RECOVERED MEMBERS INPUT | 2020
imrekeseru (Imre Keseru) 2020-02-20 16:38:47 UTC #2
Dear OIC members,
It’s time to get the discussion going
We have completed the SPROUT deliverables from work package 2.
They outline current trends in urban mobility that leads to urban mobility transition, identifies KPIs to measure transition and drivers that can influence this transition (see summaries below). But are we talking about the same thing? What is actually transition?
What is your idea about urban mobility transition?
- Is it something new, caused by new technologies, social and demographic change?
- Or is it something that always existed, it is just much faster than previously or maybe more visible?
So how do YOU define transition?
Comments are welcome!
D2.1 Urban Mobility Transition Inventory:
This deliverable is the result of task 2.1 of the project. It proposes an inventory of the factors that are used by each of the SPROUT cities as a common framework to collect and integrate data in order to construct a comprehensive overview of their respective current and future mobility status, and to understand as well as to anticipate the urban mobility transition. The inventory will be used by 1st and 2nd layer SPROUT cities to collect and structure the data that will form the core of deliverables resulting from task 2.2: ‘Current state of mobility’ and task 2.3 ‘Urban mobility transition drivers’.
The elements of the inventory are categorised as key performance indicators (KPIs) (table1.1), urban mobility transition drivers (table 1.2) and stakeholders (table 1.3). The selection of these elements is based on a review of a variety of sources, especially previous EU initiatives in the field of urban mobility and logistics, such as Mobility4EU, TRANSFORuM, MIND-SETS, NOVELOG and CITYLAB, but also the sustainable mobility indicators used by the Word Business Council on Sustainable Development and CIVITAS. Input from these initiatives has been adapted to the specificities of SPROUT using various EU and local policy documents as well as academic literature.
D2.2 Current State of Urban Mobility
This deliverable presents an overview of the urban mobility situation in the 1st and 2nd -layer SPROUT cities. The data used for this deliverable was collected by representatives of the cities themselves, based on the template that was presented in Deliverable D2.1. The data has been compiled to establish a profile of each city, including information on the main factors indicating a change is currently in progress in the city’s urban mobility environment, the main impacts which are currently unclear and therefore are not being addressed (or are inadequately addressed) by the current urban policy elements/instruments, as well as information on the pilots that will run the in the 1st – layer cities.
D2.3 Urban Mobility Transition Drivers
This deliverable presents the results of SPROUT Task 2.3: “Urban Mobility Transition Drivers” and therefore provides an overview of the urban mobility transition drivers and the level of importance that was assigned to them by each of the SROUT cities. The city-specific sets of locally important drivers are essential in the construction of city-specific scenarios, which forms the core of WP3. The document also gives an overview of the locally relevant stakeholders to be mostly affected by (or affecting) the emerging mobility solutions that each city selected. They are the ones, who will be consulted in various stages of the SPROUT project, such as the construction of narrative scenarios in WP3.
A comparative analysis of the importance of drivers shows that the considered importance of drivers differs significantly from city to city, and that most drivers are considered ‘very’ or ‘extremely important’ for at least one city. On average, the drivers ‘political agenda’ ‘urban structure’ ‘climate change’ and ‘local environmental quality’ are considered the most important, while ‘security concerns’ and ‘individualisation’ are not considered more than moderately important by any of the cities
imrekeseru (Imre Keseru) 2020-03-18 08:23:13 UTC #3
The SPROUT website is now online.
On the website, you can find the full deliverables covering the topic urban mobility transition.
Sara (Sara Tori) 2020-04-16 13:03:39 UTC #4
Dockless e-scooters: a green solution for mobility?
A recent life-cycle assessment study by the ULB in Brussels found that the shared electric scooters employed by the city’s providers have a total Global Warming Potential (GWP) of 131 g of CO2-equivalent per passenger-kilometre. This is more than the modes of transport that the e-scooters replace, which have a GWP of 110 g of CO2-equivalent per passenger-kilometre. This means that, in their present form, dockless e-scooters have a bigger impact on the environment than their alternatives. The biggest culprit in the current situation? The materials and manufacturing phase, done in China in the case of Brussels’ service providers. However, there is also some good news: by performing a sensitivity analysis, the research group found that variances in the lifespan and use intensity play the biggest role in the current GWP of the e-scooters. According to the authors, the cut-off point in lifetime for the dockless e-scooters to become a green solution for mobility is 284 days (9,5 months), which is only 55 days more than their current lifespan. The authors therefore suggest lowering vandalism and putting more effort into sustainable design and manufacture, to help prolong the e-scooters’ lifespan.
And you, do you see dockless e-scooters becoming a sustainable alternative in your city?
And how do you think we should go about reaching the point where e-scooters become a sustainable mobility solution?
The full ULB article can be found here: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/5/1803
AmorAriza (Amor Ariza Álvarez) 2020-08-12 09:42:18 UTC #5
Thank you, Sara, for sharing this interesting study. It is certainly very appropriate for this discussion Hub. Scooter-sharing systems, as well as car-sharing or bike-sharing, are experiencing a great boom in many cities, particularly in Europe. They are expected to bring benefits such as lowering noise and air pollution or reducing road congestion, improving the quality of life in urban areas. However, it is also important to analyse its entire life cycle to know the real environmental impact of this mobility alternative.
A recent study by the UPM/TRANSyT, based on the information collected through an online survey disseminated in different Spanish cities, identified the key drivers determining the adoption and frequency of use of scooter-sharing services in urban areas. The research concludes the main role played by some sociodemographic and travel-related variables. The research also found similar profiles for occasional and frequent users. The full article can be found here:
So, trying to answer to the topic under discussion, urban mobility transition is caused by new technological developments, such as the introduction of scooter-sharing services, but it also seems to be strongly determined by sociodemographic aspects, such as the age or the education level of potential users. Therefore, public authorities should make further efforts to overcome the sociodemographic barriers related to the first contact with new mobility options.