The Role of Public Authorities in the Development of Mobility-as-a-Service

Part of the The Urban Book Series book series (UBS)


Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) is emerging as a key trend for providing more sustainable urban transportation. Decades of car-centric developments have led to congestion and air pollution. Therefore, it is vital to shift to public transportation and other greener modes. Efforts to enable this shift are underway, including multimodal transportation information systems. More recent trends include ride-sharing platforms and travel-broker services. MaaS holds the promise of unifying these services and providing a single platform for information, booking, and payment for all modes of transportation, potentially as a subscription model. However, if the MaaS concept is not checked by regulators, it could also have negative effects, such as increased inequality or a shift away from conventional public transportation to (single occupancy) e-hailing. Policy-makers must respond to, and guide implementation toward, maximum public good. Four distinctive case studies were analyzed to give recommendations for the role of public authorities. Recommendations include developing a balanced governance model with clear key performance indicators (KPIs), careful consideration of evolving urban mobility and corresponding legislation and funding, and the need for a robust evaluation methodology covering environmental and economic aspects.


Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) Urban mobility Public authorities Business models 


  1. American Public Transportation Association (2016) Shared mobility and the transformation of public transit. Accessed 2 Dec 2017
  2. Banister D (2008) The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transp Policy 15(2):73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Davison LJ, Knowles RD (2005) Bus quality partnerships, modal shift and traffic decon-gestion. J Transp Geogr 14(3):177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Department of Transport UK (2013) Door to door: a strategy for improving sustainable transport integrationGoogle Scholar
  5. Dotter F (2016) Integrated ticketing and fare policy for public transport. CIVITAS Insight 12Google Scholar
  6. EC (2009) Action plan on urban mobility. COM (2009) 490 Final. 30 Sept 2009Google Scholar
  7. EC (2017a) European urban mobility policy context.
  8. EC (2017b) Commission delegated regulation (EU): supplementing directive 2010/40/EU of the European parliament and of the council with regard to the provision of EU-wide multimodal travel information serviceGoogle Scholar
  9. Eryilmaz E, Kagerbauer M, Schuster T, Wolf O (2014) Collaborative management of intermodal mobility. IFIP Adv Inf Commun Technol 434:713–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Platform on Mobility Management (EPOMM) (2017) The role of Mobility as a Service on mobility managementGoogle Scholar
  11. Finnish Government (2017) Good and flexible transport services through a new act. Press Re-lease, 25 May 2017Google Scholar
  12. Fluegge B (2017) A new service paradigm. In: Smart mobility-connecting everyone. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  13. Go Denver (2017) Accessed 2 Dec 2017
  14. Goodall W, Fishman TD, Bornstein J, Bonthron B (2017) The rise of Mobility as a Service. Deloitte ReviewGoogle Scholar
  15. Goodwin PB (1993) Car ownership and public transport use: revisiting the interaction. Transportation 20:21–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall J, Palsson C, Price J (2017) Is Uber a substitute or complement for public transit? Working paper. University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  17. House of Parliament UK (2014) Big and open data in transport. POST-PN-472Google Scholar
  18. HSL (2017). HSL to launch world’s first public transport retail interface open to everyone. Accessed 7 Dec 2017Google Scholar
  19. Huhtanen S (2016) Legislation, an enabler for MaaS: finnish Transport Code. In: Presented at the 7th IRU international taxi forum, Cologne, 5 Nov 2016Google Scholar
  20. Iacobucci J, Hovenkotter K, Anbinder J (2017) Transit systems and the impacts of shared mobility. In: Meyer G, Shaheen S (eds) Disrupting mobility, pp 65–76. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  21. Indebetou L, Kerttu J, Milton J, Wendle B (2016) Feasibility study MaaS–a business case for EC2B. Project report from Climate-KIC. 31 Oct 2016Google Scholar
  22. ITF-OECD (2016) Shared mobility: innovation for livable cities. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  23. Kamargianni M, Matyas M, Li W, Schäfer A (2015) Study for “Mobility as a Service” concept in London. UCL Energy InstituteGoogle Scholar
  24. König D, Eckhardt J, Aapaoja A et al (2016) Deliverable 3: business and operator models for MaaS. MAASiFiE project funded by CEDRGoogle Scholar
  25. Li Y, Kristensen JP (2014) Transport data marketplace: an analysis of user requirements. Paper presented at the 10th ITS European congress, Helsinki, 16–19 June 2014Google Scholar
  26. Li Y, Voege T (2017) Mobility as a Service (MaaS): challenges of implementation and pol-icy required. J Transp Technol 7:95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. MaaS Alliance (2017) White paper on guidelines and recommendations to create the foundations for a thriving MaaS ecosystems. BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  28. MaaS Global (2017) Accessed 2 Dec 2017
  29. Midgley P (2011) Bicycle-sharing schemes: enhancing sustainable mobility in urban areas. Background paper at UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs Commission on Sustainable Development 19th Session, New York, 2–13 May 2011Google Scholar
  30. POLIS (2017). Mobility as a Service: implementations for urban and regional transport. Discussion paper, 4 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  31. Sahala S (2017) How to procure MaaS. Presented at the SPICE project webinar, 27 Sept 2017Google Scholar
  32. Shaheen S, Guzman S (2011) Worldwide bikesharing. UC Berkley Access Mag 1(39)Google Scholar
  33. Smith G, Sochor J, Karlsson M (2017) Mobility as a Service: implications for future mainstream public transport. Paper presented at the 15th international conference series on competition and ownership in land passenger transport. Stockholm, 13–17 Aug 2017Google Scholar
  34. Sochor J, Strömberg H, Karlsson M (2014) Traveller’s motives for adopting a new, innovative travel service: Insights from the UbiGo field operational test in Gothenburg, Sweden. Paper presented at the 21st world congress on intelligent transport systems. Detroit, 7–11 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  35. Sochor J, Strömberg H, Karlsson M (2015) Implementing Mobility as a Service: challenges in integrating user, commercial, and societal perspectives. Transp Res Rec 2036:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. SPICE (2017) Report from workshop on future roles of public authorities in Mobility as a Service (MaaS). Vienna, 10 Apr 2017Google Scholar
  37. Stöckl G (2017) Upstream–next level mobility. Presented at SPICE workshop on future roles of public authorities in Mobility as a Service (MaaS). Vienna, 10 Apr 2017Google Scholar
  38. TCRP (2016) Research Report 188 on shared mobility and the transformation of public. TRB Publication. Scholar
  39. Uber (2016) Making ridesharing more affordable in Pinellas County. Accessed 2 Dec 2017
  40. UITP (2011) Becoming a real mobility provider combined mobility: public transport in synergy with other modes like car-sharing, taxi and cycling. UITP position paperGoogle Scholar
  41. UITP (2017) The Mobility as a Service (MaaS) success story: WIENMOBIL. Accessed 23 Dec 2017
  42. Wharton (2017) Demographic shifts: shaping the future of car ownership. Accessed 2 Dec 2017

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.European Climate FoundationBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations