d1.2 – socialcar new functionalities needs and barrierssocialcar-project.eu/download/socialcar new...
TRANSCRIPT
1
SocialCar
Open social transport network for urban approach to carpooling
D1.2 – SocialCar new functionalities needs and barriers
Deliverable D1.2
Dissemination level: public
Work Package: WP1
Version: 2.1
Date of preparation: 25 February 2016
Disclaimer:
The contents of this deliverable reflect only the view of the authors. The European Commission / Innovation and
Networks Executive Agency (INEA) is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.
2
Table of contents
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 4
1.1 SCENE SETTER ......................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................... 5
1.3 SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................................. 6
2. THE SOCIALCAR SITES: OVERVIEW ................................................................ 8
2.1 EDINBURGH ............................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 BRUSSELS .............................................................................................................................................. 9
2.3 CANTON TICINO ..................................................................................................................................... 10
2.4 ZAGREB ............................................................................................................................................... 11
2.5 TORINO ............................................................................................................................................... 12
2.6 BRESCIA ............................................................................................................................................... 14
2.7 LAZIO .................................................................................................................................................. 14
2.8 LUXEMBOURG ....................................................................................................................................... 15
2.9 LJUBLJANA ........................................................................................................................................... 16
2.10 SKOPJE ................................................................................................................................................ 17
3. SOCIALCAR MARKET FRAMEWORK ................................................................... 19
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE MARKET FRAMEWORK .............................................................................................. 19
3.2 SITE SPECIFIC MARKET FRAMEWORK ASSESSMENT: IDENTIFICATION OF SITE NEEDS AND BARRIERS ............................ 20
4. MAPPING SOCIALCAR NEW FUNCTIONALITIES WITH SITE NEEDS AND BARRIERS37
4.1 REGISTRATION – TRIP PREFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 40
4.2 TRIP MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES - TRIP SETTING .................................................................................................. 40
4.3 TRIP MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES - PRE-TRIP PLANNING ......................................................................................... 41
4.3.1 Provide public transport planning information ...................................................................................................... 41
4.3.2 Provide carpooling planning information............................................................................................................... 43
4.3.3 Provide car planning information ........................................................................................................................... 44
4.3.4 Provide car-park planning information .................................................................................................................. 47
4.3.5 Provide bike-share planning information ............................................................................................................... 49
4.3.6 Provide taxi & ridesourcing planning information ................................................................................................. 50
4.4 TRIP MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES - ON-TRIP PLANNING ......................................................................................... 51
4.4.1 Provide real-time public transport information ..................................................................................................... 51
4.4.2 Provide real-time carpooling information .............................................................................................................. 51
4.4.3 Provide real-time traffic information ..................................................................................................................... 53
4.4.4 Provide real time parking availability information ................................................................................................. 55
4.4.5 Provide real-time bike-share availability information ............................................................................................ 56
4.4.6 Provide real-time taxi & ridesourcing information ................................................................................................. 56
4.5 TRIP MONITORING & UPDATE JOURNEY PLANNING ............................................................................................. 57
4.6 TRIP PAYMENT ........................................................................................................................................... 58
4.7 INTEGRATION OF SOCIAL MEDIA ..................................................................................................................... 59
5. CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................. 61
ANNEX A CONSOLIDATED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR SOCIALCAR SITE BACKGROUND
INFORMATION ...................................................................................................... 64
ANNEX B SOCIALCAR CONSOLIDATED SURVEY RESULTS: SITE CONTEXT INFORMATION
65
3
ANNEX C MARKET FRAMEWORK TABLES FOR EACH SITE ....................................... 66
ANNEX D USER SURVEY REPORTS FOR EDINBURGH, BRUSSELS AND ZAGREB ........ 67
ANNEX E INFORMATION ON API AVAILABLE FROM EXTERNAL CARPOOL SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
68
ANNEX F SOCIALCAR AND SOCIAL MEDIA REPORT ................................................ 69
4
1. Introduction
1.1 Scene setter D1.2, SocialCar new functionalities needs and barriers, is part of WP1, SocialCar scenario and user experience - Setting
the scene, and it is due at M9, according to the Description of Action (DoA). The Deliverable identifies user requirements
of SocialCar taking into account specific needs of SocialCar sites to cope with potential local barriers.
According to the DoA, “the service goal of SocialCar is to exploit smart mobility approaches to carpooling in a practical,
social and viral way, adding the possibility to link the carpooling service with existing collective transport services and
other mobility options, enhancing the co-modality capability of the integrated city mobility service. SocialCar’s approach
is based on a holistic vision of shared mobility in an urban and extra-urban environment, taking care of the needs and
requirements of local players, and fully exploiting their specific social leverages to make the service highly effective”.
D1.2 follows on from two initial strands of work in the project: D1.1 The SocialCar Arena which presented a state-of-the-
art review of the current “offer” in terms of carpooling and public transport services and a set of use cases and related
user requirements aimed at detailing SocialCar potentialities; and T6.1.1 The SocialCar Market Framework, which has
been developed to identify the market conditions (drivers and barriers) which are required for the SocialCar product to be
both attractive to users and feasible to develop. While these identify high level requirements and generic needs, they do
not take into account local circumstances at the SocialCar sites. D1.2 builds on these pieces of work through a set of
surveys with the SocialCar sites to elicit the user requirements and needs of the SocialCar sites and to identify potential
local barriers.
D1.2 is a key input to the design and the development of all the modules of the SocialCar system. It directly impacts on
the development activities in WP2, Data and algorithms design, WP3, SocialCar tool and infrastructure, and WP4,
Implementation and validation of SocialCar system.
Project SocialCar: Open social transport network for urban approach to carpooling
Grant agreement number 636427
Document title SocialCar new functionalities needs and barriers
Deliverable number D 1.2
Type of deliverable Report
Dissemination level public
Work Package WP1
Version 2.1
Date of preparation 25 February 2016
Language English
Author(s) (Beneficiary) Steve Wright, Caitlin Cottrill, John Nelson (UNIABDN)
Contributor(s) (Beneficiary)
Angelo Meuleman (Taxistop), Lisa Freeman (SEStran), Matija Vuger (City of Zagreb), Paul Curtis and Gennaro Ciccarelli (Vectos), Douglas Rodger, Jaqueline Barr and Aaron Brown (IBI), Emma Silk (Liftshare), Luc van Wijngaarden (ZIGHT)
Peer reviewer(s) (Beneficiary)
Maria Bulgheroni, Chiara Bonizzi (Ab.Acus)
History V1.1 to V1.5 produced by UNIABDN (Dec 15- 8th Feb 16) with contributions and comments from above partners; v1.6 peer reviewed by Ab.Acus (9th-20th Feb 16); V2.0 revised version by UNIABDN (21st – 24th Feb 16); v2.1 FINAL checked version (25th Feb 16) .
Keywords Carpooling, Public Transport, Social Media, Multimodal transport, site specific, user requirements, needs and barriers,
5
1.2 Executive summary
The primary aim of the SocialCar project is to develop a tool which combines ‘big data’ and real-time information from
public transport with carpooling and other modes in order to generate multiple integrated multimodal travel options.
This will open up access to a wider range of public transport (PT) services for more of the population, including PT
services which are high speed, high capacity, and high quality. The proposed SocialCar smartphone and browser
application will also offer users the opportunity to update fellow commuters about travel disruptions and other travel
issues through direct messaging and social media platforms and to seek out willing and compatible sharers for taxi or
other rideshare services.
SocialCar will be tested in 10 European cities/regions: Edinburgh, Brussels, Canton Ticino, Zagreb, Torino, Brescia, Lazio
Region, Luxembourg, Ljubljana, and Skopje. The first three of these are ‘lightning sites’ where real-life testing will be
undertaken, while the others are ‘follower’ sites where a mix of feasibility studies and simulation testing will be
undertaken.
This Deliverable contributes to identifying the need for the SocialCar system and establishing the user requirements and
barriers and builds on D1.1 (The SocialCar Arena).
This Deliverable is structured as follows:
Section 2 provides a background picture and understanding of the demography, overall transport services and
general data situation in each of the SocialCar test sites. This has been established through a comprehensive
survey with parters at each of the sites.
Section 3 introduces the SocialCar market framework which provides a structured approach to identify the key
drivers, related barriers and associated actors at each site. From the market framework assessment conducted
by each site a summary of site specific needs is provided.
Section 4 presents the results, for each site, of more detailed surveys with key actors and end users, identified
from the assessment of drivers/barriers in the market framework. This examines the proposed
features/functions of the SocialCar app (identified in the high level function specification: Section 3.4 of D1.1) at
the local level to ascertain the usefulness, need for and barriers to development of these new functions. A
mapping of the functions against the needs and barriers relating to these functions is presented for each site.
Finally, Section 5 provides conclusions.
1.3 Scope of the document
D1.2, SocialCar new functionalities needs and barriers, is the second Deliverable of WP1, SocialCar scenario and user
experience - Setting the scene. It is preceded by D1.1, The SocialCar Arena, which provided a review of the state of the
art in public transport information systems and carpooling management and presented a set of use cases that include
user experiences that are not entirely manageable by the currently available systems – this depicted the desired features
and functions of the future SocialCar offer. D1.2 provides a more in depth examination at the site level taking account of
specific local needs and barriers elicited through surveys with stakeholders at each site. Together these Deliverables
provide the information required to guide the design and development of subsequent work packages, i.e. WP2, Data and
algorithms design, Wp3, SocialCar tool and infrastructure, and Wp4, Implementation and validation of SocialCar system.
6
1.4 Glossary
Carpooling: individual travellers share a vehicle for a trip and split travel costs such as fuel, tolls, and parking fees with others that have similar itineraries and time schedules.
Carpool service provider: organisation which facilitates the provision of carpooling services e.g. Liftshare, Taxistop, BePooler, Prevoz.org etc.
Car sharing: where passengers rent cars on a short-term basis, usually through a membership to a company; the passenger may be required to return the vehicle to the original pick-up location (two-way carsharing), pick-up and drop off the vehicle in a different location (one-way carsharing), or rent a vehicle directly from another individual for a limited period of time (peer-to-peer).
Crowd sourcing – covert: information on location and speed is extracted from traveller’s mobile phone GPS data without the user being actively involved
Crowd sourcing – overt: travellers knowingly and actively provide information via mobile phone apps such as Waze or Moovit
E-ticket: a paperless electronic document used for ticketing passengers of transport services.
E-wallet: online prepaid account which allows travellers to pre-load multiple different e-tickets for different PT operators or even different modes of travel (bikeshare, parking) without the need to swipe a debit or credit card.
Lightning sites: the sites within the SocialCar project which are currently most advanced in terms of carpool service provision and data capture/availability: these sites are Edinburgh, Brussels and Canton Ticino
New mobility services: modes of transport which do not include convention public transport or private car use; includes carpooling, ride-sourcing, bikesharing.
Open data: data that is freely available to everyone to use and republish as they wish, without restrictions from copyright, patents or other mechanisms of control.
Ridesourcing: a form of transportation that provides on-demand vehicle for hire services, where passengers “source” rides through a mobile smartphone-based app from a pool of private passenger vehicles. These can be driven by non-professional drivers (known as peer-to-peer ridesourcing) or by licenced taxi drivers. Uber is the main ridesourcing company operating in Europe
Social media: a group of web-based applications that encourage users to interact with one another, such as blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Foursquare, and MySpace.
Abbreviations
API: application-programming interface; a set of programming instructions and standards for accessing a Web-based software application or Web tool. A software company releases its API to the public so that other software developers can design products that are powered by its service.
ATAC: Mobility Agency of Rome
AVL: Automatic Vehicle Location; system commonly used on buses to track their position
BIP: Biglietto Integrato Piemonte; project to introduce a single contactless ticket to purchase any mobility service in Piedmont.
BSM: Brescia Mobilità Spa; Agency which manages Brescia urban district mobility
7
Bsmove: the Brescia Mobilità official app that displays on your phone all the information about mobility services in the city of Brescia
BST: Brescia Trasporti; Public transport operator in Brescia and 14 neighboring municipalities
CRM: Customer Relationship Management; approach to personalise the social media messages travellers receive
DATEX II: international (EU) standard that allows for recording and interoperable application of traffic data collected in real-time
EU: European Union
GDP: Gross Domestic Product
GTFS: General Transit Feed Specification; Public transport data standard which allows agencies/operators to publish their PT data and developers to write applications that consume that data in an interoperable way
GTT: Gruppo Torinese Trasporti; city owned urban and suburban public transport operator in Torino
HOV: High Occupancy Vehicle
HŽ: Croatian national railway operator
ICT: Information and Communication Technology
JP LPT: public company owned by the City which manages parking in Ljubljana
JSP: main bus operator in Skopje
LPP: bus operator in Ljubljana
MobAlt: Multimodal travel information app in Canton Ticino which integrates data across modes including carpooling
MOBIB: the Belgian standard for integrated ticketing across all public transport operators
MoDu: Mobilité Durable : Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan of Luxembourg
OSM: Open Street Map; an open data, free to use mapping product
P+R: Park and Ride
RFID: Radio Frequency Identification
RSS: Rich Site Summary; a format for delivering regularly changing web content
SEStran: South East Scotland Transport Partnership
SC: SocialCar
SFM: Servizio Ferroviario Metropolitano; Turin metropolitan railway service
SMS: Short Message Service; a message of up to 160 characters which can be sent between devices also commonly referred to as a "text message".
STIP/MIVB: Brussels bus, tram and metro operator
SUMP: Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan
TPL: Rome Municipality Local Public Transport services
WIFI: a facility allowing computers, smartphones, or other devices to connect to the Internet or communicate with one another wirelessly within a particular area.
ZET: bus and tram operator in Zagreb
ZgPlan: City of Zagreb’s main strategic document containing transport measures
4G: the fourth generation of mobile communications standard allowing wireless Internet access at a much higher speed
5T: In-house Company providing technological systems and mobility management services in the city of Torino and Piemonte Region
8
2. The SocialCar sites: Overview
This section presents a summary of the background picture of the demography, overall transport services and general
data situation in each of the SocialCar (SC) demonstration cities/regions. This has been established through a
comprehensive survey with partners at each of the SC sites. The aim of this work is to give an overview of the context in
which the SocialCar app is to be tested and to understand the relevant variations in circumstances between sites and
peculiarities associated with each site.
The survey (provided in Annex A) was delivered to SC site partners in mid August 2015 and responses were recieved
between the end of September and mid October 2015. The survey was split into the following 5 main sections:
Geographic characteristics Current Travel in City / Region Journey Planning Info Background Transport related social media use Sharing information with and between travellers
The section on ‘Current Travel in City / Region’ was the most extensive and contained a further 7 sub-sections: mode
share and congestion; parking background; public transport (PT) background; taxi background; peer to peer rideshare
services; carpool background; other modes.
Following analysis of the survey responses, the next section gives a short summary description of each of the 10
SocialCar demonstration cities/regions. A summary of the results from each section of the survey, to allow comparison
between sites, is presented in tabular form in Annex B.
2.1 Edinburgh
Implementation of the SocialCar system is planned for Edinburgh the capital city of Scotland with 500,ooo residents and
a commuter catchment from the wider SEStran (South East Scotland Transport Partnership) region with a population of
1.55m in total. Edinburgh is surrounded by the city bypass, which provides access from East Lothian, Midlothian and
West Lothian Council. To the North, the Forth Road and Rail Bridges serve the connection between the two local
authority areas of Midlothian and Fife. During peak commuting times, the surrounding areas become highly congested.
The rail network in SEStran is a combination of local and long distance services operated by ScotRail (operated by Abellio
as from April 2015) and long distance services provided by East Coast, Virgin Trains, Cross Country, First TransPennine
and the Caledonian Sleeper (Serco). Edinburgh Waverley station forms the main focus of these services, while Edinburgh
Haymarket and Edinburgh Park stations are also heavily used during peak times.
Like many cities, traffic congestion is a significant problem in and around Edinburgh. This is especially problematic in
the rush hour periods from 07.30 to 09.30 and 16.00 to 18.00. Areas in the future which are expected to suffer from traffic
congestion in Edinburgh include the western outskirts of the city, the waterfront, and the residential areas of the South
East where there is a large amount of housing development. The office and business developments at Edinburgh Park
themselves generate a large amount of traffic in that part of the city, with the Royal Bank of Scotland headquarters at
Gogarburn ensuring that upwards of 20,000 people now work in this area. In the city centre itself, narrow, cobbled and
winding streets in the Old Town as well as increasing restrictions on vehicles entering the city and strict parking
regulations mean that traffic hotspots are common in the city centre itself. Queen Street, Charlotte Square and the
western end of Princes Street are areas of significant traffic delay. Within the city centre, the City of Edinburgh Council
operates a controlled parking zones and priority parking areas. Parking charges are based on both location and CO2
measurements1.
1 Obtained from City of Edinburgh via Wikipedia. ‘Transport in Edinburgh’. Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_in_Edinburgh. Accessed 24 February 2016.
9
There has been recent increases in PT usage across Edinburgh and Lothian especially by train with a good commuter rail
network serving Edinburgh area. Recent PT developments include:
New Borders railway opened 2015. 30 miles of new railway and 7 new stations serving Tweedbank to Edinburgh.
Re-opening of Airdrie Bathgate rail link in 2011, resulting in new stations and more frequent and faster services to
Edinburgh.
New station in Edinburgh Park opened 2003 and connected to new tram stop in 2014.
New tram system in city connecting city cente with airport opened 2014.
A region wide carpooling scheme exists (TripshareSEStran.com) provided by Liftshare.com and supported by SEStran.
Uber recently launched in Edinburgh in August 2015, but is limited to using licensed taxi and privatehire drivers rather
than a peer-to-peer service with members of the public offering rides.
However, despite these alternatives, the 62% of commuters use the car to travel to work and this figure is still increasing.
There is strong employment growth in the city and a large population growth is forecast. The pattern of residential and
employment location in the area is becoming more dispersed. The continued spread of residential and employment
areas away from Edinburgh city centre is increasing the need for more public transport and car-pooling options.
2.2 Brussels
Implementation of the SocialCar system is planned for the Capital Region of Brussels which consists of 19 municipalities,
including the City of Brussels. The urban area covers approximately 161 km2 and has a population of 1.163 million. The
commute share includes a large number of persons (approx 350,000) entering Brussels from outside. The dominant
modal share in the Brussels region is the car, which accounts for 63.7% of all trips (2010). Public transport is the second
most dominant, with a share of 31.7%. For commuting trips, however, public transport holds the dominant share (50.8%
public transport versus 43% as car driver or passenger). Despite the high use of public transport, Brussels has some of the
highest congestion in Europe, ranked #1 in 2013 and #2 in 2014 for average annual hours wasted in traffic2. During peak
period, drivers have an average delay of 47 minutes. Drivers with a commute of 30 minutes lose 101 hours per year in
traffic. Contributing elements to this include high rates of car ownership and patterns of suburbanization. A 2011 survey
of employers on mobility problems in Brussels rated traffic jams as the biggest problem (57.2%), followed by shortage of
parking space (37.9%). Less than a quarter stated they had no problems related to mobility3.
Real-time information on road congestion is collected via Mobiris, and made available to the public on both general
(Google) and bespoke (BeMobile and MobielBrussel) websites. Guaranteeing quality of life in Brussels, giving everyone
access to efficient, high-quality mobility infrastructure, improving the complementarity of different modes of transport
and introducing a parking policy are just some of the priorities in the Brussels-Capital Region’s Iris 2 mobility plan. The
plan provides for a raft of actions to improve the daily experience of commuters and tourists in Brussels by 2015-2018. It
aims to establish a balance between mobility needs and quality of life in the Region.4 Brussels has 750,000 parking spots
available, an average of 0.56 per inhabitant. Real-time parking information, assistance, booking, and payment options
are available through BePark5. Park and ride lots are available throughout the city, mainly linked to the metro network.
