Adl future of_urban_mobility

929
-1

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
929
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
52
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Adl future of_urban_mobility

  1. 1. The Future of Urban MobilityTowards networked, multimodal cities of 2050 Your innovation. Our dedication. Since 1886. Your innovation. Our dedication. Since 1886.
  2. 2. Content1 Executive summary 32 Study design: comprehensive scope and approach 43 Burning platform: urban mobility systems on their way to breakdown 64 Urban mobility futures: solutions and technologies waiting for deployment 85 Shaping the future: towards networked, multimodal urban mobility systems 10 Authors: Wilhelm Lerner Director Germany Strategy and Organization Practice Additional author is the Global Future of Urban Mobility Lab Team Salman Ali, Ralf Baron, Antoine Doyon, Daniel Koob, Oleksii Korniichuk, Stefan Lippautz, Kiyoung Song, Michael Zintel
  3. 3. 1. Executive summary Management consultancy Arthur D. Little’s (ADL) new global study of urban mobility assesses the mobility maturity and performance of 66 cities worldwide and finds most not just falling well short of best practice but in a state of crisis. Indeed it is not putting it too stron- gly to say that many cities’ mobility systems are standing on a burning platform and if action is not taken in the very near future they will play a major role in slowing the growth and development of their host nations. What is needed is innovative change. This report highlights what is holding them back, showcases best practice and identifies three strategic impera- tives for cities and three clusters of future business models for mobility suppliers that will enable cities to meet the urban mobility challenge. 3
  4. 4. The Future of Urban MobilityMethodology Where are we now? ■■ North America: A slightly belowArthur D. Little assessed the mobility Rated on a scale of 1-100 (with 100 average performance – but way belowmaturity and performance of 66 cities representing the top performance) the Western Europe – with 62.0 points.worldwide using 11 criteria ranging average score was close to 65 (64.4 Just Boston, with 76.2 points scoresfrom public transport’s share of the points). Which means that, on average, highly, while Atlanta has only 46.2modal mix and the number of cars the 66 cities achieve just two thirds of points, making it the worst performingper capita to average travel speed and the level of performance that could po- city surveyed.transport-related CO2 emissions. The tentially be reached today by applyingmobility score per city ranges from best practice across all operations.Only ■■South America: Average perfor-0 to 100 index points; the maximum two cities (Hong Kong and Amsterdam) mance, just ahead of North Americaof 100 points is defined by the best scored above 80 points, with just 15% with 63.6 points. Mexico City leads theperformance of any city in the sample of cities scoring above 75 points. way with 65.7 index points closely follo-for each criteria. In addition the study There are big differences between wed by Buenos Aires (65.3) andreviewed and analysed 39 key urban the top and low-end performers in the São Paulo (59.7).mobility technologies and 36 potential various regions.urban mobility business models. ■■Asia / Pacific: The broadest range in ■■Western Europe: Overall best performance – from Hong Kong, whichPlotting the trend regional performance with an average with 81.9 points tops the global table,The world’s population is increasingly of 71.4 points, with seven out of the down to Manila with 48.4 points. Thiscity-based; 51% or 3.5 billion people 18 analysed cities scoring above 75 gives an average of 62.5 points.currently live in urban areas and by 2050this is expected to reach 70% of thepopulation or 6.3 billion people.Urban mobility is one of the toughestchallenges that cities face; accordingly,we will see massive investment in thefuture. Today, 64% of all travel kilomet-res made are urban and the amount oftravel within urban areas is expected totriple by 2050. Being able to get aroundurban areas quickly, conveniently andwith little environmental impact is criti-cal to their success.Existing mobility systems are close tobreakdown. By 2050, the average timean urban dweller spends in traffic jamswill be 106 hours per year, three timesmore than today. Delivering urban mobi- points. Amsterdam (81.2) and London ■■Middle East / Africa: The lowestlity will require more and more resour- (78.5 points) lead the way, while Rome performing region with an average ofces. In 2050 urban mobility will: (57.9 points) and Athens (53.3) are the 54.4 points. Dubai (58.0) comes top and worst performing cities. Tehran bottom with 47 points. .7■■ Cost €829bn per year across theglobe, more than four times higher than ■■ Eastern / Southeastern Europe: What is holding back change?in 1990. Most cities performed close to the There are clearly sufficient available regional average of 64.0 points. Only solutions to meet today’s urban mobility■■ Use 17.3% of the planet’s biocapaci- Istanbul (70.2) comes close to the top challenges. Arthur D. Little identified 39 keyties, which is five times more than in performance cluster and St. Petersburg technologies and 36 potential urban mobility1990. (56.9 points) is the worst performing business models. However, these solutions city in Eastern / Southeastern Europe. are not being applied comprehensively.4
  5. 5. The Future of Urban MobilityWhy has the innovation potential not that are owned by 95% of citizens, part tion. Following rigorous analysis of otherbeen unleashed? There is one key rea- of a clear, well-articulated mobility strat- systems that have adopted open andson: the management of urban mobility egy that combines low transport-related innovative approaches to change, weoperates globally in an environment emissions with a short average travel have identified three long-term sustai-that is hostile to innovation. Our urban time to work. nable business models for the evolvingmanagement systems are overregula- urban mobility ecosystem.ted, they do not allow market players Three strategic imperatives for citiesto compete and they do not establish To meet the urban mobility challenge, ■■The Google of urban mobility: Builtbusiness models that bring demand and cities need to implement one of the on a core asset of a user-friendly custo-supply into a natural balance. following three strategies dependent on mer interface, it provides a single point their location and maturity: of access for multimodal mobility andSome will say this is easier said than supplementary services to end consu-done but we need only look at the per- ■■ Network the system: For high per- mers on a large scale to drive uptake.formance of other sectors of the global forming cities the next step must beeconomy to see that transformative to fully integrate the travel value chain, ■■ The Apple of urban mobility: At thechange is possible in a relatively short increasing convenience by aggressively core of this business model are integ-space of time. No example is more vivid extending public transport, implemen- rated mobility services and solutions tothan that of the communications sector. ting advanced traffic management the end consumer or cities. IntegratedIn just two decades, hardware and systems and further reducing individual mobility services for end consumerssoftware innovation coupled with the transport through greater taxation and provide a seamless, multimodal journey road tolls. experience such as public transport interlinked with car and bike sharing. ■■ Rethink the system: Cities in mature Suppliers that target cities provide inte- countries with a high proportion of grated, multimodal mobility solutions on motorised individual transport need to a turnkey basis. fundamentally redesign their mobility systems so that they become more ■■ The Dell of urban mobility: This is a consumer and sustainability orientated. basic offering such as cars or bike sha- This group contains the majority of ring, without integration or networking. cities in North America along with those It can also include disruptive techno- in Southwestern Europe. logical solutions such as transponders that make the Google and Apple models ■■ Establish a sustainable core: For ci- feasible. ties in emerging countries the aim must be to establish a sustainable mobility Arthur D. Little’s contribution to core that can satisfy short-term demand shaping the future of urban mobility at a reasonable cost without creating The current disparate nature of urban motorised systems that need to be mobility systems means that none ofrise of the internet has brought about redesigned later. With access to new the individual stakeholders can createwhat is nothing short of a communica- and emerging transport infrastructure these models alone. Arthur D. Littletions revolution. What we need now is a and technologies these cities have the specialises in linking strategy, techno-mobility revolution. opportunity to become the test bed and logy and innovation, and aims to use breeding ground for tomorrow’s urban its Future Lab as the platform to enableShowcasing success – Hong Kong mobility systems. and facilitate an open dialogue betweenSuccessful cities, such as Hong Kong, urban mobility stakeholders.have a well-balanced split between Three future business models fordifferent forms of transport that move mobility supplierspeople away from individual motorised Having grasped the scale of the loomingtransport. In Hong Kong, travel is integ- crisis in the urban mobility sector, Arthurrated through multimodal mobility cards D. Little set about researching a solu­ 5
  6. 6. The Future of Urban Mobility2. Study design: comprehensive scope and approachThe reform of urban mobility systems Prosperity – This was determined by The Public cluster (see figure 2) totalledis one of the biggest challenges con- the GDP per capita as of 2008, with 48 cities and the Individual one just 18.fronting policymakers, stakeholders those having a GDP per capita of more Each city’s profile was further refinedand users today and to do it justice than US$25,000 defined as ‘mature’ with the addition of information relatingthe study required a commensurately and those below that level defined as to population growth and density. Citiesambitious approach. Our researchers ‘emerging’. were identified as having more or lessworked on six of the seven continents than 0.5% population growth and a den-to study the status quo, from Atlanta Modal split – This indicator was applied sity of more or less than 7,000 peopleto Lagos, Lahore to Zurich. A vast by assessing the respective shares of indi- per square km.amount of data was accumulated to vidual motorised mobility, public transportenable us to divide the cities under and walking/cycling. Cities with less than ADL analysis revealed wildly divergent ’sscrutiny into clusters and thus propose 50% of individual travel were categorised performances but one thing all clustersdifferent ways forward for cities at as ‘public mobility oriented cities’ and have in common is that they need todifferent stages of development. In those with more classed as ‘individual innovate to improve their performance.addition, we reviewed in depth a vast mobility cities’.number of business models and tech- 1A – Public, small, mature –nologies that are required to enable City size – This was determined by the Vienna-typethe way towards high performance population of the city agglomerations as Cities in this category had the fewesturban mobility systems. of 2010. Cities with more than 5 million transport-related fatalities and the residents were defined as ‘large’ and shortest mean travel time to work as2.1 Urban mobility clusters those below, ‘small’. a relatively high take-up of safe publicThe urban mobility study was conducted in transport options such as buses and66 cities around the globe, a sample consis- These indicators led to the categorisation trains meant there were fewer cars onting of the 50 largest cities in the world as of eight different clusters divided into two the road and so the rate of accidentsmeasured by population and by regional GDP broad groups, membership of which was and congestion was reduced. Theyshare as well as another 16 Arthur D. Little allocated on the basis of whether their performed poorly, however, in terms offocus cities (see figure 1). modality split was ‘public’ or ‘individual’. the number of shared bikes and need to increase the proportion of people who walk or cycle.Figure 1: Study scope Region Americas Europe, Middle East Africa Asia Case study North America Europe Asia Vienna – The Austrian capital has one New York Dallas Istanbul Barcelona Tokyo Osaka Los Angeles Atlanta Moscow Ankara Mumbai Lahore of the highest uses of public transport Chicago Houston Paris Berlin Delhi Shenzhen World’s largest cities determined Miami Boston London Athens Dhaka Chennai in Europe and a high level of mobility by GDP share of Philadelphia Washington, D.C. Toronto Madrid Saint Petersburg Lisbon Kolkata Shanghai Seoul satisfaction among its citizens. Howe- region and Bangalore population Karachi Wuhan ver, it falls down badly when it comes to Latin America Africa Middle East Manila Tianjin Beijing Hyderabad multimodal mobility cards, where it has Mexico City São Paulo Kinshasa Tehran Jakarta Bangkok Buenos Aires Lagos Baghdad Guangzhou zero penetration. Car and bike sharing Amsterdam Frankfurt Hong Kong are other areas that need improvement Brussels Cambridge Kuala Lumpur Additional Stockholm Goteborg Singapore as Vienna has a very low rate of car Vienna Arthur D. Little focus cities Zurich Milan Prague sharing and 703 shared bikes per million Rome Munich citizens. DubaiSource: Arthur D. Little 1B – Public, large, mature –These were then split into clusters Thus 1A was ‘Public, small and mature’, Hong Kong-typebased on their level of prosperity, while 1D was ‘Public, large and emer- Transport-related CO2 emissions andmodal split of total number of journies ging’. In the same way, 2A was ‘Indi- fatalities are the areas where this clus-in them and their population. vidual, small and mature’ and 2D was ter performs well but it did badly when ‘Individual, large and emerging’. it came to innovative mobility sharing practices such as car sharing.6
  7. 7. The Future of Urban Mobility Figure 2: City clustersCase study 1A “Vienna – type” 1B “Hong Kong – type” 1C “Beijing – type” Public, small, mature Public, large, mature Public, large, emergingHong Kong – stands at the very pin- Lisbon Frankfurt New York Seoul Jakarta Lahore Bangalorenacle. Despite – or perhaps because Stockholm Vienna Osaka Buenos Aires São Paulo Kinshasa Kolkata Guangzhou Beijing Mexico Cityof – being one of the most densely po- Berlin Prague Moscow Barcelona Bombay Karachi Lagos Zurich Amsterdam Hong Kong Madridpulated areas in the world, with a land Singapore Saint Petersburg Tokyo Manila Istanbul Delhi Hyderabadmass of just 1,100 sq km, Hong Kong Boston London Chennai Shanghai Ankara Dhaka Wuhan Bangkokhas developed a highly networked, Munich Paris Tianjin Shenzhen Tehranmultimodal mobility system. Smart 2A “Rome – type” 2B “Los Angeles – type” 2C “Kuala Lumpur – type” Individual, small, mature Individual, large, mature Individual, large, emergingcard penetrations stands at a remar- Houston Brussels Los Angeles Kuala Lumpurkable 2.9 cards per citizen, while car Atlanta Rome Chicago Baghdadregistrations, transport-related fatalities Dallas Cambridge Toronto Washington Goteborg Philadelphiaand CO2 emissions are all among the Miami Dubai Milanlowest in the survey. Athens Population growth 0,5% p.a. Population growth = 0,5% p.a. Density 7.000 people/ km2 Density = 7.000 people/ km21C – Public, large, emerging –Beijing-typeThis category includes both Indian and number of cars registered per citizen Case studyAfrican cities with underdeveloped mo- and the level of transport-related CO2 Toronto – The Canadian capital comesbility dominated by walking and three- emissions. top of its cluster for ‘Satisfaction withwheelers to others with fast-increasing transport’ and its level of transport-levels of income and car ownership such Case study related fatalities. But it has negligibleas Beijing and Shanghai. Both groups Atlanta – In a nation of car lovers, the penetration of smart cards, high carbonneed to be more innovative in their ap- capital of the southern US state of Geor- emissions and cycling and walkingproach to a growing crisis by promoting gia bows to no one in its enthusiasm for account for just 6% of the modal split.sharing and multimodal concepts. the automobile. In the modal split, the car accounts for an extraordinary 95% 2C – Individual, large, emerging –Case study of journeys. This means that Atlanta’s Kuala Lumpur-typeBejing – Traffic congestion is endemic in CO2 emissions are off the scale at 7 .5 Carbon emissions are where this clusterthe Chinese capital as car registrations tonnes per capita, compared with 0.5 performs best but it also has the highestproceed apace. Indeed, car ownership is tonnes in Asia and 1.1 tonnes in Europe. rate of transport-related fatalities of allgrowing at a compound annual growth Meanwhile its transport-related fatali- the clusters and performs poorly whenrate (CAGR) of no less than 12%. Two of ties level is even higher than Beijing’s at it comes to sharing options.the effects of this are a mean travel time 83 per million. It has an urgent need toto work of 52 minutes, almost twice fund and promote public transport if it Case studythat of Vienna, and 68 transport-related is to achieve a sustainable mobility sys- Baghdad –The capital of Iraq – hasdeaths per million, more than eight tem. As existing journey-to-work times no clear mobility strategy, no cartimes the rate in the Austrian capital. are extremely low at 26.6 minutes, and bike sharing systems as well asIn these circumstances there is a this will be a major challenge for policy no smart transit cards. The city haspressing need for draconian restrictions makers. enormously high transport relatedon car use, including limitations on car CO2 emissions per capita comparedregistrations, car-free days, and banning 2B – Individual, large, mature – Los to other cities in Africa and Middlecar commuters in the rush hour. Angeles-type East: About 1.55 tones. It is caused Citizens profess a high degree of by a very high number of vehicles2A – Individual, small, mature – satisfaction with their transport options registered (0.55 per capita) and lowRome-type in this cluster and can point to a good ecological standards in the city.While this cluster performed best in record on fatalities and CO2 emissions.terms of mean travel time to work, this But, again, there is more to be done,was achieved at some cost to the envi- particularly involving mobility innovationsronment and there is a pressing need such as sharing options and the penetra-for its member cities to reduce the tion of smart cards. 7
