City-HUBs Sustainable and Efficient Urban Transport Interchanges

Transcription

1 City-HUB Project City-HUBs Sustainable and Efficient Urban Transport Interchanges Floridea Di Ciommo, Responsible for research area on Sustainable mobility and travel behaviour Mouvable Semaine de la mobilité européene Concevoir autrement les pôles d échanges Thursday 17th September,

2 City-HUB Project 2 Integration of different transport modes as a way to improve the door to door transport chain For what aim? Provide a passenger with a seamless journey using different modes of transport

3 City-HUB Project 3 Background Banister s lemma (1999): change from planning more to travel less into planning more to travel better Interchange urban infrastructures are part of innovative transport planning measures to reduce car dependent trips, oriented to decrease CO2 emissions Bertolini (2006) defined a multi- modal passengers interchange as a "no-place"

4 City-HUB Project 4 Background Interchange station increases public transport passengers flows (Monzón et al. 2013, Di Ciommo et. al, 2009, Brons et al. 2009) The European Commission has started on a path towards upgrading urban interchanges in order to increase public transport use (White Book UE, 2001) Towards Passenger Intermodality in the EU (Muller et al., 2004) commissioned to create the basis for an EU workplan in the field of passenger intermodality.

5 City-HUB Project 5 ROADMAP TOWARDS THE CITY-HUB

6 City-HUB Project 6 Interchange goals 1. Enabling intermodal transfer 2. Co-ordination of modes 3. Efficient use of urban space

7 City-HUB Project 7 Define Changes and Actions Change to improve planning, design and operations of an interchange new or improved Actions that need to be delivered by stakeholders

8 City-HUB Project 8 Methodology o Literature reviews o User surveys o Practitioner interviews o Visits to case study sites and other interchanges Two areas of focus: 1. Governance 2. Organisation of facilities

9 City-HUB Project 9 Governance phases 1. Identification: Needs and stakeholders 2. Validation: Mapping opportunities, financial plan, innovative business model 3. Deployment: Management, efficiency & integration in the city 4. Monitoring & assessment: Feedback from users, local impacts

10 City-HUB Project 10 Levels of involvement Information Consultation Participation (involving, collaborating & empowering)

11 City-HUB Project Organisation of Facilities Spatial organisation Outside the interchange Access and the local area (Access/Egress Zone) Within the interchange Facilities and retailing zone Transport and transfer (Arrivals/Departures/Transfer zone)

12 City-HUB Project 12 Interchange zones

13 City-HUB Project 13 Movement and flows in the wider interchange zone Strong connections with external facilities and services. Entrance and exits points are located appropriately for different feeder modes and external facilities. Negotiate with external facility providers to ensure signposting to the interchange can be displayed and maintained. Access provision for non-fare paying users.

14 14 City-HUB Project Transport services and transfer Taxi and community transport Rail based transport Buses and coaches Car parking and kiss & ride Cycling and walking Illustrations by Divij Jhamb, TRL

15 Stakeholders: General operators Public administration Transport users associations Disable association City-HUB Project Is necessary a new vision? G R O U P S M O B L I T Y P O R P U S E N E E D S T R I P End-Users: Men and women Families Young, ageing, children, babies Wheelchair users Eye impaired Hearing impaired Cognitive impaired Work / Study Business people Shopping people Tourist 15 Cyclists

16 City-HUB Project 16 City Interchanges Vision SMART AND SUSTAINABLE URBAN MOBILITY

17 Common needs: City-HUB Project Common users needs Global factors: 17 Transport functions Transport installations Direction Information Accessibility Communication Accessible design Safety Security Safety and convenience design Security model

18 City-HUB Project 18 Specific systems to control and security: control center, compunction systems, Contingency plans. Interaction with user: ticketing, barriers. Specific requirements must be defined in the design

19 City-HUB Project 19 Direction Information: where, when and how to go / options (pre-journey, in-journey, real-time) legibility Moncloa, Madrid Liverpool Street, London

20 City-HUB Project 20 way finding design: tactile surfaces, direct and clearly identified routes, self-explanatory design (signposting), landscaping Clear signage communication

21 Accessibility and convenience City-HUB Project Movement: users potential for congestion 21 infrastructures design: distances (between two modes), ticket machines information desk, stair-free routes..

22 City-HUB Project Provide access: From all users to all areas 22 Accessible paths: from all users and specially to provide access and egress to and from transport services for people with disabilities Accessible information: to enable people with disabilities to plan, choose and use the transport service that they require Universal Design

23 Safety design City-HUB Project Infrastructure design: Capability to communicate between control centers fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Good lighting: Adequate lighting for the type of facility ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Safe access: For all users 23

24 City-HUB Project 24 Separate: keep flows of vehicles and passengers separate fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Pavements safety: continuous pavements to prevent slip and falls fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Safety elements: railings, barriers... Feel safe on the interchange

25 City-HUB Project 25 Security model Infrastructure design: Design must meet all emergency and security requirements fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Security installations: security cameras, smoke detectors...

26 City-HUB Project Security management: to monitor and prevent crime and disorder ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff Emergency plan lighting: should be clear visible and accessible for any type of user 26

27 City-HUB Project 27 Users should be a main element in the interchange design USERS Common needs and desire A R R I V A L ACCESS GENERAL AREAS WAITING INTERCHANGE AREAS EXIT G O - O U T Personal needs and desire USERS

28 City-HUB Project 28 Each user has personalized needs and desires

29 City-HUB Project Each user needs.. 29 Personalized needs: Transport mode Reliability Gender and age Trip purpose Journey origin or destination Family group Medical Pre-trip planned Environmental quality Personal factors: Infrastructures Installations Waiting time Waiting room Comfort Capacity Shopping Toilet facilities Weather protection

30 City-HUB Project Commuter users main needs and desires: 30 Reliability Real time information Specific time of departure and arrival Alternative routes when disruptions

31 City-HUB Project Leisure travelling users main needs and wishes: 31 Shops, leisure options Direct access to shopping centers or facilities ATM Wifi, cloud games

32 City-HUB Project Tourist travelling users main needs and desires: 32 Languages to: Indications Information Ticketing On-line information Tourist interests: Indication of tourist places of interest City maps

33 City-HUB Project Senior citizens main needs and desires: 33 Personalized information and ticketing Access and mobility facilities Preferential seats Availability of toilets and resting spaces Personal security Short itineraries

34 City-HUB Project Users with disabilities main needs and desires: 34 Specific infrastructures Specific information Toilet facilities Access to transport vehicles Personal assistants

35 City-HUB Project 35 Each one of the areas of the interchange should give continuous solutions to users needs USERS Common needs and desires A R R I V A L ACCESS GENERAL AREAS WAITING INTERCHANGE AREAS EXIT G O - O U T Personal needs and desires USERS

36 City-HUB Project Arrival or exit to the interchange This user need s different infrastructures according to transport mode of arrival-exit: 36 Walk Bike Other modes of public transport Private vehicle

37 City-HUB Project Access and Exit Appropriate access to users needs and direct patch Parking Other lines of Public transport Bike Direction and Information Ticketing Control barriers 37

38 City-HUB Project Waiting general areas According to user and trip purpose each user needs and desires are: 38 Seating Newspapers and magazines Travel information Music Toilet facilities Shops Mobile phone network Waiting VIP room Wi-Fi access Snack bar Cash dispense Plugs News in real time

39 City-HUB Project Waiting interchange areas According to user and trip purpose each user needs and desires are: Safety and convenience Seating Travel information Mobil phone network Wi-Fi access News in real time Music Vending machines 39

40 The User s Role USERS are particularly affected by the quality of the service provided in an interchange.. WHY? Urban Transport Interchanges are an daily experience for many PT user WHERE Users not only are passing through; they are also spending time in (van Hagen, 2011) HOWEVER There are no standards or regulations specifying how should be urban interchange Objectives REDUCE TRANSFER INCONVENIENCES IMPROVE THE USER S PERCEPTIONS

