ArticlePDF Available

How Can Autonomous and Connected Vehicles, Electromobility, BRT, Hyperloop, Shared Use Mobility and Mobility-As-A-Service Shape Transport Futures for the Context of Smart Cities?



A smarter transport system that caters for social, economic and environmental sustainability is arguably one of the most critical prerequisites for creating pathways to more livable urban futures. This paper aims to provide a state-of-the-art analysis of a selection of mobility initiatives that may dictate the future of urban transportation and make cities smarter. These are mechanisms either recently introduced with encouraging uptake so far and much greater potential to contribute in a shift to a better transport paradigm or still in an embryonic stage of their development and yet to be embraced as powerful mechanisms that could change travel behaviour norms. Autonomous and connected vehicles are set to revolutionise the urban landscape by allowing machines to take over driving that for over a century has been exclusively a human activity, while electrical vehicles are already helping decarbonising the transport sector. Bus rapid transit has been steadily reinventing and rebranding conventional bus services revitalising the use of the humblest form of public transport, while hyperloop is an entirely new, disruptive, and somewhat provocative, travel mode proposition based on the use of sealed tube systems through which pods could travel free of air resistance with speeds exceeding 1000 km/h. Shared use mobility mechanisms like car-sharing, ride-sharing, ride-sourcing and public bicycles can help establishing a culture for using mobility resources on an as-needed basis, while mobility-as-a-service will take this sharing culture a step further, offering tailored mobility and trip planning packages that could entirely replace the need for privately owned modes of transport.
How Can Autonomous and Connected Vehicles,
Electromobility, BRT, Hyperloop, Shared Use
Mobility and Mobility-As-A-Service Shape Transport
Futures for the Context of Smart Cities?
Alexandros Nikitas 1, *, Ioannis Kougias 1,2 ID , Elena Alyavina 1and Eric Njoya Tchouamou 1
1Department of Logistics, Operations, Hospitality and Marketing, Huddersfield Business School,
University of Huddersfield, HD1 3DH Huddersfield, UK; (I.K.); (E.A.); (E.N.T.)
2European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Directorate for Energy, Transport and Climate,
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Unit, 21027 Ispra, Italy
*Correspondence:; Tel.: +44-1484-471-815
Received: 24 October 2017; Accepted: 28 November 2017; Published: 30 November 2017
A smarter transport system that caters for social, economic and environmental sustainability
is arguably one of the most critical prerequisites for creating pathways to more livable urban futures.
This paper aims to provide a state-of-the-art analysis of a selection of mobility initiatives that may
dictate the future of urban transportation and make cities smarter. These are mechanisms either
recently introduced with encouraging uptake so far and much greater potential to contribute in a
shift to a better transport paradigm or still in an embryonic stage of their development and yet to be
embraced as powerful mechanisms that could change travel behaviour norms. Autonomous and
connected vehicles are set to revolutionise the urban landscape by allowing machines to take over
driving that for over a century has been exclusively a human activity, while electrical vehicles are
already helping decarbonising the transport sector. Bus rapid transit has been steadily reinventing
and rebranding conventional bus services revitalising the use of the humblest form of public
transport, while hyperloop is an entirely new, disruptive, and somewhat provocative, travel mode
proposition based on the use of sealed tube systems through which pods could travel free of air
resistance with speeds exceeding 1000 km/h. Shared use mobility mechanisms like car-sharing,
ride-sharing, ride-sourcing and public bicycles can help establishing a culture for using mobility
resources on an as-needed basis, while mobility-as-a-service will take this sharing culture a step
further, offering tailored mobility and trip planning packages that could entirely replace the need for
privately owned modes of transport.
urban transport; transport futures; smart cities; autonomous and connected vehicles;
electric vehicles; bus rapid transit; hyperloop; shared use mobility; mobility-as-a-service
1. Introduction
Smart cities are the result of knowledge-intensive and creative strategies, aimed at enhancing the
socio-economic, ecological, logistic and competitive performance of cities [
]. This, from a transport
perspective, implies that any urban environment looking to be classified as a smart city, should respond
effectively, among others, to the dual mobility challenge, as defined by [
], of rapid urbanisation and
growing traffic congestion. The way to address this obstacle is by conceiving, designing and delivering
a transport system that provides socially inclusive, environmentally friendly, safe, cost-effective,
integrated and technologically informed travel options to road users that enable them to reach their
preferred destinations with ease. Transportation is, therefore, one of the most fundamental aspects of
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36; doi:10.3390/urbansci1040036
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 2 of 21
the modern society [
], a key enabler of the many other notions that define and characterise a smart
city and a powerful indicator of future prosperity.
The present article has not a prophetic character per se. Predicting the future is by definition
a complex and uncertain procedure; it is more dark art than science especially when technological
breakthroughs, which are even harder to predict, can take transport to completely different avenues.
Instead, our work discusses a specific vision of tomorrow’s transportation based on an integrative
literature review that examined some key thriving, but not yet universally embraced, current transport
initiatives and some future ones that have been publicly demonstrated through piloting. The choice
of the mobility interventions discussed, although is subjective and directly referring to the authors’
expertise and interests, is based on potential impact considerations; all of these mobility mechanisms,
if widely embraced, can reshape transport, others with softer approaches, rebranding, complementing
or integrating already existing services and others with a harder approach transforming current
thinking. The core sections of the paper, followed by a discussion and conclusions part, present the six
chosen interventions namely: autonomous and connected vehicles, electromobility, bus rapid transit,
hyperloop, shared use mobility and mobility-as-a-service.
Autonomous and connected vehicles (ACVs), the developing crown jewel of the synergies
between artificial intelligence (AI), robotics, automotive design and information technologies, have the
potential to be the most robust intervention in the history of mobility by empowering the car to
take control and perfect the craft of driving, making calculated decisions and interacting with
the urban environment and traffic flow to heights unprecedented for a human. In theory at least,
fully connected driverless vehicles have the capacity to transform urban development as known today,
with a revolution in ground transport, regulations permitting, that could dramatically change the
landscape of cities and have an enormous economic, social, spatial, and mobility impact [4].
The future of oil economy, which in large depends on conventionally fuelled vehicle fleets is not
only unsustainable but also very limited. In contrast, the electrification of the transportation sector
appears to be one of the feasible solutions to challenges such as global climate change, energy security
and geopolitical concerns on the availability of fossil fuels [
]. Therefore electric vehicles (EVs) may
have a critical role in how smart cities become more energy-efficient and less polluted.
Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a mobility revelation, of South American origin, that already prospers in
164 cities across the world. BRT means to transform buses, the humblest of the public transport modes,
to a genuinely attractive travel alternative. BRT refers to schemes that apply rail-like infrastructure and
operations to bus systems in expectation of offerings that can include high service levels, segregated
right-of-way, station-like platforms, high quality amenities and intelligent transport systems for a
fraction of the cost of fixed rail [
]. Thus, by integrating facilities, services, and amenities catering,
in theory at least, for the shortfalls of conventional buses, BRT can be competitive to car-oriented
mobility, to the degree that it could redefine the very identity of a city by claiming space for the
upgrade of the city’s public transport service provision.
Hyperloop is the most ambiguous of the transport initiatives presented in this article; an idea that
has been scarcely piloted until now that aims to re-invent ground public transport offering services
travelling at faster speeds than commercial flights. Hyperloop is projected to use magnetically-levitated
pods running inside tunnel systems free of air resistance. Despite its potential merits Hyperloop is
still widely considered as a futuristic disruptive transport mode that may supplant current mobility
service constructs [7] instead of complementing them.
Shared use mobility (SUM), a concept aligned with the grander notion of sharing economies, is a
way of rethinking and repositioning transport on the urban landscape. Rather than individual physical
items being purchased, owned, controlled, maintained and used solely by their owner, in SUM systems
the physical assets (cars, bicycles, vans, motorbikes, etc.) are accessed sequentially by multiple users
on a pay-per-use basis [
]. There are already thousands of bike-sharing, car-sharing, ride-sharing and
ride-sourcing schemes across the world but despite their merits, are widely perceived as first- and
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 3 of 21
last-mile complements, tourist or visitor services, trip-to-work commuting initiatives and alternative
taxi mechanisms respectively and not complete transport solutions.
Mobility-as-a-service (MaaS), a newly-born transport initiative with limited implementation thus
far, is a more radical solution that replaces privately owned transport and optimises the use of mobility
resources. MaaS platforms typically provide an intermodal journey planner (providing combinations
of different transport modes: car-sharing, car rental, underground, rail, bus, bike-sharing, taxi, etc.),
a booking system, easy-payment, and real-time information [9].
2. Autonomous and Connected Vehicles
Over the last two decades the automotive industries have made momentous leaps in bringing
computerisation into what has, for more than a century now, been exclusively a human function:
driving [
]. Advanced driver assistance systems (ADAS) equipping vehicles with more computational
power, improved safety features, navigation systems and other driver-experience enhancing
mechanisms including adaptive cruise control, collision avoidance system, auto-parking, lane warning,
emergency driver assistance, intelligent speed adaption, adaptive light control, night vision, anti-lock
braking system have been already launched and are becoming standard features for high-end cars at
least. These features, although slowly diffused since, because of their isolated and incremental nature,
they do not represent a substantial upgrade for the overall service equivalent to that linked with a
full-scale implementation of autonomous technology, constitute the first real evidence of a future
where car-oriented mobility could be machine-led. Pilots of entirely autonomous, but still humanely
supervised, cars are being tested in testbeds across the world meaning that road vehicles capable of
operating independently of real-time human control under an increasing set of circumstances will
likely become more widely available [11] and be at the very heart of a smart city’s transport system.
Autonomous vehicles (AVs) also known as automated, driverless, self-driving, robotic vehicles
are projected not only to take over the task of driving per se but to have another meaningful power;
the capacity to interact and eventually ‘synchronise’ in real-time with all the elements and actors of
the transport network including other vehicles and road transport infrastructure. Connected vehicle
technology will provide real-time information about the surrounding road traffic conditions and the
traffic management center’s decisions improving efficiency and comfort while enhancing safety and
mobility [
]. This section of the paper will primarily concentrate on vehicles with the dual capability
of being autonomous and connected (ACVs), better known as connected and autonomous vehicles
(CAVs), and not semi-autonomous or partially connected vehicles, since the former represent the most
likely and impactful way of adopting AV technology in the future.
2.1. The Potential to Impact Transport Futures
CAVs are anticipated to be the next golden standard of mobility, transforming smart urban growth
as conceived today, with a transport revolution that would radically change the very identity of cities by
impacting every facet of urban living. CAVs introduce numerous different benefits, from substantially
reducing traffic accident rates, road congestion, social exclusion for those currently unable to drive,
noise nuisance and carbon emissions but also some concerns about increased vulnerability to hacking,
software and hardware flaws, loss of privacy, liability allocation, rise in user numbers, behavioural
adaption and user resistance problems [
]. CAVs have been also associated with the negative
socio-economic consequences of the loss of millions of driving-related jobs [
] although there are
studies [
] reporting that there are many transport experts who believe that human ingenuity will
create new jobs, industries, and ways to make a living, just as it has been doing since the dawn of
the Industrial Revolution. This will prevent the displacement of significant numbers of blue- and
white-collar workers. If these jobs are not to be replaced this could lead to masses of people who will
be effectively unemployable, immense increases in income inequality and breakdowns in the social
order at least in a short-term basis.
