First: the levels of integration

We've written before about how multimodal integration isn't binary — it happens at different levels, each meaningful in its own right.

Cities don't need to jump straight to level four. Real progress, and real behaviour change, happens at every level. The question is which stage of the user journey is creating the biggest barrier — because that's where effort needs to go.

The user journey: where integration breaks down

Every multimodal trip moves through four stages. Here's where things tend to go wrong, and right, at each one.

Plan: the solved problem that isn't

On the surface, planning is the most figured-out part of the stack. Citymapper recently launched AI-powered journey planning that factors in your travel history, real-time disruptions, and cost trade-offs. Google Maps shows multimodal routes. These tools are genuinely good.

The problem is what happens next. You can see a route that combines transit, bikeshare, and a scooter. Then you need three separate apps to make it happen. The plan exists. The seamless experience doesn't.

Underneath this is a data problem. Route planners depend on operators sharing real-time information in consistent formats. A new micromobility operator arrives in a city and may not appear in the planning layer for months. The plan is only as good as the data behind it, and the data is often incomplete.

Discover: who owns the aggregation problem?

Even when users know what route to take, they still need to find available vehicles in real time. This is where private aggregators hit a structural wall: why would a scooter operator share live fleet data with a platform that's also surfacing competing scooter operators?

Berlin's Jelbi sidesteps this because BVG (the city's public transit authority) is running the platform. Operators join because the city is setting the terms and access to Berlin's transit network comes with it. The result: 15,000+ vehicles across 10 providers, all visible in one map.

Amsterdam's BuurtHubs solve discovery differently: physically rather than digitally. Neighbourhood mobility hubs put bikes, cargo bikes, scooters, and car share in one place that residents already know. The community-led design creates buy-in that apps alone rarely achieve.

The pattern: discovery works when there's a credible, neutral coordinator. That's usually a city or transit authority, not a startup.

Book: the hardest stage

Booking requires deep technical integration with each operator's reservation system, and those systems were never designed to talk to each other. Most platforms that have tried to solve this have either run out of money doing it or run into operators unwilling to cede the direct customer relationship.

Whim got further than almost anyone. Its subscription model handled everything on the back end: users booked seamlessly, and Whim distributed revenue to operators. The booking layer worked. The economics didn't: post-COVID transit ridership dropped, and the subscription price that attracted users couldn't sustain the business.

TransLink's Shared Mobility Compass Card in Vancouver offers a simpler version that proved more durable. A single card giving access to public transit, car-sharing, and bike-sharing removed the friction of multiple accounts.

That pilot evolved into RideLink, a full digital integration with TransLink, Modo, Evo, and Mobi that takes it to level three. movmi worked on this project directly — read the full case study.

The lesson from booking: whoever owns this layer carries real financial and operational risk. Transit authorities can absorb it. Startups mostly can't.

Pay: make it invisible

Users want to tap once and go. Behind that simplicity is usually a complicated mess of revenue-sharing agreements, reconciliation processes, and incompatible payment infrastructure.

London's Oyster card is the clearest proof that solving payment changes behaviour. Since 2003, it unified fare payment across the entire TfL network. By 2014, TfL added open-loop contactless, letting riders pay with their own bank cards.

Switzerland's GA Travelcard goes further: a single pass covering trains, buses, and boats across the national network. No per-mode payment, no mental arithmetic.

For a North American equity angle, Portland's Transportation Wallet bundles transit passes, bikeshare credits, and scooter credits, funded through parking surcharges and targeted at frontline workers and lower-income households. It doesn't achieve full fare integration technically, but it solves the payment problem for people who benefit most from multimodal options.

Floyer's failure is the inverse lesson: pull one mode out of the payment equation (in their case, the scooters that Brussels banned) and the transaction volume that kept the economics viable disappears overnight.

The pattern across all four stages

Research from UC Berkeley's Transportation Sustainability Research Center found that multimodal networks integrating carsharing and bikesharing with public transit can increase transit ridership by up to 25%. That doesn't happen by accident. It happens when the right stage gets solved by the right entity.

The platforms operating today are led by public transit authorities. The ones that have shut down were private companies trying to own the full stack. That's not a coincidence. It reflects who has the mandate, the relationships with operators, and the financial resilience to hold an integration together over time.

This isn't an argument against private sector involvement. Private innovation in planning tools, booking tech, and vehicle operations is essential. But the entity accountable for end-to-end integration needs either the authority to set participation terms, or a business model that doesn't require every operator to subordinate their interests.

From our work with cities and transit agencies — including projects like RideLink and City of Vancouver — three things consistently separate what holds together from what doesn't: starting with community input to understand what barriers actually matter; providing operational support behind the technology rather than just building the platform; and sharing data across all parties so everyone can learn and improve.

The right question to ask

Cities and transit agencies that are making progress on multimodal integration aren't asking "is MaaS viable?" They're asking: at which stage of the user journey does integration break down in our context, who's best placed to fix it, and what structure keeps it sustainable?

Plan, discover, book, pay. Get each stage right, in sequence with the right accountabilities, and integration works. Try to do all four at once with a startup and a subscription model, and you get Whim.

If you're working through what this looks like for your city or network, we'd love to talk. Or if you want to go deeper on implementation, our Shared Mobility Pathways Masterclass covers exactly this ground.

For the full breakdown of integration levels and more case studies, read Multimodal Integration Explained or download movmi's Multimodal Case Studies report for free.

Frequently asked questions

More from movmi

Dig deeper into the topics covered in this post.