Mobility-as-a-Service

The value proposition for the

public and our urban systems

March 2018
Contents
Research team 3

Executive summary 5

1 Introduction 9

1.1 Basis of research 9

1.2 Approach 10

2 The MaaS ecosystem 11

3 Dimensions of travel, decision-making and the trip market 14

3.1 Overview of trip making and travel choice 14

3.2 Our study area and its characteristics 14

4 MaaS value propositions 18

5 Conceptualizing the impacts of MaaS on trip markets 23

5.1 Observed value of MaaS and basis for trade-offs 23

5.2 Demonstrating value in the Greater Toronto and 27

Hamilton Area

5.3 City prototypes – learning from limited evidence 33

6 Knowledge blueprint 38

7 Policy and planning levers for cities of the future 40

Endnotes 43

Appendix A
Summary of expert interviews

2 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Research team

Arup MaRS Discovery District

Arup is drawn to projects involving complex, atypical MaRS Discovery District (MaRS) is a not-for-profit
problems requiring non-standard solutions. We are innovation hub dedicated to driving economic and
uniquely positioned to serve a mix of public, private social prosperity. Based out of Toronto, Ontario,
and industry clients with large stakes in the evolving MaRS is a neutral third party that works with
mobility paradigm. entrepreneurs, investors and companies to enable
wider economic and societal impact, and with Ryan Falconer
Arup conducts internally funded research and
governments and industry to facilitate innovation
produces thought-pieces regarding the future of
across complex markets and systems.
transit, highways, rail and airports. This research —
along with targeted studies of impacts of driverless Over the last few years, MaRS has been actively
cars on urban streets and policy implications engaged in the shared and connected mobility area.
of driverless cars and the mobility-as-a-service This includes development of the sharing economy
ecosystem — demonstrates our commitment strategy for the City of Toronto, which is globally
to exploring the outcomes of new and emerging recognized for leading regulation in this area,
mobility tools and services. detailed modelling on how shared and connected
mobility solutions may impact the environmental Taylor Zhou
Ryan Falconer holds a PhD in sustainability and
and transportation challenges facing dense urban
technology policy and has published 30 peer-
areas, and creation of the inaugural Urban Mobility
reviewed book chapters and entries, journal articles
Design Camp to further explore opportunities
and conference papers. Ryan is Arup’s Cities
around shared and connected mobility. MaRS is
Leader for Western Australia, having spent 2015
currently exploring shared mobility pilot deployment
to 2017 in Toronto leading integrated planning for
with regional stakeholders (with the support of the
Arup in Canada. He has spoken to international
Atmospheric Foundation) and is in the process of
audiences in New Zealand, Australia, Sweden,
founding a shared mobility knowledge hub for the
Hong Kong, China and North America on topics
Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. Melissa Felder
including mobility-as-a-service, automated vehicles
and transit-oriented development. Melissa Felder is currently assisting MaRS
Discovery District in the delivery of the MaRS Data
Taylor Zhou joined Arup Canada in 2016 and has
Catalyst Shared Mobility Transportation Programme.
been involved in a range of technical and research
Melissa has provided environmental consulting
Declaration
studies featuring pedestrian simulation, accessibility This report represents
services since 2001 for public and private sector
analysis and mobility-as-a-service. Taylor has a the sole opinion of
clients across Canada, specializing in transportation
master’s degree in civil engineering from University the authors and is not
and fleet management. She was involved in criteria
of Toronto, where she was involved in research to be construed as
development for the Ontario government’s $15M
on life-cycle assessment and greenhouse gas directly representing
Green Commercial Vehicle Program and co-
emissions modelling for alternative fuel vehicles. the views held by the
managed development and deployment of Ontario’s
$1.5M Fleet Challenge program, acknowledged organizations listed.
as a notable program by the Environmental No interviewees or the
Commissioner of Ontario. Melissa has a master’s in organizations they work
chemical and biological engineering (hons.) from the for exercised editorial
University of British Columbia. control over the report.

Other credits
The authors would like to thank Sasha Sud, Joe Greenwood and Wanda Wang of MaRS Data Catalyst and Tim MacLeod of Bridgeable for sharing his
firm’s mobility-as-a-service research. Bridgeable is an award-winning strategic design firm focused on helping clients bridge the gap between what is known
about a complex problem and how it can be solved. The company works to research, translate and design experiences across sectors ranging from mobility
to healthcare to financial services.
We are thankful to Bruce Schaller of Schaller Consulting for his independent peer review and helpful comments on our draft paper. We encourage you to
read Bruce’s own work on the subject, available through his website. Additionally, we thank Tim Gammons, Director of Smarter Mobility & ITS at Arup, for his
review and comments. Thanks to Jesse Vernon and Karen Scarborough for their thoughtful editorial reviews and graphical support.
Lastly, we thank all of our interviewees, including representatives of the Conference Board of Canada, Shared Use Mobility Center, City of Toronto, Metrolinx,
Town of Innisfil, Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, and six mobility service and platform vendors.

Mobility-as-a-Service | 3
4 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Executive summary

In this white paper, we explore the evolution of mobility-as-a-service,

or MaaS: how it is redefining our conceptions of vehicular mobility
and how we navigate around our cities and fulfil our life’s work.

MaaS is a manifestation of new thinking around Approach

how transportation services are currently provided
Much is taken for granted regarding the role and
and used. MaaS is intended to improve the efficacy
impacts of MaaS in our urban areas; accordingly,
of and access to urban mobility through new
we aim to dispel myths relating to and improve
services and online platforms. Many cities around
appraisals of MaaS. We identify and clarify the roles
the world have been exploring how to best deploy
of different stakeholders (agents in the mobility
MaaS networks to optimize benefits for providers
ecosystem), to help make sure the net result
and users.
of MaaS is beneficial for society. This includes
We consider MaaS to be both a physical a critique of the role of the public sector and
service provision and a medium for accessing identification of important policy directions.
this service. We refer to the physical aspect of
Our research method involved a deep dive into
MaaS (the consumable travel) as the mobility
the emerging body of literature relating to MaaS,
service component and the media used to select
including peer-reviewed academic papers, thought
travel as the mobility platform. In particular, we
leadership pieces and independent publications, as
discuss how mobility services are contributing to
well as scans of available news sources and related
reconceptualization of public transit and the role of
web content. In addition, we engaged 14 senior
transit in supporting urban growth and operations.1
industry specialists via a semi-structured interview
We also take stock of the documented impacts of
format to elicit views relating to our research.
these services on cities — both the positive and
the negative. The findings from the primary and secondary
research were considered within the context of
In this paper we set a virtuous target for mobility
our study area of interest: the Greater Toronto
ecosystems: the preservation and enhancement
and Hamilton Area (GTHA). This allowed us to
of public-mobility services, available to meet the
form conclusions regarding current depth of
needs of all segments of society at modest prices.
knowledge around MaaS and the identification
The private sector can add mobility choices to
and measurement of its operational impacts.
the market — sometimes in partnership with the
We then developed recommendations regarding
public — to help this target be attained; however,
how to address both suboptimal impacts and
a net result that includes increased inequities or
knowledge gaps.
deprivation should not be accepted as a product
of progress. While our geographic focus is the GTHA, our
findings and recommendations are relevant in many
We believe the research makes an important
other North American contexts.
contribution to the discussion around MaaS
and should be of interest to governments, transit
operators, private service vendors and the
travelling public.

1 While MaaS can also support rural transportation services in areas where private transportation becomes a barrier to
development, this is not the main focus of this study.

Mobility-as-a-Service | 5
Findings Based on our research and interviews, we have
identified the following factors that affect value
MaaS deployment and outcomes vary by region
creation and the nature of trade-offs between
and are influenced by socioeconomics and
different agents within the MaaS ecosystem:
sociodemographics, as well as factors like urban
geography, overall trip patterns and quality/ • Urban socioeconomics and sociodemographics,
coverage of existing public transit systems. MaaS including relative population heterogeneity,
is also significantly affected by the availability and employment and the costs of travel in proportion
quality of regional communications infrastructure, to household/personal income
such as through the availability of real-time data to
• The regulatory environment or constraints under
support transit planning and services.
which service vendors are required to operate
Our expert interviews indicated that the perception
• Maturity of public transit systems, especially the
of the value proposition of MaaS varies from one
extent to which they are road- or rail-based and
agent group (consumers, vendors, transit agencies
their expanse across a particular geography
and other governmental stakeholders) to another
and sometimes involves trade-offs between the • Quality of transit journeys, including the legibility
interests of different agents. The primary trade- of the system, travel speed and time, price point
offs occur between consumers, vendors and and comfort
transit agencies across trip market segments that
• The size and density of cities, as well as the
the public sector has struggled to serve using
distribution/concentration of land-use intensity
conventional transit services. These segments
simultaneously present some of the greatest • The characteristics of alternative mobility
opportunities and the greatest risks. services offered and the sustainability of these
business models; MaaS can add incremental
value to existing networks but sometimes
requires subsidy.

6 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Our research demonstrates that there is no existing 2. Consider government-owned enterprise in
means to prevent negative trade-offs — to limit the sector, which can help backstop mobility
value creation for one group of agents when it services in marginal areas and set operating
becomes a liability for another group. This is a baselines for the industry. Such ventures would
fundamental issue that needs to be addressed need to operate in accordance with private-
when it comes to guiding and regulating MaaS. sector principles to avoid additional burden on
public expenditure
The motivations for participating in the MaaS market
differ from group to group and from city to city, 3. Further develop and consistently deploy
and a model or best-practice operating framework information- and data-sharing protocols so that
has not yet emerged for this immature market. the type, quantity, granularity, accuracy and
This sector faces a baseline of uncertainty, a lack latency of the data needed to fulfil mobility choice
of definition and expected results. It is therefore selection become better understood
important for agents to recognize their knowledge
4. Redefine traditional travel-sector policy/
gaps and limitations, and to work in partnership with
regulatory approaches to be more flexible
other interests in pursuit of joint value creation.
and adaptive — for example, by facilitating
MaaS concepts, services and outcomes vary the incorporation of pilot feedback and rapid
significantly across markets, and the sector is prototyping over time. This will help account
changing rapidly. Different services appeal to for the speed of change in the sector and allow
different parts of the travel market. There are also decision-makers some flexibility when it comes
opportunities to develop MaaS to solve sector- to establishing guiding frameworks
specific challenges, including delivery of health care
5. Investigate transitional or alternate contract
services and solving immediate issues with transit
models that allow MaaS to flourish across a
access in new development areas, as well as many
range of vendor contracts
other sectors currently underserved by public transit
or other conventional forms of mobility. 6. Reevaluate the role of government leadership in
contexts where the public sector may be more
Recommendations impactful and efficient acting in a guiding capacity
In many regions, the public sector is well behind rather than as a transportation services provider.
par with respect to defining and implementing Government would still have a critical regulatory
model regulatory frameworks, and the GTHA is responsibility, including setting key performance
no exception. Without clear regulations, some of indicators for vendors and monitoring
the negative impacts of mobility service provision, compliance. Indicators must also be set (and met)
such as competition with transit, variable service for residual, publicly provided mobility services
standards and congestion, are being dealt with and the mobility system as a whole.
in piecemeal and suboptimal ways. Established
frameworks could facilitate the potential benefits of
public-private mobility partnerships.

The following recommended actions address some

of the data gaps identified through this research
and clarify areas of responsibility regarding MaaS
deployment.

1. Prioritize well-calibrated public-private-

partnership-based mobility pilot tests, and
develop and test model policies. Critical elements
include compiling and evaluating evidence of
similar models that have worked well in this
specific sector, with a particular emphasis on
data gathering, monitoring and evaluation

Mobility-as-a-Service | 7
In fall 2017, the Association
québécoise des transports
published a special issue of
AQTr Magazine that explored
MaaS. Our research team
published a thought-piece in the
feature, as a precursor to this
white paper, titled “The Value
Proposition of Mobility Services:
Opportunities and Challenges
for Sustainable Operations.”

