为我国的MaaS发展提供一些指导和借鉴

Summary of recommendations

Through public consultation, we have identified a range of issues within the MaaS ecosystem that this code of practice can support and shape. The following recommendations are informed by the views of the public, local authorities, transport operators and other private organisations.

Accessibility and inclusion

1. We recommend MaaS platform providers proactively identify and engage with users who have protected characteristics that may be adversely impacted by platform design choices.

2. We recommend MaaS platforms adhere to web content accessibility guidelines and incorporate accessibility features into their interface design, which could include screen reading features, optimised menus and buttons and features that help blind and visually impaired users interact with their device.

3. We recommend MaaS platform providers test accessibility features with a diverse range of users, including those from groups sharing protected characteristics, throughout the design process.

4. We recommend MaaS platforms consider accessibility needs when suggesting routes. For example, identifying wheelchair-accessible routes and stations, calculating step-free journeys by default and considering the needs of users with visual, audible and non-visible disabilities.

5. We recommend MaaS platforms, transport operators, local authorities, or any bodies responsible for processing data, take due consideration when handling special category data. Further protection or safeguarding processes should be considered for such data due to its sensitive nature.

6. We recommend MaaS platform providers use robust product testing processes and data practices to ensure the datasets used in journey planning algorithms are as representative as possible. And that the algorithms are tested regarding bias and effective governance is established.

7. We recommend MaaS schemes should consider the specific needs of users in rural areas where, for example, internet connectivity could be a barrier to accessing online journey planning.

8. We recommend community transport services should be integrated as far as possible into MaaS schemes.

9. We recommend MaaS platforms ensure users have access to different types of offline support if they need assistance with their journey, for example, if they need to request further information or seek compensation.

10. We recommend MaaS platforms provide information so that users can access physical support at stations.

11. We recommend that personal safety should be a key consideration for organisations developing MaaS solutions. The journey options presented in a MaaS platform should consider the needs of users disproportionately affected, such as children, older people and women, by offering safe and appropriate routes. For example, allowing the user to plan their journey to ｓｅｌｅｃｔ main roads in their preferred routes and the ability to share their live location.

Enabling active and sustainable travel

12. We recommend MaaS platforms provide users with information about the carbon dioxide (CO2) savings that can be made by walking or cycling, so users can make informed choices about sustainable modes of transport. This information should be displayed to the user in an accessible and easy-to-understand format. We recommend organisations use the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) emission conversion factors to calculate emissions on a per person, per journey basis. Where other methods are used, we encourage organisations to show their workings.

13. We recommend MaaS platforms display the health benefits of active travel to users, for example by calculating the calories burned when walking or cycling.

14. We recommend MaaS platforms display active travel choices for routes offered, where appropriate, and ensure these options are clearly signposted to users. For users with accessibility needs, platforms should allow users to set their preferences for certain transport modes so that only appropriate journey options are displayed.

15. We recommend MaaS platforms offer transparency and give users meaningful control over the way in which results are presented to them and allow them to tailor these options to suit their needs and preferences. For example, allowing users to see all journey options, or allowing them to filter out certain travel modes.

16. We recommend MaaS platforms collate aggregated and anonymised journey information, to understand how customers are using their service and the ways in which improvements can be made, including encouraging users to make more sustainable travel choices.

Data considerations to facilitate MaaS

17. We recommend transport operators and MaaS platform providers make use of the wide range of published national and international standards that are available to support the delivery of mobility services. These formal standards are available through standard bodies such as the British Standards Institute (BSI) or open platforms. Such organisations can also facilitate the sharing of best practice and lessons learned from other organisations and countries that have already implemented MaaS successfully.

