On-demand shared mobility is increasingly being promoted as an influential strategy to address urban transport challenges in large and fast-growing cities. The appeal of this form of transport is largely attributed to its convenience, ease of use, and affordability made possible through digital platforms and innovations. The convergence of the shared economy with a number of established and emerging technologies—such as artificial intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), and Cloud and Fog computing—is helping to expedite their deployment as a new form of public transport. Recently, this has manifested itself in the form of Flexible Mobility on Demand (FMoD) solutions, aimed at meeting personal travel demands through flexible routing and scheduling. Increasingly, these shared mobility solutions are blurring the boundaries with existing forms of public transport, particularly bus operations. This paper presents an environmental scan and analysis of the technological, social, and economic impacts surrounding disruptive technology-driven shared mobility trends. Specifically, the paper includes an examination of current and anticipated external factors that are of direct relevance to collaborative and low carbon mobility. The paper also outlines how these trends are likely to influence the mobility industries now and into the future. The paper collates information from a wide body of literature and reports on findings from actual ‘use cases’ that exist today which have used these disruptive mobility solutions to deliver substantial benefits to travellers around the world. Finally, the paper provides stakeholders with insight into identifying and responding to the likely needs and impacts of FMoD and informs their policy and strategy positions on the implementation of smart mobility systems in their cities and jurisdictions.
This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited