Citizens' inclusive and accessible urban mobility solutions

Following the workshops that were conducted in the UMCASE pilots of Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain and Eindhoven, Netherlands, we managed to summarise the insights that were gathered there. While the general context of the pilots differed regarding use-case and target groups, we can still draw some overall links between them. This blogpost will provide some lessons learnt from the UMCASE method as well as recommendations for cities wishing to implement it.

In general, the performed activities have been both a valuable and an enriching experience for the involved participants. Vulnerable groups such as older people and people with a low income are often not considered in the design phase of mobility solutions, and by including them in the discussions, we found out that:

• Benefits of having digital services for greater mobility in Vitoria-Gasteiz are not only the rise but there is also a growth in sustainable awareness amongst users and their willingness to use new technologies. Additionally, there is also the growing commitment in public policy to promote its accessibility and a relative reliable perception of applications which makes shared e-mobility a true possibility for commuting around and across town.
• A way to achieve high commitment in usage is creating a unified mobile application with great usability as this eradicates multiple applications with various interfaces, especially relevant for this aged target group.
• A majority of the participants perceive digital transformation as a challenge and older persons of Vitoria also indicated the lack of awareness of the existence of mobility applications as well as the perceived complexity of their use and management. It was agreed upon that awareness raising and training for the handling of new technologies, including mobility technologies, should be reinforced.
• According to the Spanish stakeholders, desirable and viable aspects presented are to gamify the use of applications and reward users through incentives, to opt for physical, local mobility offices to support users and to create a forum on which agendas of different agents related to mobility in the city can be coordinated amongst each other. They also mentioned the unification via a one-stop app, personal profiling and voice enhanced tools are being preferable.
• Applying for shared services came with some issues as users perceived difficulty in application use, hard understandable processes and payment obstructions; like credit card or ID-obligation. A solution was offered to be flexible when it comes to payment and identification methods, like offering a special card for shared services which functions as a credit card, and opting for simple and clear instructions, even appointing a local resident as informer.
• Amongst residents the financial aspect is relative decisive; a calculation tool could offer a solution indicating prices, tariffs and so forth. Furthermore, most are not directly prompted to use shared mobility as many walk or cycle themselves. When a car is needed, shared vehicles are often considered too small which causes residents to rent a car elsewhere. If the vehicle options grow, including cargo transportation vehicles, use will likely rise. Nevertheless, fear remains of new technologies.
• A recurring topic also proved prominent amongst residents in Eindhoven: random parking. To reduce this nuisance, SmartHubs should accommodate rightful parking spaces for all vehicle type, ensuring closed perimeter parking.

The main lessons learnt from using the UMCASE method as part of this pilot project, are the fundamental gain of knowledge, insights and experiences from engaging with citizens and cities. Most importantly we learnt that “citizen engagement does not only foster an understanding of different viewpoints. It also has to create trust in the government and public institutions. This trust means that people not only feel they are heard but know they are understood since their voices are being used to construct a better future.”