Research Report - Mobility in The Netherlands

Exploring sustainable mobility alternatives to reduce
traffic congestion for commuting employees that

travel to other cities
Tudor Mihai, 547599

Hogeschool Inholland Diemen
Abstract: This research focuses on gathering information about commuter’s
preferences when travelling to a different city for work. The answers are collected
from students and employees who go by car or by public transport to work or school.
The scope of this paper is to combine people’s preferences from both travel groups
and come up with a better mobility solution that solve travelers’ unmet needs while
being friendly to the environment.
Keywords: Commuting; Public transport; Mobility-as-a-Service; Rush hour; Smart

mobility; Sustainable mobility.
2
Table of Contents
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
1.1 Introduction of research paper ................................................................................................................ 4
1.2 Problem statement ................................................................................................................................. 4
1.3 Company implications in the topic ........................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Aims, objective and scope of research ..................................................................................................... 5
1.5 Research question, sub-questions............................................................................................................ 5
2. Literature review........................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Transportation landscape in the Netherlands .......................................................................................... 6
a. The passengers.......................................................................................................................................... 6
b. The traffic ................................................................................................................................................. 7
2.3 Towards a smart and sustainable mobility system.................................................................................... 8
2.4 Public transport sustainability ambitions and current situation .............................................................. 10
2.5 Companies implication in sustainable transportation ............................................................................. 10
2.6 MaaS solutions in the Netherlands and abroad ...................................................................................... 11
2.7 Future developments in mobility ........................................................................................................... 11
3. Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 13
3.1 Research question & sub-questions ....................................................................................................... 13
3.2 Research goal ........................................................................................................................................ 13
3.3 Explanation of the research procedure .................................................................................................. 13
3.4 Research methodology .......................................................................................................................... 14
A. Online Survey - Phase I ............................................................................................................................ 14
B. Online Survey - Phase II ........................................................................................................................... 15
C. Interview with expert .............................................................................................................................. 16
3.4 Changes to initial research plan ............................................................................................................. 16
4. Results ........................................................................................................................................................ 18
5. Discussion ................................................................................................................................................... 29
6. Recommendations & design criteria ............................................................................................................ 34
References...................................................................................................................................................... 35
Appendix ........................................................................................................................................................ 37
1. Transcript of interview with experts ........................................................................................................ 37
2. Transportation landscape in the Netherlands .......................................................................................... 38
3. Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) definitions .................................................................................................. 39
4. Phase 1 Survey Template......................................................................................................................... 39
5. Phase 2 Survey Template......................................................................................................................... 44
6. Phase 1 Survey Answers .......................................................................................................................... 45
3
1. Introduction
1.1 Introduction of research paper
This research paper explores the transportation behavior of people in the Netherlands. It comprises
information about people that drive by car, as well as people that travel by public transport, both in
the city and outside of it. The focus is to find out what people appreciate in both driving by car and
going by public transport, as well as what they would like to be improved. By collecting answers on
these topics, design criteria will be made at the end of the report suggesting how the perfect
transportation solution will look like for the targeted audience. The answers were collected with the
help of two online questionnaires. The first survey helped at collecting information about the traveling
behaviors of students in the biggest part, followed by traveling behaviors of employees and self-
employed. The survey was split into two categories of people, those who travel by public transport
and those who travel by car. They were asked a series of questions about why they choose to travel
like that, together with a series of questions about their journey and a dedicated section in which they
could share their opinion about different mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) solutions and how they see the
future of transportation. The second survey was focused on employees that drive to work from one
city to another, but people who use public transport were also included in a relatively equal amount.
Like in the first survey, they were asked to say why they travel like that and what they like and do not
like about it, together with details about their journey lengths and departure/arrival times. The results
of both surveys are discussed in order to draw relevant conclusion which will help coming up with the
design criteria for implementation of the next stage of the innovation thesis.
1.2 Problem statement

Most of the people commuting to other cities for work purposes go by car, and usually they are alone
in their journey, leading to traffic jams in rush hours. This makes people waste precious time and also
contributes to a high level of toxic emissions from fossil fuelled vehicles, which are harmful to the
environment and to people. The alternative for most of the people is to travel by train, which in most
occasions is proven to be efficient and reliable, with a broad range of connections. As in the case of
travelling by car, the most problems occur in rush hours when trains get overcrowded and people must
travel without a seat for long distances. People that travelling with public transport also experience
unforeseen delays and cancellations, which contribute to a lower level of satisfaction of a door-to-door
journey. (Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid, 2017)
1.3 Company implications in the topic

This innovation thesis is done in collaboration with Roteb Lease, company that focuses on leasing
vehicles from small to large, together with repairing, maintenance and management of special
vehicles, such as waste collection and fire trucks, but also cars for private use that people can hire.
They have a car park of 2,500 vehicles and they are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, from three
locations in the Rotterdam area. Roteb Lease’s clientele consist mainly of municipalities and
government-owned companies, but has its consumer side too. The company is customer oriented and
motivated to moving towards new developments in the field of sustainable mobility. Roteb Lease is
known for their knowledge and experience, and as a consequence, they have their own practical school
which, in collaboration with school communities, students are trained to all grades of automotive
engineering. They are also known as a learning company, which adapts to the customer’s needs, but
also responding to the trends in the market. (Roteb Lease, 2017) Their mission and vision is closely
aligned with that one of the Municipality of Rotterdam, which has developed a Program on
4
Sustainability and Climate Change which will benefit all those who live and work in the city. Their
ambition for the city is to have “cleaner air, dry feet and lower energy bills”. (Rotterdam Climate
Initiative, 2015) Roteb Lease’s ambition is to switch from fossil fuels towards fully sustainable services
and to offer value for citizens of Rotterdam. As they are experts in vehicle maintenance and leasing,
they are open to see what other fields they can approach with their expertise.
1.4 Aims, objective and scope of research

The goal of this research is to figure out how a mobility ecosystem should look like in order to benefit
its users and be friendly to the environment. There will be investigated all methods of transportation
(bike, tram, metro, train, bus) and see what people use most and least, for what purposes and in which
combination. There will be analyzed people’s opinion about their current travel experience, but also
investigate into their opinion about different types of mobility solutions. In the end there will be a
conclusion with what different target groups like and dislike about different transportation methods.
The information will be used to come up with design criteria for a possible solution which will be
developed in the next stage of the innovation thesis. The final outcome of the thesis will be a prototype
of the solution which users can fully experiment in order to get feedback and iterate, so that the client
will see a solution that is tested and validated with the market, with high chances of success as a
business case.
1.5 Research question, sub-questions

This research paper is focused around the central question mentioned below. The sub-questions are
answered from primary research and lead the format of the document.
Central question
What are the characteristics of a sustainable means of transportation that combines both benefits of
travelling by car and public transport for passengers, while reducing traffic congestion caused
commuters from a city to another for work in rush hours?
Sub-question 1
What are the behaviours and attitudes of people regarding commuting by public transportation?
Sub-question 2
What are the behaviours and attitudes of people regarding commuting by car?
Sub-question 3
What measures are being taken for the transition towards sustainable mobility in the Netherlands?
Sub-question 4
What are people’s preferences in regards to different Mobility-as-a-Service solutions?
Sub-question 5
What are the similarities in behaviours and attitudes of people regarding commuting by car and public
transport?
5
2. Literature review
2.1 Introduction
The role of conducting literature review is to collect information about any relevant information
around the context of the research question. This type of research has been done by conducting desk
research by looking into academic journals, reports, scientific papers, research papers, statistics and
reports, but also from online videos and newspaper articles. It includes technology trends and
developments, local rules and regulations, current statistics about different transportation systems in
the Netherlands, as well as behavioral information about people that use these systems.
2.2 Transportation landscape in the Netherlands
a. The passengers
The Mobility Report of 2017 published by the “Ministerie van Infrastructure en Milieu” found out that
60 percent of the total number of passengers are going by car (as driver or passenger). The proportion
has remained the same between 2005 and 2016, with the train representing 13 percent and the bike
8 percent. Car use as a driver (two-thirds of the total car use) increased by 8 percent since 2005. Since
2015, this growth was mainly attributable to an increase in the number of kilometres for work-related
(commuting and business) while travelling for leisure purposes doesn’t influence the numbers much.
The growth of car use can be traced largely to longer journeys: in 2016 the average work-related
distance spanned by car was 24.5 kilometres (an increase of 6 percent compared to 2005). A smaller
part of the growing car use is due to population growth.
Between 2005 and 2017 car ownership per 1000 population increased by 12 percent (from 381 to 427
cars per 1,000 inhabitants). Even though, there are differences in age groups. People under the age of
65 account for an increase in car ownership by 33 percent since 2005, while car ownership for young
adults (18 to 30-year-old) decreased by nearly 10 percent in the same period of time. In the big cities,
car ownership is generally lower. Amsterdam has 'only' 244 cars per 1,000 inhabitants. (Kennisinstituut
voor Mobiliteitsbeleid, 2017)
The number of kilometres travelled by train increased from 15.2 billion in 2005 to 18.9 billion in 2016,
an increase of 24 percent. This represents an average annual growth over that period of almost 2
percent. The majority of the passengers (95%) travelled with NS. Other transport (Veolia, Arriva,
Connexxion and Syntus) took care of the rest, most of the so-called decentralized lines. The most
common mode of transport for onward transport from stations is walking (45 percent of the
movements), followed by bus, tram and metro (33 percent of the movements). There is a visible
downward trend for the use of bus, tram and metro.
In 2016, Dutch people took over 400 million trips on the e-bike which has covered nearly 2 billion
kilometres. Almost half of the rides are made by people over 65 years old. More than half of all e-
kilometres by bike is made for leisure purposes, such as recreational tours, but there is a visible
increase in the proportion of work-related mileage from 2013 to 2016.
In the existing literature on the reliability of variables of train commuters, travelers say that that their
comfort is affected by the scheduling choices. (Bates et al., 2001), as well as the size of the group they
are experiencing their travelling journey (Carrion, 2012). Moreover, just as with crowding, travelers
may not be aware of diverse reliability levels across commuting connections. (Batley, 2011)
6
When looking at the reasons of travel dissatisfaction, delay seems so be the first source (Preston, 2009)
that makes travelers unpleased of their mobility choice. Interruptions and delays make commuters to
stay unpaid over hours at work and cancel important meetings (Jenelius, 2011). Looking at the variable
of fares, there is one research that has been conducted by (Currie, 2010) where he explains the early-
bird tickets effect in Melbourne, similar to NS’s off-peak strategy, as a pricing rule that is effective in
decreasing considerably the peak travels.
b. The traffic
Many people that go to work are alone in their cars, but if there would be four people driving together,
there would be 70 percent fewer cars in the rush hour. (Millieu Centraal, 2017)
In 2016, the traveling time has increased by 10 percent compared to 2015. Traffic on the main road
network increased by 3 percent in 2016. In the period 2005-2016, the increased volume of traffic on
the roads by 16 percent. From 2014 to 2016 there is not just during the peak periods (9:00 and 17:00),
but also between the peak increase in volume of traffic on the main road. The total unreliability of
travel time increased in 2016 by 9 percent, the extreme time losses by 8 percent and the loss of travel
time by 10 percent. Real-time traffic information has contributed to a reduction of time lost in traffic
by 10 percent. The costs incurred by time losses account in 2016 for over 1 billion euros and the costs
coming from unreliable journey times are estimated around 0.6 billion euros. (See Appendix)
The program “Better Benutten” realized in 2016 contributed to a decrease of 3 percent time loss on
the entire road network. The program was focused on peak-avoidance, employers and logistics
approach, encouraging use of public transport and cycling. The program “Het Nieuwe Weken” during
the period 2005-2016 resulted in a reduction of 12 percent of the time lost by having people work
from home instead of fixed work address and adjusting working hours to avoid the rush hour by car.
7
In the period 2014-2016, the use of
the road network, particularly in the
hours preceding the narrow focus of
7:00 a.m. to 09:00 pm and 4:00 p.m.
to 18:00 pm risen relatively sharply.
As a result, the time losses early in
the broad morning rush hour (6 a.m.
to 7:00 pm) and in the broad
evening rush (3:00 p.m. to 19:00
pm) relatively strong increase. This
happened possible due to the
economic recovery of the country
that took place during that period,
resulting in many people getting
new jobs which meant for some to
travel longer distances and finally to
have more cars on the road.
This image on the right shows
where the commuting zones in the
Netherlands are, marked with
orange. This is helpful to
understand on which areas to focus
while looking at people that
commute for work from a city to
another, which is the main focus of
the research. Source: Amsterdam smart city 2016 report
2.3 Towards a smart and sustainable mobility system
Between 2005 and 2016 there is a clear decline in all traffic emissions, except for CO 2. (See Appendix)
Road traffic is the major source of pollutant emissions in traffic. In
order to reduce that, electric vehicles are increasing in popularity.
Netherlands was the first of the EU countries in 2016 for the
highest proportion of new registrations of fully-electric and plug-
in hybrid cars. In Europe it is overtook only by Norway (29%) and
Iceland (6.3%). Since 2015, only plug-in hybrids sales decreased (-
9.2%), while other types of electric vehicles increased: full-electric
cars (+ 0.4%), delivery vehicles (+ 12%), buses (+ 79% including
hybrid), mopeds and bicycles (+ 12%). (Kennisinstituut voor
Mobiliteitsbeleid, 2017. [Picture source: Electric vehicles in the
Netherlands, (RVO 2016)] Source: RVO 2016
Looking at the website of the government under the section mobility, there is a section dedicated to
“Intelligent Transport Systems and Smart Mobility”. There it says that the Netherlands plays an
important role in the traffic management system of the future, in which all vehicles communicate with
each other and with the roadside systems. The action plan is named “Better informed on the road”
8
and was initiated by the platform Connekt-ITS Netherlands, which also did the Hyperloop Challenge.
(Waterstaat, M. V., 2017) Another program called “Connecting Mobility” wants to promote innovation
in the field of intelligent transport systems together with public parties, knowledge institutions and
companies. (Anten, N., 2017)
Another program that has been mentioned before is the “Better Benutten” program, focused on
improving traffic flow in the busiest regions of the country, both inside and outside the cities. By
making mobility intelligent, they are looking to cut down door-to-door travel times, improve safety
and livability, as well as save unnecessary costs and fuss.
The Netherlands is becoming popular when it comes to smart mobility solutions. The province of
Noord-Brabant is developing an extensive testing environment which is open for both national and
international parties. They are examining solutions which will improve the accessibility of the region,
but plan to scale-up in other parts of the country, or in Europe. One example of their effort is the
SmarwayZ.NL program, in which they are exploring optimum solutions to keep the region accessible.
Christophe van der Maat is optimistic about the future and opportunities for scaling up, saying that
“What works in Brabant, will work for the Netherlands next. And, therefore, also for Europe.”
(Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid, 2017)
On the other hand, Daimler, an innovative leader in autonomous driving, has selected the Netherlands
for the Future Bus world first. What makes this country ideal is the new legislation that allows trials on
public roads, and also the ideal infrastructure between Schiphol and Haarlem. The Municipality of The
Hague subsidises electric cars and bridges the gap for fast charging points as of 1 July 2016. People
that buy a new electric vehicle will get a 5,000 subsidy, while those who opt for a second-hand electric
vehicle will get a 3,000-euro subsidy. Another interesting initiative is to make all buses to and from
Amsterdam Schiphol Airport fully electric from 2018. This is stipulated in the new Amstelland-
Meerlanden concession. Rotterdam is also doing progress when it comes to electric vehicles, starting
their pilot to test the first wireless charging system for electric passenger vehicles in the autumn of
2015. (Netherlands Enterprise Agency, 2017)
On October 2017, the Dutch government presented their plans for the coming years. Related to
sustainability, the government wants to make an agreement with Europe for a 55% emission reduction
by 2030 and a national climate agreement will
ensure that emissions will be reduced by 49%, also
by 2030. Moreover, the government is making 4
billion euros available for the transition to cleaner
energy. One of the most important decisions for
our research is that by 2030 all new cars in the
Netherlands must be emission-free. Therefore, we
can expect to see an increase in electric cars sales
and more incentives to promote sustainable
transportation. (Pieters, J., 2017) On top of that,
Chancellor Philip Hammond had stated that
drivers will start paying more tax to their fossil fuel
vehicles from April 2018. (Smith, L. J.,2017) source: PitPoint.com
In order to meet the climate goals of the COP21 Paris agreement, all economic sectors need to cut
down on CO2 emissions, including transport, by 2050. That means to increase the number of highly
efficient vehicles on the road that run on green energy. In the short term it means that cities will have
to apply a zero-emission policy for its vehicles. One way to start is by implementing emission-free
9
urban and regional buses. In the Netherlands, the Green Deal ZES encourages public and private
stakeholders to create and implement concepts for zero-emission city logistics, with the ambition to
ban conventional vans and trucks from city centers by 2030. (TNO, 2017)
2.4 Public transport sustainability ambitions and current situation

After cars, many people travel by train to work. Even though for some it is the most convenient and
efficient, they sometimes have negative experiences with their journey. Many people complain about
delays, cancellations, and the fact that the trains are always full in rush hours. The research called
“Train commuters’ scheduling preferences; Evidence from a large-scale peak avoidance experiment”
illustrates that it is possible to decrease the relative share of peak trips by 22%. This has been
implemented by NS under the name of “daluren”, option that rewards anyone who travels off-peak
hours a 40% discount on their journey. (Peer, Knockaert & Varhoep, 2016).
As the adoption of electric vehicle becomes greater, vehicle-to-grid (V2G) services should be
considered to help with balancing the energy grid. This technology allows cars that are connected with
a plug and that are in stand-by to sell their battery energy to the needs of the city in cases of high
demand. This will balance the grid by acting as an external power source in times of high demand. The
electricity can be shared to buildings nearby or other facilities that need it. The results is decreased
costs for the city and consumers. (Forbes, 2017)
2.5 Companies implication in sustainable transportation

Companies also play an important role in making sustainable transportation more attractive to their
employees. In the program “Better Benutten”, a project called “Smart & Fast: cycling for discount and
cash”, people who leave the car and take the bike to work can save up to 190 euros. People who
already biked save for discounts that can be spent at the company’s cafeteria, or purchase products
from a web shop with dedicated products and a lottery ticket. The participants cycle with an app that
registers their journey, gives feedback and encourages them to continue. From September 2016 to
May 2017, 600 people participated, half of whom previously owned a car. They biked for 300,000
kilometers and saved 25,000 kg of CO2 emissions. A similar initiative was introduced in Maastricht
under the name “Burn Fat Not Fuel”.
In the same program, “Slim Reizen Stedendriehoek” was started in the spring of 2017, which lets
organizations try out high speed e-bikes for a month. This solution works perfectly for people that have
journeys no longer than 25 kilometers. As soon as it started, 10 organizations joined in and other 8
followed up on that. The results are not yet publicly available.
Companies are started to see the advantage for their employees to take the bike to work. That is why
a start-up called Urbee decided to help them with electric bikes. The organization makes a contract
with Urbee, and Urbee installs a parking spot near the working place of people together with e-bikes.
Employees get for free the e-bikes and the companies have tax benefits because they reduce CO2
emissions. (Urbee, 2017)
Lastly, another measure that is happening in the Netherlands is the Park & Ride offer from NS. This
motivates people that have work in the city center to park their car cheaply (8 euros a day) and from
there take the public transport, while the payment is done with the OV-chipkaart. This also helps to
reduce traffic congestion in the city. (NS, 2017)
10
2.6 MaaS solutions in the Netherlands and abroad
Definition of Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS): “Mobility as a Service (MaaS) is the integration of various
forms of transport services into a single mobility service accessible on demand. To meet a customer’s
request, a MaaS operator facilitates a diverse menu of transport options, be they public transport,
ride-, car- or bike-sharing, taxi or car rental/lease, or a combination thereof. For the user, MaaS can
offer added value through use of a single application to provide access to mobility, with a single
payment channel instead of multiple ticketing and payment operations. For its users, MaaS should be
the best value proposition, by helping them meet their mobility needs and solve the inconvenient parts
of individual journeys as well as the entire system of mobility services.” (MaaS Alliance, 2017)
There are a couple of Mobility-as-a-Service companies in the Netherlands. Most of them are in the car
club category, including Ioniq (from Hyundai), Greenwheels (from NS) and Car2GO (from Smart). These
services allow people to open a shared car with their smartphone or OV-chipkaart (Greenwheels, 2017)
in order to drive it until the destination, paying for each minute, hour, or day that they use it. In
regards to car sharing companies, there is BlaBlaCar, which connects commuters to those travelling in
the same direction and is usually for people that don’t know each other. Thirdly, there is ride sharing
with companies like Toogethr (www.toogethr.com) , which connect people from same areas that go
to work at the same company, usually in a different people’s car every time.
2.7 Behavioral characteristics regarding MaaS

When new mobility solutions appear on the market, like with any innovation, people see themselves
in various stages towards adoption of the product or service. It is important to consider people’s
behavioral characteristics in order to group them and based on that to know who the target audience
is. (Politis et al., 2012) There are numerous behavioural change models, but the “Max Self-Regulation
Model”, also known as the MaxSem Model (Carreno & Welsch., 2009) is the most suitable model in
the context of Flexible Transport Systems, which includes mobility-as-a-service solutions. This model
resembles with the Transtheoretical Model (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997) which is focused on
diminishing car usage and considers four different stages before people change their bahavior. This
framework can be made general for any modal shift and not just regarding car use.
The first stage is the pre-contemplative stage, in which people do not consider to change their modal
behaviour. The second stage is the contemplative stage, where people start to consider using
alternative modes of transport. The third stage is the preparation/action stage, in which people decide
on a strategy for their modal shift or/and have already tried the new mobility alternative(s) in mind.
The fourth and last stage is when individuals have adopted the new mobility solution in their travel
choices. Previous research shows that MaaS solutions do not only ease the user’s mobility experience,
but that its implementation leads to changes in transportation patterns. (Karlsson et al., 2017), (Sochor
et al, 2015). Therefore, it can be said that MaaS induces modal change. The service needs to be simple
to use (it is not necessary to have different subscriptions or to worry what to do in case of a missed
connection) to lower the cost that the individual needs to pay to engage in a new behavior, and to
have a wide range of MaaS solutions to intrigue the people who adopts MaaS to engage in more
multimodal patterns. These characteristics can ease the step from stage 3 to stage 4 of the MaxSem
theory, leading to adoption of a new behavior.
2.8 Future developments in mobility

NEXT developed modular autonomous cars which act as taxi's, while different cars (modules) can
attach to each other during driving and become one bigger unit. According to Google, the product will
be on the market in the next 3-5 years. (Next Future Transportation. 2017)
11
Source: www.next-future-mobility.com
Connected, autonomous and smart vehicles

Shwetha Surender, leader of New Mobility, Frost & Sullivan discusses how the mobility landscape is
being influenced by new technologies. The first trend is that by 2025, every meter, household and
person will be connected. The second trend is based around AI, which will make cars also cognitive,
making them able to optimise the journey and integrate computer vision and machine learning. Fully
autonomous cars are expected to commercialise by 2030, representing an annual revenue potential
of $60 billion.
Nearly 300,000 drivers in the trucking industry will lose their jobs because of this. The next trend is
related to smart cities, where cars talk to each other as well as to roads, crosswalks, parking structures
etc. Cars will update each other on real-time traffic and will slow down automatically close to a
crosswalk. An existing pilot project in Manila uses taxi’s GPS traffic data to provide accurate
information in order to reduce traffic congestion and improve road safety.
The next trend is about last mile connectivity
solutions like car-sharing, ride-sharing, e-
hailing and bike-sharing, which are starting to
take off in the urban mobility environment. Car
sharing will start merging with other business
models only after autonomous vehicles
become commercialized. This change towards
automated cars is likely to lead to a paradigm
shift in the taxi market. Because of the increase
in population size in cities, the normal taxies
will still exist. Another important trend is that
the operating model for e-hailing services is
expected to evolve considerably, with
companies like Uber having to rely on their Source: Why the convergence of new technologies is the future of mobility,
Surender, 2018
own fleet of cars, as well as their users’.
Next to this trend, smart parking will evolve also. In London and Pisa, there are already pilot programs
that allows third parties to have access to data and share it with drivers through different apps and
12
pay for the parking lot via smartphone. In regards to the financial benefits, a true cost saving potential
from a fleet of taxis or car-sharing can be realised only after the car can capably drive itself. At some
point when autonomous technologies will become commercialised and the price will fall, they will be
able to compete with public transportation. (Surender, 2018)
3. Methodology
3.1 Research question & sub-questions
The research question that stays at the base of this paper is “How might Roteb Lease contribute to an
attractive mobility solution for people that drive alone to work to a different city, while reducing traffic
congestion and being environmentally-friendly?”. In order to respond to this question which has Roteb
Lease in the center of it, I have come up with another central question which is clearer and touches
more concrete aspects, in order to create focus.
Central question
What are the characteristics of a sustainable means of transportation that combines both benefits of
travelling by car and public transport for passengers, while reducing traffic congestion caused
commuters from a city to another for work in rush hours?
Sub-question 1
What are the behaviours and attitudes of people regarding commuting by public transportation?
Sub-question 2
What are the behaviours and attitudes of people regarding commuting by car?
Sub-question 3
Sub-question 4
Sub-question 5
What are the similarities in behaviours and attitudes of people regarding commuting by car and public
transport?
Note: Sub-question 5 will be answered in the discussion from analysing the answers received from sub-
question 1 and 2.
3.2 Research goal

The goal of the research is to find out what people appreciate in both driving a car and going by public
transport, as well as what they would like to be improved. By collecting answers on these topics, design
criteria will be created at the end of the report suggesting how the perfect transportation solution will
look like for the targeted audience. The goal is to reduce traffic jams which are the main reason cars
produce such a great amount of CO2 pollution.
3.3 Explanation of the research procedure

Primary research has been used to validate or invalidate the findings from the secondary research. In
this type of research, I will be using online surveys, as well as an expert interview. There will be a total
of two surveys because the first one did not validate entirely all the questions I had because of the
unbalanced number of respondents in two of the target groups. The surveys will be named as “Phase
1” and “Phase 2”. Both of them present answers to sub-questions 1 and 2.
13
The data collection was guided by using two semi-structured questionnaires, which were used also to
create questions for the interview with the expert. The data of the questionnaires was collected online
on Google Forms. For the expert interview, a list of questions was prepared to guide the interview
towards the research objectives and the data was recorded on the phone, then written down in words
and inserted in the Appendix.
The sample was developed under discussion by using purposing sampling. The method belongs to the
category of non-probability sampling techniques in which the users are selected regarding to the
relationship to the subject of research. In the current study, the sample members who were selected
had active involvement into commuting.
The target group of the first survey was both employees and students that travel from one city to
another for work or school purposes by car, aged between 18 and 65. Because the first survey collect
mostly responses from students that travelled by public transport, a second survey was needed in
order to collect more answers from employees. Therefore, the second survey was focused on
employees that travel to work from one city to another by car, with ages between 18 and 65. This age
interval was chosen because that it the age that people go to work. Because people use to commute
to the main cities of the country, I was looking for answers from people that are travelling to/from the
Randstad (Amsterdam, Utrecht, Rotterdam, The Hague).
Content analysis was used to analyse the data which was gathered from the online questionnaire. The
collected data was categorized in categories and sub-categories in tables, so as to be able to be
comparable and find patterns which helped drawing conclusions.
The research has some limitations because the respondents of the first survey were not targeted or
focused enough. This makes the target group unclear, which can be seen in the disproportionate
amounts of respondents from people traveling by car and by public transport.
3.4 Research methodology
A. Online Survey - Phase I

The survey was made with Google Forms (goo.gl/GWVWEx) and it collected a total of 124 responses
out of a reach of 2,074 of people who clicked on the link until 25th January 2018. The survey was
published on Facebook groups such as Expats in Utrecht (3.8k members), Expats in Rotterdam (9k
members), Expats Republic Amsterdam (40k members) expaand Expats in The Hague (35k members),
as well as private groups of students from Hogeschool Inholland Network (3k members), Rotterdam
Business School (1k members) and Hogeschool den Haag (1k members). In addition to that, the survey
was also posted on LinkedIn personal page (0.5k followers). The total population size was 93,000
people from the Randstad area. Having collected 124 responses give the research a 95% confidence
level and a 9% margin of error. This was calculated using online calculator from
www.raosoft.com/samplesize.
The questions that have been asked were related to people’s day-to-day travelling patterns from home
to school or work, including how much time they spend travelling, what means of transportation they
choose for and if they travel within the city or to other cities as well. In addition to that, the
respondents were asked to tell why they opted for this travelling method and share positive and
negative impressions about it. The people that owned a car were asked if they are planning to sell it
and how much would they spend for their new car, as well as to say what are the characteristics of a
car that matter the most for them. The drivers were also asked to rate their experience of driving in
the Netherlands. The next stage of the survey was focused on finding out what people think about
14
different types of mobility solutions and what they think that the future will bring in the transportation
industry in the Netherlands, allowing them to also come up with improvements for their current travel
journey.
This survey from phase 1 offers a general view on people travelling in the Netherlands. Even though,
the groups of people presented in it are not equal and results cannot be compared for perfectly
accurate results. Also, the population size is not well defined, as I have answers from people from all
over the country. All in all, it does not have enough respondents in order to have a clear image on a
specific target group, therefore a new research has to be done to explore this group in-depth. As a
result, the next survey has to be designed for people that commute by car from a city to another for
work purposes. I need to make sure to find these people by using the right channels and to come up
with more targeted questions. The good thing about this survey was that I know more about people
travelling by public transport, what they like about it and what needs to be improved. I also found out
more about people driving a car, and despite the low number of respondents, many of the answers
were the same, which means there is some truth in them. Another good thing about this survey was
that it helped at observing what MaaS solutions people would go for which could help at the later
design stage.
The limitations of the first survey was that it did not gather equal amount of answers from both people
that travel by car and those who travel by public transport, so a comparison between these two is not
perfectly viable, but the stand-alone answers are still valuable.
B. Online Survey - Phase II

The second survey was created after collecting data from the first one that gave rise to new hypothesis
and was not specific enough. It was made using Google Forms (https://goo.gl/d2UEyc) and has
collected a total of 61 respondents, from 2,632 clicks. The survey was published on Facebook groups
such as Expats in Utrecht (3.8k members), Expats in Rotterdam (9k members), Expats Republic
Amsterdam (40k members) expaand Expats in The Hague (35k members), leaving out private groups
of students from Hogeschool Inholland Network (3k members), Rotterdam Business School (1k
members) and Hogeschool den Haag (1k members).The total population size was 91,000 people from
the Randstad area. Having collected 61 responses give the research a 95% confidence level and a 12%
margin of error. This was calculated using online calculator from www.raosoft.com/samplesize.
This survey was focused strictly on people that travel by car from one city to another for work. I was
interested to see what time these people need to be at work and what time they leave home in order
to see some patterns. I was also interested in why they chose to travel by car instead of public
transport, and the other way around if applicable. Another aspect worth looking into is if the majority
work in a business center or not, and if they know more colleagues that go on the same route as they
do. The goal of this survey was to collect 50 respondents in one week but and the goal was achieved
with 61 results.
The group of people in the second survey that travel by car (32%) and those who travel by train (43%)
are close to each other, as well as the percentages of employees in each group (82% vs 83%). This
means that the two groups are almost equal and the results obtained can be used to clearly compare
results from one group to another, leading to higher quality results than in the first survey. This survey
had the goal to collect more information about people that travel by car, but also to be more targeted
on employees which travel from one city to another for work. Looking at the short time in which the
survey was conducted (from 14 Jan. to 23 Jan. 2018), the initial goal of gathering 50 people was
surpassed, having 61 responses in the end. Moreover, both groups have almost the same amount of
15
people with that were employees and were mostly working in a business centre. This makes the results
clear to compare between groups. In the second survey.
In order to make sure that the survey is collecting relevant data, I made sure to use validity checks
related to how many people from each group respond. If there way too many people using only public
transportation and very little using the car I would send the survey through different channels to
attract a different audience. Luckily, the channels were good from the beginning and the responses
came almost equal from each side. The sample size was not possible to be calculated because of the
lack of precision of where to find the specific target groups. Moreover, the survey is intended to find
out a general opinion of people using the Dutch transportation system. Anyway, the results obtained
are still valid specifically for the people that gave answers and should not be applied to all the country
without further investigation on a larger sample size with the help of experts.
C. Interview with expert

The first interview was with research expert in urban planning Cornelia Dinca, founder of Sustainable
Amsterdam, a boutique consultancy specialized in transferring Amsterdam-based approaches and
innovations for sustainable and smart urban development internationally. Cornelia is also the
Delegation Lead for Amsterdam Smart City, connecting international delegations to Amsterdam's
innovation ecosystem. The interview was made after finishing the first survey. The interview lasted
30 minutes in an open structure format. The goal of the interview was to find out more about the
mobility sector in the Netherlands, latest trends and developments from an urban planning side.
The second interview was with Luca Takacs, master student working on her thesis on smart mobility
solutions, doing her research in Amsterdam. She investigated factors that people take into
consideration when choosing their way of transportation, such as weather, money, comfort etc. The
interview lasted 15 minutes on the phone.
3.4 Changes to initial research plan

The central research question stated in the graduation project plan has been changed as a result of a
exploring the real problem I am trying to solve. Initially the accent was put on how blockchain
technology can be used to create a sustainable mobility ecosystem, but now I removed the blockchain
from the central question and consider it as part of a possible solution for the implementation stage,
as I consider that blockchain is nothing else than a safe digital network to send and record information.
This being mentioned, the central question on which I have conducted the online survey was “How
might Roteb Lease contribute to a sustainable mobility ecosystem that benefits the citizens of
Rotterdam who want to drive a car, while meeting the needs of a growing population?”
The plan was to go on the streets of Rotterdam and interview people which were in the target group
mentioned in the previous document, and based on that to create an online survey where I can validate
the qualitative interviews with quantitative ones. Designing an online survey was the most efficient
way to reach a large number of people in a short amount of time, compared to individual interviews on
the street, where many of the time the people asked would not be from the target audience. With
online surveys, only people that are interested and feel part of the target group are going to fill in,
resulting in a more efficient approach. The survey gathered information about what people think about
the transportation system in the Netherlands, which makes it easy to focus on the biggest problem
that people had in common in the design stage. As a consequence, the part from the central question
“benefiting citizens of Rotterdam” has changed to “benefiting Dutch citizens”.
16
The target group was not limited only to people that drive a car – even though they are polluting the
most and I wanted to stop that - because I wanted to see what other groups of people are experiencing
while travelling in the country, which could maybe give me insights for a new and even more important
problem that needs to be solved.
Another argument for this change is to collect information of what people like about the transportation
system, in order to use the characteristics for designing a future mobility solution. Moreover, I didn’t
want to limit the research to Rotterdam, as there are many cities in the Netherlands and maybe I could
find a pattern between them, and because of the lack of groups on the Internet where I could find
mostly people that live in that city.
The downside of this is that there must be a more specific follow up on this survey with another one
that is more specific on a target group. The central question did not change due to what was mentioned
here but made the focus of the research broader than specifically needed for the central question.
This extended the target group to people of all ages that use a variety of means of transport. The
reason for this change is to be able to select from a diverse target group when drawing up conclusions
and if applicable, to come up with patterns that can help at finding the right problem and help further
at the design stage.
While conducting more desk research in the Dutch Mobility Report 2016, I have found out that the
main reason for growing car use is not due to population growth as I believed, but to an increase in
the number of kilometers for commuting from home to work. Therefore, the part from the central
question “while meeting the needs of a growing population” has changed to “while meeting the needs
of people commuting to work”. In conclusion, the final central question of this research is: “How might
Roteb Lease contribute to an attractive mobility solution for people that drive alone to work in a
different city, while reducing traffic congestion and being environmentally-friendly?”.
17
4. Results
General overview
In the first survey, the majority of respondents (47%) were aged between 18-24 years old, followed by
25% of people aged 25-31, and 16% people aged 31-37. Other 10% are equally divided into three
groups between 37-51(+from 5 to 5 years), one respondent in the 56-60 group, and one above the age
of 61. In terms of primary traveling preferences from all respondents, there are mostly people who
travel by bike (42%) and those who travel by public transport (41%), followed by people choosing for
motorbikes/scooters (10.6%) and only a small amount choosing the car (5.6%). It is worth mentioning
that 19.4% from the survey own a car, but only 5.6% use it to go to work or school. Moreover, 5.6%
always use the bike and nothing else, while 1.6% use the car and nothing else.
In the second survey, there were collected 61 responses from a total of 3,624 clicks on the link starting
14th January until 21st January 2018. Most of them were employees (83.6%), then students (11.5%) and
self-employed (1.6%). Most of the respondents travel by train (43%), followed by car (32%), and the
rest use a combination of bus, metro, tram, and bike.
Sub-question 1: What are the behaviour and attitudes of people regarding commuting by
public transport?
Phase I – Public transport
Out of 124 respondents, almost everyone (92.7%) is using public transportation at least 1 time a week,
so they have experience with using the service. 67% said to use it in order to travel in the same city,
while 33% using it for going in a different city. 70% of the people spend travelling less than 45 minutes,
while the other 29% spends from 45 minutes to 2 hours, and only 1% spends more than 2 hours.
In regards of travel options, most of them use a combination of train and bus (16.7%), followed by bus
(15.8%), train (11.4%) and tram (9.6%). Almost half of them (49.6%) use the services 1-2 times a week,
21% use it 4-5 times a week, 16% use it 3-4 times a week, and 13.3% use it 6-7 times a week
18
Commuter’s attitudes on public transport
The total number of people that used public transport (92.7%) were asked to rate this service from 1
to 5, with 5 being the highest. Most of the people rated from 4 or 5 (47.5%), then 36% gave it a 3, and
16.6% rated it with 1.
Most of the people (18.4%) like that public transportation is reliable/on time, followed by comfortable
(12%), good connections (7.9%), free Wi-Fi (7.9%), small distance from stop to destination (7%),
cleanliness (6%), OV-chipkaart (5.3%), real-time traffic info (3.5%), and other reasons (26.3%).
On the other hand, most of the people (19%) are annoyed by the price being too expensive, not
enough space in trains (16%), cancellations. (15%), not quiet in rush hours (8.8%), delays (8.8%), not
enough connections (6%), not enough buses at night (4.4%), and other (22%).
19
Public transport as primary commuting mobility solution to a different city
From to total respondents, 42% of respondents said they use public transport as primary mobility
solution, in which 59% were travelling in a different city, and 41% in the same city. The time spent
travelling for people going to a different city was between 1h and 1h30 for half of them (50%),
followed by 45 minutes to 1 hour (27%) and 30 to 45 minutes (18%). Most of them (29%) choose a
combination of train and bus, followed by people that travel only by train (26%), a combination of 3
or more between train, tram, metro, bus, car (16%), followed by bus (13%), a combination of metro,
bus (6.5%) and one of train and metro (6.5%). Almost half of them (46%) use public transport 4-5
times a week, followed by more than a quarter (27%) that use it 6-7 times a week, followed by 23%
with 3-4 times, and 4% with 1-2 times.
Public transport as primary commuting mobility solution within the same city
On the other hand, 70% of people traveling within the city spend between 1 and 30 minutes to get
where they want, with only a few travelling 30 minutes or more (30%). In terms of preferences, the
majority use a combination of at least two of the following options: train, metro, tram, and bus (45%),
followed by bus (25%), tram (20%), and metro (10%).
20
Phase II – Public transport
For most of the people who travel by

