Power

The high-stakes data fight over the future of transportation

As scooters and bikes take over city streets, cities and companies are engaged in a battle over how people will find them.

Various forms of transportation on Market Street in San Francisco

Wouldn't it be wonderful if you could summon and pay for all modes of transit — bikes, scooters, taxis, busses, jalopies — in a single app?

Photo: Bloomberg via Getty Images

More than a decade ago, Bibiana McHugh saw the future of transportation. In 2005, McHugh, an executive at Portland's TriMet transit agency, wanted a way to get bus and train directions the same way she got driving directions. So she worked with Google to develop a standard called GTFS — Google Transit Feed Specification — that made it easy for Google Maps to integrate real-time public transit data. Fifteen years later, it's a global standard for transit data, and the G in GTFS stands for General.

Now, McHugh sees the next step coming. It's even bigger this time. She remembers the exact moment she figured it out, on her way back from a trip several years ago. "I flew in really late on a Sunday night, and had to get clear across town," she said. A quick Google Maps search said public transit would take 90 minutes to get her home; opening the Uber app said it'd cost $30. Two not great options. Then McHugh remembered she was supposed to be testing a beta app, built by her team at TriMet, that might help.

Get what matters in tech, in your inbox every morning. Sign up for Source Code.

So McHugh opened her tester app and plugged in her home address. It spat out a happy medium: Take an Uber to the first train station, and a train home. Half the time of the train, half the cost of the car. This — what she calls multi-modal transport — felt more like the future than ever.

In McHugh's ideal world, getting around doesn't involve choosing a mode of transport. She imagines data moving freely among services, giving people one-stop access to every train, scooter, car, bike and jalopy in the vicinity. All you do is plug in points A and B, and you should get a personalized, ultra-efficient way to get there.

In many ways, the transportation world has spent the last few years manifesting options to enable McHugh's vision. Scooters, taxis, bike-shares, helicopters to the airport, all summonable with a few taps on your smartphone. But most have become walled gardens, each hoping you will choose one brand for all your getting-around needs. A few apps and platforms are working on ways to bring it all together, to build a new navigation system that includes every available mode of transport, but transportation startups are fighting against that utopian-sounding vision. So while streets and sidewalks flood with new options for getting around, the more important battle is raging under the surface: A battle not over how you get from A to B, but over who gets to manage your journey.

"To tell you the truth, like a lot of things, the technology is easy," McHugh said. The hard stuff is the politics, the policies, the figuring out how to work together. Right now, cities and companies are arguing about lots of things, but mostly about data: who gets it, how it's used, who's in charge. Cities see this data as crucial to the way they build infrastructure, manage fleets and plan for the future. They're also eager to make sure they don't get burned again, after watching Uber and Lyft circumvent permits and processes for so many years. Dozens of companies, meanwhile, are betting billions of dollars on the space, with each company vying to be The One True Transportation Service to the exclusion of all others.

If the industry can't find a middle ground, McHugh and others believe, there will be more transportation than ever but no good way to get around. But even against what seem like intractable differences, there's reason to believe it might work out.

Who gets to see what

As bike- and scooter-sharing have become popular in many cities, a number of companies and organizations have developed a new GTFS-inspired standard to manage them. It's called GBFS — General Bikeshare Feed Specification — and it, too, is designed to transmit real-time information about available vehicles.

Virtually all of these new "micro-mobility" companies, from Lime and Bird to Spin and Skip and Gruv and all the others that seem to magically appear on street corners every week or so, have adopted GBFS in some form. Most have been required to by cities and transit agencies. Many governments, like Chicago and Denver (to name just two from a much larger list), are taking an aggressive stance when it comes to allowing bikes, scooters and other vehicles onto their streets. They're working with select partners, allowing limited numbers of vehicles, and demanding access to data — for the city and for third parties.

GBFS is designed to provide a real-time snapshot of a city's fleet, so people can find a ride — it doesn't keep trip records or personal data. Some cities want more than that: The Los Angeles Department of Transportation, for instance, developed a new data standard called the Mobility Data Specification that more than 80 cities have since adopted. MDS builds on GBFS, providing an even richer two-way stream of data, including information about the routes riders take, instructions for how fleets should be managed and distributed, and more. Uber and others have balked at this, saying sharing this much data is an invasion of user privacy. Cities say they need this data to understand how these mobility services are working and how they could be improved.

The fight between MDS and GBFS, between LA and Uber, is important and well-documented. But there's a party that gets lost in these debates: The apps that help people make use of all these new options. Back in 2005, McHugh said, "what really helped and increased the adoption [of GTFS] at a rapid rate was having it demonstrated in an application." Once companies and agencies saw how useful Google Transit could be, they bought in. This time, there's a whole genre of apps designed to bring all these publicly available data feeds together, caught in the middle of the data wars.

Apps like Scooter Map.

All the scooters on the streets

Victor Pontis built Scooter Map to solve a simple problem: There were too many scooter apps. Scooter Map put multiple companies' scooters onto a single map, so that the service workers — the people who run around a city charging, fixing and redistributing the fleet — could work for multiple companies at a time. "If you're going out and picking up scooters for Bird," Pontis said, "you might as well pick up scooters for Lime, because they're right next to each other." Lime would never show Bird scooters in its own app, and vice-versa — but a neutral third party could make something that worked for everyone.

Initially, Pontis said, scooter companies were supportive of Scooter Map. If anything, Pontis was making their systems more efficient, and saving them from having to work on their own tools. But when Pontis released a new section of Scooter Map, this time aggregating all nearby scooters for riders, the scooter makers changed their tune. Soon after, when another Scooter Map update made it possible to unlock those scooters from within Scooter Map, Lime and Bird both demanded he turn the feature off.

Scooter Map is not the only company trying to tie this data together that had such a run-in. Last September, Transit, a multi-modal transportation app that first made it easy to get bus and train schedules but has since branched out into scooters and bikes, rolled out a feature allowing riders to use the app to pay for Citi Bike rides in New York. Lyft, which took over Citi Bike when it bought bike-share provider Motivate in 2018, immediately shut down the feature. Lyft cited rider safety and theft as reasons for cutting it off; Transit saw it differently. "They're weaponizing bike-share to force you to use their ride-hail app," the company wrote in a scathing blog post.

When they made it possible to rent a scooter or bike without ever opening another app, Scooter Map and Transit stepped on one of the third rails of the transportation revolution. Companies like Lime and Lyft didn't raise hundreds of millions of dollars just to put scooters on streets; they can't afford to be seen as a commodity provider of the same hunk of Ninebot-built plastic as everyone else. These companies want to be lifestyle brands, one-stop-shops for the future of transportation. Sure, Lime might integrate with Google Maps, but you still have to unlock the scooter in the Lime app. (And Google's investment in Lime may have something to do with the partnership.)

Sometimes it goes beyond rides, too: Bird now wants you to pay for your coffee with the same app you used to get to the shop. To do that, micro-mobility and ride-hailing companies need you to open their app to find their scooters and their cars and their bikes, not just find the closest ride, logo be damned. A nightmare scenario for a micro-mobility startup like Lime or Bird is that you open an app to find their scooter and then decide to take a Skip — or just get in a car — instead.

Lyft and Uber are the furthest along this road. Uber calls itself "The Amazon of Transportation," and hopes that you'll open its app whenever you want a ride, a bike or a pizza delivery. Meanwhile, Lyft hopes people will "subscribe to a transportation service just like you subscribe to your cell phone plan or your content streaming plan." Lyft, obviously, would like to be that transportation service. The company is building its own transportation universe, hoping to be the only place you go no matter where you need to go. But Lyft will never show the scooter that's even closer to your location, not as long as it has someone else's logo on it.

If there was one app that integrated everything, you know, wouldn't that be great? — Pauletta Tonilas, a transit agency executive

While big companies work to bring more services into their apps, the standards-makers are pushing the other way: They want to make it easy to do more in any app. "The long-term goal for GBFS is to become an all-encompassing standard that would allow for unlocking mechanisms," said Tran-Quan Luong, the head of mobile at the multi-modal app Transit. In Transit's perfect future, the standard would let you unlock a scooter, a bike, a rental car, and any other transit option right from the Transit app. Even unlocking isn't the end of the story, said David Block-Schachter, Transit's chief business officer. "Going to step three is really about sign-in, account creation, payment and unlocking. That's really what opens up the layer that we think adds a tremendous amount of value to the customer."

There's no question people want an all-in-one transit app. "We've heard this a lot," said Pauletta Tonilas, an executive at RTD, the transit agency for the city of Denver. "If there was one app that integrated everything, you know, wouldn't that be great?"

The holy grail version of that app, for proponents of GBFS, is platform agnostic: It integrates data from every transportation company and organization, large or small, public or private, and recommends route options based on distance, time, price, and allows people to pay for everything right there.

Get in touch with us: Share information securely with Protocol via encrypted Signal or WhatsApp message, at 415-214-4715 or through our anonymous SecureDrop.

That holy grail is also a nightmare scenario for the private companies who have spent years and raised billions on the promise that they'd make a fortune one day by dominating all other transportation options and becoming the one, very platform-specific, transit app to rule them all. If an app like Transit were able to own the whole customer experience, operators like Lyft and Lime and all the rest risk becoming simple hardware providers — which could be their death knell. Or, at least, that is the fear of the four-letter tech companies.

There may very well be a way for open-data-sharing and integration to win without destroying the companies who actually provide the transit. McHugh said history may simply be repeating itself — she sees lots of parallels to the last time she tried to standardize transportation data.

"Initially, there was a lot of reluctance," she said, "and I think Google Transit was the perfect showpiece for GTFS."

Once cities and operators saw it work, and once people understood how much real-time information could change the way they got around, there was simply no going back. And now that people are getting a taste of things like Transit, Scooter Map and other truly multi-modal transportation tools, relying on a single company for getting around may become a thing of the past.

It's all out there, ready to be put together, McHugh said. She can see it now: "You have your calendar alert you and say you have to leave now to catch this bus, and you're going to take it downtown, to this meeting, and after this meeting you need to get across town to your office, and you need to take a scooter. You plan your trip, and you pay for it all at once, and you go."

That's where we're headed. The billion-dollar question is, who gets there first?

Enterprise

Why software releases should be quick but 'palatable and realistic'

Modern software developers release updates much more quickly than in the past, which is great for security and adding new capabilities. But Edith Harbaugh thinks business leaders need a little control of that schedule.

LaunchDarkly was founded in 2014 to help companies manage the software release cycle.

Photo: LaunchDarkly

Gone are the days of quarterly or monthly software update release cycles; today’s software development organizations release updates and fixes on a much more frequent basis. Edith Harbaugh just wants to give business leaders a modicum of control over the process.

The CEO of LaunchDarkly, which was founded in 2014 to help companies manage the software release cycle, is trying to reach customers who want to move fast but understand that moving fast and breaking things won’t work for them. Companies that specialize in continuous integration and continuous delivery services have thrived over the last few years as customers look for help shipping at speed, and LaunchDarkly extends those capabilities to smaller features of existing software.

Keep Reading Show less
Tom Krazit

Tom Krazit ( @tomkrazit) is Protocol's enterprise editor, covering cloud computing and enterprise technology out of the Pacific Northwest. He has written and edited stories about the technology industry for almost two decades for publications such as IDG, CNET, paidContent, and GeekWire, and served as executive editor of Gigaom and Structure.

COVID-19 accelerated what many CEOs and CTOs have struggled to do for the past decade: It forced organizations to be agile and adjust quickly to change. For all the talk about digital transformation over the past decade, when push came to shove, many organizations realized they had made far less progress than they thought.

Now with the genie of rapid change out of the bottle, we will never go back to accepting slow and steady progress from our organizations. To survive and thrive in times of disruption, you need to build a resilient, adaptable business with systems and processes that will keep you nimble for years to come. An essential part of business agility is responding to change by quickly developing new applications and adapting old ones. IT faces an unprecedented demand for new applications. According to IDC, by 2023, more than 500 million digital applications and services will be developed and deployed — the same number of apps that were developed in the last 40 years.[1]

Keep Reading Show less
Denise Broady, CMO, Appian
Denise oversees the Marketing and Communications organization where she is responsible for accelerating the marketing strategy and brand recognition across the globe. Denise has over 24+ years of experience as a change agent scaling businesses from startups, turnarounds and complex software companies. Prior to Appian, Denise worked at SAP, WorkForce Software, TopTier and Clarkston Group. She is also a two-time published author of “GRC for Dummies” and “Driven to Perform.” Denise holds a double degree in marketing and production and operations from Virginia Tech.
Workplace

Building an antiracist company: From idea to practice

Twilio’s chief diversity, inclusion and belonging officer says it’s time for a new approach to DEI.

“The most impactful way to prioritize DEI and enable antiracism is to structure your company accordingly,” says Twilio’s head of DEI Lybra Clemons.

Photo: Twilio

Lybra Clemons is responsible for guiding and scaling inclusion strategy and diversity initiatives at Twilio.

I’ve been in the corporate diversity, equity and inclusion space for over 15 years. In that time, I’ve seen the field evolve slowly from a “nice-to-have” function of Human Resources to a rising company-wide priority. June 2020 was different. Suddenly my and my peers’ phones started ringing off the hook and DEI leaders became the most sought-after professionals. With so many DEI roles being created and corporate willingness to invest, for a split second it looked like there might be real change on the horizon.

Keep Reading Show less
Lybra Clemons
Lybra S. Clemons is a seasoned C-suite executive with over 15 years of Human Resources, Talent and Diversity & Inclusion experience at Fortune 500 companies. She is responsible for guiding and scaling inclusion strategy and diversity initiatives across Twilio's global workforce. Prior to Twilio, Lybra was global head of Diversity & Inclusion at PayPal, where she managed and oversaw all global diversity initiatives. Lybra has held critical roles in Diversity & Inclusion with Morgan Stanley, The Brunswick Group and American Express. She serves on the board of directors of Makers and How Women Lead Silicon Valley Executive Board of Advisers, and has been recognized by Black Enterprise as one of the Top Corporate Women in Diversity.
Boost 2

Can Matt Mullenweg save the internet?

He's turning Automattic into a different kind of tech giant. But can he take on the trillion-dollar walled gardens and give the internet back to the people?

Matt Mullenweg, CEO of Automattic and founder of WordPress, poses for Protocol at his home in Houston, Texas.
Photo: Arturo Olmos for Protocol

In the early days of the pandemic, Matt Mullenweg didn't move to a compound in Hawaii, bug out to a bunker in New Zealand or head to Miami and start shilling for crypto. No, in the early days of the pandemic, Mullenweg bought an RV. He drove it all over the country, bouncing between Houston and San Francisco and Jackson Hole with plenty of stops in national parks. In between, he started doing some tinkering.

The tinkering is a part-time gig: Most of Mullenweg’s time is spent as CEO of Automattic, one of the web’s largest platforms. It’s best known as the company that runs WordPress.com, the hosted version of the blogging platform that powers about 43% of the websites on the internet. Since WordPress is open-source software, no company technically owns it, but Automattic provides tools and services and oversees most of the WordPress-powered internet. It’s also the owner of the booming ecommerce platform WooCommerce, Day One, the analytics tool Parse.ly and the podcast app Pocket Casts. Oh, and Tumblr. And Simplenote. And many others. That makes Mullenweg one of the most powerful CEOs in tech, and one of the most important voices in the debate over the future of the internet.

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

China

Why China is outselling the US in EVs 5 to 1

Electric cars made up 14.8% of Chinese car sales in 2021, compared with 4.1% in the U.S.

Passenger EV sales in China in 2021 jumped 169.1% to nearly 3.3 million from a year ago.

Photo: VCG/VCG via Getty Images

When Tesla entered China in 2014, the country’s EV market was going through a reset. The Austin, Texas-based automaker created a catfish effect — a strong competitor that compels weaker peers to up their game — in China’s EV market for the past few years. Now, Tesla’s sardine-sized Chinese competitors have grown into big fishes in the tank, gradually weakening Tesla’s own prominence in the field.

2021 was a banner year for China’s EV industry. The latest data from the China Passenger Car Association shows that total passenger EV sales in China in 2021 jumped 169.1% from a year ago to nearly 2.99 million: about half of all EVs sold globally. Out of every 100 passenger cars sold in China last year, almost 15 were so-called "new energy vehicles" (NEVs) — a mix of battery-electric vehicles and hybrids.

Keep Reading Show less
Shen Lu

Shen Lu covers China's tech industry.

SKOREA-ENTERTAINMENT-GAMING-MICROSOFT-XBOX
A visitor plays a game using Microsoft's Xbox controller at a flagship store of SK Telecom in Seoul on November 10, 2020. (Photo by Jung Yeon-je / AFP) (Photo by JUNG YEON-JE/AFP via Getty Images)

On this episode of the Source Code podcast: Nick Statt joins the show to discuss Microsoft’s $68.7 billion acquisition of Activision Blizzard, and what it means for the tech and game industries. Then, Issie Lapowsky talks about a big week in antitrust reform, and whether real progress is being made in the U.S. Finally, Hirsh Chitkara explains why AT&T, Verizon, the FAA and airlines have been fighting for months about 5G coverage.

For more on the topics in this episode:

Keep Reading Show less
David Pierce

David Pierce ( @pierce) is Protocol's editorial director. Prior to joining Protocol, he was a columnist at The Wall Street Journal, a senior writer with Wired, and deputy editor at The Verge. He owns all the phones.

Latest Stories
Bulletins