IMG_1925.jpeg

@Francisco SPINE is the framework where the coordination between the bus operator and other involved services is being piloted, focusing on how information will be jointly and consistently provided to the user.

Regarding the surveys, we have different approaches. There are existing campaigns that SPINE will take advantage of, but they are not specific to the project. On the other hand, it is expected that specific SPINE campaigns will gather insights on the impact of the specific SPINE measures.

@Miroslava Due to the context in which the LEZs are being developed in Spain, the City Council is implementing the LEZs outside of the SPINE framework. Nonetheless, it is expected that some of the LL measures will assist in their management once implemented.

@Christophe Datasets are being used mainly by the technical partners, and their activities are being adapted to the data the city is able to provide.

@antonia-buric: we used to have a clearly defined set of features per type of hub but while rolling out and designing the first hubs it became clear that every locations requires a custom approach. It all depends on the environment, other services already available in the neighbourhood, what can be moved and what cannot be moved. I'll see if I can find the list of features and typologies that we used to have.
We're not tracking users. However, we do have our shared mobility trip data and we do yearly surveys on usage. Some questions are linked to multimodality.

@Miroslava: we're not really counting on smart parking management to switch behaviour. I personally think the smartest parking management measure we took is not allowing on-street parking for visitors in the old town. (and paid on-streek parking in large areas of the city). Other measures like showing available on-street parking spaces and guiding car users to those spots only makes it easier for car users, not harder. The smartest parking management strategy is to make it difficult for car users as early as possible in their trip. So car to closest trainstation and then into the city by train is better then car to P&R close to the city and then tram.

@Christophe: There's a list of +70 data layers we use for the various modes. Beside that we use the network data from OpenStreetMap and our routeplanner is also based on this. For map visualisation and theming we use Mapbox Studio. Users are able to turn on and off some layers. As a city we can also ensure that some layers we think are essential are always on. This can be P&R or mobility hubs. By showing them we make people aware about the options. Past the possibility of turning on and off layers, we don't give the user more options to theme a map. It is a very complex thing and most users won't use it. We do have an accessibility map style that makes everything more readable (still needs finetuning). In our app we do have guidance and navigation. It is possible to turn off or on the sound of the navigation. Everything is available in 4 languages and the website should be screenreadable. For the map component we're still looking into ways to make it screen readable. To my knowledge there's not a single application that has managed to do this. You can now check it out on the live site: www.sna.be

We get our data directly from the mobility providers and often it's the same source as they use themselves. We don't further try to improve the data.

I don't completely agree with the importance of RT-data for the user. In a good mobility system, the user does not need realtime data. Beside that, the whole IT-system of the city of Antwerp has been rebuild from scratch after a cyberattack last year. Even the design of a simple button on a website has been checked to ensure that it's not possible to gain access through such things.

@MARIA-VASILAKI : the screens we're installing are eInk screens like ereaders. The reason for this is that they can operate for a reasonably long time on batteries without the need to connect the infrastructure to the net. This makes it easier for us to install the screens anywhere we want on the public domain without having to open the ground to make an electric connection. As part of the service contract, the company installing the screen, replaces the batteries when needed. The cost of all this is covered in the SPINE budget.

The journey planner app, as well as the rest of the website is WCAG approved. It is useable with screenreaders and alike. However, making maps suitable and 100% WCAG proof is something nobody has found a solution for yet. I've seen a thesis on the use of AI to provide a spoken output of what is shown on the map but it stays tricky. We did include an accessibility layer in which we created a seperate more readable baselayer. We're still planning to fine-tune it with the community more but currently the focus is on improving the accessibility data we have and show to the user.

On the topic of discussing wider topics then spine or involving local stakeholders I think that's the whole goal of this platform. Sharing knowledge, not only during meetings but also through this platform.

@MARIA-VASILAKI said in Talinn - Presentation of measures:

We would like to ask Tallinn about the value of Smart City Platform, what will be the benefits and how will you use it ?

Thank you for very good question!

We expect the Smart City Platform to provide significant value through real-time insights and performance tracking. Once we establish connections with relevant data sources and complete necessary integrations, we aim to use the platform's dashboard to dynamically monitor and improve Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) outlined in both the SPINE project and our Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP). This should enable more responsive decision-making and support continuous improvement in mobility initiatives across the city.

@antonia-buric

Another question - what kind of EV charging stations are you implementing?

To improve the services near mobility centres for all categories of users, SPINE envisages the installation of accessible charging stations for electric vehicles. Some of the planned features respond to special mobility needs: ramps, canopies, spaces and signage for people with reduced mobility, special sockets for recharging electric wheelchairs, lighting, interoperability with platforms, multilingual, usable with universal payment methods without any subscription.

Currently, it is not the Municipality of Bologna (COBO) that directly installs the electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. Instead, there is a direct collaboration with Charging Point Operators (CPO), formalized through a memorandum of understanding. COBO provides space free of charge, while the CPOs (such as Enel X Way and beCharge) handle the installation and management of the charging stations without additional costs for the public administration. This model has worked well so far, but there are some limitations:

flexibility in the choice of locations: strict constraints cannot be imposed on EV charging station positioning, as CPOs may consider certain areas too expensive or inconvenient. In practice, the selection of locations is a compromise between demand factors (represented by the needs of users and the Municipality) and supply factors (i.e., the economic interests of the operators). For example, CPOs tend to prefer areas near power distribution cabinets to reduce installation costs, such as excavation and cabling expenses;

charging station power: CPOs are often incentivized to install high-power infrastructure because it generates higher revenue and takes advantage of economies of scale, allowing more charges to be completed in the same time-frame compared to lower-power stations. However, COBO is not focused on this model, as it aims to promote intermodality, which means enabling the combination of vehicle charging with the use of other forms of transport, such as public transit. High-power charging stations, which recharge vehicles quickly and encourage rapid vehicle turnover, do not support this approach. For example, users might decide to recharge their vehicle in 20 minutes, wait on-site, and then continue their journey by car instead of using a bus.
Therefore, COBO's intention is to focus on lower-power charging stations, which allow for slower recharging (typically taking a few hours) and give users greater flexibility as regards their desired parking time. Indeed, the low-power charging station better aligns with long-term parking, which is typical of intermodal areas where users might leave their cars for several hours and use public transportation for further trips, thus promoting intermodality.