An unhappy MaaS Mess – and a relevant INTS in the New Year?

WITH THE LONG-PROMISED Integrated National Transport Strategy not having appeared this year, we are still not clear how exactly the Government plans to join up the various building blocks of its transport policy which have emerged separately over the past 18 months.

LTT has previously commented on the fact that policies on the key topics of roads, buses, rail and aviation have seemingly been hatched independently, with a number of other transport topics also shaped up in policy as subjects in their own right, including those on road user charging for EVs, the introduction of automated vehicles, and the support for active travel -all of which we cover news about in this issue.

The idea of having overall integration has certainly been acknowledged, most recently in the Transport Secretary’s appearance before the Commons Transport Committee last month, when she said INTS will focus on people’s experience of the transport system.

Heidi Alexander told the committee that the Government’s planned Integrated National Transport Strategy,, “will be broad, and it will be ambitious”.

But then she suggested a significant number of exclusions

Asked what it would and would not cover she said “This is a strategy for domestic transport, so it is not going to cover international travel. It will not cover technical matters such as decisions about how transport is fuelled. It will not duplicate the work that has already been done through the publication of other strategies that have already come out or are due to come out.”

As some examples, the Transport Secretary said “ we are working on a new freight plan, which will focus on freight. Because we are working on a new road safety strategy, it will not cover road safety issues in detail. We have also had the infrastructure strategy that was published in the summer, so this is not going to be a pipeline of investment projects, because that has already been done. We were talking about the roads investment strategy as well.”

“It is going to be focused on what it says on the tin, really, which is how we integrate the transport network and improve people’s experience of it, so that it makes everyday journeys easier and simpler, and we can get to a point where we are unlocking the benefits of the transport system in terms of the economy, jobs for people, and building homes”.

Asked if taxis and PHVs would be covered, as these play an important role in filling gaps in the public transport network in some parts of the country, Alexander only said “I am confident that there will be some reference to private hire within the strategy.”

Permanent Secretary Jo Shanmugalingam added: “This is not just a public transport strategy. It is about how people use transport in their local communities, be that driving, private hire and taxis, or public transport.” So at least it should hopefully bridge the divide between motoring and the other modes.

Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury observed that one issue on which “there was a complete policy vacuum” was car share, carpooling and lift sharing, “which, in other nations, is an integral part of modal shift, although it is not, in itself, public transport.”

She might have added that there was also something close to a policy vacuum on micro-mobility, and yet another one on pavement parking control. Plus continuing confusion about the prioritisation of road space in urban areas between competing uses, including bike and bus lanes - as we examine in this issue - and the requirements of commercial deliveries.

Another area in which some form of integration is vital is in land-use and transport planning, and decisions on new developments and how they are best served by sustainable modes, as we profile in this issue following LTT’s very successful second transport and development event. Plus of course, the approach to local transport planning and the synthesis of all the different ingredients in Local Transport Plans, guidance on which is still long-awaited. In both regards, the DfT’s new connectivity tool, which we also write about in this issue, is another very relevant part of this landscape, though perhaps not quite the all-embracing game changer DfT itself is suggesting.

Transport Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury observed that one issue on which “there was a complete policy vacuum” was car share, carpooling and lift sharing. She might have added that there was also something close to a policy vacuum on micro-mobility, and yet another one on pavement parking control. Plus continuing confusion about the prioritisation of road space in urban areas between competing uses, including bike and bus lanes – as we examine in this issue – and the requirements of commercial deliveries.

Maybe these strategic matters will fail the cut for inclusion in the INTS, given its avowed user focus?

However, taking the Transport Secretary at her word, that “INTS will focus on people’s experience of the transport system”, it should surely mean that steps towards more seamless and well-connected journey planning and payment processes, which support better decision-making and choices by travellers, are high on the agenda, and must reflect the digital information and transactions increasingly prevalent in daily life.

This logically brings us to the concept of Mobility as a Service, which whilst having captured the imagination of creative thinking transport professionals for a number of years, still has failed to emerge in a viable functional form, and in fact all attempts to bring it into being having proved unsuccessful.

A commercial model for MaaS has yet to be apparent, and so it seems that getting all the modes into some kind of functional customer-facing alignment may need to be the task of Government — national or local.

The furthest that the Government has got along that path so far is a code of practice published in 2023 providing “a resource for organisations involved in Mobility as a Service (MaaS) schemes in the UK to navigate the many technical and commercial challenges faced”.

It offered specific technical and regulatory advice, and guidance on the government’s ambition for MaaS. The code of practice was intended for MaaS platform providers, transport operators and local authorities. However, the public, legal advisors and other parties involved in designing and deploying MaaS schemes were also expected to find it helpful.

The then Government set out its wider ambition for MaaS as having “the potential to provide substantial benefits and cost savings for the travelling public”. Better use of data and digital technologies could help improve the efficiency of the transport system, “providing greater freedom and choice for how we travel around. Joining up different modes of transport can also improve the commercial viability of services and help them to reach more people.”

It could also put an increased focus on shared transport, like car clubs and lift sharing, and micromobility modes like e-scooters. MaaS could meanwhile help the travelling public make more sustainable choices by providing information on carbon emissions and walking and cycling routes, the government said

This sounds like something ideal for inclusion in the INTS.

Warming ambitiously to its subject, the last Government even said it would like to see the next generation of MaaS platforms go beyond transport, “realising the social and economic benefits of better connecting people to the places they live and their local community by including information about local events and activities.”

There has been a procession of trial (and error) activities in the Mobility as a Service field, and as we reported in the last issue, one of these, the Breeze MaaS transport app, has recently shut down following the end of the DfT-awarded £28.8m funding of the Solent Future Transport Zone (FTZ).

That ‘next generation’ MaaS seems a long way away. Indeed, the first generation has yet to arrive.

MaaS surely, nonetheless, does have the potential to make multimodal journeys easier for all users through the ability to tailor them to individual preferences and needs. And likewise provide a maket for the intelligent mobility sector alongside the autonomous vehicle one the government is so keen to support. Should Government not also support the home-grown MaaS industry and transport operators and local authorities to develop a commercially viable product?.

Sadly, in the two and a half years since the last Government’s MaaS code of practice came out, it would be probably fair to say not a lot has happened towards those ambitious ends. In fact what has been happening looks largely inconsequential.

To date, any efforts have been fragmentary, naive and over-promoted whilst still unproven, and what is worse, resource hungry and duplicated. The Government simply offered a few dollops of time-limited support to local authorities to play around with MaaS-type ideas under various competitive funding initiatives, the latest having been conducted under the Future Transport Zones banner.

There has been a procession of trial (and error) activities in this field, and as we reported in the last issue, one of these, the Breeze Mobility‑as‑a‑Service transport app, has recently shut down following the end of the DfT-awarded £28.8m funding of the Solent Future Transport Zone (FTZ).

The planning, booking and payment app ran for a three-year trial period across Portsmouth, Southampton and the Isle of Wight from October 2022, with customers using it to unlock an e-scooter, hire a bike or e-bike and check bus and rail timetables to plan their route. In 2024 the service was extended to hovercraft and Isle of Wight ferry bookings, including foot passenger ferry tickets.

Solent Transport was the joint organisation working on the scheme on behalf of its local authority partners. The app was developed by Lithuanian company Trafi, with Unicard and Behavioural Insights developing the ticketing features. Now the plug has been pulled on it all, it is not even clear if any attempts were made to continue the Breeze project afer the FTZ funding ended and benefit from the commissioning of the initial technical development, or deploy the system created elsewhere.

Now, in sense of deja vu, a very similar Mobility as a Service offer developed by Nottingham City Council and Derby Council,again under the Future Transport Zone DfT initiative, has just been soft launched.. The two councils this time received £16.7m DfT funding for joint projects to improve connectivity and further encourage use of public transport.

The app also uses real-time information to plan, book and pay for journeys across a range of modes, including train, bus, e-bikes and scooters and car rental. It is now being treated as a potential region-wide project by the East Midlands Combined County Authority, under Mayor Claire Ward.

There is little evidence that these projects, or others before by Transport for the West Midlands and Transport for the North, have been given proper overall coordination or effectively monitored by the DfT as funder. Or that the development of a generally-useful core technical capability and functional user experience has been seen as the proper outcome alongside a very limited actual local offer. Indeed, it does not seem logical to think that small local MaaS projects with all the efforts that involves, are the right way forward.

If a new user-facing concept of this kind is to catch hold, it will need to be high-profile and able to cope with all kinds of travel needs, both local and longer distance, rather than just those in one or two small sub regional areas or adjacent towns.

This is a better matter for national government to directly address. If MaaS is to be a genuine new part of the integrated transport mix it needs to sit comfortably within the DfT’s delivery menu and in support of its devolution agenda by equipping the new Strategic Transport Authorities with a standard inter-operable capability that provides a nationally-recognisable user-facing platform.

The Welsh Government has at least sought to go down that path with the MaaS initiative now underway through Transport for Wales. Realistically, that is beginning with an integrated information portal, rather than trying to take on purchases and payments prematurely.

Perhaps it could even have been possible - or still be possible- for the Welsh project to have formed part of a larger UK-wide move to share efforts and experience in the quest for a genuine new travel offer to consumers?

Such a step would sensibly also embrace the unique expertise of Transport for London, whose experience in this area as a trusted travel integrator is probably the most significant and successful in the country. A connection would also be sensible with the fledgling Great British Railways, who are now also working on the new national rail information and ticket sales platform.

Integration, after all, means joining things up, which should apply in the development and delivery stage of activity as well as the nature of the final customer-facing offer. Is this a task for the newly-appointed DfT Director General of Strategy maybe?

The idea of MaaS is appealing, but one thing it surely needs is critical mass. If that is not to come from a national governmental commitment or agency, it will only be possible by a commercial player of considerable substance, its inevitable dominant role needing to be suitably regulated and supervised by the government.

There are several fairly obvious candidates for that leading private sector role — some of them already partly playing it — they include the likes of Google Maps, Moovit, and Citymapper (now part of Via), and some others who are significant transport providers or information or payment intermediaries.

Against this marketplace, playing around with bits a pieces under short term funding from local or regional bodies learning as they go is unlikely to be successful, and more likely waste a lot of resources, time and energy on the way, for little individual or collective benefit.

So perhaps we can anticipate the new Government setting out a more convincing agenda for the delivery of MaaS in its Integrated National Transport Strategy in the coming year: stating where it now stands on the issue of achieving all those benefits from a successful MaaS system that its predecessor described. It must surely be a key matter on which it will want to make more progress.

Less than encouragingly, perhaps, its only clearly stated intention in this territory to date has been the rather modest ambition of having a single platform that brings together the existing confusing diversity of apps for parking payment.

Peter Stonham is the Editorial Director of TAPAS Network

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT928, 18 December 2025.