Conference PaperPDF Available

Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): The Potential Problems of Older Travellers’ Involvement


Abstract and Figures

A series of pilots and studies of Mobility-as-a-Service have launched out in recent years, but services are generally recognized as still at the early stage of development, whether in terms of its concept, the level of urban construction and the acceptance of travellers. According to the earlier explorative study of MaaS in a workshop in the UK, the result referred to the lack of consensus among stakeholders and the mismatch of value propositions between service providers and users. This leads to the early market not fully considering the requirements of the different group of travellers, especially for the older people. Therefore, this study reviewed previous literature and summarized the logic relation of the relevant factors, in order to provide the evidence for future sustainable development of MaaS on the aspect of increasing older travellers’ social participation.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Understanding the Exclusion Issues
of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): The Potential
Problems of Older Travellers’ Involvement
Yuanjun Li(B), Sharon Cook, and Andrew May
Loughborough Design School, Leicestershire, UK
Abstract. A series of pilots and studies of Mobility-as-a-Service have launched
out in recent years, but services are generally recognized as still at the early stage
of development, whether in terms of its concept, the level of urban construction
and the acceptance of travellers. According to the earlier explorative study of
MaaS in a workshop in the UK, the result referred to the lack of consensus among
stakeholders and the mismatch of value propositions between service providers and
users. This leads to the early market not fully considering the requirements of the
different group of travellers, especially for the older people. Therefore, this study
reviewed previous literature and summarized the logic relation of the relevant
factors, in order to provide the evidence for future sustainable development of
MaaS on the aspect of increasing older travellers’ social participation.
Keywords: Mobility-as-a-Service ·Service development ·Design for the elderly
1 Introduction
Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) is an emerging concept in the field of transportation in
recent years. It was firstly proposed by Hietanen (2014) and has developed fast since
then. Various pilots around the world are paving the way for exploring the transformation
of future transport eco-system, while the definition of MaaS concept itself has also
experiencing continuous development. According to the early proposal of MaaS, it refers
to the integration of different transports and information from both private and public
sectors (Hietanene 2014;Datson2016; Hilgert et al. 2016), which is expected to become
an alternative choice for people to travel rather than owning a car (Melis et al. 2016,
2018). It can be expected to relieve the traffic congestion on urban road and increase the
efficiency of transport system (EI Zarwi et al. 2017; Wong et al. 2018). By using MaaS,
users can obtain a seamless travel experience with higher added value and lower price
(Melis et al. 2016), and have more flexibility to meet their individual lifestyle (Atkins
Based on a digital platform (Jittrapirom et al. 2017; Li and Voege 2017), MaaS is
shown to have the younger generations (Jittrapirom et al. 2018) and the people who used
to take multi-modal transports (Jittrapirom et al. 2018;Hoetal.2018; Alonso-González
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020
Q. Gao and J. Zhou (Eds.): HCII 2020, LNCS 12209, pp. 269–287, 2020.
270 Y. Li et al.
et al. 2017) as the early adopters. However, since there are few MaaS service that have
been launched yet, the evidence is limited about the acceptance level of different user
groups (Ho et al. 2018). For the older travellers - who are predicted to be less likely
using MaaS (Jittrapirom et al. 2018), they are probably to have difficulties with interface
interaction due to certain physical functions decrease, and the challenges they face to
do with changing their original routine life. Since it will require cognitive and affective
efforts of them in undertaking a journey (Stradlling 2006; Lyons et al. 2019), commenters
suggest that MaaS will intentionally nudging people’s behaviour (Smith et al. 2018), it’s
worthy to consider whether this innovation is responsible (Stilgoe et al. 2013; Lyons
et al. 2019; Pangbourne et al. 2018) – so that will not hurt the trust of customers or
cause unnecessary exclusion. Therefore, this paper firstly reviews several key concepts
discussed in previous literature about older travellers’ behaviour to clarify the logic ration
of the relevant influencing factors. Then, it collects the viewpoints of MaaS stakeholders
to analyse the storyline that contribute to the potential exclusion of older travellers.
Through literature review, this paper firstly observed the conflicting points of current
older people’s travel pattern with the expected vision proposed by MaaS, found a series
of uncertainties caused by the lack of evidence and knowledges which could make the
older people getting excluded from the new service. On this basis, an explorative study
focused on the stakeholders in MaaS eco-system is organised to understand whether
this situation is actually happen, will happen in the future, and what is the reason for
it. Finally, combined with the literature and the data obtained, insights are proposed for
later service iteration of MaaS, in order to increase older travellers’ involvement.
2 Dimensions to Understand MaaS’s Impacts on Mobility
2.1 Individual Mobility and Urban Mobility
According to Suen and Mitchell (2000), “mobility” means having transport services
going where and when one wants to travel, being informed about the services, knowing
how to use them, being able to use them; and having the means to pay for them. But as
mobility itself is ambiguous to define, a popular way to assess it, is by trip rate (Alsnih
and Hensher 2003), while the trips basically refer to the original end-to-end journey
undertaking with activities or specific purpose.
In literature, mobility is often understood as Individual Mobility and Urban Mobility.
Individual Mobility relates to one’s specific ability, such as walking, grasping, climb-
ing stairs and etc. To a broader concept, it could also reflect in the movement outdoors
and the use of transportation, for example accessing shops, services and facilities in
the community and participating in social and cultural activities (WHO 2015; Ranta-
nen 2013); Urban Mobility, refers to the number of personal kilometres travelled per
annum, is predicted to be tripled in 2010–2050, and accounts for the proportion of 64%
of total mobility. It indicates that if current trends continue, the transport system will
breakdown (Lerner and Van Audenhove 2012). Given this, MaaS was proposed as not
only a new service, but the reconstruction of supply chain (Kamargianni and Matyas
2017) to reshape urban transport eco-system with disruptive innovation (Matyas and
Kamergianni 2017) and encourage travellers to change their original travel pattern to
achieve the sustainable goal.
Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) 271
However, Individual Mobility may not share the same purpose as Urban Mobility,
especially during the transformation period that people may not have developed with the
fixed travel habits. Travellers are required to adapt to the new service to match personal
demand, while the service also need to learn from travellers’ changing preference to
iterate service. But from current situation, the process of mutual learning has not been
taken seriously due to the lack of experience, knowledge and research framework.
2.2 Older Travellers’ Requirements of Mobility
Maslow (1954)’s Hierarchy of Needs (Fig. 1) explains that each need must be satisfied at
a lower level before they progress to higher (McLeod 2007). Relate to this CATAPULT
(2015) refined this model specifically to travellers’ needs (Fig. 2).
Fig. 1. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (McLeod
lifest yles
end-to -end journeys
Remov ing pa in-
Fig. 2. Hierarchy of traveller needs
It indicates that travellers should get a pleasant experience during the journey first
and then could possibly achieve the ideal lifestyle. ICF - The International Classification
of Functioning, Disability and Health (Broome et al. 2009) believes that activities and
participation are the basis of healthy life, while the UK and WHO (World Health Orga-
nization) also highlight the significance of independent and free travel in aging-friendly
society in the policies (Shrestha et al. 2017), as it is the way to realize self-worth. How-
ever, limited by the use of private car and public transports, some older travellers would
be gradually isolated from society (Engels and Liu 2011) that directly affect their quality
of life (QoL) (Marin-Lamellet and Haustein 2015).
When growing older, people might have less transport options available, for example,
the car use decreases after the aged of 55 (Mollenkopf and Kaspar 2005), and the travel
distance would also decrease according to retirement (Bakaba and Ortlepp 2010). There
are a large number of studies show that the majority of older users are relying on personal
transport (Buehler and Nobis 2010; Newbold et al. 2005; Alsnih and Hensher 2003),
many researches hence focused on the topics such as safer driving of senior drivers (Li
et al. 2003; Lyman et al. 2002; Whelan et al. 2006) and travel mode conversion from
driving to taking public transport (Kockelman 1997), but haven’t go further to explore
the relationship of their lifestyle (Lu et al. 2016; Stradling 2006; Lyons et al. 2019)
or its reflection on overall travel pattern (Goulias 2000; Doherty 2000). As shown in
Fig. 3, studying older travellers’ regiments of mobility requires an understanding of
their living environment and value proposition. These factors constitute the context in
which older travellers are placed and determine how they act and plan their daily lives,
272 Y. Li et al.
and are reflected in individual’s preference of activities which will determine their travel
behaviour in specific scenario.
Fig. 3. Context diagram of travel pattern
In the trend of integrated transportation such as MaaS, relevant studies have not yet
subdivided the research objects according to individual factors (Giesecke et al. 2016),
nor have much quantitative research data been collected (Caiati et al. 2017). Due to the
constraints of the early market, the existing results are mainly based on a small population
of mostly younger generation within the limited experimental time and geographical
area, the result might be not generalizable of the larger public. Start-ups like to develop
business for young people because the lower entry of acceptance (Li et al. 2019), while
the difficulties of investigating older travellers are, firstly, older people today are more
flexible and active than before (Shrestha et al. 2017), and their behaviour characteristics
are diverse (Marin-Lamellet and Haustein 2015; Caiati et al. 2017; Buehler and Nobis
2010) with a certain degree of unpredictability (Lu et al. 2010). In addition, the existing
studies usually make the fuzzy boundary of the older and the disabled, and misunderstand
they are homogenous group (Marin-Lamellet and Haustein 2015). There are services
specifically designed for the disabled in the market, but few are designed for the older
people (Priestley and Rabiee 2002).
2.3 Influencing Factors
In previous studies, the influencing factors of older people’s mobility could be summa-
rized from two aspects: objective and subjective. The former refers to the factors that
individual could not control or are unchangeable in short-term, for example the personal
factors and living environment. The latter is built on objective conditions, where people
can have flexible choices.
Objective Factors. Webber et al. (2010) concluded 5 fundamental categories of key
determinants (cognitive, psychosocial, physical, environmental, and financial) of elderly
mobility (Fig. 4), with influences of gender, culture, and biography surrounding the entire
Webber highlighted the interrelationships among different determinants because of
the linked dimensions. These factors would bring a combined influence on people’s
mobility and reflect in their travel behaviour. For example, family members would have
Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) 273
Fig. 4. Conical model of the theoretical framework for mobility in older adults (Webber et al.
similar life-space (annotated on left of conical model), but due to differences in gender or
biography, the overall influence would occur on 5 fundamental determinants, so that we
can witness the different travel behaviour of family members. But this model missing the
important dimension of interpersonal relationship. In this example, the travel behaviour
will also be influenced by familial responsibility and household labour division. Just
as if the one who has the responsibility to take the children out to school, he/she will
drive more frequently; if the elderly has other drivers in family, he/she would take public
transports less.
Subjective Factors. Travel behaviour” refers to both time-use pattern and spatial fea-
tures of travel and activities, while travel demands are subjectively determined by per-
sonal pursuit (or human desire) and their households (Goulias 2000; Timmermans and
Zhang 2009). For this reason, activity-based travel demand modelling has become widely
used in practice (Hildebrand 2003; Jovicic 2001; Rasouli and Timmermans 2014), and
further implies to a decision framework, in which travel decisions are components of a
broader activity scheduling decision (Ben-Akiva and Bowman 1998).
In other words, travel demand and related decision making process also embody
people’s motivation of travel. Factors such as survival, social contact and ego gratification
(Ben-Akiva and Bowman 1998) would positively promote people traveling to activities.
On the contrary, the aged may negatively impact on their motivation by the concerning
the low perceived safety (Haustein and Siren 2015), fear of falling (Mänty et al. 2009),
unfamiliar applied technology (Holzinger et al. 2007), navigational problems (Alsnih
and Hensher 2003) and other reasons, would reduce travel motivation then further lead
to isolation and loneliness of older people.
Moreover, referring to Research Model UTAUT2, which integrates multiple mod-
els of user acceptance theory, it illustrates that, except for main determents, Behaviour
Intention (BI) is also effected by contingencies from moderators that would amplify
or constrain the effects of core determinants, for example, age, gender and experience
274 Y. Li et al.
(Arenas-Gáitan et al. 2015). These factors work in delicate synergy and apply to indi-
vidual’s behaviour. However, most of the current studies intend to explore the impacts of
MaaS on travellers’ performance, such as the preference on transport modes and service
packages, rather than the synergistic effects of the above factors. If looking at the whole
storyline of travellers’ behaviour, can it be considered that the current research trend
focuses more on the users’ performance in the service and lacks data on the potential
influencing factors of behaviour, and this leads to some of the consequences observed
cannot be well explained.
2.4 Trip-Chain
Another dimension often discussed in previous literature is the “trip-chain”, which pro-
vides an perspective that puts trips on timeline to help understand how individuals plan
their travel routine. This may involve some other factors, such as traveller’s choice in
a particular scenario or an emergency situation. These are the performance that people
would have in real situation, which may be deviated from their previous plan or what
they think they should do.
Trips are driven by the purpose of activities which reflect traveller’s value and attitude
towards personal and social goals. The logistical efficiency of travel is an increasingly
important factor for people to consider their trip plan (Su et al. 2009), and thus the trip
chain has become more common in everyone’s daily travel (McGuckin et al. 2005).
The most used word to define “trip chain” is “stop” (Kitamura 1985). Then the
“trip” refers to: “The movement which carries an individual between his home and a
stop or between temporally consecutive stop” (Lee et al. 2002). On this basis, “a set of
consecutive trips which begin and end at an individual’s home or work place” is known
as a “tour” (McGuckin et al. 2004). If a tour is composed of more than two stops, it also
defined as an “trip chain” (Su et al. 2009).
About the home-based trip chain per day (the start and end points are home), the
complexity of travel doesn’t decrease too much from the younger to the older travellers,
and even has an increase with age 50–54 (Fig. 5). The reason might because as the work
trips are not included, the home-based trips are more depend on trip chain to achieve.
Figure 6shows the modes used in trip chain by age, which illustrates self-driving is the
most significant factor for trip chain’s flexibility, while people have stable demands on
public transport chains and car passenger chains, and this demands are not effected by
age. It further explains the accessibility on public transport modes and network for older
people would matter most for their quality of life.
Research found older travellers would not get benefits from the trip chain with higher
logistical efficiency (Su 2008), and tend to have easier tour types. Their preferences on
tours like the trip sequences, destination choices and time arrangement are normally
limited by reduced mobility. Other factors like gender and life cycle (McGuckin et al.
2005), income and household composition (Noland and Thomas 2007) would also influ-
ence travellers’ trip chain behaviour. In comparison, older travellers are shown to have
shorter trips in a tour, but prefer more than one tour a day (Schmöcker et al. 2010). The
complex trip-chain planning can be difficult for older people (Schmöcker et al. 2010).
Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) 275
Fig. 5. Percentage distribution of
home-based trip-chains by age and
complexity (Hensher 2007)
Fig. 6. Average home-based trip-chains per day
by age and mode (Hensher 2007)
2.5 Contradiction Points
Intelligent transport has created better conditions for urban sustainability, advocating to
reduce automobile travel and increasing collaborative operation. According to the result
of UbiGo 6-month trial, the new business model has shown initial success in reducing
private car ownership (Sochor et al. 2014) by transforming the concept of “transport” to
“accessibility”. With the support of ICT, the physical accessibility can be replaced by
other options so that the travel plan is more flexible (Van Wee et al. 2013).
But these advantages may bring about barriers for older travellers, such as the inter-
action mode with digital platform and the impacts on their original travel behaviour.
Research showed the low utilization of smart phone among older people (IET 2015) and
their reluctance to accept it because of the poor understanding of the benefits (Holzinger
et al. 2007). On another aspects, ICT could result in the reorganization of activities (Van
Wee et al . 2013). It is recognized as the capability to support more complex trips and
trip-chains, as well as multi-tasking during the journey (Van Wee et al. 2013). Parallel
activities can reduce the disutility of trips and further affects user experience (Van Wee
et al. 2013). However, as the older people prefer the simple travel pattern and are less
require of the value on time efficiency (Su et al. 2009), this advantage are not so attractive
as to persuade them to overcome the existing difficulties to adopt a new service. In this
development trend, the identity of travellers will also change, for example, from “driver”
to “passenger”. By then, the use of public transport shall increase, with the advent of
new forms of transport tools and infrastructures. However, there are few researches to
prove that the older people is willing to accept this transformation actively. To turn to
public transport, for the people who has long-term dependency on driving, this might be
a challenge to their original lifestyle and habits, and can also induce to their exclusion
from the new service.
276 Y. Li et al.
3 The Value Proposition of MaaS Stakeholders
Having an overview of the literature, the integrated resources relate to MaaS seemed
to be limited. Both stakeholders and academia are exploring the opportunities of the
emerging concept, but the difficulty and opportunities are coexistence. There is limited
evidence of users’ requirements based ethnographic differences, and most studies tended
to be pilot tests and evaluations involving comparison of data between younger and older
generations, but do not show a practical recommendation of approaches to increase the
involvement of various user groups.
For the perspective of MaaS stakeholders, their different extent of understanding
leads to different market penetration. Service operators have their own interpretation,
consideration and strategies of MaaS market, which leads to diverse types of service
offerings and system architecture. Because of the uncertainties, it’sdifficult to define and
verify the potential exclusion issues mentioned above. Without knowing what the specific
problem are, the risk of service exclusion will not be effectively minimized through
afterwards service iteration. Therefore, this exploratory study involved and collected
the data of a workshop in 2016, hold by IMPART (The Intelligent Mobility Partnership
– Midlands Competence Centre of Excellence), brought together industry, the public
sectors, academia and NGOs for 54 participants to discuss the topic about how to better
understand MaaS by taking users at the centre of proposition.
The study was divided in to 4 steps (Fig. 7), and the data aimed to answer the
following questions.
and discussion
Fig. 7. Methodology of study
What do MaaS stakeholders focus attention to?
What do they think about older people using MaaS?
What is the value proposition of MaaS stakeholders?
How to understand older travellers are ignored?
The presentation in workshop can help to quickly narrow down the scope of topics
and locate current market’s interests. Then in group discussion which focus on older
travellers’ involvement issues, the perspectives from different stakeholders can provide
an overall point of view and locate the current knowledge gap. On this basis, a follow-up
interview was designed for this study to deeply explore problem and consensus obtained
in the workshop.
3.1 Identity of Participation
Referring to the literature review of the actors defined in MaaS system (CATAPULT
2015; Li et al. 2019), participants’ composition of the workshop can be roughly divided
Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) 277
into the nine categories (Transport Operator 4%, MaaS Provider 2%, Data Provider 4%,
Manufacturer 5%, Business and Consultancy 11%, User 2%, Local Authorities 7%,
Research Association 24% and Academia 41%), and eight of them delivered a detailed
presentation, including three designers, two MaaS providers, one Data Provider, one
User and one other interest identity. It is necessary to highlight that a participant’s
characteristic is defined above by the company or organization she/he belongs to, which
might not represent individual’s intention. In addition, a single participant may take
more than one characteristics, so this statistic can only be referred to as an reference to
understand the reason of some results coming out.
3.2 What Do Stakeholders Focus Attention to? - Workshop Presentation
The viewpoints raised by presentation are refined into key words and phrases, and the
number counted here is the times one viewpoint being raised rather than the times single
words being mentioned.
Key points are generally classified into 5 groups by its content. The higher number
of mentions refers to this topic is currently being paid more attention to (Table 1).
Table 1. Data conclusion arranged by contents - key words of workshop presentation.
Design for MaaS (21) Consider for users (9)
Take users’ requirements at centre (4)
To think wider (4)
Understand human(customer) behaviour (4)
Identify pain-points (2)
Co-design (2)
Application of design thinking (2)
Understand users’ motivation (1)
Empathy needs (4)
Travel modal shift (2)
Hidden disabilities (1)
Safety and security (1)
Save time and money (1)
Service form (18) Service content (20)
Integration and collaboration (8)
Multi-modal transport (2)
Personalized service (2)
App-based service (2)
Interface interaction (1)
Personal data collection (1)
Service package (1)
Virtual journey (1)
Journey plan (4)
End-to-end journey (4)
User experience (3)
Access on-demand (2)
Plan B (2)
IoT (Internet of Things) (2)
Easy payment (1)
Before and After experience (1)
Car sharing and recruiting (1)
Others (3) Sustainable business (2)
Additional revenue (1)
In Table 1, stakeholders’ knowledge of service content is relatively more clear than
their understanding about users. From this, the following hypotheses can be made.