8 | Mobility-as-a-Service
1 Introduction

The ways in which mobility is conceptualized, accessed and

consumed as a service is rapidly changing. In this white paper
we explore the evolution of mobility-as-a-service, or MaaS: how
it is redefining our conceptions of vehicular mobility and how we
navigate around our cities and fulfil our life’s work.

1.1 Basis of research

Many industry bodies and governmental but there have been few systematic
administrations are currently studying MaaS, attempts to assess their effectiveness in a
including the Transportation Research Board, comprehensive way.
the International Association of Public Transport,
Part of the challenge has been how to define
Polis, the American Transportation Association,
effectiveness: Passenger numbers? Farebox
the Canadian Urban Transit Association, Federal
recovery? Social impact? Or some combination
Transportation Association (US) and Federal
of all of these? [1]. The new wave of innovation
Highway Administration (US).
in the mobility market creates pressure to set
MaaS has become a popular way to describe these evaluative thresholds, and in an era of
the following, sometimes jointly, interchangeably fiscal limitations, these will be shaped in part by
or discretely: financial considerations.

• Travel options that are available at the Fundamentally, we set out to better understand
discretion of the user and avoid locking them the travel market, identify the variables that
into ownership of a mode (e.g., a private influence trips undertaken and theorize how
vehicle) with its ensuing — and significant MaaS will continue to change how travel
— sunk costs and ongoing maintenance, demand is satisfied or managed. Using the
insurance and fuelling expenses Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA)
as a geography of focus, we developed a
• Interfaces and platforms that provide users
knowledge blueprint that shows the current state
with access to specific or a selection of
of information regarding the impacts of MaaS,
travel options, sometimes with a variety of
as well as the limitations of this knowledge. Our
supplementary data and functionality
work is intended to provide the public and private
included (e.g., access to timetables,
sectors with actionable ways to leverage the best
locational data, congestion information,
of the MaaS offer while avoiding, remedying or
payment options, travel-time estimates and
mitigating its less desirable effects.
comparative costings).
We are concerned that the evolution of MaaS has
In this paper, we refer to the physical aspect of
thus far been motivated almost exclusively by
MaaS (the consumable travel) as the mobility
the digital and information technology sectors,
service component and the media used to select
and private sector mobility innovators. For
travel as the mobility platform. In particular, we
various reasons, governments (especially city
discuss how mobility services are contributing
governments) and public transit agencies have
to reconceptualization of public transit and
been reactive, resulting in a MaaS ecosystem
the role of transit in supporting urban growth
that does not necessarily satisfy a broad agenda
and operations. We also take stock of the
for our urban environments [2]. More work needs
documented impacts of these services on cities
to be done to ensure that the potential social,
— both the positive and the negative.
economic and environmental benefits of MaaS
Mobility services are not entirely new; they are deployment are actually realized for our urban
evolving and diversifying. Demand-responsive and rural regions.
transit has been used in many contexts globally,

Mobility-as-a-Service | 9
1.2 Approach
Our research method included a deep dive into The remainder of this white paper is structured
the emerging body of literature relating to MaaS, as follows:
including peer-reviewed academic papers, thought
• Section 2 – The MaaS ecosystem: What are
leadership pieces and independent publications.
mobility services, and how do they relate to
In addition, we screened online media for opinion
conventional public transit?
pieces and press releases regarding MaaS across
a broad range of geographies but with particular • Section 3 – Dimensions of travel, decision-
focus on North America. Finally, we engaged the making and the trip market: How do people
following 14 senior industry specialists using a fulfil their life’s work and what influences
semistructured interview format to elicit views when, where, why and how they travel? We
relating our to research: also introduce the GTHA for those who are
• Four service vendors representing ride-hailing/ not familiar with its basic geography, including
pooling and one-way and two-way car-share transit operators and utilization
platforms • Section 4 – MaaS value propositions: What
• Two service platform providers value do mobility services offer to different
stakeholders in the mobility ecosystem
• Four academics or independent thought (vendors, consumers, transit agencies
leaders recognized across North America for and various tiers of government)? What
their contribution to the topic: Bruce Schaller circumstances affect the value proposition?
of Schaller Consulting, Dr Julia Markovich of
the Conference Board of Canada, and Cassie • Section 5 – Conceptualizing the impacts
Hall and Creighton Randall of the Shared Use of MaaS on trip markets: What are the
Mobility Center conditions under which MaaS is influencing
travel behaviour, and how does this vary
• Four representatives of transportation services geographically? We analyse the existing
for municipal government or transit agencies in evidence base and several case studies from
North America, including three involved directly the GTHA
with MaaS pilots (two in the GTHA): the City of
Toronto, Metrolinx, Town of Innisfil and Kansas • Section 6 – Knowledge blueprint: Where is our
City Area Transportation Authority. understanding of the impacts of MaaS limited
and why? This data map outlines the limits of
This study is predicated on the researchers’ our current knowledge
shared belief that the introduction of — and
access to — new mobility service types must also • Section 7 – Policy and planning levers for
preserve and enhance publicly available services. cities of the future: How can we deepen
This standard may only be satisfied if services regional knowledge, capability and sound
are available to meet the needs of all segments of execution in the MaaS space?
society at reasonable prices.

Our research sought to define criteria to measure

success or failure against this ambition. The role
and impacts of MaaS in our urban areas are still
largely unknown, and we aim to make a small
contribution to dispelling myths and improving
appraisals of associated services.

10 | Mobility-as-a-Service
2 The MaaS ecosystem

There are various interpretations and working example, is a form of mobility service that was
definitions of MaaS, including MaaS the following: available to consumers long before digital platforms
such as Whim or Google Coord enabled dynamic
… A mobility distribution model that delivers users’
trip planning, payment and other features. Taxi cabs
transport needs through the single interface of
have also long provided a higher-priced and door-
a service provider or via an interface that can
to-door service for customers, thus satisfying some
integrate various transport modes [3] (the role of
demands in the trip market.
subscription may be emphasized within the latter
type of model) The MaaS market as we know it currently has
ballooned following rapid development of digital
… A new way to offer and completely integrate
telecommunications technology. Digital innovation
transportation services by leveraging smartphone
has spawned more ubiquitous and faster internet
technology and internet provision, thereby providing
access, continually improving processing capacity,
service that is flexible, personalized and on-demand
system integration and cashless payment services.
… A single app to access and pay for various
The rise of new forms of mobility service that
transport modes within a city or beyond,
depend on and leverage this technology has
enabled by smartphone and ubiquitous internet
contributed to increased political attention. This
connectivity [4]
attention has focused on the impacts these
Whatever the definition, MaaS is commonly ventures are having on transport systems and
understood as user-centric, as it is intended to infrastructure, their use of data, revenue models
improve the consumer experience in accessing and goodness-of-fit within the existing regulatory
and using mobility services. Digital connectivity environment.
between physical objects (the travelling public and
Car-sharing schemes have been around for some
the services they use) and virtual data enables
time (e.g., Zipcar was founded in 2000), but real
this operation [5]. MaaS is also designed to be
growth in and diversity of mobility service — the rise
consumed on-demand and in a manner befitting
of ride-hailing — commenced in 2009 (Uber) and
the particular needs of a user, unlocking them from 
gained momentum in the US and other international
the convention of mobility ownership (e.g., assets
markets after 2012, when Lyft entered the market. Figure 2.1
like bicycles, cars and even parking spaces).
Many other service vendors have emerged since MaaS ecosystem:
We consider MaaS to be both a physical service and vary across geographies. evolving constantly
provision and a medium for accessing this
service. Each component of the MaaS duo — the
physical service and the digital platform through
which service is accessed — has a variety of
agents and attributes. The agents include vendors
(providers of both service and platform), transit
1-way car share
agencies, other government stakeholders and Ridehailing

consumers. The attributes include types of services 2-way car share

(or functionality) available and the technologies that

enable these to be consumed. Altogether, these
variables form the MaaS ecosystem.

The MaaS ecosystem is dynamic and evolves Peer to peer ride

and vehicle
constantly (Figure 2.1), although some more sharing

conventional aspects of this ecosystem have had Bikeshare

a long history. Conventional public transit, for

According to the European MaaS Alliance [6], MaaS

puts “users, both travellers and goods, at the core of
transport services, offering them tailor-made mobility
solutions based on their individual needs.” Platform

Mobility-as-a-Service | 11
Enabling dynamic choice in the travel market: Skipp Prototype
for the City of Vaughan

In 2017 the service design firm Bridgeable,

together with the City of Vaughan and
MaRS Discovery District, created a
multimodal trip-planning application
prototype for York Region in the Province
of Ontario. The application was based
on intensive field research to identify user
needs and feedback on the daily commute
experience. Commuting is a key quality-of-
life issue for many residents of the GTHA,
which experiences some of the most
significant vehicular congestion in North
America.
The resulting prototype was designed as
a trip-planning application for the region.
The application was built on a theoretical
ecosystem of mobility options and
designed to provide users with the tools, The prototype videos can be accessed at www.marsdd.com/systems-change/
data-catalyst/news/urban-mobility-ontario-challenges-solutions/.
framework and information to plan transit
around their life, instead of the converse.

Service innovation has led to many different choices • Are public transit agencies themselves utilizing
for consumers, from ride-hailing to one- or two-way digital platforms to evolve their service offerings?
car-sharing, microtransit, bicycle sharing, carpooling
• Are the public and private sectors working
and variants. Other researchers have conducted
together to deliver effectively deliver value to
comprehensive studies of the ecosystem and its
consumers?
constituency [7–9].
Bearing these points in mind, in this white paper we
Still, the economic implications of the rise of MaaS
are concerned primarily with the following:
and how it has reshaped activity in conventional and
overall trip markets are still poorly understood. We 1. The promise of digital platforms and the extent to
anticipate that mobility services and the platforms which they facilitate improved travel choices for
that enable them have disrupted the consumption customers
of travel and altered people’s decisions about how
2. The measurable and hypothetical impacts of
they move around their urban environments and
physical services on urban environments and the
under what circumstances. These are themes we
mobility market.
explore throughout this paper. We ask and begin to
answer the following pertinent questions: Such an assessment must reflect an understanding
of how travel decisions are made. Additionally, we
• Are “last-mile” connectivity options adding
need to define more clearly the basis of the trip
to vehicle use and/or reducing active travel
market that is being affected by the evolution of
(e.g., walking), therefore creating additional
MaaS. We cover these points in Sections 3 and 4.
challenges?

• Are some private-sector-provided services

replacing trips that would otherwise have been
made by conventional public transit?

12 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Mobility-as-a-Service | 13
3 Dimensions of travel,
decision-making and the trip market

3.1 Overview of trip making and travel 3.2 Our study area and its characteristics
choice Our unit of interest is the GTHA for an average
Travel behaviour and related decision-making are weekday. The GTHA comprises of 30 separate
well covered in the literature and are complex municipalities, with the city of Toronto being the
fields of study. There remains considerable debate most significant (but not only) economic anchor of
regarding the degree and directionality of influence the region with a population of about 2.8 million.
of many variables on personal travel, from built Large urban regions like the GTHA have been
environment characteristics to socioeconomics and very successful in providing increasingly attractive
sociodemographics [10–11]. opportunities for people to live, work and grow,
Individual-level travel behaviour aggregates to contributing to increasing gross densities of jobs
other geographic scales, leading to the temporal, and population. The region is forecast to grow in
spatial and mode-based flows seen around our population from 7.2 million today to about 10 million
urban environments. The evolution of MaaS adds residents by 2041. The GTHA includes all manner
additional complexity to these equations. of land use, from activity-intense urban areas to
rural/undeveloped regions. These density gradients
Our study is most interested in how and under what are anticipated to remain in the long term, despite
circumstances MaaS influences travel choices. It overall growth and densification.
is therefore important to identify how MaaS affects 
the convenience, cost and time required to There are 10 autonomous transit agencies in the Figure 3.1
conduct trips and, in turn, how this leads to new or region including one provincial agency, Metrolinx Autonomously operating
reassigned trips (alternative trip routes, times and/ (see Figure 3.1). The area is served by a regional transit agencies in the
or mode choices) compared to business as usual. transit service (GO Transit, operated by Metrolinx). GTHA

We recognize comfort to be an issue too but

are concerned with the three primary variables
as specified in our work. We focus on general
trends including how the influences of MaaS (and
its associated value propositions) vary between
different trip purposes, locations in the urban
environment and different sociodemographic and
socioeconomic groups. In turn, we are concerned
with the impacts of MaaS on the overall trip market,
which comprises all the trips undertaken in any
given area of study across a temporal unit of
interest.

GO Train

14 | Mobility-as-a-Service
 
The value proposition
of public transit needs
to be marketed clearly
to the consumer. This
poster, attached to a bus
shelter in an Australian
city, appears to do the
opposite.

In the city of Toronto, the Toronto Transit Given a combination of historical underinvestment
Commission (TTC) operates municipal transit in transit, urban growth pressures and governance
services, including the existing three subway lines model, the public sector faces challenges to
(four, if the eastern surface rapid-transit line is address competing priorities:
counted). About 12% of residents in the GTHA live
• New transit capacity requirements (such as the
within a five-minute walk of existing rapid transit
Downtown Relief Line)
lines. Approximately 23.3% of the city of Toronto
population commutes via public transit, and in • New transit alignments, especially circumferential
Hamilton, 9.3% [12]. rapid transit (such as Eglinton Crosstown light-rail
transit)
The fragmentation of service provision presents
challenges for integrating transit across the region; • Transit capacity to help structure and focus future
this is manifest in the lack of full fare integration and urban growth (such as the Kitchener-Waterloo
relatively recent introduction of a smartcard payment ION light-rail transit)
system (PRESTO). For the last four decades, there
• Improved transit services in underserved and
has been chronic underinvestment in public transit
lower patronage areas to address social equity
infrastructure, so the region’s agencies are now
challenges (such as improved transit station
playing catch-up.
access and suburban services).
In particular, Metrolinx is partway through
Additionally, there have been several MaaS service
implementation of The Big Move, its regional plan,
and/or related enterprise initiatives in the GTHA over
which was updated in 2017. A number of light-rail
the last few years, including the widespread use of
and bus-rapid-transit projects are in various stages
ride-hailing through Uber and the 2017 entry of Lyft,
of feasibility planning and design, and additional
five years after Uber’s initial entry into the market.
subway extension projects are being contemplated,
Enterprise Carshare and Zipcar are long-standing
include the Relief Line, Scarborough extension
providers of two-way car-sharing services while
and Yonge North. Planning and design is underway
Car2Go provides one-way services.
for Regional Express Rail (RER), which will
introduce 15-minute, two-way, all-day service on Microtransit services include UberHOP (ride-sharing,
the GO rail network. running since late 2015), Line Six Transit (a privately
run shuttle bus that ran from 2014 to late 2015 in
Liberty Village), and RideCo (a 2015, one-year pilot
that ran in Milton). Mobility service platforms include
Citymapper and Transit App, and Finland’s Whim is
looking to enter the market.

Mobility-as-a-Service | 15
Real-life laboratory
Bridgeable’s study into consumer travel choice in the city of Vaughan

The large majority (from 80 to 90%) of personal problems seem likely to get worse before they get
transportation in the GTHA still occurs via single- better. This regional context is critical to consider in
occupancy vehicle. This mode use has significant the deployment of any mobility solution.
implications for congestion, infrastructure,
In the next section we define the value propositions
environment and overall quality of life for GHTA
associated with MaaS from the perspectives
residents.
of consumers, vendors, transit agencies and
Transportation is now the largest and fastest- government. Some of these value propositions
growing source of emissions in urban regions like relate to amelioration of some of the ills associated
the GTHA, and Ontarians are facing an average of with single-occupancy vehicle trips conducted
50% longer commutes due to congestion. North using privately owned vehicles, which is a policy
of Toronto, Highway 401 is the most congested imperative for government in the GTHA.
freeway in Canada and challenges sections of
We identify the types of trips and circumstances
highways in New York and Los Angeles for cause of
under which MaaS is contributing to new or
delays [13].
reassigned trips — our focus shifts from theory to
Despite transportation investment and some growth application. We support our analysis with evidence
of MaaS and MaaS-like opportunities, “mobility” from the literature and the perspectives of our
in the GTHA is currently characterized by chronic expert interviewees.
congestion and acute pinch points, and these

16 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Mobility-as-a-Service | 17
4 MaaS value propositions

We are concerned with the value proposition • Reassigned value: Do I have to trade off
of MaaS from the perspectives of consumers, benefits like convenience for cost and/or do
vendors, transit agencies and government (our four benefits or me negatively impact others (e.g.,
key agents). Other researchers have argued that through changed service coverage)?
MaaS enables:
• Circumstantial value: Under what conditions is
• A seamless and efficient flow of information, value realized? Does it depend on the purpose of
goods and people — both locally and over longer the trip I am undertaking, when I am taking it and
distances to where? Would a similar trip taken elsewhere
within the urban area generate less or more
• Globally scalable door-to-door mobility without
value? Do I need to make the trip at all?
the need for private car ownership
We hypothesize value to be conceptualized
• A better level of service than private car
differently by each agent in the marketplace
• An open ecosystem for information and services (vendors being private-sector MaaS service
in intelligent transportation [14]. providers) and for there to be some overlap in these
interests (Figure 4.1 gives some examples of value).
By theory and implication, MaaS may introduce
We intended for our research to identify the contexts
more flexibility and inclusivity (convenience),
in which overlap does and does not occur.
affordability (cost) and connectivity (time) into our
movement systems [2]. The shared use of MaaS We asked our 14 expert interviewees to define the
may also pose significant environmental benefit if it general value propositions associated with MaaS
displaces travel via single-occupancy vehicle. for each agent group they represented. Summary
responses are provided in Box 4.1. The interviews
However, these virtuous outcomes are not
were conducted in mid-2017, and the full interview
necessarily universal and the real-world impact of
schedule is included in Appendix A, along with
MaaS remains poorly understood [15]. Furthermore,
detailed results from the engagement. We included
research must distinguish the following:
specific responses in the next section where we
• Stated value and actual value: As any agent in conceptualize the impacts of MaaS on the trip
the ecosystem, am I receiving the benefits that I market.
expect from MaaS?


Figure 4.1
Conceptualizing the value
of MaaS for each agent

Consumers Vendors
• Reduced costs • Innovation and
• Reduced travel time differentiation
• Convenience • Revenue generation
• Market share

Governments Transit
• Public health
• Environmental
agencies • Improved efficiency
• Increased coverage
benefits • Social service
• Improved citizen
choices

18 | Mobility-as-a-Service

Box 4.1
Potential value
propositions of MaaS

Agent Value proposition of MaaS

Vendors • Provides means of entry into the transportation service market (economic opportunity)
• Decentralizes responsibility for services and improves means to target particular customers/trip market
segments
• Offers greater opportunity for innovation in mobility provision

Consumers • Offers more travel choice tailored to specific needs of the user
• Provides cost savings and enables pay-for-use, as users no longer need to own a car or pay for
parking or other incidental costs like fuel and insurance
• Promotes convenience through ease of access to and payment for mobility
• Offers flexibility, especially regarding route choice, time of travel and whether or not users want to share
rides
• Particularly attractive in dense urban areas with a multiplicity of mobility options; furthermore, users can
worry less about congestion and parking

Transit agency • Addresses gaps in the conventional transit network, especially first-last mile connections to suburban
stations and suburban-to-suburban routes
• Improves off-peak transport options when conventional transit is not viable
• Replaces conventional routes with low patronage that operate at significant subsidy
• Provides needed redundancy and added reliability into the system; this is particularly relevant in cases
of extreme weather and other extraordinary events
• Drives innovations in the travel market, which can have positive spin-offs for the agency (such as new
partnership models; improved booking, payment and information tools; and beneficial data-sharing
agreements)

Government • Provides possible reductions in personal vehicle ownership among residents, with positive impacts on
environment and congestion
• Improves urban connectivity by providing solutions to first-last mile and suburban-to-suburban travel
problems
• Improves social equity as various sociodemographic groups may have better access to applicable
travel choices and the city services they require
• Reduces demand on scarce urban property for parking with positive outcomes for built form, amenity,
etc.

Mobility-as-a-Service | 19
Partnerships can take
a number of forms,
including bus replacement
arrangements (Altamonta
Springs, Arlington), shared-
service access platforms
(Citymapper) and hardware
support (access to Twin
Cities Metro Transit’s
smartcard), and inducements
(Montreal STM discounts
for bike- and car-sharing).
Much of the industry
analysis proposes that ride-
hailing services are largely a
complement to rather than
substitute for transit.

Our research found the greatest potential for trip market, with some criticism of the focus on 
realized value associated with the trip types (or singular rather than joint value [18].
Box 4.2
segments of the trip market) shown in Box 4.2.
There are additional promises of value for the public Trip types/segments
In particular, many of the mobility partnerships
sector. Broadly, alternatives to private car ownership of the trip market with
between transit agencies (or municipalities) and greatest potential for
such as ride-hailing and car-share schemes may
service vendors that have been trialled or operate realized value
reduce private car ownership and demand for
today in North America were formed to improve
parking spaces. In some cases, they may also
mobility choices within low-density environments —
address unmet travel demand, especially among
especially for trips to and from rail stations.
lower income earners and disadvantaged groups
The reason is perceived joint value: agencies are residing in car-dependent locations who cannot
able to offer consumers better services than they afford to own and operate vehicles of their own.
could otherwise and at lower subsidy per rider.
Mobility partnerships may therefore work to address
Vendors benefit from the subsidy provided, the
a range of social and urban policy objectives
marketing support and endorsement of the public
through provision of services such as bicycle
sector, and all things being equal, a bigger slice of
sharing, one- and two-way car-sharing, fixed or
the trip market.
dynamic microtransit and/or pooled or exclusive
It is this promise of joint value — a theme raised ride-hailing. In the GTHA, one or more applications
repeatedly by expert interviewees — that transit of service may provide solutions to the use cases in
agencies are looking to seize upon by signing Box 4.2; however, this requires further exploration
service agreements with vendors like Uber and through dedicated pilots and prototyping
Lyft [16]. The transit–vendor partnership model has deployments.
become a key aspect of Lyft branding [17]. Other
vendors have marketed their role differently in the

20 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Trip Types MaaS
service solutions

First-last mile Facilitating trips between residences and transit stations in suburban areas is a common Ride-sharing,
connections concern for transit agencies in North America, and those operating in the GTHA are no ride-hailing and
exception. Low development densities around stations lead to relatively low levels of microtransit
conventional feeder (usually bus-based) transit service and dependence on park-and-ride
and kiss-and-ride for station access. Park-and-rides consume land and add capital and
operational costs to the transit system. Traditionally, taxis have operated at a price point
that exceeds most consumers’ willingness or ability to pay.

Suburban-to- Trips between low-density locations or low-density origins and suburban centres are Ride-sharing,
suburban trips difficult for traditional transit to service effectively. Short operating hours, circuitous routes ride-hailing and
and long headways contribute to dependence on driving, with the result that those microtransit
without cars are negatively affected by low levels of access and personal mobility. Again,
taxis have tended to operate at a price point that exceeds most consumers’ willingness
or ability to pay. In the GTHA, providing alternatives to the suburban-to-suburban single-
occupancy-vehicle commute offers one of the single largest opportunities to effect
positive environmental impacts in this sector.

