Lund
121.300 / 91.900
Vaasa
(113.600) / 67.500
Viborg
97.100 /40.600
Hamar
31.150 / 29.500
- Mobility
- Attractive townlife
1
Mobility Hub
Group 1 - Single project 1
This is us:
The presentation - in short:
Intentions starting out - and how the project developed A quick look at the local cases
Some learnings and elements to consider moving forward
What the project is about
Focus on attractive (!)? commuter parking - How, where, size, for whom..?
Intention/common goal:
Reduce private cars in town centres
Gathering information
Literature
Case studies (Use of consultants)
Info from public - Maptionnaire/Open meeting Study Trip
……
And remember - not scientific!
The start of Our Journey...
Our focus shifted from just talking about commuter parking to a mobility hub - and making the connection with livable cities...
What is a Mobility Hub?
Metrolinx:
Places of connectivity where different modes of transportation – from walking to biking to riding transit – come together seamlessly and where there is an intensive concentration of working, living, shopping and/or playing
Commuter parking, Rosenholm (Oslo):
Not a New Topic...
Sources: Metrolinx, San Diego Forward, Shared Use Mobility Center
How is all this relevant for our towns?
Local cases
Lund: Regional and local hubs Hamar: Central hub
Vasa: Network of local hubs
Car dependency much higher in villages and periphery
How can a mobility-point increase the attractiveness and competitiveness of sustainable travels?
What functions and what localisation is desirable?
Masterplan: All increased travel within Lund municipality should be by walking, biking and public transport
What we did:
- an inventory of the available research concerning commuter parking
- interview study with commuters living in Södra Sandby
Knowledge from part 1 & 2 develop model for villages (combination of mobility hubs and more trad.
commuter parking)
Regional hubs
Regional focus - but distance still matters! (And must be seen in connection with other measures)
Need to further develop “traditional” commuter parking Combination with local hubs
Case Vaasa - local hubs
Goals: get people to choose public transport and create a
hotspot for services in subcenters Means: Create mobility hubs with sufficiently high bus frequency
Advantages: Place for people to meet and gather, point for to offer service, reduce need to travel?
Finding the locations: Local
knowledge, data on population and workplaces
Challenges:
Planning land use and transport together
Changing attitudes and habits - not to take the car in the first place
Getting stakeholders involved
Studytrip - Focus on central and local hubs
Central and local hubs
Close to where people live (and/or work) Important for attractive public transport Provide services:
- Carpool-/sharing, cargobikes, storage, food-delivery, repairs, laundromat, ..
Not necessarily parking?
Summing up - four things to consider:
Focus on purpose and function early on - right place and content Connect with services!
Redefine business model - either within municipality or through cooperation with private actors
Be flexible - immense development in mobility services (and we are building for the future aren't we?)
An important
message, courtesy of Vallastaden!
LIVEABILITY IN
SMALL/ MEDIUM SIZED NORDIC CITIES
Liveability and attractive townlife through co-creation
Examinations /discussions Methods
Key-findings
Aim of project
Explore how to improve attractiveness in small and medium-sized towns
Attractiveness /Liveability
Discussion:
What are relevant indicators for attractiveness and liveability?
Perspective:
Both ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up:
- an approach based on local insight
- public participation and co-creation
- measure what public actors can act on
Nordic/ small town qualities
What makes a nordic small to medium size town liveable?
• Nature: Quality, accessibility and proximity
• Urban environment in human scale
• Services for everyday life in short distance
• ‘Slow city’ qualities
• Affordable housing
• Safety
• Democracy: Easy acces to influence and decision-makers
• Social equality
• Network – being part of a comunity (identity, care, control)
• Social capital – ability to act and make changes
NotphysicalPhysical
Explore indicators
Attractiveness/
Liveability
What is a good indicator?
• Site specific – designed to measure what is relevant here – local and unique
• You can experience and sense it
• You can act on it
• It is easy and inexpensive to measure
How to measure a quality?
Example: Closeness to nature
Quantity Quality Outcome for
society
Outcome for individual
- Distance - Area (ha) - Etc.
- Content of nature
- Maintenance - Etc.
- More active citizens
- Less public health expenses - Etc.
- Better physical and mental health - Feeling connected
to nature - Etc.
Testing indicators
on liveability
Participatory city
Strong social infrastructure
Strong social capital
More co-creation Higher
liveability
As a municipality:
1.Make places where people meet!
2.Connect people, institutions, ressources and places
3.Make an environment that
supports social infrastructure
MUNICIPALITY as key actor
CITIZENS
as key actor
Predictable outcome Unpredictable outcome
Municipality 3.0 – from government to governance
©jens.ulrich
Methods for co-creation
Attractiveness /Liveability
Maptionnaire
Digital input on maps
City-lab
Soft gis tools (Maptionnaire)
Experiences
• User friendly
• Provides a wider
involvement, when used right
• Many perspectives
• Consider: What would
citizens like to be asked?
• Consider who/ how/ what you ask for – they are citizens, not planners
Advices
• Short (mobilefriendly) surveys give the best results
• Use everyday language
• Short, exact and simple questionaires
• Avoid assumptions, negations, emotional
words, superlatives etc
Check the conditions for co-creation
1. Burning platform 2. Trust
3. Resources
4. Organization
Strong social capital
More co-creation
Higher liveability Strong social
infrastructure Participatory
city 1. Burning platform
2. Trust 3. Resources 4. Organization
Maptionnaire
How to measure a quality?
Check the conditions for co-creation
