Re-think Rural Mobility

Re-think Rural Mobility for an inclusive, prosperous

and sustainable Europe

Radu GasparEIP –European Integrated Projects

Contents

Shared Mobility Rocks | 2019SMARTA: Rethinking Rural Mobility

• Rural situation

• Understanding rural mobility in Europe

• Good practices

Urban vs Rural population trends

Urban and rural population projected to 2050, Europe

Source: UN World Urbanization Prospects 2018 and others | www.visualcapitalist.com/mapping-the-worlds-urban-population-in-2050/


27%

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapping-the-worlds-urban-population-in-2050/

The rural situation

• Two-fold migration effect

• Ageing population

• Lower income

• Vulnerability

• Diversity and differences between

European regions

• Geographical conditions (from peri-urban

to mountain to insular rural mobility)

• Different road network structure


The SMARTA project

• Sponsored by European Parliament

• Funded through EU Transport Ministry - DG MOVE

• Objective:

Explore ways to ensure sustainable mobility by improving shared/public transport services across different European rural areas

UNIABDN

VECTOS

TML

EIPMEMEX


6

1. Rurality

2. Geography

3. National policies

4. Institutional

5. Regulatory

6. Organizational

7. Financial

8. Particularities

9. Key Stakeholders

Understanding rural mobility in Europe


Insight PapersAnalysis of the challenges of mobility in rural areas and the framework in each of the 28 EU countries (plus selected EEA states, North America and Australia)

341. EU: 28 Countries

(+ Scotland)

2. Non- EU countries: Albania, Northern Macedonia, Moldova

3. Rest of the world: Canada, Australia


Key findings


There is near-total absence of specific policy for mobility in rural areas

• Most countries do not have any policy at all on rural mobility • Some countries have aspirational statements, but lack targets • No country has specified levels of rural mobility, let alone any for which a public agency could be held

accountable if they are not met

“Latvia is the only country with a national target-based rural mobility policy, while Flanders (BE) is a region with strong target-based rural mobility policy and obligations.”

“Slovenia is leading the way in widespread use of SUMP-equivalents for its extra-/non-urban areas, while Flanders (BE) is one region that has now adopted the process”.

Key findings


There are few hard obligations to provide rural mobility services

• Some countries ensure that villages are served from legacy sense of obligation • In some countries, villages and rural areas are only served by through-routes • Provision of schools transport is the exception, which is strongly mandated

The organisational arrangements for rural shared mobility are weak

• Only a few countries have comprehensive coverage by mobility coordination units • DRT is widely provided as a social safety net, but not well integrated to PT networks • Very few regulatory frameworks explicitly provide for rural shared mobility

Frameworks are not conducive to developing rural shared mobility

• Lack of directives and policy are the key issue, as institutions and mechanisms are there

Good PracticesComprehensive overview of Good Practices in rural shared mobility from around Europe and beyond

321. Demand Responsive Transport

2. Rail and Bus Public transport Networks

3. Shared Mobility

4. Transport Policy

5. Hybrid cases


RezoPouce50% of users wait less than 5 minutes! 90% less than 10 minutes!

• Deployed in 2000 municipalities, covering 20% of rural France

• The organisation behind the service uses an innovative governance model: a cooperative society with collective interest (SCIC)

• 50% drivers and passengers – 25% only drivers, 25% only passengers | +-50% women – 50% men


SopotnikiThe “Sopotniki” NGO provides free car transport for the elderly in rural areas. The service is provided by volunteers and is free of charge for elders within individual areas, who communicate in advance their mobility needs.

• This practice is a case where shared transport replaces a non-existing or lacking public transport.

• Caters to social needs of the elderly as social inclusion, easier access to healthcare and other public services.

• Intergenerational solidarity


Conclusions

Successful rural shared mobility solutions rely on:

• Innovative governance

• Smart mix of financing

• Heavy involvement by local communities


Conclusions

There is a need for a new vision for the European rural areas based on community empowerment, developing local knowledge and establishing clear objectives in terms of sustainability and environment targets.

Rural mobility is one of the main “tools” for enhancing accessibility to services and the “freedom” of movement, which decreases the risk of social exclusion of specific citizen groups and depopulation of the area.


Conclusions

SMARTA now enters the pilot phase in which rural shared mobility solutions will be analysed in real-world conditions in a total of eight sites in different European countries (four by SMARTA and four by our sister project ‘SMARTA2’) .

Aveiro District, PORTUGAL

East Tyrol, AUSTRIA

Brasov Metropolitan Area, ROMANIA

Municipality of Tikala, GREECE


Thank you!www.ruralsharedmobility.eu

[email protected]

www.linkedin.com/company/18835245/admin/

@SMARTAmobility

http://www.ruralsharedmobility.eu/

Re-think Rural Mobility

Documents

Transcript of Re-think Rural Mobility