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

In the urban outskirts of most European cities, low population density, single-use zoning and a car-centric urban environment are at odds with the 15-minute city (15mC) model, which is “based on the idea that city dwellers should be able to cover the vast majority of their daily needs within a 15-minute radius, by walking and cycling, while connecting to further districts and travelling larger distances by other forms of sustainable transport” (DUT, 2023). While this model, which has been adopted by major cities around the world, (Paris, Milan, Dublin, Valencia, Portland, Ottawa, Melbourne, etc.) is often limited to urban centres, it can to some extent be adapted to a peri-urban context. The aim of the DREAMS project is to contribute to creating accessible, sustainable, and inclusive 15mC neighbourhoods, or 15mN (Arias Molinares et al., 2024), in the urban outskirts of European cities and regions. This report describes six types of policies that can help move towards the 15mC model in urban outskirts: car-sharing, shared micromobility, carpooling, demand-responsive services, flexible (pop-up) activity hubs and mobility hubs. Based on a comparative analysis of 15mC lifestyles in various low- to mid-density areas, it focuses on governance frameworks and business models for innovative shared mobility services and flexible activity hubs.
While car-sharing is developing more and more in the centres of major cities, where public transport and alternatives to the car are more plentiful, it is also possible to develop some car-sharing services on the outskirts of cities with a balanced economic model, in certain cases and under certain conditions.
These services can be cost-effective if the local authority already has a policy of limiting car use and ownership, if subsidies or tax exemptions are available, etc. Among the different types of car-sharing, round-trip car-sharing is best suited to developing in sparsely populated areas, offering families alternatives to car ownership and encouraging them to adopt a more multimodal and local lifestyle. Round-trip car-sharing in residential buildings, in conjunction with the home-owner associations, is a
good way of offering alternatives to cars for residents who don't own one and freeing up public space for a more efficient use of space. This car-sharing model looks promising but is still in an emerging phase. Free-floating operators have no interest in offering their services in these areas and must concentrate on dense areas to be economically viable. It is therefore necessary to allow operators to operate in profitable areas so that they agree to extend their service to the urban outskirts. Combined car-sharing (a car-sharing scheme that offers both round-trip and free-floating services) could be a solution that combines the reliability of round-trip car-sharing with the flexibility of free-floating, satisfying a variety of needs for regular users who don't own a car but need one occasionally.
Cooperative, non-profit, and peer-to-peer car-sharing models are less widespread but can be implemented in sparsely populated areas thanks to the willingness and knowledge of citizens. Employer subsidies and tax exemptions can encourage employees to switch to car-sharing. Employers’ financial participation can enable operators to find an economic balance in areas where demand is lower, without requiring excessive public funding. A good partnership between the transport authority,  municipalities, employers, citizens, and operators is the key to success for a balanced suburban car-sharing system with little or no public subsidy.
Shared micromobility also tends to be concentrated in urban centres. Station-based bike-sharing schemes are the most widespread, but also the most restrictive and the most subsidised by local authorities. Although they may have increased the visibility of these alternatives to the car, systems of this type tried out on the urban outskirts are expensive for limited use. Private free-floating bicycle and e-scooter services generally operate without subsidy, which leads to much higher prices and may exclude an important part of the population from the service if no social tariff is proposed. Good dialogue with local authorities makes it possible to impose rules and controls, but operators deploy their services in the most profitable, densely populated areas, where they are more likely to replace journeys made on foot or by public transport than by car. Some local authorities tend to redirect their funds towards the development of cycle infrastructure and bike parking, which are necessary for active mobilities, whether shared or not. Despite this, lighter or station-free and less expensive micromobility systems such as Fifteen or Fredo, can find their place in urban outskirts. Innovative, low-cost, or community-based business models, such as Pony, might make this possible. On the other hand, if possible, a system deployed on a global basis in the city centre and its outskirts may enable a satisfactory compromise to be reached, with the high revenues generated in the central areas partly offsetting the lower ridership in the outskirts.
Carpooling is another way of optimising car use, by sharing journeys rather than ownership. Short-distance carpooling can be a commuting solution for residents of urban outskirts with poor public transport, especially for people in precarious situations, on low incomes, who do not have a driving licence or a car, or because they are no longer fit to drive. It can also be a solution for minors or migrants without an exchange driving license possibility. However, it has little relevance to the making of the 15mC, given that this model is based on proximity, walking, and cycling. Nevertheless, certain forms of carpooling, such as organised hitchhiking or carpooling lines, can be of local interest in sparsely populated areas where buses are infrequent at off-peak times. The development of carpooling needs support from different stakeholders: public authorities, transport authorities, road managers, carpooling operators, etc. As for today, the various measures to promote short-distance carpooling are still largely subsidised.
Demand-responsive services, or Demand-Responsive Transport (further: DRT), makes public transport more flexible in sparsely populated areas by providing at the same cost more geographic coverage, a denser network of stops and a reduction in travel times. In this way, it contributes to the 15mC neighbourhood as it provides mobility options for people who do not have access to private cars in car-centric areas. Setting up a DRT system requires the involvement of several partners and funders, such as transport authorities, local authorities, transport operators and even the State. DRT services are non-profit and could incur higher costs than fixed-route services, but it must be considered that they provide benefits in terms of delivering access to education, healthcare, culture, and work opportunities. DRT can also aim specific user groups such as minors, the elderly, precarious people, etc. There are several types of DRT services, involving different combinations of parameters such as vehicle size, flexible route, flexible stops, and flexible schedules. It is important to find a good balance between reliability, flexibility, and low costs. In this regard, hybrid (fixed schedule and stops with additional on-demand off-peak hours stops) and semi-flexible (number of possible pick-up times and locations are limited) DRT schemes seem to be the most suitable for urban outskirts.

The development of flexible (pop-up) activity hubs makes it possible to offer shops and services where the density of an area is not high enough to allow permanent establishments. This may involve existing shops diversifying their services to meet the needs of local residents, as well as mobile services and shops that move around sparsely populated areas. In this way, flexible activity hubs can contribute to transform the urban outskirts following the 15mC model, offering residents new amenities and a more local lifestyle. This can take the form of shopkeepers diversifying their commercial offering (postal or banking services, parcel pick-up points, train tickets sales, etc.) or mobile services (food-trucks, mobile libraries, pop-up markets, etc.) bringing new activities to the area. Initiatives can be private (shops, personal services, etc.) or public (cultural or medical services, etc.). Local authorities can encourage the development of such services by providing easily accessible and visible locations on their territory, by promoting these itinerant shops and services and even subsidizing them if private initiatives struggle to emerge. Other stakeholders include resident and retailers' associations (to respond appropriately to needs and avoid duplicating commercial offer), transport operators such as rail companies and train stations managers to offer shops and services in stations.
Mobility hubs bring together different types of mobility services at a single location. They are being deployed everywhere but are particularly well suited to the peri-urban context as they make alternatives to the private car visible and convenient in car-centred urban environments. By bringing together the policies developed above, they are a powerful tool for implementing the 15mC neighbourhood. Mobility hubs are very diverse in terms of the modes of transport and services they offer, the cost they require for implementation, operation, and maintenance, as well as the user groups they address. They therefore need to be adapted to local contexts. Governance can be complex because it involves public and private partners with sometimes diverging interests. Good planning, coordination and clear leadership enable the authorities to monitor the activities of private operators and ensure that they comply with the rules. Key partners are local authorities (municipalities, provinces, regions), transport authorities, public transport operators and shared mobility operators. Other partners can include business parks owners, real-estate developers and employers, among others. Involving citizens in a participatory process is a good way of offering services that are tailored to their needs as residentson the urban outskirts will not have the same needs as city centre residents. A tactical approach allows hubs to be prototyped and tested before being implemented on a permanent basis. Infrastructure works are often the responsibility of local authorities for public spaces and parking, but also road network managers for roadworks and sometimes transport operators such as railway companies for the implementation of services in train stations. Communication and branding are fundamental and are the responsibility of local authorities. Finally, there is no business case for mobility hubs, and there is no business model that can be applied to the development of a network of mobility hubs. Mobility hubs are not businesses but infrastructures that public authorities provide and manage. Within mobility hubs, private and public operators organise their own business models, with the possibility of public subsidies if the lack of density in peri-urban areas unable them to achieve economic stability.
Overall, it seems possible to adapt the 15mC model to urban outskirts under certain conditions. There must be strong political will to limit the use of private cars and the space allocated to cars in public spaces. This requires a shared vision and a good coordination between local authorities that have historically rather be car-friendly in these areas. Developing innovative shared mobility services and flexible activity hubs will not be enough if at the same time urban sprawl is not contained, single-use
zoning goes on, new road infrastructure is built, and on-street parking remains free and easy. To be efficient, shared mobility services need safe, inclusive, people-centred urban environment with spatially distributed amenities, as well as cycling and walking infrastructure. One difficulty that may arise is that parking restrictions and such policies may face opposition from shopkeepers and employers, as well as from residents of these areas whose lifestyles are centred on the car. It is necessary to promote the benefits that shared mobility services, mobility/flexible hubs and a more local lifestyle can bring them in terms of attractiveness, savings, improved health, and quality of life.

Highlights
There is no specific governance framework or business model for the 15mC in urban outskirts as local contexts can be very different from one area to another (population and employment densities, land use, existing transport offer, responsibilities of authorities, etc.).
Some policies are more relevant than others for the 15mC neighbourhood: shared micromobility and flexible activity hubs are at the heart of the concept as they support
the development of active mobility and the deployment of new amenities, while car-sharing, DRT and carpooling are more like accompanying measures (enabling people to live without owning a private car but to use one occasionally for certain needs). Mobility hubs are at the interface of these two groups of policies: they provide physical locations to services and mobility systems, link them to public transport, while offering services that make everyday life easier for users and residents.
Most mobility services are offered on a metropolitan scale, not just in the urban outskirts.
The presence of a service in a dense area, which is generally more profitable, can make it possible to finance its existence in the urban outskirts.
However, some mobility services with innovative business models (lighter, low-tech, cooperative, etc.) seem capable of developing in the urban outskirts. Good practices exist and provide inspiration for avoiding the pitfalls encountered in previous, unsuccessful experiments.
Public subsidies are sometimes necessary to launch or maintain an economically balanced service offering attractive fares for all types of users in sparsely located areas.
The environmental benefits and improved accessibility to services for residents may justify this public funding.
Certain conditions are necessary for the success of mobility services and the creation of 15mC neighbourhoods in the urban outskirts: the political will to support this concept, policies to reduce car use, ownership, and parking, as well as the development of walking and cycling infrastructure and, more generally, a vision of  metropolitan planning that links urban and transport planning.