Conceptualising Mobility as a Service

27 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size Report
2016 Eleventh International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER) ... Aalto University, School of Science. Espoo, Finland.
2016 Eleventh International Conference on Ecological Vehicles and Renewable Energies (EVER)

Conceptualising Mobility as a Service A User Centric View on Key Issues of Mobility Services

Raphael Giesecke, Teemu Surakka, Marko Hakonen

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management Aalto University, School of Science Espoo, Finland Raphael.Giesecke[atlaalto.fi

Abstract-We

agree

with

the

common

perception

that

Mobility as a Service (MaaS) has strong potential to address the growing mobility needs of the world's population in a sustainable way. However there is a significant lack of understanding of what MaaS actually is on conceptual level. Reviewing the state-of-the­ art of MaaS research we deduct that MaaS has all the attributes of a 'hyped' socio-technical phenomenon: it seems to be a loosely connected patchwork of optimistic political dogma, activists' enthusiasm, anecdotal evidence of successful services and a firm belief of investors in companies such as Uber. However, as a paradigm shift, MaaS has electrified public decision makers and unleashed a wave of innovation in SMEs. In addition, MaaS forces researchers to work in multi-disciplinary collaborations, transcending

'traditional'

competence

areas,

such

as

traffic

planning, computer science, social sciences, transport systems and organisational psychology. Consequently, while embracing the innovative spirit of the MaaS paradigm shift, we aim to outline key conceptual issues of MaaS. These issues are

1)

the

nature of travel (including purpose, mode, means, distance etc.); 2) MaaS interoperability within intelligent traffic services; end-user

perspective,

behaviours; and

4)

with

a

focus

on

user

3)

attitudes

the and

sustainability, including work during the

journey, and ultimately not traveling at all (e.g. teleworking). We exemplify our tentative concept through applying it to the existing mobility services Uber, Lyft, Car2Go, DriveNow, Tuup, UbiGo and Moovel. Through our study, we provide an initial research based conceptual foundation for MaaS researchers, developers and implementers.

Keywords-mobility, mobility as a service, intelligent transportation systems, travel, commuting, transport, services

I.

INTRODUCTION

Globalization, local workforce needs and strong differences in living costs and salaries across urban, regional and national borders are strong drivers of increased mobility. Already, the Worldwide Mobile Worker Population 2011-2015 forecast [1] assumed 245 million mobile workers by 2015, only in Europe, Africa and the Middle East - and in addition to 'normal' commuters. Among the various solutions for coping with such increased mobility, besides avoiding travel in the first place, Mobility as a Service (MaaS) stands out in two ways. First, MaaS has the This work was supported by the Finnish Funding Agency for Innovation Tekes and Horizon 2020, the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, as part of the ERA-NET Co fund Smart Cities and Communities' Smart Commuting project.

978- 1-5090-2464-3/1 6/$3 1 . 00 ©20 16 European Union

inherent potential to decrease the use of private cars. Second, MaaS allows - at least on conceptual level - the transport of passengers and goods by the same vehicle. Thus MaaS is potentially more sustainable, regarding the environment, than any form of individual transport other than walking or bicycling. In the public discourse, MaaS is widely regarded as the next paradigm change in transportation. Service providers are expected to offer travellers easy, flexible, reliable, price-worthy and sustainable everyday travel, including, for example, public transport, car-sharing, car leasing and road use, as well as more efficient options for goods shipping and delivery. From an end-user perspective, MaaS needs to be user centric, easy to plan, book and pay, as well as seamless during the actual trip, integrating all transport means and systems, using real-time data, and responding to a broad range of individual user priorities. MaaS also needs to be socially inclusive and permeable to national borders, transport modes, governance types, and other boundaries (cognition, cultures, languages, and currencies). Such perceptions are by far too optimistic at this moment, but there is a realistic chance to achieve such kind of MaaS offers in the long run - if and when MaaS is properly conceptualised. Without a MaaS concept, and for the purpose of this study, we regard MaaS as a socio-technical phenomenon (cf. [2]. Such phenomena can be described - and thus conceptualised - by analysing the actual technologies driving them, the sociological aspects (e.g. user driven with users applying social media) and the socio-technical contexts. Such context is often described in the form of business ecosystem [3;4]. In addition, the socio-technical phenomenon needs to be defmed by its key issues - for instance its nature, its benefits and on which levels these benefits happen (e.g. on user-, society- or environmental level). A.

Research Questions

1.

What are the key issues to be taken into account when researching, developing or implementingMaaS?

2.

How can these issues be interlinked into an initial scientific concept of MaaS?

B.

Scope

We are interested in 1) the nature of MaaS based travel; 2) the end-user perspective on MaaS offerings; 3) interoperability between MaaS and Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) ; and 4) MaaS sustainability. Consequently our scope is rather broad, however, this broadness is needed to study MaaS in a holistic way, on conceptual level. However, we exclude the 'transport' of data as it follows a different logic and involves a different infrastructure (i.e. 'cables' or electromagnetic waves). II.

THE NATURE OF TRAVEL

This chapter addresses transport from a human end-user perspective, thus the choice of travel instead of transportation, even if many definitions are related to both phenomena. In the following we provide - at times simplified - views on travel as such in order to build a foundation for the more complex issues Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and MaaS. Furthermore, we illustrate the complexity of the phenomena travel and transportation. A.

The Type o/Payload

The question here is simple - who or what gets transported, is it person(s) or things. Whereas travel throughout history has mostly been a combination of both (cf. post-coach, -bus, plane) there is the concrete distinction into passenger transport on the one hand and logistics related transport on the other. Big scale logistics are typically hub oriented, meaning that goods are collected and transported to a central hub, sorted at the hub and then distributed from the hub to their final destination, often through further, smaller hubs. The trend in logistics is that globally active logistic firms grow, while national, 'public mail' companies perish. On the other hand, some passenger travel may not be at all for the purpose of bridging a distance but just for the experience of traveling. From an end-user perspective, special attention needs to be paid to passengers travelling with luggage of any kind. Does the luggage fit to the vehicle, is it allowed in the vehicle? What if commuters shop on their way home? What about voluminous items, such as baby-buggies, wheel chairs or sports equipment? Whereas airlines address these problems, many public transport organisations address them either not comprehensive enough or not in a satisfying way. B.

Travel Goal- Experience or Bridging a Distance

The typical assumption is that a trip is taken in order to bridge the distance between two geographical points, i.e. to transport someone or something from A to B. This assumption holds for things, but quite often it does not apply to people. Passenger travel may not be at all for the purpose of bridging a distance but just for the experience of traveling. The latest trend for affordable ship cruises aims exactly at this demand for experiences, combined with maximum travel convenience. The ultimate level is space flight for experience. Furthermore, people 'travel' for health reasons when they run, jog or bike. All these activities aim for the travel process and not for the travel outcome. Like in the payload domain, also in the goal domain hybrids are possible. For instance, many ferry trips

serve hybrid goals - they often provide experience (especially entertainment) while bridging a distance. Trip Purpose- Why the Distance Needs Bridging

C.

Once the travel goal is established as the need to move someone from A to B, i.e. the travel goal is the outcome, not the process, the trip's purpose needs to be considered. Typically, trips can be sorted into private and professional purposes, with private trips being motivated by concrete goals (e.g. shopping, dropping or picking up kids) or leisure (for instance visiting an interesting place). Professional trips are job or study related - they need to be distinct between work commute (frequent) and business trip (typically infrequent). Again, also in the trip purpose, combinations of private and professional purposes are possible and rather common (for instance shopping after work). D.

Trip Distance

The term distance speaks for itself. Commuting distances are typically short or mid-ranged. Business trips cover all ranges from short to ultra-long range. For the purpose of this study we chose the following values: short-range: 0-40km; mid-range: 40-400km; and long range 400-10 OOOkm (in land miles: 25; 250; and 6200). E.

Accessibility and Directness

Accessibility is a term used when addressing limited user abilities due to impairment. The aim is to have barrier-free access of people to services, even if they are, for example impaired in hearing, in their vision or they need to use a wheel chair. But also for non-impaired persons accessibility is important, for instance measured by the distance between a trip's start- and endpoint and the transport's start- and endpoint. The actual trip is typically from door to door, whereas the actual transport is typically from a predefmed stop to another predefined stop (for instance from bus-stop to bus­ stop). In contrast, directness indicates the number of interchanges (also called transfers) needed to be taken in to account. Taxis operate very close to the door-to-door principle (rather good accessibility) while public transport is limited to stop-to-stop, meaning highly variable accessibility, depending on, e.g. location, operator and time (week day/weekend and time within the day). As in logistics, also passenger transport often operates not direct but based on a hub and spoke system, often including the transfer from one means of transport to another (e.g. switch from bus to train). Those transfers in turn often create accessibility problems for impaired persons. Travel Mode and Means

F.

There is plenty of confusion in the use of the term 'mode'. The best use of this term is when answering the 'how' question - how was the trip performed? The highest level of abstraction here is simple, as it involves the medium on which the transport is based [5]. These modes are (in alphabetical order): •

Air (by aircraft, e.g. airplane, helicopter or drone)



Land (by pathway, road or various types of rails)



Water (by ship, boat and further floating vessels)

A transfer between two of these basic modes is typically inconvenient for humans, especially when luggage is involved. On the next lower level of abstraction, the term mode is often used as a replacement of the term means - i.e. the type of vehicle used. Besides non-motorised vehicles (for instance bicycles) the following vehicle types are often cited when addressing the land based transport mode: •

Road based: bus, car, motorcycle, truck



Track based: light rail, metro, train, tram

Another interpretation of the tenn 'mode' answers another 'how' question, which is fuzzier. This particular questions asks for the type of transportation system, e.g. public or private transport, own vehicle or not, or even walking vs. using any form of transport aid. Typically, the political discourse distinguishes between the use of own car, public transport, and MaaS. However, this use of the tenn mode is problematic as most types of transport systems (including public transport and MaaS) can be implemented in a cross modal way (e.g. by combining road- and track based transport means). In such case we recommend to clearly address what type of transportation system is meant, and if possible avoid the term 'mode'. Returning to the tenn 'means' one needs to keep in mind that vehicle types develop. This exemplifies in waterborne transport especially in the development from hydrofoil based transportation to catamaran (and trimaran) based transportation. The catamaran has clearly displaced hydrofoils in the Western world. Finally, novel vehicle types are emerging, for instance drones. Those may even fmd their way into the passenger transport sector, once regulations have been adopted. One early example could be the Ehang 184', which is to transport one passenger over a maximum distance of 38km, with a cruising speed of 100lan/h. Such vehicles address road congestion, passenger convenience and even some environmental concerns (being propelled by locally C02 neutral electric engines). G. Borders and Boundaries

Borders and boundaries both represent potential barriers to transport. Borders are conceptually easier to defme, as they usually divide one country from another. However, there are intra-national borders as well (e.g. between two states in the US, Australia or India; or between China and Hong Kong and Macao) which may involve border checks. Within Europe, a variety of different border procedures exists, depending on whether a country belongs to the Schengen states or not, and whether the Schengen protocol is adhered to or not (for instance between Hungary and Austria). In many cases goods need to be examined or even treated, or are ultimately forbidden to cross a border (e.g. fruit, seeds, soil or pollen). Regarding passengers, a change of currency or language might be involved. For both passengers and goods a change of vehicle, operator, driver, or track gauge (e.g. between Spain and France or Finland and Sweden) is possible. Cross-border collaboration can be improved, however such improvements often rely on political decision makers motivated by national motives.

, www.ehang.com/ehangI84/specs [accessed 20 Jan 2016]

Whereas borders are visible in one way or the other (at least in maps), boundaries are often invisible and sometimes existing but elusive. Boundaries can be of cognitive nature (how people approach issues, such as travel), cultural (e.g. the demand for or rejection of a central authority) or they manifest simply as population density (dense countries, such as Japan or Germany vs. sparsely populated countries such as Finland or Canada). We cannot aim for a comprehensive overview of boundary types, however we urge the reader to take the existence of (often hidden) boundaries into account. H.

Trip Phases- From Planning to Journey

Trips beyond commuting often need some kind of pre­ planning, and often booking. In that respect we recognize the following phases (adapted from [6]): 1.

Planning: door-to-door based mapping of the trip

2.

Booking: the actual agreement on a transportation service, including start- and end point

3.

Paying: paying the fare price to the mobility provider; trip based or time based (hour, day, week, month etc.)

4.

Ticketing: issuing a proof of the travel agreement, often in electronic form

5.

Journey: the trip as such, the implemented travel plan

Note that in principle these five phase are applicable both for passenger and goods transport. They also serve various trip goals (A-to-B or travel process) and purposes (work, commuting, private and leisure travel). However, not every trip involves all phases - many trips, especially by private car, involve only the last phase, the journey as such. III.

INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION S YSTEMS, INTEROPERABILITY ANDMAAS

The European Commission, when aiming for smart, green and integrated transport in its H2020 Work Programme, locates MaaS within the area of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS; cf. call topic H2020-MG-6.1-20162). We concur that ITS are a foundation for MaaS - and at the same time we propose that MaaS will be one of the key drivers of ITS growth. One of the many commonalities of ITS and MaaS is interoperability both in its literal and metaphorical meaning. However, the problem here is that interoperable is an even fuzzier term than mode, and its use is at times even more confusing. Thus, we start with a brief description of ITS. A. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

In a way ITS is an oxymoron as ITS imply that non­ intelligent transportation systems exist. Even if annoyed end­ users may believe so when thinking about their local public transport, this is hardly ever the case. Thus, ITS typically paraphrases transportation systems with additional or outstanding smart (intelligent) measures, in all cases driven by 2 ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portalldesktop/en lopportunities/h2020Itopics/2086-mg-6.1-2016.htrnl [accessed 2 Nov 2015]

the use of lTC, up to 'artificial intelligence'. Extant research focusses at large on these ICT applications, often addressing conceptually important niche areas [7;8]. For the purpose of this study we follow the IEEE definition on ITS: Transportation systems can involve humans, vehicles, shipments, information technology, and the physical infrastructure, all interacting in complex ways. 3 Intelligent Transportation Systems are defined as those systems utilizing synergistic technologies and systems engineering concepts to develop and improve transportation systems ofall kinds. 4

Less abstract, Finland's Second Generation Intelligent Strategy for Transport addresses the following concrete ITS aspects [9]: 1. An ITS reference architecture 2. Real-time data of transport system status and operation 3. Integrated public transport system(s) 4. Intelligent traffic control 5. Reactive and proactive safety systems 6. A multi-service model for transport 7. Intelligent logistics 8. Smarter and more eco-friendly mobility The key points here are (open and) real-time data, transport systems integration, traf f ic control based on real-time data and pre-set priorities (low for individual cars), advanced safety systems, intelligent combinations of payloads and thus smarter logistics. Note that all of these key points are based on ICT. B. Mobility as a Service (MaaS)

The European Mobility-as-a-Service Alliance5 emphasises the end-user perspective, 'offering them tailor made mobility solutions based on their individual needs' with 'easy access to the most appropriate transport mode or service [ ... ] included in a bundle of flexible travel service options'. This outline satisfies the 'hype' requirements of a 'paradigm shift', however, conceptually it describes rather goals than concrete contents - thus the need for this study. More concrete, current MaaS offers include 1) on-demand vehicles (typically buses); 2) car-sharing services (for instance car2go); 3) bike sharing services; and 4) cab services (e.g. Uber, Lyft and SideCar). Regarding trip phases, all of these MaaS offerings include planning offers, only some include bookings, and payments are either subscription based (many sharing models) or pay-as-you­ go oriented (cab services). Ticketing is often unnecessary. For a (limited) overview of MaaS offerings see [6]. Autonomous vehicles are linked to MaaS, mostly in the form of driverless cab style services. MaaS does address mid- and long distance transport (e.g. through car- and bike sharing opportunities at 3 ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpI/Recentlssue.jsp?punumber=6979 ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/aboutJournal.jsp?punumber=6979 #AimsScope [both accessed 19 Jan 2016] 5 maas-alliance.eu [accessed 18 Dec 2015]

4

train stations and, less often, airports) however planning and ticketing is rarely integrated and thus the travel experience is not as seamless as desired. C.

Interoperability

This term is related inevitably to interfaces - and consequently to (interface-) standards. The question is interfaces of what? As mentioned the status to date is that a whole range of interfaces are (seemingly?) included: data (real­ time, processed and archived), modes (air, land, water), and vehicle types (and thus transfer types). Additionally, interoperability is used in connection with combined payload types (as in airline transport). In summary, interoperability is a hotchpotch of 'everything goes with everything else', as long as it serves users, operators or stakeholders. More seriously, however, ICT interoperability is a prerequisite for most mobility related planning, booking, paying and ticketing services (see [10] for details). Service providers need to have access to timetables, real-time traffic­ and transport data, and might even want to prioritise (again, in real-time) traffic control. Additionally, the online, real-time data of the current whereabouts of specific passengers and goods will become important, following the trend in logistics. D. Social Media

A final aspect of interoperability is the use of social media. As described for other ecosystems [3, 4], social media enables end-users and providers to get rid of intermediators. The Uber business model is built exactly on this effect: users in the need for a cab are brokered directly to individual 'cab entrepreneurs' who perform the actual transport. Social media in this context builds the trust between mobility user and operator, as both user and operators can rate each other (the same principle as in AirBnE and other sharing- and gig economy services). Concrete, users trust '5 star' rated offers, are sceptical about '3 star' offers, and will avoid '1 star' offers. This rating concept is used in all social media and therefore it will be in use in all successful MaaS offers. Consequently, this 'interoperability' is the most important form of interaction between MaaS users and operators. IV.

THE END U SER PERSPECTIVE

The main distinction here is that some factors (such as weather) cannot be influenced by the end-user, whereas others are a direct result, for example from the end-users attitudes and behaviours, which can be changed, at least in the long run. However, some of these end-user's abilities and especially disabilities are intrinsic properties and thus do not change easily (e.g. the need to use a wheel chair). What the user will address when being asked for optimal travel offering is often a mixture of needs: e.g. taking into account comfort needs and specific fears (when travelling in darkness or with children), but also costs, the traffic network and -offers and commuting needs that are usually externally defined.

Personal,

External factors

internal factors

Work trip Socio­ demographic aspects

/

Social

behaviour

Attitudes

ITC offers

Health (physical

Mobility offers

constitution)

Fig. I . Factors influencing individual mobility behaviour (based on English version of [ I I ] , supplemented by authors)

Figure 1 shows this complex mixture of internal and external factors that affect each other and in the end influence individual mobility behaviour. Some of these interconnections are direct and have a two-way effect while others are more indirect and appear as end-user perceptions of h?w different possibilities meet their needs. One way of re�ucmg the end­ user related factors is to merge several factors mto one overall factor which we call convenience. high

I------�---,

Costs 1------1

This factors addresses comfort perceptions, as well as accessibility and directness, and a range of furth�r fac�ors which may vary from person to person. Thus, convenle�ce IS a fuzzy construct, but it helps to understand how, e.g. tnp co�ts and trip distance affect user behaviour. We �xemphfy convenience in Figures 2 and 3 through mappmg some currently available MaaS offerings distinguished into short range and long range travel, respectively. Note the figu�es are to illustrate the principle, not the true costs or convemences. Still, MaaS offers aiming to offer higher convenience should have a better business potential than others, for the same costs. high

Costs f-----j

low

coach

low low

Convenience

high

Fig. 2. End-user perspective on short range MaaS (schematic illustration)

low

Fig. 3 . End-user perspective on

Convenience long range

high

MaaS (schematic illustration)

A. User Acceptance Criteria

As indicated in Figures 2 and 3, end-user are cost sensitive and appreciate convenience. When asked why they take their own car, people come up with arguments like the following: •

Car is simply more comfortable



Need for shopping on way home



Need to fetch or deliver kids and/or spouse



Need to travel to 'difficult' places during workday



Public transport too complicated (not direct enough)



Work is based on travel and employer does either not accept or reimburse other options

We do not claim that this list of arguments is complete, but it nevertheless illustrates how many arguments can be linked to convenience: all but one. The question is, how do MaaS offerings respond to these arguments on concrete level? Some researchers tried to develop levels and packages of offerings. Those levels are typically (as of [6]): 1) journey planner; 2) booking system; 3) real time information; 4) intermodal smart ticketing; and 5) pay-as-you-go for all transport modes. The problem here is that those levels - in the near future - will become a standard for all kinds and types of transport, even for 'standard' public transport. Thus users who appreciate these services as smart and novel today will take them as a minimum level and for granted 'tomorrow'. Furthermore these levels do neither inherently include payload combinations (for instance a passenger, a 15kg shopping bag, a baby-buggy, two kids), nor are levels of convenience included. Thus, current MaaS providers may need to think far more out of their 'box' and need to research in much more detail what the actual user acceptance criteria are - by user segment. B. User Group Segments

In Europe, women's travel patterns are converging with those of men at the aggregate level. They are using more private cars and less public transportation, walking and cycling [12]. However, whereas trips of men tend to be more single­ purpose, women chain their trips more according to their obligations during the day. Women might also experience commuting different than men - a recent study indicates women in the UK are significantly more stressed than men [13]. Thus, gender effects need to be taken into account for MaaS offerings and MaaS related research. Although aging is accompanied by waning strength, the needs of the elderly vs. the disabled are different. And can the elderly as a group be even subdivided into homogeneous subgroups? The elderly and particularly the very old people are a heterogeneous group in terms of mobility needs [14]. Based on life-style differences (e.g. stimulation-seeking, intellectually curious, indifferent, passive, and negativistic) it is possible to isolate different types of mobility patterns of the elderly [15]. Therefore emphasis should be placed on the expected increase in the number of elderly persons and the transportation challenges associated with this change. In order to keep older persons mobile and allow them to be independent it is

important to know their mobility patterns, attitudes to transport and different needs, with special attention given to elderly persons with mobility impairment. C.

What Can We Change, Regarding User Behaviour?

The extant literature on opinions, attitudes, and behaviour [16; 17] states clearly that opinions can change swiftly, attitudes are much harder to change and translating attitudes to behaviour is difficult (cf. health research [18]). In the MaaS context some factors are illustrated in Figure 1. Some of them are internal and thus in users' hands whereas others are external (e.g. employee policies). In the following section we concentrate on the user controllable, internal domain. D. How Can We Change User Behaviour?

We should also recall that people are not typically rational decision makers [19]. What drives humans much more are emotions and related images which are vulnerable to numerous human cognitive biases [20], such as prejudices against novel ideas. The situation is not hopeless though. In terms of commuting and traveling the key is to find the tailored solution that fits a user group's particular needs. For example, a MaaS with just few service packages is clearly prone to miss a vast amount of customers. However, a service provider which is truly interested in the underlying needs of each and every customer, has a far better chance. To our knowledge the behavioural change in travelling is scarcely studied empirically. The main reason being that appropriate data is often difficult to obtain [15].The exceptions are studies on how an increase in the accuracy and quantity of travel information affects actual behaviour [21] and how different fixed-term MaaS pilots have affected the actual mobility behaviour [22; smile MaaS pilot6]. With the exceptions in mind, we draw once more on health psychology. In that realm there is a long tradition of building interventions for the change of health behaviours. Of interest here is a meta­ analysis of tailored, web-based versus non-tailored health behaviour change programs [23]. The results revealed a significant superiority of the tailored interventions as compared of the non-tailored ones. Here is a clear analogy to different approaches to MaaS suggesting that tailoring of the traffic offerings to meet the end-user's need is the key success factor in the travellers' behavioural change. This comparison may feel at a fust glance far-fetched but human motivation processes regarding behaviour and its change are very much similar over different contexts. v.

SUSTAINABILITY

In general, MaaS is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for sustainability. A sustainable MaaS offer should be environmentally friendly (or at least friendlier than private car use), economically viable, and socially acceptable. One exemplary offer which satisfies a wide range of sustainability criteria is electric car sharing. The promise of MaaS is that 6 http://smile-einfachmobil.at/pilotbetrieb en.html [accessed 8 Feb 2016]

such services utilize each travel mean's commercial and technical advantages and enhance the productivity of local, regional, national, and international transportation systems. In addition, these transportation systems are far less susceptible to inefficiency, disruption, and system failures, if they consist of a multitude of means ('modes') for travelling [24]. On a different level, MaaS should support urban planning and design, especially concerning land use. There is a growing awareness that we cannot simply build more infrastructure to deal with congestion. In addition, parking space not only consumes precious retail and living space in cities, but on top the provision as such of parking space may increase living costs in a city substantially. A.

people in a society, whether in economic, social, cultural or political arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole. "

Church et al. [29] identify seven features of the transport system that are related to the potential social exclusion of certain population groups:

Environmental Sustainability

Daily life revolves around friends, family, work, school, and shopping. The distribution over space of these commitments and opportunities shapes the activity space and the consumption of transport services of a person. People tend to spend the same amount of time when travelling regardless of speed of travel and this expands their activity space [25]. Thus, as people today are much more motorised and connected, they are also more spatially dispersed than 50 years ago. Presently 72% of all passenger kilometres are travelled by car - but the share of private cars and the total passenger kilometres have remained relatively stable since the year 2006 [26]. This spatiotemporal strategy of people, especially in work related travel, is more complex though. For instance, many commuters use at least parts of the actual trip time for work. Those commuters often prefer direct connections, even if such connection may prolong the total travel time. In parallel, slowly but constantly the quality of the actual travel time is changing, most importantly due to ICT offers on mobile devices. Whereas social media has become ubiquitous, 'work on the go' might be used more in the future. Through both offers, commuting is perceived differently (usually more positive) and thus better accepted. In return, work on the go drives the demand for ICT tools and the resulting offer of supporting (and entertaining) ICT equipment during travel impacts the end­ users' behaviour - a virtuous circle. Finally, the use of ICT may ultimately help travellers to avoid the trip, whether it is related to work or accessing, for instance, public services. Still, in addition to making possible to combine the most environmentally sustainable forms of human mobility in each situation, MaaS offers should be economically viable and avoid social exclusion. B.

Social Sustainability with Inclusion

Certain groups of people are disproportionately at risk of social exclusion, and people as such are most vulnerable at particular stages of their life [15]. The primary dimension of social exclusion is poverty, but equally important aspects are access to jobs, education, housing, healthcare, the degree of satisfaction of basic needs and the ability to participate fully in society [27]. Levitas et al. [28] define social exclusion as: "The lack or denial of resources, rights, goods and services, and the inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the majority of

C.

1.

Physical exclusion: where physical barriers, such as vehicle design, lack of facilities for the impaired, or lack of time table information, inhibit the accessibility of transport services;

2.

Geographical exclusion: where a person's living place can prevent them from accessing transport services, such as in rural areas or on peripheral urban estates;

3.

Exclusion from facilities: the distance of key facilities such as shops, schools, healthcare or leisure services from where a person lives, prevents their access;

4.

Economic exclusion: the high monetary costs of travel can prevent or limit access to facilities or employment and thus impact on incomes;

5.

Time-based exclusion: other demands on time, such as combined work, household and child-care duties, reduce the time available for travel (often referred to as time-poverty);

6.

Fear-based exclusion: where fears for personal safety preclude the use of public spaces and/or transport services;

7.

Space exclusion: where security or space management prevent certain groups' access to public spaces, e.g. gated communities or first class waiting rooms at transfer points.

Economic Sustainability

All the factors mentioned in Chapter II affect also the economic viability of a MaaS offering in a certain market area, and how the user segmentation should be approached. In tenns of commuting, for instance, the duration of travel is a function of a number of factors, such as cost of living, quality of living and even a central city residents' income [30]. More pointedly, the choice of residential location is hardly limited by considerations on commuting time [31] - in essence people live where they can afford to live and where they like to live, once they found work. In addition, the following factors should be taken into account when analysing economic feasibility of a MaaS offer before market entry: 1) least market size (share of private cars that can potentially be replaced); 2) overall population density; 3) existing competition from competing or substituted offerings; 4) availability of open data about different means of travel; 5) the legal and regulatory framework - especially about data security and safety; and 6) collaboration between relevant stakeholders in the area. However, there is a wider business ecosystem [3;4] supporting the long-tenn success of a MaaS company.

Although the full description of the generic MaaS ecosystem is beyond the scope of this paper, such ecosystem typically involves complementary local resources and know-how, reference customers as a part of promoting the services, researchers (and often consultants) evaluating the service, collaboration with local authorities to get visibility in main traffic networks and interchanges, and possibly complementary companies offering goods delivery. VI.

EXEMPLARY MOBILITY SERVICES

The purpose of this chapter is to 'map' how some of the existing mobility services fit intoMaaS on conceptual level. At this stage there is no conceptual framework, yet, however, we aim to address the actual transport offer, interoperability, sustainability and the end-user perspective, per service. Note that in most cases the names of both the actual service and the company offering the service is the same - in such cases we use the name interchangeable. We start with narrower services, based on existing but modified business models and end with broad MaaS services that cannot defined otherwise than as MaaS. A. Cab Services- Uber and Lyft vs. Taxi

Both Uber7 and Lyft8 offer cab services - for the end-user there is not much difference between Uber and Lyft on the one hand and a taxi on the other, except for the hailing process, tipping, and the (lower) price per mile. However, in contrast to the 'classic' taxi business model, Uber and Lyft have streamlined their business model, taking the intermediator out: risks and costs are taken by the individual entrepreneur, and Uber and Lyft just get provisions for the matchmaking between customers and entrepreneurs. Customers can also rate their experience, something they usually cannot when hailing a taxi. Interoperability and intelligence in this case are rather simple, based on algorithms that allow matchmaking, influenced by ratings. Sustainability in case of Uber and Lyft is problematic. On a positive note the driver-entrepreneurs share their existing asset (their car) which makes sense from an environmental view. However, their cars are often older than taxis and thus contribute stronger to local pollution, and of course they contribute to congestion as much as taxis do (compared to public transport). More importantly, the cab entrepreneurs carry the full risk and responsibility for all their transportation assets (car, insurance, operating costs) - unlike employed taxi drivers, who are 'only' responsible for the actual journey operation. On top, Uber and Lyft drivers earn less per mile than taxi entrepreneurs. Thus, the driver-entrepreneurs easily end up in work conditions in which their net salary is too low for a living, and in addition neither health- nor retirement coverage exist. Consequently, both Uber and Lyft are highly unsustainable from a societal-economic perspective.

7 www.uber.coml [accessed 8 Feb 2016] 8 www.lyft.com/ [accessed 8 Feb 2016]

B. Car Sharing- Car2Go and DriveNow

The first car sharing services went into operation decades ago. For instance StattAuto launched in Berlin in 1988 [32]. However, at that time car sharing was based on fixed 'stations', from which the car needed to be collected and returned. Even with 40 stations in Berlin, this business model has not worked well [32]. Both Car2G09 (linked to Daimler) and DriveNowlO (BMW and Sixt) use instead the 'free-floating' concept: within a predefmed area, cars can be picked up from and left at any legally possible parking spot without worrying about parking fees. In that respect, free-floating car sharing, from an end-user perspective, is a hybrid between taxi and rental car, again cutting out the intermediator. The range is limited to urban areas, though, which need to be large enough: for instance Car2Go cancelled its service in the smaller city UIm in 2014 [32]. Interoperability and intelligence is on a similar level as for cab services - the end-user has access to maps indicating cars nearby and of course the trip duration is recorded, that is all. The operators however need to also record parking times and locations in order to settle their bills with the parking services providers. Regarding sustainability, again, car sharing is more environmentally friendly than the manufacturing and use of privately owned cars. Also, both Car2Go and DriveNow operate with relatively new and rather small cars which gives them advantage against Uber and Lyft. Electric cars, already partially in use by both companies also limit the local environmental impact. Moreover, car sharing does not involve questionable work environments from a societal-economic perspective, as there are no paid drivers. Exactly this issue is the reason for Uber's research in autonomous cars - aiming to cut the human service provider out. Still, car sharing has a problem with parking space, and this is likely the most negative issue when considering sustainability. C.

MaaS for Corporate Clients- Tuup

As a true MaaS operator TUUpll brings a wide variety of mobility services (public transport, taxi, car and bike sharing, parking etc.) into one integrated mobile solution. Currently, however, Tuup is focusing on corporate customers, only. Tuup's value proposition for them includes a flexible mobility benefit, mobility management tool that connects to the corporate travel management system and improvement in employee satisfaction. For end-users Tuup's application offers the ease of planning the daily travel and comparing and paying for the services both for business and private travel, thus helping employees to choose cost-efficient and sustainable travel options. Thus, Tuup incorporates interoperability both with the existing corporate management systems and with the interfaces of different mobility providers. Tuup also collects high-quality mobility data from the users which makes it possible to optimize mobility services and travel behaviour for the benefit of urban travellers, their employers, and society.

10

9 www.car2go.comlen [accessed 8 Feb 2016] https:llde.drive-now.com/en/ [accessed 8 Feb 2016] \I http://tuup.fi/ [accessed 8 Feb 2016]

One aspect of collecting the above-mentioned mobility data is promoting economic and environmental sustainability by developing indicators for sustainability of travellers' mobility behaviour and also comparison between different choices in respect to these sustainability criteria. In addition, the increased interoperability between different travelling means increases the use of more sustainable means of travel. Thus, Tuup's approach is inherently highly sustainable.

especially the standardisation and inclusion of interfaces to open data, between different modes and means, and to various user-centric applications. 3.

A strong focus on the end-user perspective, taking into account user group segments as well as user acceptance criteria based user attitudes and behaviours, and the need to change these.

4.

Sustainability in all its dimensions - low to no environmental impact, economically viable, socially acceptable and inclusive, and improving land use and planning. This includes also work during the trip, and ultimately not traveling at all (e.g. teleworking).

D. MaaS for End-Users- UbiGo and Moovel

UbiGo12 in Sweden (Gothenburg) has taken the role of 'a broker of everyday travel', offering customized transport services to fit the individual traveller's needs and requirements. They do this by uniting already existing transport solutions and transport providers, including public transport, taxi, car- and bike-sharing, and rental cars, and offering them in a package to customers through a single subscription service. The intended audience for the service is inner-city households, who are judged to have sufficient access to the existing transport solutions, in particular to car-sharing and public transport, and large enough travel needs for the service to be financially competitive with their current solution. The broker's business model is based on procuring mobility services from different transport service providers by becoming a business client. By representing a large number of customers, the broker can in this way, in theory, negotiate lower prices for the individual trips. However, research [22] clearly shows that the ecosystem needs to have the representation from transport service providers, and users, and additional stakeholders such as ICT developers, research institutes, and society represented by the city and the region. Moovel13 is similar to UbiGo but their integrated car­ sharing offer is limited to Car2Go. In that respect Moovel is available in the same eight countries as Car2Go, and in the same cities. Both UbiGo and Moovel can be considered as inherently highly sustainable in their MaaS offerings. VII.

In summary, MaaS currently aims at transporting persons (and sometimes goods) over a predefined distance, often by combining different means, by making intelligent use of ICT (and, less often, ITS) in a way that is distinctly more sustainable than the use of a private car. However, how can we model MaaS offers, or MaaS as such? For this reason we applied our four key issues to existing mobility services. Only through this practical application, the following insights emerged: •

Streamlining an existing business model does not necessarily qualify for MaaS - both Uber and Lyft are neither sustainable enough nor different enough from the existing taxi service offer.



