What about Shared Mobility? Thank you organisers of Mobilize Yichang for this opportunity to present ITDP | India’s take on its policy advocacy work regarding shared mobility in urban India. It is exciting to be thinking about this and to be working in this space for some time now. It presents a plethora of possibilities like a game of chess. But we are of course singularly focussed It is not so much about those who cannot afford cars can enjoy cars. It is about whether we can all enjoy continuously improving mobility options. Perspectives from ITDP’s present work in Indian context V. S. Vaidya

Some stats. India is said to be the 3rd biggest market for technology-based cab aggregators at present. It is expected to grow to ₹ 46,900 crores ($ 70 billion). Ola, an Indian company which started out in January 2011; now operates in over 100 Indian cities. Its fleet exceeds 3,50,000 vehicles – one of India’s “unicorn start-ups” Uber, a multi-national corporation started in India in August 2013. Presently, it operates in 23 cities in India with 2,50,000 drivers. Jugnoo – an auto-rickshaw aggregator operates in 30+ cities Urban units (statutory and census towns) are about 8,000 in number Ola's market share of about 52% is believed to be approximately twice that of Uber's share.

Beginning with conclusion Public policy mandate vis-a-vis shared mobility… Develop; Not merely regulate. Enhancing mobility, yet: Lesser pollution, Diminished risks, Lesser use of space.

Why have such a policy? What we care for? Stabilised VKT Reduced PMVKT

What informality also means.. The Chennai story: “Shared autos” on the ground are about seven times more than the licensed shared autos Both, licensed /non-licensed shared serve non-authorised routes. Other vehicle types offer shared services without being licensed at all to do so. Auto-rickshaws or other vehicle types with only "contract-carriage“ (hail /unique-destination service) permits offering fixed-route, ride-sharing services. ICT-enabled, on-demand aggregator cab services and certain taxi /rental services are “semi-informal” (if not fully informal). These are not licenses as licensed services.

What informality causes?

Shared mobility?? What should we focus on? [I] Public vs. Commercial shared mobility -- PT’s mandate set in a way. -- Issues regarding jurisdiction.

Shared mobility? What should we focus on? – [II] Non-vehicular /non-motorised shared mobility vs. Motorised shared mobility vehicles www.parkcirca.com [whether all such parking is publicly accessible or traded online by individuals amongst themselves] [whether private properties provide parking spaces on a commercial model]

Objectives aligned to sustainability principles – Nothing succeeds like sustainability.. Versatility Objectives aligned to sustainability principles – Equity, Safety, Environmental-sensitivity, Efficiency Potentially & actually less sustainable – vehicle technology wise and /or ride-wise More sustainable...

More sustainable; more incentivised Reasonable give and take required More sustainable; more incentivised The regulatory regime (including the market) fairly rewards or incentivises the performers and penalises or disincentivises the non-performers. “Winner does not  take all”

3 key considerations /challenges [I] Be flexible by focussing on objectives: Make it easy for PMVs to double as CSM vehicles. Encourage the future demand for new / pre-owned vehicles to be geared largely towards deploying them for CSM services. Focus on outcomes for shared mobility that are well-targeted and easily measurable.

3 key considerations /challenges [II] Gauge performance of CSM services, CSM policy itself depending on how they meet sustainable transport principles /objectives and respect the relevant rights of passengers and drivers. Get CSM to complement PT /NMT by duly integrating them all using of state of the art technology Channelise revenue from CSM to fund infrastructure for PT /NMT balancing it with reight incentives.

Intended consequences The role of conventional and present day CSM recognised /formalised. CSM, on the whole, encouraged and enabled to meet the challenges of: increasing competition. greater innovation. changed expectations regarding responsible and customer-friendly service delivery. Raised bar with regard to the latter for all CSM services /their facilitators. A level playing field for all CSM models (ensuring more sustainable options getting a greater play). A mix of policies /plans.

Principles of sustainable urban transport Principles – Objectives – Outcomes Principles of sustainable urban transport Proposed objectives Proposed outcomes for Motorised CSM Efficient use of resources Make CSM formal and organised Harness CSM to promote PT and NMT Motorised CSM will stabilise at 33% mode share in the total mode shares of motorised vehicles by 2031. Motorised CSM will contribute 20% on the whole to finances for PT and NMT. Environment friendliness Make CSM sensitive to the environment by limiting overall vehicle kilometers travelled (VKT) and particularly reducing the PMV Kilometers travelled (PMVKT) 21% of motorised CSM rides will either originate and or terminate at public transport facilities. Safety of all Regulate all CSM to ensure safety and security of drivers and passengers are not compromised, but are in fact enhanced 10% or less accidents will involve a motorised CSM Social inclusion and equity Ensure a level playing field and accountability for all CSM services 21% of motorised CSM rides will either originate and or terminate in locations that are identified as areas not served or underserved by public transit - area-wise or time-wise.