Taking United Premium Plus to Paris

Economy vittles, Premium feels

In the last few hours of my flight’s departure from Dulles to Charles De Gaulle, I noticed United offered the Premium Plus upgrade at a mere $229. Originally the price was quoted at more than $2k, with Polaris closer to $6k. These were astronomically silly numbers given the relatively short 7-8 hour flight. But not having flown internationally in many years, I decided the price was worth a try.

The seats were the old school domestic leatherette business class seats which are slightly wider (meaning you could wedge a pillow to the left and right) and enough legroom to stretch the legs entirely. At 5’7, I’m always in-between feeling like there is enough and not enough room. For me the issue really was seat comfort when sitting for too long, and these offer more padding along the entire back so you can constantly adjust or twist for comfort.

United fully separates this tiny purple-colored section in the middle of the aircraft above the 777 wings. It’s very small, only 4 rows in a 2 x 4 x 2 configuration. Surprisingly hardly anyone else took the upgrade, with my entire back row being empty. I later even took the upgrade back home and still had an empty seat. My back row had full decline, with a full wall behind me. The only issues were sometimes I could hear people banging on the wall or there was a floor storage locker behind me.

The math was interesting in that waiting for the last minute to upgrade saved about $100 if you upgraded on both legs. The typical Economy ticket for summer is $775 and the Premium is $1375. There isn’t much difference in amenities other than booze was free and you are given the same meals and drinks as Economy. All entertainment was free. WiFi was useless. Purchasing food and alcohol isn’t that much money to begin with. Pillow and blanket were already on the seats but they are free for Economy too. I did get a free grab bag filled with some lotions and a face mask on the leg to Paris.

Still, the $450 price difference is a big chunk. It’s half splurge and half practicality. Practical reasons, you are almost guaranteed overhead space, you get off the plane faster, you are served and helped faster, and your comfort and space is sufficiently increased especially if you have to stay awake to work on a laptop. The splurge is that for a less than 10 hour flight, if you just want to zonk out, you would be generally fine in economy. I found it ironic when some of my Premium Plus seat mates skipped the meals. It’s like you paid all this money just to sleep (which by the way, isn’t going to resolve your jet lag).

I was really shocked how many people took the last minute $600 upgrades to Polaris. The section was nearly full. Sure you get to sleep flat and have fancier dishware, but it’s just about 7 hours, and in fact many people ended oversleeping and had to be woken up as we were getting off the plane. Also don’t diss the economy food, we had a breakfast charcuterie plate on par with Parisian cafes.

Final notes, I would not be worried about things to do on the plane or bringing too much. My books went unopened and was just extra dead weight. My “spa” toiletry bag was unnecessary (the meal came with a hand towel so I borrowed it for the rest of the flight). Wifi was useless so I barely touched my iPad. I ended up watching tons of shows and parts of movies and napping in-between. Most helpful thing I did bring was a massage ball for my back and a beanie neck pillow to avoid straining.

Scaling Up with Expo for React Native Mobile Apps

Expo is a great delivery system for getting React Native mobile apps off the ground and into the hands of users. If I were to do it all over again, here is what I would have loved to know ahead of time!

Words!

Standalone App = A native app file built by Expo for iOS (ipa) or Android (apk) that is ready to upload to the respective app stores.

App Store = Either Apple’s App Store or Google Play for Android

Publish = Ah this does not mean publishing to the app stores. This means an over-the-air update. This term is accurate for Expo because your app becomes immediately available to use for users in the Expo App Client itself.

OTA = Over The Air, meaning a live update of your app content and functionality via the internets. Like serving a webpage.

Build = Means a process by which Expo uploads your code to its servers (publish) and then runs a build process in the Cloud that gives you a link to download the final product.

Your Expo Account = Your App Ecosystem

An Expo Account is *the* account that stores and serves your app. It is not a user account! Publishing your apps under this account essentially locks it to the username, and trying to switch to a different account later can cause problems. For example I identified that switching your account and republishing the same app to the same release channel will cause all the previously saved AsyncStorage user data (iOS UserDefaults) to be inaccessible.

Also if you do get into a bind of transitioning off to a new Expo account, you will end up having to annoyingly maintain apps on an old Expo login and duplicate efforts to publish your app. This is because Accounts essentially own the ecosystem which is explained later.

SecureStore vs AsyncStorage

The solution to the above problem is to use SecureStore to persist values in the user’s phone keychain. This even persists data after the user has deleted their app. SecureStore does have character limits though and I wouldn’t trust it to deal with large amounts of object data, so it should only be important key-value pairs. AsyncStorage is still important for persisting app session state, but essentially it should be treated as if the data could be wiped tomorrow.

Use Release Channels

Do it now or feel the pain later. The hierarchy of Expo is this:

  • Expo Account
    • Expo App
      • Release Channel
        • iOS/Android App

As noted above, if you ever have to switch accounts, you will end up maintaining this entire ecosystem TWICE. Your “production” release channel is different between each account!

I recommend creating new release channels for each standalone app version update too. This is because Expo often comes out with new and awesome SDK version upgrades which require a new build. The new SDK version might have code changes or features that either are not compatible or do not exist in the previous versions. A new build is also required when adding new app permissions, loading screen stuff, or tablet support.

And I won’t get into it, but you’ll see how even more complicated things get if you decide to splinter iOS and Android into separate release channels.

Just Let Expo Update the App

Expo provides an option to disable Over-the-Air updates (OTA) and provides a nice API to administer Updates yourself. This seems easy at first but can get you in trouble later.

  • Expo has had issues whereby the notification of a new Update could continue to flag even after the user has updated, creating an endless reload loop.
  • Finding a way to lock the user down to an updated version has lots of pitfalls. What if the very code to determine if the user needs to download the Update is itself broken? You have bricked their app!
  • Publish rollbacks do not resolve the above problem because you have already told Expo not to automatically update the app. It has essentially updated itself into oblivion!
  • App.json settings can not be rolled back to automatic updates because it is already integrated into the build that is live in the App Store.
  • Expo always shows its own error pages, overriding your componentDidCatch. So you couldn’t even provide an escape route or user prompt for a bricked app.

Don’t worry about it! Are updates really that big? If you’re pushing minor updates now and then the download time is minimal. And if you’re doing massive code changes, you’re better off just re-building the app for store publishing. Plus your app is basically an Expo wrapper to begin with, so you’re not really saving that much time for the convenience.

App Store Updates are Still Important

Firstly, app store updates are also meaningless. Assuming you didn’t generally tweak the app.json, you could push out app store versions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 and they could all read a single “production” release channel. A single publish would push to all users regardless of version. In Expo, the app.json “version” is your arbitrary versioning scheme, only “sdkVersion” is critical. Meaning it’s marketing fluff for users, much like how Google Play uses versionName vs versionCode.

I already noted some use cases by which an app store update is required. However, the magic really comes when we talk about OTA updates that fail. If an OTA update fails, meaning Expo can’t get the newest hottest thing you published, it will automatically fallback to its “bundled” state. This means Expo will serve from cache the app at the time you built it.

When disabling OTA updates and having bundled assets, you basically mimic typical native app development where each version update is a snapshot build. With OTA updates enabled, you still want an emergency cushion if Expo can’t serve the newest stuff. Under the hood, Expo will continue to try and update the user and they should see new stuff on the next app open.

Takeaways

Expo and React Native have definitely solved the problem of fast development and relative ease of delivery. However long-term maintenance and deployment of live code is still an issue. There is for example no UI by which one can easily track release channels or which users are seeing them, you really have to memorize them and provide good analytics reporting. The Expo website is a pretty basic listing of your apps and recent builds.

Overall if your team is investing in React Native over native, this is the platform to go with but do maintain robust internal tracking of your releases.

Expo build command throws errors

When working with different SDKs of Expo, switching the existing repo will cause watchman and various caches to be out of sync. Running the various clearing commands doesn’t seem to resolve it.

The build process is best done when you run a cache cleared instance with expo start -c and then in a separate window, run the build command you need.

Sending Angular $http POST Data to PHP

In the case of sending form data in Angular, $http POST data information is serialized as “application/json” which is not interpretable by PHP.

You have to transform the request (the form data object) into a format that it understands. The easiest way is to configure the $httpProvider.

/* Because PHP sucks */
myApp.config(['$httpProvider', '$httpParamSerializerProvider', function($http, $httpParamSerializerProvider) {
    var paramSerializer = $httpParamSerializerProvider.$get();
    $http.defaults.headers.post['Content-Type'] = 'application/x-www-form-urlencoded;charset=utf-8';
    $http.defaults.transformRequest = function(data) {
        return paramSerializer(data);
    };
}]);

 

TransitScreen Redesign Featured On City Lab

So delighted to see TransitScreen was featured on CityLab!  Our redesign was a year long effort between Isometric Studio in New York and our management team.  As UI Designer, I had to lead the implementation process after delivery and return to them for refinements.

https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2016/12/a-smarter-way-to-visualize-zillions-of-travel-options/511322/

I’ve been busy!

Me pointing at our Smartwalk feature for TransitScreen in Minneapolis.

Hey fam, I’ve been rather busy at TransitScreen lately. Sorry this blog has been rather neglected. Since the last post, I’ve had to become an Angular 1 ninja overnight and a Karma unit testing fiend. In addition it’s rather amazing what you get out of user testing!

I hope to get back and share some of my thoughts on asynchronous land and user interface design.

Have a wonderful Holidays!

Micro-Units: What’s a Proper Living Space

Micro-units were all the rage in DC this year. About a dozen projects are in the works.

Proposed units at The Wharf. What makes micro-units work is good design to maximize use, which requires most people to ditch their suburban hand me down furniture.

Proposed units at The Wharf. What makes micro-units work is good design to maximize use, which requires most people to ditch their suburban hand me down furniture.

There is nothing too new about this marketing label for what are essentially studios or efficiencies, but I was surprised at the unit floor configurations proposed.  The typical rule of a micro unit is to be below 400 square feet.  In loft speak, this was basically giving you an open room where kitchen appliances would be stacked along the wall with a small bathroom alcove.

But why the elongated unit proportion?  The golden rule for rooms are a comfortable 4:3 rectangle with the entrance on the shorter wall.  This gives orientation into a space, and that seems to be exaggerated much as today’s micro units are best called hallways.   “Activated hallways” perhaps.

Yesterday’s Studio

I currently live in a 1920s version of an efficiency building and my studio is basically a 400 square foot rectangle.  In cities like New York, this is actually the zoning mandated minimum for a residential unit.   My main living area is 23 feet by 12 feet, about 275 square feet, while the remaining rectangle is divided between bathroom, walk-in closet and kitchen.

It already feels pretty narrow but there was intention behind this.  It’s meant to allow easy subdivision between one side and the other, for example a sleeping area and a living room area.  Too open a space and one feels uneasy about the expanse. Although my Midwestern sensibilities say 12 feet already approaches claustrophobic.

My little DC studio

My little DC studio. Just enough to spread your wings out for one person.  Maybe two people if you really really really each others company.

Micro units take at most 350 sf space and smashes it down to say 10 feet, leaving one to configure 35 feet into a home abode.    In a way, it’s taking most millennial’s suburban bedroom and just doubling it. As a result most architects end up having to shove all the required sub rooms such as bathroom and closet toward one end of the unit, and having an open kitchen if not combined concept with the living/sleeping area.   A sliver of a hallway connects everything to the entrance.

These dimensions tend to evolve out of pre-fabrication, where units are building blocks to be stacked and configured. In the case of nArchitects for My Micro NY, it feels pretty standard, just alright, about the feeling of a minimalist hotel room with room for storage.

When I moved in to my place, I had this visceral reaction as if I was in the trenches of the Somme.  The living area was basically my mother’s living room, and the kitchen walkway just enough room to open the fridge door completely.  A single thankfully large bay-like window on one end gave just enough light and air to keep my spidey senses aback.

Is This Too Small?

This SOMA SMARTSPACES at 38 Harriet. The picture on the left is on the CCA dorms website while the right picture is typically used in micro unit marketing.

This SOMA SMARTSPACES at 38 Harriet. The picture on the left is on the CCA dorms website while the right picture is typically used in micro unit marketing.

My studio reimagined as a true micro unit. Had to ditch some things and now my "living room" is not likely to be viable anymore. At least I got my queen in!

My studio reimagined as a true micro unit. Had to ditch some things and now my “living room” is not likely to be viable anymore. At least I got my queen in!

The NY Times asks “How Small is Too Small” and points out a failed 2008 micro-unit building in SF’s FiDi.  But that was almost a decade ago in a weak real estate and job market, and today we are assured that building would be full on day 1.  Housing activists tend to dislike micro units, citing they’re too small to support families, they keep the tech workers here, and that they invite the tenement fears of early industrial cities.

