Future of urban mobility
CityBoom: Booming cities -
Blooming cities?!
Results of global Arthur D. Little study
on urban mobility and challenges
for Brussels
Ralf BARON & François-Joseph VAN AUDENHOVE
Partners, Arthur D. Little
Realty 2012, UPSI-BVS, Brussels, May 23th 2012
Arthur D. Little Benelux sa/nv Avenue de Tervurenlaan 270 B - 1150 Brussels Belgium www.adl.com [email protected] [email protected]
2
Urban mobility 2050
Urban mobility is a global societal challenge
60% 70% 80%
10% 13% 17%
x2 x3 x4
A B C
660bn 830bn 530bn
70%
17%
x3
830bn
Share of urban
population in 2050?
Ecological Footprint
in 2050?
Increase of time spend
in congestions?
Global annual invest
(Euro) in 2050?
3
1 Arthur D. Little global study on urban mobility
2 Urban mobility challenges for Brussels
4
The future will be urban…
… but urban mobility systems are on their way to breakdown
Source: Stockholm Environment Institute, US Census Bureau, UN Population Division, Schäfer/ Victor 2000, Siemens, Bureau of Transport Statistics,
Arthur D. Little
Planet Ecological footprint urban mobility
People Delay hours due to congestions
Profit Urban mobility investment need
17,3%
0%
3%
6%
9%
12%
15%
18%
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
14,2%
11,4%
8,9%
6,7%
5,0%
3,7%
% of the planet’s
biocapacities used
0
30
60
90
120
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
106,3
91,5
78,8
67,8 58,4
50,9
32,5
Delay hours
per person p.a.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Bn EUR
829
665
534
429
324
245
185
Future of Urban Mobility
5
■ What are the key mobility
challenges to be faced by cities
tomorrow?
■ What are the key solutions under
development to cope with these
challenges?
■ What are the key levers for value
chain actors (city top executives
and solutions providers) to shape
the future towards networked and
multimodal urban mobility
systems?
Within this context, Arthur D. Little has conducted a global study among 66 cities in
order to define the key mobility challenges to be faced by cities tomorrow
Future of Urban Mobility
Urban Mobility Index: 11 criteria
Mobility
maturity
Mobility
Perfor-
mance
■ Share of public transport, walking and cycling in
modal split
■ Number of shared cars
■ Number of shared bikes
■ Penetration rate of smart cards
■ Vision/ strategy for future mobility
■ Average travel speed
■ Mean travel time to work
■ Number of fatalities
■ Registered vehicles
■ Transport related CO2 emission
■ Satisfaction with transport
6
21%
64%
15%
Average
performance
Above
average performance
Sample average
Below
average performance
45 55 65 75 80 Urban Mobility Performance Index
The overall results indicate that the majority of cities are badly equipped to cope
with the challenges ahead
Amsterdam
Milan
Athens
Rome Lisbon Brussels
Paris Vienna
Berlin
London
Zurich
Goteborg
Cambridge Barcelona Frankfurt Madrid
Western Europe Average 71.4
Hong Kong Stockholm Global Average 64.4
Cologne
Source: Arthur D. Little Urban Mobility Index
7
The root cause for poor performance is a lack of innovation
Broad range of business
models and technologies
readily available
Innovation hostility key
barrier for evolution of
urban mobility systems
Comprehensive review of 36 urban mobility business
models reveals sufficient availability of solutions to
address the pressing mobility challenges
Analysis of 39 key mobility technologies reveals a
broad range of early and emerging technologies with
significant potential to enable transformation to high
performance urban mobility systems
Current mobility systems do not adapt to changing
demands, combine single steps from a value chain to
a new system, learn from other systems
Current mobility systems do not bring together key
players to work jointly on solutions and rarely provide
for a rewarding environment for investors
Source: Arthur D. Little Urban Mobility Index
Future of Urban Mobility
8
In total three strategic imperatives were identified for urban mobility depending on
cities’ level of maturity and share of public transport
Manila
Hongkong
Lahore Dubai Bangalore
Washington Brussels
Boston
Stockholm
time
matu
rity
Features:
innovative thinking
seamless
integration with
“one key” for
citizens
high convenience
sharing concepts
…
Establish
sustainable core:
invest in sustainable
urban mobility
infrastructure
Rethink the system:
shape political agenda
towards shift to public &
sustainability
Network the system:
integration of different
market players and
networking of citizens
Emerging Emerging cities with
partly underdeveloped
mobility systems
Individual Mature cities with high
proportion of registered
vehicles
Public Mature cities with high
share of public transport
/ walking & cycling
Networked mobility Integration of all modes
to reduce share of
individual motorized
transport
Source: Arthur D. Little
Future of Urban Mobility
9
Illustration – City of Stuttgart: 4 core applications areas
Smart
Mobility
Smart Energy
Smart Business
Smart City
Services &
Tourism
Integration
0% 100% 50% 75% 25%
Ladesäulen
Dimension
Integration of players & services
Source: Arthur D. Little
Critical implementation
challenges
Achieving the critical mass of
customers/citizens: Cooperation with
public transport associations &
companies essential
Killer application needed
- Integrated mobility
- M-Commerce & loyalty
- Value adding city services
Multi project coordination
Technological, organizational (PPP)
& legal complexity
Implementation of an integrated
payment & bonus program
Multilocal implementation & trans
regional integration
Communication towards politics:
Political support for realization
needed
10
Illustration – City of Stuttgart: Numerous stakeholders involved
Stakeholder landscape mobility+
Source: Arthur D. Little
Operating company/JV
Telecommunication
Municipalities
Public transport
Transport
associations
Financial services
Who is in lead?
Rational concepts for potential
partners?
Product & service portfolio of
partners?
Options for temporal sequence of
integration of partners?
Contribution of each partner?
Shared services regarding payment &
secondary processes?
Buildup and organization operating
company?
Integration of further city services?
Role of e-mobility and further means
of transport (taxi, ferry etc.)?
Further mobility &
technology providers
Further public sector Districts
Critical implementation
challenges
11
Scalable business model
Source: Wiener Stadtwerke, Arthur D. Little
Illustration – City of Vienna: Starting with integrated mobility, 50% of all urban
citizens will be reached until 2015
Smart Mobility
Smart City Services
Smart Business
Smart Living
Touristic attractions
Museums, theaters, operas
Smart City Vienna Concept Big Bang Implementation
Change to
WLB
Suburban
train
Change to
tram
Change to
bus
Lunch break
City Bike
Change to
suburban
train
Change to
subway
Change to
tram
Universities, Schools
Libraries
Entertainment, sports
Shops, self-service machines
Cafés, restaurants
Company access control
Access control in housing areas
Sports facilities, event tickets
Minor repairs
Energy billing
Potential
Customers:
910.000
Citizens
≙
≈ 50% of
Vienna‘s
Citizens
until 2015
Core Service
Value adding
Services
12
1 Arthur D. Little global study on urban mobility
2 Urban mobility challenges for Brussels
13
Source: Arthur D. Little; (1) Annual activity reports 2011 of STIB (includes Metro, Tramways and buses)
2010
220
260
320
340
300
280
240
200
180
0
From 170k to 330k trips p.a. (+94%in 11 years)
20
11
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
Mobility is a key challenge facing urban regions such as Brussels, particularly
given evolving mobility needs associated with increasing urban population
Local Public Transport use in Brussels (in millions trips)1
# trips (Mio)
Mobility in Brussels
Moreover, low mobility performances reduce
attractiveness for companies to settle in Brussels,
