Conference PaperPDF Available

A topological approach to Mobility as a Service: A proposed tool for understanding requirements and effects, and for aiding the integration of societal goals


Abstract and Figures

The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the concept of MaaS and what characterizes a ‘MaaS service’, as well as to propose a topology of MaaS as a tool for facilitating the discussion of MaaS, enabling the ‘comparison of’ different services, understanding MaaS’ potential effects, and aiding the integration of societal goals into MaaS services. Based on a literature review analyzing existing definitions, and an expert workshop identifying key aspects and ascertaining service differentiations accordingly, the resulting proposed topology consists of MaaS Levels 0 to 4 as characterized by different types of integration: 0 no integration; 1 integration of information; 2 integration of booking and payment; 3 integration of the service offer, including contracts and responsibilities; 4 integration of societal goals. The levels are described in terms of their added value and further discussed regarding implications for business, society, users, and technical requirements. Then, a deeper discussion also delves into the potential in expanding upon Level 4 and ways by which services and societal goals can become more fully integrated. The proposed topology adds clarity to the discussion of such a trending topic and enables the positioning of services along the MaaS spectrum. It also deepens the understanding of why MaaS can take time to establish, and can help support the development of action plans in terms of what needs to be done depending on what type of MaaS one wants to develop. Further analysis is desirable regarding the possibilities and problems linked with the different levels of MaaS. Such an analysis is key to understanding which effects can be achieved via the implementation of different levels of MaaS services in terms of e.g. social, economic and ecological sustainability, and business potential.
Content may be subject to copyright.
1st International Conference on Mobility as a Service (ICOMaaS), Tampere, Finland, November 28-29, 2017
A topological approach to Mobility as a Service: A proposed tool
for understanding requirements and effects, and for aiding the integration of societal goals
Jana Sochor1,2*, Hans Arby3, I.C. MariAnne Karlsson1, Steven Sarasini2
1. Chalmers University of Technology, Division of Design & Human Factors,
SE-41296 Gothenburg, Sweden
2. RISE Viktoria, Sustainable Business, Lindholmspiren 3A, SE-41756 Gothenburg, Sweden
* email;; +46 723 87 00 70
3. UbiGo Innovation, Gothenburg, Sweden;;
The purpose of this paper is to shed light on the concept of MaaS and what characterizes a ‘MaaS
service’, as well as to propose a topology of MaaS as a tool for facilitating the discussion of
MaaS, enabling the ‘comparison of’ different services, understanding MaaS’ potential effects,
and aiding the integration of societal goals into MaaS services. Based on a literature review
analyzing existing definitions, and an expert workshop identifying key aspects and ascertaining
service differentiations accordingly, the resulting proposed topology consists of MaaS Levels 0 to
4 as characterized by different types of integration: 0 no integration; 1 integration of information;
2 integration of booking and payment; 3 integration of the service offer, including contracts and
responsibilities; 4 integration of societal goals. The levels are described in terms of their added
value and further discussed regarding implications for business, society, users, and technical
requirements. Then, a deeper discussion also delves into the potential in expanding upon Level 4
and ways by which services and societal goals can become more fully integrated. The proposed
topology adds clarity to the discussion of such a trending topic and enables the positioning of
services along the MaaS spectrum. It also deepens the understanding of why MaaS can take time
to establish, and can help support the development of action plans in terms of what needs to be
done depending on what type of MaaS one wants to develop. Further analysis is desirable
regarding the possibilities and problems linked with the different levels of MaaS. Such an
analysis is key to understanding which effects can be achieved via the implementation of
different levels of MaaS services in terms of e.g. social, economic and ecological sustainability,
and business potential.
Mobility as a Service (MaaS), integration, value creation, societal goals, business models
The topology of Mobility as a Service
Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is often described as an emerging strategy to reorganize transport in
order to tackle mobility and sustainability challenges via offering an alternative to private vehicle
ownership. It may do so by, for example, combining different types of mobility services as part of
a single, seamless offering that is made available to users via subscription-based smartphone
applications (Beutel et al., 2014; Goldman and Gorham, 2006; Sochor et al., 2015). However,
there is currently little agreement on a ‘definition’ of MaaS, on what makes a service a ‘MaaS
service’, or on how to ‘compare’ MaaS services. Additionally, MaaS is also commonly referred
to using the rubrics ‘combined’ or ‘integrated’ mobility services, etc. Is MaaS definable, and are
these concepts MaaS, combined mobility, and integrated mobility – the same, or are there
As envisioned, MaaS represents a radical innovation that could potentially revolutionize the
transport system, both in terms of passenger and goods transportation. Generally, when radical
innovations emerge, there is an initial ‘fluid’ phase that is characterized by experimentation with
multiple competing product/service designs (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978). At this stage,
uncertainty prevails and the applications of the innovation in question are unclear. Uncertainty is
resolved in a later, transitional phase, as the market consolidates to select a dominant design
(ibid). The fluidity of MaaS poses at least two problems. First, as the hype grows, and as
increasing numbers of practitioners engage with MaaS, questions remain about ‘what MaaS is’.
Yet defining the MaaS concept in terms of the content of the service and its applications can be
considered, at the present, fluid stage of development, an unwise and premature undertaking.
Second, the fluidity of the concept creates challenges in terms of governing a transition to a
MaaS-based transport system. If we do not know what MaaS is, how can we know what a
MaaS-based transport system can or will deliver in terms of sustainable outcomes? One way to
deal with this uncertainty is to develop a characterization of MaaS that embraces the fluidity of
the concept.
Hence the purpose of this paper is to develop a topological approach to characterizing the MaaS
concept in order to: 1) facilitate more meaningful discussions of the MaaS concept, 2) enable the
‘comparison of’ different services, 3) understand MaaS’ requirements and effects in terms of
society, business, users/customers, and technology, and 4) aid in the integration of societal goals.
The paper accomplishes this via a literature review and a multi-stakeholder workshop of MaaS
experts, resulting in a proposed topology, which is further discussed and analyzed.
The topology of Mobility as a Service
Motivation and Method
In light of the current discussion of what MaaS is (or is not) and what characterizes a MaaS
service’, and after many requests from third parties regarding definitions and classifications, the
authors decided to analyze the concepts and services and propose a topology to answer these
questions. A topology also provides added value in terms of: adding clarity to the discussion of
such a trending topic; being able to promote the concept and position a service within the MaaS
spectrum; and, when discussing with decision-makers, being able to explain why MaaS can take
time to establish by identifying various barriers and enablers for the different topographical
levels, and supporting the development of action plans regarding what needs to be done
depending on what type of MaaS one wants to develop.
First, a literature review looked at existing definitions of MaaS and similar concepts in order to
identify commonalities and differences (Karlsson, 2016, in Swedish), which is summarized in the
next section. Second, a multi-stakeholder workshop was held in order to structure the topology.
The workshop took place in November 2016 in Gothenburg, Sweden, with seven experts
representing the following MaaS stakeholder types: MaaS operator, transport service provider,
researcher, and funder (strategic innovation program). Workshop participants were to: identify
relevant aspects of MaaS; analyze existing MaaS or similar services in terms of the identified
aspects; and finally, define and describe MaaS levels, as well as place services at the best
matching level. Results from both the literature review and the workshop are presented below,
cumulating in the proposed MaaS topology and auxiliary discussion.
Results: Literature Review of Concepts and Definitions (Karlsson, 2016)
Combined Mobility (CM)
Several organizations use the concept of ‘combined mobility’ (e.g. UITP, 2011; Samtrafiken,
2017; Västtrafik in Smith et al., 2017), which tends to focus on combining modes in general,
perhaps with the facilitation of planners, purchasing functions, etc. The definitions of CM are
typically broad – along the lines of ‘smart services, from planning to purchasing’ which may
complement public transport (PT) or which may entail not needing to own a private car – leaving
open what such services can entail, and thus lacking guidance as to how to achieve such services,
e.g. how to combine modes.
The topology of Mobility as a Service
Mobility as a Service (MaaS)
The MaaS concept tends to focus on the (aspects of the) service and not the modes, and
sometimes brings in the term ‘integration’ (e.g. Hietanen, 2014; Kamargianni, 2015; König, et
al., 2016; MaaS Alliance, 2017; Trafikverket, 2016; Transport Systems Catapult, 2016). Many
well-established phenomena, e.g. carsharing and taxis, can be described in terms of mobility
services, but definitions of the ‘new’ MaaS concept also include other significant elements, such
as customers’ needs, personalized/tailored and comprehensive solutions, an interface, a mobility
platform, integrated payment, a contract, a service offer, a business model, a service provider, etc.
The aspects of goods transport (MaaS Alliance, 2017) and sustainability (MAASiFiE project,
König et al., 2016) do appear, albeit rarely.
Integrated Mobility Services (IMS)
The concept of Integrated Mobility Services (IMS) is often used in limited reference to integrated
information services, i.e. services that integrate information about different modes and from
different service providers. This is in a way unfortunate, as this concept could potentially best
capture the central elements of these ‘new’ mobility concepts (cf. the previous section on MaaS).
Broader definitions of IMS (e.g. K2, 2017; Mukthar-Landgren et al., 2016) tend to emphasize
integration of various services in terms of e.g. multimodality, information, payment, and even
other related services (deliveries, repairs) via a single/common interface.
Conclusions from the literature review
There is currently no established definition of MaaS (or CM or IMS), and, as discussed above, it
is likely premature to provide ‘one definition’ at this early stage of MaaS development. Different
descriptions and definitions highlight some common and some different central elements,
although, no matter the term, it is about:
Offering a service with customer/user/traveler transport needs as the main focus;
Offering mobility rather than transport:
Offering integration of transport services, information, payment and ticketing.
In terms of integration, there needs to be a clearer characterization of different types of integrated
services. The challenges faced in the development of integrated services are at least partially
related to which types of service elements are to be integrated and to which degree. Despite this,
and although various analyses have explored barriers of MaaS (e.g. Holmberg et al., 2015;
Mukthar-Landgren, 2016; Sochor et al., 2016a; Transport Systems Catapult, 2016), there is not
yet any thorough analysis of the connections between the different types of integrated services
and the services’ challenges and potentials. Integration can, for example, comprise:
The topology of Mobility as a Service
Integrated information services / multimodal travel information. This, together with
integrated payment services, can be considered MaaS’ ‘core’;
Integrated booking or ticketing, e.g. a ‘smartcard’ or a mobile app that can provide access
to different modes;
Integrated payment or invoicing;
Organizational integration. Collaboration between different transport providers (car- and
bikesharing, taxi, bus, train, etc.) is a prerequisite for integrated mobility, but how that
collaboration occurs will differ between MaaS services.
Bundling, which entails e.g. a subscription to trips with different modes. This type of
integration has so far been the exception rather than the norm, but this may change in the
future. Analyses of the success factors of the UbiGo pilot in terms of both customer
satisfaction and behavioral change showed the importance of developing the service and
its offer to the customers (Sochor et al., 2016b).
Results: Workshop and the Development of the Proposed Topology
During the workshop, aspects of different perspectives societal, business, user/customer, and
technical – were first identified and discussed, and then collectively narrowed down to a limited
number of key aspects (underlined below) in terms of both overall importance and differentiation
in service levels (i.e. how do different services differ from each other). Due to time constraints,
the workshop did not further delve into more specific stakeholder perspectives, e.g. employers,
tourism, housing.
From the societal (or policy) perspective, the aspects considered most relevant were the effect on:
private car ownership (current and potential), private car use (congestion and emissions), use of
resources (materials, energy, etc.) and existing infrastructure, sustainable accessibility, urban
planning and, in the long term, a city’s attractiveness and livability, management of traffic and
mobility, attitudes and awareness, equitable access (social and geographical), innovation,
employment, and, in the future, automated vehicles.
For business, the following were considered important: new customers (number and type, i.e.
new markets), new business models, bundling and pricing, becoming a market player, reduced
costs (e.g. recruitment, support, management), integration costs, changes in mode use,
influencing use, exclusivity (competitively neutral), the customer relationship and ‘owning’ the
customer, branding, contracts, burden of responsibility, liability and guarantees. Certain aspects
may be more or less important if the MaaS service is a ‘brokerage’ versus a mobility
The topology of Mobility as a Service
From the user/customer perspective, identified important aspects included: how well the service
meets one’s entire mobility needs (including accessibility and door-to-door solutions), what
transport services are included and where they are located (breadth of service),
bundling/packaging, flexibility (easy to modify, minimal lock-in effects, etc.), low-risk
trialability, cost and price worthiness, burden of responsibility, liability and guarantees, customer
support, personalization and customization, decision support (e.g. travel planning), ticketing and
payment solutions (easy to book/modify/authenticate and pay), usability (both the interface and
how easy it is to understand the offer, pricing, etc.), and data security and protection (ownership,
sharing, etc.). For B2B, even easy administration and improved accessibility for employees,
customers and visitors.
From the technical perspective, the following were identified as relevant: information/planning
function at different levels (a) ‘only’ centralized information, b) multimodal travel planner, and c)
assistant i.e. taking one’s schedule into account), payment solutions, APIs, platforms (both front-
and back-end solutions), data analysis, integration with existing systems, and user interface.
Next in the workshop, participants identified examples of MaaS or similar services, and, to the
best of their knowledge about specific services, attempted to break down how the services
differed based on the above, identified key aspects (underlined); see Figure 1. Among existing
services were identified: travel planners (with or without real-time information), travel planners
with ticketing and payment functions (e.g. Moovit), travel planners with booking and payment
functions (e.g. SMILE), mobility marketplaces (e.g. in the Netherlands), ‘public transport plus’
(e.g. Hannover Mobil), and ‘MaaS operators’ (e.g. UbiGo, Whim/MaaS Global). For comparative
purposes, a unimodal service (Uber) was included.
Regarding Figure 1. This figure is mainly based on the perspectives of the customer, provider and
business, as, if a service does not deliver value to the customer or provider, and if the value
cannot be captured by the business, then the service is not particularly relevant or sustainable.
Regarding the two, isolated ‘x’ marks for Hannover Mobil and SMILE under ‘pricing models a)
rebates’, rebates alone do necessitate some type of collaboration above and beyond commissions,
but they are perhaps not enough to qualify as a pricing model and could potentially be moved to a
special case of payment integration. Also, note that the top row (policy) lacks ‘x’ marks, an area
of particular relevance for public actors to work within. How does one create the right conditions
for mobility services to achieve the desired effects? This is where integration of public transport
modes will be highly relevant, as these contracts can contain more than the usual commercial
The topology of Mobility as a Service
Figure 1: Differentiation of services according to identified key aspects.
* Uber, a unimodal service, is included for comparative purposes.
In Figure 1, one can make some differentiations (illustrated by colored clusters in the figure)
based on contracts, sharing of risk, responsibility to the customer, and to what degree a service is
perceived as a ‘unified’ service versus a combination of services. From this differentiation, one
way to develop a relatively simple topology for MaaS is to start with the clusters as different
levels of integration (see Figure 2) and then add layers of nuance e.g. number of modes (n=4),
information functionalities (b=travel planner), etc.
Figure 2 presents the proposed MaaS topology with Levels 0-4 describing varying levels of
integration (further discussed below): 0 no integration; 1 integration of information; 2 integration
of booking and payment; 3 integration of the service offer, including contracts and
responsibilities; 4 integration of societal goals. Before the discussion of the levels, note that one
level is not necessarily ‘better’ than another, as it depends on the customer and his or her needs.
However, potential societal effects and business potential are related to the levels, as is which
type(s) of actors may run the service. Second, the levels are not necessarily dependent on each
other (e.g. the UbiGo pilot was a Level 3 service that more or less lacked Level 1 functionality
outside of pricing information). As for matching services to levels, there are always issues of
interpretation; e.g. does one classify multimodal public transport with a travel planner and some
degree of integrated ticketing/payment, e.g. Västtrafik in Gothenburg, as Level 0 or as Level 2?
The topology of Mobility as a Service
Figure 2: Proposed topology of MaaS including Levels 0-4 (left) and examples (right)
Explanation and discussion of MaaS topology levels
Level 1
This level represents integration of information, which can be further classified by functionality,
as in Figure 1 above, according to a) ‘only’ centralized information, b) multimodal travel planner,
and c) assistant. The added value of Level 1 is decision support for finding the best trip. It has a
single trip focus and has users rather than customers. Today, most travel planners or other types
of mobility information sites or apps are financed by ads or taxpayers’ money. The end users are
typically not prepared to pay for travel information, targeted or not, no matter the perceived
Transport service providers contribute by supplying open, standardized data for free, which is the
case for many public transport agencies. The market will most likely be controlled by a few
global players with user bases large enough to attract advertisers, e.g. Google, but there is a clear
niche for local, publically operated travel planners and traffic information sites. With a large
online user base, the information that global actors collect can be sold to cities for traffic
management or infrastructure planning, which is an already established revenue source for such
actors. It will however be hard for small companies to keep up, as users more and more will
The topology of Mobility as a Service
expect ‘smart’ travel assistants that integrate both personal planning information and relevant data
from a broad spectrum of sources. The aggregated information can also consist of price and
reservation information and, by forwarding a user to the chosen provider, an ‘information market
platform operator’ has the chance to get a small commission. A Level 1 operator will not be
responsible for the quality of the service about which it provides information, and in a legal sense
not for the information itself. However, users will turn away if they find (or perceive) that the
information cannot be trusted or is hard to understand.
Level 2
This level represents integration of booking and payment. A Level 2 service focuses on single
trips and could be a natural extension to a travel planner, adding public transport ticketing, taxi,
or other transport services where possible. In fact, a booking and payment service needs to tie in
to a travel planner or some other information service to identify options. Level 2 is sometimes
referred to as a bottom-up approach (Architura, 2017).
The added value of Level 2 is to offer users easier access to services, i.e. a one-stop shop where
the user can find, book, and pay with the same app (e.g. with a preregistered payment card), and
for the transport service providers to be exposed to more customers. This level can be used by
registered and/or ad hoc customers depending on the mode (e.g. carsharing requires registration),
or perhaps by third parties such as a brokerage. A Level 2 service will make travel easier for
those who are already multi/intermodal, but the offer is probably not comprehensive enough to
make households to sell their first or second car and, in that way, create new customers.
Although transport service providers gain a cost-effective exposure to the user base, since they
will be offered side by side with competitors, the value will be highest for new, small, or niched
services that can win market shares. It is possible that some of the more established suppliers will
be less interested in being part of a ‘mobility bazaar’, especially if it comes with a cost, but this
of course depends on how dominant the service is. The cost and complexity of integrating many
suppliers can be high, depending on the level of standardization. More suppliers also means more
contracts. If the service/platform is operated by a public entity, e.g. a public transport authority, it
will likely need to be open to all suppliers or be subjected to a quite complicated procurement
The Level 2 operator takes responsibility for valid tickets, accurate bookings, and the purchase,
but not for the actual travel services. The revenue will come from brokering fees, commissions,
and/or from fixed supplier memberships. It is unlikely that users will be willing to pay extra for
the assistance in buying a trip if is not combined with some extra service. Despite the low margin,
users may expect the operator to take responsibility for the services they in fact have bought from
The topology of Mobility as a Service
the operator (even when supplied by a provider), thus a Level 2 operator may need to offer
first-line support. Low margins, high cost of integrating many services, and cost of first-line
support can make it hard to run a Level 2 service – as a separate business, that is. It could
however add value to an already existing, non-mobility-based business. If hotels, event
companies, shopping malls, etc. could integrate transport into their offer to their customers, the
perceived value of their service may be much higher than the cost of integration. One service to
include in tickets, campaigns, and other travel or rental services is public transport. In that case
commission is not really of any importance, which means that there may be a niche for a B2B
aggregator; a clearinghouse that offers easy access to multiple transport services for businesses. It
would be like Amadeus for air travel, but with much smaller transactions, and many more and
local suppliers, often with different price models. Like an information service with a large user
base, aggregated data on users’ behavior may perhaps be sold to cities for traffic and mobility
management. In addition, an integrated service involving economic transactions can also be used
to mediate incentives for choosing more sustainable modes of transport, changing travel times to
off-peak hours, etc.
Level 3
This level represents integration of the service offer, including contracts and responsibilities. The
added value of Level 3 is the comprehensive alternative to car ownership, with a focus on the
customer’s complete mobility needs, and the transport service providers’ increased attractiveness
to customers they cannot reach as single services. The Level 3 service is bundled, possibly
subscription-based, and there is full, two-way responsibility from end user to supplier and vice
versa. It is most likely financed by the bottom-line difference between the repackaged services
and the volume agreements with the transport service providers.
A Level 3 MaaS service typically focuses on the total need of a household it is about getting
from morning to evening, Monday to Sunday, and spring to winter, rather than single trips from A
to B. It is positioned towards offering a comprehensive alternative to car ownership in order to
attract customers with larger mobility budgets and willingness to pay for quality and ease of use.
It involves a mutual commitment, at least on a monthly basis. As the service is bundled in some
way, MaaS should, in this case, be read as Mobility as A (unified) Service. Level 3 is also
referred as a top-down approach (Architura, 2017).
As the MaaS operator takes responsibility for the service delivered to its customers – and for its
customers towards the suppliers it is more than a broker or an open marketplace. The MaaS
operator typically works more closely with one preferred supplier per mode in order to also create
value for the suppliers and, with that, better deals for its customers. For example, running a
The topology of Mobility as a Service
carsharing operation is a tight business; if the cars at a site are used too little, they generate a loss,
but if the usage is too high, the users will complain and the company will need to add a car (that
may be used too little). If the MaaS operator can grow the total customer base and increase the
overall usage of the shared cars, this could mean the difference between profit and loss.
The MaaS operator’s business is based on a ‘swings and roundabouts’ principle, i.e. some trips or
modes are resold with high margins and some at a loss. The pricing is non-transparent – what the
customer pays to the MaaS operator is not directly linked to what the operator pays to the
supplier, and the price models can be different from what the suppliers themselves market to their
own customers. It is much like an all-inclusive charter trip as opposed to the travel agency
approach in Level 2, as the traveler does not know the cost for the separate items (flight, hotel,
dinner, tours, etc.). For an operator that is skilled in negotiation and understanding customer
needs, this opens up for a higher average margin. The bundled service could also be offered to
companies as mobility packages to employees.
In a Level 3 service, an ICT-platform is needed to run the business, but in a Level 2 service, the
platform is the business. Interestingly, the complexity of the technical integration can be lower
for a Level 3 service than for a Level 2 service due to fewer suppliers and less interaction. A
Level 1 information service could be more or less a common, global business, as long as there
exists some standardized open data. A Level 2 service needs local presence due to more
interactions and business agreements with regional or local suppliers. A Level 3 service is local
it needs to find the best supplier of each mode with whom to develop the service, and it needs to
find politically acceptable contract models with the regional or local public transport authorities.
However, the platform can be shared among networked operators, also opening up for roaming,
where customers in one local service can use their native mobility subscription when visiting
other cities.
Level 4
This level represents integration of societal goals. The added value is reduced private car
ownership and use, a more accessible, livable city, etc. Incentives are implemented in the MaaS
service (or implemented in individual services, as a Level 4 approach could be integrated at any
level), reflected by e.g. how well local, regional, and/or national policies and goals are integrated
into the service.
The public authorities on a city, regional or national level can influence the societal and ecological
impacts of mobility services, i.e. influencing users’ behavior by setting conditions for the operators
so that they will create incentives for desired behavior. This applies to both individual transport
service providers and MaaS operators. Two important public actors are cities that dictate the use of
The topology of Mobility as a Service
infrastructure and public space, and public transport agencies that often control the ‘backbone’ of
mobility. In the long run, cooperation with these actors is a ‘must-have’ for potential MaaS
operators and the transport service providers. For public actors, their monopoly position should be
used to make sure mobility solutions not only fulfill citizens’ needs, but the city’s goals as well. For
instance, a public transport agency can set a hard, but wide framework for the reselling and
repackaging of public transport. A city can also use dynamic road charging in dense areas,
something that will be crucial if cheap, self-driving taxis start to win over public transport users. A
MaaS operator may need to share non-sensitive user data for city or traffic planning purposes,
reach a certain conversion rate, or forward incentives such as benefits for shifting to off-peak
public transport trips.
Mixing public, often subsidized, services with commercial services into customizable packages
poses different challenges. Public transport is a one-size-fits-all service with non-flexible price
models, while an attractive MaaS offer needs to be perceived as a unified, flexible service. It is the
public transport service that needs to be integrated rather than the existing public transport
‘products’ such as single tickets or monthly cards. To be politically acceptable, resellers need to
prove that the pricing of public transport, as part of a MaaS service, is revenue, tax, and price
neutral compared to the direct sales of tickets. A MaaS service run by a public transport agency will
experience the same problem – if the service should be attractive enough to compete with car
It is also important to understand that a business model is connected to the organization that owns
it. The possible offers, revenue streams, relationships, partnerships, and agility all depend on who
runs the service, as do the effects on the transport system. Will MaaS make it easier for public
transport users to use a car or for car owners to use more public transport? Level 4 is really about
how to balance the demands on transport service providers and MaaS operators against the
possibilities to run a ‘profitable enough’ business. This means developing contractual models for
private-public cooperation, and understanding how changes in a policy framework will affect
users’ behavior with transport service providers and MaaS operators as intermediaries.
Achieving a transition to a MaaS-based transport system
MaaS has the potential to revolutionize the way we travel. The proposed transformation is radical
in scope, and may be described using the notion of a socio-technical transition. The latter is
defined as “...a gradual, continuous process of change where the structural character of a society
(or a complex sub-system of society) transforms” (Rotmans et al., 2001). A transition to MaaS
may be considered sustainable if MaaS contributes to the fulfilment of societal goals, such as the
need for decarbonization of the transport system, reduced congestion, innovation, and better
The topology of Mobility as a Service
accessibility. In other words, a transition to MaaS services that integrate societal goals (Level 4)
may be considered sustainable. In this section, we address the question of how a transition may
be governed, such that barriers and obstacles to change are overcome, by referring to the field of
transition management. The latter outlines four activities that are key to the governance of
sustainable transitions: strategic, tactical, operational, and reflexive activities (Kemp and
Loorbach, 2007; Loorback, 2007, 2010).
Strategic activities are collaborative, multi-stakeholder processes, which aim to ensure
that long-term visions (i.e. societal goals) are shared and embedded among collectives.
By contrast, tactical activities serve to link individual actor strategies to the shared
long-term visions created via strategic activities, aiming to overcome short-termism
within different societal sectors (e.g. politics, business). They also aim to tackle the
difficulties in implementing solutions by acknowledging complex sources of inertia
within regimes, and directing activities such as corporate political action and lobbying
towards the reformation of such structures.
Operational activities aim to link everyday activities such as innovative experiments to
long-term visions, broader policies and change agendas.
Reflexive activities include the ongoing monitoring, assessment and evaluation of policies
and practices as a means to revise overarching visions and plans where necessary.
The current ‘fluid’ phase of MaaS development, which is characterized by experimentation with
multiple competing product/service designs (Abernathy and Utterback, 1978), we argue that
operational, tactical, and reflexive activities are presently the primary focus for MaaS
practitioners (and other stakeholders) at Level 4. Generally, operational activities aim to link
everyday practices (e.g. innovative experiments conducted by MaaS practitioners) to broader
visions and change agendas. Here the term ‘vision’ refers to relevant societal goals, including
transport policy objectives (decarbonization, reduced congestion, improved accessibility,
innovation, etc.) or other societal trends such as digitalization and the shift to a more circular
economy. By contrast, tactical activities: link individual actor strategies to shared long-term
visions; aim to tackle the difficulties in overcoming institutional barriers to change; and lobby for
and experiment with new institutional arrangements. The overarching point is that the capacity
for MaaS to support transport policy objectives and other societal goals is essential to its success.
Operational, tactical, and reflexive activities are all needed to demonstrate this potential, and
require engagements from MaaS practitioners within the public and private sectors.
The topology of Mobility as a Service
In terms of operational and reflexive activities, there are several things MaaS practitioners can do
to link innovative experiments to broader visions and political goals. One example is to
demonstrate how MaaS services (including pilots) contribute to reduced congestion and
emissions, improved accessibility, and sustainable travel behavior of users. A further example, as
noted in previous sections, is to show how non-sensitive user data generated via MaaS can be
sold to cities for traffic management purposes to improve the sustainability of the transport
system. In future, developments in connected vehicles and other digital technologies could allow
for real-time traffic management of ‘smart’ cities, allowing for further sustainability gains.
