Viability

This chapter explores the evidence, learning points and knowledge gaps from the MaaS pilots around the implementation of a MaaS solution covering a specific area within Scotland. These are early versions of an app with basic features which typically allow for feedback to be received from early customers to inform future product development. The key themes explored are Technical, Commercial, and Partnerships and Collaboration. In each case the topics are considered in turn through the lens of the evidence presented in the final reports provided for each pilot and findings from the consultation with MaaS leads and the engagement with transport operators and beneficiaries.

Technical

This section will cover the process of developing the MaaS apps and tools for use by users, and the level of functionality offered by the different platforms.

Outputs

The five MIF funded projects delivered five pilot MaaS apps and two websites. Out of the apps developed, three remain live and available for download, with the GetGo Dundee app and HITRANS’ Go-Hi no longer available for download. The apps represent bespoke implementations of three base platforms developed through the MIF. These platforms are provided by FleetonDemand (Go-Hi) and Ember Technologies (GetGo Dundee, and Tactran ENABLE (Loch Lomond National Park Journey Planner, My D&A Travel, Go NHS Tayside) were developed as separate platforms, with the GoSEStran app (incorporating the St Andrews MaaSterplan) sharing licences with the Tactran ENABLE platform).

All interfaces/apps contained journey planning functionalities, however only the Mobilleo platform, created by Fleetondemand (Go-Hi) had a full ‘plan-book-pay’ offer for account holders. Apps which used platforms created by Ember Technologies (Tactran ENABLE, GetGo Dundee, and GoSEStran) made use of existing mode aggregators to take booking and payment for taxi and train journeys but did not support payment for public bus journeys or Demand Responsive Transport (DRT) operators. Specifically the GoSEStran app used a pass out link to a separate app called PINGO for users to book and pay for a DRT trip. Apps provided real time passenger information for public transport where this information was already publicly available.

A brief overview of the functionality and modes hosted on each pilot app is described in Appendix B.

Evidence from Reports

App Development

Four out of the five pilot projects used apps produced by the same developer (Ember Technologies) with initial apps developed separately for GetGo Dundee and Tactran ENABLE, with the Tactran ENABLE platform being extended to the GoSEStran app. The reason for this was primarily time constraints and cost efficiency, however the St Andrews MaaSterplan pilot had a specific aim of scaling an existing MaaS app which allowed them to take advantage of already developed features. This demonstrated the benefits of scaling an existing app to save time and provided a cost-effective solution. As the GoSEStran pilot was placed third in results of the second round of bids, it received less funds than their original proposal, resulting in a revised project plan. Thus the GoSEStran pilot report specifically stated that ensuring cost and time saving was a necessity of the MIF due to the time and budget limitation of the pilot schemes.

The value of co-development of the app was demonstrated by the Making Connections Audit carried out by GoUpStream as part of app development for Tactran ENABLE. The audit tested the journey planning tools with twenty four people with disabilities and early onset dementia. This engagement found that device compatibility, design simplicity and easily understood functionality were vitally important for developing a user-friendly app. The GetGo Dundee pilot report - which did not co-develop – stated that the lack of early workshops and stakeholder engagement was a key limitation of their approach.

App Functionality

A key difficulty highlighted by all the pilots was the integration of booking and payment systems for the modes offered on the platform. This was due to technological limitations, with existing operators either having no capacity to undertake this or having pre-existing and well-established standalone booking and payment systems already in place. Those without capacity would have needed to make a significant investment, whereas those with pre-existing systems did not feel compelled to update or adapt these to accommodate a fully integrated MaaS app on a trial basis.

The Go-Hi, Tactran ENABLE and GoSEStran pilots, which did integrate booking and payment systems for at least some modes, used an API (Application Programming Interface) which allows for the sharing of information between parties. These pilots found that this was not a simple one-step process, and that ongoing updates were required on both sides in order keep the APIs fully integrated. Apps which used the Ember Technologies platform (Tactran ENABLE, GetGo Dundee, and GoSEStran) made use of existing mode aggregators to take booking and payment for taxi and train journeys, but did not support payment for public bus journeys or DRT (Demand Responsive Transport) operators. The GetGo Dundee app did not achieve the full plan-book-pay functionality and only displayed journey planning information, derived from Traveline Scotland data, with users required to book and pay for the journey outside of the platform. Traveline Scotland is a public-private partnership between transport operators, Transport Scotland and local authorities which provides a ‘one stop shop’ for all bus, rail, coach, air and ferry times in Scotland via a website and mobile app. It aims to provide clear and up-to-date information on all public transport services within Scotland.

GoSEStran and Tactran ENABLE pilots noted there may be little value integrating bus ticketing to a MaaS app, given the widespread use of National Entitlement Cards and contactless payments. This assertion was supported by user feedback which suggested that planning functionalities are more useful than being able to book or pay for a journey.

The pilot projects all developed apps which could collect data on travel patterns, however where apps did not include booking or payment functions for all modes, this was based on searched journeys. However, the extent to which any of the pilots managed to build in personalisation onto their platform was limited to the user selecting a few preferences once an account was created. This may have fallen below the expectation for the Tactran ENABLE and GetGo Dundee pilots which had specific objectives around personalisation. The GoSEStran and Tactran ENABLE pilots noted the difficulty of encouraging users to create accounts, meaning features such as carbon dashboards, targeted ‘nudge’ incentives and tailored journey planning were only delivered to users who had created accounts, therefore limiting the scope of these features to influence travel behaviour. GoSEStran speculated reasons for the lack of account creation could be that users were unaware of the additional benefits of registering, or activation emails being sent to junk or spam folders. The Go-Hi evaluation reports notes that they had recently started a partnership with BetterPoints which was still in early stages, and they recommend that MaaS provides greater personalisation through the use of user dashboards or incentives.

Engagement with MaaS Leads

The interviews with leads demonstrated that the pilot projects had provided opportunities for added value beyond the immediate objectives of the programme. Go-Hi suggested that the MIF provided an opportunity to learn lessons through real world application of MaaS, ahead of some others in the sector, UK-wide.

The collaborative nature of the trial group meant efficiencies were found by pilots sharing services and the same base platform. This suggests that the development of MaaS is more efficient at a larger scale, but that individual products can also be tailored. For example, GoSEStran opted to share the existing Tactran ENABLE base platform, for which the developers Ember Technologies and Fuse Mobility provided a shared licence. All three parties involved subsequently benefitted from shared improvements.

Delivery of the full MaaS concept (Planning-Booking-Paying) has been mixed, with an issue experienced by GetGo Dundee, Tactran ENABLE, GoSEStran and St Andrews MaaSterplan being the ability to integrate various ticketing and reservation systems, some of which are still evolving, preventing some MaaS pilots covering all the desired modes. There was also some evidence, including from Tactran ENABLE and GoSEStran, that greater use was made of the pilot apps for journey planning rather than ticketing.

In-app ticketing was a challenge to deliver across operators due to the capacity or willingness of different operators to integrate. There was also some evidence that user demand was low for this feature through Tactran ENABLE user surveys and GoSEStran focus groups. GetGo Dundee said that some operators may have been reluctant to engage with the pilots due to competing priorities and COVID-19 related uncertainties. This was also an issue encountered by MaaS pilots led by RTPs.

Go-Hi found that new mobility solutions such as bike hire were more able and willing to participate than bus, rail, ferry or DRT modes. In many cases their operations were built around the technology side, with St Andrews MaaSterplan describing MaaS as a catalyst for investment in new modes, whereas other modes such as DRT are focused on their own operation and came before the technology was in place. GoSEStran also noted that technical capability of some operators was a key barrier, specifically the lack of app-based payments for some bus operators.

By the end of the pilot 4,750 users had signed up for a Go-Hi account which was in line with target set out prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, data generated from the app for the purposes of planning and gaining insights had limited use, with outputs generated by the app not sufficiently detailed. GoSEStran noted that while the usership achieved by the trial limited the sample size, the origin-destination data delivered through the app highlighted opportunities to gain a better understanding of rural demand for travel as part of a wider roll out. The use of dashboard data is further discussed in the ‘Monitoring and Evaluation of Individual Pilots’ section of the Impacts chapter.

Engagement with Operators and Beneficiaries

Operators and beneficiaries observed several barriers to achieving full integration with regard to bookings and payments. Operators noted the importance of an app being laid out in a logical way, and to take users through the planning-booking-payment journey in the order they would expect.

Some beneficiaries felt let down by the app functionality and would have wished for additional features. For example, Loch Lomond and the Trossachs National Park (LLTNP) wished for journey itineraries to be part of the app alongside features which could prevent overcrowding in specific areas. Beneficiaries felt that personalisation should have featured more greatly and a lack of personalisation led to a less useful platform. An example would be for LLTNP, where it was suggested that planned journeys were limited by a generic distance/time limit for walking and it was felt that the app should have got to know the user’s preferences first. Those visiting the National Park may have a higher propensity for walking longer distances between connections; an appreciation of this by the app could have given rise to more bespoke and individualised mode selections.

Both the Go-Hi and Tactran ENABLE platform apps had limited functionality for in-app notifications, which reduced the viability of push messaging, thereby potentially limiting some of the potential for behaviour change though ‘nudge’ type notifications. However, this may not have been so important, as the Dundee and Angus College beneficiary noted that among students, the most requested feature was real time bus information while they did not value rewards/incentives.

Technical capabilities differ for different modes of transport. An example cited by operators was bus and ferries in the Go-Hi region which operate primarily as ‘cash on the day’ payment method and so were less able to process online payments.

RailEasy who were involved in the Tactran ENABLE pilot reflected that partners underestimated the complexities of integrating with rail services and ticketing due to the user interface requirements which are unique to rail including seat reservations and different ticket types.

Digital inclusiveness was also cited as a reason that the MaaS platform was not able to serve its target market (the hard to reach and socially disadvantaged groups). One DRT operator felt that some of their customers would struggle to use a phone app and, as an operator, they would require a backup option to take bookings to ensure full inclusivity for those without a phone or strong digital literacy.

Key Learning Points

From the evidence gathered, the following key learning points have been identified.

Three out of the five pilot projects (Tactran ENABLE, GoSEStran and St Andrews MaaSterplan) ended up using the same base platform, in this case ENABLE, to host their MaaS app. This demonstrated the benefits of scaling an existing platform and interface to save time and effort and showed the natural gravitation of the pilot projects to a cost-effective solution. Some pilots also stated that ensuring cost and time savings was a necessity of the MIF due to the time and budget limitation of the pilot schemes.

Engagement with disability organisations and other stakeholders found that issues such as device compatibility, design simplicity and easily understood functionality were vitally important in developing a user-friendly app. Pilots which did not co-develop felt that early workshops and stakeholder engagement should have been a part of the process.

Due to financial and technological limitations with some existing operators having pre-existing and well established standalone booking and payment systems already in place, some operators did not feel compelled to update or adapt these systems to accommodate a fully integrated MaaS app on a trial basis as developing an API takes time and expense for the operators. However, some operators developed a full API interface as a result of the pilot, which would now be available for other MaaS integrations. The MIF has therefore provided catalyst for action around data and integration.

Commercial

This section will discuss commercial aspects of the pilot projects, including the procurement, commercial model and marketing and promotion of the MaaS apps.

Evidence from Reports

The key players in the commercial model for MaaS across all the pilots were the MaaS provider, transport operators, contracted project managers and app developers.

Procurement

GetGo Dundee, Tactran ENABLE, GoSEStran and St Andrew MaaSterplan pilots all found the procurement of a mobile app a steep learning curve with specific considerations including requirements for data protection, security and intellectual property rights and aligning these between all involved parties. Additional information provided by SEStran noted that what was developed allowed the contract with the DRT tech provider to be concluded much more quickly than would have otherwise been the case. However, developing full, reuseable contract documentation initially took extra time and cost.

Commercial Model

The pilots were established as a publicly owned MaaS platform, hosting third party transport providers either through direct agreement with operators, presenting publicly available information, or hosting existing third-party aggregators/booking systems. The Tactran ENABLE interfaces involved different branding based on different public sector organisations who acted as ‘Service Leads’ and promoted the platform through their own channels, and only made financial contributions for specific features, such as carbon counters for the National Park Journey Planner.

The feasibility of a sustainable commercial model for MaaS is a knowledge gap as the pilots either operated a ‘not for profit’ model, or took commission from booking payments which was not significant enough to cover costs. The evaluation reports note a number of key barriers to the establishment of a viable commercial model to MaaS, including the number of competing apps available free of charge for the user. GetGo Dundee and Go-Hi also noted a perception that operators are unlikely to abandon their own established apps in favour of a MaaS platform.

Marketing and Promotion

All pilots invested in marketing the apps, and in some cases the introduction of new transport services, although the level of spending on marketing and the approaches used varied. The GoSEStran pilot included separate marketing streams for the MaaS app and a new DRT service launched as part of the pilot, while the St Andrews MaaSterplan pilot carried out separate marketing for the app and car club.

The MIF programme found evidence that the marketing activities undertaken as part of the pilots were effective, though small in scale. Marketing was more effective where it was well targeted at prospective users and delivered through trusted channels. This included promoting the app at public transport users or those about to change their travel patterns, such as new university students. The high profile of the LLTNP brand made marketing the app towards tourists more successful than other apps.

Several approaches to tailored marketing were trialled. The Go-Hi pilot used hyperlocal marketing, tied to a specific piece of infrastructure and tailored to the local context; in this case a concentrated marketing programme was linking to the opening of Inverness Airport Railway Station. Between the GoSEStran and St Andrews MaaSterplan pilots, the most effective methods were found to include posters at bus stops and direct communications from employers and universities, while the least effective marketing methods were printed adverts in local press, radio adverts and leaflet drops. Trusted channels were noted as important for delivering the marketing, which can include local authorities, universities and employers. GoSEStran and Tactran ENABLE recognised that Regional Transport Partnerships (RTPs) have low brand recognition which demonstrates the importance of developing deep partnerships with partners who can be useful in disseminating information about the platform. Partnering with specific organisations also helped to reach groups which would otherwise not be particularly captive to sustainable travel, as was the case with GetGo Dundee and Dundee United FC. However Tactran ENABLE raised concerns that relying on third parties for promotion risks competing priorities interrupting the marketing programmes for the MaaS app.

Evidence from the GetGo Dundee pilot showed that the offer of free bus travel did not lead to an uptake in users, with only 5% of respondents to their survey (no sample size recorded) stating that price was a major factor in their decision making. Similarly an offer for a £10 voucher for the St Andrews MaaSterplan car club was not redeemed by any users, despite being heavily promoted.

Despite the valuable learning gained from the marketing of MaaS platforms, the marketing methods most effective at generating user downloads of the MaaS app are by their nature quite bespoke and limited to a small audience. Pilots which conducted non-user surveys found that the large majority of non-users were unaware of the apps, indicating that the reach of a marketing campaign is potentially limited. Pilot projects which conducted market research activities such as co-design workshops felt these helped to build relationships with users and led to changes being made to the app in line with users’ needs and wants.

Engagement with MaaS Leads

The ambition of developing a MaaS minimum viable product and testing it within a short timescale highlighted some issues around the lack of capacity for delivering such a product. Interviews with GetGo Dundee, GoSestran and St Andrews MaaSterplan revealed that because the services required were new, there was a lack of experience among procurement colleagues to find a suitable contractual model. This, therefore, required intensive legal investment and understanding of data security, intellectual property and ownership requirements. It is not clear that a universal contractual model has been established that can be rolled out elsewhere, however, it can be said that the MIF programme has induced upskilling within local authority procurement to deal with digital solutions in future. In order to overcome some of the organisational challenges, such as limited capacity, MaaS leads stated that having a dedicated project manager was essential and app trials made use of an expert partner (FOD Mobility, Fuse Mobility or Urban Foresight).

Revenue generation of MaaS was identified as a challenge by Go-Hi and Tactran ENABLE, requiring either booking fees, or advertising. Advertising could make the interface more challenging and less inclusive – undermining the intended benefits of the app. Tactran ENABLE trialled the use of booking fees. However, where applied, they were perceived as a deterrent to use. In any case, it was understood that the small numbers attracted by the trial were far below the ‘critical mass’ of users required to generate any significant revenue base. As such, it was perceived that, in order to fulfil the social objectives of employing MaaS at a cost which was affordable to the user, MaaS would continue to require public funding at this time. However, it can be noted that other commercially driven products, such as Citymapper or Uber Transit, are now starting to extend into more mobility as a service areas, which may change this marketplace.