Airport trips Airports are located typically well outside downtowns and therefore do not always have Ride-sharing,
access to significant transit hubs. Many air passengers have to transfer multiple times to ride-hailing and
access the airport using traditional transit services. Taxis have often been the default and only microtransit
realistic mode choice for many consumers to access the airport. Alternatively, consumers
may drive to the airport and park their vehicles in car parks provided or arrange personal
drop-offs. The vehicular congestion that can manifest itself is compounded by employee
commute trips. In the GTHA, the Pearson Airport Employment Zone is one of the densest
employment areas in the country and is significantly underserved by higher order transit.

Hospitality and If a consumer is socializing and wishes to drink alcohol, and/or is undertaking Ride-sharing,
events trips extraordinary travel for a special event like a concert or sports game, they may want ride-hailing and
or be compelled to avoid driving or riding a bicycle. They may also be less willing or microtransit
able to use conventional transit. Until recently, traditional taxis may have been the only
reasonable mode choice.

Off-peak trips/ Trips outside peak periods — especially later in the evening, overnight, very early or on Ride-sharing,
shift workers weekends — must be conducted when there is lower (if any) availability of conventional ride-hailing and
transit services, limiting mode choice in many cases to driving or traditional taxis. These microtransit
trips are often centred on low-density industry or manufacturing zones, which further
compounds the availability of options.

Downtown There can be many conventional mode choices for trips originating in or conducted Ride-sharing,
trips around a downtown environment. Nevertheless, the availability of MaaS service options ride-hailing,
can encourage residents of downtowns to avoid car ownership and even ownership of microtransit, car-
personal bicycles, and can act as a substitute for walking and conventional transit trips. sharing (one- and
two-way), bicycle-
sharing

Health care/ Traditional delivery of health care services can be costly and does not always well serve Ride-sharing,
health service the needs of the mobility impaired, particularly if multiple jurisdictions having different ride-hailing and
delivery agency and mandates are involved in the delivery of the trip. Health care service providers microtransit
are actively seeking opportunities to facilitate and optimize the delivery of mobility for their
clients, in a manner that maintains (or enhances) the level of community connection and
care already being provided.

Mobility-as-a-Service | 21
In practice, we expect that value manifests Value also manifests differently depending on the 
differently depending on characteristics of the urban perspective of the agent (Box 4.3).
Box 4.3
environment and the consumers undertaking travel,
Section 5 discusses the impacts of MaaS, citing Characteristics that affect
namely:
published evidence and expert opinion. In particular, the value proposition of
• The nature of the urban space: Is travel we examine conditions affecting the realization of MaaS
occurring in small, medium or larger urban value for different agents, focusing on the trip types
areas? This can be determined or interpolated we have identified (Box 4.2). We also assess value
by the population and overall mobility catchment trade-offs between agents depending on the nature
area of the geography in question of trip demands being fulfilled, which helps to focus
policy and planning needs and recommendations.
• Where in urban areas trip does demand
arise? E.g., suburbs versus the downtown, inter-
urban, other. The nature of this demand will also
be influenced by the general density of various
locales within a region, the type and volume of
trips taken (i.e., mobility use case), as well as the Agent Characteristics that affect the value proposition of MaaS
infrastructure in place to enable travel
Vendors • Regional receptivity to innovation/service
• Who is conducting the trip? What are
their sociodemographic and socioeconomic • Type of regulatory context in place
circumstances and mobility needs? This will be
• Customer willingness to pay or price point (expected
determined in part by population and related
profit margin will be a driver)
economic and employment indicators, and
influenced by the existing transit networks and • Current extent and quality of mobility services in place
mobility options in a particular region.
Consumers • Cost and speed of MaaS service offer (affordability of
change in service compared to benefits offered)
• Flexibility and convenience of offer
• Regional and/or specialized coverage
• Specialized or unique service

Transit • Cost of MaaS service compared to business-as-usual

agency alternative
• User uptake and original mode displaced
• Effect on existing assets and services
• Result on transit ridership and/or vehicle kilometres
travelled
• User experience
• Integration experience

Government • Result on transit ridership and/or vehicle kilometres

travelled
• User experience
• Impact on existing infrastructure
• Broader impacts on the quality and operation of the
urban environment
• Citizen access to service, including ability to pay

22 | Mobility-as-a-Service
5 Conceptualizing the impacts of MaaS on trip markets

5.1 Observed value of MaaS and basis for evolve to present new users with a stronger value
trade-offs proposition.

In Sections 3 and 4 we proposed that the For example, uberASSIST is an evolved and
underlying value proposition of mobility services to diversified ride-hailing service to meet the needs
consumers is reduced travel time, reduced cost, of mobility-impaired customers. It features
added convenience or some combination of the industry-trained drivers equipped with vehicles
three. We also referred to particular segments of the to accommodate scooters, walkers and folding
trip market that may be relatively ripe for mobility- wheelchairs.
service uptake because consumers are more likely
to realize value. These include, but are not limited
to, first-last mile and off-peak trips. Consumer value,
in turn, can create a value proposition for vendors
and for governments, offering the opportunity
to meet social mandates and fulfil public travel
demands in more efficient ways.
Quik-ride
In the introduction to our paper, we set a virtuous
target for our mobility ecosystems: the preservation
and enhancement of publicly available services,
and for these to be available to serve the needs
of all segments of society at reasonable prices.
The private sector can add mobility choices to
the market — sometimes in partnership with the
public — to help this target be attained; however,
a net result that includes increased inequities or
deprivation should not be accepted as a product
of progress.

Our research reveals evidence of a series of There was consensus among our interviewees that MaaS is
observed impacts — some beneficial and others for everyone; however, the greatest uptake so far has been
problematic — on different trip markets associated among younger urban dwellers. Growth opportunities for
with deployment of mobility services. These impacts MaaS include the former urban dweller, the senior segment
are associated largely with the hypothesized and those wishing to change to a car-free lifestyle. More work
value propositions (Section 4); however, there are
and planning need to completed to understand whether MaaS
significant trade-offs and, in some cases, benefit
for some agents to the detriment of others. These deployment will also realize benefits for less-dense areas as
conflict with the virtuous target we have established. well as other population segments, and if it does, what the
value trade-offs will be.
As we have argued consistently, impacts depend
significantly on contextual factors, including the
nature of service offered and how mobility services
are regulated. It is therefore of no surprise that the
Mobility service uptake has been found to lead to
small evidence base that exists today regarding the
some of the broader and socially valuable outcomes
impacts of MaaS must be interpreted with caution.
sought by governments. For example, one study
Any discussion of impacts starts with a of car2go members found that access to the
consideration of who is consuming mobility car-sharing programme allowed some customers
services. Despite the presumed broad appeal of to dispose of their private vehicles or suppressed
MaaS, most mobility service customers are urban, their acquisition. Each car2go vehicle removed
relatively young and generally affluent [19–20]. between 7 and 11 private vehicles from circulation
Our expert interviewees pointed to a growing and reduced household vehicle kilometres travelled
socioeconomic and sociodemographic market (VKT) among subscribers [19].
for mobility services, but such services have to

Mobility-as-a-Service | 23
 Quik-ride: Why risk it?

:(
!

Bus stop

Quik-ride

“Slower, less reliable Another recent study of car-sharing services in the overall urban VKT have all increased, while transit
bus service leads San Francisco Bay Area showed that urban dwellers trips have declined [24]. This research accords with
using car-share programmes own fewer cars than findings for a broader sample of urban areas in the
to more dissatisfied
those who do not; although this observation did not US [22].
passengers, who extend to similar suburban populations. Significantly,
may also turn The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation
only about 2% of the population and 3% of
Authority (SEPTA) has reported steep reductions
to ride sharing. households identify as car-share members, a small
in transit patronage since ride-hailing became
Meanwhile, the slice of the travel market [20].
available. Although there is no evidence of
gap between a Other research has found that substitution of MaaS direct causation, the price point and increasing
bus line’s expense for conventional public transit occurs and herein convenience of services such as Uber has led to
and revenue would is the root of a headache for governments: can mode substitution [25]. Similar issues have been
grow, making mobility services undermine transit, and under observed in Boston [23].
certain circumstances, do they actually add to
service less In the Pennsylvanian case, Uber has implemented
aggregate VKT? If the answers are yes, then without
affordable” [24]. careful planning, partnerships with vendors to
policies — like financial incentives to drivers — to
improve coverage outside of denser urban areas,
improve mobility services in some contexts (e.g.,
which has reduced transit’s relative appeal within
first-last mile) may have unintended consequences
SEPTA’s area of administration. Uber argues
for transit and transport policy.
that these policies provide improved service to
Some North American research shows that most consumers, but they also draw patronage from
trips conducted by shared vehicles would probably existing transit.
have occurred by car anyway [19]. Other research
In busy urban places such as New York City, even
shows that a significant percentage of ride-hailing
small changes in VKT and vehicle density can have
trips would otherwise have been by active or public
profound impacts on operations [24]. Deadheading
transport, or not occurred at all [21–23].
(no passenger) kilometres associated with ride-
Research conducted in New York demonstrates that hailing services may range between 20 and 50%
over the last two years, ride-hailing vendors have [22]. The impact of ride-hailing-related VKT has
started attracting riders from transit, walking and contributed to legal cases in cities including San
cycling, increasing VKT and adding to congestion. Francisco, which are questioning governments’ and
In daily trips to and from Manhattan, the absolute consumers’ shares of the value proposition [26].
number of hailed trips serving this demand and

24 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Research conducted in 2015 in the GTHA found the TTC’s study places emphasis on the impact of “As on-demand
varying impacts on transit usage as a product digital ride-hailing on ridership and states explicitly: mobility continues
of Uber service availability (until 2017, Uber was “the rise of digital ride-hailing has a direct negative
falling in price
the only ride-hailing company operating in this effect on intra-city transit” [28].
geography). The researchers concluded that Uber while increasing
The transit ridership decline is being measured in coverage, transit
is more likely to substitute for transit in smaller cities
some US cities but not others. Some research links
and cities with bus-based transit systems, and a agencies risk being
the decline to the proliferation of mobility services,
complement in larger cities and those with stronger
citing more recent (post-2015) data that correlate hollowed out by
rail-based networks [27]. their would-be
increased TNC rides with declining use of transit
However, the TTC’s Ridership Growth Strategy, services [24]. Other research concludes that more partners” [30].
released in December 2017, features some evidence is needed and that geographic variables
concerning numbers and observations relating to affect the relationship between TNC availability and
transit agency ridership [28]. Although the TTC transit usage [29].
has measured a significant increase in ridership
Critically, our research demonstrates that there is no
satisfaction due to significant investment in service
existing means to limit value creation for one group
improvements and enjoyed ridership growth overall,
of agents when it becomes a liability for another
since 2014 adult ridership has declined by 4%, or
group. In part, this is because the motivations
16 million rides a year.
for participating in the market differ from group
According to the TTC, this finding is mirrored in to group. Furthermore, a model or best-practice
other regions that are most comparable to the TTC operating framework has not yet emerged for this
(eight large-scale multimodal transit agencies in immature market.
the US and Canada). These areas show patronage
We see the primary trade-offs occurring between
reduction (unweighted average) of 2%.
consumers, vendors and transit agencies across
Although the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area trip market segments that the public sector has
also shows a slowing of employment growth rates, struggled to serve using conventional transit services.
which seems to be mirrored in TTC ridership (at These segments simultaneously present some of the
least when it comes to adult ridership decline), greatest opportunities and greatest risks.

