Webinar: UBC TALKS about holistic solutions to mobility in port areas

Hello, everyone, and welcome to the UBC Talks webinar.
We're still having our attendees joining.
We are kicking off the year 2022 with the UBC Talks webinar series.
Today we'll talk about holistic solutions to mobility in both areas, and we will bring
methods, tools, and inspiration from around the Baltic Sea to your attention.
My name is Mari Andreeva.
I am a communications coordinator of the Union of the Baltic Sea Sustainable Cities Commission,
and I will be your host for today.
We also have an important today, my colleague, Atham Mohramli, who will support our technical
side of the event.
So if you have any technical contents, questions during the webinar, please send them to us
via the chats and we'll do our best to answer.
Right, but participants are still joining, and while I'm at the introduction stage, I
will launch a little warm-up poll, which you are all invited to answer, as we would love
to know how you got to know about this webinar.
So let's have it.
How did you learn about our webinar?
Was it the website where you found this information?
Was it our social media, or did you read it in our newsletter?
If it was a recommendation from a colleague, let us know.
And while you are sending your answers, maybe back to the introduction.
So if you are joining our webinar series for the first time, UBC talks are organised by
the Union of the Baltic Cities Sustainable Cities Commission to discuss relevant topics
in the sustainability field.
UBC is the leading network of cities in the Baltic Sea region, working together to foster
smart, sustainable and safe cities.
And our commission is one of the several topical commissions of the Union.
We work with the matters of environmental urban sustainability.
We have started with the UBC talks webinar back in 2020 and already explored various
sustainability aspects, including energy efficiency trends, the role of water management in climate
adaptation, different multimodal approaches to urban mobility.
And this is the first webinar of this year.
And we hope you will also join the upcoming webinars during this year.
Let's look in the meantime at the poll results.
So most of you actually got recommended by a colleague.
That's nice to know that that's the best communication you can get.
But you're also most welcome to follow our web, our website, our social media, our newsletters
to also get to know about other events and other webinars that we are launching.
This is also a good source of information.
Right, closing the poll.
Yes, so now let's quickly take a look at some technical information of this webinar.
This webinar is being recorded and it will be later uploaded to our website and our YouTube
channel.
The attendees microphones are all muted, but you can at any time whenever you wish to ask
a question.
If it's a question to the panelists, please write it in the question box.
If it's a question to ask the organizers or you would just like to bring something to
everyone's attention, please use the chat.
And the questions for the speakers would be answered in the session after all of the presentations.
Now let's take a look at today's agenda.
We have a list of exciting presentations.
And we will hear today from the union of the boric cities, member cities, Torco, Hamburg,
Tallinn and the Riga and about their views on sustainable and holistic approaches to
support area mobility and planning.
And all of this cooperation could not have been possible without the transnational project
hub mobile, which was led by the Alder University in Helsinki, Finland.
So we'll hear all about the project and the great, great, great tools that the project
can provide and the webinar will end with the Q&A and we'll bring the questions, yes.
Thank you.
Without further ado, I would like to welcome the first speakers from the Alder University,
the lead partner of the hub mobile project, and they will tell us a little bit about the
project and how the transnational cooperation helped to provide interactive tools for city
planners.
Please, the floor is yours.
Okay, good morning, everyone.
I'm Tera Haagfella from Alder University.
And together here with my colleague, Tera Musuraka, to tell you about this hub mobile in a nutshell
transnational cooperation providing interactive tools for city planners.
So firstly, hub mobile is a holistic urban and peri-urban mobility project and it was
in the third Baltic Sea regions a call for proposals in innovation, natural resources
and sustainable transport.
The project started in the beginning of 2019 and ended at the end of last year, 2021.
Our total budget was around 2 million euros of which European regional development funding
was 1.5 million euros.
And hub mobile's objective was to provide a holistic approach to the planning, implementation,
optimization and management of integrated sustainable mobility solutions in Baltic Sea
port cities.
So we have shared, of course, knowledge together and developed together already existing solutions,
but it's not only about the tools, it was also about the processes, how to apply and
get the stakeholders involved.
And here you can see the participants of the projects, the cities of Turbuk, Hamburg, Berlin
and Riga.
And you'll hear good presentations from their tools and viewpoints also later today.
And then there were also involved Alder University, Royal Institute of Academy of Humanities
Herg School, I'm from Sweden, UBC, our host today and then ITL Digital Labs Estonia.
So it's been all about learning together, transferring knowledge and increasing capabilities
in sustainable holistic urban mobility by cooperation of the Baltic cities.
We did several tools and firstly, we would like to introduce you the hub mobile self-assessment
tool.
So this self-assessment tool is part of the toolbox that is built to help you pinpoint
possible areas of improvement in your region or the possibilities to have the best impact
in selected sustainability aspects.
This is very simple to use.
And the statements in this self-assessment tool have been developed with help of the
city and traffic planners of our participating cities in the project.
So it's very manageable and easy to use.
So different stakeholders can be used in implementing the sustainable solutions and they can also
use their educated estimations in the assessment for shortlisting for sustainable mobility
solutions for the discussion.
So we do not try to make any concrete benchmarking or experience or concrete adjustment, we are
just wanting to provide you a tool to really showcase the areas that may need to be addressed
to put further attention.
When you have answered the survey or the questions there, you see this kind of a solution.
So it has 16 different areas divided to four different categories.
And it gives you an impression as an expert or as a representative of a stakeholder to
access what is important for you and in what scale in this picture you can see from zero
to five.
So it gives you an impression what is the current result status and in comparison to
the Baltic Sea region.
So it doesn't say that what you should do, because everyone of course knows that everyone
has a different kind of environment in your city.
But it gives you an opportunity to take a leap and taking any sort of incremental improvements
when you can compare and think what to do.
So we also want to mention that we do not try to replace any of the existing tools,
because we also know that there are others like, for example, a pre-initi tool that's
already available and we know that it's quite simple for city planners to answer.
And it's also aimed for the sustainable urban planning.
However, what we aimed with itself as a tool was for the wider board of stakeholders.
For example, you can link these tools to companies to have an opinion and these questions are
very straightforward and easy to answer, also the company presenters.
And the four different areas we have covered with those 16 questions, three of them are
related to the traditional sustainability themes of environmental and economical and
societal sustainability.
But we also wanted to have the fourth category, which is attractiveness, because of course
we want our solutions to be not just sustainable, but also attractive so that people and stakeholders
would get involved and accept the different solutions.
So this attractiveness is a combination of an area to be attractive for companies, people
and those residents who come there to interact, to be active and just to have a good life
there.
Then the second tool we have is about accessing the realized impact of real solutions.
So we have combined and made a process for real cities to document their best practices.
And this tool is basically about sharing your knowledge and insight.
So we have provided a simple template with supporting documentation, explaining what
we mean and what we have meant.
And it's a very simple process for getting the most important stakeholders to participate
in the process.
So if you have good solutions to share with us, please don't hesitate to fill in the form
and go to our website.
And also at this moment, I want to say that all these tools and links to them can also
be found from our HubMobile web pages, so please go to the HubMobile homepage afterwards
and look for further information and try the tools.
So here you can see an example of a field template.
It's very straightforward to use.
And this is all that the stakeholders will get, just a simple description of the area
and details and the solutions.
And the most important thing in this template is that what are the unique aspects and the
frame conditions that explain how this particular solution has been successful in the city where
it has been implemented.
So it's a concise information piece or a recipe about how to implement something in a city
that hopefully is similar to your city if you want to do the adaptation and transfer
knowledge.
So if you compare this, for example, some other approaches, here you can see the example
from Turpuz year-round shared fairly bikes and implemented has been and we do not try
to do benchmarking with this tool.
So there are better and there are good existing benchmarking solutions.
Our aim is to share the best practices.
So on the right hand side, you can see this Turpuz year-round shared fairly bikes implementation.
So we collect those solutions that are already done where we have reasonable ideas also about
the cost and how it has been gone in practice.
And then finally, of course, everyone wants to find what are good solutions for their
own environment.
And yes, we know that there are already also in this field several good tools and platforms
or example bubble and we are not trying to replace them, but what we have done is that
our opportunity makes it possible to filter the solutions based on your immediate needs.
So what we have done is that we have created the database of solutions that is hopefully
also later on filled with your solutions and the database can be filtered with different
conditions and then it shows if you have certain immediate needs over your concerning areas
and what could be done to improve your sustainability and mobility.
So please go and see the database and the solutions and you can see the filtering there
and we'll hopefully also develop it further with you when we get new solutions there.
Also on top of these, we have also provided two very small tools in the web pages related
to best practices for employers to support the use of public transport and an interactive
map of best transport solutions in Baldiksi region.
However, there's no time to go there.
Time is running so I think that's all.
Thank you very much.
As you can see, Mai and Teemu's contact information and we'll be there in the Q&A session and
delighted to answer your questions there.
Thank you very much.
Thank you very much.
There are wonderful insights into the project.
And now we'll go into the first CT case, Aalto University in cooperation with the city of
Turko made a research about the mobility behavior of urban residents.
So let's hear from Marcheta Kutta, Aalto University, who will tell us more about it.
Please, Marcheta, the floor is yours.
Just a second, I will share my screen.
I hope you can see it now.
Yes, we see it perfect.
Thank you very much.
So let me explain to you what kind of case we had in the city of Turko where we studied
the mobility behavior of urban residents.
And here we applied a special methodology I will explain to you.
Traditionally, when you are trying to gather knowledge from people, you are using methods
like interview surveys, public hearings, observations.
But the problem here is often that you only receive typically verbal information that
is a little bit hard to apply in planning practice.
So there are alternative ways to collect data from human behavior and experiences.
And here, I am referring to a place-based methodology that can be called public participation
GIS methodology.
And actually, the methodology I'm talking about is called mapioneer.
And with this methodology, you can collect information from human behavior and experiences
place-based and actually comprise a whole new layer of knowledge that is KO-coded.
Why this would be a good idea, perhaps?
Well, this approach provides many wonderful new opportunities to research, but also to
participatory planning.
Because the very fact that you would be linking human aspirations or wishes to places and
those comment or viewpoints are given an address, you also are linking them to very specific
planning or design solutions.
And therefore, the knowledge might be very interesting for planners, very concrete information.
This mapioneer methodology is an existing tool developed by my team, and it has been
used in widely more than 35 countries already and by cities like New York and Stockholm and
Denver and so on.
In Turku, we did also mapioneer research where we studied the mobility of people in Turku
region and the future of a harbor area.
We asked people to tell place-based about their daily travel and also about their mobility
in Turku harbor area.
This data was collected, luckily, just before the COVID pandemic, which was very lucky because
then we were able to gather knowledge about normal mobility behavior from Turku inhabitants
and not the mobility behavior in pandemic era.
The survey was attracting about 800 respondents and in the core of it was the search for urban
mobility lifestyles.
The results of the survey revealed four different personas or lifestyles among Turku residents.
The first one was pro-sustainable urbanites, where we are talking about people who value
green, beautiful neighborhoods, prefer walking and cycling and good accessibility to public
transportation.
These people are often females and are rather young and live in intensive transit zones.
They were about 23% of those kind of inhabitants.
The next group was multimodal price-conscious residents who were quite cost-sensitive in
their travel mode choice, but they used different travel modes in a very flexible way.
True functionality over attractiveness and are typically males and highly educated with
somewhat limited budget.
The first two groups were people who walk more than the following two groups, even in
winter time, and actually also cycle more.
So the last two groups are first time-conscious suburbanites who value suburban, quiet, green
neighborhoods, and they are very time-sensitive and car-oriented.
Very often these are high-income residents who have children who own at least one car
and are likely to live in intensive transit zones.
