New partnership to foster an open ecosystem for Mobility as a Service

TravelSpirit Foundation and MaaS Alliance have formed a partnership to undertake collaborative work of technologists, operators, and innovators to develop an open ecosystem for Mobility as a Service (MaaS).

Under the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed recently, TravelSpirit and MaaS Alliance will share knowledge and best practices on enabling the development of open source technologies, including blockchain, that will underpin MaaS, and empowering the communities that deliver them.

The two organisations will also collaborate on thought leadership in this field, building upon the industry-leading work of both parties. They are also looking to empower and bring together a global community of MaaS implementers, which will be unique in its ambition.

Both organisations are already established as thought leaders in MaaS. TravelSpirit Foundation has built a global network of activists, innovators, technologists, policy makers, and mobility providers. TravelSpirit is a leading organisation in championing an Open Internet of Mobility, and advocating transformative technologies such as blockchain on transportation business models and infrastructure. Its recent publications include papers on blockchain-enabled Decentralised MaaS (with Transport Systems Catapult) and on the TSio Protocol (with Iconic Blockchain).

“TravelSpirit has stated from the start that the new world of Mobility as a Service needs to be open if it is to reach its potential.” Giles Bailey, CEO of TravelSpirit said. “Signing this partnership agreement with the MaaS Alliance is a real boost in facilitating the collaboration needed to make this happen. I look forward to working with them!”

“The MaaS Alliance will collaborate with TravelSpirit to create a well-functioning basis for the MaaS ecosystem and preconditions for fast and wide roll-out of Mobility as a Service. The partnership very much supports the goals of the MaaS Alliance, and I anticipate that this collaboration will be widely beneficial for everyone involved” said Jacob Bangsgaard, the President of the MaaS Alliance.

For more information contact:

Beate Kubitz: beate.kubitz@travelspirit.io | +44 (0) 7974 369240

Notes

The TravelSpirit Foundation was established in Manchester, UK, in 2016 to provide an open framework to ensure that new integrated mobility services are environmentally sound, socially useful and universally accessible. Our vision is underpinned by four core values of universality, open innovation, global community and local benefit.

The Open Internet of Mobility (IoM) is a framework for enabling MaaS integration for all mobility service providers and users anywhere in the world, opening the mobility service marketplace, democratising access between users and service providers, and integrating new mobility services with existing transport infrastructure. The IoM framework will help realise the full social and economic benefits of transport-technology, such as MaaS Apps, Autonomous Vehicles, 5G connectivity and Blockchain.

Assessing Openness and Maturity in MaaS – our index developed in conjunction with UCL MaasLab

In 2017 TravelSpirit developed an index to asses transport networks’ openness as they move towards Mobility as a Service. This index has been further developed by Richard Goulding at the UCL MaaSLab to assess the readiness of metropolitan areas for the implementation of MaaS systems.

Various characteristics which affect the likelihood of a successful MaaS implementation are assessed to determine an aggregate score showing how ready a city is to implement MaaS.

The calculator can be used to demonstrate what improvements are needed to make a city ready for MaaS. Scores can be compared across cities, showing 
where MaaS providers could have the greatest impact.

Below is a summary of the index to download.

MaaS Maturity Index

For further information email info@travelspirit.io.

TravelSpirit Second Annual Conference

Practical approaches to embedding Mobility as a Service

26 September 2017

Our engaging and thought provoking conference brought together people from across the sectors which are part of MaaS systems including operators, data providers, local and national authorities, consultants and academics. Explore the resources available including workshop summaries and presentations.

Key Resources

Welcome: Chair’s Welcome, Si Ho, TravelSpirit

Keynote: The Opportunity of Open, Peter Wells, Open Data Institute

Case study: Openness in MaaS – UK perspectives

  • Stephan Anescot, MaaS Global
  • Chris Lane, TfWM, James Gleave, Transport Futures
  • Maria Kamargianni / Richard Goulding, UCL Energy Institute Questions

Workshops: Applying openness

Conference papers:

Further resources:

_______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________

Presentations

Presentations from the second annual TravelSpirit Conference (26 September 2017) can be viewed below:

Welcome

Developments in MaaS and the framework for the second annual TravelSpirit Conference

Si Ho, TravelSpirit_______________________________________________________________________

Keynote

The Opportunity of Open

Peter Wells, Open Data Institute
_______________________________________________________________________

Case Study: Openness in MaaS – UK perspectives

Mobility as a Service, the End of Car Ownership

Stephan Anescot, MaaS Global

_______________________________________________________________________

The Openness Index in the West Midlands

Chris Lane, TfWM, James Gleave, Transport Futures

_______________________________________________________________________

MaaS Maturity and Openness

Maria Kamargianni / Richard Goulding, UCL Energy Institute
_______________________________________________________________________

 Workshops: Applying openness

  

Workshop: The role of openness in commercial collaboration

Discussion from the TravelSpirit Conference, 26 September 2017

James Datson, Transport Systems Catapult

Everyone in the transport system wants information – in increasing amounts of detail. From travellers’ expecting real time updates to their journey times to operators basing service provision on demand forecasting.

This session looked at the types of information valued by three key parts of a MaaS system; traveller, operators and transport authorities.

The workshop participants – drawn from a wide range of operators, authorities and planners – brainstormed the needs of these groups. Whilst some of this information is non-contentious, other elements are commercially sensitive. However all agreed that more open disclosure would benefit the transport system as a whole. At the end of the session the group rated how likely legislation would be needed to create openness and how likely the market would provide it spontaneously.

End User data needs

The group looked at the kind of information that travellers need – and the data that implies.

Real Time Information:

  • Journey information such as real time punctuality, departure time, duration, arrival time, time taken for journey, real time delay and alteration information;
  • Route planning information, forecast real time timetables (not just the next journey), real time journey options from A to B, and route planning that reacts to the network in real time;
  • Qualitative real time information based on traveller needs (and preferences) such as how busy will the train carriage be? Will a later train be less busy? Is it due to rain? Legroom and comfort? Will there be wifi and charging?

Quality, Usability and Reliability:

  • Simplicity: Does it meet my lifestyle and give me value? Does the app work with my diary and other systems? Does it provide door to door service (or at least ensure first and last mile is covered)?
  • Availability: Are services available not just to urban users but other groups e.g. rural users, low income users?
  • Personal and wider impact information is desirable e.g. calories consumed for each modal choice, impact on air quality, effect on the environment;
  • Reliable service reporting: This includes user feedback (c.f. TripAdvisor) and journey time reliability (JTR) reporting.

Pricing:

  • Pricing needs to be transparent and to provide confidence that that this is the cheapest option or best price, and at least clarity whether a railcard/season ticket is better (if not defaulting to cheapest option with use);
  • Total transport cost needs to be clear i.e the sum of all car-bus-train travel per month/year  (including interest);
  • Does it provide payment from one account?
  • Rewards for regular use.

Local Authority data needs

Information:

  • Movement information: Likely journeys, real journey data and the routes people walk/cycle along plus who ISN’T travelling;
  • Sentiment  information: Increasing happiness measures, what incentives work;
  • Actionable insights: Flexible user segmentation, benchmarking data;
  • Subsidies and pricing: Confidence in economic and social value of MaaS, lifetime costs (contract term, not each journey);
  • Service quality: Delays and robustness;
  • Tourism impact: For instance knowledge of who is arriving, when and onward travel options;
  • Efficiency for different groups: Including shoppers, people job sharing, low income groups.

Social and economic impact:

  • Demonstrating how MaaS enables access to education, healthcare, and employment;
  • Potential for partnerships – for instance employers offering MaaS as part of job;
  • Impacts on the area including the effect on public health, social benefits such as sustainable communities, equality and inclusion. How transport coordinates with housing policy.

Service quality:

  • Coverage at the margin;
  • Collision frequency;
  • Crime reduction/ personalisation of safety benefits;
  • Optimise business practices for mobility objectives;
  • Are the needs of the individuals well fulfilled? Are they happy?

Environment:

  • Air pollution/quality;
  • Noise complaints;
  • Impact on congestion.

Operator data needs

Customer Info:

  • Customer behaviour: who is travelling and why? what they are buying?
  • Lifestyle needs of users: What options/alternatives were open to user? What trips do people want to take, but can’t? What area their reasons for travel? How did someone reach their transport choice? Lost sales (& why);
  • Customer needs: What do users want from my services? What services/products can I offer? What creates added value? How do users choose between competing services?
  • Reviews

Service Information:

  • Route information: Trip times (Trip start time +- mins Trip end time +- mins). Is it important to be able to  have a stop off? Can I have more efficient routes?
  • Modal split: What modes a passenger is using over their entire journey and why. Are users using my service as point-to-point or hand-lift to other provider? Could people be on a better transport choice?

Market Information:

  • Total market: Overall passenger movements and market share;
  • Demand: What geographical area is covered and where is there demand for new potential services How are socio-economic changes causing impact e.g. change in shopping habits or working patterns What percentage of users are covered by the chosen operation model? Does the MaaS model provide everything that was provided before its deployment? Information to help identify USP/new USP;
  • Elasticity of demand: Including pricing and price sensitivity – what are my customers willing to pay more for? What incentives change travellers demand?

Starting to look at partnership vs legislation

To round up the workshop, participants began mapping key data needs for each group against the impact and likelihood of partnership (without regulation).

The area in which the group anticipated legislation to ensure openness of data covered was in full operator provision of service information, followed by pricing.

Participants were more optimistic that other essential elements – customer information, and feedback would be shared.

Whilst some people anticipated that sharing information and collaboration would grow the market, other operators were unsure how to make a business case for do this proactively. The group indicated that requiring open service information and pricing would be most effective in creating a level playing field for all within MaaS.

More on open data from the Transport Systems Catapult here.

Workshop: Openness and paying for transport

Discussion from the TravelSpirit Conference, 26 September 2017

Derek Halden, Loop Connections and TravelSpirit UK board member

Presentation:

Workshop:

The technology revolution offers huge potential for connected, flexible and better travel opportunities but global companies battle for power to carve out the monopolies through which the greatest future profits could be delivered. Which company will run the default software for autonomous cars, or the ‘go to’ place to make new types transport purchase?

After housing, in developed countries, transport accounts for the largest element of spending in household budgets. There are very large potential prizes for the winners in transport markets.Technology enables transport services to be bought and sold in an online marketplace, but online purchases still make up only a very small proportion total sales for some types of transport. Travelspirit has been looking at why bus and rail transport, for example, remain so closed. A restaurant, retailer or event provider cannot easily offer promotional free bus or rail travel.

At the workshop representatives from the bus and rail industry got together with policy makers, researchers and technologists to identify a roadmap towards more openness. How could bus and rail travel be sold alongside other transport, other services and retail purchases?

The workshop identified three main things:

The message from transport operators to customers remains that the best value, when travelling on their services is from buying direct. What they don’t tell customers is whether another company could provide a better alternative, or even if the customer has made the best choice in their direct purchase. For rail travel, many ticket prices are are regulated, so there are restrictions on how tickets can be retailed which also constrains openness. Government has cast itself in a consumer champion role, but its initiatives to promote multi-operator ticketing and payment systems and information about prices (including rail ticket price anomalies on non regulated tickets), lack the flexibility that has enabled open user friendly systems in other sectors.

Travelspirit could take on a stronger role to highlight gaps in openness and score bus and rail operations according to their level of openness. The Travelspirit ‘openness index’ is one way to achieve this with specific scoring for the openness of payment systems.

There is a need for an “open internet of mobility” where mobility services by bus, rail, taxi, parking, cycles, car hire and other travel can be traded under clear terms and conditions defining the rights of customers when purchasing through an intermediary. Transport legislation will need to be refreshed to clarify customer rights and responsibilities such as what happens if a service does not meet a defined level of performance. If a taxi is held up in road congestion so a customer misses a train losing out on a cheap rail ticket then is the additional cost paid: by the customer (as at present), by the roads authority (for failing to keep the roads congestion free), or the taxi operator (for failing to complete the journey as scheduled). The potential terms and conditions in the open internet of mobility are immensely complex and it can only be built step by step.

Given that taxi, car hire, bike hire, air services and parking all have current levels of openness and commisson structures for third party sales above that for bus and rail, the promotion of mobility accounts and mobility as a service (MaaS) could tend to boost the competitiveness of the more open options. Progress in making bus and rail ticketing more open will be needed to avoid MaaS being a competitor to potentially more socially efficient transport services.

Travelspirit’s survey of the industry identified that everyone wants a payment system that allows one purchase for all modes of transport. Online marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon have shown that purchasers can find better value when offered more choice, provided the sales are backed up with a clear customer service promise. It may be that if all customers were perfectly informed and all transport operators of equal quality then buying direct would offer better value but they are not. There is value to be added from packaging and bundling transport to help people lead more rewarding lives. The barriers to a more open marketplace for transport are less about technology than about the embedded business models for current transport operation.There were many companies like Loop Connections at the workshop looking to bundle and retail services in new ways. This is a potentially very large market, so collectively all of the companies do better if payment systems can become more open.

Once other consultations have taken place with partners, Travelspirit will publish a roadmap to open payments later in the year.

Further resources:

Open Payments Discussion Paper

Further discussion:

Derek Halden Blog

Workshop: Policy making for open Mobility as a Service

Discussion from the TravelSpirit Conference, 26 September 2017

James Gleave, Transport Futures and TravelSpirit UK Board

Mobility as a Service poses a significant challenge to policy makers. Transport has traditionally been approached in a siloed mentality. Buses have their approach to ticketing, rail has another, aviation has yet another. That works for those industries, and in some cases extremely well for customers, if considered within the confines of that industry. After all, few can say that nobody has benefitted from a policy decision to liberalise air space, bringing on the boom in low cost airlines.

Mobility as a Service looks across these silos and looks to deliver a good service to the end customer. To realise its benefits not only requires policy interventions, but a new approach to how transport policy is developed.

There are a variety of ways that governments can intervene in markets in policy terms, but a big challenge with Mobility as a Service is that the future of this emerging field is uncertain. Policy making, by design or by accident, seeks to provide certainty or is dependent upon it.

In the words of a civil servant participating in the workshop:

Mobility as a Service is fast emerging, so the traditional policy making procedures are not up to keeping up with this pace. We need to explore new ways of making policy.

The workshop discussion was framed by these developments. Participants were introduced to OneTeamGov, a community led by civil servants across Whitehall with the close engagement of outside organisations. It focusses on changing and reforming policy and public services for citizens through practical action. They are guided by a set of principles, which are:

  • Work in the open and positively
  • Take practical action
  • Experiment and iterate
  • Be diverse and inclusive
  • Care deeply about citizens
  • Work across borders
  • Embrace technology

The focus of their work is on quick, practical actions, and developing policy through engagement and experimentation. Hence why this is ideal for developing policy for Mobility as a Service.

The TravelSpirit workshop session started off by identifying the challenges policymakers face in developing and delivering an open mobility as a service. What was great about this discussion was that out of a group of 20, only 6 actually identified themselves as ‘policy people’, with just one in central government. So policy makers were able to share their challenges with non-policy people, and those people in turn were able to provide their perspective on the challenges.

In the second part of the session, the group focussed on practical actions. In such discussions, it is easy to get side-tracked into large-scale interventions like changes in law, or be very general in the solutions (e.g. do more experiments). Instead, the group was prompted to think of more creative, and short term solutions.

The group discussion was also useful in terms of ‘flushing out’ the large scale interventions and general solutions, so that the group could focus on more detailed, practical action. To finish with, all members of the group wrote down an action that they and the group could take in the short term to meet the challenges discussed.

The discussion and findings were very broad and diverse – a flavour is set out below.

What we found

A big challenge is that policy making is too solution led, rather than being open to solutions. How does public policy keep up with this? Or does the public not understand, through a lack of knowledge? There is a specific link to MaaS here. How to determine what the solution is can be an easy sell, but not good for policy making.

If you have to explain it to a policy maker, does it exist? Mobility as a Service seems to be a policy maker’s idea, with policy makers looking to will it into life.

Perhaps we (transport planners) approach MaaS from too much of a public policy approach. MaaS could be led by consumer choice, and so it is up to regulators to interpret and be flexible.

Everyone at the conference and in this group has their own definition of MaaS based on our own objectives, and what we want MaaS to achieve. The current consulting framework is not only slow, but is suited to those who are willing to write in and who want to be consulted.

Reflecting this, perhaps a critical challenge is to develop an ongoing, flexible roadmap for the policy making for MaaS process? Trying to visualise this is a huge challenge in itself, but is critical in helping to sell the process and the means of developing policy accordingly. Not all policy makers are sold on the concept of MaaS remember!

There is a danger that we could be seen as too anti-car. That leads to the question – are we trying to get people out of cars as an objective of MaaS? Instead, the focus could be on realistic solutions for local authorities and other policy makers. Focus on economics, social impacts, and policy making instead?

MaaS also needs to understand how it meets the wider policy need. This then allows for a more realistic policy discussion. Ask not what policy can do for MaaS, but what MaaS can do for policy! What opportunities does MaaS bring in the likes of health policy, economic policy, social policy to name a few?

Critical to a lot of this is developing a convincing story. Identifying what the compelling narrative is, so that the proposition of MaaS for policy makers of all levels is overwhelming. There is a risk with this that it won’t deliver to those level of benefits, however. So what can government of all levels do to kick start this debate on what the compelling narrative is?

There has not been much discussion on local authorities. For them, a huge issue is risk. How can you develop new, innovative policies where there is no evidence, or business case for doing so? There is an urgent needs to get smaller towns and cities to have the power and confidence to deliver MaaS style solutions, and to make a difference.

It is also concerning about the breadth of representatives in the MaaS discussion. There are a lot of policy makers and businesses. What about community groups? Volunteers? Under-represented socio-economic and demographic groups? A priority should be to get out there and listen much more.

The UK Government Digital Service is an excellent model for engagement. There is a need to do much more revealed preference research, with good quality data and use of ethnography. Real data, based on real behaviours, not what people tell us that they do!

There is also a need to move the general conversation in transport away from the commute. Not everything is about providing for commuters!!

More discussion of these issues on James Gleave’s Transport Futures blog.

Whitepaper 3: Autonomy: The role of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence in Public Transportation and Urban Mobility for Cities

A range of autonomous vehicles (AVs), enabled by Robotics and Artificial Intelligence (RAI), are necessary for the evolution of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) as a global resource.

This white paper sets out our initial position and frames the debate around developments in autonomous mobility and how it can shape the new mobility frontier. It identifies concerns about autonomous transport solutions being developed by technologists, without a broader public policy framework. We highlight the risks that this direction of business development poses and how technology-driven innovation may present a serious threat to the vitality of our society.

Whitepaper 3: Autonomy: The role of Robotics and Artificial Intelligence in Public Transportation and Urban Mobility for Cities

Authors: Giles Bailey, Si Ho, Beate Kubitz, Sophie Peachey

How we work

The TravelSpirit Foundation is a hosted by Public Software Community Interest Company (CIC). We function as a trade association to promote TravelSpirit’s core values, and a Research Technology Organisation (RTO) to build the Internet of Mobility.

The strategic direction of TravelSpirit Foundation is steered by a global Executive Board comprised of individuals from the fields of transport, digital and people management.

The current structure of the Executive Board contains the following key roles:

The Chair: Responsible for managing TravelSpirit’s strategic partnerships and wider network, including corporate membership relationships.

The CEO: Responsible for ensuring TravelSpirit is correctly governed; guardian of the TravelSpirit Strategy; lead advocate and adviser.

The COO: Responsible for considering the people management and business operating model implications of a future Mobility as a Service eco-system, and championing change programmes that encourage open collaboration.

The CTO: Responsible for considering the social and technological implications of a future Mobility as a Service eco-system, and championing the Internet of Mobility.

Outside of the Executive Board, TravelSpirit is composed of and supported by the following bodies:

TravelSpirit Foundation CIC: Responsible for supporting TravelSpirit activities and undertaking revenue-generating activities on behalf of the global community.

Regional Market Project (RMP) Boards: Comprised of affiliate and associate members of the trade association. RMP Boards are based on a geographical area and exist to deliver and support projects under the banner of TravelSpirit and in accordance with the 4 core values. At this moment, the strongest RMP resides in the UK. We are currently exploring opportunities to establish RMP in Europe, Asia-Pacific and North America.

Trade Association Members: The basis of TravelSpirit Foundation membership is more than just transactional. To maintain their membership, we expect every member to be taking an active role in the four core values that unite us.

The Executive Board, RMP Boards, and Trade Association Members can commission the CIC to deliver projects, events and other activities on behalf of the wider TravelSpirit community.