public transport, travelling by train
(72%) is their first choice, followed by
people that use different combinations
of bus, tram, train and bikes (28%). The
majority of this group consists of
employees (83%) and students (17%).
In terms of justifying their choice of
public transportation, the opinions are
mixed, with the majority choosing for
convenience (30%), not having a car
(20%), to work in the train (20%),
because it’s the fastest (20%) and in
order to avoid traffic jams (10%). Most of them (61%) work in a business center, while more than a
quarter (28%) go to the city center.
When people who travel by public transport were asked what is the most important thing while
travelling to/from work, most of them (64%) said that to be on time is highly important, while 19%
said working on their laptop is most important, followed by people that want to have a quiet place
of their own (14%) and even one respondent (2.8%) said that socializing is the most important aspect
of his journey.
When asked what they would like to

do while traveling with public
transport, a large number said they
would do nothing else (36%), but the
rest of them wanted to do a variety of
things. The same amount of people
said they want to be able to work
(14%), to charge their electronics (14%)
and to have where to sit during rush
hours (14%). Others wanted to have
good Wi-Fi (8%), to be able to sleep
(8%) and even to do workout (5.6%).
One thing that almost half of the

people (47%) are annoyed about is the
delays and cancellations of their train
or bus. The second largest group (33%)
complained about the train being
overcrowded and not having a place to
sit. Some other people complained
about waiting (8%), wasting time
(5.6%), noise (2.8%) and not being able
to concentrate and work (2.8%).
21
The time spent traveling with public transport differs and is split into three main categories. The first
category (39%) is with people that spend 45 minutes to 1 hour, the second (33%) is between 1 hour
and 1 hour and 30 minutes, and the third (22%) is with people that spend from 1 hour and a half to 2
hours. Only 6% spend around 30 to 45 minutes.
When asked if they are willing to spend 30 minutes more if able to work in proper conditions, only
one quarter (25%) agreed with this option. What is interesting to see is that more than half (57%) of
the people that declared working on their laptop as their most important thing while travelling
responded positively, in comparison with only a quarter (26%) of the people who chose “to be on
time” as their priority.
Looking at the time when people want to arrive at work, the largest group (39%) consists of
people arriving at nine o’clock in the morning, the second group (28%) arrive at half past eight,
and the rest of them arrive at half past nine (14%) and ten o’clock (14%). When it comes to
leaving work, most of them (37%) leave at half past five in the afternoon or six o’clock (16%).
Others leave at five o’clock (10%), half past four (10%) and eight o’clock (10%).
When asked if they know some other people

that have the same route as they do, more
than half (55.6%) said they don’t, while almost
a quarter (22.2%) said they know one person.
Other groups are smaller, knowing 3 persons
(8.3%), 4 persons (5.6%), 2 persons (5.6%) and
one respondent (2.8%) who knew 15 persons
going the same way as him.
22
Sub-question 2
What are the behaviour and attitudes of people regarding commuting by car?
Phase I – Driving a car

26% of the people that own a car are in the 18-24
age group, followed by 21% in the 45-50 on the
second place, 17% are in the 31-35 group
occupying the third place, 13% for those in the 25-
30 age group on the fourth place, groups 41-45 and
36-40 occupy the fifth place with 8.7%, and over 61
years old occupies the last place with 4.3%.
(Detailed pie charts can be found in the Appendix.)
Almost half of them (49%) drive the car 1-2 times a

week, followed by 3-4 times (26%), 6-7 times (22%),
and 4-5 times (4.3%). 62% of them do not want to
sell their car, while 19% think of doing so after 3-5
years from purchasing.
When asked how much they enjoy driving in the

Netherlands, a quarter gave an 8 out of 10 as a
grade, another quarter gave a 7, followed by 21%
with a 5, 16% with a 9, 8% with a 6, and 4% with a 3.
71% of the people like the good quality of roads and
good road network, followed by 8% of people who
like that they can obtain real-time information
about traffic, and others (12%). When asked what
they don’t like about driving, 54% complain about
traffic jams, 14% complain about parking, 16%
complain about low speed limits, and others (13%)
Their main reasons to own a car is for

leisure/travelling, expressed by 48% of the people,
followed by both leisure and business/work by 39%,
while only 13% used the car specifically for business
or work. The main reasons for choosing the car
instead of other means of transportation is for
comfort (33%), flexibility (25%), faster (21%),
convenience (12%), and family time (8%).
Phase II – Driving a car

Out of the total respondents, 52.5% of them own a
car, but only half of them (50%) choose to travel to work by car. The rest of them travel by train
(34.4%), by a combination of bus and metro/train (9.4%), and those who travel exclusively by bike
(6.3%). Most of the people who drive a car to work are employees (82.4%).
23
There are three main reasons to go by car are: faster than train (27.8%), flexibility (22.2%) and
convenience (22.2%). Only 11% said because it’s comfortable, efficient (5.6%) or paid by employer
(5.6%). A large majority of people that drive a car go to work in a business center (70.6%) and only a
few (11.8%) go for the city center.
When people who own a car were asked

what the most important thing is while
travelling to/from work, the majority
(69%) responded to be on time, while 19%
said to have a quiet place of their own, and
only 6% said that being able to work on
their laptop is most important. When the
same group was asked what they would
like to do instead of driving, most of them
(31%) responded they would like to read
(including emails), a quarter of them (25%)
wished to be able to work and be
productive, while also a quarter (25%) said
there is nothing else they would like to do.
One thing that most of the drivers (69%)

agree upon is that traffic jams and
unforeseen delays are the most
annoying things that can happen,
followed by having no time to work
(12.5%), being annoyed by other drivers
(12.5%) and only 6% said there is nothing
they want to complain about. When
asked how to be improve their driving
experience, the most of them (37.5%) had
nothing to say about that, while many
other people (31%) wished for no traffic,
24
almost 19% wished to leave home after the busy times, and 12.5% said working from home would
be their best solution.
The time spent by most of the people (41%) that

drive their car to work spent around 30-45 minutes
to get there, while more than a quarter (29%) are
used to drive for 45 minutes and up to an hour. Only
a few (17.6%) spend between 1h and 1h30, and
even less people (6%) spend between 1h30 and 2h.
When asked if they would accept to travel 30
minutes more if they would be able to work on their
laptop in proper conditions, more than a quarter
(31%) responded positively, while the rest of them
(69%) declined the offer.
Looking at the times people that drive by car have

to be at work, most of them (35.7%) said they start
work at half past eight, while the second largest
group (28.6%) said nine o’clock. Moreover, almost
half of them (40%) said they leave work at half past
five in the afternoon, and more than a quarter
(26.7%) said to leave at five o’clock. The third largest
group (13.3%) said to start heading home at six
o’clock.
When asked if they know colleagues that have the

same route as they do, a little over half (56%) said
they do not know anyone, a quarter (25%) said they
know one colleague, and three other people (6.3%
each) said they know each 2, 3 and respectively 6
other colleagues going on the same route.
Sub-question 3
Interview with expert 1

The interview with research expert in urban planning Cornelia Dinca, founder of Sustainable
Amsterdam, a boutique consultancy specialized in transferring Amsterdam-based approaches and
innovations for sustainable and smart urban development internationally. Cornelia is also the
Delegation Lead for Amsterdam Smart City, connecting international delegations to Amsterdam's
innovation ecosystem. The interview was made after finishing the first survey. The interview lasted
30 minutes in an open structure format.
Cornelia’s advice was that it was better to target commuters using a personal or company car for trips
of less than 30kms and I ask them to evaluate their interest in services such as Toogethr, Urbee or
public transport. Alternatively, I could have also target companies and ask them if they do anything to
support their employees shifting to these kinds of mobility services. These are some ways to make my
25
research more focused and manageable, as it is right now it is a bit of everything which makes it
difficult to extract key points from the data.
Another approach that she suggested me was to target users of public transport and evaluate
opportunities to improve their experience (to avoid that they shift from public transport to
driving). She gave me the example of the 40% korting during peak times that works really well (when
this option was introduced it helped shift peak time travel by ~22%). In other cities in NL (or in other
countries, maybe in Seoul) they have a similar system where they try to deter students from traveling
on their (free) pass during peak times by giving them points for traveling off peak. Users can redeem
the points as transport credit or to buy coffee or other things at stations/ participating shops. She
suggested if I could think of a situation where you gain points when travelling off peak time, and you
can use these points to sometimes travel in 1st class.
When asked about the companies’ attitudes, Cornelia told me that what is much more sensible in NL
is for employers to subsidize public transport passes for their employees and to take advantage of
other programs available for example through beterbenutten.nl. The program aims to improve
mobility during "spits" (peak times). On the website there are various types of projects per themes,
for instance companies can take advantage of subsidies to let employees try electric bikes. She thinks
this works really well.
The interview ended with a short advice on how to continue my research paper, suggesting that I
should try to avoid focusing on topics which are too technical /outside my sphere of expertise. This is
why it seems to me more appropriate that I focus on an existing solution and research barriers to
upscaling it, for example Toogethr, Urbee or others.“
Interview with expert 2

Luca Takacs is a master student on mobility at the MOME University Budapest, currently doing her
internship in Amsterdam and working on her thesis on mobility solutions inside the city.
Luca told me that from her research she sees in Amsterdam that the MaaS services like MobilityMixx
are not really used yet. However, people use services like Uber very often in the city. Bike sharing in
Amsterdam is not popular, because everybody has their own bike, and according to her results, in
Amsterdam bikes are the first choice when people choose mobility types.
When asked about the factors behind people’s travel choices, her results said that weather, travel
distance and money are the most important. Luca thinks that money is important because mostly
young people answered her questions. But these factors are important to people who usually go by
bike so these factors could be different to people who usually go by car. Moreover, sustainability is
not that important as she thought it will be, neither personal mood nor comfort.
Sub-question 4
This section is divided into two target groups: people that do not own a car (80.6%) and people that
own a car (19.4%). The reason behind this classification is that people that have a car might choose for
different responses than those who do not have one and it could be interesting to see where the
differences are. For the detailed view of the responses go to Appendix 1. There were six different
mobility solutions presented (car sharing; car-pooling; ride sharing; lift sharing; car club; hitch-hiking),
with a scale from one (least interested) to five (most interested) to choose from, depending on their
likelihood to use that service. The description of each MaaS solution can be seen in the Appendix
26
Table 1: Preferences in types of mobility-as-a-service solutions
Own a car
(19.4%) Not own a car (80.6%) Together (100%)
Total
responde
nts
=124
Most preferred
(R4+R5)
Top1 Car pooling 54% Car polling 48% Car pooling 49%
Top2 Lift sharing 39% Lift sharing 38% Ride sharing 37.4%
Top3 Car sharing 39% Car sharing 32% Lift sharing 36.9%
Top4 Ride sharing 29.2% Ride sharing 29% Car sharing 33%
Top5 Car club 29.1% Car club 27% Car club 28%
Top6 Hitch-hiking 4.2% Hitch-hiking 11% Hitch-hiking 6.5%
Least preferred
(R1+R2)
Lowest1 Hitch-hiking 92% Hitch-hiking 83% Hitch-hiking 83%
Lowest2 Car sharing 52% Car club 45% Car club 43%
Lowest3 Lift sharing 47% Car sharing 40% Car sharing 42%
Lowest4 Ride sharing 46% Lift sharing 35.5% Ride sharing 37.4%
Lowest5 Car pooling 37% Ride sharing 35.4% Lift sharing 37%
Lowest6 Car club 33% Car pooling 31% Car pooling 30%
In-between
(R3)
Medium1 Car club 37.5% Lift sharing 28.3% Car club 29.3%
Medium 2 Ride sharing 25% Car club 27.3% Lift sharing 25.4%
Medium 3 Car sharing 13% Car sharing 26.3% Ride sharing 25.2%
Medium 4 Lift sharing 13% Ride sharing 25.3% Car sharing 23.8%
Medium 5 Car pooling 8.3% Car pooling 23.2% Car pooling 20.3%
Medium 6 Hitch-hiking 4.2% Hitch-hiking 7.1% Hitch-hiking 16.5%
Note: Looking at the In-between section we can see the amount of people who were neutral to the
type of mobility-as-a-service. The higher the percentage means that there are more people in that
MaaS category uncertain of their choice. This could be because they did not understand clearly what
the solution is about, or simply they don’t really care about joining that type of solution or not. It is
interesting to see what they think of that solution and how should the solution improve to meet their
preferences.
27
Table 2: Reasoning for choosing MaaS instead of traditional transportation
Own a car
(19.4%) Not own a car (80.6%) Together (100%)
Total
responde
nts
=124
Most preferred (R4+R5)
Top1 Faster than 31.8% Faster than 34% Faster than 33.6%
public public public
transport transport transport
Cheaper Cheaper
Top2 than 22.7% Cheaper 34% than 31.1%
driving your than public public
own car transport transport
Cheaper Cheaper
Top3 than 18.2% Cheaper 10.3% than 12.6%
public than driving driving your
your own
transport car own car
Top4 Faster than 4.5% Eco-friendly 5.2% Faster than 2.5%
driving your driving your
private car private car
Top5 Other 22.7% Other 14.4% Other 20.2%
Faster than 2.1%
driving your
private car
28
5. Discussion
This section will discuss upon the results and offer a deeper understanding of what they mean in
order to make a clear image of how they can help to answer the central question of the research.
The discussion section will be divided into each sub-question of the research, and in the end there
will be a short conclusion followed by recommendations.
This first survey conveyed the overall impression of people travelling in the Netherlands. The goal is
to reduce traffic congestion; therefore the focus should be on cars, but the respondents were mostly
bikers and public transport users. I’ve decided to continue with it in order to collect data about
general insights about travelling experiences of people in the Netherlands, as well as to hear their
opinion about different MaaS solutions.
42% of the respondents chose getting to school or work by bike, and 46% of the respondents were
aged between 18 and 24 years old. This makes me think that most of the people that answered going
by bike were students, as the survey was distributed in four different university groups. The second
largest group in terms of age were people between 25-30 years old in proportion of 24%, which I
believe are employees. I did not give the option for people to choose whether they are students or
something else, which would have been useful.
Discussion on Sub-question 1
What are the aspects people like and dislike about travelling by public transportation?
After bikes, the second method of transportation is public transport, with 41% popularity. Talking
about public transportation, there are almost 3 times more people that give a rating above 3 than the
ones that give a rating below 3. Only 7.3% of the people did not use this transportation service, and
42% said this is their main way of getting to school or work.
Overall, people like that the system is reliable (18.4%) and comfortable (12%). On the other hand,
the dislikes of some people are about the price being too expensive (19%), that there is not enough
space in trains during rush hours (16%), and cancellations (15%).
People that chose public transportation as their primary solution tend to travel more to another city
(59%) than within the city (41%). The ones who travel within the city use a combination of at least
two means of transportation, followed by bus (25%), tram (20%), and metro (10%). For the ones who
travel to another city, the most preferred option is a combination of train and bus (29%), followed by
people that only travel by train (26%).
In regards to time spent commuting, 70% of people spend less than 45 minutes in public transport
and most of them travel inside the city. The other 30% spends between 45 minutes and two hours
and usually travel in a different city. In general, people spend more time travelling by public
transport than by car.
Public transportation is seen very well in the Netherlands, with 3 times more people satisfied about it
than not. They like it because it’s reliable and comfortable. On the other hand, many of them think it
is too expensive and are annoyed because of the lack of space during rush hour, as well as cancellations
and delays that make them miss their other connection. There are more respondents that use public
transportation for moving inside the city for shorter distances, and less people traveling outside the
city for longer durations. My assumption is that more people use their car for business/work purpose
for long distances than public transport. More information is needed for that in order to validate. Other
29
things that people in the train complain about are related to waiting (8%) and wasting time (5.6%),
meaning that they might like to do something productive instead. The other two complains are related
to each other and are about noise (2.8%) and not being able to work and concentrate (2.8%).
When talking about public transportation, the results show that there are three times more people
that give it a positive grade than the ones who rate it negatively. We found out that people that go
by public transport complain about delays and cancellations the most.
What are the behaviour and attitudes of people regarding commuting by car?
When looking at people driving in the Netherlands, the majority of responses were given by people
aged 18-24 and 45-51. Almost half of them drive the car only 1-2 times a week and more than half do
not wish to sell their car in the future. Almost half of the people use the car only for leisure/travelling.
It is worth mentioning that 19.4% from the survey own a car, but only 5.6% of them use the car every
day to go to work or school. This means that other means of transportation are more attractive for
them to go to work, and they use the car for leisure purposes, as the pie charts also describes.
People who drive by car seem to spend on total less time travelling than people in public transport. A
large number of people driving by car arrive at destination in 30-45 minutes (41%), while with public
transport the largest part (39%) arrives in 45 minutes to 1 hour.
Half of the people rated the experience of driving in the country from 7 to 8 in equal measure. Almost
three quarters appreciate the quality of the roads and solid road network as most important factor
for their grading, while slightly more than a half consider traffic jams to be the worst problem. The
first three reasons for people liking to drive a car are comfort (33%), flexibility (25%) and faster than
public transport (21%).
On the other hand, more than half are complaining about traffic jams in rush hours. When asked what
else people would like to do while driving, they wanted a car where they would have their own quiet
space to work, read, or write. That would save them from getting annoyed in traffic from other drivers
or traffic jams, the latest being the main problem for more than half of the people from the survey.
What measures are being taken for the transition towards sustainable mobility in the
Netherlands?
The expert interview helped me when I thought that the direction I took was one too broad and I
needed some advice on how to continue in order to come up with a more specific attitude, and also
to find out what she thinks of the mobility topic in the Netherlands. Cornelia advised me to look into
commuting patterns of people traveling to work from one city to another by car. This helped me
narrow down the topic and come closer to a problem of a specific target audience. She also offered
me information about current MaaS solutions and introduced me to the developments in the B2B
mobility environment and company implications. As a result, the second survey was advertised in the
same groups as before, excepting the student organization groups and schools. Moreover, I hear about
new MaaS solutions and programs which I didn’t know before, as well as what other initiatives
happened in the past in order to reduce traffic jams. Here I am talking about the ‘daluren’, providing
40% discount for people traveling off-peak hours. I will take this into consideration in the design
30
ideation of the concept. Also, I will use the other companies like Toogethr and Urbee as inspiration for
ideation.
The second interview with expert on mobility, Luca Takacs, showed me what people think and how
they use actual MaaS in Amsterdam. MobilityMixx, a service that uses the OV-chipkaart to pay for
renting a car or bike, as well as travelling by public transport, is not used that much said Luca. This is
mostly because she collected responses from people travelling mostly by bike, which is the most
preferred choice in Amsterdam. On the other side, Uber is being used heavily especially when going
out and not to work. Sustainability is not important when people choose how to travel, neither
personal mood, weather nor comfort. Besides this, money plays an important role when deciding how
to travel. Again, the responses are from people travelling mostly by bike and might be different for
people travelling by public transport. What I am taking out of this for my report is that people that go
by bike find the money aspect and efficiency more important than sustainability or their comfort.
The most preferred option for both groups is car-pooling. Lift-sharing is on the second place for both
groups, followed by car sharing on the third place, also for both of them. The least preferred solution
for both groups is hitch-hiking, the rest of the rankings being different in a group from another. The
order from the Together column are different because of the high number of in-between responses of
each category.
In the second table, both groups responded they would prefer a MaaS solution that is faster than public
transport. On the second place for the people that own a car is to have a solution cheaper than driving
their own car, while people that don’t own a car want cheaper public transportation. A surprising result
from the group of public transport is that 5% of the people said they want an eco-friendly solution as
their main reason of choosing a MaaS, even though this option was not an option for them to choose
from.
These results are helpful because it helps me understand what type of MaaS solution people are most
willing to use, not willing to use and in-between. It would be interesting to see the people that are in-
between for certain MaaS can be influenced to move one way or another. This question will be asked
later in the design stage in order to create a solution that offers many attractive options for a large
group of people with different preferences, as well as knowing what people don’t like and how the
concept should not be designed.
What are the similarities in behaviour and attitudes of people regarding commuting by car
and public transport?
The people that go by car complain mostly about traffic and delays (69%), while people that go by
public transport also complain about delays and cancellations (47%). This means that being on time,
or at least at the time planned at a certain location is very important, aspect that can be also seen at
the high number of people that chose “to be on time” as the most important aspect of their travel
journey (69% vs 64%).
Other than that, the second most important issues that both groups have is people with cars don’t
have time to work (12.5%), while people in trains don’t have where to sit because it’s overcrowded
31
(33%). These are two problems for which we can come up with new mobility solutions and have a high
certainty that people would like to use them.
Interesting enough, both groups said in equal measure (44%) that they know at least one person that
have the same route to work and home as they do. This is a good clue to think of the design stage,
where if we convince one person to use a mobility service, he could match up with a friend and go
together.
When asking both groups if they would like to travel 30 minutes more if they would have the
conditions to work properly on their laptop, the results were close between them (31% people by car;
25% people by train). This still means an average of 28% of people willing to go for this option. Even
though, the percentage of those who agree with the option is even higher for the people who chose
as most important thing while travelling to work on their laptop (57%), in comparison to the people
who chose being on time (26%). What we can learn from this is that people who really want to work
while travelling are willing to spend 30 minutes more if they would have the proper conditions. This is
another important aspect to take into consideration for the design stage.
32
Final conclusions
What we found out from the first survey and is useful in formulating the design criteria are details
about people’s preferences in terms of commuting and mobility-as-a-service. Almost a half of
respondents were aged between 18-24 years old, followed by a quarter of people aged 25-30. The
people between 18 and 24 years old were not asked if they were students or employees, but we can
only assume they were students, and for the other ones we can assume they were employees. Both
groups of people (travelling by public transport and by car) responded that the most interesting MaaS
options for them are car-pooling on the first place, lift sharing on the second place and car-sharing on
the third place. More than that, both groups agreed that the MaaS should be faster than public
transport. On the second place, people that own a car want it to be cheaper than driving their car,
while the other group want a cheaper solution than public transport.
The problem of more than half of the drivers is traffic jams in the rush hour. The first three reasons for
people liking to drive a car are comfort, flexibility and faster than public transport. When talking about
public transportation, the results show that there are three times more people that give it a positive
grade than the ones who rate it negatively. Overall, people like that the system is reliable and
comfortable. On the other hand, the dislikes of some people are about the price being too expensive,
that there is not enough space in trains during rush hours, and cancellations. The limitations of the
first survey was that it did not gather equal amount of answers from both people that travel by car
and those who travel by public transport, so a comparison between these two is not perfectly viable,
but the stand-alone answers are still valuable.
The second survey had almost equal number of respondents in each group (32% vs 43%) which was
not achieved in the first survey. Moreover, both groups have almost the same amount of people with
that were employees and were mostly working in a business centre. This makes the results clear to
compare between groups. We found out that people that go by public transport complain about delays
and cancellations the most, and both groups of people seen as most important thing of their journey
to be on time at the destination. The second biggest frustration of people travelling with public
transport and by car is the unavailability to work. There were more complains from the side of people
travelling by public transport, such as there is no place to charge their electronics, neither they have a
quiet space where they can relax or concentrate on other things such as writing, reading a book or
going through emails. Looking at the time spent by both groups, people who drive by car seem to
spend on total less time travelling than people in public transport but it is unclear if that is because of
the shorter distances they travel or faster routes. Almost half from both groups responded that they
know at least one person that goes the same direction as them. Looking at both groups combined, a
quarter of them agreed to spend 30 minutes more if they would be able to work in proper conditions
on their laptops. The results were even higher for the people that said that working on their laptop is
the most important aspect of their journey.
33
6. Recommendations & design criteria
Having gathered all these data makes it possible to answer to the research question, “What are the
characteristics of a sustainable means of transportation that combines both benefits of travelling by
car and public transport for passengers, while reducing traffic congestion caused commuters from a
city to another for work in rush hours?”
Conform to our results, the first ingredient to an attractive mobility solution is to be faster than public
transport. Then, it could take on of these different forms of mobility-as-a-service: car-pooling, lift
sharing or car sharing. One aspect that is important for the target group is to be on time, and the most
annoying things are the delays from their schedule, therefore a better mobility solution should be
always on time.
I will also use the suggestions from Cornelia Dinca to focus on an existing MaaS solution and research
barriers to upscale it, rather than to create an entire new concept. One more useful advice that I will
take into consideration is to focus on a solution that can be used by employers to subsidize travelling
of their employees if they choose a more sustainable option, in collaboration with Betterbenutten
program. The last advice I will take from Cornelia in the design stage is to think if I can create a MaaS
solution which rewards people for travelling in off-peak times.
The perfect solution should combine the comfort, flexibility and speed of driving a car with the
reliability and comfort of public transport.
Moreover, the new solution should offer commuters the chance to work on their laptop while
travelling, in a quiet environment, or at least be able to have a space of their own in which to
concentrate on other things.
If this condition could be met, people are even willing to spend more time commuting, making it easier
for the new mobility solution to respect its schedule including in its time a margin for unforeseen
delays.
Last but not least, the solution should be designed to fit more than two people and up to 6 people,
while being designed to carry and bring along people that travel on the same route. In order to make
this service work, there needs to be designed an app for users and drivers.
Looking back at the literature review at the trends section, it can be seen that autonomous vehicles
will become fully commercialized in 2030 and only after that a truly profitable MaaS will take place.
This aspect is important when thinking to create a project that will also be successful not only short
term, but on the long term also. It is also important to consider the availability of technology such as
Vehicle2Grid, Smart Parking and Connected cities through Internet of Things.
34
References
Anten, N. (2017). Connekt Innitiatives. Published on November 2016. Retrieved on 10 March 2018,
from https://www.connekt.nl/en/initiatieven
Bates, J., Polak, J., Jones, P., Cook, A., (2001). The valuation of reliability for personal travel.
Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 37 (2), 191–229.
Batley, R., Dargay, J., Wardman, M., (2011). The impact of lateness and reliability on passenger rail
demand. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review 47 (1), 61 – 72.
Carreno, M., & Welsch., J. (2009). MaxSem: Max Self-Regulation Model: Applying theory to the
design and evaluation of Mobility Management projects.
Carrion, C., Levinson, D., (2012). Value of travel time reliability: A review of current evidence.
Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 46 (4), 720–741.
Currie, G., (2010). Quick and effective solution to rail overcrowding. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2146, 35–42.
De Palma, A., Kilani, M., Proost, S., (2013). Discomfort in mass transit and its implication for
scheduling and pricing
Forbes (2017). How electric cars could help the power grid become more efficient and less expensive
Published on 5 October 2017. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from
https://www.forbes.com/sites/constancedouris/2017/10/05/how-electric-cars-could-help-the-
power-grid-become-more-efficient-less-expensive/#5758de47121e
Jenelius, E., Mattsson, L.-G., Levinson, D., (2011).Traveler delay costs and value of time with trip
chains, flexible activity scheduling and information. Transportation Research Part B:
Methodological 45 (5), 789–807.
Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid (2017). Kerngegevens mobiliteit, Mobiliteitsbeeld 2017
Karlsson, M., Sochor, J., Aapaoja, A., Eckhardt, J., & König, D. (2017). Deliverable 4: Impact Assessment.
MAASiFiE project funded by CEDR. Retrieved from
http://www.vtt.fi/sites/maasifie/PublishingImages/results/CEDR_Mobility_MAASIFIE_Del
iverable_4_Revised_Final.pdf
Milieu Centraal (2017). Carpoolen: goed voor het milieu. Published on January 2017. Retrieved on 10
March 2018, from https://www.milieucentraal.nl/duurzaam-vervoer/autokeuze-en-gebruik/auto-
delen/carpoolen/
MaaS Alliance (2016). What is Maas Alliance. Published on n.d. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from
https://maas-alliance.eu/homepage/what-is-maas/
Netherlands Enterprise Agency (2017). Electric transport in the Netherlands 2016
highlights. Electromobility in the Netherlands, RVO-024-1701/JV-DUZA.
Next Future Transportation. (2017). Published on n.d. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from
http://www.next-future-mobility.com/
NS (2017). Parkeer Reis, Deur tot deur, NS. Published on n.d. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from
https://www.ns.nl/deur-tot-deur/consumenten/q-park-p-r.html
Peer, S., Knockaert, J., & Varhoep, E. T. (2016). Train commuters’ scheduling preferences: Evidence
from a large-scale peak avoidance experiment. Transportation Research Part B:
Methodological, 83, 314-333. doi:10.1016/j.trb.2015.11.017
Pieters, J. (2017). New dutch government's plans for the coming years. NL Times. Published on 10
October 2017. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from https://nltimes.nl/2017/10/10/new-dutch-
governments-plans-coming-years
35
Politis, I., Papaioannou, P., & Basbas, S. (2012). Integrated choice and latent variable models for
evaluating flexible transport mode choice. Research in Transportation Business and Management, 3,
24–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2012.06.007
Preston, J., Wall, G., Batley, R., Ib´a˜nez, J. N., Shires, J., (2009). Impact of delays on passenger train
services. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2117 (1),
14–23.
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change.
American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38–48
Roteb Lease & Rotterdam, G. (2017) .Published on 3 July 2017. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from
https://www.rotterdam.nl/bestuur-organisatie/roteb-lease/
Rotterdam Climate Initiative (2010). Rotterdam Climate Proof. Published on Feb 2010. Retrieved on
10 March 2018, from http://www.rotterdamclimateinitiative.nl/documents/2015-en-
ouder/RCP/English/RCP_ENG_def.pdf
Smith, L. J. (2017). Diesel car tax RISE: NO new car will meet ‘impossible’ Budget tax
exemption. Express. Published on 28 November 2018. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/cars/885266/car-tax-diesel-engines-cars-UK-budget-2017-
increase
Sochor, J., Stromberg, H., & Karlsson, I. C. M. (2015). Implementing Mobility as a Service Challenges in
Integrating User, Commercial, and Societal Perspectives. Transportation Research Record: Journal of
the Transportation Research Board, (2536).
Surender, S., (2018). Why the convergence of new technologies is the future of mobility, Inteligent
transport. Published on 22 Feb 2018. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from
https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-articles/65321/convergence-future-mobility/
TNO (2016). Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Commercial Road Transport. Published on n.d.
Retrieved on 10 March 2018 https://www.tno.nl/en/focus-areas/traffic-
transport/roadmaps/mobility/clean-mobility/reducing-greenhouse-gas-emissions-in-commercial-
road-transport/
Urbee (n.d.) How does Urbee work? Published on n.d. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from
https://urbee.nl/en/how-it-works
Waterstaat, M. V. (2017) Intelligent Transport Systems and Smart Mobility. Published on 4 April
2017. Retrieved on 10 March 2018, from https://www.government.nl/topics/mobility-public-
transport-and-road-safety/mobility/intelligent-transport-systems-and-smart-mobility
36
Appendix
1. Transcript of interview with experts
Cornelia Dinca, MSc Urban Planning, working at AmsterdamSmartCity

