Innovation MajorityInstitute
Subscribe
Policy Sandbox · Compare

Two scenarios, side by side

Pick two mayor archetypes — or open a custom configuration from a shared link — and compare outcomes across every ward. Built for hearing prep: the comparison itself is a shareable URL.

W1W2W3W4W5W6W7W8AnacostiaPotomac
Service quality:
None
Minimal
Limited
Partial
Good
Excellent
W1W2W3W4W5W6W7W8AnacostiaPotomac
Service quality:
None
Minimal
Limited
Partial
Good
Excellent

Outcomes compared · directional estimates

MetricStatus quoAllen Bill · B26-0684
Daily trips served05,904
Est. typical fare$15.00$17.20
Avg wait time0.0 min40.4 min
Spatial equityN/AModerate (4.4/10)
Social equityN/AModerate (5.6/10)
Daily city revenue$0$7,970
Fleet deployed0 of 0 · economics broken400 of 400

Values are directional estimates from the same model used in the sandbox. No metric is presented as “better” — the tradeoffs (e.g. spatial vs. social equity) are the point. See the methodology.
About this model

Operators allocate vehicles across wards proportional to (demand × margin), or — with wait-time parity on — to demand share alone. Per-ward wait time is a function of local vehicle density vs local demand, modulated by a density / spread factor. Service level is derived from wait time. Baseline parameters (addressable demand, per-vehicle daily cost, fare elasticity, ward demand shares, density factors) are calibrated from public data and industry benchmarks but are not production-grade forecasts. The model expresses directional logic of policy tradeoffs, not precise outcomes. The full methodology documents every parameter and its source.

ExplainerMethodologyAboutContactNewsletterThe Innovation Majority Institute
© The Innovation Majority InstituteEducational tool. Map is schematic, not cartographic.