  8. 8. The Future of Urban Mobility2.2 Urban mobility demand, business fined by the best and worst performance Next we did desk and field research tomodels and supporting technologies of the 66 cities. The point scales add up to score each of the 66 cities on the UrbanADL analysed all three areas in depth: a maximum of 100 points on all indicators Mobility Index. We used the scoringDemand – We selected use cases for combined (i.e. if a city achieves the maxi- results to identify common characteris-mature markets and emerging markets mum score on each of the 11 indicators, it tics and factors explaining differences inand identified general characteristics, will have an index score of 100). performance for each of the six clusters.mobility demand and implications forsolution providers in each case. Figure 3: Definition of urban mobility index indicators Urban Mobility Index Indicator DefinitionBusiness Models – The study identified Mobility maturitybusiness models in four sectors: Trans- max 32.5 pointsport, Infrastructure, Traffic Management Share of public transport,  Best (7.5)and Information, Planning and Payment, walking/cycling in modal split  Worst (0)plus Integration, which straddles these. [% ] MAX 7.5 POINTSThese were then assessed for their level Mobility strategy/ vision cumulativeof maturity: introduction, growth, maturi-  Alternative engines 2ty or decline and allocated to clusters.  Sustainability 2 MAX 10 POINTS  Multimodality 2  Infrastructure 2Technologies – We looked at four sec-  Restrictions 2tors (as above) and identified the most Car sharing performance  No sharing system (0)suitable technologies for each sector  Introduction planned for 2011 (1)before assessing them for their level of MAX 5 POINTS  50 vehicles/ million citizens (2)  51-100 vehicles/ million citizens (3)maturity and identified as being at one  101-200 vehicles/ million citizens (4)of four stages  201 vehicles/ million citizens (5) Number of shared bikes  0 = no sharing system2.3 Urban Mobility Index per million citizens  1 = = 100 bikes/ million citizens  2 = 101-500 bikes/ million citizensThe Arthur D. Little Urban Mobility Index  3 = 501-1000 bikes/ million citizens(see figure 3) aggregates the position of MAX 5 POINTS  4 = 1001-5000 bikes/ million citizensa city on 11 indicators. The first five indi-  5 = 5001 bikes/ million citizenscators measure mobility maturity: vision Penetration of  0 = no smart transit card smart cards  1 = 0.1cards/ capitaand strategy for future mobility, number  2 = 0.1-0.25 cards/ capitaof shared cars per capita, number of MAX 5 POINTS  3 = 0.25-0.5 cards/ capitashared bikes per capita, penetration  4 = 0.5-1 cards/ capita  5 = 1 cards /capitarate of smartcards and share of public Mobility performancetransport and walking and cycling in the max 67.5 pointsmodal split. Transport related fatalities  Lowest (15) per million citizens  Highest (0)The second range of indicators measures MAX 15 POINTSmobility performance, i.e. the degree to Transport related CO2  Lowest (7.5) emissions [kg per capita]  Highest (0)which mobility-related goals are fulfilled MAX 15 POINTSin an effective and efficient manner: Vehicles registered  Lowest (7.5)average travel speed in the city with all per citizen  Highest (0)modes of transport, mean travel time to MAX 7.5 POINTSwork, number of fatalities per inhabitant, Average travel speed [km/h]  Best (7.5) MAX 7.5 POINTS  Worst (0)transport-related CO2 emissions percapita, number of vehicles registered per Satisfaction with transport  Average of 3 ADL intern expert opinions [points]  Additional interviews for verificationcitizen and inhabitant satisfaction with MAX 15 POINTSmobility in the city. For each indicator we Mean travel time to work  Shortest (7.5)defined a point scale, with the maximum [minutes]  Longest (0)and minimum end of the scale being de- MAX 7.5 POINTS8
  9. 9. The Future of Urban Mobility3. Urban mobility systems on their way to breakdownSome storms that beset the global Urban and rural population 2010-2050 [m people; % ]economy are wholly unexpected butthe end game in the looming crisisover urban mobility is eminently pre- 9.202dictable. At its root is our old friend 8.202the Malthusian Devil. With the Earth’s 30% Rural CAGR 2010-50 6.831 -0,4% p. a.population set to grow by just under 39%a third in the next 40 years, alreadycreaking transport systems in our 49%mushrooming cities will come under Urbanintolerable strain. In such a context 70% CAGR 2010-50innovation is crucial and yet our re- 61% + 1,5% p. a.searches show that, instead of being 51%championed, innovative approachesare all too often stifled. Figure 4: 2010 2030 2050 Development of urban3.1 Relevance of urban mobility and rural populationThe population of the world is set to Source: UN Population Division, Arthur D. Little Labgrow from 7 billion today to 9.2 billion by2050 and this presents intimidating chal-lenges in a range of diverse spheres, 3.2 Triple bottom line impact of urban This is why, when it comes to perfor-from food production to climate change. mobility systems mance, the study focuses on the threeBut, as this growth will be accompanied If current trends continue, urban mobi- dimensions of sustainability: people,by an exodus from the countryside to lity systems are going to break down planet and profit.cities, there are few issues set to be- spectacularly and exact a heavy toll.come more thorny than the provision of The so-called triple bottom line – peop- Planet – We have a duty as citizens noturban transport. Indeed, the proportion le, planet, profit – could suffer a serious to compromise the next generation’sof the global population living in cities blow. For example, a US citizen by 2050 opportunities to make their living onis expected to rise from 51% in 2010 to will on average suffer some 100 hours planet Earth and yet, without careful70% by 2050 (see figure 4). As existing of congestion-related delays a year, planning, mobility systems will remainurban mobility systems are already which is triple the number in 1990. major generators of greenhouse gasesfacing breakdown in many regions, this 17 .3% of the planet’s bio-capacities will and thus significant contributors topresents a problem of crisis proportions be needed to make urban mobility pos- climate change. In addition they willfor policymakers worldwide. sible in 2050, which is five times more deprive other sectors of energy supplies than in 1990. And annual investment in and cause air and noise pollution.The problem is exacerbated by the fact urban mobility will have to quadruple tothat city workers are responsible for some €829bn worldwide by 2050. People – Our systems and technologiescreating a disproportionate amount of have to serve people to a broad extent.global GDP By 2025, their contribution . Hand-in-hand (see figure 5) with this As the world’s population grows andis expected to total 86%. In such a change will come a massively incre- more and more people migrate to thecontext, it is vital that urban residents ased demand for energy and raw cities, urban mobility systems will comeare in a position to move around freely. materials. Given this, sustainability will under growing strain, with congestionAnd yet – while urban mobility currently become an increasingly key factor in increasing and travel speeds declining.accounts for 64% of overall mobility – it the way the urban mobility systems Unless the modality split can be shiftedis expected to almost triple between of the future are desig-ned – and that in favour of public transport and walking/now and 2050, with the result that the means environmentally friendly mass cycling accidents and fatalities willaverage time a citizen will spend trap- transit must win out over individual increase.ped in traffic congestion could also triple motorised transport. Profit – Whatever we propose must– to 106 hours a year. match the principles of good manage- ment. It is forecast that annual spending 9
  10. 10. The Future of Urban Mobility Figure 5: Triple bottom line impact of urban mobility Ecological footprint urban mobility Delay hours due to congestions p.a. Urban mobility investment need p.a. 3.3 Overal-Performance of urban % of planet Earth Delay hours bn EUR mobility systems 17,3% 18% 120 106,3 900 829 Rated on a scale of 1-100 (with 100 15% 14,2% 800 91,5 11,4% 90 78,8 700 665 representing the top performance) the 12% 67,8 600 534 9% 8,9% 60 50,9 58,4 500 429 average score of the cities surveyed 6,7% 6% 5,0% 400 300 245 324 was close to 65 (64.4 points). This 30 32,5 3% 3,7% 200 100 185 means that, on average, the 66 cities 0% 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 achieve just two thirds of the level of Source: Stockholm Environment Institute, US Census Bureau, UN Population Division, Schäfer/ Victor 2000, Siemens, Bureau of Transport Statistics, performance that could potentially be Arthur D. Little reached today by applying best practice across all operations. on urban mobility – including infrastruc- ■■ Environmentally compatible business ture – will have to rise to €829bn per Only two cities (Hong Kong and Ams- annum by 2050, more than four times ■■Sustainable communities and a high terdam) scored above 80 points, with the figure in 1990. And yet its services quality of life just 15% of cities scoring above 75 must remain affordable for all citizens. points (see figure 6). ■■Social investments and an equitable These dimensions work together to con- economic system The analysis reveals a number of remar- struct a triple bottom line of benefits: kable results. First, there is a clear cor- relation between the use of innovative mobility concepts on the one hand and Figure 6: Urban mobility ranking- Wird von Nougat Design neu gemacht Global Average 64.4 15% Above average performance Boston Munich Wien (Vienna) Singapore Paris Gothenburg Stockholm London Amsterdam Hong Kong 64% Sample average Average performance 21% Below average performance 45 55 65 75 80 Urban Mobility Performance Index Source: Arthur D. Little Mobility Index; xx% : share of cities in this performance cluster; 100 index points for city that would achieve best performance which is achieved today on each performance criteria 10
  11. 11. The Future of Urban Mobilitymobility effectiveness and efficiency on Second, the average score achieved by one and the same contactless paymentthe other hand. Cities that promote wal- the 66 cities in the sample is 65 points card across transport modes – butking, cycling, bike sharing, car sharing (64.4) and only 15% of the cities score lags in terms of car and bike sharing.and smart mobility cards as part of an above 75 points. In other words, the In other words, a near-perfect mobilityintegrated mobility vision and strategy average city achieves only two thirds of system does not yet exist in the worlddo reduce travel times, fatal accidents what is possible today by applying best today and full satisfaction with urbanand carbon emissions. All of the top ten practice across all operations and only transport is not observed in any of theperforming cities have a strong focus ten cities perform in the highest quartile cities studied (see figure 7).on public transport, walking and cycling, possible today. This analysis indicateswith individual motorised mobility usu- the significant performance-improve- Fourth, city size does not have a signi-ally commanding less than half of the ment potential cities have and highlights ficant influence on the mobility score.modal split. the urgent need for cities to address the For example, the small cities of Rome urban mobility challenge proactively. and Athens have much lower scoresAs the following chart shows, cities that (57 and 53.3 respectively) than the .9are above average in terms of mobile Third, even for cities that score highest, large cities of London and Madrid (78.5maturity are characterised by high levels namely Hong Kong (81.9) and Amster- and 71.8 respectively). However, theof public transport use and walking and dam (81.2), the scope for improving to- two other city characteristics that wecycling; car and bike sharing; and pene- ward the maximum score of 100 is still studied, namely city prosperity and thetration of smart cards. They also have a significant. Hong Kong, for example, prevalence of public transport (‘modalcoherent mobility strategy. scores very high in terms of smartcard split’), do have a significant influence penetration – allowing people to use on the mobility score. The richer theFigure 7: Top ten city index perform-ance smart cards [cards / Mean travel time to fatalities per million + walking/ cycl. in Share pubic transp. Vehicles registered CO2 emissions [kg Number of shared Mobility strategy/ transport [points] Transport related Transport related Satisfaction with bikes per million modal split [% ] work [minutes] Average travel vision [points] Penetration of speed [km/h] performance Car sharing per capita] per citizen [points] citizens citizens capita] City1 Hong Kong 84% 10 1 0.0 2.9 23.0 378 0.08 25,1 12 39,02 Amsterdam 56% 10 5 305.1 1.0 27.0 1100 0.40 34,0 13 22,03 London 62% 10 5 695.1 2.3 39.0 1050 0.40 17,7 14 44,14 Stockholm 54% 10 4 1944.9 0.2 21.0 1430 0.40 28,6 13 29,15 Goteborg 48% 9 5 1220.4 0.6 48.0 1800 0.41 24,0 13 18,76 Singapore 55% 9 5 0.0 2.0 47.0 900 0.10 26,9 8 36,07 Vienna 69% 9 3 703.6 0.0 16.0 1250 0.39 26,7 13 27,68 Paris 56% 10 5 1964.7 0.2 91.0 950 0.39 31,0 14 35,09 Munich 63% 8 5 926.4 0.0 22.2 1390 0.42 32,0 14 30,210 Boston 55% 8 4 132.8 1.4 23.0 1028 0.63 29,0 12 30,4Source: Arthur D. Little Mobility Index 11
  12. 12. The Future of Urban Mobilitycity and the lower the share of individual Regional performance the worst performing city surveyed.transport, the higher the score. ■■ There are big differences between the top and low-end performers in various ■■South America: Average perfor-Fifth, cities in mature regions are not regions (see figure 9). mance, just ahead of North Americanecessarily a model that cities in emer- with 63.6 points. Mexico City leadsging regions should aspire to emulate. ■■Western Europe: Overall best regio- the way with 65.7 index points closelyMany of the former, such as Tokyo, nal performance with average of 71.4 followed by Buenos Aires (65.3) and SãoPrague, Moscow, Atlanta and Miami, points and seven out of the 18 ana- Paulo (59.7).still do not appear to have a vision and lysed cities scoring above 75 points.documented strategies that clearly arti- Amsterdam (81.2) and London (78.5 ■■Asia / Pacific: The broadest range inculate what they want their future mo- points) lead the way – while Rome performance – from Hong Kong, whichbility systems to look like. Furthermore, (57.9 points) and Athens (53.3) are the with 81.9 points tops the global tableif cities in emerging regions replicate worst performing cities. down to Manila with 48.4 points. Thisthe pathway that cities in mature regions gives an average of 62.5 points.have followed, they run the risk of intro- ■■Eastern / Southeastern Europe:ducing the very same problems of poor An average performance from all cities ■■Middle East / Africa: The lowestmodal split, high carbon emissions and in the region with an average of 64.0 performing region with an average oflow travel speed. US cities in particular points. Only Istanbul (70.2) comes 54.4 points. Dubai (58.0) comes top andtend to score low, as their modal split close to the top performance cluster Teheran bottom with 47 points. .7is heavily biased toward cars and their and St. Petersburg (56.9 points) is thecarbon emissions are a multiple of worst performing city in Eastern / 3.4 Innovation hostility of urbanthose in Europe (see figure 8). Southeastern Europe. mobility systems While poor, let alone deteriorating, urban ■■North America: A slightly below ave- mobility is a source of daily frustration to rage performance, way below Western citizens, businesses and governments Europe with 62.0 points. Just Boston, alike, many people are resigned to see it with 76.2 points scores highly, while as an inescapable consequence of econo- Atlanta has only 46.2 points, making it mic development and wealth creation. 1.0 1,25x 2,0x 5,0x Share of public transport, walking / cycling in 60,2 49,5 modals split [% ] 63,1 Mobility maturity Mobility strategy/ vision [points] 5,9 7,6 9,3 Car sharing performance [points] 0,6 1,8 4.2 789 Number shared bikes per million citizens 17 347 Penetration of smart cards [cards / capita] 0,1 0,3 1,1 Transport related fatalities per million citizens* 112 62 31 Mobility performance 1225 Transport related CO2 emissions [kg/ capita]* 1709 1128 0,35 Vehicles registered per citizen 0,35 0,5 23,0 Average travel speed [km/h] 27,5 22,6 Satisfaction with transport [points] 6,3 9,1 11,8 Mean travel time to work [minutes]* 44,8 38,6 31,2Source: Arthur D. Little Mobility Index Below average cities Average cities Above average cities* inverted scale12
  13. 13. The Future of Urban MobilityBut urban mobility need not be an intrac- 1. Lack of a collaborative platform.table problem. Solutions to address the Diverse stakeholders are failing to workpressing mobility challenges are widely together.available. This appears clearly from theprogress the top-performing cities such as 2. Absence of vision. Leaders of theHong Kong, Amsterdam and London are relevant stakeholder groups have not for-making. It also appears from our compre- mulated a common vision for the mobilityhensive review of 39 technologies and 36 concept.urban mobility business models. Some ofthese technologies are fairly mature (think 3. Lack of focus on customer needs. Allof electronic tolling, advanced parking too often mobility systems are run for thesystems, the automatic monorail, the convenience of their operators rather thanSegway…), while others are still in the consumers.embryonic phase (think of access to theCAN communication network in a car, 4. Inadequate competition. Servicesthe automated car, the solar roadway, the have a tendency to decline unless therestraddling train…). is meaningful competition between opera- tors for the custom of travellers.Likewise some business models aremature (e.g. bike rental), while others areembryonic (e.g. cargo pipelines).If the availability of good-practice examp-les, technology and business models isnot the bottleneck, what then is holdingback resolution of the mobility challenge?Our study reveals that the root causeof the performance gap is the aversionto innovation within the urban mobilitysystem. By ‘system’ we mean groups ofstakeholders, the relationships betweenthese, the rules and incentives thatgovern their behaviour, and the assets andcapabilities through which they seek toachieve their objectives.Current mobility systems adapt poorly tochanging demands, are weak in com-bining single steps of the travel chain intoan integrated offering, find it difficult tolearn from other systems, and shun anopen, competitive environment. Collabo-ration on solutions is rare. Rewards forinvestors are rather meagre.This is a pretty damning verdict, but it alsoshows the road to redemption because ithighlights four key shortcomings mobi-lity stakeholders will need to address toenable the emergence of innovative andeffective mobility concepts: 13
  14. 14. The Future of Urban Mobility Urban Mobility “Vienna – “Hong Kong – “Beijing – “Rome – Lifestyle A type” B type” C type” D type” Greenovator Family Cruiser Silver Driver High-frequency Commuter Jet Setter Sensation Seeker Low-end mobility Basic Smart Basic Premium Source: Arthur D. Little14
  15. 15. The Future of Urban Mobility 15
  16. 16. The Future of Urban Mobility4. Urban mobility futures: solutions and technologies waiting for deploymentFigure 10: Urban mobility demand pattern Urban Mobility “Vienna – “Hong Kong – “Beijing – “Rome – “Los Angeles – “Kuala Lumpur – Lifestyle 1A type” 1B type” 1C type” 2A type” 2B type” 2C type” Greenovator Family Cruiser Silver Driver High-frequency Commuter Jet Setter Sensation Seeker Low-end Mobility Basic Smart Basic PremiumSource: Arthur D. LittleKnowing the nature and needs of ADL identified 10 types of urban mobili- takes place in an ever more fragmentaryyour mobile population is a key first ty users: Greenovators, Family Cruisers, way. The new definition of the con-step to putting in place a networked Silver Drivers, High-Frequency Com- cept of family as a “network of many”solution which will suit all parties. muters, Global Jet Setters, Sensation involves an explosion of needs fromThen it becomes a question of iden- Seekers and Low-end Mobility, Basic, everyone involved, resulting from thetifying and executing the appropriate Smart Basic an Premium (see figure desire to balance career, partnerships,modes of transport to avoid the onset 10). In the following we will describe child rearing and individual personalityof gridlock. One of the more surpri- selected lifestyles. development. This need for intensivesing results of our study is that many family mobility makes Family Cruisers asolutions and technologies already ■■ Greenovators directly link environ- significant factor for planners in clustersexist but remain unexploited. What mental awareness and a sustainable coping with large urban sprawl such asis needed is an informed openness lifestyle with their quality of life. Restraint ‘Individual, large, mature’, where Losto what is available and the flexibi- in consumption and luxury constitutes an Angeles is a good example.lity and imagination to innovate as essential component of their understan-required. ding of culture and life – obviously with ■■ Silver Drivers are a new generation consequences for mobility consumption. of older people who will become increa-4.1 Urban mobility demand patterns Greenovators want integrated ecological singly important as a target group in theOne of the most difficult challenges mobility concepts that are oriented to- future mobility markets. Silver Driversfacing policymakers in mature markets wards their own personal wellbeing and are not only well off; they are ready tois satisfying the needs of a diverse array the good of society. This makes them spend their money rather than save it.of users. While public transport may suit a significant force in the ‘Public, small, Their battle cry is: “Anyone who savesa single person commuting to and from mature’ cluster and to a slightly lesser is just starving themselves for theirwork, it may be less convenient for a extent in the ‘Individual, small, mature’ heirs” This makes them serious players .stay-at-home mother juggling the school cluster epitomised by Rome. in clusters incorporating mature citiesrun, shopping and visiting friends. ■■ The family life of Family Cruisers but largely irrelevant in poorer parts of16
  17. 17. The Future of Urban Mobilitythe world where the shrinking older when travelling. Therefore, means of all sorts but also includes car and bikegeneration devotes much of its wealth transport must fulfil the functions of sharing schemes.to supporting the population explosion a personal workstation, as well as theamong the young. desires for privacy, familiarity and intima- Infrastructure – Business models here cy. All this makes them most at home cover the operators of road and rail■■ High-Frequency Commuters are in the ‘Public, large, mature’ cluster networks and the services that flowextremely mobile job nomads who are exemplified by Hong Kong and least from them.constantly on their way to visit custo- comfortable in emerging megacities.mers, business partners and temporary Traffic Management – Once the hard-projects. Network-type concepts, which ■■ For Sensation Seekers, cars are the ware has been installed, it has to becombine several mobility services in ultimate objects of experience and in managed and there are operators in aan intelligent way, are required to meet the future will link driving with attributes wide range of sectors.High-Frequency Commuters’ needs. such as freedom, fun and pleasure. ToWith the help of modern digital networ- fulfil Sensation Seekers’ wishes and Information, Planning and Payment –king possibilities, High-Frequency Com- needs, future concepts should consider This covers journey planning, navigationmuters will be able to organise them- cars ever more strongly as third places: and location based services.selves in carpools more spontaneously as refuges between job and home, inand at shorter notice and develop a high which the driver is happy to stay, feels Integration – There is also scope for bo-affinity towards car sharing and short- good, enjoys life, but can also spend dies that straddle two or more of theseterm rental car offers. Not surprisingly, time sensibly. For Sensation Seekers, categories, such as operators of mobilityperhaps, this category of consumer is a cars express their attitude towards life. cards (smart cards) and those involvedsignificant user in the four Mature clus- in multimodal journey planning.ters, and only marginally less of a force The individual demand patterns are ofin emerging markets. varying importance for the city clusters Despite the relative maturity of most as can be seen from figure 10. The most of the models in use, there is scope for■■High-Frequency Global Jet Setters striking features are the significant role extending the scope of a number of theare people who are regularly en route played by the High-Frequency Commu- growth business models – such as car– quite frequently several times a week ter in all clusters, whether Mature or sharing and traffic management – and– between the major cities of the world. Emerging, Public or Individual, and how the introduction-level ones – notably Pu-Being constantly in transit is not an Greenovators, on the other hand, tend blic Rapid Transit (PRT) and automatedexceptional situation for the Global Jet to be of meaningful relevance only in parking garages.Setter; it’s the general rule. As naturally Mature clusters (although they are lessas others travel to work in the morning significant in the Americas, where con- Examples of growth-level businessby getting into their car or taking the cern over petrol-based carbon emissions modelssubway, Global Jet Setters jump on tends to be less marked). Traffic management operatorplanes. For suburban mobility, howe- In the absence of a reduction in roadver, they too cannot get by without car 4.2 Maturity of urban mobility users, one partial solution is to managesolutions. Being in transit on an ongoing business models their progress better (see figure 11).basis intensifies Global Jet Setters’ wish Confronting the challenges of the future Traffic control systems rely on a networkto arrive somewhere, to feel at home will often require the adoption of new of detection and enforcement systems,and find tranquillity. Modes of transport business models. The majority of urban which relay their findings to controlhave to satisfy what Global Jet Setters mobility business models are at the rooms. Personnel there can then predictdemand from a “third place”: places growth or maturity stage. We have divi- changes in demand and manage thewhere one feels at ease and can be ded them into four categories: Transport, load on the network to improve jour-productive, where one can connect the Infrastructure, Traffic Management and ney times. A more efficient use of thepractical with the pleasing. Meeting Information, Planning and Payment. infrastructure is also like to lead to saferpeople, keeping in touch with contacts, journeys and lower emissions.coming up with ideas, learning, and Transport – This naturally encompasses Key partners in such schemes are likelybeing creative – all this is becoming ever everything from buses and rail services to include the highway authority, citymore important for Global Jet Setters to car and van rental and taxi services of and/or national government, data provi- 17
  18. 18. The Future of Urban Mobilityders, ICT providers and civil engineering Smart transit card spaces and contributing to a reduction incompanies. These would work in close A mass market, multimodal proposition, the company’s carbon footprint.cooperation with the emergency servi- this offers the user a highly conveni-ces, vehicle recovery organisations and ent, cash-free way of accessing a large Examples of introduction-levelenforcement agencies. transport network. It may also be made business models more attractive by extending its use to Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)Revenue to cover the cost of the ins- retail outlets and facilities such as car This mode of transport is in its infancytallation of detection and information parks, libraries and cinemas, etc. but is finding a growing constituencyprovision systems, control rooms and of customers among airports, busi-enforcement would come mainly from Car sharing (private end-user) ness parks, college campuses andinfrastructure owners in the form of a Car sharing services, whereby drivers national parks.periodical management fee and possible hire a vehicle at will rather than invest invariable fees based on the amount of a car of their own, are seen as an eco- It consists of individually hired electrictraffic handled or toll revenue raised. nomic and environmentally friendly com- pods carrying two to six passengersThere might also be scope for selling on plement to public transport. While they apiece that travel on fixed routes onraw or processed data. are already well established in many guideways. Fully automated, they offer cities around the world, there remains round-the-clock availability and no con- considerable scope for growth. gestion or parking issues. Car sharing (business internal) Aimed at the mass market, there is This variant on the genre operates as potential for expansion to city centres a closed system within a company. and suburbs and to business customers Instead of each employee making use with large premises who have a demand of their own car, vehicles are shared for freight transportation. among the staff, thus saving on parkingFigure 11: Urban mobility business models Business model life cycle Introduction Growth Maturity Decline Waterway Mobility/ smart Hailed shared Railway service Motorbike taxi Vehicle sales rental cards taxi provider service provider Electric Loc. based shop- Traffic infra- Bus service Car / van rental vehicles rental ping community strstructure provider provider Personal Rapid Car sharing (private Traffic mgmt. Waterway Motorbike rental Transit end custoemer) operator service provider Autom. parking Car sharing Railway Navigation Bike rental garage operator (business internal) infrastr.provider Holistic Bike sharing Multimodal Car based taxi Roadway mobility integrator provider journey plann. service provider infrastr. provider Waterway taxi Location based Tolling infrastr. ICT infrastr. service provider info services provider provider Airway taxi Velo taxi Tolling operator ICT operator service provide Energy station Parking space operator operator Single-mode journey plann. Transport Infrastructure Traffic management Information, planning payment IntegratorSource: Arthur D. Little18

×