18. We recommend transport operators share the following types of data, under the Open Government License to improve service provision, user experience and encourage more sustainable ways to travel:

◼ data to assist journey planning including route, distance and time

◼ payment data including ticket price

◼ reservation data

◼ timetable data

◼ location data to help users track the progress of their journey

◼ data to show vehicle availability and location for ride-hailing services

◼ disruption data to help users reroute their journeys when necessary

◼ occupancy data to track the busyness of their journey

◼ accessibility data to enable disabled users to fully access MaaS services, for example, information about stations and interchanges with step-free access

◼ carbon emissions data to help users choose more sustainable journeys

◼ data of specific relevance to shared rental bike, e-bike and e-scooter schemes, such as live vehicle location and charge data, parking locations and rental cost

19. We recommend MaaS platform providers reciprocate data sharing where possible, for example, sharing anonymised passenger travel data to support transport operators’ planning and operations activities. MaaS platform providers sharing data in this way need to consider whether the data would be truly anonymised, meaning that data protection legislation would not apply. If the data was only pseudonymised then data protection legislation would apply to its processing.

20. We recommend MaaS platform providers and local authorities use the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) Data Sharing Code of Practice for further guidance. Specialised guidance is available for AI projects.

21. We recommend agreements are put in place to enable the secure sharing of relevant data between transport operators and platform providers. The ICO’s data sharing code of practice recommends data sharing agreements are put in place to ensure good practice and compliance with data protection legislation.

22. We recommend that MaaS platform providers, transport operators and local authorities work proactively to ensure the data they share is fully compliant with any data standards employed to ensure the user can access high-quality information about their journey. They should expect to be able to demonstrate how the information that they share is accurate and be responsive when users or other data consumers raise data quality concerns.

Multimodal ticketing

23. We recommend MaaS platform providers, transport operators and local authorities work collaboratively to offer a consistent ticketing experience that provides convenience and value for money for passengers.

24. We recommend MaaS platform providers have due consideration for emerging and future technologies that may affect the service they offer, in order that any future integrations can be easily adopted.

25. We recommend organisations deploying MaaS schemes should develop realistic plans to scale multimodal ticketing schemes, using iterative design processes to incorporate different modes of transport over time and learn from the experiences of other projects.

26. We recommend that conversations between MaaS platform providers, transport operators and local authorities begin as early as possible in the setting up of any MaaS scheme.

27. We recommend ticketing schemes offer transparent pricing structures to ensure all users can access the “best value fares” for their journey.

28. We recommend ticketing schemes can be tailored to individual requirements including those of different disabled passengers, take into account users with different protected characteristics in the design process, and those who may need concessionary fares.

Consumer protection

29. We recommend MaaS platform providers offer transparent and consistent information for multimodal journeys and set out points of contact for users upfront so they understand how they can provide feedback on their journey, claim for compensation for delays or cancellations or request a ticket refund, should they need to.

30. We recommend MaaS platforms make clear where a particular journey, mode, or operator is being promoted or prioritised owing to a prior commercial arrangement. This might be through a visual cue to users, for example, a “sponsored” or “promoted” tag.

31. We recommend that all organisations involved in a MaaS scheme ensure user’s personal data is processed in a manner that complies with data protection legislation.

32. We recommend that where data processing is likely to result in high risk to individuals, data controllers conduct a data protection impact assessment prior to the processing to assess such risks and identify potential mitigations.

Competition

33. We recommend local authorities, MaaS platform providers and transport operators ensure that any commercial agreements that are entered into promote fairness on pricing, avoid exclusivity of services and encourage data sharing to guard against any negative competition outcomes.

34. We recommend all possible public transport options and services available in the area to be shown in the MaaS app to avoid fragmentation of services across apps.

MaaS实践建议——摘自《Mobility as a Service: code of practice》

英国交通部（Department of Transport）2023年8月30日更新了《Mobility as a Service: code of practice》（MaaS行业准则）（https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobility-as-a-service-maas-code-of-practice/mobility-as-a-service-code-of-practice），希望为MaaS的发展提供一些指导和借鉴。

通过公众咨询，确定了本准则可以支持和塑造的MaaS 生态系统中的一系列问题。在参考了公众、地方政府、交通运营商和其他私营机构的意见后，提出了如下6个领域34条建议。虽然当前我国的MaaS发展现状、发展路线和未来前景可能与英国会有差异，不过很多建议对我们的发展也会有启发。

无障碍和包容性

1. 建议MaaS平台提供商主动识别和接触具有受保护特征的用户，这些特征可能会受到平台设计选择的不利影响。

2. 建议MaaS平台遵守网络内容可访问性指南，并将可访问性功能纳入其界面设计，其中可包括屏幕阅读功能、优化菜单和按钮，以及帮助盲人和视障用户与其设备互动的功能。

3. 建议 MaaS 平台提供商在整个设计过程中，对不同用户（包括来自共享受保护特征群体的用户）进行无障碍功能测试。

4. 建议MaaS平台在建议路线时考虑无障碍需求。例如，确定可供轮椅通行的路线和站点，默认计算无台阶行程，并考虑视觉、听觉和非视觉残疾用户的需求。

5. 建议MaaS平台、交通运营商、当地政府机关或任何负责处理数据的机构在处理特殊类别数据时予以充分考虑。由于此类数据的敏感性，应考虑对其采取进一步的保护或维护程序。

6. 建议MaaS平台提供商使用鲁棒性强的产品测试流程和数据实践，以确保行程规划算法中使用的数据集尽可能具有代表性。亦对算法的偏差进行测试并建立有效的管理机制。

7. 建议MaaS计划应考虑农村地区用户的特殊需求，例如，在农村地区，网络连接可能会成为访问在线行程规划的障碍。

8. 建议应尽可能将社区交通服务纳入MaaS计划。

9. 建议 MaaS 平台确保用户在旅途中需要帮助时可以获得不同类型的线下支持，例如，如果他们需要索取更多信息或寻求赔偿。

10. 建议MaaS平台提供信息，以便用户在车站获得实际的支持。

11. 建议开发MaaS解决方案的机构应将人身安全作为一个关键的考虑因素。MaaS平台提供的行程选择应考虑到儿童、老年人和妇女等受影响较大的用户的需求，为其提供安全、恰当的路线。例如，允许用户规划自己的行程，在首选路线中选择主要道路，并能分享自己的实时位置。

促进慢行（active travel）和可持续的出行

12. 建议 MaaS 平台向用户提供有关步行或骑自行车可减少二氧化碳排放量的信息，以便用户在知情的情况下选择可持续的交通方式。这些信息应以方便易懂的形式显示给用户。建议各组织使用能源安全和净零排放部（Department for Energy Security and Net Zero，DESNZ）的排放换算系数来计算每人每个行程的排放量。如果有组织使用了其它方法则鼓励其展示他们的计算方法。

13. 建议MaaS平台向用户展示慢行交通对健康的益处，例如计算步行或骑自行车时消耗的卡路里。

14. 建议MaaS平台在适当情况下显示所提供路线的主动出行选择，并确保向用户明确表示这些选择。对于存在无障碍需求的用户，平台应允许用户设置对某些交通方式的偏好，以便只显示恰当的行程选项。

15. 建议MaaS平台足够透明，让用户可以对结果的显示方式进行有意义的控制，并允许他们调整这些选项以适应自己的需求和偏好。例如，允许用户查看所有旅程选项，或允许他们过滤掉某些出行模式。

16. 建议MaaS平台整理集聚的、匿名的行程信息，以了解用户如何使用其服务，以及可以做出的改进，包括鼓励用户做出更可持续的出行选择。

促进MaaS发展的数据方面的考虑

17. 建议交通运营商和MaaS平台提供商利用广泛发布的各种国家和国际标准来支持出行服务的提供。可通过英国标准协会（British Standards Institute，BSI）等标准机构或开放平台来获得这些正式的标准。这些组织还可以促进最佳实践的分享，以及从已经成功实施MaaS的其他组织和国家吸取经验教训。

18. 建议交通运营商在“开放政府许可”（Open Government License）下共享以下类型的数据，以改善服务供给、用户体验并促进更可持续的出行方式：

◼ 有助于行程规划的数据，包括路线、距离和时间

◼ 支付数据，包括票价

◼ 预订数据

◼ 时刻表数据

◼ 帮助用户追踪其出行行程的位置数据

◼ 显示乘车服务车辆可用性和位置的数据

◼ 中断数据，帮助用户在必要时改变行程路线

◼ 占用率数据，用于跟踪行程的繁忙程度

◼ 无障碍数据，使残疾用户能够充分使用MaaS服务，例如，有关无台阶通道的车站和换乘站的信息

◼ 碳排放数据，帮助用户选择更可持续的行程

◼ 与共享租赁自行车、电动自行车和电动滑板车等方式相关的数据，如实时车辆位置和充电数据、停车位置和租赁费用等。

19. 建议MaaS平台提供商在可能的情况下互惠共享数据，例如，共享匿名的乘客出行数据，以支持交通运营商的规划和运营活动。以这种方式共享数据的MaaS平台提供商需要考虑数据是否真正匿名，真正的匿名数据将意味着数据保护法规不再适用。而如果数据只是假匿名化的，则数据保护立法将适用于数据处理。

20. 建议MaaS平台提供商和地方政府部门使用信息专员办公室 (Information Commissioner’s Office ，ICO) 的《数据共享运行准则》（Data Sharing Code of Practice）用于进一步的指导。

21. 建议签订协议以促进交通运营商和平台提供商之间安全共享相关数据。ICO 的数据共享运行准则建议签订数据共享协议，以确保良好的实践并遵守数据保护法规。

22. 建议MaaS平台提供商、交通运营商和地方政府部门积极主动地开展工作，确保他们共享的数据完全符合所采用的任何数据标准，以确保用户可以访问有关其行程的高质量信息。他们应该能够证明他们共享的信息是准确的，并在用户或其他数据消费者提出数据质量问题时有责任做出回应。

多式联运票务

23. 建议MaaS平台提供商、交通运营商和地方政府部门通力合作，为乘客提供便利和物有所值的一体化票务体验。

24. 建议MaaS平台提供商适当考虑可能影响其服务的新兴技术和未来技术，以便能够轻松地接受未来的整合。

25. 建议部署MaaS计划的机构应制定切实可行的计划，扩大多式联运票务计划的规模，采用迭代式的设计流程，随着时间的推移纳入不同的交通方式，并学习其他项目的经验。

26. 建议MaaS平台提供商、交通运营商和地方政府部门在制定任何MaaS计划时尽早开始多边对话。

27. 建议票务计划提供透明的定价结构，以确保所有用户都能获得 "最划算的票价"。

28. 建议票务方案可根据个人需求量身定制，包括不同的残疾乘客的需求，在设计过程中考虑到具有不同受保护特征的用户，以及可能需要优惠票价的用户。

消费者保护

29. 建议MaaS平台提供商为多式联运行程提供透明、一致的信息，并预先为用户列出联系方式，以便他们了解在需要时如何提供行程反馈、就延误或取消行程进行索赔或要求退票。

30. 建议MaaS平台明确说明特定行程、模式或运营商由于事先的商业安排而被推广或优先。这可以通过给用户视觉的提示手段来实现，例如 "赞助 "或 "推广 "标签。

31. 建议所有参与MaaS计划的组织确保以符合数据保护法的方式处理用户的个人数据。

32. 建议如果数据处理可能对个人造成较高风险，数据控制者应在数据处理前进行数据保护影响评估，以评估此类风险并确定潜在的缓解措施。

竞争

33. 建议地方政府部门、MaaS平台提供商和交通运营商确保签订的任何商业协议都能促进定价公平，避免排他性的服务，并鼓励数据共享，以防范任何负面竞争结果。

34. 建议在MaaS应用程序中显示该地区所有可能的公共交通选择和服务，以避免不同应用程序服务之间的割裂。