Marketing of the app was most effective when tailored toward a specific audience – e.g. Tactran ENABLE through Dundee and Angus College and NHS Tayside. St Andrews MaaSterplan described marketing as a critical component of MaaS, and as important as the interface or modes themselves. Go-Hi felt their marketing approach was too heavily ‘front loaded’ with intensive activity at app launch, but should have had a longer-term social media presence – “needs to be a constant effort to build over time”. They indicated that marketing should form at least 50% of the budget in order to be effective over time.

Engagement with Operators and Beneficiaries

There was limited expectation among operators that being part of a MaaS platform would deliver benefits in terms of additional patronage, though the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in which the pilots were delivered is noted. One operator suggested that MaaS is “a solution looking for a problem”. Since there was a recognition among some operators that MaaS is not a revenue generator at this time, there was also a reluctance to contribute towards a viable commercial model until it became beneficial for the operator to do so. For example, margins for some micromobility operators were noted to be low already without having to share revenue with a MaaS provider. Adding a fee to tickets sold on a MaaS app could also make the platform uncompetitive with what operators could offer directly, although many other platforms do use booking fees Some operators, however, did perceive clear benefits to a well-used, reliable MaaS app. Loganair (the domestic aviation operator) for example felt that MaaS provides a commercial opportunity for them to ‘join the dots’ of an air journey to the customers’ final destination, by providing onward travel options in a central place. Beneficiaries felt it was important for them to keep some control/ownership over the MaaS platform – data is one of the most valuable aspects of what a MaaS app can produce, along with ownership of the customer, and it would be disruptive to operators to not be in direct control of these.

Operators involved in the Go-Hi trial felt that marketing the app should have been considerably greater, and that in their view “all the funding went into app development”. DRT operators in the Go-Hi region noted the difficulty of effectively marketing their services, with poor public perceptions that the service is meant exclusively for older/socially disadvantaged people. Beneficiaries therefore supported a finding from the pilot self-evaluations that branding the app in a trusted and recognisable brand is beneficial and made marketing efforts more effective. It was noted that a public sector developed MaaS app may be one way a DRT and other locally delivered services could reach a wider audience, as these are often not included in commercially available journey planners.

The Digital DRT app supplier (Liftango) provided the back office that was used for the M-connect system in Moray as well as other DRT operations which are marketed under MOOVE Flexi by HITRANS. There was a risk of conflict between the development of the DRT app in Moray and the development of Go-Hi, with the DRT app in Moray successfully marketing and delivering its product in parallel to Go-Hi and both platforms offering similar services. The promotion of the DRT app was part of a multi-faceted approach to improving DRT services in Moray, including improvements to services and widespread marketing, resulting in increased uptake. There is a risk highlighted that users would be confused as to which app to use, if then directed towards Go-Hi.

Key Learning Points

From the evidence gathered, the following key learning points have been identified.

The pilot projects struggled to find a commercially viable model for MaaS to operate under with all pilots reliant on public funding to ensure the app’s continued upkeep. The number of competing apps, including those already available free of charge from transport operators and the private sector was noted as a barrier for establishing a viable commercial model for MaaS. Other factors in sustainability were identified by the pilots as including the costs of upkeep, the lack of potential income and the size of the market. Additional income sources for supporting MaaS could come from transport operators (who’s services could reach a wider audience through the app) or beneficiaries (who could pay to access the data generated by the app). The financial sustainability of MaaS is discussed later in the Sustainability and Scalability chapter.

Across all of the programmes, the pilots have highlighted a lack of experience in procuring the use of a mobile app. Legal consideration included requirements for data protection, security and intellectual property rights and aligning these between all involved parties. Bottoming out these legal considerations ate into the budget for developing and running apps and in some cases limited the ‘live time’ of the apps.

The experience from the pilots was that the most trusted channels for promoting MaaS included educational institutions, workplaces, the national park and local authorities. By contrast Regional Transport Partnerships have low brand recognition and would require much larger and more sustained marketing budgets.

All pilots recognised the importance of marketing in the deployment of a MaaS platform and felt this was as important as the app functionality and the modes themselves. The most effective marketing was well targeted to prospective users and potentially linked to a specific piece of infrastructure. By contrast large scale mass marketing such as newspaper and radio advertising was found to be less effective. However, well targeted marketing struggled to reach a wide enough audience to secure the commercial viability of MaaS.

Partnerships and Collaboration

Evidence from Reports

Transport Operators

A variety of modes were accommodated across the various pilots, including air, bus, rail, ferry , car club, eBike  bike hire and hotels. The success in integrating different operators was dependent on the capacity and willingness of those operators to engage.

• Large, established public transport operators were likely to have their own app already up and running and so perceived less value in integrating with a third party.
• Small public transport operators did not have the means, technology or capacity to integrate. Although some benefitted from the support afforded by being part of a MIF pilot, gaining access to digital platforms that otherwise would have been unachievable.
• ‘New mobility’ providers, focused on innovation such as micromobility and car sharing, were among the most willing (and able) to integrate, perhaps due to greater flexibility of more recently developed back-end systems to integrate and the potential to reach a wider audience.

In the case of Fuse Mobility (who managed the Tactran ENABLE and GoSEStran pilots) it is noted that they preferred to integrate with aggregated data, rather than deal with transport operators directly. In contrast, Go-Hi held monthly partners forums which included transport operators, however their report notes that MaaS must offer ‘added value’ for operators who are “not yet likely in the short-medium term to abandon their own apps and switch entirely to a MaaS platform instead” with some expressing “reluctance to share their customers” in interviews conducted by Go-Hi as part of their self-evaluation.

The GetGo Dundee pilot report stated that the after-effects of the COVID-19 pandemic may have been a factor in the poor levels of engagement and buy-in from operators with competing priorities at a time of great uncertainty in the industry.

None of the pilots were successful at integrating DRT booking and payment functions into the app or completed integration before the end of the pilot, despite this being a priority for GoSEStran and Go-Hi. In the case of GoSEStran this was due to compatibility difficulties between the software of Ember Technologies and the local DRT operator’s booking systems, known in the industry as the ‘data standard problem’. M.Connect and Moove-Flexi operate in the HITRANS area and have separate, stand-alone DRT apps that were procured with support from the Go-Hi budget under the MIF programme. ‘M.Connect’ in Moray and ‘Moove Flexi’ in Highland were being progressed for a phased integration into Go-Hi with phase 1 being a link with platform development for full integration being progressed by Mobilleo and Liftango. For GoSEStran and St Andrews MaaSterplan, taxi operators were integrated through a coverage area overlay with users signposted to a list of operators who could fulfil their journey, but required to book their journey directly with the operator.

For the Go-Hi and St Andrews MaaSterplan pilots, the range of modes offered on the app grew during the course of the pilot, allowing for the testing of functionality and showing proof to prospective operators that the platform worked and could benefit their users. The full range of modes offered is presented in Appendix B.

Other MaaS Projects and Pilots

All of the MaaS projects engaged with a third-party project manager who were expert in the field of MaaS (Urban Foresight, Fuse Mobility and Fleetondemand). These partnerships were largely successful and filled knowledge gaps of the MIF applicants.

Common across all Evaluation Reports was the value in forums and partnerships which have developed between MaaS providers and innovators which are effective at providing support and opportunities for knowledge sharing both within Scotland and internationally. The pilot projects had opportunities for joint working through Transport Scotland and MaaS Scotland facilitated workshops. An Integrated Mobility Partnership (IMP) has been formed between Tactran and SEStran and is seen by members as invaluable for the future delivery and knowledge sharing of MaaS in Scotland.

Local Stakeholders and Beneficiaries

The Tactran ENABLE and GoSEStran pilots involved partners such as health boards, colleges, user groups and local authorities early and developed the solution using a ‘bottom up’ approach which was found to result in more effective partnerships which could be utilised during marketing activities. For Tactran ENABLE, a monthly meeting was held between all partners to review the previous months usage data and plan for marketing activities. These meetings allowed for cross-fertilisation of ideas and collaborative problem solving. In contrast the St Andrew MaaSterplan pilot attempted to engage with stakeholders such as local tourism boards and business representatives retrospectively or as a ‘one-off’ consultation which was less successful at generating buy-in. The Go-Hi pilot reflected that a monthly partners forum which included transport operators would have “supported a collaboration that could deepen the sense of shared endeavour”.

Engagement with MaaS Leads

Through the MIF pilots, knowledge sharing relationships have been established. HITRANS mentioned collaboration with Transport for West Midlands (TfWM), Transport for Wales Masterminds group, Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), Portsmouth/Southampton Future Transport Zone (FTZs) Breeze and West of England Combined Authority (WECA). Tactran and SEStran formed the Integrated Mobility Partnership in Scotland (IMPs) in order to share learning and help understand what partners require from MaaS products. Wider exchanges were also developed via the annual MaaS Scotland conference and special interest group meetings. The creation of the Scottish Government’s MaaS investment Fund allowed Go-Hi to progress ahead of the UK Government’s Future Transport Zones (FTZs), many of which are still in the early stage of developing apps, in some respects and has shared lessons across the MaaS sector as a result. GetGo Dundee raised the challenge of maintaining forums and channels of communications in a context with high staff turnover at partner organisations, highlighting the importance of deep organisational relationships, rather than those focused on personnel.

The MaaS pilots used apps which were developed by two developers; Ember Technologies (GetGo Dundee and Tactran ENABLE (3 apps and two websites) as separate platforms, with GoSEStran and St Andrews MaaSterplan using the ENABLE platform) and Fleet on Demand’s Mobilleo system (Go-Hi). The ‘parent’ Apps provided a platform for smaller local schemes to be tailored and promoted, feeding into a larger and more comprehensive offer.

Partnership with Traveline Scotland was considered critical by Go-Hi, GoSEStran and St Andrews MaaSterplan in providing a key source of information for feeding public transport information into the app - The Digital Travel Data Services (DTDS) project, currently being developed by Transport Scotland, in partnership with Traveline Scotland and Trapeze Group (UK) Limited, will enhance this by building on the Traveline Scotland platform and improving real-time journey information availability, providing a single source of truth for public transport and travel information in Scotland.

Tactran ENABLE approached the larger bus companies, but found costs for integration were prohibitive, particularly for a short-term trial, thereby excluding smaller service providers. Across all discussions there was an appreciation that there is still work to be done to establish a standard way of working between operators and MaaS providers, especially in terms of booking and payment, with Go-Hi suggesting a level of distrust exists with third party booking apps among operators and users.

Engagement with Operators and Beneficiaries

Operators engaged during this study had mixed experiences of integrating with MaaS. Loganair did not integrate their booking and payment functions with the Go-Hi app as they already have their own app (instead Go-Hi relied on a Skyscanner API integration for air services). Developing APIs to integrate would be costly (reported at circa £5-10k) and it is only considered a ‘nice to have’ at the moment. A DRT operator in the Go-Hi area, who have their own app called M.Connect, was successful in generating user growth without integrating with Go-Hi, but had a contractual arrangement with HITRANS meaning that integration would be required.

A concern was raised by operators around who the lead party in the transaction for a journey is – customers need a single point of contact should something go wrong with their journey and a refund is required. This is a concern which has been raised by the DfT in their MaaS Code of Practice with recommendations for consumer protections including setting out points of contact for users upfront, highlighting when operators are being promoted owing to commercial arrangements and the processing of users data. A DRT operator in the Go-Hi region noted issues such as missed connections become more difficult to solve with a larger platform. Operators suggested that Service Level Agreements could therefore be introduced between the MaaS platform and transport operators.

LLTNP formed a mobility partnership with their three constituent RTPs, four Local Authorities as well as the Forestry and Land Commission with the aim of pooling resources and generating efficiencies in the future roll out of MaaS in the area. This partnership is still in its early stages with partnership managers and officers being recruited but has received enthusiastic support from the Strathclyde Partnership for Transport RTP.

Key Learning Points

From the evidence gathered, the following key learning points have been identified.

As a result of MIF, there are now established forums and partnerships developed between MaaS providers and innovators which is effective at providing support and opportunities for knowledge sharing both within Scotland and internationally. The pilot projects had opportunities for joint working through Transport Scotland facilitated workshops. The IMP which formed as a result of the pilot programme is seen by members as invaluable for the future delivery of MaaS in Scotland.

Partnerships should be made early in the process of implementing MaaS to generate deep organisational buy-in, rather than relying on links to key personnel. Involving partners early and developing the solution in a ‘bottom up’ approach was found to result in more effective partnerships which could be utilised during marketing activities.

A key learning point which has emerged is the concerns around consumer protection, operators specifically raised concerns about who the lead party is in a transaction, and how the consumer can provide feedback on their journey, claim for compensation or request refunds.