After a year living in essentially an early 20th century micro unit, I’ve fallen in love with my studio.  My ability to keep clutter free has dramatically improved, and maintenance of the space is at a minimum.  I even find it’s easier to “plug in” at night as I’ve efficiently parsed out the space to specific functions like sleeping, reading, TV watching, and eating.  In a way I find I am using a small amount of space more efficiently and enjoying the square feet.   Maybe this sounds rather dystopian, but in a world of limited resources, I still feel good.

Yes I would love a larger space and likely find infinite ways to have my very own personal drawing room, Downton Abbey library, and butcher block island, but for now, this works just fine.

Ok, This is Too Small

For me, anything below 300 square feet is suspect unless it’s just a dorm (sleeping area with sink).  I just can’t love this design proposal for 230 square feet to accommodate a typical New York infill lot.  The use of vertical space over horizontal produces this uneasy canyon feeling.  The relative comfort of the renderings predicate people have built-in organization and are Dwell magazine minimalists.

Also people most likely cloth themselves with a replicator instead of the massive closets I know almost every person has.

Also, fear of heights.

Love Thy Neighbor

A living space is a biological need for security and merely a transitionary period to the outside world.  We do spend at minimum 10 hours outside the home.    A space should allow one’s senses to cool off, recharge, and rejuvenate.  Ultimately the apartment is a retreat that let’s one appreciate their neighborhood.

For my century-old building, this still works and I think we’ve gotten the dimensions right with some variation to go depending on the right architect.  Just don’t squish it any more.

 

We Need a Second Transbay Tube

Gazing longingly back at San Francisco from West Oakland Station. The pinch point of death.

Gazing longingly back at San Francisco from West Oakland Station. The pinch point of death.

In the past year a renewed push to build a second Transbay Tube across the San Francisco Bay floor has heated up.   BART has been plagued with it’s own maintenance problems and to some reports, is steadily worsening with a half-funded backlog through the next decade.  But plenty of transit systems have backlogs, so why is there emphasis on new infrastructure in a time of waning tax money.  I see several factors driving this:

  • Community “consensus” is cited as reason at all levels which seems to be defined as simply people are using BART and agree that more capacity is needed.
  • Bay Area population is exploding at something like a million people each decade.  For perspective, that’s like 90,000 people a month.
  • Not only has BART been barely able to keep up with crush loads, but Bay Area highways are essentially at maximum capacity.  Especially for a highly dense and urbanized area, there is no more room to expand them.
  • The Bay is also geographically not really capable of expansion or bypassing.  There are clearly defined corridors of travel.  Only increasing capacity within existing paths makes sense.

SPUR has been spearheading the effort to get it on the agenda.  Their white paper has a lovely breakdown of all the transportation solutions and contingencies the second tube will serve.

BART Reported Average Weekday Exits from 2001 to 2016 (November). Trendline goes up at a clip of 10k riders a year.

BART Reported Average Weekday Exits from 2001 to 2016 (November). Trendline goes up at a clip of 10k riders a year.

Make BART Great Again (for People)

I think it’s more important to ultimately see what is the rider’s perspective.  Bay Area residents (yes both property owners and renters) already taxed out of their minds and might want something but vote a different way when it comes to it.

So it’s telling to see that 70% of voters approved Measure RR which was the most unsexy $3.5 billion transportation funding proposition I’ve ever seen.  Via the Chron:

Measure RR, unlike most transportation tax measures, lacked marquee projects like a new extension, a new station or a second Transbay Tube. Instead, it featured a collection of decidedly unsexy projects, including replacing 90 miles of original rail, waterproofing San Francisco subway stations, rebuilding the electrical equipment that delivers power to the tracks and trains, and replacing the original train control system.

Most riders and even BART maintenance crew alike are not even sure how rail technology affects them.  The only promise is that replacement of these fundamental systems will ensure BART is reliable.  On-time reliability is perhaps always the most important concern.  As reliability dipped toward the low 90% for BART, riders definitely took notice.