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 4 of 21
CAVs may also have the ability to generate new opportunities for integrated services for two
other major transport initiatives that are critical for the future of smart cities because of their ability
to promote more resource-efficient mobility patterns than private cars; public transport and shared
use mobility mechanisms. The incorporation of CAVs in the fleets of public transport and shared use
mobility schemes will completely change their focus, the way of operating, managing and regulating
the services they provide and their marketing and branding strategies. Combining CAVs with
electromobility concepts, making these vehicles more inexpensive to use in environmental, economic
and social terms would improve their energy consumption efficiency and cost-effectiveness. As [
explicitly suggests the synergistic effects between vehicle automation, sharing, and electrification can
multiply the benefits associated with those three transport initiatives.
2.2. The Current State of Development
Autonomous car technology is already being developed by many leading automotive
manufacturers that want to create the narrative for the forthcoming transformation and be in an
advantageous business position in the future, by ride-sourcing providers that want to replace human
labour with cheaper self-driving apparatus, and information and communication giants that see
this as a monumental opportunity to expand their services into and eventually dominate a new
technology-driven arena. Some of these companies joined forces forging partnerships and alliances that
will allow them to surpass the multi-dimensional challenges that CAVs now pose to their developers.
The key competitors so far, that have heavily invested on this new frontier and are now beyond an
early-stage exploration of the concept, with some of them being responsible for thousands or even
millions of autonomously driven miles, in alphabetical order are: Audi, Baidu, BMW, Daimler, Delphi,
Didi Chuxing, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Huawei, Hyundai, Jaguar Land Rover, Lyft, Magna,
Mercedes-Bosch alliance, Microsoft, nuTonomy, PSA, Renault-Nissan alliance, Samsung, Tesla, Toyota,
Uber, Volkswagen Group, Volvo, Waymo (Google’s self-driving cars project), ZF and Zoox.
Autonomous cars are already piloted in California having humans inside them at all times.
There is, however, enough political determination to make a leap forward so it is expected that
California will be changing regulations for self-driving cars to allow their unsupervised use in the
next few years. Volvo’s Drive Me project, will put a fleet of 100 autonomous vehicles in the hands
of everyday drivers with the promise that they will not need to continuously supervise the vehicle
operation. These vehicles will be tested on public roads in Gothenburg, Sweden as a means of defining
and evaluating how AVs impact the quality of life and the urban environment [20]. At the same time
the UK Government is dedicating financial resources for creating the world’s most effective CAV
testing ecosystem by building a number of distinct test capabilities. This is an investment that the
Government believes will cement the UK’s status as the go-to destination for development of CAV
technology [
]. Similarly, New Zealand Transport Agency supports manufacturers and developers
wanting to test AV technologies ensuring testing requirements that are easily navigated, and testing
processes that keep both the public and testers safe [
]. The Australian Driverless Vehicle Initiative is
an effort to explore the impacts and requirements of CAV technology and make recommendations on
ways to safely and successfully bring self-driving vehicles to Australian roads [
]. Finally, Horizon
2020, Europe’s leading framework for funding research and innovation, has devoted thus far
for autonomous car technology [
] and the internet of things (IoT) [
], which is the equivalent of the
AVs’ connectivity backbone.
2.3. Barriers to Overcome
Despite this colossal amount of investment and interest in the development and uptake of CAVs,
the reality is that a full-scale launch of CAVs is not imminent; it is likely to happen later than most
expect. There are many obstacles that stand in the way of a full-scale introduction.
Technology is still lacking; despite serious progress more breakthroughs are necessary for
supporting such an unparalleled mobility paradigm shift. CAVs need to go beyond correctly
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 5 of 21
detecting and identifying objects in typical transport scenarios; they need to able to anticipate
their behaviour even under the most complicated and unexpected circumstances.
Despite some initial efforts to address it, legislation could be a barrier; road traffic regulations,
liability allocation and enforcement strategies need to incorporate the use of CAVs.
Although recent studies showed that a priori acceptability of CAVs could be likely for many
drivers today [
] the universal acceptance of such a transition is not guaranteed or certain [
Users might need to be convinced.
The implementation of CAVs, will not be straightforward, predictable, unproblematic or without
risks; there is a wide spectrum of social dilemmas that may arise from such an untested, disruptive
and robust intervention [
]. Motor vehicles will need to operate responsibly and replicate
or do better than the human decision-making process; but some decisions are more than just a
mechanical application of traffic laws and plotting a safe path [28].
Ethics is an issue that has not been resolved. Even when it becomes possible to programme
decision-making based on moral principles into machines, will self-interest or the public good
prevail? CAVs will sometimes have to choose between two evils, such as running over pedestrians
or sacrificing themselves and their passengers to save the pedestrians [
] and there is not yet a
clear pathway of what is the ‘right’ option.
Situational awareness, connection and engagement need to be guaranteed for users. The passive
human role when ‘driving’ CAVs may not allow users to build an appropriate mental model
of the situation that is essential for the recovery of system failure [
] and may also lead to
disengagement and discontent [31].
CAVs cannot properly function in today’s road network; they need a friendlier road transport
infrastructure that provides them with an environment fit for their use. A lot more capital
investment is necessary at this end.
Mixed traffic situations, where CAVs share road space with partially automated and conventional
man-driven vehicles could create more problems than the ones they are going to solve.
There needs to be a plan of how to address the transition from human-led to machine-led vehicles.
There is a risk of creating a two- or even a three-speed world; countries and cities’ progress in
developing and introducing CAV technology may come at different rates and times. This will
create imbalance, confusion and disharmony when transport’s definitive role is about integration
and interoperability.
Business models for supporting the CAVs adoption process and the need for synergies with
(or incorporating) other transport initiatives are not clear yet.
Introducing AI to vehicle technology will be an unprecedented achievement in the history of road
transport revolutionising mobility for ever and shaping the future of societies but for now CAVs are
still more of an enigma than a definitive solution.
3. Electromobility
Typical Electric Vehicles (EVs) include means of transportation that are electrified and powered
through batteries. The main difference of EVs over conventional vehicles is the fact that they utilise
electricity rather than traditional fossil fuels. EVs do not cause any direct CO
emission during
operation [
], reduce the substantial, long-term increasing fuel costs as well as radiated noise [
but their high private costs, despite the fact that their owners do not need to pay carbon-related
taxes, might hinder their market development [
]. EVs, although still at a relatively early phase
of commercial development, vary significantly both in size and technology used. As far the urban
environment is concerned, EVs used inside cities mainly include electric cars, low-speed electric
vehicles (also known as neighbourhood electric vehicles NEVs), and various types of two-wheelers.
EVs of larger scale include electric vans and trucks as well as electric busses. The present section focuses
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 6 of 21
on the road transport for people, therefore electric rail-based transport (e.g., tram, underground) and
heavy good vehicles (HGVs) are beyond the scope of the present analysis.
3.1. Electric Cars
The car manufacturing industry has gradually increased its investments for research and
development for electric cars rather than conventional ones powered by internal combustion engines.
With electromobility presently representing a niche market several companies, including among others,
BMW, Bolloré, Chevrolet, Citroën, Fiat, Ford, Honda, Hyundai, Kia, Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi,
Nissan, Peugeot, Renault, Smart, Tesla, Volkswagen, have announced mega-projects that aim to
support this transition.
The main type of electric passenger cars is the battery electric vehicles (BEVs). BEVs are fully
powered by locally-contained batteries that are charged by an external energy source. Hybrid electric
cars combine the electric engine with a conventional combustion engine at a degree of hybridisation
that varies among different models. Plug-in hybrid cars (PHEVs) can be charged directly from the
power grid, and accordingly they rely mainly on electricity. The remaining hybrid-electric vehicles’
categories (i.e., parallel, mild) are not considered as fully electrified vehicles as they are heavily
dependent on their conventional combustion as the main source of propulsion, while electric engines
are only complementary power sources.
The leading nation in the utilisation of electric cars is Norway; the Norwegian fleet is possibly the
cleanest and arguably the largest per capita in the world. This is the result of generous tax-relieving
policies to increase the sales and use of EVs. The typical Norwegian electric car user is a middle-aged
family father with higher education and income, who owns a Nissan LEAF as one of two cars,
drives his electric car on a daily basis because this saves him money and time and although satisfied
with his choice highlights longer range and predictable EV policy as two areas for improvement [
Nevertheless, this subsidy policy, implying very low costs to the electric car owner on the margin,
probably leading to more driving at the expense of public transport and cycling, is according to [
counterproductive, needs to change and should not be replicated by other countries. This illustrates
the need to utilise the electric car’s vast potential in a way that does not undermine the importance of
true car alternatives.
3.2. Electric Buses
Bus transit systems with electric traction are an important contribution in the future of mobility
since they can overcome the existing disadvantages of conventional buses using fossil fuel [
and support a push for modal shift to public transport. Electric bus fleets can be emission-free, easy to
integrate into an existing infrastructure, ecological and customer-friendly but according to [
] due to
their expensive technology, lifecycle costs can be much higher in comparison to diesel or hybrid buses,
for now at least. The selection process of electric technology is highly sensitive to operational context
and the energy profile of the city host but recent research [
] highlights that hybrid buses, due to
their significantly lesser capacity to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would be suitable only
for short-term objectives as a stepping-stone towards full electrification of transit. Overnight battery
electric bus is advocated as the most suitable solution going forward. The electric bus innovation
diffusion could be aided by the adoption of new risk management strategies, institutional structures
and business models that go beyond traditional measures like subsidies [40].
3.3. Neighborhood Electric Cars
NEVs are generally small electric cars that stand between EVs and electric two-wheelers.
The increased market interest, especially in the heavily populated urban cities of emerging economies,
has increased the interest on NEVs. NEVs sales in 2016 were between 1.2 million and 1.5 million,
and the annual sales’ growth since 2014 is 50% [
]. NEVs maximum speed is regulated to an
upper limit that depends on the country and is usually between 40 km/h and 70 km/h. Their small
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 7 of 21
power and short range are adopted to the urban needs for agile transportation over short distances
and easy parking. Additional advantages of NEVs are their low cost and favourable regulation
(e.g., no requirements for driving license or insurance).
3.4. Electric Two-Wheelers
Electric two wheelers are two-wheeled means of transportation with an electric motor. In many
aspects they are similar to regular bicycles, but are equipped with an electric motor for propulsion.
Moreover, they are equipped with a battery pack that powers the motor. They are mainly distinguished
to electric bikes (e-bikes) and electric motorcycles (mopeds). As far as the e-bikes are concerned a
great variety of them exists worldwide. This variety extents from pedelecs with a small motor that
only assists the user to more powerful e-bikes that resemble the capabilities of a conventional scooter
or motorcycle. Generally four main categories of electric two-wheelers exist: pedal assist e-bikes,
throttle control e-bikes, speed pedal assist e-bikes and electric mopeds [
]. Electric two-wheelers
despite their obvious merits in terms of flexibility and cost-effectiveness can also travel further on
less electricity and can be fully recharged in a relatively short amount of time when compared to
bigger EVs.
3.5. Electromobility as a Mechanism for Tranforming Transport and Cities
Shifting towards electromobility is an approach that gains an increasing support, especially in
cities. EVs are locally emission-free and therefore an important tool to solve air quality and pollution
challenges. Moreover, as the electric energy power mix changes and moves towards electricity
production from cleaner sources, the carbon content of the electricity powering EVs will continuously
decrease. This aligns with the climate goals set in the recent United Nations climate change conference
in Paris [43] and the European Union (EU) 2030 climate and energy framework.
