Pittsburgh Mobility: MaaSter and Commander
Why it's the Trader Joe's of cities and what we can learn from it
Today’s read is about 8-10 minutes
Hi all,
It’s obvious that anything to do with urban planning, public transit/mobility, or city life in general gets me pretty excited. However, another niche interest that has never helped me on a first date is grocery stores. I’ve spent whole days of my life exploring grocery stores around the world and learning how they approach marketing, employee retention, and even where they place the vegetables (seriously, that matters!).
So, you can imagine that I was INCREDIBLY EXCITED to finally combine these two interests in today’s update and talk about why Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania reminds me of Trader Joe’s, one of the greatest grocery stores of all time. Let’s dive in.
Today’s focus
In July of 2021 Pittsburgh unveiled their Move PGH program, a comprehensive urban mobility initiative providing a Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) platform to users. This pilot is the first government-sponsored MaaS initiative of its kind in the US, and encompasses a wide array of services such as:
bikeshare
public transit (subway/bus passes)
electric scooters
moped rentals
car rentals
and even discounts on rideshare programs
All these options are available to both residents and visitors, who can access them via a single unified app. A consolidated payment system is a key goal but is not yet fully integrated. Furthermore, over the next two years 50 different “mobility hubs” will be strategically placed throughout the city (often attached to existing bus or light rail stops) where users can easily find scooters, bikeshares, or other mobility options.
Move PGH is significant not just because it’s one of the first MaaS pilots in the US, but because even compared to other MaaS attempts in Europe and Asia (more on those later), Pittsburgh is taking some truly innovative steps with regards to governance and partnership management.
You see, Move PGH is not just a convenient way for users to access multiple transportation options. It is a codified agreement between the city government and the private enterprises (companies like Spin, Waze, Zipcar, etc.) that operate these services. This Public-Private Partnership (PPP) model means that private companies work with the government directly, and in return receive exclusive licenses to operate within the city limits.
Why it’s great
Even though Move PGH is still relatively new, I think they’re doing an excellent job so far and I’m optimistic about their future. There are three main reasons why I think it has been, and will continue to be successful.
1. User experience
Now it is true that you can already find bikeshares, scooters, rideshare services, etc. in most major cities. What makes Pittsburgh special is, because all these services fall under the same Move PGH umbrella, information like subway and bus schedules, scooter locations, nearby rideshares, and all other possible options are centralized in a single app. My Millennial or Gen Z readers might not think that’s all that revolutionary, but to people unfamiliar with app-based transit or say, elderly/visually impaired users, complexity is a huge barrier to adoption, and Move PGH has done an excellent job of improving accessibility in this way.
Additionally, public agencies aren’t really known for having the best UX/UI design capabilities1, so instead of trying to fumble around and make their own, the city has partnered with Transit, an established mobility app that already operates route planning and rental services via their app in over 200 cities. By working with an existing, successful platform, Pittsburgh doesn’t have to design anything from scratch, ensuring that the overall app design and user experience are high quality.
2. PPP can be a win-win-win
The 2nd reason Move PGH is sweet as all heck is how the city went about structuring the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) agreement. In my opinion, this is probably the coolest and most promising part of this MaaS pilot. If you only take one thing away from this entire update, pay attention to this next bit.
When it comes to transit/mobility in cities, PPPs themselves aren’t actually that uncommon (Bogotá’s TransMilenio is one example I’ve covered in the past), but Pittsburgh’s model is interesting because companies that join up with Move PGH are granted exclusive, yet conditional, licenses to operate in the city. It’s a more complicated system, but one that I believe results in greater benefits for all parties involved.
The city benefits from having more oversight over the private companies operating in their city. In order to get a coveted Pittsburgh operational license, companies need to play ball, both in terms of working within the existing rules/regulations and providing useful data/feedback. This means no rogue scooters strewn about on the street and less friction between taxis and rideshares. Mobility companies, especially scooter startups, have historically had a rocky relationship with the cities they operate in, but Move PGH ensures private companies work with the city before granting them a license.
Private companies benefit because they are guaranteed a large, exclusive user base. Companies are willing to put up with this oversight in Pittsburgh because the city only grants operating licenses to those companies who join Move PGH, and they generally only grant one license within each mobility vertical (e.g. if they let Lyft in, they will not let Uber in). If you’re a mobility company and want access to Pittsburgh’s population as potential customers, you will need to play by the city’s rules, but you will also be guaranteed little to no competition once you’re in.
Residents benefit by having more responsive private companies, and a more informed city government.
The cooperation inherent in Move PGH ensures that private companies can be more responsive to feedback. For example, after outreach campaigns to local shelters and community centers identified mobility as a key concern for low-income residents, the city agreed to waive certain permit fees for private companies if they agreed to provide reduced fees for low-income residents. You can even go on the Move PGH website and take a survey that lets residents vote for new mobility hub locations and give feedback on the Move PGH program.
Secondly, the consolidation of data from the different companies means the city can make more informed decisions about user behavior. Normally, if I rented a bike from a bikeshare, rode it to the subway station, then got off a few stops later and hopped in a rideshare, all that information about my travel habits and patterns would be split up across three different databases. However, in Pittsburgh all that data can consolidated, and thus can help the city make more informed decisions regarding transportation and mobility policy.
PPPs can be hard to set up, and are inherently more complex than just having a single agency run the services on their own, but if done right (and I think Pittsburgh is doing it right!) they can be enormously successful, mutually beneficial relationships.
3. Physical mobility → economic mobility
The last thing I really like about this program is its attempts to combat inequality with mobility. As part of the Move PGH launch, the city announced a “Guaranteed Basic Mobility” pilot, offering 100 low-income residents free or reduced access to all of Move PGH’s services (note that this is separate from the waived permit fee deal I just mentioned in the previous section).
It’s generally accepted that access to transportation mobility is an important part of upward economic mobility, and cities have been experimenting with this in different ways (though not without controversy). Los Angeles is discussing free/reduced fare transit for K-12 and community college students, and on her first day in office, newly elected mayor of Boston Michelle Wu was already pushing for zero fees on several bus lines in the city.
You can probably guess from literally everything about this newsletter (and me as a person) but I definitely support more access to mobility for more people. Having access to mobility frees oneself from the need to have a car (an expensive burden esp. in cities), allows you to expand your potential job search opportunities, and psychologically levels the playing field between you and other urban residents. Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto noted in the Move PGH press release that
“Transportation mobility is key to economic mobility and a major determinant in household health, education, and welfare…” (source)
According to the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics, transportation was the second-highest cost for US households in 2019. So wherever you fall on the spectrum of mobility being a privilege, a right, or a necessity, Move PGH is making an effort to see how they can best bring it to more residents, and I absolutely love to see cities taking that kind of initiative.
How’d we get here: Move PGH vs other MaaS programs
Move PGH has the distinction of being the first “real” MaaS initiative of its kind in the US,2 but there have been international MaaS pilots that have come before it. Unfortunately, these have run into their own issues as well:
Helsinki’s MaaS app Whim has been around since 2016 but has struggled due to low adoption rates and legal issues regarding HSL’s (the regional transit authority) jurisdiction. As of late 2021 these issues are still ongoing.
Fun fact: The term MaaS is largely attritubted to Sonja Heikkila, a Finnish grad student who wrote her thesis on mobility services in Helsinki. Additionally, Sampo Hietanen, the guy behind Helsinki’s private MaaS pilot Whim, was Sonja Heikkila's GRAD STUDENT THESIS ADVISOR. #Draaaama
In 2019 a private company called Zipster launched their own MaaS pilot in Singapore. Sadly, just two years later Zipster shut down amidst low-adoption rates and reportedly heavy conflict with Singaporean regulatory authorities.
Move PGH is able to largely avoid these issues because the program is run by the government itself, minimizing the legal/jurisdictional issues that other private MaaS attempts often run into.
I wasn’t able to find any public vs. private controversy that’s come up with Move PGH yet, though of course it’s still relatively new so take that with a grain of salt.
Why it works
I already covered why I think bundling services and exclusive licensing makes Move PGH successful, but there are also a few other reasons I think they’ve been doing well.
Stay in your lane: As a combination of public and private entities, Move PGH doesn’t try to unilaterally operate all the services on its own, it instead allows each member to do what they do best. Specialization is (generally) a good thing when we’re talking about providing services; a scooter company operates the scooter program, the Pittsburgh Parking Authority monitors their parking capacity, and if they ever need someone to make a bunch of memes about urban mobility, I will be happy to step in.
Strong rollout and complementary infrastructure: Pittsburgh is not just assembling this crafty cohort of companies sans infrastructural support, they're also investing in new bike lanes and connecting existing ones for a more seamless trip as part of the city’s Bike(+) plan, which includes a 10-year rollout of additional separated cycle lanes, micromobility infrastructure, protected intersections, etc. If you want people to use new modes of transportation, you should give them the proper environment/infrastructure to do so.
Marketing: Another benefit of working with private companies is these companies will help advertise your initiative for you! The city did also run ads at subway stops, bus stations, and other mobility centers, while encouraging urban cycling and educating people on how to use bike lanes, drive safely around bikes/micromobility etc. through the MoveForward PGH program.
I forgot about the Trader Joe’s thing
At this point in the newsletter you might be wondering about my original hook, which was that Move PGH is like the Trader Joe’s of city programs (or you forgot, which is also okay). Well don’t worry! This is the section where I actually get into that.
It mainly has to do with how they both structure, source, and provide the goods and services they offer. With what we now know about Move PGH, here’s where I see similarities between that and Trader Joe’s.
Consolidators of related goods: You go to the grocery store and you’ll find fruits, grains, nuts, desserts, pre-made meals, etc. Similarly, Move PGH offers “mobility” in many different forms.
