A modern way of traveling: Sustainable mobility in Rosendal

(1)

SAMINT-STS; 20001

Examensarbete 15 hp

Juni 2020

A modern way of traveling

Sustainable mobility in Rosendal

Caroline Apelryd

Kristina Hrnjez

(2)

Teknisk- naturvetenskaplig fakultet UTH-enheten Besöksadress: Ångströmlaboratoriet Lägerhyddsvägen 1 Hus 4, Plan 0 Postadress: Box 536 751 21 Uppsala Telefon: 018 – 471 30 03 Telefax: 018 – 471 30 00 Hemsida: http://www.teknat.uu.se/student

Abstract

A modern way of traveling; Sustainable mobility in

Rosendal

Caroline Apelryd, Kristina Hrnjez, David Ranglén Svärdström

This report aims to investigate the economical possibilities of implementing mobility services, such as electrical carpool and

electrical bicyclepool, in the upcoming mobility house Brandmästaren in Rosendal, Uppsala. A model based on a travel habit survey in Uppsala has been developed in order to calculate the need of vehicles. Thereafter the financial profits are calculated depending on the need of vehicles and according to different scenarios regarding how many people that potentially will join the mobility hub. The profits are then compared to the profits from a conventional parking house, in order to decide whether the mobility system is economically viable. The results

concluded the following. The most suitable mobility system for Rosendal includes 104 bicycles, 36 cargo bicycles and 94 cars. For a supplement rent of 50 SEK per user connected to the mobility center, the break-even point for the business model where bicycles are rented is when 30.56% of the residents are connected to the system. For the business model where bicycles are bought the break-even point is 18.28%. A sensitivity analysis on the number of hours the service is assumed to be used showed that the profitability would not change to a significant extent. The

highest break-even point after the sensitivity analysis was 34.40%. After comparison to other mobility services in Sweden, the conclusion was that the number of connected users needed was relatively low, hence the results shows that the mobility house has the potential of being more profitable than conventional parking house.

ISSN: 1650-8319, SAMINT-STS; 20001 Examinator: Joakim Widén

Ämnesgranskare: Joakim Munkhammar

(3)

Terms

Cargo bicycle A cargo bicycle is designed to transport and carry loads.

Building contractor The building contractor performs or has construction work, demolition or ground work performed by a builder or a

construction contractor.

Parking number Parking numbers indicate how many parking spaces for cars and bicycles that will be provided in connection to new construction (Innovativ Parkering, Retrieved 2020-05-21). Flexible parking numbers indicate that they can vary depending on, for the area, special conditions (Innovativ Parkering, Retrieved 2020-05-21).

Parking norm A traditional parking norm is decided by the municipality, and imply that the building contractor must build a certain number of parking spaces per square meter or apartment in order to obtain building permits (Innovativ Parkering, Retrieved 2020-05-21). The municipality decides the level of the parking norm, or if flexible parking numbers applies instead (Innovativ Parkering, Retrieved 2020-05-21).

Round-trip A round-trip includes the return trip, which means it includes two travels.

Trip/travels A trip or travels do not include the return trip.

Flexible stations A user of a pool of vehicles with flexible stations can pick up and leave the vehicle at different stations.

Stationary station The user of a pool must return the vehicle at the same station if the pool has a stationary station.

(6)

4

1. Introduction

Throughout history, humans have lived in smaller communities of the simpler kind. Over the last centuries, however, this has changed radically. People have started to settle in more urban environments, and nowadays the majority of the world’s people live in cities. It looks like the urbanization trend is here to stay, as two thirds of the population is expected to live in urban areas by 2050 (Ritchie and Roser, 2019). This movement of people certainly demands effective urban planning.

The ability to transport is a key fundamental brick in our modern society. It generates jobs, economic growth and enables you as a citizen to move freely. One significant aspect is, however that the present transport system is costly, and it follows a wasteful linear model. The typical European car is parked 92% of the time, and when it’s used only 1.5 of its 5 seats are occupied. Beyond this, these cars also expose 90% of city citizens to air pollution. In the average European city, 50% of the inner-city land is composed by roads and parking. This led to drastic congestion, many car-related accidents and thereby high costs to the society (MacArthur, et al, 2015).

One approach to deal with these challenging problems, is by exceeding to a more circular model of traveling. This includes a mobility system that enables city residents to shift between private, shared and public transportations (MacArthur, et al, 2015). The mobility fleet could consist of cars, vans, cargo bicycles, electric bikes or electric scooters.

The flexibility of mobility services, including public transits, biking and walking would have a great impact on the urban environment, since it would reduce the traffic

enormously. As we become more people on earth, it is now even more important than before to transform the cities in a sustainable way.

In order to enable a conversion to mobility services it has to be economically beneficial for the producer, and therefore it could be important to examine the behavior patterns of potential users and incentives to actually use it. It is possible that behavior patterns even need to change in order to adapt to the use of mobility services. Therefore, it is of importance to also examine what behavior patterns that are actually changeable. In Uppsala, a parking house is currently being built in the district Rosendal, but the municipal corporation Uppsala Parkerings AB are also planning for a mobility house called Brandmästaren. The building of Brandmästaren is facing some questions, for example how can a mobility house be designed in order to decrease the traffic within the area Rosendal? And from an economic point of view, how should it be designed in order to be profitable compared to a regular parking garage?

(7)

5

1.1 Aim

The purpose of this report is to investigate a possible way of designing a mobility system used in Rosendal, in order to decrease the traffic and the need for parking spaces while at the same time being economically profitable. The financial goal is to find a solution where a mobility system is as, or more, profitable than to use the space for rental parking spaces.

1.2 Research questions

▪ Considering the typical travel patterns of Uppsala, what is the most suitable mobility system for Rosendal?

▪ For Uppsala Parkerings AB, when will the mobility system be profitable in comparison to a conventional parking in Rosendal?

1.3 Limitations

Since Rosendal is not a completed area there are no statistics on how many or what people that will be living there when it is finished. Assumptions about the population forecast are made from Uppsala municipality detailed plan and with a contact on Uppsala Parkerings AB.

Travel data is retrieved from a travel habits survey made by Uppsala municipality 2015. That means the travel habits have probably changed since then but that has not been taken into consideration. There are no specific data for Rosendal (Uppsala Kommun, 2016), but since Rosendal is a part of the Uppsala urban area, travel values for Uppsala urban area have been used. The survey only investigates travel habits on weekdays (Uppsala Kommun, 2016). Therefore, no data for weekends have been included in the model. It also lacked information on how long people stay on different destinations and at which time they start their trip (Uppsala Kommun, 2016), which is why it had to be assumed in the model.

No earlier studies or statistics on car- or bicycle pools with stationary stations were found. Data on what vehicles that are preferable and how they are used is therefore assumed, and in some cases taken from different studies with flexible stations.

1.4 Delimitations

Data used for the economical part of the model are estimated since no agreements has been made yet. The costs for the bicycle pool are estimated from one investigation only, which was made by Stockholm municipality. The monthly fee to be connected to the pool was assumed, and tested on three different amounts. The highest fee represented what it would cost to buy an own electric bicycle, so that that cost would never be exceeded. The other two fees were evenly scattered in relation to the highest one.

(8)

6

In this study a sensitivity analysis has been performed in order to investigate how sensitive the results are due to changes in the parameters. It is possible to do several sensitivity analyses on different parameters of the report, but due to time constraints, only one parameter has been studied. The parameter that has been chosen for a sensitivity analysis is “Number of hours”. The reason for this, is that this is one of the parameters that is expected to vary the most, but also because of its significant impact on the calculations.

When calculating the need of vehicles, the mobility system is delimited to three types; electric cars, electric bicycles and electric cargo bicycles. There was no time for adding another vehicle or service in the system, and bicycles and cars are well studied – they are well covered in Uppsala municipality’s travel habit survey- and used vehicles, while other vehicles might be limited to a specific group of people.

2. Background

2.1 Rosendal and Brandmästaren

In southern Uppsala a new district is developing. When the area is completed, it is estimated to include 5000 residences and approximately 10000 residents (Uppsala Parkerings AB, 2020). According to the municipality of Uppsala, Rosendal is an innovative region with focus on sustainable solutions (Uppsala kommun, 2016).

Because of the areas well-reasoned strategy in form of good transport possibilities, it is easy to travel within the district (Uppsala kommun, 2016). Rosendal is also

advantageous situated because of its closeness to many workplaces, schools,

universities and the center of Uppsala (Uppsala kommun, 2016). As a result of this, Uppsala municipality recommend bicycles as vehicle for transportation in the first place, since Rosendal has interconnected bike lanes with the rest of the city. In addition to this, public transport is also integrated in an efficient way, which are leading to a reduction in car dependency (Uppsala kommun, 2016).

For the reason that the city is growing, higher demands are placed on handling the increasing travels. The municipality’s solution to this, is to plan for a tram through Rosendal and to build mobility houses to meet the increased parking needs (Uppsala kommun, 2016). Another reason for the expansion of the mobility houses according to Uppsala municipality, is that the area is situated on a ridge (Uppsala kommun, 2019). This ridge is sensitive ground because it is water-bearing and porous. For this Uppsala county wants to optimize the area for pedestrian, bicycle and public transport. By building a mobility house in the outskirts of the area the parking spaces can be moved from within Rosendal to outskirts of Rosendal (Uppsala kommun, 2019). Furthermore, the alternative ways of travel and the mobility solutions, that a mobility house can offer, can reduce travels and car traffic within the area of Rosendal. A project that currently is being implemented in Rosendal is Dansmästaren, a parking garage for 460 cars. The

(9)

7

advantage of the building is also that it will include 133 apartments and a large food shop. In excess of this, the building also contains smart solutions for energy use, such as that electric cars can be recharged from the self-produced electricity. The parking garage is scheduled to be completed in October 2020 (Uppsala kommun, 2019). Uppsala Parkerings ABs (from now on: UPAB) latest project Brandmästaren, is a building that will contain both operation- and open parking areas. Brandmästaren is expected to be completed 2022 and will manage the demand for parking and offer mobility services. It will consist of eight floors, with a total of 588 parking lots (Uppsala Parkerings AB, 2019). However, some of the sites will be reserved for rental cars and carpools (Uppsala Parkerings AB, 2019). Brandmästaren’s ground floor will be composed by a restaurant and a mobility area (Uppsala Parkerings AB, 2019). By offering different services, a more appealing and safer neighborhood will be presented, since it will be available for the residents most of the day (Uppsala Parkerings AB, 2019). Furthermore, Brandmästaren will work according to Uppsala municipality's guidelines to achieve a sustainable society. For instance, the building will have solar cells on the roof, and it will be able to store residual solar power in form of batteries (Uppsala Parkerings AB, 2019).

2.2 Mobility services

When municipalities are discussing flexible parking numbers, they mean that the building contractor have the possibility to lower the number of parking spaces needed for an area, by reducing the demand for it (Statens energimyndighet, 2015). This can be done with mobility management. One part of mobility management are the mobility services; car pools, bicycle pools, electric scooters or rental cars (Statens

energimyndighet, 2015). Other actions can be to ensure bicycle parkings, build the area so it is adapted for walking and biking or giving a discount on public transportations (Statens energimyndighet, 2015). All listed actions aim to influence travel habits and reduce the self-ownership of vehicles (Statens energimyndighet, 2015).

The public-interest organization “Shared-use mobility center” (From now on: SUMC) lists strategies to make a mobility hub, or mobility center, successful. SUMC proposes that there should be at least three different types of transportation options. Tablets, maps or interactive kiosks should work as guide to different transports depending on

destination, and provide the user with information on how to use and sign up for the services (Sharedusedmobilitycenter, 2019). As a complement, there should also be free Wi-Fi to be able to purchase a vehicle or sign a membership through a phone, which is a very usual type of booking system (Sharedusedmobilitycenter, 2019). A timetable with arrivals and departure time for all transits available should be visible and they list package lockers for storing, or transport options with freight availability as good for widening the use of the center (Sharedusedmobilitycenter, 2019).

(10)

8

2.2.1 Cars

There are different types av car sharing available on the market. Sharing of private leased cars and rental of private cars between individuals are two examples based on that the car is private owned. Car rentals and carpools are two alternatives that can be arranged by companies (WSP, 2019).

Rental cars are traditionally paid per 24 hours, in addition to the used fuel, which make them suitable for longer trips (Biluthyrarna, 2019). But longer trips, like vacations, makes electric cars not suitable for renting since they have limited mileage before needing to recharge (Biluthyrarna, 2019).

There are carpools where you can pick up and leave the car at different places in the city, but in this project the cars are supposed to be returned to the parking garage when done using them. The largest differences between car rentals and carpools is the accessibility and the payment (WSP, 2019). Carpools are usually booked in an app by the user and therefore demands no personnel (WSP, 2019). To get access to the carpool it is common to pay a monthly fee, and then there are additional costs depending on how much the user uses the service (WSP, 2019). The additional costs are usually measured in minutes the car has been used and how many kilometers the user has driven (WSP, 2019). Because of the minute charge, carpools are not suitable for longer trips, because in most cases it will be cheaper to rent a car (WSP, 2019). There are carpools that also offer weekend or weekly rentals though (WSP, 2019). When you only drive shorter trips within town, electric cars are preferable thanks to the low charging fee of electricity (WSP, 2019).

Carpools can either increase or decrease number of car travels. When users pay different amounts depending on how much they drive their car, and see it reported, they tend to drive less and therefore decrease car travels. But on the other hand, users who did not use to have an own car and then joins a carpool drives more than before. Therefore, car sharing can increase car travels, which is why a suggestion is to promote carpools to people who today possess their own car (WSP, 2019). Studies have shown that members of a carpool in general drives shorter distances than before they became members, furthermore they also started walking and cycling to a greater extent instead of using other transportation methods (WSP, 2019).

2.2.2 Bicycles

The bikesharing concept was launched in the 1960s, but in the last decade there has been an expansion in the use (Trafikanalys, 2016). This is a common transportation for tourists in large cities, where you can pick up a bike at one station, pay with your phone, and then leave it at your end station (Trafikanalys, 2016). The three largest bicycle pools in 2016 in Sweden are located in Stockholm, Gothenburg and Lund (Trafikanalys, 2016). Their payment systems are almost the same, a subscription is payed after which a bike can be borrowed for at least 30 minutes at a time (Trafikanalys, 2016). In exchange

(11)

9

for running this service the municipalities offer the companies advertising locations (Trafikanalys, 2016).

Another type of bike is the electric scooter, which have become popular over the last couple of years. In the US electric scooters are replacing shared bikes to an increasing extent (WSP, 2019). A study made in Portland showed that 34% of the rides with electric scooters had replaced a car ride, which compared to the corresponding number for rental regular bikes of 2%, is high (WSP, 2019). Average travel length for electric scooters are just over 1,85 km and they have a maximum speed at 20 km/h (WSP, 2019). According to regulations today in Sweden, they can be collected and left

anywhere (WSP, 2019). But due to complaints that they often block roads when parked badly, and because deaths and other accidents have been reported, restricted regulations might be implemented (WSP, 2019).

In some cities in Sweden independent cargo pools have been started, but this is new even for the largest cities. The cargo bike might not be used as frequently as the regular bike but it is good for transporting large loads like groceries or your kids. Since the cargo bicycle is larger than a regular bicycle, it can be difficult to park at places where there are only regular bicycle stands. The payment methods for the cargo pools vary, some municipalities offer them for free, some associations only get a monthly fee, some get paid per hour usage and some use a combination of the two latter.

2.2.3 Other mobility services

Other mobility services, that do not involve vehicle pools, do also exist. Delivery lockers for example, that will ease purchasing different goods without having to leave home (Fastighetsägarna, 2018, p. 25). In the age group 25-44 years, 94% say they have purchased goods or services online the last three months, and e-commerce is expected to grow even more (Nets, 2019). The Swedish company Instabox has a service called Instabox Private which is aimed for tenant-owners association. Instabox intention is to deliver 7 days a week and to have the fastest delivery in the business, which is possible when they deliver packages from selected partners (Instabox Private, Retrieved 2020-05-21). Another advantage over traditional post office collection, could be, that the client does not have to adapt to any opening hours if the lockers are not in a locked area. Future services also include being able to send packages to an address or another

instabox (Instabox, Retrieved 2020-05-21). As a support to the e-commerce, Atrium Ljungberg, in 2018 opened their first pick-up service called Leveriet, where it is possible to collect a delivered package of clothes, try them on in one of their designed dressing rooms, and send them back if the clothes do not fit (Leveriet, Retrieved 2020-05-21). Except for Malmö and Stockholm, Leveriet also operates in Uppsala, Gränby (Leveriet, Retrieved 2020-05-21).

(12)

10

2.2.4 Future mobility services

As the technological development progresses rapidly, so does the impact on mobility services. This can change how people move, but also how goods are transported. According to a study by McKenzie, price and delivery time are important for people around the world, when purchasing a product. In order to have a high reliability of timing, same-day and instant delivery, autonomous ground vehicles (AGVs), drones, bike couriers or droids might be a possible solution (McKenzie, 2016, p.10). The advantage of these services had been that in addition to fast home deliveries, it could also be conceivable with overnight pickups, and offer Sunday deliveries (McKenzie, 2016, p.15). By being able to offer different variants of transport, it creates a flexible system. For instance, drones could be used in rural areas, where it is very expensive to offer regular deliveries in a specified time-window. Similarly, bike couriers or droids would have been preferable in more urban areas, since they are fast to deploy (s.17). Some of the reasons why the services not yet have been fully utilized, depend a lot on, opportunity costs, regulations and public acceptance (McKenzie, 2016, p. 23).

However, the authors of the McKenzie study predict that this will be a reality within the next 10 years.

Autonomous vehicles not only exist in commodity distribution but are also used as a means of transport. Navly, a self-driving bus with room for up to 15 people was launched in Lyon in 2016 and is now used in four continents. In Sweden, Gothenburg was first with a project and the bus will ride a 1 km long way, which goes in line with the description as Navly transporting you the first and last mile. As long as the project runs, the rides are free (Campanello, 2019) The maximum speed is 25 km per hour, and it runs on electricity (Navya, Retrieved 2020-05-21). Helsinki has their own self driving buses with a maximum speed of 40 km per hour but with fewer passengers (Helsinki smart region, Retrieved 2020-05-21). Self-driving vehicles like this may play a greater role in our future society.

2.2.5 Project examples

The area Fullriggaren in Västra Hamnen, Malmö, have made investments in mobility. Together with the building contractors they decided to lower the parking norm to 0.8 parking spaces per apartment (including 0.1 for guest parkings) and for that the building contractors would pay the charges, the monthly fee for the users of a carpool the first five years (Malmö stad, 2015). Fullriggaren contains 636 apartments, offices and more and all the households and workplaces are automatically members of the carpool (Malmö stad, 2015). Three of the properties are also part of a bicycle pool with five cargo bikes and two bicycle trailers (Malmö stad, 2015). In 2012 around 25% of the residents answered a questionnaire of how the mobility services had worked (Malmö stad, 2015). In the results 75% of the respondents said they were satisfied or very satisfied with the parking availability in the area, 54% responded that they had connected to the carpool and another 12% answered they were planning on doing so (Malmö stad, 2015). The parking norm was down to 0.7 (0.6 and 0.1 for guest parkings)

(13)

11

(Malmö stad, 2015). On the questions regarding the bicycle pool, 42% of those who did not have access to the bicycle pool were willing to connect to it (Malmö, 2019).

2.3 Challenges

When integrating systems, the boundary between for example public transport and commercially viable services in some way becomes abolished, which can cause legal obstacles. For example, who has the right to sell tickets for public transports and how to regulate the taxi market (WSP, 2019, p.7). Another example that embodies the problem with regulations and legislations is the case of Ubigo in 2014. Ubigo is a service that brings together different mobility services. After Ubigos pilot phase, it met obstacles because of regulations and laws would not enable the public transport operator to continue as a service provider in regular business context (Nationellt kunskapscentrum för kollektivtrafik, 2017, p. 13). Besides legislations and regulation, functioning business models and attractive offers need to be developed as well as attractive offers that allow several partially competing actors to collaborate, such as the public

subsidized public transport and individual private or commercial operators (WSP, 2019, p.7)

Another challenge regards behavioral changes. How people choose to travel is

influenced by several factors, such as convenience and cost but also perceived prestige (Nationellt kunskapscentrum för kollektivtrafik, 2017, p. 21). For example, payment between participants and travel deductions can be perceived as complicated for the user regarding how carpooling works (WSP, 2019, pp. 26-27). Also, customers tend to not realize potential gains using mobility services, and to overrate current benefits and what they perceive as risks with new solutions (Nationellt kunskapscentrum för

kollektivtrafik, 2017, p. 21). Changing from owning a car to use other services can be a profound change, which makes the adjustment harder (Nationellt kunskapscentrum för kollektivtrafik, 2017, p. 21). A study on French households showed that people who drive the longest distances are least inclined to switch from a private car to car sharing (WSP, 2019, pp. 14-16). Other factors that affects the tendency to join a carpool is for example age and size of household (WSP, 2019, pp. 14-16). Several strategies can be used to make this change easier, for example to, in communication with potential customers, evaluate costs and risks and create default options (Nationellt

kunskapscentrum för kollektivtrafik, 2017, p. 21).

Another challenge seems to be that bicycles often does not replace cars. In 2015 a bicycle pool company in Gothenburg did an investigation among their users that showed that only 2% of the bike rides had replaced a car ride (Trafikanalys, 2016). In Lund the number was 3% (Trafikanalys, 2016). Low results of 2, 7 or 10% for different cities in Europe potentially strengthens the theory that rented bikes rarely replaces cars (Trafikanalys, 2016). Instead they replace public transportations, walking or their own bike (Trafikanalys, 2016).

(14)

12

3. Methodology

The model is based on that the mobility system is limited to contain the mobility services cars, bicycles and cargo bikes, where all vehicles are electric powered. How regular car trips can be replaced with this set of vehicles is investigated, as well as the profit for the mobility system. Consequently, it is also examined if the mobility services in Brandmästaren, is more profitable than a regular parking.

3.1 Model Layout

Two calculations are implemented. First the need for mobility services in the area is calculated, which will give the needed number of each vehicle. After that an

examination is made in order to decide the profitability of this system, that depends on the number of users connected to the mobility center. Profit calculations are made from two different business models, one where all the bicycles are bought, and one where they are rented. The income from the carpool is also included, but as the cars are parked on other floors of the building, they do not take up space in the mobility area.

3.2 Data

In order to calculate the most suitable mobility system for Rosendal, travel habits must be taken into consideration. Data regarding travel habits have therefore been collected mostly from a survey done in 2015 by Uppsala municipality. The results shown in the survey are divided into showing the different results for the different areas of Uppsala. Rosendal is a part of the area Eriksberg/Norby (Resvaneundersökning hösten 2015, 2016, p. 30). But since Rosendal is a more densely built-up than the rest of the area, the data for the urban center of Uppsala is used instead.

3.2.1 Needs calculation

Rosendal is built in five stages, where data is missing for the last one. In the four first stages 5000 households are expected, and 2,1 persons per household gives 10500 residents in Rosendal (Uppsala parkerings AB, 2020). In this model the population is rounded down to 10000 people. From Uppsala municipalities travel habit survey an average of car travels per day is used, which is 0,9 number of car travels per day and person (Resvaneundersökning hösten 2015, 2016, p. 3).

Table 1. Population and average number of car travels per person.

Explanation Constant Value

Population 𝑃 10000

(15)

13

A chart in the survey shows that for longer travel lengths than 3 km the intensity of bicycle travels decreases (Resvaneundersökning hösten 2015, 2016 p.28). But Rosendal is approximately 4 km from the train station in Uppsala, and the national official

number for bike riding distance is 5 km (Trafikverket, 2014, p. 11). Therefore, 5 km has been chosen as a division line between what travels lengths that will potentially be made through bicycles and what will potentially be made by cars of the users, i.e travels under 5 km is expected to be made with bicycles and travels over 5 km is expected to be made with cars. According to the survey 56% of all car travels are under 5 km, and 44% of all car travels are over 5 km (Resvaneundersökning hösten 2015, 2016, p.28).

Since carpools are most appropriate for a short time period and not for a full working day, the proportion of travels to or from school and work will not be taken into account. The reason for this is that it will be as expensive to have a car parked for eight hours, that it is to rent a car for 24 hours. Thus, because of the high cost, it becomes an unrealistic scenario that a person would use a carpool car to work or school. From Uppsala travel survey, it can be established that 23.67% of car journeys, which makes 35807 trips, go to work and school (drivers and passengers included)

(Resvaneundersökning hösten 2015, 2016, p.40 chart 12a). And since all those journeys require a return trip, school- or work-related travels is assumed to be doubled, which makes 71614 trips and 47.35% of the one-way car travels. With those travels excluded, out of all car travels the mobility services will replace, 23.17% can be made with a carpool car, and 20.83%, the part of car travels made to or from work and school, will have to be made with optional transportation (Resvaneundersökning hösten 2015, 2016, p. 40 chart 12.a).

In order to decide what bicycle travels that will be done with cargo bicycles and what will be done with regular bicycles, data that regards causes for travels have been collected from the survey. The proportion of the bike travels that may involve a

sufficient weight to transport, is assumed to be carried out with cargo bikes. The rest of the travels is assumed to be done by regular bikes. The bicycle travels in the travel habit survey were divided in the errands; to work, service matter, to school, pick up/leave kids, food purchase, other purchase, to residence, entertainment, service and other (Resvaneundersökning hösten 2015, 2016, p. 41, chart 12.c). Three of those errands, pick up/leave kids, food purchase and other purchase, were chosen to be made with cargo bicycle. And those travels were doubled, as they were for school- and work-related travels by car, because they all required a return trip. The proportion of travels done for transporting something is estimated to 25.35% out of all travels with bicycle, and out of all car travels replaced that makes 14.20%.

Table 2. Percentage of travels with different vehicles.

Explanation Vehicle Constant Percentage of total car travels

Travels > 5 km Carpool car 𝑄𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙 23.17%

(16)

14

Travels < 5 km Bike 𝑄𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 41.80%

Travels < 5 km Cargo bike 𝑄𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 14.20%

Data for the mean value of the lengths of the travels are also collected from the survey. The mean value for car travels is 6.24 km and the mean value for bike travels is 2.87 km (Resvaneundersökning hösten 2015, 2016, p. 26). Data for average speed could not be found in the survey nor somewhere else for Uppsala specifically, so data for national average velocities have been used instead. For cars the average number is 50 km/h (Trafikanalys, 2019, p. 67) and for bikes it is 15 km/h (Trafikverket, 2018, p. 7).

Table 3. Average velocity and distance for cars and bicycles.

Explanation Constant Mean value

Mean value velocity for car [km/h] 𝑉_𝑐𝑎𝑟 50

Mean value velocity for bicycle [km/h] 𝑉𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 15

Mean value distance for car [km] 𝐷_𝑐𝑎𝑟 6.24

Mean value distance for bicycle [km] 𝐷𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2.87

All car travels are assumed to be performed between 7 AM and 8 PM, which makes 13 hours travel time. There is also a value of the time a person stays at their destination, which was assumed to be 15 min, and the time it takes to pick-up and leave the vehicle, which was assumed to be 5 min. The time a person stays at their destination, 15 min, was assumed by thinking of how long time it takes to shop for groceries.

Table 4. Travel times.

Travel time per day (7.00-20.00) 𝑋𝑑𝑎𝑦 780 min

Time spent at destination 𝑋𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 15 min

Time for picking up and leave vehicle 𝑋𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑘−𝑢𝑝 5 min

3.2.2 Profitability

The monthly income for UPAB per car from the carpool company is 2000 SEK for a parking space with charging post (Uppsala Parkerings AB, 2020). In our model, we also assume there will be an income for UPAB that derives from rent supplements. Income from rent supplement is arbitrary set to three different amounts, in order to see how the profit depends on the rent supplement. The three chosen amounts are represented in the chart below.