The future of electromobility is strongly linked to the degree of penetration of renewable energy
sources (RES) in the future power systems. Thus, if the energy sources mix, which is used to produce the
electricity that will supply the EVs, has low (or even zero) GHG emissions, moving from conventional
to electric vehicles will also lead to GHG emissions reduction. Presently, the power portfolio of the
majority of the countries is dominated by fossil fuel-based power stations (e.g., lignite, hard coal, oil,
natural gas) hindering the shifting to EVs. The real benefits as far as GHG emissions are concerned
depend on the clean electricity generation [
]. A 2013 study on the Chinese power system revealed
that shifting from conventional to electric cars in China would actually increase carbon emissions,
as the current Chinese power system is heavily dependent on carbon-intense coal power plants [
With the growing share of RES in countries’ power systems, the benefits of the electrification of the
road transport will be better exploited.
Parallel to the transformation of the central power system, the widespread use of EVs will create
new opportunities for the electricity distribution both in regional- and city-level. So far EVs are charged
from grid-to-vehicle (G2V) connections. The ultimate target is to design systems where a bi-directional
connection will be developed, a concept known as vehicle-to-grid (V2G) schemes [
]. V2G interaction
will transform the EVs’ fleet to a large and flexible energy storage capacity, providing invaluable
flexibility to the power system, and allowing the efficient operation of conventional power plants
(i.e., thermal). V2G schemes would increase the capacity factors of base and mid-load power plants.
The latter will allow further reduction of GHG emissions, supporting the fulfilment of climate targets.
Moreover, it will allow higher shares of variable/intermittent energy sources (e.g., solar, wind) in
the future energy systems. At present, technological knowledge to equip EVs in a way that can also
provide V2G services does exist. However, the relevant technology has not yet reached a degree of
maturity that justifies the required additional cost [
]. More importantly, the operational framework
of V2G services has not been defined and the policy regulations are still to be placed.
Considering the impact of the dual relationship between vehicles and the energy system, it is
expected that an unprecedented change will take place in the way vehicles are used in urban
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 8 of 21
environments. Alteration in the vehicle ownership schemes, novel usage paradigms and new
infrastructure that accommodates the special features of the EV technology will certainly change
the future cities.
4. Bus Rapid Transit
Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a hybrid form of urban passenger transportation, bringing together
bus’ flexibility and cost-effectiveness with rail-like standards of service provision and rights-of-way.
According to [
] BRT has been thus far successful due to evidence of an ability to implement mass
transportation capacity quickly and at a low to moderate cost especially when compared with metro
and light rail investments. BRT essentially rebrands, the humblest of all public transport modes,
transforming conventional bus systems into a new mode that is given the license to dominate the host
city’s landscape, by taking space from cars, serving according to [
] more than 32 million passengers
per day in 164 cities across the globe. Despite these numbers and its competitive advantages BRT has
not been yet embraced universally to the degree that other mass-transit systems have; there is still a
massive untapped potential that needs to be realised if the future of transportation is to be developed
in a balanced way that embraces public transport initiatives.
4.1. The Elements Differentiating Bus Rapid Transit
A fully operational BRT system, which is superior in every facet of its activities from a conventional
bus system, and thus should not to be misinterpreted as one, according to [
] consists of the
following elements:
State-of-the-art vehicles, including in some cases massive bi-articulated buses, which characterise
BRT’s image and identity, but also play according to [
] a strong role in achieving measurable
performance success.
2. Stops, stations, terminals and corridors approximating the standards of rail-like infrastructure.
A variety of rights-of-way including dedicated lanes on mixed traffic streets, special BRT busways
completely segregated from road traffic and bus priority in signalised intersections. BRT routes
can run nearly anywhere including abandoned rail lines, highway medians and city streets [
Pre-board fare collection, for speeding up services and providing a robust funding mechanism
for the system’s long-term fiscal viability.
The use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), for enhancing customer
convenience, speed, reliability, integration, and safety.
Frequent all-day services that need to operate at least for 16 hours per day with peak headways
of 10 min or less [53].
Brand identity, entailing of perceptual constructs substantiated by the strategic deployment,
placement, and management of communication elements that allow people to distinguish the
superior qualities of a BRT system. These include visual and nominal identifiers (e.g., system
name and logo), a color palette and long-term strategic marketing and advertising plans [54].
4.2. Origins and Worldwide Applications
The most important point of reference for BRT systems is South America, which is the birthplace
of this mass-transit concept and generates, as of November 2017, 60.74% of the travel demand
worldwide for these services. The first real BRT system was implemented in Curitiba, Brazil, in 1963,
although dedicated bus lanes were not operating until 1974 [
]. It was based in the idea of its
mayor and architect Mr. Jaime Lerner, who wanted to re-invent the public transport system of
Curitiba but had no funds to build a metro or a light rail system. Curitiba’s BRT until this very day
remains one of the leading and most innovative schemes running in seven corridors spanning across
74 km and being responsible for 566,500 passenger trips per day [
]. Other BRT systems that have
achieved so far to at least dominate their respective city’s modal split are Bogotá’s TransMilenio
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 9 of 21
BRT (Colombia), widely considered to be the most successful scheme in the world in terms of
performance, innovation, capacity to create modal shift and ability to attract additional funding
resources, Istanbul’s Metrobüs (Turkey) the only intercontinental scheme in the world, bridging
Europe with Asia with its 52 km long corridor, and the only European scheme comparable to size with
the Latin American systems, the Guangzhou BRT (China), Asia’s second busiest system after the Taipei
BRT, that handles approximately 850,000 passenger trips daily with a peak passenger flow second only
to the TransMilenio and the still developing New York’s BRT, North America’s largest scheme with
13 bus service routes serving currently 245,000 passengers in a day-to-day basis [49].
4.3. Problems and Challenges
The key challenges associated with BRT applications thus far, which have marginalised success
for some schemes, refer among others to:
Rushed implementation; transitioning to BRT needs time and careful planning including
incremental implementation.
2. Tight financial planning (i.e., absence of operational subsidies).
Extremely high vehicle occupancy levels that in some cases reach six to seven standees per m
which adversely impact user experience.
Infrastructure maintenance issues; state-of-the-art bus infrastructure is more expensive and more
difficult to sustain.
Inability to absorb extra travel demand due to a saturated system that lacks the capacity to
expand further.
6. Difficulties with implementing and regulating fare collection.
7. Inefficient communication especially during disruptions caused by road works.
8. Lack of integration with feeder modes like walking or cycling.
The belief shared by many policymakers that BRT, despite its merits, is still a second-tier solution
when compared to metro or light rail schemes.
Failure to brand and operate BRT as a significant upgrade from conventional buses
(i.e., not providing essential infrastructure and rights-of-priority, equivalent to a BRT standard is
a recipe for failure).
4.4. Solutions for a BRT-Infused Future
There are many ways to surpass these challenges. First the planning process chosen needs to
mirror the specific needs and characteristics of the city hosting the scheme; low quality copycats or
rushed mediocre solutions mascaraed as BRT would not work. Buses need to be given the green
light to take over the city; they should be clearly prioritised over cars in any facet of urban planning
and be well-integrated with complementary travel modes. A strong political consensus (or at least
a political protagonist like Mr. Jaime Lerner) is often a pre-requisite for success. Financial support
and subsidies could be needed. Branding, image-making, marketing, advertising and communication
tools together with the provision of road user education and a feedback system enabling dynamic
interaction between the system operators and the users are all of critical importance. BRT should be
portrayed as an exciting and tangible long-term mobility solution and an opportunity for sustainable
growth and not as a mere upgrade of an uninspiring fleet of conventional buses.
Adopting a scheme that, in principle, combines the convenience, reliability and finesse of a tram
or metro system with the flexibility, maneuverability, adaptability and ease to operate of a conventional
bus system could be of paramount importance for any city that has aspirations of becoming smarter.
BRT is a realistic proposition that can be incrementally implemented in a variety of settings and types
with significantly smaller investment costs than other mass-transit systems. Research on existing
international practice [
] strongly recommends that BRT can be a publicly acceptable mobility
mechanism for reducing traffic-induced externalities and enhancing livability for cities.
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 10 of 21
5. Hyperloop
Tube-based transportation, after years of being considered an unrealistic proposition with
fundamental flaws and weaknesses that was outrageously expensive and risk-prone to develop
and run, has recently re-emerged in a dynamic fashion under the Hyperloop brand with the vision
to re-invent ground public transport offering services travelling at faster speeds than commercial
flights in prices comparable to these of conventional rail services. Hyperloop widely associated with
Tesla’s and SpaceX’s architect and founder Mr. Elon Musk, since many people consider the latest
take in tube-based transport to be his brain-child, has been around as a concept for many decades.
The first vacuum tube train system using a magnetic levitation (maglev) line and tubes or tunnels was
conceived by Russian professor Boris Weinberg in the early 1900s but did not progress beyond the
stage of early modelling. The concept has seen many different names and variations: Airless Electric
Way, Vactrain, Vaculev, Evacuated Tube Technology [
] but now Hyperloop is the most universally
acknowledged term in use and the one adopted by the present article.
5.1. Hyperloop Definition
Hyperloop will be based on the use of pods that will typically carry 12–24 people at 10 s intervals,
levitating on air or magnetic cushions in low-pressure tubes. A combination of linear induction
motors and lack of air drag will in theory enable these pods to reach speeds close to that of sound [
The expectation is that Hyperloop will be able to travel at speeds allowing this mode to be faster than
any passenger aircraft; traveling times between London to Edinburgh and Los Angeles to San Francisco,
two of the most discussed origin-destination combinations will be just 45 and 30 min respectively.
5.2. Opportunities and Challenges
Hyperloop pods could be offering many more advantages to travelers and societies besides their
speed; they will provide reliability comparable to that of a high-speed train, create substantially less
environmental damage than other modes, reduce road traffic and air traffic congestion, decrease
traffic accidents, create millions of new jobs, minimise energy consumption since they will be fuelled
by electricity and be unaffected by weather conditions. Nevertheless there is a strong consensus,
at least when reviewing the initial design plans offered in Mr. Elon Musk’s 57-page open-source
Hyperloop manifesto [
], that the cost of infrastructure and maintenance, vulnerability to seismic
activity, susceptibility to accidents and terrorism and the difficulty of operating when equipment
malfunctions happen or emergency evacuations are in need, are severely underestimated. Other critics
of Hyperloop focus on the user experience per se. Riding in a narrow and windowless capsule-like pod
inside a sealed steel tunnel, that is subjected to significant acceleration forces and having to tolerate
high noise levels due to air being compressed and ducted around the capsule at near-sonic speeds and
absorbing vibrations and jostling can be an unpleasant and even frightful experience [
]. Even if the
tube journey is relatively smooth, at high speeds, the smallest deviations from a straight path may add
substantial cause for discomfort.
5.3. Current Development and Future Promise
As of November 2017 there are eight companies that have dedicated efforts to develop and
commercialise Hyperloop technologies. These are in chronological order from the moment they
launch their plans, Virgin Hyperloop One, Hyperloop Transportation Technologies, TransPod,
DGWHyperloop, Arrivo, Hardt Global Mobility, Hyper Chariot and the Boring Company/SpaceX.
