Integrating Digital Mobility Services and Mobility as a Right

Digital platforms are increasingly used to connect public transport with shared and active mobility services, yet seamless integration does not necessarily guarantee equitable access for all travellers. This conceptual study examines how Mobility as a Service (MaaS), Multimodal Digital Mobility Services (MDMS), and Mobility as a Right (MaaR) can jointly support the development of inclusive, user-friendly multimodal transport networks, with public transport as their backbone. 

Drawing on existing research and European policy-oriented definitions, the paper first reviews the three concepts and their relationship. MaaS integrates transport options into user-oriented services that may support planning, booking and payment. MDMS provide information about multiple transport modes or providers, such as routes, locations, schedules, availability and fares, and may offer reservation, payment or ticketing functions. MaaR adds an explicit inclusion and equity perspective, emphasising mobility opportunities regardless of socioeconomic circumstances, geographic location or physical abilities. The review identifies insufficient attention to disaggregated traveller needs and to the operational integration of MaaR principles within digital mobility services. 

The authors then propose an MDMS–MaaR integration framework centred on three interdependent public transport components: users, vehicles and infrastructure. User needs and preferences, vehicle characteristics and the accessibility and performance of physical infrastructure are considered together. The framework applies MDMS features and MaaR principles across these components and organises possible measures around public transport-oriented infrastructure, improved service efficiency and attractiveness, and behavioural change towards greater public transport use. 

A complementary planning flowchart connects city goals, regional factors, legislation, policy priorities and citizens’ needs with transport-system characteristics, multimodal service features, implementation and monitoring through key performance indicators. The study offers a structured conceptual approach for authorities designing inclusive digital mobility interventions. It does not report a tested pilot, survey dataset or measured changes in accessibility, ridership or user satisfaction; the proposed relationships and potential benefits require implementation and empirical evaluation. 

Supporting evidence

The paper develops its argument through a review of MaaS, MDMS and MaaR definitions rather than through a quantitative field study. Table 1 compares definitions of Mobility as a Service from European and sector organizations, identifying the integration of transport options, journey planning, booking and payment as recurring elements. Table 2 summarizes different descriptions of Multimodal Digital Mobility Services, including European Commission formulations covering travel information across multiple modes or providers and, potentially, booking and ticketing functionalities. 

Section 2.3 discusses Mobility as a Right as an inclusive approach to travel opportunities for people with different abilities, locations and socioeconomic circumstances. The authors identify a gap between this principle and its treatment in conventional MaaS and MDMS descriptions. 

Figure 1 presents a pyramid of three public transport components—users, vehicles and infrastructure—passed through an MDMS/MaaR conceptual “sieve” to inform proposed measures. Section 3 groups the measures into three directions: public transport-oriented infrastructure; greater service efficiency, reliability and appeal; and behavioural encouragement towards public transport. 

Figure 2 presents a planning flowchart relating city goals, users, vehicles, infrastructure, MaaR principles, MDMS features, implementation and KPI-based monitoring. These tables and figures support a proposed design framework; they do not constitute empirical validation or demonstrate realized policy impacts.

Key findings

1. MaaS, MDMS and MaaR serve complementary but distinct roles. MaaS organizes access to multiple mobility services around the traveller; MDMS supply digital multimodal information and may support booking, payments or ticketing; MaaR provides an explicit principle of equitable mobility. Considering the three together can help avoid equating digital integration with universal accessibility. 
2. Inclusive journey planning requires more than route and fare information. The review highlights that many existing definitions and solutions pay limited attention to individual needs at a disaggregated level. Planners should consider whether information and recommendations reflect users’ physical abilities, socioeconomic constraints and access to transport facilities, rather than assuming that a common digital interface is sufficient. 
3. Public transport should be addressed as an interconnected system. The proposed framework places users, vehicles and infrastructure in a three-part relationship. Accessibility and usability depend not only on applications but also on features such as stops, boarding infrastructure, vehicle characteristics and the suitability of travel options for different users. 
4. The framework structures measures across infrastructure, service and behaviour. The authors propose action areas covering public transport-oriented infrastructure, improvements to reliability, efficiency and attractiveness, and measures encouraging greater public transport use. MDMS features and MaaR principles are intended to inform each area rather than being treated as separate policy additions. 
5. Local policy objectives and monitoring should inform implementation. The planning flowchart begins with city goals shaped by regional conditions, regulation and citizens’ needs. It connects these with existing transport characteristics, digital features, implementation and subsequent monitoring through key performance indicators. This provides a conceptual sequence for designing and assessing future measures. 
6. The proposed benefits remain to be tested. The chapter does not evaluate an operational MDMS–MaaR intervention or quantify effects on accessibility, satisfaction, mode choice or equity. Practical applications should therefore incorporate user participation and empirical assessment before claims about effectiveness or transferability can be made.