Minneapolis Should Focus on Data When Selecting Car-Sharing Provider

As a transportation researcher and a student of urban planning at the University of Minnesota, I am interested to learn of the City Council’s current efforts to select a provider for a city-wide on-street car sharing service. On May 1, the Star Tribune reported that city staff had recommended that the Council “authorize staff to negotiate terms for a two-year agreement with Car2go N.A.”

Currently, a public debate has developed around the fairness of the City’s approach to selecting a company to run the pilot program. On May 3 the Star Tribune detailed HourCar’s response to the staff recommendation; the local company contends it is just as capable of providing on-street car sharing as the Daimler AG-owned Car2Go.

“On-street” car sharing programs are an exciting new approach to offering car-based mobility without requiring car ownership. From the user perspective, the most important feature of these programs is that cars do not have an assigned “home” — when you are done with your rented car, you just park in any legal space, log out, and walk away. I think that users will find that flexibility very appealing compared to traditional “assigned-space” car sharing programs like ZipCar and the locally-run HourCar. There is a lot more to say about the differences between these two types of system, and I’m sure we will also hear more about HourCar, Car2Go, and the city’s selection process.

But I think a different issue will, in the long run, have both broader and deeper implications for the future of innovative approaches to transportation in Minneapolis. I hope that Mayor Rybak and the City Council appreciate the importance of choosing a provider that is able to provide detailed data for use in research, analysis, and evaluation.

The flexibility provided by on-street car sharing services make then an exciting new development in urban transportation. As the City has recognized by pursuing a carefully-controlled pilot program, new systems must be evaluated thoroughly and methodically. This is especially important in an urban context, where both the benefits and the costs of new technologies will be experienced by many people.

Therefore, I call on Mayor Rybak and the City Council to ensure that any on-street car sharing program which operates in the City of Minneapolis is required to produce detailed data — not merely summaries or reports — which describe each trip made by a car-share vehicle.

User privacy is a critical concern. Public data should never allow identification of individual users without their consent. However, privacy concerns should not be used as a scapegoat to avoid collecting or releasing data. There are no technical barriers to producing useful data that does not identify individual users.

The staff recommendation of Car2Go cites that Car2Go was selected in part because “the size of the fleet will provide [a] large amount of user data.” I’m glad to see this, but I’m not satisfied. I hope that, regardless of what vendor is ultimately chosen, the City develops a contract that explicitly requires detailed per-trip data collection that will be available for public research and analysis. The city should require vendors to demonstrate plans for collecting, storing, and publishing this data in a manner that preserves user confidentiality.

The Twin Cities’ Nice Ride bike-share system provides an example of the value that can be gained by establishing this type of data source.. Nice Ride released data describing every trip made using the bike-share system in 2011 and 2012. The data were quickly analyzed by local researchers to gain insight into the patterns of bike-share use and the ways that bike-share stations support local businesses:

Without the data provided by Nice Ride, this and other knowledge would not be available to the citizens of Minneapolis. If the City selects an on-street car-sharing provider that does not provide similarly robust data, we will have missed an opportunity to thoroughly evaluate how car-sharing systems meet or miss the needs of Minneapolis residents, and to expand our broader understanding of transportation systems.


Andrew Owen

About Andrew Owen

Andrew Owen is the director of the Accessibility Observatory (http://access.umn.edu) and a research fellow in the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota.

5 thoughts on “Minneapolis Should Focus on Data When Selecting Car-Sharing Provider

    1. Andrew OwenAndrew Owen Post author

      Cool! It’s nice to see that Car2Go has a good start on this already.

      Their current API only provides the location of check-ins and check-outs, however. There is so much more we could learn by capturing full GPS traces for each trip — we would effectively have a fleet of ~300 probe vehicles continuously monitoring traffic conditions and speeds throughout the city. Not to mention the insights it would provide into how people make route choice decisions.

      To be a bit poetic about it, data are the seeds of discovery. From this researcher’s perspective, instrumenting hundreds of vehicles with GPS equipment and then not recording their detailed paths would be like cultivating a crop of heirloom tomatoes and then letting them fall and rot on the ground.

      1. brad

        I’m pretty sure Nice Ride only has check-in/check-out location data too. The maps have been done by routing from the start to end stations.

        Regarding full GPS traces, given the degree to which it’s been shown possible to match up even anonymous data with users, you kind of seem to gloss over the privacy issue. That said, if it gets them a discount, maybe people will be fine giving their consent.

        1. Jessica SchonerJessica Schoner

          Nice Ride bikes aren’t GPS-equipped, so while it would be nice to have that data, it’s not a “wasted data” situation like we’re facing with car-sharing.

  1. John Bailey

    Thank you Andrew for taking time to write a post on this issue. In all the brouhaha I had not considered the data piece It certainly seems reasonable to ask for transparency.

    From my perspective, we’ve had a good decade worth of data collection on car sharing in the States and everything I had read strongly suggests that a robust car sharing system helps people delay buying their own car or a second car thereby lowering the amount people have to drive in total. Being the antsy type and recognizing that Minnesota is — how should I say it — not exactly an early adopter to alternative transportation innovation, I’m sold. Heck, I’ve been tweeting, facebooking, and generally harassing them to move here for the past year! Friends of mine in DC, Seattle and Austin are smitten with it (and they pay those city governments a HUGE chunk of money to use their curb side spaces.)

    I get the comparison to Nice Ride, but it seems a little off in that Nice Ride is a non-profit that received a large initial public investment (not local of course, but federal through the non- motorized transportation pilot…RIP) and Car2Go is a private business not looking for a direct public subsidy — at least as far as I know.

    But they should certainly be asked to share data publicly, and I hope they would. And I love the folks at Hourcar and if there is a case to be made for them to part of the pilot, I’m all for it. And I admit to not having a research background — in fact my only knowledge of API is Asian Pacific Islander which I assume is not what you meant! – so I’ll yield to others with a stronger academic background.

    But mainly, I’m ready for curbside, “point to point” car sharing to make it to Minnesota. No delays, please.

Comments are closed.