The University of California Institute of Transportation Studies recently released a technical report that summarizes Universal Basic Mobility (UBM) pilot programs in California along various design dimensions, including eligibility requirements, monetary assistance value, and allowable travel modes [1]. For example, Los Angeles, CA offered 2,000 residents $150 per month for use of public transit, private taxi, transportation network company (e.g., Uber), electric bikeshare, and carshare. The Pittsburgh, PA program gave 50 residents unlimited access to transit and bikeshare along with a monthly credit for scooter and carshare [2]. Other U.S. cities that have implemented a UBM pilot include Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Oakland, CA; and Stockton, CA.

Evaluations of most UBM programs are still underway, though some results are available for Oakland and Portland. The Oakland Department of Transportation and Alameda County Transportation Commission surveyed 66 participants pre-program and mid-program, and they observed that 66 percent of these participants used the extra mobility funds for commuting. They also found that 90 percent of funds were spent on transit, and the number of participants who self-reported driving as their primary mode declined by 6 percent for commuting trips [3]. Researchers at Portland State University also evaluated the Portland program based on surveys. Their results revealed that participants had positive UBM perceptions: 89 percent of participants reported greater travel flexibility and 66 percent of participants reported the ability to reach work-related activities that would have been otherwise unreachable. Regarding travel mode shift, over 50 percent of participants agreed that they increased their usage frequency of Uber/Lyft, taxi, bikeshare, and e-scooter [4].

In addition to survey results, policymakers would benefit from studies that analyze how UBM affects system-level efficiency, accessibility and equity. However, there is limited completed research to this end. Most studies focus on analysis based on surveys that are only reflective of stated preferences from participants. Those stated preferences may not be generalizable or accurate in practice, and they are limited to a small spatio-temporal scope. Research gaps lie in tracking and understanding the actual (revealed) preferences of UBM participants, in regards to how UBM, by various levels of support, enables those participants to select mobility options to improve efficiency, accessibility and equity. In particular, research is needed to understand how those improvements vary by neighborhood and population groups. This would help public agencies and private service providers to jointly design a UBM program that is tailored for population groups with a vital business model to scale/group in the future.