renewable mobility services in smart citiesmovesmartfp7.iti.gr/movesmartfp7/wp-content/... · south...

FP7-SMARTCITIES-2013 609026 - MOVESMART

D6.4 of 76

Renewable Mobility Services in Smart Cities

FP7 - Information and Communication Technologies

Grant Agreement No: 609026 Collaborative Project

Project start: 1 November 2013, Duration: 36 months

D6.4 Pilot results consolidation,lessons learnt and recommendations

Work package: WP6 – Pilot results consolidation,lessons learnt and recommendations Due date of deliverable: 31 October 2016 Actual submission date: 14 February 2017 Responsible Partner: PULA Contributing Partners: AVG, BIB, CERTH, GOING GREEN, CTI, KIT, UD,MLS,FLEX, SWC

Nature: Report Prototype Demonstrator Other Dissemination Level: PU : Public PP : Restricted to other programme participants (including the Commission Services) RE : Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including the Commission Services) CO : Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including the Commission Services) Keyword List: Open List of comma separeted Keywords

The MOVESMART project (http://www.movesmartfp7.eu) has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no 609026.

http://www.movesmartfp7.eu/


D6.4 of 76

The MOVESMART Consortium

Centre for Research and Technology Hellas / Information Technologies Institute, Greece

Business Innovation Brokers S. Coop., Spain

Ayuntamiento de Vitoria-Gasteiz (coordinator), Spain

Computer Technology Institute & Press “Diophantus”, Greece

Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Institute of Theoretical Informatics, Germany

Universidad de la Iglesia De Deusto, Energy Unit, Spain

South West College, UK

Grad Pula - Pola, Croatia

Going Green SL, Spain

MLS Multimedia SA, Greece

Flexiant Limited, UK


D6.4 of 76

Document history

Version Date Status Modifications made by

0.1 24 October 2016 Contributions sent to Pula by all the partners involved in the deliverable

Aitor Albaina Vivanco (AVG), Iva Ivančić (PULA), Kristina Fedel Timovski (PULA)

0.2 25 October 2016 First Draft sent by Pula to the partners to check internal coherence and scope Comments and further contributions by partners


0.3 26 October 2016 Final verson sent to the internal reviewer


0.4 27 October 2016 Comments by the internal reviewers


0.5 28 October 2016 Final version sent to the Quality board


0.9 31 October Comments from the Quality board

Adamantios Stavridis (MLS), Al Innes (FLEX)

1.0 04 November 2016

Final version submitted to EC Dionisis Kehagias (CERTH)

1.1 10 November 2016

Additional refinements. Re-submitted to teh PO and the reviewers.

Dionisis Kehagias (CERTH)

1.2 06 February 2017

Collection of input from contributing partners

Diego López-de-Ipiña (UD), Dimitrios Tsoukalas (CERTH), Damianos Kypriadis (CTI), Valentin Buchhold (KIT), Aitor Albaina Vivanco (AVG), Iva Ivančić (PULA), Kristina Fedel Timovski (PULA)


Incorporated peer review comments

Dionisis Kehagias (CERTH), Christos Zaroliagis (CTI)


Quality check and submission to the CE

Dionisis Kehagias (CERTH)

Deliverable manager

Kristina Fedel Timovski –PULA Iva Ivančić-PULA

List of Contributors

Aitor Albaina Vivanco, AVG Juan Martin, BIB Javier Fínez, BIB Gonzalo Alonso- Going Green Dimitrios Tsoukalas, CERTH Georgios Papadopoulos, CERTH Stephanos Doumpoulakis, CERTH Konstantinos Kitsikoudis, CERTH Manolis Vasileiadis, CERTH Spyros Kontogiannis, CTI Valentin Buchhold, KIT Konstantinos Genikomsakis, UD


D6.4 of 76

List of Evaluators

Adamantios Stavridis, MLS Al Innes, FLEX Christos Zaroliagis, CTI


D6.4 of 76

Executive Summary This deliverable summarises the results of the two pilots conducted in the two MOVESMART pilot sites, Pula-Pola and Vitoria-Gasteiz. The deliverable compares and evaluates the experimental results. and summarises the work of the whole work package WP6, comparing the different experiences on the same and in different cities into a set of indications and recommendations addressed to replication and deployment. This deliverable is the result of collaborative work from the Municipality of Vitoria-Gasteiz, and the City of Pula. ICT developers also contributed by their technical assistance in the completion of the performed RTD work. Additional consortium partners participate in the evaluation phase. Relevant issues include: interest and acceptance by users, interest and acceptance by cities, measure and comparison. Moreover, the document generates busines models and evaluation metrics as added values of the MOVESMART project.


D6.4 of 76

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 8 1.1 Objectives of WP6 ...........................................................................................................8 1.2 Scope of this deliverable .................................................................................................8 1.3 Structure of the document ..............................................................................................8

2 Pilot deployment overview ....................................................................................... 9 2.1 Pula-Pola .........................................................................................................................9 2.2 Vitoria-Gasteiz .............................................................................................................. 15

3 User acceptance ..................................................................................................... 19 3.1 Opinion surveys results ................................................................................................. 19

3.1.1 Pula-Pola .......................................................................................................... 19 3.1.2 Vitoria-Gasteiz .................................................................................................. 28

3.2 Service acceptance and identified limitations ................................................................ 35 3.2.1 Pula-Pola .......................................................................................................... 35 3.2.2 Vitoria-Gasteiz .................................................................................................. 35

3.3 MOVESMART software acceptance and identified limitations ....................................... 35 3.3.1 Pula-Pola .......................................................................................................... 35 3.3.2 Vitoria-Gasteiz .................................................................................................. 36

3.4 Software use patterns ................................................................................................... 37 3.4.1 Pula-Pola .......................................................................................................... 37 3.4.2 Vitoria Gasteiz .................................................................................................. 46

3.5 Performance tests ......................................................................................................... 65

4 Lessons learnt and recommendations ..................................................................... 69 4.1 Pula-Pola ....................................................................................................................... 69 4.2 Vitoria-Gasteiz .............................................................................................................. 70

5 Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 72

6 ANNEX I.................................................................................................................. 73


D6.4 of 76

Abbreviations

BM Business models

CS Crowd Sourcing

EEAM Energy Efficiency Assessment Module

EV Electric Vehicle(s)

GPS Global Positioning System

ICT Information Communication Technologies

MMR Multi Modal Routing

MOD Mobility on Demand

PND Portable Navigating Device


D6.4 of 76

1 Introduction

1.1 Objectives of WP6

The main objective of WP6 is to deploy the MOVESMART concept in real scenarios and in different operational environments for verifying the applicability of the core project concepts, i.e. crowdsourcing and reliability assessment mechanism, renewable personal mobility services, energy-efficient multimodal route planning, and incentivized EV sharing, in a generalised form. Also, WP6 aims to successfully evaluate the user experience and the expected impact in the two pilot sites, i.e. Vitoria-Gasteiz and Pula-Pola, as well as the new business models that are defined in WP7 and in D8.5.

Specific objectives include:

• To develop a methodology able to evaluate the needs and impacts of the MOD service for public transport in urban areas, based on a new concept of electrical vehicles.

• To prepare, plan and run the envisaged pilots in two municipalities: Vitoria-Gasteiz and Pula • To consolidate the results of the pilot deployment outcome, record the lessons learnt and

draw a set of recommendations for future deployment of the proposed personal mobility routing.

1.2 Scope of this deliverable

Deliverable D6.4 aims at comparing and evaluating the results of the experimental use of the MOVESMART application at the two sites. The outcome is of paramount importance for further replication tryouts. This document summarises the work of the whole work package, comparing the different experiences on the same and in different cities.

This work package is coordinated by the Municipality of Vitoria-Gasteiz (AVG), which is one of the two user partners and which can apply its sound experience in pilot case management gained in a number of previous projects. The work is driven also by the other participant city of Pula-Pola. ICT developers assure their technical assistance as completion of the performed RTD work. All the partners participated in the evaluation phase.

The deliverable D6.4 represents the outcomes of task T6.4. Its purpose is to summarise the results of the experiments, and their evaluations, into a set of indications and recommendations addressed to replication and deployment. Relevant issues include: interest and acceptance by users, interest and acceptance by cities, measure and comparison of results, problems met and solved, requirements for software improvement and suggested extensions.

1.3 Structure of the document

This document is divided into 5 sections. Section 2 describes the pilot deployment overview in two the pilot sites, Vitoria-Gasteiz and Pula-Pola. Section 3 elaborates the user’s acceptance. Section 4 describes the business models and section 5 contains the learnt lessons and recommendations.


D6.4 of 76

2 Pilot deployment overview

2.1 Pula-Pola

The main focus of the Pula pilot was to deploy the proposed Mobility on Demand (MOD) system on Pula’s bicycle road network. This was the first initiative ever taken that involved the promotion of EVs. The aim of the deployment of the electric bicycles was not to replace the public transportation system, covered primarily by buses, but to complement it. The users of the service comprise both permanent residents and visitors (tourists, students, commuters etc.).

The City of Pula joined (through the City-SEC Project) the Covenant of Mayors. One of the objectives of the MOVESMART project was to achieve the commitments made by the city with the accession: to exceed the EU target of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by the year 2020.

Also, the objective was to promote the use of alternative modalities of transport instead of the transport by buses and private cars. With this promotion, the City of Pula wanted to achieve more results in the environmental protection and create a new culture of citizen’s behaviour that will contribute in the future towards enhancing and creating more public investments in such infrastructures due to the reduction of traffic congestions and pollution.

Based on the Health screening analysis, the City of Pula started to develop the Strategy of Health that is intended to define the parameters and conditions for the activities connected to the healthy lifestyle of the citizens. The mobility on demand system of electric bicycles was included as one of the models.

Concerning the tourist target group, the MOD created a new offering for tourists that in economic terms increases revenues from urban areas and fosters, in urban areas, a positive approach to preserving environmental values beyond the borders of the city of Pula. The promotion itself has already had positive results and feedback from the private tourist sector (hotels, agencies, rental agencies) for the inclusion and investments in spreading the network of the Mobility on demand for electric vehicles.

The engagement of users for the pilot in Pula was made through publicity targeted to all the citizens, not only to the defined target groups. The publicity was made via the municipal web site (Figure 1) and the social media managed by the City of Pula-Pola: Twitter, Facebook and the news section of the website (www.pula.hr). Also, the section considering the MOVESMART project with all the instructions to participate and download is now part of the official website of the City of Pula.

Figure 1: Official web site of the Pula-Pola municipality advertising a MOVESMART pilot event

http://www.pula.hr/


D6.4 of 76

The pilot site in Pula organized a workshop (Figure 2) with the interested users to introduce the MOVESMART project and to train the testers in the use of the application and the electric scooters and bikes. These sessions were based on the use of the following material: leaflet in Croatian and Italian; technical documentation with visual instructions provided by the developers of the application and user documentation provided by the manufacturers of the electric bikes.

Figure 2: User training workshop organized by the City of Pula

There were two rounds of sessions planned: before and after the summer of 2016. The number of sessions in each of the rounds depended on the number of interested people. We planned the sessions within the framework of two bigger events that have a wider public appeal. The first one was the European Energy Week (15-19 June 2016) and the second one is the European Mobility Week (16-22 September 2016).

Each of the workshops lasted for 90 minutes. The contents of the workshop included: introduction of the project; concepts and objectives; how to download and install the application; creation of a profile; use of the different services; complete a questionnaire about the ease of use of the app; how to become a user of the electric bikes renting system. Requirements to participate in the workshop: own a smart phone, possibility to install the application. During the workshop attendants were taught how to handle the MOVESMART application that helps you calculate the best route for your travel around the city, integrating EV legs; to calculate the most efficient routes in Pula and how these journeys can be performed with an electric bicycle; how to give their feedback on the ease of use of this application and finally, participants learned how the shared electric bicycle system works. Those who were more interested contacted the office where the service was offered every day from 8.00-16.00 at the EDIC office in Pula.

The persons that chose to participate as target groups from the beginning, expressed their will and interest in new technologies and sustainable mobility; residents in Pula, regular visitors for study or work or occasional visitors and tourists. The idea to introduce the EV system was well received among the interviewees and possible target users (students, residents, tourists).


D6.4 of 76

Figure 3: Municipality Webpage advertising the training workshops

Electric bikes The City of Pula bought, with the funds assigned by the MOVESMART project, a small fleet of electric bikes consisting of two charging stations and eight electric bicycles. According to Croatian law, the City of Pula conducted a public procurement. After the procedure, a firm based in Pula was selected as a supplier. UTE Ltd Pula is a technology company, founded for design and manufacturing of electric and electronic devices. The firm is specialised in providing solutions for sustainable mobility in cities.

Two locations are defined in Pula for the drop on/drop off of electric bikes: Sljeme i Giardini.

The first location is in situated at the city green market, in front of the student canteen while the other location is in the city centre, a pedestrian and important historical zone of the city called “Giardini”.

Figure 4: E-bikes at the city green market in Giardini

The pilot project MOVESMART in Pula consisted on the test of the two products provided by the project: the application with the rapid route planner and the electric bicycles in a public transport/car sharing scheme. Each user participating in the pilot used the application exclusively or jointly with renting the electric bicycle.

The City of Pula, Department for communal system and property, released all the necessary permissions for the positioning and functioning of the bike-sharing system (decision on the location, traffic solution, consent of Department of conservation, all permissions concerning the connection of electricity and internet).

Within the same department, the Section for energy efficiency, applied for a grant at the national Fund for Environmental Protection and obtained financing for additional electric bikes. With these funds two more charging docks and bicycles will be financed and placed on attractive locations in the vicinity of tourist resorts. Despite the fact that this equipment was not purchased by the


D6.4 of 76

MOVESMART project funds, it will be at disposal of the MOVESMART target group users also after the project1.

From the legal point of view, the City of Pula adopted the General conditions for service use. A municipality owned company was determined to be the system operator. Its function now is to rent the electric bikes on behalf of the City of Pula, by signing a contract with the e-bike user (regardless of whether the user is a member of the target group of the MOVESMART project or another user). The General conditions of use of the service regulate mutual relations between the operator and the service user, loan terms and the use of bicycles, registration, duties and responsibilities of users, duties and responsibilities of operator services, fees and prices, personal data protection and other details. The General conditions of use of the service were adopted pursuant to article 295 of the Law on Obligations Act (National Gazette 35/05, 41/08, 63/08, 134/09 and 94/13). By signing the contract, the user accepts all the conditions stated in the General conditions of use of the service.

The characteristics of the bike-sharing system that was implemented in the MOVESMART project are: intuitiveness and ease of use - completely “user friendly”; flexibility - business model can easily be adapted to any particular needs; reliability - confirmed by the statistical data on the interventions needed; interesting and attractive design - branding and marketing according to all customer desires; real-time monitoring; energy efficiency, easy to install. The use of the bicycles is very simple, it consists of four steps:

1. INFO & PAYMENT - in any point of sale, directly on the pylon or online

2. ENTER YOUR CODE - Enter your code on the pylon and pick the bike you want to use.

3. TAKE YOUR BIKE - The sound signal indicates that the bike is unlocked and ready to use. Pull it out of the rack.

4. RETURN THE BIKE - After your ride please put the bicycle back into the rack. The sound signal indicates that the bike is locked.

1 As of this writting, the deployment is planned for the spring of 2017 because even if the Pula municipality completed the tender, and

purchased the bikes and the necessary infrastructures, the service is not active from 1st November 2016 until the 1st of April 2017.


D6.4 of 76

Figure 5: E-bikes - Giardini

The system is user friendly. It can be used with RFID cards on the docking points, or with codes on the pylon. It is very adaptable to urban space. The stations consist of a touch screen and a set of individual, independent parking bays that can be adapted to any area, however irregular it would be.

It has the best locking system and robust anti vandal bikes. The bike, designed especially for the system, is robust and works in extreme temperature conditions.

The advanced options are:

smart Tablet PC as an option allows the user guidance and provides additional information about the destination, tourism and catering offer

mobile application (free on Apple store and Google play) for bike tracking, enrolling, code purchasing, etc.)

code purchasing directly on pylon with credit card readers

RFID card and/or code for system usage

Additional benefits of this system include:

The ability to lock the bike outside the base by means of a specially designed system of own production

Monitoring of the system in real time; GPS tracking system monitors the using of bicycles and provides an anti-theft system


D6.4 of 76

A full range of statistical monitoring

The ability to create reports by various criteria and the needs of back-office users

The system was deployed on 13.07.2016. Within seven days, 300 RFID cards that were released for the use of 8 electric bikes. Citizens are still making inquiries about the system. To the interested users now are being issued codes for 24-hour use of electric bicycles. Tourists were also very satisfied with the system and we have so far released 50 codes with which tourists can use the system "Bičikleta" for 24 hours. In the first few months of use each e-bike crossed an average of 768 km that would be a total 6150 km, which is a very high utilization. The E-bikes are in circulation all the time, and is often the case that citizens are waiting to be able to use electric bikes.

Figure 6: Pictures of tourists in Pula trying the EV sharing system

Figure 7: The E-bike system in Pula is advertised in the municipality’s official webpage

In addition to the piloting activities in Pula-Pola, a number of other simulated tests were conducted by the technical partners, mainly MLS and CERTH in order to test part of the MOVESMART functionalities. In particular, these tests were conducted by real users located out of the pilot area (i.e. Thessaloniki, Greece) whose location was simulated to be in Pula-Pola. The purpose of those simulated tests was to debug the application and test various functionalities, such as the crowd sourcing reports and multimodal routing information display. These tests are not considered part of the pilots, but are mentioned here for the sake of completeness.


D6.4 of 76

Figure 8: Various snapshots of the pilot deployment at Pula

2.2 Vitoria-Gasteiz

Deliverable 6.3 (“Report on MOVESMART pilots’ deployment”) includes a full description of the pilot deployment activities in Vitoria-Gasteiz including problems encountered and contingency measures. Briefly, Vitoria-Gasteiz pilot experience comprised a test of an electric motorbikes-based MOD service that played a “bait-like” role in order to engage citizens to use the MOVESMART application. Due to the existence of proprietary software to book the EVs (from the EVs owner company, GG), an integration effort was needed to combine this with the MOVESMART application. Finally a coexistence frame was chosen and, although the GG´s application can work as a stand-alone application for booking the EVs, Vitoria-Gasteiz citizens were trained (see more details about training activities in D6.3) to use the MOVESMART main application for this purpose. In this regard, when an EV is part of the selected/suggested trip route, the GG´s application is automatically called from the MOVESMART application as to finalize the booking.

Due to the release date (M31) of the main final stable version of the integrated MOVESMART application, and technical problems related with the EVs (see D6.3 for more details), the full service deployment was extended until M35 in order to also coincide with the 2016 EU Mobility Week. For this purpose, a press release was prepared by the Vitoria-Gasteiz city-council that was shortly after covered by the local press. A series of workshops were organized by AVG with the collaboration of GG (Figure 9). Briefly, 85 people received training on the MOVESMART application and 6 of them installed the application in situ. Although much more people was attracted to the training stands, most of them declined to participate due to the need of a smartphone to book the EVs. In this


D6.4 of 76

regard, it is worth mentioning that the EVs worked as an attention attractor from the very beginning and this is also shown by the relatively high press coverage (see deliverable D6.3 and D8.3) of the local media since the beginning of the project (i.e. unpublished events such as the first internal test, the so-called Champions users, with city council staff were leaked to the press and there were even complaints about the EV´s service area limitations long before the service opened (Figure 10).

Figure 9: A citizen receiving training in the MOVESMART application´s workshops (M35)

The first internal test lasted from M30 to M33 (training in M30). However, the fact that the EVs service did not work properly, in a stable way, until M35 prevented engaging them in testing the service and their opinions were generally negative (see Opinion surveys section). Moreover, as the MOVESMART application was not available until M31 they were only trained in the GG´s booking App. To overcome this, the citizens´ workshops in M35 focused only in the MOVESMART application and 35 citizens gave their email addresses as to receive the application’s performance evaluation questionnaire. Their motivation was the 30 minutes free EV booking time committed by the EVs owner company (GG). ). However, the effect of this reward vanished as the EVs service was closed after the workshops completion and opened again no sooner than mid October (M36). This explains, at least partly, the low number of received questionnaires; as a consequence, a significant opportunity to engage real users was lost.

Details on the MOD service provided by GG are included in D6.2 and D6.3. In contrast to Pula-Pola, the EVs did not have a fixed parking location and they could be drop-off by the user anywhere within the so-called “service area” (Figure 12). Although initially the local police seemed reluctant to allow the service deployment, after a series of meeting they accepted after GG commitment to fulfill some recommendations (basically relating documentation and insurance visibility and the client attention service). In this regard AVG gave full support to the MOVESMART initiative as the reduction of CO2 emissions is paramount in the city’s sustainable mobility objective.


D6.4 of 76

Figure 10: Citizens requests about the expansion of the EVs service area in `Diario de Noticias de Álava´ (8th

March 2016) was capture by the local press.

Figure 11: Going Green’s EVs at the MOVESMART application´s workshops (M35)


D6.4 of 76

Figure 12: EV´s service area (Vitoria-Gasteiz city centre)

In addition to the piloting activities in Vitoria, a number of other simulated tests were conducted by the technical partners, mainly MLS and CERTH, similarly to Pula-Pola, in order to test some functionalities. In particular, these tests were conducted by real users located out of the pilot area (i.e. Thessaloniki, Greece) whose location was simulated to be in Vitoria-Gasteiz. The purpose of those simulated tests was to debug the application and test various functionalities, such as the crowd sourcing reports and multimodal routing information display, among others. These tests are not considered part of the pilots, but are mentioned here for the sake of completeness.


D6.4 of 76

3 User acceptance

3.1 Opinion surveys results

3.1.1 Pula-Pola

The City of Pula-Pola conducted two different opinion surveys were designed with the collaboration of all the MOVESMART partners so as to properly evaluate the performance of both the EVs renting (MOD) service and the MOVESMART application. a questionnaire to collect opinions and suggestions from users. The users were asked how much they were satisfied with the service and with the application, how often they use the service, do they combine it with the public service. We received mostly positive feedback and demands for more e bikes and stations to be available for the citizens.

In September 2016, the users of magnetic cards and of week codes fulfilled two evaluation questionnaires, one for the MoveSmart application and the other related to the use of the services of urban alternative transportation "Bičikleta". Overall, we received 44 replies to the questionnaire, 20 related to MoveSmart app and 28 related to the use of thee-bike system.

More details can be found below:


D6.4 of 76

MOVESMART application questionnaire

Unless otherwise specified, each question should be answered using a ‘likert’ scale (i.e. “Strongly agree”, “Agree”, “Neutral”, “Disagree”, “Strongly disagree”) a) GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1. How often have you used the MOVESMART application? Answers: (a) Daily; (b) Weekly; (c) Monthly; (d) Only occasionally)

2. It has been useful for me when planning a journey 3. I find that the application interface is intuitive and user-friendly 4. The application has worked as I expected without any technical issues 5. The application is available in my country’s language 6. My actual location is always correctly displayed within the map 7. Alternative routes for my trip are easily accessed 8. I can easily compare different route options for cost, time, eco-friendliness etc. 9. An option for public transport is usually provided 10. I found the application's documentation useful and comprehensive 11. I would recommend this application.

b) SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

12. The journeys recommended by the application are always reasonable. 13. The application usually recommends the shortest/best route available 14. The application response time is always sufficiently fast. 15. I am able to get detailed information on fuel/energy consumption and CO2

emissions from the application. 16. The available report types (traffic, accident, works, and weather) are sufficient

in order to describe an ordinary road incident. 17. Sending an incident report is easy.

c) QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DEPLOYED INCENTIVISED VEHICLE SHARING SERVICE: 18. In general I have found the booking application easy to use 19. I am very satisfied with how the booking app looks 20. Results were returned quickly 21. I can finalize reservations quite easily. 22. The main reason I might not use the incentivised reservation option is: Answers: (a) Discount not appealing (b) Too much walking (c) Other (d) None 23. I’d prefer if the incentive offered was free rental time rather than a price

discount. 24. I would prefer not to spend time reserving a bicycle using the application.

Instead, I would rather go to the docking station in hope that I will find an available bike.

25. If I reserve via the application I have always found a bicycle waiting for me


D6.4 of 76

General Questions

1. How often have you used the MOVESMART App? a) Daily

b) Weekly

c) Monthly d) Only occasionally

Fully agree Agree Neither agree or disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

It has been useful for me when planning a journey

4 10 6 O O

I find that the Application interface is intuitive and user-friendly

4 15 1 O O

The App has worked as I expected without any technical issues

5 11 4 O O

The App is available in my country’s language

8 11 O 1 O

My actual location is always correctly displayed within the map

5 13 2 O O

Alternative routes for my trip are easily accessed

4 7 9 O O

I can easily compare different route options for cost, time, eco-friendliness etc.

3 10 7 O O

An option for public transport is usually provided

3 2 13 1 O

I found the application's documentation useful and comprehensive

5 14 O O O

1

4

5

10


D6.4 of 76

I would recommend this App.

12 7 O 1 O

As depicted in the chart below, more than 70% (77%) of the users were positive regarding the MOVESMART application (selected the options ‘Fully Agree’ and ‘Agree’). The percentage of negative responses (users who selected the options ‘Disagree’ or ‘Strongly Disagree’) was 21%, whereas the neutral responses (‘neither agree or disagree’) amounted to 2%.

Specific Questions

Fully agree Agree Neither agree or disagree

Disagree Strongly disagree

The journeys recommended by the application are always reasonable.

3 12 5 O O

The Application usually recommends the shortest/best route available

3 11 4 2 O

GENERAL QUESTIONS

77%

21%

2%

positive

neutral

negative


D6.4 of 76

The App response time is always sufficiently fast.

3 14 3 O O

I am able to get detailed information on fuel/energy consumption and CO2 emissions from the App.

5 5 8 2 O

The available report types (traffic, accident, works, and weather) are sufficient in order to describe an ordinary road incident.

6 10 4 O O

Sending an incident report is easy.

4 10 6 O O

In general I have found

the booking application

easy to use

3 11 5 2 O

I am very satisfied with how the booking app looks

3 14 3 O O

Results were returned quickly

4 14 2 O O

I can finalize reservations quite easily

3 12 4 1 O

The main reason I might not use the incentivised reservation option is:

Discount not appealing

2

Too much walking

1

other

3

None

14

I’d prefer if the incentive offered was free rental time rather than a price discount.

12 5 2 1 O


D6.4 of 76

As depicted in the chart below, more than 70% (75%) of the users were positive regarding the MOVESMART application.

Questions Regarding the Deployed Incentivised Vehicle Sharing Service

Fully agree Agree Neither agree

or disagree Disagree Strongly

disagree

I'd rather not booked the bike using the application. Instead, I would rather go / on the dock, hoping to find an available bike?

O 3 5 11 1

I have always found my reserved motorbike quite close to the location agreed when reserving

2 5 11 2 O

As depicted in the chart below, 47% of the users were positive regarding the Deployed Incentivised Vehicle Sharing Service.

SPECIFIC QUESTIONS

75%

20%

5%

positive

neutral

negative


D6.4 of 76

EVs booking service

1. Da li Vam je sustav alternativnog urbanog prijevoza „Bičikleta“ olakšao prometovanje Gradom Pula-Pola?/ Did the system of alternative urban transportation e-bikes facilitate the circulation in the City of pula-Pola?

a) Da./yes

b) Ne./no

c) Ne znam./i don't know

Deployed Incentivised Vehicle Sharing Service

47%

40%

13%

positive

neutral

negative

(1) Did the system of alternative urban transportation e-bikes facilitate the circulation in the City of Pula-Pola? Answers: (a) Yes; (b) No; (c) I don’t know (2) How often do you use the system of alternative urban transportation e-bikes? Answers: (a) Daily; (b) Once a week; (c) Once a month (3) Which are the most common obstacles that you encounter when using the system? Answers: (a) Inability to use electric bikes due to the unavailability; (b) System failure on the electric bicycles; (c) Failure to stand where you take the electric bicycle; (d) Other (write below) (4) Which are the locations where you would like to place new stands for the e-bikes? (write below)

24

4

0


D6.4 of 76

2. Koliko često koristite električne bicikle iz sustava alternativnog urbanog prijevoza „Bičikleta“? How often do you use the system of alternative urban transportation e-bikes?

a) Svakodnevno./Daily

b) Jednom tjedno./Once a week

c) Jednom mjesečno./Once a month

3. Koje su najčešće prepreke sa kojima se susrećete prilikom korištenja sustava „Bičikleta“?/ Which are the most common obstacles that you encounter when using the system?

a) Nemogućnost korištenja električne bicikle zbog nedostupnosti.

/inability to use electric bikes due to the unavailability

b) Kvar na električnoj bicikli.

System failure on the electric bicycles c) Kvar na postolju gdje preuzimate električnu biciklu.

failure to stand where you take the electric bicycle.

d) Ostalo. (Upišite na donju crtu)

Other (write below)

Bicikle ne stoje dovoljno dugo na postolju pa nisu napunjene strujom./ Bicycles are not long enough on the stand and are not charged enough

Često prazan akumulator./ Often empty battery

Koristilo bi ukoliko bih bicikl uzeo npr. u Šijani vratio na Verudi ili Bunarini, tada bi imalo

smisla./ I would benefit if I took the bike for example in Šijana and returned in Veruda or

Bunarina, then it would make sense.

Iako na diplay-u baterija prikazuje da je puna, isprazni se u vrlo kratkom roku(cca.500m)./

Although the diplay shows that the battery is full,it is emptied in a very short time

(cca.500m)

Velika odgovornost, npr. briga da je netko ne ukrade (ili sl.) dok sam je parkirao ispred

trgovine, banke i sl.../ Great responsibility, for example, concern that someone might

steal it while I was parked in front of shops, banks, etc.

