TOD- An approach to neighborhood mobility

Transit Oriented Development z

AN APPROACH TO NEIGHBORHOOD MOBILITY

Harneet Kaur

Transit Oriented Development

An Approach to Neighborhood Mobility

Harneet Kaur

A developed country isn’t a place where the poor have cars. Its where the rich use public transportation.

Gustavo Petro

Abstract Globally, cities are being confronted with numerous challenges and Transit oriented development is the prominent solution which is considered to overcome major urban issues. There are various successful examples around the globe in TOD experiments. However, different interpretations of this concept lead to difficulties of conducting TOD planning. Also, the scale for implementation varies from macro to micro scale. So, this thesis focus on micro scale approach which refer to neighborhood transport planning, can also be called neighborhood mobility.

With new trend of mobility, transit stations in neighborhood are rather used as mobility hubs or combined with other mobility offers. Therefore, as part of mobility concept in neighborhood, mobility stations generates benefits in term of sustainability and act as an image of innovative transit development. These models are called multi-modal or inter-modal of mobility. These mobility offers include mostly sharing means of transportation like Car Sharing and Bike Sharing integrated in different ways. Emerging practices of mobility, especially multi-modal mobility has become more and more widespread in Germany or neighboring European countries, so my study approach is limited to this part of world.

Furthermore, it is identified, to what extent the mobility plan is serving the residents. To perceive this, a case of Mobility Hub with other sharing offers distributed in city and another case of peripheral neighborhood is chosen. Both the cases, two best practices are reviewed. So comprehensive study of well operating mobility station ‘SWITCHH’ functioning in Hamburg, Germany to understand the method of integration in existing neighborhood is done. For second case of neighborhood mobility plan for a new development; ‘Seestadt Aspern’ in Vienna is reviewed. To investigate the success factor, method to approach from concept level to development level and other cafeteria’s; expert interviews are conducted from the team of mobility concept developers in Hamburg, Germany.

Accordingly, learnings from best practices and findings from interviews act as basis of thesis research. A catalogue is prepared by combination of learnings, findings and challenges. The main objective to create catalogue is to create the design model based on its key points. The catalogue features are divided into three aspects(Infrastructure, Services, Public Transit) which are responsible for successful neighborhood mobility . To understand the result of using these aspects, design model under three different scenarios is realized. These scenarios define the future recommendations under different conditions for implementing shared mobility concept in neighborhood.

11 13 15 16

EMERGING PRACTICE

2.0 Transit Oriented Development 2.1 Implementation scales 2.1.1 Macro Level 2.1.2 Micro Level 2.2 Neighborhood level mobility 2.3 Types of Mobility 2.3.3 Multi-modal Mobility 2.3.4 Inter-modal Mobility 2.4 Elements of Mobility 2.4.1 Car sharing 2.4.2 Bike sharing 2.4.3 Miscellaneous

19 20 20 21 22 23 23 23 24 25 28 30

3.0 Neighborhood mobility trends 3.1 Mobility Concept 3.2 Mobility Hub 3.2.1 Tasks 3.2.2 Benefits 3.3 Identify type 3.4 Case Study –Selection Process 3.4.1 Seestadt Aspern, Wien 3.4.1(1.0) Learnings 3.4.2 Switchh Mobility Station, Hamburg 3.4.2 (2.0) Learnings 3.5 Findings - Interview results 3.5.1 Findings

33 34 36 36 37 38 39 40 44 46 54 56 57

4.0 Catalogue- Method 4.1 Catalogue 4.2 Design Model 4.2.1 Scenario 1 4.2.2 Scenario 2 4.2.3 Scenario 3 4.3 Integration Level

58 61 78 80 82 84 86

FUTURE LAB

1.0 Introduction 1.1 Challenges 1.2 Goals and Objectives 1.3 Structure

LESSONS LEARNED

Table of contents

Table of contents 5.0 Conclusion

88

List of References List of Abbreviations List of Figures Appendix Statutory Declaration

90 94 95 97 101

1. Introduction Challenges Goals

1.0

Introduction

Eventually, Urban areas are experiencing serious challenges because of the lack of integration between land use and transportation policy. These give rise to traffic congestion, air pollution, noise pollution, traffic accidents, inequitable access to transport and services, unreliable public transport, overcrowding, urban sprawl, and segregation of community (Alqhatani et al., 2012; Curtis, 2005; Jonsson, 2008). To overcome these challenges for future mobility, a sustainable approach has to be adopted.

various successful examples around the globe in TOD experiments. However, different interpretations of this concept lead to difficulties in conducting TOD planning.

The concept of sustainability emerged in the 1980s and 1990s, which became an international priority and global mission in every field. There is no standard directional path to achieve Urban Sustainability (Böhler-Baedeker, Kost, & Merforth, 2014). Therefore, Sustainable development is explained in many ways but the basic fundamental described in Brundtland Commission’s report is ‘‘meeting the present needs without compromising that the future generations will need to meet their own needs’’ (WCED, 1987).

Also, this study context aims to believe that a solution to this complex Issues lies in our immediate living environment.

This thesis is divided into three main categories. Firstly, explaining ‘Emerging Practices‘ with definitions of different new trends for overcoming various challenges around the globe. Secondly, by ‘Learning lessons’ from best practices and interviewing Experts in this field and the last part of future experiments in section ‘Future Lab’ where these learnings and Challenges are demonstrated together to form recommendations for future proposals.

Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a globally recognized approach for achieving sustainability through land-use-transportation integration. It can be used effectively to create high density, compact neighborhoods supported by public transit, to reduce the dependence on private vehicles and the resulting pollution and congestion. Here are

Implementation of TOD is realized on different scales, varying from macro to micro. The thesis focuses on the micro-scale of Implementation, which is called the neighborhood scale. Each neighborhood mobility of the city comprises to form comprehensive Urban mobility.

In this context the promotion of sustainable urban mobility concepts plays a key role in the quality of life and competitiveness of cities. In order to achieve more sustainable transport, attractive alternatives to the use of privately owned cars have to be offered (UITP, 2019).

Yet several new mobility offers, such as car-sharing or bike-sharing, are in existence.

They have already proved to be successful in terms of contributing to more sustainable mobility behavior. This means a focus on Individual mobility must be encouraged rather than only public transport.

Therefore, these mobility offers tend to form different integrated patterns which are multi-modal and Inter-modal. With the increasing use and advantages of these offers, a lot of platforms started to implement these models. Mobility stations influence travel behavior towards multi modality, which reduces ownership of private cars along traveled distances (Miramontes et. al, 2016). Whether it is for a new development neighborhood, the existing one or a neighborhood far from the city center.

Some initiatives from the city and various 9

transportation companies started the implementation of similar projects not only limited to this but also with the bimodal connections, such as Park and Ride or Bike and Ride and offer complimentary mobility services as well.

Hamburg, Leipzig, Offenburg, and Würzburg are some examples of the implementation of mobility stations in Germany, playing a significant role in the promotion of Sustainable Urban Mobility.

To understand the current developments, two examples are chosen as a case study explained in chapter 3. One with the new neighborhood, developed on the periphery of the city called ‘Seestadt Aspern’ in Vienna.

This neighborhood is the best practice example of mobility goals in neighborhood. Second is mobility Hub developed in Hamburg named ‘Switchh’ where multi-modal offers are integrated with different transportation modes, such as car-sharing, bike-sharing, and parking facilities. As there are various mobility stations by ‘Switchh’ in the city, but this study will be detail investigation of mobility station connected with public transit station (S Bahn Station) situated at Berliner Tor. So, with the comprehensive analysis of these case studies, learnings from each of them shall be derived.

To understand the mobility concept implementation, there are group of people and various organizations responsible at the back end of these projects. This includes various stakeholders and further Mobility concept planners overtake for analysis and designing.

Expert interviews in this field will be conducted to understand different criteria and process of concept to implementation level. Hence findings from this interview shall be derived.

After the introductory part, Case study and interviews; the approach is to work for future Lab. At this stage, Challenges which are basis of this thesis study; Learnings which are 10

currently happening; and findings which are recommendations from expertise are collected together to form a catalogue. The method of catalogue preparation will be according to Lehnerer in his publication- ‘Grand Urban Rules’ (Lehnerer, 2009). It is a type of coding method for names and further derivation to show relation with each one of the category.

This Catalogue covers the categories of measures needed for sustainable mobility in neighborhood under three main aspects.

Three main aspects responsible behind well developed neighborhood are- Infrastructure, Services and access to Public transport.

Further integrating these key elements from catalogue help to create the new future proposal. A design model under three different criteria is made and interpret the level of integrating the key elements. Thus, in this future lab of experiments the successful recommendations are delivered to fulfill the goals and objectives of this thesis.

1.1

Challenges

More than half of the world’s population is living in urban areas and this proportion continues to grow nowadays. According to the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations, 54% of the world’s population was residing in urban areas in 2014. It is expected to continue growth of urbanization and overall population will add 2.5 billion people to the urban population by 2050. Thus, two thirds of the global population will live in urban areas (United Nations, 2014).

‘‘The growth in vehicular traffic has been explosive and while problems have been addressed in some parts of the world, they have simply grown space in others.’’

(Gehl, 2010) We clearly see these problems around us. Its just that they are not acknowledged till the limit of solutions. While urbanization brings numerous challenges,the ones acknowledged in scope of this thesis study are as following:

A Traffic Congestion Traffic congestion is the effort to cope with rising tide of car traffic, all available city space was simply filled with moving and parked vehicles . Every city got as much traffic as much space they allow. Every-time, attempt to relieve traffic pressure by building more roads and parking have generated more traffic and congestion. Widening or building of new roads is direct invitation to buy and bring more cars on the roads (Garrison & Ward, 2000).

The main part of this congestion is because of cars. It can be because of various reasons. This include peak time congestion and other time of the day. The reason for this travel trip vary which includes different purposes like; travel to work, Business meetings, School/University,

Accompaniment Leisure Execution Shopping Education Business Job

16%

11% 7% 16% 14%

28%

8%

Fig 1.1: Travel Purpose Statistics in Germany (Self Illustration (MiD, 2017))

Shopping, leisure purpose, or to accompany someone. This Fig 1.1 shows daily pattern for commuting purpose in Germany. Except the mandatory travels in left part of figure(1.1), an alternative could be thought for others. For Example; With the new trends, Online shopping is in boom and can be an opportunity if well managed with the logistics of city. It is the biggest global challenge with the growing population and hard to control unless other issues related to it are not resolved first.

B Increasing Car Ownership Basic need of everyday life is Car and everyone wants to own it now or later. Economically sound person and more cars will be bought.

Even more than one car per person in the family. The space needed for one car on the road for one person is equal to space used by more than five people in another means of transport. These figures increases in case of rural settlements where most of the travel is by car; even to the nearest walkable distances.

3+ Cars 2 Cars 1 Car No Car

22%

54%

21% 3%

Fig 1.2: Car Ownership in Germany (Self Illustration (MiD, 2017))

11

Railways Marine Aviation Trucks Automobiles

40%

34%

11% 11%4%

Fig 1.3: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Transport Sector (Self Illustration (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2017))

This is mean of comfort level to travel or sometimes also to have status in the society.

But this leisure creates adverse effect on environment. As no parking spaces left, more congestion and adverse environmental effects.

Increasing Car Ownership is the major reason of increasing carbon footprint from transport sector. This fig. Shows the statistics of Global greenhouse Gas emissions by transport sector.

22% of the global CO2 emissions are attributed from transportation sector (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2017).

C Costly & Time Consuming In metropolitan cities, travel times are generally high and increasing, destinations accessible within limited time are decreasing. This is happening because vehicle registrations are growing fast on the basis of increased populations, increased wealth, increased commercial penetration, and probably an increasingly persuasive picture in the world of international lifestyle in which a car is an essential element.

The cost of a vehicle administration doesn’t just incorporate the direct out-of-the-pocket cash expenses to the user yet in addition incorporates time expenses and costs identified with potential inefficiencies, discomfort and risks (e.g. unexpected delays). However, 12

economic actors often base their choice of a transport mode or route on only part of the total transport price. For instance, drivers are biased by short run negligible expenses. They may limit the cost of a particular outing via vehicle to fuel costs just, in this way barring fixed costs such as, depreciation, insurance and Automobile tax (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2017).

‘‘The car is a money grave.’’

(Schaefer, 2019) Also, because of parking provisions for housing, Land is additional. This tends to increase rates of property whether a car is being used or not.

D Urban Aesthetics The citizen is exposed to all the urban environment, from a wall, a buildings to the city as a whole. But with the development these aesthetics are overlooked as a whole. Different elements and characters together become visually chaotic. (WIlliams, 1954) Automobile oriented streets are designed in a way which require more space and land to access goods and services. Hence losing the space integrity of neighborhood and responsible for less people walking and cycling on these streets. Also pedestrian infrastructure play a vital role to attract residents and make them feel safe and comfortable.

1.2

Goals and Objectives

Implementing TOD along transit corridors which decreases the number of cars on the road by enabling people to live next to transit stations is a method which have been extensively used in many cities. The result of this implementation has always given positive results becoming one of the reason of city’s development. Integrating TOD into a city’s overall design requires a clear vision and alignment across both public and private sectors. Without these, developments run the risk of becoming simply transit-adjacent, instead of transit-oriented. Coordinating efforts through each phase of the process serves to avoid competing developments from the mass transit network that could undermine TOD and further exacerbate congestion and environmental degradation. It is essential that all parties collaborate with the goal of improving transit accessibility rather than just easing the use of private vehicles.

The successful but complex method of transit development at urban scale is a long term plan which is difficult to integrate in existing metropolitan areas. This is surely highly recommendable when it comes to new development or increasing the Urban boundaries.

If one is trying to solve a problem, it often helps to understand it.

(Garrison & Ward, 2000) Therefore, understanding challenges and developing goals; for example- In urban areas, completely eliminating congestion is neither an affordable nor feasible goal. However quite a lot can be done to overcome its occurrence and to lessen its impacts. So main objective is to effectively manage it so that it doesn’t have diverse effect (OECD, 2008).

complex issues begin from our immediate living environment.

The goal of present thesis is to address the identified challenges in scope of this study and integrate emerging practices of new mobility trends to deliver recommendations for future mobility solutions in this study context.

With this goal, objectives for this study are defined as: • Rethinking transit stations in a neighborhood to be much more than just a bus stop or train stop but also to include services and activities which make them more livable place.

• An approach to shift people from car oriented transportation to environment friendly modes by application of urban design aspects.

• Develop a framework in the form of catalogue to form basis of sustainable neighborhood mobility required for future needs.

• To deliver recommendations for the shared mobility trends from the traditional methods and shift approach to transit and Land use development under different criteria.

• To create a study from emerging mobility trends in Europe especially Germany but overcoming basic global challenges and develop a model adaptable under various conditions .

This thesis study limits the goal objective for urban neighborhood as the implementation must begin from small scale as solutions to 13

1.3 Structure Emerging Practice Transit Oriented Development

I

Implementation Scales

I

Micro approach- Neighborhood mobility

I

Multimodal & Intermodal mobility

I

Mobility trends

A goal for future proposals

Future Lab Challenges + Learnings + Findings

I

Catalogue

I

Design Model Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3

Successful Experiments

Lessons learned Neighborhood Mobility

I Existing

New Development

I

I

Seestadt Aspern (Vienna)

Switchh Mobility station (Hamburg)

Findings (Mobility concept plan)

I

Expert Interview

Identify for direction

EMERGING PRACTICE 16

2. 2.1 Transit Oriented Development 2.2 Implementation scales 2.3 Neighborhood level mobility 2.4 Types of Mobility 2.5 Elements of Mobility

2.0

Transit Oriented Development

The basic philosophy appears the same in all contexts: concentrating urban development around stations in order to support transit use, and developing transit systems to connect existing and planned concentrations of development (Carey, Renne, & Bertolini, 2009).

It provides alternatives to automobile connected land uses as it facilitates increased accessibility.

TOD allows at least potentially, a degree of human interaction in the public domain or urbanity - which is difficult to achieve in much more socially segregated car dependent urban environments (Bertolini,2000).

According to Curtis et al. (2009), TOD is a concept to “Develop better transit rides, increased walk and bicycle travels, and other alternatives to use private cars by concentrating a mix of quite dense and pedestrian friendly environment around transit stations’.

Also, Renne (2008) revealed a significant factors in TOD, which is immense accessibility with local, a reason to differentiate this concept with the Transit Adjacent Development (TAD), which is conventional, automobile oriented development and located near transit stations.

TOD has been under high consideration by the planners since many years. This concept is a basic solution to the urban transportation challenges which got generated by incorporating the change in land use pattern (Ratner et al., 2013). The idea of TOD is concentrating urban development around transit nodes with particular characteristics such as relatively high density building, compact and mixed development, and efficient public transportation services, along with a pedestrian friendly environment (Cervero et al., 2008; Curtis et., al., 2009; Knowles, 2012, Loo et al., 2010). Fig 2.1 shows the difference in area near transit corridor before and after TOD implementation.

Fig 2.1: Area near Transit corridor before and after Transit oriented development (Self Illustration) 17

2.1

Implementation Scales

The integration of transport and urban development by TOD method is however a complex challenge to accomplish. The different scales of TOD implementation are: 1. Macro Level 2. Micro Level To understand more about the scale, each of the level can be divided into following action scales:

2.1.1 Macro Level 1. Urban scale A sustainable urban area has a strong relationship with its urban footprint and is also linked to the existing city structure and services. At this scale, integral links are focused which are - physical, political, economical, environmental, and social. Apparently between the urban area and the remaining of the city or metropolitan area. (Sarmiento, et al., n.d.)

Predominantly residential district with good access to regional and subregional centers.

Density vary from moderate to high with access to employment and commercial use.

2. Suburban scale Each neighborhood within a sustainable urban area must recognize its relationship with other regions, and specially, with their suburban areas. The way in which they interconnect, through the creation of economic, social, environmental and mobility networks, creates a function in a complementary way at a larger scale. (Sarmiento, et al., n.d.)

It is a significant center of economic and cultural activity with regional scale destination. Most of the transport modes are used to access this area. Mostly it takes 5- 15 minutes from periphery of the city to reach here. Density vary from moderate to high with the mix of residential, commercial, employment and cultural uses.

2.1.2 Micro Level

Fig 2.2: Urban Scale (Self Illustration) Fig 2.3: Suburban Scale (Self Illustration)

18

1. Neighborhood scale

this corridor is high serving housing and commercial demands.

The neighborhoods are generally defined as the area in the circle of 600 meter radius covered basically by pedestrian and cyclists (which corresponds to a 10-minute walk). To develop the intervention area, the public transit station must be considered as the origin point of the pedestrian and cycling radius (Sarmiento, et al., n.d.).

It can also be sometimes Transit town center.

With high density around it and access to all means of transport like regional trains and buses with local transportation.

Fig 2.5: Mixed Use Corridor (Self Illustration)

3. Site level This is the case when redevelopment is needed on site level or it is the case when land is available near transit station and it can be used as a part of land use and transit development. The major focus in this is to develop connection with existing transit functions

Fig 2.4: Neighborhood Scale (Self Illustration)

2. Road scale/ Mixed use corridor An urban area where different aspects of daily life interconnect is called street. All streets must accomodate multiple usage and activities in addition to mobility network, which are: spaces for cultural exchanges, political, social, recreational, and asset-related. Furthermore, it is an access point to public and private transit, and the primary access point to city/ urban area information (Sarmiento, et al., n.d.). Local focus of economic and community activity happens on street without any distinct center.

The transport systems used are Light railways, BRT system or local buses. The density along

Fig 2.6: Site Level (Self Illustration)

19

2.2

Neighborhood mobility

Mobility of a person from residence to the nearest destinations by walking or by bike is neighborhood mobility. It varies from different group of people according to their requirement for their destination. Various possibilities which include travel to other parts of city, so

accessibility to nearest transit station is required. Need of everyday things to buy and other daily life activities, so everything accessed within the neighborhood zone, marks the movement of type of vehicle and people.

48% Everyday travel distances are shorter than 3 km.

(MiD,2017)

Fig 2.7: Neighborhood Mobility (Self Illustration)

According to Speck, ‘‘Every transit trip begins or ends as a walk, So we have to build walkability around the transit station.’’

(Speck,2014)

20

2.3

Types of mobility

There are usually different types of modal for transit use and behavior in everyday life.

People who use only one mode of transport (e.g. the private car) are considered to determine unimodal mobility behavior. People who use more than one mode of transportation for accessibility are of two types:

2.3.1 Multi-modal mobility According to Zumkeller, Manz, Last, and Chlond (2005), ‘multi-modal traveling’ is use of different transport modes on different routes chosen in week. It can be defined as a mobility behavior that is characterized by flexible usage and a combination of different transport

modes as per the situation and according to the available means of transport.

2.3.2 Inter-modal mobility According to Zumkeller, Manz, Last, and Chlond (2005), ‘Intermodal traveling’ is use of different transport modes on one route.

Intermodal mobility networks confront the traditional division of mobility mindsets: the ‘convinced drivers’ on the one hand, and ‘convinced public transport users’ on the other.

If drivers are willing to reduce their number of car trips in favor of cycling, public transport and occasional car sharing, it will result in fewer GHG emissions.

Multimodal mobility

Mon

Tues Wed Thurs +

Fri

+

Intermodal mobility

Fig 2.8& 2.9 : Multimodality and Intermodality model (Self illustration (Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015)

21

2.4

Elements of New mobility

With new technology and development, most of our daily uses rely on Internet. With this, sharing trend is becoming popular. Platforms for home exchange on holidays (e.g. airbnb), dress exchange (e.g. Kleiderkreisel) or jewelery sharing (e.g. HUU) are just a few examples for collective consumption. This trend also can

be observed in transportation (e.g. car-sharing, bike-sharing, ride sharing etc.). Sharing offers in transportation can be summarized as Shared Mobility. The main transportation means which are being used as shared are discussed in next section further in detail.

Bike Sharing

Car Sharing

Integrated Transport

Bike and Ride Travel assistant apps

Autonomous Vehicles

E- Bikes Electric Buses

Fig 2.10: Different elements of new mobility (Self Illustration)

22

2.4.1

Car sharing

According to the Bundesverband Car Sharing, car-sharing is the system to share a car despite of owning it. It is an organized, joint use of vehicles. Customers can register themselves and conclude framework agreement with the provider. Afterwards they can book any vehicle

of their choice in offer around the clock independently (b.c.s, n.y). Since 2009 electric vehicles are coming into use in car-sharing fleets.

More and more providers integrate electric vehicles into their offer (Puzalowski, 2009).

ing

k Par

Car sharing Vehicle replaces more than 1-8 Private vehicle

k

Par .

C.S

Fig 2.11: Transformation of space with Car sharing (Self Illustration)

23

Station based car-sharing In this type, cars are provided to be at a fixed parking area. Customers pick up the car there, after the ride they bring him back there.

Reservations are possible several weeks in advance. This variant is particularly suitable for users who want to do without their own car and still need the reliability of a vehicle provided in their vicinity. Station based car sharing is also the cheapest car sharing variant: driving an hour in the city costs around 4 to 8 euro, including petrol. (bcs, n.d.)

Flinkster (provided by the DB Rent GmbH), cambio, teilAuto and Stadtmobil present some famous providers of car-sharing in Germany. (carsharing-news.de, 2016)

Free floating car-sharing In this type, the cars are parked at any parking areas in the city. Users locate it with app via smart phone and book themselves. After the trip ends, they can park the car anywhere within the specified area. This variant is generally found in some big cities. Free-floating vehicles are not certainly available in neighborhood vi-

cinity. But they are quite appropriate for spontaneous trips or rides, where it is difficult to determine the end time exactly. Free-floating also makes possible for one-way trips within the specified area. (bcs, n.d.)

Automobile manufacturers integrated this form of car-sharing offers into their business and provide free floating services. The two largest providers in Germany are DriveNow (provided by BMW and Sixt) and car2go (provided by Daimler and Europcar).

Further providers are Multicity (Citroen) and Quicar (VW, from April 2016 continued by Greenwheels). (carsharing-news.de, 2016)

Combined car-sharing It is combining the advantages of both variants: User can find both station-based vehicles that can be booked in advance, as well as free-floating vehicles for spontaneous use.

The free-floating vehicles are usually as cheap in the combined model as the station-based ones. Combined offers are currently available in Hanover (stadtmobil), OsnabrĂźck (district car), Frankfurt am Main (book-n-drive), Mannheim and Heidelberg (both stadtmobil) and

Station

A

Station based

Free Floating

Fig 2.12: Station based and Free floating car sharing (Self Illustration (bcs, n.d.))

24

B

Kiel (Stattauto). (bcs, n.d.)

Furthermore, there are some new forms of car sharing systems which include peer to peer car sharing, where vehicle is privately owned by a person but offers it for sharing; mostly via Internet platform. The other one is Ride sharing,where individual rides from priavte owners offer ride along opportunity. (bcs, n.d.)

Car-sharing in Germany The number of Car sharing customers in Germany has risen to 2.46 million over the past year. Above-average percentage growth was recorded in the station-based Car Sharing offerings. Fig 2.13 depicts the number of members and vehicles since 1997 which are station-based and non-station-based

(free-floating) car sharing systems. It is analysed on January 1 of every year (Bundesverband CarSharing e. V., 2019).

Station-based Car sharing is currently operative at 740 locations in Germany which is 63 locations more than last year. Pure free-floating offers are currently available in seven major cities and a few surrounding communities in these cities.

The major Car sharing providers in Germany varying in Free floating, station based or combined types are: 1. Car2go 2. DriveNow 3. Book-n-drive 4. drive

by Mobility 5. stadtmobil 6. cambio 7.teilAuto 8. DB Carsharing (Bundesverband CarSharing e. V., 2019).

1,800,000

23000

1,600,000

21000

1,400,000

19000 17000

1,200,000 15000 1,000,000

13000

800,000

11000 9000

600,000

7000 400,000 5000 200,000

3000 1000 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 each at 01.01 of the year

Fig 2.13: Development of Car sharing in Germany differentiated by variants ((Self Illustration) bcs, 2019)

25

2.4.2

Bike sharing

Contemporary bike share programs (BSPs) are specified as provision of bikes, which can be picked up and dropped off at self-serving docking stations. Generally the trips are short distance (less than 30 min). The bicycles have technologies by which user can locate the docking station and also help in travel as they are equipped with a GPS. (Davis, 2014) According to Midgley (2009), bike-sharing is a system designed to connect the missing link between existing public transportation points with the desired destinations by providing a mobility form that complements the existing public transport systems. They have a profound effect in creating a larger cycling population (DeMaio, 2009). The impact of a

bike-sharing system not only relates to the travel behavior, but also has a quantifiable influence on reduction of CO2 emissions. (Lippelt, J. 2013) Bike-sharing started in Amsterdam in the 1960s. Although this mobility service had a slow start, the improvements in technology and advanced tracking methods commence rapid expansion of bike-sharing programs throughout Europe. (DeMaio, 2009) Worldwide these programs are quite well established and are gradually increasing as shown in fig 2.14.

1,608 1,400

1,188 1,005

855 703

549

457

347

220 131 17

24

68

2005 2006 2007

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Fig 2.14: Bike sharing programs worldwide (Self illustration (Richter, 2018))

26

Bike-sharing in Germany According to Mobility in Germany (MiD) 2017 report, it shows that many Germans have had a mobility behavior that has been practiced over the past decades and that differs from its neighboring countries, especially on short distances. As the Dutch choose bicycles, the Swiss like to walk and in Germany, the car is still far too often used for short trips.

usage at short notice and for a short time.

Most systems account for time (per 30 minutes or per hour) and some systems even offer the first 30 minutes for free. This shall ensure a high turnover rate and contribute to establish the use sharing bikes in combination to the use of public transport for the first and last miles. (Monheim et al., 2012)

But looking at the development of bicycle traffic in Germany, it can be stated that the distances and kilometers traveled by bicycle have risen consequently. More than 80 percent of Germans use bicycles. In 2002, cycle traffic accounted for 25 million journeys per day, and by 2017 this figure had risen to 28 million journeys per day, which is rise of 13 percent.

(MiD, 2017) For Bike Sharing system in Germany, local government is the provider. The main provider for Bike sharing in Germany is Deutsche Bahn AG with its subsidiary DB Rent GmbH and the service “Call a bike” and other one ‘‘ Next Bike’’ ‘Call a Bike’ was introduced in 2000 by DB-Deutsche Bahn (German Railway) in Munich and in several other German cities including Berlin and Frankfurt (Handke & Jonuschat, 2013). A subsidiary of DB Rent GmbH has more than 250 stations which are present in Aachen, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, Karlsruhe, Köln, München, Stuttgart and at further 50 railway stations (Bike sharing in Germany, n.d.).

There exist station based schemes, in this case bikes have to be returned to any station and another is flexible schemes, where bicycles can be returned anywhere in a defined city area. Bike-sharing systems are designed for

27

2.4.3 Miscellaneous Taxi A taxi is a transport mode which transfer passengers from one location to another as per their choice. This is different from other transport modes like public transport where the pick-up and drop-off locations are decided by the service provider, not by the passenger (Wikipedia contributers, 2019). Taxi services are gradually contributing to sustainable urban mobility, as they offer an alternative to the individual use of a private car. In general, a legal framework regulates the activity and fares of taxi services according to their service areas and different platforms. According to this legal framework, the booking center and field operators are either public actors or private companies acting in a competitive context. (UITP, 2011)

Shared Taxi A shared taxi is another form of Taxi service but it is used by more than 1 person. This helps in fair reduction as it is shared among all the passengers. So it is cheaper than other taxi service. With versatile shared taxi programs, where in some of them customers are picked up at defined meeting points or in others taxis follow virtual service lines. The service provider has an online platform on smart phones where journeys and pick-up points are planned. The shared taxi is great substitute to public transport in areas where the demand is more prevalent (e.g. in big cities at night or rural areas). (UITP, 2011)

Car Pooling Carpooling is similar to shared taxi but it is not organized by any company or driver, the owner of the private car willingly share ride with other passengers. This is also called as ride-sharing or lift sharing. Generally, the driver has no commercial platform. This is a 28

program where the traveling cost are shared among the car pool members. Nowadays it also works through online apps or websites.

Carpooling ensures that fewer cars are on the road and therefore has significant impact on the environment and congestion, as it (UITP, 2011). Carpooling, as it is depending on the driver’s destination and travel time does not have that high potential and thus is not able to really fulfill individual requirements every time. (ibid., 2011) There are many online platforms in different cities and countries to use this facility and save money. One of the prominent platform in Germany and other European countries is BlaBla Car. There are over 70 million users and is available in 22 countries. (Wikipedia contributers, 2019)

Park and Ride (P+R) P+R specify the distinctive alternatives to car usage in order to have better land-use planning by reducing the traveling needs and to achieve modal shift on a wide scale. It is known as part of a local policy package with integrated measures that promote a more holistic approach towards sustainable mobility.

Typically, parking in the city center must be at a high cost, while the transport links between the P + R site and the urban center must be cheap, reliable and frequent, since only then P + R is considered a feasible sustainable alternative. It was implemented in many American cities in early 90s and later to UK and Europe (Dijk, Haes, & Montalvo, 2013).

Bike and Ride (B+R) After Park and Ride, to reach better sustainability goals; the combined method of using the bicycle and public transport for one trip, has seen a eventual growth over the past decade in most of the developed countries.

(Martens, 2007) This has made a lot of difference to bicycle friendly infrastructure and convenience to use intermodal way of mobility. If provided appropriately near to transit stations, it can aid to lessen the traffic congestion and motivate people to use public transport.

Fig 2.15: Use of Bike and Ride (Self Illustration)

29

LESSONS LEARNED

3. 3.0 Neighborhood mobility trends

3.1 Mobility Concept 3.2 Mobility Hub 3.3 Identify type 3.4 Case Study - Selection Process 3.4.1 Seestadt, Wien 3.4.2 Switch, Hamburg 3.5 Findings - Interview results

3.0

Neighborhood Mobility trends

Thinking beyond Transit stations People move from one place to another either by private transport or by public transportation services. For accessing different public services, transit stations are developed. The basic aim of transit stations is to provide easy mobility for citizens. Speaking of mobility, it is significant to distinguish between potential and realized mobility. Potential mobility generally describes the capability of any person’s physical movement, whereas realized mobility describes the satisfaction of mobility needs through actual spatial movement (Becker, Gerike, & Völlings, 1999). Thus, mobility only describes the need of spatial change without any statement about the modal choice.

Also two categories can be seen in this development of mobility stations.

1. Urban 2. Rural As mobility stations in urban area have ability to control internal traffic of the city whereas in Rural areas, inter city mobility is more significant. For urban areas, they can be further divided into locations like traffic junctions, district and commercial areas and for rural areas can be industrial estates and sweeping knot.

(Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015)

Therefore, with new trends of mobility conventional transit stations which include Railway stations, Bus Stations, etc serve the maximum facility for commuting from one place to another but with a single mode of Transportation. To provide maximum commuting possibility, new model of mobility known as Mobility Stations or Mobility Hubs are being developed.

According to Böhler (2010) mobility offers present location-based services that provide for people’s mobility, offered by local public transportation companies that operate on behalf of public authorities, private bus companies, taxi companies or car rental companies.

With regard to the past, it is noticeable that mobility concepts often were closely related to the upcoming of new modes of transport, such as railway or automobile (Schade & Kühn, 2012). Accordingly, new mobility concepts can arise through new forms of vehicles, new forms of vehicle usage and its combinations.

Fig 3.1 & 3.2: Urban and Rural mobility pattern (Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015)

31

3.1

Mobility Concept Job

Residence

Education

Transit the result of physical change of location of persons and goods

Recreation

Shopping

Fig 3.3: Interactions between individual needs and traffic (self illustration (Bott, C. Grassl, & Anders, 2019))

32

The aim is to have all means of transport with their respective strengths in a targeted manner while protecting the environment and the climate as much as possible to grow sustainable mobility.

The future of urban mobility will lie in the networking, the integration of varied offerings, the development of low-emission and energy saving solutions as well as in an adaptable and flexible transport infrastructure (Bott, C. Grassl, & Anders, 2019).

Following the methods to shift Private vehicle to Public transport. But individually public transport will not replace private cars. There has to be various other integrated offers and following the urban fundamentals to approach these offers.The principle of transit development is explained in fig. 3.3. It shows interactions between individual needs and traffic.

So a transportation concept made for better future goals without compromising all the basic needs is mobility concept. There are different measures taken by public and private sector to meet the goals. This fig. 3.4 explains basically the steps how present situation is implemented with the actual requirements and make it meet sustainable mobility goals.

Transit Generator

Transit Distribution

Needs

Destination?

Transit mode

Transit Allocation

Mode choice?

Route?

Model Data

Urban Plan Avoid Traffic

Directionless Transit Demand

Directed Transit Demand

Modal Split

Main Transit route

Relocate Traffic

Make Traffic Compatible

Fig 3.4: Sustainable mobility principles: avoid, relocate and make traffic more responsive (self illustration (Bott, C. Grassl, & Anders, 2019))

33

3.2 TOD

Mobility Hub Mobility Hubs

For transit oriented development (TOD), Mobility Hubs are major sites which can anchor mixed use, high density neighborhood around public transit stations. This development can be encouraged by updating different zoning codes and public participation around these hubs. Hence less private cars and more environment friendly means if more people will live, work and shop in the vicinity of Mobility Hubs.

(NIUA, 2016) Mobility Hub can be described as “an initial point or a connecting point, where vehicles of different transport modes (motorized vehicles or bikes) are available for different uses. Also, the vehicles are provided for sharing programs such as car sharing. Whereas, the bicycles at this sharing platform can be associated to rental system“. (Stadt Offenburg, 2014) As per one city’s proposal in Germany, the mobility stations must be in close vicinity of public transport stations, so that they can provide seamless connections between modes.

This way, users have option to stay mobile even without a private car and have a choice for transport mode as per their purpose.

(Stadt Offenburg, 2014) A mobility station defined in general concept

by Berg (2019) as “mobility points also known as mobility station which connect different mobility services in a condensed area. They act as multimodal mobility points when Public transport stops and stations are combined with other mobility offers at same platform, such as car-sharing, bike sharing, taxi stands, 34

coach stations, carpooling, bike parking, charging infrastructure for electric cars, P+R and B+R facilities, as well as information centers”. (Berg, 2019) Another definition by Jansen et al. (2015) explains that a mobile stations is a multimodal node where different transport modes, and other shared mobility services are available.

Also, the basic requirement of every mobility station is connection to public transport and the prioritizing cycling and walking over motorized individual transport. (Jansen et al., 2015) As per BBSR (2015) “the mobility station must be focusing on in its local context with all possible connections with the availability of different transport modes and supporting the message of marketing to promote Eco mobility. Typically, the sustainable mobility message is enhanced by the corresponding design elements of the station. The connection is designed in such a way, that the local transfer between the transport modes is facilitated through the physical concentration of the mobility options.” (BBSR, 2015) Therefore, bi-modal nodes (e.g. Park and Ride or Bike and Ride facilities) or multi-modal nodes (e.g. railway station), must not necessarily be regarded as mobility stations in this perspective view as the required marketing effect is either built in with the system or not recognizable. (BBSR, 2015)

3.2.1 Task The main task of a mobility station is to make intermodal or multi-modal connection point.

Public transport is the backbone of mobility services to mobility stations.

Depending on the specific location type (Inner city neighborhood,Central Station in a metro-

Information/ Service

Standard Design

Combining Transport Offers

Communication/ Marketing

Meeting Point/ Common Areas

Fig 3.5: Tasks for Mobility Hub development (Self Illustration (Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015))

politan city, Station of a small town, Business park etc.) can hep in decreasing commuting time, being alternate for not owning a car and improving accessibility (Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015).

Especially in rural areas Mobility stations contribute to the security and Improving the accessibility of different goals. Through a range of mobility services and public transport availability, even in rural areas Mobility, is possible without a car. For mobility station the project has following basic tasks (Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015):

3.2.2 Benefits By integrating all traffic offers under one roof, the Mobility stations serves their purpose and many services beyond the offer by making it spatially perceptible. By integrating all offers under one roof, everything is presented in the form of standard design under one brand. A nationwide survey is taken for ’Handbuches Mobilstationen NRW’ in Germany to understand the assessment of benefits (Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015).

• Linking of transport offers • Communication and Marketing • Information / Service • Meeting point / common areas

35

3.3

Identify type

The basic fundamentals of any Urban neighborhood are Good Infrastructure, availability of services and connectivity with Public Transportation network. These are also the basic principles to define better mobility in neighborhood. A catalogue for these principles to make better neighborhood mobility is described in chapter 4.

Further there can two main types to implement mobility concept in neighborhood.

These are existing and newly developing neighborhood. The mobility for existing neighborhood serves the whole urban area.

While the newly developing could be independent too. So both the cases anyway are responsible for mobility in complete urban area and make positive changes in modal split for environment friendly transit modes.

Infrastructure

Public Transport

Services

Neighborhood Mobility

36

3.4

Case Study- Selection

Already in this modern era, there are selected neighborhoods in Germany and Europe with holistic mobility concepts - both in existing and new buildings - that promote both pedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic (including cargo bikes and E bikes) and public transport. Scope for Case study is limited to Europe as there are best examples to be found with new mobility trends here. The criteria which guided to this study selection: • The mobility trends visible in modal split; as decreasing car ownership and increase in multimodality, or other various forces So Vienna is the city recorded as most livable city in the world. This is due to various reasons which increases its livable quality which also includes mobility as one of the main reason to be on the top list. Therefore this newly developing neighborhood ‘Seestadt Aspern’ is the good example to give learnings for neighborhood mobility.

The learnings from this case study could

be model for upcoming new neighborhoods.

Similarly other trends of multimodality in city are fulfilled with provision of mobility stations. A lot of them are functioning in Germany, out of which Hamburg is chosen for this case study as it is the best example of well spread mobility stations in big city having second highest population in Germany. Well management and successful results of this is a learning for other multimodal developments.

• Connecting inter neighborhood and urban network. The focus is on neighborhood mobility but it is easy to have a walkable neighborhood without transit but impossible to have walkable city without transit.

So these case studies from Vienna and Hamburg are best examples to showcase this fact.

Fig 3.6: Logo of Switchh Mobility station (Switchh, n.d.) and Seestadt Aspern (Stadt Wien, 2017 )

37

3.4.1

Seestadt Aspern, Vienna

Fig 3.7: Aerial view of Seestadt Aspern, Vienna (GoogleEarth, 2019) Quelle: Stadt Wien, 2017 Modal Gesamtstadt ModalSplit Split (Vienna) (Stadt Wien, 2017)

27%

38%

7%

28%

Statistical Data

38

Development year

2009 – 2027 (planned)

Population

approx. 20,000 inhabitants (planned); approx. 6,000 (current)

Location

Vienna (Periphery of City)

Distance from City centre

10 km (Public transport: 30 min)

Public Transport connection

U-Bahn, S-Bahn, Bus

Integrated Services

Public Transport

Bike Lanes

Daily Needs

Bike and Ride at Transit Station

Bike Sharing

Car Sharing

Electric Charge Station

AUTOHAUS

Cargo Bike

Parking Garage

Delivery/ Packet Station

Modal Split Goal (Seestadt Aspern, Vienna)

30%

30%

40%

Characters

Residential, Commercial

Size/ Inhabitants

45 ha / 3,000 apartments (current) / 11,000 apartments (planned)

Residential density

50 inhabitants/ hectare

Parking space (private) Parking space (public)

approx. 2000 Cars (0.7/ apartment) approx. 350

39

Phases of Development

Fig 3.8: Location of Seestadt Aspern, Vienna (Stadt Wien, 2017)

Implementation - Planning Area transformed from former airfield to new multi-functional urban area

Fig 3.9: Former location of Airfield (Wien 3420 AG, 2012)

- In 2013 two new underground stations were constructed to connect this new development to city center and other places - It is Europe’s one of the largest urban development projects with the plan of 20,000 people living and same number of people working.

- Rather than only residential and commercial quarters, the area is comprised of industrial, scientific, research and educational spaces too.

-City of Vienna founded development company for the development and marketing of Seestadt Aspern. Also giving provision of a mobility fund to finance the offers - Development of a planning manual for public space - Operation of mobility offers by Entwicklungsgesellschaft - Establishment of an experiential room “AspernLAB” as an interface between residents, builders and researchers.

40

Fig 3.10: Development of Lake before the project(Wien 3420 AG, 2012 )

First Phase(2008-2017)- Development

of Lake Park, approximately 2000 residential apartments, offices, retail and R&D facilities.

Second Phase(2017-2022)- Completion of Railway station, connection to 23 motorway and further residential and buildings for other purposes will be constructed.

Third Phase(2022-2030)- the areas around the railway station, shopping street and underground line will be completed (Wien 3420 AG, 2012 )

Fig 3.12: Mobility Services (VCD, n.d. )

Fig 3.11: Plan of Seestadt Aspern neighborhood(Stadt Wien, 2017 )

Objectives • Energy Concept for whole neighborhood has been formed where Austria’s largest geothermal power plant will be constructed near to it. This will cover more than 100% of heating demands and be a part of energy supply for this area too. This will correspond to almost zero energy standards in Aspern (Wien 3420 AG, 2012).

• The city of Vienna is aiming to develop Aspern into a “smart city” with a focus on energy and mobility solutions of the future. Smart buildings, Electric mobility and integrated energy system is planned for this development. Thus , quality of life and energy efficiency are well enhanced in a unique way (Siemens AG Österreich, 2012).

• Numerous Measures and strategies for guiding the mobility process and implementation of project aspern have been established as a Mobility Guideline which

is combined with seven different packages. These packages include new trends with the environs, parking spaces, mobility fund, innovative transport systems, public space, communication and monitoring.

Efficient bus service, cycling paths to the neighboring areas, bicycle parking facilities inside buildings, city bike and car sharing systems, and Eco-friendly buses are part of these measures too. (Wien 3420 Aspern Development AG, 2011).

• Every residential apartment is provided with 0.7 parking places which is comparably less than average number of Vienna providing 1.5 places to each residence (Siemens AG Österreich, 2012) • The parking facility for private car is only provided in common garage. Distance for this parking area is almost similar to public transport stop.

• Almost half the space of Aspern is reserved for public space with diverse activities such as recreational areas, city squares and roads.

• A platform for communication and do self organised activities is made in one of the block where collective building initiatives are promoted. (Wien 3420 Aspern Development AG, 2011).

41

PARKING

42

(1.0) Learnings 1.1 Connectivity inside and outside Well connected streets which are linked with parks and other public spaces making it lively space for residents. Also connecting the inner parts equidistant to access other parts of city.

This make it usable for environment friendly means of transport without any other need.

1.2 Independent of neighborhood size Successful mobility with almost zero energy standards is a proof that Mobility concepts are not dependent on the size of a neighborhood, but on the supply and accessibility of the offer. Well designed routes to have minimum travel distances to every day needs and

1.3 Mobility for Peripheral Locations As the peripheral locations are mostly low density. And there is very poor public transport accessibility, so mostly people use private cars for their commute. But this project shows, with the mobility concept and accessibility to public transport.

1.4 Private and Public Cooperation The establishment of interface between public street space and private planning not as a boundary, but as a Space in which both can benefit from each other. Also the development process from planning to execution cannot be successfully implemented without this mutual cooperation. Also citizens are part of this development process as gradual participatory programs and workshops are hosted.

1.5 Car Free Oriented Development As Parking space for residents is very less comparably to standards, so they are motivated to use sharing mobility offers or other environment friendly alternatives. Also the common parking garage block is situated at the same distance as public transport stops from residential apartments.

43

3.4.2

Switchh, Hamburg

Fig 3.13: Hamburg Map with Switchh Mobility Points (Self Illustration (Switchh, n.d.)

Modal Split Gesamtstadt

Quelle: Stadt Hamburg, 2018

Modal Split (Hamburg) (Stadt Hamburg, 2018)

36%

22%

15%

27%

Statistical Data (Hamburg) Region Location Population Size Density Public Transport connection Transport association Partner (Public Transport)

44

Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg North of Germany 1.8 million (Statisticalamt Nord, 2018 ) 755.22 km2 2438/km2 U-Bahn, S-Bahn, Bus, Ferry Hamburger Verkehrsverbund (HVV) Hamburger Hochbahn

Fig 3.14: Hamburg Metro line Map with main Switchh Mobility Point (Hochbahn, 2015)

Statistical Data (Mobility Station- Switchh) Brand Development year Users Location No. of Stations First Mobility Station Lead Manager Special Feature

Switchh Pilot- 31.05.2013, Development- 2016 2700 (as per 11/2015) Hamburg City 14 (as of September 2019) Berliner Tor, Hamburg Public Transport Operator (Hochbahn AG) Subscription with monthly free minutes

45

U&S Bahn Station

Bike+Ride BikeSharing

Service Center BikeParking

CarSharing

Bus Stop

Taxi Stand

Fig 3.15: Switchh Mobility Point at Berliner Tor, Hamburg (Photo: Hamburger Hochbahn AG, Legend: self Illustration)

Integrated Services

Taxi

Public Transport

46

Bike and Ride at Transit Station

Bike Sharing

Car Sharing

Taxi Service

Fig 3.16: Former Parking lot at Berliner Tor, Hamburg (Google Earth, 2009)

Actors Involved And Their Roles Hambuger Hochbahn Car2go Europcar StadtRAD Hamburg Hamburger Verkehrsverbund (HVV) City of Hamburg P+R Betriebsgesellschafft mbH

initiator, operator of mobility stations, operator of bus and subway services car-sharing providers car rental company bike-sharing provider transport association free provision of areas for mobility stations to Hambugrer Hochbahn rent of switchh parking places in P+R Facilities to the Hamburger Hochbahn AG 47

Mobility in Hamburg As discussed about statistical data of Hamburg, it is the second largest city in Germany.

