QUESTION 1: Has the solution affected the perceived access to mobility in the area?
Definitions: The combination of transport affordability, mobility poverty, accessibility poverty, and exposure to transport externalities affecting the perceived access to mobility. In the context of different mobility options this imposes requirements on the quality, comfort and accessibility (physical accessibility to ‘traditional’ mobility services and digital accessibility to ‘new’ mobility services that are supported on electronic platforms) on the services that they offer.
Examples: The solution improves the ability to use different mobility options by reducing the costs of mobility, increasing service level, or becoming more demand-responsive, removing barriers for personal mobility, or reducing the harmful effects of transportation while ensuring the access to mobility options. Also, the use of less sustainable modes may be restricted in the area.
QUESTION 2: Has the solution changed the number of easy to use combinations of transport means for the users in the area?
Definitions: The strategic focus of the transport authority in enabling different business models/collaboration and opportunities for transport organizations to solve mobility needs.
Examples: The solution added a new mobility service that the users could combine with existing services or made the combination easier than before by increasing information about the possibilities, implementing standard payment options, or perhaps by synchronizing schedules better.
QUESTION 3: Has the solution affected the use of human-powered transport in the area?
Definitions: The physical and mental well-being of residents in the area. Also, the opportunity for active mobility is used as a proxy for the quality of the public spaces, which is one aspect of the attractiveness of the area for existing and future residents.
Examples: The solution increased the possibilities to use human-powered modes of transport by, for example adding new service, improving the infrastructure and urban space meant for human-powered modes of transportation, or restricting other modes of transportation in the area.
QUESTION 4: Has the solution affected the air polluting emissions of transport in the area?
Definitions: Air polluting emissions of all passenger and freight city transport modes.In the European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS), people were asked whether they experienced four neighbourhood problems, including problems related to heavy traffic, litter, noise and air pollution (Eurofound, 2017). Since the topic has been in the survey (2011), a quarter of the EU population reported some or significant problems with air pollution in their neighbourhood. Thus, one of the aspects in the attractiveness of the area for existing and future residents.
Examples: The solution replaced more polluting mobility solution in the area, restricted the most polluting vehicles entering the area, or increased the vehicle occupancy in the existing mobility solutions.
QUESTION 5: Has the solution affected noise pollution of transport in the area?
Definitions: Noise pollution, or exposure to ambient sound levels that are beyond the usual comfort levels, can affect the quality of life and lead to cognitive impairment in children, high stress levels, sleep disturbance and negative health impacts, such as problems with the cardiovascular and metabolic systems.
Examples: The service solution prefers electric or human-powered vehicles, technical solution mitigates noise pollution of the existing transport modes, or areawide policy restricts noise-generating traffic, for example during the nighttime.
QUESTION 6: Has the solution affected transport accidents and fatalities in the area?
Definitions: Your expert opinion on the impact of the solution to the number of accidents and fatalities in the area. Accidents and fatalities defined here as a normal indicator – for example, Global Cities Institute (2013), Global City Indicators, “Profile Indicators”.
Examples: The service solution uses professional drivers and replaces private car use, a technological solution informs travellers potential hazards or improves operating conditions, an area-wide policy improves the safety of specific mode of transfer by dedicating space for that mode, or there is a clear indication that accidents and fatalities in the area affected by this solution have been changed since the implementation of the solution.
QUESTION 7: Has the solution affected the perceived risk of crime in the transport of the area?
Definitions: “Perceived risk of crime” is your educated opinion on how the residents in the area affected by this solution perceive the impact of the solution on crime against users, transportation workers, vehicles, or infrastructure. One of the aspects in the attractiveness of the area for existing and future residents of the area.
Examples: The solution made the residents more comfortable using public transportation, move in the area during the late evening with a bike or walking, or improved the attractiveness of the area by reducing vandalism.
QUESTION 8: Has the solution affected the accessibility of the essential functions for residents of the area?
Definitions: Urban functional diversity refers to a mix of spatial functions in the area, creating proximity of mutually interrelated activities. In peri-urban areas, the same functionality can be achieved by good (and sustainable) accessibility of the residents’ essential activities. One of the aspects in the attractiveness of the area for existing and future residents of the area.
Examples: The solution reduced the need for mobility by sustainably delivering goods, improved accessibility by consolidating essential functions to busy mobility hubs of the area or reduced the need for private cars in the area by introducing demand-responsive transportation suitable for several user groups.
QUESTION 9: Has the solution affected congestion and delays in the transport system of the area of interest?
Definitions: Delays refer to increased waiting times in road traffic and public transport during peak hours compared to free-flow travel.
Examples: The solution replaced some of the road traffic with more efficient or flexible means of transport, reduced the need for mobility during peak hours, or introduced new technology to make the traffic more fluent.
QUESTION 10: Has the solution affected the energy efficiency of transport in the area?
Definitions: Compared to the air polluting emissions, this aspect refers to all means of increasing sustainability by being energy efficient.
Examples: The solution replaced some of the road traffic with more energy-efficient or environmentally sustainable means of transport, reduced the need for mobility especially during peak hours, increased the popularity of efficient trunk lines, or influenced people’s mobility behaviour by describing their energy consumption in traffic.
QUESTION 11: Has the solution changed the need for parking spaces in the area?
Definitions: The number of parking spaces that the city is allocating for private cars in the area affected by the solution.
Examples: The popularity of shared economy enables the conversion of private car parking spaces to bike racks or parking spaces dedicated to shared cars, a new parking policy reduces the number for parking spaces reserved for residents if accompanied with other mobility options, there is a new car-free zone in the area, or there has already been a reduction in parking spaces since the implementation of other solutions.
QUESTION 12: Has the solution affected vehicle or ride-sharing in the area?
Definitions: The availability and market penetration of shared and combined (e.g., carpooling) travel options. These refer to the mobility options for people wanting to reduce the need to own the car but need one mobility solution for the whole trip.
Examples: The area covered by the solution is significant enough for the daily needs of users, users do not need to combine other transport modes other than walking to access the shared mobility option, or the solution made it easier for them to access shared mobility options for different mobility needs, station-based shared mobility options are placed to significant mobility hubs in the area, or there is a clear indication that vehicle or ride-sharing in the area has increased in an economically viable way.
QUESTION 13: Has the solution changed the number of mobility options connected to the public transport offering in the area?
Definitions: The number of new mobility offerings connected to public transportation. Refers to “channels to reach new customers”. Compared to the visibility of mobility information, this aspect takes the viewpoint of communicating the value proposition of public transport through partners.
Examples: The solution integrates to the public transport offering in the area or bundles existing mobility solutions to public transport offering seamlessly, or there is a clear indication of the increased popularity of public transport in the area affected by this solution.
QUESTION 14: Has the implementation of the mobility solution changed the acceptance of the solution among the policymakers of the area?
Definitions: The strategic focus of the policymakers in enabling different business models/collaboration and opportunities for transport organizations to solve mobility needs.
Examples: The policymakers are supporting the transport authority prominent in the area to develop the solution themselves or together with the solution-providers, there is a political decision that some of the risks related to implementing the solution are subsidized, and the added value of the solution is deemed bigger than the costs, the transport authority is required to provide solution-providers with the information needed for the full implementation of the solution, or there is long term support for the policies aimed at increasing the sustainability of transportation.
QUESTION 15: Has the solution changed the need for new or improved public infrastructure in the area to be successful?
Definitions: The need for new investments (technology, infrastructure, vehicles) in the area. Relates to the situation when there is no possibility to use existing infrastructure or those investments are not covered, for example, by the local transport authority of the city for the benefit of all the operators/solutions.
Examples: It is the first time such a solution is implemented in the area, and public sector needs to invest into infrastructure or data interfaces for an operator to enter the market, a new policy in the area requires considerable supporting investments or the city authorities uses new procurement methods such as pre-commercial procurement to acquire technology suitable for their sustainability needs.
QUESTION 16: Has the solution changed the amount of information available to different actors and facilitated the creation of new value-adding services using the same information?
Definitions: The availability of (open) mobility data for different actors in the area. Facilitates the sharing of mobility-related information through different channels and creating value-adding services for users based on shared information.
Examples: The solution integrates to existing information channels or brings existing information conveniently to one place for the user. As a city or traffic planner, you get information about the use/effects of the solution in a format that is useful to you or information about the efficiency of the transport system in the area affected by this solution.