41 The User s Role Pyramid of Traveller Needs Experience Comfort Emotions Time is valuable lust : travel relaxed Physical effort Personal convenience Safety & Security Ease Speed Mental effort No hassle, no stress must : travel fast Travel time door-to-door The faster, the better Trust: Reliability Safe and secure journey Get what you expect Mark Van Hagen, Waiting Experience at train stations, Doctoral Thesis, 2011

42 Capturing the user s experience Several aspects are relevant in the traveller decision-making and. particularly, transfers can be stressful and/or time consuming for users, discouraging PT use (Iseki & Taylor, 2009) Therefore, the quality of service provided in a transport interchange has a direct influence on the traveller s experience The best way to know and understand their views and needs is through a TRAVELLER S ATTITUDINAL SURVEY Structure of the CITY-HUB Traveller s Attitudinal Survey PART A. TRAVELLER S SATISFACTION PART B. TRAVEL HABITS PART C. SOCIO- ECONOMIC INFORMATION

43 Capturing the user s experience PART A. TRAVELLER S SATISFACTION grouped 37 Observed Variables into 8 Categories TRAVEL INFORMATION WAYFINDING INFORMATION TIME & MOVEMENT ACCESS COMFORT & CONVENIENCE IMAGE & ATTRACTIVENESS SAFETY & SECURITY EMERGENCY SITUATIONS Overall Satisfaction STRONGLY DISSATISFIED STRONGLY SATISFIED

44 Capturing the user s experience PART B. TRAVEL HABITS PART C. SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION - Trip purpose - Selected transport mode: from origin to interchange from interchange to destination) - Time to/from/inside the interchange - Use of Time inside the interchange - Type of public transport ticket used - Gender - Age - Education level - Employment status - Household size - Household net-income - Driving license - Access to private vehicle (car, motorcycle, bicycle)

45 Capturing the user s experience SURVEY AT URBAN INTERCHANGES How was the method for data collection?... City-HUB project proposes a new implementation method to improve data collection rates and reflect the realities of urban interchanges. This approach combines computer-assisted methods with traditional survey techniques (a face-to-face distribution process) TO CAPTURE THE USER S ATTENTION a card marked with a Survey Number was handed out to travelers with the following information: survey objectives and project description link to the survey website information on the prize draw

46 3. City-HUB Pilot Case Studies The Pilot Case Studies were selected considering a balance in terms of geography and aiming at heterogeneity of transport modes, size and own role of the interchange within the city LONDON (UK) HELSINKI (FINLAND) BUDAPEST (HUNGARY) MADRID (SPAIN) THESSALONIKI (GREECE)

47 Urban transport interchange Modes of transport Daily Passenger Demand (2013) 2. City-HUB Pilot Case Studies Moncloa (Refurbishment in 2008) Kamppi (2005) Ilford Railway Station (Rebuilt in 1980) Köbanya-Kispest (Refurbishment in 2008) New Railway Station Thessaloniki metropolitan bus lines 3 urban bus lines 2 metro lines 2 long distance bus line No private car parking Taxi 21 local bus lines 40 regional bus lines 15 metropolitan bus lines 1 international bus line 1 metro line 2 tram lines on street network Bicycle centre Car parking Taxis Rail Bus Cycle (with cycle parking) Private car with drop off Car parking Taxi Rail Metro Local buses Suburban buses Airport bus Bicycles Park and Ride Regional rail Urban bus Suburban bus Bus line to the airport Taxis Bicycle Park and Ride, Kiss and Ride Metro (under construction) 59,989 96, , ,360 8,500 7,500 21,700 TOTAL : 6,721,486 passengers /year (Rail) 9,866 67,967 74,650 3,141 6, ,971 22,630 Role/place Local + Regional + National (2 lines) Local + Regional + National + International (1 bus to St. Petersburg) Local + Regional Local + Regional + National + International Local + Regional + National

48 City-HUB Pilot Case Studies MONCLOA - Particularities Availability of information displays Non provision of real time travel information Availability of Wi-Fi connection Availability of seating They are used for publicity It is not signposted in any place of the interchange There are few seats User must queuing to take bus during the waiting time

49 Methods for evaluating user perception The relevance of two different dimensions of time saving and time using complex matter can be analyzed from a psychological and sociological standpoint (Chowdhury and Ceder, 2013). To define the possible preferences of travelers about their use of the interchange, her/his time saving or time using at the interchange. Some people could prefer to save at most their travel/transfer time while others could prefer to realize some activities during their trip for better using the transfer time.