Car sharing needs a high degree of population density and thus works in urban centres but not in suburbia or in the countryside. Thus car sharing qualifies as a good component of MaaS services, but in itself it lacks the necessary broadness of MaaS, both in cross-boundary aspects and when addressing mid- to long term distances.



True MaaS offerings - of which we present Tuup, UbiGo and Moovel - take an integrated approach towards all four issues ofMaaS.

MAAS ON C ONCEPTUAL LEVEL

In this chapter we summarize the issues that define MaaS and sketch an initial, tentative conceptual model. First of all we conceptualise MaaS as related to travel - someone or something needs to be, or wants to be, transported. We urge researchers strongly to exclude bits and bytes, i.e. data from this transport, as the transfer of data simply follows a different logic and involves a crucially different infrastructure. Once this is clear, and by applying the findings throughout this study it becomes self-evident that the key issues of MaaS are the following: I.

The nature of travel, including goal, trip purpose, distance, accessibility, directness, mode, means, borders, boundaries and trip phases.

2.

Interoperability aspects, which a) embed MaaS within intelligent traffic services (ITS); and b) apply ICT especially in the form of match-making algorithms, mobile phone apps and approaches analogue to social media. Interoperability in our understanding needs

12 www.ubigo.se/las-mer/about-englishl [accessed 8 Feb 2016] 13 www.moovel.com/en/ [accessed 8 Feb 2016]

With these insights we deduct a tentative, conceptual four­ step model ofMaaS as following: 1.

The actual transport offer needs to be clearly specified. Ideally, it can be applied over short and long distances, using a wide variety of different means in a smart way.

2.

End users need either to be able to save costs while keeping the level of convenience equal (including accessibility, directness, comfort), or increase convenience while keeping the cost level equal. Change to more sustainable behaviour on individual level is in principle possible - however the mechanisms are complex and often unpredictable. On the level of the general population we only know that change may take a long time. Social media approaches can assist and drive user demand.

3. MaaS needs to encompass existing offers, such as public transport, car- and bike-sharing and taxi services on demand. The interlink with ITS is of utmost importance, as real-time data and especially real-time traffic control allow operators to implement modal

preferences online. For instance, giving priority to the most sustainable means of transport in order to rise the overall level of transport convenience and taking care about the environment at the same time. Such priority leads us to the final step, sustainability. 4.

Finally, MaaS needs to be as sustainable as possible, taking into account all dimensions of sustainability. This goal needs intensive stakeholder collaboration within the local MaaS ecosystems and also on regional, national, and international levels, especially with standardisation bodies, authorities and policy makers.

In this respect both Tuup and Moovel have made strong progress along all four steps, however both certainly have various issues pending in terms of ITS integration and interoperability, especially considering long-distance and border crossing travel. Our four-step model may assist them and other MaaS operators - to better understand and develop their mobility services. VIII.

C ONCLUSIONS

The primary goal of this study was to establish key issues to be taken into account when researching, developing or implementing Mobility as a Service (MaaS). The secondary goal was to analyse the interactions between these key issues with the aim to establish an initial scientific concept of MaaS. Consequently, we identified four key issues - travel, interoperability, the end-user perspective and sustainability - in detail. Next, through a number of insights generated by applying our four key issues to existing MaaS offerings, we deducted a conceptual four-step model of MaaS. Those four steps start with the actual transport offer, continues with its specific value for the user, how existing offers are encompassed, and ends with a rigorous evaluation of the overall sustainability. We acknowledge that our four steps do not describe a theoretical model in the deeper scientific meaning, however we propose it as a conceptual foundation for MaaS researchers, developers and implementers. Consequently, we are confident that our four-step model enables MaaS operators to refine and expand their mobility services in such way that MaaS evolves from hype to standard, sustainable reality. Regarding MaaS research, our tentative model can only act as the initial trigger of a broad range of further studies. This study has identified several issues without addressing them further, and they can be considered as research 'gaps'. Those gaps include 1) borders and boundaries when traveling, along with the crucial influence of trip distance; 2) all aspects of ITS integration and interoperability, especially linked to real-time data; 3) end-user attitudes and behaviours on segment level, and how to change behaviour; and 4) a better and more sophisticated understanding of sustainability and how its dimensions interlink with each other. Finally we need to acknowledge MaaS as a socio-technical phenomenon, in all its complexity. Thus, two further areas need research: first, the MaaS ecosystem, in the meaning of what are the MaaS operators and stakeholders today and in the future. Second, policy recommendations need to be formulated, based on scientific findings. At this moment, our study

indicates that those [mdings will be related to technology integration and human travel behaviour. REFERENCES [I]

S . Crook, 1. Jaffe, R. Boggs and S . Drake, Worldwide Mobile Worker International Data Corporation, 201 1 .

Population 201 1 -2015 Forecast.

[2]

[3]

G. Marletto, "Car and the city: Socio-technical transition pathways to 2030," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, vol. 87, pp. 1 641 78, 9, 2014. R. Giesecke, "The electric mobility business ecosystem," in international

Cotiference

Energies (E VER),

on

Ecological

Vehicles

2014 Ninth

and Renewable

20 1 4, pp. 1 - 1 3 .

[4]

R. Giesecke, "The live event ecosystem: Local media against global ticket sellers?" in Media Convergence Handbook - Vol. 2, Media Business and innovation, A. Lugmayr and C. Dal Zotto, Eds. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 20 1 6, pp. 3 7 5 -405.

[5]

M. Prandtstetter, M. Straub and J. Puchinger, "On the way to a multi­ modal energy-efficient route, " in industrial Electronics Society, iECON 2013 - 39th Annual Conjerence ojthe IEEE, 20 1 3 , pp. 4779-4784.

[6]

M. Kamargianni, M. Matyas, W. Li and A. Schafer, "Feasibility study for "mobility as a service" concept in london, " UCL Energy Institute, London, UK, 20 I 5 .

[7]

X. Hu, N. K. Giang, 1. Shen, V. C. M. Leung and X. Li, "Towards mobility-as-a-service to promote smart transportation," in Vehicular Technology Conference (VTC Fall), 20 1 5 IEEE 82nd, 20 1 5 , pp. 1 -5 .

[8]

M. Reinthaler, J. Asamer, H. Koller and M . Litzlbauer, "Utilizing mobility data to facilitate the introduction of E-taxis in vienna: Feasibility study of a decision support system for the introduction of battery electric vehicles as taxis," in Connected Vehicles and Expo (ICC VE), 2014 International Cotiference on, 20 1 4, pp. 5 1 6-5 1 7 .

[9]

Ministry of Transport and Communications, "Towards a new transport policy: Intelligence in transport and wisdom in mobility," Ministry of Transport and Communications, Helsinki, Finland, 20 1 3 .

[ 1 0] M. Reichenbach and F. Kressler, "Towards a european framework for a multimodal transport information, management and payment system. stakeholder insights and lessons learned from the TRANSFORuM FP7 project, " in European Transport Conjerence 2015, 2 0 1 5 , pp. 1 - 12. [ I I ] H. Kemming, W. Brinkmann and S . Greger. Verkehrsverhalten Gruppen: Soziale Aspekte Der Mobilittit 2007.

Sozialer

[ 1 2] 1. Schintler, "Society, behavior, and Private/Public transport: Trends and prospects in north america. " in Social Dimensions oj Sustainable Transport: Transatlantic Perspectives, K. Donaghy, S. Poppelreuter and G. Rudinger, Eds. London, UK: Ashgate, 2005, pp. 29-3 7 . [ 1 3 ] 1. Roberts, R. Hodgson and P. Dolan, ""It's driving her mad" : Gender differences in the effects of commuting on psychological health," J. Health £Con., vol. 30, pp. 1 064- 1 076, 9, 201 1 . [ 1 4] K . Schaie and H . Mollenkopf, "Mobility issues in the united states and europe," in Social Dimensions oj Sustainable Transport: Transatlantic Perspectives, K. Donaghy, S. Poppelreuter and G. Rudinger, Eds. London, UK: Ashgate, 2005, pp. 50-66. [ 1 5] G. Rudinger, K. Donaghy and S. Poppelreuter, " Societal trends, mobility behaviour and sustainable transport in Europe and North America, " Transport Reviews, vol. 24, pp. 679-690, 1 1/0 1 , 2004. [ 1 6] M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen, "Attitudes and Opinions, " Psychol., vol. 2 3, pp. 487, 02 , 1 97 2 .

Annu.

Rev.

[ 1 7] M. Fishbein and 1. Ajzen, "Attitudes towards objects as predictors of single and mUltiple behavioral criteria," Psychol. Rev. , vol. 8 1 , pp. 5974, 1 974. [ 1 8] I. Ajzen and C. Timko, "Correspondence Between Health Attitudes and Behavior," Basic and Applied Social Psychology, vol. 7, pp. 259-276, 1 2/0 1 , 1986. [ 1 9] S . T. Fiske and S . E. Taylor, McGraw-Hili, 1 984.

Social Cognition.

New York, NY:

[20] M. Hilbert, "Toward a synthesis of cognitive biases: How noisy information processing can bias human decision making," Psychol. Bull., vol. 1 3 8, pp. 2 1 1 -237, 2012.

[2 1 ] T. Skoglund. Investigating the impacts of ICT -mediated services - the case of public transport traveller information. 20 12. Available: http://publications.lib. chalmers. se/records/fulltext! 1 5849 1 11 5849 1 .pdf. [22] 1. Sochor, H. StrOmberg and I. M. Karlsson, "Implementing Mobility as a Service: Challenges in Integrating User, Commercial, and Societal Perspectives," Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, pp. 1 -9, 20 1 5 . [23] M . L . A . Lustria, S . M . Noar, 1 . Cortese, S . K . Van Stee, R . L. Glueckauf and J. Lee, "A Meta-Analysis of Web-Delivered Tailored Health Behavior Change Interventions, " J. Health Commun., vol. 1 8 , pp. 1 039-1 069, 09, 20 1 3 . [24] J. S . Szyliowicz, "Decision-making, intermodal transportation, and sustainable mobility: towards a new paradigm," international Social Science Journal, vol. 55, pp. 1 8 5 - 1 97, 2003 . [25] K. Axhausen, " Social networks and travel : Some hypotheses," in

Social

Dimensions of Sustainable Transport: Transatlantic Perspectives,

K. Donaghy, S. Poppelreuter and G. Rudinger, Eds. London, UK: Ashgate, 2005, pp. 90- 1 0 8 .

[26] European Environment Agency, "Evaluating 1 5 years o f transport and environmental policy integration - TERM 20 1 5 : Transport indicators tracking progress towards environmental targets in europe," European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, Tech. Rep. 7/20 1 5, 20 1 5 . [27] Council o f the European Union, "Draft joint report o n social inclusion. DG employment and social affairs report 1 522310 I . " Council of the European Union, Brussels, Tech. Rep. 1 5223/0 1 , 200 1 . [28] R . Levitas, C. Pantazis, E . Fahmy, D. Gordon, E . Lloyd and D . Patsios, "The multi-dimensional analysis of social exclusion, " Townsend Centre for the International Study of Poverty and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK, 2007. [29] A. Church, M. Frost and K. Sullivan, "Transport and social exclusion in London," Transp. Policy, vol. 7, pp. 195-205, 7, 2000. [30] Q. Shen, " Spatial and Social Dimensions of Commuting, " Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 66, pp. 68-82, 03/3 1 , 2000. [3 1 ] G. Giuliano and K. A. Small, "Is the Journey to Work Explained by Urban Structure?" Urban Studies, vol. 30, pp. 1485-1 500, November 0 1 , 1 993 . [32] J. Wadhawan, "Die Revolution im Zuckeltempo," Januar 20 16, 20 1 6 .

Die Zeit,

pp. 26, 2 1 .