Advertisement

Creating an Innovative Mobility Ecosystem for Urban Planning Areas

  • Dewan Masud KarimEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Mobility book series (LNMOB)

Abstract

Urban planning, infrastructure design, and mobility policy are up against a tough system-level challenge: the rapid adaptation of shared mobility. The new mobility is destabilizing the current auto-oriented transportation paradigm, and gradually moving toward a new mobility ecosystem. In order to capture the potential and create shared infrastructure, an innovative mobility planning model based on a scientific approach was developed to identify context-sensitive area solutions and the scaling of the proposed ecosystem for short- and long-term horizons. The aim of this model is to build capacities and competencies, enable municipal authority and system planners to quantify the scale and cost, and accurately model the potential impact and benefits of various innovative mobility strategies.

Keywords

Innovative mobility ecosystem City planning Connected multimodal Collaborative implementation 

Notes

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the City of Toronto or other cities where the “Mobility Ecosystem” framework was applied.

References

  1. 1.
    Heikkilä, S.: Mobility as a service—a proposal for action for the public administration: case Helsinki. Master’s Thesis, Aalto University (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Little, A.: The future of urban mobility 2.0: towards networked, multimodal cities of 2050. International Association of Public Transport (UITP) (2015)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cohen, B., Kietzmann, J.: Ride On! Mobility Business Models for the Sharing Economy, vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 279–296. SAGE Publications (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schwab, K.: The Fourth Industrial Revolution: What It Means, How to Respond, World Economic Forum, Global Agenda, Jan 14, 2016Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ausubel, J.H.: The Evolution of Transport, The Industrial Physicist, American Institute of Physics, vol. April/May, 20–24, 2001Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ITDP and EMBARQ: The Life and Death of Urban Highways, Mar 13, 2012Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ITDP: Europe’s Parking U-Turn: From Accommodation to Regulation, Jan 11, 2011Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Government of Ontario: Places to Grow Act, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Listokin, D., Voicu, I., Dolphin, W., Camp, M., Jay, D., Leavey, M., Sherry, J.: Infill development standards and policy guide. Center for Urban Policy Research, Rutgers University for New Jersey, Department of Community Affairs, April 2007Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jackson, T.: Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet. Routledge, June 2011Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S., Vries, W., Wit, C., Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G., Persson, L., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., Sörlin, S.: Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet. Science 15, 1–10 (2015)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shared Use Mobility: Reference Guide. Shared-use Mobility Center (SUMC), Chicago (2015)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doctoroff, D.: Panel Discussion, Disrupting Mobility Summit. Google Sidewalk Lab, Cambridge, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Alexander, L.P., González, M.C.: Assessing the impact of real-time ridesharing on urban traffic using mobile phone data. 4th International Workshop on Urban Computing, Sydney, Australia, Aug 10, 2015Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manyika, J., Chui, M., Bisson, P., Woetzel, J., Dobbs, R., Bughin, J., Aharon, D.: Unlocking the Potential of the Internet of Things. McKinsey Global Institute, June 2015Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berg, P.: The Finite Planet: How Resource Scarcity Will Affect Our Environment, Economy and Energy Supply, Create Space Independent Publishing Platform, Sept 16, 2011Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Priemus, H.: The network approach: Dutch spatial planning between substratum and infrastructure networks. Eur. Plan. Stud. 15(5), 667–686 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Forman, R.: Urban Ecology: Science of Cities. Cambridge University Press (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zielinski, S.: New Mobility: The Next Generation of Sustainable Urban Transportation, The Bridge—Linking Engineering and Society, vol. 36, no. 4. National Academy of Engineering, Winter 2006Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ohta, K.: TDM measures toward sustainable mobility. IATSS Res. 22(1) (1998)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Strompen, F., Litman, T., Bongardt, D.: Reducing carbon emissions through transport demand management strategies: a review of international examples. Final report, GIZ China, Transport Demand Management in Beijing, 2012Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    City of Toronto: For a Healthy, Equitable, Prosperous Toronto (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Weichenthal, S., Ryswyk, K., Goldstein, A., Shekarrizfard, M., Hatzopoulou, M.: Characterizing the spatial distribution of ambient ultrafine particles in Toronto, Canada: a land-use regression model. Environ. Pollut. 47(PT A), 1–8 (2015)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Millard-Ball, A.: Do city climate plans reduce emissions? J. Urban Econ. 71(3), 289–311 (2011). ElsevierCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weitman, M.: A review of the stern review on the economics of climate change. J. Econ. Lit. XLV, 703–724 (2007)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Oxford University Press (1987)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    WHO: Health Impact Assessment: Promoting Health Across All Sectors of Activity. World Health Organization (2012)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Anderson, J., Weiland, C., Muench, S.: Green Roads Manual, Version 1.5. University of Washington (2011)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    EPA: Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2011, Chapter 3 (Energy), Tables 3-12, 3-13, and 3-14, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. U.S., EPA #430-R-13-001 (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    University of Toronto: Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) (1985–2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Millard-Ball, A., Schipper, L.: Are we reaching peak travel? Trends in passenger transport in eight industrialized countries. Transp. Rev. 31(3), 357–378 (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sustainable Urban Infrastructure: Vienna Edition—Role Model for Complete Mobility, Siemens Mobility, 2015Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Botsman, B.: What’s mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption. Harper Bus. (2010)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Litman, T.: Can smart growth policies conserve energy and reduce emissions? Cent. Real Estate Q. J. (2011)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Gordon, D., Janzen, M.: Suburban nation? Estimating the size of Canada’s suburban population. J. Archit. Planning Res. 30(3), 197–220 (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Gately, C., Hutyra, L., Wing, I.: Cities, traffic, and CO2: a multidecadal assessment of trends, drivers, and scaling relationships. PNAS 112(16), 4999–5004 (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    McCahill, C., Garrick, N., Atkinson-Palombo, C., Polinski, A.: Effects of parking provision on automobile use in cities: inferring causality. Transp. Res. Board (2015)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mehaffy, M., Porta, S., Rofe, Y., Salingaros, N.: Urban nuclei and the geometry of streets: the emergent neighbourhoods model. Urban Des. Int. 15(1), 22–46 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Barthelemy, M., Flamini, A.: Modeling urban streets patterns. Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 138702 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Al Mamun, M., Lownes, N.: A composite index of public transit accessibility. J. Public Transp. 14(2) (2011)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    City of London: Measuring Public Transport Accessibility Levels: PTALs—Summary, Transport for London, April 2010Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Santi, P., Resta, G., Szell, M., Sobolevsky, S., Strogatz, S., Ratti, C.: Quantifying the benefits of vehicle pooling with shareability networks. PNAS 111(37), 13290–13294 (2014)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Watkins, K., Ferris, B., Borning, A., Rutherford, G., Layton, D.: Where is my bus? Impact of mobile real-time information on the perceived and actual wait time of transit riders. Transp. Res. Part A Policy Pract. 45(8), 839–848 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tang, L., Thakuriah, P.: Ridership effects of real-time bus information system: a case study in the city of Chicago. Transp. Res. Part C 22, 146–161 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brakewood, C., Macfarlane, G., Watkins, K.: The impact of real-time information on bus ridership in New York City. Transp. Res. Part C Emerg. Technol. 53, 59–75 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Caywood, M., Cochran, A., Schade, M.: Urban Mobility Score: Quantifying Multimodal Transportation Access. Disrupting Mobility Summit, Cambridge MIT (2015)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Dumbaugh, E., Rae, R.: Revisiting the relationship between community design and traffic safety. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 75(3), 309–329 (2009)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Van Schagen, I., Janssen, T.: Managing road transport risks: sustainable safety in the Netherlands, risk management in transport. IATSS Res. 24(2), 18–27 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Luoma, J., Sivak, M.: Why is road safety in the U.S. not on par with Sweden, the U.K., and the Netherlands? Lessons to be learned. Report no. UMTRI -2013-1, University of Michigan Transportation Institute, January 2013Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Welle, B., Liu, Q., Li, W., Adriazolasteil, C., King, R., Sarmiento, C., Obelheiro, M.: Cities Safer by Design: Guidance and Examples to Promote Traffic Safety through Urban and Street Design, Version 1.0, World Resources Institute (2015)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Karim, D.: Narrower Lanes, Safer Streets, Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers, Annual Conference, Regina, Saskachewan (2015)Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Fitzpatrick, K., Schneider, I.V., William, H.: Turn Speeds and Crashes within Right-turn Lane, Report 0-4365-4, Texas Transportation Institute (2005)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Marshall, W.E., Garrick, N.W.: Evidence on why bike-friendly cities are safer for all road users. Environ. Pract. 13(1) (2011)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Elvik, R.: The non-linearity of risk and the promotion of environmentally sustainable transport. Accid. Anal. Prev. 41, 849–855 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Robertson, L.: Transforming our Cities to Foster Responsive, Affordable Mobility: Lessons from Detroit and Berlin, UN High Level Dialogue on Sustainable Cities and Transport, Berlin (2013)Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Transport Canada: Complete Streets: Making Canada’s Roads Safer for All (2009)Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hauer, E.: A Case for Evidence-Based Road-Safety Delivery, AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety (2007)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Lovegrove, G., Sayed, T.: Using Macro-Level Collision Prediction Models in Road Safety Planning Applications, Transportation Research Record No 1950, August 2006, pp. 73–82 (2006)Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    City of London: The London Plan: Review of Official Plan (2015)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Jones, P., Boujenko, N., Marshall, S.: Link and Place: A Guide to Street Planning and Design. Landor Press, London (2007)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Andrés, D., Chellman, C., Hall, R., Swift, P.: Smart Code Module, Center for Transect Studies. Duany Plater-Zyberk & Co., Version 2.0 (2009)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Musci, K., Khan, A.M.: Effectiveness of additional lanes at signalized intersections. ITE J. 26–30 (2003)Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dizikes, P.: New approaches to urban infrastructure. Conference at the Center for Advanced Urbanism, Plan 88: Article, MIT News Office (2014)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Yevdokimov, Y., Mao, H.: A systems approach to measuring sustainability of transportation. Proceedings of the International Conference on Transportation Systems Planning and Operation, pp. 519–528. Chennai, India, Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd., 18–20 February, 2004Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Criterion Planners/Engineers Inc.: Smart Growth Index: A Sketch Tool for Community Planning, Version 2.0, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002)Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Bochner, B., Hooper, K., Sperry, B., Dunphy, R.: Enhancing Internal Trip Capture Estimation for Mixed-Use Developments, NCHRP Report 684, Transportation Research Board, Washington D.C. (2011)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kenchappagoudra, M.: Estimation of Person and Multimodal Trips Using Baselines Site Trip Generation Data, Transoft Solutions Inc. (2015)Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    IDTP: The Bikeshare Planning Guide, Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rayle, L., Shaheen, S., Chan, N., Dai, D., Cervero, R.: App-based, On-demand Ride Services: Comparing Taxi and Ridesourcing Trips and User Characteristics in San Francisco, University of California Transportation Center, UCTC-FR-2014-08 (2014)Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Shaheen, S., Martin, E.: Unravelling the modal impacts of bikesharing. Access 47 (2015)Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ewing, R.: Traffic Generated by MXD: New Prediction Methods Ahead, Planning: The Magazine of the American Planning Association (2011)Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Arrington, G.B., Cervero, R.: Effects of TOD on Housing, Parking, and Travel, Transit Cooperative Research Progra, TCRP Report 128, Transportation Research Board (2008)Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Steiner, R., Bond, A.: Future Directions for Multimodal Areawide Level-of-Service Handbook Research and Development, Florida Department of Transportation (2004)Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Smith, J., Heath, L., Nichols, M.: U.S. Forest Carbon Calculation Tool User’s Guide: Forestland Carbon Stocks and Net Annual Stock Change. General Technical Report NRS-13 revised, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Northern Research Station (2010)Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    IPCC: IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland (2006)Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Berg, S.B.: Multimodal mobility concepts: development opportunities for public services in public transport with special consideration of sustainable mobility objectives. Unpublished thesis, Cologne (2013)Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    MO.Point., Wo Mobilität zu Hause ist., MO.Point Mobilitätsservices GmbH (i.G.) (2016)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City of Toronto, City PlanningTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations