In this paper we focus on the development of a new service model for accessing transport, namely Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and present one of the first critical analyses of the rhetoric surrounding the concept. One central assumption of one prevalent MaaS conceptualization is that transport services are bundled into service packages for monthly payment, as in the telecommunication or media service sectors. Various other forms of MaaS are being developed but all tend to offer door-to-door multi-modal mobility services, brokered via digital platforms connecting users and service operators. By drawing on literature concerned with socio-technical transitions, we address two multi-layered questions. First, to what extent can the MaaS promises (to citizens and cities) be delivered, and what are the unanticipated societal implications that could arise from a wholesale adoption of MaaS in relation to key issues such as wellbeing, emissions and social inclusion? Second, what are de facto challenges for urban governance if the packaged services model of MaaS is widely adopted, and what are the recommended responses? To address these questions, we begin by considering the evolution of intelligent transport systems that underpin the current vision of MaaS and highlight how the new business model could provide a mechanism to make MaaS truly disruptive. We then identify a set of plausible unanticipated societal effects that have implications for urban planning and transport governance. This is followed by a critical assessment of the persuasive rhetoric around MaaS that makes grand promises about efficiency, choice and freedom. Our conclusion is that the range of possible unanticipated consequences carries risks that require public intervention (i.e. steering) for reasons of both efficiency and equity.

Introduction: Hyperloop (HL) is presented as an efficient alternative of HSR (High Speed Rail) and APT (Air Passenger Transport) systems for long-distance passenger transport. This paper explores the performances of HL and compares these performances to HSR and APT. Methods: The following performances of the HL system are analytically modeled and compared to HSR and APT: (i) operational performance; (ii) financial performance; (iii) social/environmental performance. Results: The main operational result is that the capacity of HL is low which implies a low utilization of the infrastructure. Because the infrastructure costs dominate the total costs, the costs per passenger km are high compared to those for HSR and APT. The HL performs very well regarding the social/environmental aspects because of low energy use, no GHG emissions and hardly any noise. The safety performance needs further consideration. Conclusions: The HL system is promising for relieving the environmental pressure of long-distance travelling, but has disadvantages regarding the operational and financial performances.

Milakis et al. (2015b) explored the acceptable travel time concept as a possible factor in the travel and destination decision-making process. These researchers employed both theory and methods triangulation to assess the validity of this concept. Results from interviews with 20 subjects in Berkeley, CA supported the acceptable travel time concept. In this paper, the US study is replicated in Europe (Delft, The Netherlands) to further explore the validity of the acceptable travel time concept, compare results between Delft and Berkeley, and to identify possible factors influencing the acceptable travel time. Results of this study offer support for the validity of the acceptable travel time concept. The subjects in Delft appeared to be less satisfied with longer commute times than the subjects in Berkeley. Urban, transport as well as sociocultural factors might explain this variation in acceptable travel times.

In this paper, possible accessibility impacts of fully automated vehicles (AVs) are explored. A conceptual framework for those impacts is developed based on the model of four accessibility components (i.e. land use, transport, temporal and individual) of Geurs and van Wee (2004). Q-method is applied among a sample of seventeen international accessibility experts to explore heterogeneity among experts with respect to the impacts of AVs on accessibility, and study different views and clusters of experts. Q-method statements are deductively categorized according to four accessibility components of the conceptual framework. Three viewpoints were extracted, indicating that experts expect AVs to influence accessibility through all four accessibility components. Viewpoint A expects that accessibility benefits stemming from AVs will be highly uncertain, mainly because of induced travel demand that will likely cancel out travel time and cost savings of AVs in the long term. Viewpoint B anticipates that accessibility changes because of AVs will have two opposing implications for urban form: densification of city center and further urban sprawl. Finally, viewpoint C expects that those who can afford an AV will mainly enjoy AVs benefits, thus AVs will have more negative than positive implications for social equity.

In this study, the possible causal links between the built environment, travel attitudes and travel behaviour of people that have moved between totally different urban and transportation contexts were investigated. A quasi-longitudinal design was developed to collect data about the perceived neighbourhood characteristics, neighbourhood preferences, travel attitudes and changes in car, walking and bicycle usage of 51 Greeks who relocated from the US to Greece. Variable reduction techniques were applied prior to developing our models because of the small sample size. The results of this study offer support for a causal relationship between the built environment and travel behaviour identified in the existing literature. For instance, longer travel time to city center was associated with higher car use, higher density neighbourhoods and increased accessibility to local amenities were associated with increased bike use and better access to a district shopping center was associated with more walking after relocation. Our results also showed that in contexts like Greece, where transport infrastructures are not adequately developed, lack of safe bike conditions and easy access to public transportation are important determinants of bicycle use and walking. Thus, according to our results, promoting sustainable mobility in contexts like Greece would require not only enhancing accessibility through relocation of activities, but also by improving infrastructures for public transport, bicycle and walking.

Accessibility concepts are increasingly acknowledged as fundamental to understand cities and urban regions. Accordingly, accessibility instruments have been recognised as valuable support tools for land-use and transport planning. However, despite the relatively large number of instruments available in the literature, they are not widely used in planning practice. This paper aims to explore why accessibility instruments are not widely used in planning practice. To this end we focus our research on perceived user-friendliness and usefulness of accessibility instruments. First, we surveyed a number of instrument developers, providing an overview on the characteristics of accessibility instruments available and on developers’ perceptions of their user-friendliness in planning practice. Second, we brought together developers and planning practitioners in a number of local workshops across Europe and Australia, where participants were asked to use insights provided by accessibility instruments for the development of planning strategies. We found that most practitioners are convinced of the usefulness of accessibility instruments in planning practice, as they generate new and relevant insights for planners. Findings suggest that not only user-friendliness problems, but mainly organizational barriers and lack of institutionalization of accessibility instruments, are the main causes of the implementation gap. Thus user-friendliness improvement may provide limited contributions to the successful implementation of accessibility concepts in planning practice. In fact, there seems to be more to gain from active and continued engagement of instrument developers with planning practitioners and from the institutionalization of accessibility planning.

Automated driving technology is emerging. Yet, little is known in the literature about when automated vehicles will reach the market, how penetration rates will evolve and to what extent this new transport technology will affect transport demand and planning. This study uses scenario analysis to identify plausible future development paths of automated vehicles in the Netherlands and to estimate potential implications for traffic, travel behaviour and transport planning on a time horizon up to 2030 and 2050. The scenario analysis was performed through a series of three workshops engaging a group of diverse experts. Sixteen key factors and five driving forces behind them were identified as critical in determining future development of automated vehicles in the Netherlands. Four scenarios were constructed assuming combinations of high or low technological development and restrictive or supportive policies for automated vehicles (AV …in standby, AV …in bloom, AV …in demand, AV …in doubt). According to the scenarios, fully automated vehicles are expected to be commercially available between 2025 and 2045, and to penetrate the market rapidly after their introduction. Penetration rates are expected to vary among different scenarios between 1% and 11% (mainly conditionally automated vehicles) in 2030 and between 7% and 61% (mainly fully automated vehicles) in 2050. Complexity of the urban environment and unexpected incidents may influence development path of automated vehicles. Certain implications on mobility are expected in all scenarios, although there is great variation in the impacts among the scenarios. Measures to curb growth of travel and subsequent externalities are expected in three out of the four scenarios.