Improving Unbanked Access to Shared Mobility Services

Improving Unbanked Access to Shared Mobility Services
Prepared for Seattle Department of Transportation By Hester Serebrin
Evans School of Public Affairs
Capstone Project
June 2016

Table of Contents
Executive Summary............................................................................................................................1
Chapter 1. Introduction and Background ............................................................................................2
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................3
Background ...............................................................................................................................................4
Chapter 2. Why is Unbanked Access to Shared Mobility a Problem?....................................................9
Chapter 3. Government Interventions for Equity...............................................................................14
Chapter 4. Survey of Existing Models................................................................................................24
Overview.................................................................................................................................................25
Survey of existing models .......................................................................................................................26
1. Pay with cash at point of service ...................................................................................................28
2. Pay with cash at service provider office........................................................................................29
3. Pay with cash at third-party location ............................................................................................33
4. Pay with cash via third-party service.............................................................................................35
5. Pay with prepaid card ....................................................................................................................37
6. Pay with direct carrier billing.........................................................................................................41
7. Pay with debit card.........................................................................................................................42
8. Pay with patron credit card / Family account...............................................................................43
9. Managed account option...............................................................................................................45
10. Free ride vouchers / discount codes............................................................................................48
11. Relationship with housing authority or nonprofit organization ................................................49
12. Relationship with credit union or bank.......................................................................................53
Emerging Trends .....................................................................................................................................55
Chapter 5. Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................................58
Recommendations..................................................................................................................................59

1
Executive Summary
Seattle is leading the way in transportation innovation. Today more than ever privately- and publicly-owned shared
use mobility providers offer opportunities for residents to leave their cars at home. By paying for only the
transportation you use, bikeshare, carshare, and ridesourcing can help reduce household spending on car
insurance, maintenance, and gasoline. Widespread adoption of shared mobility can also help reduce traffic
congestion, ease demand for parking, decrease harmful emissions, and supplement the provision of expensive
transit. These societal benefits have led jurisdictions to lean heavily on, promote, and even subsidize such services.
Yet many shared mobility providers require users to have a credit or debit card for registration or payment, which
hinders many unbanked or underbanked Seattleites and neighboring King County residents from using these
services. This limits the social benefits of shared mobility and creates a serious inequity by excluding these
populations from the individual benefits.
This report argues that as the lines between privately-provided and publicly-provided transportation services blurs,
government has an obligation to intervene to ensure equitable service provision. The report then explores 12
different models found across the world that can increase accessibility for unbanked or underbanked users that
either help the user establish a relationship with a financial institution, or remove the need for a credit card, bank
account, or any payment at all:
● Pay with cash at point of service
● Pay with cash or money order at service provider office
● Pay with cash at third-party location
● Pay with cash via third-party service
● Pay with prepaid card
● Pay with direct carrier billing
● Pay with debit card
● Pay with patron credit card / Family account
● Managed account option
● Free rides vouchers / discount codes
● Relationship with housing authority or nonprofit organization
● Relationship with credit union or bank
Anecdotal evidence suggests that more successful models were ones that either a) integrated an alternative
payment option seamlessly into the user experience, or b) included wrap-around and individualized services
designed to address multiple barriers at once. Developing programs tailored to the needs of the community is
critical, as the underlying reasons for being unbanked may warrant different kinds of solutions. Several strategies
are recommended that generally fall into one of these buckets:
● Market and educate Seattle residents about existing payment options
● Establish precedent by using online third-party payment methods that accept cash
● Work within existing efforts in low-income and immigrant/refugee populations
● Work to ensure that developing integrated transportation technologies allow cash payments, low-
income rates, and direct subsidies
● Consider adding permit or operational requirements for alternative payment methods

2
Chapter 1.
Introduction and Background

3
Introduction
Seattle is leading the way in transportation innovation. Today more than ever privately- and publicly-
owned shared use mobility providers offer opportunities for residents to leave their cars at home. By
paying for only the transportation you use, bikeshare, carshare, and ridesourcing can help reduce
household spending on car insurance, maintenance, and gasoline. Widespread adoption of shared
mobility can also help reduce a jurisdiction’s traffic congestion, ease the demand for parking, decrease
harmful emissions, and supplement the provision of expensive mass transit by providing first- and last-
mile solutions that help users complete their trips. These societal benefits have led jurisdictions across
the nation to lean heavily on, promote, and even subsidize such services.1
Motivation
Many shared mobility providers require users to have a credit or debit card for registration or payment,
which hinders many unbanked or underbanked Seattleites and neighboring King County residents from
using these services. This limits the societal benefits of shared mobility and creates a serious inequity by
excluding these populations from the individual benefits of an affordable and safe door-to-door
transportation system.
This report argues that as the lines between privately-provided and publicly-provided transportation
services blurs, government has an obligation to intervene to ensure equitable service provision. The
paper explores existing and possible options for providing better access to these services for unbanked
and underbanked populations.
Scope and methods
The Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) and King County are currently undertaking a large-
scale project to review and improve the regulatory framework for shared mobility services. This report
complements that work by specifically exploring policy options for providing better access to these
services for unbanked and underbanked populations. The report explores why unbanked access to
shared services is a problem, documents arguments for and precedents of government intervention to
increase equity generally, analyzes existing models across the world (primarily focused on the U.S.) that
specifically help provide access for the unbanked to three primary modes of shared mobility, and ends
with a series of recommendations for SDOT.
The bulk of the research consisted of interviews with service provider staff to understand mechanisms
and success rates of existing models, academic research on the theory of government intervention to
improve equity, and interviews with local government staff to understand existing regulatory
frameworks and available resources.
Initial interviewees were identified in conversations with shared mobility professionals that were
partnering with SDOT on this project, and through journal or news articles that discussed unbanked
1
For more on both the perceived and proven benefits of shared mobility, see the Shared Use Mobility Reference Guide and Shared
Mobility and the Transformation of Public Transit.

4
access to shared mobility. Solicitation for contacts was also made through a national Transportation
Demand Management listserv. From there, interviewees also often had suggestions for other providers
to speak with. Ultimately, the research consisted of 23 in-person or phone interviews and eight email
exchanges with 19 employees of shared mobility service providers (including 5 of the 6 operating in
Seattle), nine government employees (one SDOT employee, one Seattle Finance and Administrative
Services employee, one Seattle Human Service Department employee, one Seattle Office of Immigrant
and Refugee Affairs employee, two King County Metro employees, and three officials from non-King
County jurisdictions), five shared mobility experts (working at education institutions or research
centers), one third-party payment provider, and one nonprofit affordable housing provider. Most
interviews were 30-45 minutes over the phone, and some had additional questions answered over
email. Service providers were a mix of those that had implemented models intended to improve
unbanked access, and service providers in Seattle that may or may not have implemented such
programs. Four potential contacts failed to respond to multiple interview requests.
Background
What is shared-use mobility?
Shared-use mobility or shared mobility refers to the slice of the “share economy” that “enables users to
gain short-term access to transportation modes on an ‘as-needed’ basis.”2
The share economy generally
refers to activities in which a shareable good or service is made available to multiple consumers at
different times. There are generally two kinds of businesses that have arisen to support these
transactions. The first is one in which a business provides a platform for the owner of one good to rent it
to others. This is often called peer-to-peer sharing. Turo, which provides the online platform for a
person to rent out their car, is an example of a peer-to-peer sharing. The other model is that in which
the business owns and provides the good or service itself, renting it out to consumers. Zipcar, which
owns and rents out a fleet of vehicles would be an example of this.
Types of shared mobility services
For the purpose of this report, I will be focusing on the three most widely available shared mobility
services that are typically privately provided: bikeshare, carshare, and ridesourcing. The following are
definitions provided by the Transportation Sustainability Research Center (TSRC) at UC Berkeley:3
Bikeshare: Bikesharing systems allow users to access bicycles on an as-needed basis from a
network of stations, which are typically concentrated in urban areas. Bikesharing stations are
usually unattended and accessible at all hours, granting an on-demand mobility option. Most
bikesharing operators are responsible for bicycle maintenance, storage, and parking costs.
Service providers in Seattle: Pronto (https://www.prontocycleshare.com/)
2
Shaheen, S. Chan, N., Bansal, A., and Cohen, A. (2015, November). Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early
Understanding. Retrieved from http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SharedMobility_WhitePaper_FINAL.pdf
3
Ibid.

5
Carshare: The principle of carsharing is simple: individuals gain the benefits of private vehicle
use without the costs and responsibilities of ownership. Rather than owning one or more
vehicles, a household or business accesses a fleet of shared vehicles on an as-needed basis.”
● Roundtrip Carsharing, the earliest carsharing service model, allows members hourly
access to a fleet of shared vehicles. Notably, users must return vehicles to the same
location from where they were picked up. The cost of using carsharing is a combination
of annual or monthly fees, as well as time and distance costs.
Service providers in Seattle: Zipcar (http://www.zipcar.com/seattle)
● One-way carsharing (also known as point-to-point carsharing) allows members to pick
up a vehicle at one location and drop it off at another. One-way carsharing typically
charges users by the minute.
Service providers in Seattle: ca2go (https://www.car2go.com/en/seattle/)
ReachNow (http://www.bmwcarsharing.com/cars)
● Peer-to-peer carsharing employs privately-owned vehicles made temporarily available
for shared use by an individual or members of a P2P company.
Service providers in Seattle: Turo (https://turo.com/car-rental/wa/seattle)
Getaround - coming soon
(https://www.getaround.com/)
Ridesourcing/Transportation Network Company (TNC) Services: Ridesourcing or TNC services
use smartphone apps to connect community drivers with passengers. There are various terms
used for this emerging transportation option including ridesourcing, TNCs, ridehailing, and ride-
booking. Ridesplitting involves splitting a ridesourcing/TNC-provided ride with someone else
taking a similar route. Lyft and Uber match riders with similar origins and destinations together,
and they split the ride and the cost. Recent examples of ridesplitting are Lyft Line and
UberPOOL. Taxis, which operate separately from TNCs, provide similar transportation services,
and are touched on briefly.
Service providers in Seattle: Uber (https://www.uber.com/cities/seattle)
Lyft (https://www.lyft.com/cities/seattle)
Ridesplitting options Lyft Line and UberPOOL limited availability.
Other types of shared mobility not included in this report include vanpooling, and carpooling, and
microtransit (somewhere in the spectrum between ridesplitting and mass transit). Vanpooling is often
organized and sponsored by local government, and carpools are often informally organized by friends or

6
co-workers. Microtransit’s largest official providers (such as Bridj), have yet to establish themselves in
Seattle.
Due to the potential for nonpayment, theft, or damage to high cost capital (especially for bikeshare and
carshare), as well as the unpredictability of the cost of a given trip (especially for point to point carshare
and ridesourcing trips), many shared use mobility services manage risk by requiring the use of a credit
card or debit card linked to a bank account when registering and paying for trips. We will discuss notable
exceptions in the following chapters.
Unbanked and underbanked populations
The term “unbanked” is used to describe those individuals or households without a checking or savings
account, and who do not use banks or credit unions for their financial transactions.4
“Underbanked”
persons typically have poor or unreliable access to formal financial services, and may also use non-bank,
alternative financial services (AFS) on a regular basis, such as non-bank money orders, non-bank check
cashing, non-bank remittances, payday loans, pawn shops, refund anticipation loans, rent-to-own
services, and auto title loans.5
Underbanked individuals might have a credit card, but be hesitant to use
it for fear of overage fees.6
They might also open a bank account in order to receive government
benefits, but promptly withdraw all of the money and thereafter operate in cash.7
For ease of writing, I
will typically use the term “unbanked” to refer to both groups.
How many people are unbanked?
A 2013 national survey by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) found that 7.7 percent (1 in
13) of households in the United States were unbanked, representing nearly 9.6 million households total,
and 20 percent of households (24.8 million) were underbanked. While Seattle-specific numbers are
difficult to find, the FDIC survey showed that the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue area fared better than the
national average, with 3.5 percent of households qualifying as unbanked, and 15.7 percent as
underbanked.8
Other sources report that approximately 52,000 households in Seattle and King County
were underbanked as of late 2008.9
These numbers are much higher internationally: approximately 2 billion individuals worldwide were
unbanked in 2014, with only 62 percent of all adults having an account at a bank or other kind of
4
Beard, M. P. (2010). In-Depth: Reaching the Unbanked and Underbanked. Retrieved April 28, 2016, from
https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Central-Banker/Winter-2010/Reaching-the-Unbanked-and-Underbanked
5
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. (2014, October 28). 2013 FDIC National Survey of Unbanked and Underbanked
Households. Retrieved from https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/
6
PayNearMe representative, personal communication, December 18, 2015
7
Consultative Group to Assist the Poor. (n.d.). Frequently Asked Questions about Financial Inclusion. Retrieved April 28, 2016,
from http://www.cgap.org/about/faq
8
9
City of Seattle. (2008, September 22). Mayor announces help for people without bank accounts. Retrieved from
http://www.plazabankwa.com/uploads/8/9/4/5/8945946/mayor_announces_2008.pdf

7
financial institution.10
For this reason, shared mobility providers abroad are often more quick to develop
or offer non-credit card access to their services.
Who is unbanked? Why?
Being unbanked is not strictly a low-income issue, but the overwhelming majority of un- or underbanked
households in the U.S. are low-income. Non-Asian minorities, less educated individuals, younger adults,
disabled people, households headed by women and the unemployed also have higher unbanked rates.11
12 13
Among immigrants, the incidence of being unbanked was found to be over 13% higher than among
native born U.S. residents.14
A majority (57.5 percent) of unbanked households in the U.S. reported not having enough money to
keep in an account or meet a minimum balance as one reason they did not have an account.15
Researchers have also identified a number of reasons why individuals or households may be unbanked,
including: “a poor credit history or outstanding issue from a prior banking relationship, a lack of
understanding about the U.S. banking system, a negative prior experience with a bank, language barriers
for immigrant residents, a lack of appropriate identification needed to open a bank account, or living
paycheck to paycheck due to limited and unstable income.”16
Additionally, almost one in three
unbanked households reported high or unpredictable account fees as one reason they did not have
accounts.17
Although this report does not attempt to address issues of improving financial literacy, the
underlying reasons why an individual or family is unbanked can doubly inform the reasons why they may
have limited access to shared mobility services.
Because access to a mobile phone or smartphone is often also a prerequisite for using shared mobility
services, it is also important to understand rates of phone ownership for unbanked and underbanked
populations. In general, mobile phones are prevalent among unbanked and underbanked consumers.
Sixty-seven percent of the unbanked have access to a mobile phone, 65 percent of which are
smartphones. Almost all of the underbanked (90 percent) have access to some sort of mobile phone, 73
percent of which are smartphones.18
In fact, populations that have relatively few options for getting
10
World Bank. (2015, April 15). Massive Drop in Number of Unbanked, says New Report. Retrieved from
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/04/15/massive-drop-in-number-of-unbanked-says-new-report
11
12
Klawitter, M., & Fletschner, D. (2011). Who is banked in low income families? The effects of gender and bargaining power. Social
Science Research, 40(1), 50-62. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X10000074
13
Beard, M. P. (2010). In-Depth: Reaching the Unbanked and Underbanked. Retrieved from
14
Bohn, S., & Pearlman, S. (2013). Ethnic Concentration and Bank Use in Immigrant Communities. Southern Economic Journal,
79(4), 864-885. Retrieved from http://irving.vassar.edu/faculty/sp/BohnPearlman_201009.pdf
15
Households. Retrieved April 28, 2016, from https://www.fdic.gov/householdsurvey/
16
Beard, M. P. (2010). In-Depth: Reaching the Unbanked and Underbanked. Retrieved from
17
18
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. (2015, March). Consumers and Mobile Financial Services 2015. Retrieved
from http://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/consumers-and-mobile-financial-services-report-201503.pdf

8
online other than their cell phone, known as “smartphone dependent,” are less likely to have a bank
account than smartphone owners who are less reliant on their mobile devices. Smartphone dependent
individuals are more prevalent in younger, non-white, and low-income groups.19
19
Smith, A. (2015, April 1). U.S. Smartphone Use in 2015. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/04/01/us-smartphone-
use-in-2015/

9
Chapter 2.
Why is Unbanked Access to Shared Mobility a
Problem?

10
Shared mobility services and their use are growing
In Seattle, both the use of shared mobility services and the number of shared mobility service providers
are growing. Flexcar, which was bought by Zipcar in 2007, had more than 20,000 members in Seattle at
the time of the merger, and has grown substantially since. Car2go started in Seattle with 330 cars in
2012 and expanded to 750 cars in 2015, with 58,000 individual members.20 21
In 2014, Uber had 900
drivers in Seattle, and Lyft had 1,000 drivers.22
By 2015, Uber reported at least 10,000 drivers, with the
number of Lyft drivers in “the thousands.”23
The City of Seattle is generally considered friendly to emerging mobility services, moving quickly to
regulate TNCs, rather than ban them (as of early 2015, Uber had been banned or operations had been
suspended in seven cities across the U.S.24
). Seattle is also known for adopting relatively permissive
parking policies for carshare companies.25 26
The City also forged its first partnership with a TNC when it
subsidized rides on Lyft from selected Seattle neighborhoods on New Year’s Eve in 2015.27
However,
both Uber and Lyft were critical of Seattle City Council’s decision to allow TNC drivers to unionize.28
Still,
new services have continued to launch operations in Seattle: ReachNow, a one-way carsharing service
run by BMW, launched in early 2016, and the P2P carsharing service Getaround is also slated to come to
Seattle soon. The City is currently working with a consultant team in order to develop a more consistent
and comprehensive regulatory framework for existing and future shared mobility services in Seattle.
Shared mobility services may complement or compete with publicly-provided transit
Shared mobility services complement transit by helping solve the “first/last-mile” problem, which
typically refers to the short, last leg of a transit trip that doesn’t get you exactly to your doorstep.
Therefore, many cities and transit agencies are already working with shared mobility service providers
to locate bikeshare stations or carshare spaces near transit hubs, or improve the ease of sourcing a ride
from a TNC as you arrive at your bus stop. For example, many Pronto bikeshare stations are already
intentionally cited near King County Metro bus stops, and Sound Transit (the Puget Sound’s Regional
Transit Authority) has proposed station access policies that encourage the implementation of
20
Grove, K. (2015, September 22). Shared Use Mobility in Seattle. Retrieved from
http://www.slideshare.net/AlanWoodland/keirsten-grove-use-of-public-space-for-shared-mobility
21
Feigon, S. (n.d.). Integrating Transit and Shared Mobility. Retrieved from
http://www.podcarcity.org/PodCityVirtualConf/ConferencesFolder/9__siliconvalley/Documents/After%20-
%20Sharon%20Feigon/Feigon.SUMCPresentation.PCC9.pdf
22
Soper, T. (2014, March 16). UberX, Sidecar and Lyft reveal how many drivers they have in Seattle. Geekwire. Retrieved from
http://www.geekwire.com/2014/3000-uberx-sidecar-lyft-drivers-seattle/
23
Somerville, H. (2015, December 14). Seattle passes law letting Uber, Lyft drivers unionize. Reuters. Retrieved March 1, 2016,
from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-washington-uber-idUSKBN0TX2NO20151215
24
Khosla, E.G. (2015, April 8). Here's everywhere Uber is banned around the world. Business Insider. Retrieved from
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-everywhere-uber-is-banned-around-the-world-2015-4
25
Seattle Department of Transportation [SDOT]. (2014, March). 2013 Seattle Free-Floating Car Share Pilot Program Report.
Retrieved from https://worldstreets.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/2013_free_floating_car_share_report.pdf
26
SDOT. (n.d.). Parking in Seattle: Parking Types & Terms. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/parking/parkingtypes.htm
27
Capitol Hill Seattle Blog. (2015, December 31). Seattle hopes cheap rides in neighborhoods like Pike/Pine will help curb deadly
DUIs. Retrieved from http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2015/12/seattle-hopes-cheap-rides-in-neighborhoods-like-pikepine-will-help-
curb-deadly-duis/
28
Somerville, H. (2015, December 14). Seattle passes law letting Uber, Lyft drivers unionize. Reuters. Retrieved March 1, 2016,
from http://www.reuters.com/article/us-washington-uber-idUSKBN0TX2NO20151215

