Written evidence submitted by Uber (MAS0015)

Introduction

Uber is a technology company which allows people to tap a button for a safe, affordable and reliable ride from a fully licensed local driver in over 40 towns and cities around the UK. Globally, the Uber app is available in more than 600 cities across 75 countries. By working to get more people into fewer cars, we believe in a future where every journey is a shared journey - reducing congestion, pollution and the need for parking in cities around the world.

Getting from A to B should be seamless, and we know that Uber is only one solution available to people. It is high-capacity public transport - which moves thousands of people at a time - that should remain the backbone of a city’s transport infrastructure, and policymakers are right to promote active travel as a means of healthy living and greener, less congested streets. No one option will work for all people or all cities, but rather the future is multi-modal. Ridesharing apps and other mobility services  -  from bike sharing to car sharing to public transport  -  must work together and further integrate to compete with private cars and offer a future of low-cost, low-emission, low-hassle travel.

Yet the reality is that encouraging people to give up their cars and take multi-modal journeys via a single platform can be difficult in practice. There is the logistical challenge involving different timetables, different tickets, different payment systems and so on. At Uber we believe we can play a role in overcoming these challenges, so at a European level we have joined the board of the MaaS Alliance, a public-private partnership established to promote the integration of shared mobility services and provide a sustainable and affordable alternative to owning a car across the EU. Members range from national transport ministries and public transport operators to car manufacturers and cities.

Affordable and reliable on-demand services like Uber are core to the movement towards multi-modality, and we are open to partnering in the UK with like-minded organisations to make cities better places to live in and get around. It is within that context that we support efforts to understand the potential - and pitfalls - of Mobility as a Service, and will be an increasingly active participant in the debate.

The effectiveness of integrated, multi-mode MaaS apps

Uber integrates with third-party transit apps to make multi-modal travel seamless and convenient. By integrating the Uber API into transit apps, riders can incorporate multiple modes of transport, including public transport, into their commutes, so easing the strain on the roads and making their lives easier.

By partnering in this way, we hope to bridge the gaps in transport systems by delivering the certainty that riders need to complete their entire trip in a way that has never been done before. These solutions marry the strengths of public transport  with the convenience and reliability of Uber, getting riders to and from tube, bus and train stops to reach their ultimate destination.

Examples of multi-modal apps with which we integrate around the world:

•                   Transit App: people using the Transit App can request an Uber through their trip planner or in Nearby Mode, making it easier and faster for users to get where they need to go. Customers are not only able to view real-time ETAs for their Uber, but they also get approximate fare costs and trip comparison. The view from Transit App is below and more information is available at https://www.uber.com/newsroom/transitapp/
•                              “When urbanites move through their city, they are constantly weighing the cost, convenience and speed of each transport option. With our Uber integration, we’re making it easier to solve that equation so you can quickly get on your way.” Jake Sion, Director of Strategy & Development at Transit App.

•                   CityMapper: Citymapper’s unique SuperRouter algorithm combines transit routing with car routing for the first time, merging two previously disparate networks. The addition of the Uber API’s ETA and travel time information completes Citymapper’s picture of real-time transport information in a city. Testimony from CityMapper is below and more information is available at https://www.uber.com/blog/new-york-city/best-of-both-worlds-uber-public-transit/
•                              “The Uber Platform is a great fit for multimodal routing, because it gives us estimates for travel time along with waiting time and price. Citymapper’s live ETA system combines Uber’s estimates with real-time transit information to tell you exactly how long the entire trip will take.” Joe Hughes, Head of Mobile Engineering at Citymapper.

•                   Moovit: Moovit users can seamlessly plan their journeys using a combination of options such as buses, trains, bikesharing and Uber. Real-time estimates for Uber appear on the Moovit homescreen, giving users immediate access to the information they need to get to their destination efficiently and affordably.  The rationale from Moovit is below and more information is available at http://moovitapp.com/info/uberi/.
•                              “Our goal is to provide our users with the best possible experience on public transport, but there are times when it’s quicker for users to get around via car. By now offering the option to order an Uber for all or part of a journey, we’re able to give our users even more freedom in deciding how they want to get from point A to point B.” Nir Erez, Moovit CEO.

Overcoming concerns about digital exclusion, ensuring mobility remains accessible to all

Transport providers and on-demand mobility apps should be committed to making travel affordable and accessible for all. We are constantly striving as a company to provide lower cost service across our product lines and to innovate in ways that extend access more widely, e.g.

•                   Our core service UberX is competitively priced in every town and city we serve, and through our car sharing option uberPOOL - which matches riders going in the same direction - we are able to offer an even more affordable service while getting more people into fewer vehicles while reducing the impact on congestion and air quality.  
•                   We have also partnered with public bodies to provide discounted rides to low-income commuters, for example in Pinellas County, Florida, where we are jointly subsidising Uber fares to and from bus stops to solve the ‘first and last mile’ problem in the county. We are open to exploring similar arrangements in the UK.
•                   Uber can also extend access to reliable, affordable transport options for those without smartphones. Through UberCentral, individuals can request, manage, and pay for rides for others through a centralised platform - the passenger doesn’t need to own a smartphone or have an Uber account.
•                   We are working to make Uber available wherever and whenever for those with mobility needs. We launched Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles in London last year and, as part of our UberACCESS programme, the service has been extended across seven UK cities, with more to follow. We also offer an UberASSIST service, a transport option designed to provide additional assistance for older and/or disabled riders, including those who may just feel more comfortable with an extra hand when getting from door to door.

Overcoming the barriers to implementation of integrated, multi-mode MaaS apps in UK cities

There are a number of barriers to implementing integrated transport, smart ticketing and ultimately MaaS apps in UK cities. These include but are not limited to a lack of smart technology infrastructure; lack of interest in integration of services and data-sharing from commercial operators and insufficient market or regulatory power in local transport bodies to compel them to do so.

Delayed implementation of smart infrastructure

Vast areas of the UK suffer from a lack of technological infrastructure that allows for the collection of data. The Department for Transport (DfT) has committed £80m to rolling out smart ticketing across the whole rail network by the end of 2018 and on the UK’s five biggest bus operators by 2022.

These interventions are welcome, however in the meantime the majority of bus operators still collect bus fares via cash or season tickets. Outside of London, only Birmingham and Manchester have contactless Oyster-style systems at present and only within specific areas and on certain train and tram services.

Lack of interest in integration from commercial operators

The commercial value of data is a disincentive to sharing for operators, but also because the MaaS concept entails split or reduced ticket costs for pay-as-you-go journeys and therefore reduced revenues. Government has struggled to encourage commercial operators to offer flexible ticketing options even where smart ticketing exists.

A good example of this is the National Audit Office’s review of DfT’s unsuccessful attempts to implement smart ticketing across rail services in the South East of England. Even after investing £120m into getting the new system up and running from 2012 to today, only one in five operators offer part-time or flexible season tickets.

Reluctance of commercial operators to share data

Looking at rail in particular, intra-industry competition has limited data-sharing between companies and indeed on the rail network the rates operators are paid out of ticket money is still based on an semi-opaque system of usage called the Rail Settlement Plan coordinated by the Rail Delivery Group, the sector’s trade body.

The process determines how much revenue is apportioned by the possible journeys available on the ticket purchased. It therefore considers the number of most direct services available and connections where necessary between origin and destination. It then splits the revenue between operators based on the percentage mileage provided by each operator. Other factors are considered, including the attractiveness of journeys in terms of speed for example. However, little information is released by the operators on the specifics of the mechanism beyond the above, leading some to claim that regulation of revenues is impossible in the current system.

In the UK - and indeed Europe - providers have been very reluctant to share their data with third parties, with passenger numbers, footfall, travel updates and timetables the limit of what has been shared with third parties - and only via Network Rail. Implementing MaaS would require an overhaul of this system and would represent a welcome development, albeit not without its own challenges.

Uber is interested in working with transport providers and regulators to explore ways of brokering greater data-sharing, within the limits of what is commercially possible. One way of reducing the impact is to ensure a threshold amount of participation by all operators in a local transport network, so mitigating any perceived advantages to individual parties.

The limits of local transport bodies

Unlike Transport for London, which has had some success in coercing providers into integrating their systems, smaller regional transport regulators are not as able to persuade commercial operators to integrate their data and services into a single, smart way of paying for it. London’s ability to do this is largely driven by the market power they have over such valuable franchises and less due to their regulatory powers.

Experiments in Total Transport programmes designed to circumvent this issue have come across familiar barriers. Total Transport’s purpose is to integrate transport services currently commissioned by different central and local government agencies and provided by different operators - helping to strengthen the hand of local regulators and to encourage the better design of services for customers.

In their 2015 report into Total Transport authorities, IPPR noted that franchising powers had allowed London to compel data-sharing by operators. They also report that many smaller bus operators were reticent to engage in data-pooling with other providers because of perceived risks around falling foul of competition law: “While a number of mechanisms are in place to allow collaboration between operators, the threat of financial penalties for anti-competitive behaviour has made operators reluctant to enter into partnerships and created a culture of fear around collaboration.”

DfT recognises these challenges

DfT does recognise most of these challenges. In a paper presented to the Intelligent Transport Systems European Congress 2017 in April 2017, Matthew Coleman, DfT’s Head of Science Research and Strategy, highlighted a number of challenges to using big data effectively in transport in the UK. He noted that: “Our initial research and engagement has highlighted a number of potential barriers to Big Data benefit realisation:

•                   Commercial sensitivities mean that companies often do not want to share “their” data as they believe it has commercial value and/or gives them a competitive edge. This was a particular barrier to realising the benefits of smart ticketing investment as operators did not want their competitors to have access to “their” data.

•                   Building the business case for innovative approaches can be difficult as there is limited evidence of the likely benefits.

•                   Market failures may take different forms. For instance, early innovators may not be able to secure a return for their upfront investment. Asymmetric information is likely to be a problem as suppliers know much more than public sector customers in terms of costs, benefits and risks.
•                   Data collectors/owners are not necessarily those that would benefit from any exploitation of the data by 3rd parties, creating a disincentive to share, and the need to create different types of business models.
•                   Capability within public authorities to understand the likely data, data analytics and integration techniques, potential business models and data access to enable their exploitation.
•                   The variability in the quality around IoT sensors may be an issue as poor quality products could provide misleading results. Sensors need to be fit-for-purpose for the activity and local environment. It is therefore important to have the correct standards in place. The British Standards Institute has already started to develop standards around Smart City technologies. The quality of data may also be poor negating its use or providing misleading conclusions.”

December 2017