MDS Working Group

• Every other Thursday at 9am PT, 12pm ET, 5/6pm CET

Zoom Registration Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/tZAscOmhpjIuHNakPx6CNbACpjUjw1Gsucr4

One tap mobile: +19294362866,,84170989462#,,,,*612987# US (New York) - though we encourage Zoom

Note: Attendees register upon entry into the Zoom meeting. An attendee count will be posted here after the meeting:

26 attendees

Main Topics

• Kickoff - Michael Schnuerle, OMF (5 mins)
• Modes Architecture Task Force Update - Marie Maxham, Lacuna (10 mins)
  • Refactoring work to be done to bring existing taxi work into passenger services - see PR
  • Focus on Passenger Services mode now, loop in Passenger Services Member Network members after taxi draft is incorporated, then other mode Member Networks after that to work on next mode integration
• Policy Reimagining Task Force - Jean Kao, Populus (40 mins)
  1. Continue to leave your feedback on many open Policy issues
  2. Fees - how can fees be more robust in MDS?
     • Geography, Policy, Events together with MDS data from providers can lead to compliance
     • Should MDS handle fees more robustly, penalty calcs when there are violations, permit suspension events, etc?
     • Can compliance checks/fees be part of Metrics API (since it is an output of MDS data, calculations, and methodologies)?
     • What is the priority level for this in MDS?
  3. Trip definition and how it relates to fees

WGSC Meeting Organizers

• Host: Michael Schnuerle, OMF
• Facilitator: Jean Kao, Populus
• Outreach: N/A
• Note taker: Michael Schnuerle, OMF

1. Leave feedback on Passenger Services Modes PR
2. Leave ideas on how to define trips in MDS, where this info could go, and how it should be worded
3. Fee calculations beyond publishing them in Policy may wait till a future release

• Leave comments, general or inline

1. Concrete choices written down - alternatives defined
2. Josh - Punitive fees - need to be able to appeal - a deployment violation could be mistaken for a trip end
3. Emmett - echo sentiment
4. Peter, Lacuna - where would fees be specified instead of where it is now?
5. Dc doesn’t have punitive fees bc of how they would be required in our code but I think generally other cities have them.
6. Jean - definitions and compliance can sit elsewhere
7. Compliance engine idea from Marie, fees in policy came in at the start, but maybe needs to be elsewhere
8. Share links to Compliance engine, some in mds-core
9. Policy publishes, Provider/Agency says what happens
10. Transactions - combine policy and data to determine fees/compliance
11. Does this sit 1) in a new endpoint/API of MDS 2) outside of MDS with compliance 3) inside Metrics since there is some methodology there?
12. Example of policy auditing API, that is currently left up to software developers. Compliance engine, transaction calculations
13. Cities find communication of policies valuable, but calculating commonly not consistent. Cities want to be easier, but it’s a rabbit hole.
14. Josh - back and forth, need to be able to appeal, not have it be automated
15. Emmett - overturned fees for compliance, bug in MDS miscategorizing events
16. Steeping enforcement too deeply in the spec blurs the line between ideal world vs reality
17. Emmett can see value in some calcs, maybe towards a slippery slope, data should be a tool for manual compliance and enforcement
18. Answer the question ‘how are we doing between formal checkins?’
19. Marie - measure against events, descriptive compliance. Providers could run Compliance engines to simulate ideas, like can I drop 100 scooters here and what is fee/compliance effect?
20. Frederic - problems with parking issues, call police to resolve. Caps, if over, discuss fleet size calculations, providers don’t align internal data with MDS, like scooters in warehouse.
21. Josh - not opposed to building compliance into Policy, but assessing the fees needs more flexibility
22. SFTMA - largely agree it’s hard to automatically do this, and appeals process
23. DC - agree, one of the hardest pieces, companies at different levels, tweaks to how companies apply MDS to their data varies. Not always
24. Jean - focus on reviewing policies and simplifying common issues. Best practices on each metric. Not include compliance or enforcement yet.

1. Which trips count for trip fees?
2. Josh - brought it up before, some city back and forth, trip fees are not as big a deal as caps, good to get broader agreement on.
3. Issues around really short trips? For Spin if there is a billing event, it’s a trip.
4. Superpedestrian same way. 0 distance or duration is possible. Cities can determine how to count this
5. MDS language is not clear enough for 0 trips. Could clarify language in the spec. ’Trip with distance or duration of 0 ….’
6. Could assume it’s bad or manipulated data if it’s not clear in the spec. Legitimate reasons for this, like equipment failure.
7. Important to make clear the distinction. Very few, but it’s an integrity question and how operator is viewed.
8. Only count trips where someone took a ride, to count as a trip for fee purpose?
9. DC - I don’t think anyone wants to count trips when no one rides
10. What about free low income trips? Billing for these could be no fees in MDS trip_cost
11. Put language out there for how to define trips. Adding trip definition.
12. More work to do with reconciling this in Agency/Provider TF work.