Me: “I’ve done a survey with the goal to find more about the problems which people experience with
transportation within the Netherlands, but also it find out what people appreciate about it. Moreover,
I was curious to find out what people think about the future of transportation and about different
MaaS solutions. Would you like to share your opinions about it and give a short feedback?”
Cornelia: “It's great that you could collect so many responses but I'm worried the survey themselves
is not targeted / focused enough. If I was to advise you at an earlier stage I would have suggested you
target commuters using a personal or company car for trips of less than 30kms. I would ask them to
evaluate their interest in services such as Toogethr, Urbee or public transport. Alternatively you could
also target companies and ask them if they do anything to support their employees shifting to these
kinds of mobility services. These are some ways to make your research more focused and
manageable.... As it is right now it is a bit of everything which makes it difficult to extract key points
from the data...”
Me: “Is there another approach you would advise me to follow in order to get a clearer direction of
where the survey is heading?”
Cornelia: “Another approach would be to target users of public transport and evaluate opportunities
to improve their experience (to avoid that they shift from public transport to driving). The 40% korting
during peak times works really well (when this option was introduced it helped shift peak time travel
by ~22%) I think in other cities in NL (or in other countries, maybe in Seoul?) they have a similar system
where they try to deter students from traveling on their (free) pass during peak times by giving them
points for traveling off peak. Users can redeem the points as transport credit or to buy coffee or other
things at stations/ participating shops. Maybe you can think of a situation where you gain points when
travelling off peak time, and you can use these points to sometimes travel in 1st class? I don't know if
this would work - it's just a suggestion.”
Me: “What can you tell me about the role of companies for a sustainable transportation?”
Cornelia: “What is much more common and sensible in NL is for employers to subsidize public
transport passes for their employees and to take advantage of other programs available for example
through beterbenutten.nl. The program aims to improve mobility during "spits" (peak times). You will
see various types of projects per themes, for instance companies can take advantage of subsidies to
let employees try electric bikes. I think this works really well.”
Me: “Do you have any other suggestions for me regarding how to continue the research in a way that
helps me find a problem with a solution that can be prototyped in a short amount of time?”
Cornelia: “I’d say try to avoid that you make the topic too technical /outside your sphere of
expertise. This is why it seems to me more appropriate that you focus on an existing solution and
research barriers to upscaling it, for example Toogethr, Urbee or others.“
Luca Takacks, MSc Mobility Design, MOMA Budapest

Me: Hi Luca, can you tell me what did you find out from your research by now regarding
MaaS in the Netherlands?
37
Luca: My research has 2 component, 1 about people in Amsterdam, and 1 in Budapest. What
I can see in Amsterdam that the MaaS services in Amsterdam like MobilityMixx are not really
used yet. However they use services like Uber very often in the city. And of course bike
sharing in Amsterdam is not popular, because everybody has their own bike. And according
to my result in Amsterdam this is the number 1 choice when people choose mobility type.
Me: Do you know why people choose to travel like they do? What are some factors to
consider?
Luca: The factors behind their travel choices: weather, travel distance and money are the
most important. (I think money is important because mostly young people answered my
questions). But these factors are important to people who usually go by bike so I think these
factors could be different to people who usually go by car. Maybe you should research that.
Sustainability is not that important as I thought it will be, neither personal mood nor
comfort. It is about what is the most effective way of travel to them.
2. Transportation landscape in the Netherlands

Overview of social costs disruptions on the railways
Between 2005 and 2016 there is a clear decline in all traffic emissions, except for CO 2.
38
3. Mobility-as-a-Service (MaaS) definitions
Car sharing The practice of sharing a car with strangers for regular travelling, especially
for commuting, through a matching service (like uberPool, Liftshare...)
Car pooling A group of people who travel together, especially to work or school, usually
in a different member’s car each day.
Ride Car service with which a person uses a smartphone app to arrange a ride in a
sharing usually privately owned vehicle.
Lift sharing Sharing a ride with someone who needs one when you’re going that way
anyway
Car club An organisation that owns cars which members can rent for a fee, with hourly
rate, and sometimes with a membership fee
Hitch- To travel by standing on the side of the road and soliciting rides from passing
hiking vehicles.
4. Phase 1 Survey Template
39
40
41
42
43
5. Phase 2 Survey Template
44
6. Phase 1 Survey Answers
General overview
Driving a car
45
Public transportation: As a main option
46
For both groups together
47
7. Phase 2 Survey Answers
General overview
People that drive by car
48
49
Travel by Public transport
50
51

Research Report - Mobility in The Netherlands

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Research Report - Mobility in The Netherlands

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Exploring sustainable mobility alternatives to reduce

traffic congestion for commuting employees that

Tudor Mihai, 547599

Keywords: Commuting; Public transport; Mobility-as-a-Service; Rush hour; Smart

1.2 Problem statement

1.3 Company implications in the topic

1.4 Aims, objective and scope of research

1.5 Research question, sub-questions

2.2 Transportation landscape in the Netherlands

2.3 Towards a smart and sustainable mobility system

2.4 Public transport sustainability ambitions and current situation

2.5 Companies implication in sustainable transportation

2.7 Behavioral characteristics regarding MaaS

2.8 Future developments in mobility

Connected, autonomous and smart vehicles

3.2 Research goal

3.3 Explanation of the research procedure

3.4 Research methodology

A. Online Survey - Phase I

B. Online Survey - Phase II

C. Interview with expert

3.4 Changes to initial research plan

For most of the people who travel by

When asked what they would like to

One thing that almost half of the

When asked if they know some other people

Phase I – Driving a car

Almost half of them (49%) drive the car 1-2 times a

When asked how much they enjoy driving in the

Their main reasons to own a car is for

Phase II – Driving a car

When people who own a car were asked

One thing that most of the drivers (69%)

The time spent by most of the people (41%) that

Looking at the times people that drive by car have

When asked if they know colleagues that have the

Interview with expert 1

Interview with expert 2

Cornelia Dinca, MSc Urban Planning, working at AmsterdamSmartCity

Luca Takacks, MSc Mobility Design, MOMA Budapest

2. Transportation landscape in the Netherlands

4. Phase 1 Survey Template

People that drive by car

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi