Stepping Stones

1. T anja opConsult Stepping Stones GPS: Final results Pieter Tanja Krakow, 18th September 2014 Project team: Jorg Thiemann-Linden, Jürgen Gies, Tom Rye, Zsuzsanna Olofsson, Jantine Zwinkels, Pieter Tanja

2. Objectives Stepping Stones To understand: the successful (policy) measures aimed at making mobility patterns more sustainable (WHAT) the underlying mechanisms (the HOW and WHY) including social & psychological factors STEP-BY-STEP What-question| Large number of cases | Statistical analysis GPS How-question| moderate number of cases | Qualitative analysis SHAPE-IT Whyquestion | small number|Explorative

3. Objectives GPS • To understand: • The effective and efficient (combinations of) policy measures that influence the travel behaviour of car users towards more sustainable mobility patterns (Less, smarter, cleaner) • The key aspects of the process to implement such measures effectively and efficiently • Measures that are of common interest across Europe, so capable of application in a variety of contexts • How such measures may need to be adapted to fit different contexts – in other words, how transfer of a policy measure can best be brought about.

4. GPS: the selected cases • Evidence based: learning from real-life experiences (barriers & drivers) Categorization of cases

5. Some examples of cases Regulation Freiburg Quality of life Low-energy buildings Parking restrictions Mobility Management Den Bosch Innovative sharing concept Feasible business case? Specific target group Strategy Hannover Regional SUMP “pro Klima” : Policy integration Programme to achieve CO2 reduction targets Infrastructure Köniz / Bern Shared space approach Integrate urban develop- ment with transport

6. The way theywereanalyzed A staged approach:

7. GPS: Intercase analysis Answering the following research questions: • What were problems they were seeking to address in relation to the case objectives? • Range of costs and relationship to “success” of measure • Key success factors and barriers • How barriers were overcome • Key ways used to manage public reaction • Use of, insights and benefits from framework on behavioural change • Are measures transferable – or do they depend on local conditions? Answeringforeachcategory of cases: • “What works best?” • Key success factors and lessons learned

8. Conclusions overall project objectives • 75% of the projects reviewed had positive impacts on travel behaviour • The biggest shifts: site or corridor specific infrastructure schemes • Heilbronn’s light rail scheme • “Softer” mobility management interventions: lesser reductions, much lower cost • “Head on, Engine off” in Dortmund, or No Ridiculous Car Trips in Malmö • City wide strategies: no monitoring data except LundaMats • Lundamats: a small but marked reduction in car use by residents • In general: other significant benefits, including air quality and safety improvements and noise reduction. • No conclusions about the benefits of packaging measures • Less successful? Less information! • Only two, Leisure Bus and Shopping Trips to Svågertorp

9. General lessons learned Arrangeforpolitical support andbroaderperspective • Get decision on high political level + multi-level funding • Connect sustainable mobility with what matters to the city (attractiveness) Pay attention to good & smart planning • Manage the task as a project (people, budgets, milestones, deliverables) • Identify the right moment: ‘Windows of opportunity” and go public by the media Involve ‘front running’ stakeholders • Citizens: Involve open-minded citizen groups (“happy few”), but also the skeptics • Local companies: (“Business breakfast” meeting, cooperation dialogues)

10. Strategy • Use windows of opportunity to establish example structures for sustainable transport (e.g. redevelopment areas) • Use of international knowledge on integration of urban spatial planning and transport planning to reduce traffic demand in specific situations • Get more insight in the change of consumers’ attitudes • Try to remove barriers to inter-disciplinary collaboration and integration of departments within the administration Example of LundaMats II • Was built on LundaMats I (infrastructure) • Defined 18 clear targets and 42 priority key projects • Urban and transport planning integration • Pedestrian, bicycle, public and commercial transport, mobility management • Lundamats will be presented in more detail tomorrow

11. Regulation • Overcome resistance to change by an array of initiatives • Put local regulation policies (parking limitation, speeds limits) in a broader context Road safety, street space usage, air quality, noise • Support measures with corresponding street design • Do not be scared by car drivers’ lobbying, involve them • Making changes temporary may well make them definitive! Example of Berlin speed limits • Started from traffic noise and air quality standards • 30 km/h on several main roads partly during night only • Intensive monitoring on traffic flow (positive results) • Continued decreasing speeds year by yearf

12. Infrastructure • Look at infrastructure in a broader context • Arrange the right conditionsfor co-funding • Arrangeforongoingcommunication • Learnfromearlierambitiousprojectselsewhere, evaluate Example of the lightrail system in Heilbronn • Started in 1990s, still in the implementation phase • Improving inner city’s economy by reshape of streets • Significant rise in passenger numbers in the last years • Transferable to other cities: make use of existing infrastructure

13. Mobility Management • Arrange for a joint public-private budget • Install an adequate (special purpose) organization able to involve other stakeholders and citizens • Tune campaigns to the problem and to the target group • Facilitate introduction of new services by learning by doing, real alternative travel options, new tax regulations, business areas Example of Taskforce Mobility Management (NL) • Objective: 5% congestion reduction • Special purpose organization, use of covenants • Focus on employers: 1750 involved in 15 regions • Employers decide on measures • Link to labour conditions

14. Keyconclusionsaboutsuccesfulprojects What turned out to be important? • Innovative structures for delivering projects,e.g. responsibility for project delivery to organisations outside the municipality • A pragmatic approach (seen in many projects) • Key people: skilled technical staff can overcome barriers without political support • Involving other municipal departments or organisations not previously involved in transport issues: new staff, avoiding losing momentum • The ability to take advantage of new laws or funding streams

15. Outlook: towards a betterevaluation culture • Monitoring andevaluation is lacking in many cases • Succesfulprojectsfrequently are based on previousevaluation, reducingrisksfordecision makers toinitiateambitiousprojects • Ex post evaluationmostly found in mobilitymanagement (relatively new area) • Systematicevaluation is neededforfurtherimprovementand transfer of measures • Possibilitiestoachievethis: • Incorporating a specificobligationintoprojects • Incentives for monitoring andevaluationbyfundingmechanisms

16. Thankyouforyour attention! Anyquestions?