Deliverable D2.2 Mapping the existing planning and governance practices and business frameworks

Project number: F-DUT-2022-0088 Driving Equitable and Accessible 15 Minute Neighbourhood Transformations WP2. Review and comparative analysis T2.2 Mapping the existing planning and governance practices and business framework Deliverable D2.2 Mapping the existing planning and governance practices and business frameworks. Date: 03/17/2025 Responsible partner: L’Institut Paris Region (IPR) Authors: Élie Guitton, L’Institut Paris Region (IPR) Florian Tedeschi, L’Institut Paris Region (IPR) 2 DOCUMENT CHANGE RECORD Version Date Status Author Description 0.5 10/31/2024 Draft Élie Guitton, Florian Tedeschi (IPR) 1 11/29/2024 Draft Élie Guitton, Florian Tedeschi (IPR) 1.9 12/20/2024 Almost final version Élie Guitton, Florian Tedeschi (IPR) After review from UT 2 02/19/2025 Final version Élie Guitton, Florian Tedeschi (IPR) After review from Mpact and VUB 2.1 03/17/2025 Final version Élie Guitton, Florian Tedeschi (IPR) With corrections in references and acknowledgements The DUT Partnership is supported by the European Commission and funded under the Horizon Europe co-funded Partnership scheme (Topic HORIZON-CL5-2021-D2-01-16). 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................. 3 LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................... 6 LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................... 8 SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 9 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 12 1. CAR-SHARING IN A 15-MINUTE CITY NEIGHBOURHOOD ......................................... 14 1.1. Background and definition of car-sharing, and its potential use in a 15mC neighbourhood ..... 14 1.2. Different types of car-sharing services ................................................................................................................... 15 1.3. Governance of car-sharing services .......................................................................................................................... 15 1.3.1. Round-trip car-sharing governance ............................................................................................16 1.3.2. Free-floating and one-way station-based car-sharing governances ............................................26 1.3.3. Peer-to-peer car-sharing governance.........................................................................................30 1.4. Business models of car-sharing services ............................................................................................................... 32 1.4.1. Round-trip car-sharing business models ....................................................................................32 1.4.2. Free-floating and one-way station-based car-sharing business models ......................................37 1.4.3. Peer-to-peer car-sharing business models .................................................................................40 1.5. Recommendations for car-sharing services in a 15mC neighbourhood................................................ 43 1.6. Overview of car-sharing services for the 15mC neighbourhood ............................................................... 45 1.7. Summary of car-sharing good practices for 15mC neighbourhoods....................................................... 47 2. SHARED MICROMOBILITY IN A 15-MINUTE CITY NEIGHBOURHOOD ...................... 50 2.1. Background and definition of shared mobility, and its potential use in a 15mC neighbourhood 50 2.2. Different types of services (vehicles, systems) ................................................................................................... 52 2.3. Governance of shared micromobility services .................................................................................................... 54 2.4. Business models of shared micromobility services ......................................................................................... 55 2.4.1. To subsidize or not to subsidize, that is the question .................................................................55 2.4.2. Some key data on system sizing and uses ..................................................................................56 2.5. Recommendations for shared micromobility services in a 15mC neighbourhood ......................... 58 2.6. Overview of shared micromobility services for the 15mC neighbourhood......................................... 60 2.7. Summary of shared micromobility good practices for 15mC neighbourhoods................................. 62 3. CARPOOLING IN A 15-MINUTE CITY NEIGHBOURHOOD ........................................... 64 3.1. Background and definition of carpooling, and its potential use in a 15mC neighbourhood....... 64 Different .................................................................................................................................................................................. 65 3.2. types of services of carpooling .................................................................................................................................... 65 3.2.1. Dedicated carpool lanes ............................................................................................................65 3.2.2. Carpooling parks .......................................................................................................................66 4 3.2.3. Matchmaking platforms ............................................................................................................67 3.2.4. Carpooling routes ......................................................................................................................67 3.2.5. Other benefits for carpoolers ....................................................................................................68 3.3. Governance of carpooling services ........................................................................................................................... 69 3.3.1. Dedicated carpool lanes ............................................................................................................69 3.3.2. Carpooling parks .......................................................................................................................69 3.3.3. Matchmaking platforms ............................................................................................................69 3.3.4. Carpooling routes ......................................................................................................................69 3.4. Business models of carpooling services ................................................................................................................. 69 3.4.1. Dedicated carpool lanes ............................................................................................................69 3.4.2. Carpooling parks .......................................................................................................................69 3.4.3. Matchmaking platforms ............................................................................................................70 3.4.4. Carpooling routes ......................................................................................................................71 3.5. Overview of carpooling services for the 15mC neighbourhood ................................................................ 73 4. DEMAND-RESPONSIVE TRANSPORT IN A 15-MINUTE CITY NEIGHBOURHOOD .... 74 4.1. Background and definition of demand-responsive transport, and its potential use in a 15mC neighbourhood .................................................................................................................................................................................... 74 4.2. Different type of services of demand-responsive transport ........................................................................ 77 4.3. Governance of demand-responsive transport .................................................................................................... 80 4.4. Business models of demand-responsive services ............................................................................................. 82 4.5. Recommendations for demand-responsive transport in a 15mC neighbourhood .......................... 86 4.6. Overview of demand-responsive transport for the 15mC neighbourhood ......................................... 87 4.7. Summary of demand-responsive transport good practices for 15mC neighbourhoods .............. 89 5. FLEXIBLE (POP-UP) ACTIVITY HUBS IN A 15-MINUTE CITY NEIGHBOURHOOD ...... 90 5.1. Background and definition of flexible (pop-up) activity hubs, and their potential use in a 15mC neighbourhood .................................................................................................................................................................................... 90 5.2. Different types of flexible activity hubs .................................................................................................................. 90 5.2.1. Diversification of services offered in locations that already have a fine territorial network ........90 5.2.2. Mobile shops and services .........................................................................................................91 5.3. Governance of flexible activity hubs......................................................................................................................... 93 5.4. Business models of flexible activity hubs .............................................................................................................. 94 5.5. Recommendations for flexible activity hubs in a 15mC neighbourhood .............................................. 94 5.6. Overview of flexible activity hubs for the 15mC neighbourhood ............................................................. 95 6. MOBILITY HUBS IN A 15-MINUTE CITY NEIGHBOURHOOD ....................................... 96 6.1. Background and definition of mobility hubs, and their potential use in a 15mC neighbourhood 96 6.2. Different types of mobility hubs ................................................................................................................................. 98 6.3. Governance of mobility hubs .................................................................................................................................... 102 5 6.4. Business models of mobility hubs .......................................................................................................................... 105 6.5. Recommendations for mobility hubs in a 15mC neighbourhood .......................................................... 107 6.6. Overview of mobility hubs for the 15mC neighbourhood ......................................................................... 108 6.7. Summary of mobility hubs good practices for 15mC neighbourhoods............................................... 109 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 111 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 113 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... 121 LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................................................................................................ 122 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Interactions between seven work packages of the DREAMS project ................................... 13 Figure 2: Illustration of the STOP principle from the Good Move plan ................................................ 17 Figure 3: Car-sharing station implementation zones based on public transport accessibility zones ................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Figure 4: A Cambio car-sharing station in a street of Brussels ............................................................... 20 Figure 5: A Claus2you car-sharing station in Izegem, West Flanders in 2022 .................................... 22 Figure 6: The “Île-de-France Autopartage” label sticker .......................................................................... 24 Figure 7: A Poppy free-floating car in a street of Brussels ....................................................................... 26 Figure 8: An Autolib' station in Paris in 2012 ............................................................................................... 28 Figure 9: Free2Move vehicles in Paris in 2018 ............................................................................................. 29 Figure 10: Worlwide distribution of bike-sharing system ......................................................................... 51 Figure 11: A Velib' station with docks ............................................................................................................ 52 Figure 12: A Fifteen station that can accommodate several bikes in a single dock ........................... 53 Figure 13: Fredo's lightweight system with connected padlock ............................................................. 53 Figure 14: Ratio of number of stations and bicycles according to the density of the area ............. 57 Figure 15: Use of shared bikes in Italy in 2019 ............................................................................................. 58 Figure 16: Dedicated bus and carpooling lane on the C-31 in Barcelona ............................................. 66 Figure 17: Carpooling area at l'Isle-Adam, Île-de-France ......................................................................... 67 Figure 18: Carpooling routes deployed in the Grenoble conurbation .................................................. 68 Figure 19: The DRT Flexa vehicles operating in the suburbs of Leipzig have electric vehicles adapted for people with reduced mobility .................................................................................................. 75 Figure 20: DefMobil DRT service in East Tyrol ............................................................................................ 77 Figure 21: Trade-offs between flexibility and demand aggregation by the various DRT systems 78 Figure 22: Service compromise between cost efficiency, flexibility, and reliability........................... 79 Figure 23: DRT planning and implementation process ............................................................................. 82 Figure 24: Catalan DRT service Clic.Cat operates an electric bus ........................................................... 84 Figure 25: In Luxembourg, the Bummelbus DRT service helps people who are far from employment to train as bus drivers ............................................................................................................... 85 Figure 26: West Torrens Mobile Library ........................................................................................................ 91 Figure 27: The Mammobus in Île-de-France ................................................................................................ 91 Figure 28: A fresh produce seller on the forecourt of an SNCF station ................................................ 92 Figure 29: The “fit truck”, a mobile gym in Paris ........................................................................................ 93 Figure 30: The pop-up market in Gabian (France) is announced by loudspeakers throughout the village ..................................................................................................................................................................... 94 Figure 31: A mobil.punkt in Bremen with its typical column ................................................................... 98 Figure 32: A Hoppin point with its column in Temse, Flanders .............................................................. 99 Figure 33: The columns of Hoppin points with their standardised horizontal and vertical signs 101 Figure 34: The hub of Gieten in the Groningen Province ....................................................................... 103 Figure 35: A buurthub in Amsterdam .......................................................................................................... 104 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Use of round-trip car-sharing in the Brussels-Capital Region ................................................. 20 Table 2: Round-trip car-sharing governance in the Brussels-Capital Region (IPR, 2024)................ 21 Table 3: Round-trip car-sharing governance in Flanders ......................................................................... 22 Table 4: Governance of round-trip car-sharing in the Paris Region ...................................................... 25 Table 5: Use of free-floating car-sharing in the Brussels-Capital Region ............................................ 27 Table 6: Governance of free-floating car-sharing in the Brussels-Capital Region ............................. 27 Table 7: Governance of free-floating car-sharing in Flanders ................................................................. 27 Table 8: Governance of one-way station-based car-sharing in the Paris Region .............................. 28 Table 9: Governance of free-floating car-sharing in the Paris Region .................................................. 30 Table 10: Peer-to-peer car-sharing governance in the Brussels-Capital Region ................................ 31 Table 11: Peer-to-peer car-sharing governance in Flanders ..................................................................... 31 Table 12: Peer-to-peer car-sharing governance in the Paris Region ..................................................... 32 Table 13: Round-trip car-sharing business models in the Brussels-Capital Region ........................... 33 Table 14: Round-trip car-sharing business models in Flanders .............................................................. 35 Table 15: Round-trip car-sharing business models in the Paris Region................................................ 36 Table 16: Summary of good practices for shared micromobility............................................................ 63 Table 17: Overview of carpooling services for the 15mC in urban outskirts ........................................ 73 Table 19: Summary of European projects and programs related to DRT ............................................. 76 Table 20: Overview of demand-responsive transport for the 15mC in urban outskirts ................... 88 Table 21: Summary of demand-responsive transport good practices .................................................. 89 Table 22: Overview of flexible activity hubs for the 15mC in urban outskirts ..................................... 95 Table 24: Summary of European projects and programs related to mobility hubs .......................... 97 Table 25: Summary of the hub networks studied in this report ............................................................. 99 Table 26: Summary of the categories of mobility hubs identified during the focus groups of the eHubs project (source: Seeuws, 2022) ......................................................................................................... 106 Table 27: Overview of mobility hubs networks for the 15mC in urban outskirts ............................. 108 Table 28: Summary of mobility hubs good practices ............................................................................... 110 9 SUMMARY In the urban outskirts of most European cities, low population density, single-use zoning and a carcentric urban environment are at odds with the 15-minute city (15mC) model, which is “based on the idea that city dwellers should be able to cover the vast majority of their daily needs within a 15-minute radius, by walking and cycling, while connecting to further districts and travelling larger distances by other forms of sustainable transport” (DUT, 2023). While this model, which has been adopted by major cities around the world, (Paris, Milan, Dublin, Valencia, Portland, Ottawa, Melbourne, etc.) is often limited to urban centres, it can to some extent be adapted to a peri-urban context. The aim of the DREAMS project is to contribute to creating accessible, sustainable, and inclusive 15mC neighbourhoods, or 15mN (Arias Molinares et al., 2024), in the urban outskirts of European cities and regions. This report describes six types of policies that can help move towards the 15mC model in urban outskirts: car-sharing, shared micromobility, carpooling, demand-responsive services, flexible (pop-up) activity hubs and mobility hubs. Based on a comparative analysis of 15mC lifestyles in various lowto mid-density areas, it focuses on governance frameworks and business models for innovative shared mobility services and flexible activity hubs. While car-sharing is developing more and more in the centres of major cities, where public transport and alternatives to the car are more plentiful, it is also possible to develop some car-sharing services on the outskirts of cities with a balanced economic model, in certain cases and under certain conditions. These services can be cost-effective if the local authority already has a policy of limiting car use and ownership, if subsidies or tax exemptions are available, etc. Among the different types of car-sharing, round-trip car-sharing is best suited to developing in sparsely populated areas, offering families alternatives to car ownership and encouraging them to adopt a more multimodal and local lifestyle. Round-trip car-sharing in residential buildings, in conjunction with the home-owner associations, is a good way of offering alternatives to cars for residents who don't own one and freeing up public space for a more efficient use of space. This car-sharing model looks promising but is still in an emerging phase. Free-floating operators have no interest in offering their services in these areas and must concentrate on dense areas to be economically viable. It is therefore necessary to allow operators to operate in profitable areas so that they agree to extend their service to the urban outskirts. Combined car-sharing (a car-sharing scheme that offers both round-trip and free-floating services) could be a solution that combines the reliability of round-trip car-sharing with the flexibility of free-floating, satisfying a variety of needs for regular users who don't own a car but need one occasionally. Cooperative, non-profit, and peer-to-peer car-sharing models are less widespread but can be implemented in sparsely populated areas thanks to the willingness and knowledge of citizens. Employer subsidies and tax exemptions can encourage employees to switch to car-sharing. Employers’ financial participation can enable operators to find an economic balance in areas where demand is lower, without requiring excessive public funding. A good partnership between the transport authority, municipalities, employers, citizens, and operators is the key to success for a balanced suburban car-sharing system with little or no public subsidy. Shared micromobility also tends to be concentrated in urban centres. Station-based bike-sharing schemes are the most widespread, but also the most restrictive and the most subsidised by local authorities. Although they may have increased the visibility of these alternatives to the car, systems of this type tried out on the urban outskirts are expensive for limited use. Private free-floating bicycle and e-scooter services generally operate without subsidy, which leads to much higher prices and may exclude an important part of the population from the service if no social tariff is proposed. Good dialogue with local authorities makes it possible to impose rules and controls, but operators deploy their services in the most profitable, densely populated areas, where they are more likely to replace journeys made on foot or by public transport than by car. Some local authorities tend to redirect their funds towards the development of cycle infrastructure and bike parking, which are necessary for active mobilities, whether shared or not. Despite this, lighter or station-free and less expensive micromobility systems such as Fifteen or Fredo, can find their place in urban outskirts. Innovative, low-cost, or community-based business models, such as Pony, might make this possible. On the other hand, if possible, a system deployed on a global basis in the city centre and its outskirts may enable a satisfactory compromise to 16 provides an overview of the various configurations and degrees of progress in the development of carsharing services and practices. The contexts differ greatly between the Brussels-Capital Region, the Flemish Region and the Paris Region (Île-de-France). 1.3.1. Round-trip car-sharing governance 1.3.1.1. Round-trip car-sharing governance in the Brussels-Capital Region The Brussels-Capital Region (BCR) is the region of Belgium that includes Brussels, the country's capital. It is one of the three regions that make up Belgium, which is a federal state. It has a population of 1.2 million over an area of 161 km² (a density of 7,700 inhabitants per km²) and is made up of 19 municipalities. The Region is responsible for several areas, including regional planning, environment and transport. In 2020, it published the Good Move plan, its 2020-2030 Regional Mobility Plan (SUMP). This ambitious, cross-functional plan was developed through a participatory process. It opts for a pleasant and safe city, made up of peaceful neighbourhoods linked by intermodal streets, and centred on efficient public transport and smoother traffic flow (Bruxelles Mobilité, 2021). The main elements of the plan involve the following six dimensions: Good Neighbourhood (to improve the quality of life on the neighbourhood level), Good Network (to organise transport networks and to ensure efficient services) Good Service (to improve the integrated services to the Region by developing the region’s MaaS platform), Good Choice (to guide individual and collective choices, without harming individual freedom through changing and challenging mobility behaviour), Good Partner (to ensure partnership governance of the mobility plan between the BCR and federal governments, municipalities and local stakeholders) and Good Knowledge (to update mobility data and regularly assess the Good Move plan) (Esztergár-Kiss, Aba, 2024). Its action plan proposes several measures that can be linked to the concept of the 15mC. For example, traffic-calmed neighbourhoods have been created with a modified traffic plan that prevents throughtraffic, the speed limit has been lowered to 30 km/h and public spaces are being renovated to promote safety, comfort and attractiveness. There is a general objective to link urban development to mobility offer. A low-emission zone has been introduced to improve air quality. The Good Move plan also aims to oversee and support the development of Mobility as a Service (MaaS) and shared mobility services in the Brussels-Capital Region. The MaaS Floya application was launched in 2023. It is important to point out that technical integration into MaaS platforms comes at a significant cost for operators. They may be reluctant to pay for these developments without the guarantee of selling more journeys using the MaaS platform. One way of implementing a MaaS that would bring together all mobility operators would be to set up a financial incentive provided by the government, which would cover (part of) the implementation costs (Baguet, 2024). The STOP1 principle, first implemented in Flanders as a region-wide policy, means that, when it comes to public spaces design, priority is given to pedestrians, then cyclists, then public transport and finally cars. Street are specialised to create five structuring networks (pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, cars, and heavy goods vehicles) (see Figure 2). 1 STOP is a Dutch acronym for Stappers, Trappers, Openbaar vervoer, Privé vervoer (pedestrians, cyclists, public transport, private transport) indicating the order of priority of modes of transport. 17 Figure 2: Illustration of the STOP principle from the Good Move plan (© Tous à Pied) (see 1.3.1.1) Car-sharing in Brussels is being developed and encouraged as part of the Good Move plan (Action C.11). The BCR organises and regulates car-sharing, which is implemented by private operators. It introduced the “Bruxell’Air” bonus for residents who deregister their license plate. Under certain conditions, these people can benefit from a bonus (the amount of which is determined according to income) that must be spent on alternative mobility options to the private car, including car-sharing. Three types of car-sharing systems coexist in the Region: round-trip car-sharing, free-floating and, to a lesser extent, peer-to-peer. Brussels Mobility (the region transport authority) is currently conducting a study to assess the complementarity of these different types of car-sharing. To operate a round-trip car-sharing service, operators must obtain approval from the BCR and meet several conditions. These conditions make it possible to ensure that there is a good network of stations in the Region, so that the shared cars are spread throughout the territory. In fact, a car-sharing service is more profitable for an operator in the densest urban areas, where households are less motorised and where alternatives to the car are more developed, particularly with a better public transport offer. However, it is in the areas furthest from public transport, which are more dependent on the car, that the challenge of getting people out of their cars is greatest, and where car-sharing is more relevant. Stations are distributed using a rating system based on the public transport accessibility zones set out in the Regional Urban Planning Regulations (RUPR). These regulations distinguish between three types of zones: very good public transport accessibility (A), good accessibility (B) and average accessibility (C) (see Figure 3). The BCR parking agency, Parking Brussels, assigns each station a score according to the public transport accessibility zone in which it is located: 3 for zone A, 2 for zone B and 0 for zone C. To obtain its fiveyear approval, a round-trip car-sharing operator must install its stations in such a way as to have an 18 average score less than or equal to 2. . This means that they can set up stations in profitable areas but must always offer stations in less profitable areas. The operator's score is reassessed every five years when its licence is renewed. The score is re-evaluated based on the stations opened after approval was granted. Figure 3: Car-sharing station implementation zones based on public transport accessibility zones (source: Brussels Mobility, Brussels-Capital Region, translation: IPR) (see 1.3.1.1) 19 To obtain approval, the operator must provide a fleet of vehicles of different types: city, family and commercial. This makes it possible to offer a car-sharing service that meets a range of needs, with different models of vehicle for different target groups. The vehicles must be recent and comply with certain Ecoscore standards (overall score combining air pollutant emissions, greenhouse gases emissions and noise pollution). The operator must ensure a high level of availability: at least 90% of reservation requests made 24 hours in advance must be met. Reservations, operation, and telephone assistance are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Each year, car-sharing operators must provide Brussels Mobility with operating data on the number of vehicles shared, the number of customers, the number of reservations, the characteristics of the journeys made and the demand coverage rate (difference between demand and supply). Parking.Brussels produces an annual report on car-sharing with this data. Brussels Mobility has set up an observatory which carries out surveys to assess the progress of the Good Move plan. Between 2022 and 2023, the proportion households owning a car will fall from 45.5% to 44.2%, due in part to the increase of alternatives to the private car, such as car-sharing. This decline hides a significant disparity between central and suburban municipalities, with municipalities on the outskirts being more equipped with cars. (Bruxelles Mobilité, 2024). In 2021, car-sharing was the second most popular mode of transport, with a satisfaction score of 7.6/10, behind ride-hailing services (8), but ahead of shared mopeds (7.1), shared bikes (6.9), train (6.6), urban public transport (6.4), walking and cycling (6). Users appreciate the ease of booking journeys, the feeling of safety in relation to the risk of aggression, the cost of use and the journey times (outside rush hour). (Bruxelles Mobilité, 2023). The BCR's objective was to have 2% of the regional population using car-sharing by 2020. This represents 25,000 users and 800 vehicles, or roughly one car for every 30 people (Parking.Brussels, 2024). To ensure the geographical distribution of the shared cars, these 800 vehicles were distributed among the 19 municipalities according to their population. For example, the municipality of Koekelberg, with its population of 20,000, was to deploy 15 vehicles between 2013 and 2020, while the municipality of Brussels, with its population of 158,000, was to deploy 116 vehicles. In 2013, each municipality in the BCR had to draw up a car-sharing action plan (CSAP) for 2020, in collaboration with Parking Brussels and in consultation with approved operators. These CSAP include a diagnosis of the existing car-sharing services, a deployment scenario and the locations of the stations and the timetable for bringing them into service. The operators apply to the local authorities for parking spaces in the areas identified for car-sharing stations, which are then made available free of charge. Within five years of receiving approval, an operator must have 30 stations and 75 shared vehicles. The road authority (the local authority or the BCR, depending on whether it is a local or regional road) is responsible for maintaining the car-sharing stations (Gouvernement de la Région de BruxellesCapitale, 2013). They are also responsible for the costs of regulatory signage, in particular the regulatory sign and road markings. The approved operator bears the costs of equipping the car-sharing stations, including installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment where necessary. Electrical installation costs are always borne by the operator. It is interesting to note that the rating system makes it possible to create a network of car-sharing stations across the region, but that it is not enough to achieve a number of stations proportional to the municipal population. In some municipalities the targets have been significantly exceeded (161% in Watermael-Boitsfort, 156% in Saint-Gilles, 152% in Etterbeek, etc.), while in others the target has been significantly missed (29% in Molenbeek-Saint-Jean, 42% in Evere, 47% in Koekelberg, etc.). It seems that this is not due to the central nature of the municipality: some municipalities close to the heart of the urban core have fewer car-sharing stations than others with a lower population density, and vice versa. It therefore seems to be a question of political choices made by municipalities that are more or less favourable to car-sharing. In France, the public using car-sharing tends to be male, middle-aged, urban, educated, in employment, comfortable with digital technology, and relatively well-off (Trauchessec et al. 2022). These characteristics are also found in Belgium, although it should be noted that the proportion of women among P2P car-sharing users (61%) is significantly higher than that of men (Autodelen.net, 2023). In 20 the BCR, a Green Deal Inclusive Car-sharing has been launched to make car-sharing more accessible to vulnerable target groups such as senior citizens, people with reduced mobility, low-income households, single-parent families, etc. The Green Deal Inclusive Car-sharing resulted in a charter, 34 signatories and the formulation of 178 actions. A Green Deal Academy has been set up to organise car-sharing exchange days for vulnerable target groups (Autodelen.net, 2024). Two round-trip car-sharing operators are licensed in the BCR: Cambio and Getaround. Cambio stations and vehicles are available in the BCR as long as in many Belgian cities and rural areas (see Figure 4). Although Getaround mainly is a peer-to-peer car-sharing operator, it also has a licence for round-trip stations, mainly located in the Brussels municipality. Cambio and Getaround users can benefit from the Bruxell’Air bonus that can be spent on alternative mobility options to the private car, including carsharing (Bruxelles Environnement, 2024) (see 1.3.1.1). Cambio and Getaround have seen significant growth in recent years, bringing the number of subscribers to 33,000 for the two offers combined (+29% between 2021 and 2023), with 309 stations (+33%), 1,007 spaces (+28% and 368,000 reservations (+22%), equivalent to 1,000 per day (Parking.Brussels, 2024). Figure 4: A Cambio car-sharing station in a street of Brussels (© Cambio) (see 1.3.1.1) Operator Users in 2023 (% on 2021) Stations in 2023 (% on 2021) Car-sharing spaces in 2023 (% on 2021) Reservations in 2023 (% on 2021) Reservations per day in 2023 (% on 2021) Cambio 31,183 (+28%) 293 (+28 %) 976 (+34%) 364,844 (+22%) 1,000 (+22%) Getaround 1,747 (+46%) 16 (+25%) 31 (+23%) 3,204 (+59%) 9 (+60%) TOTAL 33,130 (+29%) 309 (+28%) 1,007 (+33%) 368,048 (+22%) 1,008 (+22%) Table 1: Use of round-trip car-sharing in the Brussels-Capital Region Sources: Parking.Brussels, Cambio, Getaround; analyses: IPR, 2024 21 Car-sharing operator (number of stations) Conditions of operation Station locations Stations urban environment Cambio (293) Licence to operate awarded by the transport authority which sets vehicle specifications and operating rules: vehicle availability rate, 24/7 service, obligation to transmit data to the transport authority, etc. Carsharing station development targets set by the transport authority and allocated by municipality. Municipalities choose the stations' locations to meet their targets. Regional authority defines PT accessibility zones, which depend on the quality of the PT offer. Operators implement stations in locations chosen by municipalities but must maintain a balance between densely populated areas with good PT and outskirts with fewer PT if they want to keep their licence. BCR city centre, urban outskirts Getaround (16) BCR city centre Table 2: Round-trip car-sharing governance in the Brussels-Capital Region Sources: Parking.Brussels, Brussels Mobility, Cambio; analyses: IPR, 2024 1.3.1.2. Round-trip car-sharing governance in Flanders The Flemish Region, or Flanders, has a population of 6.8 million spread over an area of 13,625 km², giving a density of 501 inhabitants per km². Car-sharing began in Flanders in 2003 in Antwerp, Ghent, Bruges and Mechelen, with several private operators starting up there. The service developed gradually until, around 2012-2013, other Flemish municipalities also wanted to set up a car-sharing service. The Flanders Region is divided into 15 transport regions (“vervoerregio” in Dutch language). These transport regions can issue invitations to tender to select car-sharing service operators in the form of a procurement of service, either alone or as part of a consortium. There is no regional policy for the development of car-sharing, but since 2020 there have been 2030 climate targets for mobility. The region has a good communication plan that insist on the benefits of car-sharing for everyone so that residents, businesses, and public authorities make the switch to car-sharing (Matthijs et al., 2021). A good communications campaign has a real impact on the development of this service, which is still not widely known. The Region plans to deploy 2 shared cars per 1,000 inhabitants, or 13,000 car-sharing vehicles for the whole of Flanders. In 2020, there were 3,000 cars in 60% of Flemish municipalities, and by July 2024 there would be 4,600 in 83% of municipalities. Operators include in 2024 Cambio, Claus2you (see Figure 5), Stapp.in, Mobilize Share, BattWatt and Coopstroom. 22 Figure 5: A Claus2you car-sharing station in Izegem, West Flanders in 2022 (© Stad Izegem) (see 1.3.1.2) Car-sharing operator (number of stations) Conditions of operation Station locations Stations urban environment Cambio (935) Calls for tender from local transport authorities vervoerregio’s). Car-sharing station deployment targets set by the region as part of climate objectives of its 2030 strategy. Regional budgets allocated to municipalities for these objectives can be used to develop car-sharing. Municipalities work with vervoerregio’s to choose station locations, in line with the mobility hubs (Hoppinpunten) deployment strategy and in collaboration with operators. City centres, urban outskirts, rural areas, mobility hubs Claus2you (77) City centres, rural areas, mobility hubs Stapp.in (76) Urban outskirts, rural areas, mobility hubs Mobilize Share (222) Urban outskirts, rural areas BattMobility (232) City centres, urban outskirts Coopstroom (109) City centre, urban outskirts, rural areas Table 3: Round-trip car-sharing governance in Flanders Sources: Cambio, Claus2you, Stapp.in, Autodelen.net, BattWatt, Coopstroom; analyses: IPR, 2024 23 1.3.1.3. Round-trip car-sharing governance in the Paris Region The Île-de-France region has a population of 12.3 million and a surface area of 12,011 km², giving a population density of 1,025 inhabitants per km². It has 1,267 communes, including the City of Paris, the capital of France with a population of 2.1 million. In 2007, a law was passed to promote car-sharing at national level in France. In 2012, a decree defined car-sharing in regulatory terms. Car-sharing has been identified as an important lever for decarbonising mobility by Ademe (the French National Environment Agency) in the 2022 national car-sharing survey (Trauchessec et al. 2022). One shared car can replace 5 to 8 private cars, freeing up space and limiting car journeys by encouraging more multimodal lifestyles. Car-sharing replaces 10,000 vehicles in France, frees up 1,800 road spaces and saves 39 million kilometres of motoring every year. In fact, many carsharing users are moving away from car use and changing their mobility habits by making greater use of alternatives to the car, in particular public transport, cycling and walking. Car-sharing has more than 460,000 active users and 13,500 shared cars in France. It's a growing practice, even if the number of car-sharing vehicles needs to increase 100-fold to have a real impact on sustainable mobility (Trauchessec et al. 2022). Paris has a very dense and well-equipped public transport network. Walking is a popular mode of transport, and cycling infrastructure is developing rapidly. Car traffic has been falling for decades as a result of policies such as parking restrictions, traffic calming, shared streets, circulation plan, bike and walking infrastructure, Limited Traffic Zone, Low Emission Zone, etc. The City of Paris launched its Local Mobility Plan (LMP) in 2024 (Ville de Paris, 2024), based on the 15minute city concept, in complement of the Île-de-France regional mobility plan, which develops the concept of the 20-minute region (20mR). Paris’ LMP proposes solutions in terms of mobility and the development of public space to respond to the urgency of the ecological transition and offer the population a healthy and preserved living environment. Both mobility plans aim to develop car-sharing, and the various car-sharing services in the region need to complement each other if car-sharing is to be developed in a balanced way between the densely populated urban core, the urban outskirts, and the rural areas. In the Île-de-France region, several round-trip car-sharing systems are being or have been offered by private operators. As early as 1999, Caisse Commune implemented its service in Paris. In 2007, it was the turn of Mobizen and Okigo (provided by Avis and Vincipark) to offer an equivalent service in the capital, and an Autopartage Paris label was created. In 2016, the City of Paris diversified its car-sharing services and launched the “Service de Véhicules Partagés” (Shared Vehicle Service), following a call for tenders. 226 on-street parking spaces were allocated to 5 operators: Communauto (from the Mobizen-Caisse Commune merger), Zipcar (Avis group), Ubeeqo-Matcha (Europcar group), Bluecarsharing (Bolloré) and IER (Bolloré). To replace Autolib' on its territory, the city of Paris called for expressions of interest at the end of 2019 to launch a new car-sharing system called Mobilib'. The City Hall decided to dedicate 1,000 spaces to round-trip car-sharing: 500 2-space stations at new places, and 500 at former Autolib' stations with 4 to 6-space stations. Four operators were selected: Ubeeqo (851 cars, including 713 electric cars in all the Autolib' spaces), Ada (56 cars), Communauto (152 cars) and Getaround (141 cars). In the end, Ubeeqo only deployed 651 cars and Ada left the capital in 2020. Following a trial run by the City of Paris and the Paris Region in conjunction with Ademe and the Paris Île-de-France Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mobilib' offered Clem', electric utility vehicles for both businesses and private individuals, in new reserved spaces, from 2020. In 2024, Ubeeqo (then Europcar on Demand) had 683 on-street spaces in Paris, Communauto 150, Getaround 154 and Clem' 264. This means that around 1,260 on-street spaces are currently reserved for round-trip car-sharing in Paris. Communauto also has 50 spaces in Paris in public or private underground car parks and 4 “zone stations” where vehicles can be hired and returned in a defined area to an on-street parking space, but without a fixed location. Europcar on Demand service stopped in December 2024. Clem’ stopped its shared utility vehicle service in Paris in September 2024 but kept operating its other services in Paris and the Paris Region. 24 Communauto is also present in 15 municipalities in the Île-de-France region (excluding Paris) and Clem' in 33. Clem' only operates electric vehicles. It also offers vehicles in residential buildings in several municipalities in conjunction with the home-owner associations. It is a good way of offering alternatives to cars for residents who don't own one and freeing up public space for a more efficient use of space. This car-sharing model looks promising but is still in an emerging phase. It has been a project of the SHARE-North Squared (SN²) project and is experimented in Austria with Mo.Point2. Citiz Île-de-France is another car-sharing operator with 7 stations in 3 municipalities near Paris, but not in the capital. Citiz is a not-for-profit cooperative created by the pioneers of car-sharing in France in 2002. The Citiz network now comprises 14 independent local car-sharing operators, present in over 220 French municipalities and more than 90 SNCF train stations. These services enable 50,000 users to share the use of 2,500 shared cars. By grouping together in a network, it is possible to pool tools and cut costs: for the call centre, insurance, group purchases (particularly for vehicles and their maintenance), communication tools, etc., thus reducing the risks for operators wishing to expand into more uncertain sectors such as sparsely populated areas. The shared technical system (booking software, on-board computers, mobile application, etc.) means that a customer account in one of the local services can access all the cars in the network. Users and local authorities can become members of the cooperative and are involved in decision-making. Île-de-France Mobilités has created the “Île-de-France Autopartage” label in 2019 to provide a framework for car-sharing and facilitate the selection process for operators by local authorities wishing to roll out car-sharing in their area (see Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.). Communauto, Clem' and Citiz have been awarded the Île-de-France Autopartage label. In total, 3.8 million Île-de-France residents in 51 municipalities will have access to a round-trip car-sharing system in their city by 2024. This corresponds to more than 1,300 vehicles and 500 stations. Figure 6: The “Île-de-France Autopartage” label sticker (© ÎDFM) (see 1.3.1.3) 2 https://www.mopoint.at/ 25 Car-sharing operator (number of stations) Conditions of operation Station locations Stations urban environment Ubeeqo/Europcar on Demand (176) ⚠ The service stopped in December 2024 Call for expression of interest from the City of Paris Station locations decided by the City of Paris and allocated to 4 operators under the Mobilib’ brand. City of Paris Communauto (132) Call for expression of interest from the City of Paris. Permits with other municipalities. Île-de-France Autopartage label awarded by the region. Station locations decided by the City of Paris and allocated to 4 operators under the Mobilib’ brand. Other stations implemented with private parking lot operators. Extra onstreet “zone” stations submitted to the City of Paris and operated without physical station. Stations outside Paris implemented with municipalities. City of Paris, urban outskirts Getaround (102) Call for expression of interest from the City of Paris. Permits with other municipalities. Station locations decided by the City of Paris and allocated to 4 operators under the Mobilib’ brand. Stations outside Paris implemented with municipalities. City of Paris, urban outskirts Clem’ (110) ⚠ The shared utility vehicle service stopped in September 2024 Trial run by the City of Paris/region, then permit to operate by the City of Paris. Permits with other municipalities. Île-deFrance Autopartage label awarded by the region. Station locations decided by the City of Paris, operation under the Mobilib’ brand. Stations outside Paris implemented with municipalities. Clem' offers vehicles in residential buildings in several municipalities in conjunction with the homeowner associations. City of Paris, urban outskirts, rural areas Citiz (7) Permit from the municipality. Île-deFrance Autopartage label awarded by the region. Users and local authorities can become members of the cooperative and be involved in decisionmaking. Stations implemented with the municipalities. Urban outskirt Table 4: Governance of round-trip car-sharing in the Paris Region Sources: Europcar, Communauto, Getaround, Clem’, Citiz, City of Paris; analyses: IPR, 2024 32 1.3.3.3. Peer-to-peer car-sharing governance in the Paris Region Peer-to-peer car-sharing is possible in the Paris Region thanks to three private operators: Getaround, Turo and RoadstR (the latter specialising in top-of-the-range cars). In France, car-sharing between private individuals is considered to be a loan between private individuals, where the terms of agreement and negotiation are of a private nature. There is therefore no government intervention in this type of car-sharing. No permit is intended by the Paris Region from operators to provide their services. Car-sharing operator Conditions of operation Stations urban environment Getaround Operators can provide their services without a permit from the Paris Region. City centre, urban outskirts, rural areas Turo City centre, urban outskirts, rural areas RoadstR City centre, urban outskirts, rural areas Table 12: Peer-to-peer car-sharing governance in the Paris Region Source: Leconte et al., 2023; analyses: IPR, 2024 1.4. Business models of car-sharing services 1.4.1. Round-trip car-sharing business models 1.4.1.1. Round-trip car-sharing business models in the Brussels-Capital Region There are a number of factors involved in creating a viable business model for a car-sharing service, such as pricing (by time, by distance, etc.), occupancy rate, purchase costs (mostly for vehicles), fuel and energy costs, commissions (for peer-to-peer car-sharing), subscription fees, parking fees and overhead costs (staff, replacing vehicles, maintenance, cleaning, etc.) (Autodelen.net, 2022). For example, a roundtrip car-sharing service needs at least an occupancy rate of 25-30% to be profitable (Seeuws, 2022), electric vehicles (EV) are more expensive than fossil-fuelled vehicles and ensuring that vehicles are in good condition at all times has a cost, so it is more difficult to be profitable in a low-density area with widespread stations and only EVs. The three main differences in business models between dense and sparsely populated areas are occupancy rates, overhead costs and parking fees (often lower in the outskirts). This is particularly important when developing a car-sharing service in peri-urban areas (Autodelen.net, 2022). In accordance with the rules set by Brussels Mobility, round-trip car-sharing rates includes all service costs: fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, etc. No subsidies are granted to operators by the BCR. However, Brussels Mobility offers the Bruxell'Air bonus for residents who deregister their number plate. Under certain conditions, these people can benefit from a bonus (the amount of which is determined according to income) that must be spent on alternative mobility options to the private car, including carsharing. Moreover, Parking.Brussels offers operators exemption cards for free parking in public spaces (outside zones where parking is limited to 2 hours). The price of the exemption card is 33 €25/year/vehicle. To encourage multimodality, the operators and the STIB (the Brussels public transport company) developed a combined offer of car-sharing + public transport and promote it to their users. Cambio is a project initiated by Mpact in 2000 together with Cambio Mobilitätsservice gmbh VAB and NMBS-SNCB2022. To access the service, Cambio users must pay a fee (between €150 and €500) which is used to develop the system, and take out a monthly subscription, after which journeys are billed according to rental time and distance travelled. There also is a one-off €35 activation fee. There is a reduced rate for night-time hours and kilometres travelled in excess of 100 kilometres. There is a maximum rate per day and per week. Three types of subscription are available, with sliding scale rates for the most comprehensive subscriptions. It is possible to choose to add a supplement to the subscription to obtain a reduced franchise in case of damage. It meets different needs with different vehicle models: from small city cars to utility vehicles. A special “campus” subscription is available for under-25s with less than 2 years' driving experience. Partnerships with driving schools allow future car sharers to take their driving lessons in a Cambio car. The vehicles are unlocked using an application or a badge (it is possible to load a Cambio subscription onto the Mobib pass which is used for public transport). There is a combined STIB + Cambio offer which allows regular public transport users to benefit from a reduction on Cambio fares. In order to make the service accessible to people who are less at ease with digital tools, it is possible to book a journey by telephone 24/7 for €1. There is also a call centre (managed by Mpact) that can be used to call in the event of damage, accidents, etc. Cambio is available on the Floya and Olympus MaaS platforms that include several mobility operators. The E-cargo bike service also lets users hire cargo bikes via the Cambio application. This service is piloted by Brussels Mobility as part of the Cairgo Bike European project (Urban Innovative Actions, 2024). No subscription is required for Getaround. Rates are charged by the hour or by the day, with a maximum number of kilometres to be paid in advance, depending on the user's needs. The vehicles are unlocked using an application. Different access rules and insurance excesses apply depending on how old the driver's licence is. Users under 25 pay a supplement. It is possible to pay extra for better cover in the event of damage. A deposit is required on payment of the hire charge. Car-sharing operator Pricing Public/private subsidy Stations urban environment Cambio By hour, day or week, and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. Different subscription offers for reduced costs. Participation fee to develop the system. Parking.Brussels offers operators exemption cards for free parking in public spaces for €25/year/vehicle. Residents who part with their car can benefit from the BCR Bruxell'Air bonus that can be spent on carsharing services. Travel costs may be partly covered by employers as part of the mobility budget. BCR city centre, urban outskirts Getaround By hour or day, and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. No subscription fees. BCR city centre Table 13: Round-trip car-sharing business models in the Brussels-Capital Region Sources: Parking.Brussels, Brussels Mobility; analyses: IPR, 2024 34 1.4.1.2. Round-trip car-sharing business models in Flanders In the Flemish Region, the budgets allocated to municipalities for the 2030 climate targets can be used to develop car-sharing. Solva, for instance, is an intermunicipal organization of 16 municipalities in the South of the East-Flanders province (South of Ghent). As part of its climate plan, it launched a call for tenders and selected a car-sharing operator. Solva supports the operator financially with a monthly income called “purchase guarantee” which covers the operators’ costs, in order to create a business model on a long term. The service has been able to grow, and the number of journeys has risen steadily. This gave the operator the opportunity to create a profitable car-sharing service within three or four years, which would not have been possible without public funding. Once it had reached the break-even point, Solva had the option of stopping its financial support, but decided to continue it to help the operator expand its fleet of shared vehicles (Autodelen.net, 2022). In the municipality of Glabbeek, in the province of Flemish Brabant, there is a similar system, but the municipality can reduce its financial support as the car-sharing operator works with local companies to put advertising on shared cars (Autodelen.net, 2022). In other parts of Flanders, authorities called on operators to install round-trip car-sharing vehicles in their areas, some of which were suburban or rural areas, as well as small train or bus stations. The operators agreed on one condition: to share the risk of losses resulting from a smaller number of potential users than in dense urban areas (Autodelen.net, 2024). The system, known as “cashback” or “minimum revenue guarantee”, is an agreement between the car-sharing operator and the municipality, which stipulates that a minimum turnover must be achieved per car each month (around €800, Rodenbach, 2024). If this minimum amount is not reached by the operator, the municipality must pay the difference to the operator to enable it to break even. To reach this amount, local authorities encourage their staff to use car-sharing vehicles rather than service cars. Employers located in business parks can be encouraged to replace their fleets and employees’ company cars with car-sharing services. By combining the journeys made by residents, train and bus users, municipal staff, associations, and local businesses, it is possible to reach the minimum threshold and operate car-sharing in rural areas without public subsidies (Autodelen.net, 2024). Cambio, Claus2you, Stapp.in, Mobilize Share, BattMobility and Coopstroom also propose business offers. Coopstroom is a car-sharing operator in the form of a non-profit cooperative company. To become a user, the first step is to buy a share in the cooperative. Shared cars are equipped with an on-board computer that automatically records journeys. Users locate the car using the app, and open and lock the car using their smartphone. In Bruges, cars can be left anywhere in a designated area. Otherwise, cars have a designated parking space. Coopstroom offers various formulas based on pre-paid driving credit. Users pay according to time of use and per kilometre. On request, Coopstroom can fit a child seat in the car, which is ideal for families living in peri-urban areas. In West Flanders, if a group of people can guarantee 4 COOP formulas or 6 Prepaid Comfort formulas per month, Coopstroom will place a shared electric car in their neighbourhood. This makes it possible to develop carsharing in sparsely populated areas where there is a demand from local residents. To become a member, users must hold a driving licence for at least 6 months. In addition, only people aged 20 or over are allowed to become cooperators. To become a member, drivers must not have been disqualified from driving for at least 5 years. All vehicles are electric. The cooperative invests in renewable energy. Anyone who is a Coopstroom shareholder can also sign a green energy contract with the Ecopower cooperative, which supplies electricity from Belgian solar, wind and hydro power. Coopstroom is part of the Coop CEDAN network. Members of this network of green energy cooperatives can use the Coopstroom shared cars without having to buy a share. If you and your neighbourhood can guarantee a certain level of usage per month, BattMobility will consider placing a car near you. BattMobility also has a private leasing formula (BattMaxx). In this case, you lease an electric car through the company and make it available to other people when you don't need it. Instead of getting money, you get a discount on your monthly charges for the time you share your car. Various types of vehicles are available. 35 Car-sharing operator Pricing Public/private subsidy Stations urban environment Cambio By hour, day or week, and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. Different subscription offers for reduced costs. Participation fee to develop the system. Municipalities can spend some of the budget the region allocate them for its climate policy to car-sharing services. “Cashback” or “minimum revenue guarantee” is an agreement between the operator and the municipality, which stipulates that a minimum turnover must be achieved per car each month (around €800). If this minimum amount is not reached by the operator, the municipality must pay the difference to the operator to enable it to break even. “Purchase guarantee” is another financial arrangement for balancing the car-sharing economy: local authorities guarantee a regular monthly income to the operator so that it can break even. Travel costs may be partly covered by employers as part of the mobility budget. City centres, urban outskirts, rural areas, mobility hubs Claus2you By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. No subscription fees. City centres, rural areas, mobility hubs Stapp.in By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. No subscription fees. Urban outskirts, rural areas, mobility hubs Mobilize Share By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. No subscription fees. Urban outskirts, rural areas BattMobility By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. Different subscription offers for reduced costs. City centres, urban outskirts Coopstroom By km. All service costs included. Prepaid formulas. Possible subscription fee for reduced cost. City centres, rural areas, mobility hubs Table 14: Round-trip car-sharing business models in Flanders Sources: Cambio, Claus2you, Stapp.in, Autodelen.net, BattWatt, Coopstroom; analyses: IPR, 2024 1.4.1.3. Round-trip car-sharing business models in the Paris Region In the Paris Region, round-trip car-sharing services charge per hour, day and kilometre. It is possible to choose to add a supplement to the subscription to obtain a reduced excess. Vehicles are unlocked 24/7 using an application or a badge. Operators propose business offers. In the City of Paris, operators pay a street occupation charge to the municipality: €200-390 per year depending on type and number of vehicles (City of Paris, 2020). There is a €100 grant from the City of Paris to encourage Parisians to try car-sharing. Ubeeqo/Europcar on Demand, Communauto, Getaround, Clem’ and Citiz. also propose 36 business offers. Various types of vehicles are available. Clem’ proposes offers for local authorities and home-owner associations. In France, the “Forfait Mobilités Durables” (sustainable mobility aid, FMD) is a voluntary scheme whereby employers pay for employees' personal transport costs between home and work. It could one day be made compulsory for employers, but for the moment it is optional. To a certain extent, the FMD is exempt from social security contributions and income tax. The means of transport covered by this scheme are personal bicycles, carpooling, public transport, and shared mobility (including car-sharing). Car-sharing operator Pricing Public/private subsidy Stations urban environment Ubeeqo/Europcar on Demand ⚠ The service stopped in December 2024 By hour (minimum of 4h) or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. No subscription fees. In the City of Paris, operators pay a street occupation charge to the municipality depending on type and number of vehicles. €100 grant from the City of Paris to encourage Parisians to try car-sharing. Travel costs may be partly covered by employers as part of the FMD. City of Paris Communauto By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. Different subscription offers for reduced costs. City of Paris, urban outskirts Getaround By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. No subscription fees. City of Paris, urban outskirts Clem’ By hour depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. Unlocking fee. No subscription fees. City of Paris, urban outskirts, rural areas Citiz By hour, day or week and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. Possible subscription fee for reduced cost. Urban outskirts Table 15: Round-trip car-sharing business models in the Paris Region Sources: Europcar, Communauto, Getaround, Clem’, Citiz; analyses: IPR, 2024 37 1.4.2. Free-floating and one-way station-based car-sharing business models 1.4.2.1. Free-floating car-sharing business models in the Brussels-Capital Region The free-floating car-sharing market is volatile and has difficulty consolidating. Operators are struggling to find a profitable business model. In fact, as with free-floating scooter systems, the business model of these companies is closer to a winner-take-all market, with aggressive commercial practices to dominate the market (Wilson, 2020). This means that free-floating operators often lose money by underestimating their costs and charging low prices for a certain period in order to achieve a monopoly or quasi-monopoly before becoming profitable. They often need to raise significant amounts of venture capital, but not all are able to stay in the market. The companies then have to withdraw or are bought out by their competitors. One notable difference with the shared micromobility market is that some free-floating car-sharing operators are strongly supported by carmakers, who are keen to experiment with the business models for new uses of the car (INVERS, 2023). They also see it as an opportunity to showcase their new vehicle models on the streets of major cities (Chodorge, 2019). Most of the time, local authorities regulate the activities of free-floating car-sharing operators by imposing restrictions, but do not seek to attract operators through calls for tender, for example (Gouvernement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, 2013). There has been a lot of momentum in the free-floating car-sharing market recently. In 2021 GreenMobility, from Denmark, bought the Dutch operator Fetch Mobility, and in 2022 Miles, from Germany, bought WeShare, Volkswagen’s free-floating system (INVERS, 2023). In Brussels, operators Zipcar (owned by American car rental company Avis) and Drivenow (a subsidiary of BMW) began offering their services in 2019 but ceased operations in 2022 (Autodelen.net, 2023). GreenMobility, withdrew from the cities of Brussels and Ghent in 2023 after just three years in business. In the same year, Belgian operator Poppy withdrew from Ghent, Mechelen, Leuven (Temmerman et al., 2023) and Lier (radio 2, Snoeys, 2023). The company had been present in Flanders since 2019. One thing we are seeing in the free-floating car-sharing market today is a trend towards hybrid business models. Free-floating operators such as Miles are starting to rent cars and traditional car hire companies such as Sixt are starting to offer car-sharing services (Sixt Share). In Germany, we find free-floating operators starting up round-trip car-sharing (Share Now) and round-trip car-sharing operators starting up free-floating (Cambio, stadtmobil, teilAuto, and book-n-drive). Another possible combination: the Bolt ride-hailing platform is also starting to offer car-sharing (Bolt.Drive) (INVERS, 2023). In the Brussels-Capital Region, pricing is based on usage, according to the number of kilometres travelled and the rental time. Unlocking is made with an application. As with round-trip car-sharing, prices must be clear and use must include fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, etc. Parking.Brussels offers operators exemption cards for free parking in public spaces (outside zones where parking is limited to 2 hours). The price of the exemption card is €25/year/vehicle. With Poppy, subscriptions are available offering discounts on usage in return for a monthly fee. A paying service allows users to have the car delivered if they plan their journey in advance. With Miles, there is an unlocking fee. Subscriptions are also available. Miles offers services to local authorities to promote the integration of its car-sharing service into their mobility offerings. If some user obtained its driving licence less than 12 months ago, they would have to pay a “rookie fee” of €9/month. There are services for professionals and businesses for both services. It is possible to use Poppy and Miles for a one-way trip to other areas such as Antwerp, or the airports of Charleroi, Brussels, and Antwerp with an extra fee. 38 Car-sharing operator Pricing Public/private subsidy Urban environment Poppy By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. Possible subscription fee for reduced cost. Parking.Brussels offers operators exemption cards for free parking in public spaces (outside zones where parking is limited to 2 hours). The price of the exemption card is €25/year/vehicle. Residents who part with their car can benefit from the BCR Bruxell'Air bonus that can be spent on carsharing services. BCR city centre, urban outskirts Miles By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. No subscription fees. BCR city centre Table 1: Free-floating car-sharing business models in the Brussels-Capital Region Sources: Parking.Brussels, Brussels Mobility, Poppy, Miles, Autodelen.net; analyses: IPR, 2024 1.4.2.2. Free-floating car-sharing business models in Flanders In addition to Brussels, Poppy operates in the core area of Antwerp, Miles operates in Antwerp and Ghent. You can use Poppy and Miles for a one-way trip in-between areas such as Antwerp, Brussels or the airports of Charleroi, Brussels, Antwerp, and Liège with an extra fee. Poppy is available on the Floya and Olympus MaaS platforms that include several mobility operators. Miles is available on Olympus only. Car-sharing operator Pricing Public/private subsidy Urban environment Poppy By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. Possible subscription fee for reduced cost. No public subsidy City centres, urban outskirts Miles By hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. No subscription fees. City centres, urban outskirts Table 2: Free-floating car-sharing business models in Flanders Sources: Poppy, Miles, Autodelen.net; analyses: IPR, 2024 1.4.2.3. One-way station-based car-sharing business model in the Paris Region With Autolib’, the aim was to offer an inter-municipal car hire service without costing Paris City Council “a penny”. Pricing was by the minute, with an annual subscription formula offering a reduced cost per minute. Despite the growth of the service, the use of Autolib' fell from 2016 onwards, mainly due to the growth in the use of ride-hailing services at the same time, which offer the same type of journeys at a 39 comparable cost. The lack of profitability can be explained by, among other things, a lack of availability of vehicles, which “discourages” subscribers from using the service, but also by the fact that many charging points are made unavailable on a daily basis following decisions by the public authorities (demonstrations, roadworks, Vigipirate plan against terrorist attacks, etc.). The Bluecars were also increasingly dilapidated and dirty, due to inadequate maintenance as well as incivilities and sometimes even cars squatted by homeless people. In 2018, Autolib' generated annual losses of €50 million, even though the system was supposed to be exempt from public subsidies, and even to generate profits of €56 million a year. The Bolloré group then asked the municipalities served by the service to contribute to repaying the debt, which continued to grow, and to close 20% of the 1,100 stations deemed the least profitable. The SAVM then terminated the contract with Bolloré, which demanded 235 million euros in compensation for the termination of the contract, which was due to end in 2023. Car-sharing operator Pricing Public/private subsidy Urban environment Autolib’ (operating 2011-2018) By minute or day and km. All service costs included. Possible subscription fee for reduced cost. Strong public subsidy (delegation of public service) City of Paris, urban outskirts Table 3: One-way station-based car-sharing business model in the Paris Region Sources: SAVM, City of Paris; analyses: IPR, 2024 1.4.2.4. Free-floating car-sharing business models in the Paris Region In Paris, Free2Move is available by the minute, hour, or day. The first 200 kilometres are included, after which a cost-per-kilometre charge applies. Unlocking is made with an application. As with round-trip car-sharing, prices include fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, etc. Car-sharing operator Pricing Public/private subsidy Urban environment Free2Move By minute, hour or day and km depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included. Possible subscription fee for reduced cost. In the City of Paris, operators pay a street occupation charge to the municipality depending on type and number of vehicles. €100 grant from the City of Paris to encourage Parisians to try car-sharing. Travel costs may be partly covered by employers as part of the FMD. City of Paris Table 4: Free-floating car-sharing business model in the Paris Region Sources: Free2Move; analyses: IPR, 2024 40 1.4.3. Peer-to-peer car-sharing business models 1.4.3.1. Peer-to-peer car-sharing business models in the Brussels-Capital Region Cozywheels is a project initiated by Mpact. It offers tools to make sharing easier for peer-to-peer carsharing users, like a rate calculator and automatic billing. The annual registration fee is €25, pricing is made by the kilometre. The price of a journey includes fuel, insurance, road tax, annual servicing, roadworthiness tests and, if necessary, a reserve pot for unexpected repairs. The fee covers only the actual cost of the vehicle and is not intended to make a profit. Payment is made at the beginning of the following month, directly between members. For longer bookings (more than 1 day), a daily or hourly charge may be added. Cozywheels works with closed groups, mostly neighbours. Car owners have total control over who uses their cars. Cozywheels also propose business offers. Cozywheels' accreditation enables it to issue vehicle-sharing certificates, which are used to obtain several residents' parking permits (possibly for separate sectors) for a single vehicle. There is also an offer for companies, enabling them to share their commercial vehicles with private individuals, for example. To use Wibee, you need to join a car-sharing group, to share your car or hire one from other members of the group. You pay by the hour, day, and kilometre. There is No subscription fees for car users. When an owner rents their car, 80% of the amount goes to them and 20% is allocated to Wibee as a service commission. Car owners benefit from comprehensive insurance cover negotiated specifically for shared vehicles. The day-to-day operational management of the cars remains the responsibility of the owner (e.g., maintenance, roadworthiness tests, etc.). There are several subscription packages for owners, with benefits such as the installation of on-board technology to unlock vehicles with a badge or smartphone, a platform to put owners in touch with people looking for a car to hire, a fuel card, online revenue payment, etc. Wibee also proposes offers for businesses, associations, and local authorities. Dégage is a not-for-profit organisation that works with citizens and over 100 volunteers. Shared car users pay the price per kilometre for each kilometre driven. These prices include fuel. Users do not pay an hourly rate, a subscription fee, or any other form of contribution. There is a one-off entry fee of 45 euros and a deposit of 75 euros, which is refundable on departure. Car owners continue to pay all the costs of their car (insurance, tax, maintenance, wear and tear and all other fixed costs). These costs are entered by them into the system. Dégage also charges owners depreciation costs as the cost of their car. This means they know exactly how much their car really costs, expressed as a price per kilometre. For each kilometre travelled by a user in an owner's car, the price per kilometre is reimbursed to the owner. This price is often lower than the fixed price per kilometre for users. Dégage takes a commission on the rides: what the user pays per km is higher than what the owner receives. The user pays Dégage quarterly and Dégage pays the owner quarterly according to the costs incurred. The owner therefore receives a refund rather than a payment. Owners can also use other cars in the Dégage fleet. They pay the same rate as an ordinary car borrower. They then receive an invoice from Dégage for this. It is also possible to share bikes. Since 2022, Dégage has been investing part of its members' deposits in sustainable and ethical initiatives. Dégage is available on the Olympus MaaS platform that includes several mobility operators. In Belgium, there is a tax exemption system called the “mobiliteitsbudget”,”/“budget mobilité”, or mobility budget. When an employer chooses to introduce a mobility budget in his company, employees can exchange their entitlement to a company car for a more environmentally friendly company car, sustainable means of transport, accommodation costs or money. Dégage users can benefit from this mobility budget. According to Autodelen.net, “Although the mobility budget has the potential to stimulate (and raise awareness of) car-sharing, there are still significant obstacles. The mobility budget is a construct that still promotes car-sharing's biggest competitor: the company car. Making car mobility free (whether electrified or not) will never encourage sustainable travel behaviour. The company car and, all the more so, the fuel card that goes with it, stimulate reflexive use of the car, which is diametrically opposed to the principle of car-sharing” (Autodelen.net, 2024). 41 Car-sharing operator Pricing Public/private subsidy Urban environment Cozywheels By km, depending on the type of vehicle, with possible price per day or hour for longer bookings. All service costs included. Annual subscription fee. No public subsidy. Licence from the transport authority allows the operator to obtain several residents' parking permits (possibly for separate sectors) for a single vehicle. Travel costs may be partly covered by employers as part of the mobility budget. BCR city centre, urban outskirts Wibee By hour, day and km, depending on the type of vehicle. All service costs included for the user. Monthly subscription fee for car owners. A commission is charged to the owner on the rental price. No subsidy BCR city centre, urban outskirts Dégage By km. All service costs included for the user. Oneoff entry fee of 35 euros and a deposit of 75 euros Travel costs may be partly covered by employers as part of the mobility budget. BCR city centre, urban outskirts Table 5: Peer-to-peer car-sharing business models in the Brussels-Capital Region Sources: Parking.Brussels, Brussels Mobility, Cozywheels, Wibee, Dégage; analyses: IPR, 2024 1.4.3.2. Peer-to-peer car-sharing business models in Flanders In the Flemish region, several cities offer benefits to Cozywheels users, like free resident parking card, dedicated on-street parking spaces, free on-street parking card, reimbursement of registration fees, or a mobility budget of €500 allocated to users parting with their car or moped, which can be used for the Cozywheels service. Dégage operates with the same conditions than in the Brussels-Capital Region. Getaround peer-to-peer (P2P) service serves as a marketplace for entrepreneurs wishing to launch a car rental business. The platform offers them the opportunity to equip a vehicle or fleet they own with a reservation and unlocking system, to offer an “Uberised” rental service on which Getaround takes a commission. It seems this model is intended to replace Getaround's original business of car hire between private individuals. As with its service with stations, no subscription is required for the P2P service of Getaround. Rates are charged by the hour or by the day, with a maximum number of kilometres to be paid in advance, depending on the user's needs. The vehicles are unlocked using an application. Different access rules and insurance excesses apply depending on how old the driver's licence is. Users under 25 pay a supplement. It is possible to pay extra for better cover in the event of damage. A deposit is required on payment of the hire charge. Getaround also proposes offers for businesses. 48 Citiz Citiz is a round-trip car-sharing operator, operating in France in the form of a non-profit cooperative company. Users and local authorities can become members of the cooperative and are involved in decision-making. It operates in 4 municipalities in the Paris’ urban outskirts, but also in a network which comprises 14 independent local car-sharing operators, present in over 220 French municipalities and more than 90 SNCF train stations. In several French cities, it provides a combined car-sharing offer. This solution combines the reliability of round-trip car-sharing with the flexibility of free-floating, satisfying a variety of needs for regular users who don't own a car but need one occasionally. It can reach different groups of users (particularly younger people and people from working-class backgrounds), even in the urban outskirts. A user account in one of the local services can access all the cars in the network. By grouping together in a network, it is possible to pool tools and cut costs , thus reducing the risks for operators wishing to expand into more uncertain sectors such as sparsely populated areas (see 1.1, 1.3.3.1, 1.4.1.3 & 1.4.3.1). Cozywheels Cozywheels is a not-for-profit peer-to-peer car-sharing operator active throughout Belgium. It offers tools that make car-sharing between private individuals (mostly neighbours) practical and as easy as with a private operator. It works closely with authorities and benefits from parking advantages and bonuses for its users in different types of areas: urban centres, urban outskirts and rural areas (see 1.3.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4.3.1 & 1.4.3.2). Dégage Dégage is a peer-to-peer car-sharing operator active in the Brussels-Capital and Flemish Regions. It does not seek profit, but social and liveable neighbourhoods that are more local and multimodal. In this respect, its model is favourable to the 15mC neighbourhood. The organisation is a common and is run from the bottom up by volunteers and citizens. Dégage users are automatically members of the General Meeting and can raise ideas, problems, or questions with the Board of Directors. Since 2022, Dégage has been investing part of its members' deposits in sustainable and ethical initiatives (see 1.3.3.1, 1.3.3.2, 1.4.3.1 & 1.4.3.2). Coopstroom Coopstroom is a round-trip car-sharing operator, operating in Flanders in the form of a non-profit cooperative company. To become a user, the first step is to buy a share in the cooperative. All vehicles are electric. Coopstroom is linked to a network of cooperatives, mainly suppliers of green electricity. On request, Coopstroom can fit a child seat in the car, which is ideal for families living in peri-urban areas. In West-Flanders, if a group of people can guarantee 4 COOP formulas or 6 Prepaid Comfort formulas per month, Coopstroom will place a shared electric car in their neighbourhood. This makes it possible to develop carsharing in sparsely populated areas where there is a demand from local residents (see 1.3.1.2 & 1.4.1.2). “Île-de-France autopartage” label This label provides a framework for car-sharing and facilitates the selection process of operators by local authorities wishing to roll out car-sharing in their area. It has a set of specifications to help urban outskirts local authorities that are not used to shared mobility offers. This can reassure peri-urban municipalities about the reliability of car-sharing operators before implementing their services (see 1.3.1.3).1.3.1.3). 49 Public financial support to carsharing in Flanders In Flanders, outside the major cities, public subsidy schemes such as the “purchase guarantee” and the “minimum revenue guarantee” make it possible to roll out economically viable car-sharing services in sparsely populated areas where they would not have been able to emerge without financial support. Once the service has been implemented and is viable, financial support can be stopped to relieve local finances, or continued to accelerate its development. Working closely with local municipalities, businesses and organisations makes it possible to find compatible profiles (companies and municipal employees during the day, families during the nights and weekends), increase the vehicle occupancy rate, the car-sharing service profitability and thus reduce the cost of public financial support (see 1.4.1.2). Table 9: Summary of car-sharing good practices 50 2. SHARED MICROMOBILITY IN A 15-MINUTE CITY NEIGHBOURHOOD 2.1. Background and definition of shared mobility, and its potential use in a 15mC neighbourhood Background and definition In line with report 2.1, we use the definition of shared micromobility as “a short-term access to shared vehicles, according to user needs and convenience, rather than requiring vehicle ownership” (Shaheen & Cohen, 2019). With the exception of car-sharing, all other vehicles are for individual use and have low speeds (most up to 30km/h). In this sense, the term micromobility was coined to refer to small, lightweight and low-speed shared modes as mopeds, bicycles, and scooters (Shaheen & Cohen, 2019). Thus “traditional” short or long-term rental systems are excluded from the scope. One of the first well-documented self-service bicycle schemes was an initiative launched by Luud Schimmelplannink in 1965, a Dutch industrialist and politician, in association with the Provo counterculture group, in Amsterdam. The “White Bicycle Plan” consisted of making 50 bicycles available to the public throughout the city, unattached and accessible to everyone. The main aim was to relieve congestion in the city, at a time when cycling was still far from being the norm in Amsterdam, by offering free access to bikes. Within a month, all the bikes had been stolen or thrown into the city's canals. However, the idea behind the scheme was not to achieve a viable system in the long term, but to try out an initial experiment and draw attention to the problem of cars in the city (O'Sullivan, 2022). In 1995, the first secure system was introduced in Portsmouth (partly funded by the European ENTRANCE programme), with the installation of docks and magnetic card access. Similar secure systems were then developed in France by urban advertising companies (Clear Channel and JC Decaux), first in Rennes in 1998 and then in Lyon in 2005. However, it is the system developed in Paris in 2007 (Vélib') that is attracting worldwide attention and seems to be one of the starting points for the spread of such systems around the world. An equivalent system had also been developed in parallel in Brussels, also operated by JC Decaux, initially under the name “Cyclocity” (from 2006) and then “Villo!” (from 2009). Today, depending on the source, between 1,590 (Bikesharemap website) and 3,000 (O'Sullivan, 2022) towns around the world are equipped with one or more bike-sharing systems. The Bikesharemap website, an individual initiative, provides a regularly updated list of bikeshare schemes. It shows a very high concentration of such systems in Europe (particularly in the UK, Germany, Poland, France, and Italy), China and the east coast of the USA (and to a lesser extent in Latin America) (see Figure 10: Worlwide distribution of bike-sharing system (© Bikesharemap) 51 Figure 10: Worlwide distribution of bike-sharing system (© Bikesharemap) The development of shared scooters is much more recent. In 2016, Neuron Mobility developed a system of scooters with a station in Singapore. In 2017, Bird and Lime set up a system of electric scooters without a station, known as free-floating. The vehicle is unlocked using a smartphone. Virtual docking stations have been set up in some cities (where scooters can be “locked” in geographically defined areas), to limit the amount of public space taken up by scooters. Overall, these shared scooter systems are mainly promoted by the private sector. The average service user is male (2/3 of customers), with an average age of 30-35 and a higher-than-average salary (Christoforou and al., 2021). A meta-analysis of trips made in American, French and Norwegian cities shows that trips are rather short (1.81 km on average for a duration of 13 minutes), with certain exceptions (notably in France), linked to recreational use with much longer times and distances. In these same cities, the reasons for using shared scooters are mainly recreational or leisure-related (over 50% in half the cities), with work-related use mostly below 30%. These results are consistent with fairly low usage rates per user (10% maximum), in line with the limited availability of subscriptions. The use of scooters to get to public transport stations is also very low (less than 10% of use in half the cities). In Europe, in more than 80% of cases, scooter use replaces another ecologically sustainable mode (walking, cycling or public transport), while in the United States the figure is more around 50% (Badia and Jenelius, 2023). Finally, the last decade has also seen the emergence of shared moped systems, with a strong acceleration in recent years. (Loudon & al., 2023). E-mopeds are motor scooters “with a seated-design, electricpowered” (Shaheen & Cohen, 2019). They allow longer journeys than bicycles and scooters (AguileraGarcia & al., 2020). Potential use of shared micromobility in outskirts, in a 15mC policy Today, most shared-micromobility systems are implemented in densely populated cities. As a result, suburban areas rarely have their own system, but are in most (if not all) cases served by the system of the city on which they “depend”. This makes it difficult to design a specific pattern for these sectors when setting up such a system (which is designed on a territory-wide scale), or even to study existing systems by restricting the study perimeter to their suburban areas (with very little literature on this specific scope). The deployment of shared mobility systems can encourage the use of softer modes of transport than the car for people who don't have their own “soft” vehicle, or who fear that it may be stolen. In this way, the deployment of such systems can increase accessibility to various services and facilities using soft modes, and thus participate in a 15mC-type policy. 52 Implementing such shared-vehicle systems raises particular issues in low-density areas: on the one hand, a critical fleet size must be sufficient for the system to be attractive (so that a potential user can easily find a vehicle when he or she needs one), while guaranteeing a sufficient number of daily uses (justifying the very concept of the system and making it possible to increase revenues). 2.2. Different types of services (vehicles, systems) There are different systems for parking bikes or scooter, from the most secure (stations with one dock per vehicle, making theft more difficult) to the most flexible (full free-floating).  Systems with physical stations (common for bicycles, very rare for scooters) The existence of physical stations makes it possible to limit the theft and vandalism of vehicles. On the other hand, it involves substantial investment and a high level of occupation of public space. Furthermore, adding, extending or removing stations requires civil engineering work and is therefore much less flexible than virtual station systems or full free-floating. Figure 11: A Velib' station with docks (© Velib') Some lighter systems exist, such as compact docking systems. The idea is that a dock can accommodate several bicycles, attached to each other. Such systems have been developed, for example, by Fifteen (the name being a reference to the 15mC) (see Figure 12: A Fifteen station that can accommodate several bikes in a single dock (© Fifteen)). The proposed dock can accommodate at least 10 bicycles, saving space in the public space and reducing investment costs. Provision has been made for the eventuality of a bike breaking down in the middle of a queue: a second dock has been installed for storing damaged bikes. This system has been implemented in medium-sized towns in France, including:  Avignon (90,000 inhabitants, 1,400 inhabitants/km²) and three neighbouring towns. Installation of 29 stations for 300 bicycles,  The Communauté d'Agglomération d'Épinal: Épinal (the town centre with 32,000 inhabitants and a population density of 550 inhabitants/km², but also 6 other communes in the agglomeration, some with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants). 53 1Figure 12: A Fifteen station that can accommodate several bikes in a single dock (© Fifteen) Another interesting lightweight system has been developed by the start-up Fredo (see Figure 13). It offers an original system of connected locks that can be adapted to all types of bikes and allows them to be attached to existing parking hoops. The local authority can define the areas in which the bikes can be attached, and an application can be used to lock/unlock the bikes, as well as geolocating them via the lock. In this way, the bicycle fleet can be made up of a variety of bicycles (particularly second-hand ones), and the definition by the local authority of the areas in which the bicycles can be hooked up means that the service can be upgraded very easily, without the need for heavy infrastructure. This system could therefore be a very attractive alternative for less densely populated areas. Figure 13: Fredo's lightweight system with connected padlock (© Fredo) 54  Systems with virtual stations (bicycles and scooters) An even lighter system consists of setting up virtual stations (very simply marked on the ground, but with no physical structure). Users then have to go to these precise geographical points to be able to lock their bikes (by geolocating them). While this system makes it possible to regulate the location of bicycles (in particular by preventing unauthorised parking on pavements), it does not prevent the theft of bicycles or acts of vandalism (such as throwing them into rivers or canals). At the end of 2023, the city of Brussels began rolling out drop zones, where users can lock shared electric bikes and scooters. Initially numbering 450, they are expected to grow to around 3,000 across the region.  Full free-floating systems (bicycles and scooters) Finally, the full free-floating system does not impose any constraints on the areas where bikes can be left and locked. These are the lightest in terms of infrastructure, but also the least secure, and potentially the least legible for users. Such a system can cause problems in terms of the use of public space. 2.3. Governance of shared micromobility services The system can be set up in various ways, from entirely public to almost entirely private:  Internal: full public management of the service, with public employees dedicated to running the system (e.g., Saint-Étienne or La Rochelle in France).  Invitation to tender for the management of the bike-share service. The system is then managed by a service provider paid by the local authority e.g., in the Paris Metropolis). This invitation to tender can be carried out: o With or without supply of equipment and related system o Linked to a street furniture contract or not  Public service delegation/concession, integrated into the public transport delegation or not (e.g., Strasbourg or La Rochelle in France).  Simple authorisation by the public authority to operate a private service on the territory (e.g., Dott or Tier) For smaller local authorities, it is likely to be more complicated to set up a self-management system, due to the lack of human resources. Regardless of the local governance chosen for the system deployment, the local authority can impose (to a greater or lesser extent) certain standards for setting up the system (distribution of stations, number of bicycles per inhabitant, etc.), these requests being potentially linked to financial considerations. In terms of geographical coverage, there are several types of system:  Systems located in a single city (the case for most systems)  Systems based in a large city and its suburbs, such as: o Velib' in Paris and 64 suburban communes (see Figure 11) o Villo Brussels, in 19 different municipalities o VélO2, in Cergy-Pontoise (France), in 7 different communes  Region-wide systems, such as in the Ruhr (12 towns) It is interesting to note that most of Europe's major cities have a bike-share system. Of the 65 cities with more than 500,000 inhabitants, only two do not: Krakow (where the service was discontinued in 2019, but where discussions are underway to create a new service) and Athens (where a pilot site is being studied). 55 Many medium-sized and even small towns have also developed such systems: Linz (Austria, population 213,000), Namur (Belgium, population 114,000) and even Esztergom (Hungary, population 28,000). Medium-density towns, whether central cities or suburbs of the central city, are also equipped with such systems. Finally, other systems are deployed on a national scale. In Belgium, the blue-Bike system is being developed at more than 110 points, covering most of Flanders. In the Netherlands, the OV-Fiets system, managed by the national railway company, allows train users to borrow a bike from their arrival station to get to their final destination. In 2019, there were 20,500 bicycles at 300 stations, with 890,000 subscribers. The governance envisaged will have an impact on the spatial equity of the distribution of vehicles. If the city issues a call for tenders, it will have complete freedom to set objectives in terms of equity of service, as well as the desired coverage of the territory. If it authorises a private operator to deploy vehicles on its territory, it will also be able to negotiate certain elements (such as the introduction of social tariffs). A study (Bac, Marquet and Miralles-Guasch, 2023) shows the variety of strategies used by cities to deal with these issues, from completely unregulated approaches to numerus clausus models. Cities are becoming increasingly aware of the need to better regulate the location of vehicles (from a spatial as well as a social point of view), while at the same time ensuring that financial viability does not deteriorate too much (as imposing numerous standards is a burden on revenues, and may therefore require financial participation from the community, with the need for subsidies). 2.4. Business models of shared micromobility services 2.4.1. To subsidize or not to subsidize, that is the question In terms of the business model, the main issue is the level of subsidy provided by the local authority. For subsidised systems (regardless of the type of governance), fares are generally very affordable, especially for regular users. In addition to daily fares, monthly or annual season tickets are available, with the first half-hour of each journey free of charge. Fares are generally differentiated if there are mechanical and electric bicycles on the same network:  Cost of annual season ticket: Vienna (€59), Antwerp (€58), Budapest (€20), Milan (€35), Lisbon (€25), Bucharest (€50), Barcelona (€50), London (£120) ...  For systems that include electric bicycles, there may be: o An additional subscription fee for access to electric bikes with the first half-hour free: in Paris, for example, the annual “mechanical” subscription costs €37 but €112 for the electric subscription. o Or the cost of hiring electric bikes from the first minute: in Barcelona, the first half-hour of electric bike hire costs €0.35, even if you have a season ticket. These schemes involve a potentially significant contribution from the local authority. A 2019 Ademe report on 45 French shared bike schemes estimated that the local authority would need to spend around €1,500 per bike per year to achieve a financially balanced system. By way of example, for the Vélib' system, in 2023 the fare income came to €28 million, and the subsidies from the various local authorities to €34 million, i.e., almost 55% of the operating budget. These subsidy levels can vary greatly from one system to another, depending on the type of equipment used, vandalism rate, vehicle usage rate, tariff level. Unfortunately, there seem to be no large-scale survey of subsidy rates for shared micromobility systems. However, it should be borne in mind that public transport is also heavily subsidised. In the Îlede-France region, passenger revenue covers only 33% of total costs. This figure is 17% for De Lijn public 56 transport. Budgetary trade-offs between the different modes of transport must therefore be made by the relevant authorities. Other types of revenue can be used to reduce the public contribution, particularly advertising: posters on the stations and on the bicycles, or partnerships with private companies (partnerships with Citibank in New York or Santander in London). Other systems do not benefit from any subsidies, in particular certain free-floating bicycle systems or scooters deployed by operators such as Lime or Tier. Fares are generally much higher (due to the lack of subsidy and the fact that many of the vehicles are electric), and are therefore aimed  In Berlin, the cost of a Lime-bike is €1 to unlock the bike, plus €0.27 per minute, i.e., €9 for a half-hour journey (and therefore much more expensive than a monthly subscription to a traditional public-subsidised bike-share service).  The TIER scooter service is billed at between €0.15 and €0.20 per minute, depending on the city, with a €1 unlocking fee (free if you take the €4.99 monthly subscription). Even with a season ticket, a 15-minute journey costs between €2 and €3. However, some private operators offer programmes aimed at certain disadvantaged groups. For example, Lime offers a programme called “Lime” Access, which allows different types of users (unemployed, students, etc.) to benefit from special fares. In the UK, for example, a 50% reduction in fares is applied to these users. Beneficiaries are often defined at national level, but additional beneficiaries may be identified in certain cities (for example, in Bordeaux, students can benefit from the programme, but not those from other cities). A study (Delbsc & Thigpen, 2024) carried out on members of the “Access” programme (in the United States, New Zealand and Australia) shows, interestingly enough, that they use bicycles and scooters differently (and more virtuously) than other users (non-members of the Access programme). They use shared vehicles more regularly (35% of daily use compared with 7% for the others), and more often to get to a public transport station (44% compared with 23%). Pony, a French company offering shared bikes and scooters, has developed an innovative financing model. The vehicles are not financed and owned by Pony, but by private individuals, who receive 40% of the revenue generated by journeys made with their vehicle. They also enjoy a number of additional benefits: they can use their vehicle for as long as they like, free of charge (which can be complicated if it's far from where they stay) or rent another one at a preferential rate. Finally, they can allow their relations to use their vehicle at a preferential rate. There are three advantages to this system: the company running the system can deploy it without having to invest too much itself, the average use of the bikes can be boosted by the fact that the owner has access to them whenever they want, and it is to be hoped that, overall, residents will be more respectful of the vehicles if they know that they are financed by other residents (an argument put forward by Pony). 2.4.2. Some key data on system sizing and uses The Cerema gives the following recommendations for implementing a shared bike system (Cerema, 2019):  Geographical coverage of at least 10 km².  Station density: between 10 and 16 stations / km², i.e., one station within 300 m for each inhabitant  Number of bicycles per 1,000 inhabitants: between 10 and 30  Utilisation rate: between 4 and 8 journeys per day for large towns, fewer for smaller ones. 1 trip per day for every 20 to 40 inhabitants. However, a more detailed analysis of large systems operating in several municipalities shows that in Paris (Vélib') and Brussels (Villo!), these ratios are far from being achieved, particularly in terms of the 57 number of bicycles. For each of these two areas, we show the average number of stations and the average number of racks as a function of the density of the municipality. We can see that the number of stations and racks is very low as the density decreases (outlying towns). However, care should be taken when using these figures, because in outlying towns, it is sometimes only a portion of the area that is covered by the shared bike service (see Figure 14). Figure 14: Ratio of number of stations and bicycles according to the density of the area (sources: Velib' and Villo !, analysis: L’Institut Paris Region) Furthermore, the overall level of bicycle use seems to be fairly low. A benchmark carried out in 2024 on behalf of the Brussels-Capital Region details the average number of rentals per day and per bicycle in 18 major cities. Paris, Barcelona and Lyon are in the top 3, with 6 rentals per bicycle per day (it should be noted that these three cities have a very high proportion of electric bicycles in their fleets). 5 cities (Budapest, Antwerp, Luxembourg, Madrid and Lille) have daily usage rates of between 3 and 5.5. The remaining 10 cities have daily usage rates of less than 2.6 (6 of which are below 1.5) (Benchmark international de services de location de vélos en libre-service (VLS) et de vélos longue durée (VLD), Brussels Capital Region, 2024). These fairly modest usage rates seems to be even lower in small towns : aa study carried out by the Italian National Observatory for Shared Mobility shows that for the vast majority of Italian bikesharing schemes, the average daily rate of vehicle use in 2019 was below 2, or even 1 (see Figure 15). It should be borne in mind, however, that these figures are potentially underestimates, insofar as they are calculated on the basis of the entire fleet (some of which is still undergoing maintenance). However, they remain low for the smallest towns. Evidence of low usage on low-dense territories is a crucial issue for the DREAMS project, for two reasons: firstly, one of the main objectives of a shared micromobility system is to enable the same vehicle to be used by different users over the course of a day; secondly, the level of subsidy will depend on the level of use of the vehicles, with low usage requiring greater funding from the community. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 - 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 Number of stations per km² Human density in the commune (inhabitant / km²) Number of stations per km² given the human density, on the Paris Metropolis - 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 - 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 Number of docks per 1.000 inhabitants Human density in the commune (inhabitant / km²) Number of docks per 1.000 inhabitants given the human density on the Paris Metropolis 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 Number of stations per km² Human density in the commune (inhabitant / km²) Number of stations per km² given the human density, on the Brussels metropolis 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 - 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 Number of docks per 1.000 inhabitants Human density in the commune (inhabitant / km²) Number of docks per 1000 inhabitants given the human density on the Brussels Metropolis 64 3. CARPOOLING IN A 15-MINUTE CITY NEIGHBOURHOOD 3.1. Background and definition of carpooling, and its potential use in a 15mC neighbourhood Carpooling can be conceptualized as an arrangement where two or more people, not belonging to the same household, share the use of a privately owned car for a trip (or part of a trip), and the passengers contribute to the driver’s expenses (Ciari & Axhausen, 2012; Rodrigue et al., 2006).). By ensuring better car filling, financial gains can be expected for travellers, and potentially time savings if lanes reserved for carpoolers are set up along the route, on congested stretches of road. Historically, there have been major surges in carpooling during oil shortages (particularly during the world wars and oil crises), but carpooling has always remained at fairly modest levels. It is perfectly suited to medium-density suburban areas: in dense urban centres, it is considered irrelevant when compared with other modes that allow greater massification and better speeds (in particular public transport), but its development requires the ability to find a potential carpooler and can therefore only be activated in areas with a minimum of density. Industrial sites and economic sites are also particularly relevant areas for organising carpooling, because of the high density of workers, especially if the work is organised in shifts (employees have common starting and finishing times), as this makes it easier to find a carpooler. At the same time, there are a number of obstacles to carpooling: in particular, the reluctance to share a car, the difficulty of finding a carpooler who makes the same journey, and the need to use the car for other activities during the day (picking up children, etc.), fears about safety (particularly for women). The development of carpooling can be encouraged by an ecosystem of measures, implemented by different players and acting at different levels (putting carpoolers in touch with each other, facilities enabling them to meet physically or save time, subsidies, etc.). These levers are described in detail below. However, carpooling doesn't seem to be one of the major levers to be activated when extending the 15mC concept to suburban areas. It is mainly relevant for longer trips (at least 10 km) and longer journeys (in all cases over 15 minutes). Indeed, it's only on longer journeys that the monetary gains can be substantial (one of the major arguments driving users to carpool), and that potential detours remain acceptable (to pick up a carpooler or to join one). Therefore, like car-sharing, carpooling seems to be an ancillary lever, potentially enabling people to do without a private car (or the household's second car), and to adopt more “virtuous” modal habits for local travels. In addition, the development of this service can make certain facilities more accessible, particularly for people who do not use a car on their own (because they do not have a driving licence, or they do not have a vehicle or because they are no longer fit to drive). Carpooling can therefore help to increase accessibility to certain services (or to additional jobs) for those populations (often more modest or vulnerable than average population). 65 3.2. Different types of services of carpooling To encourage carpooling, many types of levers can be activated, by a wide range of players: 3.2.1. Dedicated carpool lanes High Occupancy Vehicles Lanes (HOV Lanes) began to be developed in the United States in the 1970s. They can reduce congestion by reducing the number of vehicles on the road (for a constant total number of people transported), and therefore save time for the community. By providing a competitive advantage for carpoolers (HOV lanes are less congested than other routes), they encourage carpooling. While numerous studies have shown the effectiveness of these infrastructures in reducing journey times (particularly during rush hour), some critics regret that the effects are more mixed on certain projects: the under-use of HOV Lanes can lead to excess congestion on the other lanes and the money invested by the community would therefore not be socio-economically profitable overall. While thousands of kilometres of reserved lanes have now been installed in the United States and Canada, the concept is struggling to catch on elsewhere, particularly in Europe. However, there are some interesting examples:  At the end of the 1990s, Madrid developed a 16km bus and carpool lane on the A6, a radial motorway running through a rapidly growing urban corridor, at a cost of 57 million euros. It connects directly to a multimodal interchange in the north-west of Madrid. When the lane was opened, time savings for buses were substantial, but then fell back slightly with the rise in carpooling. Time savings for carpoolers fell to 43% at the peak, and the average occupancy rate rose sharply. More recently, the lane has been opened to zero-emission vehicles.  Much less expensive projects are being developed in Spain in the wake of successive economic crises. For example, Barcelona has created a lane reserved for buses and carpoolers on the C-31, using only paint, at a cost of €30,000. Other intermediate solutions are also being considered (dynamic allocation of lanes, without modifying the heavy infrastructure) (see Figure 16).  In the UK, some dedicated bus and carpool lanes have been introduced on major non-motorway sections of urban roads, notably in Leeds, Bristol, Birmingham, Portbury and Bradford. They have often evolved over time, taking into account feedback from public consultations.  In France, Grenoble was a pioneer, creating a dedicated bus lane on the A48 in 2007, and reserving the left lane for carpoolers, taxis and zero-emission vehicles from 2020. In the Île-deFrance region, a number of dedicated bus lanes have been created on motorways, and their deployment should continue via the “Schéma Directeur des Voies Réservées,” (French for Dedicated Lanes Master Plan) with the addition of dedicated carpooling lanes. 66 Figure 16: Dedicated bus and carpooling lane on the C-31 in Barcelona © Google Street View (2021) 3.2.2. Carpooling parks Carpooling parks enable carpoolers to meet up: one carpooler leaves their vehicle in a car park, usually close to an expressway, and then gets into the vehicle of the other carpooler. To encourage carpooling, some local authorities are building car parks throughout their areas (see Figure 17). For example, the Belgian region of Wallonia has 112 car-sharing car parks, with 3,700 spaces available free of charge. These are either car parks created specifically for this purpose, or portions of pre-existing car parks that have subsequently been reserved for carpoolers, whether public or private (supermarkets, large retail chains, etc.). In a context where the issue of land artificialisation is becoming increasingly important, it is important to give priority to sharing with existing car parks wherever possible. the use of such car parks is generally free of charge. The local authority's aim is to encourage the use of a minority mode of transport. There is therefore no business model as such. However, the priority use of existing car parks to develop spaces reserved for carpoolers can significantly limit investment costs. 67 Figure 17: Carpooling area at l'Isle-Adam, Île-de-France © La gazette du Val-d'Oise 3.2.3. Matchmaking platforms One of the major challenges for the development of carpooling is the possibility of finding another person making the same journey (or part of the same journey). Internet matchmaking platforms are one way of finding a carpooler. They are offered either by public authorities or by carpooling operators (who may earn a commission from the financial exchanges between car-sharers, particularly for long-distance car-sharing and, to a lesser extent, for daily short-distance car-sharing). The challenge around the development of the various platforms is to prevent them from multiplying too much (each user having to search on the various platforms and needing to have an account for each operator). Some local authorities (for example : Île-de-de-France Mobilités, the Paris Region transport authority) may choose to integrate short-distance car-sharing services into their public transport route planners. Some people are reluctant to carpool because they fear for their safety. However, by carpooling regularly with a known colleague, this type of obstacle can be overcome. In this case, a company's internal matchmaking platform is an interesting tool. 3.2.4. Carpooling routes Carpooling routes operate on the same model as public transport services. Unlike traditional carpooling, where you need to find a carpooler in advance, carpoolers are matched spontaneously on the day of the journey. Various stops are located in the public space, just like conventional bus stops. On arrival at the station, passengers use a dedicated mobile application to indicate the stop they wish to go to. This request is then relayed to all the drivers who have registered for the service and activated the notifications on their 68 application. Potential drivers then volunteer to pick up the passenger. If the waiting time is too long, according to a threshold set by the local authority, the latter can offer to pick up the passenger by taxi. This option offers greater security to potential users of these routes. For example, the city of Grenoble in France has very recently developed a network of 23 stops and 15 lines, some of which benefits from HOV lanes on a portion of their route (8 km, saving 10 minutes at rush hour). The network is organised by SMMAG, Grenoble's transport authority. In 2023, 90,000 seats were offered by drivers, and 2,000 passengers used the service regularly, with an average waiting time of less than three minutes (see Figure 18). Figure 18: Carpooling routes deployed in the Grenoble conurbation (© Ecov) The development of such carpooling lines is generally supported by local authorities, in particular the mobility organising authorities. These routes are integrated into the overall mobility offer (metro, rail, bus). These pooling lines are often developed in areas where there is not enough traffic potential to set up a bus route. An operator is responsible for the smooth running of the application and for ordering taxis if waiting times are too long. Car-sharing services are generally subsidised in the same way as other modes of public transport, according to a subsidy rate specific to each local authority. The driver is generally paid according to the number of journeys made (often with monthly ceilings to avoid this becoming a professional activity). Passengers pay a fare, in the form of a ticket. The service may or may not be included in public transport season tickets. 3.2.5. Other benefits for carpoolers Other advantages can be offered to carpoolers. In particular, reserved spaces in car parks, as close as possible to facilities (spaces closest to public transport access in park-and-ride facilities, or as close as possible to office access in company car parks). 69 3.3. Governance of carpooling services 3.3.1. Dedicated carpool lanes Depending on the local organisation of the area and the division of responsibilities, reserved lanes may be introduced by the motorway operator or concessionaire, either on its own initiative or at the request of and in coordination with local authorities (city, region, mobility authority). 3.3.2. Carpooling parks Carpooling parks are often developed at the initiative of local authorities. They can build them themselves (or have them built) or enter into agreements with private car park owners to reserve spaces for carpooling. For example, in Wallonia, some carpooling parks are shared with commercial partners like IKEA. 3.3.3. Matchmaking platforms Carpooling platforms may be developed by car-sharing operators, or at the request of local authorities or large companies (wishing to connect their employees to form matches), which then pay for the deployment of the service (often with carpooling operators). 3.3.4. Carpooling routes The development of such carpooling lines is generally supported by local authorities, in particular the mobility organising authorities. These routes are integrated into the overall mobility offer (metro, rail, bus). An operator is responsible for the smooth running of the application and for ordering taxis if waiting times are too long. 3.4. Business models of carpooling services 3.4.1. Dedicated carpool lanes If the reserved lane is installed on a section of road that is not subject to tolls, there will be no impact on road network revenues. But if it is installed on a section of road that is subject to tolls, the change in revenue will be linked to the overall change in the number of vehicles using the section (the latter being linked in particular to the fact that the reserved lane is an additional lane or created in place of a preexisting lane). In the United States, some operators charge for the use of the reserved lane by people travelling alone in their cars (this generates additional revenue and could potentially increase the use of the lane if it is not very busy). 3.4.2. Carpooling parks The use of such car parks is generally free of charge. The local authority's aim is to encourage the use of a minority mode of transport. There is therefore no business model as such. However, the priority use of existing car parks to develop spaces reserved for carpoolers can significantly limit investment costs. 70 3.4.3. Matchmaking platforms The business model for short-distance car-sharing is still struggling to emerge. Unlike long-distance carsharing, which often requires a new car-sharer to be found for each journey, short-distance car-sharers often leave the platform once they have made their match (and are therefore no longer a potential source of remuneration). As a result, these platforms are often subsidised by the local authority/company that asked for the service to be set up. The carpool.be revenues come from selling dedicated carpool platforms and guidance to enterprises, making it possible not to ask commission on the rides. In France, the “Registre de Preuves de Covoiturage” (Carpooling Proof Register, CPR) was created in 2018. This is a national register collecting all journeys made by carpooling via carpooling operators. This anonymised register makes it possible to check whether a journey has actually been made by carpooling and serves as a basis for public authorities to give financial incentives to carpoolers on their territory when they decide to introduce such aid. Carpoolers tend to stop using an application once the daily carpooling crew has been formed (carpoolers usually travel with the same people). They only continue to use the application when financial incentives are offered by local authorities to encourage them to carpool, such as reimbursement of the carpooling journey for passengers or drivers. In the end, these incentives can be very expensive for local authorities, which raises the question of whether these expenses are a drain on the budget that could have been allocated, for example, to developing public transport. In addition, according to the national observatory for everyday carpooling, analysis of this register shows that only 4% of carpooling journeys are recorded in the CPR, with the vast majority of carpooling taking place informally, often within the same family. The CPR also shows that a significant proportion of carpooling journeys are very short or could theoretically have been made using public transport. Some fraudulent use of the financial incentive is also observed. The public authorities have been able to use the CPR data to adapt their financial incentive mechanisms (minimum and maximum distance for a journey, exclusion of journeys that can be made using public transport, daily and monthly ceilings, etc.) and to combat fraud more effectively, but these analyses have shown the limits of the economic model for carpooling services based on charging commissions and financial incentives per journey. This model is also problematic for the public authorities insofar as the operators' data remains private. For example, the authority does not have access to the databases of people registered for the service, which are carefully kept by the operators for reasons of competition, nor to the databases of journeys, which are often only transmitted to the CPR. For the authorities, the algorithms used by operators to propose matches between carpoolers are also a black box. So, when an operator withdraws from an area, it takes its data and software with it, and the authority cannot capitalise on the data and services it has helped to develop. In the Paris region, the transport authority Île-de-France Mobilités (ÎDFM) has introduced a policy of financial incentives to encourage carpooling. This policy has been implemented between May 2021 and December 2024, with a total budget of €16,800,000 (€6,500,000 for 2024). It follows on from several experimental measures to subsidise carpooling that had been put in place between 2017 and 2020. The new agreement was signed between ÎDFM and four carpooling operators: Klaxit, BlaBlaCar Daily, Ynstant and Karos (BlaBlaCar Daily acquired Klaxit in April 2023). The scheme subsidises carpooling journeys of between 2 and 30 km made in the Paris region (excluding Paris). The journey is free up to 30 km for passengers who are public transport season ticket holders (up to a limit of two journeys per day) and requires a financial contribution for other types of passengers or for journeys over 30 km for season ticket holders. Depending on the distance travelled, the driver can benefit from €1.5 to €3 per passenger carried, up to a limit of 6 journeys per day and €150 per month. During periods of major transport disturbances (strikes, etc.) or pollution peaks, assistance for drivers is increased and can range from €2.25 to €4.50 per passenger, with no monthly limit. ÎDFM also pays operators a fee based on the number of passenger journeys made through them (€0.5 excluding VAT per journey for the first 100,000 journeys, then degressively by threshold up to €0.15 excluding VAT for journeys made beyond the 2,000,001st journey). This remuneration is used to finance part of the direct production costs of a passenger journey for the operator (matching algorithms, cloud hosting, bank charges for payments to 71 carpoolers, sending of text messages, etc.). Lastly, ÎDFM offers remuneration to car-sharing operators for the development of technical functionalities for integration into the Île-de-France Mobilités MaaS. The development costs incurred are financed up to 70% of the expenses paid, up to a maximum of €100,000 excluding VAT. In the ÎDFM mobile application, the search for an itinerary includes a suggested journey by public transport, but also by carpooling if a journey has been suggested by a driver on the application of an agreed operator. The journey suggested on the ÎDFM application then redirects the user to the application of the operator. The user can register for the service, book the journey with the driver and benefit from free travel if they have a public transport season ticket (to prove this, he or she must identify himself or herself with his or her ÎDFM account). In December 2023, ÎDFM announced that it would be taking over the task of connecting carpoolers for subsidised short-distance journeys. A call for tenders was launched in early 2024 to select a single platform under the ÎDFM brand, to be operated by a single operator from 2025. In December 2022, the French government launched a national plan for commute carpooling, with the aim of tripling the number of carpools by 2027 (from 900,000 to 3 million daily carpools). The plan includes a €100 subsidy for drivers registering for the first time on a carpooling application, aid to encourage local authorities to set up financial incentives for carpoolers, and funding for carpooling parks, dedicated carpooling lanes and carpooling routes. It has been allocated 150,000,000 euros for 2023 and has been renewed for 2024. Since 2020, the Forfait Mobilités Durables (Sustainable Mobility Aid) has enabled employers to encourage their employees to use alternatives to the car, including carpooling, by giving them a tax-free bonus of up to €800 per year. Despite these schemes, only 10,000 carpooling journeys per day were recorded by the CPR in Île-de-France in September 2024, out of a total of 42 million daily journeys in the region (14 million of which are by car). This raises questions about the effectiveness of financial incentives for developing carpooling. We might also question the subsidising of private companies with public money for a disappointing service (only 0.04% of the kilometres travelled on daily journeys are covered by carpooling via a platform) and a questionable ecological balance (competition with public transport in particular). Another possible model for carpooling services is the cooperative model. Mobicoop is a French limitedprofit cooperative offering carpooling services for public authorities and businesses. Unlike companies such as Klaxit, Ynstant or BlablaCar Daily, which are paid by taking commission on carpooling journeys made by drivers and passengers, Mobicoop offers a personalised matchmaking platform service for local authorities and, to a lesser extent, businesses. Carpoolers contact each other via the platform and share the cost of their journeys, if they wish, in the way they choose. Mobicoop takes no commission on journeys, and carpoolers do not have to use an application for each journey. The link between the operator and the local authority is a public service delegation established for a defined period, generally a few years. The authority owns the data, and both the platform and the mobile application are developed using open-source software, enabling the authority to maintain the service if the contract is not renewed, but also to develop it as it likes if it wants to. The cooperative form allows all partners to participate in Mobicoop's governance and democratic life. Users, local authorities and employees can become members by taking a share in the cooperative and vote at the general meeting on the basis of one person, one vote. Local authorities are represented on the supervisory board and can therefore influence decisions taken by the cooperative. Mobicoop also offers local authorities a spontaneous carpooling service, or organised hitchhiking, called Rézopouce. People wishing to carpool can stand at these stops to let motorists know that they are looking for a driver and indicate their destination using a simple sign or the Mobicoop mobile application. This low-tech, low-cost solution can, for example, be used to reach a mobility hub from urban outskirts with poor public transport. 3.4.4. Carpooling routes Carpooling routes are subsidised in the same way as other modes of public transport, according to a subsidy rate specific to each local authority. The driver is generally paid according to the number of journeys made (often with monthly ceilings to avoid this becoming a professional activity). Passengers pay a fare, in the form of a ticket. The service may or may not be included in public transport season tickets. 72 In the Paris Region, Île-de-France Mobilités will create 12 carpooling routes in 2025, physically marked by stops and equipped with park-and-ride facilities. Three routes will be trialled at the beginning of 2025 in the Essonne and Yvelines departments to link small towns to the Saclay plateau, in areas with fewer public transport. ÎDFM will only fund the driver's share, i.e., between €1.50 and €3 (depending on the distance) per passenger and per journey. For the 12 lines already planned, ÎDFM plans to release €26 million between 2024 and 2027. Insofar as carpooling is rather an “ancillary” lever of the 15mC concept, and the types of measures that can be put in place are very numerous, we are not proposing any recommendations in this section. 73 3.5. Overview of carpooling services for the 15mC neighbourhood Carpooling Relevance Carpooling doesn't seem to be one of the major levers to be activated when extending the 15mC concept to suburban areas. It is mainly relevant for longer trips (at least 10 km) and longer journeys (in all cases over 15 minutes). Indeed, it's only on longer journeys that the monetary gains can be substantial (one of the major arguments driving users to carpool), and that potential detours remain acceptable (to pick up a carpooler or to join one). Therefore, like car-sharing, carpooling seems to be an ancillary policy, potentially enabling people to do without a private car (or the household's second car), and to adopt more “virtuous” modal habits for local travels. Potential The development of this service can make certain facilities more accessible, particularly for people who do not use a car on their own (because they do not have a driving licence, or they do not have a vehicle or because they are no longer fit to drive). Carpooling can therefore help to increase accessibility to certain services (or to additional jobs) for those populations (often more modest or vulnerable than average population). Governance / regulation Previously mentioned solutions showed that the development of carpooling can be based on a number of levers that can be activated by different players: public authorities, transport authorities, road managers, companies, carpooling operators, etc. Business frameworks Insofar as short-distance carpooling is still emerging and in the minority in Europe, the development of business models doesn't seem to be on the agenda. We're still in a situation where local authorities subsidize carpooling to encourage its development. Issues / points for improvement The modal share of carpooling is currently low, but subsidising carpooling journeys could lead to a sharp increase in public spending if carpooling takes off. Developing dedicated carpooling lanes on main roads and carpool parks upstream of commutes made mainly by private car can encourage carpooling. These are investments that do not require subsidies linked to the number of journeys made and will therefore not require an increase in public spending if carpooling becomes more widespread. Matchmaking platforms can be useful and have an operating cost that is not directly linked to the number of carpooling journeys. Carpooling routes have potential on certain corridors, but their operating costs may vary according to the level of service provided. Table 17: Overview of carpooling services for the 15mC in urban outskirts 80 for introducing electric buses to Portuguese cities. In this context, the city of Viseu developed and implemented a semi-flex DRT system with three electric minibuses, which follows a set route and operates on demand, primarily for the elderly population of the city to be able to access facilities in the city centre. Passengers could travel for free, but low-cost fares were introduced in 2020 to maintain the sustainability of the scheme. Starting as a demonstration project, it is still running, with around 13,000 users per year. DRT schemes like this could be interesting for other cities with a historic city centre that limits access (for example, a low-emission zone), with many elderly citizens or tourists (Krell & Hunkin, 2024). Taxi services are both reliable and flexible for users but at a high cost. Hybrid and semi-flexible DRT services are more convenient and cost-efficient in the urban outskirts, they provide optimal balance between reliability, operational costs, and customer satisfaction, unless there is a large economic contribution from the subsidising public authority in deploying and operating a large fleet of vehicles (EIT, 2022). 4.3. Governance of demand-responsive transport Public authorities play a leading role in establishing, implementing and monitoring DRT schemes, helping to bring together the necessary actors to run them. (Krell & Hunkin, 2024). Their role covers everything from licencing and safety to funding and community engagement. They set the overall regulatory and licencing framework in which DRT systems operate, including service standards, safety and environmental requirements, driver training obligations, fare structures and accessibility requirements. Licencing can ensure that operators comply with their regulatory requirements and deliver a minimum service quality. Essential partners are local public transport companies, taxi companies or other private companies actively involved in delivering the service, but also local associations and companies that can be helpful in engaging with citizens, informing them and engaging them in service planning. Mobitwin (see 4.2) desks are always established in collaboration with local municipalities. After all, they are best informed about local mobility needs and can easily reach our target group. In the partnership between Mpact and the local municipality, the division of responsibilities is as follows: The local municipality is responsible for:  Dispatching: Users reserve their rides at least 48 hours in advance, and the municipality matches the request with a volunteer.  Enrolling new users to the service and verifying that they are less mobile and have limited income.  Recruiting volunteers and organizing small activities for them, such as sharing cake on a volunteer’s birthday. Mpact is responsible for:  Developing and maintaining the software platform (Mobitwin Office) that enables municipalities to enroll users and volunteers, plan rides, manage invoicing, and store data on the rides.  Developing and maintaining the application (Mobitwin Calendar) that allows volunteers to check who they need to transport, when, and to/from which locations.  Following up on accidents that occur during the rides, managing repairs via our collective insurance, and handling the administrative follow-up.  Organizing study days and webinars on various topics, such as how to use the Mobitwin Office software, what to do in the event of accidents, how to assist users with mental health issues, strategies for recruiting new volunteers, cybersecurity, and more.  Engaging in political advocacy to defend the interests of people with limited mobility. 81  Conducting research and innovation activities, such as exploring the possibility of Mobitwin rides via shared vehicles, conducting satisfaction surveys among users, volunteers, and municipalities, testing new communication initiatives, etc. In the Île-de-France region, the first public transport service, Allobus, was introduced in 1998 to serve the Roissy Charles de Gaulle airport area. In 2010, the region's single mobility authority, Île-de-France Mobilités, designed a region-wide public transport network under a public service delegation contract with Keolis, and Allobus was renamed Filéo. The partners were the Val-d'Oise departmental council, the Seine-et-Marne departmental council, the former Terres de France community, which is now part of the Paris Terres d'Envol community, the public limited company Aéroports de Paris, Air France and Île-deFrance Mobilités. In 2017, the DRT networks were brought together under a single brand, with a single application and a single call centre: “TàD Île-de-France Mobilités” (TAD = Transport à la demande, DRT in French language). There are 40 DRT operating zones, all located in the urban outskirts, representing 767 communes, or half of the 1,268 communes in Île-de-France. Some operate as hybrid services, others as semi-flexible services, with variations possible during the day (hybrid services at peak times and semi-flexible services at off-peak times). DRT services are open to competition and operated by various private operators with 161 vehicles, most often minibuses. DRT services are available with a normal ticket, at the same price as a regular bus. Reservations can be made on the TAD website, by telephone or via the mobile application. 133 stations are served, and 1.4 million journeys have been made between 2019 and 2024 (Île-de-France Mobilités, 2024). DefMobil (see Figure 20) is a DRT system operating in East Tyrol (Austria). It works on a fixed timetable, but the route travelled varies depending on demand. Users can book their journey by telephone, at least one hour in advance of departure. While the municipalities took the lead, the success of the scheme was ensured through co-operation with the local taxi operator, who operate the vehicles, though those vehicles are owned by the Government of Tyrol. In 2017, DefMobil was taken over by the regional public transport association, which provides funding and ensures that the system is integrated into the broader mobility system and is marketed as part of the wider network. Tickets have also been unified and integrated into a single ticketing system. The TADEx DRT system operates in the eastern part of Extremadura (Spain), linking smaller towns (less than 2,000 inhabitants) with the nearest transport network hubs. TADEx aims to increase the cost and energy-efficiency of the transport system, ensure better use of capacity by using appropriate types and sizes of vehicles based on demand, and encourage greater use of public transport. The service is comprised of two intercity bus lines, and users can request and book trips via website, app or phone call. Operating since 2022 as a pilot project funded by the regional government, Extremadura aims to roll the system out to other parts of the region. Switching from traditional bus lines to TADEx saw a monthly reduction of 2,331 km travelled per month by public transport vehicles and an increase of users, demonstrating increased efficiency from optimised vehicle use (Krell & Hunkin, 2024). It is very important to set clear objectives according to specific use cases and communities to be served, as shown in the circular process of planning and implementation on Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.. 82 Figure 23: DRT planning and implementation process (source: UITP) 4.4. Business models of demand-responsive services DRT systems are highly adaptable to regional context. “This can include flexibility of route design, methods of finance, booking channels, types of vehicles and methods of payment, depending on the scale of the scheme, its target audience and the technical complexity of the supporting ICT framework.” (Krell & Hunkin, 2024, p.4) With so many different DRT set-ups being possible, and with the challenge of ensuring the sustainability of the solution, the business model must be carefully considered. This involves thinking about key partners and resources (human and financial) for success of the scheme, its target audiences, activities, booking and payment options, and revenue streams. It also involves consideration of digital and physical infrastructure. Similar to traditional public transport services, the economic model of DRT services for users is reliant on public subsidies, although the level of public subsidies varies greatly across geographies and depending on the exact type of DRT service provided (e.g., full flexible or semi-flexible). For example, in the case of the DRT service set up between 2012 and 2015 in Kutsuplus (Helsinki region, Finland), users would pay an estimated average of €7 (compared to the Helsinki public transport standard fare of €2 for one zone tickets and €3,88 for cross-zonal tickets). Still, the subsidy for each trip was €20 (EIT Urban Mobility, 2022). Not everyone is eligible to use Mobitwin (see 4.2 & 4.3): two conditions must be met. First, users must be “less mobile,” for example, having difficulty walking or living in an area with inadequate public transport. Second, the user’s income must not exceed twice the official minimum income threshold (revenue d’intégration sociale, leefloon). Both conditions are screened before enrolment in the service. This ensures that we provide transport solutions for people who cannot afford a taxi or who live in areas underserved by public transport. In practice, we find that most Mobitwin users are 65+. The costs to become a Mobitwin user are intentionally kept as low as possible and consist of an annual membership fee of €18 for an individual member and €27 for a family (i.e., all persons living under the same roof). Additionally, the Mobitwin user pays a fixed price per kilometre to the volunteer, which currently stands at a maximum of €0.44. This amount is based on the real costs that the volunteer incurs to provide the 83 ride using their own vehicle (including fuel, insurance, etc.). Both members and volunteers are insured during the Mobitwin rides via collective insurance. DRT systems can be funded by local and/or national governments, or set-up as public-private partnerships - the benefit of this model is that they can ensure schemes as public services, reaching citizens most in need. Private companies can organise their own DRT services to attract new employees to locations that are not easy to reach by regular public transport. Setting up a DRT system can be a way of collecting data to determine whether it is appropriate to set up a permanent bus service. Grouping bus routes on a common corridor and providing feeder DRT services to these routes can develop modal shift and improve DRT patronage (EIT Urban Mobility, 2022). In peri-urban or rural areas where journeys are long, operating a public transport service is expensive and often unattractive to users. This can lead to a reduction or even suppression of bus services. The introduction of a DRT system can stop this vicious circle and maintain a public transport service in areas where social exclusion can be high (EIT Urban Mobility, 2022). “DRT will remain a niche service, which will not lead to massive replacement of fixed bus lines” (EIT Urban Mobility, 2022, p.33). There is a place for DRT on a feeder level within very localised contexts where DRT services can complement the existing network of regular bus lines. In large cities, DRT use cases are mostly deemed suitable in specific circumstances such as night bus services. Outside urban areas, there is a potential for DRT services to go beyond just the niche in a context of transition toward less car-dependant mobility systems (EIT Urban Mobility, 2022). In DRT services, there is a question of the right pricing level depending on local condition and transport deprivation: with DRT, vehicles stop closer to users' homes and destinations - it may therefore be acceptable for users to pay a “comfort fee” for being collected and dropped closer to origin or destination. This is the case for the Hubtaxi service in the provinces of Drenthe and Groningen in the Netherlands, which is not included in the local public transport pricing (see below). This however raises a social justice issue in the cases where people do not have any other transport option but would still be forced to pay more than for fixed bus lines because of this “comfort fee” (EIT, 2022, p.13). Hubtaxi is a service set up in conjunction with the network of mobility hubs in the provinces of Drenthe and Groningen. This service enables residents of these provinces to travel from their home to a mobility hub located within a radius of 20 km, as well as the return journey. It is also possible to travel door-todoor to another address for journeys of 2 to 20 km, but at a higher fare. Hubtaxi is a service operated by transport companies under contract with the provinces of Drenthe and Groningen. Reservations are made by telephone, requesting them at least one hour before the journey. The service operates between 6am and 1am. It is even possible to book earlier or later to take the first or last train or bus journey. Connections with the bus or train are guaranteed if booked at least two hours in advance. An operator can pool several users to optimise Hubtaxi journeys. Fares are lower than those of a conventional taxi: €1.08 entry fee and €0.19 per kilometre to a hub (€1.62 and €0.28 from 2025), and €5.42 entry fee and €0.61 per kilometre for door-to-door travel (Publiek Vervoer Groningen Drenthe, 2024). There are several key issues to consider here, also related to customer relationships. Booking can be performed through various means, including phone calls, websites or mobile apps, specifying pick-up time and location. It is important to consider the target audience for DRT when considering the booking system, bearing in mind the digital divide. The systems will then aggregate multiple requests and optimise routes to pick-up and drop-off passengers. In some smaller DRT systems this may be done manually, but digital tools are increasingly used. Next comes vehicle dispatch, to fulfil the agreed-upon service. This may be mini-buses, vans or cars depending on number of passengers or vehicle availability. The region of Catalonia has been integrating its DRT services under a common brand, Clic.Cat (see Figure 24). The service now has 235 lines, covering more than 730 villages in Catalonia. Clic.Cat, as a brand, has been rolled out to all vehicles, stops and information services, with a common app and ICT infrastructure. Reservations for journeys can be made by app, 15 minutes ahead of the journey - compared to 24 hours before digitisation. To remain accessible, the service also allows booking by 84 phone call. A common communication campaign was created to raise awareness of the integrated services. The new approach led to an increase in ridership of on-demand services by 175% between 2021 and 2022 (Krell & Hunkin, 2024). Figure 24: Catalan DRT service Clic.Cat operates an electric bus (© ACN) The flexibility introduced by DRT can be both an advantage and a disadvantage depending on the context as well as on the users. Profound knowledge of local requirements provides precious information on the extent to which a DRT should be flexible and linked to the existing offer of formal and informal shared mobility services (including stop and frequency planning). It is important to focus more on travel experience than on average speed and stops to shift from system level to user level and to improve service alignment and user expectations. Somewhere along this chain, payment must also be taken into account. This can be done at the time of booking or at the time of service, implementing on board the vehicle, or via a digital platform. Fares may be calculated at a flat rate, based on distance, or even through subscription models. For example, Hoppin Flex is a DRT system in Flanders (Belgium) operating between fixed stops for which users pay per ride (max. €2.50 for 60min). With Mobitwin, service is €0.44 per km, with a yearly membership fee of €12. Nevertheless, as “DRT must adapt to real-time requests, this can lead to demand exceeding the available capacity, particularly during peak hours, causing longer wait times and potential service disruptions. Consequently, this can affect DRT's reliability, a key factor for its users who depend on timely service.” (Road XS, 2024). DRT providers must balance the need for data to optimise services while respecting user privacy. If the service operates in an area where regular bus lines already exist, there's a possibility that some passengers may prefer the convenience of DRT over standard bus or metro services. This could lead to a decline in ridership for traditional public transport, posing a financial challenge (Road XS, 2024). This 85 is why it is important to think carefully about how the two systems complement each other, and possibly reserve the DRT for certain target groups (people with disabilities, the elderly...) when regular services are available in the area, like it is done in Leipzig with Flexa (see 4.1) and in Flanders with De Lijn Flex. Bummelbus (see Figure 25) is an on-demand service operating in Ösling region, Luxembourg, cofinanced by the Ministry of Labour, Employment, and the Social Economy with an initial dual mission of providing mobility services for the elderly population, as well as bringing long-term unemployed people back into the workforce. Drivers are re-educated and given a two-year contract to gain work experience and make them fit for the job market. The service provides flexible routing to individual destinations (door-to-door), with varying ticket fares depending on the distance travelled. While initially focused on the elderly population, the service is now available for all segments of society, with a potential usership of 82,000 inhabitants in 255 villages. Bookings can be made by telephone but must be booked the day before travel. Since the service also has a social mission, it is 70% funded by the state, with the remaining costs covered by ticketing and municipal budgets. The service now has around fifty vehicles, has reintegrated 370 long-term unemployed people, and serves around 140,000 passengers per year (Krell & Hunkin, 2024). Figure 25: In Luxembourg, the Bummelbus DRT service helps people who are far from employment to train as bus drivers (© Forum pour l'emploi) DRT services could incur higher costs than fixed-route services because they are designed for smaller passenger loads and extended trip distances, making it challenging to maintain economic viability. But the DRT value proposition should be considered beyond service costs and revenues. Benefits in terms of delivering access to education, healthcare, culture, work opportunities, should also be considered to assess the performance of DRT services. In the Médio Tejo region (Portugal), a mostly car-dependant rural region with 13 municipalities and low population density (74 people per sq. km), the bus service frequency in the municipality of Sardoal is very low during the summer holiday period and lower in the Christmas and Easter vacations. Some public transport bus lines are not available at all during the weekend. In addition, there are variations in level of service in fixed-time schedules that show large discrepancies during the hours of service (e.g., three peak hours a day: morning, lunchtime, evening). The DRT service in the region has been growing since 2014. From October 2017 passenger numbers have been growing steadily with a minimum of 60 per month, and by July 2019 there were 150 passengers a month. A peak in service usage during the summer months can be observed. “Interestingly, most of the users in this area are older than 51 years 86 (91%), who use the service mostly for healthcare reasons (50%) or for grocery shopping (30%). Overall, 71% of the trips are going to the municipality centre” (EIT, 2022, p.22). In Coimbra, a region spanning across 19 municipalities (112 people per sq. km), the local DRT service saw a large increase in ridership despite a launch during the Covid-19 pandemic, with a somewhat higher usage in early 2022 (369 passengers in May) compared to December 2021 (269 passengers). Quite similarly to Médio Tejo, the average users’ age for the DRT service in the Coimbra region (SIT FLEXI service) is 69,6 years, and the main trip purpose is healthcare (69% of users) (EIT, 2022). 4.5. Recommendations for demand-responsive transport in a 15mC neighbourhood Recommendations: - Market research should be performed to identify the areas where transportation needs are not adequately met by existing public transport options, for example by analysing population density, sociodemographic profiles, travel patterns and existing transport infrastructure (often lower in the urban outskirts) (see 4.3). - Multi-level and multi-actor governance models are needed. The regional or national level should set the framework, provide funds, and establish replicable platforms, while the local level determines objectives, gathers data, designs networks and oversees implementation. In an urban region, serving urban outskirts with a DRT requires governance at transport authority level (see 4.3). - Hybrid and semi-flexible DRT services are more convenient and cost-efficient in a low demand context, they provide optimal balance between reliability, operational costs, and customer satisfaction, unless there is a large economic contribution from the subsidising public authority in deploying and operating a large fleet of vehicles (see 4.2). - DRT needs to be as easy as possible to use, ideally with a few booking and payment options that take account of different skills with ICT. DRT services should be integrated into the existing public transport scheme, with unified ticketing and a common application, so users in the urban outskirts can use DRT to go to a city centre and then use regular public transport (see 4.4). - DRT schemes need to be well promoted to inform citizens about what is available and ensure demand. Communication is essential to build up a use base - find a strong name and identity. In urban outskirts, municipalities are a good partner for promoting a DRT to the relevant target groups (see 4.4). - Design with the end users in mind - participatory processes and citizen engagement are essential. Test the application in advance, especially with some of the more vulnerable users that DRT serves. In urban outskirts, municipalities are a good partner for organising these tests with residents. (4.4). - Focus more on travel experience than on average speed and stops to shift from system level to user level and to improve service alignment and user expectations. The service must be adapted to the context: in urban outskirts, users may have different profiles and therefore different expectations than in rural areas. (see 4.4). - DRT needs to be thought of not only in terms of economic performance, but also the many social benefits it can offer to keep urban outskirts and rural areas connected (see 4.4). - Constant monitoring is important, making changes and improvements to attract and retain customers. This includes checking cost-effectiveness and efficiency, collecting data on ridership levels, service reliability, user satisfaction, and environmental impacts, which can be used to consistently improve service. In urban outskirts, municipalities are a good partner for collecting data on users’ satisfaction (see 4.4). 87 4.6. Overview of demand-responsive transport for the 15mC neighbourhood Demand-responsive transport Relevance DRT services are relevant for 15mC neighbourhoods as the provide a quality transport service where conventional bus routes are infrequent and expensive to maintain. It has benefits in terms of delivering access to education, healthcare, culture, work opportunities, etc. (see 4.1). Potential DRT has potential in sparsely populated peri-urban and rural areas. It can be used as a feeder service to a station or a mobility hub in the urban outskirts. It can also be used as a last-mile solution to get to a Point of Interest or tourist attraction. Other uses include night services, substitution of underutilised fixed-route buses, premium services, or transporting specific groups of users (e.g., the elderly, people with reduced mobility, etc.) (see 4.1). Governance / regulation Public authorities play a leading role in establishing, implementing, and monitoring DRT schemes, helping to bring together the necessary actors to run them. Their role covers everything from licencing and safety to funding and community engagement. They set the overall regulatory and licencing framework in which DRT systems operate, including service standards, safety and environmental requirements, driver training obligations, fare structures and accessibility requirements. Licencing can ensure that operators comply with their regulatory requirements and deliver a minimum service quality. Essential partners are local public transport companies, taxi companies or other private companies actively involved in delivering the service, but also local associations and companies that can be helpful in engaging with citizens, informing them, and engaging them in service planning (see 4.3). Business frameworks Many service offerings and business models exist (hybrid, Semi-Flexible, Full-Flexible, DRT with flexible layouts and stops), making it a highly adaptable solution to suit different urban environments. This can include flexibility in route, stops and schedule designs, financing methods, booking channels (phone calls, websites, or mobile apps), vehicle types and payment methods, etc. The business model must be carefully considered. This means thinking about the partners and resources (human and financial) that are key to the project's success, its target audiences, its activities, its booking and payment options, and its sources of revenue. Digital and physical infrastructures must also be considered. DRT services are reliant on public subsidies, the amount of which depending on geographies and the type of service provided. DRT systems can be funded by local and/or national governments, or set-up as public-private partnerships. Private companies can organise their own DRT services to attract new employees. Hybrid and semi-flexible DRT services are more convenient and cost-efficient in a low demand context, they provide optimal balance between reliability, operational costs, and customer satisfaction, unless there is a large economic contribution from the subsidising public authority in deploying and operating a large fleet of vehicles (see 4.4). 88 Issues / points for improvement DRT will remain a niche service and will not replace all regular bus routes. It is possible that some passengers will prefer the convenience of DRT to conventional public transport services where they exist. This could lead to a drop in ridership on traditional public transport and a fall in revenue. Where possible, route planner apps should suggest a conventional bus route rather than the DRT. The two systems must complement each other, DRT can be reserved for certain target groups (disabled people, the elderly, etc.) (see 4.4). Table 19: Overview of demand-responsive transport for the 15mC in urban outskirts 89 4.7. Summary of demand-responsive transport good practices for 15mC neighbourhoods Demand-responsive transport (DRT) Flexa (Leipzig, Germany) Flexa offers demand-responsive transport services for the suburbs of Leipzig (Germany), which are poorly served by public transport, to connect them with transport hubs. Customers use an app to input their current location and destination (based on a list of 120 virtual stops), pick-up time and number of passengers to receive an offer for a customised ride. (see 4.1) Mobitwin (Flanders, Belgium) Mobitwin is a DRT service that provides a transport solution for people with limited mobility via a network of volunteers. The service was launched in 1982 and currently operates in more than 200 Flemish municipalities (representing 75% of Flanders) as well as in Brussels. Together, our volunteers provide a transport solution for around 38,000 users, ensuring over 350,000 rides annually (see 4.2, 4.3 & 4.4). Viseu (Portugal) The city of Viseu developed and implemented a semi-flex DRT system with three electric minibuses, which follows a set route and operates on demand, primarily for the elderly population of the city to be able to access facilities in the city centre. Starting as a demonstration project, it has been running for more than fifteen years, with around 13,000 users per year. (see 4.2) TàD Île-deFrance Mobilités (Paris region, France) In 2017, the Paris region DRT networks were brought together under a single brand, with a single application and a single call centre: “TàD Île-de-France Mobilités”. There are 40 operating zones, all located in the urban outskirts. Some operate as hybrid services, others as semi-flexible services, with variations possible during the day. 133 stations are served, and 1.4 million trips were made between 2019 and 2024. (see 4.3) Hubtaxi (provinces of Drenthe and Groningen, The Nederlands) Hubtaxi is a service set up in conjunction with the network of mobility hubs in the provinces of Drenthe and Groningen. This service enables residents of these provinces to travel from their home to a mobility hub located within a radius of 20 km, as well as the return journey. It is also possible to travel door-to-door to another address for journeys of 2 to 20 km, but at a higher fare. Fares are lower than those of a conventional taxi. (see 4.4) Table 20: Summary of demand-responsive transport good practices 96 6. MOBILITY HUBS IN A 15-MINUTE CITY NEIGHBOURHOOD 6.1. Background and definition of mobility hubs, and their potential use in a 15mC neighbourhood The concept of a mobility hub emerged in Bremen in 2003. “A shared mobility hub is a physical location where different shared transport options are offered at a dedicated, non-temporary and recognisable location, and public transport is available within walking distance” (Geurs et al., 2024). “A hub maximises access to mobility and other resources, while ensuring a transfer between modes for firstand last-mile connectivity” (UITP, 2023). The aim of mobility hubs is to reduce the ownership and use of cars, and therefore the emissions associated with them. Mobility hubs can meet the mobility needs of a wide range of people in different types of area: cities, rural areas, and urban outskirts. The flexibility of their design and their adaptability to the local context allows them to limit car ownership and car use outside dense urban centres. By facilitating travel and concentrating in one place the services sought by people living in outlying areas, mobility hubs make it possible to limit car travel and are a tool for implementing the 15mC in urban outskirts. Mobility hubs are recognisable and accessible intermodal locations where travellers can easily transit and/or choose between different modes of public and shared transport. For an optimal travel experience, maximum coordination of public transport modes is necessary. In this way, mobility hubs are an important tool for modal shift. In addition to mobility options, mobility hubs also offer complementary services that increase comfort, accessibility, and attractiveness. Access to mobility services can be optimised using a MaaS system. The hubs also feature physical information media with easily accessible information, such as timetables and relevant information about the surrounding area (Aono, 2019). In 2019, Saki Aono of Translink highlighted 7 main common objectives of mobility hubs (Aono, 2019): - Integration of sustainable transportation options. - Improving user experience - Ensures safety and security - Creates a sense of place through effective and meaningful placemaking strategies - Flexibility to embrace technological innovations and foster resilience - Equity by considering accessibility to and availability of transportation options in different neighbourhoods. - Opportunities to form effective partnerships The Bremen hubs, or mobil.punkten (see Figure 31) have influenced a number of cities and countries, and have been studied and tested in several European projects dealing with shared mobility. These projects are summarised in the table below and were used in drafting this part of the report. 97 Project program Project name Project duration Partner cities, territories, and organisations (country) Interreg North Sea SHARE-North 2016-2022 Bruges, De Panne, Diksmuide, Ghent, Leiedal, Zedelgem inter-municipal organisation (Belgium), Copenhagen (Denmark), Bremen (Germany), Bergen, Hordaland County (Norway), Helsingborg, Lund (Sweden), Edinburgh, West Yorkshire (UK) ShareDiMobiHub 2023-2025 Leuven (Belgium), Capital Region of Denmark (Denmark), Amsterdam, Utrecht Province, Rotterdam (The Nederlands), Tønsberg, Vestfold County, Grenland district, Skien, Porsgrunn (Norway) Interreg 2 Seas MOBI-MIX 2020-2022 Antwerpen, Brussels, Ghent, Mechelen (Belgium), Valenciennes (France), Bremen, Hannover (Germany), Lisboa (Portugal), Madrid (Spain), Oregon (USA), Cambridge, Norwich, Plymouth (UK) Interreg North West Europe eHubs 2019-2023 Leuven, Walloon Region (Belgium), Dreux (France), Kempten (Allgäu) (Germany), Amsterdam, Arnhem, Nijmegen (The Netherlands), Region Manchester, Inverness (UK) Horizon Europe SPINE 2023-2026 Šibenik (Croatia), Talinn (Estonia), Rouen (France), Heraklion (Greece), Bologna (Italy), Gdynia (Poland), Barreiro (Portugal), Žilina (Slovakia), Las Palmas de Gran Canaria, Valladolid (Spain) Table 22: Summary of European projects and programs related to mobility hubs In the Paris region, mobility hubs have been set up in Grand Paris Seine & Oise (Grand Paris Seine & Oise, 2024), Yvelines (Département des Yvelines, 2023) and Seine-et-Marne (Département de Seine-etMarne, 2020). Multimodal Road Interchange Centres (Pôles d’Échanges Multimodaux Routiers, PEMR in French language) in the Île-de-France region can also be thought as mobility hubs (Guitton, Riou, Tedeschi, 2024), as at Longvilliers (Vinci Autoroutes, 2024) and Briis-sous-Forges (Département de l’Essonne, 2023). Other examples include Vienna, with its network of WienMobil stations (City of Vienna, 2022). 98 Figure 31: A mobil.punkt in Bremen with its typical column (© Freie Hansestadt Bremen) 6.2. Different types of mobility hubs The equipment and design of mobility hubs depend very much on the type of mobility hub and are always adapted to the local context. There are urban hubs, station hubs, hubs in residential areas, periurban or rural hubs, among other examples. While the main principles remain the same (offering intermodal and multimodal facilities to reduce the use of private cars), the way in which they are designed, planned, and implemented differs. In Bremen (population 563,000 inhabitants), 100 mobility hubs have been planned in strategic areas since 2003. The mobil.punkten are the largest mobility hubs located in the city centre and around stations, while the mobil.pünktchen are smaller and located in residential areas. In Bergen (286,000 inhabitants), since 2018, 14 mobility hubs (Mobilpunkter) have been designed for urban residential areas, with a second phase of 5 additional hubs planned for the urban periphery. In Stavanger (145,000 inhabitants), since 2020, 5 mobility hubs (Mobilitetspunkter) are planned for urban residential areas. In Amsterdam (921,000 inhabitants), 17 mobility hubs (BuurtHubs) have been planned for dense urban areas since 2021. Since 2017, in the provinces of Groningen and Drenthe (1.1 million inhabitants), in the Netherlands, 55 mobility hubs are planned in rural and urban areas and around railway stations. In the Belgian region of Flanders (6.6 million inhabitants), 1,000 mobility hubs (Hoppinpunten, or Hoppin points) have been planned since 2017, with four types of hubs: inter-regional, regional, local and neighbourhood hubs. In Flanders, the city of Leuven (population 102,000) has developed 50 Hoppin points located in the city centre, in residential areas and around railway stations. 99 City (Country) Population Hubs network’s name Year of implementation Number of hubs Bremen (Germany) 563,000 mobil.punkten / mobil.pünktchen 2003 100 Bergen (Norway) 286,000 Mobilpunkter 2018 19 Stavanger (Norway) 145,000 Mobilitetspunkter 2020 5 Amsterdam (The Netherlands) 921,000 BuurtHubs 2021 17 Groningen & Drenthe provinces (The Netherlands) 1,100,000 Hubs 2017 55 Flanders Region (Belgium) 6,600,000 Hoppinpunten 2017 1,000 Leuven (Flanders, Belgium) 102,000 Hoppinpunten 2017 50 Table 23: Summary of the hub networks studied in this report Figure 32: A Hoppin point with its column in Temse, Flanders (© Vlaams Gewest) 100 Some services are available in all mobility hubs, such as public transport, car-sharing, electric vehicle charging stations and cycle parking. In most cases, there is good access for active modes of transport, with cycling and pedestrian links encouraged. However, shared micromobility is not systematically provided, nor are carpooling, kiss-and-ride (drop-off) or taxi services: hubs must be tailored to local needs. Mobility hubs are sometimes combined with voluntary waste drop-off points. Some cities stand out for the large number of services available in their mobility hubs, which make it much easier for users to get around in a seamless experience, because “activities around a hub can enable trip chaining connected to the hub” (Geurs et al., p.5, 2024). For example, Dutch hubs often offer water taps, toilets and Wi-Fi, as well as other services such as bicycle repair points, picnic tables, parcel machines, luggage lockers, ATM, fitness equipment and even the loan of pushchairs and cycle trailers for children. Shops and public services may also be available, such as fast-food outlets, a grocery stores, a public library or a medical centre. In the provinces of Drenthe and Groningen, walks and hikes start at mobility hubs that are easily accessible by bus and/or train. The walks take in nature reserves or special landscapes. Mobility hubs in Bremen were historically centred around car-sharing, while those in Norway place greater emphasis on micro-mobility and recharging for electric vehicles. In the Netherlands, the car is less important (Hached & L’Hostis, 2022). In Amsterdam, the emphasis is more on bicycle services, cargo-bikes, micro-mobility and car-sharing, while in the provinces of Groningen and Drenthe, greater intermodality is sought between cycling and public transport, as well as the creation of living spaces. In Flanders, the very large number of mobility hubs means that there is a wide variety of services on offer, which differ according to the type of hub. The integration of mobility hubs into the MaaS system is a strong desire in Bergen. It is also an objective for the hubs in the Flanders region. The creation of a logo and visual identity means that users can easily recognise the mobility hubs (Baguet, 2024). Bremen's mobil.punkten are identified by columns with a logo. In Flanders, the Hoppin points also have a column to help them be clearly identified (Vlaamse Gewest, 2022). A visual identity guide with a graphic charter has been developed, containing all the logos, pictograms, colour codes and furniture to be used for the Hoppin points. Signage is codified and explained, and accessibility guidelines are laid down (see Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.). Dutch mobility hubs also have their own signage (Mijksenaar, 2022), as do those in Bergen (City of Bergen, 2021). Generally, it is important to consider the specific needs of vulnerable to exclusion groups, as “people with physical impairments and low digital skills rarely use shared mobility services because the services are not adapted to their needs” (Geurs et al., p.5, 2024). 101 Figure 33: The columns of Hoppin points with their standardised horizontal and vertical signs (© Hoppin.be) 102 6.3. Governance of mobility hubs It is often the city, as manager of the urban space and project owner, that assumes responsibility for creating mobility hubs. It has the leading role, initiates contacts with the various actors and brings them together around the same project. But in some mobility hub networks, the involvement of citizens is more developed. The target customer groups may be different: residents, commuters, tourists, people on low incomes, senior citizens, etc. Some mobility hubs are set up on a neighbourhood or city scale, others on a provincial or regional scale. In Belgium, regions took the lead for mobility hub networks implementation. In Flanders, when a local authority wants to implement a Hoppin points, even when implemented on its own land, they must comply with regulations (branding, accessibility, typology) set by the Region. The Region has leverage to do so, as they provide most or all the funding for the development and maintenance of hubs. They are now present in the Flanders and are being considered in the Brussels-Capital region, which is currently developing a small network of 20 test-hubs, which will be evaluated to know if a more extensive network will be rolled out (Borzęcka et al., 2023). As governance models differ from one city to another, mobility hubs are sometimes included in urban planning documents (as in Stavanger, Bremen, Groningen, and Drenthe) and other times in mobility plans (Amsterdam, Flemish Region, Bremen, Groningen) or climate, air, and energy plans (as in Bergen, Amsterdam and Leuven) (Geurs et al., 2024). Hubs can also be included in several documents at different levels. Mobility hubs are set up by municipalities in Norway, Bremen, and Amsterdam, by provinces in Groningen and Drenthe and by regions in Belgium. Involved stakeholders are not always the same, with varying degrees of involvement by local authorities, transport operators, local public services, nearby businesses, or private service providers. Other partners may include business park owners or real-estate developers, local community groups including residents and businesses, other government agencies and transport authorities, not-for-profit organisations including disability and other community groups, technology providers, major employment sites and other key trip generators, assets, infrastructure and utility companies, other established mobility hubs (GO SEStran et al., 2020). In the province of Groningen, a mobility hub has been set up at Delfzijl station (population 25,000) with funding from the province, the municipality, and the involvement of the national rail operator NS. Two focus groups were involved in developing the project, made up of shopkeepers and users, including people with reduced mobility. The aim was to create a place to live in a small, ageing community in economic decline. A restaurant has been created, and the station square has been given a facelift with greenery, benches, a water tap and Wi-Fi. In Siddeburen (population 3,000), a former church and community centre have been converted into a village hall following a consultation with residents. Doctors moved in, followed by homecare organisations and the local library. A mobility hub project was added to a range of community projects already underway, including a public transport stop and bicycle parking. In Gieten (population 5,000), a local and express bus interchange has been transformed into a mobility hub by adding secure cycle parking, a kiss-and-ride, a park-and-ride facility, a taxi stand, picnic tables, a café, a water tap, toilets, a parcel machine, Wi-Fi, and fitness facilities (see Erreur ! Source du renvoi introuvable.). 103 Figure 34: The hub of Gieten in the Groningen Province (© Miranda Drenth, OV-bureau Groningen Drenthe) In Bergen (Norway), the city has developed an internal software that allows the authority to communicate in a fluid way with private partners. It allows them to locate each of the shared e-scooters on their territory, to display the information on the identity of the private partner who manages them, the level of their battery charge, the last time they were used, etc. This system makes it possible for the city to immediately inform the private partner to for example, dispatch the vehicles in a more harmonious manner. The partner then has limited time to meet this request and if he fails to do so, he may be subject to financial sanctions (or even suspension of the partner's license and therefore a ban from operating). The particularity of the system developed by the city of Bergen is that it is a collaborative one. City agents and every citizen can report problems with shared e-scooters (such as parking problems) via a dedicated application. Citizen involvement is not considered in the same way in the cities that have set up mobility hubs. In Stavanger, the aim was to build on user experience to gain a better understanding of citizens' needs. Prototype hubs were created and tested by users so that they could be developed further. In Amsterdam, the hubs were co-constructed with residents based on their needs, using a bottom-up approach. After a test phase, a neighbourhood survey was carried out to determine whether the hub should be retained or abandoned. The hub was retained when 50% of voters in the neighbourhood were in favour of keeping it (see Figure 35). However, it seems that today the top-down method has become the dominant approach (Baguet, 2025). Another participatory process was carried out in Leuven on four hubs. 104 Figure 35: A buurthub in Amsterdam. These hubs were co-constructed and validated by residents as part of a bottom-up approach (© Gemeente Amsterdam) In practice, setting up mobility hubs can run into difficulties. Sometimes, the objectives of the authorities do not coincide with the services provided by their network of hubs. For example, if the authorities want to offer commuters an alternative to the car, it is necessary to create a very dense network of hubs with a substantial range of services. If only a few experimental hubs are set up, they will not meet the needs of the numerous commuters. Stakeholder (politicians and policymakers, public interest groups, or shared mobility operators) engagement and communication over a longer period are essential to implement shared mobility measures and to attract target groups to use mobility hubs (Karbaumer and Metz, 2020). The authority's aim is to demonstrate to businesses that the use of shared mobility can be used during working hours and could be an alternative to the company fleet. It is important to stress the possible savings, including savings on parking space. Communication and discourse on emission reduction or health or savings is not very effective for private users. There are three communication priorities in particular: strengthen motivations (convenience, comfort, safety, emotions of travel), remove barriers (perceived cost, complicated, loss of freedom...) and provide triggers (provision of free car-sharing membership or a travel budget for shared mobility and public transport) (Karbaumer and Metz, 2020). A common difficulty is also to integrate stakeholders like real-estate developers, business park owners and employers, that are often key to the success and attractiveness of mobility hubs. These stakeholders are also important because they can provide resources to implement the hubs. Difficulties linked to the incomprehension or opposition of residents may arise, especially if a future mobility hub intends to occupy/reduce parking spaces that are already highly coveted. It is important to present the mobility hub services as a serious alternative to their private cars. A bottom-up, 105 participative approach that takes account of users' needs avoids this difficulty. It allows citizens to be included in the design of mobility hubs and to help them evolve. It can also be difficult to align the objectives of a mobility hubs network with the business models of shared mobility service providers. For example, a dense network of mobility hubs requires a lot of rebalancing efforts and asset investments that could be too high for a shared mobility provider, and the authorities would have to compensate for these expenses. When creating mobility hubs, cities/regions should ensure the reliability and resilience of the partners with whom they collaborate (strong business models), as well as the flexibility of the infrastructure and its ease of adaptation to future technologies and compatibility with older technologies (Aono, 2019). Public transport authorities are also sometimes hard to involve in mobility hubs projects, while public transport should be the backbone of a network of mobility hubs. 6.4. Business models of mobility hubs As mobility hubs offer a wide variety of services, several stakeholders and business models overlap. The business models for mobility services present in mobility hubs such as car-sharing, shared micromobility, carpooling and demand-responsive transport are detailed in their respective sections. Regarding the business models of mobility hubs themselves, the European eHubs project organised focus groups with a network of relevant actors of the city of Antwerp, consisting of shared mobility providers, local authorities, public transport operators, and MaaS service providers (Coenegrachts et al., 2021). The aim of this exploratory approach was to define which kind of values mobility hubs could provide, for which target groups, and which stakeholders, activities, resources, and risks are involved. The focus groups identified five categories of business model for mobility hubs: first-/last-mile hubs, clustered hubs, hybrid hubs, point-of-interest (POI) hubs and closed hubs (Coenegrachts et al., 2021). These business model blueprints target different end-users and involve different stakeholders, services, pricing models, provided values and involved technologies. First-/last-mile hubs network's main value proposition is stimulating intermodal travel behaviour by implementing a first/last-mile solution (like shared bikes), that complements public transport. This requires a fine mesh mobility hub network that is integrated within the public transport network, thereby extending the catchment area of public transit and reaching more potential users. This model requires a lot of investment from the public authority or other third parties that could be involved. A MaaS application is useful in this model to provide seamless intermodal travel experience. This model targets more commuters and must be reliable for users that use these mobility hubs every day. This requires a lot of redistribution of vehicles between the hubs to keep a high availability rate. Clustered hubs network focuses on clustering shared mobility services, enhancing awareness about shared mobility and thereby generating demand for these services. Clustered mobility hubs are mainly located in suburban/residential neighbourhoods or small city centres, centralising the supply of shared mobility modes in that region. This, together with infrastructure provisions such as charging stations, will stimulate shared mobility providers to be active in otherwise underserved areas. These mobility hubs are not focusing on commuters and are more centred on round-trip services. They provide families alternatives to car ownership with shared cars or cargo-bikes to go shopping, visiting relatives or practicing leisure activities. Hybrid hubs network focuses on the formation of a hybrid network of mobility hubs that provides an extensive range of transportation modes, from free-floating to station-based shared mobility services. The combination of free-floating and station-based schemes increases the services' flexibility and the area covered by them, with a view to enable door-to-door transportation. If free-floating can increase the flexibility of a system, it also comes with problems like cluttering on the streets (numerous escooters blocking sidewalks, many free-floating cars parked in the same area using significant street 112 it is necessary to focus on lifestyles rather than mobility supply and practices alone. This means to offer urban outskirts quality public spaces and quiet streets, free at last from excessive parking and the nuisance of motorised traffic, with the same high standards as those found in city centres. It is also necessary to have an overall coherence in the development of an area: transforming a car-centred suburban area into a peaceful, people-centred area will show disappointing results if, at the same time, a large shopping centre with a vast free car park and an expressway serving it is built nearby. The 15mC neighbourhood is not an island, but part of an urban system of territorial interdependencies. We have seen in this report that a good governance framework is needed to set up shared mobility services, DRTs, flexible hubs, and mobility hubs. It is often the same authorities that are responsible for implementing these policies and for urban planning. The search for coherence between urban planning and mobility policies must therefore be considered upstream, jointly in the master plans for urban planning, mobility, and climate. 113 REFERENCES 6t-bureau de recherche, Ademe, Étude sur les impacts des services de vélos en free-floating sur les mobilités actives, 2019, https://www.ademe.fr/wpcontent/uploads/2024/12/Synthese_ADEME_6p_190114.pdf AGUILERA-GARCIA, Á., GOMEZ, J., & SOBRINO, N. (2020). Exploring the adoption of moped scootersharing systems in Spanish urban areas. In Cities (Vol. 96, p. 102424). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102424 AONO Saki, Identifying Best Practices for Mobility Hubs, Intertraffic.com, 2019, https://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/Sustainability%20Scholars/2018_Sustainability_Scholars/R eports/2018-71%20Identifying%20Best%20Practices%20for%20Mobility%20Hubs_Aono.pdf AONO Saki, Mobility hubs - The multimodal stations at the centre of everything, TransLink, 2021, https://www.intertraffic.com/news/infrastructure/mobility-hubs-multimodal-stations-at-the-centreof-everything Apur, L'autopartage et autres modes alternatifs à la possession de la voiture particulière – Expériences à Paris, En France et à l'étranger, 2008, https://www.apur.org/sites/default/files/documents/249.pdf ARIAS MOLINARES Daniela, GEURS Karst, GRIGOLON Anna, ULAK Baran (University of Twente), DURAN David, McCORMICK Bartosz (Technical University Munich) BAGUET Jelten (Mpact), van VESSEM Charlotte (Vrije Universiteit Brussel), ADJEROUD Heythem (Université Gustave Eiffel), ESZTERGÁRKISS Domokos (Budapest University of Technology and Economics), DÖRRZAPF Linda (Vienna University of Technology), CHARALAMPIDOU Georgia, (Universität für Bodenkultur Wien), Exploring the 15-minute city concept for urban outskirts : a systematic literature review., DREAMS, Deliverable 2.1, Horizon Europe, 2024, https://www.dreams15mc.eu/_files/ugd/c54b12_4567f53190a44f8b9bb6ae054d8b1359.pdf Association des Acteurs de l’Autopartage, LAET, Baromètre national autopartage, 2023, https://www.asso-autopartage.fr/barometre-national-autopartage-2023/ Association des Acteurs de l’Autopartage, Le guide de l’autopartage pour les territoires, 2021, https://www.gart.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Guide-sur-lautopartage_AAA_Novembre2021.pdf Autodelen.net, Budget mobilité, 2024, https://www.autodelen.net/fr/themes/budgetmobilite/https://www.autodelen.net/fr/themes/budget-mobilite/ Autodelen.net, Le lancement du Green Deal Inclusive Carsharing en 4 chiffres, 03/21/2024, https://www.autodelen.net/fr/actualites/le-lancement-du-green-deal-inclusive-carsharing-en-4chiffres/https://www.autodelen.net/fr/actualites/le-lancement-du-green-deal-inclusive-carsharingen-4-chiffres/ BACH, X., MARQUET, O., & MIRALLES-GUASCH, C. (2023). Assessing social and spatial access equity in regulatory frameworks for moped-style scooter sharing services. In Transport Policy (Vol. 132, pp. 154– 162). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2023.01.002 BADIA, H., & Jenelius, E. (2023). Shared e-scooter micromobility: review of use patterns, perceptions and environmental impacts. In Transport Reviews (Vol. 43, Issue 5, pp. 811–837). Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2171500https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2171500 BAGUET Jelten (Mpact), Digital integration and signage at mobility hubs, SmartHubs Deliverable 3.3, Horizon 2020, 2024, https://www.smartmobilityhubs.eu/_files/ugd/c54b12_0b9d9073923a45519a5442760fbf6fa2.pdf BIARD Nolwenn, La Fabrique écologique, Y a-t-il un passager dans l’auto ? Que peut-on attendre du covoiturage du quotidien pour la transition écologique, Forum Vies mobiles, 2023, https://www.lafabriqueecologique.fr/app/uploads/2023/09/2023.09.12_VF_Etude_covoiturage.pdf 114 BORZĘCKA Karolina, VAN LOOY Johan, HUYSMANS Sven (The New Drive), WYMEERSCH Evelyn, ROELANT Bram, (Mobipunt vzw), MARHOLD Karsten, BAGUET Jelten (Mpact), Bruxelles Mobilité. Vision pour le développement de hubs de mobilité en Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, 2023, https://datamobility.irisnet.be/home/media/filer_public/dd/31/dd31367c-8b19-46bb-b1784f611f66b03c/mobility_hubs_document_de_vision.pdf Bruxelles Mobilité, Good move – Plan régional de mobilité 2020-2030, Plan stratégique et opérationnel, 2021, https://data-mobility.irisnet.be/home/fr/publications/documents-telecharger-goodmove/https://data-mobility.irisnet.be/home/fr/publications/documents-telecharger-good-move/ Bruxelles Mobilité, Synthèse du Baromètre de la mobilité 2021, 2023, https://data.mobility.brussels/home/media/filer_public/f8/16/f816f884-b9a6-46af-9927214ff70b944d/barom2021_synthese-finale_fr.pdf Bundesverband Carsharing, e.V. (bcs), 2024, https://carsharing.de/carsharing-staedteranking BÜTTNER Benjamin, SEISENBERGER Sebastian, McCORMICK Bartosz, SILVA Cecília, PAPA Enrica, CAO, Mengqiu, TEIXEIRA João Filipe, Mapping of 15-minute City Practices Overview on strategies, policies and implementation in Europe and beyond, DUT Driving Urban Transition, 2024, https://westminsterresearch.westminster.ac.uk/download/5e62ab806bc81c62ed7637ee47e0210e2 d6a4e61c6ad5ad75fb65ce62cd57418/5147571/DUT_15-minute-City-Mapping_04-2024.pdf Cairgo Bike website: https://cairgobike.be/en/what-is-cairgo-bikehttps://cairgobike.be/en/what-iscairgo-bike Car Sharing Association, Movmi, Five Foundational Carsharing Policies for Any City – Lessons from the 2020 Carsharing City Awards, 2020, https://www.movmi.net/wpcontent/uploads/2020/05/2020CarshareCityAwardsReport.pdf Cerema, Vélos en libre-service avec station : de l’étude de faisabilité du service à sa mise en œuvre, 2019, https://www.cerema.fr/fr/actualites/velos-libre-service-station-etude-faisabilite-du-service-sa CHODORGE Simon, (2019 May 29), À Paris, l'autopartage cherche sa voie, L’Usine Nouvelle, https://www.usinenouvelle.com/article/a-paris-l-autopartage-cherche-sa-voie.N845340 CHRISTOFOROU, Z., DE BORTOLI, A., GIOLDASIS, C., & SEIDOWSKY, R. (2021). Who is using e-scooters and how? Evidence from Paris. In Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment (Vol. 92, p. 102708). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102708https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2021.102708 CIARI Francesco, AXHAUSEN Kay, Choosing carpooling or car sharing as a mode – Swiss stated choice experiments, 2012, https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000091515 City of Bergen, Mobility hubs: pilots, strategies and practicalities, 2021, https://share-north.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2021/10/Bergen-Mobility-Hubs-2021_Lars-Ove-Kvalbein.pdf Club Sustainable Development of Civil Society, LAST MILE, Best Practices Analysis, Synopsis, Interreg Europe, 2018. COENEGRACHTS Elnert, BECKERS Joris, VANELSLANDER Thierry, Verhetsel Ann, Business Model Blueprints for the Shared Mobility Hub Network, Sustainability 2021, 13, 6939, https://doi.org/10.3390/su13126939, 2021. COHEN, M. C., JACQUILLAT, A., RATZON, A., & SASSON, R. (2022). The impact of high-occupancy vehicle lanes on carpooling. In Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice (Vol. 165, pp. 186–206). Elsevier BV https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2022.08.021 CoMoUK, Mobility Hubs Guidance, Interreg North Sea – NORTH-Share, 2019, https://cdn.prod.websitefiles.com/6102564995f71c83fba14d54/618d29b3d06c81de72c38fdc_CoMoUK%20Mobility%20hub %20guidance%20_Oct%202019.pdf CoMoUK, What are mobility hubs?, https://www.como.org.uk/mobility-hubs/overview-and-benefits, 2022. 115 CoMoUK, WSP, England’s Economic Heartland, Mobility Hubs Business Case Guidance, 2023, https://tps.org.uk/public/downloads/e5cIS/Mobility%20Hubs%20Business%20Case%20Guidance.p df Conseil de Paris, Délibération 2020 DVD 49, Véhicules partagés en libre-service sans station d’attache. Fixation des tarifs de redevance d’occupation temporaire du domaine public, 2020, https://a06v7.apps.paris.fr/a06/jsp/site/plugins/solr/modules/ods/DoDownload.jsp?id_document=155175&ite ms_per_page=20&sort_name=&sort_order=&terms=autopartage&query=autopartagehttps://a06DELBOSC, A., & THIGPEN, C. (2024). Who uses subsidized micromobility, and why? Understanding lowincome riders in three countries. In Journal of Cycling and Micromobility Research (Vol. 2, p. 100016). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmr.2024.100016 Département de l’Essonne, La gare autoroutière de Briis-sous-Forges, mieux se déplacer en Essonne, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqdTcUD2bo0, 2023. Département de Seine-et-Marne, Modes de déplacement alternatifs, https://www.seine-etmarne.fr/fr/modes-de-deplacement-alternatifs, 2020. Département des Yvelines, MobilitY’ - Un dispositif d’écomobilité solidaire : des bornes et des véhicules électriques en usage partagé dans 13 communes rurales des Yvelines, https://www.yvelines.fr/cadre-devie/deplacements/mobility/, 2023. DESTI-SMART project website: https://projects2014-2020.interregeurope.eu/desti-smart/ DREAMS project website: https://www.dreams15mc.eu/ eHubs project website: https://vb.nweurope.eu/projects/project-search/ehubs-smart-shared-greenmobility-hubs/ EIT Urban Mobility, Mastering mobility: demand responsive transport, https://www.eiturbanmobility.eu/mastering-mobility-demand-responsive-transport/, 2024. EIT Urban Mobility, Urban Mobility Next 7, Demand Responsive Transport: recommendations for successful deployment, 2022, https://www.eiturbanmobility.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/EITUrbanMobilityNext7_HD_v2.pdf EIT Urban Mobility, Urban Mobility Next 9, 15-Minute City: Human-centred planning in action – Mobility for more liveable urban spaces, 2022, https://www.eiturbanmobility.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2022/11/EIT-UrbanMobilityNext9_15-min-City_144dpi.pdf EMBRACER project website: https://www.interregeurope.eu/embracer ESZTERGÁR-KISS Domokos, ABA Attila, BME, Setup of Living Labs (Brussels, Budapest, Munich, Paris, Utrecht, Vienna), DREAMS, Deliverable 5.1, 2024 European Commission, Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy – putting European transport on track for the future, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52020DC0789, 2020. E-workshop on Green and Inclusive Regional Mobility website: https://www.interregeurope.eu/findpolicy-solutions/workshop/green-and-inclusive-regional-mobility-solutions-key-learnings, 2024. FRENKEN Koen, Towards a prospective transition framework. A coevolutionary model of socio-technical transitions and an application to car sharing in The Netherlands, Utrecht University, 2013, https://www.uu.nl/sites/default/files/iwse_2015_carsharingfrenkenist2014.pdf Gemeente Amsterdam, Smart Mobility, Innovatieteam, Handreiking eHUBS, Interreg North-West Europe – eHUBS, 2022, https://assets.amsterdam.nl/publish/pages/1027473/handreiking_ehubs.pdf Generalitat de Catalunya, LAST MILE, State-of-the-Art of regional public transport systems and particularly flexible systems, Synopsis, Interreg Europe, 2017, https://projects20142020.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1505207658.pdf GEURS Karst, GRIGOLON Anna, MÜNZEL Karla, GKIOTSALITIS Konstantinos, DURAN-RODAS David, BÜTTNER Benjamin, KIRCHBERGER Christoph, PAPPERS Jesse, MARTINEZ RAMIREZ Lluis, GRAF Antonia, HANSEL Julia, GKAVRA Roxani, KLEMENTSCHITZ Roman, The Smarthubs integration ladder: a 116 conceptual model for the categorisation of shared mobility hubs, Transport Reviews, Volume 44, 2024 - Issue 1, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2239499https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2023.2239499 GO SEStran, steer, Transport Scotland, Mobility Hubs: A Strategic Study for the South East of Scotland/SEStran region, 2020, https://sestran.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/SEStranMobility-Hubs-Strategic-Study-Final-Report.pdf Gouvernement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Arrêté fixant les modalités d'utilisation des places de stationnement par les opérateurs de véhicules à moteur partagés, 21 mars 2013, https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/arrete/2013/03/21/2013031242/justel#Art.4 Grand Paris Seine & Oise, Les hubs multiservices #çacontinue !, 2024, https://gpseo.fr/article/les-hubsmultiservices-cacontinue GUITTON Élie (L’Institut Paris Region), Voies réservées sur autoroutes et voies rapides urbaines, 2022, https://www.institutparisregion.fr/fileadmin/NewEtudes/000pack2/Etude_2750/benchmark_vr_aut oroutes_urbaines.pdf GUITTON Élie, RIOU Dominique, TEDESCHI, Florian (L’Institut Paris Region), Des voies rapides multimodales pour décarboner et décongestionner le réseau routier francilien, Note rapide Mobilité, n° 1002, 2024, https://www.institutparisregion.fr/fileadmin/NewEtudes/000pack4/Etude_3015/NR_1002_web_ver sion_finale.pdf HACHED Wassim, L’HOSTIS Alain. Mobility Hubs, a lever for more sustainable mobility?, Université Gustave Eiffel ; LVMT. Interreg 2 Seas – MOBI-MIX, 2022, https://www.polisnetwork.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2022/09/MOBI-MIX-insight-report-Mobilty-Hubs-final-.pdf HUNKIN Simon, KRELL Katharina, Demand-responsive transport, A Policy Brief from the Policy Learning Platform on Low-carbon economy, INTERREG Europe, 2018, https://www.interregeurope.eu/sites/default/files/2024-07/Policy%20brief%20on%20demandresponsive%20transport.pdf Île-de-France Mobilités, Le Plan des mobilités en Île-de-France 2030, Plan d’action, 2024, https://www.iledefrance.fr/sites/default/files/202404/Plan_Mobilit%C3%A9s_4_PDMIF_Plan%20d%27action.pdf International Transport Forum (ITF), Innovations for better rural mobility, 2021, https://www.itfoecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/innovation-rural-mobility.pdf Interreg Europe, Zooming in: How shared mobility is organised in Flanders, Peer review, 2024, https://www.interregeurope.eu/find-policy-solutions/expert-support-reports/zooming-in-howshared-mobility-is-organised-in-flandershttps://www.interregeurope.eu/find-policysolutions/expert-support-reports/zooming-in-how-shared-mobility-is-organised-in-flanders INVERS, New INVERS Mobility Barometer finding: 50,000 vehicles in free-floating car sharing across Europe, 2023, https://invers.com/en/press-releases/european-free-floating-carsharing-marketoverview/ KARBAUMER Rebecca. Bremens mobil.punkt Strategy - Reclaiming Street Space and Place Making with Car-Sharing, Freie Hansestadt Bremen, Interreg North Sea Region – SHARE-North, 2020, https://sharenorth.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/200422_PART-1_Context-and-PoliticalStrategies_Bremen.pdf KASK Õnne, PLAZIER Paul, ARTS Jos, TILLEMA Taede, RONGEN Tibor, Hub programme Groningen and Drenthe: state of hubs, governance, and future outlook. (SMiLES research report; No. #2). Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Faculteit Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen, 2021, https://research.rug.nl/en/publications/hub-programme-groningen-and-drenthe-state-of-hubsgovernance-andKRELL Katharina, HUNKIN Simon, Demand-responsive transport, A Policy Brief from the Policy Learning Platform for a more connected Europe, INTERREG Europe, 2024, 117 https://www.interregeurope.eu/sites/default/files/2024-07/Policy%20brief%20on%20demandresponsive%20transport.pdf L’HOSTIS Alain, AÏTA CISSÉ Nd’eye, HACHETTE Maxime, PAPA Enrica, PETITET Sylvain, Research Perspective: Contribution from the ACUTE Knowledge Hub – 15-minute City Position Paper, 2024, https://www.expertises-territoires.fr/upload/docs/application/pdf/202409/research_perspective_contribution_-_dut_partnership_15min_city_1.pdf L’Institut Paris Region, Tableau de bord de la mobilité en Île-de-France, 2024, https://www.institutparisregion.fr/mobilite-et-transports/deplacements/tableau-de-bord-de-lamobilite-en-ile-de-france/https://www.institutparisregion.fr/mobilite-ettransports/deplacements/tableau-de-bord-de-la-mobilite-en-ile-de-france/ LAA, B., & LETH, U. (2020). Survey of E-scooter users in Vienna: Who they are and how they ride. In Journal of Transport Geography (Vol. 89, p. 102874). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102874 LAST MILE website: https://projects2014-2020.interregeurope.eu/lastmile/ Le Nouvel Obs (2018, May 31). Après le fiasco du Velib', la dette catastrophique d'Autolib', Le Nouvel Obs, https://www.nouvelobs.com/societe/20180531.OBS7513/apres-le-fiasco-du-velib-la-dettecatastrophique-d-autolib.html LECONTE Manuel, RIVOALLON PUSTOC’H Catherine, DRUON Stéphanie, Inspection Générale de l’Environnement et du Développement Durable, Le développement de l’autopartage, 2023, https://igedd.documentation.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/documents/Affaires-0013221/01502301-rapport_publie.pdf;jsessionid=2C92854881F8E4427B272543A626BBC6 LOUDON, E., GERZINIC, N., MOLIN, E., & CATS, O. (2023). Determinants of shared moped mode choice. In Journal of Urban Mobility (Vol. 3, p. 100053). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbmob.2023.100053 MARTINEZ Lluis, PAPPERS Jesse, KESERÜ Imre, VUB Mobilise, Needs of users and digitally excluded citizens, SmartHubs deliverable 3.2, Horizon 2020, 2022 https://www.smartmobilityhubs.eu/_files/ugd/c54b12_e1c66f737c2a46ef85f64edb5f60f8d1.pdf MATCH-UP project website: https://projects2014-2020.interregeurope.eu/match-up/ MATTHIJS Jeffrey, VANSEVENANT Merel, RODENBACH Johannes, RYVERS Suzanne, SEEUWS Bram, Autodelen.net, Rapport Autodelen 2020, Interreg North Sea – SHARE-NORTH, Province of East Flanders, 2021, https://www.autodelen.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Rapport-annuel-car-sharing-20202021-1.pdfhttps://www.autodelen.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Rapport-annuel-car-sharing2020-2021-1.pdf Mijksenaar, De identiteit voor hubs – Handboek voor inrichting van en wayfinding voor deelmobilitieiten hublocaties, 2022, https://www.zeeland.nl/sites/default/files/2022-07/2022-0711%20Handboek%20identiteit%20hubs%20V1.pdf Mo.Point website: https://www.mopoint.at/ MOBI-MIX website: https://www.interreg2seas.eu/en/MOBI-MIX MÜNZEL Karla, FRENKEN Koen, Explaining carsharing supply across Western European cities, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, Volume 14, 2020 - Issue 4, March 2019, Pages 243254, https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1542756 MÜNZEL Karla, PISCICELLI Laura, BOON Wouter, FRENKEN Koen, Different business models – different users? Uncovering the motives and characteristics of business-to-consumer and peer-to-peer carsharing adopters in The Netherlands, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Volume 73, August 2019, Pages 276-306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trd.2019.07.001 Observatoire national du covoiturage du quotidien website: https://observatoire.covoiturage.gouv.fr/https://observatoire.covoiturage.gouv.fr/ 118 O'SULLIVAN Feargus (2022, February 26), The Radical Roots of Bikesharing, Bloomberg, CityLab, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-02-26/the-dutch-anarchists-who-launched-abikesharing-revolution Parking.Brussels, Autopartage 2021 – Évaluation de la couverture en Région Bruxelles Capitale, 2024, https://parking.brussels/sites/default/files/202408/RAPPORT_CARSHARING_SYNTHETIQUE_2021_FR.pdf Parking.Brussels, Autopartage 2022 – Évaluation de la couverture en Région Bruxelles Capitale, 2023, https://parking.brussels/sites/default/files/202408/RAPPORT_CARSHARING_SYNTHETIQUE_2022_FR.pdf Parking.Brussels, Autopartage 2023 – Évaluation de la couverture en Région Bruxelles Capitale, 2024, https://brusselparkeren.be/sites/default/files/202409/RAPPORT_CARSHARING_SYNTHETIQUE_2023_FR%20v2.pdf PRÉDALI Frédérique, COUREL Jérémy, GUITTON Élie (L’Institut Paris Region), MICHELOT Nicolas, LEFORESTIER Linda, SENG Jean (DRIEAT), 6t, Services de mobilité en free-floating – Retours d’usagers, 2020, https://www.institutparisregion.fr/fileadmin/NewEtudes/000pack2/Etude_2430/etudeFF_FG6t_29s ept20.pdf Publiek Vervoer Groningen Drenthe, Hubtaxi, https://www.publiekvervoer.nl/reizigers/hubtaxi Radio 2, SNOEYS Jasper (2023, May 29), Autodeelbedrijf Poppy stopt met deelauto's in Lier, VRT News, https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/05/29/poppy-lier/ REGIO-MOB Consortium, Guidelines of Best Practices in Sustainable Mobility, Interreg Europe, 2016, https://projects20142020.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/Guidelines_best%20practices_ v6.pdf REGIO-MOB Consortium, Interregional Learning towards Sustainable Mobility: the REGIO-Mob Experience, 20 good practices for sustainable mobility developed to tackle the Covid-19 crisis, Interreg Europe, 2021, https://projects20142020.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1672354103.pdf Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Arrêté du Gouvernement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale fixant les modalités d'utilisation des places de stationnement par les opérateurs de véhicules à moteur partagés, 2013, https://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/eli/arrete/2013/03/21/2013031242/justel#Art.4https://www.eju stice.just.fgov.be/eli/arrete/2013/03/21/2013031242/justel#Art.4 Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Arrêté du Gouvernement de la Région de Bruxelles-Capitale portant un règlement d'agrément des systèmes de partage de voitures pour les particuliers, 2017, https://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/arrete-du-gouvernement-de-la-region-debruxellescapit_n2017030834.htmlhttps://etaamb.openjustice.be/fr/arrete-du-gouvernement-de-laregion-de-bruxellescapit_n2017030834.html Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Règlement Régional d’Urbanisme (RRU) – Titre VIII, 2006, https://urbanisme.irisnet.be/pdf/RRU_Titre_8_FR.pdfhttps://urbanisme.irisnet.be/pdf/RRU_Titre_8_ FR.pdf Région de Bruxelles-Capitale, Transport & Mobility Leuven, Mobiped, Benchmark international de services de location de vélos en libre-service (VLS) et de vélos longue durée (VLD), 2024 https://mobilitemobiliteit.brussels/sites/default/files/2024-09/VLS_BXL_2026-BBenchmark_international_de_services_VLS_et_VLD.pdf Région Île-de-France, SDRIF-E - Île-de-France 2040 : un nouvel équilibre, Plan d’aménagement régional, 2024, https://www.iledefrance.fr/sites/default/files/202410/sdrif2024_projet_amenagement_regional.pdf 119 Regional Management East Tyrol, LAST MILE, National and regional framework conditions and barriers of flexible transport, 2017, https://projects20142020.interregeurope.eu/fileadmin/user_upload/tx_tevprojects/library/file_1504101495.pdf RENOUVEL Sophie, MOLINIER Marie, Apur, Les mobilités émergentes, trottinettes, scooters et vélos en partage, 2020, https://www.apur.org/sites/default/files/synthese_mobilite_emergente.pdf Road XS, How Does Demand Responsive Transport Work? The Technology Explained, 2023, https://www.roadxs.com/transport/drt/how-does-demand-responsive-transportwork/https://www.roadxs.com/transport/drt/how-does-demand-responsive-transport-work/ Road XS, The Pros and Cons of Demand Responsive Transport: A Comprehensive Analysis, 2024, https://www.roadxs.com/transport/drt/pros-and-cons-of-demand-responsive-transport/ RODENBACH Johannes, MATTHIJS Jeffrey, SEEUWS Bram, RYVERS Suzanne, DECOMBEL Sarah, Autodelen.net, Rapport d’impact, l’autopartage en Belgique en 2022, 2023 https://www.autodelen.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Rapport-dimpact.-Lautopartage-enBelgique-en-2022.pdf RODRIGUE Jean-Paul, COMTOIS Claude, SLACK Brian, The Geography of Transport Systems, New York, Routledge, 2006. Rural Mobility project website: https://www.interregeurope.eu/rural-mobility SCHREIER Hannes, GRIMM Claus, KURZ Uta, SCHWIEGER Bodo, KEẞLER Stephanie, MÖSER Guido, Team Red, Analysis of the impacts of car-sharing in Bremen, Germany, Interreg North Sea – SHARENORTH, 2021, https://share-north.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Analysis-of-the-Impact-of-CarSharing-in-Bremen-2018_Team-Red_Final-Report_English_compressed.pdf SEEUWS Bram, COENEGRACHTS, eHUBS webinar 6: Business models, Autodelen.net, 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS9S6Mg6LZAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eS9S6Mg6L ZA SHAHEEN, S., & COHEN, A. (2018). Shared ride services in North America: definitions, impacts, and the future of pooling. In Transport Reviews (Vol. 39, Issue 4, pp. 427–442). Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1497728https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2018.1497728 SHAHEEN, Susan, CHAN, Nelson, BANSAL, Apaar, COHEN, Adam, Shared Mobility, a Sustainability & Technologies Workshop – Definitions, Industry Developments, and Early Understanding, TSRC, UC Berkeley, 2015, https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2f61q30s ShareDiMobiHub Interreg North Sea website: https://www.interregnorthsea.eu/sharedimobihub/pilotshttps://www.interregnorthsea.eu/sharedi mobihub/pilots SHARE-North Academy, A Planner’s Guide to the Shared Mobility Galaxy, Interreg North Sea – SHARENORTH, 2021, https://share-north.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Shared-MobilityGuide_ENGLISH.pdf SHARE-North Squared (SN²) project website: https://www.interregnorthsea.eu/sn2 SHARE-North website: https://share-north.eu/ SmartHubs, Making mobility hubs smarter – 10 recommendations for practitioners & policy makers, 2024, https://www.smartmobilityhubs.eu/_files/ugd/c54b12_eec2ced132d04c158f16c04daa6b8c48.pdf SPINE project on the CIVITAS website: https://civitas.eu/projects/spine SPINE project website: https://www.spine-project.eu/ Stadt Wien, Shared Mobility Concept and Guidelines on Mobility Hubs in Vienna Overview and Objectives for Vienna, 2022, https://impacts.org/wpcontent/uploads/2022/11/20221016_sharingstrategy_barcelona.pdf TEIXEIRA João Filipe, SILVA Cecília, SEISENBERGER Sebastian, BÜTTNER Benjamin, McCORMICK Bartosz, PAPA Enrica, CAO, Mengqiu, Classifying 15-minute Cities: A review of worldwide practices, 120 Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Volume 189, November 2024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2024.104234 TEMMERMAN Marjan, MERCKX Vincent, VERHAEGHE Nina (2023, December 21), Aanbieders van deelwagens Green Mobility en Poppy trekken weg uit grote steden, VRT News, https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2023/12/21/green-mobility-en-poppy-trekken-weg-uit-grotesteden/#:~:text=Poppy%20stopt%20dan%20weer%20met,dan%20systemen%20met%20vaste%20 standplaatsen Transport for Communities, What is demand-responsive transport (DRT) – And how does it differ, if at all, to Community Transport?, 2019, https://web.archive.org/web/20190114114414/http://transportforcommunities.co.uk/files/What_is _Demand_Responsive_Transport.pdf TRAUCHESSEC Élodie, Ademe, WESTER Léa, LOUVET Nicolas, COGNEZ Alice, 6t, Enquête Nationale sur l’Autopartage, 2019, https://www.ademe.fr/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/CP-Enquete-autopartage2019.pdf UITP, Mobility hubs: Steering the shift towards integrated sustainable mobility, Policy Brief, 2023, https://cms.uitp.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Policy-Brief-Mobility-hubs-web.pdf Urban Innovative Actions, Brussels Capital Region, Cairgo Bike, https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/uiacities/brussels-capital-region-0https://www.uia-initiative.eu/en/uia-cities/brussels-capital-region-0 UTPAL Deka, VETHA Varshini, DEEPTHI Mary Dilip, The journey of demand responsive transportation: Towards sustainable services, Department of Civil Engineering, BITS Pilani Dubai Campus, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3389/fbuil.2022.942651 VAROQUIER Jila, (2019, May 15), Le casse-tête des ex-bornes Autolib en banlieue, Le Parisien, https://www.leparisien.fr/info-paris-ile-de-france-oise/transports/le-casse-tete-des-ex-bornesautolib-en-banlieue-15-05-2019-8072502.php Ville de Paris, Plan local de mobilité, 2024, https://www.paris.fr/pages/paris-lance-son-plan-local-demobilite-26709https://www.paris.fr/pages/paris-lance-son-plan-local-de-mobilite-26709 Ville de Paris, Règlement relatif à la délivrance des titres d’occupation aux opérateurs de véhicules partagés en libre-service sans stations d’attache, 2021, https://cdn.paris.fr/paris/2021/10/04/ca33473b23f3699c8bb701928cd3a093.pdfhttps://cdn.paris. fr/paris/2021/10/04/ca33473b23f3699c8bb701928cd3a093.pdf Vinci Autoroutes, Découvrez le parc multimodal de Longvilliers sur l'autoroute A10, 2024, https://www.vinci-autoroutes.com/fr/conseils/ecomobilite/parc-multimodal-longvilliers-autorouteA10/ Vlaamse Gewest, Hoppin Huisstijlgids, 2022, https://its.be/sites/default/files/Hoppin_huisstijlgids_beknopt_v6.pdfhttps://its.be/sites/default/file s/Hoppin_huisstijlgids_beknopt_v6.pdf WALDRON Levi, Mobility HUBs, Toronto, Ontario, 2007, https://www.crcresearch.org/case-studiessustainable-infrastructure-library/transportation/mobility-hubs-toronto-ontario WANG, K., QIAN, X., FITCH, D. T., LEE, Y., MALIK, J., & CIRCELLA, G. (2022). What travel modes do shared e-scooters displace? A review of recent research findings. In Transport Reviews (Vol. 43, Issue 1, pp. 5– 31). Informa UK Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2021.2015639 WienMobil hubs network on Wiener Linien website: https://www.wienerlinien.at/wienmobil/stationen WILSON Kea (2020 January 20), Why Do Micromobility Companies Keep Losing Money?, Streetsblog USA, https://usa.streetsblog.org/2020/01/14/why-do-micromobility-companies-keep-losing-money ZEISEL Lena, JÄGER Maximilian, HANNA Kristin, Navigating the 15-minute City – First Learnings and Discussions from the Driving Urban Transitions Partnership, 2024, https://dutpartnership.eu/wpcontent/uploads/2024/04/DUT_Partnership_15-minute_City_PositionPaper.pdf 121 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Timothé Buen Abad, Brussels Mobility Nicolas Frasie, Association des Acteurs de l'Autopartage Johannes Rodenbach, Autodelen.net Jelten Baguet, Mpact Daniela Arias Molinares, University of Twente (UT) Karst Geurs, University of Twente (UT) Charlotte van Vessem, Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) Benjamin Büttner, Technische Universität München (TUM)