278 Y. Li et al.
The exploration and development of MaaS service is more based on technology or
enterprises’ development strategy rather than data collected from user investigation.
Their understanding of the user’s value proposition is not based on an understanding
of the users’ requirements.
If you arrange the same data under the criteria of identities (actors) of MaaS system
defined by CATAPULT (2015), the data collection would tell a different story (Table 2).
Table 2. Data collection arranged by actor identities– key words of workshop presentation.
Transport Operators (22) Data Providers (23)
Integration and collaboration (8)
Journey plan (4)
Travel modal shifts (2)
IoT (Internet of Things) (2)
Sustainable business (2)
Safety and security (1)
Save time and money (1)
Car sharing and recruiting (1)
Additional revenue (1)
Integration and collaboration (8)
Journey plan (4)
User experience (3)
Plan B (2)
App-based service (2)
Safety and security (1)
Interface interaction (1)
Personal data collection (1)
Additional revenue (1)
Users/Customers (28) MaaS Providers (34)
Journey plan (4)
End-to-end journey (4)
User experience (3)
Travel modal shifts (2)
Eliminate pain-points (2)
Multi-modal transport (2)
Access on-demand (2)
IoT (Internet of Things) (2)
Plan B (2)
Car sharing and recruiting (1)
Virtual journey (1)
Easy payment (1)
Hidden disabilities (1)
Before and After experience (1)
Integration and collaboration (8)
Take users’ requirements at center (4)
To think wider (4)
Journey plan (4)
Eliminate pain-points (2)
Co-design (2)
Application of design thinking (2)
Sustainable business (2)
App-based service (2)
Understand users’ motivation (1)
Service package (1)
Save time and money (1)
Additional revenue (1)
The different classification of the same key words means this item could be seen in
different perspective according to value propositions. On the initial phase of developing
a new business model, it’s natural for actors to pay most of the attention on some
certain aspects, such as the system operation and construction, which might indicate
that the responsibilities of actors are not yet clearly defined: the discussion of travellers’
requirements have not yet found a clear direction. In the presentations, participants aware
the differentiated needs of traveller groups (e.g. children and older generation), but the
current conditions seemed to be unable to support them to refine the service offerings
as the service capability has not fully developed.
Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) 279
3.3 What Do They Think About Older People Using MaaS?- Workshop Group
In order to obtain the specific data to tackle this question, the study collected and analysed
the data from two of the focused groups which specifically discussed the older travellers’
related issues. It was an open discussion, the content is guided to focus on the problems
of older travellers’ involvement in MaaS. All the topics discussed were recorded on
paper for later organization.
The data were generally divided in to two layers, the general questions about MaaS
and the concerns related to older travellers.
General Question. The general questions are literally covering the following aspects,
Concept, Requirements, and Operation (Fig. 8).
Why Why we need it?
What What is the purpose?
What is the challenge?
How does it evolve?
How does it improve QoL?
Who Who offer the service?
Who benefit from it?
Expression How do you know wha t will you need before use?
How cold customers express their requirements accurately?
Change ( longitudinal time) How to predict the changes?
Influencing factors (context) Journey type (modal, purpose et al.)?
Non-local journey (e.g. tourist)?
Service Modal Unifying modal?
Personalized modal?
Service Form Single-use service?
Service package?
Business Business model
Infor mat ion
Transport modal Interaction between
different modes?
Fig. 8. Summary of general questions
Referring participants’ statement, it can understood that the emergence of MaaS is
driven by the development of new technologies, rather than human requirements. Stake-
holders are thinking of “What can we do with this technology?” before being concerned
with travellers’ inconvenience and requirements in real environment. It might lead to
the consequence that, firstly, considering the uncertainty about its potential possibilities,
the outline of concept would be unlikely to be defined in the short term. Secondly, the
new technology based services would probably challenge peoples’ existing habits and
thinking model. It can also be observed from the discussion that the exploration of MaaS
and users’ requirements in both market and academia are not carried out simultaneously
280 Y. Li et al.
at the early development stage-which results in the gap between understanding and prac-
tice. Therefore, the directions of future research for designers need to concentrate more
on users themselves and their requirements to seek for the breakthrough points in order
to positively connect their demands with technologies.
Older Travellers-Related Questions. Questions relate to older travellers are gathered
around 3 themes, Motivation, Challenges and Implication (Fig. 9).
Going out What is the purpose?
What is the selection on travel modes?
Use MaaS
Why are they reluctant?
What is the role of training?
Capability What capabilities are required for using
New technology
Mobile devices?
Interface interaction?
Other new technologies?
How to predict it?
What are other key issues?
Positive Do they know what benefits they can get from it?
What bebefits do they already get?
Exclusion Make things worse for
disadvantages group?
What does it means for non-digital natives?
Fig. 9. Summary of older travellers-related questions
Older travellers’ related questions can be regarded as the extension of general ques-
tions rather than a separated research area. The context for older travellers is more
complicated because they have to overcome the reluctance of “going out” and “use new
service”- the double obstacle, while the most of the topics here haven’t been clearly
clarified yet as they are ended with a question mark. In addition, it’s unclear whether the
new service will affect the older people more positively or negatively. Without this data,
service providers will have a hard time persuading older people to attempt adopting it.
Consensus Acquired. In the open discussion – each group presented the results of
the discussion to the other groups to exchange ideas, the participants have generally
reached a consensus on some of the issues. Firstly, traveller’s pain-points should be the
basis to shape service performance. The touch-points should respond to traveller’s pain-
points and either reduce the difficulties or improve the original experience. Through
understanding travellers’ pain-points, service providers can obtain the evidence to set
up the scenario and characteristics of touch-points in service design.
Secondly, systematic integrative thinking is needed in the MaaS eco-system. It con-
tains two aspects, one is to the collaboration of different organizations, such as real-time
Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) 281
information, easy payment and multi-modal transport; the other refers to the systematic
service, which not only covering the cooperation of all the service channels, but is also
reflected on the connection of difference experience phases, for example, the “pre-”
and “after-” trip experience are equally important with “during-” trip experience for
travellers’ overall satisfaction.
Compared to the definition of MaaS actors summarized by CATAPULT in 2015 -
“Traveller Needs and UK Capability Study”, participants in this workshop have updated
the understanding of the identity of MaaS actors and universally agreed that the same
person could be classified into different categories simultaneously according to specific
scenario, for example, Uber drivers who are both service provider and user. This is
due to the characteristic of service logic which highlights the value co-creation, where
operators are mainly taking the role of organizing available resources rather than direct
offer services.
A question which was raised during discussion is “Are the journeys all necessary?”.
