The car has evolved significantly over the last century. The driving experience, however, has largely remained the same. But this is changing. Most headlines to date have focused on driverless cars in the context of future mobility. Unsurprising really, but more interesting is not who might be driving cars in the future, but what’s currently happening under our bonnets.

Nowadays, being disconnected from the world is alien to most of us because we now see connectivity as a need rather than a luxury. Vehicle connectivity is central to this behavioural shift and already driving a huge number of innovations that will transform all our travel experiences.

It’s not about getting from A to B anymore but doing so in a way that facilitates our accessing a host of new experiences and connectivity features within our cars. In-car safety (e.g. integrated cameras, self-braking), vehicle to vehicle safety that allows cars to effectively talk to one another helping to prevent accidents, data tracking to record vehicle usage, infotainment that connects us to things like Spotify and, of course, 4G WIFI hotspots, are all in high consumer demand.

Interest from original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), government and third-parties will also increase this year. Eager to harness its potential whilst also overcoming its many challenges, questions remain as to whether existing car manufacturers will be able to keep hold of their vehicles’ data. It’s likely irresistible pressure to provide access to third parties, both to create new types of services but new revenue streams too, will soon prevail.

The amount of data a vehicle generates is set to explode but monetising this huge increase in operational data is easier said than done for OEMs who have historically fallen behind market disruptors. There are also questions about whether consumers want to see an increase in vehicle connectivity. Though considered highly beneficial in countries like China, it isn’t in countries like Germany, for example. Consumers’ willingness to pay for connected data services will surely also come into question as let’s face it, we’ve all come to expect basic services and apps for free.

OEMs’ potential to realise benefits from being in control of a vehicle’s data is enormous. This can range from knowing which parts of a vehicle are likely to fail and when, real-time data that’s sent from vehicle sensors to identify problems early or knowing a customer’s driving behaviour that helps design better, more customized customer experiences, ultimately improving brand affinity and loyalty.

However, not every automaker is well positioned to succeed at every stage of the connected vehicle value chain. As a result, though in possession of a vehicle’s data, they are reluctant to give this up as, understandably, want to control every point in the value chain. For years, many OEMs have attempted to build the entire mobility data ecosystem themselves, but only by partnering with outside organisations can the monetisation of vehicle data develop to its full potential.

Many OEMs have also failed to hide their collective vulnerability to market disruptors looking for ways to bypass them. For instance, for user-based insurance, the addition of a simple plug-in allows insurance companies to gain access to vehicle usage data which means being able to avoid the need to interface with OEMs.

There’s also a question of data protection. Generally, consumers are more willing to share their data for services or features that have a perceived benefit, but trust would be lost if the data OEMs share is compromised in any way. Keeping this trust and brand loyalty whilst also trying to use customers’ data to create better and more personalised experiences for them will be a huge challenge.

Similarly, who owns a vehicle’s data and who gets to use it will also be key questions that need answering before vehicle connectivity really takes off. The most interesting data sets are often the ones that are shared across connected ecosystems that include consumers, OEMs, and service providers. However, studies have shown consumers aren’t fully comfortable with one type of company managing their connected data. Naturally, this will help make the case for why OEMs should give up their total control over their vehicles’ data as they simply aren’t best placed to make the most of it.

Vehicle connectivity is the future and OEMs will need to capitalise on the opportunities it brings, not only for them, but for society as whole quickly. If they don’t then they risk losing out to more agile and non-traditional competitors.

And so, what’s happening under our bonnets now and in the future will create far more disruptive changes to the automotive industry and how we travel in the short-to-medium term, than any increase in cars’ ability to drive themselves.

Chris Grayling is having a rough old time of it. He has listed from bad headlines to calls for his resignation over the fluffed Brexit ferry contract, faced ire over pricier rail tickets that annually signal the end of the Christmas holidays, and had his past dragged up over the collapse of his flagship probation reforms made as Justice Secretary. And it doesn’t seem it will get any less difficult in the short or longer term. DfT is scrambling to modernise the entire transport infrastructure – in physical, political and regulatory terms – for the 21^st century. This is not the easiest of challenges anyway but must be particularly irksome for a distracted department led by an embattled Secretary of State.

Perhaps a symptom of DfT’s eagerness to address questions about the future of transportation in the UK is the flurry of recent consultations from the Department. Four separate consultations have been issued over the past three weeks, with one in particular causing a particular stir: a proposed update to the DfT’s code of practice on autonomous vehicles that could see advanced tests on public roads far sooner than expected. The changes set out more clearly the mechanism by which autonomous vehicles can be trialled, strengthening the legal requirements for testing, in theory making it easier for companies to bring their prototypes to test and consequently to market.

In an area where there’s been so much chatter but little tangible progress since 2015, the government is looking to ensure the UK is the chief innovator in trials of self-driving cars. If successful it would move the UK closer to its ambition of having self-driving vehicles on UK roads by 2021, as well as send a clear message the UK was a world leader for autonomous vehicle testing.

However, this hasn’t exactly been welcomed far and wide by stakeholders. Where usually industry calls for government to keep up and to stimulate investment in innovation, this consultation has largely been met with a cry of “too much, too soon”. Industry experts have pointed out that the technology is far from ready, and the RAC has been clear that road users remain overwhelmingly uncomfortable about the prospect of interacting with driverless cars. Not least, the death of a pedestrian in Arizona during a road test in March 2018, as well as two fatalities during closed tests by Tesla, has delayed progress while serious questions, both technological and legal, are asked. More dangerous, more congested roads, on account of the need for ultra-cautious driving, is the prevailing prediction from observers should the government stay in the fast lane through this consultation. Christian Wolmar, the one-time Labour Parliamentary candidate who frequently commentates on transport issues, accused the government of “rushing forward with this technology long before it is ready”. While the SMMT has previously been positive about the impact of driverless cars, claiming they could provide “huge social, industrial and economic benefits to the UK”, it is telling it has not responded directly to this change. This can’t be the response the DfT was hoping for.

Nevertheless, the accelerated ambition from government could be seen as a grand signal to the UK and global business that Britain is the place to be for R&D and trialling. Certainly, the consultation launch was framed within the context of meeting the Industrial Strategy’s Future Mobility Grand Challenge and Ministers’ eagerness to position the UK as a world-leader in the sector. This could well be a boon to innovators in the industry, providing at the very least a pathway to making this technology a reality. In some respects, even by setting a target it cannot meet, the government has stolen a march in embracing a technology many see as crucial to the future of mobility.

The DfT may be under pressure in numerous policy areas, and as with many government departments, may be operating with a distracted upper management. But in attempting to take a lead on autonomous vehicles it has opened the door for business to contribute to creating the transport network of the future. If it is indicative of a general willingness by the Department to embrace new technologies more broadly, the next few years could be an exciting and fruitful time for business.

The episode also provides a lesson in gesture politics. The muted response from the automotive sector to government’s trumpet call for rapid change shows Ministers that without the substance to bring industry and the public with them, there’s not always a need for speed.

Time to shift gear

The publication of the Urban Mobility Strategy was, in many ways, the final piece of the jigsaw. From future mobility being framed as a “Grand Challenge” to delivering goods more sustainably as part of “the last mile”, there’s nothing left to do but act.

If government is serious about fully realising the opportunities that urban mobility presents us, there can be no more strategies, no more consultations. Now is the time for genuine delivery.

However, exactly what and how is up for debate. Given the sheer number of competing players now active in the market, this area has become more intractable than ever. What is clear is that bringing order to this seemingly chaotic environment will require a balanced approach to regulative, legislative and political action.

Key to realising urban mobility’s potential is to look to the future, working backwards from a desired endpoint. What needs to happen with X to get to Y? Below are some of the key trends influencing urban mobility, each with a desired end point and some thoughts on how we might get there.

From X to Y, but how?

Vehicle ownership to vehicle usership

What was once a dominant behaviour or aspiration, owning a car is increasingly no longer considered necessary by a growing section of society. Though it has brought substantial benefits to society, high levels of ownership have also brought serious challenges. Take safety, for example. Human error was involved in 85 per cent of all road accidents in 2017. Air pollution, though having improved since 2010, remains a serious risk to public health. Congestion too. The time lost as a result costs the UK economy around £2 billion per year.

Vehicle usership is a key principle upon which the concept of urban mobility is based. Arguably, we’re already nearing our endpoint, but there are still things that can be done to push usership over the line as the new dominant form of transport. A shift away from ownership means regardless of age or whether someone has a disability, people are able to access the same transport. However, equally, with the rise of MaaS platforms and different types of sharing models, there’s a danger these groups of people might be excluded from the new urban mobility, especially as transport information, booking and payment functions are modelled through digital platforms.

With the requisite political will, fewer privately-owned cars will bring opportunities to radically redesign urban areas and the environmental benefits will be self-evident. New mobility models can reduce dependency on car ownership. However, closer integration of our infrastructure and vehicles with communication networks could lead to increased vulnerability to cyber-attacks. As new transport modes and services are introduced, it will be important to consider how they can be safely integrated into the transport system and vulnerable users can be protected.

Limited choice to lots of choice 

Once limited almost exclusively to cars, urban mobility in the future will be defined by a diverse range of modes, from bike sharing to autonomous transit, as well as more traditional options like rail and walking. When all these models co-exist with cars, and are connected in an urban environment, mobility options and utility can be enhanced significantly. To ensure the UK continues to foster new mobility innovations, the environment in which they would operate must be a fertile one, facilitated by a flexible and responsive regulatory system that works with cities and provides them the tools necessary to innovate. Key to this will be ensuring the regulatory review promised by government asks the right questions and involves the right parties.

Government funded transport to public-private transport

This was always inevitable and the only way in which the future of urban mobility can be realised. Key to getting to our endpoint here, however, is working together, not competing. Although the media and large parts of the public seem to be enthralled with the idea of driverless cars and flying taxis, the idea that these types of mobility models will replace government funded transportation misses the point entirely.

Public and private transportation can complement one another. Public transit hubs, for example, could offer a steady stream of customers to new mobility service providers and, in turn, they can make public transit a more attractive door-to-door experience. However, such systems must be coordinated for efficiency purposes and to reduce congestion in cities. Cities and their respective transport agencies may need to take more control over how and where services are offered to avoid areas being overburdened with new services thus causing gridlock, and to ensure access is available to all cities and groups of people.

Unconnected transportation to on-demand and connected transport

As identified in the Urban Mobility Strategy, a key principle of success is the need for “new mobility services to be designed to operate as part of an integrated transport system combining public, private and multiple modes of transport users.”

For a truly integrated system, we need a more inclusive transport system. This should be one that adopts new mobility technologies as its default position, widening the affordability, availability, and accessibility of transport and narrowing existing transport inequalities in the process.

The current regulatory and commercial barriers that have left the urban transport market fragmented must be addressed, be it as part of the regulatory review, legislation, or other means. In any case, the current environment means the barriers to entry for organisations wishing to integrate transport provision are too high and are threatening consumers with a lack of information to plan or buy integrated journeys effectively.

2040 and beyond

Of course, these are only a selection of many factors shaping the urban mobility revolution. Talking about what needs to be done to get to certain endpoints for certain elements of urban mobility’s future is easy, but how we get to a final endpoint, encompassing all these factors, is the hard part.

WA Communications will be hosting its “From chaos, comes order, but how? Looking ahead to urban mobility in 2040” event on Wednesday 24^th April to try and answer this question. For more information about attending this event please contact Stephen McLoughlin at stephenmcloughlin@wacomms.eprefix.com or by calling 0203 102 3628.

