Technological developments are usually accompanied by optimism. New systems would solve old problems without extra effort. A reflection on intelligent mobility learns that there is much potential for several crucial parties, however there is no such thing as a free lunch.
Key words: transportation providers, infrastructure managers, data providers, users, trust
Let’s have a dream. We enter the era of intelligent mobility. This means that mobility needs of travellers become the starting point for both mobility service provision and infrastructure improvements. In theory, we think this will work as a perpetuum mobile. Some call it a ‘democracy of doing’. Give it a name. We want it because we want it and because we want it, it will work.
Let us zoom in further on how this could work. Simplifying the actor complexity a little, we can distinguish four types of actors are in play: transportation providers (i.e. public transport operators, car sharing operators, etc.), infrastructure managers, service and/or data providers (i.e. mobile communication providers, ITS providers, city event organizers, tourist organizations, etc.) and end users of the mobility and information services (i.e., city residents and tourists). Intelligent mobility implies cooperation by all these four actor groups, as they incentivize each other to cooperate. We identified ten special incentives, special because they do not only stimulate behaviour that contributes to the platform but at the same time this behaviour brings new incentives for other actors to contribute also.
More use of travel advice and mobility services provides incentives to provide data to the platform. End users automatically provide data to the platform when using travel advice and mobility services. For some of these transactions permission is needed, either implicitly or explicitly. As a consequence, the incentives here are about both identity and interest.
More use of infrastructure provides incentives to provide data to the platform. Also infrastructure providers provide data and consider to give permissions.
An improvement of the quality of travel advice and mobility services provides incentives to provide data to the platform. The quality of travel advice and mobility services results in more (technical) possibilities to transfer data to the platform. Also end users and mobility service providers gain commitment to support the platform as a return of good service.
An improvement of the quality of infrastructure provides incentives to provide data to the platform. Also, infrastructure managers gain more insight in needs for infrastructure quality.
An increase of data provision to platforms provides incentives to improve the quality of travel advice and mobility services. The more data are provided to platforms, the more data can be processed, the more adequate the services may get. Furthermore, an increase of data legitimizes further investments in the data platform.
More use of travel advice and mobility services provides incentives to improve the quality of travel advice and mobility services. More use legitimizes (and sometimes even finances) new investments in services, which improves the quality.
More use of infrastructure provides incentives to improve the quality of infrastructure. The same holds for infrastructure use and quality.
An improvement of the quality of travel advice and mobility services provides incentives to use them.
An improvement of infrastructure provides incentives to use it.
An improvement of the quality of infrastructure provides incentives to improve the quality of travel advice and mobility services. Because infrastructure facilitates services, better infrastructures lowers the costs of service provision and makes further improvement of those services more attractive.
In the intelligent mobility data platforms under study, we see all actor groups – transportation providers, infrastructure managers, data providers, and users – feeding each other’s interests by committing to action. As such, the system has self-lifting mechanisms. Are we really creating a perpetuum mobile? Is this dream close to real? Dreams may turn into nightmares. The incentives show that the system depends on positive feedbacks. For example, does the user experience improvements of infrastructure and services and does the user relate this to his inputs? In other words, the potential to nurture each other may also suggest a potential for decay, if the values involved are going down instead of going up. This makes the system and its governance sensitive to change and hungry for trust.
This is where the metaphor of a perpetuum mobile might go astray. What if positive feedback lacks, for example because funding stops, people have to choose priorities, waiting is attractive or important entrepreneurs leave? There is some fuel needed to the relations that are crucial for intelligent mobility.