(17)

15

Explanation Constant Monthly income [SEK]

Rent supplement 𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡 [50, 100, 150]

Parking space with charging station 𝐼𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 2000

Costs for bicycle operations are derived from data that Stockholms stad has aggregated. There are two possible solutions, the first is to buy the bicycles but to rent the services at a monthly cost (Stockholms stad, Retrieved 2020-05-21). The other solution is to rent both the bicycles and services at a monthly cost (Stockholms stad, Retrieved 2020-05-21). Their estimated number of buying bicycles is 12000 SEK a year for two electrical bikes and two cargo bikes, when you are counting on a life span of 10 years

(Stockholms stad, Retrieved 2020-05-21). That is 1000 SEK per month and 250 SEK per month and bike. But since cargo bikes are more expensive than regular bikes, 150 SEK is assumed for a regular bike and 350 SEK for a cargo bike. This division is based on research of how much regular bikes and cargo bikes usually cost. The price can of course vary depending on the quality of the bike, but taken the average price for

electrical bikes and cargo bikes into account, the estimated ratio is that cargo bikes often are a little more than two times more expensive than regular electrical bikes. The

monthly cost of service per bought bike is in general 30 SEK (Stockholm stad,

Retrieved 2020-05-21). This means that the total monthly cost per bike is 380 SEK for an electric cargo bike and 180 SEK for an electric regular one.

Table 6. Costs for bicycles when they are bought.

Explanation Constant Monthly cost [SEK]

Electric regular bicycle, purchasing and

service cost 𝐵𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 180

Electric cargo bicycle, purchasing and

service cost 𝐵𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 380

It is possible to have different booking systems. One is a digital bike lock, installed on the bicycle, that connects to an app where the bike is booked (Stockholms stad,

Retrieved 2020-05-21). But if the pool contains more than five bicycles or also have cars, the recommendation is to use a digital key cabinet that connects to an app where the bike is booked (Stockholms stad, Retrieved 2020-05-21). The digital key cabinets are opened with the app, and inside it contains a key to the booked bicycle. The advantage is that it is possible to choose which locks you want for your bicycles and that you can have several different keys in each compartment in the cabinet. The cost for a digital key cabinet is 20000 SEK (Stockholms stad, Retrieved 2020-05-21). It is hard to predict the durability of the locker, but in order to determine a monthly cost, an arbitrary assumption is made that it is durable for ten years. With this assumption the monthly cost for the digital key cabinet is 167 SEK. Furthermore, the service needed for the key cabinet is usually 200 SEK a month (Stockholms stad, Retrieved 2020-05-21). Thus, the total monthly cost for a digital key cabinet is 367 SEK. The service for

(18)

16

maintenance of bicycles, does according to Stockholm stad cost about 800 SEK per bike and they recommend to do it regularly, preferable two times a year (Stockholms stad, Retrieved 2020-05-21). With these numbers the monthly cost for maintenance service per bought bike is calculated to 133 SEK.

Table 7. Costs for locks, booking system and maintenance service of bicycles.

Explanation Constant Monthly cost [SEK]

Digital key cabinet + booking system 𝐵_{𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑠} 367

Maintenance service of bicycles per bike 𝐵_{𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒} 133

If the bicycles where to be rented instead, the total monthly cost for electrical regular bikes plus service is approximately 600 SEK (Stockholms stad, Retrieved 2020-05-21). The monthly cost for a cargo bike can vary between 750 SEK and 1600 SEK

(Stockholms stad, Retrieved 2020-05-21). In order to do a fair comparison between bought or rented bikes, the ratio between bought bikes was used to determine what monthly cost to use for a rented cargo bike. The ratio between the bought cargo and regular bike is 2.33. That means that the monthly cost for a rented cargo bike should be put to 2.33 times 600 SEK, which equals 1400 SEK.

Table 8. Cost per bicycle and service when bicycles are rented.

Explanation Constant Monthly rental cost [SEK]

Electric regular bicycle 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 600

Electric cargo bicycle 𝑅𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 1400

The total area for the parking plane is 500 m2. The area for a cargo bike including

surface to manoeuvre is 6 m2 (Trafikkontoret Göteborgs stad, 2017, p.16). The area for

a regular bike including surface to manoeuvre is 2.3 m2 (Trafikkontoret Göteborgs stad,

2017, p. 12). Area for a car including surface to manoeuvre is 25 m2_(Statens

energimyndighet, 2015, p.19).

Table 9. Area constants.

Explanation Constant Area with surface to maneuver [m2_]

Mobility center 𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 500

Car 𝐴_𝑐𝑎𝑟 25

Bicycle 𝐴𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2.3

(19)

17

3.3 The model

The constants and parameters that are presented in chapter 3.2 Data in table 1 through 9, will be used in different equations in order to calculate the results. The constants and parameters are presented in table 10.

Table 10. All used constants.

Population 𝑃 10000 residents

Car travels per day and person 𝑄𝑐𝑎𝑟, 𝑑𝑎𝑦 0.9

Fraction of all car travels that can be made with a

carpool car 𝑄𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙 23.17%

Fraction of all car travels that can be made with an

optional transportation 𝑄𝑜𝑝𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 20.83%

bicycle 𝑄𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 41.80%

cargo bicycle 𝑄𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 14.20%

Mean value velocity for car 𝑉𝑐𝑎𝑟 50 km/h

Mean value velocity for bicycle 𝑉𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 15 km/h

Mean value distance for car 𝐷_𝑐𝑎𝑟 6.24 km

Mean value distance for bicycle 𝐷𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2.87 km

Travel time per day (7.00-20.00) 𝑋𝑑𝑎𝑦 780 min

Time spent at destination 𝑋_{𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛} 15 min

Time for picking up and leave vehicle 𝑋𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑘−𝑢𝑝 5 min

Monthly rent supplement 𝑖_{𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡} [50, 100, 150] SEK

Monthly rent for parking space with charging

station 𝐼𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 2000 SEK

Monthly cost for purchasing

electric regular bicycle and service cost 𝐵𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 180 SEK

Monthly cost for

electric cargo bicycle, purchasing and service cost 𝐵𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 380 SEK

Monthly cost for

digital key cabinet + booking system 𝐵𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑠 367 SEK

Monthly cost for maintenance service of bicycles 𝐵_{𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒} 133 SEK

Monthly cost for rented electric regular bicycle 𝑅𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 600 SEK

Monthly cost for rented electric cargo bicycle 𝑅𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 1400 SEK

Area for the mobility center and maneuver space 𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟 500 m2

(20)

18

Area for a bicycle and maneuver space 𝐴𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 2.3 m2

Area for a cargo bicycle and maneuver space 𝐴𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 6 m2

3.3.1 Needs calculation

Number of car trips under and over 5 km

The total amount of trips can be calculated by the inhabitants multiplied with the average car travels per person, and the fraction of travels for the specific vehicle. This can be seen in equation (1), (2) and (3):

𝑇𝑏𝑖𝑘𝑒 = 𝑃 𝑄𝑐𝑎𝑟,𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑄𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 (1)

𝑇_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜} = 𝑃 𝑄_{𝑐𝑎𝑟,𝑑𝑎𝑦}𝑄_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜} (2)

𝑇_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙} = 𝑃 𝑄_{𝑐𝑎𝑟,𝑑𝑎𝑦}𝑄_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙}. (3)

Number of round-trips

The one-way travels are converted to round-trips by dividing with two. From equation (4), it is obtained that:

𝑇_{𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑,𝑏𝑖𝑘𝑒} = 𝑇𝑏𝑖𝑘𝑒

2 . (4)

Furthermore, it can be determined in the same way that: 𝑇𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑,𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 =

𝑇_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜}

2 . (5)

If the unreasonable trips done by the carpool are ignored, the ones considering work and school, the possible car travels can be calculated. Similar to equation (4) and (5), the back and forth from the destination is included:

𝑇_{𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑,𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙} = 𝑇𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙

2 . (6)

Average time per round-trip

To be able to calculate how long an average round-trip is, in minutes, the mean length and average velocity for both car- and bicycle travels are taken into consideration. It is multiplied with two because a round-trip includes two one-way trips, and therefore become:

𝑋𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 =

𝐷𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒

(21)

19 𝑋𝑐𝑎𝑟 = 𝐷_𝑐𝑎𝑟 𝑉𝑐𝑎𝑟 ∙ 60 ∙ 2 + 𝑋𝑑𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛+ 𝑋𝑝𝑖𝑐𝑘−𝑢𝑝. (8)

Number of bike and car trips per day per vehicle

Since the travels are assumed to take place within an interval of 780 minutes (13 h), and the average time per bicycle- and car trip is known, the total number of round-trips per day can be calculated by:

𝐹_{𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒} = 𝑋𝑑𝑎𝑦 𝑋𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒

(9)

𝐹_𝑐𝑎𝑟 =𝑋𝑑𝑎𝑦

𝑋_𝑐𝑎𝑟. (10)

The number of vehicles needed

To be able to determine the number of bikes needed in the mobility area, the round-trips for bikes are divided with the total amount of bicycle trips per day:

𝑁_{𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒}= 𝑇𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑,𝑏𝑖𝑘𝑒 𝐹_{𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒} (11) 𝑁𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 = 𝑇_{𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑,𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜} 𝐹𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒 . (12)

Similarly, it is also possible to calculate how many cars that are desirable:

𝑁_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙} = 𝑇𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑,𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙

𝐹_𝑐𝑎𝑟 . (13)

But if the range of the car battery is taken into account it will be a different outcome. One of the electric cars of Sunfleets model has the range of 280 km, and maximum 5 hours charging time (Sunfleet, Retrieved 2020-05-21). With an average velocity of 50 km/h the car can be driven in 5.6 hours. Since the model expects all travels to be evenly distributed during travel hours (13 hours), a whole new set of cars will have to take over from the first group when they all need to charge after 5.6 hours. That gives that two electric cars replace a regular car, the number needed is duplicated. Equation (13) gives:

𝑁_{𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑐𝑎𝑟} = 𝑁_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙}∙ 2. (14)

3.3.2 Profitability

To decide the profit from the mobility system, it is important to make an overview of potential income and costs. The income from the carpool is constant, and generates the

(22)

20

same profit every month, regardless of how the other parameters are changed. However, the revenue from rent supplement has a clear impact on the profitability. The costs of the system depend on how the services choose to be provided.

UPAB hires a bicycle pool

For the reason that the service is hired, the costs are for the bikes that are rented. The profit can be calculated by:

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡_{𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙} = 𝐼_{𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔}∙ 𝑁_𝑐𝑎𝑟 − 𝑅_{𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒}∙ 𝑁_{𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒}− 𝑅_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜}∙ 𝑁_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜} + 𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡∙ 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠.

(15)

UPAB buy their own bikes and hires service

If instead bicycles are purchased, and service is hired, the costs will be different:

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡_{𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙} = 𝐼_{𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔}∙ 𝑁_𝑐𝑎𝑟− 𝐵_{𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒}∙ 𝑁_{𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒}− 𝐵_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜} ∙ 𝑁_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜}−

𝐵_{𝑙𝑜𝑐𝑘𝑠}− 𝐵_{𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑖𝑐𝑒}+ 𝑖_{𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡}∙ 𝑈𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠. (16)

UPAB with conventional parking

When it comes to parking, the number of people connected to the mobility services is of no significance. The ordinary income from the carpool and rent for the parking spaces that would fit in the mobility area:

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠 = 𝐼𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔∙ 𝑁𝑐𝑎𝑟 +

𝐴_{𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟} 𝐴𝑐𝑎𝑟

∙ 𝐼𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 (17)

can be calculated with equation (17).

4. Results

This section will present the results from the model's calculation. The results are divided in subsections according to what research question that is answered.

4.1 Mobility center in Rosendal

4.1.1 Calculated values used for calculating need in mobility center

Equation 1 through 14 in the methodology chapter are used to calculate the need for bicycles, cargo bicycles, electric cars and mobility area. When putting in all the constants from table 10, the calculations will be as follow.

(23)

21

Equation 1 to 3 will give the result for equation 4 to 6. The results show the number of round-trips made with bicycles, cargo bicycles and carpool cars:

𝑇_{𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑,𝑏𝑖𝑘𝑒} = 1881.18 [round-trips per day] 𝑇𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑,𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 = 638.82 [round-trips per day]

𝑇_{𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑,𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙} = 1042.47 [round-trips per day]

which are 1881.18 with bicycles, 638.82 with cargo bicycles and 1042.47 with carpool cars. Equation 7 and 8 gives the results for how long a round-trip is when made with a bicycle or a car. It shows:

𝑋_{𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒}= 42.96 [min]

𝑋_𝑐𝑎𝑟 = 34.98 [min]

that a bicycle round-trip is slightly longer than a one made with car. A round trip with a bicycle will take 42.96 min, and with a car it will take 34.98 min. With the information just given, the number of round-trips made with one bicycle or car per day is calculated with equation 9 and 10:

𝐹𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒= 18.16

𝐹_𝑐𝑎𝑟 = 22.30.

A bicycle can perform 18.16 round-trips per day, and a car 22.30 round-trips per day. It is now possible to calculate the number of bicycles, cargo bicycles and electric cars needed. With equations 11 to 14 the need in the mobility center:

𝑁_{𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒}= 104 𝑁_{𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑜 𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑦𝑐𝑙𝑒} = 36

𝑁𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑟𝑖𝑐 𝑐𝑎𝑟 = 94

is presented. 104 bicycles, 36 cargo bicycles and 94 electric cars are needed. The numbers are rounded up to the closest integer.

4.1.2 Results for need in mobility center

In table 11, the calculated number of vehicles needed for the mobility center are shown. They cover the need of most car travels made by all residents in Rosendal. The table also shows how much space that can still be used for other mobility services, such as delivery boxes. The cars do not take up space in the mobility center, since they are parked on another floor in the car park.

(24)

22

The number of regular bicycles that are needed is 104, and is found in table 11, while the need for cargo bicycles is 36, together that makes 140 bicycles. To put this number in a different perspective that means that 50 apartments must share 1.4 bicycles (this is a common way of presenting shared vehicles), and 71 people must share one bicycle. 94 electric cars are needed, which makes 0.94 cars per 50 apartments and 106 people per car. The area that is currently not used in the mobility center is 44.8 m2.

Table 11. Result of the need of vehicles and free area in the mobility center.

Vehicle Quantity

Bicycle 104

Cargo bicycles 36

Electric cars 94

Free area in mobility center [m2] 44.8

4.2 Profitability from mobility center

4.2.1 Calculated values used for calculating profit for mobility center

The profit calculations are made with equation 15 to 17 and are depending on the number of users that are connected to the mobility center. Since the income from rented out parking spaces for the electric cars in the carpool are included in the profit, the total profit will still be positive when there are no users connected to the mobility center. The profits are linear and will follow a linear equation:

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡_{𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙} = 75200 + 𝑖_{𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡}𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠 [𝑆𝐸𝐾]

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡_{𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑔ℎ𝑡 𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑙} = 136613 + 𝑖_{𝑟𝑒𝑛𝑡}𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑠 [𝑆𝐸𝐾]

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑠𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑠 = 228000 [𝑆𝐸𝐾].

With no users connected to the mobility center, the model when the bicycles are rented will start at 75200 SEK per month. When the bicycles are bought the corresponding number is higher, 136613 SEK per month. The profit if the mobility area were parking spaces is constant, 228000 SEK per month. The profit for the parking spaces include the rent for the 94 electric cars in the carpool and the

𝐴𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟

𝐴𝑐𝑎𝑟

= 20

(25)

23

4.2.2 Profit results

Figure 1 and 2 show how the profit of the mobility center, in relation to the profit if the area of the mobility center were used as regular parking spaces, relates to how many users that connect to the service. There are three graphs that depend on the price of the membership, which would be paid through an additional rent. The break-even points, where the profits are the same, are shown in the figures and presented in table 12 and 13.

The charts show the profit for two different business models. Figure 1 is for when the bicycle pool is hired, which is bicycles, service, locks, and booking system. It shows that the profit is increasing linearly, with a steeper curve when raising the rent supplement from 50, to 100 to 150 Swedish crowns.

Figure 1. Profit result when hiring bicycle pool.

The break-even points that are shown in figure 1 are presented in table 12. One column show the number of residents that each curve reaches at the break-even point, and one show the percentage of the 10000 residents that needs to be connected to the mobility center to reach the break-even point. When the additional rent is 50 SEK, 3056 residents and thereby 30.56% of the residents is needed in order to reach break-even. For 100 SEK the corresponding numbers are 1528 residents and 15.28%, and for 150 SEK they are 1019 residents and 10.19%.

Table 12. Break-even points for profit when hiring bicycle pool.

Additional rent [SEK/month] Break-even point [nr residents] Break-even point [% residents] 50 3 056 30.56% 100 1 528 15.28%

(26)

24

150 1 019 10.19%

Figure 2 show the profit when the bicycles are bought and the rest of the service for the bicycle pool is hired, which is service, locks and booking system. If you look closely, the break-even numbers are lower when purchasing the bikes, if you compare figure 2 to figure 1.

Figure 2. Profit result when purchasing bicycle pool.

The break-even points that are shown in figure 2 are presented in table 13. When the additional rent is 50 SEK, the mobility system needs 1828 people connected to it, which is 18.28% of all 10000 residents. For 100 SEK the corresponding numbers are 914 residents and 9.14%, and for 150 SEK they are 609 residents and 6.09%. When comparing the corresponding curve (50, 100, 150), the values in table 13 are all lower than in table 11.

Table 13. Break-even points for profit when purchasing bicycle pool.

Additional rent [SEK/month] Break-even point [nr residents] Break-even point [% residents] 50 1 828 18.28% 100 914 9.14% 150 609 6.09%

5. Sensitivity analysis

A sensitivity analysis has been performed on the number of hours the travels are made during, which is the constant Xday. A regular workday, the travels are probably not

(27)

25

evenly scattered through 7 AM and 8 PM, since a lot of people are at work or school during daytime. There is also a chance that the travels are scattered through a longer period, for example during weekends. When the number of hours that the travels are made during is decreasing, the number of vehicles needed will go up. If the number of hours is increasing, the number of vehicles needed will go down.

In the standard model the number of hours the travels are made is 13 h. During the sensitivity analysis, that 13 h will change with 5, 10 and 15%, in both a positive and negative direction. The result columns in table 14, 15 and 16 show the original result (when the number of hours is not changed) and the new results, which is the result when the variable is changed as the column “Change of variable” describes. The two last columns show the percentage change of the results. An example from table 14: When the number of hours is increasing with 15%, which is 1.95 h, the new number of bicycles needed is 91, and the result has therefore changed with -12.50%.

The result in table 14 show that the largest percentage change of the result is made on electric car, when the variable is decreasing with -15%. Then the number of electric cars needed has increased to 112, which is an increase by 18 cars. At the same time the cargo bicycles are increasing by 6 and the regular bicycles with 18.

Table 14. Sensitivity analysis over need of vehicles in mobility center. The results in the table are number of vehicles.

Vehicle Change of

variable

Change of variable [%]

Original

results New Results

Change of results [%] + % -% Bicycle ±1.95 h ±15% 104 91-122 −12.50% 17.31% Bicycle ±1.3 h ±10% 104 95-116 −8.65% 11.54% Bicycle ±0.65 h ±5% 104 99-110 −4.81% 5.77% Cargo ±1.95 h ±15% 36 31-42 −13.89% 16.67% Cargo ±1.3 h ±10% 36 32-40 −11.11% 11.11% Cargo ±0.65 h ±5% 36 34-38 −5.56% 5.56% Electric car ±1.95 h ±15% 94 82-112 −12.77% 19.15% Electric car ±1.5 h ±10% 94 86-104 −8.51% 10.64% Electric car ±0.65 h ±5% 94 90-100 −4.26% 6.38%

Figure 3 show the percentage change of the number of vehicles over the percentage change of the number of hours. The graphs show that the ratio is close to linear.

(28)

26

Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis over need of vehicles in the mobility center. The figure show the percentage change of the result, and the result is the number of each vehicle.

The change in need of vehicles will change the profit. Table 15 show how the break-even points change with the time variable, and that the percentage change is the same no matter if the supplement rent is 50, 100 or 150 SEK. The scenario is for when the

bicycle pool is hired. The biggest increase of the break-even point is for 50 SEK when the variable is decreased with 15%. If that happens, 384 more people than predicted would have to connect to the mobility center to reach the break-even point.

Table 15. Sensitivity analysis of break-even point for profit when hiring bicycle pool. The results in the table are break-even points.

Added rent Change of variable Change of variable [%] Original results New results Change of results [%] +% - % 50 SEK ±1.95 h ±15% 3056 2760-3440 −9.69% 12.57% 50 SEK ±1.3 h ±10% 3056 2836-3312 −7.20% 8.38% 50 SEK ±0.65 h ±5% 3056 2940-3184 −3.80% 4.19% 100 SEK ±1.95 h ±15% 1 528 1380-1720 −9.69% 12.57% 100 SEK ±1.3 h ±10% 1 528 1418-1656 −7.20% 8.38% 100 SEK ±0.65 h ±5% 1 528 1470-1592 −3.80% 4.19% 150 SEK ±1.95 h ±15% 1 019 920-1147 −9.69% 12.57% 150 SEK ±1.3 h ±10% 1 019 945-1104 −7.20% 8.38%

(29)

27

150 SEK ±0.65 h ±5% 1 019 980-1061 −3.80% 4.19%

Figure 4 presents the new break-even points, when the bicycle pool is hired, when the variable is changed with 5, 10 and 15%.

Figure 4. Break-even points when hiring bicycle pool during sensitivity analysis.

The sensitivity analysis results when the bicycles in the bicycle pool are bought is presented in table 16. The biggest change in break-even point is the same as for the hired bicycle pool, when the variable decreases with 15% for the supplement rent 50 SEK. The extra residents that would have to connect to the mobility center to reach the break-even point is 307.

Table 16. Sensitivity analysis of break-even point for profit when purchasing bicycle pool. The results in the table are break-even points.

Added rent Change of variable Change of variable [%] Original

results New results

Change of results [%] +% -% 50 SEK ±1.95 h ±15% 1828 1695-2002 −7.26% 9.53% 50 SEK ±1.3 h ±10% 1828 1730-1944 −5.33% 6.36% 50 SEK ±0.65 h ±5% 1828 1776-1886 −2.84% 3.18% 100 SEK ±1.95 h ±15% 914 848-1001 −7.26% 9.53% 100 SEK ±1.3 h ±10% 914 865-972 −5.33% 6.36%

(30)

28

100 SEK ±0.65 h ±5% 914 888-943 −2.84% 3.18%

150 SEK ±1.95 h ±15% 609 565-667 −7.26% 9.53%

150 SEK ±1.3 h ±10% 609 577-648 −5.33% 6.36%

150 SEK ±0.65 h ±5% 609 592-629 −2.84% 3.18%

Figure 5 presents the new break-even points, for the purchased bicycle pool, when the variable is changed with 5, 10 and 15%.

Figure 5. Break-even points when purchasing bicycle pool during sensitivity analysis.

6. Discussion

6.1 Considerations when starting a mobility center

Something important to keep in mind is that, just because mobility services are

introduced, car travels will not automatically reduce. If a carpool is adopted, it does not mean that the travel patterns will change drastically. Rather, it will be about introducing a fleet of vehicles. A behavior and system change are required to make this possible. For example, in order to enable a reduction in car ownership, the municipality in Sundbyberg offers two adult annual subway and bus ticket per household when moving into a building with mobility solutions (Sundbyberg, 2017, p. 13). Supplementary features like this can be advantageous, in order to succeed with reducing car ownership.

(31)

29

A necessary measurement in the future will be to strengthen the access to the public transport, in order to facilitate these trips. It is therefore important that mobility services function in a complementary way to public transport.

Earlier studies have shown that fewer younger people are getting a driver's license (Trafikanalys, 2012). But the travel habits survey show that there is a big percentage gap between people who have access to a car and people who has a driver’s license, especially in the city (Resvaneundersökning hösten 2015, 2016, p. 13). More people have a driver’s license than access to a car. In this model all car trips possible will be exchanged from a private- to a carpool-car, but since studies has shown that people tend to drive shorter distances when they become members of a carpool, there might be fewer trips to cover after the exchange. What might increase the car travels is that people with driver’s license who did not have access to a car, suddenly do. Exactly how this will affect the carpool usage in Rosendal is impossible to know without practical trials.

The carpool company Sunfleet (soon to be M) prearrange with building contractors that in terms of a new construction, the building contractors will pay the membership for the residents for a predetermined number of years. The users will only pay for their own usage. After those years the residents will hold a discount on the monthly paid

membership of the carpool. If the first years of a carpool are free, that will give time to change behavioral patterns. Most people are not used to this way of traveling, and having to pay for something you are not sure you want to use can give the carpool a slow start. If the same thing were to be done with the mobility center and the bicycle pool, it is possible that that would attract more users from start.

In the business model where the calculations are based on that the bicycles are bought for the bicycle pool, by the part that is receiving the monthly fee for a suggestion, the price for a bicycle and a cargo is set to an average. The monthly cost is based on that a bicycle or cargo has a lifespan of ten years. If more expensive bicycles were purchased, the quality would potentially be better. It could also attract more members if the

bicycles are better, where better could be more user-friendly or contain more features. If the quality is better there might be fewer costs for reparation and service, and the

lifespan might extend, which in the end might lower the monthly cost per bike. This will also go the other way around, if cheaper bicycles were purchased.

In this project, only three types of vehicles were chosen as mobility services. Already today, there are more alternatives like electric scooters or delivery boxes. In the future there will be even more, with deliveries made by drones or self-driving vehicles. Electric scooters are a popular transport -and studies have shown that they replace a larger fraction of car rides than bicycles do-, with some companies already integrated in Uppsala. The scooters have caused some problems though, with a lot of people getting injured and parking in a bad zone. They also might be more easily stolen than bikes, and their average travel length is 1.85 km, which is lower than the medium travel length with bicycle which was 2.87 km. From the investigation made on delivery boxes, that

(32)

30

could be an easily installed service in the mobility center, which could attract more people to the area.

Regarding the choice of making all bicycles electric, that could attract a wider group of people. Since they can provide help up hills, they get more comfortable and easier to ride. Less well-trained people, older people, or those who just do not want to get sweaty during the ride could enjoy them. It could make people who already own a regular bicycle, but wants to try an electric one, to sign up for the mobility center.

6.2 Results

When implementing mobility services in Sundbyberg, two cars from the carpool were estimated to correspond to 50 apartments (Sundbyberg, 2017, p.13). In the same way, two electric cargo bikes were assumed to hold 50 accommodations (Sundbyberg, 2017, p. 13). If this is compared to the results of the report, it can be noted that 0.34 electric cargo bikes correspond to 50 apartments. But on the other hand, if the total number of bikes is included, then it is obtained that 1.4 electric bicycles cover the need for 50 households. Similarly, it can be determined that 0.94 electric cars from the carpool are enough for 50 accommodations. By comparing the results of the model with

Sundbyberg's recommendations, it is partly possible to validate the model. The calculated need for cars, 0.94, are less than half of the 2 cars per 50 apartments that Sundbyberg has estimated. The same goes for cargo bikes. But if the regular bicycles are included as well, the number will be closer. Two of the parameters that were discussed regarding the sensitivity analysis was the static time of 20 min and the time interval of 13 h. By raising the static time and lowering the time interval the vehicles per 50 apartments would increase. That would make the results even closer to

Sundbybergs estimation, but even now the results are at least in the right tenfold. The needs are, of course, depending on the area. But if the results would have differed far too much, it might have been reasonable to assume that there is a structural error in the model.

Fullriggaren in Malmö had 54% connected to the mobility system, and another 12% planning on doing so. In addition, 42% of those who were not connected, were willing to join the bicycle pool. As the majority of the residents were satisfied with the parking facilities in the area, the parking norm was down to 0.7. For the reason that

Brandmästaren will provide similar services, it is possible that the area will have a similar amount of connected users. Though it is not known what the fee for

Fullriggarens bicycle pool is. If UPAB chooses to hire a bicycle pool, the break-even point is 30.56% with 50 SEK rent supplement. If UPAB instead decides to buy their own bike pool, the break-even point is already reached at 18.28%. If compared to the amount of connected users that Fullriggaren has, the result from the model seems fully achievable. If the residents of Rosendal get a positive impression of the mobility system, then the parking number and also the car ownership will probably decrease.