital footprints (such as smartphone-enabled geolocation and electronic fare charges by mode). Drawing on that information, the system can then enable the city to equilibrate supply and demand and facilitate traffic throughput by adjusting incentives, most directly by calibrating prices across modes and locations but also through the use of behavioural nudges such as framing and social proofs (by, for example, highlighting how many of a person’s neighbours use public transit to travel a similar route to work).29

The system can utilise such data to conduct predictive analytics, modelling out system capacity and utilisation under a variety of conditions (peak traffic or a major sporting event, for example). They can also be used for longer-range scenario evaluation, allowing city leaders to understand the trade-offs inherent in infrastructure, policy, and operational choices and how they might affect the city and its citizens. That could allow for more informed decision-making about, say, whether it would be better to invest in a new light rail system or dynamic shuttles, and where to place those assets. There are also advanced planning tools that could dynamically simulate the impact of alternative configurations of mobility.

An agency’s overarching role is planning and operational performance oversight, and relative to an integrated mobility platform would be mostly oversight of a decentralised system, similar to how buyers and sellers come together via a stock exchange for which the government sets rules and policies around information symmetry, fairness in the transaction, transparency, and fees. The system could also offer multiple avenues to create a valuable municipal income source that could offset declining tax incomes, at a time when city governments need funding for critical infrastructure and other projects.

A city’s mobility platform can help equilibrate supply and demand and facilitate traffic throughput by adjusting incentives, most directly by calibrating prices across modes and locations but also through the use of behavioural nudges such as framing and social proofs.

Private-sector service providers would be able to reach new markets and consumers, while optimising the size of vehicle fleets deployed at different times of the day and reducing “empty miles” (miles travelled with no passengers) and costs. A platform-administered unified payment system could facilitate a single payment across modes, simplifying fare collection across mobility providers—until now, a stumbling block in many MaaS applications.30 The system and its requisite data clearinghouse can also enable ticketless travel and a variety of payment options, including pay-as-you-go and monthly subscriptions.

That said, an important plank in many private-sector mobility providers’ business model is the ability to capitalise on inefficiencies in the existing transportation network. Ride-hailing companies, for example, promise to connect riders with drivers more conveniently and quickly and at a lower cost than traditional taxis, while on-demand shared or shuttle coaches add more flexibility relative to fixed-route coaches. An integrated platform that optimises across modes could challenge that approach and therefore limit companies’ desire to opt in. There will likely need to be incentives to strongly encourage adoption, especially early on when the tangible benefits have yet to materialise.

Finally, end users can enjoy a single interface to plan and pay for trips across all available modes of transport. The integrated platform could support MaaS, enabling each traveller to tailor her journey based on her priority, whether price, speed, modality, or some other feature.31 And users would benefit from reduced congestion, faster trips, and improved access to mobility.

The potential applications and use cases are extensive. Figure 5 suggests just one possibility, with mOS-based enhancements creating value for users at many points.

Another scenario: Meteorologists forecast a record-setting heat wave, to be accompanied by reduced air quality and dangerous conditions for vulnerable young and old populations. Knowing this, city managers are able to leverage connected infrastructure and the mobility platform to prepare for and mitigate the risks. To understand where “demand” for help might emerge, the system analyses historical weather-related emergency calls by location throughout the city, along with weather and air quality data from sensors, geotagged demographic data, and a mapping of where vulnerable populations are located (schools and retirement homes, for instance). The mOS then marries that with information on the “supply” of emergency services, including historical 911 responder routes, police and fire department capacity and locations, and emergency call-box data.32 Using predictive analytics, the mobility platform can help determine where to predeploy emergency units to minimise response times. And when a call does come in, the system can dynamically direct first responders to the fastest possible route, adjusting traffic signals along the way to further speed their passage.

As the system matures, cities and the private sector could face a broad array of implications. Cities themselves could become mobility platforms upon which entrepreneurs and innovators can build new services and applications. Large players might lose their current data monopoly, introducing parity between new entrants and incumbents from tech firms to transit authorities. Local players may come to compete with mobility giants, leveraging partnerships with city officials and universities, as well as local insights and relationships. Improved and more affordable mobility solutions could lead to significantly reduced costs for consumers, allowing more savings and stimulating new spending. The platform could enable new revenue streams for city governments that align with future transportation trends, such as usage-based road pricing or congestion fees.

Accounting for the movement of goods within and beyond the city

Even as residents move about the city, a parallel form of mobility helps ensure that people have the food, clothing, and other goods they need and want. The World Bank estimates that, in a typical developed city, there are roughly 300 to 400 lorry trips per 1,000 people every day, and that freight constitutes 10 to 15 per cent of the vehicle miles traveled on city streets.33 And just as with passenger mobility, the movement of goods is in the midst of important innovations, especially for the “last mile” of delivery that is so critical in urban areas.34 The prospect of automated mobile lockers and drones could ease delivery bottlenecks and add flexibility to when goods are dropped off and picked up, and the prospect of drones or autonomous mobile lockers could further ease delivery bottlenecks.

The movement of goods is an important piece of a city’s mobility landscape, and any mobility platform must reckon with it. Efforts to minimise congestion or emissions are likely to be stymied if a city’s digital system lacks the necessary data and analytics to account for where delivery vehicles are headed and how they use infrastructure such as curbs. That likely means, at a minimum, gaining visibility into when and where freight is moving about the city, by which modes, and where. Stakeholders would also need to address sticky issues about how to balance the needs of passenger and goods mobility. For instance, minimising rush-hour congestion could mean incenting freight to move during off-peak overnight hours, but that could conflict with when businesses need goods delivered or eat into carriers’ bottom lines if lorries are forced to delay deliveries until traffic subsides.

Show more

Towards a lingua franca for mobility

Mobility figures prominently in everything needed to make a city advanced, attractive, intelligent, responsive, and sustainable. Addressing cities’ most pressing challenges and making the most of the exciting advances in mobility likely requires fresh thinking about how urban transportation can work. It starts with moving beyond single-modality management and instead optimising mobility as a “system of systems.” Few city governments are structured in a manner conducive to optimising the full potential of a 21st-century mobility network. It would require a willingness to shed long-standing orthodoxies that all public transit is inherently more beneficial than private-sector options, especially since much of the funding for mobility innovation is coming from private capital. It would mean enabling more efficient use of current assets, upgrading much of the existing public transit infrastructure, and a willingness to shut down outdated legacy assets. Compounding these challenges, few cities’ financial conditions equip them to bear the cost of the investment required to meet tomorrow’s rush-hour needs. As cities consider a new wave of global infrastructure investment, it is nonetheless likely worth allocating some portion to building a mobility platform that can deliver value to their citizens quickly.

There are technical hurdles to implementing an integrated mobility platform, to be sure: “sensorizing” vehicles and infrastructure with IoT technology, establishing the tech architecture, operating and maintaining a sophisticated citywide system, and so on. But the greatest barriers are likely to be political, social, and economic. Cities’ current capabilities and future needs will vary widely around the world, and there is no one-size-fits-all approach. Some would begin as near-greenfield spaces, such as China’s emerging and planned cities, with opportunities to tailor modern systems for the future. Many others would be constrained by existing infrastructure—some of it a century or more old—and modes of transit, requiring a retrofit to make the best of what is already there.

The greatest barriers to an integrated mobility platform are likely to be political, social, and economic rather than technical.

In general, to successfully implement a digital mobility platform, municipalities should move beyond traditional transportation policy and funding frameworks. Some important challenges to consider:

  • What outcome should be optimised? Participants’ goals will almost certainly vary, and agreeing on the key goals for the platform is likely to require deft negotiation. Private-sector players will presumably seek to maximise market access and profitability, while different areas of government might prioritise different outcomes that could be in conflict: reducing congestion, improving access for underserved communities, bettering air quality, making a city even more “people-centric” and pedestrian-friendly. Cities also support and manage public transit, which could conflict with private-sector interests.

    Articulating a set of design principles, such as those reflected in the World Economic Forum’s work on a Seamless Integrated Mobility System,35 can help clarify the trade-offs and evaluate a platform’s performance.36 Determining how much weight to assign to each outcome, and how to incentivise different participants so that all parties perceive value, are likely to be critical in making a system successful. Those principles may include:
    • Societal outcomes, such as reducing congestion, decreasing travel times, expanding economic opportunity and access, and improving air quality;
    • Consumer outcomes, including search costs for finding the optimal mode or modes, timing, and route for a given trip, and the direct cost paid by the traveler;
    • Mobility provider outcomes, which include both opportunity for innovation and competition, the ability to enter and exit the market, and a fee structure that enables long-run viability and the ability to earn fair returns for their investments; and
    • Public-sector outcomes, such as improved planning processes, the ability to derive data-driven insights about a city’s mobility network, and the generation of incremental revenue from (for example) data licensing, dynamic tolling, and per-trip fees.
  • Does political leadership exist? City leadership with the willingness and ability to incentivise participation and restrict access to the urban transportation market is likely to be key. Having most or all of the major mobility service providers “on platform” is likely a necessary condition for cities and citizens to realise maximum value. Forging public-private partnerships could be one way forward.
  • What levers are available to manage supply and demand by altering incentives for mobility providers and citizens? Most directly, that could manifest as real-time price adjustments (for example, congestion pricing on particular routes at rush hour). Less overt means of influence can also be effective—by, for example, leveraging behavioural science to shape choices and offering inducements (discounts) to travel via other modes and routes.37 Wherever possible, such adjustments should be market-driven rather than government-directed.
  • How will data be collected, shared, and analysed? What legal, security, and privacy concerns must be addressed, and how? An integrated mobility platform is predicated on an open exchange of data between public- and private-sector parties. The terms of that exchange, however, are likely to require careful deliberation to meet the needs of all participants. That would mean establishing protocols for what data is collected, how it is anonymised, where it can be stored, and to what ends it can be used. Implementing a system also means satisfying a potentially sceptical citizenry that highly personal data about how, where, and when people travel is being used responsibly. Without public trust, the digital platform would likely not be viable.
  • How should an urban planning process be revised to sustainably optimise greater throughput? More infrastructure is simply not enough—urban challenges increasingly require more efficient use of existing assets, land, and the flexible deployment of new services that meet specific needs at times of peak demand. Intermodal optimisation can multiply the potential benefits associated with shared autonomous fleets.
  • What governance mechanisms are needed? “Technology is not the constraint,” observes Carnegie Mellon’s Ramayya Krishnan. Rather, it is the creation of a thoughtful and data-driven “operating model” for cities that is more responsive to mobility-related externalities and that is more enduring than a single leader.38 That likely means putting into place, where possible, new policymaking structures that can provide a more holistic view of the city’s mobility needs and can react with agility.

    Many cities’ transportation networks are fragmented by political authority, policy jurisdiction, and public funding and thus have little incentive to cooperate in order to efficiently meet supply and demand. Effective mobility networks often cut across multiple jurisdictions and could encompass several municipalities, along with regional and federal authorities; the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), for example, serves as a decision-making forum and plans and operates transportation in the greater San Diego area, with representatives from 19 local governments and advisors from numerous additional local, state, federal, and tribal organisations.39 Creating connectivity and interoperability across geographies and establishing regional networks can help avoid a patchwork of potentially conflicting systems. Achieving unity of purpose and a harmonised set of rules and decision-making procedures is likely to be just as essential. In many cases, that could require a bottom-up approach that starts with the “anchor jurisdiction for the broader metro area leading in building out what a mobility platform could look like, then encouraging neighbouring communities to join,” notes MIT’s John Moavenzadeh,40 or the creation of a “chief mobility officer.”41
  • Who pays? Financing is likely to pose a persistent and daunting challenge. Municipal bonds may be an option for some, but players should also think expansively about alternative funding mechanisms, including public-private partnerships, dynamic usage-based pricing, and per-transaction fees. Banks, investment funds, and other private enterprises may be willing to help fund a mobility platform in exchange for a portion of the returns it generates. Figuring out ways to incent or secure private investment could be key to implementing a system that delivers societal benefits akin to the advances that originally made cities into such vibrant centres.

