Services of general interest in private hands?

“Digital mobility is part of the public sector's mandate; we shouldn't wait for Silicon Valley to take over.”

To begin with, I would like to point out that public transport companies were the first to really roll out MaaS in Germany; however, they have since been overtaken by private companies. It has long been generally accepted that bundling transportation is the key to success in the mobility transition, and online platforms are unbeatable in this respect. Especially when it comes to intermodal route selection, where the focus must be on eco-mobility, MaaS platforms can be very helpful in showing attractive alternatives to the private car. In addition, platforms enable transport planners to plan services in line with demand, as they show changes in mobility patterns in real time. This makes it possible to react quickly to trends. In short, MaaS platforms offer incredible digital control potential.

In any case, certain control conflicts can be observed. These take place on two levels: The first is the level of the services themselves, i.e. the steering conflict between the business model and the need for a socio-ecological mobility turnaround. The private providers of sharing and ride services know that they can only be profitable with their business model in city centers. There, however, they intensify competition for space and are more likely to draw passengers away from eco-mobility. In order for private mobility services to make any contribution at all to the mobility transition, they should not actually be used in city centers, but on the outskirts of cities and on the last mile, where they close the existing supply gaps. However, this is not profitable.

This takes place at the level of MaaS platforms, which are increasingly taking on a coordination function in local public transport. Here, private sharing providers and transport services should actually be integrated into public transport in the sense of needs-oriented intermodal route planning. Example: I want to get from A to B and use bike sharing for the first part of the journey, then take the bus, change to the streetcar and book an e-scooter for the last mile. The point is that the app accompanies me as a mobility assistant while I'm using public transport and alerts me to any uncertainties such as unreserved or canceled means of transport, delays and so on. MaaS platforms could do this. However, due to their business model, private platforms have an incentive to give preference to private providers because they pay more money for the service. This can be seen on Google Maps, for example, where e-scooters from Lime are displayed when you search for public transport connections. The reason for this is most likely an economic connection between the two companies. However, prioritizing private-sector services in this way is hardly compatible with the goal of the mobility transition and undermines the economic basis of public services of general interest.

You would think so, because mobility provision is a public service and local authorities are responsible for public transport. However, how to strengthen local authorities and transport associations and protect them from having to deal with transnational corporations such as Google remains an open question. Access to and handling of the data produced is an enormously important factor here.

The movement data of a single person is almost worthless, but the movement data of all users on the internet together is worth a fortune. It can be used to read everything about the population, their personal preferences, their political mindset, their social interaction patterns. The fact that MaaS platforms and private providers are allowed to exploit this data on their own, even though we users produce it, is unjustifiable in my opinion. Google's congestion data, the real-time data from driving services and car-sharing providers - this is data of public interest that is much more useful if it is generally available. On this basis, society could develop its own independent MaaS platforms and municipalities could better adapt local mobility systems to the needs of the population and the environment. The announced Mobility Data Act with sanction-proven disclosure obligations for all local public transport providers would be a start here - if it ever comes into force. Until then, local authorities are on their own.

Berlin, for example, has stipulated that the use of public space - i.e. streets, sidewalks and parking areas - by sharing providers constitutes a special use, comparable to outdoor catering. These special uses are subject to approval, meaning that the municipality has the opportunity to negotiate a deal: The providers are allowed to use the public space if the municipality is given access to their data. This creates an incentive for private players to cooperate. This allows cities to monitor the providers' activities and their impact and ensure that they are really part of the mobility transition and use their vehicles where they make sense - and do not contribute to overuse. Providers are largely responding to this, as they have learned that their business model will only work in the long term if they adapt at least in part to the necessities of the mobility transition; if they did not, they would sooner or later deprive themselves of their raison d'être.

With private MaaS platforms, the use and protection of data is a black box. Greater transparency is needed here in any case. The municipalities themselves generally work closely with the local data protection authorities on their own platforms and tend to be cautious. However, the GDPR has very large gaps when it comes to the protection of collective data, while it meticulously regulates the protection of individual data. It is important to find a balance here.

One method that is currently being discussed is data trusteeship. Here, the data risks arising from the processing of personal movement data are not only considered individually, but collectively - both in terms of the value of the data and its protection. In other words, a data infrastructure is being developed that bundles the data generated by mobility and makes it available to external players for public welfare purposes - something like this is already common practice in medicine. This fiduciary organization could, for example, grant research institutions the right to the data in order to identify social problems at an early stage.

Yes, that is an important point. 20 percent of Germans do not have mobile internet access and therefore cannot use MaaS platforms. It goes without saying that public transport must continue to be strengthened. And public transport tickets must also continue to be available in analog form. Otherwise, however, platform-mediated mobility has a decisive advantage, particularly from a social perspective: route planning can be personalized. For people with limited mobility and special needs in particular, there is no better option than a platform that knows which modes of transport I should and should not consider for my journeys. This makes it all the more important that route planning is not distorted by advertisements.

In the long term, much will depend on how the MaaS platform market develops. If private providers such as Google Maps and FreeNow become the new gatekeepers, permanent conflicts of control are to be expected. However, if we succeed in attracting more users to public mobility platforms, we will have a powerful instrument for the socio-ecological mobility transition. In this respect, the planned EU regulation on interoperable ticket booking in local public transport poses a challenge for municipal transport companies. But digital mobility is part of the public service mandate; we shouldn't wait for Silicon Valley to take over. We have to develop the opportunities ourselves. If the public sector positions itself well here, I am very optimistic that digitalization can make a significant contribution to the mobility turnaround.

Thank you for this fascinating interview.

Dominik Piétron is a research associate at the Institute of Social Sciences at the Humboldt University of Berlin and conducts research on the "political economy of digital capitalism". His work focuses on the interactions between digital technology and society, in particular the so-called “platformization” of markets and the associated transformation processes of labour relations, competition and innovation systems.