Data societal downsides need discussion

SOME, OF A CERTAIN MINDSET in the transport professional community, have dreamt that the coming of the bountiful digital data era will mean obtaining unprecedented rich flows of information that provide impressively detailed new insights into the travel patterns of citizens as transport users. These might even dig down into the finest-grained understanding about the complex constituents of the myriad multi-element trip chains that make up the daily lives of the population.

Wouldn’t that be so much more valuable than just limited sample roadside surveys, manual counts of bus and rail passengers, or questionnaire-based diaries which only scratch the surface of what’s really going on out there, the thinking has been. And so much cheaper and accessible too, if collected and made available at the click of a button, and then converted into amazing interpretative graphics, rather than reams of paper with rows and rows of numbers, or mind-numbing spreadsheets.

The true significance of the distinction between what has existed in the past — and been the only practically available material — and a new world of infinite information is, of course, a matter of interpretation and judgment. As indeed is the value and meaning all the new data itself, and how it can be analysed and acted upon. And, it must sadly be said in this day and age, ‘monetised’.

The vision is certainly now feasible, and being extended ever more deeply with the help of our ostensibly ever-friendly AI assistants. But is it desirable? And practically useful. Or worryingly unconstrained, and potentially dangerous?

Just like the dot com boom, the full import of the data explosion looks over hyped and under examined.

The famous quote by Oscar Wilde about those who ‘know the price of everything and the value of nothing’, seems relevant in this context. The poetic sage was pointing out that it is possible to assign a monetary price to things, but fail to appreciate their deeper intrinsic or non-material worth, or even societal significance.

In the new context of the explosion of digital information collection, might we re-work Wilde’s aphorism to be pertinent to those who ‘recognise only the monetary value of data, but do not respect its true provenance and proper custody’.

What all that data represents, and how it should be properly respected and treated, is a conundrum in itself. True, there are obvious insights to be gained by greater knowledge of people’s activities and behaviour patterns, hopefully properly protected from the revelation of any individual identity. But there are also other major emergent concerns about a society in which decisions are increasingly driven by those with privileged access to remarkable knowledge of ordinary people’s lives, and a unquestioning belief that detailed study of them is the key to better decision-making on what services they should be provided with. Whether it be by professionals or policy-makers in the public sector, or those with private commercial interests to pursue.

The phase ‘open data’ is often bandied about for these untold information riches as though it is a statement of the essence of democracy at work - but data open to whom, and how, and to do what with?

It is a short step from the huge data banks now being collected by public agencies and private businesses, to the detailed records that have always been so beloved of authoritarian regimes, albeit hitherto collected by vast teams of observers, investigators and busy-bodies, who have believed — perhaps even well-intentionally — that it can only be a good thing for the authorities who are simply there to look after us , and to have access to what is really going on amongst their populace, so they can intervene in their best interest.

Knowledge is power, and who we empower is a significant decision, as is how we constrain them and hold them to account being core principles of any effective democracy.

Using the data for un-acknowledged and potentially questionable purposes is one level of concern — selling it on for use by commercial organisations interested in turning it into sales opportunities and transactions is another. It is a resource that is fragile in character and open to many kinds of abuse. Losing control of it altogether is a further frightening prospect.

Of course, there can (and will) be promises that no information obtained and analysed will be directly linked to any individual or personal activity, or at least not done so ‘without permission’. But we seem to be entering into an era where such permission is extensively and thoughtlessly being given in the course of most people’s ordinary activity, by dint of the transactions necessarily being undertaken digitally every day. This may be through the simple act of waving a card or ticking a box – or even not objecting during an online session, especially where such an action is essential to get past an access gateway point. And where often it may not be being clearly signalled what such ‘approval’ or ‘acceptance’ then allows.

We have moved into an era of widespread implicit, rather than explicit, consent, and very limited consumer knowledge of how data is being used. A world where there is a mixture of excitable enthusiasm and unregulated extraction of value amongst the data collectors, and naive consent amongst the data providers (ie individual citizens).

A case in point seems to be presented by the recently-undertaken Fusion Project, commissioned by the DfT, and which we look at in this LTT issue. Under this concept detailed personal travel patterns created by the tracking system of the MyWays ‘personal travel’ recording app have been used to unlock thousands of very detailed individual journeys showing the full complexities of people’s travel patterns. The data captured can reveal not only the transport modes they have used, but the places they have gone to and the times they have been engaged in the related activities. Alongside this, the users have been encouraged to provide additional answers to questions and comments on particular elements of their travel experiences and expectations.

This means that it is now possible for continuous travel (and other) data to be extracted with software that runs in the background on mobile phones to track activity and even detect the mode of transport that someone is using and their route, without requiring any particular notification, authorisation or interaction from them.

Such systems reflect the increasing prevalence of smart-phones as the technology of choice by many consumers to carry all their personal account information for banking, driver licenses and other permits, subscriptions, loyalty cards and other personal data.

The MyWays tool uses algorithms to study the speed, location and pattern of movement to identify the mode of transport. Millions of miles of journeys were used to train those algorithms, with the result that the software can now tell whether someone is travelling by train, bike, foot, car, bus, metro or air. Travel Ai’s MyWays app has thus been the mechanism to unlock the data used for the Fusion Project.

A much more limited analogue version of more basic data collection has long existed of course, where government agencies or commercial suppliers have specific records of people’s activity in terms of payments, purchases and bookings etc. The difference now is the ease of this information collection, the enormous processing power for its codification and analysis, and the potential for cross referencing of different data sets, and their matching with other dimensions such as geo-positioning, time stamping, and pattern recognition.

We have meanwhile moved into an era of widespread implicit, rather than explicit, consent, and very limited consumer knowledge of how this data is being used, and the future potential for its yet further analysis and use.

We seem to be entering this new world in a mixture of excitable enthusiasm amongst the data collectors, and naive consent amongst the data providers (ie individual citizens).

The Fusion Project comes, interestingly, as Transport for London seeks to embark, as a public body, on something potentially similar through its own Proteus Project to recast the way it organises the payment systems employed for all the London transport modes for which it is responsible. In this it envisages switching from a card-related basis for transactions based on either customers’ Oyster or specific bank cards, to a user-centric account-based approach that collects all the data for an individual’s personal travel patterns. TfL believes this can both help users by managing the fares price cap that should apply to their daily or weekly travel, but also reduce fare evasion, and facilitate Data Monetisation through ‘the commercial utilisation of revenue collection data’ , perhaps supporting the establishment of new “Mobility-as-a-Service” (MaaS) and micro-mobility packaged travel solutions.

As with the other steps along the path toward the much more detailed data collection and potential use within the travel sector, there does not appear to have yet been a great deal of public discussion about the now well-advanced TfL plans, or suggestions of how those who do not wish to have all their movements tracked may opt out of the favoured new procedures.

Alongside the ‘soft’ acceptance processes that users are now offered to give approval to their data being collected, there looks to be a risk, with both the disappearance of cash and of simple non-personalised travel card systems, that no alternative options may soon be available for people to travel without being tracked. Or at least not to be disadvantaged by seeking to do so whilst not being able to obtain discounts or other benefits without being required to share very significant new levels of personal data.

Aside from the concerns expressed here about the nature of, and issues arising from, this explosion in data collection in terms of individual privacy, the other core question is what real benefit might genuinely be obtained by its use in transport planning and policy making?

As suggested at the beginning of this piece, many transport professionals have imagined the time when rich data on travel patterns is collected contemporaneously rather than time-lagged, and quickly analysed and interrogated in all sorts of ways that ostensibly can improve the processes by which current and future transport systems are planned and delivered.

But is that supposed possibility such a huge step forwards?

Yes, it would be possible for practitioners and policymakers to understand mobility patterns in much more detail and close to real time. But is this the information that’s really helpful to define where new investment should be made and better services be planned? Is the evidence of current behaviour the correct driver of future transport provision? Would that not be just a version of the much derided ‘predict and provide’, or rather its substitution now by ‘analyse and extrapolate?’

A crucial dimension for any significant change to transport provision is defining the outcome that is sought in the years ahead, and its suitability for the travel needs of future generations in the overall public interest. It is rather questionable whether drowning in data about current travel patterns is a help or a hindrance in visioning the next iteration of transport provision. Should that not remain a territory principally occupied by those whose task is to shape and deliver policy objectives, and seek to understand future scenarios for the nature of travel in our current fast-changing world?

For the routine operation of transport services, readily-available usage information is definitely something of value, just as the sales data for a supermarket helps decide on the restocking of the shelves, and in preparation for seasonal buying trends. But that does not require forensic insights into every shopper’s life, and in the world of transport planning, the horizons are longer and more uncertain. Does knowing what is currently going on in microscopic detail really help us that much in determining what to do next?

Data reveals, for example, that very few people take the train on Boxing Day. However, that is rather connected to the fact that hardly any trains are running. Any decisions to improve the services must be based upon an assessment of the potential, and a willingness to take the risk of actually offering better services, and seeing what happens.

It is difficult decisions like that, which often shape the future of the transport system, for better or for worse. Diving deeper and deeper into current user data may be exciting for some people. But it brings a big set of new dangers too.

This is not to assert any bad intent by any particular party, but to warn of significant unconsidered potential outcomes, and unexpected and unwelcome consequences. And perhaps an overstated belief in what this new trove of data can anyway offer. We should surely have a full discussion of all the implications before it is too late.

Peter Stonham is the Editorial Director of TAPAS Network

This article was first published in LTT magazine, LTT928, 8 January 2026.