Demonstrating the benefits of experiments such as these can help to garner financial and political
support for a transition to a MaaS-based transport system. Operational and reflexive activities
may focus on other types of innovative experiments for the same purpose, including: the further
integration of transport modes within MaaS business models; the scaling of MaaS business
models to new geographical areas; roaming; the integration of incentives for sustainable travel
behavior into MaaS services (i.e. incentives such as nudging and gameification to promote shared
mobility and sustainable modal choices); the further introduction of environmentally benign
technology into vehicle fleets (e.g. electric drives) as a means to reduce transport emissions; and
so on. Operational activities ensure that experiments and innovations are directed towards the
resolution of societal problems, and reflexive activities evaluate and assess the way in which
MaaS generates sustainable value for different societal stakeholders.
In terms of tactical activities, transition management involves making it clear how the strategies
of individual MaaS practitioners can collectively contribute to the sustainable development of the
transport system. Similar to operational activities, linking individual strategies in the private and
public sectors to broader visions provides MaaS with credibility and legitimacy among societal
stakeholders, and can help to garner financial and political support. In practice, this means that
MaaS practitioners should establish organizational strategies, goals and targets that collectively
aim to improve the sustainability of the transport system (e.g. by attracting X numbers of new
users, our company aims to reduce transport system emissions in city Y by Z% in five years).
MaaS practitioners can engage in a further type of tactical activity, which is to engage a set of key
stakeholders with the mandate to provide the types of support necessary to allow MaaS to
flourish. In practice, these actors may be financial investors, who are willing to provide capital to
support successful business models; civil society organizations that can champion MaaS by
shaping public opinion; and public authorities, who are willing to create a set of supportive
institutional arrangements given the demonstrated sustainability benefits of MaaS. Examples of
such institutional arrangements include the revision of fiscal policies and the redistribution of
subsidies on a municipal, regional, or national level. Public authorities can also can also influence
The topology of Mobility as a Service
the social and ecological impacts of mobility services by placing demands on operators to create
incentives for desirable travel behavior; and they can support the diffusion of MaaS by providing
exemptions from congestion charges, altering parking regulations, allowing shared cars to travel
in bus lanes, etc. Further, public authorities can integrate MaaS into local transport policy
objectives by, for example, using dynamic road charging in dense areas.
In practice, mixing public, commonly subsidized, services with commercial services into
customizable packages poses significant challenges. Public transport is a one-size-fits-all service
with inflexible price models, whereas an attractive MaaS offer is designed as a unified, flexible
service, which may be commercially driven. To gain acceptance, MaaS practitioners must
demonstrate to one another that their business strategies and practices will not encroach on others’
customer base and brand. Also, (particularly commercial) MaaS operators must ensure that public
transport is priced at a revenue-, tax- and price-neutral level compared to the direct sales of tickets.
In order to overcome these types of barriers to collaboration, it may be necessary to engage
third-party actors (possibly public authorities) that can act as neutral gatekeepers to help overcome
existing levels of fragmentation between and protectionism/risk aversion among MaaS
practitioners. Fragmentation is not limited to MaaS practitioners: cities have large role to play in
that they dictate the use of infrastructure and public space; and public authorities commonly control
the ‘backbone’ of mobility. Private sector engagement is also needed to unlock the innovative
potential of MaaS, which spans the transport, telecom and energy industries (Spickermann, et al.
2014). In situations where existing stakeholders and practitioners cannot overcome the types
barriers described above, relevant third parties may need to step in as neutral orchestrators of
collaboration. To summarize, engaging different types of stakeholders is critical for two reasons:
1) it can provide a platform for MaaS practitioners to lobby for and experiment with new
institutional arrangements; and 2) it can aim to tackle the difficulties in overcoming institutional
barriers to the development and diffusion of MaaS.
Concluding remarks
There are currently many examples of different mobility services, from multimodal travel
information (including park&ride, parking, etc.) to integrated ticketing services, to MaaS
operator’-type services. However, lumping all these services together under one loosely defined
concept such as MaaS creates confusion and potentially undermines the concept as it can then be
perceived as merely the latest buzzword; a new name for the same old thing. As illustrated and
explained above, not all services are ‘equal’ in the MaaS topology. The innovation in MaaS, but
also the challenge, likely lies not only in the integration entailed in the levels above, but the
organizational integration (not least between public and private actors) and the bundling required
The topology of Mobility as a Service
to achieve Levels 3 and 4. Understanding the MaaS topology and its implications can help
nuance the conversation, deepen the understanding of barriers and enablers for different levels,
and facilitate the development of MaaS, e.g. in the form of action plans tailored to the intended
MaaS level and goals.
Regarding the topology per se, it could be argued that it may be too ‘simplistic’, as there may
exist hybrids between levels, and as pointed out above regarding matching services to levels,
there are always issues of interpretation; e.g. does one classify multimodal public transport with a
travel planner and some degree of integrated ticketing/payment, e.g. Västtrafik in Gothenburg, as
Level 0 or as Level 2?. There may also exist additional aspects that have not been applied to the
levels, e.g. geographical context (urban, suburban, and rural MaaS); and Level 4 could potentially
be broken down into the three types of sustainability social, economic, and ecological and
applied in a third-dimensional layer across all levels, including trade-offs between types of
sustainability, e.g. accessibility/social and ecological. However, the purpose of developing this
topology was not to present an exhaustive and static description of MaaS, but rather to provide a
straightforward and dynamic tool as a basis for discussing, understanding, and comparing
different types of services, their viability and effects. In other words, we posit that the topology
may be a useful fundament for a set of tactical, operational and reflexive activities that can assist
in a transition towards a sustainable, MaaS-based transport system.
As a next step in deepening the understanding of MaaS, further analysis is desirable regarding the
possibilities and problems linked with the different levels of MaaS, preferably based on
thoroughly evaluated case studies, more of which are needed (Karlsson et al., 2017). Such an
analysis is key to evaluating and understanding which impacts and effects can be achieved via the
implementation of different levels of MaaS services in terms of e.g. social, economic and
ecological sustainability, as well as business potential. That is, there is a strong need for reflexive
activities that assess and evaluate the utilities of MaaS as an operational phenomenon.
The authors wish to thank the experts who volunteered their valuable time to provide important
input during the workshop. The workshop was part of the pre-study “Systems and Services for
Mobility” and initiated within DriveSweden, a Strategic Innovation Program launched by the
Swedish government to drive the evolution towards a transportation system based on automation,
digitization, and servitization.
The topology of Mobility as a Service
Abernathy, W.J., Utterback, J.M., 1978. Patterns of Industrial Innovation. Technology Review,
80, pp. 1–9.
Architura, 2017. Service-Oriented Architecture Methodology: Top Down vs. Bottom Up. Accessed 2017-08-24.
Beutel, M.C., Gokay, S., Kluth, W., Krempels, K.-H., Samsel, C., Terwelp, C., 2014. Product
oriented integration of heterogeneous mobility services. Proceedings of the 17th International
IEEE Conference on Intelligent Transporation Systems (ITSC14), pp. 1529–1534.
Goldman, T., Gorham, R., 2006. Sustainable urban transport: Four innovative directions.
Technology in Society, 28, pp. 261–273.
Hietanen, S., 2014. ‘Mobility as a Service’ – the new transport model? ITS & Transport
Management Supplement. Eurotransport, Vol. 12(2), 2014, pp. 2–4. Accessed 2017-03-01.
Holmberg, P-E., Collado, M., Sarasini, S., Williander, M., 2015. Mobility as a Service - MAAS.
Describing the framework. RISE Viktoria (formerly Viktoria Swedish ICT), Gothenburg, Sweden
K2 Swedish Knowledge Center for Public Transport, 2017.
fou-omr%C3%A5den/integrerade-mobilitetstj%C3%A4nster Accessed 2017-03-01.
Kamargianni, M., Matyas, M., Li, W., Schäfer, A., 2015. Feasibility Study for “Mobility as a
Service” concept in London. UCL Energy Institute, London.
ice_concept_in_London Accessed 2017-03-01.
Karlsson, I.C.M., 2016. Integrerade Mobilitetstjänster. Omvärldsanalys 1:2016. K2 Swedish
Knowledge Center for Public Transport, Lund, Sweden.
Karlsson, M., Sochor, J., Aapaoja, A., Eckhardt, J., König, D., 2017. Deliverable 4: Impact
Assessment of MaaS. MAASiFiE project funded by CEDR.
ble_4_Revised_Final.pdf Accessed 2017-09-18.
Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., Rotmans, J. 2007. Transition management as a model for managing
processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable
Development & World Ecology . 14, pp. 78-91.
The topology of Mobility as a Service
König, D., Eckhardt, J., Aapaoja, A., Sochor, J., Karlsson, M., 2016. Deliverable 3: Business and
operator models for MaaS. MAASiFiE project funded by CEDR.
3_revised_final.pdf Accessed 2017-09-18.
Loorbach, D.A., 2007. Transition management: new mode of governance for sustainable
development. International Books, Utrecht. http://
Loorbach, D., 2010. Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive,
Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance, 23, pp. 161–183.
MaaS Alliance Accessed 2017-03-01.
Mukthar-Landgren, D., Karlsson, M., Koglin, T., Kronsell, A., Lund, E., Sarasini, S., Smith, G.,
Sochor, J., Wendle, B., 2016. Institutional conditions for integrated mobility services (IMS).
Towards a framework for analysis. K2 Working paper 2016:16.
ns_for_integrated_mobility_services_ims_wp_2016-16_1.pdf Accessed 2017-03-01.
Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., Van Asselt, M., 2001. More evolution than revolution: Transition
management in public policy. Foresight 3, 15-31.
Accessed 2017-09-28.
Samtrafiken, 2017. Förarbete – Swedish Mobility Program (SMP).
m.pdf Accessed 2017-03-01.
Smith, G., Sochor, J., Karlsson, I.C.M., 2017. Procuring Mobility as a Service: Exploring
dialogues with potential bidders in West Sweden. 24th World Congress on Intelligent
Transportation Systems (Montreal, October 29-November 2, 2017).
Spickermann, A., Grienitz, V., von der Gracht, H.A., 2014. Heading towards a multimodal city of
the future? Technologial Forecasting and Social Change, 89, pp. 201–221.
Sochor, J., Strömberg, H., and Karlsson, I.C.M., 2015. Implementing Mobility as a Service:
Challenges in Integrating User, Commercial, and Societal Perspectives. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2536, Vol. 4, pp. 1-9,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
The topology of Mobility as a Service
Sochor, J., Eckhardt, J., König, D., Karlsson, I.C.M. 2016a. Future Needs and Visions for
Mobility as a Service: Insights from European Workshops. Proceedings of the 23rd World
Congress on Intelligent Transportation Systems (Melbourne, October 10-14, 2016).
Sochor, J., Karlsson, I.C.M., Strömberg, H., 2016b. Trying Out Mobility as a Service:
Experiences from a Field Trial and Implications for Understanding Demand. In Transportation
Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2542, Vol. 4, pp. 57-64,
Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.
Trafikverket, 2016. Report: Underlag till Nationell Strategi och handlingsplan för användning för
Intelligenta Transportsystem i Sverige, Remiss version.
uploads/2016/11/ITSHP_161118_v099.pdf Accessed 2017-03-01.
Transport Systems Catapult, 2016. Mobility as a Service: Exploring the Opportunity for Mobility
as a Service in the UK.
a-Service_Exploring-the-Opportunity-for-MaaS-in-the-UK-Web.pdf Accessed 2017-03-01.
UITP, 2011. Becoming a real mobility provider Combined Mobility: public transport in synergy
with other modes like car-sharing, taxi and cycling.
cck-focus-papers-files/FPComMob-en.pdf Accessed 2017-03-01.
... Thus, MaaS is identified as a seamless integrated door-to-door mobility service [2]. Qualitative approaches to analysis the transport integration have been presented [3], [4], but quantitative method is missing. In order to introduce a supplementary approach, our objective is to develop a quantitative method to study the integration index of transport system. ...
... The highest value of index is obtained by Whim (XIII), in which the MaaS operator is a private company. Whim is evaluated as the benchmarking in the integration studies [3], [4] as well. In addition, Whim ( is available in Helsinki, West Midlands, Antwerp, Vienna, Tokyo, and Singapore as an application of international mobility service. ...
Conference Paper
The integration in transport informatics is facilitated by the rapid development of Information and Communication Technology. One of the realizations of the integration is Mobility as a Service (MaaS), which is proposed as a data-driven, user-centric, personalized mobility service. It integrates various forms of mobility services covering the entire travel chain. Qualitative methods have been applied in existing studies to analyse the integration of MaaS. However, a comprehensive quantitative method is still missing, which could be introduced as a supplementary tool to compare MaaS services. Therefore, we have developed a weighted elaboration method to calculate the complex integration index for MaaS systems. Three aspects are determined as variables, which are the functions of the MaaS application, involved transport modes as well as the tariff structure. Moreover, the organization as the backbone of such integration is considered as the fourth aspect. The integration phases of MaaS are introduced regarding these four aspects, then the calculation method of the complex index is developed by considering the weighted variables. Fourteen MaaS services are evaluated with the method and categorized by organization aspect. We found that public authority is proposed to be the inter-city MaaS operator, and the private company is proposed to be the MaaS operator in intra-city or national level. Our method may support decision-makers to have an abstract overview of MaaS and identify the possible development stage.
... However, the concept is still surrounded by uncertainties, and its current development and deployments are mainly centered in developed countries [6,7]. In addition, as Public Transport (PT) entails the backbone of successful MaaS schemes [8][9][10], it is understood that to properly implement efficient MaaS services, capable offerings of PT are pivotal. ...
... MaaS offers a wide range of integrated services. Ref. [9] thus proposes different levels of service integration ranging from integrated information solutions without payment to the integration of societal objectives (as value created for the territory in terms of well-being, for example). • Potential to create new markets: for transport providers, MaaS can offer new sales channels, access to untapped customer demand, simplified user account, and payment management, as well as richer data on travel demand patterns and dynamics. ...
Full-text available
Mobility‐as‐a‐Service (MaaS) offers tailored‐made, on‐demand mobility solutions to users by integrating on a single service subscription, public and private transport modes. However, the concept is still uncertain, and its current development and applicability is centered on developed countries. On the other hand, we advocate that MaaS is modular, adaptable, and applicable to several realities. In developing countries where public transport is mostly inefficient and insufficient, MaaS could help to “balance the scale” with private transport offerings, such as ridesharing. Casual carpooling could be an affordable alternative. Not only for being a low‐tech transport mode but also for optimizing vehicle usage of idle seats. In that optics, we have identified drivers who would fa-cilitate integrating casual practices into a MaaS. To identify the motivating factors behind casual carpooling and propose a strategy to implement it in a MaaS scheme, a quantitative survey was applied to 307 university students in the city Lavras, Brazil. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistical techniques. We assumed that casual carpooling is sustained by solidarity, simplicity, and agility; no costs to passengers; and institutionalized pickup points. Then, we identify principal strategic components to implement such an initiative. We concluded that casual carpooling as a low-tech transport mode could enhance local strategy for implementing an eco‐innovative MaaS in places with inefficient public transport offerings.
... Moreover, we will add external costs such as traffic congestion, traffic accident, CO2 emissions, and pollution to cost-benefit analysis. These reductions of external costs are indicators at MaaS integration level 4 defined by Sochor et al. [11], and are important indicators for quantitative analysis of MaaS. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The concept of Mobility as a Service (MaaS), which means integrating multiple transportation modes, not only fixed transportation but also on-demand service, and providing them as a single service, is attracting attention. For the efficient operation of the MaaS system, appropriate number of on-demand service vehicles and pricing are required. Agent-based simulation is suitable for analyzing the relationship between such transportation setting and user behavior. Therefore, we construct a simulation tool to quantitatively analyze and evaluate a MaaS system that consists of users mode choice model as demand side, on-demand shared service allocation method and railway/bus operational information as supply side, and traffic simulator, SUMO. As a case study, we analyze the impact on an actual MaaS demonstration where on-demand shared services were introduced into public transportation modes such as railways, fixed-route buses. Through the cost-benefit analysis using simulation, we found that if the number of demands is sufficiently larger, the benefit of introducing on-demand share service can be expected. The proposed simulation is useful for making decisions on the number of vehicles and appropriate pricing required when introducing new mobility services and MaaS services.
... Report from the 4th MaaS Summit. 84 Smith, Sochor et al. (2018). Public-private innovation: barriers in the case of mobility as a service in West Sweden ...
The Mobility-as-a-Service phenomenon entails the integration of different public and private transport, considering public transport as a backbone. The applicability of MaaS schemes is closely related to efficient public transport networks, which is not a reality in several developing countries. In this chapter, we present a new perspective on MaaS. Thus, we believe that for a revolution in public transport, MaaS can be a catalyst. We consider MaaS as a business model that can be modular and adaptable to any reality. By considering public transport as the backbone (whether it is efficient or not) its eventual inefficiency can be balanced with the integration of private actors, corroborating with the context of smart cities, and new alternatives for private transport means (e.g., autonomous vehicles and shuttles). To this end, we consider precepts from business ecosystem, PSS, eco-innovation, consumer behavior – and the act of sharing. Approaches like these can guide the applicability of MaaS in the context of Smart Cities and new perspectives, such as Corporate MaaS and Rural MaaS.
Full-text available
Menschen vernetzen, Lebensmittel bestellen oder individuelle Mobilitätslösungen – all dies ist heute über digitale Plattformen möglich. Hiermit sind mit Blick auf inklusives Wachstum und nachhaltige Entwicklung eine Reihe von Chancen, aber auch Risiken verbunden. Welchen Beitrag solche Plattformen zur Ernährungs- und Mobilitätswende leisten können, untersuchte das Vorhaben „reg�GEM:digital“. Dabei wurde einerseits analysiert, welche Faktoren die wirtschaftliche, ökologische und soziale Nachhaltigkeit digitaler Plattformsysteme beeinflussen. Andererseits wurde untersucht, inwiefern die regionale Einbettung die Nachhaltigkeit digitaler Plattformsysteme bestimmt und welche Rahmenbedingungen notwendig sind, um eine nachhaltige Ausrichtung digitaler Plattformsysteme sowie die Wettbewerbsfähigkeit und Wirtschaftlichkeit regionaler Plattformen zu gewährleisten. Dieses Papier fasst die Ergebnisse von insgesamt acht Fallstudien, d.h. acht Plattformen entlang der Analysekategorien Geschäftsmodell, regionale Einbettung, Nachhaltigkeitseffekte und Rahmenbedingungen zusammen. Neben der Darstellung der einzelnen Fallstudien, enthält es eine vergleichende Synthese sowie Handlungsempfehlungen.
Recently, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) concept and its main theoretical approaches have been under discussion, to positively influence the future of mobility. Namely, by contextualizing MaaS’s role in modern societies explaining its main functions, characteristics, and attributes, as well as identifying all the stakeholders involved in this comprehensive challenge towards ensuring its widespread implementation. The environmental, societal, technological and cultural changes needed to ensure a sustainable mobility ecosystem are an utmost challenge that requires an intense effort and involvement of all different types of stakeholders within their perspectives, roles, responsibilities and contributions to the mobility system overall behavior and performance. Notwithstanding, the global tendency of digital transformation, also referred as digitization, in society and businesses are upbringing a new technological evolution that will lead to a new mobility paradigm bringing together MaaS and the internet of Mobility (IoM), thus creating what we call the Internet of Mobility as a Service (IoMaaS). The future trends of mobility will have to be ‘human-centric’, to properly balance the amount of technology requested into the ecosystem to ensure the whole system’s universality, to be inclusive, as well as developing the appropriate amount of technology, accordingly to the different users’ technological skills. Furthermore, different types of incentives and penalties need to be included in supporting a broad cultural shift regarding citizen’s mobility routines habits. This will be of great importance to ensure the sustainability of this new mobility paradigm as well as of the ability to attain all its benefits.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Following a political order in late 2014, the regional public transport organisation (PTO) in West Sweden has been on a quest to procure Mobility as a Service (MaaS). In spring 2016, they invited potential bidders to discuss the terms for such procurement through a 'request for information’ process. 65 actors participated in a start-up meeting, and 30 explicated their thoughts in subsequent individual meetings with the PTO. Based on participatory observation of these meetings, this paper explores which aspects that frequented the discussions. It identifies seven aspects that potential bidders believe are important to consider when procuring MaaS: cross-sector collaboration, allocation of responsibilities, governance, business models, target groups, service design and technical integration. Moreover, the analysis suggests that MaaS (in this context) is premature for public procurement at this point in time. Instead more collaborative forms of public-private partnerships seem to be needed to drive the development.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Executive summary. 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.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Executive summary The transnational research programme “Call 2014: Mobility and ITS” was launched by the Conference of European Directors of Roads (CEDR). Funded within that program, Mobility as a Service for Linking Europe (MAASiFiE) is a two-year project that investigates the prerequisites for organizing user-oriented and ecological mobility services in order to provide consumers with flexible, efficient and user-friendly services covering multiple modes of transport on a one-stop-shop principle. Megatrends like changing demographics in terms of population growth, ageing of population, new population requirements of millennials, and ICT technology transformation, play a major role enabling the evolvement of new mobility services. Mobility service concepts are changing in the direction of combining and implementing new business models, enabling the development of innovative services and products in mobility markets. With this respect, Deliverable 3 as part of Work Package (WP) 3 of the MAASiFiE project concentrates on the identification of new business and operator models providing an insight into the new transport paradigm of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS). Based on a state-of- the-art survey covering interviews with experts, an online questionnaire, case examples of MaaS services and a literature review, a more thorough understanding of how transport- related stakeholders perceive and interact with the topic of MaaS is gained. Thus, an elaboration of responsibilities/roles, business models, related value chains and operator models in the context of MaaS is enabled and results are provided in this document. As a common point of reference, the consortium has agreed upon the following definition of MaaS: Multimodal and sustainable mobility services addressing customers' transport needs by integrating planning and payment on a one-stop-shop principle. Mobility services are expected to increase the use of public transport and ride sharing and to provide the means for rationalising passenger transport and wherever possible freight transport as well as identified by the state-of-the-art survey within Deliverable 3. In addition, available freight transport and logistic operations are analysed wherever similar characteristics to MaaS-related passenger applications are identified. Overall, the state-of- the-art survey results focusing on international MaaS concepts have shown that there currently exist various smaller MaaS-pilots covering different geographical service areas, including for instance city, rural and/or regional areas. Very few larger MaaS services have been established with a wider geographical coverage, including national and international service coverage. Based on different MaaS service areas, different aims and requirements for implementing MaaS concepts arise. While for instance, urban areas focus largely on the reduction of private car usage, congestion and transport-related emissions, rural areas aim at promoting higher efficiency and utilization rates by emphasizing demand driven transport services. National and international MaaS services focus rather on providing combined all-in- one packages including for instance long-haul transport, accommodation, event and booking services. Identified value chains of MaaS services illustrate changes of roles and responsibilities in the organisation of transport of people and goods. In this respect, changes in value networks and related organisational requirements are derived and applied to show different combinations of MaaS services. Basically four MaaS operator models were identified: Reseller, Integrator, Public transport operator and PPP models. Based on service combination characteristics, it could be concluded that the commercial Reseller model may best fit travel agencies and therefore national and international traveling. The Public transport (PT) operator model could be mainly used in cities, where comprehensive PT already exists. The PPP model may be preferred for rural areas, as public actors have an interest in increasing efficiency of subsidized transportation. The commercial Integrator model would probably fit well in both urban and suburban areas and national/international MaaS; thus it could be considered the most versatile and flexible model. However, as MaaS is continuously developing, and can be implemented in various ways, the presented models and categorizations should be read and interpreted as a current understanding of an emerging phenomenon.
Technical Report
Full-text available
Novel mobility services that heavily rely on technological advances could contribute to seamless mobility. Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is such a concept. The objective of the FS-MaaS project is to propose the design of a MaaS concept for London, the MaaS-London, and examine its feasibility. To work towards the concept of MaaS-London, first, the supply and the demand sides of the London transport market are analysed. There are a variety of mobility services supplied in London such as car clubs (car sharing), ride sharing, bike sharing, public transport, rail and taxi which altogether make London an ideal ground to exploit MaaS-London. The MaaS-London is an integrated platform that includes registration and package selection, intermodal journey planning, booking, smart ticketing and payment functions so that the entire chain of transport can be managed in this centralised platform. The most outstanding feature of MaaS-London is the provision of mobility packages, which consist of tailored bundles of mobility services customised to individual needs. The feasibility study indicates that the introduction of MaaS-London will benefit both the supply and the demand side. Transport operators will benefit by creating a larger market via the integrated platform. Travellers will also welcome the concept due to travel expense and time reduction, and better service experience. MaaS-London is a feasible product that can well serve London transport market and contribute to London’s 2020 vision.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Growing spontaneous mobility demand and decreasing affinity to automobile ownership in young generations require integrated concepts for intermodal mobility. Especially in areas with insufficient capacity coverage by traditional public transport, adding alternative services, e.g. car sharing, seems promising. Currently, customers have to combine different means of transportation manually by checking several information sources, creating a combined itinerary and booking several, mode specific tickets. This paper presents an information system architecture, the so-called \emph{Mobility Broker}, a joint platform for mobility services that enables provider collaboration to offer travelers the best possible combined service. Mobility Broker combines heterogeneous mobility service data, like time tables and car sharing places, using standardized open interfaces and well-known methods of data integration. The combined information allows intermodal routing for generating combined itineraries. Furthermore, it allows to use one ticket for heterogenous travelings. By this simplification of access to intermodal travel, we aim to foster the integration of alternative public transport modes. Thereby, the heterogeneous mobility service product characteristics and related synergy effects determine the approach fundamentally.
Conference Paper
The aim of this paper is to present and discuss results from the first in a series of four workshops held in three European countries – Austria, Finland, and Sweden – the purpose of which is to provide input for the development of a European roadmap for Mobility as a Service (MaaS) within the project Mobility as a Service for Linking Europe (MaaSiFiE). The first workshop focused on the need for change in the current mobility paradigm, during which experts discussed needs and visions for future mobility services. Although a range of factors, including enablers and obstacles, for developing MaaS in and across Europe were identified in the three national workshops, some common key issues emerged, including: the need for qualified leadership and a clearer division of new roles and responsibilities; a user-centered, holistic ‘life’ approach to mobility and traveler’s needs that is also founded on quality assurance, transparency, commonalities, and standards; a sustainability focus addressing both short- and long-term local and national goals of equity, accessibility, and environmental and consumer protection; a (eco)system approach in which rules, regulations, policies, actions, and mindsets of both individuals and organizations need to innovate so as to better support the development and implementation of MaaS.
The concept of Mobility as a Service or MaaS has been proposed as feasible way to achieve more sustainable transport. One example of such a service is UbiGo, a broker service for everyday urban travel developed and evaluated within the Go:Smart project in Gothenburg, Sweden. This paper presents evidence of travel behavior and related changes from a six-month field operational test (FOT), during which 195 participants tested the new service. Based on participant questionnaires, interviews, and travel diaries, change-enabling service attributes are identified, including the ‘transportation smorgasbord’ concept, simplicity, improved access and flexibility, and economy. Although not a service attribute per se, the FOT also enabled the trialability of new behaviors and a reevaluation of convenience. Additionally, the broader implications of the FOT findings on understanding travelers’ new choices and behaviors are discussed in terms of the future design of MaaS. Service design and demand are not independent of each other, and if a mobility service is to change behavior (i.e. achieve impact) as well as create added value, these goals need to drive design decisions and a deliberate, conscious development of service dimensions such as customization, bundling, and range of the offer. Based on the experiences gained, the authors emphasize a more holistic and flexible perspective on mobility (and design perspective on mobility services) that is focused on serving users’ needs, and that involves capitalizing on synergies between public and private actors, in order to develop the MaaS ‘offer’ and better meet the urban mobility challenge ahead.
This paper presents insights from a six-month field operational test (FOT) in Gothenburg, Sweden, during which 195 participants tested the UbiGo mobility service for everyday travel. The service integrates both public and private solutions into a new type of “collective transport”, thereby contributing to Swedish societal goals of a reduction of private car use and ownership. A triangulation approach to data sources and collection methods has been adopted in order to identify matches and mismatches between the expectations and experiences of three stakeholder groups: users (FOT participants/customers), commercial actors (the mobility broker and service providers), and society. Identified matches include the “transportation smorgasbord” concept, reducing private car ownership, and increased pre-trip planning. Identified mismatches relate to the greater than expected reduction in car use; the respective business models of the mobility broker and service providers; back office administration; and the smartphone platform. Gaps include the infeasibility of some trips and the need for more carsharing sites. All in all, the FOT was successful with 93% of participants satisfied with their travel and 97% wanting to continue using UbiGo. However, the mismatches and gaps need to be resolved or at least deliberated upon in order to create a commercially viable mobility service. Based on the experience gained, the authors conclude that truly “collective transport” must involve close cooperation between public and private actors, and the consideration of at least these three, sometimes conflicting, stakeholders’ perspectives in order to create integrated solutions. Furthermore, new business models are needed to address the challenges associated with future, integrated, urban mobility solutions.