Literature Reviews

Inequality is embedded in our transportation systems and land use patterns, which reinforces unequal access to opportunities. Mobility inequality can be racialized, gendered, or based on income. The inequalities between those with and without private vehicles deepened during the COVID-19 pandemic [1], [2], [3]. Universal Basic Mobility (UBM) programs aim to address this and in turn create more equitable transportation systems. Based on qualitative evaluation of eight UBM programs and pilots, UC Davis researchers found that UBM pilot programs have had success in enrolling low-income people of color and increasing transit use [4].

Additional research related to equity impacts of mobility wallet pilot program outcomes is ongoing. For example, researchers at UCLA and UC Davis are evaluating the South LA mobility wallet pilot, where 1,000 people in South Los Angeles are receiving $150 per month for a year for use on transit needs [5]. Researchers at UC Davis are also evaluating pilot UBM programs in Oakland and Bakersfield, with a focus on economic, social, and environmental impacts [6]. However, there is little completed research on how effective university mobility programs are in addressing inequality in transportation access. Additional research is needed on the equity impacts of UBM programs, as well as how the programs compare to alternatives like free or reduced fare transit programs.

Universal Basic Mobility (UBM) programs, to the extent they have been piloted in the United States, have been funded largely through grants. These grants may be from municipal transit organizations, such as the Alameda County Transportation Commission’s funding of Oakland’s UBM pilot [1], state programs in conjunction with municipalities, such as the California Air Resource Board’s funding of the Los Angeles Department of Transportation UBM pilot [2], or a mix of grants and corporate giving, such as Pittsburgh/Move PGH’s collaboration with SPIN [3], which offered unlimited access to the company’s micromobility vehicles for qualified residents. As of this writing, no municipality has launched a dedicated fund for Universal Basic Mobility programs.

The costs of UBM pilots vary widely, depending on both the generosity of the subsidy and the number of participants. This variability has implications for the sustainability of such programs once grant funding expires. Oakland Department of Transportation’s UBM pilot grant is $243,000 for 500 residents [1], whereas the Los Angeles Department of Transportation’s UBM pilot is currently estimated at roughly $18,000,000 - a combination of city funded transit subsidies, corporate giving, and state funding of transportation infrastructure and mobility vouchers [2]. Municipalities are weighing permanent UBM funding pending evaluation of several UBM pilots, with the first evaluations coming this year; more research will be needed to evaluate the long-term implications of UBM programs on municipal budgets and transit organization financial sustainability.

There is little research available on the environmental impacts of Universal Basic Mobility (UBM) programs. In a qualitative evaluation of eight UBM programs and pilots, UC Davis researchers concluded that UBM pilot program participants increased transit use more than shared mobility relative to shared mobility services, and decreased overall personal vehicle travel [1]. These results suggest that UBM programs may reduce environmental harms of private vehicle use, but additional research is needed.

A review of the literature using Google Scholar and ProQuest yielded no applicable research, indicating a probable gap in the literature.

There is no available literature studying the effect of Universal Basic Mobility programs on safety.

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.

Increased access to education and job opportunities are cited as benefits of Universal Basic Mobility (UBM), based on robust existing research demonstrating the relationship between mobility and access to opportunity and early research on UBM pilot programs [1], [2]. Research assessing how effectively UBM policies and programs improve access to education and job opportunities is sparse.

Universal Basic Mobility (UBM) may improve access to active transportation modes like bicycling. UBM may also improve health outcomes by increasing accessibility of health care and supportive services, especially among senior populations with limited existing access to mobility. A region’s health is related to its choice in transportation options - policies which provide better access to active transportation modes, such as cycling, or transit, which often requires walking to stops, may improve health outcomes, but the effect is likely to be marginal. At present, health is not a targeted outcome of any UBM programs, and research is needed to clarify the relationship between recipients of UBM and health outcomes.