WA was at the Transport Times Rail Summit this week, joining industry and political leaders to talk about what’s coming down the line in 2019 and well beyond.

There were fascinating discussions about HS2, Crossrail, vast numbers of new rolling stock, regional devolution and smart ticketing that gave a real sense of ambition and exciting glimpses of new innovations that will transform passenger experiences almost in real time.

But following a horrendous 2018 for large parts of the network and many operators, it was left to the Rail Minister, Network Rail, and Keith Williams – the person tasked with a root and branch review of the UK’s rail network – to deal with the big-ticket questions of performance and trust that overshadow improvements and swell support for more radical reform (as supported by the Labour Party’s leadership), that could pose more existential challenges for the industry if enacted.

The political context is febrile. There is a Conservative government no longer willing to defend the rail industry based on its private sector instincts alone, and a Labour opposition with a clear plan to take franchises back into public ownership at the point of expiry.

The contributions from the Summit’s leading voices were strikingly honest and thought-provoking.

We know now that Keith Williams is half way through his rail review. He has spoken to over 130 groups and received over 200 submissions from operators, regulators and passenger groups. The basic task set to him by the Department for Transport in late 2018 was to examine, outside of HS2 and Crossrail, what we do with the railways in the next century?

Among his long list of considerations includes the relationship between train and railway operators, accountability, industrial relations and skills, and how to ensure the innovative and fair use of railway data, sits the question of affordability.

This doesn’t just mean addressing high ticket prices for passengers. Half the UK’s entire transport budget goes on the railways, yet rail journeys account for only two per cent of all transport movements. Can this be justified and sustained going forward? Perhaps part of the answer lies through sharing the responsibility for more of the infrastructural parts of the railway, but it wasn’t clear how deeply the review will delve into this issue. In fact, Williams didn’t give an inch on what was going into his final report but he did emphasise his appreciation of industry’s passion for delivery, absolute focus on safety, and recognition of huge investment. It felt like an early commendation.

The Rail Minister, Andrew Jones MP, who seemed genuinely delighted to be back in the job, expressed the view that industry could make the case for that level of investment through the simple metric of “bums on seats”. Increasing demand, he cheerfully stressed, showed the system was working, strengthening passenger confidence as well as UK manufacturing and those all-important post-Brexit supply chains. Jones’ mood only appeared to chill when it was time for him to leave the Summit and return to the Commons for more Brexit votes.

Network Rail’s Chief Executive, Andrew Haines, gave a startlingly candid appraisal of his organisation and the wider industry’s shortcomings and future challenges. He admitted that franchise specifications were set up to encourage bidders to “promise the Earth” beyond the realms of realistic delivery, only to then seek to renegotiate the terms of their operating contracts. His criticism wasn’t just for others; he said Network Rail needed to be honest about where others could better fulfil elements of its current role – an astonishing admission. But was this a nod to private interest, or perhaps to local government?

Certainly, London’s Deputy Mayor for Transport, Heidi Alexander, has a clear view – she outlined plans for Transport for London (TfL) to take over responsibility for the tracks themselves, from Network Rail, in and around Greater London’s suburban network to fully maximise track capacity. TfL’s full plan for a metropolitan suburban rail service is expected shortly.

On the devolution point, there appeared to be no shying away from these challenges in other regions. Far from being deterred by witnessing the recent woes of Network Rail and private operators over performance and timetabling, representatives from Wales, Transport for the North and TfL all gave the same message – they see these challenges and want to grasp them.

On paper, the Rail Summit may have only been rail industry wonks talking to each other. But far from feeling like an echo chamber there was a palpable sense of self-examination and determination. It really wasn’t a case of “we’d better change or Jeremy Corbyn will nationalise us” (he wasn’t mentioned all day); the ambitions are sincere and there at least appears to be a genuine appreciation that the route to industry’s success and the expectations of passengers are coterminous. All change? We’ll see.

Many across England – especially those in Merseyside and North London – have spent much of the last two weeks frantically looking at flights, scrolling up and down the exorbitant prices that might get them somewhere near their destination at some point near the first weekend of June. But as difficult as many might have found it to get to Madrid on that weekend, for something less than £1000, this could well be the future for all air travellers.

Focus on climate change has increased in recent months, with the Extinction Rebellion protests seemingly focusing minds both in the UK and abroad. The impact of these protests, whatever public perception is, has already been profound. There is no doubt reduction of carbon emissions will be a key factor of policy making for parties across the political spectrum. One of the key sectors this will affect is transport. And aviation will be under particular scrutiny.

Earlier in May the advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC) said the UK’s planned increase in aviation would need to be curbed to restrict CO₂ emissions. Having earlier set out plans to increase aviation when the 2050 target was a reduction of CO₂ emissions 80 per cent. Since this was reduced to zero emissions, there have been calls for this target to be cut. The lack of meaningful progress in reducing of aeroplane emissions hasn’t helped.

While in many other areas of transport, significant leaps are being made to reduce the staggeringly high levels of emissions, aviation has been left behind. Although there have been some substantial innovations to reduce carbon emissions, and work continues to make this even more effective, advances in aviation technology still lag some way behind other sectors. Where electric cars and electric trains are now established across the world, aviation technology has made decidedly less dramatic steps.

There is an option available to airlines in order to mitigate the impact of flights – carbon offsetting. Raising prices per unit of CO2 emitted – ideally investing this into carbon offset schemes – is something that could be introduced. The positives are clear; by removing cheap flights there will be an inevitable drop off in air traffic and a reduction in carbon emissions. But there are significant negatives.

Chief among these is economic. The call for an increase in UK aviation is not without merit for Britain. As WA has seen first-hand with its work in the aviation sector, an increase in passengers has huge positive implications for industry and small businesses in the area surrounding the airport – with additional positive effects for the rest of the country. Just this week, annual statistics from Birmingham Airport showed a record number of passengers, following their Master Plan launch last year. An aviation strategy which prioritised regional airports could go a long way to redressing the economic regional imbalance across the country.

A further concern is the social impact of a significant hike in air fares. The UK already has the highest Air Passenger Duty (APD) in Europe – and a further rise in air fares based on carbon emissions could price lower income households out of travel abroad. More than denying families access to cheap package holidays (a much more serious issue than it might seem), denying a significant portion of the population the opportunity to see the world with a regressive tax. In a time of increasing isolationism and rising xenophobia, this is a potentially worrying trend.

This is not to mention the impact a global hike in air fares could have on developing countries, whose populations will be priced out of global travel to avert a crisis their country has largely not been responsible for. The idea of the developed world pulling up the ladder on the global south will sit uneasily in many quarters.

So what is to be done? First and foremost, and rather optimistically, necessity is the mother of invention. The fact there is a serious threat to the future of widely available air travel represents an opportunity for industry to come up with potentially profitable solutions. Whether that be through a zero emission aeroplane (unlikely in the short term) or a more substantial reduction in emissions in existing engine models, industry has the platform to make a decisive contribution.

This opportunity extends outside aviation as well. Improvements in rail and even road, cutting journey times as well as emissions, could significantly reduce air traffic without the need to stifle economic development. Of course, this would mean significant infrastructure investment from government (which if HS2 is the benchmark is unlikely to be smooth sailing), but industry can provide incremental solutions.

There is no mistaking: climate change is not going away. And governments will need to adopt increasingly “radical” proposals in order to address its causes. If aviation is to be a part of the future industry and government. Otherwise, opportunistic airlines and high prices will be the least of the worries for travellers from Mombasa to Montreal. And… Madrid.