Mobility data that are spaced over time but closely matched to trends

10As in most industrialised countries, travel practices in France are measured by means of a national survey, the ENTD (National Transport and Travel Survey), complemented by similar urban scale surveys (household surveys). A representative sample of the population is questioned about every journey made the day before the survey (an “ordinary” weekday, i.e. excluding school holidays, strike days, etc.). It is assumed that the practices revealed in this way are representative of mobility on an ordinary weekday. In the ENTD, this mobility concerns all journeys within a radius of 80 km from the place of residence. Each trip is characterised by a single purpose (work, school, shopping, etc.), and includes considerable detail on factors such as departure and arrival time, and the mode(s) of transport used. In addition, there is a specific questionnaire on weekend travel. Finally, the ENTD describes all long-distance trips, i.e. journeys in excess of 80 km (from home) made in the last three months. In this way, the ENTD differentiates between, on the one hand, day-to-day journeys (also called local journeys in reference to the fact that their range does not exceed 80 km from the home), and on the other hand long-distance trips, which are broadly less frequent. Although the boundaries between these can sometimes be blurred, in particular given the numbers of people today who work away from their home city (Conti, 2016), this distinction constitutes a relevant analytical framework for our problem, because in our view the distance of travel and degree of regularity have a very strong influence on the attractiveness of digital services, in particular mobility services.

11In the rest of this article, we refer to the national figures from the last three ENTD, the most recent of which dates from 2008. The reason for the infrequency of this survey (the previous ones were conducted in 1994 and 1982) is its cost, since the questionnaire is conducted through face-to-face interviews in over 20,000 households. This means that the most recent figures are almost 10 years old, and so cannot reveal any change arising from the introduction of the smartphone, let alone new mobility-related services. They are nevertheless relevant to our investigation, because mobility practices change quite slowly. The findings from household surveys conducted after 2008 show that there have been no big upheavals since the late 2000s. The population census, which provides information on commuting distances and the main method of transport used, also reveals relatively modest changes, which are consistent with those that preceded them: longer travel distances, greater use of the car and increased household car ownership. The 2008 data provide a good picture of French mobility, and constitute a robust basis for an analysis of the extent to which the new mobility-related services might contribute to its transformation.

The triumph of the private car and solo occupancy vehicles

12This trend is very powerful. It poses a problem for policies that seek to limit the use of the private car by encouraging people both the switch some of their journeys to other forms of transport and to share cars.

13Mobilities in France are increasingly car dependent, especially in periurban and rural areas (Motte-Baumwoll, 2007). Surveys simultaneously show i) a rise in household motorisation rates, ii) an increase in the modal share of the car and iii) a fall in the number of occupants per car, with the driver increasingly being the only person in the vehicle. More and more, the car is becoming a personal tool for private use (like the telephone). In order to improve the modal balance, mobility-related services will therefore need to swim against the tide of the last few decades, except—as we shall see—in the centres of (big) cities.

14In 2008, only 19% of households were without a vehicle, compared with almost a third in 1982 (Figure 1). Multiple car ownership is also on the rise: 23% of households owned two vehicles or more in 1982, as compared with 36% today. Urban sprawl, functional specialisation in urban areas (in particular the distance between homes and jobs) and the revitalisation of rural villages, are among the factors driving this change. In fact, car ownership is rising amongst people who live in low-density areas, a long way from a city centre. Conversely, households located in city centres can more easily do without a car, and moreover are well advised to do so given the difficulties (and cost) of getting around by car and parking. In central Paris, almost half of households do not own a car, as compared with only 13% in the outer suburbs. On the other hand, socio-economic variables have relatively little influence on motorisation rates, since the second-hand market makes the car affordable for most people. In 2015, used car sales accounted for three quarters of the automobile market in France (source: Comité des Constructeurs Français d’Automobiles)

Figure 1

Motorisation rates in French households from 1982 to 2008 (in %)

Motorisation rates in French households from 1982 to 2008 (in %)

15The more people have access to a car, the more they tend to use it. The reasons are financial (to make the acquisition “pay”) but also relate to the fact that car owners tend to organise their activities (places, times) on the basis of the possibilities available to them through having a car. In parallel to the rise in motorisation rate, the modal share of the car in travel has correspondingly increased markedly (CGDD, 2010).

16For day-to-day journeys (also called local journeys), the increase was particularly sharp between 1982 and 1994, a period in which the proportion of journeys made by car rose from 49% to more than 63%. Since 1994, the progression has been slower but still real (63% to 65%) (Figure 2). Foot travel has been the big loser in this: its market share has fallen from 34% to 22%. Public transport has just kept pace: in 2008 it accounted for 8% of local journeys, half a point down on the early 1980s.

Figure 2

Market share of the different modes of transporting local mobility from 1982 to 2008 (in %)

Market share of the different modes of transporting local mobility from 1982 to 2008 (in %)

17For long-distance journeys (over 80 km from the place of residence), the situation is slightly different. The car remains in the ascendancy (73% of journeys in 2008), in particular for private travel where its market share is 79%. Nonetheless, it has lost 1% of market share since 1994, notably to the train, which increased its share from 14% to 70% for long-distance journeys, mainly propelled by business travel.

18As with the motorisation rate, the characteristics of the place of residence have a very strong influence on car use, in particular for local trips.

19There is a big gap between the urban centres of big conurbations (more than 100,000 people), and in particular Paris, including the Paris suburbs, where the car accounts for less than 50% of local trips, and the rest of the country. Above all, the gap in car use grew much wider over the period 1994-2008, in parallel with the rise in the motorisation rate. People living in the urban centres of big conurbations and in the Paris suburbs are thus increasingly outliers in their practices, with little car dependency and greater use of multimodal (multiple methods of transport) and intermodal (use of several methods of transport in a single trip) approaches, in sharp contrast with the rest of the country. Population density favours short-distance trips and green modes (walking, public transport, cycling), because it also corresponds to a greater mix of functions (residential, economic, services), a better range of public transport options, and more constraints on private vehicles in terms of traffic congestion and parking problems.

20The final element of our assessment is solo occupancy. The car is increasingly used as an individual method of transport, especially for day-to-day trips. At a time when ridesharing is being revived through digital platforms, it is worth emphasising that this long-standing practice is on the road to extinction (Josset, 2016a). People share rides less and less, even with other members of their household. In the US, the percentage of American workers sharing rides fell from 21% in 1970 to 10% in 2008 (Chan and Shaheen, 2012.) In France, the driver is the only person in the vehicle in 75% of local journeys (CGDD, 2010).

Is mobility on the rise?

21In a society founded on the paradigm of mobility, one would expect people to travel more and more. In fact, the average number of journeys per person and per year in France changed little from one survey to another (CGDD, 2010). It remained stagnant at local level (3 journeys per person per day), while increasing a little for longer distances (from 5.5 to 6.5 journeys per year between 1994 and 2008).

22At local scale, the stagnation of demand for mobility reflects the complexity and constraints of timetables (in particular for working people or people with children), which means that there is no time for more weekday activities outside the home. It is also an effect of the increase in the distances covered, which rose from an average of 17 km in 1982 to 25 km in 2008. Even though average travel speed has increased with greater car use, the French have kept the number of journeys at a level that means that the average time spent in daily travel has remained fairly stable at around one hour,

23Over longer distances, private travel (vacations, family visits, etc.), as well as business trips, have both contributed to the increase in the number of journeys. The other significant long-distance trend is the phenomenon of short stays: the French are going away from home more often, but for shorter times, and also on average for shorter distances (CGDD, 2010). This trend is well known on the private travel front. But it also holds for business travel, including commuter journeys, because of the increase in the number of people whose workplace is located in a different urban area than their home, a trend that applies to all socio-professional categories (Conti, 2015).

24As with the motorisation rate and car use, several socio-economic and spatial variables affect the number of day-to-day and long-distance journeys made on average by each French person. Having a job, children, a high income, and living in a dense area (therefore having more “opportunities” for mobility close to home) are factors that increase local mobility. For long-distance journeys, income and profession are the main variables. The wealthier people are, the more long-distance journeys they make, in particular for private purposes. In addition, certain jobs demand more long-distance business travel than others (Aguiléra and Proulhac, 2015).

25The growth in access to mobile Internet thus plays a role in this context: the observed difference between day-to-day mobility and long-distance mobility, but also a general upward trend in the modal share of the car and increasingly individual use of this method of transport. In particular, with the exception of the centres of the big cities, access to a car is—for the vast majority of French people—an essential condition for the performance of their day-to-day activities.

26There is nevertheless an increasing expectation of a change in models, both for ecological reasons (pollution) and for reasons of cost: time wasted in traffic jams and public transport (in the big cities), cost of transport as a proportion of household budgets. The pressure is particularly strongly in day-to-day mobility. But it also extends to long-distance mobility, where there is strong demand for short stays in destinations that are not necessarily very far away. This demand is not completely met because of the cost of long-distance rail travel and the territorial limitations of train coverage. The capacity of the new mobility-related services to meet these different expectations (reducing collective and individual costs, ending vehicle solo occupancy, and allowing people to travel more often) is therefore the condition of their success.

Controlling travel

30Digital tools make it possible for individuals to optimise their travel choices in order to reduce the generalised cost of travel, which is the sum of the monetary cost of the journey and the value of the individual’s time (Crozet, 2016; Quinet and Vickerman, 2004). Optimising this generalised cost entails a combination of three elements: space (the choice of itinerary), time (the timetable and length of journey), and the medium used (the mode of transport).

31These services existed before the digital era, but their scope was limited because of the paucity of methods available (maps, theoretical train and bus timetables…). Moreover, it was often necessary to make a trip, especially to stations, in order to obtain the necessary information. In addition, the range of choice was restricted and there was nothing the individual could do to increase it. Fixed Internet increased the possibilities for individuals to act on the three aspects of optimisation: route calculation, timetables, price checking, mode comparison… However, there was still a spatiotemporal dislocation between acquiring the information and the journey itself, which substantially limited the benefits: for example, itineraries had to be printed for use during the journey, informational support was not available while on the move.

32The smartphone fundamentally changed navigation for three reasons:

• it generalised access to services because of its very rapid spread (58% of the population aged 12 or above had a smart phone in 2015, compared with 17% in 2011, according to CREDOC (2015)), and because of the ergonomic simplicity of the terminal (it is easier and quicker to order a ticket on a mobile phone than on a computer).
• Being able to access the Internet on the move transforms the way individuals access and use information that is helpful for mobility: on transport networks (timetables, disruptions, presence of inspectors), on the comparative performance of the different modes for the same trip (cost, speed, CO2 emissions, calories consumed), etc. Having a smartphone increases not only the availability of mass information but also its quality, because most of it is updated in real time, sometimes by users themselves, as in the case of the Waze community application for car journeys and Checkmymetro for the underground in Paris, Lyon, Lille and Toulouse. More fundamentally, generalised connectivity means no more dislocation of the locational and temporal unity (information and journey) needed to optimise itineraries, timetables and modes.
• Finally, the smartphone generates service innovations by lowering entry barriers to incomers. With fixed Internet, navigation services were largely provided by well-established operators (Google, Mappy which came from France’s Minitel, Michelin, then Apple…) because of the scale of the investments required (map collections, satellite images, acquisition of expensive geographical databases…). Mobile Internet has considerably increased the diversity of travel apps. Firstly, new actors were able to enter the market with the fall in entry costs when Geomatics 2.0 was introduced in the mid-2000s. Unlike the private operators (TéléAtlas…) or institutional players (ING in France), which charged very high prices for their map collections, Google, spurred on by the open source OpenStreetmap project, decided to make its map collections freely available by replacing a sales model with a platform model. Subsequently, the lowering of entry barriers went a step further with the collection of GPS data though crowdsourcing.

33These transformations led to the development of start-ups, not only in navigation services (Waze bought by Google) but also in mobility services (like dynamic ridesharing, see below). They also prompted the transport operators (SNCF, RATP…) to develop their own apps so as not to run the risk of disintermediation. They began to offer multimodal guidance on the modes of transport they controlled (combined metro and tram, bus, RER…). Operators of indexed map collections and geographical databases, such as Google, Mappy or Apple, also began to offer partly multimodal navigation services. Start-ups (Citymapper, Moovit…) launched meta-apps offering multimodal information packages incorporating services like Uber, and sharing services (Velib, AutoLib…), for a limited number of big cities. Finally, local authorities (Vianavigo in Ile-de-France, PACA-Mobilité for the PACA region…) Started to propose their own intermodal app.

34Travel apps improve the control individuals have over their own journeys. They provide a mass of information that helps to reduce the uncertainties associated with mobility (delays, traffic jams, etc.), and in certain cases to make real-time adjustments to their practices (Ben-Elia and Avineri, 2015), e.g. by changing their itinerary or transport mode, or simply to warn that they are going to be late. All modes of transport are concerned. Public transport users like having real-time information on timetables, or knowing the reasons for a disruption, even if they cannot always adapt their journeys in consequence, which would mean having an alternative available. The same is true for cars.

35The authorities hope that these apps will make individuals “smarter” in their mobility, will achieve smoother traffic flows as people choose the least congested, but also the “cleanest” routes, travel times and transport methods. The assumption is that better informed travellers will choose itineraries, timetables and transport modes that match both their own interests and the public interest. We will discuss this point in the next section. However, it has to be emphasised right away that the effectiveness anticipated from these applications is conditional on the availability of transport alternatives. These are relatively numerous in dense urban areas and extremely limited elsewhere, except when it comes to roads.

In-transit activities and the change in the perception of transit time

36The possibility that mobile digital tools offer to access varied content and to interact in multiple ways while on the move is one of the most important transformations wrought by these tools. As a result, time in transit has become much more interesting. This factor has been explored by numerous authors: it is no longer “wasted time” to the same extent as in the past, thanks to the new possibilities of pursuing private and work-related activities (Jain and Lyons, 2008), designed either to kill time or to use it productively by in different tasks associated with day-to-day plans (Adoue, 2016). The authors of the “mobility turn” have in fact made this one of the arguments for the need to make transport part of a more general category of mobility (Sheller andUrry, 2006).

37These tools not only make it possible to carry out activities while on the move, but also to communicate and coordinate with others in real time. This started with the mobile phone (Ling and Haddon, 2005), which altered the perception of transport time. Delays cause less anxiety when you can warn people that you will be late (Calabrese et al., 2011; Bentley et al., 2014). More generally, with the mobile phone it was already possible for individuals to manage elements of their daily schedules remotely, whether in the past (the meeting that has just finished) or in the future (the upcoming meeting). The smartphone maintains this possibility while significantly expanding the possibilities of interaction, notably through access to social or professional networks.

38The possibility of an intrinsic utility associated with transit time did not begin with the digital era. This utility was recognised in particular in long-distance travel, which not only offered interesting experiences but was also conducive to other activities such as reading, relaxation, etc. It was also present in day-to-day journeys: the pleasure of walking for some, for others the car as a decompression chamber between the “tyrannies” of work and family, or else public transport as a time for reading or, since the development of the Walkman 1980s, for listening to music. Since transit time is endowed with an intrinsic utility, its value can increase with duration: greater benefits from the daily walk with longer walking time, periods of musical relaxation prolonged by traffic jams, the preference for a longer monomodal journey because it extends reading time, rather being fragmented by multimodal changes…

39In predigital times, the experience of the intrinsic utility of travel nevertheless tended to be effaced by the waste of time it represented. There were objective reasons for this: transit time was interrupted time, which highlighted the negative aspects of travel (time taken away from other activities, travel fatigue…). This negative representation of transit time was nevertheless reinforced by the the way this sensory perception was translated into theory, i.e. the “sacrificial” vision of travel time employed in the economics of transport inspired by Becker’s microeconomics (Becker, 1965). In this conception, where transport is treated as derived demand (i.e. as having no inherent utility, only demand derived from the demand for other activities), travel is simply a necessary evil: time taken away from uses that directly create utility in individuals’ time budgets, i.e. production on one side, consumption and social interactions on the other.

40New technologies sometimes have the virtue of unearthing buried elements, by puncturing the perception in which they were trapped. This is what digital has done for time spent in transport, since it is difficult to treat it strictly as wasted when mobile terminals now make it possible to be entertained, informed or continue to work while on the move (Gripsrud et Hjorthol, 2012). Earlier possibilities of assigning utility to transport time are increased tenfold by digital tools, especially by access to the Internet. The smartphone considerably extends the range of activities, both online and off, that can be performed: listening to music, exchanging emails, reading the online news, connecting to social networks, browsing the Internet, playing games… (Adoue, 2016). Moreover, its is increasingly used not just in transport but also during waiting times (Clayton, 2012; Guo et al., 2014). Smartphone apps are ergonomically designed to be easy to use even in uncomfortable conditions, subject to network quality. Although the latter varies from one transport mode to another, it is steadily improving, with the target being universal Wi-Fi on public transport, which is already partially the case in certain modes (coaches in France, and soon high-speed trains).

41The spread of the smartphone and improvements in network quality have thus profoundly transform the perception of travel time, and therefore of travel itself, by providing access to content, services, information, social relations, in other words to a rich palette of activities that make travel time more like other times in daily life (Wang et al., 2016). This revolution is far from over, since not everyone yet has a smartphone, connection quality varies greatly from one place and method of transport to another, and service innovations are needed in order to take full advantage of this new situation. However, progress is already spectacular: in a very short time, half a dozen years, we have moved from a situation in which the possibilities of making positive use of transport time were very limited, to one of massive use of online mobile tools on public transport. The spectacle now commonplace in all the world’s cities of individuals hunched over their smartphones on buses and trains is one of the most striking contemporary transformations attributable to digital technology.

42Nonetheless, it would be an exaggeration to claim that transport now belongs in the category of entirely positive utility. It remains an interruption, and therefore a source of costs. That is why it cannot be assimilated into a general category of mobility.

43As Adoue (2016) shows for the Paris RER, Clayton (2012) for buses in Bristol, or Ettema et al. (2012) for the Swedish public transport system, transport time always corresponds to a disutility, to a cost in everyday mobility, especially in big urban centres where commuting times are longer than in other areas, and conditions uncomfortable (line or mode changes, packed vehicles, standing, frequent disruptions, etc. on public transport, traffic jams on car journeys). While mobile technologies can certainly reduce the tedium of public transport journeys, they do not eliminate it completely. Daily transport time continues fundamentally to be perceived as time away from other activities (family, leisure, work), and therefore as a source of disutility. However, it is not perceived as dead time, because it is possible to communicate with friends, be entertained, be informed, perform certain work-related tasks such as answering emails, preparing jobs, reading a text… Nonetheless, this does not make it genuinely “productive” time for working people. Though they can in theory do certain professional jobs while commuting, the constraints inherent to transport conditions and the desire to keep commuting time for preparation or relaxation, mean that working in urban public transport systems is not the norm (Adoue, 2016).

44We can conclude, then, that transport time, which was once perceived as an unambiguous disutility, is becoming—along with other times in a day of activities—marked by duality between disutility and utility, [1] insofar as it is a source of both disutility and utility (the latter specific to it and not derived from the utility of another activity).

45Two potential impacts can be identified from this. From an individual perspective, we are seeing a certain acceptance of transport time as it comes to reflect the duality between disutility and utility that characterises other social times. This does not mean that time as a whole has become seamless, undifferentiated, and that any kind of activity can be performed on the move, nor that this time is devoid of disutility. However, reducing travel time is no longer the only factor that will guide individuals in their transport choices, if this time itself possesses utility. From a public perspective, this relates to the debate in transport policies on whether speed should be the objective. As Crozet (2016) notes, the choice of speed has meant that larger distances can be covered with the same time budget (called Zahavi’s law), with high-speed transport being the exemplar of this choice. It raises the question of whether future transport policies, in particular for infrastructures, should continue to be guided by this choice. The consequence of the fact that there can be a utility associated with transport time itself is that saving time—and therefore increasing speed—should not be the only factor considered when setting transport policy. Comfortable travelling conditions could also be an objective, insofar as they increase the utility associated with transport time. As a result, the terms of the equation could shift, as comfort becomes associated with a utility, and speed with a disutility.

The development of resource sharing services

46The final category of services is undoubtedly the most innovative. Changes in mobility practices are occurring through the introduction of resource sharing services.

47These include the sharing of infrastructures (parking spaces, charging terminals for electric vehicles…), vehicles (bicycles, cars), or journeys (ridesharing). The objective is not to optimise travel times by changing the ratio between the utility and disutility of transport but—through the sharing of resources—to create new mobile or fixed travel support systems that reduce the monetary cost of transport. By their nature, these services involve individual methods of transport (bicycles, motorcycles, cars) and in reality essentially the automobile and its ecosystem: cars with car sharing, journeys with ridesharing, parking spaces… However, shared mobility obviously raises other problems than the optimisation of travel time.

48Here again, these services predate the digital era. Ridesharing is an old practice, far more widespread in the 1950s and 1960s than today (Josset, 2016a). According to Chan and Shaheen (2012), 10% of American workers rideshare today, compared with 30% in the early 1940s. Moreover, most ridesharing happens within families (70% according to surveys). The practice of vehicle sharing has been contracting consistently and sharply, whereas the aim today is to revitalise them through digital approaches. That is the paradox. The question is whether the potential offered by digital technologies can counterbalance the factors that have historically led to solo car occupancy. This is what we will investigate in the next section.

49As with the digital mobility services described previously, the smartphone is bringing significant changes in sharing practices. First, it reduces some of the coordination costs of running some of these services, for example ensuring that rideshare providers and users are able to meet at the right place, at the agreed time, and successfully manage any unexpected hitches. This is the intermediation function of digital platforms. They are more efficient than the traditional methods of coordinating providers and users of shared resources, because of the scale at which they operate and the “liquidity” that they bring to matching supply and demand. Second, the smartphone fosters the creation of dynamic matching services, i.e. real-time operation. What we mean by dynamic here is that algorithms match supply and demand almost in real time, precisely the services provided by operators like Uber, Lyft or dynamic ridesharing start-ups. Third, these services promise to reduce the monetary cost associated with travel by means of resource sharing, which is a powerful incentive to adopt them at a time when relative transport costs are on the rise, constituting the second largest expenditure item on French household budgets, behind housing but ahead of food (Arthaut, 2005).

50However, the obstacles to the adoption of such services should not be ignored. First, it is clear that these obstacles differ depending on whether the rideshare is long or short distance (Josset, 2016b). For long distances, the economic benefit is obvious compared with the train or even the bus, if transport time is included in the equation, and the transaction costs are low relative to the total cost of the ride. This is not the case for everyday journeys where the economic benefit is low in unit terms (a few euros, unless ridesharing removes the need to buy a car or makes it possible to sell one already owned), although it can be significant over the year, whereas the transaction costs are high (coordinating daily trips is more complex, the ratio between time spent travelling to the meeting point and total travel time is higher, there is no guarantee of returning in the same vehicle at the preferred time, etc.). However, the main obstacles seem to be social and psychological: trust, safety, perception of the car as a private space… (Josset, 2016a). They are more formidable in daily journeys, such as commuting, which involve recurrent meetings, than on long-distance journeys, where they are more occasional.

51That is why growth in long-distance ridesharing is dynamic, whereas development in its short-distance equivalent is slow. A further factor is the strategy of carmakers, which is based on the concept of the individual vehicle and solo occupancy to increase market size. They find the self-driving car more promising in this respect than the shared car.

Optimising mobility

57There is a very powerful dynamic for the adoption of digital mobility optimisation services, a combination of very substantial supply and immediate utility on the demand side. However, the effects on travel practices will differ from one geographical area to another, and will not necessarily meet the expectations of public authorities (Miroux and Lefèvre, 2012). By way of reminder, mobility is optimised by travel support services and by the “productive” use of travel time. Let us start with the latter.

The uneven development of shared mobility

73Here, we focus on ridesharing, which is the most high-profile of the mobility services. Infrastructure sharing is still an emerging option and the other forms of sharing (car sharing, peer-to-peer rental…) are still in their infancy.

74The supply of ridesharing services has proliferated firstly because it meets a need, if not an expectation, and secondly because of the low entry barriers in terms of the investment needed to develop the technical platforms. The problem of the spread of these services is on the demand side, in other words their use, since as has already been noted, sharing services—unlike time optimisation solutions—represent a break with previous practices. However, a distinction needs to be made between day-to-day mobility, where sharing faces significant obstacles which explain the poor success of the applications, and long-distance mobility, where ridesharing has already achieved considerable success.