4. Koje su lokacije gdje bi željeli da se izgrade nova postolja za preuzimanje električnih bicikla iz sustava „Bičikleta“? (Upišite na donju crtu)/ Which are the locations where you would like to place new stands for the e-bikes? (write below)

Karolina, Opća bolnica Pula/Hospital Pula-both locations, Forum. (2x)

Svaki veći kvart u gradu./every bigger neighborhood

24

5

1

6

9

13

4


D6.4 of 76

Autobusni kolodvor/Bus statin

U blizini žute škole/near the high school

Šijana, Punta, Pattinaggio, Veruda, Valkane, Valsaline, Stoja, Bunarina, Valmade, Veli

Vrh.

"Konzum" Stoja, Medicinski centar Veruda/Hospital Veruda, "Konzum" Šijana, gas

station Medulinska ul. Veli Vrh.

Trgovački centri/Shopping malls, near the beaches (Verudela i ostala)-po ljeti/in the

summertime, Riva, Veruda, ...and other neighborhoods/ i ostale gradske četvrti –

omogućilo bi se svrsishodnije korištenje – do mjesta stanovanja/it would have more

sense to use it

FORUM

Veća pulska parkirališta (Karolina i iza Croatia osiguranja)./parking lots

Parkiralište na Karolini i iza Croatie osiguranja

Velika pulska parkirališta (dolazak autom do parkirališta te preuzimanje Bičiklete za

prometovanjem centrom grada Pule./big parking lots (park and ride system)

Kod većih trgovačkih centara i parkirališta (Šijana), parkiralište Karolina, parkiralište

kod Zavoda za zapošljavanje, parkiralište kod MUP-a./by the shopping malls and

parking lots

Na pulskoj Rivi, na Verudeli, Stoji i u svakom većem pulskom kvartu./in bigger

neighborhoods

Šijana (Plodine- Kaufland, Šijanska šuma- Kaiserwald, Forum, Stoja-Valovine).

Veruda kod tržnice, i u Šijani kod kružnog toka. /green market

Verudela, Šijana.

Autokamp Stoja, Valkane, Verudela, Marina Veruda,Lidl, benzinska postaja INA Veli

Vrh.

Verudela, Valkane, Lungo mare, Ozad Arene, Šijana (kod trgovačkih centara), Šijanska

šuma.

U blizini trgovačkih centara (Billa, Lidl, Kaufland, Konzum)./near the shopping malls.

Bunarina, Lungomare, Bolnica.

Stoja.

Na većim pulskim parkiralištima (kod Arene), Verudela i Šijana gdje je već najavljeno.

/on parking lots

Parking na Karolini i parking iza zgrade Croatia osiguranja (park-and-ride sustav)./on

parking lots – park and ride system

U svim kvartovima na području grada (od Štinjana do Verudele, Zračne luke i Muzila)

jer nema smisla nazivati nešto sustavom ako nema predispoziciju za sustavno

funkcioniranje. Dakle više bicikala i puno više postolja kako bi ljudi vidjeli korist ovog

projekta a zajednica osjetila benefite u vidu manje zagađenog zraka u gradu i

rasterećenju zdravstvenog sustava (manje kardiovaskularnih bolesti, reumatskih

tegoba) kao i boljem raspoloženju. Inače sam projekt "Bičikleta" izrazito podržavam,

bravo i samo tako naprijed. P.S.: Posjedujem bicikl i maksimalno se njime koristim i iz

svog iskustva moram napomenuti da su obilježene biciklističke staze važna

komponenta ovakvog sustava, a trebalo bi naći prostora i za aktivnost podizanja

razine kulture sudionika u prometu kako bi se dobio jedan kompletan dugoročno

isplativ proizvod./ In all neighborhoods in the city (from Stinjan to Verudela, Airport

and Musil) because it makes no sense to call something a system if there is no

predisposition to systematical functioning. So, more bikes and a lot more stands to


D6.4 of 76

see the benefit of this project and so the community feels the benefits in form of

lower air pollution in the city and health benefits (less cardiovascular disease,

rheumatic disorders) and a better mood. Otherwise, extremely support the project. I

have a bike and I use it a lot. From my experience I have to mention tha marked

bicycle routes is an important component of this system, and there should be more

activities to raise the level of culture of traffic participants in order to obtain a

complete long-term cost-effective product.

Veruda.

Stoja, Lungomare, Veruda.

Veruda, Šijana, Verudela, Stoja.

Živim u centru pa su mi potojeća postolja sasvim dovoljna./ I live in the center and the existing stands are quite enough

3.1.2 Vitoria-Gasteiz

Two opinion surveys were performed in Vitoria-Gasteiz. They are described in D6.3 and were produced in the two Basque Country’s official languages (Basque and Spanish). One referred to the EVs booking service (Going Green’s MOD application) and the other to the MOVESMART application performance. The reason for having two phases is that the second one refers to the final stable release of the MOVESMART application that was available one month later by the time that the first survey was conducted. The former conducted in M30. The latter (that also includes several questions about the MOD service) was sent to those citizens that kindly gave their email addresses (a total of 35 people) for this purpose during the citizens´ workshops organized in M35 in Vitoria-Gasteiz and also to the Vitoria-Gasteiz Champions (with participants belonging to the city council staff; see section 2.2) as to increase the inputs range. In order to foster participation in the MOVESMART application survey, 30 minutes of EV free use was granted by GG upon completion of the questionnaire (that was sent by GG using an electronic form).

In total, we received 7 and 10 completed questionnaires for the EVs booking service (from now on MOD questionnaire) and the MOVESMART application, respectively.

The low participation attained in Vitoria-Gasteiz for the MOD questionnaire was due to the fact that during the first month of the test the EVs service only worked at particular days and not without problems. However, as the aim of this preliminary test was to identify potential issues before the official launch of the service the feedback recovered in these opinions surveys was paramount and allowed improving the service.

However, the low participation in the MOVESMART App survey was due to the fact that the EVs service remained closed for one month after the completion of the workshops (it reopened again in mid October; M36). As a consequence this made the foreseen reward strategy (free EV use as to promote feedback input) irrelevant. The low number of EVs deployed (around 4 to 5; as for 25th October 2016) also reduced the visibility of the service and thus the chances of getting real users´ data. Apart from this it has to be noted that due to the cited issues, the available time for retrieving feedback was low: from the 22nd of September to end of October. In this regard, in order to increase the number of potential responders, AVG proposed GG and CERTH to send the MOVESMART app questionnaire to those new registering users of the MOD and the MOVESMART apps, respectively. Moreover, CERTH identified the need for conducting additional experiments regarding the MOVESMART application performance on field.

In this regard, CERTH in collaboration with MLS conducted a set of additional experiments with 50 real users in Thessaloniki (mainly employees from CERTH and MLS, but also other citizens) whose GPS location was simulated to be in the Vitoria-Gasteiz service area, for the purpose of testing. Only those functionalities that did not require the physical presence of users in the service area were


D6.4 of 76

tested in this context, i.e. crowd sourcing live traffic reporting, multimodal route planning, incentivized vehicle sharing, without proceeding as in the case of a real conditions scenario, e.g. without unlocking and using EVs.

Finally, regarding both the MOD and the MOVESMART Apps´ questionnaires (whose raw data are shown below and analyzed in sections 3.2 and 3.4, respectively) the lack of an iOS version (for Apple devices) limited the range of users that could test (and provide feedback) to the MOVESMART application.


D6.4 of 76

MOVESMART application questionnaire

Unless otherwise specified, each question should be answered using a ‘likert’ scale (i.e. “Strongly agree”, “Agree”, “Neutral”, “Disagree”, “Strongly disagree”) a) GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1. How often have you used the MOVESMART application? Answers: (a) Daily; (b) Weekly; (c) Monthly; (d) Only occasionally)

2. It has been useful for me when planning a journey 3. I find that the application interface is intuitive and user-friendly 4. The application has worked as I expected without any technical issues 5. The application is available in my country’s language 6. My actual location is always correctly displayed within the map 7. Alternative routes for my trip are easily accessed 8. I can easily compare different route options for cost, time, eco-friendliness etc. 9. An option for public transport is usually provided 10. I found the application's documentation useful and comprehensive 11. I would recommend this application.

b) SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

12. The journeys recommended by the application are always reasonable. 13. The application usually recommends the shortest/best route available 14. The application response time is always sufficiently fast. 15. I am able to get detailed information on fuel/energy consumption and CO2

emissions from the application. 16. The available report types (traffic, accident, works, and weather) are sufficient

in order to describe an ordinary road incident. 17. Sending an incident report is easy.

c) QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DEPLOYED INCENTIVISED VEHICLE SHARING SERVICE: 18. In general I have found the booking application easy to use 19. I am very satisfied with how the booking app looks 20. Results were returned quickly 21. I can finalize reservations quite easily. 22. The main reason I might not use the incentivised reservation option is:

Answers: (a) Discount not appealing (b) Too much walking (c) Other (d) None 23. I’d prefer if the incentive offered was free rental time rather than a price

discount. 24. I would even consider taking the bus to get to motorbike provided that the

discount was big enough. 25. I have always found my reserved motorbike quite close to the location agreed

when reserving 26. The main reason I drop off the motorbike at the agreed location is:

Answers: (a) To support the reliability of the system; (b) To avoid penalties


D6.4 of 76

General Questions a) GENERAL QUESTIONS:

1. How often have you used the MOVESMART App? Answers: (a) Daily; (b) Weekly; (c) Monthly; (d) Only occasionally

a) 1 b) c) 1 d) 8 2. It has been useful for me when planning a journey

a) 3 b) 5 c) 2 d) e) 3. I find that the Application interface is intuitive and user-friendly

a) 2 b) 6 c) 2 d) e) 4. The App has worked as I expected without any technical issues

a) b) 6 c) 1 d) 2 e) 1 5. The App is available in my country’s language

a) 5 b) 2 c) 2 d) e) 1 6. My actual location is always correctly displayed within the map

a) 3 b) 3 c) d) 2 e) 2 7. Alternative routes for my trip are easily accessed

a) 4 b) 4 c) d) 1 e) 1 8. I can easily compare different route options for cost, time, eco-friendliness etc.

a) 4 b) 3 c) 1 d) e) 2 9. An option for public transport is usually provided

a) 5 b) 2 c) 3 d) e) 10. I found the application's documentation useful and comprehensive

a) 1 b)2 c)5 d)2 e) 11. I would recommend this App.

a) 2 b)3 c)3 d)1 e)1 b) SPECIFIC QUESTIONS:

12. The journeys recommended by the application are always reasonable. a) 2 b) 3 c) 2 d) 2 e) 1

13. The Application usually recommends the shortest/best route available a) 1 b) 5 c) 1 d)1 e)2

14. The App response time is always sufficiently fast. a) 2 b)5 c)3 d) e)

15. I am able to get detailed information on fuel/energy consumption and CO2 emissions from the App.

a) 5 b)3 c)2 d) e) 16. The available report types (traffic, accident, works, and weather) are sufficient in order to

describe an ordinary road incident. a) b)9 c) d)1 e)

17. Sending an incident report is easy. a) 6 b)1 c)2 d)1 e)

c) QUESTIONS REGARDING THE DEPLOYED INCENTIVISED VEHICLE SHARING SERVICE: 18. In general I have found the booking application easy to use

a) b)4 c)2 d)1 e) 19. I am very satisfied with how the booking app looks

a) b)4 c)1 d)1 e)1 20. Results were returned quickly

a) b)4 c) d)1 e)2 21. I can finalize reservations quite easily.

a) b)3 c)3 d) e)1 22. The main reason I might not use the incentivised reservation option is: Answers: (a) Discount not appealing (b) Too much walking (c) Other (d) None


D6.4 of 76

a) b)4 c)2 d)1 23. I’d prefer if the incentive offered was free rental time rather than a price discount.

a) 1 b)2 c)2 d)1 e)1 24. I would even consider taking the bus to get to motorbike provided that the discount was big

enough. a) 1 b) c) d)3 e)3

25. I have always found my reserved motorbike quite close to the location agreed when reserving

a) 1 b)1 c)4 d) e)1 26. The main reason I drop off the motorbike at the agreed location is: Answers: (a) To support the reliability of the system; (b) To avoid penalties

a) 3 b) 4 General Questions As depicted in the chart below, 60% of the users were positive regarding the MOVESMART application.

Specific Questions As depicted in the chart below, more than 70% of the users were positive regarding the MOVESMART application.

General Questions

60%18%

22%

positive

neutral

negative


D6.4 of 76

Questions Regarding the Deployed Incentivised Vehicle Sharing Service As depicted in the chart below, regarding questions about the application and the IVS (questions 18-21 and 23), more than 50% of the users submitted a positive evaluation.

Specific Questions

71%

17%

12%

positive

neutral

negative

Deployed Incentivised Vehicle Sharing Service

51%

23%

26%

positive

neutral

negative


D6.4 of 76

MOD questionnaire A) ‘likert’ scale questions [ a): “Strongly agree”, b): “Agree”, c): “Neutral”, d): “Disagree”, e): “Strongly disagree”]: (1) Have you ever used the scooter as an alternative to your previously preferred transport mode? a) 1 b) c) 1 d) 1 e) 4 (2) Did you find the service useful? a) b) 2 c) 1 d) 2 e) 2 (3) Do you consider that the provided service area was adequate? a) b) c) d) 3 e) 4 (4) Was the reservations module intuitive? Did you find easy to use it? a) b) 3 c) 2 d) 2 e) (5) Is the information compiled in the App manual sufficient? a) 1 b) 4 c) 1 d) 1 e) (6) Would you recommend the service to other users? a) 1 b) 1 c) 2 d) 2 e) 1 B) Open box questions: Please detail any issue you might have encountered: -I could not perform a sole booking; every time I tried it gave me an error message (4 answers) -The service area is too small (4 answers) -The service’s opening times are too limited (2 answers) -The minimum time for a reservation by time is excessive -It is not available for iPhones (3 answers) -Users need to wait quite a long time in order to ride the motorbike –not instantaneous booking/riding option- (2 answers) -We have expected technical issues during the test and the service have been working only at certain occasions (2 answers) -The number of EVs in the test is scarce -The pop up announcement in order to get the booked EV should be placed earlier -I miss the possibility of booking a back and forth trip with an intermediate stop (or at least to offer the possibility of a `rapid´ going back to origin booking) -I have expected problems when picking-up the motorbike (inexact location) (2 answers) -When choosing the incentivised option it gives an error message -The error messages do not identify the problem´s origin -The customer service´s email could not be reached. Please describe, briefly, the frequency of use and the type/s of trip performed (commuting to job, back-home trip, leisure trip…): -I could not perform a sole booking; every time I tried it gave me an error message (4 answers) -I have performed several bookings (most of them unsuccessful) in order to test the service but I did not ride the EV -Just testing the application -Around two trips per week (for job related displacements) Please include here any other suggestion/issue that you consider useful regarding the upcoming deployment of the service to the general public: -It would be nice to see the available motorbikes location in advance -I would like to pay for the use but without a monthly fix quota (if this is the case) -I suggest that once you call (by phone) the customer service they give you the requested answer/solution (it did not happen to me as they told me they would call me back and they did not) -The customer service should be proactive and should contact the user when they receive an error message while trying to book the motorbike


D6.4 of 76

3.2 Service acceptance and identified limitations

3.2.1 Pula-Pola

In the City of Pula-Pola we did not encounter any problems regarding the use of the e-bikes. The citizens showed great interest and accepted the initiative; they signed the contracts to use the e-bike and the application and were included in the realisation of the goals of the MOVESMART project. Although the citizen’s workshops organised were focused on the MOVESMART application, the e bikes were the main attraction. In the City of Pula-Pola the limitation in using the service was primarily the small number of e-bikes (8 e-bikes on 300 magnetic cards released the first week of use), as well as, the fact that not a lot of citizens that were using the e-bike owned a corresponding smartphone for the MOVESMART app.


As can be seen in the MOD questionnaire (section 3.1.2), the main problems encountered during the first test of the MOD service (M30 to M33; with the Champions users) were associated to inability of booking the EVs. Apart from that, the users were very satisfied with the application’s layout and instructions manual and willing to test the service (in fact they were highly motivated). Unfortunately, this initial motivation vanished once they were unable to book the EVs (as can be seen in the use patterns reflected in the questionnaire; see also D6.3 for further details). However, this initial test generated a lot of feedback that was transferred to the technical partners as to overcome the identified issues

In this regard, the localization of the EVs hugely improved after this (it was not exact at the first moment due to software specifications). Regarding the inability of instantaneous driving option (associated with the Incentivised booking scheme and the predictive algorithm) the minimum time a user had to wait for riding an EV was reduced to 15 minutes. Furthermore, currently, with the MOVESMART application, the motorbikes´ exact location can be seen in advance.

Apart from this the complaints about the limited service area (see also Figure 10), limited opening times and unavailability of the iOS version, were communicated to the technical partners in order to address them in future updates of the application. Also, GG took this into account for the future commercialization of the service once the project has finished. These three points remain as the main service’s limitations and would explain why most of the test users would not be willing to pay for the service (5 out of 7 answers).

Regarding the number of vehicles, the 4 motorbikes were considered enough for the 32 Champions users. Other demands of the users were also considered and some of them (i.e. the request for a back and forth trip option) were discarded as they did not correspond to a MOD service.

In summary, the test with the Champions users as it allowed to improve the MOD service before its official launch to the citizens (along with the MOVESMART application).

3.3 MOVESMART software acceptance and identified limitations

3.3.1 Pula-Pola

Local advertisement of MOVESMART facilities has attracted a lot of tourists, most of which actually ran the application. In order to increase the number of tourists that use the app the reservation process should be done only through the App, so that users are enforced to install and run it. Then it would be up to the users to decide to check the additional functionalities of the integrated application. The joint work of the municipality, CTI and PENTA (the e-bicycles´ software owner) finally succeeded in enabling the compulsory reservation of the EVs through the MOVESMART application.


D6.4 of 76

No problems were encountered regarding the use of the e-bikes. The citizens showed great interest and accepted the initiative; they signed the contracts to use the e-bike and the application and were included in the realisation of the goals of the MOVESMART project. This is an evolving process which could have a bigger impact through the continuation of the activities of the MOVESMART project after it officially ends.


The MOVESMART application performance was evaluated in Vitoria-Gasteiz by means of an ad hoc MOVESMART application questionnaire (see raw data in section 3.1.2) that was sent to those citizens attending the MOVESMART workshops organised in the frame of the EU Mobility Week and willing to participate in the project as well as, in a later stage, to the aforementioned Champions users as to increase the target group.

As commented before, the fact that the MOD service was closed for nearly one month after the workshops completion prevented reaching a high level of participation in this opinion survey (as the free EV use reward was the main bait to receive feedback). However, significant information can be taken from the received feedback. Apart from comments recorded during the workshops that are common to the ones encountered during the MOD service test (i.e. the limitation of the service area and the service opening times), regarding the MOVESMART application the issue of not offering an iOS version was also raised and some potential users were lost because of this. Other comments retrieved there and later and not recorded by the questionnaire (that did not included an open text option) were that when an user wants to drive a bicycle in Vitoria-Gasteiz the multimodal route planner does not offer bicycle routes. This is a main issue in a city like Vitoria-Gasteiz with more than 13% of trips performed by bicycle. This was communicated to the technical partners and will be taken into account for further developments.

Regarding the general questions, most of the people that gave us feedback only used the application in an occasional way. This is not rare as other similar applications like Moovit or Tranvit are available in the city (apart from Google Maps etc). Apart from that more time is needed to generate fidelity. On the good side, most of the users found the application useful and easy to use without finding technical problems. They recognised the value of an application that offers alternative routes giving the cost, time and CO2 emissions information and including public transport. However, the user manual seems to be insufficient (less than half of the users giving a positive feedback). Regarding the multilingual version, some texts´ translations were missing (although few in number). Apart from that, when analysing the success showing the user’s actual location it has to be taken into account that several factors interact (such as network coverage, GPS availability) and this prevent further conclusions; regarding GPS location, some users missed a button to go back to the current user position in the main map.

Regarding the specific questions, the routing alternatives were positively evaluated including the provided energy consumption information. Moreover, the traffic related incidents tool was well considered and seemed to be easy to use.

Finally, as commented before, this MOVESMART application questionnaire also included questions regarding the MOD service. While the EV booking process was easy, the fact that another application is called in order to finalise the booking (and this is affected by the minimum 15 minutes waiting time for booking an EV) might explain the few negative results in the related question. The few positive answers in the question regarding the EV location after booking just correspond to the fact that the MOD service, although was positively accepted by the citizens, it was closed for most of the time after the official launch. Moreover, the fact that the incentivised option is poorly evaluated might be related to the scale of Vitoria-Gasteiz, as in a small city the possibility of walking to a second, further EV in order to get a discount is not appealing enough. This is even worse when you have to take a bus to reach the farther EV. However, this might be interesting in bigger cities such as Bilbao or


D6.4 of 76

Barcelona. In this regard, this corresponds well with the local transport authorities´ feedback reported in D6.3.

3.4 Software use patterns

MOVESMART front-end application presents competitive advantages over the existing apps for a plethora of reasons. First of all, MOVESMART application integrates a system capable of multimodal route planning that, unlike any other route planners, incorporates electric vehicles. In particular, the application supports a door-to-door routing solution by providing a multitude of different modes of transport with the focus on environmental friendly alternatives (e.g., bicycles and electric vehicles).

Another competitive advantage of the MOVESMART application over existing apps is the ability of its route planning services to handle time-dependent road traffic data into the computation of routes. This data stems from two sources: the historic data (learned model of traffic data that produces a reliable prediction of a traffic situation) and live traffic data (e.g., accident on a road) that is passed through the Crowd Sourcing Module.

MOVESMART’s Crowd Sourcing Module is an innovative system, whose main goal is to gather periodic data that the users are willing to share. This data include a) en-route data, b) post-route data and c) emergency data. Nevertheless, the key innovation of the Crowd Sourcing Module is the fact that it relies on a mechanism (probabilistic model) for evaluating the reliability of the submitted reports. This mechanism contributes to the validation of the data that the crowd submits, providing a data filtering facility, as opposed to the most common applications of this kind, which allow any data, even span information to be shared among the users of the same network

When it comes to incentivised vehicle sharing schemes, MOVESMART application, unlike other similar applications, provides innovative and effective cost models and pricing policies appropriate for one-way vehicle sharing systems. The main challenge for this service is to generate customer incentivisation schemes to motivate customer-based distribution of bicycles/motorbikes. These schemes offer meaningful and attractive incentives to users so as to leave their vehicle to a station different to that originally intended.

Finally, MOVESMART application provides the Energy Efficiency Assessment Module, another innovative service, which, in conjunction with the Multimodal Route Planner and the Incentivised EV Vehicle Sharing services achieves the most energy-efficient multimodal route for individuals. In this context, unlike other route planners, this service performs the assessment of the route suggestions (provided to the user) from an energy-efficiency perspective, based on the characteristics of the latter, the transport mode chosen for each route leg, as well as the characteristics and predicted traffic conditions of the road network.

Indicative use patterns of the application, listed by individual services, are presented below:

3.4.1 Pula-Pola

Energy Efficiency Assessment Module With respect to the use of the “Energy Assessment” functionality (accessible via the MOVESMART integrated application), this subsection presents indicative results on the requests submitted to the Energy Efficiency Assessment Module (EEAM) for assessing fuel/energy consumption and total CO2 emissions of (user-selected) routes in the city of Pula-Pola for the period October 10-23, 2016. Specifically, Figure 13 presents the number of submitted “Energy Assessment” requests (using the MOVESMART integrated application) for the period under consideration in Pula-Pola, while Figure 14 shows the results of analyzing these requests with respect to the number of legs in the corresponding routes. In this case, it may be observed that less than 20% of the routes are unimodal, while almost two thirds (2/3) of the routes are multimodal with 3 legs. In this context, roughly 3 out of 4 “Energy Assessment” requests involve routes with public transport (i.e. bus), while more than


D6.4 of 76

one third (1/3) of the requests refer to routes that include e-bikes, as shown in Figure 15. Moreover, it is noted that a total number of 26 records in terms of user-selected routes (excluding self-tests) were logged in the EEAM server during the period October 10-23, 2016, for the city of Pula-Pola.

Figure 13: Number of requests for “Energy Assessment” of user-selected routes using the MOVESMART

integrated application in Pula-Pola.

Figure 14: Percentage breakdown of number of route legs in “Energy Assessment” requests in Pula-Pola.


D6.4 of 76

Figure 15: “Energy Assessment” requests in Pula-Pola: Percentage occurrence of each transport mode in user-

selected routes.

Multimodal Routing Engine This section presents statistics about the usage of the multimodal routing (MMR) engine collected in the period June 23 to October 26 in Pula-Pola. In total, the MMR engine received 490 queries during that period. All of them were queries generated by end users of the application (as opposed to the situation in Vitoria-Gasteiz where the MMR engine is also used as a subroutine by the incentivized vehicle sharing service). The users of the application can explicitly enable and disable the desired modes of transport for each query. Figure 16 reports the occurrence of the different transport modes in the queries. Walking was enabled in each query, whereas public transit and the rental e-bikes were enabled in three-quarters of the queries each. Figure 17 shows the distribution of the departure time specified in the queries. As expected, most of the queries ask for a departure time between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.

Figure 16: Occurrence of the different transport modes in the user queries in Pula-Pola.


D6.4 of 76

Figure 17: Number of user queries grouped by departure time in Pula-Pola.

Crowd Sourcing Module This service’s main goal is to gather periodic reports that the users are willing to share, e.g. emergency data related with unpredictable events like car accidents or works that directly affect traffic conditions, as well as data concerning the feedback information that users send regarding the evaluation of nearby reports, as a means to ensure the quality of the collected data. Obviously, this service supports the assessment of the significance of the incoming information, which is an essential operation of any crowd-sourcing system. Moreover, this service implements a number of traffic prediction algorithms that consume the aforementioned data in order to perform prediction of the traffic status for a short-term period and for a given urban area.

The prediction accuracy of the implemented traffic prediction algorithms was measured using two error metrics, namely the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) and the Symmetric Mean Absolute Percentage Error (SMAPE). Both metrics are widely used in literature to measure the performance of (generally) prediction models, and especially in the field of traffic prediction. The former metric has the same measurement unit as the regressed variable and it its scale dependent, while the latter is a percentage metric with values from 0 to 100%, which is more easily to interpret.

With respect to the use of the “Crowd Sourcing” functionality (accessible via the MOVESMART integrated application), this subsection presents indicative results on the requests submitted to the Crowd Sourcing Module (CSM) for a) emergency data in the form of reports and b) reliability assessment (users’ feedback) of the reports in the city of Pula-Pola. For the period October 2-23, 2016, 117 report submission requests have been recorded. Specifically, Figure 18 presents the number of report submission requests per day (using the MOVESMART integrated application) for the period under consideration in Pula-Pola, while Figure 19 shows the results of analyzing these reports with respect to their type (accident, traffic, works, weather). Similarly, Figure 20 shows the results of analyzing these reports with respect to the user mode (walk, drive, transportation, cycle). Moreover, Figure 21 illustrates an analysis based on the report severity (normal, high), while Figure 22 presents results of the final decision of the report evaluation algorithm, i.e. the percentage of the reports that were evaluated as true by the algorithm. Finally, for the aforementioned period, 74 report evaluation requests have been recorded. Figure 23 shows the number of report evaluation requests (user feedback) per day, while Figure 24 shows the results of analyzing these report evaluations with respect to users’ choice (true/false) for the period under consideration in Pula-Pola.

As depicted in Figure 19, more than 50% of the reports in Pula-Pola during the period October 2-23 were “traffic” reports, while “accident” and “works” reports both share the percentage of 21 % of total reports. Also, as Figure 20 presents, almost two thirds (2/3) of the users were in walk mode


D6.4 of 76

while submitting the reports. In addition, as illustrated in Figure 21, the greatest percentage of the reports (83%) was of “medium severity”. In this context, according to Figure 22, almost 90% of the reports were evaluated by the report evaluation algorithm as “true”, most probably due to the fact that all of users (100%) have evaluated them as “true” as well (Figure 24).

Those figures include data gathered from field tests in Pula-Pola, plus anonymous users who downloaded the Live Traffic Report application, i.e. a lightweight version of the original MOVESMART application that includes only the crowd sourcing functionality (available at Google Play and Apple Store, since M24). Also a few simulated tests (by around 30 users) were also executed by CERTH and MLS in a controlled environment (simulated GPS location). During the period October 2-23, for the city of Pula-Pola 191 (117 + 74) crowd sourcing report records where recorded to the database.

In addition to those records, each user produces a large number of record every time that new data is generated, e.g. user positions tracked every minute, user trips, energy consumption reports, etc. (for more information on the UTKB structure, please see D3.4.2). In particular, the number of users positions tracked reported is equal to 285,276 records only in the aforementioned period (October 2016). The total number of user-generated data is 3,201,589 UTKB records.

Figure 18: Number of report submission requests for “Crowd Sourcing” using the MOVESMART integrated

application in Pula-Pola.

Figure 19: Percentage breakdown of the type of submitted reports for “Crowd Sourcing” using the

MOVESMART integrated application in Pula-Pola.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2/1

0/2

016

3/1

0/2

016

4/1

0/2

016

5/1

0/2

016

6/1

0/2

016

7/1

0/2

016

8/1

0/2

016

9/1

0/2

016

10/1

0/2

016

11/1

0/2

016

12/1

0/2

016

13/1

0/2

016

14/1

0/2

016

15/1

0/2

016

16/1

0/2

016

17/1

0/2

016

18/1

0/2

016

19/1

0/2

016

20/1

0/2

016

21/1

0/2

016

22/1

0/2

016

23/1

0/2

016

Nu

mb

er

of

rep

ort

s

54%

21%

21%

4%

traffic

accident

works

weather


D6.4 of 76

Figure 20: Percentage breakdown of the user mode of submitted reports for “Crowd Sourcing” using the


Figure 21: Percentage breakdown of the severity of submitted reports for “Crowd Sourcing” using the


Figure 22: Percentage breakdown of the decision of the report evaluation algorithm regarding the submitted

reports for “Crowd Sourcing” using the MOVESMART integrated application in Pula-Pola.

