4 | Transport Network Analysis SERVICE NUMBER 42/43 42 3 0 3 6 9 12 km Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 107 4 | Transport Network Analysis SERVICE NUMBER 51 51 3 0 3 6 9 12 km 108 Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 4 | Transport Network Analysis SERVICE NUMBER 93 93 3 0 3 6 9 12 km Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 109 4 | Transport Network Analysis SERVICE NUMBER 94 94 3 0 3 6 9 12 km 110 Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 4 | Transport Network Analysis SERVICE NUMBER 94U 94U 3 0 3 6 9 12 km Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 111 4 | Transport Network Analysis SERVICE NUMBER 97 97 3 0 3 6 9 12 km 112 Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 4 | Transport Network Analysis SERVICE NUMBER 99 99 3 0 3 6 9 12 km Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 113 114 Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 5 | Disruptive Technologies Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 115 5 | Disruptive Technologies DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGIES Transport is undergoing disruption. A variety of technological create more mobility and more car use at the expense of public of far fewer vehicles on the road in some future visions, in the advances are combining to offer both new forms of transportation transport, walking and cycling. In so doing, the commercial shorter term at least, the numbers of vehicles on the road may as well as radically changing the way services are delivered viability of public transport could be further eroded, exacerbating increase. and accessed. These include apps providing dynamic journey accessibility and inclusion for groups who can’t afford (or don’t planning and routeing information so that travellers can plan want to) engage with these new services, and we could end up The strategy should, therefore, try to prioritise shared transit, their journeys ‘on the go’ in response to real time network with more mobility, more congestion and more exclusion. and seek to make journeys by shared modes more convenient conditions, and new on-demand services such as on-demand and more direct than single-or-limited occupancy alternatives, taxis (e.g. Uber). There is also a surge in shared transport with Any forward strategy for a town or city needs to be cognisant of irrespective of the technology or mode. In this way the strategy car-sharing, ride-sharing and bike-sharing schemes enjoying these changes in order to harness them so that they work for, can prioritise buses and other public transport now, while exponential growth, facilitated by technology improvements, but rather than against, the town’s transport strategy and plans. remaining adaptable to new shared modes such as DRT or also seeming to tap into a zeitgeist around the sharing economy eventually, perhaps, services such as autonomous taxi-buses IMPLICATIONS FOR CHELTENHAM and declining interest in ownership. At the same time, we are in the future. moving towards electrification of the fleet, and the advent of As set out above, there are both potential prizes and risks from Limited-occupancy passenger services (such as taxi, or ride autonomous vehicles. the new and emerging mobility technologies. At the same time, sharing) should be afforded little or no advantage over private we can only predict what the future might look like Huge interest has developed around the concept of ‘Mobility as a vehicles in terms of ease or perhaps cost of access to the town centre. Service’ (MaaS), which promises “the integration of various forms A transport strategy for Cheltenham needs to deal with what of transport services into a single mobility service accessible on we know now and what we are confident will happen, and Such an approach could be flexible enough to recognise the demand.” MaaS envisages users being able to plan end to end should avoid trapping itself in planning for a future that may public advantage derived from technological advances made to journeys, potentially involving multiple modes, using the MaaS never arrive. With this in mind, the strategy should put moving single or limited occupancy vehicles, by treating such vehicles provider’s app information and payment platform. Here, the people, rather than vehicles, at its heart. Building on this, it can in the same way as shared transit modes. An example would MaaS provider identifies the best option for your journey (based focus on some principles of movement - single, versus shared be to recognise the air quality benefits of electrically-powered on your individual preferences and current network conditions), mobility, for example - rather than being overly prescriptive vehicles over diesel or petrol. and books and pays for each leg of your journey. Users can about specific technologies, or even ownership models. choose a pay-as-you-go service or a ‘mobility bundle’, similar SWOT to the way in which people purchase broadband bundles. The Core to this, especially given the scale of the town, is prioritising ultimate vision of MaaS is to provide a multi-modal service that walking and cycling above all other modes. We can anticipate Given the diverse range of technology, service changes and is better than use of the private car. that these should remain relevant in one form or other, regardless potential impacts, we have undertaken SWOTs for these of technological advances. elements: MaaS, electrification of the fleet, and autonomous These innovations potentially bring major prizes in terms of vehicles. The SWOT on MaaS brings together the MaaS improved accessibility, reliability, safety and convenience for New vehicles are emerging that may prove suitable for sharing components: new journey planning apps, integrated payments users of these services, as well as improved network efficiency, space with pedestrians and cyclists. These could include and new shared transport services. better air quality, and better management of space for the e-bikes, e-scooters and autonomous ‘pod’ vehicles. The strategy city. The investment in transport by third parties and the more can anticipate this by considering ‘slow modes’ as a group, and efficient use of the network could also reduce the capital and set out the conditions where mixing these (electrically) powered revenue costs to transport authorities by helping to fund the modes with pedestrians and cyclists is appropriate, and where infrastructure and services. it is not. However, these disruptive technologies and services also While it is recognised that public transport is the current basis bring major risks, if not appropriately managed. They could for our mass transit system, there are risks that disruptive technologies could undercut it. Similarly, despite the promise 116 Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 5 | Disruptive Technologies Connecting Cheltenham - Baseline Report 117 5 | Disruptive Technologies SWOT: MAAS - MOBILITY AS A SERVICE STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES OPPORTUNITIES THREATS • Focuses transport planners on thinking • For Mobility as a Service, we need services: • Establish strong policy support for adoption • Public transport operators or car about the user and the end to end journey door to door seamless journeys can’t be of MaaS and for enabling MaaS operators manufacturers might try to position realised unless new services such as car themselves as MaaS providers in a way • New service offers developed, such as ride- club, bike share, on demand bus etc. are • Continue to work with transport providers that seeks to maximise their market share, sharing, car-sharing and bike-share in place. on providing better and more open transport rather than benefit the customer information • Multi-modal, end to end journeys become • It might not happen: regulatory, governance, • Exclusive MaaS operators could undermine more attractive as information and payment technical and commercial hurdles still to be • Continue to work with transport providers viability of existing public transport, managed through MaaS platform overcome to realise MaaS in deregulated on smart and integrated ticketing solutions damaging accessibility for people who are transport environment. These require not members of the MaaS platform. • Non-traditional users of public transport, • Encourage providers of shared transport national government intervention. cycling, ride-sharing etc. start to use these services to come into Cheltenham (e.g. car • As car remains part of the MaaS offer modes • It might remain a niche and fail to become clubs, bike-share, ride-share, on-demand in various forms, if the suite of public mass market: at the moment, new journey bus and taxi services) transport and active transport options is not • Large-scale uptake of MaaS could planning apps, new payment techniques competitive, car could remain the dominant significantly reduce private car ownership • Undertake work to improve the interchange and new shared transport services such mode of transport. Current non-car owners and, if delivered with competitive between different transport modes, as a as car clubs and bike-sharing tend to be may even be introduced to readily available alternatives, overall car usage. pre-cursor to MaaS: e.g. bike share at used by niche groups or in big city locations access to car; while this may benefit social rail stations and bus stations, car clubs (such as London). It might be that MaaS inclusion, this would not help other transport accommodated at key public destinations, never reaches beyond these major regional issues such as congestion. transport hubs and in residential centres or beyond the distinct demographic communities groups and early adopters, so becomes a niche