How could a national Mobility as a Service be implemented?

[Bletchleyite]

I think you are under-estimating the work required to set this up satisfactorily in the UK.

What, an all-modes journey planner? There are enough of them out there, and some of them did start out as "kids' bedroom projects" - while it's not a journey planner RTT is an example of something that started out as a personal project and has become a viable commercial business. (OK, I think he did it as a student rather than a kid, but you know what I mean!)

The complex bit of being able to add fare quotes to it is a business issue (i.e. getting bus companies to actually tell you!) rather than a tech issue. That is, the complex bit is getting the contracts in place. The data is quite easily available for both rail and bus as well as rail fares, though again you need the contracts in place to consume it.

I'm well aware of the complexity (or otherwise) of large corporate IT projects; they are my job.

But again, this is why I'm no fan of the "MaaS" tag - it really doesn't say what it is - it can be lots of things. Any form of public transport or vehicle hire is mobility as a service, because the other option is mobility as a product, i.e. the purchase of a car or bicycle. So the first question has to be "define it".

 

[RT4038]

What, an all-modes journey planner? There are enough of them out there, and some of them did start out as "kids' bedroom projects" - while it's not a journey planner RTT is an example of something that started out as a personal project and has become a viable commercial business. (OK, I think he did it as a student rather than a kid, but you know what I mean!)

The complex bit of being able to add fare quotes to it is a business issue (i.e. getting bus companies to actually tell you!) rather than a tech issue. That is, the complex bit is getting the contracts in place. The data is quite easily available for both rail and bus as well as rail fares, though again you need the contracts in place to consume it.

I'm well aware of the complexity (or otherwise) of large corporate IT projects; they are my job.

But again, this is why I'm no fan of the "MaaS" tag - it really doesn't say what it is - it can be lots of things. Any form of public transport or vehicle hire is mobility as a service, because the other option is mobility as a product, i.e. the purchase of a car or bicycle. So the first question has to be "define it".

Quite. setting up the fares information [although this will gradually be resolved by the electronic information requirements of the Bus services Act], setting up the commercials to actually sell tickets, including the protocols of how things going wrong are handled (bus connections not made in particular) are going to be way beyond the average 'kid's bedroom'.

MaaS is surely more than just a fixed public transport journey planner. At the very minimum it would need a taxi booking facility to cover journey times when no fixed public transport is available, either wholly or in part, or at the customers wish? Setting up the commercials, and fare comparisons, of those will be quite a job I should imagine.

Rearranging existing information (such as RTT does) is not particularly difficult [not wishing to denigrate RTT in any way]. When you have to set up source information from multiple companies , the commercials and the protocols yourself it is an entirely different ball game.

 

[Bletchleyite]

MaaS is surely more than just a fixed public transport journey planner. At the very minimum it would need a taxi booking facility to cover journey times when no fixed public transport is available, either wholly or in part, or at the customers wish? Setting up the commercials, and fare comparisons, of those will be quite a job I should imagine.

That would certainly be a big job commercially. Most notably taxis in rural areas, which are still very much, as I said above, "Bob's Taxi", "Ron's Taxi" and "Jim's Taxi" and all the locals have their mobile numbers and know when they tend to work and when not. It is not going to be easy, or necessarily even possible, to professionalise that - if Bob, Ron and Jim don't want to work from an Uber style app that would be needed for such a thing to interface with, they won't. And odds on, they won't want to, because such places tend to be very conservative (small C), so if Bob has run his taxi service that way for the last 30 years and it's enough to pay for his mortgage, food on the table, a week in Spain once a year and a few pints down the Dog and Gun on a Saturday evening, he won't be changing it for anyone. And if you bring Uber in, it'll fail, because the locals like Bob, Ron and Jim too; they probably drink in the same pub and share a session of complaining about the nasty American interloper trying to affect their traditional rural lives.

That is much, much bigger than any technological issue. Meanwhile, traditional connectional Takt works fine in urban areas done properly - why faff about a mobile app when you know that when you walk out of the station buses on all main urban and interurban routes timed to meet the train will be sat there just outside waiting for you, with tap-in, tap-out contactless payment available so paying doesn't even require breaking stride on the way from seat to seat?

 

[biko]

What kind of MaaS are we discussing? MaaS is used for so many 'innovations' around transport, but can also just mean improving connections between train and bus. It is all about integrating different modes, mostly digitally, but not necessarily so. Researchers have therefore created different levels to indicate the extent to which something is MaaS.

Level 4: Integration of societal goals (e.g. making sure the subscriptions give the incentive to travel with green modes or at off-peak times)
Level 3: Integration of service offer (subscriptions for packages such as unlimited travel with shared bicycle with train, or for a certain number of miles with any mode)
Level 2: Integration of booking and payment (what is discussed here mostly)
Level 1: Integration of information (Google public transport planner is an example)
Level 0: No integration (just some random services that do not connect)

The UK is now somewhere between level 0 and level 1, in London towards 2. There is some integration of information through Google Maps and Traveline but it is really limited and does not work yet really well. In London, Oyster and contactless make it level 2.

Starting from level 2, it becomes useful. An app or website could give a good overview of options for travel, and payment is easy. Level 3 is difficult if there are many providers with different interests, and level 4 is, I believe, impossible without a government that pushes MaaS and wants it to succeed. So very unlikely.

To come back to the main question, I think building a booking and journey planner app with all modes and also some shared modes would be a very good first step which will also give some advantages. Hopefully, some providers will work together and set up some subscriptions with good deals such as unlimited shared bicycle use in a city combined with a season ticket. However, most of the UK doesn't really have a good integration of information, so that needs to be sorted out first.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Level 3: Integration of service offer (subscriptions for packages such as unlimited travel with shared bicycle with train, or for a certain number of miles with any mode)
Level 2: Integration of booking and payment (what is discussed here mostly)
Level 1: Integration of information (Google public transport planner is an example)
Level 0: No integration (just some random services that do not connect)

What is interesting about that is that I would say that Switzerland meets all of those levels by way of a combination of Takt* and the Generalabonnement (a monthly/annual all modes season ticket) and has done for many years - no fancy tech needed.

* I shout about Takt a lot, but for clarity it has two main elements - simple, clockface timetabling and planned connections. The UK does do the former on both rail and bus to a fairly large extent, but it tends to completely omit the latter - good Takt style connections such as travelling to Bletchley by taking a fast LNR service to Leighton and a same platform change are generally only by coincidence or operational convenience (e.g. central turnbacks are built for line capacity, that they provide cross platform connections is a happy coincidence) - we don't for instance design and build infrastructure specifically for it.

 

[biko]

What is interesting about that is that I would say that Switzerland meets all of those levels by way of a combination of Takt and the Generalabonnement (a monthly/annual all modes season ticket) - no fancy tech needed.

Partly, MaaS should be more than just public transport, so for the PT aspect they are quite far, but not for shared cars, taxis, shared bicycles, and whatever other modes you could think of. I am not too familiar with the exact way it works in Switzerland, but is it possible to buy one ticket from any bus stop to any train station? And also to have more specific subscriptions than free travel on all public transport? Because MaaS is also about having more specific subscriptions

 

[Bletchleyite]

Partly, MaaS should be more than just public transport, so for the PT aspect they are quite far, but not for shared cars, taxis, shared bicycles, and whatever other modes you could think of. I am not too familiar with the exact way it works in Switzerland, but is it possible to buy one ticket from any bus stop to any train station? And also to have more specific subscriptions than free travel on all public transport? Because MaaS is also about having more specific subscriptions

Yes, you can buy a ticket from anywhere to anywhere in Switzerland, though typically you'll need to do it from your phone or a railway station because bus stops don't usually (but *sometimes* do) have a full-spec TVM.

Typically more specific subscriptions do exist, but they tend to be zonal, which is a pretty good model. But again, you don't need fancy tech to enable that sort of thing - for instance in Germany CC-Karten are commonly offered in urban areas - these are off-peak season tickets, and to this day I can't work out why they are called that! Interestingly Merseytravel offered that for years but withdrew it a few years ago, which I consider a very bad move on their part.

Taxis and cycle shares tend not to be integrated in the fares system but there's no particular reason they couldn't be - again, the fancy app is not necessary to do that, logically it would be done zonally to provide for areas where there is no local bus service.

 

[HSTEd]

To be honest stuff like this stinks of trying desperately to escape the inevitable cost of a comprehensive transport solution using shiny buzz words and vapourware technology.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest stuff like this stinks of trying desperately to escape the inevitable cost of a comprehensive transport solution using shiny buzz words and vapourware technology.

That essentially sums up my view on it. Lose the buzzword, separate out the concepts and implement those concepts (plus other well-known traditional ones that the UK does badly) where they make sense to provide a real improvement.

To use one example - taxi integration - it would be of very little benefit to do that in Manchester, say, because anyone who'd use a MaaS app would also be able to use the Uber app to summon one, or just get into a black cab directly outside the station. But if when you booked a ticket online to Windermere, say, you could also book a zonally priced taxi to your holiday destination to meet the last arrival of the day, then that has considerable benefit.

 

[biko]

Yes, you can buy a ticket from anywhere to anywhere in Switzerland, though typically you'll need to do it from your phone or a railway station because bus stops don't usually (but *sometimes* do) have a full-spec TVM.

Typically more specific subscriptions do exist, but they tend to be zonal, which is a pretty good model. But again, you don't need fancy tech to enable that sort of thing - for instance in Germany CC-Karten are commonly offered in urban areas - these are off-peak season tickets, and to this day I can't work out why they are called that! Interestingly Merseytravel offered that for years but withdrew it a few years ago, which I consider a very bad move on their part.

Taxis and cycle shares tend not to be integrated in the fares system but there's no particular reason they couldn't be - again, the fancy app is not necessary to do that, logically it would be done zonally to provide for areas where there is no local bus service.

In that case, Switzerland has done a better job than I thought. That is indeed as much MaaS as you can get at the moment, especially considering they really do have policy incorporating all modes. And it indeed also shows you don't need apps. The whole app-hype is there only because some tech companies see opportunities and it is the easy way to change something without real investment.

But if when you booked a ticket online to Windermere, say, you could also book a zonally priced taxi to your holiday destination to meet the last arrival of the day, then that has considerable benefit.

That is indeed what the advantage of MaaS should be. Preferably, they would then also create a mobility hub at the railway station in Windermere, so one could really choose which mode to use for the last mile. MaaS with mobility hubs has big benefits in my view.

To be honest stuff like this stinks of trying desperately to escape the inevitable cost of a comprehensive transport solution using shiny buzz words and vapourware technology.

I actually also partly agree with this. If done well, MaaS really has benefits as it makes travel easier and gives more options, so public transport and green modes should become more attractive, but it is too easy (and cheap) for operators and governments to just create an app and not think about further integration. In the UK, building an app is nice and has benefits, but it would also be needed to get the buses closer to the stations and integrate timetables. Then the full potential is reached. But I fear that the government will just say 'we created better integration between modes as we now launched a MaaS app', which is just half the job.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is indeed what the advantage of MaaS should be. Preferably, they would then also create a mobility hub at the railway station in Windermere, so one could really choose which mode to use for the last mile. MaaS with mobility hubs has big benefits in my view.

"Mobility hub" is to be fair a buzzword too. At present it has a mini bus station outside, and probably the odd taxi though I've never wanted one from there. So I guess it already is!

I actually also partly agree with this. If done well, MaaS really has benefits as it makes travel easier and gives more options, so public transport and green modes should become more attractive, but it is too easy (and cheap) for operators and governments to just create an app and not think about further integration. In the UK, building an app is nice and has benefits, but it would also be needed to get the buses closer to the stations and integrate timetables. Then the full potential is reached. But I fear that the government will just say 'we created better integration between modes as we now launched a MaaS app', which is just half the job.

Yeah, that's what I fear - basically another Transport Direct with some fares in it.

 

[biko]

"Mobility hub" is to be fair a buzzword too. At present it has a mini bus station outside, and probably the odd taxi though I've never wanted one from there. So I guess it already is!

I get why you think it is a buzzword, but I've spoken with some people proposing and designing these hubs and it really is more than just a buzzword. Mobility hubs are actually more about proper integration of modes than MaaS. They should become recognisable points where you can take any type of mobility and preferably also do other activities, such as shopping or working. If you also have MaaS, then it makes multimodal transport really easy.

Railway stations are a kind of a hub already, but the idea is to apply it more widely. For example to central locations in suburbs or high-density neighbourhoods where you can take high-quality public transport (preferably in a takt ), a shared scooter, shared car or something else. By combining it with other facilities, it is all about making transport more attractive. I see opportunities for these kind of things, especially with more working from home after Covid, it could be the alternative for the second car.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I get why you think it is a buzzword, but I've spoken with some people proposing and designing these hubs and it really is more than just a buzzword. Mobility hubs are actually more about proper integration of modes than MaaS. They should become recognisable points where you can take any type of mobility and preferably also do other activities, such as shopping or working. If you also have MaaS, then it makes multimodal transport really easy.

That would be a nice concept to build into a public transport-oriented New Town - a "local centre" as most MK estates have, but one which also has, say, a tramstop, as well as a selection of shops and takeaways. That sort of thing does exist in the UK (the Old Roan in Liverpool is one fairly notable example - it has a small shopping centre, a railway station and bus stops on all the roads around it) but they aren't common.

Windermere also has a supermarket in a rebuild of the old station building (I recently learnt it's not original) which is handy!

It could certainly be improved, e.g. with nose-in bus bays.

 

[HSTEd]

Shopping Centres as they have existed are probably doomed, outside a handful of "destination" facilities.
The ongoing shift to online shopping will see to that.

All these things require large sums of money to be expended, and I see no real political will to expend said money.

It could certainly be improved, e.g. with nose-in bus bays.

Nose in bus bays are probably the worst way to operate a bus station! The best option is a railway style platform settup with edge doors, climate control and drive through operation for the buses.
Preferably off board ticketing, maybe with full blown BRT style ticket gates.

 

[RT4038]

That is much, much bigger than any technological issue. Meanwhile, traditional connectional Takt works fine in urban areas done properly - why faff about a mobile app when you know that when you walk out of the station buses on all main urban and interurban routes timed to meet the train will be sat there just outside waiting for you, with tap-in, tap-out contactless payment available so paying doesn't even require breaking stride on the way from seat to seat?

The UK is nowhere, nowhere near. Not even started in most places; in some where it was started it has been rolled back again. Some European countries have been working at this for 90+ years. We hardly at all.
There will have to be a seismic change in land use planning, public transport funding and legislative framework to get anywhere close in most UK towns and cities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Shopping Centres as they have existed are probably doomed, outside a handful of "destination" facilities.

I think you're thinking of the wrong type of shopping centre. I'm referring to this sort of arrangement:

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

(Google Map Street View of Furzton Local Centre, MK)

i.e. a small supermarket, a few takeaways, a hair salon, a doctor's surgery and a pharmacy, and public transport (the bus stops are hidden behind the police van, move along a bit and you'll see them). There's a primary school, too.

Or here's the one I was talking about at the Old Roan, Liverpool - a similar arrangement but with more bus routes and a railway station (on the embankment behind the white building):

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

www.google.com

Increased use of deliveries and home-working increases the need for the classic "butcher, baker and candlestick maker" parade of shops, because you won't be getting daily deliveries, you'll be getting them every week at most, and so will need to top up bread and milk etc, which is exactly what's driven the growth in "mini supermarkets".


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2021 ==

The UK is nowhere, nowhere near. Not even started in most places; in some where it was started it has been rolled back again. Some European countries have been working at this for 90+ years. We hardly at all.
There will have to be a seismic change in land use planning, public transport funding and legislative framework to get anywhere close in most UK towns and cities.

I don't disagree - but my point is that a game of buzzword bingo coded into a mobile phone app is not going to solve the actual problem.

 

[squizzler]

What kind of MaaS are we discussing? MaaS is used for so many 'innovations' around transport, but can also just mean improving connections between train and bus. It is all about integrating different modes, mostly digitally, but not necessarily so. Researchers have therefore created different levels to indicate the extent to which something is MaaS.

Level 4: Integration of societal goals (e.g. making sure the subscriptions give the incentive to travel with green modes or at off-peak times)
Level 3: Integration of service offer (subscriptions for packages such as unlimited travel with shared bicycle with train, or for a certain number of miles with any mode)
Level 2: Integration of booking and payment (what is discussed here mostly)
Level 1: Integration of information (Google public transport planner is an example)
Level 0: No integration (just some random services that do not connect)

The UK is now somewhere between level 0 and level 1, in London towards 2. There is some integration of information through Google Maps and Traveline but it is really limited and does not work yet really well. In London, Oyster and contactless make it level 2.

Starting from level 2, it becomes useful. An app or website could give a good overview of options for travel, and payment is easy. Level 3 is difficult if there are many providers with different interests, and level 4 is, I believe, impossible without a government that pushes MaaS and wants it to succeed. So very unlikely.

Go Biko! That's a really helpful summation that I did not see before, but no surprise as the progression of 'levels' mirrors that of ETCS already familiar to the transport industry.

To come back to the main question, I think building a booking and journey planner app with all modes and also some shared modes would be a very good first step which will also give some advantages. Hopefully, some providers will work together and set up some subscriptions with good deals such as unlimited shared bicycle use in a city combined with a season ticket. However, most of the UK doesn't really have a good integration of information, so that needs to be sorted out first.

I am puzzled why you consider the UK transport information to be deficient. Traveline/Transport Direct and the major US based IT concerns who do online mapping seem to have access to timetables and stop locations for realtime "transit" directions.

I am starting to think that the correct body to develop a national MaaS is National Rail (RDG) or its possible post Williams Review successor. The rail industry needs to recoup all its recent investment and a MaaS can be a way of feeding traffic into its railheads from a wider hinterland. And RDG has a national GB wide reach.

To be honest stuff like this stinks of trying desperately to escape the inevitable cost of a comprehensive transport solution using shiny buzz words and vapourware technology.

What is interesting about that is that I would say that Switzerland meets all of those levels by way of a combination of Takt* and the Generalabonnement (a monthly/annual all modes season ticket) and has done for many years - no fancy tech needed.

* I shout about Takt a lot, but for clarity it has two main elements - simple, clockface timetabling and planned connections. The UK does do the former on both rail and bus to a fairly large extent, but it tends to completely omit the latter - good Takt style connections such as travelling to Bletchley by taking a fast LNR service to Leighton and a same platform change are generally only by coincidence or operational convenience (e.g. central turnbacks are built for line capacity, that they provide cross platform connections is a happy coincidence) - we don't for instance design and build infrastructure specifically for it.

The problem of a "comprehensive transport solution" and takt specifically is it is a long term project involving numerous infrastructure interventions. Rail usage is very low and growth needs to be stimulated now not in twenty years time. Compared to, say, opening a new line, a MaaS implementation would cost pocket change. With the ridership at such low levels, the best strategy for the industry going forward is to throw as many promising things at the wall as it can to see what sticks, then develop the more successful ones. The industry needs to innovate the heck out of its current predicament. I am however really optimistic that the industry can recover and start growing again sooner than people think. The end of nine-to-five white collar commuting will be missed as much as the railfreight industry misses the coal industry. Commuters? Schmooters!

I am curious to know how you both explain away the fact that the most enthusiastic uptake of MaaS is in those countries - Netherlands, Switzerland, Scandinavia - that were winning at public transport anyway. They are not resting on their laurels, nor allowing some silicon valley upstart to eat their lunch - and customer data, - but building their own to win more business and embody their public service ethos.

In rural Africa, the adoption of mobile phones has been a boon. Whilst mobile phones and drone delivery of crucial medicines certainly does not allow such areas to 'leapfrog' the need for proper infrastructure, there is no need to wait till the our own hard infrastructure is in place before introducing MaaS.

I'm well aware of the complexity (or otherwise) of large corporate IT projects; they are my job.

When do you find time to do that? You seem to have responded by return as soon as anyone posts anything in this thread, LOL.

 

[telstarbox]

Maybe he's automated the work away, it's what I'd do if I knew how

 

[biko]

I am puzzled why you consider the UK transport information to be deficient. Traveline/Transport Direct and the major US based IT concerns who do online mapping seem to have access to timetables and stop locations for realtime "transit" directions.

As someone not living in the UK, I found it quite difficult to find good information. Google Maps is indeed a huge improvement, but things like interchange times are not correct and I believe I read something about some operators missing from the data, but not sure about that. Traveline is hopelessly outdated, and very unfriendly to the user. Furthermore, the cost is not provided. Maybe I got used to the Dutch national planner which does do fares and gives clear and correct information.

I am starting to think that the correct body to develop a national MaaS is National Rail (RDG) or its possible post Williams Review successor. The rail industry needs to recoup all its recent investment and a MaaS can be a way of feeding traffic into its railheads from a wider hinterland. And RDG has a national GB wide reach

That’s interesting as MaaS is not only about public transport. It is about removing the need to own a car by providing shared alternatives in an easy way, that’s why it is called mobility as a service. So shared cars could also be part of the proposition. I’m not sure if that is what train operators want to make more attractive. But I would certainly think that it would be logical for RDG to take an interest in it.

I am curious to know how you both explain away the fact that the most enthusiastic uptake of MaaS is in those countries - Netherlands, Switzerland, Scandinavia - that were winning at public transport anyway. They are not resting on their laurels, nor allowing some silicon valley upstart to eat their lunch - and customer data, - but building their own to win more business and embody their public service ethos.

MaaS is not really a thing in the Netherlands except in government and consultancies. We do have an national integrated planner but not with other modes than public transport. In a recent tender for the bus network in my local area, the operator had to make a journey planner with other modes to tick the MaaS box, but I don’t think any real user would find it. That planner does provide journeys using the shared bicycles at a railway station, so is ‘more MaaS’ than the previous ones.

What we see here is that NS and the operators in the big cities are trying to build a new platform before commercial operators do. Interestingly, the most MaaS-like system here is something that is not marketed as such. It is now possible to travel with a OV-chipkaart without any money on it and that all costs are billed at the end of the month. Not only for trains but also for buses and shared bicycles and I believe some shared cars too.

 

[RT4038]

I actually also partly agree with this. If done well, MaaS really has benefits as it makes travel easier and gives more options, so public transport and green modes should become more attractive, but it is too easy (and cheap) for operators and governments to just create an app and not think about further integration. In the UK, building an app is nice and has benefits, but it would also be needed to get the buses closer to the stations and integrate timetables. Then the full potential is reached. But I fear that the government will just say 'we created better integration between modes as we now launched a MaaS app', which is just half the job.

But the other 'half the job' is just so expensive, so politically difficult, and take so long, that it is just not going to happen. Financially it is not half of MaaS - it is about 99.9% of the bill.

Take the West Coast main line from London to Glasgow, incl the Northampton and Birmingham loops, and exclude the minor stations. Only a handful of stations are located in the heart of the Central Business Districts (Birmingham, Carlisle, with Glasgow, Lancaster, Wolverhampton and Nuneaton sort of).

Only Watford Junction and Milton Keynes have bus stations outside of the station which have all or most routes of the town/city passing them Wolverhampton and Nuneaton have bus stations with all services close by, but not close enough to be a seemless connection. Most stations have bus stops, or even a bus station nearby, but not with enough capacity to accommodate all or most of the routes in that place being there at the same time to make the 'takt' connection.

Just look at the sheer expense and disruption that establishing comprehensive bus stands/stations outside most railway stations would be, let alone the ongoing expense of running all (or even most) bus routes in a town/city to/from the station, and make 'takt' connections to multiple trains. This is without rebuilding and expanding stations to accommodate multiple connecting trains at once, rather than the current UK practice of spreading departures over the hour to minimise the number of platforms in use. Towns/Cities with multiple main stations add another dimension not normally found in The Netherlands, Switzerland etc.

I have no issue with the theory of 'takt'. However the practical application is full of virtually insurmountable issues, which if we started today and could guarantee (an extremely unlikely scenario with our politics) consistent government funding and land use policy, would be ready in about 90 years too.

To use one example - taxi integration - it would be of very little benefit to do that in Manchester, say, because anyone who'd use a MaaS app would also be able to use the Uber app to summon one, or just get into a black cab directly outside the station.

Surely a one stop MaaS website to book your multi modal journey, including a taxi portion (if required and where available) would be better than having to use a separate Uber app. Otherwise it could be said that a multi modal journey planner is unnecessary because the user could visit individual mode websites for the information ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely a one stop MaaS website to book your multi modal journey, including a taxi portion (if required and where available) would be better than having to use a separate Uber app. Otherwise it could be said that a multi modal journey planner is unnecessary because the user could visit individual mode websites for the information ?

The act of cross-referencing timetables is much, much more difficult and involved than the act of booking a taxi on the Uber app.

 

[biko]

But the other 'half the job' is just so expensive, so politically difficult, and take so long, that it is just not going to happen. Financially it is not half of MaaS - it is about 99.9% of the bill

Of course improving the connections in the network is more expensive than building an app, but my point is that you can partly make travel easier by having one app with all options in which you also can book all modes, but that it won’t have the full potential benefits if the connections would also improve. The app will just show a really long journey time with huge interchange times so people will just use the car (if available). So the app is there to make it easier to find information and pay the fare, but will not lead to a major modal shift. For that you need both MaaS and a better underlying transport network.

Take the West Coast main line from London to Glasgow, incl the Northampton and Birmingham loops, and exclude the minor stations. Only a handful of stations are located in the heart of the Central Business Districts (Birmingham, Carlisle, with Glasgow, Lancaster, Wolverhampton and Nuneaton sort of).

Only Watford Junction and Milton Keynes have bus stations outside of the station which have all or most routes of the town/city passing them Wolverhampton and Nuneaton have bus stations with all services close by, but not close enough to be a seemless connection. Most stations have bus stops, or even a bus station nearby, but not with enough capacity to accommodate all or most of the routes in that place being there at the same time to make the 'takt' connection.

Just look at the sheer expense and disruption that establishing comprehensive bus stands/stations outside most railway stations would be, let alone the ongoing expense of running all (or even most) bus routes in a town/city to/from the station, and make 'takt' connections to multiple trains. This is without rebuilding and expanding stations to accommodate multiple connecting trains at once, rather than the current UK practice of spreading departures over the hour to minimise the number of platforms in use. Towns/Cities with multiple main stations add another dimension not normally found in The Netherlands, Switzerland etc.

I agree it isn’t easy. But that shouldn’t mean nothing is done to make connections better. I would suggest by starting with making sure buses connect into the most important trains in the evening when frequencies are low. Also try to do this for low-frequency longer regional bus routes. This will already have benefits without enormous costs.

Also, the Netherlands are not the heaven for this kind of thing. Some stations were rebuilt for connections, but many are not. But still strategic planning of which trains follow others can really help with reducing travel times if you want to connect. With respect to multiple stations in a city, if you exclude London, I believe there aren’t many with multiple stations where both as just as important, so that makes planning already a lot easier.

I think the most unfortunate thing is that the UK has major bus stations far from the railway station. I imagine that is the biggest barrier to multimodal journeys which is more difficult to solve without major investment, but still they could start with smaller changes in the right direction.

 

[RT4038]

I agree it isn’t easy. But that shouldn’t mean nothing is done to make connections better. I would suggest by starting with making sure buses connect into the most important trains in the evening when frequencies are low. Also try to do this for low-frequency longer regional bus routes. This will already have benefits without enormous costs.

There is no legislative framework to do this. There is very little commercial imperative for bus companies to extend routes to or via Railway Stations, and retime journeys to connect with (not particularly punctual) rail services, when the bulk of their existing users who will be inconvenienced by the changes are not regular connecting rail passengers.

I think the most unfortunate thing is that the UK has major bus stations far from the railway station. I imagine that is the biggest barrier to multimodal journeys which is more difficult to solve without major investment, but still they could start with smaller changes in the right direction.

The root of this being that the major bus stations are generally located in the business centre of the town/city, coupled to the historic framework of anything but purely urban bus services being to compete with the railway rather than complement it as in some other countries. The business centres were often not seriously drawn towards the railway station because the competing bus services tended to take most of the railway's local passengers.

The trend nowadays is to close the bus stations and redevelop the sites for commercial gain, with on street bus stops and 'cross town' routes for maximum cost efficiency. (i.e. maximum revenue earned by minimum number of buses and crew). Railway stations tend to be only served by those routes that would pass it naturally or near naturally on their way elsewhere. [Generalisation of course; every town/city will be nuanced differently).

Even small changes are quite difficult, and tend to be ineffective, under the current legislative and financial framework (both of the transport industry, and land use planning). Changing this framework will come with a large bill in one way or another. Failure to change it will probably come with a different bill, but that is not now.

 

[biko]

There is no legislative framework to do this. There is very little commercial imperative for bus companies to extend routes to or via Railway Stations, and retime journeys to connect with (not particularly punctual) rail services, when the bulk of their existing users who will be inconvenienced by the changes are not regular connecting rail passengers.

The root of this being that the major bus stations are generally located in the business centre of the town/city, coupled to the historic framework of anything but purely urban bus services being to compete with the railway rather than complement it as in some other countries. The business centres were often not seriously drawn towards the railway station because the competing bus services tended to take most of the railway's local passengers.

The trend nowadays is to close the bus stations and redevelop the sites for commercial gain, with on street bus stops and 'cross town' routes for maximum cost efficiency. (i.e. maximum revenue earned by minimum number of buses and crew). Railway stations tend to be only served by those routes that would pass it naturally or near naturally on their way elsewhere. [Generalisation of course; every town/city will be nuanced differently).

Even small changes are quite difficult, and tend to be ineffective, under the current legislative and financial framework (both of the transport industry, and land use planning). Changing this framework will come with a large bill in one way or another. Failure to change it will probably come with a different bill, but that is not now.

I didn’t consider that it would be so difficult to change these things due to the legislative framework. Of course operators can change timings and routes themselves but they see of course little advantage in these changes. Maybe the UK should indeed rethink the way buses are regulated. I wouldn’t say everything is better organised on the continent, but this seems a good example where this is the case.

Here where I live, the local government sets requirements and tenders all routes in an area. Then the operator with the best plan is selected. For this bus tender, it is a specific requirement to connect into as many trains as possible but if it is an operational headache, it isn’t needed. So my local bus route doesn’t connect into trains all day, but only in the morning for example. That way the route can be run with one bus all day.

 

[coppercapped]

From the preceding posts it seems to me that this 'MaaS' thing being discussed is only intended to make connections between different types of transport at railway stations. This addresses only a very small part of the total transport flows, those where the passenger's route from A to B happens to pass a node. I am prepared to bet that most journeys or trips made these days go nowhere near a railway station — and even if all the Beeching closures were reopened this would still be the case.

How does MaaS work if one wants to get from suburb to suburb, or village to town or village to village and the route goes nowhere near a railway station or 'Takt' hub? These are the concrete situations where public transport in whatever form always falls down - the flows are too small and too dispersed to be able to be concentrated into trunk flows amenable to being moved in economic numbers by bus, tram or train.

As has been mentioned, in many cases today the railway station is not located at the point where most people want to get to - think Cheltenham or Exeter St Davids where the station is not near the shopping centre. There are many, many other examples. People using the bus to go shopping would be annoyed if their journey was slowed by a detour via the railway station with a wait for connections in the name of 'integration'. However much money is spent over 90 years or whatever major stations will not be moved and neither will the shopping centres. Small scale improvements will make no significant difference to the percentage of people using public transport.

I don't comprehend why it is considered that using one 'app' for planning journeys is will increase the use of public transport. If the service frequency is high enough then planning connections is a waste of time, there will always have to be a minimum connection time to allow for perturbations in the service. Whether one waits for six or eight minutes is irrelevant, no 'app' will be be able to reduce it. What is more pertinent is that when the frequencies are lower - say two services per hour or less - the trains, buses or trams would ideally use the same service interval so making consistent connections. But this may mean that the frequency on some routes is too high for the traffic on offer - which is clearly a waste of resources and, in this day and age, energy.

As others have pointed out, in the urban world one can pay for buses, trams and trains using a bank card or Apple or Google Pay without missing a stride. I use my bus pass without needing an 'app'. What possible benefit can yet another 'app' offer? In any event people are quite used to using different tools for different purposes - I don't try to tighten a nut with a saw but look for a spanner and my smartphone has many 'apps' for different purposes. Most people can identify the one they need.

Anyway, the use of the word 'mobility' in this context gives me the heeby jeebies. The main meaning of 'Mobility' is 'the ability to move freely and easily' as in moving one's arms and legs without pain. What is being discussed here is 'Movement or Transport as a Service' - but calling it that would the same as saying that the Emperor has no clothes - because moving stuff for payment has always been a service.

 

[biko]

From the preceding posts it seems to me that this 'MaaS' thing being discussed is only intended to make connections between different types of transport at railway stations. This addresses only a very small part of the total transport flows, those where the passenger's route from A to B happens to pass a node. I am prepared to bet that most journeys or trips made these days go nowhere near a railway station — and even if all the Beeching closures were reopened this would still be the case.

How does MaaS work if one wants to get from suburb to suburb, or village to town or village to village and the route goes nowhere near a railway station or 'Takt' hub? These are the concrete situations where public transport in whatever form always falls down - the flows are too small and too dispersed to be able to be concentrated into trunk flows amenable to being moved in economic numbers by bus, tram or train.

As has been mentioned, in many cases today the railway station is not located at the point where most people want to get to - think Cheltenham or Exeter St Davids where the station is not near the shopping centre. There are many, many other examples. People using the bus to go shopping would be annoyed if their journey was slowed by a detour via the railway station with a wait for connections in the name of 'integration'. However much money is spent over 90 years or whatever major stations will not be moved and neither will the shopping centres. Small scale improvements will make no significant difference to the percentage of people using public transport.