Hyperloop One, lately supported by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin that has invested an undisclosed
amount of funds after the second successful testing demonstration, is the frontrunner to realise this
vision. Nonetheless, all of the listed companies have a clear vision about Hypeloop’s future. Mr. Musk’s
brand, for instance, was the one that initiated this discussion and the latest to announce the decision
to heavily invest on long distance routes in straight lines, such as New York to Washington DC,
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 11 of 21
after years of simply nurturing and facilitating progress in the field without actively being involved in
a commercial sense. Their plan is to use pressurised pods in a depressurised tunnel to allow speeds up
to approximately 600 mph; as of now SpaceX is building a Hyperloop system at its headquarters in
Hawthorne, California, approximately one mile in length with a six foot outer diameter.
Hyperloop is projected to have a relatively strong performance on social and environmental
performance criteria and can potentially be a very safe mode but at the same time might end up being
more expensive than what its investors aspire to be since the low capacity, due to the small vehicles,
may lead to high break-even fares that might be more applicable for the premium passenger transport
market [
]. Hyperloop is still a very novel and untested concept that can develop in many different
ways. It is projected to be a very powerful and potentially disruptive technology that will revolutionise
transport futures with an impact that could be even more profound than that of CAVs, especially if it
ends up replacing high-speed rail services.
6. Shared Use Mobility
Shared use mobility (SUM) is transforming the way people move around cities and is challenging
consolidated transport modes such as the private car, taxi and public transport [
]. SUM schemes
are in principle an entirely different breed of travel alternatives that try to maximise the utilisation
levels of the finite mobility resources that a society can realistically afford to have by disengaging their
usage from ownership-bound limitations. SUM schemes provide fleets of vehicles that can be accessed
and ridden by their subscribers (subscriptions are open to the general public) on an as-needed basis
typically for a modest fee directly associated with usage criteria.
According to [
] the various modes that could be classified under the umbrella term SUM
are car-sharing, ride-sharing, bike-sharing, ride-sourcing (or ride-hailing), personal vehicle-sharing
(i.e., P2P car-sharing and fractional ownership) and scooter-sharing. Lately SUM initiatives are also
used in the freight and logistics industry since these principles boost profitability; maximising the load
of HGVs and eventually cutting down excessive trips is cost-effective.
In general all SUM services:
1. Provide a wider range of mobility choices.
2. Deliver first- and last-mile solutions to help riders connect with other forms of transport.
3. Reduce traffic congestion, vehicle km travelled and CO2emissions.
4. Lessen parking pressures and free up land for new uses.
5. Create independence for those who cannot afford buying or running their own private vehicle.
6. Increase efficiency, flexibility and convenience.
7. Cut down transportation costs for individuals and households.
8. Help drivers to share trip costs or earn extra income by utilising excess vehicle capacity.
9. Establish an ethos of sharing resources on as-needed basis within communities.
6.1. Bike-Sharing
Bike-sharing systems, also described as public bicycles or cycle hire programmes, lately enjoy an
unprecedented rise with close to 1500 schemes of various types and scales operating worldwide [
as of November 2017. Bike-sharing can be defined as a locally customised provision of affordable
short-term access to bicycles on an as-needed basis that could extend the reach of public transit services
to final destinations and be a door-opener for increased bicycle usage [
]. Bike-sharing was first
launched in Europe back in 1965 but re-emerged about a decade ago as a result of enhancements of ICT
capabilitiesthat allowed a lot more control and safeguards in renting out bicycles. Some of the most
popular schemes today facilitating thousands of trips per day are Barcelona’s Bicing (Spain), London’s
Santander Cycles (UK), Paris Vélib’ (France), Hangzhou Public Bicycle (China), BiXi Montreal (Canada)
and New York’s Citi Bike (USA).
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 12 of 21
The key advantages of bike-sharing are decreases in traffic congestion and fuel consumption,
reductions of greenhouse gas emissions, flexible mobility, physical activity benefits, individual
financial savings and support for multimodal transport connections [
]. Nonetheless, there are
critical problems that bike-sharing is currently facing that refer to: schemes being systematically
underused, misused or severely underdeveloped; political or/and public resistance when there is a
need to sacrifice car parking space; slow and complex planning procedures; no appetite for incremental
expansion to more destinations; cycling legislation restrictions forcing compulsory helmet use and
thus creating the need for people to own and carry or alternatively rent a helmet; unprotected
bike-sharing infrastructure; cycling safety concerns; severe competition between similar schemes;
unrealistic operator expectations in terms of return on investment; lack of adequate cycling investment
by the host city that could complement and support bike-sharing; and not being appropriate for hilly
and cold weather environments. Another problem that the conventional station-oriented schemes
face (i.e., the inability to provide door-to-door services) seems to be solved by the introduction of
the dockless schemes that started in China, from companies like Ofo and Mobike, and now provide
smart bicycles that lock and unlock through the use of mobile applications in hundreds of cities.
There are some issues with these new-age systems especially when these do not have GPS-based
technology, their own mobile application to track, lock and unlock the bicycles, good safeguards,
effective communication/branding tools and follow over-aggressive and rushed expansion strategies.
Nevertheless, learning from the mistakes of the past and taking advantage of the continuously growing
potential of IoT will allow for enhanced bike-sharing services in the future.
6.2. Car-Sharing
Car-sharing is another mode that has emerged to challenge the hegemony of private car use
in many cities [
] being a service that is appealing to road users who make only occasional use
of an automobile and to those who want sporadic access to a car of a different type than the
one they might be typically using. Car-sharing (also known as car clubs) is an evolving mobility
industry in which subscribed drivers can access for a moderate cost a fleet of shared vehicles for
short-term use only. Since the beginning of organised car-sharing activities, it has been solidified
that car-sharing can encourage more sustainable travel behaviour, reduce the need of owning private
vehicles, and promote dense urban forms [
]. Car-sharing can be perhaps thought off as a systematic
short-term car-rental initiative [
] but is actually significantly different from traditional car rentals in
many ways: car-sharing is not restricted by office hours and can easily run 24/7 because reservation,
pickup, and return are all self-service and app-based; automobiles are rented usually for significantly
shorter time periods typically spanning for a few hours; users are registered subscribers of the scheme
and therefore known qualities that have passed the necessary control checks; fuel costs usually
included in the rates; there are more pick-up and drop-off points that tend to be closer to mobility
hubs (i.e., thus more potential for integration with other modes); better insurance policies are in place;
car-sharing is usually more inexpensive than car rentals.
Zipcar (USA/worldwide), Cowheels Car Club (UK), Enjoy (Italy), GoGet (Australia), Greenwheels
(Germany), Cambio (Germany) are all relatively successful schemes. Several car rental companies
launched their own car-sharing services including Avis on Location by Avis and Hertz on Demand
by Hertz, while EasyCar Club is an Easyjet subsidiary. Many schemes nowadays are electromobile
or at least have a number of electric automobiles in their fleet; coupling SUM with electromobility
initiatives amplifies the ability of any given scheme to promote urban sustainable growth and better
energy consumption behaviours. Autolib’ is an electric car-sharing service, which was launched in
Paris (France), in late 2011, operated by the Bolloréindustrial group. The Autolib’ scheme maintains
a fleet of 4000 all-electric Bluecars for public use on a paid subscription basis, employing a citywide
network of parking and charging stations.
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 13 of 21
6.3. Ride-Sharing
Ride-sharing (or carpooling) refers to a mode of transportation in which individual travellers share
a vehicle for a trip and split travel costs such as gas, toll, and parking fees with others that have similar
itineraries and time schedules [
]. This sharing approach has an immediate and potentially easily
measurable impact on mobility patterns since if three potential drivers, people that are not susceptible
to shift to another mode of transportation, decide to share a ride this means that only one car will be
used instead of three. In theory, ride-sharing is a system which combines the flexibility and speed of
private cars with the reduced cost of fixed-line systems and is directly battling the negative externalities
of single occupant car travel, which is the most unsustainable form of travel behaviour. Ride-sharing is
relevant, and if presented in a potent way could be also particularly attractive, for commuters that want
to go to work in a cost-effective and flexible way; there are many employers that promote and organise
ride-sharing programmes for their staff. Advantages of ride-sharing for participants (both drivers
and passengers), to society, and to the environment include saving travel costs, reducing travel time,
mitigating traffic congestion, conserving fuel, and reducing air pollution [71,72].
Today, dedicated platforms allow drivers to post their rides online helping to mitigate many
issues, which previously limited ride-sharing. These digital platforms help by establishing trust among
strangers through rating and review systems, meaningful profiles, user verification, and automated
booking and payment processes and by dramatically decreasing transactional cost for ride listing and
search [
]. These technological advancements, which will only continue to improve as IoT evolves
and real-time monitoring and live matching capabilities become better, have already enabled the
establishment of large ride-sharing initiatives like RelayRides, BlaBlaCar, or that
facilitate millions of trips per day.
6.4. Ride-Sourcing
Ride-sourcing refers to an emerging transport service that allows registered private car owners
to drive their own vehicles to provide for-hire rides. More specifically, ride-sourcing dynamically
matches travel supply and demand by enabling travellers to request car rides in real-time from potential
suppliers using a smartphone application [
]. Ride-splitting is an interesting form of ride-sourcing
where riders with similar origins and destinations are matched to the same ride-sourcing driver and
vehicle in real-time, and the ride and costs are split among users [
]. Ride-sourcing, in any of
its variations, is distinct from ride-sharing since ride-sourcing drivers operate for-profit per se and
provide rides not subsidiary to their own trips; this is utterly a new-age taxi-like service that came to
life with the recent emergence of app-based platforms. Because of their convenience and competitive
prices, ride-sourcing services provided by companies like Uber and Lyft, typically classified under the
umbrella term Transportation Network Companies (TNS), have successfully attracted many riders,
eroding the traditional taxi market and creating controversy [76].
Ride-sourcing companies, despite their success, have troubled policymakers and legislators;
there is no consensus of how to embrace and regulate these measures. While many cities have not yet
given their verdict about TNS services, some, with London being the latest and possibly the largest city
to do so, have decided to ban them considering these services as illegal on the premise that constitute
unfair competition for their regulated taxi services and create public safety and security implications.
There are other cities that have adopted them and support them as a new thriving travel mode that
gives to their residents more mobility choices and have passed ride-sourcing laws and regulations that
help them prosper. Although these legislative frameworks have some differences, they all essentially
codify the insurance coverage, driver background check, and inspection protocols that ride-sourcing
companies already have in place [
]. The digital labour of Uber-like businesses is also a puzzling
issue [
]; drivers working for TNS are neither real contractors nor employees, typically receive smaller
incomes than their load of work implies, are bound to follow TNS rules and orders of how and when
to operate (i.e., flexibility of choosing when to operate might be penalised) and are assessed at a
per-trip basis.
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 14 of 21
If these issues are addressed, the authors, believe that ride-sourcing services could be of some
value for crafting more livable futures. Their impact however may not be as significant or positive as
those of other SUM initiatives since TNS companies work for profit (diminishing the sharing factor’s
value) and could be attracting people currently using public transport services, which is not an ideal
modal shift direction.
7. Mobility-As-A-Service
The future of urban mobility, may not be about creating and adapting to new, transformative and
disruptive modes of transportation or vehicles but in innovating the ways the current transport is used.
SUM could be viewed as a door-opener for a more radical solution known as mobility-as-a-service
(MaaS) that replaces privately owned transport with personalised mobility packages that give access
to multiple travel modes on an as-needed basis by exploiting the riches of modern information and
communication technologies. MaaS is the holistic provision of integrated on-demand multimodal
services enabled and accessed via powerful digital platforms that eliminates the need for multiple
tickets and payments for subscribers, helps users to optimise their transport choices, provides access to
real-time journey information, including traffic and even weather conditions and allows commuters to
surpass issues, unexpectedly arising during their journey. It is a way of making urban travel controlled,
resilient, and convenient. The transport industry is closer than ever before to making this future
a reality. Various changes to the structure and management of public transport services like smart
ticketing [
] and the lately booming SUM initiatives are clearly aiming at integrating mobility services
and hinting to this direction [79,80].
The present digitalisation trend is the main driver enabling this shift [
]. Simultaneous availability
of wireless connection, 3G/4G/5G networks and interfaces, such as smartphones and tablets, enable
access to shared mobility services at any place and time convenient to consumers. Accessible internet
connections allow not only the effective utilisation of shared transport modes but also the utilisation
of other services that make urban commuting easier. Such services include navigation, which helps
monitor and control the journey, journey information and planning, which allows comparing various
travel options and mode combinations by, for example, the cost of the journey or the time it takes,
and cashless payments for transportation. Although already widely utilised, such services are
unimodal in their nature, and the benefits of using them are moderated by the need of flicking
between the screens when creating a journey. A seamless unification is thus the key for MaaS.
7.1. Current Practice
Although MaaS is at a very early stage in its development, there is already some experimentation
underway [
]. One of the most famous MaaS initiatives is the Whim mobile application.
Since 2016, the residents of the Finnish capital Helsinki have been able to plan their journeys
using Whim by entering a destination, selecting their preferred transport mode or a combination
of the modes where no single mode could cover the journey, and pay for the service as part of
their monthly subscription or in a pay-as-you-go basis. The mobile application puts together more
than 2500 taxis, rental cars and public transport as well as provides information on all the routes,
fees and
timetables [83,85,86].
Another well-known MaaS initiative is the Qixxit electronic application
of Deutsche Bahn. Whilst Whim services cover Helsinki’s area solely, the Qixxit application offers
mobility services all over Germany. The services include taxi, public transportation and access to
SUM schemes; however, although the cashless payment service is available, a separate ticket needs
to be purchased for each of the vehicle types of the multimodal journey [
]. Other examples of
MaaS initiatives that have been piloted or are functional at the moment include the Viennese SMILE
application and Daimler’s Moovel, which is operational all over Germany as well as in Helsinki [82].
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 15 of 21
7.2. Potential Benefits
Many researchers believe in the potential of MaaS to bring significant social, economic and
environmental paybacks to cities and urban societies. The social benefits of MaaS may include the
access to opportunities, such as healthcare and leisure, improved social inclusion and reduced isolation
as well as the support of healthier and more active lifestyles. The economic benefits could refer to
enhanced access to jobs and skills as well as services and markets, and, in addition, making the
urban areas more attractive to live, work and invest in. And, finally, the environmental benefits
are projected to be the ones that deal with the main urban mobility challenges, namely traffic
congestion and the consequent air and noise pollution, since MaaS is encouraging more sustainable
choices [79,82,88,89].
Nonetheless, the potential benefits of MaaS have not been tested
systematically yet in real-life terms; they are mostly theoretical. As MaaS is a new mobility service
and its implementation is limited, there is a scarcity of research that managed to identify the impact of
MaaS on travel behaviour, while at the same time data availability is limited deterring the development
of models to assess its effect on travel demand [90].
So far the only example of a MaaS initiative that has been thoroughly examined for its potential
to improve urban mobility is the UbiGo project described in studies [
]. UbiGo is the MaaS web
interface that offered access to a range of travel services to its 195 customers all being residents of the
city of Gothenburg, Sweden. Customers paid a monthly subscription of minimum 1200 SEK, equivalent
135 at the time, which included personalised combination of, and a number of credits for, a range
of different transportation options, such as bus, tram, taxi, car- and bike-sharing. The application
allowed its users to book and activate tickets and trips, amend bookings and access already activated
tickets. Customer service and support was also provided within the UbiGo application. The pilot
project was operational between 1 November 2013 and 30 April 2014. During this time span, the UbiGo
customers were regularly interviewed, and the collected interview data was utilised to analyse the
effect the use of UbiGo had on customers’ attitude towards car ownership and the possible impact
of the implementation of UbiGo on traffic congestion and the environment. At the end of the trial,
the majority of UbiGo users reported that they would want to continue their subscriptions and became
more positive towards SUM options as well as public transport and less positive towards private
cars. As a result, the overall number of journeys, performed by private cars, reduced, which, patently,
could improve the traffic situation in the city [84,91,92].
7.3. Barriers and Challenges that Need to Addressed
The first MaaS transport systems are already operating and their benefits seem, according to
early-stage research at least, to be real but it is difficult for the urban transport sector to make
the leap as yet and provide urban residents with this breed of seamless digitally-planned travel.
There are still considerable barriers that challenge, and for now do not allow, the unification of
transport infrastructure and transport related technologies [
]. Firstly, the public transport and
SUM providers as well the providers of digital interfaces and electronic applications are currently
lacking the desire to cooperate with each other and share the available data, which can be easily
explained by the service providers facing the risk of losing the direct relationship with their customers.
Secondly, the legislation in many countries does not act as a supporter of innovation and change
when it comes to mobility. For instance, the current taxation policies create barriers for behavioural
change, allowing urban commuters to continue travelling by private cars. Thirdly, national and local
governments are not actively giving, thus far, an emphasis on financially supporting MaaS pioneers.
This lack of support was the main reason behind the discontinuation of the Swedish UbiGo pilot.
7.4. The Future of Mobility-As-A-Service
Although MaaS is a fairly new transport paradigm, it has great potential and could soon evolve
beyond pilot applications. The likely benefits that MaaS could deliver to the urban environment,
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 16 of 21
by reducing road traffic congestion in the cities, are overwhelming. The benefits for urban travelers are
just as compelling; a public that has already got experience with similar mechanisms, such as travel
aggregators that allow booking any preferred flight options with add-on services matching them with
hotels and car rentals, will be given an opportunity to get in a similar fashion, travel benefits on a
daily basis. MaaS will revolutionise people’s ability to reach destinations without the need of a car.
Cities need to push towards this direction by investing more on research and development and by
trying to start up their own piloting MaaS programmes.
8. Discussion and Conclusions
With the transformative powers of urbanisation reaching unprecedented heights and redefining
the dynamics and direction of urban development across the globe, cities face more than ever before
the need to craft more sustainable and smart pathways in their attempt to provide enhanced standards
of livability. Transport is at the very heart of this developmental process being the apparatus that
is set to provide people with seamless connectivity and access to destinations and activities that are
necessary for them; as [
] suggested the rise of the modern city is built on mobility. Improving access
opportunities, decreasing traffic congestion, preventing environmental degradation, enhancing traffic
safety and security, ensuring integration and multimodality, maximising the return from the offerings
of mobility and wireless technologies and reshaping conventional transport wisdom that is still
dominated by fossil-fueled, human-led, private car considerations are challenges that need to be
addressed effectively so that transport plays its definitive role.
The mobility initiatives that have been highlighted by the present work can be protagonists in
helping transport to transform and set a solid foundation for sustainable growth. Transport will
not change and evolve towards a single direction. A balanced mix between high-tech and low-tech
solutions must be provided; especially since there is a need to cater for the transition period between
today’s mobility paradigm and an AI-led one. On the one hand, there will be disruptive technologies
altering how societies envision and manage mobility and reshaping how transport networks will
operate, technologies like CAVs and Hyperloop, and on the other hand there will be less intimidating
initiatives that will help people get the most out of the untapped potential of more traditional modes,
initiatives like BRT and SUM.
The process of transforming the transport system, however, will not be uncomplicated, predictable,
unproblematic or without risks and early-stage fiascos. State-of-the-art concepts with disrupting nature
like CAVs and Hyperloop or others, like MaaS that may not alter the transport network per se but
nevertheless mean to redefine travel behaviour by exploiting the riches of information technologies and
integration capabilities, are not easy to implement and not always likely to be acceptable from societies
without a fair amount of criticism, reluctance, suspicion and negativity. The transition will need time,
patience, flexibility, political persistence and continuous investment. Many trials will go wrong before
scientists, technology developers, mobility providers and policymakers get it right; there is a need for
a ‘trial and error’ process. Efforts should be directed not only towards technology, infrastructure and
service provision per se, but towards supporting instruments like legislation, education, marketing
and branding that will allow for these changes to be viable long-term. Potential distributional
impacts should be also closely monitored and controlled so that the likely benefits of these mobility
initiatives are not enjoyed only by high-end users; these should be mechanisms designed for all and
not instruments that will create new layers of transport-related social exclusion. Future transportation
should be designed to work in the context of developing countries too; progress should not be an
excuse for creating a two- or three-speed world but one for bridging knowledge gaps. To the extent
that this would be financially feasible, the potential for extending some of these services (or linking
them at least) with more rural contexts should be also investigated.
There will also be a need for measures, not in the scope of this paper but still of vital importance,
which instead of trying to create voluntary travel behaviour change, as the ones outlined herein,
they will try to enforce and regulate modal shift pushing people out of their cars. Policies like road
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 17 of 21
pricing as defined by [
] and other travel demand measures involving charging, taxation and
bans have a key role to play. This need for ‘sticks’ further highlights the underlying tensions that will
continue to exist in the future between a car-centric school of thought that will be likely to invest in and
prioritise continued automobility and those realising that changing the vehicle’s engine or removing
the driver does not address fully the real issue which is ultimately about achieving a more balanced
modal share; this is a transition that should be primarily centred around the provision of better public
transport and active mobility options.
All in all, there is a need for policymakers to integrate the mobility mechanisms this paper
reviewed or at the very least create synergies between their respective technologies; potential benefits
will be amplified if this is the case. A near perfect version of transport futures, based on such an
integrated approach therefore, would be revolved around shared used CAVs fuelled by electricity,
produced solely from renewable energy sources, that will operate under MaaS principles, meaning
that they should be accessible only as part of packages primarily offering electrified public transport
from initiatives like BRT and Hyperloop.
The authors thank their employers for allowing them to work on this review paper and
Urban Science for the invitation to write for this issue. Many thanks to our anonymous reviewers for helping this
work to improve with their feedback.
Author Contributions: All the authors contributed in the writing process.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ACV Autonomous and connected vehicle
ADAS Advanced driver assistance systems
AI Artificial intelligence
AV Autonomous vehicle
BEV Battery electric vehicle
BRT Bus rapid transit
CAV Connected and autonomous vehicle
EV Electric vehicle
GHG Greenhouse gas
G2V Grid-to-vehicle
HGV Heavy goods vehicle
ICT Information and communication technologies
IoT Internet of things
MaaS Mobility-as-a-service
NEV Neighbourhood electric vehicle
PHEV Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle
RES Renewable energy sources
SUM Shared use mobility
TNS Transportation network companies
V2G Vehicle-to-grid
Kourtit, K.; Nijkamp, P. Smart cities in the innovation age. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res.
,25, 93–95.
Debnath, A.K.; Chin, H.C.; Haque, M.M.; Yuen, B. A methodological framework for benchmarking smart
transport cities. Cities 2014,37, 47–56. [CrossRef]
Lawry, M.; Mirza, A.; Wang, Y.W.; Sundaram, D. Efficient transportation-does the future lie in vehicle
technologies or in transportation systems? In International Conference on Future Network Systems and Security;
Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 126–138.
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 18 of 21
Alessandrini, A.; Campagna, A.; Delle Site, P.; Filippi, F.; Persia, L. Automated vehicles and the rethinking of
mobility and cities. Transp. Res. Procedia 2015,5, 145–160. [CrossRef]
5. Mwasilu, F.; Justo, J.J.; Kim, E.K.; Do, T.D.; Jung, J.W. Electric vehicles and smart grid interaction: A review
on vehicle to grid and renewable energy sources integration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
,34, 501–516.
Currie, G.; Delbosc, A. Understanding bus rapid transit route ridership drivers: An empirical study of
Australian BRT systems. Transp. Policy 2011,18, 755–764. [CrossRef]
Chowdhury, M.; Dey, K. Intelligent transportation systems-a frontier for breaking boundaries of traditional
academic engineering disciplines. IEEE Intell. Transp. Syst. Mag. 2016,8, 4–8. [CrossRef]
Le Vine, S.; Polak, J. Introduction to special issue: New directions in shared-mobility research. Transportation
2015,42, 407–411. [CrossRef]
Kamargianni, M.; Matyas, M.; Li, W.; Schafer, A. Feasibility Study for “Mobility as a Service” Concept in
London. 2015. Available online:
for_Mobility_as_a_Service_concept_in_London (accessed on 29 November 2017).
Fagnant, D.J.; Kockelman, K. Preparing a nation for autonomous vehicles: Opportunities, barriers and
policy recommendations. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2015,77, 167–181. [CrossRef]
Le Vine, S.; Zolfaghari, A.; Polak, J. Autonomous cars: The tension between occupant experience and
intersection capacity. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2015,52, 1–14. [CrossRef]
Talebpour, A.; Mahmassani, H.S. Influence of connected and autonomous vehicles on traffic flow stability
and throughput. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 2016,71, 143–163. [CrossRef]
Bansal, P.; Kockelman, K.M. Forecasting Americans’ long-term adoption of connected and autonomous
vehicle technologies. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2017,95, 49–63. [CrossRef]
Nikitas, A. Automated Cars: A Critical Review of the Potential Advantages and Disadvantages of Driverless
Technologies. In Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Smart Urban Mobility, Edinburgh, UK,
1–4 November 2015.
Nikitas, A.; Nikitas, G. Social Dilemmas in Vehicle Automation. In Proceedings of the 2015 Royal
Geographical Society (with IBG) Annual International Conference, Special Transport Geography Research
Group session in The Spaces of Road Transport Automation, Exeter, UK, 1–4 September 2015.
Nikitas, A.; Tchouamou Njoya, E.; Dani, S. Examining the Myths around Autonomous Cars: What Does the
Future Hold? In Proceedings of the 4th Smart Urban Policy Futures Workshop, London, UK, 13–14 July 2017.
Frey, C.B.; Osborne, M.A. The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017,114, 254–280. [CrossRef]
Smith, A.; Anderson, J. AI, Robotics, and the Future of Jobs; Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2014.
Milakis, D.; Van Arem, B.; Van Wee, B. Policy and society related implications of automated driving: A review
of literature and directions for future research. J. Intell. Transp. Syst. 2017,21, 324–348. [CrossRef]
Victor, T.; Rothoff, M.; Coelingh, E.; Ödblom, A.; Burgdorf, K. When autonomous vehicles are introduced
on a larger scale in the road transport system: The Drive Me project. In Automated Driving; Watzenig, D.,
Horn, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 541–546.
UK Government. Press Release: Government Sets Out Next Steps in Establishing the UK as Global Leader
in Connected and Autonomous Vehicles. Available online:
vehicles (accessed on 10 October 2017).
New Zealand Transport Agency. Testing Autonomous Vehicles in New Zealand. Available online:
autonomous-vehicles-in-new-zealand/ (accessed on 10 October 2017).
Australian Driverless Vehicle Initiative. Available online: (accessed on 10 October 2017).
European Commission. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016–2017: Smart, Green and Integrated Transport.
Available online:
wp1617-transport_en.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2017).
European Commission. Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016–2017: Cross-cutting Activities (Focus Areas).
Available online:
wp1617-focus_en.pdf (accessed on 10 October 2017).
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 19 of 21
Payre, W.; Cestac, J.; Delhomme, P. Intention to use a fully automated car: Attitudes and a priori acceptability.
Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2014,27, 252–263. [CrossRef]
Piao, J.; McDonald, M.; Hounsell, N.; Graindorge, M.; Graindorge, T.; Malhene, N. Public views towards
implementation of automated vehicles in urban areas. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016,14, 2168–2177. [CrossRef]
Lin, P. Why ethics matters for autonomous cars. In Autonomous Driving; Maurer, M., Gerdes, J., Lenz, B.,
Winner, H., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 69–85.
Bonnefon, J.F.; Shariff, A.; Rahwan, I. The social dilemma of autonomous vehicles. Science
1573–1576. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Breton, R.; Bossé,É.The Cognitive Costs and Benefits of Automation; Technical Report; Defence Research and
Development Canada: Ottawa, ON, Canada, 2003; pp. 1–12.
Carr, N. The Glass Cage: Where Automation Is Taking Us, 1st ed.; W.W. Norton & Company Inc.: New York,
NY, USA, 2015.
Helmers, E.; Marx, P. Electric cars: Technical characteristics and environmental impacts. Environ. Sci. Eur.
2012,24, 14. [CrossRef]
Heinicke, M.; Wagenhaus, G. Sustainability in the car-based mobility: The case of the electric vehicle Editha.
Int. J. Energy Sect. Manag. 2015,9, 105–119. [CrossRef]
Bickert, S.; Kampker, A.; Greger, D. Developments of CO
-emissions and costs for small electric and
combustion engine vehicles in Germany. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2015,36, 138–151. [CrossRef]
Haugneland, P.; Kvisle, H.H. Norwegian electric car user experiences. Int. J. Automot. Technol. Manag.
15, 194–221. [CrossRef]
Holtsmark, B.; Skonhoft, A. The Norwegian support and subsidy policy of electric cars. Should it be adopted
by other countries? Environ. Sci. Policy 2014,42, 160–168. [CrossRef]
Kühne, R. Electric buses—An energy efficient urban transportation means. Energy
,35, 4510–4513.
Lajunen, A. Lifecycle costs and charging requirements of electric buses with different charging methods.
J. Clean. Prod. 2018,172, 56–67. [CrossRef]
Mahmoud, M.; Garnett, R.; Ferguson, M.; Kanaroglou, P. Electric buses: A review of alternative powertrains.
Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016,62, 673–684. [CrossRef]
Miles, J.; Potter, S. Developing a viable electric bus service: The Milton Keynes demonstration project.
Res. Transp. Econ. 2014,48, 357–363. [CrossRef]
Cazzola, P.; Gorner, M.; Schuitmaker, R.; Maroney, E. Global EV Outlook 2017; Technical Report;
International Energy Agency (IEA): Paris, French, 2017; pp. 1–71.
Del Duce, A. Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Bicycles. Available online: http://www.
(accessed on 20 November 2017).
Kinley, R. Climate change after Paris: From turning point to transformation. Clim. Policy
,17, 9–15.
Millo, F.; Rolando, L.; Fuso, R.; Mallamo, F. Real CO
emissions benefits and end user’s operating costs of a
plug-in hybrid electric vehicle. Appl. Energy 2014,114, 563–571. [CrossRef]
Wilson, L. Shades of Green: Electric Cars’ Carbon Emissions around the Globe; Technical Report; ARRB Group
Limited: Vermonth South, Australia, 2013; pp. 1–28.
Loisel, R.; Pasaoglu, G.; Thiel, C. Large-scale deployment of electric vehicles in Germany by 2030: An analysis
of grid-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-grid concepts. Energy Policy 2014,65, 432–443. [CrossRef]
Shirazi, Y.; Carr, E.; Knapp, L. A cost-benefit analysis of alternatively fueled buses with special considerations
for V2G technology. Energy Policy 2015,87, 591–603. [CrossRef]
Deng, T.; Nelson, J.D. Recent developments in bus rapid transit: A review of the literature. Transp. Rev.
31, 69–96. [CrossRef]
49. BRTdata. Org. Global BRT Database. Available online: (accessed on 10 November 2017).
Nikitas, A.; Karlsson, M. A Worldwide state-of-the-art analysis for bus rapid transit: Looking for the
success formula. J. Public Transp. 2015,18, 1–33. [CrossRef]
Zimmerman, S.; Levinson, H.S. Vehicle selection for BRT: Issues and options. J. Public Transp.
,7, 83–103.
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 20 of 21
Jarzab, J.T.; Lightbody, J.; Maeda, E. Characteristics of bus rapid transit projects: An overview. J. Public Transp.
2002,5, 31–46. [CrossRef]
Levinson, H.S.; Zimmerman, S.; Clinger, J.; Rutherford, S.C. Bus rapid transit: An overview. J. Public Transp.
2002,5, 1–30. [CrossRef]
Hess, D.B.; Bitterman, A. Bus rapid transit identity: An overview of current “branding” practice.
J. Public Transp. 2008,11, 19–42. [CrossRef]
55. Rabinovitch, J.; Leitman, J. Urban planning in Curitiba. Sci. Am. 1996,274, 26–33. [CrossRef]
Deng, T.; Nelson, J.D. The perception of bus rapid transit: A passenger survey from Beijing Southern Axis
Line 1. Transp. Plan. Technol. 2012,35, 201–219. [CrossRef]
Mathijsen, D. What does the future hold for composites in transportation markets? Reinf. Plast.
41–46. [CrossRef]
Anyszewski, A.; Toczycka, C. Edinburgh’s hyperloop team predicts a transport revolution. Proc. Inst. Civ.
Eng. Civ. Eng. 2017,170, 51. [CrossRef]
Musk, E. Hyperloop Alpha, Texas: SpaceX. 2013. Available online:
files/hyperloop_alpha-20130812.pdf (accessed on 15 October 2017).
Levy, A. Loopy Ideas Are Fine, If You’re an Entrepreneur. 2013. Available online: https://pedestrianobservations.
com/2013/08/13/loopy-ideas-are-fine-if-youre-an-entrepreneur/ (accessed on 21 October 2017).
Van Goeverden, C.D.; Milakis, D.; Janic, M. Performances of the HL (Hyperloop) Transport System.
Available online:
cc0003283b72 (accessed on 28 November 2017).
62. Santi, P.; Ratti, C. A future of shared mobility. J. Urban Regen. Renew. 2017,10, 328–333.
Shaheen, S.; Cohen, A.; Zohdy, I. Shared Mobility: Current Practices and Guiding Principles; Report
(No. FHWA-HOP-16-022); U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration:
Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
The Bike-sharing World Map. Available online:
1UxYw9YrwT_R3SGsktJU3D-2GpMU&hl=en&ll=-25.750985884738892%2C138.1453722&z=2 (accessed on
12 November 2017).
Nikitas, A.; Wallgren, P.; Rexfelt, O. The paradox of public acceptance of bike sharing in Gothenburg.
Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Eng. Sustain. 2016,169, 101–113. [CrossRef]
Shaheen, S.A. Public Bikesharing in North America: Early Operator and User Understanding; MTI Report;
Mineta Transportation Institute: San Jose, CA, USA, 2012; pp. 11–19.
Kent, J.L.; Dowling, R. Puncturing automobility? Carsharing practices. J. Transp. Geogr.
,32, 86–92.
