MaaS Readiness level indicators for local authorities

MaaS Challenges identified by CIVITAS ECCENTRIC, ECOMM Conference, Maastricht
Stella Aaltonen, City of Turku, 1 June 2017

Why MaaS Readiness level indicators for local authorities?

  • A new approach on mobility is needed.
  • Local authorities can speed up the development of MaaS in their area.
  • Different insights on how MaaS can be supported on local level are needed.

Strategic readiness

  • Strategic focus 
    • plan or strategy
    • funding
    • measures
    • named responsible for MaaS
  • Parking policies 
    • cover critical areas in the city
    • encourage the use other mobility options
    • shared cars get priorities/cheaper parking/parking zones
    • newparking standards for (new) residential developments

Internal Use

  • Internal travelling
    • Prioritize sustainable mobility
    • Plan to reduce the use of private cars on work travel
    • Evidence and initiatives to support the change
  • Use of shared mobility
    • Offers shared cars/bikes etc for the use of its staff and politicians
    • Uses shared mobility services offered by service providers
    • The use is not limited to working hours only

Shared Use

  • Shared economy 
    • Pilots/campaigns
    • Several shared mobility opportunities offered (shared vehicles, shared bikes, ride sharing, rental cars, taxis etc)
    • Different service providers (grocery stores, theatres etc) work together with shared mobility providers
  • Public transport
    • Public transport is active in MaaS
    • Public transport tickets available through several sales channels offered by third parties
    • Pilots offers
    • Service packages combining PTA with their offers (hotels, theatres, shopping malls)

Shared Understanding

  • Integration platform 
    • Journey planners support multimodal transportation
    • Open data/standardized information available
    • Multimodal transportation data hubs/storage
    • Sales app available to 3rdparties.
  • Visibility 
    • Multimodal traveller information available through different channels of communication
    • Places where citizens can change the transport mode smoothly from one to another
    • What mobility as a service means in their city can be explained easily

What else could the local authorities do to speed up MaaS?

West Midlands MaaS Openness Maturity Assessment

James Gleave

Transport Futures, United Kingdom

The TravelSpirit Index of Openness for MaaS is simple and practical tool to help those
developing MaaS systems understand their current position and their potential for
developing an open MaaS model.
This case study applies the tool to the West Midlands model of MaaS being
developed between partners and led by Transport for West Midlands. It is an initial
assessment for demonstration purposes, which will be further validated and
developed by UCL. Further developments will be published in late 2017.
TravelSpirit is championing the critical role of “open” in the delivery and
development of scalable and sustainable new mobility services. This is necessary for
the evolution of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) as a global resource rather than an
individualised business.


Open mobility data integration platform: Lowering the threshold for introducing smart mobility services

Tuomo Kalevi Kinnunen, Janne Lahti, Juho Kostiainen, Olli Pihlajamaa

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Finland

Purpose

Utilisation of open resources could accelerate and simplify smart mobility service development and introduction. This paper presents a basic architecture and implementation for an exemplified smart mobility service and how it can be integrated and extended based on the open source platform Digitransit. Digitransit architecture is based on a micro service model. In such a model, small and stand-alone micro services jointly constitute more extensive service bundles and combinations. This kind of architecture enables easy and flexible introduction of new functions and configurations. Open source code enables participation in the platform and service development for anyone interested.

Methodology

Desk study and proof of concept simulation.

Findings

A smart mobility service can be built on three elements: 1) integration platform (provides API solutions for data storage and retrieval), 2) vehicle mobile client, and 3) end-user mobile application.

We propose mobility data integration platform implementation based on extending the Digitransit service platform. The defined platform, comprising Digitransit and components extending its features, provides interfaces for the end-user and vehicle mobile applications, as well as for functionality related to system operation and management such as storing route data and updating map data. With open and well-documented interfaces, mobile application development can be implemented as separate projects, and third party services can also leverage the data and services provided by the platform.

The mobility data integration platform should provide the following interfaces (including third-party applications):

• Implementing fixed routes (FixedRouteAPI)

• Automatic generation of vehicle routing information based on (long-distance) traffic schedules (GTFSGenerator)

• Manual entering schedules, storing and integrating them as a GTFS packet (RouteAutoCreationAPI)

• How to store and update vehicle routing information in GTFS (GTFSUploadAPI)

• Route planning for on-demand public transport

• Buying a ticket (TicketingAPI)

The Digitransit platform offers the following complete sub components:

• GTFS data recording

• Routing interface

• Real-time interfaces (supports real-time vehicle locations, stop forecasting and exception notifications)

• Map and address data. Digitransit uses Open Street Map. Street network, background map and address search POIs (Point of Interest) are automatically downloaded from Open Street Map.

The end-user mobile application (EndUserMobileClient) provides the traveler a travel planning interface with features like routing and route suggestions, paying a trip on mobile and tracking vehicle location on the map.

The vehicle mobile application (VehicleMobileClient) transfers interactively data such as vehicle’s current location, customer stopping data, notification of exceptions, etc.) and is integrated into Digitransit platform real time interface (RealTime API).

Implications

By adopting existing data integration platform, mobility service developers may focus better on user experience and most value-adding service components. The micro service model makes it possible to take into account the special characteristics of certain regions as well as increase the number of new functions. It also provides the opportunity to develop a database for varying needs and to create a more versatile product range. The use of open source and a broader community of developers can support faster development and inclusion of new features that can be tested by a wider user base.


MaaS = Sharing

Friso Metz, Minze Walvius

Advier, Netherlands, The

Purpose

The Interreg SHARE-North project is about shared mobility. This project focuses on the research, testing and implementation of Shared Mobility in all it appearances. The research focuses on several aspects like spatial gains, behaviour change and future developments.

Advier is a Dutch company working on consultancy and business development. Advier focuses on area development in relation to mobility and accessibility. Advier takes part in the SHARE-North project. As such, Advier is coordination a couple of Living Labs in the Netherlands. Besides that, Advier focuses on the philosophy of Shared Mobility and on behaviour change.

One of the Living Labs is the former Twente Airport near Enschede, NL. This area will be redeveloped into an area for innovative companies, e.g. companies that develop and test new drone technologies. At this site, Advier has developed a MaaS strategy.

Methodology

In order to develop a vision and a sound business model on MaaS for the former Twente Airport area, we made a study trip to Tokyo, where we attended the Cities on the Move conference. Based on this conference, we developed a vision for the airport site. This methodology was presented on the WoCoMoCo conference in Warsaw, 2016, the leading worldwide conference on shared mobility. At this conference we received feedback from many Shared Mobility experts. This feedback was used to enhance the business model.

Findings

In order to have a strong business model, the biggest chance for MaaS is to relate it to the development of real estate. If a real estate owner asks a little more money for the rental of land of office space, a full package of mobility services can be offered to the property users and to end customers (the travelers). This increases the accessibility of the area in a sustainable way. Research points out that a higher accessibility results in higher value of real estate. In this way, MaaS requires a small investment but a big return, fully based on a B2B model.

Most MaaS services are strongly related to shared mobility options, like shared vehicles, bikesharing, shared parking facilities, shuttle and taxi services and so on. In a MaaS platform other services like automatic vehicles and drone delivery services can be integrated very easily. For end users, MaaS means to have access to mobility at any time and place. This fully equals the definition of shared mobility, since shared mobility is about a transition from ownership to usage, or in other words: a shift from ownership to access.

Implications

Real estate owners could be one of the more important actors within MaaS. However, in order to implement MaaS, agreements have to be made with governments about cooperation with the public transport sector, with cities about lower parking standards etcetera. The big question is which actor should have which role in MaaS. Shoud e.g. the PT companies ‘own’ MaaS? The regional government? Or private parties like MaaS Service Providers and property owners? More clearness is required in order to allow for a faster adaption of MaaS.

Business models for MaaS

Aki Aapaoja, Jenni Eckhardt, Lasse Nykänen

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., Finland

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is to present potential business models for Mobility as a Service. These models include commercial, public transport operator and Public-Private (-People)-Partnership models. The focus is especially on business models for MaaS in rural areas including the organizing of statutory social and health service transportation. The paper also discusses service agreements and revenue models of MaaS operators.

Methodology

The results are based on two projects: European MAASiFiE project studying the MaaS concept widely, and a Finnish MaaS project concentrating on rural MaaS. Both the projects included interviews, literature study and workshops as methods for the development of business models. Also several cases, including MaaS services and pilots, have been studied contributing to business model development.

Findings

As the outcome of the studies several business models will be presented. Two commercial business models were recognised: Reseller and Integrator. The Reseller model refers to travel agency type activities integrating different transport services, being suitable mostly for travelling. The Integrator model is a novel model with uncertainties regarding e.g. service combinations, mobile services, one-stop principle and user acceptance. This model may have plenty of variation and its success is uncertain due to minor experience. A public transport operator model integrates additional/ new transport services to existing public transport network offering first-/last-mile solutions. A generic PPP business models will be presented offering also subsidised transport services. Even though this PPP business model is considered suitable especially for rural areas, a more comprehensive PPP(P) business model dedicated for rural MaaS is presented. The PPP(P) model includes widely different transport needs in rural areas including e.g. social and health service transportation, municipality organised transportation, shared resources of private people, parcel deliveries and activity/event services.

Implications

Changes in the society, e.g. tightening environmental and financial targets, require new ways of organizing transport. Cities have challenges with emissions and congestion while rural areas have challenges organizing transport services efficiently due to long distances, sparse population and narrow flows of people and material. Thus collaboration of different stakeholders and combining different transport services are a prerequisite for viable MaaS services. MaaS business models presented in this paper can facilitate the development of MaaS services in different contexts, and especially in rural areas by offering extensive business models for service development.


Providing alternatives to the private car: the dynamics of business model innovation

Steven Sarasini1, Ove Langeland2

1RISE Viktoria, Sweden; 2Institute for Transport Economics, Norway

Purpose

The decarbonisation of the road transport system is a major challenge. Despite opportunities to ride public transport, bicycles and to walk, privately-owned cars continue to dominate mobility regimes. In addition to CO2 emissions, the use of cars creates air pollution and noise, and the need to make cities more attractive is conflated with problems such as congestion and lack of space.

By providing an alternative to private car ownership, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) can have positive sustainability impacts. Within MaaS systems, privately-owned cars are replaced by an integration of mobility services, one of which is car sharing. Although the growth of car sharing over the last decade is spurred by digital technologies and applications, this type of mobility service relies heavily on business model innovation. The latter is the main topic of this paper, which focuses on role of car sharing as a key element of integrated mobility services. We aim to address the following research question:

“What are the dynamics and applications of business model innovations in the field of low-carbon mobility services?”

Methodology

This paper utilises desktop studies and around 20 interviews with mobility service operators in Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark. Theoretically, the study draws on two perspectives – business model innovation and transition theory.

Findings

Little has been done to examine business model innovations in the field of mobility services. These types of business models can be divided into three categories. Business-to-consumer (B2C) and business-to-business (B2B) car sharing refer to service provisions to client individuals and organisations respectively. By contrast, peer-to-peer (P2P) refers to services that rely on private car owners who make their vehicles available to others. A fourth and emergent mode of car sharing is linked to the integration of different transport modes (e.g. public transport, taxis, car clubs, bicycle pools) in a single offering (MaaS).

We argue that different types of car sharing business models are required for a transition to a low-carbon transport system. In cities and suburbs, the three categories described above can be combined with other modes to enable a reduction in C02 emissions, whereas the deployment of B2C business models is more challenging in less densely populated (i.e. rural) areas. In such places, B2B and P2P models can in some instances provide an alternative to private car ownership. We outline a set of drivers and barriers to innovation in the field of car sharing, including factors related to parking regulations, taxation, customer acceptance and openness between private and public organisations. We also discuss the interlinkages between mobility services and new technologies (e.g. electric and autonomous vehicles) that can bring about sustainability gains.

Implications

Overcoming barriers to business model innovation in this field will likely require actions from a multitude of public and private sector actors. We seek to influence the governance of a transition to sustainable mobility services by outlining implications for targeted stakeholders such as governments and policymakers, and different types of mobility service providers.

  • With Uber Out, London Coalition Calls for Driver-Owned “Khan’s Cars”
  • Taxis blocked London roads in 2016 as drivers protested unfair competition from services such as Uber. (AP Photo/Frank Augstein)

  • Last Friday, Transport for London (TfL) announced it would not renew Uber’s operating license when it expires on Sept. 30. The city transportation authority cited the ride-hailing app company’s habit of flouting government regulations and its approach to reporting serious crimes among the reasons for canceling the license. Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi responded with apologies and vows to appeal the surprise decision. More than 801,000 people have already signed a petition that Uber started calling on TfL to reverse the decision.

    A coalition of unions, organizers and a left-leaning think tank is responding in a decidedly different way. They’re hoping to take advantage of Uber’s setback and what will likely be a lengthy appeal process to launch a new cooperatively owned, publicly regulated ride-hailing service. They’ve dubbed their idea Khan’s Cars in a nod to London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

    “Certainly there are people who are fiercely loyal to Uber and the service they’ve gotten. But over the last few years of negative press for Uber and myriad mistakes they’ve made, there’s been a growing chorus of people asking for a different model that doesn’t minimize driver rights for the sake of company profit,” says Duncan McCann, a researcher with New Economics Foundation, the London think tank involved in the coalition.

    In a statement explaining its decision not to extend the license last Friday, TfL said it, “concluded that Uber London Limited is not fit and proper to hold a private hire operator license.” In addition to issues with Uber reporting crimes committed by drivers, including an allegation of sexual assault, TfL also cited improper background checks on drivers and Uber’s use of the Greyball software tool to flout government regulations.

    Mayor Khan backed TfL’s decision. In an op-ed for The Guardian on Friday, he wrote that he remains supportive and welcoming of new technologies, but that, “Providing an innovative service is not an excuse for it being unsafe.”

    He continued, “I suspect it will take some time before this situation with Uber fully plays out. In the meantime, I will continue my work to help support innovative businesses in London and to create a vibrant and safe taxi and private hire market.”

    McCann is hoping Khan’s Cars can be the sort of business model that its namesake supports. Their vision is a service that for customers is essentially identical to Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing companies, but also provides drivers with a livable wage and an ownership stake. “Rather than it being owned by a tiny tip of the pyramid, everyone can benefit from co-owning some of this wealth,” McCann says.

    In the worker cooperative, decision-making and profits would be shared by drivers. Drivers would mostly be employees of the company rather than “self-employed” contract workers as is currently the case for most ride-hailing companies (though there would be opportunity for contract work for those drivers attracted by the self-employment model). Customers would also be members and receive benefits, similar to the way a grocery co-op works.

    In addition to the driver-ownership model, Khan’s Cars promises to distinguish itself by being a publicly regulated company. “We want to be a good citizen. We would comply with local regulations instead of seeking with a massive army of lobbyists to minimize regulation or avoid it,” McCann says.

    The company won’t ultimately be called Khan’s Cars. But the coalition picked the name to draw parallels between their idea and “Boris Bikes” the nickname for London’s bike-share system, which launched during former Mayor Boris Johnson’s administration.

    “With Boris Bikes, people got a feel for the way a big targeted intervention can really change the transport infrastructure of the city for the better,” says McCann.

    Finances will be a major hurdle for Khan’s Cars. The worker-cooperative model prevents the coalition from trading massive equity stakes in the company. One idea is to seek support from the city. Again similar to the way some cities have launched bike-share, they’re hoping London might provide the capital or even just the financial guarantee to get the company running.

    Though Uber’s predicament has opened the door for Khan’s Cars, the idea didn’t originate specifically as a way to take on the ride-hailing giant. It grew out of a conversation about the impact that automation and self-driving cars are going to have on workers.

    “Just in the U.K., 1.2 million people rely on driving for their livelihood. We were thinking about what happens when we automate driving. You’d have 1.2 million people whose livelihood was gone. Our welfare system can’t handle that. The job market can’t absorb those people,” McCann explains.

    If drivers own the business, however, they can transition more smoothly into a future without driving jobs. “If drivers owned the company structure, they would then own the robots,” he says. “They could move from being employees of a company to basically owning an automated business.”

    Think tanks often just work in the theoretical realm. Thinking is front and center in their name, after all. But McCann insists that Khan’s Cars is more than just an intellectual exercise.

    “Probably when we started talking about it a year ago it was more of a thought experiment,” he says. “But since Friday and seeing where the enthusiasm is, this is turning into much more than that. It is a real proposition that can work. There’s this huge awareness of the issue and 3.5 million people looking for a new app.”

    Josh Cohen is a freelance writer in Seattle. His work has also appeared in The Guardian, The Nation, Pacific Standard and Vice.