Stop Bleeding at the Edges

As we move towards a Two Tube Future, BART needs to absolutely stop looking at expansion, and focus on the system’s current strengths.   Maybe some residents want BART to go to San Jose, but as a frequent rider, I almost never saw people riding beyond 6 or so stations.  In fact Amtrak’s Capitol Corridor already goes all the way to Diridon Station, so why were such precious dollars wasted when the BART maintenance backlog was about to mount into public outcry.

Spoiler alert, the South Bay extension project is already delayed.  Warm Springs was suppose to open in 2014. There was talk of opening it this year (“achingly close”).  Now nobody knows when!

The Second Transbay Tube is projected to be $12 billion in today’s dollars.   The extension to San Jose will likely reach if not exceed that number.  The public would be wise to keep any future major expansion projects in line of sight of the power makers overlooking the Bay than hidden at the system edges.

Will the U.S. Adopt Scooters

Scoot army via Scoot Networks

Scoot army via Scoot Networks

While Americans are still entrenched in this idea of make the car great again with autonomous systems, there’s another urban transport mode people have overlooked, the scooter.   The scooter or motor bike is ubiquitous in Asia because of historically narrow and uneven roads.  Match that with limited parking and hilly terrain and you have a good argument for scooters as practical mobility.

Bikeshare of Scooters

My first exposure to scootershare as urbantech was with Scoot Networks in San Francisco.  Launched in October 2012, they offer on-demand electric scooters at designated parking areas throughout the City.   Your phone app unlocks the bike key and off you go.   TechCrunch called it “Zipcar for Scooters” but it’s more like bikeshare for scooters since you can take it to your destination and park it for the next person.

There’s no need to have a special driver’s license but you will have to attend mandatory driver training.  This makes sense since few Americans are familiar with these bikes.  It was a breeze to use these in the hilly terrain of San Francisco, jetting up steep streets with ease. These were particularly useful for traversing north-south corridors which are brain-numbingly slow on Muni or rideshare.  The Scoots stow a helmet and have surprisingly nimble maneuvering.

Scoot launched with Chinese manufactured bikes as the bulk of their fleet (I suspect they are made by Luyuan).  They were smart to go with a Vespa inspired model and a red color scheme (instead of the originally proposed black).  Munich-based Govecs provides the recent Scoot “cargo” fleet.  These German Go T1.4s are very BMW in design.  They recently announced a partnership with GenZe for the next generation of Scoots.

Tesla of Scooters

On the other side of the Pacific, Gogoro launched in 2014 in Taipei.   As the “Tesla of electric bikes,” Gogoro designs, manufactures, and sells sleek electric bikes that run exclusively on their own battery swapping network.  Instead of gas stations, you go to recharging kiosks where you swap batteries like exchanging water jugs.  You can charge at home too.

Gogoro’s bikes may look like traditional Vespas but the details are futuristic, with smoothed molded panels and a Star Trek-like command center.  Following Tesla’s model, they own the vehicle production and the recharging network, so it makes it easy to innovative and scale up fast.  Gogoro bikes have become practical transport on a regional level.

Will the U.S. Scoot

It’s unclear whether residents of an equally dense U.S. city will prefer sharing or owning electric bikes.  Gogoro’s plug and play battery eliminates a lot of the logistical issues Scoot users face.  For charging, scoot relies on users bringing low-energy bikes to charging garages throughout San Francisco, and leaving it there to slowly recharge.  For travel, users have to be aware of the current battery level of the Scoot which equates to available travel distance.

On the flip side, curiously Gogoro has does not include 3G in its bikes, so you can’t rent out your bike in an easy way.   Tesla software has always been intimately reliant on internet connection.  Elon imagines a world where people will leverage their idle Model 3s as on-demand self-driving Ubers in his latest master plan.  But I imagine Gogoro’s founder is following Elon’s plan of building an expensive product to gain money to build a less expensive product and so forth.  Sharing bikes would definitely eat into sales. The starting price in Taipei is US $4,000 which is twice an entry-level Vespa at any local moto shop.

Scoot’s pricing is very affordable.  Without a $20/monthly plan, it’s usually $4 for one trip. It’s about what you would expect between the choice of a bikeshare (time) and transit (cost and maybe time too).   But in San Francisco, everything is cheaper and faster than a car.   Uber is always surging and often gets stuck in the same traffic.   In other sprawl cities, an electric bike fits a narrower portion of residents, and weather of course plays a role.  So it will be interesting to see where Scoot expands.