thereby influencing real estate rentability
Mobility needs are increasing:
Increasing number of trips/day
Use of local public transport in Brussels
almost doubled (+94%) over the last 11 years
Mobility needs are evolving:
Changing lifestyle toward use of more
sustainable transport and mix of transport
modes
Increase of short distance travels
Mobility challenges are ahead of us given further
increase of urban population expected in the years
to come (1.200k expected in 2015)
14
Source: Arthur D. Little’s Urban Mobility Index
Above average
= 6
Above average group (> 75 points):
– Amsterdam 81,2
– London 78,5
– Stockholm 77,6
– Gothenburg 77,5
– Vienna 76,3
– Paris 76,3
– Munich 76,2
Average group (65-75 points):
– Zurich 74,6
– Berlin 74,5
– Barcelona 72,3
– Madrid 71,8
– Cambridge UK 71,3
– Istanbul 70,2
– Frankfurt 69,9
– Prague 67,8
– Brussels 67,3
– Milan 65,8
Below average group (< 65 points)
– Ankara 64,8
– Lisbon 62,0
– Moscow 60,1
– Rome 57,9
– Saint Petersburg 56,9
– Athens 53,3
= 7
= 10
Average
Below average
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Index-Points
68 64 62 60 58 56 54 0 66
Saint Petersburg
Rome
72 74 76
Place 1
Athens
78 80 82
2
Prague
Frankfurt
Istanbul
Cambridge UK
Madrid
Barcelona
Berlin
Zurich
Munich
70
Vienna
Gothenburg
Stockholm London
Amsterdam
Moscow
Lisbon
Ankara
Milan
Brussels
Paris
Brussels – A mid performing city in comparison
with other European cities
Brussels Rank 30 of 66 worldwide
Rank 16 of 23 in Europe Excerpt European Cities
15
With the introduction of its multimodal mobility card “Mobib”, Brussels can be
considered as one of the good examples for multimodal mobility cards in Europe
CHN
(Peking)
ENG
(London)
LVA
(Riga)
NZ
THA
FIN
SCO
ISR
LUX BEL
JP
ARG
(B. Aires)
NOR
(Oslo)
Source: Arthur D. Little
In Brussels since 2008
Smart city offerings
(transit, car & bike sharing,
parking, stadiums,
museums, theatres,..)
Penetration in 2011 0,62
cards/ person only 3
years after going live
Personalized cards only
(yet)
Open public transport
access system (closing
planned)
Attempt to establish Mobib
as a countrywide
mobility card since 2010
– Speed-up needed!
No automated fare
calculation as in NL and
DK, the card is a “ticket
storage” only
Business models of countrywide mobility cards
Success of countrywide implementation
Degree of maturity
Business model 3:
long-distance-travel
only
Business model 2:
monomodal countywide cards
Business model 1:
multimodal countrywide cards
DEN NL
Insights:
TWN
(Taipeh)
16
Brussels has a high number of shared bikes and performs
well in car sharing
Bike sharing
Source:(1) De Standaard; (2) http://www.scotty.be/fr/sites/blue-bike/; (3) http://www.cambio.be; (4) http://www.zencar.eu/en/station.cfm; (5) /www.cambio-
carsharing.com
Car sharing
Villo! by JCDecaux1: Launched in 2009,
27.000+ subscribers end 2011, 2.500 bikes and
180 stations (target by 2013: 5.000 bikes at 360
stations)
Blue-bike by SNCB2: 1.000 bikes over 39
stations
Rental initiatives: Pro Velo, CyClo
Cambio car sharing3: Launched in 2003 in
Brussels, 6.500+ users, 244 cars and 84
stations in Brussels
Zen Car4 – Launched in 2011, Green Mobility
Solution: 100% electric cars, 16 stations
Car pooling initiative “Carpool Plaza” – Joint
usage of cars e.g. to go to work
Villo! bike sharing1 Cambio car sharing5
Example Example
180 stations 2.500 bikes 27.000+ users
6.1895.2623.476
1.197445
6.597
2271951294623 2440
5.000
10.000
Nov-11 May-11
CAGR customers 71%
Nov-10 Nov-08 May-06 May-04
customers cars
17
Source: (1) Conduits (www.conduits.eu), 2010; (2) UITP Source : UITP Mobility in Cities Database (includes investments in infrastructures, vehicles and equipment)
Modal split European cities (ranked from biggest share of public transport to smallest)1
Comments
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Mila
n
Go
the
nburg
M
ad
rid
A
mste
rda
m
Lis
bo
n
Fra
nkfu
rt
Lo
nd
on
Be
rlin
M
un
ich
Z
urich
V
ien