Urban street physics

Car Mobility service

Mobility-as-a-Service | 25
Moreover, vendors do not necessarily limit their 
service offerings to market segments offering
Box 5.1
the best potential value for government and
Evidence-based impacts
transit agencies. The evidence presented earlier
of MaaS in North
shows that mobility services can compete with American trip markets
conventional public transit, which is not consistent
with preferred public policy. The following are a few
examples:
Discrete impacts observed
• UberHop, a Toronto-based service, offered
professionals a semi-demand-responsive service Reduced car ownership Stronger observed association with car-
at a premium to TTC-operated transit, but with a sharing compared to other mobility services
seat guaranteed [31]
• Lyft has introduced a shuttle service in San Reduced private vehicle use Stronger observed association with car-
Francisco that serves select and peak-hour sharing compared to other mobility services
downtown routes. The service is claimed to
outperform conventional Lyft and Lyft Line
Increased urban congestion Stronger observed association with ride-
services at being “cleaner, faster and more
hailing compared to other mobility services
pleasant than taking public transportation” [32]
• In early 2018, Lyft introduced a promotion during
regularly planned closures of the Line 1 subway Increased VKT Stronger observed association with ride-
in Toronto, matching TTC fares ($3.25 for any trip hailing compared to other mobility services
up to $10 in value, with longer trips subject to a
$6.75 discount), for up to 10 trips. Contrasting impacts observed

Overall, our research identified a series of significant Transit ridership impacts

impacts of MaaS, albeit using a relatively small
number of trips fulfilled by mobility services in the Complementary relationship Competitive relationship
context of all trips in the defined trip market. Some with public transit with public transit
of these impacts can be positive or negative, and Stronger observed association Stronger observed association
others are trade-offs, depending on context and the with ride-hailing compared to other with ride-hailing compared to other
type of mobility service being evaluated (Box 5.1). mobility services mobility services
There are challenges to achieving virtuous
outcomes, and in part, the solution lies in regulation Consumer impacts
(see Section 7). Mobility services and their impacts
also require a great deal more study. Academic Net consumer Consumer cost, time Net consumer
enquiry should seek to do the following: cost, time and/or and/or convenience cost, time and/or
• Improve our knowledge map of the ecosystem convenience benefits trade-offs (e.g., paying convenience costs
and provide support to third parties — including (e.g., paying less more for increased (e.g., losing access to
transportation planners and researchers — who overall while enjoying convenience or cheaper bus services
want to access and analyse the data generated improved travel) reduced travel time) following replacement
to improve our understanding of how, when with mobility services,
and why MaaS is utilized (see Figure 5.1 for an which are more
example application) expensive [sometimes
prohibitively so] to use
• More clearly establish differences in the nature regularly)
and scale of impacts depending on urban
context
• Refine policy and regulation in accordance with
these contextual qualities.

26 | Mobility-as-a-Service
5.2 Demonstrating value in the Greater There is evident value to policymakers
Toronto and Hamilton Area and regulators being involved directly
Realized value associated with MaaS remains with deployment of MaaS to test
poorly understood, and this is true in the context of and evaluate impacts on the ground,
the GTHA. The public sector is acting to improve and to allow for shaping of such
its understanding, in part through piloting mobility
projects to best inform future policy.
partnerships. The research sector is also contributing
through deepening consumer engagement.
Government must learn to be more
nimble.
We researched three case studies of MaaS pilots in
the GTHA, presented in Box 5.2. One is a now-
complete mobility partnership operated in the town “[We] would like to see policy
of Milton, which aimed to improve first-last mile drafted that allows us to be
connectivity. The second is an ongoing partnership
comfortable with failure, but
between the town of Innisfil and Uber to supply
pseudo-transit to members of the community, also fund things that may
addressing a lack of conventional transit service not succeed. It’s a hard nut
owing to Innisfil’s location and size. The third is a
 to crack. This experience
mobility service prototyping project run over summer
2017 in the city of Vaughan. Figure 5.1 has proven to us there are
Collectively, the case studies reinforce the value
Example of MaRS Data times that you have to leap…
Catalyst route analysis
proposition of mobility services — especially estimating total VKT by
to be trailblazer, one has
for consumers. In addition, the Innisfil pilot single-occupancy vehicle to be ready for failures and
demonstrates the benefits of public-private for a major employment
partnerships to serve trip market segments that zone. This tool identifies
modifications that would be
have been historically difficult for conventional transit alternate MaaS options needed…”
services to address. Specifically, the Milton pilot to enable mode shift.
represents a mix of missed opportunity and learning Town of Innisfil, Ontario
experience for all agents.

Mobility-as-a-Service | 27
Box 5.2 Case studies of mobility service pilots and programmes in the GTHA

GO Connect [33–35]
From May 2015 to March 2016, the GO • Customer service monitored via rating system
Connect mobility pilot was run in the town built into software
of Milton as a weekday peak hour service
• Pickup options based on 15-minute headways
facilitated by Metrolinx, the Town of Milton, a
local taxi company and an app provider, RideCo. • Allowance for accessibility requirements to be
The project and app-based demand-responsive specified, with trip timing adjusted accordingly.
ride-sharing service were conceived as a pilot to
The potential trip market was gauged by surveying
test ways to improve consumer access to GO
existing GO customers who drove to the station and
stations. Its specific objectives were as follows:
user habits of the pre-existing GO Connect service.
• Increasing (proxy) transit service routing Marketing was handled by Metrolinx via intercept
efficiency and providing AM service to GO discussions at GO stations and print media.
stations as an enhanced alternative to the
existing (municipality-operated) shuttle bus
service

• Improving the cost effectiveness of

connecting riders with GO rail services,
owing especially to challenges of irregular GO
departure times

• Cost-neutrality to the Town of Milton and

minimal administrative support requirements
(Metrolinx agreed to pay any costs over and
above the baseline shuttle bus service)

• Growing transit ridership

• Remedying or mitigating demand on park-

and-ride

• Using real data to support future route

design, planning and service delivery
applications including expansion to outlying
and industrial (low density) areas.

The former GO Connect service operated across

three zones and via one of three routes selected
manually by the driver based on passenger
boardings. It served about 110 customers per
weekday evening. The new service featured the
following:

• 8-metre shuttle buses

• Consumer registration and booking via a web

portal or app

• Door-to-station or local hub-to-station model

of service depending on price paid by the
consumer ($1.95 versus $1.40)

• App-based trip notifications and SMS

support for consumers without smartphones

• Call centre support provided by the Town of

Milton

28 | Mobility-as-a-Service
The partnership set the following performance The pilot was discontinued after 12 months,
monitoring criteria: leaving system users to transition back to pre-
existing GO Connect services. Ex post facto
• On-time performance
analysis showed rides topped out for the last three
• Trips completed months at around 85 per day: about a third of the
target and 75 to 80% of pre-existing services. A
• Average trip times
survey of riders had 27 responses and these were
• Customer service highly favourable, but not powerful.

• Financial information, including monthly costs, Limited financial cost analysis was undertaken
vehicle hours, passenger trips and fares and released publicly. Data for November 2015
collected. showed an investment of $7.50 per ride (operating
costs minus fare paid). This investment level
Target performance outcomes were as follows:
multiplied by average daily trips and aggregated
• 125 daily regular customers for an average month indicates a net investment
of $11,000 to $12,000, exceeding the $10,000
• 250 daily total customers
net investment for GO Connect at lower levels
• 31% net cost reduction per ride compared to of use.
the pre-existing GO Connect service.
In summary, the pilot was a watershed for the
After six months, the Town concluded that there GTHA in terms of mobility partnership but weak
had been modest use of the service but with regarding a proven value proposition. Its particular
some growth over time (by month four, 54 riders limitations included low penetration and use,
on average per day). On average, 45% of riders limited evaluative statistics and singular purpose
had driven previously and 7% were net new of trips undertaken.
customers to the system. The average fare levied
This experience shows that future pilots must
per trip was $1.80, showing people preferring
be more comprehensive and cross-geographic.
to be picked up from home and that the fare
Furthermore, they need basis in clearer evaluative
differential did not warrant the inconvenience of
benchmarks: for example, what are the various
walking to a local hub.
partners prioritizing and what would demonstrate
joint value?

Mobility-as-a-Service | 29
 Innisfil Ride-Sharing Transit System [36]
In May 2017, the Town of Innisfil commenced a The first two months of operation yielded 4,868
24-hour, seven-day-a-week transit scheme based trips (approximately 0.15 trips/resident over
on partnerships with Uber and Barrie Taxi (the the period), including no accessible trips, and
latter providing accessible services). The scheme an operating subsidy (paid to Uber) of $26,462
was the first to provide a form of transit service to ($5.43 per trip) based on the types of trips taken.
the town, which had no pre-existing conventional The Town has concluded that this is a favourable
bus-based service. investment relative to the level of service
being provided and cost of operating a more
The partnership approach was selected because
conventional bus-based service.
the Town considered a bus-based, Town-operated
service to be cost-prohibitive relative to the level The Town set up an online and hard-copy survey
of service it would provide the community. As to elicit feedback on the service. Results of this
the only proponent able to offer the Town an surveying are pending.
application-based service that included a pool
In practice, the Town is subsidizing a travel service
option, Uber was one of the selected partners.
vendor, thereby reducing the price for travel
The objectives of the scheme were as follows: charged to customers. This makes these services
— which are not subject to public sector operating
• Provide a form of transit service where none
criteria regarding coverage, hours of operation or
existed previously and at a manageable cost to
minimum service levels per se — more appealing
the municipality
to a wider market and, conceivably, for more trips
• Provide for local trips and connections to trunk and trip purposes.
transit such as GO rail services
Still, the price point is relatively high, especially for
• Gather data on demand for such services and repeat/regular trips. There is also limited evidence
use this data to make decisions regarding of the Town setting performance benchmarks to
evolution of the service into the future. be evaluated and establishing with the vendor
data handover requirements to enable objective
The fare structure included $3 to $5 one-way rides
assessment of the efficacy of the scheme.
for trips to and from four key destinations and a
$5 discount on other fares. The Town budgeted
$100,000 for a six- to nine-month pilot.

The Town facilitates trip bookings by

supplementing the standard Uber app with a call-
in booking service (Town-hosted), staffed 0830
to 1630 hours. Computers are also available at
municipal centres to enable bookings for those
without smart devices.

Quik-ride

30 | Mobility-as-a-Service
City of Vaughan mobility service prototyping
Over summer 2017, Bridgeable and MaRS and unmet needs that solutions should seek to
Data Catalyst collaborated on a project defined bolster.
to answer the research question “how might
Prototyping and validation experiments:
shared mobility be leveraged to drive transit
Prototype solutions including a trip-planning
adoption amongst suburban commuters?”
app, a dynamic carpooling service and a
The project team used a service design microshuttle service were created based
approach to engage suburban commuters in on the needs uncovered through earlier
order to understand how shared mobility might research phases. These solutions were then
improve their commutes and increase transit tested with project participants to establish
adoption. Service design is an interdisciplinary value propositions via a mid-fidelity, clickable
approach to service planning and execution prototype of the planning app, prototype videos
that uses mixed-methods research and rapid that showed how each of the service concepts
prototyping and testing to understand user would work from the perspective of a user
needs and create impactful services. and service cards that presented the value
proposition and key features of the dynamic
The team used several methods to complete the
carpooling and microshuttle services. The app
project scope:
prototype and service cards were then field-
Ethnographic research: Ride-along interviews tested at GO stations to get feedback from
and design probes were conducted with a commuters in a naturalistic setting. Finally, six
sample of 14 commuters, including a mix of commuters were invited into a project office to
drivers, TTC riders, and GO train riders. The provide in-depth feedback.
ride-along interviews were video recorded and
Key learnings
began at commuters’ homes, took place during
the duration of their commute and ended at Seventy hours were spent in the field over
their workplace. Design probe kits consisted the course of the project engaging with over
of a customized journal that asked commuters 80 commuters from Vaughan. The project
to self-document through photos and drawing, team discovered that suburban commuters
and to reflect on their experience in the moment. are struggling with two problems that shared
These methods allowed the team to ask open- mobility might play a role in fixing:
ended questions of commuters and gave us
1. Suburban commuters are driving to GO
insights into commuters’ behaviour, perceptions
stations in high numbers because they are
of different modes and common struggles
seeking control and reliability, and do not
during the course of daily commutes.
perceive they have other options. GO station
Learning Lab: Following ethnographic research, parking lots are congested, and commuters
the team hosted a learning lab with nine GO need to arrive very early in the morning
train riders, in addition to MaRS staff and transit to secure free parking. They describe
stakeholders from York Region. During the this experience as the worst part of their
Learning Lab, participants were asked to think commute and, often, their day
out loud, collaborate with other commuters and
2. Suburban commuters struggle to see all
transit stakeholders and answer questions about
of their mode options in one place and
their experiences commuting. Commuters were
have difficulty weighing the cost and time
asked to reflect on how they make decisions
implications of different routes. Additionally,
about mode and route during their daily
when faced with delays they struggle to know
commute, identify persistent challenges they
how to problem-solve and find an alternative
experience and review shared mobility services
route that will get them to work on time.
that exist in other cities, relating how these
services might improve their current commute.
The Learning Lab provided understanding of key
behavioural and emotional barriers to transit use
Images © Bridgeable

Mobility-as-a-Service | 31
 The project yielded some guiding principles for 5. Amplify reliability with integration –
implementation of shared mobility solutions for Commuters will not use service they do not
suburban commuters: experience or perceive as reliable — backups
are essential to creating reliability. New service
1. Allow me to plan transit around my life –
should be organized around GO train times and
Currently, commuters need to plan their day
account for delays. Additionally, new services
around transit and want to be able to plan
should overlap one another to create backups
transit around their day. This means that new
solutions need to be responsive to demand, 6. Make visible the cost of driving –
easy to book dynamically and have backups Commuters perceive their car as a sunk cost
so that if one service fails, commuters have and tend to think of driving as “free,” whereas
another option other options are pay-per-use. Despite not
paying for parking at GO stations, the cost
2. Give me the freedom and control my
of monthly parking is an anchor point for
car gives me – Commuters drive the first
commuters and costs of alternatives will be
mile because they perceive that it gives
judged against this cost. New services need to
them control and flexibility despite stress.
make visible to commuters the cost and stress
Commuters need to feel a sense of control
of driving and use the cost of monthly parking
and be reminded about the stress of driving
as a reference point. Incentives or free trials of
to consider alternatives. The alternatives
new services are an evidence-based strategy
themselves give clarity regarding service routes,
to combat the sunk cost of cars
cost and payment, and estimated arrival
times. Messaging about new services should 7. Show commuters their options when they
state clearly how solutions solve the struggles need them – Transit delays are often hidden
associated with driving from view unless commuters actively seek
them out, and when delays occur, commuters
3. Take the hassle out of decision-making
struggle to see their alternative options in one
– Commuters struggle to make trade-offs
place and make an informed decision about
relating to mobility decisions that work for
next steps. Commuters need to be notified
them. Commuters need planning tools that go
when something goes wrong, and they should
beyond information and allow them to make
be able to consider all their options quickly and
choices by displaying the time, cost and
make a choice that will save them time.
convenience of mode options in one place
and measure these costs against the true
cost of driving

4. Build trust with transparency – New services

can feel risky to commuters if they do not know
the brand or need to rely on non-professional
drivers. Commuters will not share personal and
payment information with services they do not
perceive as trustworthy and therefore will not
use these services


Mapel GO Station
© Reaperexpress
(CC BY-SA 3.0)

32 | Mobility-as-a-Service
5.3 City prototypes – learning from limited • The size and density of cities as well as the
evidence distribution/concentration of land use intensity

While significantly more study of MaaS is needed, • The characteristics of the mobility services
our research identified that value creation and the offered
nature of trade-offs depend on the following:
• Associated factors that compromise the journey
• Urban socioeconomics and sociodemographics, or cost; these are often ignored and could be
including relative population heterogeneity better explained or assessed (e.g., locations
and costs of travel versus household/personal where paid parking applies will have a different
income impact if there is no parking charge; similarly, the
degree of congestion will impact decisions that
• The regulatory environment or constraints under
are made).
which service vendors are required to operate;
in the GTHA, for example, Uber licensees are With these factors in mind, we have conceptualized
restricted to making pickups within particular a series of trip market models that illustrate the
municipalities (potential) aggregate effects of mobility services on
trip-making, depending on context. These models
• Maturity of public transit systems, especially the
contemplate impacts based on the availability
extent to which they are road- or rail-based and
of new vendors and service offers in the market,
the expanse of this service across a particular
and access to these offers via new purchasing
geography
platforms.
• Quality of transit journeys including the legibility of
the system, journey time, price point and comfort

Mobility-as-a-Service | 33
Our models relate specifically to how trips are taken. Figure 5.2 is the first and simplest of our models. It
The intent is not to ignore other impacts of mobility shows an indicative share of trips being provided by
services; rather, we want a strong link back to our transit within a theoretical trip market. It also shows
original virtuous premise regarding the preservation a number of trips, which might also be provided
and enhancement of publicly available mobility by a transit agency, being enabled by mobility
services. The purpose of our conceptual models platforms. In addition, a share of trips are shown to
is to provide a basis for understanding relative be satisfied by non-public service vendors.
opportunities and respective threats for cities, and
Figure 5.3 imagines mode choice within a more
for tailoring public policy (something we discuss
complex trip market, perhaps following entry of
further in Section 7).
a number of new platforms and vendors. In this
In time, we believe that experience and performance market, there are a number of possible implications
will allow these models to be refined. In particular, for mode use and these depend on the purpose of
the growing evidence base will link increasingly trips taken amid many of the other rich, contextual
contextual factors with outcomes on the trip market. factors experienced in cities.

34 | Mobility-as-a-Service

Figure 5.2
Simple model of the trip
market

Legend

Auto trips
Transit
MaaS
Active transportation
Base trip market


Figure 5.3
Complex impacts on trip
market, conditional on
the way in which MaaS is
deployed

Legend
Auto trips
Auto trips replaced by mobility services
Induced trips due to MaaS
Active transportation trips replaced by MaaS
Added conventional transit trips enabled through MaaS technology
Active transportation
Conventional transit trips replaced by new mobility services
Conventional transit trips
Base trip market

Mobility-as-a-Service | 35
Figure 5.4 provides a series of five city models. 
These are based on what we have learned through
Figure 5.4
our research.
Conceptual model of
1. Model One is our baseline MaaS impacts on transit
in cities
2. Model Two reflects a positive outcome whereby
new mobility services replace trips otherwise
taken by private vehicle and improve access
to backbone public transit. This might occur in
affluent cities with well-established rail-based
1 2 3 4 5
public transit, which may also have well-defined Base Transit+ Transit- MaaS+ Virtuous
mobility partnerships

3. Model Three shows new mobility services

replacing some conventional transit trips. This
may be the outcome in less affluent cities and/or
those characterized by less comprehensive and/
or bus-based public transit services. In some
cases, government might facilitate the mode
switch, which is the case in Arlington, Texas
where this was perceived as a means to create
the most aggregate value within the trip market

4. Model Four shows the more neutral outcome

whereby MaaS replaces some public transit trips,
enables others and otherwise replaces private
vehicle trips. This outcome may occur as a
consequence of variable effects across cities Legend
(i.e., internal variation)
Conventional transit
5. Model Five is the target, which is a virtuous
outcome for cities and the strongest joint value Mobility services
proposition. This virtuous outcome yields the net Technology-enabled conventional transit
benefits of Model Two with added benefits arising
from consumers, service vendors and the public
sector leveraging the power of service platforms. 1. Baseline
It is therefore the basis for our pursuit of more 2. MaaS supports increased use of conventional transit (e.g., provides access to
knowledge regarding MaaS and its impacts services and encourages new patrons)
(Section 6), and recommendations for the public
3. MaaS replaces conventional transit
sector arising from our work (Section 7).
4. MaaS adds to conventional transit trips
5. MaaS supports increased use of conventional transit, and MaaS platforms add
further to use

36 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Mobility-as-a-Service | 37
6 Knowledge blueprint

There is a clear need to understand the variables Focusing on measurement, we have reviewed
that affect MaaS impacts on trip markets and its available data sources in the GTHA and allocated
ultimate delivery on suggested value propositions. these across two dimensions: agency (who collects/
The discussion in Section 5 showed that our compiles data) and trip characteristics (the nature of
understanding of both these areas is growing but travel) (Figure 6.1). These sources, in the aggregate,
patchy. yield much of the current basis of knowledge
regarding impacts of MaaS on the trip market.
Value is derived from impacts, and the impacts of
Consumers tend to generate rather than compile
MaaS on consumers, vendors and the public sector
data but this can depend on their active opting in to
vary currently in scope, scale and even in direction.
data-aggregation schemes.
Impact is, in turn, derived from changes within
the trip market, and the measurement of these Figure 6.2 represents our appraisal of knowledge
changes needs attention and improvement. Short among specific agent groups regarding how MaaS
of more study, we are unable to answer confidently is influencing trip characteristics. Figure 6.3 shows
questions regarding whether value creation is how we believe this could improve, assuming better
leverage of available data sources.
• Scalable
In the context of the GTHA, the knowledge gaps
• Open to all or restricted to certain agents
(delta between current and potential or needed
• Negotiable/flexible (e.g., avoids locking agents knowledge) are linked to a series of fundamental
into single options) operating and governance matters, which we discuss

• Transferable (e.g., applicable universally or at

in Section 7. Even with improved knowledge, we 
caution that agent groups will not be able to answer
least between locations sharing similar basic Figure 6.1
all questions regarding MaaS and its effects — State-of-play knowledge
urban characteristics).
especially as MaaS continues to evolve. It is therefore source map for different
important for agents to know and respect their agent groups in the
knowledge gaps, and work in partnership with other GTHA
interests in pursuit of joint value creation.

Trip market Stakeholder/source

characteristics Government Transit agency Vendor Consumer Other parties

Who is making the Transportation PRESTO data / Registrations/ Privacy restrictions Wi-Fi/Bluetooth
trip? Tomorrow Survey Transit app data subscriptions / opt-in cell-phone data
(TTS)
Wheeltrans usage
Social services
subscriptions
Vehicle registration
details

Why is the trip TTS PRESTO data / Origin-destination Credit card data
being made? Transit app data data

When + where? Toll data (407) TTC gate counts Origin-destination Wi-Fi/Bluetooth
Toronto Parking PRESTO data data Credit card data
Authority (TPA) data Door counts GPS data (routing)

How (mode)? Traffic signal loop (vehicles) Service vended Credit card data
and actuation data Schedules
CCTV Vehicle capacity
Bike-share Price data
utilization

38 | Mobility-as-a-Service
 Toll data (407) TTC gate count
TPA data PRESTO data
How Traffic signal loop Door counts
Service vended Privacy / opt-in Credit card data
and actuation data (vehicles)
(mode)? CCTV Schedules
Bike-share Vehicle capacity
utilisation Price data

Toll data (407) TTC gate count

TPA data PRESTO data
Origin-destination Wi-Fi / Bluetooth
When and Traffic signal loop Door counts
and actuation data (vehicles) data Privacy / opt-in Credit card data
where CCTV Schedules GPS data (routing)
Bike-share Vehicle capacity
utilisation Price data
Objectives

Why is the PRESTO Origin-destination

TTS Privacy / opt-in Credit card data
trip being Transit app data data
made

TTS 
Who is making Wheeltrans usage
Social services PRESTO Registrations and Privacy / opt-in Wi-Fi / Bluetooth Figure 6.2
the trip? subscriptions Transit app data subscriptions
vehicle registration Agent group knowledge
details basis regarding MaaS
influences
City Government Transit Agency Vendor Consumer Other Parties
Stakeholder / Source

Legend TTC gate count

Toll data (407)
TPA data PRESTO data
Good leverage of data Traffic signal loop Door counts
How and actuation data (vehicles) Service vended Privacy / opt-in Credit card data
Mediocre leverage of data (mode)? CCTV Schedules
Bike-share Vehicle capacity
utilisation Price data
Poor leverage of data

Toll data (407) TTC gate count

TPA data PRESTO data
Traffic signal loop Door counts (ve- Origin-destination Wi-Fi / Bluetooth
When and and actuation data hicles) data Privacy / opt-in Credit card data
where CCTV Schedules GPS data (routing)
Bike-share Vehicle capacity
utilisation Price data
Objectives

Why is the
 trip being
TTS
PRESTO
Transit app data
Origin-destination
data
Privacy / opt-in Credit card data

Figure 6.3 made

Potential agent group
knowledge basis
regarding MaaS TTS
Wheeltrans usage
influences. Improvements Who is making Social services PRESTO Registrations and
Privacy / opt-in Wi-Fi / Bluetooth
stem from more the trip? subscriptions Transit app data subscriptions
vehicle registration
collaboration, consumer details
education, government
prioritization and reduced
private-sector secrecy. City Government Transit Agency Vendor Consumer Other Parties
Stakeholder / Source

Mobility-as-a-Service | 39
7 Policy and planning levers for cities of the future

Based on current evidence, the convenience, time Modest impacts on the trip market in the aggregate
and/or price offer to consumers of a variety of forms may still be significant in specific contexts and may
of mobility service can be compelling. The private influence the appetite of certain users to shift from
sector innovates to satisfy travel demand in ways one mode to another. This is beneficial if the shift
that the public sector cannot, and this yields utility happens from single-occupancy vehicle, less so if it
to consumers. cannibalizes public transit. Given such uncertainties,
the public sector cannot afford to be inert [1–2,
Yet, mobility services (as distinct from conventional
29]. Even with willingness to partner and pilot test,
public transit) do not suit all trips and cater presently
government must be prepared to gather data,
to a relatively small share of the overall trip market.
conduct thorough analysis, demonstrate flexibility
In the medium term, we anticipate this share
and require that vendors and platform providers
remaining relatively small for a number of reasons.
satisfy specific key performance indicators.
Firstly, mobility service vendors have a commercial
These are no small challenges given the difference
raison d’être, which is sometimes at odds with
in value propositions and conditions under which
public policy. These differences in values were
value is realized among different agent groups.
identified in Section 4 and are discussed in other
Furthermore, uncertainty regarding how MaaS is
research papers [18, 37–38]. This limits the extent
influencing the trip market today and how next-
to which the public sector can and should support
generation services will influence it in the future,
deployment of MaaS (at this time).
means the onus is on government to institute a
Secondly, disaggregated (low-occupancy) travel policy framework that avoids stifling innovation.
causes the same issues whether a consumer is Simultaneously, this framework must ensure benefits
driving themselves or being driven. Mobility services for a wide spectrum of consumers as well as the
in their current forms are unable to carry the same urban system that hosts travel.
volumes of passengers as conventional mass
The characteristics of cities and the populations
transit, contributing to urban congestion
they accommodate (see Sections 3 and 4), and
and increasing per-traveller VKT if that traveller
the nature of the service being vended add further
would otherwise use the subway, metro or other
complexity to this picture. For example, the literature
public service.
shows that the influence of individual service
Thirdly, there are challenges communicating value types — ride-hailing compared to car-sharing,
to consumers and habit can sometimes trump bike-sharing and so on — on travel behaviour and
people’s willingness to change their behaviour. impacts that result, differ quite significantly.
Furthermore, there are practical limits to people’s
abilities to trade one benefit for another, such as
time for price.

Fourthly, more predictive, data-fuelled models of Interviewees from all agent groups were relatively comfortable
operations in low-density areas and dynamic service with the idea of regulating MaaS; however, vendors
schemes do not automatically translate to viable argued that government needs to better understand best
businesses. This means that the levels of service practices and have more faith in the market. In contrast,
required to cause significant shifts in the trip market
representatives from the public sector bemoaned a lack
may not be something that the mobility sector can
currently satisfy. of knowledge regarding controls on operators to leverage
balanced value equations.

40 | Mobility-as-a-Service
 Our expert interviewees
proposed a need
for basic data-
sharing templates
or arrangements
transferable between
projects and open for
tailoring depending on
project goals.

The planning and policy levers that governments • Formulating and prototyping of new business
could therefore consider include the following: models for transit service provision in some
instances, which accounts for some conventional
• Defining a pilot-testing framework with latitude to
services being supplemented or replaced by
try, fail and learn. For example, under the banner
mobility services where this makes most sense.
of Innovate UK, the UK government is investing
Current evidence suggests that service provision
money in many projects with elevated risks
in rural and low density suburban locations is a
compared to conventional ventures to establish
strong proposition
lessons from failure and success
• Establishing a government-owned operator in
• Modelling or testing policy/service agreements
the mobility market to help generate competition,
for new mobility partnerships prior to full
set minimum service standards and provide a
deployment or program backing. This will help
backstop should the private sector underperform
to address concerns regarding replacement of
conventional transit service. More permanent • Establishing uniform data collection,
policies should be contemplated only when management and application protocols for
transit agencies and city governments have mobility vendors as a condition of licensing.
evidence of impacts of new service arrangements There is broad agreement that travel data is
and there is low risk of any consumers being powerful but it is also patchy, cumbersome and
worse off owing to service changes noisy (e.g., useful information is mixed with vast
amounts of marginal or superfluous data) [38].
• Concurrently creating an operating framework
In our view, there is a basis for an arm’s-length
and transparent evaluative basis for any mobility
data clearinghouse or a non-vendor lock-in
partnerships or independent schemes that
broker service. The Shared Streets initiative in
accounts for regional priorities (e.g., reduced
the US, a collaboration between NACTO, the
congestion and increased accessibility)
World Resources Institute and the International
• Establishing clear provincial leadership on MaaS, Transport Forum, is a step in this direction [39].
such as dedicated support for efforts to evaluate
MaaS, and developing model policy for mobility
management based on such efforts

Mobility-as-a-Service | 41
“A consortium representing the
mobility providers that participate
in a MaaS ecosystem should have
the responsibility and power to work
alongside the MaaS provider to
ensure that discounts, subsidies and
pricing match the principles of the
city/region. For example, if congestion
is an issue, priority discounts should
be given to services that offer greater
number of customers per vehicle.”

Kansas City Area Transportation Authority

Operating frameworks should be based on the • No clear leadership when it comes to who should
following fundamental objectives: oversee, operate and/or integrate new mobility
services into regional or urban planning
• Generating net benefits for customers on
average and for citizens/regions at-large • Fragmented buy-in to the use of mobility
platforms, which is generally related to the
• Generating net benefits for at-risk, disadvantaged
diffusion of responsibility for transit services
and/or special needs groups like the elderly or
previously mentioned.
disabled
There is onus on broader industry to yield the
• Satisfying trip demand not easily or well-catered
following:
for by conventional public transit services
• More independent study of impacts within a
• Avoiding directing funding — even in the form of
range of contexts and associated with different
operating subsidies provided to the private sector
types of mobility platforms and services
— to marginal projects rather than investing in
more valuable projects, unless fulfilling a social • More pilot tests of joint mobility schemes
mandate for the transit agency [40] including well-defined before, during and after
data capture and analysis by the public sector
• Avoiding creating unchecked business
and partners
opportunity for vendors to compete with
conventional transit across other segments of • Key performance indicators and measurement
the trip market, ultimately hollowing out public of actual performance against these indicators
services [25, 30] over time.

• Supporting wider goals for sustainability and Earlier, we hypothesized modest growth in the
public good; this means managing the potential uptake of MaaS over the medium term. In the longer
for increased congestion and VKT through term, the introduction of automated vehicle fleets,
appropriate pricing mechanisms. which we anticipate occurring at scale sometime in
the 2020s, represents the long game for a number
There are several existing governance challenges in
of mobility service vendors. This will change the
the GTHA that can reduce the effectiveness of the
economic and value dynamics of MaaS and is
levers described:
worthy of discussion in a separate paper.
• Diffusion across government (municipalities and
the province) of responsibility and jurisdiction for
owning and operating transit services

42 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Endnotes

[1] Hemily B. (2016) Transit and New Shared-use Modes – Key [16] Murphy C. (2015) Shared Mobility and the Transformation
questions from the transit agency’s perspective; a discussion of Public Transit, March, American Public Transportation
paper, July, Washington DC: ITS America Association

[2] Polis (2017) Mobility as a Service: Implications for urban [17] https://take.lyft.com/friendswithtransit/
and regional transport, September, Brussels: Polis Traffic
[18] Walker J. (2014) Let’s Quit Pretending About Uber, October
Efficiency & Mobility Working Group
4, http://humantransit.org/2016/10/lets-quit-pretending-
[3] Hietanen, S. (2014) ‘Mobility as a Service’ – the new transport about-uber.html
model?’ in ITS & Transport Management Supplement.
[19] Martin E. and Shaheen S. (2016) The Impacts of Car2go
Eurotransport, 12, pp2-4
on Vehicle Ownership, Modal Shift, Vehicle Miles Traveled,
[4] Lie Y. and Voege T. (2017) ‘Mobility as a Service (MaaS): and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An analysis of five North
Challenge of implementation and policy required’ in Journal of American cities, Working Paper, July, University of California,
Transportation Technologies 7, pp96–106 Berkeley, Transportation Sustainability Research Center

[5] Jittrapirom P., Calati V., Feneri A-M., Ebrahimigharehbaghi [20] Clewlow R. (2016) ‘Carsharing and sustainable travel
S., Alonso-González M. and Narayan J. (2017) ‘Mobility as behaviour: Results from the San Francisco Bay Area’ in
a Service: A critical review of definitions, assessments of Transport Policy, 51, pp158-164
schemes, and key challenges” in Urban Planning, 2(2), pp13-
[21] Clewlow R. and Mishra G. (2017) Shared Mobility: Current
25
adoption, use and potential impacts on travel behaviour,
[6] https://maas-alliance.eu/european-mobility-service-alliance/ paper presented to Transportation Research Board Annual
Meeting, Washington DC
[7] Shaheen S., Chan N., Bansal A. and Cohen A. (2015)
Shared Mobility. A Sustainability & Technologies Workshop: [22] Clewlow R. and Mishra G. (2017) Disruptive Transportation:
Definitions, industry developments and early understanding, The adoption, utilization, and impacts of ride-hailing in
Transportation Sustainability Research Center, University of the United States, Research Report UCD-ITS-RR-17-07,
California, Berkeley October, Davis: Institute of Transportation Studies, University
of California Davis
[8] Parzen J., Frisbie T., Randall C. and Feigon S. (2015) Shared-
Use Mobility: Reference guide, Chicago: Shared-Use Mobility [23] Gehrke S., Felix A. and Reardon T. (2018) Fare Choices: A
Center survey of ride-hailing passengers in Metro Boston, Report #1,
February, MAPC
[9] National Research Council’s Committee for Review of
Innovative Urban Mobility Services (2015) Between Public [24] Schaller B. (2017) Unsustainable? The growth of app-based
and Private Mobility: Examining the rise of technology- ride services and traffic, travel and the future of New York
enabled transportation services, Transportation Research City, February, New York: Schaller Consulting
Board Special Report 319, National Academies of Sciences
[25] Laughlin J. (2017) As Uber Grows, SEPTA to Rethink Bus
[10] Olaru D. and Smith B. (2005) Activity Spaces or Access and Service, July 23, http://www.philly.com/philly/business/
Mobility for Individuals and Households, paper presented transportation/as-uber-grows-septa-to-rethink-bus-
to the Planning and Transport Research Centre (PATREC), service-20170721.html
Perth, Western Australia
[26] Somerville H. (2017) San Francisco Investigating whether
[11] Naess P. (2005) ‘Residential location affects travel behaviour Uber, Lyft are Public Nuisances, 5 June http://www.reuters.
– but how and why? The case of Copenhagen metropolitan com
area’, in Progress in Planning, 63, pp167-257
[27] Hall J., Palsson C. and Price J. (2017) Is Uber a Substitute
[12] http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011/as-sa/99- or Complement to Public Transit? April 24, https://www.
012-x/2011003/tbl/tbl1a-eng.cfm economics.utoronto.ca/public/workingPapers/tecipa-585.pdf

[13] McQuigge M. (2017) Toronto Dominates List of Worst Traffic [28] http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_
Jams across Canada, January 11, http://www.thestar.com/ and_information/Commission_meetings/2017/December_11/
amp/news/canada/2017/01/11/toronto-dominates-list-of- Reports/10_Ridership_Growth_Strategy_2018_2022_
worst-traffic-jams-across-canada.html Preliminary_Report.pdf

[14] Schweiger C. (2016) National Aging and Disability [29] Feigon S. and Murphy C. (2018) Broadening Understanding
Transportation Centre: Mobility as a Service White Paper of the Interplay Between Public Transit, Shared Mobility
and Personal Automobiles, pre-publication draft of TCRP
[15] Deloitte (2017) ‘The Rise of Mobility as a Service’ in Deloitte
Research Report 195. Transportation Research Board,
Review, Issue 20
Washington D.C.

Mobility-as-a-Service | 43
[30] Lindsay G. (2016) Now Arriving: A connected mobility
roadmap for public transport, October, New Cities
Foundation, http://bit.ly/NCFConnectedMobility

[31] Puhakka V. (2016) Why Ridesharing Isn’t a Substitute for

Investing in Transit, October 6, http://torontoist.com/2016/10/
ridesharing-investing-in-transit/

[32] Yamada-Hosley H. (2017) Lyft’s New Shuttle Service is

More Convenient than Lyft Line, 19 June, https://lifehacker.
com/lyft-s-new-shuttle-service-is-more-convenient-than-
lyft-1796167137

[33] Town of Milton (2015) Report to Committee of the Whole,

ENG-004-015, February

[34] Town of Milton (2015) Report to Committee of the Whole,

ENG-028-15, November

[35] Town of Milton (2016) Report to Committee of the Whole,

ENG-003-016, January

[36] Town of Innisfil (2017) Ridesharing Transit System: 2-month

update, DSR-042-17/DSR-079-16/DSR-143-15

[37] King D. (2016) What Do We Know About the “First Mile/Last

Mile” Problem for Transit? October 6, https://transportist.
org/2016/10/06/what-do-we-know-about-the-first-milelast-
mile-problem-for-transit/

[38] Ries B. and Ryall J. (2014) Uber Intros Surge Pricing During
Sydney Hostage Siege, then Backtracks after User Outcry,
December 14, http://mashable.com/2014/12/14/uber-
sydney-surge-pricing/#KMvipIeoJ5q7

[39] https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/01/who-owns-
urban-mobility-data/549845/

[40] Chan K., Sadoway M., Tzventarny J. and Gulecoglu E.

(2016) Shared Mobility in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton
Area: A backgrounder on industry trends and a summary of
stakeholder discussions, February, Toronto: Metrolinx

44 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Appendix A
Summary of expert interviews

Mobility-as-a-Service | 45
 Approach

Interviews followed a semi-formal structure design to elicit

interviewee feedback on the following questions:
1. How would you define MaaS and the MaaS ecosystem?
2. What is the value proposition of mobility services to
consumers and cities/regions?
3. Who is the target market? Why?
4. How would you summarize trends in uptake of mobility
services? How big could the share of the trip market be?
5. What aspects of government policy towards mobility
services are good and/or not good? What information does
government need to support mobility services?
6. How can we manage the impacts of mobility services, such
as added congestion and exclusionary pricing? Who has
responsibility for this management?
7. How do the impacts of mobility services vary from city to city
and across region? What are some of the key conditions for
these differences? What about inter-city movement? What
are the different barriers for different cities or regions?
8. Under what conditions should service vendors share data
with cities/regions? What should this data-share arrangement
include?
9. Is there anything else you would like to share?
High-level results for each interview topic are summarized in the
following sections. Where relevant, nuances identified for each
agent group are identified.

46 | Mobility-as-a-Service
1. The Definition of MaaS

All interviewees responded that MaaS can be conceived as one platform integrating
planning and payment for travel; however, vendors emphasized cost effectiveness and
convenience, and government representatives, how important it is to understand the
impact of MaaS and how it can be integrated within applicable policy frameworks.

Academia/research Vendors Platform providers Government/transit authorities

Single platform, integrated Single platform, integrated Integrated planning and Need to study the impact; policy
across all access modes, planning and payment, payment. framework has to evolve more
based on demand. convenient, individualized, quickly.
cost-effective, carless travel.

2. The value of MaaS for consumers, cities and regions

All interviewees responded that the value proposition of MaaS is in the potential for cost
reduction for consumers. Vendors stated that their services can reduce congestion in
urban areas whereas researchers and government representatives emphasized the value
of providing a multimodal environment and effecting better land-use planning when it
comes to transport provision. In particular, public sector interviewees referred to the
potential for virtuous partnerships between vendors and government agencies.

Academia/research Vendors Platform providers Government/transit authorities

Consumer: cost savings and Consumer: cost savings and Consumer: cost savings; Consumers: less cost and more
convenience convenience reduced car ownership choice tailored to need

Cities: environmental benefits; City: reduce vehicle ownership; City: Reduce congestion; Cities: improved connectivity and
creating multimodal lifestyles improve the environment and reduced infrastructure efficient use of existing transit.
reduce congestion; encourage demand; environmental
multimodal redesign. savings.

Mobility-as-a-Service | 47
3. What is the MaaS target market?

Many interviewees believed that MaaS should be for everyone. Nevertheless,

interviewees noted the distinction between current users/early adopters and untapped
population segments that may form the next ‘big opportunity’ for MaaS. For some, this
may be the product of mobility partnerships albeit the value may manifest in different
ways for different agents.

Academia/research Vendors Platform providers Government/transit authorities

Everyone. Early adopters are Everyone is the target. First Everyone, but urban areas Everyone who needs to commute
young and without cars but urbanites, then ex-urbanites, are more profitable. Currently (both residents and visitors);
this can gradually evolve to and also the senior population. focused on younger especially in dense urban areas.
include users interested in demographic; however, may Services will evolve eventually
reducing car ownership. evolve to include second car to suit the needs of seniors and
owners. facilitate trips in less dense areas.

4. What kind of trends is MaaS displaying in the market?

Most interviewees voiced faith in the growth of MaaS and expressed that an increasing
segment of the trip market — especially trips conducted in less dense areas — will
be by mobility services as the sector evolves. Vendors and government interviewees
proposed that MaaS may eventually replace the personal vehicle trip; however, others
were less optimistic about longer term impacts on travel behaviour.

Academia/research Vendors Platform providers Government/transit authorities

Early adopters are young The market is growing fast MaaS is not for everyone. Influences depend on the
urbanites; however, seniors because different types of Still, it is an adaptable service form and size of cities, the
are an emerging market and services are/can be provided that has a high customization demographics of their populace
MaaS will replace conventional for different population component. Will become part and types of MaaS services on
taxi services. The speed and segments. Market share will of service infrastructure. offer.
depth of impact on the trip expand as MaaS evolves
market will depend significantly to provide more services to
on public policy and the specific groups.
willingness of government
and public transit agencies to
collaborate with the private
sector.

48 | Mobility-as-a-Service
5. Policy: The good and the less good

In general, interviewees representing academia/the research community, vendors and

platform providers argued that when it comes to MaaS, enablement is good. In contrast,
government representatives argued that the public sector needs to play a stronger role
in leading and regulating the trip market, understanding the impacts of new mobility and
overall, creating an environment for MaaS development and deployment that balances
the values of all agents.

Academia/research Vendors Platform providers Government/transit authorities

Needs to have regulation and Needs to be enabled; however, There needs to be a better The private sector leading
be enabled; government needs government also needs to be environment to govern mobility. innovation is a positive; however,
data. educated on best practices The market is immature innovation cannot happen in
and have faith in the market. and the public sector is a policy vacuum and short of
not responding quickly to overarching objectives that
innovation in the sector. More balance the value of innovation
P3 partnerships and open for all agents in the market. Policy
data. More consideration of has to balance incentivisation
pay-per-use (i.e., road tolls). with disincentivisation in certain
circumstances.

6. How do we manage the impacts of MaaS?

There was a consistent view that little is really known regarding the impacts of MaaS
across a range of variables such as congestion, transit usage and value creation.
There is an even poorer appreciation of how outcomes vary depending on context.
Furthermore, there were aligned views regarding the need for more study before
introducing comprehensive policy or legislation.

Academia/research Vendors Platform providers Government/transit authorities

Government needs to lead There is a need to understand Knowledge is still lacking. The Much more work is required to
with strong, clear vision better impacts before public sector needs to take understand impacts and their
and develop more of an managing them. Policy and the lead on assessing impacts. antecedents. Responsive policy
understanding of impacts of legislation should not stifle Need ability to measure and frameworks are required and
MaaS. innovation. manage through fees and government must be nimble to
incentives. help balance value creation.

Mobility-as-a-Service | 49
7. How do the impacts of MaaS vary across regions?

Broadly, interviewees argued that urban density is the key attribute affecting MaaS
deployment both within and across regions. Vendors and researchers, argued that
service availability should be similar across regions but tends to be curtailed by
regulatory differences. Government representatives tended to emphasize cross-regional
differences depending on availability of mass, rapid transit and implications of municipal
land use policy.

Academia/research Vendors Platform providers Government/transit authorities

Key conditions for operation Services are similar cross- City density and connectivity Enabling conditions are broad
include urban density and regionally but there is variability determines how successful and include urban density, transit
demographics: the young, in use depending on the services will be. Local planning connectivity, land-use planning
affluent and urban are the consumer base. City density conditions are additional variables, congestion and cultural/
most typical users. Regulatory and connectivity determines influences. education context.
patchworks inhibit spread and how successful services will
growth of service. be.

8. What about data?

Interviewees were asked for circumstances under which vendors should enact data-
sharing agreements with cities and regions. Most interviewees argued that most data
should be shared and that privacy should be prioritized in any sharing agreement. Still,
vendors were adamant that the objectives for use should be clarified prior to enacting
any agreement and exhibited sensitivity around how data could be analyzed and
interpreted. Government representatives voiced some frustration that vendors are not
as forthcoming with data as they would like and data packets from specific trials are not
sufficient to form a complete picture of the impacts of MaaS. This makes it difficult to
develop flexible policy.

Academia/research Vendors Platform providers Government/transit authorities

Key datasets that should Cities should have a clear MaaS operators should be Aggregated data should be
be handed over by understanding of application required to submit aggregated provided and privacy should be
vendors to government when asking for data. Privacy data. There is a need to respected. There is a need to have
include demographics, should be respected. understand the big picture for policy guidelines on data-sharing
multidimensional trip data, the benefit of the ecosystem; and for sharing of information
data on quality of journey and yet in consideration of between multiple agencies form
other experiential feedback. Personally Identifiable a comprehensive picture of the
Information. ecosystem.

50 | Mobility-as-a-Service
Mobility-as-a-Service | 51
Ryan Falconer Melissa Felder
Arup Cities Leader, Western Australia MaRS Shared Mobility Transportation Programme
+61 406 058 276 +1 416 951 9030
[email protected] [email protected]