Development of a new classification system for Mobility as a Service platforms

João Teixeira, Eloísa Macedo, Jorge M. Bandeira Dept. Mechanical Engineering; TEMA – Centre for Mechanical Technology and Automation University of Aveiro, Aveiro, Portugal jpteixeira@ua.pt, macedo@ua.pt, jorgebandeira@ua.pt

Abstract — The concept of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) has received great attention and interest from various sectors such as, governments, industry, researchers, public. MaaS offers an integrated and user-oriented application in which multiple mobility choices are provided in an attempt to fulfill user mobility needs and be an attractive alternative to the use of the private car. This framework is often considered fundamental for a more sustainable and inclusive transport system [1]. Recently, a MaaS topology was proposed to better compare MaaS services [2]: Level 0: No integration of transport modes; Level 1: Integration of transport modes, Level 2: Integration of booking and payment; Level 3: Integration of service offer subscription, contracts and responsibilities; Level 4: Integration of Societal Goals. However, this classification is cumulative and societal goals are only considered in the highest integration level.

Although it is true that the increase of Mobility choices options is often associated with reduced dependency on the individual car, it is important to be aware of the unintended consequence of MaaS which may compromise the goal of sustainable cities [3]. Many authors expect perverse and unanticipated outcomes with a broad expansion of MaaS which may influence travel behavior, changes in land use, land value affecting urban form as different impacts on different social groups [4-6]. Frequently the public sector is pointed as the key enabler of this mobility packages service [7-8]. However, MaaS is a concept dependent of applications through ICT integration that is dedicated to existing social movement as peer-to-peer sharing, arising the application of mobile ICTs, which is rather commercial than social [9]. Therefore, barriers such as individual, organizational and societal approaches will be dependent on how well public authorities on city, regional or national level can influence user’s behavior by setting the right conditions, so the users follow the desired societal behavior expected by future governances [2,10].

Currently, MaaS services are characterized in such a way that it is difficult for users, planners and policymakers to assess clearly and unequivocally the level of coverage, multimodality, available services and integration of active policies to promote sustainability.

Through statistical analysis and clustering techniques based on the analysis of 120 mobility services in six countries within the PriMaaS partnership, a new classification system is proposed by the team mainly focused on four fundamental dimensions: Multimodality, Coverage, Functionalities and Sustainability. Keywords — ICT, MaaS, Societal Goal, Integration

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is supported by the projects: UIDB/00481/2020 and UIDP/EMS/00481/2020-FCT - FCT - Fundação para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia; and CENTRO-010145-FEDER-022083 - Centro Portugal Regional Operational Program (Centro2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the ERDF and PriMaaS InterregEurope Project PGI05830. TOPIC 2) Technologies for the Wellbeing b. Innovative Technologies for Smart Cities. REFERENCES

[1] Pangbourne, K., Mladenović, M. N., Stead, D., & Milakis, D. (2020). Questioning Mobility as a service: Unanticipated implications for society and governance. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 131, 35-49.

[2] Sochor, J., Arby, H., Karlsson, I. M., & Sarasini, S. (2018). A topological approach to Mobility as a Service: A proposed tool for understanding requirements and effects, and for aiding the integration of societal goals. Research in Transportation Business & Management, 27, 3-14.

[3] Wong, Y. Z., Hensher, D. A., & Mulley, C. (2020). Mobility as a service (MaaS): Charting a future context. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 131, 5-19.

[4] Akyelken, N., Banister, D., Givoni, M., 2018. The sustainability of shared Mobility in London: the dilemma for governance. Sustainability 10 (2), 420.

[5] Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., Dieleman, F.M., 2004. Policies for urban form and their impact on travel: the Netherlands experience. Urban studies 41 (3), 579–603.

[6] Whitmarsh, L., 2012. How useful is the multi-level perspective for transport and sustainability research? J. Transp. Geogr. 24, 483–487.

[7] Heikkilä, S. (2014). Mobility as a service-a proposal for action for the public administration, Case Helsinki.

[8] Kronsell, A., & Mukhtar-Landgren, D. (2018). Experimental governance: The role of municipalities in urban living labs. European planning studies, 26(5), 988-1007.

[9] Eckhardt, G. M., & Bardhi, F. (2015). The sharing economy isn’t about sharing at all. Harvard business review, 28(1), 2015.

[10] Zhao, X., Vaddadi, B., Sjöman, M., Hesselgren, M., & Pernestål, A. (2020). Key barriers in MaaS development and implementation: Lessons learned from testing Corporate MaaS (CMaaS). Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 8, 100227.