The Future of Urban and Regional
Mobility

1. Introduction
The American dream throughout the 20th century was commonly depicted as moving
out to the suburbs with a white picket fence and a car (usually a Ford) in the garage.
Over the decades, this dream expanded to a larger home and a three-car garage to
house cars for both parents and one for children of driving age.
The dream was birthed in the US, and created a contagion in cities and countries
around the globe. As our global population grew and our cities sprawled, the original
American dream increasingly started looking more and more like a nightmare. Jane
Jacobs of course poignantly and convincingly demonstrated how America’s fascination
with the personal automobile contributed to the decay of culture and quality of life in
cities.
Municipal, regional and national governments have spent trillions of dollars to build
and maintain highway infrastructure (and major utility connections) to the growing
suburban masses. Traffic congestion costs more than $300 billion (USD) to the US
economy annually1 and reduces quality of life. Emissions from transportation in the EU
represent 25% of total GHG emissions in the region2. Furthermore, the car-dependent
suburban life has exacerbated obesity while air contamination (much of which comes
from transportation) leads to more than 5 million deaths worldwide on an annual
basis3.
Urbanists, transportation professionals and the entire automobile industry have
converged on these challenges and begun exploring how new technologies and new
business models can adapt to the changing mobility requirements of the 21st century.
1. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/02/traffics-mind-boggling-economic-toll/552488/
2. https://www.vcd.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Redaktion/Themen/Auto_Umwelt/CO2-
Grenzwert/2018_04_CO2_emissions_cars_The_facts_report_final.pdf
3. https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35568249

At many mobility conferences I attend, autonomous vehicles and urban
air mobility are all the rage. Yet, some researchers have recently
challenged these assumptions demonstrating that the proliferation of
autonomous vehicles could actually result in increased congestion in
our cities. Yet, if implemented correctly, autonomous vehicles pose
the potential to increase the efficiency of passenger vehicle
movement, especially if we focus more on shared autonomous vehicles
and autonomous public transit options, perhaps those that can enable
liquid routing based on real-time demand.
1.1 Autonomous Vehicles and Urban Air Mobility: Are
they part of a more sustainable future mobility
scenario?
Urban air mobility, such as drones for delivery and helicopter taxis,
may sound like science fiction but are actually already being tested in
cities like Dubai today. We at iomob are big advocates for innovation
and technology (note: we were founded by three PhDs, one in
entrepreneurship and two others in Computer Science), we are not
enamored with the prospects of urban air mobility to bypass the
congested contaminating streets we travel on today. On the contrary,
we are very concerned about this development.
While there are legitimate use cases for urban air mobility (e.g.
delivering aid to people who have been cut-off from accessing essential
services after a hurricane or earthquake), as a general rule our view is
that we as a global community, have collectively been unable to fix our
ground level problems with better urban planning and infrastructure,
better regulatory practices to encourage more sustainable mobility
patterns (pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, increased spending on
public transit, etc.) and a faster evolution of our culture from car
dependence towards a more wholistic approach to mobility. It is
precisely our failure to fix ground-level infrastructure and behavior
that has given rise to the growing demand for urban air mobility.
Unfortunately, this pattern of exploiting local resources and moving on
to exploit others has been a feature of the human species.

Instead of looking to contaminate and pollute our urban skies, at
iomob we believe the solution lies in fixing our ground-level
problems, not abandoning the in ways that require those with less
resources continue to suffer from the congestion and pollution while
those with enough resources just pay to have goods flown by drone to
their house and hire flying air taxis.
1.1 Autonomous Vehicles and Urban Air Mobility: Are
they part of a more sustainable future mobility
scenario?
In conclusion, emerging technological innovations such as autonomous
vehicles and urban air mobility, may in some cases solve real use
cases, for the most part, we believe the future of urban mobility will
not be driven by these technologies. Instead, we believe the future
of urban and regional mobility, will be multi-modal, customized and
digitized in ways that enable open collaboration and competition
amongst all legal and shared mobility service providers (MSPs).
2.Current Mobility Marketplace
In recent years we have witnessed a massive explosion of new private and
public shared mobility services. Bikesharing, carsharing, carpooling,
skooter sharing, ridehailing, electric charger sharing, parking sharing and
more have been introduced in our cities in just the past decade. In
Barcelona alone, there are more than 50 known shared mobility operators.
While increasing the diversity of mobility services available to residents
and visitors is a good thing, not all mobility services have positive impacts
on the mobility experience or the ecological impacts of the mobility
ecosystem.

2.1 Shared Mobility Business Models for Sustainability
In 2014, Boyd Cohen and Jan Kietzmann published a peer-reviewed article examining
how 12 different shared mobility business models differentially impact urban
sustainability and citizen value4. Leveraging four criteria from the concept of business
models for sustainability (BMfS), they concluded that the most optimal business models
in shared mobility to achieve sustainability outcomes are those that blend public and
private approaches. In recent years we have certainly witnessed major concerns
regarding technology-driven, venture capital-backed mobility companies who have
entered cities with more monopolistic as opposed to cooperative based approaches to
shared mobility.
4. Cohen, Boyd, and Jan Kietzmann. "Ride on! Mobility business models for the sharing economy." Organization &
Environment27.3 (2014): 279-296.

2.2 Unregulated Private Mobility Service
Providers
At iomob, we believe that cities need to embrace experimentation and to liberally
apply the concept of sandboxes where such experimentations can take place while
regulators can catch up to the pace of innovation and to understand on a small scale
the implications of new mobility solutions. Yet, at some point, regulation is needed to
ensure private MSPs operate in ways (and their customers behave correctly too). The
rapid escalation of dockless bikesharing services is a great example. The potential for
dockless bikesharing to be a vibrant part of the mobility mix is strong. Instead of being
reliant on fixed stations that are costly and never ubiquitous enough for the demanding
requirements of mobility users, dockless bikesharing allows point-to-point mobility.
The problem is, left unregulated, dockless bikesharing systems in cities can quickly
lead to a significant cluttering of public space.
2.3 Fragmented Web 2.0 Mobility Marketplace
and the rise of MaaS
In recent years the boom in mobility options for citizens has been unprecedented. The
combination of insufficient supply of public transit, the rapid evolution of ICT and the
growing ubiquity of smart phones have supported the introduction of a host of new
mobility services. Most cities today contain dozens of shared mobility startups all
competing with each other and with other more established players (public transit,
traditional taxi services, etc).
Yet, the increase of supply of services has not achieved the efficiencies and
improvement that could be possible. Each of the existing services operate in their own
silos, with their own tech stack, their own app and their own closed user bases
(network effects). The inefficiency of this fragmented marketplace, and the inability
to enable multimodal routing of different services to achieve increased efficiency has
given rise to a revolutionary new mobility business model, Mobility as a Service.

Just as in numerous other industries such as software as a service (SaaS) or even
Flooring as a Service (FaaS), the concept of MaaS is to shift mobility user behavior from
owning all of the mobility devices they thought they needed (e.g. cars, scooters,
bikes), and instead enable the users access to a suite of mobility services on demand.
At iomob, we believe the current MaaS market has evolved over three steps. Step 1
was Single provider MaaS. Single provider MaaS occurs when one company offers access
to different mobility devices via a service offering. Toyota, for example, offering a Car
as a Service (CaaS) model, whereby a customer could have access to different vehicles
in their fleet for different needs. Small urban vehicle for the Monday to Friday
commute, while getting a weekend SUV for taking the family to the mountains. Rather
than buying and maintaining multiple vehicles, a CaaS customer can pay a monthly
service fee to have access to cars on demand.
Step 2 is single provider, multimodal MaaS. This is most commonly exemplified by
public transit authorities who offer all their different modes of services (bus, metro,
commuter trains, public bikeshare) in either a pay as a you go model (by journey and
intermodal) or a monthly package where subscribers can have unlimited (or in some
cases there are light, medium and heavy use packages) access to all the modes of
public transit with one fare card. We area also starting to see some private ridehailing
companies getting into a Step 2 version of MaaS whereby they acquire or invest in
alternative modes of shared mobility such as bikesharing or electric scooter sharing,
and offer a MaaS type intermodal service to their customers. Some of these initiatives
are now starting to introduce APIs to public transit data as well.
2.3 Fragmented Web 2.0 Mobility Marketplace
and the rise of MaaS

This leads to Step 3 MaaS which today is still seen by many as the vanguard. Step 3
MaaS is multi-provider and multimodal. In Step 3 MaaS, pioneered by Whim Global of
Helsinki, a range of mobility services are packaged in for subscribers who can also pay
as the go or for a range of monthly package options depending on projected use. The
Step 3 MaaS has introduced a transformative solution to the fragmentation problem
still plaguing most urban mobility ecosystems. By packaging in taxi/ridehailing,
bikesharing, carsharing and scooter sharing with public transit, MaaS mobility
aggregators are enabling a level of efficiency not previously possible. Subscribers to
Step 3 MaaS can receive more seamless access to a range of public and private mobility
services and even get multimodal routing options. As Susan Shaheen, a Professor at UC
Berkeley and arguably the world’s most renowned expert on shared mobility, shared
with iomob in her capacity as advisor, is that for MaaS to work, it must enable
multimodal routing, booking and integrated payment for it to serve as a seamless end
user experience and to disrupt the current fragmented marketplace.
While we at iomob embrace the innovators and the innovation that has come from the
Step 3 MaaS aggregators, we believe there is another level of advancement in MaaS for
it to truly serve the masses around the globe in a seamless and interconnected way.
And we are not alone.
2.3 Fragmented Web 2.0 Mobility Marketplace
and the rise of MaaS
Seleta Reynolds,
Los Angeles Department of Transportation
When you’re talking about a mobility operating
system, I believe strongly that we need a Linux
version. It must be open. It must be done by
cities and for cities in order for it to be broadly
adopted and used.

4. The Future Of Urban &
Regional Mobility
Step 4 moves from MaaS to what we refer to as the Internet of Mobility (IoM). While
step 3 MaaS has introduced some significant improvements in urban mobility
ecosystems, it also has many significant shortcomings, which could be overcome
through the creation of an open-source, decentralized mobility aggregation
marketplace (IoM).

4.1 Step 3 MaaS compared to the Internet of Mobility
Closed software versus open software
Most Step 3 MaaS aggregators are either developing their own software and end-user
application or licensing software from 3rd parties. While this allows the MaaS
aggregator more control, it erects a barrier to global innovation and interoperability of
MaaS systems and for end users. Today with a Step 3 MaaS, the only way a subscriber in
one city may be able to gain some benefits when they travel to other cities with Step 3
MaaS aggregators is if the city they are traveling to happens to have a MaaS service
offered by the same aggregator in both cities.

4.1 Step 3 MaaS compared to the Internet of Mobility
Closed networks versus open networks
Most current MaaS operators negotiate discounts and partnerships with one (often the
largest) operator of each mode of transit in that city. The largest taxi service, the
largest bikeshare service, the largest scooter sharing and carsharing services, and pair
them with public transit. While this is a significant improvement over the fragmented
marketplace of today it is seriously deficient. This is because, how likely is it that the
largest provider is always the best provider for that end user in that moment in that
location?
Also this closed model kills innovation by benefitting the largest operators and erecting
barriers (even worse than in the fragmented model) to adoption of growth of new
mobility startups. A fully open, Internet of Mobility could even allow a startup or even
single independent licensed provider to be discoverable by any end user when their
vehicles are the best fit for that user based on their preferences, location and
destination.
Finally, open models can support an open network effect, whereby all MSPs, public or
private, large or small, can compete and collaborate on a more level playing field. If
all providers can have access to all end users in the system when their particularly
service is the best for that user, the system as a whole will have increased efficiency.
This does not have to lead to detrimental effects for larger players. Larger MSPs still
have more frequency and availability of service and in this open model, will still be
more likely than small players to be the best fit for a particular user. Furthermore, the
open model allows large players to help optimize fleet utilization by tapping into the
unmet demand from smaller providers who agree, through smart contracts, to offload
demand from their own users for a fee (see below).
Finally, open models can support an open network effect, whereby all MSPs, public or
private, large or small, can compete and collaborate on a more level playing field. If
all providers can have access to all end users in the system when their particularly
service is the best for that user, the system as a whole will have increased efficiency.
This does not have to lead to detrimental effects for larger players. Larger MSPs still
have more frequency and availability of service and in this open model, will still be
more likely than small players to be the best fit for a particular user. Furthermore, the
open model allows large players to help optimize fleet utilization by tapping into the
unmet demand from smaller providers who agree, through smart contracts, to offload
demand from their own users for a fee (see below).

