Nomadic Workshop 15 November 2012, Lyon, written with Amel ATTOUR

1. Acceptability and social community issues
for ridesharing and multimodality success
Nomadic Workshop, Lyon,15 November 2012
Nathalie Dubus, Orange
Amel Attour, Ecole des Mines, Nancy

2. Instant Mobility and the Future of Internet
 Instant Mobility* project:
 Context : increasing urban population, solve transportation
issues, improve ecological impact and cities attractiveness
 Instant Mobility is an European Project bringing together cities
(Roma, Istanbul, Nice, Trondheim), solution providers and
research institutes; with the aim to study and evaluate the
opportunities that future internet technology may bring in
urban mobility (car, bus, tramway, bike, walk for instance).
* Instant Mobility is one of the use cases of the Future of Internet FI-PPP (Private Partnership Programme): http://www.fi-ppp.eu/

3. The Future of Internet
 Internet of Things
 Internet of Services
 Internet of People

4. Instant Mobility and the Future of Internet
 Aim:
 to resolve the mobility issues by including all the stakeholders :
multimodal travellers, car drivers and passengers, public transport
operators, carriers and fleet managers, road and traffic managers.
 provide to travellers and vehicles drivers a mean to plan and adjust their
multi modal journey, or better find ride sharing opportunities in a
dynamic way, and according to their preferences, location and the real
time conditions (traffic, timetables, prices, etc.)
 provide to public transport operators and the fleet managers a mean to
optimize
 for logistics actors: du to the e-commerce growth, a mean to organize load
sharing, prevent re- delivery, use dynamic drop points, adapt the delivery to the
consignee
 itineraries adapted and optimized in real time as all the means of
transport

5. Instant Mobility and acceptability
 Objectives of acceptability studies: evaluate the acceptability
for a generalization of demand-driven multi-modal
transportation services bases on real time and anywhere
location, and advanced preferences.
 in 4 cities: Nice, Istanbul, Roma, Trondheim

6. Acceptability Surveys
 Methodology
 acceptability concerns present and future perception
 Nielson framework of acceptability of a system (Kaasinen,
2005)

7. Acceptability Surveys
 Methodology
 Factors that influences the social acceptability:

8. Acceptability Surveys
 Methodology
 The applications was just conceptual, so we decided to test:
 Technology characteristics
 usability
 easiness
 security
 confidentiality
 Social factors:
 intention of use and behaviour: how to find information to prepare
the travel, actual pratices (mobile or GPS usage), intention of use
 privacy and traceability
 positiv factors

9. Acceptability Surveys
 Methodology
 2 targets (perception of the services, the technologies and the location may
be different- the mean channels of advertising the survey also)
 Everyman users (travelers and drivers)
 Professional drivers
 several languages versions of the questionnaire available
 Major topics to be tested:
 real time and anywhere location
 contextualization
 ranking the services

10. Acceptability Surveys
 An online survey, distributed in the 4 cities: via institutional web sites
(Nice, Istanbul, Roma), local government web sites, transport
operators web site, email to transport tickets holders in Trondheim

11. Main results of citizen target
 Citizen target: online survey published on Instant Mobility web site and the
partners web sites (4 done, 1 to come)
 Big success
3096
Number of responses
1766
1330
336
Istanbul Roma Nice Trondheim

12. Main results of citizen target
 A majority of persons uses its own vehicle, very light ride-
sharing activity
 High demand for information while travelling
 Through web or mobile applications mainly
 Large use of smartphones before traditional information
in stations (panels, …)

13. Their opinion on:
 Real-time location and previous trip recording:
 >90% would accept to transmit in real time their location
 more than 84% would accept trip recording
 More than 50% require anonymous recording, and good
privacy preservation rules
 Personnal preferences recording
 >50% record personal preferences today
 >90% would give them in the future
 >70% would require easy management of their data (modify,
remove, share, …)

14. Main results
 Which customized services are expected?
 Customised information while traveling in case of issues
(accident, road works …)
 Optimised itinerary matching preferences
 Better conditions: duration, arrival time, mean of transport
 Far after: security or price
 Assessment?
 Today >60% evaluate a service, in the future >85%
 Public transportation: punctuality and frequency (>85%)
 Ride-sharing: punctuality and experience of the driver (80%)
 attractiv terms : simple access and easyness of the tool,
possibility to evaluate anonymously

15. Detailed and econometrical analysis
 Find the determinants’ acceptancy of the Services of
Instant Mobility

16. Location transmission and travel
recordness acceptability

17. Location transmission acceptability Travel recordness acceptability
Criteria conditions of Location Criteria conditions of travel
transmission acceptability recordness acceptability
Privacy Privacy
13% 13%
17%
22%
Anonymity Anonymity
8%
3%
13% Trust Trust
4%
Privacy + Anonymity 8% Privacy + Anonymity
Privacy + Trust 4% Privacy + Trust
Privacy + Anonymity + 46% Privacy + Anonymity +
49% Trust Trust

18. Designing Instant Mobility Services
The influent criteria
 Privacy Correspondence analysis biplot
1
 Trust
 Must been present in
.5
Dimension 2 (31.6%)
Privacy
the same time Trust
Anonimality
Aonimality
2
0
Privacy Anonimality and and Trust
Privacy Anonimality Trust
-.5
The role of the criteria
Privacy and Trust
« Anonimality’ have a Privacy and Trust
-1
little role -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0
Dimension 1 (62.4%)
.5 1
Conditions location transmission acceptability
Conditions travel recordness acceptability
coordinates in symmetric normalization

19. Register Personnal preferences’ acceptability

20. Evaluating Instant mobility services’ acceptability

21. Evaluating Instant Mobility services’ acceptability

22. 1st conclusions of acceptability survey
 A confirmed need for information for daily or regular
comuting today
 Importance of mobile use today
 Good acceptability of the future services, tailored to their
preferences and with better quality, especially punctuality
and frequency (more than comfort and security)
 Good acceptability for location (real time and storage)
and personal preferences with conditions of anonymity ,
easyness and possibility to manage their own data.

23. To continue
 A professional drivers target in progress :
 http://www.tfaforms.com/252331
 Topics related the services designed :
 optimized itineraries planning,
 updated guidance thanks to real time and precise knowledge of the
traffic and events on the roads,
 itineraries rescheduling according to delivery demands, and
 load/parcel exchanges between drivers, all of this in
a personalized approach integrating eco-driving assistance for drivers.
 Same tests about acceptability on the services, the
location, preferences, etc.
 Please answer and make this survey a success !!

24. Focus on ride sharing factors of success
 To developp a sustainable market of drivers and
passengers (critical mass to be achieved quickly)
 Incentives:
 a community to build the trust
 alternative vehicles or car pooling for emergency or availability issues
 according to the survey : efficiency, relevance and punctuality
 Subsidies
 Capacities: car pool lanes, parking facilities (cities, employers) at
meeting points
 Levers:
 adaptation to their personal needs : sense of freedom
 gamification and nudges (Thaler R.H, Sunstein C.R, 2009)
 social networks to better manage : information, communication,
exchanges and pedagogy

25. Focus on ride sharing factors of success
 Existing services: Zimride (2007, California),
Lyft (2012,California) and Netlyft (Can)
 Smartphone apps (Zimride since 2012)
 Drivers and traveller : two different apps
 26000 carpools for Zimride
 Factors of success :
 Fun : carstache for Lyft
 Easiness and quickness of responses
 Communities driven : Lyft started with the Defense employees,
Zimride also use Communities (http://www.zimride.com/howitworks)
 Trust built on driving test, in-person interview and inspection
of the vehicle, ranking system of the drivers

26. Focus on ride sharing factors of success
 The strengh of cooperative models : example of Waze
 The use of Social Networks and Community management:
 first to match supply and demand, a keystone for ride sharing,
by using channels that are already engrained in internet users
habits (social networks represent 22% of the time spent on the
internet worldwide) -> to achieve sufficient scale for the
network to be functional.
 to develop notoriety/popularity, arouse interest and generate
a desire to belong (marketing/communications function of
social networks) or the social web as a source of information
and decision support for consum'actors; change behaviours;
“word of mouth” effect.

27. Focus on ride sharing factors of success
 The use of Social Networks (SN) also to:
 Generate participation: create interacting communities of
citizens, policy makers, service providers sharing the same
interests (service, ride sharing, same workplace, same
neighborhood, hobbies, etc.) to develop a new, ecological,
collaborative way of travelling
 Trust : use crowdsourcing data to better chose (see Mobility
Bank in Helsinki), use SN to anonymise user location
 80% of consumers may trust pairs recommandations in social networks - only 14% trust the advertising of the web. Source :
Forrester’s customer Experience (2011)
 Automatic sensors for traffic management (via smartphones,
cars, Twitter) combined with human sensors (e.g. Waze) to
develop reality mining, combining “big data” sources to
influence local authorities to encourage new uses.

28. that also could enhance multimodal communities
 A P2P exchanges already in place in public transports like
Waze on the road:
 Twitter that allows to share data between travelers. Ex : #qml
@infotrains, STAR with@starbusmetro (2200 followers) , RATP in Paris,
TFL in London, @SNCF_infopresse
 Prevent or localize controllers: CheckMyMetro, MetroEclaireur
 Share point of interest (a musician in the subway): Roadify in Brooklyn
 Operator leaded : KLM Meet and Seat (travel with your FB or Linked In
friends)
 To meet new people : Croisé dans le métro (romantic encouters in
public transports in Paris, Bruxelles, Lille, Lyon, Marseille, Montréal,
Rennes et Toulouse), Submate (Barcelona, Bilboa, Hong Kong, London,
Madrid, Paris, NY)

29. Thank you
Amel Attour
Maître de conférence/ Associate Professor
Ecole des Mines de Nancy Nathalie Dubus
Université de lorraine, BETA-CNRS-UMR7522 Chef de projet en innovation
Campus ARTEM - CS 14 234 - 54042 Nancy Cedex
Orange Labs Networks & Carriers
tél: (33) 03.55.66.27.32
tél. +33 4 92 94 53 44
amal.attour@mines.inpl-nancy.fr
amel.attour@univ-lorraine.fr mob +33 6 86 71 26 86
nathalie.dubus@orange.com