Mobility as a Service: From Car Ownership to Better Journeys

In short: Mobility as a Service, or MaaS, combines information and sometimes booking and payment for public transport, shared vehicles and other travel options through a coordinated interface. It is useful when it makes sustainable journeys easier, not simply when a city launches an app.

The International Transport Forum has examined how MaaS should integrate with public transport and how regulators can protect competition, data rights and public-service objectives.

This updated guide revisits the original Risalat article while separating established concepts from claims that require fresh evidence. It is written for practitioners who must decide what to fund, procure, regulate or measure. Illustrative scenarios below are teaching examples, not reports of completed projects.

The earlier article also highlighted a continuing consideration: MaaS can successfully be operated in those cities where different transport modes are available. As public transport is still at the heart of MaaS, a city must have adequate public transport services to replace the alternate need of the user to own a car. The practical implication is to test this proposition against current local evidence before applying it as policy.

The earlier article also highlighted a continuing consideration: Implementing and Operating a MaaS service requires a single identity for a user, open data, and open payment methods from different transport modes. Many transport operators are unwilling or even legally prohibited to allow third-party ticket sales. In such tight legal frameworks implementing MaaS would not be feasible. The practical implication is to test this proposition against current local evidence before applying it as policy.

The earlier article also highlighted a continuing consideration: Regardless of how exciting and appealing the applications of MaaS might sound, there are several confrontations to its implementation. We discuss some of them below:. The practical implication is to test this proposition against current local evidence before applying it as policy.

The earlier article also highlighted a continuing consideration: The challenges of urbanization have opened up multiple doors to innovative technologies that are deemed to shape the future of urban mobility. Car and Bike Sharing, On-demand Transport, and Ride-Hailing are becoming more and more common in urban areas across the globe. These App-Based Mobility services are driven by the shift in customers’ mentalit. The practical implication is to test this proposition against current local evidence before applying it as policy.

Understanding the issue and its evidence

From ownership to access

People often need a journey rather than a particular vehicle. A shared bicycle, bus, metro and short walk may together meet that need, provided transfers are reliable and the combined price is understandable.

Before setting a target for from ownership to access, the responsible team should define the population or asset covered, the current condition and the source of its baseline information. A useful baseline records both what is known and what remains uncertain. In a project appraisal, this prevents a plausible narrative from being mistaken for evidence of demand or impact.

The role of public transport

MaaS cannot compensate for absent or unreliable core services. Frequent, accessible buses and trains should form the backbone, with shared services filling specific first-mile, last-mile or off-peak gaps.

The practical test for the role of public transport is whether two independent reviewers would reach a similar conclusion using the same records. Specify the definition of success, the relevant technical standard and the point at which a design needs reconsideration. Document exceptions openly rather than averaging away difficult cases.

Design choices and technical delivery

Journey planning and integrated payment

A platform can show routes, prices and disruptions, but true integration requires consistent data and commercial agreements. Ticketing rules, refunds and customer support become especially important when several operators are involved.

Consider a hypothetical pilot focused on journey planning and integrated payment. The implementation team should begin with a narrowly defined use case, test it under ordinary operating conditions and record user experience alongside technical performance. Procurement should permit correction of design defects before large-scale roll-out.

Governance and interoperability

Transport authorities should define open interfaces, minimum service standards and access to essential information. Contracts should prevent one intermediary from hiding competitors or using public data to undermine public objectives.

Operational readiness for governance and interoperability includes trained staff, a maintenance budget, reliable data and a route for complaints. If one of these is missing, the project may meet its construction or installation milestone while failing to deliver the intended service. Acceptance criteria should therefore include observed performance, not just equipment delivery.

Financing, procurement and governance

Pricing and incentives

A convenient bundle is not automatically affordable. Authorities can test caps, concessions, transfer discounts and incentives for low-emission modes while checking whether subscriptions exclude occasional users.

For pricing and incentives, a business case should distinguish initial investment from recurring costs. Compare alternatives on a common time horizon, including training, replacement, supervision and the cost of service interruptions. The cheapest compliant tender may not provide the lowest whole-life cost.

Privacy and data stewardship

Location histories can reveal work, health and personal routines. Operators should minimise identifiable data, publish retention rules and make service access possible without unnecessary tracking.

Governance of privacy and data stewardship should clarify who approves changes, who holds the supplier accountable and who pays when assumptions prove wrong. A decision log helps explain trade-offs to auditors and affected communities. Material changes should be reflected in the budget, schedule and risk register before approval.

Decision check: Has the team compared a do-nothing baseline, a limited pilot and a scaled intervention using the same cost, risk and outcome criteria? Record the assumptions behind each option and the reason for selecting one.

Implementation, safeguards and measurement

Commercial and service risks

Providers may enter and exit markets quickly, leaving passengers without promised options. Continuity plans, performance bonds where appropriate and interoperable customer records reduce dependence on a single supplier.

A practical control for commercial and service risks is to assign an owner, a reporting interval and an action threshold. Monitoring is useful only when findings lead to a decision: investigate, correct, redesign or stop. The threshold should be established before the data are reviewed to reduce pressure to declare success.

How to test a pilot

Choose a corridor with measurable problems, document baseline travel time and mode share, then trial integrated information or payment. Compare outcomes with a similar corridor where feasible.

Evaluation of how to test a pilot should look for unintended effects as well as intended benefits. Record who gains access, who bears costs and whether outcomes differ across locations or user groups. When attribution is uncertain, describe the limitations instead of presenting a correlation as proof of impact.

Practical exercise: Give a cross-functional team the baseline, budget and two alternative designs. Ask it to prepare a one-page decision note identifying the main uncertainty, three implementation risks, the evidence required for approval and the trigger for corrective action.

Application to public agencies and donor-funded projects

Indicators that matter

Track door-to-door time, missed connections, fare burden, accessibility, public-transport ridership and private-car kilometres. App downloads alone cannot demonstrate reduced congestion or emissions.

A ministry or project implementation unit addressing indicators that matter can start with a short diagnostic: map mandates, list approvals, identify missing skills and test whether the proposed intervention fits existing operating arrangements. The result should be a prioritised workplan with named owners, deadlines and verifiable deliverables.

Public agencies and financed projects

Municipalities and donor-funded urban mobility projects should coordinate operators, competition authorities, data protection bodies and passenger groups before tendering a platform. Investment decisions should follow transport outcomes, not software branding.

In donor-financed work, public agencies and financed projects should be reflected in procurement specifications, financial planning, stakeholder engagement and reporting where relevant. The financing agreement and applicable national law determine the actual obligations. Teams should verify those instruments rather than assume a single donor procedure applies everywhere.

First 30 days: Verify the baseline and consult affected users or operators. Review the first four issues in this guide against available local data. Produce a short list of evidence gaps and decisions that cannot safely be deferred.

Days 31 to 60: Test one feasible intervention, refine the technical specification and confirm whole-life financing. Agree responsibilities between policy owners, implementing agencies, suppliers and oversight bodies. Publish a risk register and a monitoring plan that can be maintained with existing capacity.

Days 61 to 90: Review early results with users and independent specialists, correct weak assumptions and decide whether to expand, redesign or discontinue the intervention. Preserve the lessons in procurement templates and operating procedures so the next project does not repeat avoidable mistakes.

For a field review of commercial and service risks, collect the relevant operating records and speak separately with service users, front-line personnel and the budget holder. Compare their descriptions of the problem and record where they disagree. A discrepancy can indicate a missing measurement, an incentive problem or a genuine difference in experience. A pilot should be designed to resolve that specific uncertainty before public funds are committed to expansion.

Risalat supports institutions with diagnostic assessments, applied learning and advisory services. Teams can begin with the institutional capacity assessment, explore the diagnostic centre and request a tailored proposal where external support is justified.

Evidence and further reading: The following primary sources informed this update. Readers should consult the underlying publications for scope, dates and methodological limitations.

• International Transport Forum, Integrating Public Transport into MaaS
• OECD, International Transport Forum

Часто задаваемые вопросы

What should institutions check about from ownership to access?

People often need a journey rather than a particular vehicle. A shared bicycle, bus, metro and short walk may together meet that need, provided transfers are reliable and the combined price is understandable. Check the local baseline, technical requirements and responsibilities before scaling a proposed solution.

What should institutions check about journey planning and integrated payment?

A platform can show routes, prices and disruptions, but true integration requires consistent data and commercial agreements. Ticketing rules, refunds and customer support become especially important when several operators are involved. Check the local baseline, technical requirements and responsibilities before scaling a proposed solution.

What should institutions check about pricing and incentives?

A convenient bundle is not automatically affordable. Authorities can test caps, concessions, transfer discounts and incentives for low-emission modes while checking whether subscriptions exclude occasional users. Check the local baseline, technical requirements and responsibilities before scaling a proposed solution.

What should institutions check about commercial and service risks?

Providers may enter and exit markets quickly, leaving passengers without promised options. Continuity plans, performance bonds where appropriate and interoperable customer records reduce dependence on a single supplier. Check the local baseline, technical requirements and responsibilities before scaling a proposed solution.

What should institutions check about indicators that matter?

Track door-to-door time, missed connections, fare burden, accessibility, public-transport ridership and private-car kilometres. App downloads alone cannot demonstrate reduced congestion or emissions. Check the local baseline, technical requirements and responsibilities before scaling a proposed solution.