slide1 n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Contributions PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Contributions

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 9

Contributions

122 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Contributions

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. VIKING Traveller Information Services and Mobility ManagementSeminarPublic Transportand Time SchedulesCopenhagen, 2001-05-31

  2. Contributions • Introduction to VIKING Ingemar Wingård • EU-SPIRIT and PT travel schedules in Krister Nordland, Sweden Skånetrafiken • PT Travel Schedules in Denmark Kim Jonasen, DSB • Finnish PT telematics Mikko Lehtonen, VTT • PT Travel Schedules in Norway Jarl Eliassen, Trafikanten Oslo • PT telematics in Gothenburg Anders Kåbjörn, GOTIC • Travel information systems for PT Bernhard Ehmann, in northern Germany Weser-Ems Bus

  3. Contributions (continued) • National travel planners with examples Michael Frankenberg, from nine European countries HaCon • Intramodal travel information with Stefan Engelhardt, distributed routing via API interfaces Mentz Datenverarb. • NEMIS Bernhard Keppeler, GVS • Discussions on co-operation possibilities, problems and opportunities, relations to national road authorities, possible supporting activities from VIKING

  4. Public Transport • Road Authorities´ sector responsibilities • Co-operation possibilities • Multimodal transport • Travel Information and Time Schedules • Seminar / Workshop • Vision

  5. Seminar • State of the art • Institutional • Technical • Views of the future • Basis for formulating an action program for the VIKING partners

  6. Conclusions • The seminar was successful with regard to participation and representation from the VIKING area • Technical issues do not represent any problems today • Organisational and commercial issues are urgent problem areas • Co-operation forms and distribution of responsibilities are required

  7. Conclusions • Multimodal information will in the future also have to include car transport • Attention of the national road administrations is appreciated • Possibilities for support by national road administrations are nationally different • Sector responsibilities could warrant some ”push”-actions rather than ”pull”

  8. Proposal • Include Public Transport and Travel Information in the MIP program /common • Keep the work group at least 2001-2002 • Use the work group as basis for formulating action programs for the VIKING partners, monitoring state-of-the-art for Travel Planners and promoting multimodal PT traffic and travel information

  9. Status Sept. -01 • MIP decision delayed by EU, resources for common work not yet formally confirmed • Steadily growing interest in co-operation between road authorities and PT • TEN-T priorities seem to limit project alternatives on PT issues • Road Authorities /VIKING partners/ strategies need to be clarified