These people use more cars than other groups, regardless where they live.
And finally, the last group, auto-oriented residents who prefer good access to the main
roads and actually also district shopping centers, value cleanness and spacious housing
in their neighborhoods, and often are rather old, live alone, or with a partner.
These residents have quite car-dependent lifestyle, but they are decreasing their use of car if
they live in intensive transit zones.
Maybe you can think about a second whether you belong to any of these groups or whether
you are some kind of mixture of characteristics of different personas.
We were interested in learning whether the well-being or quality of life would differ
in these different groups, and we found that perceived health was highest among pro-sustainable
urbanites, maybe not surprisingly, and lowest among auto-oriented.
But when we studied perceived quality of life, then we got different, a little bit different
results because time-conscious suburbanites had highest quality of life and pro-sustainable
urbanites lowest.
So this is something we would have to study more in the future.
This difference between perceived health and perceived quality of life outcomes was somewhat
interesting.
How about then the future mobility to Turku Harbor?
Well, we found out that the likelihood for using walking and cycling infrastructure,
bike sharing, and other sharing services and electric bike or improved transit services
is highest among pro-sustainable urbanites.
And when it comes to ride sharing, car sharing, and car rental services to the harbor and
harbor-related trips, then the time-sensitive suburbanites were the ones whose likelihood
would be highest for using these kind of new services.
There has been also, in addition to this study that I have already discussed, there was a
master thesis about the same data set where the aim was to still go a bit deeper into
the wonderful data that we collected from Turku.
And here, the residential sales selection was studied and was taken into account in
the study that aimed to examine to what extent our built environment and attitude associated
with car use, walking, and cycling.
There were many interesting results here.
Maybe among them, one very interesting one, it was that living in intensive transit zone
is likely to increase walking and decrease car use regardless of travel attitudes and
preferences.
And this finding in our understanding gives support to this kind of notching phenomena.
So how can these results be used in planning or in transportation and land use planning?
Well, at least these four identified persons can be targeted as different market segments
for different mobility management strategies or policies.
And surely the results can be also considered when investing to the improvements of certain
travel modes or when deciding about the maintenance levels of various routes.
And finally, the findings can also inform more generally land use policy when estimating
the best balance between supply and demand of various types of urban neighborhoods.
Maybe there are other ways to apply these findings you might want to identify.
If you are interested, the report about this study is available online.
Please take a closer look.
And if you have any further questions, please contact me.
I will also be available at least for the next hour for possible questions.
So thank you very much.
This was the little case study in the city of Turuk.
Thank you very much, Marchett.
Very interesting and also I think very relatable presentation for any urban residents.
We are already having some questions and we're already sharing more information about Napshoneer
in the chat.
But we will come back to this in the end of the session in the Q&A part.
And now let's move to the south, to the free and Hanseatic city of Hamburg.
Heikebonta will present us a city district where interactive tools were applied to promote
transport and active mobility in port areas.
Please, Heikebonta, the floor is yours.
Good morning, everybody.
Thank you so much for the introduction.
Okay.
So, Marchett already mentioned it.
It is about mobility.
It is about different kind of mobility.
And it's about what also Teru mentioned, active mobility or sustainable mobility options.
It is said to be that port areas are not made for this kind of mobility activities, especially
if it comes to walking and cycling, but as you all know, cities grow as well as harbor
regions grow and we focus or we face some problems with that.
So we thought it is absolutely essential to work on the aspect.
How can we attract also port areas to cyclists, public transport users and pedestrians?
Actually, I'm also referring here to the Turku case because they have a brilliant report
on the development of their area.
So you can find this also on our mobile homepage and it's worthwhile reading it.
So if it comes to Hamburg, we deeply need to develop these areas.
Hamburg already did the so-called jump over the river Elbe in order to attract new residential
areas, being aware at the same time that we will face conflicts with port related transport.
Nevertheless, it is needed to or there was a strong need to develop these areas because
the city is growing more and more people moving into cities.
So we decided to develop these specific areas under specific topics, new metropolitan zones,
climate change, cosmopolis as a new lifestyle question, as Marchetta also pointed out with
showing residential behavior towards active mobility.
But nevertheless, in these processes, there's always a lack of certain aspect and one central
issue was really climate friendly modes of transport in port areas.
As you can see from this picture and from our so to say monument or main monument in
the harbour, the old tunnel under the river Elbe during the 20s, it was completely normal
that people used the bicycle to get to work.
These masses of cyclists needed to get through the air tunnel every day and back of course.
But there are typical so to say port arguments against active mobility.
This relates to diversity of transport modes and of course this relates to safety aspects.
No doubt the diversity is much higher, the diversity of several transport forms of several
specific problems over the daytime is much higher than in the normal city.
We have transport, we have logistic in these areas.
It is absolutely necessary to play and to act actively on safety.
This is why we focused to deliver or to invent an animation tool for active mobility in order
to increase safety for cyclists and pedestrians.
We also added several aspects of safety in these areas.
Here you can see a cycling pass and on the right hand side of the picture you see that
we protected here cyclists and pedestrians with a specific infrastructure that lorry
drivers respect the space and respect that we have cyclists in the harbour.
Actually again as you also know intersections are always a crucial point in city and land
use planning.
Of course no doubt also in harbour it is essential.
So if you plan your intersections pay additional attention to intersections, try to make them
as safe as possible for cycling and try to increase awareness for this aspect and if
you have done this intersections are so to say in a certain way much safer.
And please go into detail with that and into communication with your stakeholders.
So what we can learn from this is really create and raise awareness under all stakeholders
especially if it comes to specific intersections, specific roads where you have already a certain
number of cyclists or if you have already ideas how and what you want to implement in
your harbour areas, in your port areas.
So I already mentioned it.
Take into account that you need to build up on communication from the beginning.
This is very time-consuming but in the end it is worthwhile.
Find legal tools and good networks to influence your port authority on all levels.
Talk about additional services as winter service for cycling in these areas.
Use the development of additional bus routes, look for crucial bottlenecks and intersections
and talk about safety.
And last but not least and that is essential point out that active mobility contributes
also to an economic assist of your port area.
This individual motorised transport means less congestion and better transport economy.
So it is mega essential that you work on this kind of transport.
And last but not least develop smart and safe solution, grab the so-called low-hanging fruits
and combine it with something you already have in your port area.
Last but not least it's a long and muddy way especially if you have to integrate many stakeholders
at the same time.
Nevertheless it will contribute or active mobility will contribute to the success of
your port area.
Be aware that we are currently discussing within the European Union our 10T options
and the 10T corridors and here we need a good contribution also if it comes to active mobility.
Thank you so much and now we also have a tiny little video maybe Adam we can browse through
it somehow if it's possible we invented this video in order to show to daily commuters don't
be afraid to use port areas.
Thank you so much.
Hello everybody my name is Heidi Wunter I'm today here for the European Interact Project
Hubmobile.
Today we invite you for a unique journey for everyday cyclist commuters because it's important
that we recycle in cities as you know.
Actually it is also important that cyclists are able to cycle more than the average 5
kilometers.
It is also important that we show how good it is to develop side routes for cyclists
or velo routes and their contribution to increase cycling in our cities today.
Apart from that we all know that cities grow and they also grow in terms of unique specific
urban areas.
Here we are in Hamburg, Willemsburg a couple of years ago it was quite famous this area
because it is in between the northern part of the city and the southern part of the city.
Today we are here on the biggest river island in Europe in between this space this island
and the northern part there is the harbour.
And if you believe that cycling in harbors is not possible then you are wrong and it's
also important to show how we develop these areas because it is necessary that cycling
is possible everywhere in safe and in good condition.
So let's go for it, see you.
Okay thank you so much for this short introduction into our video it is a little bit longer because
as I said we wanted to show cycling is more than just covering the 5 kilometers.
You can see the whole one on our homepage on the hubmobile homepage and as I also said
or mentioned in the video what we really want to develop is a whole net of cycling routes
and what we also want to show with this video is that commuters who are interested in cycling
longer distances can click on it and get additional information what they can expect.
And now last thing I'm trying to show you something else can you see this on the screen
now hubmobile cycling in harbor cities so this is also what you just have seen in the
video this is the whole distance it covers 15 kilometers important commuter kilometers
so if you imagine you want to give it a go you can also click on these little points
here self-fulfilling process sorry it does not work anyway if you click okay it should
be lower down try to scroll a bit lower okay yes sorry so for example if you click then
here on these specific dots and points you get information what you can see and what
you can expect there and we did this for the whole 15 kilometers we mentioned crucial points
we mentioned specific aspects at these points so all together it shall help you to get additional
information about the routing about the whole distance about the whole story which stands
behind it right and last but not least here is also the overall story in the end so these
are our tools in a nutshell to hopefully make it more interesting and hopefully to show
that cycling in port areas is possible also walking and cycling thank you so much thank
you very much for this presentation Haiki for taking us on this 15 kilometers exciting
trip very holistic view on the process and great practical examples we are sharing all
of this all of these materials also in the chat in parallel and you will receive all
these materials after the webinar so no worries you will get to explore them further and now
let's move to Tallinn the city which explored possibilities of adaptive traffic management
through mini pilots liver loads will present the case from the city of Tallinn welcome
leave out of the floor is yours yes thank you very much so good morning or late morning
to everyone I tried to set up this presentation so can you please confirm that everything
is okay any of my slides yes we see it now great so thank you so yeah my name is liver
loads and coming from city of Tallinn Estonia and working for the time to also depart and
then today quickly run through the topic which is quite interesting namely the adaptive traffic
management and what we did in the hub mobile project and and what results we had so going
further what was the objective for the city of Tallinn in the hub mobile project the idea
was to increase the mobility flows using the electronic solutions and promoting the switch
towards public and greener transport so basically in the short promoting public transport trying
to find ways how to make it quicker and and more more feasible for the for the users so
what we did we worked out the pre-feasibility study on the adaptive traffic management and
we aggregated also the simulation so what the what this means is that we investigate
various adaptive traffic like the solutions in the market there are not so many and it's
quite difficult to gather the information as not very many cities are experienced with
this also we made the audit for the existing adaptive traffic system so basically we already
before that study we already had some fragments of adaptive traffic light system so we want to
just make audit to understand whether it's well put together and well in operation or
there are some shortcomings and and then lastly the objective is to just to set up the specific
hotspot mini pilot area to validate the technology in real traffic condition so not just this
research but just going further and to understand whether it's but whether it's working in actual
conditions and circumstances and how it's how it looks in real situation so and going further
the evolution of the tally news case so what we did basically we started with the market research
we just looked at what's happened and nearby cities and and what's available based on this
information we just started to prepare the terms of reference of the procurement process and we
also discussed the discussed about this topic with interest the stakeholders and ask their
opinion about what's what's possible to make and and how they can help with us and then we decided
also to just to integrate or merge the pre-feasibility study with the mini pilot so this is like the
package so there is this research and also the mini pilot and what kind of challenge we faced
there was a problem that during the jacovic situation there is like a radical traffic
behavior change so not very many cars and trucks and also the also the pedestrians are in the city
so it means that we have a problem that that that all these volumes which we had before they are
not there anymore but okay it can change that's for sure so we had to face this as well as a one
one problem yes about the details of the brief is a bit study so what we did is that we we made a
benchmark study so it means that we just looked different market solutions and also we looked
four different cities who have some experience of their adaptive traffic management those cities
were tompere, copenhagen, scopier and sophia was the sorry the billa stock was the fourth one so
it was quite interesting to see what these cities are doing how far they are with this and and to
see whether we can use these experience in our case as well so going further we wanted to analyze
investment at running cost also the socio-economic cost when we implement the adaptive traffic
management system in the city of thalen in a wider scale so how much does it cost
what kind of running cost there will be is it worth to have it is it feasible or not
also what we will dig in the integration of the new technologies and transport modes
so for example the car sharing self-driving cars etc so this was also quite interesting for us to
understand how the adaptive traffic management will influence those technologies then as
i said already we had some fragments already before the the study we had adaptive traffic
management in radio which is a new road nearby the port and we want to understand whether it's set
up well what kind of short form is there are later on i will show the map as well so also we
wanted to understand which kind of data is needed and and which kind of data we have
and is useful and as well as what the kind of additional data we need
uh then we wanted to map the potential corridors or we needed to understand in which corridors it's
the most feasible way to implement that adaptive traffic management rather than just having the
whole city but but to start somewhere just to map the corridors and start implementing there
and also we want to have a help in order to understand how we should set up the
dedicated specification for the procurement and to sit there and to write in terms of reference
this was also very important to understand and going further so basically uh yeah first
the radio audit so it means that we have we had a new road which is the uh nearby port and which
is serving basically the inbound and ultra-pathic of the port and we already have there some fragments
of small self-learning traffic lights which also take into account about the
passenger cars and the traffic volume coming from the ferry so it means that
it's very essential that we understand how many cars are coming from the from the ferry and maybe
to give a more green light for the output traffic we have there also as well as genomic traffic
management system which is the backbone and also uh the VMS so the variable message signs
and the result was also thought it was that uh this setup is good but there are some issues
the first issue is that the sensor system is not good so it means that they they're not so precise
and this can cause some issues uh playing uh with the lights uh traffic lights and secondly uh
the variable message signs were quite bad in that sense that when there is some kind of bad angle
or there's uh some uh light uh like the sunlight then it's quite hard to see the the picture of
the screen so this was quite interesting for us and now we understand uh future what kind of
system we should procure or just or what we should avoid going further about the mini-pilot so what
we did is that we set up the mini-pilot area which is in in a right you can see that tall in map
here is the uh harbor and it's quite near to the harbor and it was quite tricky intersection why
because it's the h shape and also in the red line you can see there is the passing tram line so it
means it's quite tricky to play this intersection and we just took the one of the toughest one
just to understand whether adaptive traffic systems can improve the traffic flow here or not
and we just take the main consideration uh increasing the average speed of the tram or
just uh decreasing the waiting time and we just used the sensor system which you can see on the
screen so what kind of tools we use through different vectors like the video detectors
thermal detectors and the buttons uh and we added to the mini-pilot also the smart
interaction software which basically is the backbone and the brain which decide when to
give the green light and what kind of task we set so uh we the idea was just to have
a prioritization for the public transport and not wasting too much of the green time
and just to understand the results of the mini-pilot the total waiting time for cars
uh was uh smaller so it means that basically we didn't uh we didn't uh influence so much of the
car traffic but we we uh we gain a lot of uh time saving for that trams passing the intersection so
there are two different stops the malar city one way and another way and it's like a 24
seconds and 12 seconds so would you imagine that uh okay this is just a couple of tens of seconds
but if you compare it to uh like the days and months how much time difference it is so it plays
it plays a quite remarkable role uh the only issue is that the pedestrian must push the button so it
means that before we had uh just the automatic system so the pedestrians didn't have to do
anything just to wait their green light and that's it but now they should push the button this was
the negative impact because they are used to it that they don't have to do nothing but then they
have to wait quite a while then they understand that they have to push something so this was the
negative impact of the mini-pilot and now i can just show quickly the video of the drum is coming
so the drum is coming quite far and all the time when the time is coming automatically with the
green light for the drum and all the traffic all other traffic is coming there are some
issues as well with this is that the cars will not pick the traffic light and they will pass
the traffic light as well so it means that the drum driver is aware of that there can be some issues
other than the drum driver has a green light but he has to be aware that some cars have to pass
so this is one video and i will now
sorry the next one that the other side of the road is the next here is we had a problem that
the stop is right here in the intersection so what we did is that as the drum approaches to the stop
then the deck that the drum is here and we just calculated 18 seconds from the stop
so that people can leave the street and then go in and 18 seconds to approach the intersection
so it was tricky but all in all the results so yes
so as a nutshell so the benchmark cities have long-term experience very good to follow and
people continue to cooperate with them so as a result there is no end product for all cities
so it's always so that we need to start to tailoring and tailor made the system for each case
each intersection or each corridor the sensor information is super crucial so it means that
for example the radio there was issue that the sensors were not so good and it means that it's
giving a false signal we used thermal camera sensors but but they are also not so accurate
the most accurate system is that sensor system in the surface but the problem is that it's quite
expensive to to build this and and you have to maintain these as well so it's just just
quite tricky but but still the sensor information is quite crucial we we see that the
that the traffic system is very feasible only heavy traffic corridors it's not worth to spend
too much effort and time and investments to have it just low flow corridors and we we understand
that there are no major increase of maintenance costs based on the observation of the mini-violent
uh what kind of challenge we have so basically the issue is that what kind of priorities to
to check them how to set these priorities priorities to different user groups so basically
okay we want to prioritize the public transport but what about pedestrians maybe pedestrians are
in some part more important as public transport so it's just a chicken and egg question uh also
the impact of road traffic safety as i mentioned we had the shortcoming that the pedestrians they
just wait quite long and they just need to push the button in order to understand that they have
to that they can get the green light and faster intersection so the weakness is issue that the
people are not very much like to wait too long that they just want to cross the road without
the green light so this is just also the impact and also the impact on new technologies
the challenge so it means that how these self-driving cars and different new technologies
will will integrate and will work together with the adaptive traffic management and maybe in
in the far future maybe we should change all the traffic light system in order to
to work these new technologies better together with the city provided system what we will continue
after this study at the mini-pilot so we will improve the travel connection between city center
and the airport so it's relatively slow quite the heavy quite a lot of intersections between the
the goredora and we we we try to increase the speed of the tram so giving the more green light
and then to see how will affect the surrounding traffic flows and that's it basically so thank
you very much and looking forward your questions and comments
thank you very much labor it was really fascinating to look into the city planning process and how
can we address traffic challenges and save the time and it's great to see that now Italian
citizens are also actively involved in the process if only by pushing the button
um thank you and we continue with the citizen engagement process and the last presentation
for today would be delivered by the city of rega and with all smart infrastructure plans deployed
how do you engage your stakeholders into this co-creative process this would be answered uh
by the team from the city we had uh small changes in the program it would be victoria prilanka and
christoph scow course uh bringing up bringing us up to speed on this question so please the floor
is yours hello everyone uh it is my pleasure to talk to you at this uh fine morning um and uh
i will be as already uh stated i will be doing my presentation with my colleague victoria prilanka
and i hope that the presentation is starting up right about now at your screens and you see my
first slide so um if nobody objects then then this is probably working perfectly well um i will start
the presentation and it will be threefold i will start with the origin story of how did we arrive
to this task and how did it change during the process we also want to show you and share with
you our end product that was originally unexpected or on unintended and however we are really proud
of that and we hope that it will help all of you in your daily work working with stakeholder
involvement and trying to manage or navigate those different methods and approaches and then
i will ask my colleague victoria to guide you a little bit deeper into that process for the
framework that lies behind our work which might give you a slight slightly better understanding
of the importance of each of those steps so i will skip or i will be uh brief and uh get
over some parts in the presentation just to give you closer to the interesting part so as as in
already stated we are the guys who always talk about these stakeholders in their involvement
process we are the group who should be the ones to begin with early stages of the process
and not in the end of the presentation although today is not representative of that
and these were some of our original tasks to to tackle in this project it's something that we all
know it's some stages of the public involvement initiation planning implementation we all know
that early in the process all the problem statements are done and key decisions are
usually made early in the process in the planning and design phase and a difficult
point of participation is somewhere where people are presented with something that's already ready
done and not many changes can be done in that process and we all our aim and our goal is to
provoke people and invite people to use the holistic approach the stakeholder engagement
and co-creation and expand it to all of the processes starting from the early initiation
and following on through the evaluation and research phase right at the end and after the
project is already implemented so we got on with our tasks this is something that we were set out
by the hubmobile project and we started with everything that's usually done in these kinds
of projects and then of course the COVID came into the play initially we waited you know it was
a while until the world started to understand that this is something that's not going to change
that quickly and we saw that participatory urban planning is largely face-to-face process and the
world was trying to adapt you know people were trying to use zoom for the meetings and all the
other internet tools and they were trying to cope as they could as to say so it was often that
organizations and municipalities were skipping on something that they decided that's non-essential
so we thought that we need to redefine our goals and to see whether we can do better and then we
came up with this next part of the story or something that I want to share with you today
we thought that we need to create some kind of a tool probably some online tool that
uh helps you to to see through both physical face-to-face methods but also something new that's
coming into our lives some digital methods how you can use or transform some of those old and well
known physical tools to digital age of digital application and we probably want to have something
that helps you search through all of those methods that you could apply and something that helps you
navigate all of this jungle of of different approaches so we set out to create something
initially for the Hopman Bile project to help our partners but we hope that it could
help everybody else in everyday life so as you probably saw in beforehand we thought that those
five steps should come into the play those could be a basic checklist by defining your goals knowing
your stakeholders but we we thought that one crucial part is choosing the method and choosing
the right method for the for the task so we we set out by creating this online tool which
looks pretty similar as as the previous illustration I hope that you will research that later on
after this presentation it helps you out but what we did here we we created this
well-described five-step framework that my colleague Victoria is going to talk about
a little bit more on later on just to give you an understanding on on how the stages work in
in this process we also created this national participation baseline research for the countries
that were were involved in this project and described all of that process as stated beforehand
but the most part and the most attention we we put into this method toolkit for something
that you can sort through so we created this library of known methods that you can go through
unfortunately there is one part missing in this presentation I think okay it's here so we created
this library of tools we have about 16 digital and 16 face-to-face methods and they are all
described in a detail how you can apply them and how and and where are the best examples that you
can get inspired by we also created this selection tool or or the something that you can sort
all those methods by something something more obvious like basic filters as a group size that
you want to tackle or your group scope but also in a larger and more difficult or
more nuanced sorting methods as a planning phase or or this four-fold classification
for the community of actions or or level of stakeholder engagement for example so you can
use all of these parameters to to sort through the method and hopefully find something that suits you
best or your project best and we hope that this this tool that we are quite proud of is something
that will keep on living long after the project we still keep on improving it from a month to
month basis but we also hope that this is something that helps you follow through the holistic approach
of stakeholder engagement and we hope that it will aid you in choosing the right tools
and it make your life a little bit simpler and we all know that adequate tools allow for more
flexible stakeholder engagement and eventually for the better results so this is a point where
I would like to ask my colleague Victoria to come in and guide us through all of those five stages
that we that we decided to have as a as a as a base framework for our for our online tool
and we hope that that you can see the presentation following up okay it works Victoria
do we hear you Victoria we can't hear you okay perfect can you hear me yes excellent
we are exploring zoom opportunities for the remote control and now it seems that it works
really well so as you know civic engagement is quite a widely accepted practice in contemporary
spatial planning and the legal minimum is usually limited to the public hearings and some other
additional activities are basically depend on the willingness and resources of the local government
if there is some additional funding or resources then they happen if not then very often there is
nothing else and usually in my view in this public hearing model participation happens
intermittently firstly it happens upon the initiation of the plan and secondly after
planning and design is completed shortly before implementation of the plan and in this model the
role of citizens usually is limited to the critics of the ready-made plans so in our project we
propose a more continuous model of civic engagement where residents are involved early on and
continue participating throughout the whole planning cycle and thus residents take a more
proactive role and transforms transform through the critics to sort of the co-creators of the plans
and for this holistic kind of continuous participation there is a need for quite elaborate
and diverse stakeholder engagement approach and our tool offers five simple steps of building
your stakeholder engagement strategy in the end of each and applying those tools you end up
withdrawing a public participation plan so the first step in this model would be know your
stakeholders and in this phase you identify relevant stakeholder groups current and future
you also think of a stakeholder needs wishes roles and capacities and for example Marcetta
already told that there are different personas with different views on life and with different
needs so you might also think about something else you should also think about possible
outreach channels is it for the website or personal contacts or how are you going to contact them
and you should contact the stakeholders and actually negotiate their participation in the
process and what is also important and quite often overlooked is that you should inform the
stakeholders about potential drawbacks and benefits of participation so in step number two
you define the goals of participation and we think that it's important to discuss these
participation goals together with the stakeholders how they see the process what do they expect
and also what you would like to achieve and some quite frequent objectives here I just list a few
objectives of participation but there can be many so some of these participation aims or goals
could include informing the stakeholders or collecting their continuation or some experimental
information or collect some sort of other relevant information that you need for example from public
utility providers also participation could be related with the resolution of social or spatial
conflicts but also it's a very important a very important goal of participation is just the
development of social capital because it might happen because the community is not interested
in participation at all or doesn't have enough knowledge about planning issues or maybe doesn't
even know that they could participate so and this informing participants and about their options
and maybe co-working together with them so it's all is included under this goal development of
social capital so in step number three in step number three actually it's where our tool comes
to place you pick a method or a selection of methods from a toolkit so and you this selection
of tools is dependent upon nine categories and it's the number of participants the geographic
scale or automatic scope of the plan planning phase where this participation happened also
how engaged are the stakeholders in the process so actually the level of their engagement
the mode of communication do you want them to participate online or face to face
also some skills and resources that are required for example for example
is it do you require some expert knowledge or basic skills are enough and how much resources
do you need but also these different types of knowledge that is produced in this participation
process so as you see there are quite various things and we think that it's not one method
that you usually should select for this public participation plans but at least a few of them
to get a more holistic understanding of user needs and requirements so in the fifth step
in the fifth step usually you collect and analyze data note that not every participation process
is related to data collection and analysis so as i outlined before the goals of participation may
vary and you might also just want to build social capital within the community to make the community
an active and proactive actor of urban change but in case in case you still collect any information
keep in mind that there are different types of data that you might collect
and different tools that you may need for data analysis and this data question is crucial because
this you have to keep in mind the way how are you going to analyze these contributions
for example there are examples where there were questionnaires about what people would like to
see in the community and these answers were unstructured and once you have a big amount
of this data you cannot analyze it anymore so you have to think about these things while drawing
your public participation plan and also speaking of participation this data can be of two two kind
of types it can be either cross-sectional it could take a whole sample of different stakeholder
groups across the whole city or it might be longitudinal for example you study one and the
same group of people or one in the same neighborhood after certain changes so that's why these things
so that's why it's also important to archive this data and then compare these types of data
so and the last step but not least would be would be evaluation of the results and this is the stage
where you reflect on the participation process and the outcomes and we would like you to ask
yourself questions did you manage to achieve the goals outlined initially in your public participation
plan did you manage to engage diverse stakeholder groups were the stakeholders satisfied with the
process or with the outcomes of participation and based on this information you should brainstorm
in the next participation process how to modify it maybe you should modify your outreach channels
or maybe you should pick different tools next something that you might do in a different way
so and further oops yeah further some slides are missing oh no there i think here so and
um to assist you in designing all these processes as crystals mentioned we have developed an online
participatory toolkit which consists of 32 participation methods from um digital and analog
realms and you can filter and search the methods and uh an essential by often overlooked
characteristic out of these nine uh is um what kind of knowledge does your participation process
produce spatial planning can be conceptualized as a series of diverging and converging knowledge
production cycles in diverging phase you open up to multiple voices and perspectives to create new
knowledge and ideas and in converging phase you close down to assess the value of this generated
knowledge and ideas and perhaps develop an action plan that's why that's why participation methods
can be positioned in four quadrants depending on this convergence and divergence of knowledge
and also the mode of work do work with big groups or do work with small groups and this
distinction between working in big and small groups is made to emphasize the difference in
communication opportunities between the stakeholders big groups usually foster
participation while small groups are very suitable for collaboration
uh and um here um so while drawing a public participation plan it's essential to pick
methods which would fit all four categories for example you can see here i have developed an
example uh which shows both face-to-face and online methods so that you could pick from participatory
toolkit to fill on four quadrants and thus develop this holistic and multifaceted participation
strategy and as you know in our workshop you we had also some workshops with partner cities
and we have also tried to analyze if current participation strategies were the tool that they
are using previous different types and diverse knowledge and here are some experiences from
different cities so as you see uh some cities where yes some of them really do use or try to
fill all four quadrants whereas some other partners there is still some place for improvement
and try to diversify your methodological toolkit so um thank you very much for your
attention uh on behalf of our team we are open for questions if any
thank you very much Christa and Victoria a great presentation thank you very much for
presenting this extensive library of approaches that everyone can use and apply and the whole
methodology on how it was developed and uh yeah i'm just checking the chat everybody is also
joining in saying thank you uh we are unfortunately a little bit behind the schedule uh and uh still
had a very very nice and active audience today and we've got many questions luckily uh all our
most of our speakers were already answering their question the existing questions in the
chats as we went so uh i think that perhaps we would only address a couple of questions
um that are still open or that were answered uh in a da da da mode so first of all i would
ask i would invite haike to this stage and there was a bit of an extensive exchange in the Q&A about
the different approaches to safety inspections and differences in planning the airport area
and seaport area could you haike perhaps shortly comment uh to everyone who wasn't following this
discussion what was it about what was the question about and um what was uh that's what was your
answer so i think we identified a bit of a gap in addressing safety inspections so perhaps
it's something for maybe new projects or yes definitely and i think it was um um sorry
for pronouncing it wrong thank you for this interesting uh question by the way and it was
uh about um if port areas or cities have the same high level inspection rules so to say as
if it comes to aviation and airports actually there is a difference and what we also found
out in hub mobile is that the influence of cities on port authorities who are responsible for these
areas is limited in a way so uh definitely this is a follow-up project and also it is a follow-up
question how to increase safety aspects in these areas so thanks for this question and i think uh
we really have to work on that thanks thank you very much heike we also have
uh a question from kasra let's see if we can connect you directly you have raised your hand
please you should be able to ask your question now
yes i'm kasra kyatawola thank you so much for your webinar uh i live in iran in middle east
as you know it's uh it has the same geography it's surrounded by the uh hazards in the north
and the persian gulf in uh south uh but unfortunately uh then almost the most of the lands of the
uh seaports and uh the costas and beaches are constructed by constructors it's used for
uh private villas and uh something like that and there are no lands to
planning how you interpret the role of stakeholders urban designers urban planners landscape
architecture without the support of government and something like that how they can
for example it can change their role because iran has the same geography like baltic countries
if you uh answer me
thank you for the question um is any of our speakers ready to take this question
it was addressed to different types of stakeholders
it might be a bit difficult at the moment and unfortunately because of this time uh we also
some of our speakers had to leave um
yeah nobody is unfortunately unmuting um
um well unfortunately maybe we can't address this question right now we'll think if we can
find the answer and maybe include it into the materials um i would still try to proceed with
the questions that we have in the chat uh there was just arrived a question have you considered
gender-based approach in your project maybe taro could answer this as the lead partner of the
project how was the gender quality addressed through the through these urban planning processes
yes that's a very good question because sometimes we had it quite it was quite fun because uh you
would think that in most projects it would be very male-oriented but actually uh both the
professors actually we had here uh from the universities were female uh professor mark
at takuta and uh from gate the age yani kebabs and then we have from hanburg we have had haike
and also from ubc we have had uh female participants and also uh inga and other from riga so uh and
from turp so yes actually we've been a little bit worried about that do we have enough males here
in our uh well but of course it's very good that uh we have this um that we have had people of
different uh genders and ages available and also with different backgrounds so yes maybe
uh a question also is this question meant to be of the hub mobile project consortium or how
we acted within our cities because for example what we also did is to talk about uh mobility
poverty under uh women uh here in hanburg especially in specific areas of the city
yeah and of course i think it's a good question if it comes to so to say
unusual areas in the city you deeply need to address gender aspects
i don't know if it answers but yes we care for it
that's wonderful to hear thank you and also other what i have heard from the cities that
there are some elderly people know that we do the digitalization and the smart mobility and
active mobility that how do we take into account also elderly people
thank you and i would also like to ask the questions that were sent for um leaver's
presentation about thalin there were a couple of questions that i think ours might still not be
answered maybe this is the time to find out the answer so first of all could you address
the matter of installing sensors how did these sensors installed improve the traffic
yes can you hear me yes so uh going a bit more general why the sensors is important is the fact
that if you have a genomic information what's actually happening with the traffic in certain
time uh whether it's like uh actual information coming uh right now or this like historical
information uh it's much better for the city and for the traffic planners to to play with the
traffic so to say so it means that uh regarding to traffic lights it's uh if you don't have adaptive
like that traffic light system so you have just a static system which not calculates what's actually
happening on the streets okay you have like a different uh setups for the peak hours and for
the night times and for the rest of today but still it's not uh mirroring what's actually
happening on the on the streets so uh information from the sensors is crucial information for the
sensor is crucial for the adaptive traffic management and setting this and just to to
understand what's the traffic flow in current time so i think that this plays more and more
role for the cities and just to mention uh Estonia the city of thalin we are our
Estonians are very eager to use google race not just uh to understand where to go but just daily
commuting and so we use the information uh so what's the shortest and quickest uh road to from
my home to work vice versa and also we just giving the data out how many cars are on the streets
so we are also uh producing and consuming this information so this is just a bit beyond of
uh the sensory information but still it's it's very important for the city thank you very much
for for the very elaborate uh and detailed answer liver and also addressing this maybe also like
the second question is also maybe in connection to this so when the citizens plan uh how uh how to
commute around the city uh so the question was could you measure positive or negative effects
in combination with public buses especially if tram is faster or do you have separate bus lines
in thalin so could you address also this question yes we have a separate bus lines we have also
trolley lines so the trams trolleys and buses but uh basically uh we can have more green light for
the buses as well where we can just indicate where is the bus corridors the bus lines for
example and basically we have priority system which is not something adaptive but still it's
priority when the when the intersection understands that the public transit fleet is
approaching and giving a bit more green light or or uh letting pass them through the
um intersection before uh the other traffic but all in all yeah it can be implemented to all these
modes but for but for us the tram is like the backbone and if the tram is low it means that
it's like a waste of time and money anyway because the tram is quite expensive it's
just operating in their own room but but still if the other traffic and other intersections are
are slowing the speed rapidly so this is a big issue so we want to to solve this problem and
and define the solution for it thank you very much uh yes i'm afraid we need to finish here
with the questions and answers although there were quite many and are still coming and answers
are still coming so um thank you very much for today's webinar the full recording of this webinar
and presentations and all of the materials and some of the answers that for the questions that
have not been answered will be soon available on our website and we invite you to visit to find
out more about the work we do please make sure that you follow our social media or subscribe
to our newsletters for staying in the loop um on behalf of the ubc sustainable cities commission
i would like to warmly thank our great speakers today for presenting for delivering these amazing
presentations bringing most interesting most important insights into the holistic mobility
sector and to the great in engaged audience uh thank you very much for joining us today
uh i hope to see you again in our future events thank you very much for today