Characteristics info

Characteristics: Land area

  • all options refer to the size of the area (for example neighborhoods, city district, urban area, metropolitan area) where the sustainability of mobility is under consideration

Characteristics: Potential users

  • all options refer to the size of the potential userbase in the area chosen in the previous section and where the sustainability of mobility is under consideration

Access to mobility services (multiple choice)

  1. The area wide bike sharing system in operation – a single operator covering most of the area in question or the different bike sharing systems are interoperable and/or accessible using single interface. Facilitates the introduction of new sustainable mobility solutions by offering viable first/last mile solution, but on the other hand popular bike sharing system may hinder the introduction of other first/last mile options to the area.
  2. There is an area wide car sharing system in operation – a single operator covering most of the area in question or the different car sharing systems are serving different areas and/or accessible using single interface. Facilitates the introduction of integrated service offerings, such as MaaS, by offering viable alternative for owning a car, but on the other hand popular car sharing system may hinder the introduction of other sustainable mobility options to the area.
  3. There is an area wide rail-based transport system in operation – facilitates the introduction of integrated service offerings, such as MaaS, by offering viable alternative for owning a car. May also signal a strategic choice of the transport authorities in the area and path-dependency in planning, which may influence the introduction of alternative solutions in the area without being a support function to this high-capacity transport system.
  4. The public transport network coverage is good – on average there is no longer than 800m to the nearest mobility hub (having a change to change transport mode from one to another) from where people live. Describes that the area is quite dense and has well developed transport system, which probably does not need integration effort and supports most likely only the entry of first/last mile solutions.
  5. The public transport network coverage is excellent – on average there is no longer than 400m to the nearest mobility hub (having a change to change transport mode from one to another) from where people live. Describes that the area is dense and probably designed to walkable / non-car area.

Characteristics: Location (multiple choice)

  1. There are considerable vertical changes in the topography of the area in question – hills probably favors motorized/electric over human-powered first/last mile solutions.
  2. The area is characterized by landform surrounded or divided by water – the area is characterized by a peninsula or is divided by a large river. This can limit the land area usable for mobility solutions or favor water-based transport.
  3. The area is characterized by a large transport node that creates traffic flows – this can be for example TEN-T port creating pulsating traffic flows to the area, which on the one hand may favor mobility solutions that is an alternative to private car use, but on the other hand may require considerable investments to make the use of human-powered mobility solutions safe and convenient.
  4. In addition to two of the scale items above, the area is affected by winter conditions – the area in question is affected by severe snow conditions in the winter and for example some mobility solutions, such as shared scooters, cannot be used during winter months.
  5. In addition to the scale items 1-3, the area is affected by winter conditions – the presence of all the three conditions (1-3) makes it viable to introduce only mobility solutions that are tested and tried in similar conditions.

Affordability of public transport for the poorest people

  1. The cost of mobility forces a low income household to make sacrifices – the financial cost of monthly journeys put a low income individual or household (poorest quartile of the population) in the position of having to make sacrifices to travel or the extent to which they can afford to travel when they want to.
  2. A low income household can make all necessary journeys without big sacrifices – compared to previous scale item, low income individual or household (poorest quartile of the population) can make necessary journeys to work, school, health and other social services or urgent other journeys without having to curtail other essential activities.
  3. The mobility costs are less than 10% of monthly income of low income household – in your expert opinion, PT is subsidized to the extent that the cost of monthly essential journeys does not exceed 10% of the average monthly income of low income individual or household (poorest quartile of the population).
  4. In addition to previous item, there are affordable tickets to vulnerable groups – not covering other forms of mobility poverty (such as being forced to live in areas where there are no real transport coverage due to financial reasons), this option reflects the social inclusion and level of subsidies in the area.
  5. PT is free for vulnerable to exclusion groups (or to all) – like in Tallinn, Estonia.