11
“companion bikeshare stations” near its transit stations.29
In Washington, D.C., the Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority announced in 2015 that Enterprise CarShare would provide
carsharing service up to 190 Metro-owned parking spaces located in 45 Metrorail stations.30
Both Uber
and Lyft have forged initial partnerships with transit agencies: Lyft’s “Friends with Transit” marketing
campaign uses enhanced transit maps to help users visualize how Lyft can “close the gap between
transit and your doorstep, making getting around seamless, simple, and fun.”31
Uber has partnered with
Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) to allow riders to reach the Uber app to order a car to begin or finish
their transit trip through the transit agency’s existing mobile ticketing app.32
King County Metro’s
recently released draft long-range plan describes services such as Uber and Lyft as an important “last-
mile strategy” for giving people connections to transit.33
Some agencies are even aiming to integrate
transit fare payment systems with those for shared mobility services, so that you could use the same
card to pay for your bus ride and unlock your bikeshare bike or carshare car.34
By enabling people in more places to easily get around without owning a car, shared mobility “may be
creating an entirely new group of transit riders.”35
However, some see certain shared privately-owned
shared services as direct competition for transit. Shared mobility may take riders off transit for some
trips, and some forms of shared mobility that look more like carpooling or microtransit may be more
likely to serve as a substitute for riding the bus or train. This is especially the case when these services
are used during late night or weekend gaps in transit service, used as a way to avoid crowded transit
routes, or used in areas that have very little transit to begin with.36
In suburban areas where funding
fixed-route or on-demand transit to serve more sparsely populated areas can be very expensive, some
transit agencies see shared mobility as a possible lower-cost way of serving more people.
Equity and transportation
There are undeniable benefits from improving transportation options in off-peak hours or existing
mobility deserts, and from lowering costs for transit agencies. However, further reliance on privately-
owned shared mobility services to provide “public” transportation raises several equity concerns. The
public sector has a duty to use taxpayer’s money to provide the same level of services to all residents.
One of SDOT’s core values is providing a “transportation system in an affordable city [that] improves the
29
Sound Transit. (2016). System Access Program. Retrieved from http://www.soundtransit.org/sites/default/files/R-
05_SystemAccessProgram_FTemp.pdf
30
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]. (2015, April 20). Metro announces partnership with Enterprise to
expand car sharing at parking facilities. Retrieved from
http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=5918
31
Lyft. (n.d.). Friends with Transit. Retrieved from http://take.lyft.com/friendswithtransit/
32
Dallas Area Rapid Transit. (2015, April 14). DART, Uber stepping up "complete trip" efforts. Retrieved from
http://www.dart.org/news/news.asp?ID=1179
33
King County Metro. (2016). METRO CONNECTS. Retrieved from http://www.kcmetrovision.org/plan/metro-connects-draft-plan/
34
Freemark, Y. (2015, August 3). In L.A., efforts are afoot to make bike share a genuine part of the transit network. The Transport
Politic. Retrieved from http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2015/08/03/in-l-a-efforts-are-afoot-to-make-bike-share-a-genuine- part-of-
the-transit-network/
35
Shared-Use Mobility Center. (2015). Shared-Use Mobility Reference Guide. Retrieved from
http://sharedusemobilitycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SharedUseMobility_ReferenceGuide_09.25.2015.pdf
36
Feigon, S. (n.d.). Integrating Transit and Shared Mobility. Retrieved from
http://www.podcarcity.org/PodCityVirtualConf/ConferencesFolder/9__siliconvalley/Documents/After%20-
%20Sharon%20Feigon/Feigon.SUMCPresentation.PCC9.pdf

12
lives of all travelers – those with the latest model smart phones in their pockets and those without.”37
The City has also adopted the Race and Social Justice Initiative (RSJI), a commitment to eliminate racial
disparities and achieve racial equity in Seattle,38
and may regularly spend money on government
programs that are not profitable in pursuit of equity. King County government, which operates most of
Seattle’s transit, has similar social equity values, and county policy “requires that Metro intentionally
consider equity and integrate it into our decisions and policies, our practices, and our methods for
engaging communities.”39
The ORCA LIFT card, which provides reduced transit fares for lower-income
riders and costs the county millions in administrative costs and lost revenue, is an example of an
unprofitable program that was implemented to assist in meeting the mobility needs of low‐income
persons in the area.40
The private sector typically has no such obligations, although many shared use mobility providers tout
societal and individual benefits, claiming that their services are environmentally friendly and a low-cost
alternative to car ownership:
“Bike share will make trips fast, efficient, easy, and affordable.” - Pronto41
“It’s a unique story of movement and freedom that makes mobile life in the city more beautiful
and environmentally friendly.” - car2go42
“Zipcar members save an average of $500 each month compared to folks who own and operate
their own cars in the city. Each and every Zipcar takes 15 personally-owned vehicles off the
road.” - Zipcar43
“Uber provides safe, affordable rides around the clock—regardless of where you live, where
you’re going, or what you look like. By matching people headed in the same direction, uberPOOL
turns what would normally be multiple rides into one.” - Uber44
“For every seat that’s filled [with Lyft Line], that’s one less car on the road.” - Lyft45
37
SDOT. (n.d.). SDOT Mission, Vision, and Core Values. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/sdotmission.htm
38
City of Seattle. (n.d.). Race and Social Justice Initiative. Retrieved March 1, 2016 from http://www.seattle.gov/rsji/
39
King County Metro. (2015, February). Service Guidelines Task Force. Retrieved from http://metro.kingcounty.gov/advisory-
groups/service-guidelines-task-force/pdf/notebook/5-notebook-social-equity.pdf
40
King County Metro. (2013, June). King County Low-Income Fare Options Advisory Committee Final Report and
Recommendations. Retrieved from http://www.kingcounty.gov/~/media/transportation/LowIncomeOptions/king-county-low-income
-fares-advisory-committee-report-061613.ashx?la=en
41
Pronto Cycle Share. (n.d.). FAQ. Retrieved from https://www.prontocycleshare.com/faq
42
car2go. (n.d.). Company Profile. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from https://www.car2go.com/en/seattle/company/
43
Zipcar. (n.d.) Is Zipcar for me? Retrieved February 10, 2016, from http://www.zipcar.com/is-it
44
Uber. (n.d.). Helping Cities. Retrieved February 10, 2016, from https://www.uber.com/helping-cities/
45
Lyft. (2015, April 22). Paving the Way for Greener Cities. Retrieved February 10, 2016 from http://blog.lyft.com/posts/earthday

13
Although affordable is a relative term, compared to car ownership, it is likely that using these services
on occasion would be less expensive than paying for gas, insurance, and maintenance of an owned
vehicle. The environmental benefits are more easily measured, and several studies have documented
the reduction of vehicle miles traveled due to the use of bikeshare and carshare, although because they
are relatively new, few studies document the travel behavior impacts of ridesourcing companies.46
Natural Resources Defense Council and the University of California–Berkeley are working together to
study of the environmental impacts of these companies.47
Yet, ultimately, these for-profit businesses may not be able to pursue programs or features that are
unprofitable. This means that as transportation services previously provided by government agencies
are contracted out to shared-use mobility service providers, there is a chance that unprofitable markets
-- or populations -- will not be served equitably, or at all. Alarm bells have already been sounded by
disability advocates in one case, where the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority proposed
to contract a successful alternative paratransit program to on-demand providers like Uber or Lyft.48
Advocates were concerned because neither company currently has adequate access to wheelchair
accessible vehicles.49
Allowing for non-credit card payments may involve expensive technological upgrades, burdensome
partnerships with local governments, or the taking on of significant risk for shared-use mobility service
providers, making it unlikely that they will adopted alternative payment methods without proper
incentives. The unbanked market is admittedly small, but is typically concentrated in areas of low-
wealth or in communities of color. Existing ridership or use of shared mobility services may not be high
in these areas for many reasons, including the costs of rides or membership, language barriers, or lack of
shared bikes or vehicles. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of low or no service provision. In short,
there is a market failure with respect to creating better access to shared mobility services for the
unbanked, and therefore a strong impetus for the City to intervene. Not only is the lack of access to
these services for unbanked individuals inequitable in and of itself, but these populations are prevented
from enjoying the benefits of lower-cost transportation choices, and the City is held back from
recognizing the full environmental impacts of widespread VMT reductions due to lower car ownership.
46
Shaheen, S. Chan, N., Bansal, A., and Cohen, A. (2015, November). Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early
Understanding. Retrieved from http://innovativemobility.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/SharedMobility_WhitePaper_FINAL.pdf
47
Hawkins, A. (2015, November 13). Uber and Lyft will be the subjects of an environmental impact study. The Verge. Retrieved
from
http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/13/9730458/uber-lyft-environment-impact-cost-NRDC-Berkeley-study
48
Amalgamated Transit Union. (2016, January 29). Transit Workers, Disability Advocates Sound Alarm as WMATA Proposes Uber
or Lyft as Paratransit Provider. Retrieved from http://www.atu.org/media/releases/transit-workers-disability-advocates-sound-alarm
49
Amalgamated Transit Union. (2016, January 28). Alternative Paratransit Coalition Letter. Retrieved from http://www.atu.org/atu-
pdfs/WMATA-Alternative-Paratransit-Coalition-Letter-FINAL-012916-OPEN.pdf

14
Chapter 3.
Government Interventions for Equity

15
Transportation and equity in Seattle and King County
The City of Seattle and King County both play an integral role in providing and regulating the
transportation system, as well as ensuring the equitable provision of service to all residents. The City’s
primary role as it relates to transportation is in managing the right-of-way, funding infrastructure
projects, and developing the policies that guide the allocation of transportation funds. For example,
Seattle’s Transit Master Plan identifies corridors for investment in transit infrastructure such as bus
lanes and better bus stops. Seattle also regulates businesses that operate within its jurisdiction.
Therefore, SDOT issues permits to carshare operators, and the Department of Finance and
Administrative Services (FAS) licenses and regulates taxis, for-hire vehicles, and TNCs.50
King County
Metro operates a majority of the buses that serve Seattle. SDOT is committed to providing reliable and
affordable transportation options for all Seattleites,51
and the County is committed to “work[ing] toward
fairness and opportunity for all.”52
Equity in these areas of transportation means that both jurisdictions
must ensure that different geographies of the city, and people of different ages, races, economic
statuses, and abilities have access to the same level of transportation service and receive the same level
of infrastructure investment.
Many jurisdictions recognize the benefits of encouraging the widespread adoption of shared use
mobility services, and therefore have begun to integrate them into planning efforts or use public dollars
to support them. Even those jurisdictions that do not proactively seek to incorporate shared mobility
services into the transportation system may roll back public transit or municipal taxi services if shared
mobility services start to supplant demand at certain times or locations, therefore also reducing existing-
-and more regulated--travel options “such as taxi services, that can be summoned with a landline or
basic mobile phone and for which payment can be made by cash.”53
The City of Seattle and King County have already taken actions suggesting that the line between public
transportation and privately provided shared use mobility services is blurring. For example, the Seattle
City Council recently voted to take ownership of the City’s previously privately-owned bikeshare
system.54
The City has also partnered with Uber and Lyft to provide discounted rides to reduce deaths
and injuries associated with drunk driving.55
King County Metro has integrated discussions about
50
Seattle Department of Finance and Administrative Services. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/finance-and-
administrative-services
51
SDOT. (n.d.). SDOT Mission, Vision, and Core Values. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/sdotmission.htm
52
King County. (n.d.). Equity and Social Justice. Retrieved March 1, 2016, from
http://www.kingcounty.gov/elected/executive/equity-social-justice.aspx
53
Transportation Research Board. (2016). Between Public and Private Mobility: Examining the Rise of Technology-Enabled
Transportation Services. Retrieved from http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/sr/sr319.pdf
54
Kroman, D. (2016, March 14). Council bails out Seattle’s bike share program. Crosscut. Retrieved from
http://crosscut.com/2016/03/council-bails-out-pronto-bike-share-program/
55
Downtown Seattle Association. (2016, March 17). Vision Zero: City of Seattle and Uber Battle Drunk Driving in Seattle. Retrieved
from http://www.downtownseattle.com/blog/2016/03/17/sign-uber-get-free-ride-home/

16
innovations such as TNCs in their long-range planning,56
and has a contract with Lyft in the Seattle area
to serve as an approved Guaranteed Ride Home provider.57
Due to the recent exponential growth of shared mobility services, SDOT, along with FAS and King County
Metro, initiated the Shared Mobility Services Planning Project to develop a comprehensive and
consistent set of policies and regulations around shared use mobility. One component of the project will
be how, as the City and County incorporate these services into the transportation system, they also
ensure that providers serve individuals of all ages, socio-economic status, race, ability, and location. As
described previously, shared use mobility services can be a cheaper alternative to car ownership and a
more convenient alternative to late night or rural bus service. Widely adopted, these services can also
help jurisdictions manage congestion and demand for parking, as well as improve air quality. Yet, as
described above, many of these services require a user’s account to be tied to a credit or debit card. For
the nearly 20 percent of people in the Seattle/King County area that are un- or underbanked, taking a
ride with carshare, bikeshare, or TNCs can be challenging or impossible. Failure to equitably serve this
population would not just fail to make available the benefits of these services to a narrow (and often
underserved) set of residents, but would go against the mission and vision of local jurisdictions and
agencies.
Why don’t shared mobility services serve the unbanked?
Private shared mobility service providers often fail to serve the unbanked for two main reasons: 1)
perceived lack of market and 2) perceived risk.
● Perceived lack of market
The unbanked population in Seattle/King County is relatively small. Unbanked communities also
often have other attributes that may make them less likely to try shared services without other
interventions. For example, because the rate of unbanked individuals is higher in immigrant
communities, there may be language or cultural barriers that make it difficult for users to feel
comfortable using shared mobility services. Because unbanked individuals also tend to be low-
income, the price of some services may already be a deterrent. A report by Kodransky and
Lewenstein concludes that “unless the operator is a social enterprise or unless the government
mandates a focus on low-income communities, operators are unlikely to target potential low-
income users, given their need for a financially viable business model.”58
● Perceived risk
For bikeshare and carshare in particular, loss or damage of provider assets can also keep system
operators from expanding into low-income neighborhoods. “Operators, and those who insure
56
King County Metro. (2015, October 15). King County Metro Long Range Plan Community Advisory Group Presentation.
Retrieved from http://metro.kingcounty.gov/advisory-groups/long-range-plan-community-group/meetings/2015/10/presentation-10-
15-15.pdf
57
Lyft representative, personal communication, March 22, 2016
58
Kodransky, M., and Lewenstein, G. (2014, October). Connecting Low-Income People to Opportunities with Shared Mobility.
Retrieved from http://www.equitycaucus.org/sites/default/files/Can%20Shared%20Mobility%20Help%20Low-Income%20People
%20Access%20Opportunity-%20%281%29.pdf

17
them, may perceive a higher level of risk in low-income communities in the form of damage to
their assets.”59
This perception of risk may be compounded for unbanked populations, where
offering cash payments without the security of a credit card limits the ability of the provider to
recoup losses from damaged or stolen vehicles. Failing to keep a credit card on file can also lead
to losses for TNC providers, if the cost of the ride exceeds the cash on hand or the balance of a
cash card, especially if it is difficult for the provider or customer to estimate the total fare prior
to boarding.
The case for government intervention
Despite the perceived barriers to serving the unbanked population, evidence suggests both that there is
a potential market, and that the risk is lower than anticipated.
While it is true that the unbanked population in the Seattle/King County area is relatively small, the
unbanked and underbanked households combined make up nearly one-fifth of the
Seattle/Tacoma/Bellevue population. And even though it’s a relatively small percentage, shared services
that provide a lower-cost alternative to car ownership could provide an even greater benefit to low-
income, unbanked populations than the general population. For example, a report from the Mineta
Transportation Institute provides anecdotal evidence of higher-than-expected bikeshare usage among
low-income customers.60
In Philadelphia, “cash memberships represent 1 percent of total memberships
but 4 percent of trips.”61
In interviews with carshare and bikeshare providers that served low-income populations or offer
alternative payment options, almost all representatives stressed the relatively small rates of loss and
amounts of damage to the assets. (However, even if the service provider understands the low risk of loss
or damaged, some operators have faced challenges finding a sponsor to cover bicycle liability if a credit
card is not taken as a form of collateral.62
)
This suggests that the demand for these services in unbanked populations, and the total social benefit of
providing them, may exceed expectations. The cost of providing them also appears to be lower than
perceived. These two factors lead the market to supply less than the optimal amount of shared mobility
services. Despite the fact that many could benefit from alternative payment options (if related barriers
were also addressed), that the potential for theft or damage is minimal, and that a market could even
develop better than expected, many for-profit operators are reluctant to enter the unbanked market.
59
Ibid.
60
Chan, N., Cohen, A., Martin, E., Pogodzinski, M., Shaheen, S. (2014, October). Public Bikesharing in North America During a
Period of Rapid Expansion: Understanding Business Models, Industry Trends and User Impacts. Mineta Transportation Institute.
Retrieved from http://transweb.sjsu.edu/PDFs/research/1131-public-bikesharing-business-models-trends-impacts.pdf
61
Schmitt, A. (2015, September 16). What Cities Are Learning About Making Bike-Share More Equitable. STREETSBLOG USA.
Retrieved from http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/09/16/what-cities-are-learning-about-making-bike-share-more-equitable/
62

18
Given the increasing use of and government reliance on these services, it is therefore appropriate to ask
what and to what extent government interventions are appropriate for improving access to unbanked
populations. The journal articles and reports reviewed below weigh in on this topic, and describe types
of intervention and examples of each, where available.
The case for government interventions for equity
Most research and literature support government intervention for the purpose of improving equity in
the case of such market failures.
Several acknowledge the reluctance of for-profit providers to address equity issues, putting the onus on
government instead. The well-established Mineta Transportation Institute posits that “it is unlikely that
the for-profit sector will voluntarily serve the low-income market without incentives or subsidies, in a
similar way that most developers would not build affordable housing without incentives.”63
McMahon,
Sarver, and Soneji argue that “local governments, unlike businesses, are responsible to the whole
community. If carsharing is to be a realistic transportation option for everyone, then it should reach a
wide geographic area as well as a broad range of residents and users, and the cost of using the program
should be within reach of most folks.”64
Nonpartisan think tank Eno Center for Transportation points out that “new technologies may enhance
mobility by providing a range of more economical travel options, but also typically require access to
smartphones and payment options that may cost more than traditional road and transit services, raising
questions about equity.” Their report goes on to suggest that “There might be a federal role in ensuring
that all sectors of the population have access to the technologies, and the technologies provide access
to economically disadvantaged areas.”65
According to the Transportation Research Board, “if private
providers fail to address these ...issues on a broad scale, public agencies and regulatory authorities may
choose to address them through regulation, mandates, or incentives designed to make these services
fully and equitably available. To the extent that shared mobility services are available to disadvantaged
populations, they have the potential to enhance mobility among these groups.”66
If the government steps in to assist with equity issues, it can also free up private providers to grow their
service in other ways. Kodransky and Lewenstein reiterate that “if the public sector also takes an active
role in guiding, requiring, and facilitating low-income shared mobility initiatives, this could help enable
63
64
Mobility Lab. (2013, September). Why Should Local Governments Care About Carsharing? Retrieved from
http://mobilitylab.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Why-Should-Local-Governments-Care-About-Carsharing-Sept-2013.pdf
65
Eno Center for Transportation. (2016, February). Emerging Technology Trends In Transportation. https://www.enotrans.org/wp-
content/uploads/EmergingTech.v13.pdf
66

19
the for-profit private sector to scale-up successful programs without losing considerations for low-
income individuals.”67
Free market advocates, however, continue to argue that regulation “undermines competition, resulting
in higher prices, fewer choices, lower quality service, or some combination thereof.” In particular, they
argue that “if firms are insulated from competition from new entrants, they can obtain some measure of
monopoly or pricing power[, which] diminishes consumer welfare while enhancing producer profit,” and
that “in practice, regulation does not always live up to the normative goals of those who seek it in the
“public interest.”68
Free market advocates instead advocate to “level the playing field by ‘deregulating
down’ to put everyone on equal footing, not by ‘regulating up’ to achieve parity.”69
In fact, this has
happened to a certain extent in Seattle with respect to TNCs and taxis. When Seattle City Council voted
to regulate TNCs, they also loosened some taxi regulations.70
Types of intervention
Whether local, state, or federal, there are number of roles government can play in ensuring equity in
shared mobility services. Some types of government intervention are explored below.
● Setting a good example / piloting new models
Jurisdictions can use public funds to implement or research solutions to equity issues. Koopman,
Mitchell, and Thierer point out that as public transit agencies have “modernized their fare
collection systems to be “all electronic” and upgraded to smartcard payment systems and
mobile apps, they have had to consider alternatives to bank accounts for their underserved
customers as part of that transition,” and could “serve as a model for how alternative payment
options might work.”71
Transit agencies could even “create a unified payment system for both
transit and microtransit — perhaps even subsidizing lower-income passengers' rides on the
latter.”72
● Providing shared mobility service directly
Kodransky and Lewenstein argue that “the public sector can also attain full control over the
goals and programs of a given shared-mobility system by owning and operating the system
67
68
Koopman, C., and Mitchell, M., and Thierer, A. (2015, May 15). The Sharing Economy and Consumer Protection Regulation: The
Case for Policy Change . The Journal of Business, Entrepreneurship & the Law, Vol. 8 Iss 2, 2015. Retrieved from
http://ssrn.com/abstract=2535345
69
Ibid.
70
Langston, J. (2014, June 16). Murray Compromise Lifts Seattle Rideshare Caps. Sightline. Retrieved from
http://www.sightline.org/2014/06/16/murray-compromise-lifts-seattle-rideshare-caps/
71
72
Stromberg, J. (2015, July 7). These startups want to do for buses what Uber did for taxi rides. Vox. Retrieved from
http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8906027/microtransit-uber-buses

20
itself.”73
For example, Indego bikeshare, which offers a cash payment option, is planned and
managed by the Philadelphia Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utilities.74
Rauch and Schleicher note that “while bike-shares are the best-known ‘city owned’ sharing, they
are not alone. Several cities own car fleets that are rented out at subsidized rates through public
car-share programs. Additionally, some cities (including Seoul and Washington D.C.) have tried
to develop Uber-style apps for their municipal taxi fleets.75
● Contracting
In a late 2014 report, Kodransky and Lewenstein predicted the emergence of government
contractor for municipal services: “Already, sharing firms provide services to city governments
from car rentals to disaster preparation logistics. This trend will likely continue and expand. At
the same time, government contracts could give city governments further leverage over sharing
firms, allowing them to require stronger consumer protections, deeper economic redistribution
or to achieve other policy aims.”76
For example, Seattle City Council recently voted to release an
RFP for a new contractor to operate a publicly owned bikeshare system for the city. Several
councilmembers indicated that the RFP should help pick an operator that can meet equity goals,
including providing access to people without credit cards.77
● Acting as clearinghouse for all providers
In order to improve accountability from service operators, some have argued for “‘some public
entity that's the clearinghouse or the coordinator’ for local rides—perhaps modeled on an
oversight body in Denmark that already exists for such a purpose. Under this system, a central
dispatcher of sorts would receive trip requests and assign certain vendors to the job.”78
Like
direct ownership, the coordinator could ensure that service was provided equitably throughout
the city, and like contracting, the clearinghouse could require certain levels or models of service
in order to participate.
● Planning / Technical assistance
Local staff can use their data, expertise, and other resources to identify gaps in service. For
73
Kodransky, M., and Lewenstein, G. (2014, December). Connecting Low-Income People to Opportunities with Shared Mobility.
Retrieved from https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Shared-Mobility_Full-Report.pdf
74
National Resources Defense Council. (2016, January). First and Last Mile Connections: New Mobility. Retrieved from
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/shared-mobility-cs.pdf
75
Rauch, D. and Schleicher, D. (2015, January 14). Like Uber, But for Local Governmental Policy: The Future of Local Regulation
of the 'Sharing Economy'. George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 15-01. Retrieved from
76
Ibid.
77
Feit, J. (2016, March 15). Council Approves Pronto Deal, Ethics Questions Linger. PubliCola. Retrieved from
http://www.seattlemet.com/articles/2016/3/15/council-approves-pronto-deal-ethics-questions-linger
78
Jaffe, E. (2015, April 27). How the Microtransit Movement Is Changing Urban Mobility. CityLab. Retrieved from
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/04/how-the-microtransit-movement-is-changing-urban-mobility/391565/

21
example, “entities such as the transportation or planning departments can identify [or]
suggest...locations for station siting.”79
● Brokering
Local jurisdictions can play the role of third-party broker to “help bridge the barriers that keep
low-income communities from accessing shared mobility services. Potential intermediaries
often have preexisting relationships with low-income communities and are therefore well suited
to connect these groups with efforts to reduce usage barriers. Intermediaries can identify
specific barriers, help devise solutions to overcome them, and advise on messaging and
outreach mechanisms...even city departments [can] play this role.”80
Specifically, “public health,
social service, and transportation departments can act as brokers that connect community
members such as low-income residents with existing support programs to facilitate participation
in shared mobility systems.”81
● Mandating certain kind of service
A government at any level can develop regulations that set the parameters for how a service can
and cannot operate, for the purpose of meeting the jurisdiction’s equity goals. For example,
some municipalities “have considered laws requiring stations in designated zones, in return for
operating rights. This has been the case with car-share in Washington DC where the local
Department of Transportation requires vehicles to be placed in low-income neighborhoods.”82
The City of Seattle has also developed several regulations in attempts to ensure equitable
shared mobility service provision, requiring all carshare providers to establish a service area for
the entire city,83
as well as requiring TNCs to connect customers to a wheelchair accessible
vehicle, if they request one.84
● Mandating specific payments options
Although not necessarily invoked to establish equitable service, some jurisdictions have
mandated specific payment options for service providers. For example, New York has a state law
prohibiting “any rental vehicle company to refuse to rent a vehicle to any person solely on the
requirement of ownership of a credit card.”85
Whether any or all given carshare companies are
subject to this law is still under debate. Both Zipcar and car2go have been in lawsuits that
explored whether the companies could claim protections under the “Graves Amendment”, a
79
80
Ibid.
81
Ibid.
82
Ibid.
83
City of Seattle. (2015, January). Council Bill Number: 118270. Retrieved from http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nph-
brs.exe?d=ORDF&s1=118270.cbn.&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/cbor1.htm&r=1&f=G
84
City of Seattle. (2014, December 15). Director’s Rule: Application Dispatch Systems. Retrieved from
http://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/FAS/RegulatoryServices/directors-rule-ads.pdf
85
New York General Business Law § 396-z. Rental vehicle protections Retrieved from http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/general-
business-law/gbs-sect-396-z.html#sthash.PQENlfcV.dpuf

22
federal law that applies to vehicle owners engaged in the business of renting or leasing motor
vehicles,86 87 88
despite distancing themselves from traditional rental car companies in their
marketing materials. Enterprise CarShare in New York allows cash payments for this reason.89
Seattle’s TNC regulations currently prohibit drivers from accepting cash payments from riders.90
● Charging fees to help fund solutions
Jurisdictions could also levy a fee on service providers per permit or per transaction that could
then be used to fund programs that address the specific equity issue. For instance, in Seattle,
taxis, flat rate vehicles, and TNCs are charged an additional $0.10 for each ride originating in the
City, which goes into a Wheelchair Accessible Services fund that supports Wheelchair Accessible
service in Seattle.91
● Providing in-kind incentives
Local jurisdictions can identify things they want from service providers to improve equity, and
what they can give those providers in return. For example, “cities have long favored off-budget,
in-kind means of redistribution. A notable workaround in this vein has been “exactions” --
policies that condition approval for zoning changes on the provision of redistributive services
like affordable housing units. Following this pattern, cities may condition approval for sharing
firm operations on the provision of in-kind redistribution, such as requiring cut-rate taxi service
in poor areas or requiring short-term hiring services to give disadvantaged groups a leg up.”
“Cities could even ask firms to roll out new services in return for allowing their main business
line to operate.”92
● Subsidizing service providers
Some municipalities have offered direct payments to service providers that require certain
program elements in order to make the system more equitable. In Boston, the City Council
“used the authorization of a grant supporting the Hubway Bikeshare as an opportunity to push
for a written plan to expand the system into underserved areas.”93
GetAround, the P2P
86
Auto Rental News. (2010, June 16). Zipcar Granted Graves Protection. Retrieved from
http://www.autorentalnews.com/channel/legislative/news/story/2010/06/zipcar-granted-graves-protection.aspx
87
Johnson, G. (2014, August 29). The Graves Amendment: Does it Shield Membership-Based Car Sharing Services from Vicarious
Liability? Auto Dealer Buzz. http://autodealerbuzz.com/2014/08/29/the-graves-amendment-does-it-shield-membership-based-car-
sharing-services-from-vicarious-liability/
88
Pacenti, J. (2014, September 30). Car2go Lawsuit. Daily Business Review. http://www.podhurst.com/wp-
content/uploads/2014/09/Car2Go-Lawsuit-09302014-John-Pacenti.pdf
89
Enterprise CarShare representative, personal communication, February 26, 2016
90
City of Seattle. (n.d.). TNC Drivers. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/business-regulations/taxis-for-hires-and-
tncs/transportation-network-companies/tnc-drivers
91
City of Seattle. (n.d.). Transportation Network Companies. Retrieved from http://clerk.seattle.gov/~scripts/nph-
brs.exe?d=ORDF&s1=118270.cbn.&Sect6=HITOFF&l=20&p=1&u=/~public/cbor1.htm&r=1&f=G
92
93
Kodransky, M., and Lewenstein, G. (2014, December). Connecting Low-Income People to Opportunities with Shared Mobility.
Retrieved from https://www.itdp.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Shared-Mobility_Full-Report.pdf

23
carsharing service received a federal grant in return for expanding car-sharing in Portland, OR.94
Jurisdictions can subsidize companies in other similar ways in exchange for the same equity
outcomes, including tax breaks or reduced-cost city services.95
In fact, some jurisdictions may view the increased provision of shared mobility services itself an
act of improving equity, as more lower-cost alternatives to car ownership become available to
more neighborhoods. These jurisdictions might argue that, if shared mobility services “prove to
be as beneficial as researchers suggest, then there might be a rationale behind subsidizing the
additional cost associated with the new technologies.”96
● Subsidizing users
Where jurisdictions see access to shared mobility services a clear benefit to the public, but
identify barriers such as price point in serving some populations, the government can fully or
partially subsidize memberships or rides for shared mobility services. Subsidies can be for
specific populations to be used in specific circumstances, or for all the residents in the
jurisdiction. For example, “local and state governments could allow public transit subsidies to
apply to carsharing services and Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards to be used to pay for
carsharing services. These actions would ease the need for operators to assume the risk of non-
payment, while increasing the number of payment methods available to low-income
members.”97
On the other end of the spectrum, a suburb of Orlando, Florida, recently
announced that they would be paying “a portion of the fare for all trips with Uber within its
limits.”98
(Although, the six-month pilot also works with a local taxi company, “so riders who
don’t have a smartphone or credit card can access the discount as well.”99
) The City of Seattle
has worked with both Lyft and Uber to provide discounted rides during holidays to reduce drunk
driving incidents.100
94
95
Ibid.
96
Eno Center for Transportation. (2016, February). Emerging Technology Trends In Transportation. Retrieved from
https://www.enotrans.org/wp-content/uploads/EmergingTech.v13.pdf
97
Espino, J. and Truong, V. (2015, January). Electric Carsharing in Underserved Communities. Retrieved from
http://greenlining.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Electric-Carsharing-in-Underserved-Communities-spreads.pdf
98
The Times of India. (2016, March 4). Florida becomes first US city to subsidize Uber rides. Retrieved from
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tech/tech-news/florida-becomes-first-us-city-to-subsidize-uber-rides/articleshow/51253375.cms
99
Spector, J. (2016, April 11). Why Transit Agencies Are Finally Embracing Uber. CityLab.Retrieved from
http://www.citylab.com/commute/2016/04/uber-lyft-ridesharing-apps-public-transportation/475908/
100
City of Seattle. (n.d.). Vision Zero. http://www.seattle.gov/visionzero/partnerships-and-promotions

24
Chapter 4.
Survey of Existing Models

25
Overview
Solving the access problem for the unbanked and underbanked can take a range of forms. This chapter
will review 12 different models found across the world that can increase accessibility. Generally, the
existing models fall into one of four categories
:
● Removes the need for a relationship with financial institution
● Removes the need for a credit card
● May remove the need for user payment altogether
● Establishes user relationship with financial institution
Each category and each specific model may improve access for some populations better than others,
and may require the involvement of different parties. For example, mandating that operators take cash
at the point-of-service is a model that would both necessitate government intervention and impact
service provider operations. On the other end of the spectrum is improving financial literacy for the
unbanked, which does not affect shared use mobility operations, and likely requires no intervention
from transportation agencies. Some models improve access for the underbanked, but not the unbanked.
For instance, allowing payment and registration with a debit card requires a relationship with a financial
institution, but is a good option for users with poor credit.
Finally, we know that removing credit or debit card requirements will not necessarily remove all the
barriers to shared mobility services for unbanked individuals or families. While not all unbanked people
are poor, the cost of these services will continue to be prohibitively expensive for some. While not all
unbanked people are immigrants or have limited English proficiency, the language and cultural barriers
to using these services can be daunting. While not all unbanked people lack smartphones, many do, and
most of shared mobility providers rely on smartphone technology to provide fast and easy
transportation service.
Although some of the programs and features described below try to address a comprehensive set of
barriers to access, they are ultimately included strictly based on their ability to provide payment
methods for un- and underbanked populations. Some additional thoughts on more comprehensive
solutions are discussed in the recommendations section. For each model described, examples follow, as
well as a discussion of the challenges and opportunities inherent with each. Note that because the client
for this report is SDOT, we did not explore options that involve purely improving access to financial
institutions.

26
An overview of the models explored in depth below
Model for un/underbanked
access†
Description / use case Bikeshare Carshare TNCs/Taxis
Removes the need for a relationship with financial institution
Pay with cash at POS
User pays the service provider (or
driver) with cash in person at the time
of transaction.
Taxi / For-hire
Uber (Asian market)
Pay with cash or money order
at service provider office
User uses cash to make down payment
and/or pays bill in person at service
provider's office.
Bikla
Ithaca Carshare
Enterprise Carshare NYC
eGo carshare
Buffalo CarShare**
Pay with cash at third-party
location
User pays or pre-pays for charges with
cash at a third-party location, such as a
commuter store or credit union.
Capital Bikeshare -
Arlington
Divvy
Ithaca Carshare
Pay with cash via third-party
service
User selects an electronic payment
option that allows them to register or
pay for charges with cash in person at
another location, such as a
convenience store.
Indego (PayNearMe)
Bikla (Paypal)
Lyft (Paypal)
Uber (Paypal)
Pay with prepaid card
User pays electronically with a prepaid
card, which is used like a credit card,
but can be purchased and often
topped-off with cash at many locations.
Bike Nation**
Nice Ride
Kansas B-cycle
car2go
Enterprise CarShare NYC
Capital Carshare
HOURCAR
Uber
Pay with direct carrier billing
User pays electronically by billing
charges to their mobile phone account,
and are then charged by their carrier.
ECOBICI
Removes the need for a credit card
Pay with debit card
User pays electronically using a debit
card.
Pronto
Kansas B-cycle
Bike Nation**
ReachNow
Capital Carshare
Zipcar
car2go
Turo
Lyft
Uber

27
Model for un/underbanked
access†
Description / use case Bikeshare Carshare TNCs/Taxis
May remove the need for user payment altogether
Pay with patron credit card /
Family account
User can use another person's or
organization's account or credit card to
sign up and pay for service.*
Hubway
Nice Ride
ReachNow
Zipcar
car2go
City CarShare
HOURCAR
Managed account option
User creates individual account, but all
charges are billed to account
manager.*
Capital Bikeshare
Zipcar
car2go
City CarShare
Capital Carshare
HOURCAR business
Uber Business
Lyft for Work
Free rides vouchers / discount
codes
User creates individual account, but
rides that meet certain criteria can be
paid for with special code.*
UberEVENTS
Lyft
Relationship with housing
authority or nonprofit
organization
Service provider partners with housing
authority or nonprofit organization to
do outreach, education, and training,
or provide vouchers, or discounted
trips and memberships to residents or
clients.
Denver B-cycle
Nice Ride
Capital Bikeshare (DC)
Pronto
City Carshare
eGo CarShare
Flexcar**
Establishes user relationship with financial institution
Relationship with credit union
or bank
Users without bank account are
referred to credit union, where they
can pay fees using cash, apply for free
or reduced service membership, or
receive help with banking and financial
literacy.
Citi Bike (credit unions)
Divvy Bikeshare
Capital BikeShare (Bank On
DC)
Ithaca Carshare
† This list is not comprehensive, includes
only those models researched
* = individual account may require credit card ** = now defunct

28
Survey of existing models
1. Pay with cash at point of service
How it works: In this model, the user pays in cash at the beginning or end of their trip.
Examples/Background: The most ubiquitous example of this model is the current taxi system in Seattle,
in which the fare is calculated based on time traveled and distance, and users are charged when they
exit the vehicle. Users have the option of paying in cash at this time.
● Uber (ridesourcing / Asia and Africa)
TNC drivers have been explicitly prohibited from accepting cash in Seattle since the City passed
ordinance 124524 in 2014.101
The City’s Department of Finance and Administrative Services,
which regulates taxis, for-hire vehicles, and TNCs states that this requirement is intended to
legally separate TNCs from taxis and for-hire vehicles, both of which can pick up people hailing
on the street. If a TNC driver does not arrange and pay for a trip through its app, as currently
required, instead picking someone up off the street, they will not be covered by insurance.102
However, Uber drivers accept cash in several countries around the world. As of late 2015, Uber
accepted cash payments in India, Indonesia, Philippines, Kenya, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam.103
Specifically, the user selects the cash option in the Uber app, but could settle up with the driver
in other ways, including cash, or other mobile money payment services such as m-pesa,104
which
allows cash deposits into the user’s account.105
Many ridesourcing representatives emphasized the large market for cash payments in other
parts of the world, stating that there simply wasn’t enough demand in Seattle to support
resourcing a cash payment option here.
● “Second generation” bikeshare
Although no longer common, some earlier forms of bike share (called “second generation”) used
a deposit-based system, in which “participants make a deposit to unlock a bicycle from the
terminal. When they return the bike to another terminal in the system, the deposit is refunded.
This has been attempted with both small cash deposits and credit card holds. Because cash
deposits are generally a small fraction of the bike’s actual value, theft is common. Credit cards
101
City of Seattle. (n.d.). TNC Drivers. Retrieved from http://www.seattle.gov/business-regulations/taxis-for-hires-and-
tncs/transportation-network-companies/tnc-drivers
102
Seattle Finance and Administrative Services Representative, personal communication, March 3, 2016
103
Bhattacharya, A. (2015, November 5). Uber now accepts cash in 6 countries. CNN Money. Retrieved from
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/05/technology/uber-cash-payments-indonesia-the-philippines/
104
Uber representative, personal communication, February 8, 2016. For more about m-pesa see https://www.mpesa.in/portal/.
105
M-pesa. (n.d.). FAQs. Retrieved from https://www.mpesa.in/portal/customer/FAQ.jsp

29
are significantly more secure as the rider can be charged for the full amount of the bike’s cost if
necessary.”106
Benefits/opportunities:
● No relationship with financial institution required.
● No additional fees.
● No need to travel to a separate location to pay.
Challenges/limitations: Even if Seattle’s ordinance was modified to allow TNCs to accept cash
payments, it may be challenging for drivers to keep adequate change in the vehicle when so many
transactions will continue to be by cashless. Several concerns have been also raised, both in the
literature and in interviews, about allowing cash transactions:
● Having cash in the vehicles makes TNC drivers a target for theft.107
● Without credit card transactions, it may be hard to track down a rider in the case of a
problem.108
● Cash payments can easily be underreported to avoid tax.109
However, as long as the shared
mobility service apps continue to collect and verify both personal information and the cost of
the trip (regardless of how it was paid for), the risk can be mitigated somewhat. However, apps
may need to be modified to collect this information by other means.
● Needs person-to-person transaction or kiosk that collects cash at point-of-service.
Best suited services: Ridesourcing, where there is a person-to-person transaction involved at the time of
trip. Could potentially work at bikeshare kiosks for discrete trip payments.
Government intervention: Local government has stepped in to prohibit the acceptance of cash by TNC
drivers. Government could repeal this part of the law, or require acceptance of cash payments for
certain services.
2. Pay with cash at service provider office
How it works: In this model, user pays with cash in person at the service provider's office. This
necessitates at least one local, customer-facing storefront location. Many of these services require a
security deposit and/or pre-payment for the estimated cost of the services.
106
Vanderpool, S. (2013, February 15). The Future of Transportation is… Bicycles? I Was Hoping for Jetpacks. Nerdwallet.
Retrieved from http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/travel/2013/future-transportation-bicycles-hoping-jetpacks/
107
Seattle Finance and Administrative Services Representative, personal communication, March 3, 2016
108
109
Edelman, B. and Geradin, D. (2015, November 24). Efficiencies and Regulatory Shortcuts: How Should We Regulate
Companies like Airbnb and Uber? Forthcoming, Stanford Technology Law Review. Retrieved from

30
Examples/Background: This model is found in nonprofit shared services, in companies that have
historically served customers face to face, or in locations that rely to a greater extent on a cash
economy.
● Bikla (bikeshare / Guadalajara, Mexico)
Bikla bikeshare in Mexico allows payment using cash in person.110
● Buffalo CarShare (carshare / Buffalo, NY)
Buffalo CarShare was a local, nonprofit carsharing located in Buffalo, NY, that located cars on
affordable housing properties and let users pay by money order.111
Although the organization
moved away from taking money orders, trusted members still could use this option on a case-
by-case basis. However, the reservation had to be done online, and then reconciled with the
money order in person, which took a significant amount of staff time.112
Challenges with
insurance led Buffalo CarShare to close in 2014, and the nonprofit was subsequently acquired by
Zipcar the following year.113 114
● Ithaca Carshare (carshare / Ithaca, NY)
Ithaca Carshare is a nonprofit that allows users who put down a $200 security deposit to pay by
cash. The cash account holders must make pre-payments before each trip at the organization’s
office. Although Ithaca Carshare also has a relationship with a credit union, where users can pay
by making deposits into a special account,115
the credit union is close to nonprofit’s office, so
clients usually go to the office instead.116
A representative from Ithaca stressed that for this
model, providers need to think carefully about the location of their offices, ensuring it will be
accessible to the most people who need it.
The nonprofit minimizes financial risk to the organization by building strong relationships with
their customers. Ithaca doesn’t do monthly billing for low-income users, instead encouraging
them to prepay or pay after each trip instead. Employees try to identify high-risk customers, and
then work with them to stay current on paying for their reservations. A representative from
110
111
Snyder, T. (2014, December 8). How to Make Shared-Vehicle Services Accessible to People of All Incomes. STREETSBLOG
USA. Retrieved from http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/12/08/how-to-make-shared-vehicle-services-accessible-to-
people-of-all-incomes/
112
Shared Use Mobility Center representative, personal communication, February 16, 2016
113
Sommer, M. (2015, September 29). Car-sharing service returning to downtown Buffalo. The Buffalo News. Retrieved from
http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/buffalo/car-sharing-service-returning-to-downtown-buffalo-20150929
114
Auto Rental News. (2015, October 7). Buffalo CarShare Reopens with Zipcar Acquisition. Retrieved from
http://www.autorentalnews.com/channel/rental-operations/news/story/2015/10/buffalo-carshare-reopens-with-zipcar-acquisition.aspx
115
Ithaca Carshare. (n.d.). Orientation - Payments. Retrieved February 1, 2016, from
http://ithacacarshare.org/orientation/payments10
116
Ithaca Carshare representative, personal communication, February 9, 2016

31
Ithaca said that being a nonprofit makes users more conscientious about the impact of non-
payment on the organization.117
Although some of the organization’s grant funding is set aside to help pay for customers that
default, Ithaca has only used the default money once since 2011. Ithaca has a population of
approximately 50,000 people in the urbanized area, 20,000 of which are affiliated with Cornell
university. There are about 1,500 total members, 70% of which are also affiliated with Cornell.
Only 40 to 50 members (about 3%) have joined through the carshare’s income eligible
program.118
(Although the low-income membership is technically distinct from the cash payment
option, the number of low-income members is a decent proxy for the pool of potential cash
payers.)
● Enterprise CarShare (carshare / New York, NY)
Enterprise CarShare NYC is an affiliate of Enterprise Rent-A-Car that allows members to use a
cash equivalent form of payment by visiting the local office with several pieces of
documentation, as well as money order deposit in the amount of $250. The deposit is
refundable at the time membership is terminated, and establishes membership but is not
applied toward rental. The cost of rental must be prepaid prior to the commencement of the
rental period.119
If there are any overages, users are prevented from taking another vehicle until
they settle their account.120
At Enterprise CarShare NYC, fewer than a dozen customers used the cash equivalent option in
the last year. An Enterprise representative speculated that the low number was due to the ease
of paying with a prepaid card online, another option for Enterprise CarShare customers. The
cash service is comparatively burdensome, used most often by individuals that have paid in cash
at their local Enterprise car rental office, historically one of the only options for cash renters.121
Yet, because Enterprise already operates a number of storefronts, the company did not have to
open separate carshare rental branches. Enterprise already has the infrastructure and customer
service team in place, making it only marginally more expensive to offer a cash equivalent for
carshare customers. If done correctly, the representative posited, cash payers can be some of
most loyal, best customers, because “not a lot of businesses operate in that cash world, and
there are not a lot of options for those customers.”122
● eGo CarShare (carshare / Boulder and Denver, CO)
117
Ibid.
118
Ibid.
119
Enterprise CarShare. (n.d.). Qualification for Cash Equivalent Method of Payment. Retrieved from
https://www.enterprisecarshare.com/us/en/programs/retail/new-york/cash-equivalent.html
120
Enterprise CarShare representative, personal communication, February 26, 2016
121
Ibid.
122
Ibid.

32
Nonprofit eGo CarShare in Colorado’s online registration requires a credit or debit card,123
but
residents of certain partnering affordable housing communities can contact customer support
directly to set up their account.124
” Users can come to the eGo office and pay with cash, check or
money order. If users pay by check, eGo waits 3-5 days for the check to clear, as they have
provided services and then had checks bounce previously.125
eGo representatives report a
technology barrier for many of the residents, many of whom did not have smartphones and
didn’t want to use the public library. Very few people have used the cash and money order
option, but according to the eGo representatives, this had more to do with additional barriers:
“Even if we solved the unbanked issue, our reservation and billing system is very biased toward
being online and using smartphones. We offer 24/7 phone support, and take reservations on the
phone if people want. So if people aren’t tech savvy, they offer those options, but in reality, if
they want to use a car late at night, will they want to go to the hassle of calling in? The tech
aspect filters some folks out, and additionally, residents or may not have driver's licenses or
driving records that would disqualify them.” eGo also struggled with nonpayment: the
organization was hesitant to turn people’s carshare cards if they didn’t pay, but that appeared
to encourage people not to pay.126
● Allows users with no formal banking relationship to use.
● Likely don’t need a smartphone, if you have option to pay and work with customer service in
person.
● Builds loyalty and relationship between customer and service provider.
● The verification needed to lessen risk of taking cash payments for carshare is slightly mitigated
by face-to-face interaction at the initiation of each transaction.
Challenges/limitations:
● May be cumbersome for user to travel to location.
● Number of locations is likely minimal.
● It is difficult to do this verification online, making it challenging to scale up a model like this.
● May be expensive or challenging to open storefronts in all the areas that you would like to
serve.
● Can be prohibitively expensive for customers to make a large down payment in cash or with a
money order.
● Relies on an organization serving a very small population or already having multiple storefronts.
● Wouldn’t work well for services where cost, date, and location of trip is unpredictable.
123
eGo carshare. (n.d.) Join now. Retrieved from http://carshare.org/join-now/
124
eGo carshare. (n.d.). Mariposa Neighborhood. Retrieved from http://carshare.org/mariposa/
125
eGo representatives, personal communication, May 3, 2015
126
Ibid.

33
Best suited services: Bikeshare, which has lower costs overall, and round trip carsharing, which has
more predictable payments (because these are typically reserved in advance for a certain location and
number of hours). Good for nonprofits, which may already have more established relationships with
their clients, and might be more amenable to offering a lower-margin cash payment option.
Government intervention: In the two carshare examples above, the services are likely subject to New
York State’s law requiring that rental agencies allow people to rent cars without a credit card. The law,
however, does not stipulate the mechanism by which operators are required to comply.
3. Pay with cash at third-party location
How it works: Similar to paying cash at the service provider office, this model allows the user to pay
directly with cash in person at a third-party location or locations that have an established relationship
with the service provider, such as a commuter store. Some of these services require a security deposit
and/or pre-payment for the estimated cost of the services. Note that there are some service providers
that allow users to pay at a credit union or other financial institution. The extent of the relationship
between the service provider and the financial institution may vary, but we have grouped them together
in a later section because they align with the intent of getting users to interact with a financial
institution.
Examples/Background:
● Capital Bikeshare (bikeshare / Arlington, VA)
Capital Bikeshare is a joint bikeshare program owned by four participating jurisdictions in the DC
area (DDOT, Alexandria, Montgomery County, and Arlington), and operated by Motivate, a
company that designs, deploys and manages bicycle sharing systems. Each jurisdiction’s
program is managed separately, and may be slightly different. Arlington County accepts cash
payments from Arlington residents for Capital Bikeshare memberships and user fees. Arlington
residents can sign-up for a Capital Bikeshare membership at any of Arlington’s five Commuter
Store locations (or two mobile units), owned by Arlington County Commuter Services, which
also sell transit fare passes. The Commuter Store’s accounting system allows cash to be
accepted due to its transit pass sales business. Accounts can be opened with as little as $16 in
cash toward the standard price of an annual membership with monthly installments. This covers
the $8 per month membership fee plus usage fees for trips beyond the first free 30 minutes.127
Arlington’s Capital Bikeshare started the cash program after hearing that a credit card
requirement can be a barrier. They decided to utilize the existing commuter stores, which had
the added benefit of face-to-face transactions, seen by the program as a desirable feature for
lower-income populations. The program was promoted online and in brochures at transit stops,
stores, kiosks, as well as through street teams. However, despite hundreds of information
127
Bike Arlington. (n.d.). Arlington Resident Cash Payment Option. Retrieved from
http://www.bikearlington.com/pages/bikesharing/arlington-resident-cash-payment-option/

34
points, no actual users had signed up using this method between its launch in January 2015 and
February 2016.128
The low demand for cash payments led Arlington Bikeshare employees to conclude that a credit
card requirement is not the primary barrier to joining bikeshare, though the program plans on
holding focus groups to understand this issue better. The program does not currently have
economic status data for its users, so they are unable to say whether low-income users are using
credit cards, or whether they do not have low-income users. The Arlington Bikeshare program
has 3,300 users, out of 30,000 total Capital Bikeshare users.129
● Divvy for Everyone (bikeshare / Chicago, IL)
Divvy allows cash payment at several LISC Financial Opportunity Centers across the city.130
See
more in the “Relationship with a credit union or bank” section.
● Ithaca Carshare (carshare / Ithaca, NY)
In addition to accepting cash at its storefront location, Ithaca carshare also accepts pre-
payments into a special account at Alternatives Credit Union. See more in the “Relationship with
a credit union or bank” section.
● Allows users with no formal banking relationship to use.
Challenges/limitations:
● May be cumbersome for user to travel to location.
● Number of locations is likely minimal.
● It is difficult to do this verification online, making it challenging to scale up a model like this.
● May be expensive or challenging to open storefronts in all the areas that you would like to
serve.
● Can be prohibitively expensive for customers to make a large down payment in cash or with a
money order.
● Relies on an organization serving a very small population or already having multiple storefronts.
● Wouldn’t work well for services where cost, date, and location of trip is unpredictable.
Best suited services: Bikeshare, which has lower costs overall, and roundtrip carsharing, which has more
predictable payments (because these are typically reserved in advance for a certain location and
number of hours). Good for nonprofits, which may already have more established relationships with
their clients, and might be more amenable to offering a lower-margin cash payment option.
128
Arlington Bikeshare representative, personal communication, February 24, 2016
129
Ibid.
130
Divvy Bikes. (n.d.). Divvy For Everyone. Retrieved from https://www.divvybikes.com/d4e

35
Government intervention: Governmental departments (such as transportation or human services) could
be a partner that accepted the cash payments.
4. Pay with cash via third-party service
How it works: In this model, the shared mobility provider allows the use of an electronic payment
option developed by a third party to pay for registration or services charges. The payment option allows
funds to be pre-loaded or settled up with cash in person at a third-party location, such as a drug store,
grocery store, or convenience store. This option differs from the previous, because it is the third-party
payment provider (rather than the shared mobility service provider) that establishes which locations will
accept cash.
Examples/Background:
● Indego (bikeshare / Philadelphia, PA)
Indego is a project of the City of Philadelphia, which owns the bicycles and stations. The project
has been planned and managed by the Office of Transportation & Infrastructure Systems, and is
operated by Philadelphia-based Bicycle Transit Systems. Users signing up for Indego bike share’s
30 Day Pass option (with unlimited rides) can pay with cash each month using PayNearMe, a
service that allows customers to pay with cash for online transactions. PayNearMe facilitates
cash payments by sending users a payment barcode that the user can then take to 7-11 or
Family Dollar and be rung up for and paid in cash. (PayNearMe is currently looking to expand
their payment location options to pharmacy chains and grocery store chains as well.131
)
PayNearMe shows up as a payment option in the “cart” are of the Indego website, and barcodes
can be send to an email address, printed out, or displayed on an app.132
After the user settles up in cash, PayNearMe pays the organization back for the original amount
minus fees (about 40 cents per transaction), which are comparable to those of a credit card.
PayNearMe encourages businesses to pay the fee, rather than have the customer pay it. As soon
as the user pays, the funds are credited to their account, and first time Indego users will be
mailed a key fob as soon as they have paid. For each month going forward, the Indego cash user
will pay ahead for the month, plus any overages or fees they have accrued in the previous
month. Each member gets one-time forgiveness for overages. Local customer service
representatives will notify individuals by phone or email if they have kept the bike longer than
one hour (after which overage charges begin to accrue). The bikes’ specialized parts and
branding make them difficult to sell or fix, therefore deterring thieves.133
Between April 2015 and early 2016, more than 330 cash payments had been made using
Indego’s cash option. The demographics of the cash payers are also more representative of the
131
PayNearMe representative, personal communication, December 18, 2015
132
PayNearMe. (n.d.).How PayNearMe Works. Retrieved from http://paynearme.com/en/businesses/how-it-works/
133
Indego representative, personal communication, December 22, 2015

Improving Unbanked Access to Shared Mobility Services

Improving Unbanked Access to Shared Mobility Services

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (17)

Similar a Improving Unbanked Access to Shared Mobility Services

Similar a Improving Unbanked Access to Shared Mobility Services (20)

Improving Unbanked Access to Shared Mobility Services