71%

29%

0%

0%

w alk

drive

transportation

cycle

83%

17%

medium severity

high severity

88%

8%4%

TRUE

FALSE

NOT EVALUATED


D6.4 of 76

Figure 23: Number of report evaluations for “Crowd Sourcing” using the MOVESMART integrated application

in Pula-Pola.

Figure 24: Percentage breakdown of the users’ evaluation regarding the submitted reports for “Crowd

Sourcing” using the MOVESMART integrated application in Pula-Pola.

Incentivized Vehicle Sharing The system in Pula initially comprised two stations with six parking lots each and a fleet of eight electric bikes. Later, another station with eleven parking lots has been deployed and two more bikes have been added to the fleet. In this system 22 completed reservations, initiated through the MOVESMART app, have been recorded. Since the system is free of charge, the user is rewarded with extra free minutes in case s/he accepts the system-best proposed trip. The default allowed time for reserving a bike is two hours. Having accumulated extra free minutes this time period can be expanded.

The fulfilled reservations are summarized in Table 1. For each reservation the reservation identification, the user identification, the origin and destination stations, the departure time and the duration of the trip are presented. Also the minutes rewarded to the user in the case s/he has accepted the system-best trip are included. According to the recorded reservations, the mean reservation time is 56 minutes. The minimum duration is 10 minutes (reservation 768) while the maximum duration is 135 minutes (reservation 771). The duration of reservation 771 is greater than the maximum default allowed duration. However, as shown in the recorded reservations the user who made the reservation, had accepted the alternative trips of previous reservation requests and thus s/he had been rewarded with extra free minutes. The states of the bike sharing system during

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2/1

0/2

016

3/1

0/2

016

4/1

0/2

016

5/1

0/2

016

6/1

0/2

016

7/1

0/2

016

8/1

0/2

016

9/1

0/2

016

10/1

0/2

016

11/1

0/2

016

12/1

0/2

016

13/1

0/2

016

14/1

0/2

016

15/1

0/2

016

16/1

0/2

016

17/1

0/2

016

18/1

0/2

016

19/1

0/2

016

20/1

0/2

016

21/1

0/2

016

22/1

0/2

016

23/1

0/2

016

Nu

mb

er

of

evalu

ati

on

s

100%

0%

evaluations as true

evaluations as false


D6.4 of 76

the procedure of reservation with identification 768 are depicted in the following three figures. Figure

25 presents the origin (green marker) and the destination (red marker) of user’s request. Figure 26 shows the state of the system after the start of the trip. The system after the completion of the trip is presented in Figure 27.

The IVS system can be invoked when explicitly requesting a bike, but it can also be invoked through the MOVESMART app, when a multimodal route includes a bike leg. In that case the IVS is called in order to handle the reservation procedure and propose an alternative station to pick-up and/or to drop-off the bike. The first four reservations included in Table 1 refer to reservations initiated from users requesting multimodal route directions.

Reservation User Start Station Departure Time Destination Station

Duration (min)

Reward (min)

648 818 Trznica 5/7/2016 15:18 Giardini 60 0


674 818 Giardini 12/7/2016 12:12 Giardini 60 5

688 818 Trznica 15/7/2016 13:33 Trznica 100 0


700 818 Trznica 16/9/2016 11:00 Trznica 60 0

723 818 Giardini 19/9/2016 10:30 Trznica 60 0

753 999 Trznica 09/10/2016 8:48 Banjole Portic 30 0

754 999 Trznica 10/10/2016 9:43 Banjole Portic 30 5

755 999 Giardini 11/10/2016

10:30 Banjole Portic 30 0

756 999 Trznica 11/10/2016


758 818 Trznica 30/10/2016

15:08 Giardini 130 0

763 818 Trznica 12/10/2016

10:30 Giardini 40 0

766 818 Trznica 12/10/2016

13:12 Giardini 60 5

767 818 Trznica 13/10/2016


768 818 Trznica 15/10/2016

16:27 Giardini 10 0


771 818 Giardini 20/10/2016


772 818 Giardini 21/10/2016

11:32 Giardini 25 0

773 818 Trznica 23/10/2016

12:17 Giardini 35 5

775 818 Trznica 24/10/2016


776 818 Banjole Portic 24/10/2016

13:00 Giardini 30 0 Table 1. Completed reservations in Pula-Pola.


D6.4 of 76

Figure 25. Reservation request

Figure 26. User departure (trip started).


D6.4 of 76

Figure 27. User arrival (trip completion).

3.4.2 Vitoria Gasteiz

Energy Efficiency Assessment Module With respect to the use of the “Energy Assessment” functionality (accessible via the MOVESMART integrated application), this subsection presents indicative results on the requests submitted to the Energy Efficiency Assessment Module (EEAM) for assessing fuel/energy consumption and total CO2 emissions of (user-selected) routes in the city of Vitoria-Gasteiz for the period October 10-23, 2016. Specifically, Figure 28 presents the number of submitted “Energy Assessment” requests (using the MOVESMART integrated application) for the period under consideration in Vitoria-Gasteiz. The analysis of the “Energy Assessment” requests with respect to the number of legs in the corresponding routes indicates that less than half of them are unimodal, as shown in Figure 29. Further analysis of the results reveals that all unimodal routes refer to passenger car routes, out of which only 0.9% include an electric car (Figure 30). Moreover, it is interesting to note that the occurrence of routes that include e-scooters in the “Energy Assessment” requests is comparable to that of passenger cars (in the order of 40%), as shown in Figure 31. Last, it is noted that a total number of 519 records in terms of user-selected routes (excluding self-tests) were logged in the EEAM server during the period October 10-23, 2016, for the city of Vitoria-Gasteiz.

Calculation of the estimated energy gains and CO2 emission reduction After data from pilots was collected, it was easy to run a simulation in order to estimate the energy gains, but also the CO2 emission reduction achieved at the end of the project by the use of the proposed routes. To this end, the following scenario was simulated. First, we assume that all users of the MOVESMART application are engaged in the following three scenarios: i) all users perform the requested journeys by using conventional cars, ii) all users perform the requested journeys by using PT and iii) all users perform the requested journeys by using PT and EVs. The results of the simulation is as follows:


D6.4 of 76

By retrieving the MMR records of journeys submitted by real users from 10/10/2016 - 10/23/2016, we fed these records into the EEAM in order to get CO2 emission and energy consumption values. Then, using again the EEAM, we calculated these values but as if the journeys were planned using the TDR, i.e. a conventional car. The numbers are presented below:

Records: 308 TDR:

CO2 equivalent: 98.536281 kg

total energy: 367.335552 kWh MMR:


total energy: 103.384167 kWh

Next, we repeated the exact same procedure, but for TDR records. By retrieving the TDR records of journeys submitted by real users from 10/10/2016 - 10/23/2016, we fed these records into the EEAM in order to get CO2 emission and energy consumptions values. Then, using again the EEAM, we calculated these values but as if the journeys were planned using the MMR, i.e. public transport and EVs. The numbers are presented below:

Records: 159 TDR:





In total:

Records: 159 TDR:





By looking at the total energy consumption factor, we can conclude that the replacement of a conventional car route with a multimodal route (public transport and EVs), saved us 881.867615 - 252.474338 = 629.393277 kWh of energy, i.e. 71% energy reduction. Respectively, the replacement of a conventional car route with a multimodal route (public transport and EVs), saved us 236.607014 - 78.915353 = 157.691661 kg of CO2 equivalent, i.e. 67% CO2 equivalent reduction.

In conclusion: 71% improvement in energy savings and 67% reduction of CO2 emissions can be achieved with the proposed multimodal routes (compared to routes with conventional cars), based on real user requests (target was 15-25%).


D6.4 of 76

Figure 28: Number of requests for “Energy Assessment” of user-selected routes using the MOVESMART

integrated application in Vitoria-Gasteiz.

Figure 29: Percentage breakdown of number of route legs in “Energy Assessment” requests in Vitoria-Gasteiz.

Figure 30: “Energy Assessment” requests in Vitoria-Gasteiz: Percentage breakdown of passenger car routes.


D6.4 of 76

Figure 31: “Energy Assessment” requests in Vitoria-Gasteiz: Percentage occurrence of each transport mode in

user-selected routes.

Multimodal Routing Engine This section presents statistics about the usage of the multimodal routing (MMR) engine collected in the period June 23 to October 26 in Vitoria-Gasteiz. In total, the MMR engine received 9419 queries during that period. As Figure 32 shows, 3037 of them were generated by end users of the application and 6382 were generated by the incentivized vehicle sharing service, which uses the MMR engine as a subroutine. The users of the application can explicitly enable and disable the desired modes of transport for each query. Figure 33 reports the occurrence of the different transport modes in the queries. Walking was enabled in each user query, whereas the rental e-scooters were enabled in almost 90 % of the queries, and public transit was enabled in about 60 % of the queries. Figure 34 shows the distribution of the departure time specified in the queries. There is a clear morning and evening peak, and only very few queries during the night-time.

Figure 32: Number of user and IVS queries in Vitoria-Gasteiz.


D6.4 of 76

Figure 33: Occurrence of the different transport modes in the user queries in Vitoria-Gasteiz.

Figure 34: Number of queries grouped by departure time in Vitoria-Gasteiz.

Crowd Sourcing Module With respect to the use of the “Crowd Sourcing” functionality (accessible via the MOVESMART integrated application), this subsection presents indicative results on the requests submitted to the Crowd Sourcing Module (CSM) for a) emergency data in the form of reports and b) reliability assessment (users’ feedback) of the reports in the city of Vitoria Gasteiz. For the period October 5-23, 2016, 251 report submission requests have been recorded. Specifically, Figure 35 presents the number of report submission requests (using the MOVESMART integrated application) for the period under consideration in Vitoria Gasteiz, while Figure 36 shows the results of analyzing these reports with respect to their type (accident, traffic, works, weather). Similarly, Figure 37 shows the results of analyzing these reports with respect to the user mode (walk, drive, transportation, cycle). Moreover, Figure 38 illustrates an analysis based on the report severity (normal, high), while Figure 39 presents results of the final decision of the report evaluation algorithm, i.e. the percentage of the reports that were evaluated as true by the algorithm. Finally, for the aforementioned period, 123 report evaluation requests have been recorded. Figure 40 shows the number of report evaluation requests (user feedback), while Figure 41 shows the results of analyzing these report evaluations with respect to users’ choice (true/false) for the period under consideration in Vitoria Gasteiz.


D6.4 of 76

As depicted in Figure 36, more than 50% of the reports in Vitoria Gasteiz during the period October 5-23 were “traffic” reports, while “accident” and “works” reports follow up with the percentage of 14 % and 18% respectively. Also, as Figure 37 presents, almost two thirds (2/3) of the users were in walk mode while submitting the reports. Moreover, as illustrated in Figure 38, the greatest percentage of the reports (56%) was of “medium severity”. In this context, according to Figure 39, almost 85% of the reports were evaluated by the report evaluation algorithm as “true”, most probably due to the fact that almost the whole set of the users (97%) have evaluated them as “true” as well (Figure 41).

Figure 35: Number of report submission requests for “Crowd Sourcing” using the MOVESMART integrated

application in Vitoria Gasteiz.

Figure 36: Percentage breakdown of the type of submitted reports for “Crowd Sourcing” using the

MOVESMART integrated application in Vitoria Gasteiz.

Those figures include data gathered from field tests in Vitoria-Gasteiz, plus anonymous users who downloaded the Live Traffic Report application, i.e. a lightweight version of the original MOVESMART application that includes only the crowd sourcing functionality (available at Google Play and Apple Store, since M24). Also a few simulated tests (by around 20 users) were also executed by CERTH and MLS in a controlled environment (simulated GPS location). During the period October 5-23, for the city of Vitoria-Gasteiz, 374 (251 + 123) crowd sourcing records where recorded to the database.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

5/10

/201

6

6/10

/201

6

7/10

/201

6

8/10

/201

6

9/10

/201

6

10/1

0/201

6

11/1

0/201

6

12/1

0/201

6

13/1

0/201

6

14/1

0/201

6

15/1

0/201

6

16/1

0/201

6

17/1

0/201

6

18/1

0/201

6

19/1

0/201

6

20/1

0/201

6

21/1

0/201

6

Nu

mb

er

of

rep

ort

s

59%

14%

18%

9%

traffic

accident

works

weather


D6.4 of 76

Figure 37: Percentage breakdown of the user mode of submitted reports for “Crowd Sourcing” using the


Figure 38: Percentage breakdown of the severity of submitted reports for “Crowd Sourcing” using the


Figure 39: Percentage breakdown of the decision of the report evaluation algorithm regarding the submitted

reports for “Crowd Sourcing” using the MOVESMART integrated application in Vitoria Gasteiz.

66%

31%

3% 0%

w alk

drive

transportation

cycle

56%

44%medium severity

high severity

84%

5%

11%

TRUE

FALSE

NOT EVALUATED


D6.4 of 76

Figure 40: Number of report evaluation requests for “Crowd Sourcing” using the MOVESMART integrated

application in Vitoria Gasteiz.

Figure 41: Percentage breakdown of the users evaluation regarding the submitted reports for “Crowd

Sourcing” using the MOVESMART integrated application in Vitoria Gasteiz.

Incentivized Vehicle Sharing In Vitoria-Gasteiz, 27 completed reservations have been recorded. Nine of them have been made during the workshop from the 19th to the 21th of September, while the rest have been made in other dates. Table 2 summarizes the aforementioned completed reservations. Each row of the table comprises the following information: the reservation unique identification, the user who initiated the reservation request, the vehicle involved in the trip and the type of the reservation i.e. if it is a reservation ‘by time’ or reservation ‘by distance/trip’. Also the origin and destination locations of the user and the corresponding departure and arrival times are included in the table. Furthermore, for each reservation the duration (measured in minutes), the distance (measured in km) and the price of the trip have also been recorded. Finally, in case of acceptance of the alternative proposed trip, the offered discount to the user is presented.

In most cases the trip proposals to the users did not include alternative trip. Due to the small fleet size, the IVS system was unable to propose an alternative trip to that matches the user's request. Actually, only in four reservations there was an alternative trip. These trips were offered with a discount of 20%. Users who accepted the alternative trip had to walk more so as to pick-up a scooter further from the one closest to them or/and to drop-off the scooter to a further location. The mean value of the additional distance they had to walk is approximately 200 meters, which corresponds to 2 minutes additional time.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

5/10

/201

6

6/10

/201

6

7/10

/201

6

8/10

/201

6

9/10

/201

6

10/1

0/201

6

11/1

0/201

6

12/1

0/201

6

13/1

0/201

6

14/1

0/201

6

15/1

0/201

6

16/1

0/201

6

17/1

0/201

6

18/1

0/201

6

19/1

0/201

6

20/1

0/201

6

21/1

0/201

6

Nu

mb

er

of

evalu

ati

on

s

97%

3%

evaluations as true

evaluations as false


D6.4 of 76

Reservation User Vehicle Reservation Type

Start Location

Departure Time

End Location Arrival Time

Duration (mins)

Distance (km) Price Discount

2 37 2018 By Trip

Constitución Plaza, 1, 01012 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

4/7/2016 11:01

San Cristobal Zubia, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava, Spain

5/7/2016 11:04 3 2.334 0.564828 0

3 37 2003 By Trip

Olagibel Kalea, 14, 01004 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

5/7/2016 11:28

Valladolid Kalea, 18-20, 01002 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

5/7/2016 11:30 2 1.674 0.405108 0

5 14 2011 By Trip

Honduras Kalea, 01012 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

7/7/2016 11:41

Florida Kalea, 1, 01005 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

7/7/2016 11:43 2 1.778 0.430276 0

6 14 2012 By Trip

Calle Beato Tomás de Zumárraga, 25, 01008 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava,

8/7/2016 11:21

Aragon Kalea, 9, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

2/11/2016 11:24 3 4.353 1.05343 0

7 14 2018 By Time

Gasteiz Hiribidea, 95, 01009 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

11/7/2016 11:01

Basoa Kalea, 15, 01012 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

11/7/2016 12:01 60 21 14.52 0

9 38 2012 By Time

Pintor Aurelio Verá-Fajardo Kalea, 2, 01008 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Arab

19/7/2016 11:21

Adriano VI Kalea, 36, 01008 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

19/7/2016 12:21 60 21 14.52 0

11 9 2010 By Time

8, Santa Barbara Plaza, Vitoria-Gasteiz

19/9/2016 18:42

Olagibel Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz

19/9/2016 18:57 15 6 3.63 0

18 9 2010 By Time

3, Calle Jesús Guridi, Vitoria-Gasteiz

19/9/2016 19:21


19/9/2016 19:36 15 6 3.63 0

30 9 2010 By Time


20/9/2016 19:31


20/9/2016 20:01 30 11 7.26 0

31 9 2010 By Time


20/9/2016 20:14


20/9/2016 20:29 15 6 3.63 0

36 9 2013 By Time


21/9/2016 18:01

Avenida Gasteiz, Vitoria-Gasteiz

21/9/2016 19:01 60 21 14.52 0

40 9 2013 By Trip

Jesus Guridi kalea, Babesgabetuak, Vitoria, España

21/9/2016 19:11

Aranzabela, Vitoria, España

21/9/2016 19:20 9 1.857 0.449394 0

42 9 2013 By Time


22/9/2016 18:03


22/9/2016 18:33 30 11 7.26 0


D6.4 of 76

43 9 2013 By Time


22/9/2016 19:07


22/9/2016 19:37 30 11 7.26 0

355 6 2015 By Trip


19/10/2016 19:31

1, Chile Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz

19/10/2016 19:38 7 1.643 0.397606 0

435 37 2015 By Trip

Gasteiz hiribidea/Avenida de Gasteiz, Txagorritxu, Vitoria-Gastei

20/10/2016 13:24

Calle Pintor Teodoro Dublang, San Martín, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

20/10/2016 13:26 2 1.357 0.328394 0

489 37 2006 By Trip

Zabalgunea, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

20/10/2016 19:47

Valladolid kalea, Arana, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

20/10/2016 19:49 2 1.698 0.410916 0

493 37 2016 By Trip

Zabalgunea, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

20/10/2016 20:08

Valladolid kalea, Arana, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

20/10/2016 20:10 2 1.473 0.356466 0

499 37 2015 By Time

19B Gorbea kalea, Koroatzea, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

21/10/2016 10:31

Badaia kalea, Koroatzea, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

21/10/2016 11:31 60 21 14.52 0

693 14 2002 By Trip

Palencia Kalea, 8, 01002 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

26/10/2016 20:01

Honduras Kalea, 8, 01012 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

26/10/2016 20:04 3 2.034 2.034 0

711 22 2002 By Trip

Honduras Kalea, 1, 01009 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

27/10/2016 13:01

Calle Pintor Diaz de Olano margolaria Kalea, 13, 01008 Vitoria-Ga

27/10/2016 13:04 3 2.493 1.0112 0.2

713 14 2002 By Trip

Adriano VI Kalea, 13, 01008 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

27/10/2016 14:26

Cuadrilla de Laguardia-Rioja Alavesa Kalea, 4, 01013 Vitoria-Gast

27/10/2016 14:30 4 3.84 3.072 0.2

723 14 2002 By Trip

Cuadrilla de Laguardia-Rioja Alavesa Kalea, 30, 01013 Vitoria-Gas

27/10/2016 21:13

Eduardo Velasco Kalea, 1, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

27/10/2016 21:17 4 2.632 2.632 0

724 14 2002 By Trip

Calle de los Herrán, 1, 01004 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava, Spain

27/10/2016 21:37

Calle Beato Tomás de Zumárraga, 25, 01008 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava,

27/10/2016 21:41 4 3.008 2.108 0.2

729 22 2002 By Trip Enrique de Eguren Kalea, 3, 01009

29/10/2016 12:31

Francia Kalea, 32,

29/10/2016 12:34 3 1.142 0.276364 0


D6.4 of 76

Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

01002 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

730 22 2002 By Trip

Francia Kalea, 32, 01002 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

29/10/2016 13:02

Gasteiz Hiribidea, 48, 01008 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

29/10/2016 13:06 4 3.015 0.449152 0.2

733 14 2002 By Time

Buztinzuri Kalea, 3, 01008 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

29/10/2016 15:31

Gorbea Kalea, 50, 01012 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

29/10/2016 16:31 60 21 11.616 0.2

734 14 2002 By Trip

Arriagako Atea Kalea, 31, 01012 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

29/10/2016 18:01

Pio XII.aren Kalea, 52, 01004 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

29/10/2016 18:03 2 1.861 0.450362 0

Table 2. Completed Reservations in Vitoria-Gasteiz.

The IVS system can be monitored through a web interface. This interface depicts the location of the scooters and the time from when they are available. Screenshots of the system were taken, illustrating the procedure of a reservation requests. Specifically, Figure 42 illustrates the start location (green marker) and destination location (red marker) of user's reservation request. Figure 43 depicts the state of the system after the confirmation of the reservation and the completion of the corresponding trip. The scenario presented in the two pictures, corresponds to reservation 724 of user with identification 14. The vehicle executed the trip was vehicle 2002.

Figure 42: Requesting a scooter


D6.4 of 76

Figure 43: Location of the scooters after the completion of a trip

As mentioned before, the number of the scooters operating in the system has been rather low (=4). This affected not only the existence of alternative trips but also the ability of the system to satisfy users' requests. According to the recorded requests for scooters, a large number of those requests could not be handled. Specifically, 326 unsatisfied requests have been recorded. For the sake of simplicity, readability and space saving, a small fraction of them is illustrated in Table 3. It is worth mentioning that most of the users whose requests were rejected by the system, were users willing to participate in the IVS. This means the absence of scooters in a large enough area. To clarify this statement, when a user is not willing to participate in the IVS, the system searches for scooters in an area of 300 meters walking distance. On the other hand, when the user participates in the IVS, the system looks for scooters in an area of walking distance according to his/her declared maximum walking distance (e.g. up to 600 meters.)

Reservation User Reservation Type

Start Location

Request Time

End Location Participate?

351 14 4

2, Calle de los Herrán, Vitoria-Gasteiz

1/6/2016 16:50

11-13, Florida Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz Yes

352 14 4

2, Calle de los Herrán, Vitoria-Gasteiz

1/6/2016 16:50

11-13, Florida Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz Yes

389 99 3

Carril-Bus América Latina, Gazalbide, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain

3/6/2016 10:40

Vitoria-Gasteizko Eskualdea / Cuadrilla de Vitoria, Vitoria- Yes


D6.4 of 76

Gaste

393 23 4

23, Calle Pintor Teodoro Dublang, Vitoria-Gasteiz

3/6/2016 15:30

23, Calle Pintor Teodoro Dublang, Vitoria-Gasteiz No

400 99 3


7/6/2016 11:44

Vitoria-Gasteizko Eskualdea / Cuadrilla de Vitoria, Vitoria-Gaste Yes

429 99 3


9/6/2016 10:39


440 99 3


10/6/2016 11:32


469 18 4

5, Pintor Adrian Aldecoa Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz

23/6/2016 9:45

35, Calle Beato Tomás de Zumárraga, Vitoria-Gasteiz Yes

470 18 4

5, Pintor Adrian Aldecoa Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz

23/6/2016 9:45

35, Calle Beato Tomás de Zumárraga, Vitoria-Gasteiz Yes

477 4 4

4, Pintor Carlos Saez de Tejada Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz

28/6/2016 12:50

4, Pintor Carlos Saez de Tejada Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz Yes

480 11 4

Eduardo Dato Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz

28/6/2016 13:18

Zaramaga, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Llanada Alavesa No

485 11 4

Eduardo Dato Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz

29/6/2016 10:00

Zaramaga, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Llanada Alavesa No

521 99 3

Louis Heintz Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteizko Eskualdea / Cuadrilla de Vi

16/8/2016 12:50

46 Ballester apezpikuaren Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteizko Eskualdea / Cu Yes

556 36 4 Aldabe Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz

17/9/2016 13:20

Domingo Beltran de Otazu Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz No

568 99 3 Jesus Guridi 18/9/2016 Burgos kalea, Yes


D6.4 of 76

kalea, Babesgabetuak, Vitoria, España

19:46 Aranbizkarra, Vitoria, España

574 36 4


19/9/2016 19:32

Olagibel Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz No

585 9 4

Plaza de Abastos, Vitoria-Gasteiz

20/9/2016 18:05

Santa Barbara Plaza, Vitoria-Gasteiz No

596 36 4


20/9/2016 19:44

38, Olagibel Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz No

598 36 4


20/9/2016 20:00

38, Olagibel Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz No

614 42 4


21/9/2016 19:13

Lima Kalea, Vitoria-Gasteiz Yes

Table 3. Unsatisfied reservation requests

The IVS system can be called when explicitly requesting a scooter (through the MOVESMART app and/or through the Motit app) and also when requesting a multimodal route which includes a scooter leg (through the MOVESMART app). In this case the IVS is called in order to handle the scooter reservation procedure and to provide the user with the alternative trip. The IVS has been invoked as part of a multimodal route 1355 times.

Time-Dependent Routing Service The main functionalities of the TDR service are:

1) To respond to queries for earliest-arrival-time (a.k.a. shortest-path) route plans of private cars, in time-dependent instances.

2) To apply all the necessary updates of the traffic metadata kept in the UTKB, in order to incorporate the online traffic as recorded by the emergency reports generated by Crowdsourcing Module (CM). During 2016, several earliest-arrival-time queries were submitted to the TDR service residing in a dedicated server of the UT-Cloud, for the instance of Vitoria-Gasteiz. The latest activity of the TDR service (for the last three months) has been recorded and is summarized in Tables 4, 5 and 6. In more detail:

In Table 4, each row comprises the following information: the origin location, the destination

location, the departure time from origin, the arrival time to destination, the distance, and for

a medium-sized diesel car, the fuel consumption and CO2 equivalent emissions.

In Table 5, each row contains: the emergency report id, the start point and end point of the

affected road segment, the distance of the road segment, the old and new travel time

traversing the road segment and the start and end time point as the duration of the new

travel time update.

In Table 6Table 6, the same information is included as in Table 4, with an additional field. This

is the emergency report id which is involved in the shortest path result.

Origin (address, lat, lon)

Departure Time (date, time)

Destination (address, lat, lon)

Travel Time

(mins)

Distance (km)

Fuel (litre)

Ecological Footprint (CO2e)

Jundiz Kalea, 2A, 01015 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

4/7/2016 13:20 Paduleta Kalea, 16,

01015 Vitoria-Gasteiz, 4.30 3.48 0.23 0.62


D6.4 of 76

Spain (42.849905,-2.7402509)

Araba, Spain (42.8313019,-

2.7353022)

Bidegana Kalea, 6, 01195 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.842501,-2.7625408)

4/7/2016 16:00

Sofia Erreginaren Hiribidea, 40, 01015

Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain(42.8382871,-

2.7047211)

5.47 6.94 0.44 1.19

Arkaia Entitatea, 29, 01193 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8454609,-

2.6358546)

5/7/2016 10:40

Olarizu Hiribidea, 25, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain(42.8304017,-

2.6599819)

3.23 3.51 0.22 0.59

Venta de la Estrella Kalea, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

(42.8377917,-2.6525739)

5/7/2016 19:05

Bulevar de Salburua Kalea, 01002 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

(42.8571034,-2.651259)

1.52 2.53 0.15 0.40

Galileo Kalea, 786, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.845384,-2.655803)

5/7/2016 15:20

Düsseldorf Kalea, 5, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8531421,-

2.7119669)

8.77 7.35 0.44 1.18

Oñati Kalea, 16-20, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8574759,-

2.6579966)

19/9/2016 17:00

Av. de los Derechos Humanos, 11, 01015

Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava, Spain(42.8416973,-

2.7003829)

4.57 6.82 0.42 1.12

Cuatro Caminos Kalea, 27, 01013 Vitoria-

Gasteiz, Araba, Spain (42.8772455,-

2.6823897)

19/9/2016 13:00

Av. de los Derechos Humanos, 11, 01015

Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava, Spain

(42.8416973,-2.7003829)

4.73 5.98 0.37 0.99

Autovía del Nte., 01191 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Álava, Spain (42.8680256,-

2.7246767)

19/9/2016 20:00

Larragana Kalea, 10, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8668596,-

2.645588)

5.83 9.40 0.51 1.36

A-4001, 01520, Araba, Spain(42.8679421,-

2.6330818) 21/9/2016 09:00

Ramiro de Maeztu Pasabidea, 1, 01008


(42.8489869,-2.678789)

5.07 5.34 0.33 0.88

Artzarana Kalea, 16, 01007 Armentia,


2.6929253)

21/9/2016 12:00

Pedro Orbea Kalea, 2, 01002 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8504231,-

2.6682351)

3.58 4.53 0.27 0.72

Peregrino Ibilbidea, 01007 Vitoria-Gasteiz,


2.7051634)

22/9/2016 18:15

Autovía del Nte., 01191 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava,

Spain (42.8564344,-

2.744751)

5.53 7.06 0.41 1.09

Mendigorritxu Kalea & N-102, Vitoria-Gasteiz,


2.7433596)

22/9/2016 19:35

Zaramaga Kalea, 2, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8613549,-

2.6696376)

7.47 11.25 0.68 1.80

Urartea Kalea, 15, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz,


2.7103843)

23/9/2016 15:45

Artapadura Kalea, 13, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8697042,-

2.6619337)

4.08 5.11 0.31 0.83

Arcaute Entitatea, 16, 01192 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8537629, -

2.6297085)

21/10/2016 12:00

Zuazo de Vitoria Entitatea, 21, 01195

Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain (42.8306965, -

2.7215693)

6.08 9.46 0.59 1.58


D6.4 of 76

Haitz Kalea, 30, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8720149, -

2.6661713)

21/10/2016 16:05

Abetxuku Kalea, 1-3, 01013 Abetxuko,

Araba, Spain (42.8784745, -

2.6857698)

2.75 2.26 0.14 0.38

Serafín Ajuria Kalea, 2, 01008 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.848872, -2.6852112)

21/10/2016 09:00

Alibarra Kalea, 64, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8668133, -

2.7066477)

2.78 4.50 0.27 0.72

Eibar Kalea, 3, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8584051, -

2.6589476)

21/10/2016 18:10

Alto de Armentia Kalea, 42, 01007


(42.8350007, -2.7067667)

4.78 6.34 0.40 1.07

Mediterraneoaren Hiribidea, 36, 01007


(42.8435667, -2.6946702)

21/10/2016 19:20

Arriagako Atea Kalea, 1A, 01012 Vitoria-

Gasteiz, Araba, Spain (42.8521935, -

2.6732256)

3.22 4.25 0.26 0.70

Ceferino de Urien Kalea, 5-7, 01010


(42.852762, -2.7004333)

22/10/2016 11:15

Cauce de los Molinos Kalea, 4A, 01006


(42.8367306, -2.6641783)

4.20 4.87 0.30 0.81

Luis Alava Sautu Kalea, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8471305, -

2.6441828)

22/10/2016 13:00

Jose Maria Iparragirre Kalea, 22J, 01006


(42.8388274, -2.6613647)

3.73 3.67 0.23 0.61

Bizkai Kalea, 10, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8381147, -

2.6766232)

22/10/2016 13:45

Antonio Amat Maiz Kalea, 307, 01006


(42.8407134, -2.6455723)

3.00 3.44 0.21 0.56

Arana Kalea, 33, 01002 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8504753, -

2.6635191)

22/10/2016 16:05

Baiona Kalea, 58, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8647435, -

2.6920391)

2.87 4.14 0.24 0.65

Las Escuelas Kalea, 6, 01001 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8482531, -

2.6717810)

23/10/2016 10:00

Portal de Zurbano, 25, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8652719, -

2.6457062)

7.45 4.50 0.27 0.71

Roncesvalles Kalea, 2, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8600625, -

2.6991309)

23/10/2016 14:10

Kapelamendi Kalea, 1, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8698225, -

2.6437427)

5.35 6.22 0.38 1.01

Armentiabo Bidea, 34, 01007 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8329653, -

2.7023272)

24/10/2016 14:48

Cantábrico Hiribidea, 3, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8664942, -

2.6702788)

6.93 6.22 0.37 0.99

Voluntaria Entrega Kalea, 45, 01010


(42.8656177, -2.6817935)

25/10/2016 19:25

Domingo Martinez de Aragon Kalea, 15,


(42.8370632, -2.672312)

4.57 5.68 0.35 0.95

Zumar Hiribidea, 1, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8728266, -

26/10/2016 12:30

San Saturio Kalea, 8-10, 01007 Armentia,

Araba, Spain (42.8324544, -

5.73 7.40 0.46 1.24


D6.4 of 76

2.6510197) 2.6981056)

Ibarredi Kalea, 16, 01015 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8427034, -

2.7316891)

27/10/2016 20:00

Nadine Gordimer Kalea, 17, 01003


(42.8479788, -2.6455538)

8.38 10.16 0.63 1.68

Table 4: Shortest path queries on TDR service.

Emergency Report No

Start point of updated road

segment (address, lat, lon)

End point of updated road

segment (address, lat, lon)

Distance (km)

Old Travel Time

(mins)

New Travel Time

(mins)

Start Time Point

End Time Point

1

Iturritxu Kalea, 1, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8346894-2.6696931)

Iturritxu Kalea, 3, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8345292,-

2.6686757)

0.09 0.05 3 4/7/2016

13:05 4/7/2016

13:35

2

Batan Ibilbidea, 62, 01007 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8341294,-

2.6831643)

Batan Ibilbidea, 62, 01007 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8344423,-

2.6827513)

0.05 0.30 20 5/7/2016

10:00 5/7/2016

11:00

3

Nazio Batuen Hiribidea, 62, 01015


(42.8458509,-2.6973386)

Nazio Batuen Hiribidea, 10, 01015

Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba, Spain (42.846127,-2.6988426)

0.13 0.08 30 21/9/2016

15:20 21/9/2016

15:50

4

Arana Kalea, 35, 01002 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8505401,-

2.6625583)

Arana Kalea, 33, 01002 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8504753,-

2.6635191)

0.08 0.18 10 22/9/2016

17:00 22/9/2016

17:30

5

Chile Kalea, 3, 01009 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8515266,-

2.6819296)

Chile Kalea, 1, 01009 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8513967,-

2.6810534)

0.07 0.15 15.00 23/9/2016

19:00 23/9/2016

20:30

6

Santiago Ramon y Cajal Kalea, 7, 01007


(42.8433058, -2.6763849)

Santiago Ramon y Cajal Kalea, 11B,


(42.8438668, -2.6778882)

0.14 0.08 10 21/10/2016

13:00 21/10/2016

14:00

7

Av. de Los Huetos, 81, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Álava, Spain (42.8578744, -

2.7217815)

Av. de Los Huetos, 81, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Álava, Spain (42.857367, -2.7187293)

0.26 0.15 15 23/10/2016

15:30 23/10/2016

16:00

8

Alberto Schommer Kalea, 8, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.838606,-2.6672106)

Alberto Schommer Kalea, 4, 01006 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8393919,-

2.6676729)

0.10 0.18 5 24/10/2016

14:15 24/10/2016

15:15

9

Micaela Portilla Kalea, 2, 01008 Vitoria-


2.6787154)

Micaela Portilla Kalea, 10, 01008 Vitoria-


2.6820436)

0.30 0.18 2 25/10/2016

12:05 25/10/2016

12:35

10

Zaramaga Kalea, 1, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.855843, -2.6575776)

Zaramaga Kalea, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.85835, -2.6612069)

0.41 0.25 7 26/10/2016

11:00 26/10/2016

13:00

Table 5: Emergency reports produced by TPM.


D6.4 of 76

Emergency Report No

Source (address, lat, lon)

Departure (date, time)

Destination (address, lat, lon)

Travel Time

(mins)

Distance (km)

Fuel (litre)

Ecological Footprint

(CO2e)

1

Av. Juan Carlos I, 12, 01002 Vitoria-

Gasteiz, Álava, Spain (42.8546936,-

2.6533617)

4/7/2016 14:00

Galarreta Kalea, 01194 Gardelegi,

Araba, Spain (42.8240913,-

2.678461)

5.23 5.95 0.39 1.03

Av. Juan Carlos I, 12, 01002 Vitoria-

Gasteiz, Álava, Spain (42.8546936,-

2.6533617)

4/7/2016 13:05-13:35

Galarreta Kalea, 01194 Gardelegi,

Araba, Spain (42.8240913,-

2.678461)

6.07 6.01 0.40 1.06

2

Pamplona-Iruñea Kalea, 5, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8613589,-

2.6970425)

5/7/2016 9:45

Batan Ibilbidea, 62, 01007 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8345062,-

2.6823589)

5.32 4.47 0.28 0.75

Pamplona-Iruñea Kalea, 5, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8613589,-

2.6970425)

5/7/2016 10:00-11:00

Batan Ibilbidea, 62, 01007 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8345062,-

2.6823589)

25.02 4.47 0.28 0.75

3

Gamarrako Atea, 25, 01013 Vitoria-

Gasteiz, Araba, Spain

(42.8708478,-2.658866)

21/9/2016 16:10

Portal de Zuazo de Vitoria Kalea, 8, 01015 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8445538,-

2.7044328)

4.27 5.66 0.35 0.93

Gamarrako Atea, 25, 01013 Vitoria-


(42.8708478,-2.658866)

21/9/2016 15:20-15:50

Portal de Zuazo de Vitoria Kalea, 8, 01015 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8445538,-

2.7044328)

4.68 7.26 0.44 1.18

4


Spain (42.8505401,-

2.6625583)

22/9/2016 16:30

Budapest Hiribidea, 9, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8450453,-

2.6531083)

2.67 2.34 0.14 0.39


Spain (42.8505401,-

2.6625583)

22/9/2016 17:00-17:30

Budapest Hiribidea, 9, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8450453,-

2.6531083)

2.77 1.98 0.13 0.37

5

Monseñor Mateo Mugica Kalea, 8, 01009 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8526358,-

2.6831512)

23/9/2016 20:35

Felix Maria Samaniego Kalea, 12, 01008 Vitoria-


(42.8480765,-2.6774432)

2.50 1.38 0.09 0.24

Monseñor Mateo Mugica Kalea, 8, 01009 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8526358,-

2.6831512)

23/9/2016 19:00-20:30

Felix Maria Samaniego Kalea, 12, 01008 Vitoria-


(42.8480765,-2.6774432)

3.02 1.66 0.10 0.28

6

Arcaute Entitatea, 16, 01192 Vitoria-


(42.8537629, -2.6297085)

21/10/2016 12:50

Zuazo de Vitoria Entitatea, 21, 01195 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8306965, -2.7215693)

6.08 9.46 0.59 1.58


D6.4 of 76

Arcaute Entitatea, 16, 01192 Vitoria-


(42.8537629, -2.6297085)

21/10/2016 13:00-14:00

Zuazo de Vitoria Entitatea, 21, 01195 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8306965, -2.7215693)

6.32 9.73 0.61 1.62

7

Lermandabidea Kalea, 2, 01015 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8490298, -

2.7344714)

23/10/2016 15:20

Judimendi Hiribidea, 20, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8460258, -

2.6614108)

5.97 8.89 0.56 1.49

Lermandabidea Kalea, 2, 01015 Vitoria-Gasteiz,

Araba, Spain (42.8490298, -

2.7344714)

23/10/2016 15:30-16:00

Judimendi Hiribidea, 20, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8460258, -

2.6614108)

6.70 10.10 0.63 1.68

8

Txalaparta Kalea, 17, 01006 Vitoria-


(42.8363231, -2.6644887)

24/10/2016 14:10

Paseo de la Universidad, 15, 01005 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava,

Spain (42.8412973, -

2.6758398)

2.92 1.81 0.11 0.30

Txalaparta Kalea, 17, 01006 Vitoria-


(42.8363231, -2.6644887)

24/10/2016 14:15-15:15

Paseo de la Universidad, 15, 01005 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Álava,

Spain (42.8412973, -

2.6758398)

3.03 2.64 0.16 0.43

9

Iliada Ibilbidea, 15, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8460554,-

2.638727)

25/10/2016 12:40

Urartea Kalea, 13, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8605144,-

2.7097165)

5.35 7.43 0.45 1.20

Iliada Ibilbidea, 15, 01003 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8460554,-

2.638727)

25/10/2016 12:05-12:35

Urartea Kalea, 13, 01010 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8605144,-

2.7097165)

5.55 7.66 0.46 1.23

10

Zumakadi Ibilbidea, 48, 01006 Vitoria-


(42.8360678,-2.6674095)

26/10/2016 10:40

Eskalmendi Kalea, 7, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8722506,-

2.6419574)

4.18 6.07 0.37 0.99

Zumakadi Ibilbidea, 48, 01006 Vitoria-


(42.8360678,-2.6674095)

26/10/2016 11:00-13:00

Eskalmendi Kalea, 7, 01013 Vitoria-Gasteiz, Araba,

Spain (42.8722506,-

2.6419574)

4.28 6.25 0.38 1.02

Table 6: Shortest path queries on TDR service, before and after absorbing online traffic updates.

The following screenshots were taken to illustrate the procedure of a shortest path query before and after an emergency report. The information about the performed shortest path queries is shown in the first two rows of Table 6. In this case, an unforeseen congestion disruption is occurred “on the fly”. Figure 44 depicts the shortest path result corresponding to the query of the first row in Table 6, and Figure 45 depicts the shortest path result corresponding to the query of the second row in Table 6. The difference is that in the last case, the shortest path result is affected by the emergency report with id 1 (see first row of Table 5). The new shortest path for the same origin and destination bypasses the disrupted road segment.


D6.4 of 76

Figure 44: Shortest path result, before the emergency report.

Figure 45: Shortest path result, after the emergency report.

3.5 Performance tests

Energy Efficiency Assessment Module The performance of the Energy Efficiency Assessment Module (EEAM) was tested on randomly generated routes with Apache JMeter™. Specifically, multiple simultaneous users were simulated using as input to the testing tool 2000 routes of 300 segments each (on average). The results obtained on the EEAM performance are illustrated in , which shows that the throughput is approximately 40 users/sec with average response time of 240 msec (including network latency).


D6.4 of 76

Figure 46: Results of Energy Efficiency Assessment Module stress tests.

Multimodal Routing Engine Pula-Pola: This section reports performance numbers on the server setup used in the pilots. During the aforementioned period, we logged the running time for each MMR query. The road network of Pula-Pola had 8896 vertices and 16959 edges. Its public transit network contained 20 stops and 5 routes (such as a bus line). Queries took 49.9 ms on average. Hence, our pilot server setup was able to process 20.0 queries per second, or about 1200 queries per minute.

Vitoria-Gasteiz: This section reports performance numbers on the server setup used in the pilots. During the aforementioned period, we logged the running time for each MMR query. The road network of Vitoria-Gasteiz had 21680 vertices and 31251 edges. Its public transit network contained 354 stops and about 50 routes (such as a bus line).

We report running times for user and IVS queries (see above) separately. User queries took 282.9 ms on average. Hence, our pilot server setup was able to process 3.5 user queries per second, or about 210 user queries per minute. IVS queries took 36.1 ms on average, yielding a throughput of 27.7 queries per second, or about 1700 queries per minute. Queries generated by the IVS service were always pedestrian-only queries (due to the small operating area of the shared vehicles). Therefore, they were much faster than user queries, which were more complex due to multimodality.

Time-Dependent Routing Module We have conducted the following stress test of the backend Time-Dependent Routing (TDR) service for Vitoria, running in the MOVESMART UT-Cloud, to showcase its responsiveness to actual workloads that are produced in an online fashion.

In particular, we have conducted the following experiment. For a time-period of one hour, we created a mixed sequence of randomly chosen routing queries and updates of traffic related information (e.g., due to emergency reports for road segment blockages): In each second we created, with probability 1/2, a routing query for a randomly chosen origin-destination pair, and, with probability 1/12, an update request due to an emergency report for 15-min blockage of a randomly chosen road segment.

This random process resulted in a mixed sequence of 1833 routing queries and 338 update requests, which are uniformly dispersed within the one-hour period of the stress test. Each of these requests was served by the TDR service in real-time, while other requests were actually arriving in an online fashion.

The findings of this experiment are shown in the following charts (we used the CFCA(6) query algorithm).


D6.4 of 76

Figure 47: Statistics of query-response times, for the real-time stress test of TDR at Vitoria.

Figure 48: Statistics of relative errors of travel-time estimations produced by CFCA(6), for the real-time stress test of TDR at Vitoria.

Figure 49: Statistics of responses to random update requests due to emergency-reports of road blockages, for

the real-time stress test of TDR at Vitoria.

Incentivized Vehicle Sharing We have contacted tests in order to evaluate the performance of the IVSS. The server has been deployed on a virtual machine on the cloud provided by Flexiant. We have tested the server under a variety of workloads so as to draw conclusions regarding the responsiveness of the IVS service.

The response time of the server where the IVSS runs, is affected by parameters, the most important of which are the number of pending reservations and the willingness of the users to participate in the incentivization scheme. The number of the pending reservations, reservation requests which have been submitted but not yet accepted or cancelled, deteriorates the performance of the system.

95.64% 0.27% 0.33% 0.33% 0.71% 0.60% 0.71% 1.09%

0.33%

exact answer

0,24%-0,48%

0,96%-1,92%

3,84%-7,68%

15,36%-…

relative errors of CFCA(6) responses to routing requests


D6.4 of 76

Specifically, as the number of pending reservation increases, the response time of the IVSS increases as well ().

Figure 50: Server response time vs number of pending reservations.

Also the willingness of the users to participate in the incentivization scheme affects the response time of the server. As depicts, the response time to reservation requests of users who participate in the incentivization scheme is greater than those who do not participate.

Figure 51: Server response time vs users' willingness to participate in the incentivization scheme.

The server is currently able to handle up to 50 concurrent requests (connections). However, since every new request which arrives at the server, changes the instance of the algorithm which proposes the alternative trips, the requests are actually handled in a last-in-first-out way.

In case of a server break down, the system restoration time is about 400ms. During this time interval the server communicates with the scooters, through GG's server, in order to retrieve their location. If the location of a scooter has changed while the system is down, the appropriate database updates are applied and finally all the required processes restart.


D6.4 of 76

4 Lessons learnt and recommendations

Both cities experimented minor issues that were solved with the assistance of the whole consortium. While in Pula-Pola the main problem encountered was the existence of proprietary software in the first set of e-bicycles purchased (that prevented installing the MOVESMART application), in Vitoria-Gasteiz the same issue was combined with a delay in the e-motorbikes deployment. However, while in Vitoria-Gasteiz the existent software could be integrated with the MOVESMART one, in Pula-Pola this was not possible indicating the convenience of including EV owner companies as part of the consortia.

After the promotion campaigns and initiatives, the total number of registered MOVESMART users was 2,141 (as recorded in the cloud service database). At this point, we need to clarify that this number refers to unique user records and not necessarily unique users, i.e. a physical entity may have created more than one users, thus more than one user records. This number of users have resulted in 3,201,589 UTKB records in total, as each user produces a record every time that new data is generated, e.g. user positions tracked every minute, user trips, user reports, etc. (for more information on the UTKB structure, please see D3.4.2).

Moreover, MOVESMART mobile application has a total of over 500 unique active downloads from Google Play. By using the Google Play analytics console, we can observe that:

48.46% (over 242) of the total unique downloads (over 500) come from Croatia.

42.22% (over 212) of the total unique downloads (over 500) come from Spain.

More details about the user acceptance and the way it affected the whole “learning and gaining experience” process can be found below, along with a number of recommendations:

4.1 Pula-Pola

The City of Pula-Pola made a big promotional campaign and worked a lot on the visibility of the project, explaining to the users the importance of their active role in using the application, it seems it was not enough because we concluded that we have to change our local behaviour.

A slight delay on the integration of the IVS module occurred into the overall MOVESMART application, as a fully functional customized mobile IVS application for the Pula pilot was delivered on time in M33. A revised version was also included in the integrated MOVESMART application in M35.

It was evident that our citizens (users) used the application only to satisfy their curiosity and not for giving the necessary feedback.

This is an evolving process which could have a bigger impact through the continuation of the activities of the MOVESMART project after it officially ends.

Recommendations:

In the City of Pula the MOD system has to be adapted to the peculiarities of the old city configuration (we noticed that MOD is popular in this part of the city because visited by tourists but in that part of the city there is a lack of infrastructure because of the problems to introduce new stations in the historical part). We would recommend to the tourist operators to develop more dissemination tools to make it easier to reach MOD.

Because of the need for charging the batteries of the e-bikes, it should be necessary to develop and enlarge the network of EV also connected to the MOVESMART app, so the citizens will have more opportunities to use the system.


D6.4 of 76

In Pula-Pola during the MOVESMART project the use of the e bikes was free of charge and the maximum of constant use of the e bike was two hours. The citizens responded well when we proposed to give a motivating reward if they used more the bike and the app and if they follow the rules. The reward was more additional time to ride the e-bike.

4.2 Vitoria-Gasteiz

The full deployment of the pilot in Vitoria-Gasteiz was postponed until M35. This was due to the fact that the final stable release of MOVESMART application (including integration with the EV proprietary software) was available in M31 and that the EV booking service of the EVs showed technical issues until M32. Because of this, the internal test (Champions´ test) in Vitoria-Gasteiz was extended until M33 as to include an active and stable EVs service.

Finally, due to the proximity of the main vacation period in Vitoria-Gasteiz (August, M34) the citizens´ workshop was finally postponed until M35 (in the frame of the EU Mobility Week as to gather more potential users).

In general, the EV vehicles associated to the MOD service worked as attractors to engage people in the project (as an example the local press strongly covered the project progress even without producing press releases, see D6.3 and D8.3). Unfortunately, this initial enthusiasm vanished due to the continuous technical issues, and, once they were solved, due to the temporary close of the service after the citizens’ workshops completion. As commented above this severely compromised the pilot testing objectives. Apart from this, the main MOD service’s limitations were the reduced both service area and service opening times. Finally, the small scale of the city was found as not ideal for the MOD specifications.

Regarding the MOVESMART application, the unavailability of an IOS version and the fact that it has to co-habit with proprietary software (EV booking one) were the main general problems. Apart from that the users were satisfied with the application (by both the motivation and the user friendliness) but the previous existence of similar applications (i.e. Moovit) in the market is a clear obstacle. Moreover, offering rewards (such as EVs free use time) is paramount when facing an opinion survey-based performance evaluation task; however, if the rewarded product is not immediately available this motivation rapidly vanishes As a summary, the collaboration of real users was paramount to identify issues (of both MOVESMART application and the associated MOD service). Because of this feedback, the majority of them could be solved before the official launch of the application and the MOD service to the citizenry. Because of this, the Vitoria-Gasteiz pilot is considered successful. However, the short time available after the official launch of the service to the citizenry limited the amount of field data collected.

Recommendations:

Potential delays in the software development and in the pilot deployment should be avoided as this reduces the time for citizens training and for performance evaluation and real use data generation

In order to foster user engagement and for the sake of simplicity, it would be desirable that the EV proprietary application was fully implemented as part of the MOVESMART application and not integrated as a third party application

An iOS version would be also nice to have

The MOD system has to adapt to the city characteristics (i.e. the GG´s MOD system could fit better in a big and/or touristy city)

Routes to be performed completely with a private bicycle should be considered


D6.4 of 76

Regarding Vitoria-Gasteiz the MOD service area should be increased (especially to cover the new neighbourhoods in the periphery where most of the young people –the most active users of applications- live now)

Opening times should be reconsidered (although some time is indeed needed to change the batteries)

A press released from the city council, the location of training stands in the city centre and the EU Mobility Week framework increased the official launch visibility

The idea of giving free EV use time as reward for completing the opinion surveys were positively evaluated by the citizens


D6.4 of 76

5 Conclusions

Based on the pilots assessment undertaken within Task 6.4, as well as the real experience with users as reported in the previous sections, the following conclusions are drawn.

Both cities experienced several issues that were finally overcome with the assistance of the whole consortium. Hence, the pilots succeeded in allowing critical test of both the MOVESMART integrated application and the EV services at both sites. However, due to the aforementioned problems and limitations occurred during the deployment phase, it was not feasible to produce and collect the amount of data according to the original plans. Nevertheless, a sufficient number of records was produced so as to allow the theoretical estimation of energy savings through simulations.

One major overhead that is associated to the successful deployment and performance of the overall MOVESMART system, is the ability to integrate third-party commercial EV fleet management information service. Pula-Pola represents a case in which the MOVESMART application integrates seamlessly the EV fleet provider’s reservation system, by implementing its main functionalities as part of the unified UI (in collaboration with PENTA, the e-bikes software owner). On the other hand, in Vitoria-Gasteiz, integration of a commercial third-party application was achieved for the reservation of EVs, in close collaboration with GoingGreen. Due to this fact, an unavoidable delay occurred in in the deployment of the EV service.

Most of the users who participated in the user surveys were overall satisfied with the MOVESMART application (in Pula-Pola, just 2% and 5% were the negative answers for general and specific application´s questions, respectively; in Vitoria-Gasteiz negative answers amount to 22% and 12% of the users, respectively).

Vitoria-Gasteiz mobility authorities agreed with the fact that the scale of the city (less than 3 km from the city centre to the periphery and a quite flat profile that favors active modes of transport such as walking and bicycle) might not be the most appropriate one for the kind of services offered by MOVESMART.

Finally, a longer pilot testing period would be necessary as to produce more user data, i.e., both user tracking but also more real user feedback, through the opinion surveys.


D6.4 of 76

6 ANNEX I

The following table summarises the performance indicators and their success criteria set by the consortium before the start of the project, as well as their level of accomplishment after the end of the project.

MEASURES AND INDICATORS – SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES (FINAL REVIEW)

Objective No.

Indicator

Success Criteria

Desired value (Year 3)

Achieved value (experimental data)

Accomplishment Level

Objective 1

Number of legacy data sources and public data interfaces, including public transport, traffic data, EV fleet data, integrated into the envisaged cloud infrastructure.

10 32 (reported in D5.2) Accomplished

Estimated achieved energy gains by the use of the proposed personal mobility schema based on simulations and data from pilots’ deployment.

15-25% real improvement

71% improvement in energy savings and 67% reduction of

CO2 emissions recorded with the

proposed multimodal routes

(compared to routes with conventional

cars), based on real user requests.

Accomplished

User satisfaction measured through appropriate feedback collection surveys.

Minimum 85% positive

relevance feedback

Less than 15% and 5% negative answers

in application performance's

questionnaires for VG and PULA, respectively

Accomplished

Number of interconnected users until the end of the prototypes.

100 per site

2,141 users are currently registered

in the cloud. Number of total active

downloads: 500+ in total.

Accomplished

Objective 2

Number of traffic prediction algorithms based on crowd sourcing data.

3-5

9 traffic prediction techniques were

implemented (reported in D3.3.2

and published in scientific papers)

Accomplished


D6.4 of 76

Number of records stored in the Urban Traffic Knowledge Base (both real and simulated data).

20,000 records

UTKB as of this writing includes

3,201,589 records in total

Accomplished

Objective 3

Number of innovative time-dependent route planning algorithms.

> 4

TDR query algorithms, and 4

algorithms for creation and

maintenance of TDR traffic metadata

(reported in D3.4.2 & D4.2.2, and published in

scientific papers)

Accomplished

Measurable improvement of the developed approaches with respect to State-of-the-Art approaches, in a simulated environment.

15%-30% improvement

75% improvement (reported in publications)

Accomplished

Percentage of users positive feedback on the developed user interfaces.

Minimum: 85%

88% average value (question no.3 of the

general questionnaire)

Accomplished

Number of interoperable user interfaces integrated with existing portable navigation applications.

3-5

Integration with 3 interfaces achieved

up to now (GG’s Motit©, Penta’s

reservation system for Pula, and MLS

Destinator©)

Accomplished

Objective 4

Number of users participating in Pilots.

100 per site At least 300 in Pula,

117 in VG Accomplished

Number of electric vehicles that will be provided for running the pilots.

6-10 per site 14 in VG, 10 in Pula Accomplished

Percentage of Number of users with positive feedback.

Minimum: 85%

Less than 15% and 5% negative answers

in application performance's

questionnaires for VG and PULA, respectively

Accomplished

Objective 5

Number of newly introduced business models, based on the application of the MOVESMART crowd

Minimum: 4

8 (BM for cities, EV fleet managers, infrastructure

suppliers, energy providers, EV

Accomplished


D6.4 of 76

sourcing schema. manufacturers, EV franchised assembly

companies, local commerce owners,

third party developers)

Percentage of estimated Cost Benefits gained through the adoption of the proposed business models.

More than 30%

improvement

The improvement cannot be estimated, because there are no previous references

in Vitoria-Gasteiz and Pula for a

realistic comparison. Only profit

estimations with the proposed business

models can be provided (as of

D6.4): According to these, Pula: 35.25-

52.89%, Vitoria: 26.0-29.76%

Not Accomplished

Percentage of business models considered to be adopted by the commercial partners and municipalities.

60%

5 out of 8 (or 62.5%) proposed business

models are considered for

adoption by the commercial

partners: BM for cities (Pula, BiB), EV fleet managers (GG),

infrastructures suppliers (PULA, AVG, FLEX), EV

franchised assembly (GG), third party developers (MLS)

Accomplished


D6.4 of 76

General Success Indicators Success Criteria

Desired value (Year 3)

Achieved value (experimental data)

Accomplishment Level

Number of publications, number of workshops organised by the consortium and audience size, number of conferences attended, number of leaflets and newsletters, website, size of user forum, membership to ITS organisations and forums/ - to disseminate project concept, vision and innovation - to spread out the outcomes and achievements of the project to all interest groups.

1. At least 7 papers published in conference proceedings and journals or articles in prestigious scientific review journals (e.g. IEEE Transaction on Intelligent Transportation Systems, Transport Reviews, etc.). 2. Acceptance by consortium end users (aim is 90%). 3. Project video available through web site (Month 30).

1. 40 papers published in conference proceedings and journals publications, of which: 1 in IEEE Transactions on ITS, 2 in IET Intelligent Transport Systems, 2 in Algorithmica, 1 in IEEE ITSC, etc. 2. Less than 15% and 5% negative answers in application performance's questionnaires for VG and PULA, respectively 3. Ten videos available on YouTube, three of them as promo

Accomplished

Delivery of an effective, pragmatic and viable business & exploitation plan for project results uptake and commercialisation potential.

1. Agreement & Signature of Final Dissemination and Exploitation Plans including Business Plans. 2. Exploitable products available and exploitation strategy for each of them.

1. Exploitation Agreement signed by ALL PARTNERS 2.Included in D8.5

Accomplished

Increased public interest in MOVESMART concept measured by web server logs (number of visits).

Over 5000 >9000 unique web visits

Accomplished

renewable mobility services in smart citiesmovesmartfp7.iti.gr/movesmartfp7/wp-content/... · south...

Documents