While it is important to begin with the end in mind, establishing a fully realised mobility operating system is a significant endeavour likely to play out over the course of many years. Even so, there are tangible benefits that can be realised from more incremental steps—and that lay the foundation for additional capabilities as the system matures. For example, a city might begin by better understanding, utilising, and managing its existing infrastructure and kerb-space, perhaps in a particular neighbourhood (figure 6). Leaders could build on that effort to eventually manage multiple modes of transportation across the city, improving congestion and accessibility, on the way to building a truly all-encompassing system that can create systemwide optimisation.

“Technology is not the constraint,” observes Carnegie Mellon’s Ramayya Krishnan. Rather, it is the creation of a thoughtful and data-driven “operating model” for cities that is more responsive to mobility-related externalities and that is more enduring than a single leader.

Conclusion: A Rosetta Stone for mobility

Two centuries ago, a soldier in Napoleon’s army discovered an artefact from one of the ancient world’s great cities, Memphis. The 2,000-year-old stone was inscribed with the words of a royal decree in two forms of Egyptian hieroglyphs and—crucially—ancient Greek. That object, dubbed the Rosetta Stone, became the key to deciphering Egyptian hieroglyphics and opening up an entire new realm of knowledge to the modern world.

A similar bridge—helping different types of parties communicate and work together—could greatly help to bring together the diversity of mobility interests in today’s complex urban areas. Twenty-first-century cities face tremendous challenges. As their populations swell, their ability to meet citizens’ transportation needs could be severely tested. Even if budgets were unconstrained, simply adding more roads would not be the answer. New mobility services offer great promise, but lack of coordination could make the problem worse, not better.

To make the most of the future of mobility, cities should harness the remarkable technological innovations of recent years to create a common platform that enables visibility, interoperability, and optimisation across the transportation network’s many nodes and modalities. Putting new connected services in context and conversation—helping them work together for the benefit of users, third-party providers, and the city itself—will be key to realising the benefits of the emerging mobility ecosystem.

Future of Mobility

The entire way we travel from point A to point B is changing. This transformation is creating a new ecosystem of personal mobility, with implications affecting more than just the automotive industry. Our Future of Mobility practice serves the entire ecosystem of companies working in and around mobility to actively shape its emergence.

Learn more

Cover image by:

  1. Christopher Chase-Dunn et al., “Uneven urban development: Largest cities since the late Bronze Age,” IROWS working paper #98, August 2015.

    View in Article
  2. Scott Corwin, “The urban optimist: Daniel Doctoroff on the future of cities,” Deloitte Review 20, January 23, 2017.

    View in Article
  3. Chase-Dunn et al., “Uneven urban development.”

    View in Article
  4. Emma G. Fitzsimmons, Ford Fessenden, and K.K. Rebecca Lai, “Every New York City subway line is getting worse. Here’s why,” New York Times, June 28, 2017; Victor Luckerson, “The great gridlock groundswell,” Ringer, November 7, 2016.

    View in Article
  5. Scott Corwin, Joe Vitale, Eamonn Kelly, and Elizabeth Cathles, The future of mobility, Deloitte University Press, September 24, 2015; Scott Corwin, Nick Jameson, Derek M. Pankratz, and Philipp Willigmann, The future of mobility: What's next?, Deloitte University Press, September 14, 2016.

    View in Article
  6. A Pareto improvement is a change that leaves no party worse off. For an application to mobility, see Yang Liu, Xiaolei Guo, and Hai Yang, “Pareto-improving and revenue-neutral congestion pricing schemes in two-mode traffic networks,” Netnomics 10, no. 1 (2009): pp. 123–40.

    View in Article
  7. United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2014 Revision (2014).

    View in Article
  8. Ibid.

    View in Article
  9. United Nations, The World’s Cities in 2016: Data Booklet, accessed August 4, 2017.

    View in Article
  10. ITF, ITF Transport Outlook 2017, OECD Publishing, 2017.

    View in Article
  11. World Economic Forum, Strategic infrastructure steps to prioritize and deliver infrastructure effectively and efficiently, September 2012.

