The results of the online survey showed that stakeholders see the surveyed socio-economic and cultural developments as generally quite influential regarding their work and strategies. This shows a high level of general awareness in all three case study areas towards changing frame conditions. This awareness may help to sensitise stakeholders and decision makers to improve and change commuting by promoting new mobility solutions and strategies. In Switzerland and Austria, stakeholders are mainly concerned with spatial and socio-economic trends of population and the employment growth around larger cities and the resulting increase in the commuting distance. In Finland, travel behaviour trends, e.g., multi-modality, and technical innovations are seen as more relevant. Additionally, Finnish stakeholders often rate technical innovations very positively. Finnish stakeholders also quite much favour new mobility systems in commuting. Innovations, however, whose sustainability effects are controversial, e.g., privately owned autonomous cars, are seen less positively by stakeholders within the three case studies. One interesting finding regarding the implementation of new sustainability measures that became apparent is that the stakeholder group ‘Administration’ often shows somewhat above-average disapproval towards innovations.
The consolidated analysis concerning supporting factors and barriers for inducing a change in commuting showed that in particular the factor ‘state of technology development’ is considered an essential part in the implementation of new technologies. The factor considered least supportive is ‘economic viability’. Therefore, it may be that stakeholders could consider investing in new technologies, even if their return on investment is not yet fully known. However, in the context of the expressed lack of willingness to invest or finance MaaS implementation cases by the Swiss stakeholders, this could also indicate that stakeholders do not even consider to financially invest in mobility innovations.
Regarding persisting challenges, the factor ‘policy and legislation’ is considered to be the main obstruction to the introduction of new mobility innovations. Stakeholders also noted that working and communicating with other stakeholders are not significantly difficult, but the picture is not so clear when looking at the open-ended responses regarding a stakeholder’s positive and negative experiences in collaboration activities. On the positive side, the stakeholders of all three countries highlight very good examples of successful collaboration. Often mentioned aspects are the increasing openness for change and innovation in commuting among some stakeholder groups. Brought up examples are the Swiss Federal Railways in Switzerland, traditional private companies in Austria or public administration in Finland. Still many partners are seen more difficult in cooperation: In Finland, the national railway company VR is mentioned, in Switzerland the Car-Lobby, and in Austria, there exists a persisting dissension between taxi companies and car rental companies. Therefore, it seems that many challenges in this area persists, but the stakeholders observe a paradigm change nonetheless, as it is repeatedly mentioned in the answers to open-ended questions within the stakeholder survey.