In Minneapolis, I once worked with a young father who Vespa’d from the city to an adjacent inner ring suburb.  His direct path was mostly residential and tree-lined, the travel time equated a car, and he saved on gas.  For typical U.S. cities with lower densities, these short-medium distances (< 10 miles) may prove in-demand for electric bikes.

On Ride-Sharing Becoming Permanent Transportation

It’s clear that ride-sharing’s reputation has been rather tarnished by public policy backlashes this year, but this hasn’t diminished its popularity.

In my view, I see Uber and Lyft as technology companies in the same vein as freeways, railroads, steamships, and jumbo jets that heralded new eras of transportation.

But hold on you say, it’s just an app that tells someone to pick you up. The car already exists. The app is just an on-demand ride board. You need a cell phone. It’s VC smoke and mirrors! It all seems like a fad until we look at history.

Old Man River

Before railroads, people floated a wooden barge down a river or drove horses down dirt roads. Then someone invented a steam engine and a better steel track. Before cars, people walked, biked or galloped on a horse. Then a series of inventors fiddled with putting an engine in a carriage. Before freeways, people drove hours on whatever road led to the city center. Then engineers envisioned massive segregated speeding roadways.

Pan Am Clipper over San Francisco in 1942. Read more about Clipper planes

Pan Am Clipper over San Francisco in 1942. Read more about Clipper planes

Prior to the advent of these transportation eras, it must have seemed bizarre to ask if people thought of a faster more ingenious way to get around. For example, trying to explain riding in a flying aluminum shell powered by windmills taking you half-way across the world in less than day.

But what seem like overnight revolutions are actually incremental enhancements or combinations of existing ideas, not very unlike a little app that connects drivers and riders together.

Users Drive Demand

These tech companies are not the ultimate pioneers though, we are. We think of transportation as being “created” by someone but in reality the adoption of any tool or vehicle into a main mode of human transportation requires users. Uber’s explosion and disruption results from millions using the service en masse, filling travel gaps and trip demands most planners would not know existed.

Take a curious analogy of transportation technology that has experienced great waxes and wanes in popularity, the bicycle. It was invented to replace horses in Europe, quickly dismissed as a toy, became a ubiquitous transportation mode in the United States, and then was left behind in urban renewal.

Bicyclists on the Golden Gate Bridge before opening in 1932. Via SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY

Bicyclists on the Golden Gate Bridge before opening in 1932. Via SAN FRANCISCO HISTORY CENTER, SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY

The Bicycle isn’t an app so why does it receive so much opposition. It too is seen as a passing fad and disruptive to existing modes of transport. NIMBYs fill City Council meetings in opposition to bike lanes. Supporters push back on helmet and licensing regulations. Sound familiar?

People Need to Get Around

Our public policy discourse treats Uber and Lyft like segueway tour companies to the annoyance of some locals. But the discussion forgets that real people of all types and ages use the service. If we can talk about transportation in this context, I think we’ll have more meaningful.

People need to get around and are searching for better ways of doing so.

It’s not rocket science that we need fast, convenient and reliable alternative transportation. On-demand bus service has been a difficult effort by transit agencies for a long time now. Uber not only meets all these metrics but makes it easy, accessible and most of all palatable to the masses. What lessons can we learn from empowering local citizens to serve each other.

Transportation is trending to radically change due to the internet.

The internet has always promised a merger of the real and digital world. In Steve Case’s “internet of everything” we will see even more instantaneous interaction across distances. Doesn’t matter if it’s self-driving cars or remote locking bike share, policy makers need to anticipate this forthcoming era, not simply react. Lead officials and staff on roundtables and educational outings. Forging partnerships and understandings will underwrite good policy decisions.

Ride-sharing is introducing potential users to transit.

As someone who use to be very car-oriented, detaching oneself from their personal vehicle is sadly a precarious feat. It is a huge step to put ones mobility into the hands of a stranger, and plan out your movements well in advance. It encourages people to mull about urban spaces, not being tied to their car, and potentially look at other options. This gets suburbs off their car diet.

Let’s Move

In the words of Marc Andreessen, “software is eating the world,” and we are looking at technology networks heavily influencing or even merging with transportation networks. Ride sharing apps are getting people around, games like Pokemon are getting people outside, let’s leverage these for the public good.