Virtual trips could release people from the trips of “what need to do” to “What want
to do”. Take older travellers as example, such “need to do” activities as go to hospital
or regular shopping could be replaced by online operation. Therefore, MaaS can help
people to get flexibility to reschedule their daily routine, which is agreed to bring benefits
to their quality of life (QoL).
Summary. Theproposition discussed in this exploration study is about whether the older
travellers’ requirements have been considered on early development stage of MaaS. It
has to clarify that, “whether it has been considered” is not the same as “whether do
they actually engaged” and can’t be regarded as the direct evidence to judge the level of
inclusiveness of MaaS service. But the neglect of users’ needs in service development
will inevitably lead to a certain degree of exclusion or difficulties for some users.
There are two ways to improve inclusiveness. One is to decrease the level of task
demands to make it being easier adopted by wider audience (e.g. UbiGo Call Services
for older people), another needs to provide necessary support to users’ original capabil-
ities to encourage higher involvement (e.g. mobility scooter). The former one is more
likely to take the market-oriented perspective that roughly filters the user group that the
service aims to include, while the latter depends on the individual’s willingness, which is
inclined to be the subjective behaviour that largely influenced by personal factors, such
as emotion. However, these factors are difficult to collect and measure. In addition, most
empirical studies relies on self-report measures instead of behavioral data, which leads
to the lower data accuracy (Scharkow 2016), especially with older people who have the
age-related changes in cognitive and communication functions, which will also impact
on the result of self-report (Knäuper et al. 2016). For these reasons above, future research
on this topic should look forward to appropriate methods to investigate the expanded
user experience timeline and ensure data accuracy and reliability.
3.4 What Is the Value Proposition of Stakeholders? – Follow-up Interview
To further explore the different stakeholders’ value proposition and their understanding
of older travellers’ involvement issues, semi-structured interviews were used to multiple
282 Y. Li et al.
perspectives. The 4 participants in this step are all from the workshop and have different
identities. They were asked to develop the answer of the remaining questions from
previous discussion and help us think more and deeply.
Transport solution Specialist– Transport Provider
Service Design Specialist – Service Designer
Research Fellow - Academia
Product Manager – Vehicle Manufacturer
Through content analysis, the interviews showed that the neglect of older travellers’
requirements in current market is a recognized fact, and most of the stakeholders are
already aware of the issue and have the willingness to involve older travellers in their
service through later iteration. However but due to the lack of knowledge and resource,
pilots and trials that have been promoted so far are mainly “testing the water” to seek
the possibility for further cooperation, and this process take time. They mentioned the
importance of including older people participating in the design process to improve
service inclusion as nobody would know their requirements better than themselves.
However, there are limited experience could be referred to.
The stakeholders expect the new service can be user-centred and also business-
oriented to ensure the continuous development, but have not found an approach to
satisfy both sides. From the perspective of market, private and public enterprises are
offering various service characteristics, which are just “fragments” and haven’t come
into integrated system. The uncertainty of future market of MaaS would be vital for the
promotion of MaaS among older travellers, it might need to add other actors participating
in the system to bridge the service delivery, for example, the NGOs and government.
3.5 How to Understand Older Travellers Are Ignored? – Understanding
and Discussion
The Gap Between Knowledge and Application. The various dimensions that affect
an individual’s mobility have been relatively well-discussed in previous literatures. The
influencing factors of mobility can affect every aspect of travel experience, and the
influence is not limited within trips, but the associated life as well. The complexity of
the study of MaaS lies in the fact that experience evaluation involves both “service”
and “trip” covering physical and psychological dimensions. As shown in the Fig. 10,
experience is divided into 4 themes, the characteristics discussed in each theme are
However, as the stakeholders in the workshop discussed, the current condition cannot
support the personalized service offerings of each traveller segmentation. The existing
theories and data are accessible, but what is missing is the method to apply them reason-
ably. In follow-up interviews, participants mentioned the different design for older and
younger generations should not only be reflected by the service offerings, but also in
the methods applied to do New Service Development (NSD). Stakeholders should learn
to explore the real needs of different groups and make sustainable development to meet
users’ changing demands.
Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) 283
Fig. 10. 4 themes of MaaS experience
Fostering Travel Behaviour. As discussed in the literature review, the development
route that MaaS proposed for future transports is to some extent contrary to existing travel
pattern of older people. There needs to be an appropriate plan to ensure that travellers’
behaviour and service can develop simultaneously in a dynamic balance. The service
should help users fit into the new service system mode while guiding the behaviour
change, apply technology flexible and leave enough room for service innovation.
Market Competition. Market competition in the future would occur among strategic
alliances. Because of the trend of multi-modal collaboration, individual transport system
should not only consider their own operating manner, but also the way to coordinate with
others. On this basis, the competitiveness would also depend on one system’s flexibility
and coordinate ability. As for the elder market, choosing service partners that meet the
requirements of older travelers can improve the service attractiveness, but the key is to
figure out what do they really need and in what approach to cooperate to keep them
Data Sharing. Although data sharing remains a challenge for MaaS integration, but
from a customer perspective, desired data could help them make decisions. More
data items mean more choices. Stakeholders would establish cooperative relationships
according to the database they respectively have with the intention of providing seamless
travel experience. On this basis, it can be understand as the data and collaboration of
different stakeholders that work together on building the market in older travellers mind.
4 Conclusion
This paper indicates the concern that the emerging concept of MaaS might have ignored
some specific groups’ requirements in the business-driven market environment. For older
travellers, the travel behaviour proposed by MaaS may cause new barriers, which not
only occur in human-computer interaction or physical environment, but also affect the
elderly’s travel planning, the choice of activities to participate in, and even have an
impacts on the quality of life. Previous studies have provided a relatively comprehensive
understanding of travel characteristics of the older people, but in the context of new
services, new dimensions have emerged which need to be further explored. The older
travellers have to learn about how to adapt to the new travel logic while overcoming the
travel difficulties they used to have. Based the global aging trend, this service, designed
284 Y. Li et al.
for the younger generations, is not benefitting those who do already, and will increasingly,
really need it.
The explorative study described in this paper verified the potential exclusion issues
caused by MaaS and showed a lack of deeper understanding among stakeholders on the
current MaaS development stage. Furthermore, given the lack of previous experience
and evidence, the direction of future iterations cannot be clearly defined.
In the view of this, this paper suggests that stakeholders in the system should consider
the different requirements of various groups and open their thoughts through a revised
design process, instead of sticking to the conventional thinking in the current context.
Operators should make plans to ensure that the travellers and transport service can
learn from each other and develop in the same pace, and strengthen communication
among different stakeholders to coordinate value propositions, in order to realize the
sustainability goal of urban transport system by iterating the service with the user-centred
Alonso-González, M.J., van Oort, N., Oded, C., Hoogendoorn, S.: Urban demand responsive
transport in the mobility as a service ecosystem: its role and potential market share (2017)
Alsnih, R., Hensher, D.A.: The mobility and accessibility expectations of seniors in an aging
population. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 37(10), 903–916 (2003)
Arenas-Gaitán, J., Peral-Peral, B., Ramon-Jeronimo, M.A.: Elderly and internet banking: an
application of UTAUT2. J. Internet Bank. Commer. 20(1), 1–23 (1970)
Atkins: Journeys of the future. Introducing Mobility as a Service (2015).
-leadership/reports/Journeys of the future_300315.pdf
Bakaba, J.E., Ortlepp, J.: Belange von Senioren zur Verbesserung der Verkehrssicherheit/For con-
siderating elderly’s interests by improving road traffic safety. Zeitschrift für Verkehrssicherheit
56(1) (2010)
Ben-Akiva, M.E., Bowman, J.L.: Activity based travel demand model systems. In: Marcotte,
P., Nguyen, S. (eds.) Equilibrium and Advanced Transportation Modelling. CRT, pp. 27–46.
Springer, Boston (1998).
Broome, K., McKenna, K., Fleming, J., Worrall, L.: Bus use and older people: a literature review
applying the Person–Environment–Occupation model in macro practice. Scand. J. Occup. Ther.
16(1), 3–12 (2009)
Buehler, R., Nobis, C.: Travel behaviour in aging societies: comparison of Germany and the United
States. Transp. R. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 2182, 62–70 (2010)
Caiati, V., Feneri, A.M., Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H.J.P.: Innovations in urban mobility and travel
demand analysis: mobility as a service context. In: Proceedings BIVEC-GIBET Transport
Research Days 2017, Liège, Belgium, pp. 492–503 (2017)
CATAPULT: Traveller Needs and UK Capability Study (2015).
Datson, J.: Mobility as a service: exploring the opportunity for mobility as a service in the UK
Doherty, S.T.: An activity scheduling process approach to understanding travel behaviour. In: 79th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, January 2000
El Zarwi, F., Vij, A., Walker, J.L.: A discrete choice framework for modeling and forecasting the
adoption and diffusion of new transportation services. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol.
79, 207–223 (2017)
Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) 285
Engels, B., Liu, G.J.: Social exclusion, location and transport disadvantage amongst non-driving
seniors in a Melbourne municipality, Australia. J. Transp. Geogr. 19(4), 984–996 (2011)
Giesecke, R., Surakka, T., Hakonen, M.: Conceptualising mobility as a service. In: 2016 Eleventh
International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER), pp. 1–11.
IEEE, April 2016
Goulias, K.G.: Travellerbehaviour and values research for human-centered transportation systems.
Transportation in the New Millennium: State of the Art and Future Directions, Perspectives
from Transportation Research Board Standing Committees. Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC (2000)
Haustein, S., Siren, A.: Older people’s mobility: segments, factors, trends. Transp. Rev. 35(4),
466–487 (2015)
Hensher, D.A.: Some insights into the key influences on trip-chaining activity and public transport
use of seniors and the elderly. Int. J. Sustain. Transp. 1(1), 53–68 (2007)
Hietanen, S.: “Mobility as a Service” – the new transport model? ITS & Transport Management
Supplement. Eurotransport 12(2), 2–4 (2014)
Hildebrand, E.D.: Dimensions in elderly travel behaviour: a simplified activity-based model using
lifestyle clusters. Transportation 30(3), 285–306 (2003)
Hilgert, T., Kagerbauer, M., Schuster, T., Becker, C.: Optimization of individual travel behavior
through customized mobility services and their effects on travel demand and transportation
systems. Transp. Res. Procedia 19, 58–69 (2016)
Ho, C.Q., Hensher, D.A., Mulley, C., Wong, Y.Z.: Potential uptake and willingness-to-pay for
mobility as a service (MaaS): a stated choice study. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 117,
302–318 (2018)
Holzinger, A., Searle, G., Nischelwitzer, A.: On some aspects of improving mobile applications
for the elderly. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) UAHCI 2007. LNCS, vol. 4554, pp. 923–932. Springer,
Heidelberg (2007).
Jittrapirom, P., Caiati, V., Feneri, A.M., Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S., Alonso González, M.J.,
Narayan, J.: Mobility as a service: a critical review of definitions, assessments of schemes,
and key challenges (2017)
Jittrapirom, P., Marchau, V., van der Heijden, R., Meurs, H.: Future implementation of mobility
as a service (MaaS): results of an international Delphi study. Travel Behav. Soc. (2018)
Jovicic, G.: Activity based travel demand modelling. Danmarks Transp. Skn (2001)
Kamargianni, M., Matyas, M.: The business ecosystem of mobility-as-a-service. In: Transportation
Research Board, vol. 96 (2017)
Knäuper, B., Carrière, K., Chamandy, M., Xu, Z., Schwarz, N., Rosen, N.O.: How aging affects
self-reports. Eur. J. Ageing 13(2), 185–193 (2016)
Kockelman, K.: Travel behavior as function of accessibility, land use mixing, and land use balance:
evidence from San Francisco Bay Area. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1607, 116–125
Lee, M.S., Chung, J.H., McNally, M.G.: An empirical investigation of the underlying behavioral
processes of trip chaining (2002)
Lerner, W., Van Audenhove, F.J.: The future of urban mobility: towards networked, multimodal
cities in 2050. Public Transp. Int.-Engl. Ed. 61(2), 14 (2012)
Li, Y., Voege, T.: Mobility as a service (MaaS): challenges of implementation and policy required.
J. Transp. Technol. 7(2), 95–106 (2017)
Li, Y., May, A., Cook, S.: Mobility-as-a-service: a critical review and the generalized multi-
modal transport experience. In: Rau, P.-L.P. (ed.) HCII 2019. LNCS, vol. 11577, pp. 186–206.
Springer, Cham (2019).
286 Y. Li et al.
Lu, J., Hung, K., Wang, L., Schuett, M.A., Hu, L.: Do perceptions of time affect outbound-travel
motivations and intention? An investigation among Chinese seniors. Tour. Manag. 53, 1–12
Lyman, S., Ferguson, S.A., Braver, E.R., Williams, A.F.: Older driver involvements in police
reported crashes and fatal crashes: trends and projections. Injury prevention 8(2), 116–120
Lyons, G., Hammond, P., Mackay, K.: The importance of user perspective in the evolution of
MaaS. Transp. Res. Part A: Policy Pract. 121, 22–36 (2019)
Mänty, M., et al.: Outdoor and indoor falls as predictors of mobility limitation in older women.
Age Ageing 38(6), 757–761 (2009)
Marin-Lamellet, C., Haustein, S.: Managing the safe mobility of older road users: how to cope
with their diversity? J. Transp. Health 2(1), 22–31 (2015)
Matyas, M., Kamargianni, M.: A holistic overview of the mobility as a service ecosystem. In:
Transportation Research Conference, Gyor, Hungary, pp. 30–31, March 2017
McGuckin, N., Zmud, J., Nakamoto, Y.: Trip-chaining trends in the United States: understanding
travel behavior for policy making. Transp. Res. Rec.: J. Transp. Res. Board 1917, 199–204
McLeod, S.: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (2007).
Melis, A., Mirri, S., Prandi, C., Prandini, M., Salomoni, P., Callegati, F.: Integrating personalized
and accessible itineraries in MaaS ecosystems through microservices. Mob. Netw. Appl. 23(1),
167–176 (2018)
Melis, A., Prandini, M., Sartori, L., Callegati, F.: Public transportation, IoT, trust and urban habits.
In: Bagnoli, F., et al. (eds.) INSCI2016. LNCS, vol. 9934, pp. 318–325. Springer, Cham (2016).
Mollenkopf, H., Kaspar, R.: Ageing in rural areas of East and West Germany: increasing similarities
and remaining differences. Eur. J. Ageing 2(2), 120–130 (2005)
Newbold, K.B., Scott, D.M., Spinney, J.E., Kanaroglou, P., Páez, A.: Travel behaviour within
Canada’s older population: a cohort analysis. J. Transp. Geogr. 13(4), 340–351 (2005)
Noland, R.B., Thomas, J.V.: Multivariate analysis of trip-chaining behaviour. Environ. Plan. 34(6),
953–970 (2007)
Pangbourne, K., Stead, D., Mladenovi´c, M., Milakis, D.: The case of mobility as a service: a
critical reflection on challenges for urban transport and mobility governance. In: Governance
of the Smart Mobility Transition, pp. 33–48 (2018)
Patrício, L., Fisk, R.P., Falcão e Cunha, J., Constantine, L.: Multilevel service design: from cus-
tomer value constellation to service experience blueprinting. J. Serv. Res. 14(2), 180–200
Priestley, M., Rabiee, P.: Same difference? Older people’s organisations and disability issues.
Disabil. Soc. 17(6), 597–611 (2002)
Rantanen, T.: Promoting mobility in older people. J. Prev. Med. Public Health 46(Suppl 1), S50
Rasouli, S., Timmermans, H.: Activity-based models of travel demand: promises, progress and
prospects. Int. J. Urban Sci. 18(1), 31–60 (2014)
Scharkow, M.: The accuracy of self-reported internet use—a validation study using client log data.
Commun. Methods Meas. 10(1), 13–27 (2016)
Schmöcker, J.D., Su, F., Noland, R.B.: An analysis of trip chaining among older London residents.
Transportation 37(1), 105–123 (2010)
Shrestha, B.P., Millonig, A., Hounsell, N.B., Mcdonald, M.: Review of public transport needs of
older people in European context. J. Popul. Ageing 10(4), 343–361 (2017)
Siren, A., Haustein, S.: Baby boomers’ mobility patterns and preferences: what are the implications
for future transport? Transp. Policy 29, 136–144 (2013)
Understanding the Exclusion Issues of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) 287
Smith, G., Sochor, J., Karlsson, I.M.: Mobility as a service: developmentscenarios and implications
for public transport. Res. Transp. Econ. 69, 592–599 (2018)
Sochor, J.L., Strömberg, H., Karlsson, M.: Travellers’ motives for adopting a new, innovative
travel service: insights from the UbiGo field operational test in Gothenburg, Sweden. In: 21st
World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems, Detroit, 7–11 September 2014 (2014)
Stilgoe, J., Owen, R., Macnaghten, P.: Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res.
Policy 42(9), 1568–1580 (2013)
Stradling, S.: Moving around: some aspects of the psychology of transport. In: Foresight Intelligent
Infrastructure Systems Project (2006)
Su, F.: Understanding and satisfying older people’s travel demand. Doctoral dissertation,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London (2008)
Suen, S.L., Mitchell, C.G.B.: Accessible transportation and mobility. In: Transportation in the
New Millennium (2000)
The Institution of Engineering and Technology (IET): Meeting the needs of older and disabled
travellers (2015).
Timmermans, H.J., Zhang, J.: Modelling household activity travel behaviour: examples of state
of the art modeling approaches and research agenda. Transp. Res. Part B: Methodol. 43(2),
187–190 (2009)
Van Wee, B., Geurs, K., Chorus, C.: Information, communication, travel behaviour and
accessibility. J. Transp. Land Use 6(3), 1–16 (2013)
Webber, S.C., Porter, M.M., Menec, V.H.: Mobility in older adults: a comprehensive framework.
Gerontologist 50(4), 443–450 (2010)
Whelan, M., Langford, J., Oxley, J., Koppel, S., Charlton, J.: The elderly and mobility: a review
of the literature. Monash University Accident Research Centre (2006)
Wong, Y.Z., Hensher, D.A., Mulley, C.: Emerging transport technologies and the modal efficiency
framework: a case for mobility as a service (MaaS) (2018)
World Health Organization: World Report on Ageing and Health. World Health Organization,
Geneva (2015)
Sustainable urban development has expanded to several dimensions, such as society, economy, transportation, culture, etc. As the foundation of urban infrastructure, improving the sustainability of the transportation system can meet the travel requirements of residents in the current urban development and ensure the smoothness of transportation under the premise of energy saving. With the emergence of new technologies and models such as Internet of things, unmanned driving, and shared travel services, urban transportation ecology and passenger transportation concepts are changing accordingly. Regarding travel as a service consumption, mobility as a service (MaaS) pays more attention to shaping the overall travel system of the entire travel chain with people as the core. By analyzing the internal relationship between MaaS and the urban transportation system and spatial structure, this chapter explains the internal impact of MaaS on sustainable urban development and discusses the main points of applying MaaS to sustainable urban development from the macro-, meso-, and microscales. MaaS provides new ideas for improving the transportation service system and at the same time, puts forward more thinking about the sustainable development of cities. The possibilities brought about by new technologies such as MaaS could promote the sustainable development of cities.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Considering MaaS still lacks a widely accepted definition, several pilots were launched without a solid reference, which has given rise to an unclear situation in market. This paper aims to help researchers and stakeholders to have an overall comprehension of MaaS and grasp a critical review on present concept by analysing the generalized multi-modal transport experience, service offerings of MaaS pilots and the knowledge raise by researchers and academic organizations, and then to summarize an generalized user experience map base on Multi-Level Service Design (MSD) model to narrow down the concept boundary and support further User-centred Design related researches.
Full-text available
The rapid emergence of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) into the transport sector’s lexicon has brought with it an air of expectation that suggests a future mobility revolution. This paper focusses on the user perspective and offers a deepening of socio-technical thinking about MaaS and its prospects. It first provides an examination of what is understood to date about MaaS in what is a new but rapidly evolving body of literature. This highlights the concept of MaaS as a ‘mobility system beyond the private car’ and the new centrality of a ‘mobility intermediary’ layer in that system. The paper then focuses and elaborates upon its contention that MaaS is neither new nor revolutionary but is rather an evolutionary continuation in terms of transport integration. Emerging from an era of unimodal travel information systems becoming multimodal and then integrated multimodal information services, MaaS is now about adding seamless booking, payment and ticketing to the integration offer. The paper puts forward a ‘Levels of MaaS Integration (LMI) taxonomy’ analogous to the level 0–5 SAE taxonomy for automation of road vehicles. This taxonomy, designed around the user perspective (including cognitive user effort), concerns operational, informational and transactional integration that it is suggested reflect a hierarchy of user need. From a synthesis of insights from the ‘pre-MaaS’ literature concerning choice making for travel and the role of information, a MaaS behavioural schema is provided to illustrate potential consideration and adoption of MaaS from the user perspective. In concluding, the paper considers what a user perspective reveals for the future prospects of MaaS and in particular for the mobility intermediaries.
Full-text available
Mobility as a Service (MaaS), which uses a digital platform to bring all modes of travel into a single on-demand service, has received great attention and research interest. Different business models have emerged in which travellers can either pre-pay for their mobility services bundled into a MaaS plan, or pay-as-they-go using a smart app linked to the service. This study aims to understand how large the potential market of MaaS would be if travellers are offered this one-stop access to a range of mobility services, and how much potential users might value each item included in a MaaS plan. A stated choice survey of 252 individuals administered via a face-to-face method is conducted in Sydney, Australia and a state of the art preference model is estimated to address the research questions. Results indicate that almost half of the sampled respondents would take MaaS offerings, and the potential uptake levels vary significantly across population segments, with infrequent car users being the most likely adopters, and car non-users the least. On average, Sydney travellers are willing to pay $6.40 for an hour of access to car-share, with one-way car-share valued more than station-based car-share. Estimated willingness-to-pay for unlimited use of public transport is $5.90 per day which is much lower than the current daily cap. These findings suggest a careful segmentation of the market and a cross-subsidy strategy is likely to be required by MaaS suppliers to obtain a commercially viable uptake level.
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
As Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) is a new emerging mobility concept and its implementation is still limited, there is currently no sufficient knowledge about how to model individual and/or household decision-making process in adopting MaaS and consequently using the available services to travel. These two phases of the decision-making process can be considered as a long-term and a short-term mobility decision respectively. This is a discussion paper delineating some directions for researching the long-term mobility decision. It explores theoretically the key issues related to the investigation and modelling of long-term adoption of MaaS. These issues are related to the multi-faceted nature of MaaS, which is currently recognized as a technology enabled innovation that is revolutionizing the transportation system. This brings the need for new methodological approaches in travel behavior research. After having defined the MaaS concept, we propose a multi-theoretical framework, which can act as an initial conceptual foundation for further studies aimed at quantitatively estimating MaaS long-term adoption and consequently its diffusion into society.
Given the innovative nature of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS), various uncertainties are surrounding the possibilities for implementing MaaS. This includes uncertainties about alternative MaaS-system functionalities, about how the implementation of alternative MaaS systems might affect the overall transport system performance and about the preferences of stakeholders regarding alternative MaaS system implementation strategies. This paper contributes to this niche by collecting expert opinions about these uncertainties, using the Delphi method. The expert panel expected a fully-integrated MaaS to start operating in urban areas before 2020 and to expand to rural areas and nationally within the period of 2020–2030. In contrast to the common expectation that MaaS will attract regular car driver from their vehicles, our panel expected youth, current public transport users, and flexible travellers to be early adopters of MaaS. Transport operators are seen as the most important actors and the most preferred MaaS service integrator. Local authorities are expected to have an important role in enabling MaaS. The main objectives for implementing MaaS are to reduce car dependency and to provide a flexible and more customised transport system accessibility to the general public. The implementation of MaaS as a pilot project is considered the most preferred policy in the next phase. These findings largely support earlier reported findings on MaaS implementation. This study report new findings regarding the levels of consensus and how the experts changed their individual opinions in light of the group results on the studied topics. Regarding certain topics, such as the early market, there are higher levels of agreements among the panel with lower proportions of them changing their selections in light of the group results. Whereas in other topics, such as planning for future implementation, the level of agreement are lower with higher proportions of experts changing their selections. These two attributes can be combined to infer how certain the panel is on the topics studied. The study also provides new insights into the possible vulnerabilities and opportunities that can arise in relation to MaaS implementation, the associated levels of importance and uncertainty, and the possible responding actions. The experts also identified potential social issues and challenges in scaling-up the pilot. The findings of this study are of interest to practitioners and researchers in the field of MaaS planning and can be used to initiate a discussion among actors and stakeholders to formulate implementation plans for different MaaS concepts.
This paper uses data from the 1995 Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey and the 2001 National Household Travel Survey to examine trip-chaining trends in the United States. The research focuses on trip chaining related to the work trip and contrasts travel characteristics of workers who trip chain with those who do not, including their distance from work, current levels of trip making, and the purposes of stops made within chains. Trends examined include changes in the purpose of stops and in trip-chaining behavior by gender and life cycle. A robust growth in trip chaining occurred between 1995 and 2001, nearly all in the direction of home to work. Men increased their trip chaining more than women, and a large part of the increase was to stop for coffee (the Starbucks effect). It was found that workers who trip chain live farther from their workplaces than workers who do not. It was also found that, in two-parent, two-worker households that drop off children at school, women are far more likely than men to incorporate that trip into their commute and that those trips are highly constrained between 8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. An analysis was done of workers who stopped to shop and those who did not but made a separate shopping trip from home; a large potential to increase trip-chaining behavior in shopping trips was found. Results of these analyses have important policy implications as well as implications for travel demand forecast model development. Finally, this paper uses these analyses to develop conclusions about the utility of transportation policies and programs that use the promotion of trip chaining as a primary travel demand management strategy.
Bundled offerings that facilitate using multiple means for solving everyday travel needs are proposed to hold potential to facilitate a modal shift from private cars to servitized transport modes, including public transport (PT). This type of offering, often coined Mobility as a Service (MaaS), may require new forms of partnerships, in which private actors play a larger role in the creation of public value. Accordingly, based on input from 19 interviews with MaaS actors active in West Sweden, this paper explores how MaaS could develop and how PT might be affected. Three predictive scenarios are identified – market-driven, public-controlled and public-private – and the implications for future PT, in terms of the scope, usage, access, business model, competence structure and brand value, are discussed in relation to these. The authors conclude that finding a regulatory ‘sweet spot’ that drives innovation and secures public benefits will be key for future developments.
This chapter provides a reflective critique of Mobility as a Service (MaaS), an emerging development seeking a role within the Smart Mobility paradigm. We assess a range of its future implications for urban policymakers in terms of governance and sustainability (i.e., social and environmental impacts). We begin by describing the origins of the MaaS concept, along with the features of precursor technologies and current early examples. We then reflect on the marketing of MaaS and use it to consider how we might anticipate some potentially less desirable aspects of the promoted business models. Finally, we discuss the implications for governance.