Costain, C.; Ardron, C.; Habib, K.N. Synopsis of users’ behaviour of a carsharing program: A case study
in Toronto. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2012,46, 421–434. [CrossRef]
Shaheen, S.; Sperling, D.; Wagner, C. Carsharing in Europe and North American: Past, Present, and Future.
Available online:
pdf (accessed on 15 October 2017).
Furuhata, M.; Dessouky, M.; Ordóñez, F.; Brunet, M.E.; Wang, X.; Koenig, S. Ridesharing: The state-of-the-art
and future directions. Transp. Res. Part B Meth. 2013,57, 28–46. [CrossRef]
71. Morency, C. The ambivalence of ridesharing. Transportation 2007,34, 239–253. [CrossRef]
Chan, N.D.; Shaheen, S.A. Ridesharing in North America: Past, present, and future. Transp. Rev.
93–112. [CrossRef]
Teubner, T.; Flath, C.M. The economics of multi-hop ride sharing. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng.
,57, 311–324.
Rayle, L.; Dai, D.; Chan, N.; Cervero, R.; Shaheen, S. Just a better taxi? A survey-based comparison of taxis,
transit, and ridesourcing services in San Francisco. Transp. Policy 2016,45, 168–178. [CrossRef]
Chen, X.M.; Zahiri, M.; Zhang, S. Understanding ridesplitting behavior of on-demand ride services:
An ensemble learning approach. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Tech. 2017,76, 51–70. [CrossRef]
Zha, L.; Yin, Y.; Yang, H. Economic analysis of ride-sourcing markets. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol.
2016,71, 249–266. [CrossRef]
Malin, B.J.; Chandler, C. Free to work anxiously: Splintering precarity among drivers for Uber and Lyft.
Commun. Cult. Crit. 2017,10, 382–400. [CrossRef]
Urban Sci. 2017,1, 36 21 of 21
Blythe, P.T. Improving public transport ticketing through smart cards. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Municipal Eng.
2004,157, 47–54. [CrossRef]
Lund, E. Mobility as a Service–What Is it, and which Problems could it Solve? 2017. Available online:
(accessed on 19 October 2017).
Samsel, C.; Beutel, M.K.; Thulke, D.; Kuck, D.; Krempels, K.H. Integration of Private and Carsharing Vehicles
into Intermodal Travel Systems. Available online:
Feasibility_Study_for_Mobility_as_a_Service_concept_in_London (accessed on 10 November 2017).
Lund, E.; Kerttu, J.; Koglin, T. Drivers and Barriers for Integrated Mobility Services. 2017. Available online:
k2_working_paper_2017_3.pdf (accessed on 30 November 2017).
Datson, J. Mobility as a Service: Exploring the Opportunity for Mobility as a Service in the UK; Transport Systems
Catapult: Milton Keynes, UK, 2016.
Goodall, W.; Dovey, T.; Bornstein, J.; Bonthron, B. The rise of mobility as a service-Reshaping how urbanites
get around. Deloitte Rev. 2017,20, 112–130.
Karlsson, I.C.M.; Sochor, J.; Strömberg, H. Developing the ‘Service’ in Mobility as a Service experiences from
a field trial of an innovative travel brokerage. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016,14, 3265–3273. [CrossRef]
Foulser, B. Reimagine Places: Mobility as a Service. 2017. Available online:
content/dam/kpmg/uk/pdf/2017/08/reimagine_places_maas.pdf (accessed on 17 October 2017).
86. Whim Limitless Travel. Available online: (accessed on 10 October 2017).
87. About Qixxit. Available online: (accessed on 10 October 2017).
Burrows, A.; Bradburn, J. Journeys of the Future: Introducing Mobility as a Service. 2014. Available online:
leadership/reports/Journeys%20of%20the%20future_300315.pdf (accessed on 12 October 2017).
Jittrapirom, P.; Ciati, V.; Feneri, A.M.; Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S.; Alonso-Gonzalez, M.J.; Narayan, J.
Mobility as a service: A critical review of definitions, assessments of schemes, and key challenges. Urban Plan.
2017,2, 13–25. [CrossRef]
Kamargianni, M.; Li, W.; Matyas, M.; Schäfer, A. A critical review of new mobility services for urban transport.
Transp. Res. Procedia 2016,14, 3294–3303. [CrossRef]
Sochor, J.; Karlsson, I.C.M.; Strömberg, H. Trying out mobility as a service: Experiences from a field trial and
implications for understanding demand. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board
,2542, 57–64. [CrossRef]
Sochor, J.; Strömberg, H.; Karlsson, I.C.M. Implementing Mobility as a service: Challenges in integrating
user, commercial, and societal perspectives. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board
,2536, 1–9. [CrossRef]
Li, Y.; Voege, T. Mobility as a service (MaaS): Challenges of implementation and policy required.
J. Transp. Technol. 2017,7, 95–106. [CrossRef]
Wegener, M. The future of mobility in cities: Challenges for urban modelling. Transp. Policy
,29, 275–282.
Nikitas, A.; Avineri, E.; Parkhurst, G. Older people’s attitudes to road charging: Are they distinctive and
what are the implications for policy? Transp. Plan. Technol. 2011,34, 87–108. [CrossRef]
Nikitas, A. Understanding the Attitudes of Older People to Road Pricing. Ph.D. Thesis, University of the
West of England, Bristol, UK, 2010.
Sochor, J.; Nikitas, A. Vulnerable users’ perceptions of transport technologies. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Urban
Des. Plan. 2016,169, 154–162. [CrossRef]
2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (
... As such, there has been growing interest in the smart city concept in this period. The 'smart' agenda was being pursued to help address urban challenges in different sectors such as mobility (Nikitas et al., 2017), energy (Mosannenzadeh et al., 2017), retail (Dacko, 2017), tourism (da Costa Liberato et al., 2018), and supply chain (Chang et al., 2019). ...
The global population has rapidly urbanized over the past century, and the urbanization rate is projected to reach about 70% by 2050. In line with these trends and the increasing recognition of the significance of cities in addressing local and global challenges, a lot of research has been published on urban studies and planning since the middle of the twentieth century. While the number of publications has been rapidly increasing over the past decades, there is still a lack of studies analyzing the field's knowledge structure and its evolution. To fill this gap, this study analyzes data related to more than 100,000 articles indexed under the “Urban Studies” and “Regional & Urban Planning” subject categories of the Web of Science. We conduct various analyses such as term co-occurrence, co-citation, bibliographic coupling, and citation analysis to identify the key defining thematic areas of the field and examine how they have evolved. We also identify key authors, journals, references, and organizations that have contributed more to the field's development. The analysis is conducted over five periods: 1956–1975 (the genesis period), 1976–1995 (economic growth and environmentalism), 1996–2015 (sustainable development and technological innovation), 2016–2019 (climate change and SDGs), and 2020 onwards (post-COVID urbanism). Four major thematic areas are identified: 1) socio-economic issues and inequalities, 2) economic growth and innovation, 3) urban ecology and land use planning, and 4) urban policy and governance and sustainability. The first two are recurring themes over different periods, while the latter two have gained currency over the past 2–3 decades following global events and policy frameworks related to global challenges like sustainability and climate change. Following the COVID-19 pandemic, issues related to smart cities, big data analytics, urban resilience, and governance have received particular attention. We found disproportionate contributions to the field from the Global North. Some countries from the Global South with rapid urbanization rates are underrepresented, which may have implications for the future of urbanization. We conclude the study by highlighting thematic gaps and other critical issues that need to be addressed by urban scholars to accelerate the transition toward sustainable and resilient cities.
... Attitude has long been recognized as a factor in the formation of intention. The ride-sharing app features can be considered a straightforward increase of transportation services, with substantial changes in terms of speed and network connectivity (Nikitas et al., 2017). Today, most customers have undoubtedly been exposed to ride-sharing apps and developed an attitude toward them that ranges from highly favourable to extremely unpleasant. ...
Full-text available
Technology brings impressive changes in information and communication system. Most of the transportation operations have integrated technology to improve customer service. However, convincing customers to adopt new technology-driven businesses, such as ride-sharing apps, has become more challenging than ever. The current state of ride-sharing apps in Bangladesh is far from perfect due to various factors such as a lack of security and privacy, various technological challenges, and inconvenient transaction systems. Therefore, customers get complications in taking the intended service conveniently. Researchers have found the positive impact of perceived ease of use (PEOU) on perceived usefulness (PU). Besides that, they found a positive impact of PEOU on attitude towards using ride-sharing apps and the mediating effect of perceived usefulness (PU) between PEOU and Attitude towards ride-sharing apps. Researchers used a structured questioner to prove the hypothetical relationship and surveyed users from different ride-sharing points of Dhaka city. The probability cluster sampling technique has been used to collect the data from 237 respondents. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was used to determine the reliability and validity of the instrument. Besides that, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was also conducted using the Exploratory Factor Analysis results, followed by a measurement model. Finally, multivariate analysis using structural equations modelling (SEM) in the AMOS program to assess the suggested conceptual model's overall fit and the validity of the hypothesized relationship. Ride-sharing service providers will get ideas to improve their service to convince the customers' attitudes towards using ride-sharing apps. Besides that, this study used the technology acceptance model, which will contribute to the literature on ride-sharing apps. However, the number of variables used in this study to verify users' attitudes towards ride-sharing apps is acceptable and comprehensive and it is advised that a few additional variables be included to examine the usage of sophisticated technologies.
... Among these four potential future scenarios, Miskolczi et al. (2021) suggest that the most likely outcomes are 'at an easy pace' or 'mine is yours'. This has been echoed by many other academics in the field, suggesting that shared mobility futures, including greater modal share of PT, are the most promising (Kamargianni et al. 2016;Kane and Whitehead 2017;Nikitas et al. 2017;Shaheen and Chan 2016;Standing et al. 2019;Smith et al. 2018), with a need to reimagine mobility as a commons-based, collective, non-individualistic approach to mobility as a shared public good (Nikolaeva et al. 2019). ...
In cities all around the world, new forms of urban micromobility have observed rapid and wide-scale adoption due to their benefits as a shared mode that are environmentally friendly, convenient and accessible. Bicycle sharing systems are the most established among these modes, facilitating complete end-to-end journeys as well as forming a solution for the first/last mile issue that public transportation users face in getting to and from transit stations. They mark the beginnings of a gradual transition towards a more sustainable transportation model that include greater use of shared and active modes. As such, understanding the way in which these systems are used is essential in order to improve their management and efficiency. Given the lack of operator published data, this thesis aims to explore the utility of open bicycle sharing system data standards that are intended for real-time dissemination of bicycle locations in uncovering novel insights into their activity dynamics over varying temporal and geographical scales. The thesis starts by exploring bicycle sharing systems at a global-scale, uncovering their long-term growth and evolution through the development of data cleaning and metric creation heuristics that also form the foundations of the most comprehensive classification of systems. Having established the values of these metrics in conducting comparisons at scale, the thesis then analyses the medium-term impacts of mobility interventions in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, employing spatio-temporal and network analysis methods that highlight their adaptability and resilience. Finally, the thesis closes with the analysis of granular spatial and temporal dynamics within a dockless system in London that enable the identification of the variations in journey locations throughout different times of the day. In each of these cases, the research highlights the indispensable value of open data and the important role that bicycle sharing systems play in urban mobility.
... In the energy grid domain, for example, smart ICTs help collect and share consumption data to optimize energy management (Farmanbar et al., 2019). In the transportation domain, smart ICTs enable safe, socially inclusive, and sustainable multi-modal transportation networks, which allow citizens to travel with ease (Herrenkind et al., 2019;Lembcke et al., 2021;Nastjuk et al., 2020;Nikitas et al., 2017;Rocha et al., 2020;Trang et al., 2015). In the building domain, smart ICTs can help to establish so-called "zero energy buildings" by significantly reducing the energy demand during the lifecycle of residential and commercial buildings (Kylili & Fokaides, 2015). ...
... Thus, the key challenge facing the mobility of the future is to find a balance between economic and environmental sustainability, as well as the satisfaction of passengers [13,14]. ...
Full-text available
I am pleased to present this Special Issue on “Transportation in the 21st Century: New Vision on Future Mobility” [...]
Full-text available
O objetivo deste artigo é analisar as cadeias de valor automotivas no Mercado Comum do Sul (Mercosul) e na União Europeia (UE), com foco na capacidade de desenvolver tecnologia endogenamente, característica dos países desenvolvidos. A metodologia terá como foco a análise descritiva de variáveis relevantes para este objeto de estudo, como produção, comércio exterior e desenvolvimento tecnológico da cadeia automotiva em ambas as regiões. Os principais resultados mostram que os esforços e resultados da inovação estão concentrados no tradicional núcleo automotivo europeu; enquanto as atividades produtivas localizadas na periferia automotiva europeia e no Mercosul são dissociadas daquelas de desenvolvimento tecnológico, uma vez que a tecnologia é adotada principalmente dos países núcleos de desenvolvimento tecnológico automotivo.
The reproduction of humans cognitive functions by technologies is known as Artificial intelligence (AI). AI is a powerful concept that, when used effectively, can aid long‐term transformations towards more energy sources. The computational intelligence skills and abilities of artificial intelligence can be used as a strategy to enable computers to handle reconfigurable situations. The cityscape scenes that we have known for decades are leaving their place to a new age; the “smart city” has arrived. Transportation is among the most important industries where AI can make an impact. The adoption of smart transport systems in general and autonomous vehicle transport has the potential to significantly improve “mobility” and its impact on social development. Regardless of its technological perspective, this next‐generation AI‐based mobility must be a user “central technology” that “understands” and “satisfies” all. This paper covers smart city development of infrastructures and Mobility‐based AI for smart homes. A creative approach can be used by exploring the underexplored intersection of AI and robots, transportation and the “smart city” and how this will affect the outcomes of cities. The chapter focuses on key integrated mobility projects such as Connected; Actions that can function as Autonomous Vehicles (AVs), autonomy Personal Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (PUAVs) and Mobility as a Service (MaaS), as well as advanced transport and communication, e.g., Internet of Things (IoT) and Physical Internet (PI) or broader transformations, such as Industry 4.0
Full-text available
The COVID-19 pandemic affected people’s mobility and access to urban activities. When the contagion was at a community level, quarantine measures were taken, causing population immobility. The lack of alternatives significantly altered the satisfaction of people’s basic needs. The objective of this article was to explore and generate real accessibility indicators for goods and services, in addition to the levels of spatial satisfaction of the population, at a regional level in the metropolitan area of Concepción, Chile. To focus on citizens’ social welfare, social geomarketing was applied as the method, obtaining the delimitation of accessibility areas for goods and services through population surveys and the delimited spatial decelerated satisfaction. Pre-pandemic and during-pandemic situations were evaluated. The results showed an improvement in the delimitation of accessibility areas of goods and services, as the citizens’ preferences as consumers were included, revealing an increment during the pandemic, especially in the food typology. In the same way, the existence of geospatial satisfaction and its increment under the pandemic context when accessing the diverse facilities that offer these kinds of goods was confirmed. In conclusion, the satisfaction areas were useful for analyzing urban form designs and focusing them to promote revitalization, as well as for inclusive and sustainable urbanization and proactive measures to make urban areas more resilient to natural or human risks, incorporating the role of geospatial tools for promoting sustainable urban development.
Megatrends such as urbanization, digitalization, and decarbonization have created the necessity for new and creative approaches to the urban transportation system. As a solution to the problems of the increasingly digitalized urban transportation environment, “Mobility-as-a-Service” (MaaS) was proposed as a new sustainable transportation concept in Helsinki in 2014. With the use of the MaaS concept, residents of a large emerging metropolis, such as Istanbul, Turkey, can be offered a fast, efficient, environment-friendly, and inexpensive way of travel. However, despite the significant benefits of MaaS, there are several factors that can hinder the adoption of MaaS. This paper aims to analyze these barriers and their contextual relationships with each other using Total Interpretive Structural Modeling (TISM) and Matrix-based-Multiplication-Applied-to-a-Classification (MICMAC) methods. The case study has been conducted on an expert group to explore which significant barriers might be encountered during the adoption of a MaaS system in Istanbul. This study also addresses how these barriers should be overcome, and the MaaS concept should be adopted in Istanbul. The results showed that the most significant barrier to adopting the MaaS concept in Istanbul are Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines that primarily include the legal nature of this mobility service. The least important barriers are found to be Customer Acceptance and Labor Shortage. Therefore, the case study results provided a unique perspective for emerging countries in terms of barriers to successful MaaS implementations and revealed significant differences from the developed countries.
Full-text available
Vehicles have become the primary cause of greenhouse gas emission. A comprehensive technique used for estimating energy consumption and environmental impact of vehicles is known as life cycle assessment which comprises of two parts: fuel life cycle and vehicle life cycle. Emissions from fuel life cycle is estimated using GREET (greenhouse gases regulated emissions and energy consumption in transportation) model. Vehicle life cycle emissions are calculated based on mass and type of material used for vehicle production, type of energy/ electricity used for vehicle operation and its life time. This chapter made a comparison between the life cycle CO2 emissions of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles and electric vehicles (EVs). The impacts of EVs are highly dependent on vehicle operation energy consumption and the electricity mix used for charging. For example EVs in China produce more CO2 emissions compared to ordinary ICE vehicles whereas that in Germany, USA, and Japan produce less emissions.
Full-text available
--- Open Access --- Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is a recent innovative transport concept, anticipated to induce significant changes in the current transport practices. However, there is ambiguity surrounding the concept; it is uncertain what are the core characteristics of MaaS and in which way they can be addressed. Further, there is a lack of an assessment framework to classify their unique characteristics in a systematic manner, even though several MaaS schemes have been implemented around the world. In this study, we define this set of attributes through a literature review, which is then used to describe selected MaaS schemes and existing applications. We also examine the potential implications of the identified core characteristics of the service on the following three areas of transport practices: travel demand modelling, a supply-side analysis, and designing business model. Finally, we propose the necessary enhancements needed to deliver such an innovative service like MaaS, by establishing the state of art in those fields.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
This paper deals with an analysis of performances of the HL (Hyperloop) transport system considered as an advanced transport alternative to the existing APT (Air Passenger Transport) and HSR (High Speed Rail) systems. The considered performances are operational, financial, social and environmental. The operational performance include capacity and quality of service provided to the system’s users-passengers with attributes such as door-to-door travel time consisting of the access and egress time, schedule delay, in-vehicle time, and interchange time. The economic performances embrace the costs and revenues of operating the system. The costs include that for infrastructure, vehicles, traffic management facilities and equipment, and employees. The revenues embrace earnings from pricing users/passengers. The environmental performances include energy consumption and related emissions of GHGs (Green House Gases), and land use. The social performances are considered to be noise and safety. The analytical models of indicators of these performances are developed and applied to the scenario of operating the HL system on the short- to medium-haul travel distances/routes. These are then compared to the corresponding performances of the HSR and APT. This comparison has shown that the HL system may possess some advantages but also disadvantages regarding particular performances.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
In the last years, intermodal mobility platforms offering combinations of various modal types, like trains, buses, carsharing and ride sharing, have emerged. These platforms often also offer a smartphone-based door-to-door navigation and a sophisticated travel assistance. Unfortunately, these smartphone-based services cannot be used by the travelers as soon as they are driving a car themselves, e.g., a carsharing vehicle or their private car, due to road safety regulations. The driver is essentially disconnected from the service. In addition, modern cars have a lot of configuration options a driver might want to set up. This discourages using shared vehicles in an intermodal itinerary. In this work we identify use cases of how an integration of carsharing vehicles into intermodal travel information systems can enhance travel experience, introduce a system architecture to allow the necessary information exchange and present a preliminary prototype to demonstrate its technical feasibility.
Full-text available
A team at Edinburgh University is promoting a 1150km/h ‘hyperloop’ link to London and expects to test its magnetically levitating pod design in the USA this summer. Adam Anyszewski and Carolina Toczycka of HypEd say it could revolutionise transport
Full-text available
Mobility as a service (MaaS) is a relatively new concept, which holds the promise for a paradigm shift in the provision of urban mobility. The concept of MaaS is to use a single app to access and pay for various transport modes within a city or beyond; and the app will give options to allow a traveller to select the most suitable transport mode. The concept of MaaS is enabled by the current mass uptake of smartphones and social media as well ubiquitous internet connection. By studying current applications of MaaS in Europe and US conditions of operation of MaaS have been summarised. Based on the necessary conditions, a checklist has been developed for potential developers of MaaS to assess if they can implement MaaS in a city. This paper also discusses challenges of implementation of MaaS and their potential impacts on urban mobility and societal changes.
Electric city buses and high power charging systems have been rapidly developed in recent years. Battery electric buses are energy efficient and emission free but due to the expensive technology, lifecycle costs can be much higher in comparison to diesel or hybrid buses. This research presents a lifecycle cost analysis for a fleet operation of electric city buses in different operating routes. The objective is to define charging power and battery requirements as well as energy consumption and lifecycle costs. A specific simulation tool was developed to comprehensively evaluate electric buses in different operating conditions. The tool allows to systematically generate and simulate different operating scenarios with a chosen bus configuration, charging method and operating route. Based on the simulation results and predefined cost parameters, lifecycle costs are calculated for each operating scenario. The considered charging methods include overnight, end station and opportunity charging. Simulation results are presented for four operating routes which were measured from existing bus lines in Finland and California, USA. The results show that high energy capacity of the battery system is crucial for the overnight charging buses to achieve adequate daily operation whereas the battery size has a minor impact on the energy consumption and lifecycle costs of the fast charging buses. The lifecycle costs of electric buses are heavily impacted by capital costs including purchase costs of the buses and charging devices. When considering 12 years of service life, the end station charging electric buses can have slightly lower lifecycle costs than diesel buses but on average they have 7% higher lifecycle costs. The overnight charging buses have on average 26% and opportunity charging buses 35% higher lifecycle costs than diesel buses.
Shared mobility is transforming the way we move around cities and is challenging consolidated transport modes such as the private car, taxi and public transit. While shared mobility has immense potential to improve the efficiency of personal transport and, hence, reduce emissions, this paper makes the case that shared mobility per se is not sufficient to achieve this important goal. Rather, shared mobility services should be designed and integrated with other transport modes having carbon emission reduction as an explicit optimisation goal. This observation prompts a call for the development of accurate models and analytical tools for the estimation of the city-level benefits of different forms of shared mobility, and of their integration. Examples of these tools are briefly reviewed and discussed in this paper.
Conference Paper
Transportation is one of the most fundamental aspects of modern society; a key enabler of the many other ways modern man has developed. This paper assesses the issue of transportation from both a high-level and more detailed perspective to provide a holistic picture of the current landscape for potential transportation efficiency improvement – along both congestion-related and environmental sustainability dimensions.