The Innovative Mobility Landscape
The Case of Mobility as a Service
A SummaryThe Private
Innovative
Mobility Landscape
Investment
in
TheTransport
Case of Mobility
as a Service
Infrastructure
A Summary
Dealing with Uncertainty
in Contracts

Case Specific Policy Analysis
2021About the International Transport ForumThe International Transport Forum is an intergovernmental organisation with 62 member countries. It
acts as a think tank for transport policy and organises the Annual Summit of transport ministers. ITF is
the only global body that covers all transport modes. The ITF is administratively integrated with theOECD, yet politically autonomous.
ITF works for transport policies that improve peoples’ lives. Our mission is to foster a deeper
understanding of the role of transport in economic growth, environmental sustainability and social
inclusion and to raise the public profile of transport policy.
ITF organises global dialogue for better transport. We act as a platform for discussion and prenegotiation of policy issues across all transport modes. We analyse trends, share knowledge andpromote exchange among transport decision-makers and civil society. ITF’s Annual Summit is theworld’s largest gathering of transport ministers and the leading global platform for dialogue ontransport policy.

About WBCSD
WBCSD is a global, CEO-led organization of over 200 leading businesses working together toaccelerate the transition to a sustainable world. We help make our member companies more
successful and sustainable by focusing on the maximum positive impact for shareholders, theenvironment and societies.
Our member companies come from all business sectors and all major economies, representing a
combined revenue of more than USD $8.5 trillion and 19 million employees. Our global network ofalmost 70 national business councils gives our members unparalleled reach across the globe. Since
1995, WBCSD has been uniquely positioned to work with member companies along and across value
chains to deliver impactful business solutions to the most challenging sustainability issues.
Together, we are the leading voice of business for sustainability: united by our vision of a world wheremore than 9 billion people are all living well and within planetary boundaries, by 2050.

The Innovative Mobility Landscape: The Case of Mobility as a Service

This report addresses the current and future context for urban mobility,
including the sustainability challenges ahead. It reviews how the urban mobility
landscape is changing with respect to mobility operators and services. It also
addresses the development and characterisation of Mobility as a Service (MaaS)
as a means to improve urban mobility outcomes. Finally, it reviews a number of
essential governance and regulatory challenges that stakeholders must address
to create a healthy Mobility as a Service ecosystem that delivers clear benefits
to people and is aligned with societal objectives.
Urban mobility is at a crossroads. On the one hand, leapsin technology, infrastructure and energy production haveenabled tremendous accessibility gains over the past
century, opening new horizons for billions of people
around the world. More people travel, further and fasterthan at any other time in history. This movement has
fuelled economic and social gains around the world.
However, they have come at a cost, compromising safety,
health, equity, efficiency and posing both local and global
environmental threats – most fundamentally, for global
climate change. The benefits and drawbacks of mobility
are most apparent in cities. This is where we must address
how to continue to enjoy the benefits that mobility offers
while minimising its negative impacts.
The Covid-19 pandemic has caused immense disruption tourban mobility. The pandemic will have significant shortterm and possibly medium-term impacts on transport. The
extent of these impacts is uncertain, but the pandemic has
reinforced the need to choose mobility policies that create
resilient transport systems. A broader offer of mobility
services, and deeper integration of these, will contributeto resilience by creating modularity and adaptability andby fostering cohesion among mobility system
stakeholders.
The growing world population, combined with fast-paced
urbanisation, will increase transport demand in cities. Total
urban passenger demand is projected to grow 59% by2030 and 163% by 2050 compared to 2015. This, evenaccounting for the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. In
most cities, individual motorised transport represents asignificant share of all trips and the majority of passenger
kilometres travelled. Globally, 51% of urban passengerkilometres travelled in 2015 were made with private
vehicles. Under all scenarios, Asia remains the highest
generator of urban transport demand.

Public transport, active mobility, shared mobility andMobility as a Service all are essential to mitigate carbon
emissions from growing transport demand in cities. The ITF
has looked at alternative scenarios that could deliverconsiderable decarbonisation of the transport sector.
These scenarios suggest that, in addition to electrification,
integrated land-use planning and transit-oriented
development are particularly effective in reducing
emissions by shifting shorter trips away from private cars.
These scenarios assume strong growth in active modes,
shared mobility and public transport. The pathway tolower emissions builds on increases in load factors andfuel efficiency, which contribute to halving emissions by
2050. There are limits to vehicle technology-led emissions
reduction; self-driving cars and electric vehicles alone areno panacea for curbing emissions. ITF modelling indicatesthat new forms of shared mobility services have great
potential to reduce the need for private cars and reduce
emissions. These shared modes also allow for the faster
adoption of clean technologies. Integration of services is
an important component to realising a lower carbon
future for urban transport. Enhancing the uptake ofshared mobility and MaaS could contribute to 5% of
overall CO2 savings from urban mobility by 2050 comparedto scenarios with less shared mobility and MaaS.
A one-size-fits-all approach to addressing the benefits andchallenges of urban mobility cannot work. People’s
mobility needs vary by geography and population. Global
regions display significant differences in transport modeshares and travel behaviours. Urban areas differ in levels
and distribution of wealth, as well as in the scope and scaleof technology deployment and uptake. Mobility services
deployed in these different contexts will not have thesame impact on travel demand; they may give rise toeither synergies or competition among modes, dependingon local conditions. A number of factors, including

THE INNOVATIVE MOBILITY LANDSCAPE: THE CASE OF MOBILITY AS A SERVICE © OECD/ITF 2021

3

The Innovative Mobility Landscape: The Case of Mobility as a Service

population, income, density and the presence of, andinterplay between, public transport and informaltransport services, will define the impact of new mobility
services.
A new approach to mobility encompassing, but moving
beyond sole dependence on, the car is necessary. Everyday
mobility is the result of interconnected, durable anddeeply embedded factors that extend far beyond theconfines of the transport sector or the urban context. Thisis especially true when considering the role of the car inurban areas. Addressing global urban mobility challenges
will require rethinking the link between urban mobility andcar use. This will not be straightforward. A significant shareof the world population aspires to having access to a car,though most still do not. Conversely,
countries that motorised earlier andwhere car penetration rates are high arestarting to shift away from a singularfocus on car use in urban areas.
The mobility landscape in cities is evolving
rapidly and is characterised by new layers,
more choices and more digitalcomponents. Established incumbents andemerging mobility services share thesame urban mobility landscape, leading
to synergies as well as tensions. Most
cities lack a unified framework addressing
all urban mobility services, exacerbating
tensions.

Total urban
passenger
demand is
projected to
grow 59% by2030 and 163%by 2050
compared to2015.

Efforts to change mobility must accountfor entrenched practices and systeminertia. It is unlikely that simply offering
an alternative to existing practices will trigger a shift inindividual behaviours or a change in macro-leveltrajectories. The “system of provision” that results in thecurrent car-orientated urban mobility practices is deeply
embedded and must be accounted for in seeking tofacilitate the uptake of new mobility options. Effectively
charting a way forward will involve an arbitration among
different views held by urban mobility stakeholders. These
differing views reflect, among others, the optimism somehave for technology-led approaches – electromobility inparticular –, the prominence of the role others believe
collective transport must play in urban areas, and theemerging view that better planning can maintain access toopportunities in urban areas with lower overall travel
volumes.

Shared mobility is not necessarily green mobility.
Calibrating the regulation of new mobility services

4

requires an understanding of the external impacts these
services impose. The operational profiles of mobility
services, in addition to the vehicle technology used, has astrong effect on the sustainability impacts of these
services. Ride sourcing services and taxis have higher
CO2 emissions per passenger-kilometre than all otheroptions. Shared electric micromobility and motorised
moped services have a much lower impact thanridesourcing, taxis and individual car use; they are abouton par with private mopeds and bus-based public
transport. Privately owned bicycles, e-bikes and e-mopeds
have the lowest lifecycle emission profiles per passengerkilometre, followed by various forms of rail- or bus-based
public transport (at typical load factors) and privately
owned mopeds.
The impact of the broad uptake of new
mobility services is directly linked towhether these substitute or complement
other services. The evidence base for thisis still developing but these effects arehighly context-dependent. Ridesourcing
likely contributes to increased vehicle
travel and congestion under current
contexts and models. Other interaction
effects between ridesourcing and othermodes are not clear but ridesourcing
seems to compete with, rather thancomplement, public transport. Sharedelectric micromobility trips mostly
replace walking, public transport and taxi
trips. These are important effects to bearin mind when considering how and where
it makes sense to integrate such forms oftransport into the urban mobility mix.
Mobility as a Service promises significant benefits from
integrating mobility offers. It does so by proposing a moreuser-centred mobility paradigm to travellers, byfacilitating a more efficient use of underutilised transport
assets and public space, and by creating new opportunities
for firms and other actors to find and develop newmarkets.
Mobility as a Service should be seen as a distribution model
for mobility, not as an app nor as a travel mode. MaaS is amodel for supplying passenger transport services througha digital customer interface that allows users to source
services from a variety of operators, either privately or
publicly operated. At its core, MaaS seeks to provide asmooth and reliable customer experience. MaaS involves
identifying clients and operators, gathering

THE INNOVATIVE MOBILITY LANDSCAPE: THE CASE OF MOBILITY AS A SERVICE © OECD/ITF 2021

The Innovative Mobility Landscape: The Case of Mobility as a Service

information about the availability of services and capacity,and managing payment and revenue allocation within acommon digital framework. It requires the production ofmobility services by public and private actors, joining these
into an integrated offer and a means to communicate thisoffer to potential travellers.
Mobility as a Service is characterised by levels of
operational, informational and transactional integration.
MaaS is an evolving concept. Its implementation falls along
a continuum of operational, informational andtransactional integration. MaaS implementations andecosystems may evolve as they grow or achieve greater
integration. There is considerable heterogeneity in MaaS
service levels and offers – sometimes even in the same
market. MaaS integration need not cover all the mobility
market; there may be models for MaaS that only provide
partial integration within these three domains or full
integration only among some mobility service providers.
Mobility as a Service may enable new value creation in lowmargin urban mobility markets. Urban mobility is a capitalintensive, low-margin network market in its current form.
Current market structures limit the amount of economic
value commercial actors can capture while still deliveringon public policy outcomes. Up-front investments ininfrastructure and rolling stock, the provision of
networked services that cover a broad geographical area
and the cost of meeting high environmental and social
standards while offering affordable and universal
coverage all put pressure on margins. This pressure leaves
little room for MaaS providers to find sustainable revenue
streams under current market configurations. Commercial
success for MaaS providers will require creating new value
propositions. This value may be in addition to what iscurrently in the market and may be derived from people
or employers who are willing to pay for the benefits MaaS
would confer to them. It may also come from reducing
costs for public authorities or it may extend to nonmobility offers that allow operators to achieve
remunerative margins leveraging multiple revenue
streams.
Mobility as a Service business models are evolving.
Business models for MaaS are nascent, involve
interactions among settled service delivery models andemerging ones, and are developing under unclear, longerterm market dynamics and regulatory frameworks. They
also create a new category of mobility actor – the MaaS
service provider or aggregator – which has implications forthe organisation and regulation of these markets. The
economics and business models for mobility service

providers are better understood than those of MaaS
aggregators.
Multiple MaaS market configurations exist and it is too
early to tell what final configurations the market may
have. These configurations cover business-to-consumer,
business-to-business and business-to-government-toconsumer interactions. Of these, the business-to-business
configuration seems to have a more immediate pathway
to achieving returns but requires government action withrespect to company mobility management policies.
Market organisation models for MaaS may involve closed
and vertically integrated services, or “walled gardens”,
that may deliver innovation but stifle competition. A Public
MaaS Aggregator model may leverage strong public
transport services but comes with risks of protective
incumbency positions. A model based on open but publicly
regulated back-end data sharing framework serving theentire MaaS ecosystem (or a platformless ecosystem built
on direct and instantaneous transaction clearing
leveraging distributed ledger technology) may provide acommon data infrastructure while enabling stakeholders
to create their own customer-facing offer. Other models
still may develop as the market matures.
People must choose Mobility as a Service over other travel
options if it is to grow. Individual characteristics matter,though they alone do not determine travel choices. MaaS
uptake should also address cognitive decision-making
processes, real or perceived mode and service attributes,
and the framing context for travel decisions. Evidence
suggests that it may be unreasonable to expect that MaaS
will provide a compelling substitute to car ownership to abroad segment of the population at the outset. Rather, it
may be that MaaS may serve as a complement toprevailing car use by providing a real alternative for some,
but not all trips, made by car.
Mobility as a Service alone is not sufficient to deliver on the
public policy aspirations it inspires. MaaS alone, without asupportive built environment and high-quality public
transport system, will likely not succeed in changing
behaviour. On the other hand, improving the built
environment and transport system may lead to changes intravel behaviour even without MaaS. Furthermore, andparadoxically, when the built environment and the level ofquality of public transport and active travel modes are
high, there are likely smaller potential returns on
investments in support of MaaS, thus limiting thecommercial appeal of deploying such services.

