1 Introduction
-
What is the status quo of walking in MaaS in the Paris region?
-
How is walking in MaaS relevant to create sustainable value?
2 The role of active modes in MaaS for sustainable mobility
2.1 The importance of walking in MaaS
2.2 The presence of walking in digital tools
2.3 Sustainable value creation potential
3 Methodology
3.1 Method
3.2 Selection of MaaS solutions
3.3 Analysis framework
4 Case study results
MAAS PLATFORM/INDICATORS | A. Bonjour RATP | B. IDFM app | C. Google Maps | D. Citymapper |
---|---|---|---|---|
COMMERCIAL LOGOTYPE | ||||
PROJECT OWNER1 | RATP (Paris PTO) | IDFM (Regional PTA) | Google (Alphabet Inc). | Citymapper Ltd |
GOVERNANCE1 | Semi-public | Public | Private | Private |
JURIDIC STATUS | Industrial or Commercial Public Establishment (fr. EPIC, FR.) | Public Administrative Establishment (fr.EPA, FR.) | Limited liability company (LLC, US) | Private limited company (Ldt., UK)4 |
GLOBAL DEPLOYMENT SCOPE | Local–Regional | Regional | International, + 200 countries | International, + 80 cities worldwide |
DEPLOYMENT IN FRANCE1 | ÎdF | ÎdF | France | ÎdF and other 7 French metropolitan regions |
SYSTEM OPERATOR1 | RATP Smart Systems | Instant Systems and Capgemini | Google Maps LLC | Citymapper Limited |
LEVEL IN SOCHOR’S SCALE2 | MaaS level 2 | Maas level 2 | MaaS level 1 (France) MaaS level 2 (USA) | MaaS level 1 (France) MaaS level 3 (UK) |
TYPE OF PLATFORM | Smartphone app: Android and iOS | Smartphone app: Android and iOS | Website and Smartphone app: Android and iOS | Website and Smartphone app: Android and iOS |
DOWNLOADS3 | + 5 M (09/2022) | + 1 M (09/2022) | + 10 000 M (09/2022) | + 10 M (09/2022) |
4.1 Governance and main characteristics of the studied MaaS
4.2 Available functionalities in the main screen
4.3 Hierarchization of modes and trip customization parameters
Semi-Public (A)/Public (B)-Led MaaS | Private-Led MaaS (C, D) |
---|---|
Prioritizes walking through dedicated buttons in MaaS UI. Has the knowledge and the capacity to adapt the platform behind MaaS (in-house MaaS development). Provides GPS guidance with precise instructions | Provides customization parameters based on types of pedestrians. Includes information on total walking times for all PT suggestions | Walking itineraries have a dedicated button to facilitate access. Various navigation aids for walking are provided to users at no extra charge. Suggests more than one route for the itinerary requested | Depurated interface and dedicated buttons prioritizing walking and cycling | |
Provides only basic features and customization options to enhance the walking travel experience | Access to information on walking itineraries is complex (too many steps to find it) | Prioritizes car itineraries in the menu bar of the UI. Directions might not very accurate at a local scale, especially with small streets or passages | Promotes the use of micromobilities in walking itineraries. Only allows for two types of custom routes for users, this risks not being enough for a larger diversity of users | |
Potential to promote the use of PT and access to PT services by nudging mobility behavior through their extensive number of users (based on downloads). Increase personalization options (Linked to incentives) | Potential to implement strategies enhancing sustainable objectives in mobility and health policies through MaaS for its role as regional PTA. Authority to set up guidelines to hierarchize walking and cycling to PTOs developing MaaS. (Linked to governance and sustainable value creation) | Potential to continue innovation on walking features and navigation aids, own budget. Nudge car users to more sustainable modes (Linked to incentives and sustainable value creation) | Potential to continue innovation on walking features and navigation aids, own budget. Territorialized approach for the provision of information helps capture more details on the characteristics of mobility and users at a specific scale (Linked to governance) | |
Potential to promote less sustainable modes by sending persuasive messages for non-active mobility services, for example with Dott, Lime, and Tier e-kick scooters and ridehailing. Opaque definition of customization criteria | Competition among MaaS solutions developed by PTOs and commercial MaaS operators. Opaque definition of customization criteria | Responding to economic interests and promoting alternative, less sustainable modes instead of walking | Still searching a BM allowing them to thrive. This could lead to promoting alternative, less sustainable modes instead of walking. Opaque definition of customization criteria |
4.4 Status quo of walking in MaaS: SWOT-based synthesis of results
-
The empirical test showed that Google Maps and Citymapper offer more features and more information for pedestrian mobility, PT, and walking itineraries compared to the ones provided by Bonjour RATP and IDFM App.
-
We observed in Bonjour RATP, Google Maps, and Citymapper heterogeneity in the hierarchy given to walking among all the available modes, and according to the provision and position of dedicated buttons facilitating or hindering users’ access to information on walking itineraries.
-
We identified some personalization options for different types of pedestrians in IDFM App and Citymapper. For example, “good” and “normal” walker in the case of IDFM App. In the case of the pre-customed profiles offered for walking trips in Citymapper, show “fast route” and “main street”. Criteria defining these parameters were not found.
-
We found suggestions to use e-kick scooters or e-shared bikes when we requested a walking itinerary Google Maps and e-kick scooters and ridehailing Bonjour RATP. A similar travel suggestion was offered for users to walk less in Google Maps and Citymapper.