The platform can be developed, implemented and managed by various entities, both on the private side as well as on the pubic side. We have seen that choosing that entity very much drives the direction of operationalisation of the original goals. This is shown to have a very substantial impact. An ICT department drives it different from a mobility department, a public transport operator different from a traffic management department, a metropolitan authority different from a national and local authority.
Key words: policy goals
A platform like PETRA would be established to support the realization of policy goals, as the main funding and initiative lies with public entities. The demonstrators and the cases show that the link between these goals and the platform are more intricate than one would expect.
First, the goals that are set by government, for example as the official policy goals as posted in white papers, are generally high level. We see that what those goals eventually are depends highly on the entity within government that is implementing the platform. In the demonstrator in Venice, AVM, the local public transport operator, implements the platform. As a result, there is a focus on service of the waterbuses, related to and crowding in the old city center. In Haifa, the traffic control center plays a major role in implementing the platform, which could trigger a focus on flows of road traffic at traffic lights despite a broader policy focus on pedestrian safety. In Rome, the metropolitan transport agency implements the platform, triggering a broader focus, both on genera mobility as well as on dealing with the influx of travellers during the Jubilee.
In the cases we see similar mechanisms. In Lyon the ICT department plays an important role in realizing the platform. As a result, the implementation is relatively loosely related to policy goals in mobility, even though it is in fact a mobility platform. The focus is on providing mobility information to the outside world, with the expected result being a useful application of that data; useful from a public perspective, but in the broadest sense. In Arlington the implementation is done by a private entity for the various transport authorities in the region.
This aligns with understanding of policy processes and goal setting. Mobility goals at a metropolitan level are generally formulated at a high level. For an instrument to be developed those goals will have to be operationalized. That operationalization can and will change the focus of the goal setting. As this process is in the hand of the main implementer, they will put their stamp on it. This is further supported by the versatility of the platform, which allows implementation in many different ways.
As a result, the choice of the implementer and manager of such a platform is essential for those driving the purpose of the platform. For a focus on explicit general policy goals the implementation by a generic transport authority on metropolitan level seems best. When the goal is wide use of the information, not restricted by specificity of governmental goal setting on mobility, a ICT department makes sense as the implementer. For a focus on general informational support of choices of travellers, optimizing to their needs, an ICT department in one of the regional public entities seems to work best. This can work when individual traveller and government goals align, for example in battling congestion for faster and more reliable travel times. In that case, the governance model does not need to support collectivization and nudges of the traveller. Also, one of the cases showed how private parties can also integrate information for the goals of the traveller, as long as there is a business case.