Public transport in the Brussels region is provided by 4 metro lines (with 60 stops), 50 bus lines and 19 tram lines. This
network of public transport connects the 8 transit parking areas at the gateways to the city centre. Brussels has 3 main
train stations that connect the centre of the city with each of the other cities in Belgium. These stations are a hub of
public transport: they all provide connections with the Brussels metro, bus and tramway network and offer bike sharing
and car sharing opportunities. There are 25 smaller railway stations in Brussels. The Belgian federal government (Belgian
2 http://inrix.com/scorecard/key-findings-us/#key-findings-europe 3http://www.mobilit.belgium.be/nl/binaries/RapportWWV_2011_NL_bijlagen_cover_tcm466-217711.pdf 4 http://be.brussels/mobility-and-transport/mobility-and-transport 5 http://www.bepark.eu/en/belgium
10
railways) and Brussels regional government (bus, tram, and metro) are both active in the provision of public transport
services. STIP/MIVB (Brussels bus, tram and metro) and SNCB (Belgian railways) are both semi-public operators.
Other mobility services within Brussels include:
Two bike share services are available in the Brussels region: Villo, operated by JC Decaux, and BlueBike, which
operates along Belgian railways for last-mile needs. BlueBike is available at 44 different locations, including near 4
Brussels train stations. Villo! is regionwide and covers over 250 stations and over 2600 bikes.
1272 taxis are available in the Brussels region via 787 different operators, with many public transport hubs and
stations having near-by taxi ranks.
Collecto Nighttaxi: Brussels collective taxiservice that operates between 11pm and 6am, each day of the week. It has
200 stations (all nearby an MIVB/STIB station)
Cambio (initiated by Taxistop): car sharing service with 100 stations in Brussels and 285 vehicles of all kinds. This car
sharing service exists in the whole of Belgium.
Zen Car: car sharing system with electric cars, only available in Brussels.
Taxistop has been organising carpooling for commuters in Belgium since 2001 via its database carpool.be (70.000
users and 2.500 carpool offers each day). 170 companies are affiliated to carpool.be and organise carpooling for their
employees.
Real-time information exists for all public transport, with operator-collected data provided to Google and other
organisations for public distribution. A subsidiary of the NMBS/SNCB (train) has created Scotty, a transport tool that
proposes journeys by public transport, bicycle and car. None of these tools integrate carpooling.
Belgium offers a tax incentive for commuters who make use of employer-organised carpooling services, with no taxes
paid on their commuter allowance. Since 2002, Belgium has allowed carpool lanes. At a regional level, Brussels, Wallonia,
and Flanders public transport operators have supported the maintenance and promotion of a carpool database. Taxistop
(a carpool scheme) has operated since 1975, with additional players entering the market in recent years (BipBip, Djengo
(provided only for registered companies), CoCar, and BlaBlaCar). Taxistop averages 10,000 users per year for Belgium.
In Brussels, every company with 100+ employees is required to have a mobility plan, which may include carpooling.
Indirect encouragement for carpooling is also provided on high ozone days, when driving is limited to even- or odd-
numbered license plates. The Brussels government also provides limited support for Taxistop. Flanders and Wallonia
provide support for carpool parking, including for those commuters travelling to Brussels. Limitations on carpooling are
attributed to lack of trust and awareness, though levels tend to rise during events such as train strikes.
STIB, DeLijn, and NMBS are active on sites such as Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, using these platforms to provide
pictures, information about incidents and general communication with customers. Facebook and Twitter are used for
communication and information provision. The key advantages of social media are regarded as the ability for direct
communication and live feed of incidents, while disadvantages include provision of too much information or non-relevant
information.
2.3 Canton Ticino
Canton Ticino is the southernmost canton of Switzerland, with an area of 2,812 km2 and a population of around 350,000.
Roughly 25% of workers travel cross-border, but public transport offerings are only good along the north-south axis.
Private vehicles make up the dominant mode of travel in the region, with a share of 81% of commute trips (77.2% as
driver, 3.8% as passenger), and roughly 77% of all trips (56.9% as driver, 20.2% as passenger) overall. Public transport
accounts for only about 11-12% of journeys, split between rail and bus. Average journey distances are 6.08 km for
commute trips, and 29.14 km for all trips. Average car occupancy is significantly lower for commute trips (at 1.12 persons
per car) than for all trips (at 1.60).
11
Congestion is evident during peak hours (07.00 to 08:30 and 17.00 to 18.30 on workdays) on the main routes into and out
of the principal cities of Lugano and Bellinzona, and along national and cantonal routes between municipalities in the
region. Real time information on roadways is collected and available through TomTom, Infostrada, and Viabilità Ticino.
The Programmi d’agglomerato was approved in 2001 by the Federal Council, and in 2006, Parliament approved the
Federal Act on the Infrastructure Fund for agglomeration traffic (LFIT).
Parking in the Canton is fairly extensive, with the following availabilities: 3,000 public spaces in Region Bellinzona; 9,000
in Region Locarno; 7,200 public spaces in Region Lugano, along with 1,400 spaces in park and ride facilities and 39,000
private spaces; and 6,600 public spaces, 400 park and ride spaces, and 26,000 private spaces in Region Mendrisio-
Chiasso. Information on parking space availability is accessible via www.parquery.com in Locarno,
www.lugano.ch/posteggi in Lugano, and through a parking sharing app (PosteggiaTi). No pre-booking system is
available, but park and ride information for railway stations (including passes and locations) is available online and via a
mobile app. Parking can be difficult to obtain in the cities of Lugano and Bellinzona and at railway stations in Chiasso,
Balerna, and Mendrisio.
Public transport needs in the region are served by bus, train, and metro/light rail. Though buses serve the majority of trips
(with 27.5 million trips annually compared to 9.2 and 2.37 million trips for rail and metro, respectively), rail services
account for more of the long distance travel (167 million km annually versus 112 million for bus). Fares are integrated
across modes, and journeys can be paid for online or via mobile app. Real time information is available for buses and
trains, accessible via the web and the SBB mobile app.
Peer to peer ridesharing services are not available in the region, but carpooling information is available through Pool2Job
(carpooling information for companies in the Canton, with 500 current members) and Beepooler (an open carpooling
system). Mobility guidelines for the Canton are supportive of initiatives to encourage sustainable transport modes
(including carpooling), and the potential for a cantonal parking tax is being studied. Publibike provides bike sharing
services in Lugano.
Facebook, Twitter, Google+ and Whatsapp are used by mobility providers in the region for communication, information
provision, and services. In addition, the MobAlt app integrates data across a range of modes.
The key mobility issue being targeted via SocialCar in Canton Ticino is the provision of real time information to
commuters and single occupancy vehicle driver. It is hoped that further integration of information from carpools, shuttle
busses, public transport, and standard and electric bikes will be made possible as an open system and incorporating real
time information (as an improvement to MobAlt which is currently only available as a closed employer based system with
no real-time data).
2.4 Zagreb
Implementation of SocialCar in Zagreb is expected to take place in the City of Zagreb and Zagreb County. The city covers
an area of approximately 641 km2 and has a population of 790,017, while the County covers an area of 3062 km2 with a
population of 317,606 (2011 Census). With county status, Zagreb is the administrative, economic, diplomatic and cultural
centre of the country. The traffic infrastructure of Zagreb and the broader city area consists of a road, railway, tram and
air network. Public transport in the city is provided by buses, trams, cable car, funicular and car taxi service operating in
regular lines and according to a pre-set schedule. Some tram lines operate 24 hours a day. As in other similar countries,
the number of private vehicles has almost doubled since the transition in the early 1990s. This caused serious problems in
the city's historic core which also houses main administrative, cultural, commercial and social institutions and buildings,
where the street grid was largely defined in 2nd half of 19th century.6 This grid struggled to support the pre-1990 levels of
traffic. The city currently has no SUMP or transport master plan; however, ZgPlan (the city’s main strategic document)
contains transport measures.
6 Pavic-Rogošic, L., B. Mikinac, S. Krznaric and T. Damjanovic (2010). Implementation status report on marketing and communication campaign. ELAN Deliverable No. 2.6 – D1.
12
The dominant mode in Zagreb is currently the car as driver, with a share of 49.31%. Walking (at 19.3%) sees the second
highest use, followed by public transport, cycling, and car as passenger (7.78%). Average car occupancy is 1.3 persons per
vehicle; average car journey distance is 7.69 km, which is only slightly higher than average journey distance of all modes
(7.66 km). Congestion is most frequently seen during standard rush hours (morning and afternoon drive on workdays),
but this has been exacerbated by the sudden increase in car ownership within the city.
Public transport is provided through bus and tram systems, both of which are operated by ZET. As there is only one
operator the same tickets apply across both bus and tram services. Although the city of Zagreb and Zagreb have urban
and periurban train network, the network is not integrated into PT and is usually not considered a part of PT in Zagreb.
Furthermore, the Croatian national railway operator (HŽ) is in charge of the network, not ZET – the company in charge of
the PT in Zagreb. Public transport systems and data are generally shared between ZET and Radiotaxi (for planning and
scheduling, fleet management, journey planning, etc), or ZET and Zagrebparking (for ticketing and passenger
information). Real-time information is not available. Problems reported include the lack of timeliness of trams and
buses, in conjunction with a lack of coordination between trips (i.e. long wait times at transfer points). Prices are
considered high, and firms generally do not provide their employees with combined ZET/HŽ passes.
Parking lots and garages are spread throughout the city, with a total of 29,855 spaces available. Information on available
parking spaces is available from portals in the vicinity of the lots (more information at http://www.zagrebparking.hr/). No
booking system is available for parking. Parking restrictions divide the city intro three different tariff zones and access
restrictions only allow vehicles with a special permission to enter the pedestrian areas of the historic city centre.
Zagreb has 1380 available taxis, operated by Radiotaxi, Taxi Cammeo, Eko Taxi, and Zebra Taxi. Fares are charged based
on distance and waiting, and taxis are generally booked by phone or accessed at taxi stops. Some online booking is
offered. Radiotaxi was the dominant provider until 2011, when Taxi Cammeo entered the market. Since that time fares
have fallen, though public transport is generally still the preferred option. There are currently no formal, region-specific
carsharing or carpooling initiatives in the Zagreb region. A number of risks relevant to carpooling have been identified,
including: insurance coverage of drivers and passengers, cost of investments in carpooling web applications, insufficient
uptake of the system, insufficient support from officials, potential legal barriers, and defining the area of coverage. In
addition, underlying infrastructure that would support a robust ridesharing/carpooling scheme (such as secured parking
areas or HOV lanes) are not yet available. UBERx launched in Zagreb on 22nd Oct 2015 despite protests from taxi drivers.
UBERx can be used for booking taxi or private hire vehicles but not peer to peer ridesharing service UberPOP. The
Nextbike bike-share system operates within the city from 12 stations. Social media is currently used for communication
and information provision by ZET.
The key mobility issues identified by Zagreb include: the need for travellers to share information directly or using social
media channels in order to fill gaps in currently available information; allowing travellers to seek out other persons with
whom to share journeys or portions of a journey, thus allowing more travel options and providing a means for sharing
costs. The target audience is identified as: commuters, single occupancy vehicle drivers, current carpoolers, employees
based at a particular employment site, and students.
2.5 Torino
SocialCar will be implemented within the Municipality of Turin which is located in northern Italy, and covers an area of
approximately 130 km2. It has approximately 911,800 inhabitants, for a density of roughly 7 persons per km2. Recently,
the city has been investing in urban redevelopment, including a focus on historic heritage and investment in public
transport infrastructure. This has supported growth in the tourism industry, along with investment in the public
university, private research (CRF, General Motors Europe, and Telcom-Lab), a national health centre, and a
financial/insurance centre. Turin is also a node of the TEN-T Corridor.
13
The car holds the dominant mode share at 43%, with walking (29%) and other public transport (23%) accounting for the
majority of the remainder. Cycling accounts for approximately 4% of all trips. Real-time traffic information is collected
and disseminated by the public company 5T7, and is also available via Google Transit.
The main problems affecting the road network in the urban area include high vehicle circulation in peak hour, high
number of crossing trips, congestion and pollutant emissions problems, slow average speed of public transport, etc.
Issues with traffic congestion typically occur in the city centre and ring highway during peak hours (07.30-10.00 and 16.30
to 20.00). The main problem affecting public transport in Turin is the strong enlargement of the suburban conurbations
which are not well served by the actual public transport network. The public transport network was originally designed as
a radial network while the actual need is towards a more polycentric network better able to cover the different areas of
the city.
The city has a number of transport plans, including:
PUMS: Piano Urbano della Mobilità Sostenibile (SUMP)
TAPE (Turin action Plan of Energy): A plan aimed to reduce CO2 pollution by 20% by 2020.
BICIPLAN: a plan to increase bike mobility to achieve the aim of the “ Charter of Bruxelles”
SMILE: a plan to support the conversion of Turin into a Smartcity.
The city hosts a number of paid parking lots and structures, with a top rate of €2.5 per hour. Lots are managed by GTT
(owned by the Municipality of Turin), which also manages Turin’s public transport. Updated information on locations and
rates for parking may be found online8.
For public transport, Turin offers bus, train, tram, and metro alternatives. Recent investment in PT infrastructure
includes:
Turin urban and suburban networks: 1 metro, 8 tram lines and 100 bus lines operating on 200km of tramline network
and 1,200 km of bus network
the extra-urban bus network (70 bus lines operating on 3,600 km);
the railway network (2 lines in concession covering 80 km and 1 line managed on behalf of the Italian Railway
company, Trenitalia, covering 36 km)
The City, Piedmont region, and Agenzia della mobilità metropolitan are active in public transport service provision, while
IVECO is responsible for vehicle management and maintenance. The City of Turin is responsible for pricing, while 5T-GTT
addresses ticketing, planning, journey planning, and real time passenger information. Real-time information is available
for the bus and tram networks. 5T is also coordinating the BIP project (Biglietto Integrato Piemonte) that will introduce a
single contactless ticket to purchase any mobility service in Piedmont9.
1500 taxis are operated by two operators. Services are booked through a call centre or app, and paid for by cash or (in
some cases) credit card. Key issues faced with taxi services in Turin are expense and difficulties with obtaining
agreements between the Municipality of Turin and the taxi labour unions. Peer-to-peer ridesharing is currently
forbidden; however, new national laws are under consideration. Carpooling is encouraged under mobility and
environmental plans, but there is no specified funding allocated. BlaBlaCar and Bring Me operate in the region, but are
primarily used for long journeys. Move+ real-time carsharing is currently being developed.
The TOBIKE bike sharing scheme operates from 100 stations offering around 700 bikes. Roughly 40,000 persons are users
of the system.
7 www.5t.torino.it 8 http://www.5t.torino.it/5t/en/traffico/parcheggi.jsp 9 OptiCities: http://www.opticities.com/consortium/partners/5t/. Accessed 24 February 2016.
14
2.6 Brescia
Implementation of SocialCar in Brescia, Italy will take place across the overall region, which includes the neighbouring
municipalities of Flero, Poncarale, Cellatica, Botticino, Rezzato, Borgosatollo, Castel Mella, San Zeno Naviglio,
Collebeato, Concesio, Gussago, Roncadelle, Bovezzo, Nave, Caino, and Serle. The urban area covers approximately 290
km² and has a population of 310,000 people. The region serves as a key industrial centre for Italy, along with economic
foci on agriculture and tourism.
The dominant modal share currently belongs to the car, which captures a total of 72.3% of all trips (60.9% as driver,
11.4% as passenger) as of 2014. The uneven split between trips as driver versus passenger occupancy is reflected in an
average car occupancy rate of 1.19 persons for all trips, though commuter trips (which have an average occupancy rate of
1.22 persons) reflect the potential that carpooling is more often used for work trips. Public transport captures a slightly
higher modal share for commute trips (12.6% versus 11.1% for all other trips), but is still low when compared to trips by
car. High numbers of vehicular trips are reflected in areas of congestion prevalent in roads leading to the main city centre
during the AM peak. Parking facilities are readily available throughout the city, with roughly 9,000 places available at a
cost of € 1-3/hour at 17 lots, with another 230 places available at a free lot. Real-time parking information is available
through the BSMOVE app, with data provided by Brescia Mobilità Spa (BSM). Only one lot (Casazza) functions as a park-
and-ride location.
Public transport is provided through a bus system and an automated light metro line which came into service in March
2013. The bus network is integrated to the new metro system. These services are coordinated by the Municipality of
Brescia and integrated tickets are provided. Services are operated by Brescia Trasporti (BST), Arriva, and APAM, who
between them are also responsible for operations such as vehicle management and maintenance, pricing, ticketing,
planning, and journey planning. Real-time information is provided for both the bus and subway networks at displays in
stops/stations, and (for the subway system) as audio messages. Currently APAM uses social media, while Arriva is in the
initial stages of implementation. Social media networks, including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Youtube and
Whatsapp, are used for communication, information provision, and service purposes, with Facebook and Whatsapp
being used most prominently.
A bike sharing system called BICIMIA operates 69 active stations in Brescia. It currently has 16,000 subscribers who have
access to 534 bikes.
Taxi services are provided by Radiotaxi, with 103 vehicles carrying 720,000 passengers per year. Services can be booked
via phone call, email, or via a taxi app. Taxis accept cash, credit card, payment agreement or via PayPal. There are
currently no formal, region-specific carsharing or carpooling initiatives in the Brescia region, though services such as
BlaBlaCar are available and used.
Journey planning services are available through services such as Google, Nokia, Bing and Moovit. BST shares relevant
data with these platforms, which are integrated with the standard services.
2.7 Lazio
The Lazio region is located in the central peninsular section of Italy, and is comprised of a number of cities, including the
capital city of Rome. The region covers approximately 17,236 km2 and has a population of 5.89 million (November 2014).
The area currently under consideration for SocialCar implementation includes Rome, Civitavecchia, Viterbo, Rieti, Latina,
Frosinone and many other small cities around Rome. The region has a number of plans relating to transport and mobility,
including the Mobility, Transport and Logistic Regional Master Plan and the Rome Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan.
As of 2013, the dominant commute mode share belonged to the car as driver, which represented 65.2% of trips. Public
transport (bus/tram and train) also represented a large share of trips, at 11% and 6%, respectively. A smaller number of
travellers ride in cars as passengers, with a commute mode share of 4.8%. Average trip distance for all modes is
approximately 11.1 km. The preponderance of the private car mode may be related to issues such as low residential
15
density in Rome’s suburbs, the distribution of employment centres, and a lack of tariff integration for different public
transport modes. Congestion is a serious problem in the region, with the Rome Municipality Area traffic congestion index
the fifth highest in Europe10. Additionally, the Road Infrastructure Level of Service, as determined by applying the
Highway Capacity Manual methodology, indicates congestion issues on all roadways entering the Rome Municipality. A
wide range of parking options are available in the region, ranging from on-street parking, park-and-ride lots, and other
surface lots and garages. Parking in the region can be booked online via sites such as MyParking.it. Real-time information
on mobility and road conditions is available to the public via “Astral-Luceverde”, available at
http://regionelazio.luceverde.it/chiSiamo.php, and with social media sites on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube.
The region has an extensive public transport network, with regional buses (4500 routes) and trains (8 routes), as well as
services specific to the Rome Municipality (306 bus, 3 train, and 2 Metro routes). The Rome Municipality Trasporto
Pubblico Locale (TPL) provides the greatest number of passenger trips per annum (943,000,000), followed by the Rome
Metro (379,000,000), regional trains (124,000,000), and other regional TPLs (150,000,000). A number of online and
mobile information resources exist, including via http://muovi.roma.it/, http://www.cotralspa.it/, and
http://www.atac.roma.it (services provided by the region’s public transport operators).
There are a number of taxi services available in the region. Apps are available for taxi sharing based on origin and
destination locations (TaxiShare and Taxinsieme), as well as to call the nearest taxi (Chiama Taxi App). It has been
observed that fares are relatively high when compared to other comparable European and Italian cities. No peer-to-peer
ridesharing services operate in the region; however, carpooling is promoted in law and through urban mobility plans
throughout the region. Both national and local/regional carpooling platforms are available, and some incentives
(including free parking and some access to limited access areas) are provided in support. Bike sharing has previously been
available in the region, but is currently not in operation.
Social Media, including Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin, YouTube, Pinterest, Whatsapp, and Foursquare, are used in the
region for communication, information provision, and services. Citizens are able to provide information to ATAC about
services delays or malfunctions via Whatsapp.
The Lazio region currently has a large number of discrete transport information/apps11: however, there is a desire to
create a more networked regional platform to bring together the various tools available. A specific target is to develop a
better approach to carpooling for employees in the EUROPA District main offices in the South of the city of Rome. This
area includes 5 regional head offices totalling 2650 employees and is served by 3 nearby Metro stations. Parking at the
regional offices is limited and 40 % of employees travel from outside the Municipality of Rome (i.e. suburbs of Rome,
other regional cities) which requires travel by train then subway then local bus for PT journeys. It is thought that
SocialCar can be of real benefit in promoting better connections to public transport for commuters from these areas.
2.8 Luxembourg
Luxembourg, situated between Belgium to the west and north, Germany to the east and France to the south, has a
population of roughly 563,000, with just over 111,000 residing in the capital, Luxembourg City. The country, which has a
total area of 2.586 km2, is the second smallest in the EU but has the second highest number of cross-border commutes in
the EEA. Currently, commuting trips in Luxembourg are dominated by the car as driver, at 86% of the mode share. Train
(at 9%) and bus (at 5%) see a vastly lower share. Trip length varies greatly between the range of all trips (15-35 km in the
region, and around 5-9 km within the city), and commute trips, which average 44km (largely due to the cross-border
commutes mentioned above). Congestion is experienced during morning and evening rush hours (07.00 -09:30 and 16.30
– 19.00) as commuters move into and out of the city. Real-time congestion information is collected by L'Administration
des ponts et chausses, and available online. The country has a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan approved in 2012 known
as Mobilité Durable (MoDu).
10 TomTom Congestion Index, 2012. 11http://regionelazio.luceverde.it/in-evidenza/servizi-wrap.php?page=intro-travel-planner, http://www.cotralspa.it/CalcolaPercorso.aspx, http://www.atac.roma.it/, http://www.agenziamobilita.roma.it/it.html
16
A limited amount of parking is available in Luxembourg City centre, with charging enforced Monday-Saturday from
08.00-18.00 and a maximum duration of two hours. Park and ride lots on the city outskirts offer cheap or free parking,
with five lots providing roughly 3500 spaces. Car parks provide an additional 6263 spaces at 11 locations. Real-time
information is available on open parking spaces in lots throughout the city, along with pick up and drop off points and
long-term parking areas for professional coach operators. In some areas of the city, parking spaces may be paid for via
text message or mobile phone. It can be quite difficult to find parking spaces in the city, and Luxembourg City has made
some parking charges quite high to discourage traffic.
Public transport in Luxembourg is currently provided via bus (with 31 routes in the city centre) and train (which provided
20 million passenger trips per year as of 2013), with a tram scheduled to begin operations in 2017. Fares and ticketing are
integrated across modes, with some tickets able to be paid for via phone or SMS (SMS4Ticket). Real-time arrival
information is available via a digital countdown system at selected stations and on-board buses.
480 taxis are in operation across the region, with services provided by eight operators. Bookings are primarily made via
phone, though there has been some movement towards web and mobile App services. Fares are charged with a flat pick-
up charge and by distance and/or waiting, with an additional night tariff of 10-35%.
Carpooling is available via Karzoo and Blablacar. February 2016 will see the launch of a carsharing service (Carloh) with 15
low-emission cars available at five locations across the City. Bike sharing stations are available in Luxembourg city, Esch-
sur-Alzette, Bertrange, Mamer, and Ettelbruck.
Journey planning is provided through the Mobiliteit.lu web site and app, which offers detailed information on: timetables
with door-to-door journey planning, connection details, departure and arrival tables, nearest stops, maps and pedestrian
routes, and live bus timetable information. Social media, in particular Facebook, is used for communication and
information provision, but it is not considered an integral part of the transport information network.
The key mobility issue the region hopes to address via SocialCar is mitigating traffic in and around the City of
Luxembourg by reducing the large number of people travelling into the city using private vehicles rather than public
transport or carsharing. The key target market is commuters – in particular, single occupancy drivers.
2.9 Ljubljana
The Slovenian capital of Ljubljana and the surrounding Ljubljana Urban Region cover an area of roughly 2,555 km2 (271.67
km2 for the city), and hold a population of 537,000 (280,000 of which reside in the city). The city receives around 130,000
commuters daily for work or school, most of whom arrive from other municipalities in the region. The City is home to the
University of Ljubljana, which is amongst the largest in Europe, and serves as the cultural and economic centre of the
region and country.
Currently, the car is the dominant mode of travel with roughly 38% of commuter trips within both the city and region.
Public transport receives a greater modal share within the region than in the City, and walking trips are common in the
city centre. Average car occupancy rates are highest for students (2.35), though they drop off substantially for work (1.13)
and other business (1.05) trips. Congestion is largely seen in the peak hours (07.00 – 09.00 and 15.00 – 17.00) on main
routes into the city centre and on the motorway ring around the city. No real-time congestion information is collected.
The City Council approved the Ljubljana SUMP in 2012.
7,697 public parking spaces are managed through public company JP LPT d.o.o., which is owned by the City. A number of
private lots are also available (for example, Slovenian Railways offer around 2,000 spaces in the city), along with on-
street paid parking. Real-time parking information is provided by JP LPT d.o.o. and available online, but booking may not
take place online (though it is possible to purchase a monthly parking pass in some instances). 4 park-and-ride facilities,
providing 1858 spaces, are available, with more under construction. Currently, it can be difficult to find parking in the city
centre (particularly free parking), but usage is shifting to park and ride facilities.
17
Public transport in the region is provided via bus (42 routes providing 39.8 million passenger trips per year) and train (14.8
million trips are made nationwide on a yearly basis). LPP is the sole operator of bus services in the region, with
regulation/management undertaken by the City; Slovenian Railways (under the Ministry of Transport) is responsible for
the nation’s rail service. Bus tickets can be pre-purchased electronically or paid for via mobile phone; rail tickets can be
purchased via credit cards on-board or at the service desk. Real time information is available for city buses, displayed on
arrival and available via the internet and on mobile phone apps; for the rail services, some real time information is
available at selected stations, and delay information is provided online.
Approximately 1000 taxi drivers are active in the region, with 326 operators. Vehicles can be booked by phone, mobile
app, or online, and fares are payable by mobile app or online. Both credit cards and mobile phones may be used to
arrange payment. Taxi ranks are well coordinated with public transport, with locations at the central railway and bus
station and near the city station.
No peer-to-peer ridesharing services are present in the region, and formalised carpooling is also largely absent in the
region, though a nationwide service (prevoz.org) is available. The city has a bike sharing service – BICIKELJ, which has 32
stations housing 360 bicycles across the city. 63,000 users are part of the service, and availability information is made
available to users online, on mobile phone apps, and at the stations.
Journey planning is available through Google Maps, which has access to timetables for the City’s public transport
services. Social media (Facebook, in particular, though also Twitter and Youtube) is used by the rail and bus operators for
communication and information provision, though there is some concern that social media does not necessarily have the
widespread use experienced in some areas.
In terms of mobility issues the region hopes to address with SocialCar, the key area is reduction of congestion
attributable to car commuters. Here, it is felt that carpooling could be a valuable way of addressing the issue, with
commuters from around the region being seen as the primary audience.
2.10 Skopje
The City of Skopje, capital of the Republic of Macedonia, covers an area approximately 23 x 9 km with a population of
roughly 700,000 (having grown from 506,000 since the 2002 census). SUMPs were produced in 2009 and 2011. The
dominant modal shares in the city are walking (with 35% of daily commutes), car as driver (with 110,000 trips per day as
of 2009), and bus transport (carrying 77,000 passengers per day). Around 9.3% of trips are made as car passengers, and
an additional 1.4% of trips are made by bicycle. The average journey time for all modes is 25 minutes but average
commute trips are slightly longer, at 35 minutes (average car journey time is 15 minutes and 25 minutes for commuter
trips). Congestion is currently experienced during peak commute hours (generally 07.00-09.00 and 15.00-17.30) on
several main boulevards, including Bvd Goce Delcev, Bvd Boris Trajkovski, str. Dimitrija cupovski, and Bvd Kuzman
Josifovski Pitu. Skopje collects information on road congestion via the CUKS traffic management control centre.
Congestion and road closure information is provided to travellers via 6 variable message signs across the city. The City of
Skopje provides roughly 8000 parking spaces in zones and car parks across the city. A further provider not under the City
of Skopje jurisdiction also provides further parking. Currently, there is no real-time parking information available.
Public transport in Skopje is primarily provided via bus by a single provider, PE Public transport (JSP Skopje). With only
one mode and one operator there is no issue with integrating tickets. A single price ticket applies to all journeys. The City
of Skopje and the Council of the City of Skopje have primary responsibility for transport pricing, ticketing, planning,
operations, and information services. Information on the public transport network is provided at real-time information
boards at bus stops but no web or mobile real-time information service exists yet.
Skopje has 2400 taxis available through 700 operators and 150 companies. Services are booked by phone or via the
viknitaxi or mkTaxi apps. Fares are charged based on distance and cannot be paid electronically. No formal carpool or
peer-to-peer rideshare services are currently available in Skopje. Some informal initiatives are in process using social
media, but no data are collected. There is, however, a culture of grouping together to share taxi services resulting in
18
lower costs than bus. In a recent survey 31% of respondents were sure they would use a sharing service and a further 34%
were probably willing to. There is a bike rental service available in Skopje with five locations offering 325 rental bikes
from 5 bike-share stations.
The City of Skopje and the PE for Public Transport use social media for communication and information provision
purposes. Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube are the primary platforms used, with Facebook playing the dominant role.
Comments and information from these platforms are collected for informational purposes. The primary advantages of
social media are seen as the speed of information dissemination, though this is countered by a lack of control. Interactive
communication is a challenge.
A significant problem in Skopje is the expansion and suburbanisation of the city with increasing numbers of commuters
(18% of city population) travelling from outside the city: 60% of these by car. Skopje is aiming to lower the use of private
cars during peak travel times, and reducing emissions and congestion. This identifies the target audience for SocialCar as
single occupancy vehicle drivers and commuters across the city – in particular, those travelling into the central city area.
19
3. SocialCar market framework
This chapter introduces the market framework for SocialCar, developed in WP6 of the project, identifying the
key drivers, related barriers and associated actors. Section 3.1 provides an brief overview of the market
framework (the full market framework is documented in T6.1.1 ‘Report on SocialCar Market Framework’) and
then Section 3.2 presents a summary of site specific needs identified through the market framework
assessment conducted by each SC site. The full set of market framework tables for each site are reproduced in
Annex C. These also identify the barriers to development of the SocialCar product identified by each site and
the key actors associated with either the drivers or barriers at each site. These key actors (including end
users/travellers) are the focus of the set of more detailed surveys described in Chapter 4.
3.1 Introduction to the Market Framework
There are two key areas in which the SocialCar tool aims to provide innovative solutions:
1. Innovation in trip planning: the need for a tool which offers complete multi-modal trip planning including
connections to PT from new mobility services.
2. Innovation in real time trip management: the need for a tool which uses real-time travel information to
enable informed decisions at time of travel and allow better multi-modal responses to unexpected
disruptions while en-route.
Building directly on the output of T1.2, T1.3 (state-of- the-art reviews in carpooling services, public transport
status informationwhich were reported in D1.1) and T1.4 (utilising Social Media to engage with public
transport users and Carpooling users reported in Annex F of this document) and informed by site partner
inputs on the transport and travel conditions at their sites (see Chapter 2), the market framework identifies a
set of key drivers which will influence the demand for, or impact on the supply of the SocialCar product, as
illustrated in Figure 3.1: Three demand side drivers are identified related to changing transport environments
and operating conditions generating the need for the SocialCar product; while four supply side drivers are
related to advances in technologies, communications and data collection/storage/exchange providing the
content to enable development of the SocialCar product.
Figure 3.1: Overview of key market drivers for SocialCar
SocialCar mobile app tool providing:
a) complete multi-modal trip planning
information
b) instant response to unexpected disruptions
while en-route
2. Increase in attractiveness of public transport
services
1. Reduction in the attractiveness
of single occupancy driving
3. Emergence of a range of new mobility
services widening opportunity to
connect with PT
4. Availability and accuracy of data
(including real time data) for all modes
of transport
5. Advances in data storage, exchange
and processing
6. Developments in pre-booking,
integrated ticket and payment
functions
7. Growth in social networks and use
of social media
DEMAND SIDE DRIVERS SUPPLY SIDE DRIVERS
20
Therefore the market framework takes the form of a set of 7 tables: one for each of the identified drivers with
each table containing the factors contributing to the driver, the causes of those factors and the potential
barriers related to each factor. The set of actors associated with the factors/barriers is also provided. Annex C
presents the set of Market Framework tables as completed by each site. This market framework forms a
structured approach for establishing at each test site the suitability and conditions for development and
exploitation of the SocialCar product.
3.2 Site specific market framework assessment: identification of site needs and
barriers
Each of the SC sites have completed the market framework tables, detailed in Section 3.1, for their particular
circumstances - results from this are provided in Annex B. This section presents a summary of the outcomes
from the market framework assessment conducted by each SC site. This provides site specific identification of
new functions, needs and barriers relevant to the development of the SocialCar system.
The assessment gives a clear vision of why SocialCar is needed at each site, what SocialCar will offer the sites,
where it can/should be demonstrated and how it will be delivered and also considers barriers to development
and delivery.
3.2.1 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Edinburgh
Examining the content of the market framework tables for Edinburgh (see Annex C) we can arrive at the
following findings which help to define the details of the demonstration in Edinburgh which is likely to provide
a comprehensive test of the SocialCar tool’s functionalities and have good potential for uptake by travellers.
In summary, Driver 1 (see Fig 3.1) identifies traffic congestion problems in 5 important areas (Fig 3.2).
1) The city centre and main arterial routes into the city
2) Western outskirts
3) South East of city around large new developments
4) Edinburgh Park area
5) Forth Road Bridge
Figure 3.2: Typical 08.00 traffic in Edinburgh area (source: google traffic)
21
There is strong political support for reducing car use with accompanying parking and access restraint
measures in place in the centre. Edinburgh has the second highest city centre parking charges in the UK,
behind central London. There is also a buoyant economy and population growth – both of which suggest
congestion problems are likely to worsen in future.
Driver 2 suggests that many measures have been put in place to increase the attractiveness of public
transport. Importantly, there has been investment in new PT services which are segregated from the road
network and new stations to access these PT services.
1) New tram service from airport (to the West of city) into city centre.
2) New Train station at Edinburgh Park (including connection to tram services)
3) Redevelopment of Haymarket Station in the city centre (including connection to tram services)
4) New train line and stations from Tweedbank (35 miles south east of Edinburgh) into city centre
Parking policy at rail stations and free park and ride sites around the city support connections from car to PT.
The above segregated public transport service improvements coincide spatially with the worst identified
traffic congestion and so potentially offer a suitable alternative for car drivers.
Driver 3 identifies that an existing carpool service could potentially provide first mile journeys for travellers to
connect with train or tram services on the edge of or outside the city. The newly launched Uber service offers
an option around the PT stops/ stations for last mile legs of the journey along with existing taxi services which
have good supply around PT hubs. The lack of an existing active taxi-sharing facilitation tool provides
SocialCar with the opportunity to offer this facility for last mile legs of traveller’s journeys. A wide range of
existing well used taxi and private hire booking apps are available which makes a taxi-sharing facilitation
feature more feasible. A small bike share scheme is in operation at Haymarket station offering a further last
mile option for travellers (a larger city wide bike share scheme is being considered by the City).
From the above we can see (Fig 3.3) that traffic congestion and city centre parking difficulties generates a
potential demand from car drivers for connected journeys linking car and carpool to
a) the new Borders rail service to the south east of the city,
b) existing improved rail services to the west of Edinburgh including more services stopping at
Edinburgh Park station and the new Edinburgh Gateway station allowing interchange between train
and tram services (due to open Dec 2016).
c) the new Edinburgh Tram at the Ingliston park and ride (P+R) site and the new Edinburgh Gateway
station allowing interchange between train and tram services.
d) bus services at the Ferry Toll park and ride site to the north of the Forth Road bridge.
Figure 3.3: Map illustrating the refined focus of the Edinburgh pilot site
22
Last mile journeys are possible through bikeshare at Haymarket station as well as taxi and Uber services at all
PT stops/stations. Facilitating shared taxi rides is a credible possibility.
In terms of supplying the SocialCar tool, Driver 4 identifies there is good availability of open data for PT
services, including some real-time data. There is also data on road traffic conditions for the main road
network (A roads and Motorways) but more limited data for other roads. All of this should be possible to
incorporate into SocialCar and actors have been identified. Availability of data on other transport services is
held in closed proprietary software systems/databases. Access to this will require partnership agreements
with the data owners – actors have been identified for this. Real-time data on bikeshare availability exists for
the small scheme at Haymarket while real-time parking availability exists for some but not all off street
parking. There is no real-time on-street parking data available.
Driver 5 highlights that the communications infrastructure in the city and more importantly on the public
transport network is good with Edinburgh having one of the best levels of 4G coverage of any city in the UK.
Free wi-fi is available to users of most bus services and the tram service in the city. All train services plan to
offer free wi-fi for passengers in the near future. This is important in providing SocialCar users with access to a
fast, reliable and often free mobile connection.
Driver 6 reveals that there is app based pre-booking from existing suppliers available for Taxi, Ridesourcing,
and some Carpooling trips (only those where driver agrees to on-line payment). Currently, no pre-booking is
available for bike-share and there is very limited pre-booking for parking spaces. There is no pre-booking for
park and ride car parks but pre-booking is available for ‘parking at private addresses’. In terms of integrated
ticketing between modes an established travel scheme (ONE-TICKET) offers unlimited travel on buses and
rail in East Central Scotland but does not include trams yet. It also does not include other mobility services
(bikeshare, carpool, parking etc). ONE-TICKET is effectively an integrated ticket for use on services which
require no pre-booking. No integrated ticket exists for pre-bookable services.
Finally, Driver 7 illustrates that the Edinburgh public have high levels of smart phone ownership, are heavy
users of social media and there are many existing transport providers currently using social media channels to
communicate with travellers. There have also been innovative developments and experiences in Scotland of
personalising social-media engagement with travellers.
3.2.2 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Brussels
In March 2015 IBM published a very useful report about challenges and recommendation for better mobility in
Brussels. This was part of their Smarter Cities Challenge
(https://www.ibm.com/multimedia/portal/V837502Y37964J52/50224_SCC_Brussels_Report_LR.pdf). In the
report the following challenge is highlighted:
The challenge:
During peak travel hours, the Brussels-Capital Region faces serious traffic congestion challenges involving both private vehicles and public transportation. In 2013, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published an economic survey for Belgium, which cites Brussels as one of the most congested cities in Europe. This is partly due to the Region’s rapidly growing and diverse population, as well as the presence of numerous international institutions, such as NATO and the European Community, which each have specific traffic needs of their own in addition to those of visitors when hosting events or summits. Another challenge faced by the Region is the wide range of transportation stakeholders that exist across the local, national and European levels, each pursuing various objectives. This lack of centralized oversight has impeded the control and governance of traffic and transportation, exacerbating the Region’s mobility issues.
23
There are two primary groups of commuters causing congestion in the Region. The first involves the 52% of the commuter population that travels daily from outer regions to the Brussels-Capital Region for work. The second group comprises commuters who live in the Brussels-Capital Region and travel within the Region. Traffic congestion in the Brussels-Capital Region can be addressed only as a metropolitan-area issue given that the flow of traffic spans the regions of Flanders and Wallonia, as well as the municipalities comprising the Brussels-Capital Region. Another contributing factor to traffic congestion is the prevalence of personal vehicle use rather than public transportation. This is a result of the significant federal tax benefits provided to employers and employees using company cars. Parking availability also is an important factor causing traffic congestion. During peak hours, as much as 30% of the vehicles circulating in traffic in the Region are looking for parking. The lack of available parking is a two-fold issue. First, parking capacity itself is insufficient to accommodate the number of vehicles each day. Second, capacity is not available where it’s needed, such as at park-and-ride facilities located at public transportation hubs. The IBM Smarter Cities Challenge team found that public transportation offerings are not compelling alternatives to cars for many people. One reason for this is that the Region’s various transportation providers are managed independently, which results in a lack of metropolitan-wide planning, difficult access to public transportation services and non-integrated multimodal mobility services. Finally, the region’s limited integrated mobility data, both static and dynamic, has impeded effective planning across the metropolitan area and its various modes of transportation
The report clearly describes several challenges to which SocialCar offers a very good solution.
From the Market Framework tables for Brussels, Driver 1 identifies traffic congestion problems coming from
commuters going to Brussels from Wallonia and Flanders, but also inside Brussels. Congestion on routes in to
Brussels are increasing and are not only limited to certain corridors (see Fig 3.4).
Figure 3.4: Worst congested links in Brussels and Antwerp road network (Verkeerscentrum Vlaanderen 2011)
In Brussels there is the need to focus on two different target groups: commuters from outside Brussels, and
people travelling inside Brussels. For people coming from outside Brussels: information about Park and Ride,
and carpooling is very important. Awareness about public transport is already very high, and even trains
24
during rush-hours are congested. For people travelling inside Brussels the needs and challenges are more
complicated. For those travellers integrated ticketing and information is highly desirable.
For Driver 2, SocialCar is very timely as there is a lot of willingness by the policy makers and public transport
operators to increase the capacity and quality of public transport going to the Brussels Region. In September
the NMBS/SNCB released their S-network: Suburban rail network, with new stations in Brussels. The plan is
rolling out the next years. Figure 3.5 depicts the combination of trains and local public transport offered by
STIB/MIVB. Despite the political fragmentation in this area, it is evidence of cooperation between the city and
regional level.
For Driver 3 the market circumstances are favourable: there are different operators of shared mobility. For
Carpooling, Taxistop is offering an open platform, which already provides APIs, to share data. Taxistop is also
offering its services to people in Brussels, but also the other region where most commuters are coming from.
There’s also bike-sharing, car-sharing and Collecto, a shared taxi scheme. Static data of those services is
available today. The Taxi sector, is more fragmented, and it’s unclear how cooperation could succeed.
Figure 3.5: Brussels public transport network
For driver 4 a lot of static data is available today. Real-time data exists but is not always available. However,
there is political willingness towards open data. The wi-fi, or 4G network was a huge issue a few years ago, but
the Brussels legislation has changed and the quality is increasing (Driver5).
Integrated ticketing in Brussels (Driver 6) is already available on a certain level. MOBIB, the Belgian initiative
to make a standard, to integrate all public transport operators, and even other transport services, started in
the Brussels region first, and has expanded to the other regions. Nevertheless, the integration is only partial.
The growth of social media and networks, is also prevalent in Brussels and Belgium. (Driver 7).
25
3.2.3 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Canton Ticino
Examining the content of the market framework tables for Canton Ticino we can arrive at the following
findings which help to define the details of the demonstration in Ticino.
In summary Driver 1 identifies traffic congestion problems in these important areas (as illustrated in Fig 3.6):
1) Cities, main routes into and from principal cities
2) Routes from and to national borders
3) Main route Locarno-Bellinzona
There is limited political support for reducing car use: companies mobility is only partly supported, however,
PT benefit from some subvention. A private parking tax (mainly for traffic producers as shopping centres,
industrial sites, …) is currently being studied, but is not yet applied. GDP and population have both grown over
the last years.
Driver 2 suggests that many measures have been put in place to increase the attractiveness of public
transport. Importantly there has been investment in new PT services which are segregated from the road
network and new stations to access these PT services.
1) New train line Stabio-Mendrisio (important connection for workers coming from Varese region to
Mendrisio/Lugano, line Stabio-Arcisate (and the doubling of the existing line Arcisate-Varese) in Italy is in
construction but not yet finished)
2) New train station at Mendrisio San Martino (important industrial and shopping centre), other stations are
being renovating
3) 4 new regional bus lines
4) 39 park and ride (P+R) nearby train stations, in Lugano 2 direct city bus lines from P+R to city centre.
Figure 3.6: Typical 08.00 traffic in Canton Ticino (Piano di Magadino and Sottoceneri regions) (source: google traffic)
Driver 3 identifies that an existing carpool service exist, but has very few users. However, others services have
more success, providing first mile journeys for travellers to connect with train or bus services or proposing
carpooling teams within employees of the same company (or site) to the work place. Newly launched closed
employer app proposes several alternatives using different transport (carpool, shuttle-bus, PT, e-bike, bike).
From the above we can see that potential demand from car drivers starts apparently from companies. Traffic
congestion is the principal negative factor for car drivers. Many companies offer free parking places for
26
employees near the workplace. Carpooling is either used to connect with P+R (specifically in Ponte Tresa,
www.bepooler.ch) or to connect employees living in the same area directly to the company workplace. Last
mile journeys are generally possible principally through bus services. Taxi (few users) and bikesharing (few
bike sharing stations) are also sometimes available. Shared taxi is not currently used.
Driver 4 identifies there is good availability of open data for PT services, including some real-time data. In
Locarno real-time-on-street-parking data are also available. It is not known if these data can be incorporated
in SocialcarApp as it will require partnership agreements, but actors have been identified. Availability of data
on traffic conditions for the main road network, including sometimes city roads and public car park availability
are of free access. Realtime data on bikeshare availability exists for the small scheme at Lugano.
Driver 5 highlights that communication services are generally good in Canton Ticino, but are mainly furnished
by privates companies. Free wi-fi is available in train stations and some cities and regional busses, however,
there is a lack of free coverage on most of public transport. It is not planned to equip public transport with wi-
fi in the near future.
Driver 6 reveals that there is app based or online pre-booking from existing suppliers available for Taxi, P+R,
some regional buses and carsharing services, moreover, there is a multi-modal and mobility information app
with booking system for companies. Pre-booking requires no payment. Where a payment is required, it
equals buying the tickets in advance (P+R, some PT). Currently no pre-booking available for bike-share and
city centre parking. In terms of integrated ticketing between modes, ticketing is currently managed with a
tariff community (Arcobaleno), which include train, busses and boats. Tariffs are organised by regional zones.
A recent rail service abonnement system (Swisspass) includes trains, busses, boats and other mobility services
(bikesharing, carsharing).
Finally Driver 7 illustrates that the Canton Ticino public have high levels of smart phone ownership and are
heavy users of social media. Social media is mostly used to report traffic congestion or accidents (which is also
reported by travellers), PT informations are mostly communicated via app.
3.2.4 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Zagreb
Driver 1 identifies traffic congestion problems in 5 important areas as highlighted in Figure 3.7.
1) The city centre and main arterial routes into the city
2) Western outskirts
3) Eastern outskirts
4) Southern outskirts
5) Main east-west arterial route
Figure 3.7: Typical 08.00 traffic in Zagreb area (source: google traffic)
27
There is political support for reducing car use with accompanying parking and access restraint measures in
place in the centre. Furthermore, economic and population growth is occurring – both of which suggest
congestion problems are likely to worsen in future.
For Driver 2 many measures have been put in place to increase the attractiveness of public transport to
improve security and accessibility of passengers in PT: 1) Introduction of new lowfloor buses and trams; 2)
CCTV cameras in trams; 3) Real time displays on bus and tram stations; 4) E-ticketing.
Free park and ride sites around the city support connections from car to PT. The park and ride sites offer the
opportunity to avoid the worst identified traffic congestion and so potentially offer a suitable alternative for
car drivers.
In terms of Driver 3, the newly launched Uber service offers an option around the PT stops/ stations for last
mile legs of the journey along with existing taxi services which have good supply around PT hubs. A car
sharing (“SPINCITY”) system is planned to be launched in spring 2016.
Driver 4 highlights the communications infrastructure in the city is good with Zagreb having the 4G coverage.
All train services plan to offer free wi-fi for passengers in the near future. This is very important for SocialCar
to be able to function.
In terms of Driver 5 pre-booking is available for taxi, the bike sharing system and limited parking spaces on
street and in garage.
Finally, Driver 6 illustrates that the Zagreb public has high levels of smart phone ownership and are heavy
users of social media.
3.2.5 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Torino
The objective of SocialCar in Torino is to solve traffic and congestion issues, especially:
1) to intercept the private traffic that moves form the Turin metropolitan area toward the city;
2) to intercept the users who frequent the city district of San Salvario;
3) Intercept users that move from the neighbouring municipalities toward the city and that are not
served by the Turin metropolitan railway service (SFM – Servizio Ferroviario Metropolitano)
To intercept the private traffic that moves from the Turin metropolitan area toward the city
The City of Torino is part of a homogeneous metropolitan area with nearly 1.550.000 inhabitants. Many daily
trips are incoming and outgoing traffic toward and from the city and about 70% of these trips are made with
private vehicle (see Figure 3.8). With its participation to the SocialCar project, the City administration wants to
intervene on this specific segment because in the metropolitan area, unlike the city, the offer of public
transport or of mobility shared services is weak.
To intercept the users who frequent the city district of San Salvario
San Salvario Borgo is a neighborhood located not far away from the historical city centre and very close to the
former railway station. It is densely populated and characterized by a high presence of shops and crafts,
hotels and restaurants. Today San Salvario is a main entrainment area of the city. It is served by Public
Transport (including metro). There are sharing mobility stations (bike sharing, traditional car sharing and
electric car sharing) also. Being a highly attractive area, the high density of cars and the lack of parking lots
are main concerns for planners. Of course, during the weekends due to the several attractions in the area,
such problems become even more severe creating conflicts between residents and city users.
28
Figure 3.8 Movements within and between the City of Torino and surrounding metropolitan area
Intercept users that move from the neighbouring municipalities toward the city and that are not served by the
Turin metropolitan railway service
In 2013, the City launched the metropolitan railway service. This service is operated by Gruppo Torinese
Trasporti (100% owned by of the City, GTT manages the urban and suburban public transport -
http://www.gtt.to.it/en/) and Trenitalia (national railway operator). There are 8 lines covering about 90
stations, 5 of which are within the city (by 2018 they will become 8). The challenge is to connect those towns
that do not have a railway station to the towns that are served by the SFM.
3.2.6 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Brescia
Examining the content of the market framework tables for Brescia we can arrive at the following findings:
Driver 1 Identifies traffic congestion problems in three important areas (Fig 3.9):
1) arteries converging on Brescia from the east;
2) congestion due to the ongoing Motorway and ring road construction work in the west;
3) congestion at some nodes near the historical centre.
Figure 3.9: Typical 08.00 traffic in Brescia area (source: google traffic)
Journey by PT
Journey by private cars
Resto provincia= external to Metropolitan Area
Cintura = Metropolitan area - City
29
The presence of road building/construction sites along the western section of the Tangenziale Sud creates
chronic congestion on certain sections of the road network converging on Brescia. At the moment there are
no foreseeable major strategic investments to increase the capacity of these arteries.
Driver 2 suggests that many measures have been put in place to increase the attractiveness of public
transport. Importantly there has been investment in new PT services which are segregated from the road
network and new stations to access these PT services.
1. start-up of Brescia metro line in year 2013 with 17 new stations
2. consolidation of a network of stations of bike sharing service BiciMia;
3. first phase of construction of a system of car sharing service AutoMia;
4. starting a process of long-term planning for a SUMP.
Parking policy at rail stations and free or low cost interchange parking near metro stations supports
connections from car to PT.
In terms of Driver 3 there isn’t an existing carpool service and the lack of an existing active taxi-sharing
facilitation tool provides SocialCar with the opportunity to offer this facility for last mile legs of traveller’s
journeys. A bike share scheme is in operation: last mile journeys are possible through bikeshare Bicimia. There
are 69 stations in the city of Brescia (Fig 3.10) in which, through the “Omnibus Card”, it is possible to take a
bike. It is also possible to have a bicycle, in a simple way, with the free app BICIMIA, downloadable from
Google Play and Apple Store.
In terms of supplying the SocialCar tool, Driver 4 identifies there is good availability of open data for PT
services, including some real-time data. There is also data on road traffic conditions for the main road
network but more limited data for other roads. All of this means that it should be possible to incorporate this
data into SocialCar and actors have been identified. Availability of data on other transport services is held in
closed proprietary software systems/databases. Access to this will require partnership agreements with the
data owners – actors have been identified for this. Real-time data on bikeshare availability exists, real-time
parking structure availability exists. There is no real-time data available for on-street parking.
Figure 3.10 Map illustrating the Bike sharing service BiciMia, car sharing service AutoMia and metro line
30
Figure 3.11 3G and 4G signal coverage of Brescia
3.2.7 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Lazio
Examining the content of the market framework tables for Lazio Region we provides the following findings.
Driver 1 identifies traffic congestion problems in some important areas of Rome. The Rome Municipality Area
Traffic Congestion Index is the fifth in Europe (TomTom Congestion Index 2012). A second indicator to
calculate the level of congestion is the Road Infrastructure Level of Service (R.I.L.O.S) elaborated by applying
the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology. This indicator has been calculated in winter, in the
morning time of a working day during the rush-hour. According to R.I.L.O.S. congestion problems are located
in all road infrastructure entering into Rome Municipality Area:
Highways: there are traffic problems on A24 and A12 highways inflowing into Rome. A1 Highways is
congested in the segment leading to the interconnection with State Road 4 “Salaria”.
State & Regional Roads: there are congestion problems on State Road 7 “Appia”, State Road 4 “Salaria”
(segments Rome Ring Road-Monterotondo and Passo Corese-Rieti), Regional Road 148 “Pontina”
(segment Rome-Aprilia), Regional Road 2 “Cassia bis”, Regional Road 207 “Nettunense”, Regional Road 3
“Flaminia” (segment Rome Ring Road-Civita Castellana and close to Magliano Sabina).
Provincial roads: congestion problems are also observed on the Provincial and Old Roman Roads
inflowing into Rome Municipality Area.
This situation is due to the fact that residents of Rome suburbs increased by 35% between 2001 and 2011,
while Rome residents increased only by 2.8%. This trend is going to persist in the following years worsening
the congestion problems. Considering this scenario, Lazio Region and Rome Municipality have elaborated
many Strategic Guidelines aiming at reducing private car use.
Driver 2 suggests that the Regional and Rome Public Transport System has a low level of efficiency. Citizens
are not eager to use PT services. Nevertheless, new Metro Lines have been inaugurated, many spots allow wi-
fi connections and an Integrated Ticketing System exists.
Driver 3: in Lazio Region there exist a number of different open and closed carpool services and a wide range
of well used taxi, shared taxi and private hire booking apps. All these mobility services could potentially
provide first and last mile journeys for travellers to connect with train, bus or tram services on the edge of or
outside the city.
In terms of supplying the SocialCar tool, Driver 4 identifies that there is good availability of open data and of
real-time data for PT services. There is also data on road traffic conditions. All of this information is managed
directly by Lazio Region through Luceverde Lazio. This means it could be possible to incorporate them into
the SocialCar Platform.
Driver 5 highlights that the communications
infrastructure in the city and more importantly on the
public transport network is good with Brescia having a
good 3G and 4G coverage (see Fig 3.11). Free Wi-Fi is
available in the center of town and in many facilities
but not on PT lines. Free Wi-Fi is also available on high
speed trains.
31
Driver 5: Lazio Region has one of the best levels of 4G coverage in Italy. There are Wi-Fi connections in A and
B Rome Metro lines and on 20 trams, 11 final stops and 29 electronic stops. This is very important for
SocialCar to be able to function.
Driver 6 reveals the possibility of booking and paying for parking spaces and taxi services by mobile phone
Apps, vouchers and e-tickets. In terms of tariff integration passengers can purchase ‘Metrebus Roma” and
“Metrebus Lazio” tickets. With these tickets they can travel using every kind of regional and local public
transport (rail, tram, bus, Metro).
Finally, Driver 7 illustrates that Lazio Region citizens have high levels of smart phone ownership, are heavy
users of social media and that there are many existing transport providers currently using social media
channels to communicate with travellers.
3.2.8 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Luxembourg
Driver 1 reveals that Luxembourg experiences very large volumes of cross-border workers with associated
heavy levels of daily traffic from Belgium, Germany and France which is causing serious mobility problems. In
2010, 86% of commuters crossed the border by car, compared to only 9% by train and 5% by bus. Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) and employment is continuing to grow in the city which will lead to worsening traffic
problems. One of the priorities is to increase this modal share to meet targets of 20% and 25% in 2020 and
2030 respectively. Traffic problems force the majority of cross-border commuters to leave Luxembourg as
soon as they have finished work, rather than staying for the evening and spending money in the Grand Duchy.
The time taken to get home to neighbouring countries also restricts commuters' involvement in
Luxembourg's social and political life. The worst traffic congestion problems happen in 3 important routes
into Luxembourg: A1 - from/to Germany; A4, A3, A13 - from/to France; A6 - from/to Belgium.
Driver 2 shows the public transport in Luxembourg consists of a network of 27 bus routes partially using
dedicated bus lanes. The city has a relatively modern bus fleet because of a programme, which replaces 10 to
30 old buses every year. Accordingly, nearly 80% of buses meet the Euro V emissions standards, are hybrid
vehicles or are Enhanced Environmentally Friendly Vehicles (EEV). For 2020, the city’s Air Quality Plan aims to
have only buses with Euro 5 emissions standards or higher. The ‘m-Kaart’ integrated ticket is making it easier
for commuters to make connected journeys.
In the framework of the mobility strategy MODU as well as a sectorial mobility plan, the construction of a
tram line is due for completion in 2020, and this will form the central pillar for promoting the public network.
At the moment the planning is in the tendering process. It will operate on 16 km with 24 stations and will cost
about €560 million. Furthermore, an expansion of the bus system with a new diameter line and an
optimisation of public transport connection spots is planned. Peripheral train stations are being modernised
and extended, and an additional lift station up the hill unburdens the main station.
Figure 3.12: P+R within Luxembourg and at cross border sites
An increase of Park & Ride facilities is a further
pillar to support increasing the share of public
transport to 25% by 2020. Figure 3. 12 shows the
Park and Ride that Luxembourg has to offer. The
goal is to decrease road traffic and to offer single
car drivers the opportunity to switch to public
transport or to combine the various means of
transport. Various P&R have been put into place
in order to support multimodality: P&R with bus
access (blue) and P&R with Train access (red)
have been identified in Figure 3.12.
32
Figure 3.13: P&R sites providing focus for SocialCar in Luxembourg
Relating to Driver 3,in the framework of its Air Quality Plan 2011, the national Mobility Strategy MODU from
2012 and the Environmental Action Plan 2014, Luxembourg actively promotes soft mobility and intends to
increase its share. Individual measures undertaken to reach this target are: to expand the cycling network
from 140 km in 2010 to 160 km in 2015, to increase the area of the 20 km/h zones de rencontre and implement
projects like living without car. The city’s bike sharing scheme “vel’oh!” is constantly being extended. Since its
introduction in 2008, the number of bikes and stations increased from 250 bikes and 25 stations, to about 770
bikes and 70 stations in 2015.
Driver 4 identifies that the city of Luxembourg provides an interactive map, enabling to identify every kind of
parking, bus stops, and train stations in the city of Luxembourg. http://www.topographie.lu/client/index.jsp.
Also "Mobiliteit.lu" is a mobile app which offers detailed information before and during your journey with the
public transport in the Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg. A new, nation-wide project called “mLive”, is underway
aiming at better coordination between the various means of public transport – through this more information
will be “real time” and readily available to consumers and businesses. The data feeding these services is
owned and used by the Ministry. It is also possible to pay for parking with a mobile phone through the e-City
system.
Driver 5 highlights that Luxembourg is among the leading European Union members in adoption of digital
technology by individuals and businesses, according to the EU’s e-Government benchmark. Last year more
than 90% of people in the Grand Duchy used the internet at least once a week, compared with an EU average
of 72%. It is also one of the most advanced countries in Europe in terms of data handling resources and
expertise.
In terms of Driver 6, the “m-Kaart” integrated ticket can be used on all public transport in Luxembourg.
Additionally, the card will give holders access to mBox - bike parks. Later on, Carsharing, Park & Ride and
Velo'oh services will be included too. The “m-Pass” is the “company-version” of the “m-Kaart”.
Despite the efforts of the Ministry,
strong congestion during peak
hours is on the A1 (from or to
Germany), A4, A3, A13 (from or to
France) and A6 (from or to
Belgium). Too many people are
using their own car and P&R that
are close to the city centre are
used to their full capacities.
The key P&R that are at the
outskirts of, or already in
Luxembourg City and are the
hub’s that give also access to
public transport (bus):
1) P&R Bouillon
2) P&R Luxexpo and
3) P&R Kockelscheuer
33
Finally Driver 7, a 2015 survey into ICT revaled that the use of the internet is now part of everyday life: almost
all resident households (97%) have Internet access at home. 94% of Internet users connect almost every day
and 81% connect outside their home and their workplace. 8 in 10 people are surfing on a smartphone or a
laptop. Twitter is already a widely used medium by the public to share information on transport delays.
In conclusion Luxembourg offers really good conditions to implement SocialCar to the cross border commuter
market.
3.2.9 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Ljubljana
Market framework tables of Ljubljana have exposed the following demonstration areas where demonstration
of SocialCar tool will have the greatest potential for testing. It is daily commuting that is becoming one of the
biggest problems in the Ljubljana region and which should be resolved by reducing the need for migrations
(polycentric development of the region), by promoting sustainable mobility (PPT, P+R, railway transport) or
innovative measures like the SocialCar tool. From the results of the Market Framework tables, we have
identified in Driver 1 the main locations for potential SocialCar testing within the greater Ljubljana area (Fig
3.14) which are:
1) Daily commuting corridors from north-eastern outskirts to the city of Ljubljana (from settlements Mengeš,
Trzin and Domžale to the City centre and BTC Shopping centre)
2) Commuting corridor from north-western outskirts to the City of Ljubljana (From settlements Škofja Loka
and Medvode to the City centre)
3) City centre with main train and bus stations
4) Western corridor from Brezovica to P+R facility Dolgi-most and city centre
5) South Eastern corridor from settlements Škofljica and Brezovica to P+R Rudnik and City centre of Ljubljana
6) Corridor for highway commuters from east Slovenia
Figure 3.14: Typical peak-hour corridors in Ljubljana metropolitan area (source: google traffic, 2015)
There is a strongly underlined central position of the city of Ljubljana and a star-shaped urban agglomeration
(connection and merging of settlements) along important traffic corridors. A compact city has developed
within the ring road around Ljubljana, while settlements are expanding outwards from the city centre in five
development directions:
-towards the north-west: Medvode – Škofja Loka – Kranj (urban agglomeration expanding into the
neighbouring region);
34
- towards the north: Trzin – Domžale – Kamnik;
- towards the east: Dol – Litija;
- towards the south-east: Škofljica – Šmarje Sap – Grosuplje and
- towards the south-west: Brezovica – Borovnica – Vrhnika
Related to Driver 2, and as can be seen from Figure 3.15, in Ljubljana there is currently strong support for
measures that are able to provide intermodal transport chains enabling transfers between personal transport,
public transport and non-motorised transport (cycling and walking) – bike sharing systems, P+R
implementation, improvements on the bus stations, following the shared space principle in the city centre.
Further on, the parking policy, expansion of P+R and yellow lanes for buses, will additionally lower the
attractiveness of personal vehicles in favour of more sustainable means of transportation which also gives an
additional added value for any form of carpooling or ride-sharing services.
Currently the most important objective for the Ljubljana urban region is to lower the high levels of emissions
and noise from traffic as well as traffic congestion, improve the quality of living in the region through greater
mobility, reduce the use of personal vehicles and promote the transition to public transport and non-
motorised means of travel. As it can be seen from the Driver 2 the regional development programme for
Ljubljana urban region is aiming to achieve:
- Promotion of the use of public transport;
- Modernisation of the railway infrastructure railway network;
- Promotion of non-motorised mobility that can additionally support quality of PT network;
- Further implementation of yellow lanes for PT in corridors entering to Ljubljana;
- Additional development and promotion of route planning tools for PT users and
- Development and implementation of PT (regional bus, urban bus and train) integration with single tickets.
Figure 3.15: Plan of public transport and P+R services for Ljubljana (Source: Public transport in the Ljubljana urban region, 2010)
Driver 3 identifies that an existing carpool service (Prevoz.org) could potentially provide first mile journeys for
travellers to connect with train or tram services on the edge of or outside the city. It is the only and the most
important initiative providing nationwide carpooling services. The website is mainly used by students who
travel from home to universities and for other daily commuters. The lack of an existing active taxi-sharing
facilitation tool provides SocialCar with the opportunity to offer this facility for last mile legs of traveller’s
journeys. A successful bike share scheme BICIKELJ is in operation in the city and will be spread next year
(more than 20 new share points) will offer a further last mile option for travellers.
35
From Figure 3.16 we can see where the main sustainable mobility measures are being implemented in the city
of Ljubljana and will have influence on development of carpool services.
Figure 3.16: Illustration of the focus on the Ljubljana site (source: google traffic, 2015)
In terms of supplying the SocialCar tool, Driver 4 identifies that there is only partial availability of open data
for PT services. Real-time bus information across Ljubljana is available, whereas real-time train information is
only partly available as open data. Information is provided to users on main stations reporting via speakers
and information tables, delays are also available on the web site of Slovenian Railways. For real-time
information on congestion there is RSS provided by the transport operator’s web pages and on station
information tables. There are some real-time parking data, but no real-time information on P&R systems in
Ljubljana. There is also data on road traffic conditions for the main road network (Google Traffic). Availability
of data on other transport services is held in closed software databases. Access to this information requires
agreements with the data owners.
Driver 5 highlights that the mobile communications network is good with Ljubljana having one of the best
levels of 4G and LTE coverage of Slovenian cities. There is no free Wi-Fi on buses offered by LPP in Ljubljana.
Rail operator SŽ Potniški promet is planning to offer free Wi-Fi for passengers in the near future. There is free
Wi-Fi available in the City of Ljubljana with the best coverage in the city centre (free for 1 hour a day). This is
important in providing SocialCar users with access to a fast, reliable and often free mobile connection.
Analysis within the Driver 6 indicates that there are many additional applications and web portals for PT, taxi
and other services, yet hardly any offers reservations and pre-booking. Currently, there is no pre-booking
available for bike-share. Apps only enable users to see how many parking spaces there are available, but
(beside purchasing monthly permits for residents) there is no option to reserve public car places in advance.
The Urbana value and time card is an important factor for PT development in Ljubljana since it became very
popular in the past years. The Urbana card can also be used for paying parking fees, for BicikeLJ public bikes
and libraries in Ljubljana. Purchase of tickets is not yet available online (Urbana card can be bought and
credited on vending machines). Some PT operators do offer the online service (for monthly tickets), but it is
not yet commonly spread. Currently there is no integrated ticketing system in Ljubljana for multiple PT
options, but it is expected to be implemented within few years.
Driver 7 shows that Ljubljana’s population is characterised by high levels of mobile phone ownership, citizens
are frequent users of internet and approximately one third of the population are Facebook users and there are
existing transport providers currently using Facebook to communicate with travellers.
36
3.2.10 Interpretation of Market Framework tables for Skopje
Driver 1 suggests that the city of Skopje suffers traffic congestion problems in 3 important zones:
the core city area, covering both of the surrounding street rings,
some prime corridors in the form of major or collector streets leading traffic to/from the core area,
public urban functions generating traffic on a daily level.
The strong orientation of the citizens towards private cars and lack of some express city roadways causes
mixing of transit and local traffic and burdening of intersection zones on lower street levels. Increase in GDP
and urban population feeding the city’s traffic congestion suggests a worsening situation in future. Political
support for reducing car use is present mostly through parking prices and measures within the PT segment.
Driver 2 identifies most of the measures undertaken by the City of Skopje in order to make the PT segment
more attractive and appropriate to every day passengers. For now all the investments are made for the PT as
a component of the existing road network of the city with no segregated services existing but several bus
priority “yellow lines” plan to be implemented in 2016. The bus fleet has been completely renewed,
introducing double-deck vehicles for the busiest lines and low capacity vehicles for some low occupancy lines.
Some bus lines have been extended answering the growing needs of the citizens.
Bus-stops and the space around them have been redesigned for easier recognition and approach. Variable
Message Sign (VMS) information tables have been installed at bus stops offering more accurate information
for the passengers. An Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) system has been introduced at the beginning of
2016 with full operation including all of the operators foreseen by May 2016.
An integrated ticketing system, including public and all the private operators, is planned to be fully
operational from May 2016. Possibilities for better interchange between traffic modes are limited at the
moment but recognized within strategic documents (P&R facilities).
Driver 3 explains that variety of mobility services is limited to the taxi and bike segment. Skopje has a
developed bike-share service with 5 rent-or-leave stations located by some of the biggest travel generating
urban functions (mostly trading centers). The taxi segment is currently strengthened with some smartphone
applications allowing easier excess to taxi services. No formal carpooling services operate, but informal
carpooling exists within the city or between towns at the level of limited individual cooperation between
passengers well known to each other.
Driver 4 identifies that PT open data are available in the moment mostly on the official site of the PT
enterprises or on installed VMS on bus-stations. The fully operational AVL system will bring real-time data
even closer to passengers. The city’s traffic conditions are monitored by the established TMC Center,
collecting traffic data trough the previously installed loop-detectors. Also, development of a parking space
availability system, with the following app, is planned to start this year. While the infrastructure has recently
been installed for collecting real-time data for car taffic and PT services and is planned for parking, at present
none of this real-time data is available in a format suitable for use by SocialCar.
Driver 5 confirms the generation and storage of traffic data and indicates that 4G coverage is expanding over
the city. At the moment free wi-fi is available in the PT fleet and is expected to cover private operators fleets
from mid-year. Most of the public spaces also has free wi-fi coverage.
Driver 6 reveals that pre-booking is available within the parking segment, for reserving parking spaces over
certain periods of time. An integrated PT ticket system, with e-cards, is expected to be operational this year.
Driver 7 indicates there is a recognized spreading of smartphone technology as well as social network use.
37
4. Mapping SocialCar new functionalities with site needs and barriers
D1.1 ‘The SocialCar Arena’ presents a set of user experiences / use cases for the SocialCar product and derives
from this the set of functions which are required to be developed within SocialCar to provide these use cases.
Section 3.4 of D1.1 provides a high level functional specification for the set of new functions which are
required. The completed market framework tables for each site (see Annex C), summarised in the previous
section, provide information on the key stakeholders relating to each identified barrier for each site and also
provide relevant content relating to each of the drivers and their needs/barriers. Between December 2015 and
January 2016 a set of more detailed site needs surveys were delivered to the identified key stakeholders at
each site. These key stakeholder surveys have been used to establish a mapping between the new
functionalities identified for SocialCar (Section 3.4 of D1.1) and the site specific needs and barriers. Figure 4.1
provides a listing of the SocialCar new functionalities on the left hand side and indicates the key stakeholders
on the right hand side which have contributed information on site specific needs and barriers.
Figure 4.1: Relationship diagram for new functionalities and key stakeholders
End users /
Travellers
Public Transport
data providers
Public Transport
operators
Carpool service
providers
Traffic information
data providers
Car park data
providers
Traffic managers in
city authourities
Other mobility
service providers
Trip Preferences
Provide PT planning info
Provide carpool planning info
Provide car planning info
Provide car-park planning info
Provide bike-share planning info
Provide taxi + ridesourcing info
Provide real-time PT info
Provide real-time carpool info
Provide real-time traffic info
Provide real-time car-park info
Provide real-time bike-share info
Real-time taxi + ridesourcing info
Trip Payment
Pre-trip
plan
nin
g
On
-trip p
lann
ing
SocialCar Functionalities Key Stakeholders
Integration of Social Media
38
In the remainder of this section we discuss each of the new functions and provide a mapping to the needs and
barriers related to each function which are currently experienced at each site as indicated from the in depth
site needs surveys with key stakeholders.
As can be seen from Figure 4.1, the first key stakeholders are end users/travellers. In relation to this group
short surveys were completed by end users / travellers at three SocialCar sites to gain initial opinion on the
need and desire for such an app. These surveys were undertaken at two lightning sites (Edinburgh and
Brussels) plus one of the follower sites (Zagreb). In addition to establishing the respondents current travel
habits and previous experiences with carpooling, journey planners and social media, opinion was sought on
the perceived usefulness of a range of functions/features which may be offered by SocialCar as well as the
factors which motivate them most when considering changes to their travel behaviour. The survey was
delivered in several ways: through an on-line survey to employees whose offices were located in central or
targeted areas of the sites as well as through face-to-face interview with public transport users in Brussels and
at park and ride sites in Edinburgh. In addition the on-line survey was e-mailed to registered members of the
SEStran Tripshare carpool service around the Edinburgh area. This provided a good mix of car commuters,
public transport users, those already making connections between car and public transport and those with
experience of carpooling. In total there were 314 responses from the Edinburgh site; 121 from the Brussels site
and 192 from the Zagreb site. Fig 4-2 summarises the breakdown of traveller type at each site.
Figure 4.2 User survey responses: main travel mode for most frequent trip
The furthest journeys were in Edinburgh with an average of 19.5km, almost double those in Zagreb, but the
average travel times were similar across sites reflecting greater use of slower modes in Brussels and Zagreb.
The average speed for travellers in Edinburgh was 33km/h, 27km/h in Brussels and only 22km/h in Zagreb.
In Zagreb 21% of car users stated they experience bad congestion, with 13% encountering this on a
regular basis; 41% experince regular minor congestion. For Edinburgh, there is a higher proportion that
experience bad congestion 33% (17% on regular basis) with only 20% experiencing regular minor
congestion. Car users from Brussels indicated the worst congestion with 38% describing this as bad, and
34% experiencing bad congestion on a regular basis; a further 29% experience regular minor congestion.
There were few problems with parking availability in Brussels, but 13% and 21% indicated it was often
difficult to find parking in Edinburgh and Zagreb respectively. Parking cost was felt to be free or
reasonable for 96% in Edinburgh, 88% in Brussels and 76% in Zagreb.
For those that use public transport, the majority access by foot, with only 18% in Edinburgh, 6% in
Brussels, and 13% in Zagreb accessing by car. A sizeable proportion access by bike (18%) or other PT
(13%) in Brussels. Regular slight delays on public transport with occasional long delays were experienced
by 18% in Edinburgh, 32% in Brussels, and 10% in Zagreb.
42% of respondents had used carpooling in Edinburgh with a slightly lower level of 31% in Brussels and
15% in Zagreb. Over a quarter of those carpooling in Brussels had done so to connect to a public transport
service, while only 7% Edinburgh and 45 Zagreb.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Edinburgh
Brussels
Zagreb
39
Looking at previous journey planning experiences, half of those in Edinburgh had used a journey planner,
69% in Brussels and only 16% in Zagreb. At all three sites the most commonly used journey planner was
Google Maps. At all sites over 80% of those who use journey planners do so before travel with 44% in
Edinburgh using them during travel, 55% in Brussels and 65% in Zagreb.
Three quarters of those in Edinburgh and Brussels use social media with just over half of those in Zagreb
stating they use social media. Facebook was the most commonly used social media across all three sites.
Half the social media users at the Edinburgh site had used social media for travel updates, while only a
fifth had done so at the other two sites.
Respondents were asked about the usefulnesss of 10 potential SocialCar features (see Figure 4.3). This spider
chart reflects, for each potential SocialCar function, its usefulness as perceived by the respondents – the
further from the centre representing increasing usefulness. This indicates that respondents in Brussels
perceived the SocialCar functions to be more useful than those in Edinburgh and Zagreb.
Overall the top three most useful features were identified as:
1. ”Instant re-planning of trip options in the event of delay/disruption”,
2. ”Real time information on delays and disruptions to public transport services (relevant to your journey)”
3. ”Real time information on parking space availability”
This emphasises the importance of SocialCar to provide on-trip updates to users in real-time. The next most
useful function identified was provision of ”Detailed information on how and where to make connections to
public transport”. This was preceived to be especially useful in Brussels where the proportion of respondents
which are regular public transport users is highest.
Other important findings revealed from the user surveys related to trip payment and social media use have
been included in sections 4.6 and 4.7 respectively. The full analysis of the surveys is provided in Annex D.
Figure 4.3 User Survey Responses: Relative preceived usefulness of different SocialCar functions
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
Detailed information on howand where to make
connections to publictransport
Information on the overallprice of trips involving
connections between modes
Information on parkingprovision and price at
connection points
Real time information onparking space availability
Information on carpoolingoptions for your entire
journey
Information on carpoolingoptions to access public
transport connection points
Real time information ondelays and disruptions topublic transport services
(relevant to your journey)
Instant re-planning of tripoptions in the event of
delay/disruption
Information on bike-shareprovision, cost and real-time
availability
Integrated and pre-bookableMobile-ticket for your entire
journey (includingparking/carpool/bike-share)
Edinburgh
Brussels
Zagreb
40
4.1 Registration – Trip Preferences As identified in D1.1 ‘The SocialCar Arena’ the most basic SC functionality is Registration and is common
across all sites. There are no specific barriers identified at any site relating to this. In terms of needs, the Travel
Preferences relating to transport modes (i.e. train, bus, tram, car, etc.) will vary by site according to the
modes of travel which exist at each site. For example, there is no need to offer a tram preference when no
trams exist. The travel preference needs and barriers for each site are detailed in Table 4.1. Specific barriers
include a limited bike share in Edinburgh; a minimal train service in Zagreb; tender for bike-share in Lazio still
to be awarded; new tram system planned for Luxembourg not expected to complete before 2019;
ridesourcing banned through legislation in Brussels, Torino, Brescia and Lazio. It should be noted that while
external carpool services do not exist at several sites, this can be compensated by SocialCar offering and
facilitating its own internal carpool matching service between SocialCar users. A similar matching service can
also be offered to SC users to allow them to find and communicate with suitable matches with a view to
agreeing to share a taxi (but with subsequent booking and payment undertaken outside of SocialCar).
Table 4.1 Functionality: Registration Travel Preferences
Site Needs
Bus Train Tram Metro/ Light rail
Carpool existing external
SC Carpool internal
Ride-sourcing
Taxi SC Shared taxi
Bike share
Edinburgh
Brussels
Canton Ticino
Zagreb
Torino
Brescia
Lazio
Luxembourg
Ljubljana
Skopje
Mode of travel exists at the site
Mode of travel needs to be developed within SocialCar
Mode of travel does not currently exist at the site but is planned
Mode of travel does not exist at the site
4.2 Trip Management Activities - Trip setting Within trip setting the user needs to select an origin and destination. This selection may be done by inputting
the addresses, the GPS coordinates or by selection on a map. Due to the development of universal digital
mapping products which enable geocoding, this is possible across all sites and takes account of variances in
how addresses may be described in different countries. Many mapping products now exist across all SC sites:
e.g. Google Maps, HERE maps, Apple MapKit. These are typically free to use, but business licenses are
required for high volume use. However, they do not provide access to the road network database on which
they are based. This is a key requirement for SocialCar as it will need to be able to add and adjust the
attributes associated with links and nodes in the road network. While some countries provide open access to
high quality mapping alongside the road network database (e.g. Ordnance Survey OS Open Roads
https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html), this is not the case across all
SocialCar sites.
Open Street Map (OSM) is an open data, free to use mapping product which does provide access to the
underlying network data. The map coverage is worldwide, but as it is built by a community of local
41
contributors the quality of the network data varies by location. Although free to use, there are certain
restrictions on ‘heavy use’ which need to be borne in mind when using OSM. In general, anyone is free to use
OSM for any purpose as long as they credit OpenStreetMap and its contributors. If users alter or build upon
the data in certain ways, they may distribute the result only under the same licence. See the OSM Copyright
and Licence for details.
Other trip setting needs such as selecting date or time require standard procedures across sites with no
associated barriers.
4.3 Trip Management Activities - Pre-trip planning
Pre-trip planning requirements relate to the need for the SocialCar journey planning algorithms to have
access to static data on a number of attributes for all the modes of travel identified in Table 4.1. These
attributes include travel time per link for each mode, stop / station / carpark / taxi-rank locations and
charactersitics (e.g. facilities and capacities). Other information such as cost of use and pricing structures is
also required as well as general information on service providers and how to use services.
In addition to the type of data which is required, a very important consideration is the form in which the data
may be provided/exchanged. There are 4 main forms in which the data may be available:
Webpage information (non machine readable information)
Static data files - Data files which rarely change
Feeds - Data files refreshed at regular intervals (can be considered live feeds if refreshed at least
every 5 minutes)
API (Application Programming Interface) - Enabling a query from an application to receive a bespoke
response, depending on the parameters supplied
Data files need to be presented in a machine readable format if they are to be used directly by SocialCar
developers. These can include XML, JSON, HTML, CSV, or RSS feeds.
The following subsections provide the details on type and form of data for each mode at each SC site.
4.3.1 Provide public transport planning information
In the countries where there is a good level of open data for public transport the information available will
usually be free, accurate and comprehensive. In the other countries the quality of the data available depends
The push towards open public transport data
continues (http://index.okfn.org/dataset/timetables/;
http://www.uitp.org/benefits-open-data), but the
availability of such open data varies by country. Figure
4.4 shows the extent of the open data availability
across Europe with those countries in dark green
having fully open data for public transport
(Scandinavian countries, Iceland, the UK, Switzerland,
Romania). The extent of open data for public transport
decreases as the colouring changes to light green,
then to light brown, darker brown and finally to red for
countries with little or no open data for PT (Italy,
Greece, Lithuania, Bosnia). Note that along with UK
and Swedish governments, the Netherlands has now
also legislated for public access to all transport data. Figure 4.4: Extent of open data availability of public transport timetables across Europe (2014)
42
largely on the partnership arrangements which can be established with transport operators and local/regional
authorities to access the closed data they hold and data held on proprietary systems.
The public transport data requirements related to pre-trip planning comprises of public transport schedule
and stop info, general info on tickets and pricing, structured data on pricing, information about physical
accessibility and information about local facilities. The situation at each site is detailed in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Provide public transport planning information
So
urc
es
Data
Brescia
Bru
ssels
Can
ton
Ticin
o
Ed
inb
urg
h
Lazio
Reg
ion
Lju
bljan
a
Lu
xemb
ou
rg
Sko
pje
To
rino
Zag
reb
Infr
astr
uct
ure
Stop names X X X X X X X X X X
Stop coordinates (GPS) X X X X X X X X X
Stop ID X X X X X X X X X X
Info about accessibility X X X
Info about local facilities X X X X X
Other b c
Veh
icle
Accessibility for disabled X X X X X X X
Air-conditioning X X X X X X X
Numbers of seats X X X X X X X
Emission X X X X X X
Availability of WiFi X X X X
Other e f
Tar
iff
General info on tickets (text) X X X X X X X X X
General info on pricing (text) X X X X X X X X X
Full-price tariff per km, zone or trip X X X X X X X
Full price tariff per OD-relation (table/ matrix) X X
All tariffs of all products per km, zone or trip X X X X
All tariffs of all products per OD-relation X X X
Other g d
Sch
edu
le Planned arrival time per trip per stop X X X X X X X X
Planned departure time per trip per stop X X X X X X X X X
Public route number X X X X X X X X X X
Final destination per route (= stop name) X X X X X X X X X X
Other a
Legend
X Yes, data is free and open a Transit bus stations
X Yes, data is free, but not open b Check GTFS Standards, separate document
X Yes, data is available, but not free c http://regionelazio.luceverde.it/-http://www.atac.roma.it/-
X Yes, data is stored but costs & availability are unknown d Full-price tariff per zone, The ticket value is 90 minutes
No, not available e Moby + On Board Ticketing
No survey input received yet f Vehicle type, condition, registration ID etc.
g cards that allow unlimited use of public transport
In terms of the formats for defining and exchanging public transport data a common European standard was
established in the 1990’s with Transmodel: the CEN European Reference Data Model for Public
Transport Information. This has since been adopted by many European nations in developing their own
national standards and systems. Another widely used standard is the General Transit Feed
Specification (GTFS) originally developed by Google. GTFS “feeds" allow public transit agencies to publish
their transit data and developers to write applications that consume that data in an interoperable way. GTFS
data coverage and quality is variable: for instance in the UK, a ready source of comprehensive nationwide
public transport data provided by the NaPTAN/TransXChange open data has been converted to GTFS format.
However, where public transport data remains closed it is incumbent of transport operators or local
authorities to upload their data in GTFS format to Google Transit. While this is not overly complex and is
aided by a number of open source tools which allow conversion of data from other commonly used formats
43
(e.g. Transmodel) to GTFS format, it does mean that in some countries the quality of GTFS data can be
patchy. Google Maps Transit based on GTFS data now has coverage in thousands of cities worldwide with
extensive coverage across Europe (see https://maps.google.com/landing/transit/cities/ : this includes all
SocialCar sites except Luxembourg). The GTFS Data Exchange (http://www.gtfs-data-exchange.com/)
provides details on the GTFS specification, access to the data and the API documentation to access the data.
Formats and more detailed PT data specifications are documented in D2.3 ‘Data Sources and Data Formats’.
4.3.2 Provide carpooling planning information
Carpooling service providers are organisations who specialise in providing carpool services with their own
software systems (e.g. Liftshare, Taxistop, BlaBlaCar etc.). Carpooling services information is the information
on carpooling offers and requests which are held within these systems. The information is external to
SocialCar and so an interface between SocialCar and these systems is required to access the carpool service
information they hold.
Carpooling service providers vary at each of the SC sites. There are also variances in the registration, search
and booking systems/procedures which these external carpool service providers use. To incorporate use of
these services into SocialCar will require an API link allowing SC to provide the necessary data (send
registration data, send search input parameters, receive results returned and send booking confirmation,
amend booking, cancel boooking) to enable seemless interface between the two systems. If payment options
are included then the data required for this must also be included in the API data transfer.
The most fundamental barrier to providing carpooling information is the lack of short distance or local
carpooling services at most of the sites (see Table A.B.8 in Annex A). The lightning sites all have a well
established carpool service provider (Liftshare for Edinburgh; Carpool.be for Brussels and BePooler for Canton
Ticino). These servces all offer an API to their back end software systems allowing direct integration between
SocialCar user queries and the data on existing carpool offers and requests within their systems. While the
API’s offered by these external carpool software systems would allow SocialCar to send search input
parameters to the Carpool service provider system and then receive results returned, more advanced
functions which the carpool systems offer such as booking, amend booking, cancel booking, pay for trip and
initial registration on the system are all unavailable through the API. Therefore, following return of a carpool
option in response to a SocialCar journey query, the SocialCar user would need to be directed to the external
Carpool system to register, book and (possibly) pay for the carpool leg of the journey. More detailed
information on the Liftshare and Taxistop APIs are provided in Annex E.
As a means of overcoming some of these significant barriers, it has been identified in D1.1 that SocialCar
could offer its own carpooling facility (‘SocialCar internal carpooling’) to enable SocialCar users to search for
and find other suitable carpoolers within the SocialCar user community. While this has its limitations –
partcularly a relatively small mass of users – it does provide an opton for sites without any existing carpooling
service or for sites where integration with an external existing carpool provider is not possible. The
implementation of this would be simple: SocialCar drivers indicate their willingness to share their car journey
and input details on their origin, destination dates and times of travel; SocialCar passengers indicate their
desire to use carpooling in their preferences. There are no new specific needs or barriers relating to this at any
of the sites. Barriers to this are more cultural and organisational than technical. Legislation relating to
carpooling (e.g. ‘fares’ that can be charged by drivers) is poorly understood in certain countries and there is
often a lack of knowledge on insurance cover when carpooling. Q & A information relating to these concerns
should be provided by SocialCar. Where SocialCar internal carpooling is offered at a site with an external
carpool provider then care should be taken to work in coalition rather than in competition.
44
Table 4.3 Provide carpooling planning information
Site Needs Barriers
General Information on existing carpool service providers
API provided by Carpool service provider
Query offered through API
Booking offered through API
Payment offered through API
SC internal carpooling to be offered
Edinburgh
Webpage
Query only integration possible through API
Brussels
Webpage
Canton Ticino
Webpage API is via the Mobalt information service which then connects to carpool providers.
Zagreb
API No dominant provider. A few small/fragmented portals
Torino
? ? ? BlahBlahCar offer longer distance carpooling
Brescia
? ? ? BlahBlahCar offer longer distance carpooling
Lazio
Webpage
Luxembourg
Webpage
Ljubljana
Prevoz.org provides long distance carpooling
Skopje No carpooling services
4.3.3 Provide car planning information
Information for planning journeys by car relates mainly to road travel times and any access restrictions on the
network (note that car-park planning information is treated seperately in Section 4.3.4). Traffic/travel time
data can be collected by a variety of means: fixed road sensors, mobile data probes (overt and covert crowd
sourcing), and manually collected data. Web-connected fixed and mobile sensors, plus crowd-sourcing are the
emerging data collection mechanisms.
While road network and traffic data collected from sensors and mobile data probes can be collected and
transmitted for use in real-time applications (see Section 4.4.3), they are also the main means of establishing
a database of historic data. Historic traffic data which provides typical values of traffic /speed/ travel time by
time-of-day and day-of-week can be used to improve the validty of the road network data for the journey
planning algorithm calculations.
Very large and comprehensive amounts of traffic data are being collected all the time through mobile data
probes (connected vehicles using sat-nav systems and connected people using GPS enabled mobile phones).
The companies collecting this data such as Google, Nokia, Tom Tom, etc. retain ownership of the data. While
Google and Nokia collate this data and generate historic databases of travel time and congestion information
which the end user accesses through their web based mapping services, they do not allow third party
developers access to the underlying data and they forbid the extraction of the data from the maps to use in
other products. So, while many of the SocialCar sites have historic and real-time traffic information already
available to end uers through Google Maps (all sites except Skopje) and Nokia HERE (Edinburgh, Brussels,
Luxembourg, Lazio, Torino), the data itself is not useable by SocialCar to integrate within its journey planning
algorithms. Unfortunately, city authorities very often do not undertake the task of collating historic datasets,
and so historic traffic and travel time data is often not available. Where it is available it is usually collated on
an annual basis from road sensor data which has limited and patchy network coverage. Such static data files
45
can be made available to SocialCar at the Torino, Brescia, Luxembourg and Ljubljana sites. It is therefore the
case, at some sites, that SocialCar needs to build its own database of historic traffic data over time from the
live data feeds it has access to.
Other static data required by SocialCar for pre-trip planning purposes relates to data on restricted traffic zone
boundaries and operating times (where these exist) and information on planned network disruptions –
roadworks, closures, etc. The data is not reliant on any roadside infrastructure but does require staff resource
to manage and maintain a database on planned network disruptions.
46
Table 4.4 Provide car planning information
Site Needs Barriers
Accurate road network mapping with attribute database (road type length, speed limits)
Database of historic traffic /speed /travel time data
Static data relating to road network – e.g. Restricted zone boundaries and operating times.
Regularly updated info on planned network disruptions – roadworks, closures, etc.
Edinburgh OSM DATEX II ; RSS feed
Free access to Traffic Scotland data for approved subscribers. City of Edinburgh Common Database Management Facility data open to all. Historic data limited to locations where counters exist and needs to be established over time by SocialCar.
Brussels OSM JSON; HTML JSON; HTML Free access to open data provided by Bruxelles Mobilité. Historic data limited to locations where sensors/counters exist and needs to be established over time by SocialCar. Comprehensive historic data held by Be-Mobile and available for a fee.
Canton Ticino
OSM Webpage Tourng Club Switzerland (TCS) provide info on planned disruptions/incidents https://www.tcs.ch/it/tools/infostrada/situazione-attuale.php They also offer traffic forecast rather than historic data. No data feed for developers published.
Zagreb OSM Quality of OSM attribute data is uncertain. No systematic capture of traffic flow data or collection of planned disruption data. Only road network information available to travellers in Zagreb comes from connected cars (in-vehicle navigation devices) or connected drivers (mobile phone GPS data).
Torino OSM Format TBC Extensive infrastructure of 3000+ sensors. Data collected and managed by public company 5T. Historic data is collated by 5T and is available to SC.
Brescia OSM 200 sensors logging data and aggregated historic database available to SC. Planned disruptions data available via website- no data feed for developers.
Lazio OSM XML-RPC XML-RPC Rome Traffic Control Systems centre (Muoversi a Roma) collects data from network of sensors. Free open data. Historic data limited sensor locations and needs to be established over time by SocialCar. Less availability of data for wider Lazio region.
Luxembourg OSM Planned disruptions data available via website - No data feed for developers. Historic data available but limited to 158 counters on motorway/national roads.
Ljubljana OSM RSS feed Quality of OSM attribute data is uncertain. Disruption data available for main road network around Ljubljana but not within the city itself. Historic data available from approximately 40 counter location within the city.
Skopje OSM Quality of OSM attribute data is uncertain. Small number of traffic sensors in the city for the UTOPIA traffic signal control system but no data sharing procedures in place.
Available for use by SocialCar developers
Can be derived/established by SociaCar
Exists but not currently available to SocialCar
Not available
47
4.3.4 Provide car-park planning information
Car-parking in the SocialCar demonstration cities/regions presents a complex environment of off-street car
parks managed in some cases by city authority as well as by numerous private operators, on-street pay and
display parking usually managed by city authority, on-street restricted parking zones and on-street
unrestricted parking. As a result the availability of data is variable both between sites as well as within sites
themselves.
Three sites have reasonably good levels of planning information on car parking. Lightning sites Brussels and
Edinburgh and also Luxembourg have machine readable RSS feeds or XML/JSON datasets of public parking
locations and capacities. For the lightening sites (Edinburgh and Brussels) this information is also available for
Park and Ride sites.
For all other sites planning data from publicly managed car parks and on-street parking can be derived for
SocialCar use. On street parking locations, capacities and prices are often provided in tabular form on web
pages but without developer feed or database link. Off-street parking is typically provided by private
operators with pricing information spread across numerous web-sites. Getting all this information into a
consistent format across sites which is useable by SocialCar would require manual data consolidation using
standard data entry templates.
On-line booking of parking spaces is possible at a very limited number of sites and only within specific
carparks at these sites. Another limitation of on-line booking, where it does is exist, is that is is usually only for
all day booking and not available for shorter periods or by the hour. An exception to this is the Lazio site
where there is the possibility to book (and pay for ) car parking spaces by mobile device at 72 car parks across
the city of Rome through the ‘parclick’ service (https://parclick.com). However, this service does not provide
an API for integration into third party apps which limits inclusion of parking charges into a Socialcar fully
integrated journey payment service. The lack of integrated booking and pricing information may not pose an
issue to SocialCar for journeys which involve use of Park and Ride sites as these sites are generally free to park
(or charge minimal daily rate) and therefore easy to incorporate into end-to-end journey pricing.
Parkopedia (http://en.parkopedia.com/) is a data consolidator for parking related data and information
available in over 6000 towns/cities in 75 countries. For a fee, parkopedia offer access to their consolidated
data through an API. Parkopedia provide data about paid and free car parks including location, capacity, price
and parking spaces availability in real-time. They also provide data for on-street parking locations and costs as
well as details and prices of any controlled/restricted parking zones. Data is available for all SocialCar sites.
Figure 4.5 Example of Parkopedia information for Zagreb (http://hr.parkopedia.com/parking/zagreb/)
48
Table 4.5 Provide car-park planning information
Site Needs Barriers
Info on location + capacity of off-street car parks
Info on location + capacity of on street parking
Info on location + capacity of park and ride sites
Info about park and ride local facilities
General Info on price of parking
On-line booking of parking
Edinburgh RSS XML
Webpage RSS XML
Webpage XML
API Off-street parking provided by private operators. Pricing info spread across numerous web-sites. For a fee, parkopedia offer access to their consolidated data through an API. P+R free. On-line booling at very limited sites and for all day booking only.
Brussels JSON JSON JSON API P+R free. Car park price data available at parkopedia website. For a fee, Parkopedia offer access to their consolidated data through an API. On-line booking exists only for few car park sites from operator web-site.
Canton Ticino Webpage
Webpage API
Webpage Webpage
API
Parking information is fragmented: provided by different suppliers for different towns in the Region. No data is available through published developer API, but may be available for a fee. Most comprehensive data is available from Parkopedia website and through its API (for a fee).
Zagreb Webpage API
Webpage API
Webpage
Webpage API
Data only freely available from the Zagreb parking website. However, parkopedia have extensive parking information for on-street and off-street locations, capacities and prices; access to their data is available through an API for a fee.
Torino Webpage API
Webpage API
Webpage API
API Data on off-street carparking location, capacity, cost available from 5T website. All data is available from Parkopedia website and through its API (for a fee).
Brescia Webpage API
Webpage API
Webpage
Webpage API
Data on off-street carparking location, capacity , cost available from Bresciamobilita website. All data is available from Parkopedia website and through its API (for a fee).
Lazio Webpage API
Webpage API
Webpage API
Webpage
All data is available from Parkopedia website and through its API (for a fee). On-line booking available for 72 car parks in Rome through https://parclick.com (daily rates).
Luxembourg RSS RSS
RSS RSS No on-street data available.
Ljubljana Webpage API
Webpage API
Webpage API
Webpage API
Data on off-street carparking location, capacity, cost available from http://www.lpt.si/en/parkings/. All data is available from Parkopedia website and through its API (for a fee). Includes 2 P+R sites
Skopje Webpage API
Webpage API
Webpage API
All data is available from Parkopedia website and through its API (for a fee). No Park and Ride facilities.
Available for use by SocialCar developers
Can be derived/established by SociaCar
Exists but not currently available to SocialCar
Not available
49
4.3.5 Provide bike-share planning information
Bike-share services are available at all SocialCar sites except Region Lazio, although the extent and coverage
of these services varies considerably. The availability of data in machine redable form on locations and
capacities of bike-share stations is generally quite good across most SocialCar sites (see Table 4.6). The
exceptions to this being Edinburgh, Brescia and Skopje. However, in these cases the data is rather small and
could be collated manually into a suitable format by SocialCar for its use. The cost of bikeshare use is available
only in the form of general information in Bikeshare scheme web-pages and would also require manual
consolidation to suitable formats. Across all sites there is no capability to pre-book, in advance, bikeshare
services by mobile phone or web. Similarly, there is no means of pre-payment by mobile device or web.
Booking and payment can be made by mobile app in Zagreb but this can only be done while present at the
bike-share station.
Table 4.6 Provide bike-share planning information
Site Needs Barriers
General Information on bike share services (names, cost, how to book)
Query specific Information on location of bikeshare stations
Query specific
Information on capacity of bikeshare stations
Query specific Information on cost of bikeshare service
Pre-booking by mobile or web.
Pre-payment by mobile or web.
Edinburgh Webpage Webpage Webpage Webpage 1 location only; Capacity of 15 bikes;
Brussels Webpage CSV API Webpage No pre-booking or mobile payment possible
Canton Ticino
Webpage Webpage Webpage Webpage Lugano only; 13 stations
Zagreb Webpage JSON JSON Webpage Booking + payment can be made by mobile app but only at bike station.
Torino Webpage API API Webpage No pre-booking or mobile payment possible
Brescia Webpage Webpage Webpage Webpage Mobile app Bicimia allows pre booking cycles.
Lazio No scheme currently operating
Luxembourg Webpage CSV API Webpage No pre-booking or mobile payment possible
Ljubljana Webpage CSV API Webpage No pre-booking or mobile payment possible
Skopje Webpage 5 station scheme operating but no data available
Available for use by SocialCar developers
Can be derived/established by SociaCar
Exists but not currently available to SocialCar
Not available
50
4.3.6 Provide taxi & ridesourcing planning information
Most sites have many different taxi operators. Fares are usually regulated, but not always. Background data
on taxi service providers is available from various web-pages but not in any consistent format across sites.
Mobile booking apps exist at all sites, but not for all operators. None of these mobile booking apps provide an
API to allow integration of the Taxi booking app within the SocialCar service, nor do they provide the ability to
‘deep link’ from SocialCar into the mobile taxi app (deep linking takes users directly from your app into the
taxi booking app’s confirm screen, with pickup and destination information pre-filled). Currently the best that
can be provided is a simple link to the external mobile taxi booking app where the user would be required to
re-enter the required information. Due to these significant barriers it is anticipated that taxi servies will not be
an integral part of the SocialCar transport offer. However, as the supply of taxis is widespread across all sites,
with close to instant availability provided at taxi ranks and through already existing web-booking apps, it is
advantageous to consider the option of providing SC users with information on where to find taxis, how to
make bookings and to provide esimates of costs for solo or shared use. Costs are not so easy to find, however,
there is the possibility to embed the’Taxi Fare Finder’ service (see http://www.taxifarefinder.com/api.php)
within SocialCar to provide estimates of taxi fares between any two points (available for Edinburgh, Brussels,
Torino, Rome, Zagreb). While a number of sites have shared taxi matching apps, only Brussels has an
organised shared taxi service with specified collection points (see Table 4.7). There is therefore scope for
SocialCar to provide a matching service for shared taxi use when no suitable carpool offers can be found.
Uber is the only ridesourcing service provider, currently operating only in Edinburgh and Zagreb. While Uber
does provide an API to allow instant bookings through SocialCar, it does not offer any booking in advance of
travel and so is not of use for pre-trip planning. It is, nevertheless, possible through this API to integrate Uber
trip offers within the on-trip planning travel options (see Section 4.4.6).
Table 4.7 Provide taxi and ridesourcing planning information
Site Needs
General Info on taxi services (names, cost, how to book)
Information on location of taxi ranks at/near PT stops/stations
Mobile taxi booking apps.
API provided by Taxi booking apps for pre-bookable journeys.
Shared taxi rank information
API provided by ridesourcing service provider for booking trips in advance
Edinburgh webpage pdf API fares
Brussels API fares CSV CSV
Canton Ticino
webpage webpage fares
Zagreb webpages: 1 ; 2 ; 3 ; 4 API fares
Torino webpages: 1 ; 2 API fares
Brescia webpage webpage fares
Lazio webpage API fares
Luxembourg webpage webpage fares
webpage
Ljubljana webpage webpage fares
Skopje webpage webpage fares
Available for use by SocialCar developers
Can be derived/established by SociaCar
Exists but not currently available to SocialCar
Not available
51
4.4 Trip Management Activities - On-trip planning
On-trip planning requirements relate to the need for the SocialCar journey planning algorithms to have access
to dynamic data in real-time on a number of attributes for all the modes of travel identified in Table 4.1. These
attributes include delays (to scheduled arrival times of PT), average speeds on road network (indicating levels
of congestion and providing actual link travel times), occurance of unexpected disruptions to the network,
current availability of service for immediate use (bikeshare, carparking, carpool, ridesource). As the data
needs to be provided in real-time a direct interface (API) or live feed needs to be provided by the data
collector/owner. The frequency of data update for live feeds is also a consideration for SocialCar when
utilising ‘real-time’ data. Usually the data should be updated at least every 5 minutes to remain relevant to
users. The results from the user surveys outlined in Section 4.0 (and presented in detail in Annex D) highlight
the importance from a users perspective for the SocialCar tool to offer on-trip journey planning updates based
on real-time data. The following sub-sections provide further details on the needs and barriers for each mode.
4.4.1 Provide real-time public transport information
The availability of real-time data on public transport is increasing in many cities from in-vehicle AVL
(automatic vehicle location) systems, GPS and on-street or trackside vehicle sensor equipment. This is
sometimes made available as open data (see section 4.3.1) but often it is still held by PT operators or city
authorities. Common standards for real time data have not yet been fully embraced. As mentioned in Section
4.3.1 GTFS (General Transit Feed Specification) is the most commonly used format for specifying public
transit schedules. GTFS-realtime is an emerging standard used to specify real-time public transport data.
Where no real-time location data is available, passengers may passively provide location updates via location
based services on their mobile devices (for example Moovit http://moovitapp.com/), or possibly more actively
by social media – see 4.7. Transport operators and city authorities are also increasingly using SocialMedia to
provide updates on public transport service delays, congestion problems and any other concerns/incidents.
For real time updates the most common platform used is Twitter. The following SC sites provide such a
twitter feed: Edinburgh: @on_lothianbuses , @edintravel ; Brussles @STIBMIVB ; Torino @GTT_Torino ;
Brescia @bresciamobilita; Lazio @InfoAtac. While the main tram and bus operator in Zagreb, ZET, do not
appear to have a live twitter feed, they do have an RSS feed of incidents. http://www.zet.hr/rss.aspx.
Table 4.8 Provide real time public transport information
Data
Brescia
Bru
ssels
Can
ton
Ticin
o
Ed
inb
urg
h
Lazio
Reg
ion
Lju
bljan
a
Lu
xemb
ou
rg
Sko
pje
To
rino
Zag
reb
Actual expected time of arrival X X X X X X X X
Trip cancellation X X
Incidents X X X
Accidents X X
Disruptions/ deviations X X X
Detours X X
Other
Legend
X Yes, data is free and open
X Yes, data is free, but not open
X Yes, data is available, but not free
X Yes, data is stored but costs & availability are unknown
No, not available
4.4.2 Provide real-time carpooling information
In order to provide real-time information on carpooling options for immediate or close to immediate use
requires the carpool services to have constant knowledge of the location of their drivers and also allow real-
52
time or instant carpool booking. This form of instantaneous carpooling is an emerging branch of carpooling
and only a small number of service providers offer this at the moment, with very limited geographic coverage
(e.g. Letzgo in Milan, Genoa and Turin; J’YGO Sharette in Paris, Flinc in several German cities). There is only
one known urban transport information service in Europe which already integrates instant carpooling offers in
its results: Qixxit (https://www.qixxit.de/en/) integrates data from real-time/instant carpool provider Flinc. At
the moment none of the SocialCar sites have a real-time/instant carpool service provider. However, that is not
to say that SocialCar should not have this future possibility in mind, and indeed it provides an opportunity for
SocialCar to fill a gap by offering instant carpooling through the proposed ‘SocialCar internal carpooling’
service.
Providing real-time carpooling information is not just related to offering instant booking. It also relates to
updating the status of pre-booked carpool trips which form part of a connected journey. For this to be
possible requires the constant monitoiring of carpool driver and passenger locations in order to provide
updates to the pre-planned carpool pick-up times in the event of delays on either side (driver or passenger).
While the passenger is a registered SocialCar user, they can approve SocialCar to track their location through
the GPS data on their phone. The same is possible for carpool drivers if they are providing a SocialCar internal
carpooling arranged trip. Instant booking may also offered be through SocialCar in such cases. However, if the
carpool driver is registered with an external carpool service provider then it requires that the external carpool
service provider is monitoring the drivers location and it also requires that this real-time monitoring can be
shared with SocialCar. There are barriers to both of these being achievable as firstly it is not common practice
for carpool service providers, which do not offer a dynamic or instant service, to actively monitor their drivers.
Even if they did, they would need to ask for approval from their drivers to share their location data with a third
party (i.e. SocialCar) which would be problematic. Finally, there would need to be a means of exchanging this
data between the carpool service provider and SocialCar. Annex E provides a report summarising information
on the APIs which are available to connect SocialCar to external Carpool services at the lightning sites. This
includes considerations when communicating real-time updates between systems.
There are other barriers to providing real-time carpool information to SocialCar users from external carpool
systems: If, for example, a driver on the external carpool system cancels a pre-booked trip, it is not clear how
this information will be exchanged immediately to the SocialCar system and then to the SocialCar user. The
external carpool system APIs discussed in Section 4.3.2 are not designed to push information like this to third
party applications, rather they respond to requests from the third party application.
53
4.4.3 Provide real-time traffic information
Real-time traffic/travel time data can be collected by a variety of means: fixed road sensors or mobile data
probes through overt and covert crowd sourcing.
Large communications companies such as Nokia and Google covertly collect data on traffic conditions
and congestion through analysis of the GPS traces from mobile phone users in cars. Google get the data
from users with Android phones while Nokia’s data comes from those using Windows phones. They then
analyse the GPS data to derive speeds of movement which they use to identify car users. The data from
thousands of other phone users is continuously combined and congestion conditions (derived from traffic
speeds) are made available to the public for free in the Google Maps traffic layers or in the Nokia HERE
mapping application. As there are significant numbers of Android and Windows phone users circulating in
most cities the quality of the data is generally quite reliable, however to maintain accuracy a minimum
number of combined users is required per road section before combined data is returned to users. As a
result it is usually only provided for Motorways, A roads and a few B roads.
Waze collects data overtly from travelers with mobile phones. However, they rely on users to activate the
Waze app and so the number of users in any particular location may be limited and hence the quality of
the data can be low or non existent.
In addition to these companies, there are many other companies which exist specifically to collect and
collate datasets they can then sell (e.g. INRIX, TrafficMaster, TomTom, NAVTEQ). These companies
supply in vehicle navigation systems and they collect real-time data from these sytems. In some cases
they have also invested in roadside sensors to supplement this data.
As the data these organisations collect has a commercial value, this creates a potential barrier to the data ever
being shared openly. As a result very little real-time data feeds are openly available. While Google and Nokia
provide free access to travel time and congestion information to end users, they do not allow third parties
access to the underlying data and they forbid the extraction of the data from the maps to use in other
products. So, while many of the SocialCar sites have real-time traffic information already available to end uers
through Google Maps (all sites except Skopje) and Nokia HERE (Edinburgh, Brussels, Luxembourg, Lazio,
Torino), the data itself is not useable by SocialCar to integrate within its journey planning algorithms. As a
result, the road network and traffic data which can be used by the SocialCar developers needs to come from
local authority / municipality managed sensor data. Much of this data relates to areas of cities which are under
traffic signal control and/or to the main road network where additional roadside sensors are installed to
collect data for traffic management purposes. The coverage, quality and extent of this data is very variable
between sites but also variable at different locations within sites.
Even where such data is collected, there is a need for it to be made available to developers in common and
easily accessible / transferrable formats. DATEX II meets this need as an international (EU) standard that
allows for interoperable application of traffic data collected in real-time. DATEX II was designed and
developed to standardise the data exchange interface between traffic control and information centres.
DATEX represents the standard for applications that have been developed and implemented in Europe in the
last 10 years (for more info see the DATEX II website).
In addition to real-time data on traffic speeds and travel times, there is also a need for updates on traffic
conditions on the network including unplanned incidents / disruptions (e.g. accidents, bad weather). This can
be provided in two ways: 1) through regularly updated datasets and feeds provided by the traffic authority
and/or 2) through updates provided using social media. At several sites the city transport departments or
reginal/national traffic authorities provide real-time traffic and travel news for road users via their own official
twitter feeds (see Table 4.9). Note, however, that these are not maintained/updated 24 hours a day 7 days a
week.
54
Table 4.9 Provide real time traffic information
Site Needs Barriers
Real time data on traffic speeds / travel times
Live data on unplanned incidents / disruptions (e.g. accidents, bad weather)
Live updates on traffic conditions through social media
Edinburgh API (DATEX II) ; API (DATEX II) & RSS feed
twitter + facebook Information mainly for trunk road network. Twitter feed and a Facebook page providing real-time traffic & travel news, 7am – 7pm Mon – Fri.
Brussels JSON feed JSON feed Limited number of sites for available data on traffic speeds/status. More extensive city traffic data exists for end users through private companies (Google, Nokia, Be.Mobile) and not for developers.
Canton Ticino twitter Live traffic data and event / incident information available through swiss traffic app http://swiss-traffic.com/. A fee applies. Live twitter feed from TCS for main route (A2) through the Region https://twitter.com/TCStrafficoA2 .
Zagreb Traffic data only exists for end users through private companies (Google, ZGTraffic) and not for developers
Torino Format TBC Format TBC Data held by 5T - availability and format still to be confirmed.
Brescia Traffic data only exists for for end users through private companies (Google, Nokia) and not for developers
Lazio XML-RPC (Rome) XML-RPC (Rome) twitter + facebook Lazio Region; twitter Rome city
Lazio Region data only exists for for end users through public company regionelazio.luceverde.it. Not yet available for developers.
Luxembourg twitter in 4 languages from ACL
Traffic data is limited to the motorway and main road network outside city - No data feed for developers and only exists for for end users through public company http://www.cita.lu/en. Not yet available for developers. City traffic data only exists for end users through private companies (Google, Nokia, Be.Mobile) and not for developers.
Ljubljana RSS feed Traffic data is limited to the motorway and main road network outside city - No data feed for developers but live traffic counter data is published in tables on the web-site: http://www.promet.si/portal/en/traffic-agent-system.aspx
Skopje Real-time traffic data is collected from Traffic Control sensors for 30 jncs in city but not yet made available for external users. No other real-time traffic data providers are known for Skopje.
Available for use by SocialCar developers
Can be derived/established by SociaCar
Exists but not currently available to SocialCar
Not available
55
4.4.4 Provide real time parking availability information
Information in real-time on availability of parking spaces requires constant monitoring. For off street car park
vehicles to be automatically counted, there needs to be a means of detecting them. The most common form
of vehicle detection uses an inductive loop buried in the road surface. As a vehicle passes over the loop, the
loop inductance changes causing the loop monitoring circuit (loop detector) to output a signal. If two such
loops are placed close together along the path of the vehicle, the direction in which the vehicle is travelling
can also be detected. In car park applications, loops need to be placed in each entrance and exit lane – to give
occupancy per level requires them to be fitted on ramps between levels. The counting system receives the
signals from the loop detectors and maintains a count of vehicles entering and exiting each area. If a car park
is barrier controlled then data from the barriers can provide information on number of vehicles entering and
exiting the car park. On-street parking monitoring requires RFID (Radio Frequency Identification) or infra-red
parking bay sensors with wireless capabilities to be placed in each parking spot to detect whether a parking
space is occupied or not. Whatever couting or monitoring method is used, the data needs to be transmitted to
a control centre and made available to other data providers and app developers. It is recommended that this
data be updated every minute.
While several SocialCar sites monitor and collect real-time occupancy data in off-street car parks, it is often
not available for all car parks in the city (see Table 4.10). Real-time information for in-street parking spaces is
an emerging area but so far none of the SocialCar sites monitor or collect this information for real-time use.
Table 4.10 Provide real-time parking availability information
Site Needs Barriers
Real time info on parking space availability
Edinburgh RSS feed
Approximately half of the public car parks in Edinburgh provide real-time updates on available spaces through this RSS feed. Five out of seven Park and Ride sites provide real time updates on car parking space availability.
Brussels About a third of the public carparks in Brussels have real-time information on spaces availability. None of the 7 park and ride sites have real-time information. The real-time data is available to the public through http://www.bruxellesmobilite.irisnet.be/ . No feed of live parking data is available for developers.
Canton Ticino Real-time parking info provided for end users for Locarno only through Parquery: http://www.parquery.com/#/home No developer API available.
Zagreb No real-time parking data exists
Torino Real-time information on parking availability is provided by 5T for 20 out of 30 carparks across the city. The real-time data is available to the public through interactive map and tabular format (http://www.5t.torino.it/5t/en/traffico/parcheggi.jsp?) but no feed of live parking data is available for developers.
Brescia Web service Real-time information on parking availability is provided for 12 out of 21 carparks across the city. The real-time data is available to the public through interactive map and tabular format (http://www.bresciamobilita.it/en/utenti/parcheggi/parcheggi-di-brescia). Live occupancy data from 2 car parks (Vittoria and Fossa Bagni) is available from the Brescia Mobilita web service : http://abbonamenti.sintesi-spa.it:8080/parcheggi/Parcheggi?wsdl
Lazio No real-time parking data could be found
Luxembourg RSS feed Real-time parking info available through RSS feed for 26 car parks including 5 Park and Ride sites and 7 station car parks.
Ljubljana Real-time parking data are provided by JP LPT d.o.o., the public company for public parking spaces in Ljubljana. The real-time data is available to the public through interactive map and tabular format (http://www.lpt.si/en/parkings/) but no feed of live parking data is available for developers. There is no real-time info on P&R systems in Ljubljana.
Skopje No real-time parking data currently exists, but it is planned.
Available for use by SocialCar developers
Can be derived/established by SociaCar
Exists but not currently available to SocialCar
Not available
56
4.4.5 Provide real-time bike-share availability information
Real-time info on availability of bikes share cycles at each bike-share station is known across all sites with
bike-share schemes in place except Skopje. However, access to this data for use by SocialCar developers is
not available for the Edinburgh site or for the Brescia site at present. For the other stes, direct integration of
this data is possible through the APIs made available on the providers developer portals (See Table 4.11).
Table 4.11 Provide real-time bike-share availability information
Site Needs Barriers
Real time info on availability of bikes share cycles
Edinburgh
Very limited bikeshare scheme available only at Haymarket train station. 15 bikes. Real-time data currently available to end users via map and list (http://www.bikeandgo.co.uk/locations/scotland/haymarket/) but not to developers. City of Edinburgh Council are considering a large scale Bikeshare scheme with JC Decaux – if this is launched real time data will be available.
Brussels API Real- time data on Brussels 344 bikeshare stations provided as open data via JC Decaux developer portal: https://developer.jcdecaux.com/#/opendata/vls?page=dynamic
Canton Ticino Real-time data currently available to end users via map
(https://www.publibike.ch/en/stations.html?aboId=24#) but not to developers.
Zagreb JSON Nextbike; 12 stations. Official webservices available upon request to [email protected] Real time data on bike availability may be available from : https://github.com/Informatic/nextbike2json
Torino API Real-time data on Torino’s 159 Citybik bikeshare stations provided as open data via PyBikes API https://github.com/eskerda/PyBikes (see also http://api.citybik.es/)
Brescia BICIMIA; 69 stations, 534 bikes. Real time data currently available to end users via map and list (https://bicimia.bresciamobilita.it/frmLeStazioni.aspx) but not to developers.
Lazio No Bike share scheme active
Luxembourg API Real-time data on Luxembourgs 76 bikeshare stations provided as open data via JC Decaux developer portal
Ljubljana API Real-time data on Ljubljana 35 bikeshare stations provided as open data via JC Decaux developer portal: https://developer.jcdecaux.com/#/opendata/vls?page=dynamic
Skopje 5 stations with 325 bikes. No real time data available.
4.4.6 Provide real-time taxi & ridesourcing information
While several of the SocialCar sites do have a number of well established taxi booking apps in operation, none
of these provide an API to allow integration of the Taxi booking app within the SocialCar service, nor do they
provide the ability to ‘deep link’ from SocialCar into the mobile taxi app (deep linking takes users directly from
your app into the taxi booking app’s confirm screen, with pickup and destination information pre-filled).
Currently the best that can be provided is a simple link to the external mobile taxi booking app where the user
would be required to re-enter the required information (although certain taxi booking apps pick this up from
the uers GPS position for instant booking requests). It is likely, in the future, that other taxi booking apps will
follow the lead of Uber (https://developer.uber.com/docs/api-overview) and Hailo
(https://developer.hailoapp.com/docs) by providing a developer API which lets third parties integrate Uber or
Hailo into their own application and also offers the ability to provide deep linking. At present this is not a
possibility and so Taxis are to remain external to the pre-trip and on-trip planning functionalities. However, in
instances where no other suitable options can be found for first or last mile journeys, taxis may provide an
acceptable option to travellers. This is more likely to be the case where SocialCar users can be matched
together to share the use of a taxi (and hence its cost). Taxis also offer an emergency option where there is an
unexpected change to the planned journey (e.g. cancellation of carpool trip). As a result it would be beneficial
to be able to provide SC users with information on where to find taxis, how to make bookings and to provide
esimates of costs for solo or shared use.
57
At both sites where Uber exists (Edinburgh and Zagreb), Uber can be used for real-time booking of taxi or
private hire vehicles through the Uber developr API (but not peer to peer ridesharing service UberPOP due to
national legislation in these countries). Legislation currently prevents Uber operations in the other sites
although this is under review at several sites (Brussels, and Italian sites). Uber's developer page states that
”the Uber API may not be used in any manner that is competitive to Uber or the Uber Services, including in
connection with any application, website, or other product or service that also includes, features, endorses, or
otherwise supports in any way a third party that provides services competitive to Uber’s products and services, as
determined in our sole discretion”. SocialCar would need to check they are not violating this condition of use.
Table 4.12 Provide real-time taxi availability and real time peer-to-peer ridesourcing information
Site Needs
Integrate mobile or on-line Taxi booking service
Integrate mobile or on-line booking for Peer to peer taxi-type rideshare services
Edinburgh Uber API
Brussels
Canton Ticino
Zagreb Uber API
Torino
Brescia
Lazio
Luxembourg
Ljubljana
Skopje
4.5 Trip Monitoring & Update journey planning
As indicated in Section 4.0, the user surveys at Edinburgh, Brussels and Zagreb identified the most useful
SocialCar function to be “Instant re-planning of trip options in the event of delay/disruption”. This highlights
the importance of the Trip Monitoring and Update journey planning function.
Trip monitoring has many of the same needs and barriers as that of on-trip planning as detailed in Tables 4.8
to 4.12. In addition the position of the travellers needs to be tracked through their mobile phone GPS data
and compared with the pre-planned trip schedule to ensure forward connections will be made (this will be
investigated in Task 2.5). The system also needs to monitor delays or disruptions on the network which are
likely to delay the SC traveller further downstream on their journey. If any delay (or likely downstream delay)
is encountered (or forecast) then the update journey planning function needs to assess journey planning
options from the current position and time of the traveller with the real-time data for all modes. It may be
that the status of planned onward connections are also delayed enabling continuation of the pre-planned
journey (albeit with a delay). If there is no way of making the pre-planned connection then the updated
journey plan will give alternatives for onward travel taking account of the real-time status of all services.
Updated journey plans will also take account of likely downstream delays and suggest solutions to avoid or
mitigate the impact of these.
For all this to be possible requires SC users to be constantly connected to the mobile network in order to
supply and receive data in real-time. This has two significant barriers associated with it: Firstly, network
connectivity is not reliable in all areas of every SocialCar site; and secondly, the requirement for always on
connectivity and frequent data transfer places heavy demands on the user’s mobile phone battery. The
impact of this will need to be explored in WP4.
Available for use by SocialCar developers
Can be derived/established by SociaCar
Exists but not currently available to SocialCar
Not available
58
4.6 Trip payment
Almost every city has its own way for people to pay for public transport; some use cash, tokens or one-time
tickets, while others use multi-use swipe or contactless smartcards. In Europe alone there are over 100
national or city transport smartcard programmes and very few – if any – are compatible. At the SocialCar sites
there are varying levels of ticket intergration between public transport services and operators (see Table A.B.5
in Annex B). Sites with an integrated ticket across all PT modes/operators include Canton Ticino, Torino, Lazio
Region, Brescia, Luxembourg. Skopje and Ljubljana have the same ticket for all bus services and Zagreb for all
bus and tram services, but there is no ticket integration with train services at these sites. In Edinburgh bus and
tram tickets are integrated and there is selected joint rail and bus ticket integration through ‘One ticket’
initiative. Finally in Brussels there is an integrated ticketing system with smart card (MOBIB-card) allowing
upload of different tickets from multiple providers, but does not provide integrated fares. At the moment only
Torino and Brescia have plans to extend their intergrated tickets to include all mobility services.
Trip payment via an app such as SocialCar requires electronic pre-payment of tickets or services using mobile
devices, but the diverse nature of the services on offer (including new mobility services), the different
mechanisms currently used for paying for these services and the lack of cooperation between the providers of
these services presents significant barriers to this. Complications with pre-payment of integrated journeys
would also be encountered if a pre-paid journey needs to be cancelled due to disruption on one leg of the
journey – how would this be dealt with in terms of refunds to the traveller and compensations to the service
providers who were not at fault? Pre-payment is also not a possibility at many sites for certain services where
supply is variable such as car parking spaces and bikeshare. While these services can allow electronic payment
by mobile device, typically this needs to be done at the location of the service (i.e. the car park or the bike
station). For services which do require pre-booking there is usually an electronic payment option offered by
the service provider through booking apps (e.g. some carpooling services, ridesourcing services, taxi services),
but it is the exception (e.g. only Uber) that enables pre-booking and payment of these services to be
embedded within third party apps through a suitable API. This is a further barrier to fully intergared pre-
payment for the end to end journey.
In situations where intergrated public transport tickets are not available, separate payments are required for
each PT service used in a connected journey. To lessen the inconvenience of this, some cities have introduced
the concept of ‘E-wallets’ which allow travellers to pre-load multiple different tickets for different PT
operators or even different modes of travel (bikeshare, parking). This represents a form of smart ticketing
where the user does not have one ticket the entire journey but has one wallet with several tickets (which can
easily be bought) and potentially one wallet for several services. This reduces the inconvenience of making
multi-modal journeys where there is no integrated ticketing structure in place as it gives travellers the
possibility to acquire, in advance, different tickets that will permit them to use a combination of trips and of
services without the inconvenience of needing to make a number of seperate payments at the time of travel.
It also removes many of the barriers related to obtaining political agreement, operator agreement and
complex decisional processes linked to the share of ticket sale revenues which are associated with integrated
ticketing. This may be an approach which SocialCar could consider.
For E-wallets to be feasible there needs some form of mobile-ticket or mobile-payment possible for use of the
different services in the users journey. In the case of mobile tickets this would involve creation of
alphanumeric codes (including conventional and 2-D barcodes) that are visually inspected or read by barcodes
scanners or NFC-devices. This requires little or no investment from the operator. Sites which currently allow
passengers to buy public transport tickets on-line (web-sites or through mobile apps) and board using their
mobile phone include Brussels, Canton Ticino, Brescia, Lazio, and Skopje. At Edinburgh this is only possible
for the Trams and the largest bus operator, Lothian Buses.
While the presence of an integrated and pre-bookable mobile-ticket for the entire journey (including
parking/carpool/bike-share) was perceived to be very useful for half the respondents of the user survey in
59
Brussels and just over a third of those in Edinburgh and Zagreb, it was only ranked as the 7th out of 10
possible functions presented to users. The only functions ranked lower in terms of usefulness were specific to
bikesharing and carpooling which are only considered as options by a small minority of respondents.
Security of transactions and security as perceived by users (who need to trust the system) is a key
requirement whenever payments are involved – this requires the maximum attention, as the first goal of a
ticketing system remain the funds collection and fraud control. This is to be explored in depth in Task 3.3.
4.7 Integration of Social Media
Annex F provides a comprehensive review of and analysis of existing social media integrated mobility
applications, from which many lessons have been learned relating to the good practices, opportunities, needs
and barriers of using Social Media within SocialCar. The content of this section summarises the main findings.
Social media are defined as a group of web-based applications that encourage users to interact with one
another, such as blogs, Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, Foursquare, and MySpace. Interactivity
is what distinguishes social networking sites from traditional (or “static”) websites. Social media platforms
encourage users to share their experiences, opinions, knowledge, and sometimes their locations with one
another. Social media is forging a new era in business opportunity and engagement, creating two-way
communication that enables customer feedback and response in real-time. Transport providers and travellers
have begun to adopt and use these networking tools in the following ways:
1) For providers to send travellers information on services. a. Marketing or customer service information from the service providers sent to the travellers via
social media pages/platforms: expanding its user ‘community’. b. Information relating to real-time updates on service status/delays sent from the transport
provider to the travellers.
2) For travellers to send feedback to service providers a. Mainly complaints about service problems/failures. b. Questions regarding service delays or disruptions.
3) For travellers to share information with other travellers on their social networks; a. Information relating to real-time updates on service status/delays sent from a traveller direct to
the user community. b. Feedback on service quality shared between travellers (e.g. user generated ratings). c. Requests from a traveller to the user community (e.g. to find potential matches to share a taxi).
The level of SocialCar social media activity has not yet been defined but is likely to be limited by resources,
and it is widely recognised that an active social media presence is resource intensive. Work Package 7 will
build on the business case/opportunities for SocialCar moving forward with respect to social media presence.
Fundamentaly, SocialCar is simply an app (with minimal office support) which is unlikely to be able to employ
sufficient people to monitor and maintain a real-time Social Media presence. Therefore there is a need to be
able to integrate other (approved) organisations relevant social media content (e.g. @on_lothianbuses in
Edinburgh, @bresciamobilita in Brescia, @GTT_Torino in Torino , etc ). At the simplest level, this integration
can be the retweeting of these approved provider messages, through embedded tweets, within the SocialCar
app. In effect SocialCar becomes a platform that brings together all relevant social media messages from a set
of approved transport providers and traffic managers. When we consider the social media messages sent
from transport providers to users, most of these updates are indiscriminate. A message informing travellers of
a problem on a particular bus service or at a traffic accident on particular road in the city is only relevant to
travellers using that bus or road. It is of no relevance to all other travellers in the city. In general the more
messages transport providers send to users through their social media accounts, the more irrelevant
information is received by travellers. Some transport providers have tried overcome this by creating and
managing multiple social media pages or live feeds with each one specific to a particular service; e.g.
Transport for London uses individual Twitter feeds for each tube line and so regular commuters only need
60
view the feeds for the lines they travel on, rather than a single account providing information on all lines.
However, this approach is not practical for every bus line in a city or for updates on the road network.
Proactive Customer Relationship Management (CRM) is a new approach to personalise the social media
messages travellers receive. Given knowledge of a travellers mobility patterns (possibly collected from their
mobile phone GPS traces or from inputs to a journey planning tool such as SocialCar) CRM can direct
outbound social media messages to only the relevant travellers. This personalised filtering of messages is the
the real added value that SocialCar can provide when embedding retweeted messages from approved
providers. There will be a requirement that the approved provider tweets are tagged in a way that permits this
personalisation (e.g. tagged by location and/or by PT route number).
Information exchanged in such a way between travellers via social media outlets is often not verified or
checked for quality, and is usually unstructured (i.e. not tagged). This makes it very difficult for automated
searching of content. New techniques such as sentiment mapping allow a means of aggregating unstructured
social media messages posted by transport users. For example, if many users are simultaneously posting the
words “train” or “bus” and “late” or “delayed” in a certain region, then the perceived discomfort of a disrupted
or poor service can be mapped. When people post on social networks, they are expressing their immediate
sentiment, which is a valuable metric for decision-making. Aggregating these opinions generates a collective
measure of the performance of the service from the user perspective. Key advantages of this aproach are that
there is some control over the content shared with the SocialCar comunity and inaccurate, biased or even
abusive messages from individual users can be avoided. While this type of analysis should be considered by
SocialCar it requires sufficient users to be posting messages on the same subject to be applicable.
In the cases where the information being monitored and harvested from Social media is sufficiently structured
and reliable, there is the potential to integrate the content of messages in a more sophisticated way by
extracting actual attribute data (such as link delays / cancellations) and incorporating these in the journey
planning algorithm data inputs. However, this level of sophistication is probably too advanced to be applied at
any of the SocialCar sites.
The main advantages of using SocialMedia within SocialCar appear to be that it provides a means of keeping
travellers up to date on service issues and other time-sensitive information when no other real-time data is
available. It is possible to provide this with a passive social media presence where it does not interact with the
travellers directly – it is simply disseminating other providers messages.
However, if SocialCar were to have its own Social Media account where users can post community messages
to other SocialCar users then a more active role is needed.
Advantages of this are that SocialCar can provide the occasional marketing / promotion messages and
SocialCar could also receive user comments/feedback on the routing information provided (but issues related
to the transport service poviders should go directly to them to deal with). However, barriers to this include:
the cost of active monitoring and maintenance of the accont as customers want responses around
the clock,
quality and trust issues; information is prone to errors and malicious behaviours,
information exchanged is often personal subjective opinion rather than substantiated fact,
little control over information which is shared: this may be counter productive,
having its own social media account can increase an organization’s exposure to a range of cyber
threats, from spam to malware.
More general barriers include the imbalance in smartphone penetration and social media use between
younger and older generations.
The user surveys in Edinburgh, Brussels and Zagreb point towards a large proportion of respondents being
active social media users (about three quaretrs in Edinburgh and Brussels and over half in Zagreb). However,
with only half of those in Edinburgh and about a fifth in Brussels and Zagreb using Social Media for travel
61
purposes and to receive travel updates, there is a potential gap in the market providing an opportunity for
SocialCar to capitalise on. At the Edinburgh site the main form of travel updates are provided through twitter
accounts operated by official public transport providers and the city traffic managers. A quarter of social
media users in Edinburgh and in Brussels use social media to feedback comments or complaints to service
providers but there is little evidence from any of the sites that individual travellers are sharing travel
information with each other through social media.
5. Conclusions
This Deliverable identifies the needs and barriers of the 10 SocialCar sites in providing the functionalities
identified in Section 3.4 of D1.1 The SocialCar Arena.
Firstly, this involved gaining and understanding of the demography, overall transport services, mobile
communication and social media standing and general data situation in each of the SocialCar demonstration
cities/regions. This was established through a comprehensive survey with parters at each of the SC sites. The
main findings from this revealed a diverse set of cities/regions with different travel conditions and transport
services available for users. However, common to all sites were problems of recurrent traffic congestion in the
peak hours and a desire to encourage car commuters to consider alternatives which avoided or reduced their
car use. At most sites there were central parking restrictions and higher central parking costs in place
accompanied by free to use park and ride on the edges of the city. There was also the emergence of some
form of new mobility services across all sites: either bike-share, carpool, ridesourcing or combinations of
these. A summary of the current situation at each of the sites is provided in Chapter 2 while the the survey is
presented in Annex A with the results presented in Annex B.
Secondly, the SocialCar sites then used the SocialCar Market Framwork (developed in WP6) to assess their
need for SocialCar by examining, for their site, the key drivers which will most likely influence the demand for,
or impact on the supply of, the SocialCar product. This provided information on where, and the circumstances
in which, SocialCar is needed and identified where and for whom it is most likely to produce the greatest
attraction/benefits to users. It also examined the environment at each site related to advances in
technologies, communications and data collection/storage/exchange which will provide the content that
enables the development of the SocialCar product. Summaries are provided for each site in Section 3 (the full
set of market framework tables for each site are given in Annex C) which reveal that there appears to be a
need and desire for the SocialCar product at all sites. All sites indicated an improving trend in coverage of
mobile communication networks plus increasing provision of free wi-fi in public places/on public transport.
This is resulting in the rapid growth in use of mobile apps and social media use by travellers. However, there
are still issues relating to reliability of mobile communication networks in some areas of the test sites which
points towards the need for more dedicated wi-fi services, particularly on public transport services. The
availability and suitability of data varied significantly from site to site and it is this that forms the biggest
obstacle to SocialCar development.
Finally, in Section 4, more in depth surveys with key actors and end users at each site has led to identification
of a more detailed set of local needs and barriers which have then been mapped against the SocialCar
functionalities identified in the high level function specification: Section 3.4 of D1.1. The main findings from
this analysis indicate that the level of readiness to be able to implement SocialCar varies across sites.
Availability of data, and in particular availability of real-time data, being the main factor which determines
this readiness level. While the lightning sites (Edinburgh, Brussels and Canton Ticino) are at a more advanced
level of readiness, there remain issues relating to data coverage, availability and suitability of real-time traffic
and parking data which need to be addressed. At all the sites, common data with wide coverage is available
for live traffic information (congestion levels) from Google and parking data (locations, capacities, free
spaces, cost) from Parkopedia. While this information is offered to the general public through the Google
Maps and Parkopedia web-sites and mobile apps, it is not freely offered through live feeds or in database
62
formats for use by developers. It may be possible for SocialCar to obtain the data for development purposes
through the respective companies API for a fee. SocialCar should investigate the opportunity for this and its
costs. More generally, real-time data updates received by SocialCar need to be frequent enough to reflect
current conditions. Furthermore if users experience unreliable mobile phone connections during travel this
will result in delayed real-time updates. As a result it is important that all updates sent to users should be time
stamped detailing when the data was collected. The issues around data requirements will be explored further
in Task 2.3: Data acquisition and integration and reported in D2.3‘Data Source and Data Format’.
Another significant barrier is the difficulty in interfacing SocialCar with carpooling services. Again the
lightning sites have more advanced carpool service provision than the other sites where very little or no
carpooling currently exists. However, even at the lightning sites there are complications in integrating the full
set of functions (query, book, cancel, pay) offered by the external carpool service software systems (provided
by Liftshare in Edinburgh, Taxistop in Brussels and BePooler/Mobalt in Canton Ticino). While each of these
systems provide an API which enables third party apps and services to query availability of carpool
offers/requests, they do not enable booking, cancellation and payments from outside their own system. They
also do not track the location of their drivers. So once a trip has been booked on the external carpool software
system it is then ‘out of view’ to SocialCar, severely limiting the ability for SocialCar to provide monitoring and
status updates on pre-booked carpool services. The issues around this will be invesigated in depth in Task 4.5:
Implementing carpooling scheme and their integration.Furthermore this task will investigate how best to
provide carpooling opportunities for sites with no active carpool services and will develop its own matching
service: ‘SocialCar internal carpooling’ to allow SocialCar users to carpool with one another. Barriers associated
with real-time monitoring of pre-booked carpool journey can be avoided if the carpool service is internalised
within SocialCar and all drivers accepting a carpool booking agree to share their location with SocialCar.
‘SocialCar internal carpooling’ service also offers the scope for instant or dynamic carpool service provision.
Instant carpooling relies on a fairly large user base of carpool drivers in the system which is a barrier to the use
of this. However, if no carpool ride can be found, the matched SocialCar users can be directed towards sharing
a taxi. This is a practical alternative since there is a much larger supply of taxis across all sites which can be
booked for instant or near instant use. Taxi fare cost calculators can be integrated in the SocilaCar app and
links to external mobile taxi booking apps can be provided to facilitate this as an option which is possible at all
sites.
There are many barriers to incorporating fully integrated trip payment within SocialCar. Across the SC sites
there are varying levels of public transport ticket intergration with very little integration of other mobility
services (parking, bike-share, carpoool) within these tickets. The barriers to further ticket integration are
largely organisational and political and are unlikely to be overcome within SocialCar. One trip payment option
which SocialCar could consider is the concept of ‘E-wallets’. These do not require the different transport
providers to agree on being partners in an integrated ticket, but allow the users to pre-load to a single
electronic wallet (which could be offered through SocialCar) multiple different e-tickets for different PT
operators, or even different moility services (bikeshare, parking). Several of the SC sites. including all 3
lightning sites, offer e-ticket payment options which would make E-wallets a possibility.
It appears that there are potentially five key roles for social media in SocialCar:
1) Building the SocialCar user community (using social media for marketing and promoting the product).
2) Sharing social media messages and service/travel updates with SC users.
a. Through embedded twitter feeds from transport operators/city authorities (verified providers).
b. Through sharing social media messages with users from unverified sources (e.g. other
users/travellers; unverified third party sources).
3) Facilitating direct contact between travellers who may be interested in sharing a travel option together.
4) Mechanism for receiving feedback from SocialCar users (comments/complaints) which can be passed
onto service providers to manage/improve their services.
5) Harvesting data (from messages) submitted by both SC users and wider social media world, to generate
useful information on service performance (applying techniques such as sentiment analysis).
63
Relating to the 2nd role the messages must be filtered/tailored to be relevant to the SC user/recipient – this is a
key task for the SC project. While the 5th role is a nice ambition it is uncertain how achievable this will be
within the project. What is clear is that SocialCar will need to have a largely passive social media presence
with mainly automated processes and rely on the SocialCar user community to provide the active presence.
In summary the information provided in this Deliverable informs aspects of the development activities in
WP2, Data and algorithms design, Wp3, SocialCar tool and infrastructure, and Wp4, Implementation and
validation of SocialCar system. As such it provides a sound basis from which to commence the design and the
development of all the modules and functions of the system.
64
Annex A Consolidated questionnaire for SocialCar site background information
65
Annex B SocialCar consolidated survey results: Site context information
66
Annex C Market Framework Tables for each site
67
Annex D User survey reports for Edinburgh, Brussels and Zagreb
68
Annex E Information on API available from external carpool software systems
69
Annex F SocialCar and Social Media report