na
S
tockh
olm
B
arc
elo
na
P
aris
Rom
e
Bru
sse
ls
Ath
en
s
Ca
mb
rid
ge
Public
transport,
walking &
cycling
Private
motorized
transport
Other
Compared to other European cities, Brussels has a low share of public transport in
modal split, that can be partly explained by historical limited investments in PT
Public transport, walking & cycling accounts
for 40% of total transport in Brussels
Public transport investments in % of GDP2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
Brussels
Athens
Berlin
Madrid
Vienna
Amsterdam
London
Rome
Stockholm
Munich
Paris
Increase of public transport trips by 94% from
2000 to 2011. Accounted for 18% in 2010
Cycling: from 1% (2000) to >4% of trips
Car remains the dominant travel mode (57%)
IRIS-II mobility plan includes several initiatives
to further foster sustainable modes of transport
1991-1995 1997-2001
% of GDP
18
Source: Arthur D. Little Mobility Index; (1) Operator websites, weighted average travel speed metro, tram, bus and car 2010; (2) Average one-way commute time,
www.payscale.com, 2012; (3) Multiples sources, 2010
Average travel speed1 (km/h)
Mean travel time to work2 (min)
Transport related CO2
emissions per capita3 (kg)
16
19
34
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Berl
in
Fra
nkfu
rt
Lo
nd
on
B
russels
M
ad
rid
A
then
s
Milan
B
arc
elo
na
Ro
me
G
oth
en
bu
rg
Lis
bo
n
Vie
nn
a
Zu
rich
S
toc
kh
olm
C
am
bri
dg
e
Pari
s
Mu
nic
h
Am
ste
rdam
45
36
22
0
10
20
30
40
50
Lo
nd
on
M
ilan
P
ari
s
Bru
ssels
A
mste
rdam
R
om
e
Ath
en
s
Zu
rich
M
un
ich
F
ran
kfu
rt
Sto
ckh
olm
M
ad
rid
B
arc
elo
na
Lis
bo
n
Vie
nn
a
Berl
in
Cam
bri
dg
e
Go
then
bu
rg
4
3
2
1
0
Lis
bo
n
Fra
nkfu
rt
Go
then
bu
rg
Sto
ckh
olm
R
om
e
Mu
nic
h
Bru
ssels
Z
uri
ch
V
ien
na
Milan
Am
ste
rdam
L
on
do
n
Mad
rid
Ath
en
s
Pari
s
Cam
bri
dg
e
Berl
in
Barc
elo
na
X 1.000
… leading to low mobility performances, amongst others in terms of average travel
speed, mean travel time to work and transport related CO2 emissions
19
Solving the problem of urban mobility in a context of a booming urban population
will require mobility stakeholders to jointly work on several axis allowing for the
emergence of innovative and effective mobility concepts
Future of Urban Mobility
Platform
Competition
Which stakeholders should be involved?
Who should take the lead?
How to improve transregional integration?
1. Establish a collaborative
platform to align stakeholders
and prioritize initiatives
Which key priorities for the future?
Which new products/services to offer?
Which governance to ensure realization
of agreed upon targets?
2. Define and execute a vision
for the future of Brussels urban
mobility system
How to answer to booming # of potential
clients and their evolving/new needs?
How to better align mobility (incl. acce-
ssibility/connectivity) with town planning?
3. Discover and respond to the
consumer need for seamless,
multimodal urban mobility
How to make public transport and other
sustainable travel modes more attractive?
How to encourage a rational use of car?
To which extend should balanced public-
private partnerships be stimulated?
4. Initiate fair competition
between different transport
modes and business models
20
Arthur D. Little is the world’s first management
consulting firm and assists clients with complex
assignments in a wide range of industries.
Arthur D. Little, founded in 1886, is a global leader
in management consultancy, linking strategy,
innovation and technology with deep industry
knowledge. We offer our clients sustainable
solutions to their most complex business problems.
Arthur D. Little has a collaborative client
engagement style, exceptional people and a firm-
wide commitment to quality and integrity.
Visit us at
www.adlittle.com
50
Arthur D. Little Benelux sa/nv
Avenue de Tervurenlaan 270
B-1150 Brussels
Belgium
Telephone 32.2.761.72.00
Telefax 32.2.762.07.58
Email: [email protected]
www.adlittle.com
Top Related