For a time, the concept of an all-in-one mobility app was all the rage. A wave of startups rapidly entered urban markets, introducing everything from for-hire cars and bike-share programs to dockless e-scooters and shared vans. Integrating these services through a smartphone interface seemed like a natural step, especially as more aspects of daily life moved online.

Yet most systems remain fragmented. According to industry benchmarks, integration follows a tiered model: Level 0 offers basic information, like a train or bus schedule; Level 1 adds service consolidation, as seen in apps like Google Maps; Level 2 incorporates payment capabilities; Level 3 bundles services into a subscription; and Level 4 aligns mobility services with broader policy goals. For most of the world, what’s available in your pocket is probably somewhere around Level 2 — a solution that cities and transit authorities have ceded to the private market.

There are exceptions, however. Jelbi in Berlin, Île-de-France Mobilités (IDFM) in Paris, and Floya in Brussels are examples of Level 3 MaaS platforms — enabling users to plan, book, and pay for multiple public and private mobility options within a single interface. Free Now (recently acquired by Lyft) offers a similar range of services in Germany. Meanwhile, ride-hailing companies such as Uber and Lyft are increasingly incorporating third-party mobility offerings alongside their own.

But most MaaS experiments have failed to take off, including Whim — the original MaaS app by MaaS Global, founded in 2017, suspended operations in 2024. And there isn’t always one factor to blame. Dr. Philipp Seidel, Principal at ADL who studies new mobility services, lists several hurdles to consider. “How far did the technical evolution progress? What are the regulatory and legal questions? Then you have the business case: does it pay off? And what about the traffic system perspective? Does it solve congestion in and around cities? Does it solve accessibility or social problems? Does it solve the workforce bottlenecks?” (see ADL report “Beyond MaaS: How to Realize the Promise of Mobility-as-a-Service”).

Full MaaS integration requires cities’ transport authorities to both “frame” and “enable”: providing the right vision, appropriate funding, and governance (framing) while ensuring proper enforcement toward shared and micromobility providers (enabling). Bus service may need expansion. One provider may resist revenue sharing with another. For MaaS to succeed, every cog in the system must work in sync — with a clear objective of shifting travel behavior. This is where additional policy levers, such as road pricing, congestion charges, and parking fees, become critical enablers. And that’s before even factoring in AVs.

But the ideal of seamless, accessible transit that MaaS trumpets is gaining mainstream acceptance, Seidel points out. In most baseline scenarios today, transport providers offer digital tools to both plan and pay for trips, whether through mobile apps or contactless payment systems. While implementation varies, cities should still work to embed the core benefits of MaaS — greater transparency, ease of use, and improved connectivity — into the systems they oversee or regulate.

For Seidel, a city must care — because MaaS depends on cooperation and collaboration. “The political leadership of a city or transit agency has to embrace this technology from their perspective,” he explains. “What’s the performance of my urban mobility system? How quickly do I get people from A to B? And how satisfied are they?”

For much of the past century, the urban mobility dream was shaped by the automobile. Even the name — from the Latin auto (self) and mobilis (moveable) — reinforces the idea of individual freedom and autonomy. Popular culture reflects this ideal, with cars gliding through empty roads and scenic landscapes in advertisements and films.

That dream came with consequences — rising carbon emissions, choked roads, and environments where access is limited to those with a car. Yet the automobile persists — supported by a strong business case. For many, owning a car remains just affordable enough, creating sustained demand for automakers selling millions of units each year. MaaS and AVs will need to compete in that same space. There must be a clear ROI — whether direct or indirect — that is easily understood and tangible to riders. They need to save time, money, or both. Until that value is delivered, MaaS adoption will remain limited, and AVs will largely be confined to players with the financial scale to sustain deployment — as we are seeing today.

The promise of frictionless, free-flowing movement hasn’t disappeared — it’s simply evolving. Cars are beginning to drive themselves. Smartphones can summon a ride in seconds. And mobility options are more abundant than ever. A shared solution is clearly more efficient: even EVs, which reduce emissions, do little to address the inefficiency of nearly 2 billion cars worldwide that sit idle 90% of the time.

What comes next remains uncertain. But regardless of how the future unfolds, some realities persist: today, nearly 80% of all kilometers traveled are by car. Progress will need to be incremental — but measurable. Cities should harness the dominance of the automobile to accelerate the transition toward more sustainable mobility, where cars become not the entire puzzle, but one — still important — piece of it. After all, the most widely adopted form of transportation in history still has lessons to offer.

“The shared mobility system, which includes all mobility services but the private car, needs to be sufficiently attractive to be a possible alternative for users whose automobile is the default for all trips,” says Van Audenhove. “It should embrace the car as part of the overall package, rather than positioning it in opposition to individual car use.”