27/28 october 2005

“Where there is a will, there is an effect”The effectiveness of mobility management in the Netherlands

Friso Metz, KPVV Knowledge Platform Traffic and Transport

Marco Martens, ECORYS

Henk Pauwels, AVV Transport Research Centre

ECOMM 2005 Parma

27/28 october 2005

2

Aim and perspective

• The context of mobility management in the Netherlands

• The study “effectiveness of mobility management” (KPVV/ECORYS)

• Lessons for broader implementation

27/28 october 2005

3

MM in “decentralised policy context”: Vision on (Urban) Transport

• Door-to-door approach: improve reliability • Area-wise approach: optimise network utilization and

location/site access• Involve all relevant partners (govt, operators, private,

NGO’s); foster co-operation (public-public, public-private)• Do not focus on responsibilities/jurisdictions, but on the

problem and how to tackle it• Realistic, step-by-step, no “grand designs”• Shift problem ownership towards “mobility generators”

– More “mandatory”effort required from responsible private actors (e.g. employers)

• Extra driver: Clean Air Directive

27/28 october 2005

4

MM in current NL national policy: New “élan”

In national strategic Mobility Policy Document 2005-2020:• MM required to be essential component of transport plans

of provinces, regions and municipalities• MM options to be taken into account when considering

motorway capacity expansion • MM plan required for building and environmental permit

for business operations - (to be enforced by municipal authorities)

• MM-plan required when organising big events- (to be enforced by municipal authorities)

27/28 october 2005

5

Aim for KPVV/Ecorys study:

• Make the results of mobility management accessible for further policies:

– “find hard facts” about effectiveness; – special emphasis on area/site access

oriented projects• Results of “what exactly”? Elements for

sharpening the definition of MM:– a vision? an approach? a “bunch” of

measures? a managerial concept? – demand oriented: mobility policies bottom-up – process oriented: co-operation, covenants

27/28 october 2005

6

Examples of found results (1)

• Amsterdam Southeast area development (business parks, shopping malls, Arena stadium): incorporating MM-package in plans helped to meet environmental requirements – and helps keeping the area accessible [recently: successful employee travel package during major motorway overhaul]

• Rotterdam Marathon and Cultural Capital: MM resulted in doubling of PT patronage and an accessible city centre

• Companies in business park Oosteind (Papendrecht) agreed to implement a package to achieve 30% less traffic during necessary major reconstruction (linked to dike renovation)

27/28 october 2005

7

Examples of found results (2)

• Gelre Hospital Apeldoorn: reduction of necessary parking capacity (a.o. through revised working processes!), allowing expansion of hospital within existing perimeter

• Renovation of an old business park in Soest: perceived shortage of parking space tackled through better distribution; contributing to actractiveness

• Extra: companies benefit from employee travel plans through lower parking costs, improved productivity and health of employees (cycling facilities!), attractiveness on labour market [results from other research]

27/28 october 2005

8

Findings on “case effectiveness”

• Impacts and effectiveness are hardly an issue (only a few hard results documented)

• If impacts are mentioned they lie on fields wide apart: accessibility, solved parking problems, liveability, etc. …..

• There is no such thing as a standard approach• There was always a strong incentive/immediate

cause (“preliminary problem perception”)• Perceived success (“effectiveness”?) was linked to

these incentives/causes

27/28 october 2005

9

A wide range of results, linked to a clear cause

- User pays

Justice

- Accessibility and degree of participation

- Imbalance pleasures and pains

- Inconvenience wrong parking

- Reduction trips/ mileage

- Noise / air pollution

- Quality everyday surroundings

Liveability

- Road accidents

- Public security

Safety Cause/

problem perception

- Vitality of settlement climate

- Financing / earmarks

- Direct financial benefits

- High travelling costs

Accessibility Economy

- Long travelling times (congestion)

- Unreliable travelling times

- High parking pressure

27/28 october 2005

10

Findings on case approaches

• No clear ambition; integration in major themes is an exception

• No discussions on means and ends; “what are we doing it for?”

• No pressure on results or projects• Often lacking: in-depth problem analysis• Every local government (agency) is going its own way

27/28 october 2005

11

Lessons (1): what kind of projects are effective?

• Tailored to the real problems and aiming at win-win situations

• Strictly managed towards a desired result (‘as a project’ )

• Logically embedded in procedures or other relevant processes (no independent measures)

• Clear causes, requiring clearly defined ambitions

27/28 october 2005

12

Lessons (2): No effects without willingness!

• Mobility management should be treated as mobility management >>>> (projects with clear targets, evaluations, contracts)

• Mobility management (in area wise approaches) needs strong local politicians>>>> (the market can take care of the demand side)

• “Success has many faces and/or fathers” – as many as there are incentives/immediate causes/drivers (and “access” is only one of those!) >>>> so does effectiveness

27/28 october 2005

13

Thank you

“Where there is a will, there is an effect”English report downloadable from:

www.rws-avv.nl > english > products > passenger transport