50 Methods for evaluating user perception Several studies confirms that time saving in the interchange is a key factor for adopting an intermodal trip (Hine, J. and J. Scott, 2000, Chowdhury, S. and Ceder, A., 2013, Guo and Wilson, 2011), but less studies are focusing on the interchange station characteristics impacts on travel behavior. Regional Authority of Amsterdam is working on the evaluation of impacts of interchange station services and safety on the modal choice of users.

51 user perception Criteria for improving a pleasant staying in the interchange (i.e.time using) and less to the transfer (i.e.time saving). 1. Smooth transfer 2. Clarity, orientation 3. Accessibility and practicability to the facilities 4. Wayfinding (signs, intuitive guidance, time tables) 5. Ticket system (Chipwise) 6. Linking facilities in pre- and after transport 7. Pleasant meeting place 8. Social safety 9. Waiting environment Source: Stads Regio Amsterdam, 2013

52 user perception Table 1 Drivers relating to time saving perception Drivers of user behaviour Measure/indicator Users attitudes and perceptions TIME Transfer and queue time Check the time perception and attitudes against the time saving ACCESS TO TRAVEL INFORMATION WAYFINDING INFORMATION MOVEMENT ACCESSIBILITY Ticket machine, Interchange information desk Geographical Information Pedestrian comfort in interchange Distance to the interchange, facilities for bicycles, cars, pedestrians, cost The accessibility of travel information (schedules, routes ) at interchange station Plan site use Perception of access/egress/movements inside The access to this station by walking, cycling, car. Access for people with disabilities or special needs

53 Methods for evaluating user perceptions Table 1 Drivers relating to time using perception Drivers of user behaviour Measure/indicator Users attitudes and perceptions TIME COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE IMAGE SAFETY AND SECURITY Time spent in some other activities (shopping, bank) Variety of facilities at the interchange (rest, shops, bank and other services) Modern and dynamic site, agreeable place where to spend time when not travelling Number of people around the interchange, number of staff Check the time perception and attitudes against the use of waiting time Basically related with waiting time and its use, Perception of doing right choice using interchange Surrounding area livability, internal and external design of the interchange Social security perception in waiting time areas (lighting, dark) Fear of violence and aggression

54 Research methodology and survey development Three focus groups were organized with City-HUB stakeholders for improving the questionnaire design, understand the perception of the exchange station (Aizer and Curie, 2002) Focus groups were also used to design incentives to attract individuals to participate in the survey. Once people were convinced to participate in the survey, they made a significant effort to properly complete it by internet.

55 Research methodology and survey development The questionnaire consisted of four modules: 1. the first contained questions regarding users time perceptions; 2. the second consisted of travel habits questions; 3. the third asks for the socio-economic characteristics 4. the fourth offered various options which could be ranked in terms of stated preferences

56 Survey results and time perceptions Main dimension (time saving) Items 1. Travel information 1. Availability and ease of use of travel information at the interchange 2. Availability of travel information before your trip 3. Accuracy and reliability of travel information displays 4. Ticket purchase (ticket offices, automatic machines, etc.) 2. Way-findings information 5. Signposting to different facilities and services (retail, toilets, etc.) 6. Signposting to transfer between transport modes 7. Information and assistance provided by staff Main dimensions (time using) Items 6. Image & Attractiveness 25. The surrounding area is pleasant 26. The internal design of the interchange (visual appearance, etc.) 27. The external design of the interchange (visual appearance, etc.) 7. Safety & Security 28. Safety getting on and off the transport mode 29. Safety whilst inside the interchange 30. Feeling secure in the transfer and waiting areas (during the day) 31. Feeling secure in the transfer and waiting areas (evening/ night 32. Feeling secure in the surrounding area of the interchange 33. Lighting

57 Survey results and time perceptions Thessaloniki Greece: railways station with more separated urban and interurban platforms for buses. Shops and services concentrated in the main railways station hall. Transport oriented node? Moncloa Madrid: Bus interchange with a complex infrastructural organization. Transport or commercial infrastructure?

58 Survey results and time perceptions Thessaloniki Waiting time ranges Moncloa 51% 41% 42% 32% 11% 6% 17% > 5 min 5-20 min min < 1 hour < 5 min 5-15 min >15 min.

59 Survey results and time perceptions How they use the time in the interchange Thessaloniki Transferring 90% Queuing 5% Shopping 5% Madrid - Moncloa Queuing 88% Transferring 71% Shopping 28% Other activities 31%

60 Survey results and time perceptions Principal components analysis Thessaloniki FACTOR 1: SECURITY& SAFETY (46.9% of variance) FACTOR 2: COMFORT AND CONVENIENCE (5.8% of variance) FACTOR 3: INFORMATION (5.7 % of variance) FACTOR 4: EMERGENCY SITUATIONS (4% of variance) FACTOR 5: IMAGE & ATTRACTIVENESS (3.9% de la variance) Moncloa FACTOR 1: SECURITY& SAFETY (36% of variance) FACTOR 2: INFORMATION (5.4 % of variance) FACTOR 3 EMERGENCY SITUATIONS : (4.4% of variance) FACTOR 4: TRANSFER (3.9% of variance) FACTOR 5: CONFORT AND TECHNOLOGY (3.4% of variance)

61 Survey results and time perceptions SP ranking experiment: 3 levels Time saving for transfer and queuing: Low = T1 Number of services: Low = S1 Intermediate = T2 High = T3 Intermediate = S2 High = S3

62 Modeling framework The modeling framework contains a standard Multinomial Logit Model (MNL). Rank the observations for a given respondent (i.e. turning the exercise of ranking the six outcomes into five discrete choices (Hess et al. 2013). Quantitative choice models approach emphasizes the systematic, invariant aspects of choice behaviour (Ben- Akiva et al., 2002). But perception and social interactions that distort positive or negatively the use of a transport services or infrastructure, partly relaxing the classic RUM assumptions (i.e. latent variables)

63 Conclusion Use of hybrid discrete choice models with the incorporation of psychological /perception factors leads to a more behaviorally realistic representation of the choice process, and consequently has a better explanatory power (Cao & Mokhtarian 2005, Heath & Gifford, 2006, Duarte et al. 2009, Karash et al. 2008) Attitudinal questionnaire addressed the two cross-cutting issues of time saving and time using, which were confirmed as latent variables through a preliminary principal components analysis Model identifies mainly time use as a significant latent variable related to the ranking among time using and time saving factors for City-HUB use.

64 City-HUB Project Others users that don t use the interchange also can take profit of it 65 Metrolineras (electric vehicle charge point) a new vision for a sustainable interchange

65 City-HUB Project To summarize 4 key ideas: Design and management from the stakeholders point of view to the end-users needs and desires 2- When refurbishing or building an interchange the integration of global factors must be guarantee 3- Interchanges are dynamic infrastructures rather than static ones. They must be capable of changing with people needs and desires. Interchanges as living places 4.- The most flexible the design the most capable to adapt the needs and desires of the citizens of the future

66 City-HUB Project 67 Key idea from City-Hub project : The challenge of urban interchanges: to have the ability to adapt the needs and desires of all users in a sustainable and cost-efficient way Book CITY-HUBs Sustainable and Efficient Urban Transport Interchanges Editors/Affiliations Andres Monzon-de-Caceres, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Spain Floridea Di Ciommo, Technical University of Catalonia, Spain Merci! floridea.diciommo@upc.edu Center for Innovation in transport CENIT-Technical University of Catalonia-Barcelona Tech