Mobility platforms can be distinguished based on the affiliation of the stakeholder(s) that has(have) the initiative to create and fund the platform – public or private sector actors. This is a simplified representation of reality and more nuanced cases exist that may not entirely fit the description, however identifying the main characteristics in these two models may help decision-makers on the development of new platforms.
Key words: public and private initiative platforms, hybrid models
Existing urban mobility platforms include examples of both publicly and privately developed projects. This division refers to the affiliation of the stakeholder(s) that has(have) the initiative to create and fund the platform – public or private sector actors. Based on this dichotomy, and to support decision-makers interested in advancing similar activities in their jurisdictions, it is possible to propose a general and simplified vision of existing platforms to help identify major characteristics of public and private projects.
The main goal of public sector initiated platforms that were researched is normally to provide users with general access to information on mobility options, especially public transport alternatives. Connected to access to information, they add value by allowing time saving choices. Therefore, travellers are mostly seen as customers that have in the public sector their service provider: users receive products such as route planning, timetables of public transport operators, news on traffic disruptions etc. There is mostly an individual focus, i.e., users have to be able to optimize their mobility choices according to their individual preferences. In very few cases there is also a concern in promoting behaviours that produce collective gains. Amongst others, Public Transport Victoria in Melbourne, Reittiopass in Helsinki, and Plan a Journey in London are examples here.
Privately initiated platforms in urban mobility tend to focus on the users’ convenience and comfort as the main values. As with public platforms, individuals are seen as clients that will have in the platforms a service provider, however in private platforms the products are contracted in exchange for service fees. The mobility services that are offered tend to be ‘auxiliary’ as they do not necessarily involve trip planning or general information, but involve mobility packages including, for instance, access to trips in different modes for a fixed price (the Finish project MAAS) or private (temporary) driver (e.g. Uber and Lyft). Again the individual focus is prominent, nonetheless there is an attempt for personalization in the provision of services, rather than elaborating products for a general public.
The comparison above highlights a few relevant aspects. The first of them involves funding. Public funds are used when the initiative is public, whereas users fees are expected to fund private platforms. Is there a right or at least better strategy? It is important to assess the potential risks for the continuity of the project when it relies in each of these options: public funds may dry due to changes in political preferences, political leaders may not be interested in supporting the platform, or the end of a grant. Private funds on the other hand also carry risks – the business model adopted may not be successful. The trends pointed above indicate a rationale in current arrangements: it is generally accepted and expected that ‘core’ mobility information – traffic, public transport options etc. – must be provided by public authorities, while private companies take care of ‘auxiliary’ services that involve more sophisticated or ‘non-essential’ tasks.
Second, and as pointed out in the specific column on this topic, user involvement in the development of these platforms is limited in both cases. Individuals are essentially customers – either of information to save time on their trips or to find their way in journeys they are not familiar with in the case of publicly initiated platforms, or of accessory services to enhance convenience and comfort in their mobility options in the case of private platforms. This is not right or wrong per se, but it probably denotes that the strategy to centralize decision-making in design of platforms is easier. On the other hand it may bring difficulties later on in connection to acceptance of the platform. Optimod in Lyon is an example of a very nicely developed technical solution, but at least so far it is not a widely used tool as the number of website accesses and app downloads are not high.
The dichotomy presented is a simplification of real cases to help the understanding of reality. A grey zone exists in many dimensions and several ‘hybrid models’ can be found: VSS in Stuttgart region is owned and governed by both public authorities and private operators. 9292 in the Netherlands was created by private operators and focuses exclusively on information on public transport alternatives. CarFreeAtoZ in Washington DC is a publicly initiated platform designed as a tool of transport demand management envisaging collective gains. Google Maps offers ‘core’ mobility information services, like route planning and timetables. Additionally, although private, it does not rely on user fees and in many occasions the information used comes from public authorities (through agreements). Waze suggests the route to avoid traffic based on information generated by the community of users and also from public authorities. It does not charge fees.