Aggregators of self and others: A distinct characteristic of Trader Joe’s is that they invest heavily (and make a lot of their money) off of their in-house, Trader Joe’s brand products. In addition to offering well-known 3rd party brands, Trader Joe’s contracts out to high quality manufacturers to develop their own line of products as well. This mixing of public and private providers mirrors how Move PGH is similarly able to balance what each private company does best (rideshare, scooters), while still providing their own services (public transit, infrastructural maintenance).
Limited variety, high quality: Anyone who’s taken a Psych 101 course may have heard about the paradox of choice: more choices do not necessarily lead to more happiness. Both Trader Joe’s and Pittsburgh have embraced this concept. It’s an immense benefit to them on a logistical/negotiating standpoint as they A) don’t need to manage as many supplier relationships and B) because they are buying more from a smaller number of vendors, their negotiating power substantially increases. Pittsburgh doesn’t need to work with Uber, Lyft, Waze Carpool, Via, etc. They can just pick one and focus on making that service and relationship as strong as possible.
Was this an interesting parallel between two different aggregators who provide their customers with quality choices without overwhelming them? Or was this a poor attempt to draw a weak metaphor as I slowly begin to run out of ideas for these newsletters? Let me know in the comments, I’m not gonna stop either way.
Downsides
Now, I love this Move PGH program. But, like my ex-girlfriend3 always told me, I do love to ruin a good thing, so here are some downsides I see with the program.
Lack of competition for private mobility options: Tell me if this has ever happened to you. You want to hail a ride so you check Uber and find it costs $25. However, you also check Lyft, which is only charging $18. Easy choice right?
Well, a downside of Move PGH is that due to the exclusive licensing system, you don’t really have this option. I should clarify here that I only think this is a “downside” if you’re the end consumer. It’s much easier for the city to maintain a single relationship rather than juggle multiple vendors. Similarly, from a sustainability and congestion-reducing standpoint it’s probably good to not have an excess amount of rideshare vehicles waiting for drivers, bikeshare bikes going unused, and an abundance of underutilized scooters strewn about on the street. Still though, if all you care about is dollar value, Move PGH will limit your options in that sense.
Privacy: This is a key concern for these kind of city-wide initiatives. Concerns about data privacy have already toppled prominent urban projects in the past and it’s a top of mind concern for both governments and program participants alike. I reached out to the Pittsburgh Department of Mobility and Infrastructure but have yet to receive any answer so until then I will keep this as a potential downside until I hear their reassurances on how exactly it’s handled currently.
Barriers to implementation
If you’re a city politician thinking about doing something similar, there are three things you should keep in mind before you try your hand at a MaaS pilot like Move PGH.
Size: In terms of population Pittsburgh is no NYC (or Shanghai, for that matter) but at ~300,000 people, it’s sizeable enough to attract companies and make them willing to play ball. It’s hard to imagine companies cooperating as much if a city of just ~25,000 people was to try and propose a similar arrangement, so this type of quid pro quo might not be as attractive (or feasible) in smaller markets.
Government willingness: This is a big one, as a lot of Move PGH’s success stems from the government being the driving force behind establishing partnerships, consolidating 3rd parties, and ensuring citizen input is valued by the service providers. If the city feels they’re already doing fine with existing private mobility options, or doesn’t see the need for multi-modal transit, it’s going to be hard to replicate Move PGH’s PPP success.
User need: I brought up Singapore earlier, and another potential reason why MaaS there failed is that the city is already so dense, and the public transit is so good, that these kind of journey planner, mobility apps probably aren’t that necessary. If existing utilization of public transit and other mobility options is already high, there’s less incentive to revamp and reorganize what’s already working for residents.
Of course every city is different, and the beauty of local politics is that tailoring mobility for urban areas is an immensely local process. So Pittsburgh’s decision to make this a public-led initiative (i.e. backed by the city) as opposed to waiting for a private MaaS operator to come in and implement is a major reason why I think they’ve been successful so far.
Conclusion
Many of the previous MaaS attempts we looked at (and their are many, many more) failed for a variety of reasons, but a lot of them stem from the fundamental nature of who is pushing the initiative. Pittsburgh’s approach to coaxing in third party providers with exclusive licenses is a great blueprint for any cities that can afford to bargain with companies looking to enter their market.
Pittsburgh’s historic claim to fame is for producing the steel that would go on to support much of America’s (and the world’s) skyscrapers, bridges, and physical infrastructure. Over a century later and the more poetic side of me hopes that Move PGH similarly has the potential to lay the foundation for other mobility initiatives throughout the world.
That’s it for today, as always thanks for reading! Now go ahead and smash the HECK out of that like button so I can continue to feel good about myself.
-Max
For example, Amtrak’s website can go straight to hell
Other cities have done things they call “MaaS”, like Los Angeles’ "Go LA" app back in 2016, but in truth this was more just a catalog of options not an integrated service so I (and most actual journalists as far I can tell) don’t really count that as a true MaaS program. If anyone has any other examples please let me know in the comments how I suck at journalism!
Zendaya, please return my calls.