Hamburger Verkehrsverbund (HVV) in partnership with Hamburger Hochbahn AG is the association responsible for all kind of transportation in Hamburg. In Hamburg several car-sharing offers (station based as well as free floating systems) are available, e.g. car2go, DriveNow, cambio, and Flinkster (carsharing-news.de, 2016).

StadtRAD Hamburg (cooperation between the city of Hamburg and DB) as well as nextbike operate a bike-sharing system in the city of Hamburg, however the offer of StadtRad Hamburg is significant bigger than the one of nextbike. (nextbike GmbH, n.d.; DB Rent GmbH, 2016) Personal vehicle traffic consumes 36% whereas public transportation is used by 22% of population. Pedestrians account 27% of share which is more than 15% of cycling population. This is modal share as estimated in 2018 by city of Hamburg.

There are already so many initiatives started in Germany where a citizen doesn’t need to use own car for traveling. Rather one can use different sharing means from car sharing platforms, Bike sharing offers, taxis or public transportation as discussed in chapter 3.1. So for every offer, there is need of different app to use the service and travel to different place for the same. To make it convenient, Hamburg Hochbahn began a new platform- ‘Switchh’ where all the mobility offers are combined together. With the provision of outgrowing mobility services, public transport service is also combined with it (Brückner, 2019).

48

As discussed about Intermodal and multimodal mobility in Switchh is the mobility hub model for offering multimodal mobility services.

Implementation Process • The project was started in 2012 to implement the complementary offer within one year. Two big partners – car2go (free floating car-sharing provider of Daimler) and Europcar (car rental company) – have been acquired for a two years pilot phase.

(Luginger, 2016) • The name Switchh was launched after 15 months of progress of this project (Luginger, 2016). With switchh in Hamburg from A to B: Derived from the English verb “to switch” (switch, change), the project promises innovative mobility for the Hanseatic city and allows the change between bus, train, car or bike via app. Also refers to the city’s name: Hansestadt Hamburg by being written with double h (Switchh- Praktische Vernetzung des öffentlichen Nahverkehrs, n.d.).

• There are different kind of offers under Switchh, which include- Switchh Mobility Station and switchh points.

• The first switch point was opened at the 31th of May in 2013 at the public transport station Berliner Tor. Amongst parking places for car-sharing and car rental vehicles, a customer service center was installed as well (Hamburger Hochbahn AG, n.d.).

• Since 2013 the number of switchh points rises constantly, currently there are fourteen of them all over the city area.

Objective • Hamburger Hochbahn initiative to have joint mobility offers. So creating it as a model of one solution for any kind of mobility needs. its first mobility station in Hamburg.

•

The offers include digital infrastructure for Urban mobility that links with all public transport services including associated infrastructure like bus and train stops, P+R or B+R facilities and Parking space.

• Switchh raises awareness of a new type of urban mobility without owning a car and contribute to reduce private car use or private car ownership

Fig 3.17: Stelle at Berliner Tor (Self Photographed)

Fig 3.18: Info Board at Berliner Tor (Self Photographed)

• Environment friendly transportation for better quality of life and shared vehicles to relieve individual traffic is accomplished by increasing use of electric vehicles for car sharing.

Design • As per Case Study in Hamburg at different mobility points, Switchh points provide between eight to eleven parking places for car-sharing vehicles, the one at Berliner Tor being a mobility Hub provide 18 parking places for Car Sharing.

• The bike-sharing(StadtRad) offer is available at almost every switch point or in its immediate surroundings.

Fig 3.19: Parking Space at switchh Point (Self Photographed)

Fig 3.20: Bike and Ride at Switchh Point, Berliner Tor ( Self Photographed)

• The floor is designated specially by Switchh Logo and Green color specifying parking places (Fig 3.19)

• All stations are provided with Bike and Ride facilities (Fig 3.20)

• A post of height 3-4 meter with switchh logo and logos of all the associated partners is displayed at every station.(Fig 3.17)

• The largest switchh point Berliner Tor also provides taxi stands and Service Center.

A formal parking lot was transformed into mobility station.

49

Fig 3.21: Switchh Users Graph since Implementation (Switchh- Praktische Vernetzung des öffentlichen Nahverkehrs, n.d.)

Location

Offers

The location for new mobility station is based on the following criteria (Luginger, 2016):

To use the Services of Switchh mobility station, customers are provided with Switchh Card which helps them to choose between a total of 1,500 vehicles and 2,500 StadtRad Bikes to move through the city. The switchh card not only makes you mobile but also flexible. No subscription is required and the switchh card can be canceled on a monthly basis.(HVV, n.y)

• High population density in the neighborhood and increasing demand of parking areas.

• Availability of space for new mobility Hub with accessibility factor.

• The areas which are already under influence of services of ‘Switchh’ points must not overlap, so stations are not to be located too close to each other, rather Switchh points shall be distributed evenly all over the city area in order to create a network.

• With the development of few stations, they are evaluated in terms of cost benefit, accessibility, connection between station and Public transit station, For example- Mobility station at Berliner Tor created a good perception for new proposals.

• Proposals from Government/ City administration for new development 50

The switchh website (www.switchh.de, cf. Fig: 3.21) explains the process and easy registration steps. The online registration can be completed at the switchh service center at Berliner Tor.

1500 Car Sharing Vehicles

2500 StadtRad Bikes

Fig 3.22: Screenshot from switch website (Switchh, n.d.)

For everyday use customers can easily “swtichh” online, either via HVV smartphone application or via the combined switchh search function from HVV website (Hamburger Hochbahn AG, n.d.). Both, the website and the smartphone application provide maps, which show the location of local public transport stops, StadtRAD bicycles, car2go carsharing vehicles, Europcar cars and mytaxi vehicles.

Fig 3.23: Screenshot from switchh app (Switchh, n.d.)

Goals The project was developed to contribute for changing the mobility behavior of Hamburg’s citizens by providing attractive alternatives to the use of privately owned cars. As the Users are tremendously increasing, this serves the shift from private vehicles to sharing vehicles.

The project of switchh takes on a leading role in mobility stations and their integration solution and thus shows how to successfully implement multimodal mobility offers. (Luginger, 2016)

Fig 3.24: Switchh Card for activating any vehicle use (Hochbahn, 2015)

51

Taxi

Info

Car Sharing

52

Bike Sharing

(2.0) Learnings 2.1 Proximity Neighborhoods which are Walkable, bike-friendly offer a good environment for public transport will not emerge unless the places people want to get to are brought closer together. The closer these places are to each other, the less time people need to spend commuting, thus contributing to livable neighborhoods. The mobility points placed in a way that they don’t overlap the vicinity of other station in the neighborhood.

2.2 One Ticket/ Transport Card for every transit Hvv app and website used for booking all means of transport with the new sharing mobility offers too. This makes quite flexible for any user to easy access and have different choices. More citizens would be interested to look for other offers if they are already using one of them. This strategy is a good way to initiate new mobility services making it approachable to existing users.

2.3 Every alternative for shared Mobility For different kind of users require different mobility mode. As elderly people are mostly interested in a taxi or ride sharing service, whereas some commuters might be more interested in having the possibility to use electric bikes. A family would like to have rental car, younger ones could use offer of sharing bike. So depending on these various mobility mode choices, a Mobility station serves maximum citizens . Neighborhoods must be designed to accommodate a mix of various functions and services for all diverse groups in society.

2.4 Visually Integrated Design As location of mobility station is mostly central and visible. However, this might not always be case, So a standardized design of various elements can help them look more visible and attractive. This increases awareness of the offers provided in multimodal mobility platform. Using highlighted colors for parking spaces, High banners, Corporate Logo, Information stele and other modular design elements help make the specified mobility station to look distinguished from surrounding and catch people’s eye.

2.5 A platform for multiple needs As per the location and size of a mobility station, different types of services and amenities can be integrated at the station. Also the needs of neighborhood users can decide the factor of various service accommodations at this place. From Information desk for registering Mobility services; a kiosk for everyday needs, a workshop for Tools or Bike repair; a packet station for sending or receiving parcels or a locker station to store valuable items temporarily can help to accomplish the user needs with the reduction of resource consumption enhancing to save the travel times.

53

3.5 Findings- Expert Interviews An interview was conducted to find the method to develop a Mobility concept in neighborhood from concept to implementation level. As there are many actors playing role in this development, a Mobility concept planners team is the best to understand as they are mediators between stakeholders and other development organizations.

So the interview was conducted personally and its summary is attached in Appendix. The interview was audio recorded for better analysis with the permission of interviewed person.

The interview was divided into five parts:

• • • • •

Analysis Criteria Design Implementation Success Factor

Each part had two questions, which help to understand a mobility concept development into a project. The questions asked are described as following with their answers attached in Appendix section.

Analysis

• What analysis are done before initiation of mobility concept?

• Does analysis of neighborhood density matter with the need of mobility concept in that particular area?

Criteria • •

How are locations determined for the implementation of mobility stations?

Which criteria play an important role?

Design • •

How design of mobility hub matters with users?

Are there any standard rules followed in designing process?

Implementation • •

Which steps lead up to the implementation of a mobility station in the neighborhood?

Which major goals should be acknowledged during the development process?

Success Factor • •

54

What are major success factors for any kind of multimodal or intermodal mobility to be developed?

How to make people aware of these mobility services in their neighborhood; which will make optimum utilization of Mobility station?

Findings The key points are found from interview (Appendix) with different questions. Summary of those answers tend to create a lot of learnings. Out of various learnings few significant ones are described as below.

1. Location Right from macro to micro, Location matters where to choose right place in the city; then where to place and on which street considering the flow. If its near to city center the services will be different and as the location changes, services will also be affected.

2. Flow The flow of traffic is on the way to Public transport or daily needs. So its best to place the mobility station or other offers with the traffic flow. It increases the visibility of services offered and encourage people to use. Also the most need of mobility concept is applicable mostly for heavy traffic streets.

3. Flexibility The developed mobility station must be designed flexible to adapt changes. There could be chances something doesn’t work out at some stage which will need change. So giving some areas which are convertible and can be used for other purpose gives numerous options of this kind of development.

4.Self Sufficient A provided solution for better mobility but it should carry itself too. There must not be only always in need of any investment. It should be self sufficient. For example the costs of Electricity can be covered with installation of solar panels.

5.Usability It is very important to focus on user friendly mobility concept and other mobility offers. User experience increases the number of customers interested to use this platform. As After 2 clicks there is lose of 30%- 40% users with every click. So considering the requirements and easy usability of them is basic goal for any successful implementation of mobility plan.

55

4. 4.0 Catalogue Method

FUTURE LAB

4.1 Catalogue 4.2 Design Model 4.2.1 Scenario 1 4.2.2 Scenario 2 4.2.3 Scenario 3

4.0 Catalogue Method The rules for preparing catalogue are done by integrating the constituents indirectly with each other to reach target. Relevant key points are sorted from Challenges, Learnings and Findings each. Marked with appropriate signs for each, together makes a set and make one guideline for Catalogue. Depending upon each category chosen in guideline, will include relevant signs to understand the name of it.

Challenges A

Traffic Congestion

B

Increasing Car Ownership

C

Cost & Travel time

D

Urban Aesthetics

Learnings-Best Practices 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5

Seestadt Aspern, Vienna Connectivity inside and outside Independent of neighborhood size Mobility for Peripheral Locations Private and Public Cooperation Car Free Oriented Development

2.0 Mobility Station ‘Switchh’ 2.1 Proximity 2.2 One Transport Card for every transit 2.3 Every alternative for shared Mobility 2.4 Visually Integrated Design 2.5 A platform for multiple needs

Findings- Interviews Categories

D 1.3

1 Analysis 2 Criteria

-Location

3 Design

-Flexibility

4 Implementation

-Self Sufficient

5 Success Factor

-Usability

-Flow

5

Catalogue Key aspects rule 57

4.1 Catalogue The Catalogue is a guidance catalyst in a comprehensive attempt to provide key aspects for cities to plan mobility starting from micro level. The old norms of how we travel are being replaced by mobility becoming a part of how we design our lifestyles. Different opportunities that allow us to connect to each other, to services and to information; thus increasingly finding means with which we don’t need to travel as much. And with the advancement in technology for mobility and other innovative transit systems; it is important to prepare an approach to develop a balanced mobility start from a neighborhood and then further to urban scale. So while keeping in mind, the basic requirements and necessities a paradigm shift is needed in transforming Urban transit trends for future proposals.

As the principle of urban development is sensitive to local issues. The catalogue is made in general independent of specific urban area but specific neighborhoods. These are provided to be applicable at varying contexts and situations.

58

It goes beyond the theoretical discussion of discussing concepts and theories rather an approach to begin implementation, right from one neighborhood and more.

Hence, Starting this implementation from a neighborhood, the basic factors which are the foundations to begin are:

Infrastructure Services Public Transit To begin this catalogue, key aspects are found from the learnings and findings overcoming the challenges. There they form different solutions when combined together in alternative ways. They help to figure out characteristics and thus form a catalogue together. Beginning the catalogue context from Infrastructure and then services and later Public transit.

1. Design Standards Ensuring to maintain high quality of environment in by making attractive banners and posts for a mobility hub. Ensures a transparent design and clear spatial Outline for a relaxation of the environment. In this context in addition to the structural design above all the use of colors, lighting and advertising with high urban planning impact. This can be aid to image of neighborhood aesthetically too Various creative ways are used to define these standards by companies. Some of them are- Creating a logo with the name of city, choosing one color for defining owned parts of city for these offers, a design element for information terminal, new elements in designing parking areas and the way of displaying different offers.

Urban Aesthetics Visually Integrated Design Flexibility

CHARACTERISTICS • Transparent / Visual design Elements • Clear Space • Modular Shapes • Eye Catching Color • Eco friendly • Good Lighting • High Panels • Integrated in existing neighborhood

Car Sharing

Bike Sharing

Go Mobile Station

Info

KEY ASPECTS

D.S.

59

2. Workshops More number of people can be influenced if there is appropriate maintenance and repair workshops easily accessible to users.

The basic provisions like air pumps should be provided at nearest distances and primarily at bike parkings and transit stations. These services should be public ally available are free to use. This increases the level of comfort for people who can get motivated to use bike for their commute.

Installation of simple self-service repair stations can be relatively quick and require only occasional ongoing maintenance. Larger self-service and staffed facilities can require more time to plan and install, and more significant ongoing human resource requirements for staffing

KEY ASPECTS Cost and Travel Time A platform for multiple needs Self Sufficient Usability

CHARACTERISTICS • Air pumps near to Bicycle Parking • Repairing stand available for free • Sharing Tool Box • Self service machine for Accessories for cycling to buy • Self service machine for Repair parts and tools to buy

60

Accessories To Buy

Tool Box

W.S.

3. Public Service Platform A service desk or information point well integrated near to transit station or at mobility hub for neighborhood citizens to access other parts of city should be available 24 x 7.

Real-time information near to journey begin point.

Due to the increasing popularity of smart phones, with mobile Internet its easy to access the real-time information during the journey (on-trip). So if the information can be provided also here, it is convenient for user to decide which mode to take for traveling.

KEY ASPECTS Cost and Travel Time One Ticket- Private & Public Visually Integrated design Private and Public Cooperation Usability

CHARACTERISTICS • Free Consultation and advice for adopting new offers • Automated Information terminals for fast service • Real Time Information • Appropriate number of service desks to avoid chaos

Go Mobile Station

Info

Bus 1 Bus 7 -----

12.40 13.50 ------

P.S.P.

61

4. Charging Stations in existing Parking In the underground garage of an apartment, Electric cars are used as storage for solar power.

That is providing electric charging stations; to optimize the use of Existing Car parking and use natural resource to be cost effective and be environment friendly. Also the same can be used for E- Bikes which will encourage the use of electric vehicles for residents of the apartment.

KEY ASPECTS Increasing Car Ownership Independent of neighborhood Size Self Sufficient Flexibility

CHARACTERISTICS • Electric cars Costs less • Multiple use of Parking space • Eco friendly energy producing method • Motivates residents • Plug Outlet for E-Bike- 220V and a charging station for Car

C.S.P.

62

5. Quality Public Space A mobility hub will be perceived as as a part of neighborhood surrounding only if it is successfully integrated with the environment and also a common meeting place for the residents. The space has to be a positive interaction between the residents, mobility station and the common place of neighborhood.

This can also result in accumulating more users for sharing mobility offers and thus making environment friendly choices to make high quality of life in the neighborhood.

KEY ASPECTS Traffic Congestion Proximity Car free oriented development Connectivity inside & outside Location

CHARACTERISTICS

Car Sharing

Bike Sharing

• Pedestrian friendly area • Integrated with natural environment • Sitting space and recreational activities area • Accessible to Public transport • Transforming car parkings or unused big streets to use as parklets or parks

Q.P.S.

63

6. Diverse choices A neighborhood with a platform for provision of diverse different mobility mode. Varying from different age groups, the demand varies. Other than Public transport for traveling to other parts of this city, a neighborhood must occupy other modes too.

This include different types of bikes including electric bikes, cargo bikes, sharing bikes; variety of cars depending upon size and offers varying from rental, sharing, ride pooling etc.

Also there is significant point which depends on location and type of available mobility offers. If a cargo bike is available at stations which are next to transit stations. It may not be so useful rather if it is available near to shopping area or neighborhoods; it will mark its adequacy.

KEY ASPECTS Traffic Congestion Every alternative for shared Mobility Car free Oriented Development Mobility for peripheral location Usability

CHARACTERISTICS • Considering Every age group • Environment friendly so- Electric cars, E bikes and E scooter • Condition free • Ride choice as per route

D.C.S.

TAXI

64

7. Daily needs and tasks by foot Being a central point for giving mobility services, it is everyday path for most of residents. So all the basic provisions must be given here to save people from taking additional route. The basic everyday needs include- Luggage lockers to store safely, an ATM to access cash easily, a packet station to get parcel or post, a cafe or a bakery to quickly get something for breakfast or evening, a supermarket or a kiosk for grocery, a pharmacy to have easy access to health care and many more depending upon neighborhood requirements. In some cases of location, only a toilet provision would also serve purpose for neighborhood residents.

KEY ASPECTS Traffic Congestion Proximity Independent of Neighborhood size A platform for multiple needs Flow

CHARACTERISTICS • No need of any vehicle to access • Saving time and energy • Multi task can be completed at once • Easy to gather the flow • Flexibility for residents to access anytime

CAFE ATM

D.S. SHOP

SUPERMARKT

65

8. Multimodal mobility Mobility stations can make a significant contribution to reduce the high park pressure and congestion with sharing offers. Statistically, for example, about 48 users use different mobility vehicles; so average between eight and up to twenty private cars per car park replaced by sharing vehicle. Similarly with different modes; in total contribute to less parking space in neighborhood, making cost efficiency for residents; easy accessibility and healthier lifestyle. overall versatile provisions at one common place.

KEY ASPECTS Cost and Travel Time Proximity Every alternative for shared mobility Location Flow

CHARACTERISTICS • Considering Evry age group • Environment friendly so- Electric cars, E bikes and E scooter • Condition free • Ride choice as per route • Shortest travel distance • Time saving Commute

M.M.

66

9. Mobility Proposals & New development When Mobility concepts for a neighborhood are planned before its development, It is the most successful method to draw awareness of residents before they plan to live. In this way, sharing offers can be given; saving a lot of private car parking space.

Also more area for recreational activities can be planned. Also the financial requirement for providing a mobility hub is well manageable if planned in advance. More people can get attract to live in this new developing neighborhood with the provision of new offers for residents.

KEY ASPECTS Increasing Car Ownership Mobility for peripheral locations Car free oriented development Location Flexibility

CHARACTERISTICS • No need of More Car Parking space • Easy accessibility to city • Cost efficiency for new residents • Free from Traffic Congestion • Adaptable for new trends

Go Mobile Station

M.P.N.

67

10. Sharing Mobility with Rental Agreement To increase Sharing Mobility, while newly developed neighborhood can have mobility Hub similarly starting from every residence; this offer can be part of their rental agreement. Saving money to own a parking garage so making this agreement cost efficient.

While the rents or cost of a house increases when a parking space is also added. Therefore this is efficient method which can be adopted by owners or publically to make it a part of agreement.

KEY ASPECTS Cost and Travel Time Cost and Travel Time A platform for multiple needs Self Sufficient

CHARACTERISTICS • Cost efficient • No need of extra car parking • Facility with Liability • Service for all groups of people

+

S.M.R.A.

+ 68

11. Access to Public Transit A public transit station should be located in the vicinity of pedestrians in neighborhood. Generally, various experiments and study mention that the public transit stop must be at a maximum distance of 1,000 meters of pedestrian and cycling diameter from any residence in the community. This is equivalent to a 15-minute walk and a 5-minute bike ride. The average distance which is best for accessibility is 500 meters from a residence to transit station. And the mobility hub is best to be placed where bus stop can not only serve its purpose but other offers too.

KEY ASPECTS Cost and Travel Time Private and Public Cooperation Usability

CHARACTERISTICS • Most efficient for covering last mile to home • Cost efficient • Scheduled Public transport services • No need of personal vehicle • Easy user experience platform

300 m 500 m 1000 m

A.P.T.

69

12. Peripheral Connections Mobility offers on the periphery of the urban area play significant role as it not only serve the stationary vehicle engagement but also to the moving ones.

For example a resident traveling from suburban to city center can use Park and Ride offer.

Also this hub can act as a break point for passengers and drivers traveling on regional routes. Public transport is the backbone of this mobility hub as Interconnectivity is required more than inner connectivity in suburban areas.

KEY ASPECTS Cost and Travel Time Proximity Mobility for Peripheral Locations Location

CHARACTERISTICS • • • • •

No need of Car Saves Parking Space Cost efficient Nearest accessibility Motivates to reside in suburban • better living quality

P.C.

70

13. One- Public and Shared mobility A service desk or information point well integrated with the public and private services gives optimum results. But also linking these services via Online platform. When a user is on platform to find route options; there must be choices available with shared mobility and public transport together. This makes easy choice being on a one app or website rather than opening others separately for each.

KEY ASPECTS Cost and Travel Time Private and Public Cooperation Usability

CHARACTERISTICS • User friendly experience • Easy accessibility • Time saving • Multiple choices • Economically best offers

O.P.S.

71

14. Public Transit compatible for Bikes The barrier free provision in Transit stations lead to more people using new mobility trends which are environment friendly. Access of bicycles to local train or to bus provide flexibility of mode usage. Transit station designed with elevators or escalators attract more people to cover last distances with bicycles as they can carry further for long distances. Other accumulations like Bike and Ride also another factor of attracting people to use bicycles and give comfort or parking and traveling further.

KEY ASPECTS Traffic congestion Increasing Car Ownership One ticket- Public and Private Car Free Oriented Development Flexibility

CHARACTERISTICS • Saves time from traffic congestion • Fastest environment friendly travel way • No need of Car • Saves Parking Space • Cost efficient • Easy accessibility • Motivates to travel with personal choice

P.T.B.

72

15. Weather Shelter A weather protection is a significant quality feature for the users of a mobility station as well as public transport. By provision of waiting area, a shower or change room increases the possibility of integration-of cycling offer. As user can take shower after or before the ride and further travel to desired place.

Also the roof can be used for the installation of solar modules in sunny time making an Eco friendly module to provide services.

KEY ASPECTS Cost and Travel Time A platform for multiple needs Flexibility Self Sufficient

CHARACTERISTICS • Flexibility to stop, stay and use changing/ shower service • Easy transfer options • Motivates more users despite of bad weather • Eco friendly model

W.S.

73

74

Infrastructure

+

Services

Public Transit

75

4.2 Design Model The conventional thoughts stated that a strong economy must be created first, and then with the population growth, a higher quality of life commence. The opposite thoughts now seems more likely: creating a higher quality of life is the first step to attracting new residents and jobs. (Benfield, 2012) To build a mobility station, according to spatial context as well as defined locations, various design of stations can be made.

A module system is made to recognize different designs as per location, mobility elements and the type of network connectivity required.

The basis of this design refers to urban planning aspects; how to consider integration into environment and the quality of life. A hypothetical location is chosen for developing three different scenarios both in Urban ans suburban area. The models explain another urban aspects considered in scenarios to explain further.

Scenario 1 Urban Neighborhood Block

0m

50

Public Transit Station

Mixed Use Development

Location Public Transit Station Distance- 500 meter City Centre - 1 Km (10 min by walk) Density- High

Features - Multistorey Parking lot for commercial and residential blocks - Urban development - Newly developed - Access to daily needs

76

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

Peripheral Neighborhood Block

Business Neighborhood Block

Residential

Public Transit Station

Public Transit Station Commercial

Location

Location

Public Transit Station Distance- 100 meter City Centre - 10 km Density- Low

Public Transit Station Distance- 100 meter City Centre - 2 km Density- Temporary(only for employees)

Features

Features

- Under construction new development - Periphery of city - Parking lot underground and with houses (for residents) - Natural environment - Difficult Access to daily needs

- Well developed Business Park - Urban Business center - Parking lot building block for employees - Easy Access to daily needs - Main Commute to House

77

Info Termi Attractive Design Feature Public Seating

Scenario 1

Bike AirPump Sharing Bike Daily Needs Shop Info Desk+ Parcel/Post

78

inal

Packet Station Cargo Bike

Car Sharing

Charging Station

Private Car Parking

Parking

Commercial Residential

79

Info Terminal

Scenario 2

Public Seating Bike Sharing Bike Repair

80

Car S

Sharing

Packet Station Kiosk Meeting Space

Rental Cargo Bikes Info Desk+ Parcel/Post Cafe Reception Transparent Design Outdoor Cafe

Residential

81

Transparent Desi

Scenario 3

R

Cafe sitting Repair Station Outdoor Sitting

Car Sharing

Packet Station

Changing Rooms

Bike Sharin Sharing Tool Box 82

Public Transit station

ign

Rental Cargo Bikes

ng

Info Desk+ Daily needs

Bike Parking

Commercial

83

4.3 Integration Level Integrated key elements from catalogue in each scenario design:

Infrastructure

Services

Public Transit

84

Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Scenario 3

+

85

5.0 Conclusion The goals and objectives desired with this thesis as discussed in chapter 1.2 are achieved step by step by learnings from successful experiments and findings from interview overcoming the challenges in scope of this study. The future recommendations are discussed in the form of Design model with different scenarios.

• Rethinking transit stations in a neighborhood to be much more than just a bus stop or train stop but also to include services and activities which make them more livable placeThis is achieved by creating a mobility Hub with transit station Learning from the best practice (Chapter 3.4 ) and creating design models with scenario (1 &3).

• An approach to shift people from car oriented transportation to environment friendly modes by application of urban design aspectsThe approach is formed by Making key aspects in Catalogue (Chapter 4.1) and implementing in scenarios (1,2 & 3) • Develop a framework in the form of catalogue to form basis of sustainable neighborhood mobility required for future needs.

A framework in the form of detailed catalogue (Chapter 4.1) with 15 key aspects developed on basis of Infrastructure, Services and Public Transit. These key aspects are further executed in a hypothetical model (Chapter 4.2).

• To deliver recommendations for the shared mobility trends from the traditional methods and shift approach to transit and Land use development under different criteria.

• To create a study from emerging mobility trends in Europe especially Germany but overcoming basic global challenges and develop a model adaptable under various conditions.

The recommendations for shared mobility trends are discussed with the emerging new mobility trends (Chapter 2.4) and the shift approach from Transit Oriented development is due to different scales of implementation (Chapter 2.1). The mobility works with Intermodal or multimodal way ( Chapter 2.3). So considering these two models brings better approach to build successful mobility in neighborhood. Delivering the conclusion to this approach, brings out these main findings:

Locations of Transit/ Mobility Hubs matter

From the Catalogue (Chapter 4.1) key aspects (No. 7,11,12) explain this. The basis found from Learnings (Chapter 3.4.1- 1.4 & Chapter 3.4.2- 2.1) + Findings (3.5.1- 1) demonstrated in (Chapter 4.2)

Mobility Hubs and their Flexibility

From the Catalogue (Chapter 4.1) key aspects (No. 4, 6, 8, 9, 15) explain this. The basis found from Learnings (Chapter 3.4.1- 1.2 & Chapter 3.4.2- 2.3) + Findings (3.5.1- 3) demonstrated in (Chapter 4.2)

86

Integrated in Existing Environment

From the Catalogue (Chapter 4.1) key aspects (No. 5, 10, 12) explain this. The basis found from Learnings (Chapter 3.4.1- 1.1 & Chapter 3.4.2- 2.4) + Findings (3.5.1- 2) demonstrated in (Chapter 4.2)

Reduce in Private Car Use

From the Catalogue (Chapter 4.1) key aspects (No. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10,11,14) explain this. The basis found from Learnings (Chapter 3.4.1- 1.2 & Chapter 3.4.2- 2.3) + Findings (3.5.1- 3) demonstrated in (Chapter 4.2)

Gaining Better Quality of Life

From the Catalogue (Chapter 4.1) key aspects (No. 1, 3, 5, 7,11,13) explain this. The basis found from Learnings (Chapter 3.4.1- 1.5, 1.1 & Chapter 3.4.2- 2.4, 2.5) + Findings (3.5.1- 4) demonstrated in (Chapter 4.2)

87

List of References Alqhatani, M., Bajwaa, S., & Setunge, S. (2012). Land-Use Transport Interaction: Comparison of Melbourne, Riyadh. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 43, 3-13.

BBSR. Bundesinsitut für Bau- Stadt- und Raumforschung (BBSR) (2015). Neue Mobilitätsformen, Mobilitätsstationen und Stadtgestalt. Bonn. bcs. Bundesverband CarSharing e.V. (bcs) (n.d.). Retrieved July 05, 2019. from Was ist CarSharing?: http://www.carsharing.de/alles-ueber-carsharing/faq Becker, U., Gerike, R., & Völlings, A. (1999). Gesellschaftliche Ziele von und für Verkehr. Dresden: DIVU. Benfield, K. (2012, December 3). City Lab. Retrieved September 21, 2019, from www.citylab.com: https://www.citylab.com/solutions/2012/12/10-techniques-making-cities-more-walkable/4047/ Berg, S. V. (n.d.). Retrieved july 12, 2019, from qixxit: https://www.qixxit.de/blog/die-mobilitaetsstation-mobilitaet-vor-ort/ Böhler-Baedeker, S., Kost, C., & Merforth, M. (2014). Urban Mobility Plans: National Approaches and Local Practices. Bonn: Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit(GIZ) GmbH. Bott, H., C. Grassl, G., & Anders, S. (2019). Nachhaltige Stadtplanung. Lebendige Quartiere – Smart Cities – Resilienz. (H. Kaur, Trans.) München: Institut für Internationale Architektur-Dokumentation.

Brückner, J. (2019, September). future.Hamburg. Retrieved from www.future.hamburg.com: https://future.hamburg/en/project/switchh/ Carey, C., Renne, J. L., & Bertolini, L. (2009). Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen.

Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Carsharing News (2015) ‘CiteeCar im Insolvenzverfahren’. https://www.carsharing-news.de/citeecar-insolvenz/. carsharing-news.de. (2016). Carsharing Anbieter. Retrieved July 14, 2019, from http://www.carsharing-news.de/carsharing-anbieter DB Rent GmbH. (2016). StadtRad Hamburg Standorte im Überblick. Retrieved September 2, 2019 from http://stadtrad.hamburg.de/kundenbuchung/ DeMaio, P. (2009). Bike-sharing: History, Impacts, Models of Provision, and Future. . Journal of Public Transportation, 12 (4), 41-56.

Dijk, M., Haes, J. d., & Montalvo, C. (2013, June). Journal of Transport Geography. Park and Ride motivations and air quality norms in Europe, 30, 149-160. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtran88

geo.2013.04.008 Garrison, W. L., & Ward, J. D. (2000). Tomorrow's Transportation: Changing Cities, Economies and Lives. Boston, London: Artech House Publishers.

Hamburg . (n.d.). Retrieved September 3, 2019, from www.hamburg.de: https://www.hamburg. de/hvv/4123240/switchh/ Hamburger Hochbahn AG. (n.d.). switchh.de - Pressemitteilungen. Retrieved September 21, 2019, from http://www.switchh.de/wps/portal/switchh/neuigkeiten#Presse Handke, V., & Jonuschat, H. (2013). Flexible Ridesharing- New Opportunities and Service Concepts for Sustainable Mobility. Springer - Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Hochbahn. (2015). Basisschnittstelle multimodaler Knoten- Planung und Umsetzung. Fachkonferenz Multimodale Mobilität im ÖPV (p. 33). Wien: Hochbahn.

Jana Pölzl, O. K. (2015). Sharing Economy - Opportunities, Challenges and Success Factors for the Change from Product Business to Interactive Service using Car Sharing as an Example.

Springer Link.

Jonsson, R. (2008). Analysing sustainability in a land use and transport system. Journal of Transport Geography , 28-41.

Lehnerer, A. (2009). Grand Urban Rules. Chicago: 010 Publishers, Rotterdam.

Luginger, L. (2016). Success Factors of Integrated Multimodal Mobility Services. Analysis of existing examples and recommendations for their Implementation. Munich, Germany: Master thesis, Technische Universität München.

Martens, K. (2007, May). Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. Promoting bikeand-ride: The Dutch experience, 41(4), 326-338. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.09.010 Miramontes, M., Pfertner, M., Sharanya Rayaprolu, H., Schreiner, M. & Wulfhorst, G. [2016]: Impacts of a Multimodal Mobility Service on Travel Behavior and Preferences: User Insights from Munich´s First Mobility Station. Technische Universität München, Chair of Urban Structure and Transport Planning.

Monheim, H., Reimann, J., Muschwitz, C., & Streng, M. (2012). Fahrradverleihsysteme in Deutschland. Köln: ksv - Kölner Stadt- und Verkehrsverlag.

Midgley, P. (2011) Bicycle-sharing schemes: Enhancing sustainable mobility in urban areas, New York.

National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA). (2016). Transit Oriented Development for Indian Smart 89

Cities. Retrieved June 1, 2019, from www.tod.niua.org: https://tod.niua.org/todfisc/book.php?book=1&section=5 nextbike GmbH. (n.d.). Standort Hamburg. Retrieved July 22, 2019, from http://www.nextbike. de/hamburg/standorte OECD and European Conference of Ministers of Transport. (2008, June 18). OECD. doi:https:// doi.org/10.1787/9789282101506-en Puzalowski, J. (2009). Pole-Position bei Elektro-Autos. RP.Online. Retrieved June 01, 2019 from http://www.rp-online.de/nrw/staedte/duesseldorf/pole-position-bei-elektroautosaid1.1138964 Richter, F. (2018, july 3). Statista. Retrieved from statista.com: https://www.statista.com/ chart/14542/bike-sharing-programs-worldwide/ Rodrigue, J.-P., Comtois, C., & Slack, B. (2017). The Geography of Transport Systems- Fourth Edition. New York: Routledge .

Sarmiento, C., Zamorano, L., King, R., Lobo, A., Herrera, S., & Clerc, J. (n.d.). WRI Ross Center.

Retrieved August 21, 2019, from https://wrirosscities.org/: https://wrirosscities.org/sites/default/ files/TOD_Guide_Urban_Communities_English_EMBARQ.pdf Schaefer, T. (2019, January). timschaefermedia. Retrieved from https://timschaefermedia.com/ das-auto-ist-ein-geldgrab/ Siemens AG Österreich (2012). Smart City – Vienna’s Urban Lakeside. Presentation. September 28, 2019. Vienna, Austria.

Stadt Offenburg (2014) Aufbau eines Netzes von Mobilitätsstationen in Offenburg und Umgebung. Vorhabenbeschreibung (Umsetzungskonzept samt erste Aufau- und Testphase), Offenburg.

Statistikamt Nord. (n.d.). Regionaldaten für Hamburg. Retrieved June 19, 2019, from Statistisches Amt für Hamburg und Schleswig-Holstein: http://region.statistiknord. de/detail/10000000000000/2/ Stadt Wien. (2017). Aspern-seestadt. Retrieved from www.aspern-seestadt.at: https://www. aspern-seestadt.at/jart/prj3/aspern/data/downloads/aspern_Fortschreibung_Masterplan_2018-02-01_1602399.pdf Switchh. (n.d.). Switchh. Retrieved from www.switchh.de/: https://www.switchh.de/hochbahn/ hamburg/switchh/homepage The-red-relocators. (n.d.). Retrieved August 21, 2019, from The-red-relocators.com: https:// 90

the-red-relocators.com/relocation-guides-germany/travelling/bike-sharing/ UITP . (2011, April). Retrieved July 12, 2019, from UITP.org: https://www.uitp.org/sites/default/ files/cck-focus-papers-files/FPComMob-en.pdf United Nations. (2014). World Urbanization Prospects:. The 2014 revision, Highlights. New York.

WCED. (1987). Our Common Future. World Commission on Environment and Development.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

VCD. (n.d.). VCD- Mobilität fur Menschen. Retrieved September 01,2019 from www.vcd.org: https://www.vcd.org/themen/wohnen-und-mobilitaet/beispiele/seestadt-aspern/ Wien 3420 AG (2011). aspern Vienna’s Urban Lakeside: Facts + Figures. Accessed October 2, 2019. <http://www.aspern-seestadt.at/en/downloads/press/46,aspern-viennas-urban-lakeside-facts-figures-november-2011.html>.

Wien 3420 AG (2012). aspern Vienna’s Urban Lakeside: Development phases. Accessed September 23, 2019. <http://www.aspern-seestadt.at/en/workstyle-lifestyle/development-phases/>.

Wikipedia contributers. (2019, February 19). BlaBlaCar. Retrieved september 3, 2019, from en.wikipedia.org: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BlaBlaCar&oldid=922183787 Wikipedia contributors. (2019). Taxicab. Retrieved August 1, 2019, from en.wikipedia.org: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taxicab&oldid=922798400 WIlliams, S. H. (1954). Urban Aesthetics. 95-113.

Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW. (2015). Handbuch Mobilstationen Nordrhein- Westfallen. Köln.

91

List of Abbreviations

92

app

Application

B+R

Bike and Ride

BBSR

Bundesinstitut fĂźr Bau-, Stadt- und Raumforschung

bcs

Bundesverband CarSharing

BRT

Bus Rapid Transit

BSP

Bike share Program

GPS

Global Positioning System

HVV

Hamburger Verkehrsverbund

ICT

Information and Communication Technologies

LRT

Light Rail Transit

MiD

Mobilität in Deutschland

MIT

Motorized Individual Transport

P+R

Park and Ride

PT

Public Transport

TAD

Transit Adjacent Development

TOD

Transit Oriented Development

UITP

International Public Transport Association

List of Figures Figure 1.1: Travel Purpose Statistics in Germany (Self Illustration (MiD, 2017))………………....…13 Figure 1.2: Car Ownership in Germany (Self Illustration (MiD, 2017))……………………………....13 Figure 1.3: Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Transport Sector (Self Illustration (Rodrigue, Comtois, & Slack, 2017))……………………..............................................................................……..14 Figure 2.1: Area near Transit corridor before and after Transit oriented development (Self Illustration)…...............................................................................................................................................19 Figure 2.2: Urban Scale (Self Illustration)….....................................................................................…20 Figure 2.3: Suburban Scale (Self Illustration)......................................................................................20 Figure 2.4: Neighborhood Scale (Self Illustration).............................................................................21 Figure 2.5: Mixed Use Corridor (Self Illustration)…...........................................................................21 Figure 2.6: Site Level (Self Illustration) …...........................................................................................21 Figure 2.7: Neighborhood Mobility (Self Illustration)…....................................................................22 Figure 2.8 & 2.9 : Multimodality and Intermodality model (Self illustration (Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015)............................................................................................................................................23 Figure 2.10: Different elements of new mobility (Self Illustration)…................................................24 Figure 2.11: Transformation of space with Car sharing (Self Illustration).....................................…25 Figure 2.12: Station based and Free Floating Car sharing (Self Illustration (bcs, n.d.))…..............26 Figure 2.13: Development of Car Sharing in Germany differentiated by variants ((Self Illustration) bcs, 2019)…..........................................................................................................................................27 Figure 2.14: Bike sharing programs worldwide (Self illustration (Richter, 2018))….........................28 Figure 2.15: Use of Bike and Ride (Self Illustration)….......................................................................31 Figure 3.1 & 3.2: Urban and Rural mobility pattern (Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 2015)…..........33 Figure 3.3: Interactions between individual needs and traffic (self illustration (Bott, C. Grassl, & Anders, 2019))…...................................................................................................................................34 Figure 3.4: Sustainable mobility principles: avoid, relocate and make traffic more responsive (Self illustration (Bott, C. Grassl, & Anders, 2019))…….................................................................…35 Figure 3.5: Tasks for Mobility Hub development (Self Illustration (Zukunftsnetz Mobilität NRW, 20 15))....................................................................................................................................................….37 Figure 3.6: Logo of Switchh Mobility station (Switchh, n.d.) and Seestadt Aspern (Stadt Wien, 2017 )….................................................................................................................................................39 Figure 3.7: Aerial view of Seestadt Aspern, Vienna (GoogleEarth, 2019)…....................................40 Figure 3.8: Location of Seestadt Aspern, Vienna (Stadt Wien, 2017)…..........................................42 Figure 3.9: Former location of Airfield (Wien 3420 AG, 2012)....................................................… .42 Figure 3.10: Development of Lake before the project(Wien 3420 AG, 2012 )….........................…42

93

Figure 3.11: Plan of Seestadt Aspern neighborhood(Stadt Wien, 2017 )…....................................43 Figure 3.12: Mobility Services (VCD, n.d. )....................................................................................….43 Figure 3.13: Hamburg Map with Switchh Mobility Points (Self Illustration (Switchh, n.d.)….........46 Figure 3.14: Hamburg Metro line Map with main Switchh Mobility Point (Hochbahn, 2015)…....47 Figure 3.15: Switchh Mobility Point at Berliner Tor, Hamburg (Photo: Hamburger Hochbahn AG, Legend: Self Illustration)…..................................................................................................................48 Figure 3.16: Former Parking lot at Berliner Tor, Hamburg (Google Earth, 2009)….......................49 Figure 3.17: Stelle at Berliner Tor (Self Photographed)................................................................….51 Figure 3.18: Info Board at Berliner Tor (Self Photographed)….....................................................…51 Figure 3.19: Parking Space at switchh Point (Self Photographed)....................................................51 Figure 3.20: Bike and Ride at Switchh Point, Berliner Tor ( Self Photographed)….........................51 Figure 3.21: Switchh Users Graph since Implementation (Switchh- Praktische Vernetzung des öffentlichen Nahverkehrs, n.d.)….......................................................................................................52 Figure 3.22: Screenshot from switch website (Switchh, n.d.)…....................................................... 53 Figure 3.23: Screenshot from switchh app (Switchh, n.d.)…............................................................53 Figure 3.24: Switchh Card for activating any vehicle use (Hochbahn, 2015)…...............................53

94

Appendix Interview for Neighborhood mobility development: Interview with Christoph Ludwig – head of concept department at ARGUS (Stadt und Verkehr- Partnerschaft mbB), Hamburg Date- 30 August, 2019 Start- 12.00 End- 12.45 Place- Hamburg

Analysis What analysis are done before initiation of mobility concept?

• We can’t say there is one analysis. Most of the time, there is more than- normal processes and their found outs.

• There is either a need of mobility concept because its so innovative • Its integrated until the streets are full • The third aspect is – for example you want to build a new area in Oberbillwerder (Hamburg) and we find out that if it was normal traffic, everything will be flooded. So, you need to reduce it e.g. from 40 to like 20%. So there are plenty of things which are happening before mobility concept.

• So, the main is the traffic analysis. But traffic analysis is never really a straight thing.

Does analysis of neighborhood density matter with the need of mobility concept in that particular area?

• Yes, it’s very relevant because density matters a lot especially because it matters with a certain quality.

-Is it also relevant when you are giving a mobility hub in city and it be provided in certain neighborhood? Does it matter in this case with which neighborhood you are giving or not?

• It always matter with the context of neighborhood density because other public transport networks, for example in Oberbillwerder (Hamburg) we were checking if there is still some capacity in the trains but if you do mobility concept then of course we have to think of capacity whether it’s enough of the existing offers/ or knowing that new neighborhood is planned for how much people.

95

Criteria How are locations determined for the implementation of mobility stations?

• They should always be within the walking or cycling flow of people inside the area. So there are basically bus stations 300-400m of coverage of area but they should always be located where it makes sense. For e.g. central spaces close to area with daily needs or supermarkets or on the way to public transport station.

Which criteria play an important role?

• The flow, like the position within walking flow; the availability of space and the availability of offers. For e.g. there is free floating car sharing which is only possible in certain area. It’s the same with Bike sharing. So these are relevant.

Design How design of mobility hub matters with users?

• It matters a lot. If the user experience is good, then it will work. If you have car sharing somewhere outside in the outskirts without any signage, then it won’t be used. You need a good communication tool out of user experience.

Are there any standard rules followed in designing process?

• No there are no norms. But there are suggestions like what kind of elements should be or not. But there are no rules. Only suggestions like a guide book but its quite old already.

Implementation Which steps lead up to the implementation of a mobility station in the neighborhood?

• First of all you have to check if there is a local system existing like ELB in Berlin and Switchh in Hamburg. Then it depends on the stage; If you want to implement on the station, you have to check if the space is available or can you make it available and you should ask your96

self who is running it or there is need to clarify who are the right actors.

• And stakeholder management is the first question so who is running it and who is providing services there. And how do you pay it.

• It could be anyone as a planner or a stake holder who say we want to have a mobility hub here and then it is identified maybe you have to get it to the government and say okay we want to do that. For e.g. in Hamburg and in Berlin, the driver of the mobility station, owner and who is driving the concept is public transportation. So, it’s not local authority in this case. Its HVV in Hamburg and BVG in Berlin. So, it always depends. In Osnabrück, it’s the city government itself for this concept because the city says it’s our role.

• But when its only for one neighborhood, its only the owner or some stakeholders.

Which major goals should be acknowledged during the development process?

• User focused- The major goal is to make it out for the user perspective., • Make it transparent as possible.

• To define solution which can carry itself. So, there is no need to push money all the time. It should be self-sufficient.

• Flexibility- Maybe you find certain things don’t work out at some stage then you have to change it.

Success factor What are major success factors for any multimodal or intermodal mobility to be developed? location location location! First you have to decide is it a neighborhood station or an interchange station. Those are two basic elements. Explained both the models in graphic.

97

1. location is macro location: It is very important to define the right spot in the macro level (city or district) - it matters whether is it in the right position within the city. It depends on kind of area- residential, commercial or other mixed use and the most important It should not lie outside the city where we don’t have enough density.

2. location is micro location: Or is it the right position within the flow or the street or is it easy to use and you can you recognize the right offers easily.

3. location is the time: For e.g. It won’t be sufficient if you say you have a shop there offering certain thing and the shop will only open for one or two hours a day. It should be more present than that.

How to make people aware of these mobility services in their neighborhood; which will make optimum utilization of Mobility station?

• Visibility matters. First, it must be visible in the street and visible in the flow. For e.g. someone work here and the daily route is different, then it doesn’t matter for him. It should be always in relevant areas like shopping spaces where high frequency of people goes.

• Design matters and it must be in the discourse. For example – we have to talk about it. If we don’t talk about it, its not worth it. For example- In these new E scooters, A companyTier scooter is 1€ for opening and 18 cent per minute. And other company Voi is 50 cents for opening and 15 cents per minute. Also, car sharing if there is good public relation. Its not always about price. Its also when it is there when people move in and move out.

• Usability matters. If you have more than 3 clicks to use, then you are gone. After 2 clicks you lose 30%- 40% users with every click. Therefore, good mobility apps have just one click scan and go.

98

99