THE INNOVATIVE MOBILITY LANDSCAPE: THE CASE OF MOBILITY AS A SERVICE © OECD/ITF 2021

5

The Innovative Mobility Landscape: The Case of Mobility as a Service

The outlook and scaling challenges for Mobility as a Service
differ across regions. Good, quality public transport is notas widespread in North America as it is in Europe or insome Asian cities. This will likely shape the rollout of MaaS
in North America. The conflation of Mobility as a Service
into a broader “service as a service” ecosystem and“super-apps” is rapidly developing in Asia. Another MaaSrelated development in Asia is the uptake of diversified
and hybrid passenger-goods delivery mobility services
based on motorised two- and three-wheeled vehicles. The
deployment of these services highlights the tension thatexists between the affordability of public transportsystems and the limited scope for public transport toprovide adequate levels of access in sprawling andcongested cities. Japan presents
a unique case where national
government policy has sought toexplore and adapt different MaaS
models to specific targeted
outcomes. The motivations forseeking to develop MaaS in Japanare diverse and typically go
beyond simply wanting to
mitigate the traffic, equity andenvironmental impacts of car use
in urban contexts.

stakeholders. It requires adapted forms of regulatory
guidance but where and how much has yet to be
determined. In this context, it seems premature to talkabout what the regulatory framework should look like asboth MaaS and its regulation is likely to evolve over thenear term. What that regulatory framework will eventually
look like will differ across countries and urban contexts.
Nonetheless, MaaS regulation should be guided byprinciples that are tested and well understood in other,analogous markets, even though their direct transposition
to MaaS may not be suitable without adjustment.
Aspects of digital service markets in Mobility as a Service
raise challenges that mobility regulation has yet to address.
There are aspects of the digital
economy that mobility regulation
has yet to address effectively.
These relate to characteristics ofdigital markets including extreme
returns to scale, network
externalities and incumbency
advantages, the role of data andtheregulationofdigitalplatforms.
Some
of
the
competition policy risks thatstem from poorly addressingthese issues in regulation are
somewhat tempered by the factthat MaaS services have physicalcomponents(vehicles,
infrastructure and their uses) that are regulated.
Nonetheless, the regulation of MaaS aggregator services
will require specific approaches.

MaaS alone, without asupportive built
environment and highquality public transportsystem, will likely
not succeed inchanging behaviour.

Mobility as a Service will require aframework that encompasses
regulation of mobility services
and operators and digital services as well as a supportive
policy framework. The regulation of MaaS ecosystems
involves two components – the regulation of mobility
services and operators, and the regulation of digitalplatforms and MaaS aggregators. The former is achallenging, yet familiar terrain for transport authorities.
But many aspects of the digital market regulation areuncharted at the regional and local levels, where much of
the regulatory framework for MaaS will be set. A wellfunctioning market will also require a supportive policy
framework and flanking measures (e.g. addressing data
regulation, pricing, urban access management andadapted multi-modal infrastructure).

Mobility as a Service requires a regulatory foundation thatenables innovation and delivers on policy outcomes. MaaS
is an evolving concept that has the potential to create
value for people and to deliver on public policy outcomeswhile enabling healthy market opportunities for various

6

Revenue sharing in Mobility as a Service markets is difficult.
Revenue sharing models for public transport are notstraightforward. There are risks that strong lobbies
representing incumbents may resist integration. Revenue
sharing in a MaaS ecosystem appears substantially more
complex than revenue sharing among public transport
operators. Furthermore, the fairer an attribution model,
the more complex and expensive it gets. The diversity ofbusiness cases operating models among mobility service
operators contributes to diverging interests in key areas.
Revenue attribution models that could guarantee anacceptable distribution would likely be inefficient andexpensive. Service providers’ willingness to engage in such
schemes is limited by the tight profit margins of transport
services.

THE INNOVATIVE MOBILITY LANDSCAPE: THE CASE OF MOBILITY AS A SERVICE © OECD/ITF 2021

The Innovative Mobility Landscape: The Case of Mobility as a Service

A way forward
Anchor the governance of Mobility as a Service in a
strategic vision, applied to the whole functional urban area
and informed by effective digital monitoring. MaaS should
be integrated into a broader vision addressing publicwelfare, transport and urban development outcomes. Thisvision would help define the strategic outcomes to which
MaaS contributes. Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans in
Europe and the comprehensive MaaS pilot assessment
process in Japan are examples of the vision required. This
strategic vision should extend to the effective urban
mobility catchment area, which may require adjusting
institutional responsibilities across administrative
boundaries. Finally, MaaS governance should be informed
by a comprehensive mobility-monitoring framework that
not only includes but extends beyond digitally-enabledmobility services.
Seek greater understanding of how Mobility as a Service
can add value for the user. Several MaaS market
configurations have the potential to deliver value to users
though commercially viable business cases are still elusive.
For example, in Belgium, companies are required to offer“mobility budgets” to employees. This regulation has
facilitated the uptake of Business-to-Business MaaS in the
country. In another example, Japan has several MaaS
offers that focus on tourist markets. “Services as a Service”
type models have also appeared, incorporating the MaaS
offer into wider lifestyle services focused on shopping orbanking. These user-focused models could serve as astarting point for better understanding what constitutes
viable mass-scale MaaS models and the ways in whichthese create value for users.
Guide Mobility as a Service where necessary to achieve
agreed societal outcomes. Public authorities should
monitor and retain oversight of the MaaS ecosystem andguide it, if necessary, to deliver on public policy objectives.
This may mean that public authorities adapt theirgovernance practices to address specific risks that emerge
in digital markets. In an environment where MaaS
becomes the main interface to access mobility, publicauthorities will need options allowing them to ensure thatsocietal outcomes are met. This will include things likeensuring that MaaS platforms are operated fairly andadapted data governance rules implemented.
Adopt a flexible and light-handed regulatory approach
towards Mobility as a Service platforms. Given thesubstantial potential benefits of MaaS for accessibility andmobility, transport authorities should regulate only asnecessary to facilitate the development of MaaS in linewith public policy goals. Authorities should carefully
monitor that MaaS developments do not hinder policy
objectives. Regulatory or other appropriate interventions
may be needed to ensure that the development of MaaS
contributes to, rather than impedes, sustainable urban
mobility and accessibility policies. In a MaaS system withcommercial actors, a flexible and light-handed approach islikely to be required if the commercial viability of MaaS
models is not to be undermined as the market matures.
Regulators should only adopt new regulatory
requirements where a clearly identified public policy
justification exists.
Adopt a predictable regulatory approach and allow for
evolution. Trying to legislate ex-ante or too early in an
evolving and maturing MaaS ecosystem risks locking in
regulation that is not fit for purpose, or suppressing
innovation entirely. A flexible approach to regulation, withbuilt-in review periods and robust monitoring
requirements, allows space for the market and its actors
to mature while still enabling the evolution of theecosystem. In parallel, mobility operators and MaaS
providers require legal certainty and a clear anddependable regulatory framework to make investments in
low-margin mobility markets. Regulators should facilitate
the deployment of MaaS ecosystem building blocks – likecommon digital identifiers, interoperable data exchange
standards and data sharing rules that support market
development – rather than trying to define acomprehensive and definitive MaaS model. They should
also work to increase predictability around how, andunder what conditions, regulatory frameworks mightevolve.
Enhance public transport authorities’ and operators’ ability
to negotiate terms of sale and re-use of tickets with
Mobility as a Service providers. In order to facilitate mode
shift from private cars, the MaaS ecosystem should makepublic transport as accessible as possible. The relationshipbetween public transport and MaaS can be symbiotic if the
MaaS platform is able to increase public transport
ridership. Public transport authorities and operators could
benefit from greater freedom to negotiate fair andreasonable terms of sale and re-use of public transport
services with MaaS providers. These negotiated outcomes

THE INNOVATIVE MOBILITY LANDSCAPE: THE CASE OF MOBILITY AS A SERVICE © OECD/ITF 2021

7

The Innovative Mobility Landscape: The Case of Mobility as a Service

should allow public authorities to retain their ability toachieve policy goals via their fare policies. This will
require specific competencies on the part of public
transport authorities and operators as well as oversightto ensure that negotiated outcomes do not erode
public policy outcomes.
Base data sharing frameworks on the principle of “as open
as possible, as closed as necessary”. Some data must be
shared for MaaS to work. Setting a transparent and fairbasis for this sharing helps market actors build trust in thesystem. Minimum data sharing requirements can help
limit the amount of data required for participation in themarket. Conditional reciprocity should be part of data
sharing frameworks so that parties in the market gain
some value in return for the data they share. Open accessto market players should be encouraged as much as
possible, but there must be fair commercial terms.
Build data portability into the MaaS ecosystem by default.
Digital service markets depend greatly on data. This raises
the risk of data-related lock-in of consumers to specificservices providers.
Enforcing data portability
requirements in the MaaS ecosystem facilitates
consumers switching from one service to another or using
multiple services. Data portability mitigates thecompetition policy risk of consumers being locked into one
service provider only. As there is no natural incentive forany single operator to push for this, there is a clear role forpublic authorities to define minimum data portability
requirements. These requirements should be limited todata about the data subject (as defined in the EU General
Data Protection Regulation) but not to data inferred about
the subject and should be conditioned on data subject
consent.
Consider common building blocks for sharing data. While asingle, mandated standard for data exchange may prove
restrictive, the absence of a common syntax hindersinteroperability. The lack of a common syntax could also
create a financial burden on smaller operators to comply
with larger providers’ bespoke standards, or impose costson all market actors to comply with multiple standards.
Some form of standardisation and shared definitions
would help to overcome or mitigate these risks. In theabsence of a single standard, ensuring that syntaxes sharesimilar functional architectures enhances interoperability.

with purposeful and limited data reporting mandates thatare aligned with achieving specific public policy outcomes.
Doing so will build trust between partners who are assured
they are only being asked to share data that is necessary
and proportional to its end-use. This will require a
mapping of what data is needed, for what action and for
how long it must be retained.
Adopt complementary policies in other areas to ensure that
the Mobility as a Service ecosystem contributes to policy
outcomes. MaaS is not a silver bullet for mode shift tosustainable alternatives from the private car. Improving
existing infrastructure and services, and complementing
the “pull” of MaaS with “push” policies in other areas arenecessary preconditions to MaaS’ broad-scale success.
Users need a reliable, high-quality transport system as abaseline before the convenience of using it becomesrelevant. Users would further benefit from knowing what
are the real costs involved in the available transport
choices. Authorities could introduce complementarymeasures that more clearly signal the externalities ofdriving for drivers – e.g. via congestion-pricing,environmental charges or differentiated parking prices.
These complementary policies foster the development of
viable MaaS business models and their contribution to
improved welfare outcomes.
Invest in the built environment and interchange facilities.
MaaS can only be as attractive as the transport services
that underpin it. High-quality services are needed, but so
are comfortable, safe and attractive surroundings, if
people are to be enticed out of private cars. In particular,
the role of interchange hubs and facilities are key.
Authorities should recognise this as part of their planningin support of MaaS.
Public authority skill sets will need to evolve to improvetheir capacity to regulate and assess digital markets. Local
and transport authorities have primarily been concernedwith the management of physical networks. Digitalisation,
including that brought on by MaaS, challenges these skills
and requires new institutional capacity to better manage
digital markets. These skills include better digital literacy,
more data-driven and flexible decision making and a morecommercial mindset. Up-skilling may also be required for
SMEs including taxis and bus service providers when thesehave not already digitised their service offering.

Establish data reporting requirements that areproportionate and targeted to outcomes. Governments
have the power to compel stakeholders’ actions, bysetting conditions on market entry and exit or by imposing
penalties, for example. This should be counter-balanced
8

THE INNOVATIVE MOBILITY LANDSCAPE: THE CASE OF MOBILITY AS A SERVICE © OECD/ITF 2021

The Innovative Mobility Landscape
The Case of Mobility as a Service
A SummaryThis brochure summarises the findings of thehomonymous report, which reviews changes in today’surban mobility landscape and the potential of Mobility
as a Service (MaaS) to improve travel in cities. For
more information, visit https://www.itf-oecd.org/
innovative-mobility-landscape-maasInternational Transport Forum
2 rue André Pascal
F-75775 Paris Cedex 16+33 (0)1 73 31 25 00
contact@itf-oecd.org
www.itf-oecd.org

Funded by