This deliverable, D4 Impact Assessment, presents a summary of the work completed within WP4 of the MAASiFiE project.
The overall objectives of WP4 were formulated as:
• to evaluate more in-depth two case studies (one in Sweden and one in Austria). In order to provide a broader basis for the assessments, also information on a sample of additional MaaS and MaaS-related services has been gathered and analysed;
• based on these evaluations, to assess the consequences of introducing MaaS concepts on a broader scale from an individual (user), organisational, and societal perspective respectively;
• to assess the (potential) economic, environmental and social impacts of MaaS; and hereby provide a basis and support for stakeholders' decision making.
Based on a literature review, a web-survey to experts and stakeholders, and the knowledge and experience of the members of the MAASiFiE project team, a tentative impact assessment framework was proposed consisting of altogether 17 impact areas: six on an individual level, six on a business level, and five on a societal level. Compared to most other impact assessments, the business aspects of MaaS were added in terms of revenues, collaboration, and responsibilities.
The framework was used in order to evaluate the case studies (UbiGo and SMILE) and the additional MaaS and MaaS-related services where at least some information of relevance was available.
In a more in-depth analysis of the UbiGo case, UbiGo was found to have potential to reduce or suppress car ownership, i.e. it is a good option for those who consider investing in a family car (or not) but in particular for those who otherwise would invest in a second family car. Furthermore, it will attract users who experience it to be an economically feasible alternative – or who consider the service to offer considerable additional benefits; and it will mainly attract households in areas with (i) high availability to public transport in terms of routes and frequency and (ii) access to carsharing within less than approximately 300m (suggestion). Results from the field trial of UbiGo show an overall decrease in private car use (as well as private vehicles taken off the road for the duration of the FOT) and an increase in the use of, for instance public transport and carsharing services. Furthermore, attitudes towards for instance public transport improved while attitudes towards private car use became less positive. As the UbiGo field trial was not designed to mirror the population of Gothenburg, but to target households that were believed to benefit in particular from having access to the UbiGo service, it is difficult to extrapolate potential due many and complex interactions between various demographic factors, not to mention good enough physical and economic access. However, based on assumptions outlined, several simplified scenarios illustrate the potential for UbiGo to facilitate a reduction of private car ownership in the city centre.
Considering the evaluation of the SMILE service, SMILE app users were found to have used alternative routes more often, especially for non-routine trips such as leisure and shopping trips. Furthermore, the generation up to 40 years old showed a changed mobility behaviour regarding public transport usage in the urban region of Vienna. Overall multimodal combinations were used more often, for example combinations of bike and public transport as well as vehicle sharing. Hand in hand with the trend of using shared mobility facilities instead of privately owned vehicles, a reduction in car usage especially in inner city areas was observed. A reduced number of parking spaces, congestion in peak-hours and enlarged parking zones work additionally as deterrents for private car usage.
Overall, the assessments suggest that a broader introduction of MaaS could result in overall positive impacts, in terms a modal shift, a change in attitudes and an increase in perceived accessibility to the transport system (as illustrated in the table presented below). However, some conflicts between impacts on different levels were identified where, for instance increased accessibility to the transport system – a desired impact on an individual and societal level – may result in an increase in the number of trips made – possibly a desired impact on an individual level but an undesired impact on a societal level with negative implications for emissions as well as congestion. When planning for a further introduction of MaaS from a societal perspective, such conflicts must be addressed in order to best determine how to potentially integrate overall societal goals into the MaaS offer and business model.
From the services covered, it is clear that the business level is not typically addressed in analyses of MaaS or the information is not generally available. Thus, there is a gap between information needed and topics covered in evaluations (if any), as there is an active search for knowledge in the transportation/MaaS community regarding business and collaboration models, roles and responsibilities of various stakeholders, etc., so as to better understand how to sustainably operationalize the concept of MaaS. From the limited experience that has been documented, MaaS will result in (or necessitate) impacts on the business level including increased collaboration and partnerships in the value chain, increased data sharing, as well as changes in organisations and their roles. MaaS also has the potential to attract new customer segments, although the impacts on revenues and numbers of customers are unclear due to their intimate link with the specific MaaS offer (number of modes, subscription levels, relative prices, etc.).
A fundamental issue for feasibility studies in general and the assessment of possible impacts which have been part of the present project, is the lack of empirical evidence. The argued impacts of MaaS, positive and/or negative, are to a large extent based on informed assumptions and experts' opinions. Hence, it is important that different pilots and trials are initiated, with the intention to be developed into a fully functioning service, in order to provide further evidence of the possible impacts of an implementation of MaaS. Resources must then be allocated to address and evaluate different types of impacts (economic, environmental, and social) on different levels (individual, business and societal). However, in order to allow for a comparison between, for instance, different levels of integration and/or different business models, a common assessment framework would be beneficial. The framework introduced in the report provides a first attempt.