    View in Article
  12. John Dulac, “Global land transport infrastructure requirements,” International Energy Agency 20 (2013).

    View in Article
  13. Trevor Reed and Joshua Kidd, INRIX global traffic scorecard, February 2019.

    View in Article
  14. American Society of Civil Engineers, Failure to act: Closing the infrastructure investment gap for America’s economic future, 2016.

    View in Article
  15. Federico Karagulian et al., “Contributions to cities’ ambient particulate matter (PM): A systematic review of local source contributions at global level,” Atmospheric Environment 120 (2015): pp. 475–83.

    View in Article
  16. World Health Organization, “WHO global urban ambient air pollution database,” 2016.

    View in Article
  17. OECD, The cost of air pollution: Health impacts of road transport, 2014.

    View in Article
  18. Jonathan I. Levy, Jonathan J. Buonocore, and Katherine von Stackelberg, “Evaluation of the public health impacts of traffic congestion: A health risk assessment,” Environmental Health 9, no. 1 (2010): p. 65.

    View in Article
  19. Erik Hansson et al., “Relationship between commuting and health outcomes in a cross-sectional population survey in southern Sweden,” BMC Public Health 11, no. 1 (2011): p. 834.

    View in Article
  20. Raj Chetty and Nathaniel Hendren, “The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility: Childhood exposure effects and county-level estimates,” Harvard University and NBER, 2015.

    View in Article
  21. Gilles Duranton and Matthew A. Turner, “The fundamental law of road congestion: Evidence from US cities,” The American Economic Review 101, no. 6 (2011): pp. 2616–52.

    View in Article
  22. Authors’ interview with Ramayya Krishnan, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, May 25, 2017.

    View in Article
  23. Warwick Goodall et al., “The rise of mobility as a service,” Deloitte Review 20, January 24, 2017.

    View in Article
  24. Navigant Research, Smart parking systems, 2017.

    View in Article
  25. Ibid.

    View in Article
  26. Bruce Schaller, “The new automobility: Lyft, Uber, and the future of American cities,” Schaller Consulting, July 25, 2018.

    View in Article
  27. Alejandro Henao, “Impacts of ridesourcing—Lyft and Uber—on transportation including VMT, mode replacement, parking, and travel behavior,” PhD dissertation defense, University of Colorado, January 19, 2017.

    View in Article
  28. NYC Department of Transportation, New York City mobility report, June 2018.

    View in Article
  29. Timothy Murphy and Mark J. Cotteleer, Behavioral strategy to combat choice overload, Deloitte University Press, December 10, 2015.

    View in Article
  30. Goodall et al., “The rise of mobility-as-a-service.”

    View in Article
  31. Ibid.

    View in Article
  32. Note that, in the long run, this could create the opportunity to reconfigure how the operating model and footprint for police, fire, and emergency medical services away from a neighborhood- or precinct-centric model.

    View in Article
  33. Laetitia Dablanc, Freight transport for urban development toolkit: Urban freight, World Bank/Department for International Development, 2009.

    View in Article
  34. Ted Choe et al., The future of freight: How new technology and new thinking can transform how goods are moved, Deloitte University Press, June 28, 2017.

    View in Article
  35. John Moavenzadeh and Scott Corwin, “Designing a seamless integrated mobility system,” World Economic Forum in association with Deloitte, January 2018.

    View in Article
  36. Authors’ correspondence with Ramayya Krishnan, September 2017.

    View in Article
  37. For one example in another domain, see Joy Forehand and Michael Greene, “Nudging New Mexico,” Deloitte Review 18, January 25, 2016.

    View in Article
  38. Authors’ interview with Ramayya Krishnan.

    View in Article
  39. San Diego Association of Governments, “About SANDAG,” accessed June 17, 2019.

    View in Article
  40. Authors’ interview with John Moavenzadeh.

    View in Article
  41. World Economic Forum, “Designing a seamless integrated mobility system,” January 2018.

    View in Article

Did you find this useful?

Thanks for your feedback

If you would like to help improve Deloitte.com further, please complete a 3-minute survey