An Open Multimodal Mobility Platform Based on Distributed Ledger Technology

  • Robin Lamberti
  • Christian Fries
  • Markus Lücking
  • Raphael Manke
  • Niclas Kannengießer
  • Benjamin SturmEmail author
  • Mikhail M. Komarov
  • Wilhelm Stork
  • Ali Sunyaev
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11660)


The current challenges of many mobility solutions are based on an extremely fragmented booking system with complex service layers. A cross-company and user-friendly exchange of information and offers from different mobility providers is often not possible. Against this background, Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) has the potential to revolutionize the existing mobility sector and enable completely new business models. Thus, we present a distributed mobility platform, which is valuable for a variety of mobility services. In contrast to conventional platform approaches, the data management of our infrastructure is distributed, transparent, and cost-efficient. By prototypically implementing the concept, we can demonstrate its technical feasibility and at the same time demonstrate that the introduction of our distributed mobility concept will benefit both the supply and demand sides of public transportation.


Blockchain Distributed Ledger Technology Mobility as a Service Multimodal transportation 



Part of this work has been carried out in the scope of the project COOLedger which is funded by the bilateral funding program “Helmholtz-RSF Joint Research Groups”. In Germany research is funded by the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres (Project No. HRSF-0081), in Russia research is supported by the Russian Science Foundation (Project No. 19-41-06301).


  1. 1.
    O’Neill, B.C., Ren, X., Jiang, L., Dalton, M.: The effect of urbanization on energy use in India and China in the iPETS model. Energy Econ. 34, 339–345 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray, A.T., Davis, R., Stimson, R.J., Ferreira, L.: Public Transportation Access. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 3, 319–328 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Saif, M.A., Zefreh, M.M., Torok, A.: Public transport accessibility: a literature review. Period. Polytech. Transp. Eng. 47, 36–43 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benlian, A., Kettinger, W.J., Sunyaev, A., Winkler, T.J., Guest Editors: Special section: the transformative value of cloud computing: a decoupling, platformization, and recombination theoretical framework. J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 35, 719–739 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martins, V.W.B., Anholon, R., Quelhas, O.L.G.: Sustainable transportation methods. In: Leal Filho, W. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Sustainability in Higher Education, pp. 1–7. Springer, Cham (2019). Scholar
  6. 6.
    Strasser, M., Albayrak, S.: Smart city reference model: interconnectivity for on-demand user to service authentication. Int. J. Serv. Oper. Manage. 3, 17 (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Haahtela, T., Viitamo, E.: Searching for the potential of MaaS in commuting – comparison of survey and focus group methods and results. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobility as a Service (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oostendorp, R., Krajzewicz, D., Gebhardt, L., Heinrichs, D.: Intermodal mobility in cities and its contribution to accessibility. Appl. Mobilities 4, 183–199 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Strasser, M., Weiner, N., Albayrak, S.: The potential of interconnected service marketplaces for future mobility. Comput. Electr. Eng. 45, 169–181 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Catapult Transport Systems: Blockchain Disruption in Transport - Are You Decentralized Yet? (2018). Accessed 15 Jan 2019
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
    Pustisek, M., Kos, A., Sedlar, U.: Blockchain based autonomous selection of electric vehicle charging station. In: 2016 International Conference on Identification, Information and Knowledge in the Internet of Things (IIKI), IEEE, Beijing, pp. 217–222 (2016)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Naser, F.: Review: the potential use of blockchain technology in railway applications: an introduction of a mobility and speech recognition prototype. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Big Data, Seattle, WA, USA, pp. 4516–4524 (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yahiatene, Y., Rachedi, A.: Towards a blockchain and software-defined vehicular networks approaches to secure vehicular social network. In: 2018 IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN), IEEE, Paris, pp. 1–7 (2018)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brousmiche, K.L., Heno, T., Poulain, C., Dalmieres, A., Hamida, E.B.: Digitizing, securing and sharing vehicles life-cycle over a consortium blockchain: lessons learned. In: 2018 9th IFIP International Conference on New Technologies, Mobility and Security (NTMS), pp. 1–5 (2018)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Xiong, Z., Feng, S., Niyato, D., Wang, P., Han, Z.: Optimal pricing-based edge computing resource management in mobile blockchain. In: 2018 IEEE International Conference on Communications (ICC), IEEE, Kansas City, MO, pp. 1–6 (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lopez, D., Farooq, B.: A blockchain framework for smart mobility. In: 2018 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), IEEE, Kansas City, MO, USA, pp. 1–7 (2018)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Xu, C., Liu, H., Li, P., Wang, P.: A remote attestation security model based on privacy-preserving blockchain for V2X. IEEE Access 6, 67809–67818 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dehling, T., Sunyaev, A.: Secure provision of patient-centered health information technology services in public networks—leveraging security and privacy features provided by the German nationwide health information technology infrastructure. Electron. Markets 24, 89–99 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Uber: Statistics Facts & Figures as of December 2018 (2019). Accessed 15 Apr 2019
  21. 21.
    SherpaShare: Uber trips are becoming longer and faster, but are they more profitable? In: SherpaShare Blog (2016). Accessed 15 Feb 2019
  22. 22.
    Kannengießer, N., Lins, S., Dehling, T., Sunyaev, A.: Mind the Gap: Trade-Offs between Distributed Ledger Technology Characteristics (2019). arXiv:190600861 [cs]
  23. 23.
    Kannengießer, N., Lins, S., Dehling, T., Sunyaev, A.: What does not fit can be made to fit! Trade-offs in distributed ledger technology designs. In: 52nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2019)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Handy, P.: Introducing masked authenticated messaging. In: IOTA News (2017). Accessed 14 Mar 2019
  25. 25.
    Buchmann, J., Dahmen, E., Szydlom, M.: Hash-based digital signature schemes. In: Bernstein, D.J., Buchmann, J., Dahmen, E. (eds.) Post-Quantum Cryptography, pp. 35–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2009). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bertoni, G., Daemen, J., Peeters, M., Van Assche, G., Van Keer, R.: Keccak implementation overview (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
  28. 28.
    Sturm, B., Sunyaev, A.: Design principles for systematic search systems: a holistic synthesis of a rigorous multi-cycle design science research journey. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 61, 91–111 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Embedded System and SensorsFZI Research Center for Information TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  2. 2.Institute of Applied Informatics and Formal Description Methods, Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany
  3. 3.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  4. 4.Institute for Information Processing Technologies, Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations