Please use landscape mode to see the content correctly!

Future of mobility 3.0

Reinventing mobility in the era of disruption and creativity

The world is changing at a faster pace than ever. With increasing mobility demand and evolving mobility needs, mobility solution providers have to satisfy demand for services that are increasingly convenient, fast and predictable. Changes in consumer habits in recent years demonstrate that some users are prepared to sacrifice individual forms of mobility, such as the private car, in favor of other modes of transport that offer these features. This has led to the successful introduction and rapid penetration of new mobility solutions. Meanwhile, traditional mobility ecosystems have diversified, employing a wider array of actors, and the emergence of new concepts, such as Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS), have forced them to reorganize interactions between them as they strive for the system optimum.

This third edition of our Future of Mobility study examines societal and technology trends, as well as new mobility solutions, and reflects on their likely impact on future mobility ecosystems. Together with our partner, UITP, it arrives at 12 strategic imperatives for mobility solution providers to consider when defining their visions and strategies to remain competitive in the short term and relevant in the long term within extended mobility systems. It also includes an updated version of the Arthur D. Little’s Urban Mobility Index, with an enlarged scope of 100 cities worldwide and an extended set of criteria. The index reveals that most cities are still badly equipped to cope with the mobility challenges ahead indicating there is still significant potential for improvement. Singapore topped this edition of the ranking, followed by Stockholm, Amsterdam, Copenhagen and Hong Kong.


Arthur D. Little assessed the mobility maturity, innovativeness and performance of 100 cities worldwide, using 27 indicators split into three even groups. The mobility score per city ranges from 0 to 100 index points; the maximum of 100 points is defined by the best performance of any city in the sample for each criteria.

The first group of indicators measures maturity of urban mobility systems, taking into account the share of sustainable modes of transport in the modal split, such as walking and cycling, financial attractiveness and frequency of public transport, density of roads and cycle paths, and initiatives taken by the public sector to improve passenger and goods mobility. The maximum number of points a city can be awarded for the maturity of its mobility system is 36.


The second group of indicators reflects innovativeness of mobility systems. Parameters measured include bike- and car-sharing penetration levels, peer-to-peer sharing schemes, ride sharing and e-hail services, mobility-as-a-service platforms, and initiatives related to smart mobility and autonomous driving vehicles. A city can receive a maximum of 24 points for its mobility innovation level.


The third group of indicators deals with performance of mobility systems and answers the question: how effectively and efficiently can urban mobility systems fulfill their goals? Here we measure, among other things, air quality in terms of NO2, PM2.5 and PM10 concentration, transport-related CO2 emissions, motorization and fatality levels, and the mean travel time to work. In total, a city can earn 40 points for the performance level of its mobility system.


City top 10

The results of the Urban Mobility Index 3.0 show that the average score of the 100 cities surveyed was 42.3 out of a possible 100 points. This means that, worldwide, the average city has unleashed less than half of the potential of its urban mobility system, a state of affairs that could be remedied by applying best practices across all its operations.

Hong Kong
François-Joseph Van Audenhove picture
François-Joseph Van Audenhove
Partner, Travel & Transportation, Arthur D. Little Brussels
Global Head of Future of Mobility Lab
Additional authors are

Aurélia Bettati, Andrew Smith, Michael Zintel, Guillaume Rominger, Nicolas Steylemans, Sylvain Haon, Alexei Korn

Acknowledgement for their support and valuable input goes to Vincent Bamberger, Ralf Baron, Simon Bauwens, Laurent Dauby, Sibren De Preter, Julien Duvaud-Schelnast, Alain Flausch, Akitake Fujita, Eva Lauw at ITS Engineers, Russell Pell, Max-Christian Rath, Cécile Sadoux, Joseph Salem, Klaus Schmitz , Gerald Stoeckl, Michael Tauvel.

Or go to...