I don't comprehend why it is considered that using one 'app' for planning journeys is will increase the use of public transport. If the service frequency is high enough then planning connections is a waste of time, there will always have to be a minimum connection time to allow for perturbations in the service. Whether one waits for six or eight minutes is irrelevant, no 'app' will be be able to reduce it. What is more pertinent is that when the frequencies are lower - say two services per hour or less - the trains, buses or trams would ideally use the same service interval so making consistent connections. But this may mean that the frequency on some routes is too high for the traffic on offer - which is clearly a waste of resources and, in this day and age, energy.

As others have pointed out, in the urban world one can pay for buses, trams and trains using a bank card or Apple or Google Pay without missing a stride. I use my bus pass without needing an 'app'. What possible benefit can yet another 'app' offer? In any event people are quite used to using different tools for different purposes - I don't try to tighten a nut with a saw but look for a spanner and my smartphone has many 'apps' for different purposes. Most people can identify the one they need.

Anyway, the use of the word 'mobility' in this context gives me the heeby jeebies. The main meaning of 'Mobility' is 'the ability to move freely and easily' as in moving one's arms and legs without pain. What is being discussed here is 'Movement or Transport as a Service' - but calling it that would the same as saying that the Emperor has no clothes - because moving stuff for payment has always been a service.

MaaS is explicitly not only about connections at railway stations, those are merely an example where the current UK public transport system has problems. MaaS is about providing a mobility solution which fits the journey in question. That can be a 'traditional' journey with bus and train, but also a shared car or scooter, or whatever other mode. So for suburb to suburb the MaaS journey planner would give a shared car as option with low travel time and public transport with a long travel time and a change. But whatever option you choose, you can pay for it in the app or on the website (but the app also just can state the fare and say 'pay by contactless'). And if you use a shared car, you can immediately reserve it. MaaS is thus about making travelling easy without needing to own a car.

The point of the posts about connections between bus and train is that one app/website/system with all options is nice and might increase use because people get to know new options and don't need to faff with 20 different websites. However, if the provided options are not very good, it will not have the full potential effect. By coordinating at least some connections, the public transport options become more attractive.

With respect to the name, it is called this way because the ultimate goal is about changing the ownership of vehicles and changing the mindset of people: from personal vehicles to seeing it just as a service. You get your app and arrange your travel with two clicks. But before we will get there, there quite a few steps need to be taken...

 

[Bletchleyite]

With respect to the name, it is called this way because the ultimate goal is about changing the ownership of vehicles and changing the mindset of people: from personal vehicles to seeing it just as a service. You get your app and arrange your travel with two clicks. But before we will get there, there quite a few steps need to be taken...

The most important one being making the modes actually join up properly. They mostly don't. Even the TfL bike hire scheme deliberately positioned hire stations away from railway stations to keep demand at a deliverable level.

A mobile app that tells you your journey that takes 2 hours and costs £30 in petrol by car, but takes 5 hours and £200 by public transport, is not going to sell the latter option. The basic, underlying system has to be there first, well before you create a mobile app that exists to tell people just how much of an embarrassment and a poor choice it is for their journey.

 

[RT4038]

The most important one being making the modes actually join up properly. They mostly don't. Even the TfL bike hire scheme deliberately positioned hire stations away from railway stations to keep demand at a deliverable level.

A mobile app that tells you your journey that takes 2 hours and costs £30 in petrol by car, but takes 5 hours and £200 by public transport, is not going to sell the latter option. The basic, underlying system has to be there first, well before you create a mobile app that exists to tell people just how much of an embarrassment and a poor choice it is for their journey.

I feel that an even greater danger, even with 'takt' connections and integrated fares, is that your journey takes 2 hours and costs £30 in petrol by car, 4 hours [because of walking to and from PT service point/indirect routeing/not every connection can be optimal] with 4 changes and £50 by public transport and 2 hours for £70 by taxi direct. If the taxi option is given alongside public transport, how many without access to a car would pay the extra for the taxi convenience (No changing and departure on demand) if given 'on a plate'? Quite a few for non-regular j(commuter) type journeys I suspect.

 

[HSTEd]

I know it is unpopular because it requires infrastructure on a large scale, but it seems unlikely that Swiss style connections will be feasible, too many routes and not enough platform space.

So we just have to drive frequencies as high as we can, so that maximum connection times are minimised.

Hence the coach every five minutes on all motorways thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know it is unpopular because it requires infrastructure on a large scale, but it seems unlikely that Swiss style connections will be feasible, too many routes and not enough platform space.

You can't quite deliver Swiss perfection, but you can get pretty close in a lot of cases, particularly if rather than considering all connections you consider the ones that people will make. Perhaps ironically, this requires reduced frequencies so we aren't stuck in a situation, like we are with the WCML, of "it has to be this way, forget connections, as it's the only way that will fit". More a post HS2 thing on the WCML perhaps?