4.1 Step 3 MaaS compared to the Internet of Mobility
Trust and Negotiations versus an open
“trustless” network
In Step 3 MaaS, the aggregators enter into contractual arrangements with each
provider, often promising them exclusivity on their mode of transit (i.e. you will be the
only ridehailing service offer3ed to our users). This requires building trust and
relationships with a range of providers to enable the aggregator to create a complete
package of multimodal services. In an Internet of Mobility model, blockchain-based
smart contracts allow a trustless network to emerge. Instead of a MaaS aggregator
having to negotiate contracts with each provider, including revenue sharing
arrangements amongst the different providers, MSPs in iomob will be able to establish
their terms and compete on an open market through a digital agreement that sets out
the providers terms under different conditions.
For example, a scooter sharing startup wishes to launch in a new city with 2,000
vehicles, and realizes that there will be many instances when their new users may not
find an available scooter near them. The startup, let’s call them iScoot could establish
a smart contract that states that in the event that one of iScoot’s users opens the app
and is unable to locate an iScoot within a 6 minute walk of their current location (or
whatever the time iScoot believes is the trigger for abandoning their service), the user
could have other mobility options exposed to them, even through their own iScoot app.
The smart contract would dictate the terms iScoot is prepared to apply for offloading
demand, that is to say, for allowing another MSP to offer an alternative service to the
iScoot user. Why would iScoot do this? For 2 reasons. Firstly, because iScoot customers
will cease to use the app permanently if they find on numerous occasions that it can
not satisfy their need. iScoot risks losing a customer for life if they do not enable
offloading demand. Secondly, because iScoot can monetize a customer it can´t service.
For example it could state in a smart contract that any provider who discovers a user
through their app, and executes a service for that user, owes iScoot 50 cents.

4.1 Step 3 MaaS compared to the Internet of Mobility
In Step 3 MaaS, the aggregator is not always required to share the data on mobility
usage and patterns in the system with public transit operators, private operators and
third parties who would like access to that data (research institutes, universities, think
tanks, citizens, etc). Even if the MaaS aggregator is legally required or voluntarily
decides to make some data open they can selectively choose in many cases what data
is shared with whom. And furthermore the data from the MaaS aggregator, even if
offered in its entirety, does not give a complete picture of mobility patterns, problems,
and usage in an urban area because the aggregator only has data for the providers it
has negotiated relationships with. In iomob, all legal providers who wish to be
connected will be connected and over time, this could yield a complete picture of the
mobility ecosystem. This data must made available to all stakeholders who wish to
access it (either for a fee or possibly as an open data commons).
Closed data on a closed system versus open data
from an open system

Features of the open, shared
mobility future
There are several fundamental features we at iomob believe are required to enable the
mobility future public transit authorities, private MSPs and citizens seek.
01
Open data commons/marketplace-As stated above, key stakeholders must
have access to aggregate, but anonymized, data about mobility patterns in
cities. This data will be incredibly valuable for identifying gaps in mobility
services, opportunities for new startups or the expansion of public transit or
established private MSPs and much more.
02
API standards for open mobility-For the internet of mobility to function,
public and private MSPs must support open APIs so that third party
aggregators can have easy access to include their services in open models.
This of course also contributes to better data as more MSPs are connected.
Creating and committing to an open API standard increases the likelihood of
local, regional and global adoption.
03
Regulatory requirement for MSPs to have open APIs. At iomob we believe
municipal and national authorities may need to compel private MSPs to open
their APIs in order to have a license to operate in their jurisdiction. Finland
was one of the first countries to develop regulation towards this end.
04
Regional, national and global interoperability and interconnectivity. In the
future, we envision any mobility user who has signed up to any app that is
connected to the open iomob protocol will be able to port their identiy,
payment and mobility preferences to any city they travel to that is also
operating on the protocol. Furthermore, this open IoM model more easily
accommodates regional and intercity travel solutions into different types of
MaaS solutions. Traditional Step 3 MaaS aggregators have little incentive to
incorporate intercity modes like carpooling, trains and intercity buses as the
demand for those is too diverse to manage in a monthly service package
model.

05
IoT Infrastructure. Support for the Internet of Things (IoT) will of course
improve an open mobility ecosystem to flourish better as the precise real
time location of vehicles and mobility users enhances efficiency. Also, IoT
solutions can enhance our understanding of real time disruptions or even help
predict or identify trends in mobility service disruption or demand throughout
different temporal moments. We also believe IoT and related technologies
may enable the emergence of new services, such as liquid bus routes, driven
by transparent access to supply and demand in real time.
06
Physical infrastructure. While this topic has less to do directly with the
internet of mobility we believe the future of mobility in cities will require a
rethink of the infrastructure offered to citizens and MSPs. For example the
rapid introduction of new motorized personal mobility devices like electric
scooters and bikes needs to be considered. Should these devices not only be
regulated to a certain number in a city as many are doing, but perhaps our
dedicated non-vehicle infrastructure needs to expand at the expense of
dedicated vehicle infrastructure. We envision there may be need in cities to
have dedicated pedestrian, dedicated non-motorized lanes for things like
bikes and skateboards, and dedicated lanes for personal motorized devices.
Otherwise we will see not only increasing conflicts between different modes
but also accidents between users of these different modes.
Similarly, we believe cities may need to reexamine not just licensing of
number of vehicles per mode or provider but also explore new parking
models. For instance, could cities allocate space for a diverse range of
shared mobility services from carsharing to electric bike and scooter sharing,
and strategically locate these facilities near main public transit nodes?
Shared infrastructure for shared mobility in this way could increase the
intermodal connectivity and use of public and private mobility services and
also create more order in cities where services like dockless bikes pose a
threat to pedestrian comfort and visual challenges.
07
Accessbiility. Current Step 3 MaaS operators have paid insufficient attention
to accessibility of services for the disabled. At iomob we believe this can and
must be rectified through improved APIs with additional layers of data for
different impairments and possibly even new dedicated MSPs (some already
exist) just focused on this segment of the population. A startup in the UK,
CityMaaS, is planning to be one of the first MaaS aggregators to connect to
the iomob protocol specifically to offer a highly innovative MaaS solution for
the disabled called CityMaaS Assist.

This leads to a final note on compatibility of Step 3 MaaS in iomob. Iomob is building
the infrastructure for an open, decentralized mobility aggregation platform. This
means that any legal mobility company or aggregator will be able to build solutions on
top of iomob. Iomob by itself is not an MSP or a MaaS aggregator. Instead iomob is
building the plumbing for a new Web 3.0 urban and regional mobility ecosystem to
flourish. Iomob expects operators, even established ones like Whim, to explore
plugging into iomob while new operators focused on more open and decentralized
ones, such as CityMaaS, and Senta Mobility (a joint venture between Centrality and
iomob) will also introduce aggregation models leveraging the iomob protocol.
The past decade has seen significant innovations in the mobility marketplace including
new open and integrated ticketing in public transit, autonomous vehicles, the
introduction of massive global ridehailing services and the emergence of thousands of
shared mobility services and startups. MaaS solutions have allowes us to reimagine a
new mobility landscape where users can have seamless access to intermodal routing,
booking and payment of public and private mobility solutions. The next wave of
mobility innovation will be open and decentralized.
By Boyd Cohen,
Ph.D. Dean of Research, EADA Business School and CEO, iomob