DEMOCRITOS

1. DEMOCRITOS DEveloping the MObility CRedits Integrated platform enabling travellers TO improve urban transport Sustainability Grant agreement no. 233744 Results for Stuttgart Case Study Lothar Neumann, SSP Consult Michaela Haseleu, SSP Consult Ulrich Steimer, City of Stuttgart Klaus Lönhard, Verband Region Stuttgart Democritos• Final Conference, Genoa, 23 Sept. 2011

2. Stuttgart MCP tool - Zoning

3. Stuttgart – Basic Transport Figures

4. Stuttgart – Basic Transport Figures • Typical passenger car trip within the region • 10 km trip length • 20 min. travel time • 1.3 persons per car • Emission costs per typical car trip: about 0.20 € • Vehicle operating time per car trip: 4.30 € • Passenger travel time per car trip: 2.60 € • Fuel costs per car trip (out of pocket): 1.20 € • No of passenger trips in public transport per working day: 1.050.000

5. Stuttgart – Scenarios • Scenarios must be realistic, avoid unrealistic expectations and discussions. • A set of scenarios has been calculated. • Capacity of public transport is limiting element: max. +25% more passenger in PT in long-term perspective (up to 15 years), i.e. max. 262.500 passengers per day. • 202.000 less passenger car trips per working day • i.e. -6.9% pass. car intra-regional trips • resp. -5.4% of all pass. car trips.

6. Stuttgart – Scenarios

7. Stuttgart – Simulation Results • Reductions of passenger car trips are very limited due to long-term capacity restrictions in public transport. • Reductions of emissions are always significant smaller than reductions of passenger car trips because mainly short distance car trips are replaced by public transport trips. • Reductions of congestions are always significantly higher than reductions of emissions. • Political weights stressing emission sensitivity have not automatically more impacts on the reduction of emissions than simple approaches. • Don‘t neglect: Reduction of 2 tons CO2 due to reduced passenger car trips creates 1 ton CO2 more emissions in public transport by shifted trips. • Don‘t neglect: Technical development in car engines, e.g. in Germany 2010  2025 reduction of CO2/km by 15%-20%. • No provable and realistic long-term effects (settlement structure, localization effects).

8. Stuttgart – Acceptance • Results of acceptance surveys (stakeholders, focus group workshops and users of the MCP social network): • High level of awareness towards environmental issues among users. • General support of measures to reduce traffic (in terms of environmental relief) quite high among surveyed (more than 70%), about 50% would support the MCP approach (if improved). • Improvement of PT service and intermodal connections seen as very important. • Capacity constraints of PT seen as extremely critical pointand limiting factor. • High complexity of the system (too complicated and/or not precise enough re. zoning, distances etc.). • Emission-class, distance and use of unused credit points for other mobility purposes are ranked as very important factors for such a concept.

9. Stuttgart – Legal/Organizational Aspects • Current status in Germany for introducing urban road charges: • Legislative competence is with the 16 states (Länder) • Still legal uncertainty among communities • who is finally responsible for implementation • who is the actual debtor of a toll charge (veh. owner/driver) • Recommendations/findings: • Clear legal framework needed • No isolated solution for a city but at least regional solution • Privacy issues and personal data protection need careful treatment

10. Stuttgart – Technical Aspects • Decision Support System: available (cartography, various databases on citizens, businesses and vehicles, traffic simulators, emission models, geo-referenced data on mobility). • Sensor network: available (networks of congestion and pollution sensors); vehicle identification currently not possible, but tests are running; communi-cation network in the city (fibre optic cable network) for traffic monitoring by video cameras may be used or even extended for ANPR technology by video. • Electronic payment systems: available for some applications (parking, foreseen for public transport tickets in near future). Electronic money wallet systems not available up to now. Smart phone penetration currently 11% in Germany/expected to rapidly grow up to 22% in 2012. • Call centres and info-mobility web sites: available. • Mobility credit repository: not available by definition (ICT technologies currently available can help implementing it in a relatively easily way).

11. Stuttgart – Summary • Direct environmental impacts very limited. • No long-term effects of MCP (settlement, localization effects, car fleet). • Capacity of public transport is a limiting factor for the next 15 years (e.g. regarding construction time, costs). • Other elements have much more effects on car use (e.g. fuel prices, fuel consumption, parking restrictions). • Aspect of GHG will lose in importance due to technical advance.

12. Stuttgart – Recommendations Integration of MCP approach into an overall concept on sustainable urban mobility and other areas (energy, waste). Approach must be simple, transparent and easily understandable. General tenor should be to convince (non-) clients instead of urging or “penalizing” them. Incentives and awards must be strengthened. No stand-alone MC application, i.e. by area (city and region), by location (relevant areas), by technics. Avoid any MC specific additional hardware (e.g. road side infrastructure, communication infrastructure, OBUs). Stuttgart (city and region) is planning to introduce mobility card.