Developing a Mobility as a Service Status Index: A Quantitative Approach Using Mobility Market and Macroeconomic Metrics
Abstract
1. Introduction
1.1. Relevance and Problem Statement
1.2. Literature Review
1.3. Novelty of This Research
2. Methodology
2.1. Definition of Mobility Markets
- High (3): Strong integration with the MaaS ecosystem. The transport mode aligns well with the principles and goals of MaaS, enhancing its effectiveness.
- Moderate (2): Moderate level of integration with the MaaS ecosystem. While the transport mode contributes to the MaaS ecosystem, certain limitations or considerations may exist.
- Low (1): Limited integration with the MaaS ecosystem. The transport mode may need to align better with MaaS principles or have characteristics that make integration challenging.
2.2. Definition of Mobility Market Metrics
- H: Shannon Index.
- S: number of mobility service providers in the area.
- pi: portion of the i-th mobility service provider to the total number of entities.
2.3. Definition of Macroeconomic Metrics
2.4. Derivation of the MSI Formula
- : mean value for metric in the mobility market or macroeconomic category during period .
- : number of data points for metric in the mobility market or macroeconomic category during period .
- : l-th data point for metric in the mobility market or macroeconomic category during period .
- : normalised mean value of metric in the mobility market or macroeconomic category during period .
- : mean value for metric in the mobility market or macroeconomic category during period .
- : minimum value of metric for the mobility market or macroeconomic category during period .
- : maximum value of metric for the mobility market or macroeconomic category during period .
- : total number of mobility markets.
- : weight assigned to the mobility market or macroeconomic category where .
- : number of metrics for the mobility market or macroeconomic category .
- exp: the exponential term used to revert the average to the original scale.
- : index difference between periods and for metric in the mobility market or macroeconomic category .
- : MaaS Index for metric in the mobility market or macroeconomic category during period .
- : MaaS Index for metric in the mobility market or macroeconomic category during period .
3. Results
3.1. Mobility Markets
3.2. Macroeconomic Metrics
3.3. Total MaaS Statuts Index (MSI)
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Li, Y.; Voege, T. Mobility as a Service (MaaS): Challenges of Implementation and Policy Required. J. Transp. Technol. 2017, 7, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jittrapirom, P.; Marchau, V.; Meurs, H. Dynamic adaptive policymaking for implementing Mobility-as-a Service (MaaS). Res. Transp. Bus. Manag. 2018, 27, 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reports and Data. Global Market Volume of the Mobility as a Service Market in the Years 2018 and 2026 (in billion US Dollars). In Statista. 2019. Available online: https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/984840/umfrage/weltweites-marktvolumen-des-mobility-as-a-service-marktes/ (accessed on 28 December 2023).
- Kamargianni, M.; Matyas, M. The Business Ecosystem of Mobility-as-a-Service. In Proceedings of the 96th Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, 8–12 January 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Eckhardt, J.; Aapaoja, A.; Nykänen, L.; Sochor, J. Mobility as a Service business and operator models. In Proceedings of the 12th European Congress on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Strasbourg, France, 19–22 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Jittrapirom, P.; Marchau, V.; Heijden, R.V.; Meurs, H. Future implementation of mobility as a service (MaaS): Results of an international Delphi study. Travel Behav. Soc. 2020, 21, 281–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Karlsson, I.C.; Mukhtar-Landgren, D.; Smith, G.; Koglin, T.; Kronsell, A.; Lund, E.; Sarasini, S.; Sochor, J. Development and implementation of Mobility-as-a-Service—A qualitative study of barriers and enabling factors. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 131, 283–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jittrapirom, P.; Caiati, V.; Feneri, A.; Ebrahimigharehbaghi, S.; González, M.J.; Narayan, J. Mobility as a Service: A Critical Review of Definitions, Assessments of Schemes, and Key Challenges. Urban Plan. 2017, 2, 13–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez-Carreiro, I.; Monzón, A.; López, E.; López-Lambas, M.E. Urban mobility in the digital era: An exploration of travellers’ expectations of MaaS mobile technologies. Technol. Soc. 2020, 63, 101392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pagoni, I.; Gatto, M.; Tsouros, I.; Tsirimpa, A.; Polydoropoulou, A.; Galli, G.; Stefanelli, T. Mobility-as-a-service: Insights to policymakers and prospective MaaS operators. Transp. Lett. 2020, 14, 356–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mitropoulos, L.; Kortsari, A.; Mizaras, V.; Ayfantopoulou, G. Mobility as a Service (MaaS) Planning and Implementation: Challenges and Lessons Learned. Future Transp. 2023, 3, 498–518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Muller, M.; Park, S.; Lee, R.; Fusco, B.; Correia, G. Review of Whole System Simulation Methodologies for Assessing Mobility as a Service (MaaS) as an Enabler for Sustainable Urban Mobility. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schikofsky, J.; Dannewald, T.; Kowald, M. Exploring motivational mechanisms behind the intention to adopt mobility as a service (MaaS): Insights from Germany. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 2020, 131, 296–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamargianni, M.; Li, W.; Matyas, M.; Schäfer, A.W. A Critical Review of New Mobility Services for Urban Transport. Transp. Res. Procedia 2016, 14, 3294–3303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamargianni, M.; Goulding, R. The Mobility as a Service Maturity Index: Preparing the Cities for the Mobility as a Service Era. In Proceedings of the 7th Transport Research Arena TRA 2018, Viena, Austria, 16 April–18 December 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Mathey, M. One app to rule them all?: Assessing mobility service providers for sustainable private mobility as a service platform. Master’s Thesis, University of Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- He, Y.; Földes, D.; Csiszár, C. Integration index for mobility as a service. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Road and Rail Infrastructure, Online, 20–21 May 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dixon, S.; Irshad, H.; Pankratz, D.M.; Bornstein, J. The 2019 Deloitte City Mobility Index. Available online: https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/insights/us/articles/4331_Deloitte-City-Mobility-Index/4740_DCMI_Overview.pdf (accessed on 23 March 2024).
- Georgouli, C.; Cornet, Y.; Petrov, T.; Malichová, E.; Števárová, L.; Yiangou, G.; Sbirrazzuoli, K.; Kováčiková, T. Sustainable and smart: The paradoxes of urban mobility innovations. Transp. Res. Procedia 2023, 72, 4239–4246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aaltonen, S. MaaS Readiness Level Indicators for Local Authorities. 2017. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/documents/downloadPublic?documentIds=080166e5b5818567&appId=PPGMS (accessed on 9 January 2024).
- Alyavina, E.; Nikitas, A.; Njoya, E.T. Mobility as a service and sustainable travel behaviour: A thematic analysis study. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2020, 73, 362–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Expósito-Izquierdo, C.; Expósito-Márquez, A.; Brito-Santana, J. Mobility as a Service. In Engineering, Computer Science, and Environmental Science; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Somers, A.; Eldaly, H. Is Australia ready for Mobility as a Service? In Proceedings of the 27th ARRB Conference: Linking People, Places and Opportunities, Melbourne, Australia, 16–18 November 2016; ARRB Group Ltd.: Melbourne, Australia, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Boardman, A.E.; Greenberg, D.H.; Vining, A.R.; Weimer, D.L. Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Eurostat. Digital Skills in 2023: Impact of Education and Age. European Commission. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20240222-1 (accessed on 22 February 2024).
- Fian, T. Mobility Market Indicators and Macroeconomic Indicators for the MaaS Status Index (MSI) in Austria (2017–2028) (1.0.0) [Data Set]. TU Wien. 2024. Available online: https://researchdata.tuwien.at/records/s7xg9-2hh50 (accessed on 12 August 2024).
- Statista. Market Insights: Mobility. Analyse What Lies Ahead for Global Mobility over the Next 5 Years. 2024. Available online: https://www.statista.com/outlook/mobility-markets (accessed on 23 March 2024).
Index | Release | Authors | Indicator Categories | Focus of Index |
---|---|---|---|---|
Deloitte City Mobility Index | 2019 | Ref. [18] |
| Assessment of a city’s readiness for future mobility (not exclusively addressing MaaS) |
Urban Mobility Innovation Index 2021 | 2023 | Ref. [19] |
| Assessment of a city’s innovation ecosystem in urban mobility (not exclusively addressing MaaS) |
MaaS Readiness Level Indicators for local authorities | 2017 | Ref. [20] |
| MaaS readiness for local authorities |
MaaS Maturity Index | 2018 | Ref. [15] |
| Maturity of a geographical area towards MaaS |
MaaS and sustainable travel behaviour | 2020 | Ref. [21] |
| Factors underpinning the uptake and potential success of MaaS as a sustainable travel mechanism |
Broader overview of MaaS | 2017 | Ref. [22] |
| Discussion of the functional and technical aspects of MaaS systems |
MaaS Readiness Index (MRI) | 2016 | Ref. [23] |
| Readiness of a geographical area towards MaaS |
Integration index for MaaS | 2021 | Ref. [17] |
| Integration of MaaS in urban areas |
Category | Mobility Market | Benefit for MaaS B * | Integration with MaaS Ecosystem I ** | Mobility Market Weight W *** | Explanation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shared individual trips | Car rental | 1 | 3 | 3 | Flexible, shared, reduces ownership burden |
Ride hailing | 1 | 3 | 3 | On-demand, promotes shared use | |
Taxi | 1 | 3 | 3 | On-demand, promotes shared use | |
Car Sharing | 1 | 3 | 3 | Promotes shared use | |
Bike sharing | 1 | 2 | 2 | Short-distance travel, promotes shared use | |
E-Scooter sharing | 1 | 2 | 2 | Last-mile connectivity, promotes shared use | |
Moped sharing | 1 | 2 | 2 | Promotes shared use | |
Shared collective trips | Bus | 1 | 3 | 3 | Efficient group travel, aligns with MaaS |
Train | 1 | 3 | 3 | Mass transit, efficient, aligns with MaaS | |
Aeroplane | −1 | 1 | −1 | Long-distance travel, less aligned with MaaS | |
Public transportation | 1 | 3 | 3 | Shared transportation, aligns with MaaS | |
Unshared individual trips | Private car (fuel-based) | −1 | 1 | −1 | Unshared use, less aligned with MaaS |
Private car (electrified) | −1 | 1 | −1 | Unshared use, less aligned with MaaS | |
Motorbike | −1 | 1 | −1 | Unshared use, less aligned with MaaS | |
Bicycles | 1 | 3 | 3 | Unshared use, sustainable, last-mile travel |
Mobility Market Metric | Description |
---|---|
Revenues (R) | Annual revenues within mobility market, in Euros. |
Annual revenue per user (ARPU) | Average annual revenue generated per paying customer, in Euros. |
Vehicle costs (VC) | Annual vehicle costs for users in Euros. |
Vehicle sales (VS) | Annual mobility market’s vehicle sales volume in Euros. |
Number of users (U) | Annual number of paying users. |
User penetration rate (UPR) | Annual percentage of paying customers in relation to total population. |
Online sales channels (SC) | Annual percentage of bookings or reservations that occur online. |
Autonomous driving level 2 (AL2) | Annual percentage of vehicles with autonomous driving level 2. |
CO2 emissions (CO2) | Annual average CO2 emissions in grammes CO2 per kilometre. |
Number of charging stations (CS) | Annual number of existing charging stations. |
Revenues from charging stations (RCS) | Annual revenues from charging stations. |
Shannon Index (H) | Market shares of mobility markets. |
Macroeconomic Metric | Benefit for MaaS B * | Integration with MaaS Ecosystem I ** | Metric Weight towards MaaS W *** | Explanation | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Population | Total population | 1 | 1 | 1 | Beneficial for MaaS as it indicates a larger potential user base. Not fully integrated due to potential challenges in managing larger populations. |
Urbanisation rate | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as urban areas provide a concentrated market for MaaS services. High integration as urban areas often have better conditions for MaaS implementation than rural areas. | |
Number of households | −1 | 2 | −2 | Not beneficial for MaaS as it might indicate dispersed demand. Moderately integrated as households might use MaaS differently. | |
Proportion of the younger population (<44 years) | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as younger populations often adopt new mobility trends more readily. Highly integrated due to the tech-savvy nature of the younger demographic. | |
Proportion of the older population (>44 years) | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS to cater to elderly mobility needs. Highly integrated due to the potential for demand in assisted mobility services. | |
Transportation economics | GDP per capita | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as a higher GDP indicates higher potential spending on mobility services. Highly integrated as wealthier regions may be able to afford better MaaS infrastructure. |
Consumption expenditure, transportation (per capita) | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as higher spending on transportation suggests a willingness to invest in mobility solutions. Highly integrated as spending aligns with MaaS consumption. | |
Consumption expenditure, vehicle purchase (per capita) | −1 | 2 | −2 | Not beneficial for MaaS, as lower spending on vehicle purchases indicates reliance on shared mobility. Moderately integrated due to varying spending patterns. | |
Consumption expenditure, transportation services (per capita) | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as higher spending on services suggests reliance on shared and on-demand mobility. Highly integrated due to service-oriented spending. | |
Price level index, transportation | −1 | 2 | −2 | Not beneficial for MaaS, as a lower price level in transportation encourages the adoption of cost-effective mobility options. Moderately integrated as pricing can affect adoption. | |
Mobility | Airline passengers | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not beneficial for MaaS, as air travel is not directly related to MaaS. Low integration as it represents a different mode of transport. |
Departures of airlines in thousand | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not beneficial for MaaS, as air travel does not directly impact MaaS services. Low integration due to the different nature of air travel. | |
Railway tracks in million metres | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as a well-developed rail infrastructure supports integrated multimodal transportation. Highly integrated due to the potential for seamless connectivity. | |
Rail passenger kilometres per capita | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as higher rail usage indicates a preference for public transportation. Highly integrated as it may reflect a shared mobility mindset. | |
Road passenger kilometres per capita | 1 | 2 | 2 | Beneficial for MaaS, as higher road usage may indicate demand for shared mobility services. Moderately integrated due to the prevalence of road-based transport. | |
Rail passenger kilometres in trillion | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as a high volume of rail passenger kilometres suggests a robust rail network. Highly integrated due to the potential for efficient mass transit. | |
Road passenger kilometres in trillion | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as a high volume of road passenger kilometres suggests a demand for various mobility solutions. Highly integrated due to widespread road-based transport. | |
Transportation infrastructure investments | Investments in airport infrastructure (% of GDP) | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not beneficial for MaaS, as airport investments are more relevant to air travel. Low integration as it primarily supports a different mode of transport. |
Maintenance of airport infrastructure (% of GDP) | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not beneficial for MaaS, as airport maintenance is more relevant to air travel. Low integration as it primarily supports a different mode of transport. | |
Investments in railway infrastructure (% of GDP) | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as investments in rail infrastructure support integrated transportation solutions. Highly integrated due to the potential for seamless connectivity. | |
Maintenance costs of railway infrastructure (% of GDP) | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not directly beneficial for MaaS, as maintenance costs do not directly impact MaaS services. Low integration as it represents a different aspect of infrastructure. | |
Investments in road infrastructure (% of GDP) | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as investments in road infrastructure support various mobility solutions. Highly integrated due to widespread road-based transport. | |
Maintenance costs of road infrastructure (% of GDP) | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not directly beneficial for MaaS, as maintenance costs do not directly impact MaaS services. Low integration as it represents a different aspect of infrastructure. | |
Investments in railway infrastructure in billion Euros | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as investments in rail infrastructure support integrated transportation solutions. Highly integrated due to the potential for seamless connectivity. | |
Maintenance costs of railway infrastructure in billion Euros | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not directly beneficial for MaaS, as maintenance costs do not directly impact MaaS services. Low integration as it represents a different aspect of infrastructure. | |
Investments in road infrastructure in billion Euros | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as investments in road infrastructure support various mobility solutions. Highly integrated due to widespread road-based transport. | |
Maintenance costs of road infrastructure in billion Euros | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not directly beneficial for MaaS, as maintenance costs do not directly impact MaaS services. Low integration as it represents a different aspect of infrastructure. | |
Investments in airport infrastructure in million Euros | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not beneficial for MaaS, as airport investments are more relevant to air travel. Low integration as it primarily supports a different mode of transport. | |
Maintenance costs of airport infrastructure in million Euros | −1 | 1 | −1 | Not beneficial for MaaS, as these costs are primarily tied to supporting air travel rather than integrated mobility solutions. Low integration since it addresses upkeep rather than enhancing multimodal transport options. | |
ICT | Smartphone Penetration (% of population) | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as higher smartphone penetration indicates a tech-savvy population open to mobile-based services. Highly integrated due to the reliance on smartphones for MaaS. |
Internet Penetration (% of population) | 1 | 3 | 3 | Beneficial for MaaS, as higher internet penetration indicates a connected population. Highly integrated as MaaS often relies on internet connectivity. |
T1 2017–2022 Austria | Unshared Individual Trips | Shared Individual Trips | Shared Collective Trips | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Private Car (Fuel Based) | Private Car (Electrified) | Motor Bike | Bicycle | Car Sharing | E-Scooter Sharing | Moped Sharing | Bike Sharing | Taxi | Ride Hailing | Car Rental | Bus | Train | Aeroplane | Public Transportation | |
Revenues (R) | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
Average revenue per user (ARPU) | - | - | - | - | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.7 |
Vehicle costs (VC) | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Vehicles sales (VS) | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Number of users (U) | - | - | - | - | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
User penetration rate (UPR) | - | - | - | - | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.5 | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 |
Online sales channel (SC) | - | - | - | - | 0.5 | - | - | 0.4 | - | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Autonomous driving level 2 (AL2) | 0.4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
CO2 emissions (CO2) | 0.7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Number of charging stations (CS) | - | 0.3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Charging station revenues (RCS) | - | 0.3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Shannon-Index (H) | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.8 | - | 1.3 | - | - | 1.9 | - | - | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 0.4 |
Number of matrices | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
Mobility market weight (W) | −1 | −1 | −1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | −1 | 3 |
MSI for mobility markets in T1 | −0.6 | −0.5 | −0.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.4 | −0.7 | 1.7 |
T2 2023–2028 Austria | Unshared Individual Trips | Shared Individual Trips | Shared Collective Trips | ||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Private Car (Fuel Based) | Private Car (Electrified) | Motor Bike | Bicycle | Car Sharing | E-Scooter Sharing | Moped Sharing | Bike Sharing | Taxi | Ride Hailing | Car Rental | Bus | Train | Aeroplane | Public Transportation | |
Revenues (R) | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.4 |
Average revenue per user (ARPU) | - | - | - | - | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 |
Vehicle costs (VC) | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 0.3 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Vehicles sales (VS) | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.6 | 0.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Number of users (U) | - | - | - | - | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
User penetration rate (UPR) | - | - | - | - | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | - | 0.7 | 0.6 | 0.5 | 0.6 |
Online sales channel (SC) | - | - | - | - | 0.5 | - | - | 0.5 | - | - | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.5 |
Autonomous driving level 2 (AL2) | 0.6 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
CO2 emissions (CO2) | 0.5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Number of charging stations (CS) | - | 0.5 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Charging station revenues (RCS) | - | 0.4 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Shannon-Index (H) | 2.1 | 2.0 | 1.8 | - | 1.3 | - | - | 1.9 | - | - | 1.4 | 0.9 | 0.2 | 2.0 | 0.4 |
Number of matrices | 6 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 |
Mobility market weight (W) | −1 | −1 | −1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | −1 | 3 |
MSI for mobility markets in T2 | −0.7 | −0.5 | −0.8 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.3 | −0.5 | 1.4 |
Unshared Individual Trips | Shared Individual Trips | Shared Collective Trips | Summarised MSI for Mobility Markets | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Private Car (Fuel Based) | Private Car (Electrified) | Motor Bike | Bicycle | Car Sharing | E-Scooter Sharing | Moped Sharing | Bike Sharing | Taxi | Ride Hailing | Car Rental | Bus | Train | Aeroplane | Public Transportation | ||
Mobility market MSI T1 | −0.6 | −0.5 | −0.5 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 1.0 | 1.6 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 1.8 | 1.4 | −0.7 | 1.7 | 13.8 |
Mobility market MSI T2 | −0.7 | −0.5 | −0.8 | 1.1 | 1.8 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 1.4 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 1.3 | −0.5 | 1.4 | 11.2 |
Difference T1 vs. T2 | −0.1 | 0.0 | −0.3 | −0.3 | 0.1 | −0.3 | 0.2 | 0.4 | −1.4 | 0.2 | −0.4 | −0.1 | −0.1 | 0.2 | −0.3 | −2.6 |
Category | Macroeconomic Metric | Metric Weight | Normalised Metric Austria T1 | Normalised Metric Austria T2 | Difference T1 vs. T2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Population | Total population | 1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | |
Urbanisation rate | 3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
Number of households | −2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
Proportion of the younger population (<44 years) | 3 | 0.6 | 0.5 | ||
Proportion of the older population (>44 years) | 3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
Population Index | 4.4 | 4.0 | −0.4 | ||
Transportation economics | Gross domestic product (GDP) per capita | 3 | 0.3 | 0.5 | |
Consumption expenditure. transportation (per capita) | 3 | 0.6 | 0.5 | ||
Consumption expenditure. vehicle purchase (per capita) | −2 | 0.4 | 0.5 | ||
Consumption expenditure. transportation services (per capita) | 3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
Price level index. transportation | −2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | ||
Transportation economics index | 2.2 | 2.3 | 0.1 | ||
Mobility | Airline passengers | −1 | 0.3 | 0.6 | |
Departures of airlines in thousand | −1 | 0.4 | 0.5 | ||
Railway tracks in million metres | 3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | ||
Rail passenger kilometres (per capita) in million metres | 3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | ||
Road passenger kilometres (per capita) in million metres | 2 | 0.6 | 0.6 | ||
Rail passenger kilometres in trillion metres | 3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | ||
Road passenger kilometres in trillion metres | 3 | 0.5 | 0.7 | ||
Mobility index | 6.2 | 6.1 | −0.1 | ||
Transportation infrastructure investments | Investments in airport infrastructure (% of GDP) | −1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | |
Maintenance of airport infrastructure (% of GDP) | −1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | ||
Investments in railway infrastructure (% of GDP) | 3 | 0.3 | 0.4 | ||
Maintenance costs of railway infrastructure (% of GDP) | −1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | ||
Investments in road infrastructure (% of GDP) | 3 | 0.6 | 0.4 | ||
Maintenance costs of road infrastructure (% of GDP) | −1 | 0.3 | 0.4 | ||
Investments in railway infrastructure in billion Euros | 3 | 0.5 | 0.4 | ||
Maintenance costs of railway infrastructure in billion Euros | −1 | 0.3 | 0.3 | ||
Investments in road infrastructure in billion Euros | 3 | 0.6 | 0.5 | ||
Maintenance costs of road infrastructure in billion Euros | −1 | 0.5 | 0.4 | ||
Investments in airport infrastructure in million Euros | −1 | 0.4 | 0.3 | ||
Maintenance costs of airport infrastructure in million Euros | −1 | 0.6 | 0.5 | ||
Transportation infrastructure investments index | 2.3 | 1.9 | −0.4 | ||
ICT | Smartphone Penetration (% of population) | 3 | 0.5 | 0.5 | |
Internet Penetration (% of population) | 3 | 0.4 | 0.5 | ||
ICT index | 2.7 | 3.0 | 0.3 | ||
Summarised MSI for macroeconomic metrics | 17.8 | 17.3 | −0.5 |
T1 2017–2022 Austria | T2 2023–2028 Austria | |
---|---|---|
MSI (mobility markets) | 13.8 | 11.2 |
MSI (macroeconomic metrics) | 17.8 | 17.3 |
MSI (total) | 31.6 | 28.5 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Fian, T.; Hauger, G. Developing a Mobility as a Service Status Index: A Quantitative Approach Using Mobility Market and Macroeconomic Metrics. Future Transp. 2024, 4, 1247-1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4040060
Fian T, Hauger G. Developing a Mobility as a Service Status Index: A Quantitative Approach Using Mobility Market and Macroeconomic Metrics. Future Transportation. 2024; 4(4):1247-1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4040060
Chicago/Turabian StyleFian, Tabea, and Georg Hauger. 2024. "Developing a Mobility as a Service Status Index: A Quantitative Approach Using Mobility Market and Macroeconomic Metrics" Future Transportation 4, no. 4: 1247-1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4040060
APA StyleFian, T., & Hauger, G. (2024). Developing a Mobility as a Service Status Index: A Quantitative Approach Using Mobility Market and Macroeconomic Metrics. Future Transportation, 4(4), 1247-1265. https://doi.org/10.3390/futuretransp4040060