1. Region Parkstad Limburg Assessment Results Marcel Bus & Ricardo Poppeliers Ancona, 7 March 2013

2. I 2 The main geographical indicators 211 km 2 255000 inhabitants Living: 47% urban area Employment: 62% urban area Mainly health and trade Number of municipalities :8 (Heerlen, Kerkrade, Landgraaf, Brunssum, Nuth, Voerendaal Simpelveld and Onderbanken)

3. I 3 Population trends Historical data Forecasts

4. I 4 Polycentricity Density: 1208 inh./km2 Inhabitants Gini: 0.29 Work places Gini: 0.49 Inhab/workplace Gini: 0.22 Average work distance: 13.9 km Average recreation distance: 10.9 km Modal split PT: 7% Modal split soft modes: 39%

5. I 5 Institutional framework Four levels of policy making European General guidelines for sustainable transport Standards for negative effects from mobility and infrastructure National National transport and spatial policies Funding Regional / provincial Road and cycle infrastructure Public transport policy (Province) Spatial planning Municipality Road and cycle infrastructure Parking policy Dedicated transport Climate goals and Spatial planning Documents European White paper (2011), Action plan on urban mobility (2009), Horizon 2020, Urban mobility package National Nota Mobility (2004), Major infrastructureal planning for road, rail and IW from now until 2020, Dedicated transport decentralization Regional (Province of Limburg) Pol (2006) for environment, infrastructure, economy and spatial planning Public transport vision and tendercontract Parkstad Limburg Regional traffic & transport plan 2011-2020 (2011), Working to a vital sustainable region (2010), Strategic vision for tourism in Parkstad (2008), Vision for restructuring the housing stock in Parkstad (2009), Bicycle Plan Parkstad Limburg (2009) Municipality (Heerlen) Climate plan Heerlen 2010-2020 (2009), Bicycle plan Heerlen (2008)

6. I 6 Assessment – Stakeholders (1/2) Policy content indicators Follows mainly national, provincial and local plans (goals) Focus on interchanges (chain) and cross-border (train / Interreg) Current mobility situation Free choice, no barriers in congestion or parking Key players Economy driven, housing market With an eye for mobility Politicians, transport/ environment/ spatial planners, energy lobby groups, citizens Public transport authority and operator (revenue responsible / responsible for development)

7. I 7 Assessment – Stakeholders (2/2) Policy processes Not always measurable goals Core skills Project management depends on scale of municipality / organisation Programm management links to multi-discplinary (regional level) Knowledge of public transport in transport authority (train is special expertise)

8. I 8 Drivers Communication and participation Cooperation between stakeholders Citizens‘ awareness Chances: Average distance recreation and work (11 and 14 km) means a chance for electric bikes Over weight and elderly people means a base for a chance in awareness and change of life style (electric bike / bike / walking) Decentralization of disabled transport means a new integrated vision on planning, dedicated and public transport Current poles of work attraction are relatively low (compared to poles of work generation) Alternative fuelled cars

9. I 9 Good examples The IBA concept (exchange ideas, develop projects. Bring together people and resources) for reiventing and rebuilding cities (cross-border) mobility meetings Current stakeholder consultation about new tendering process public transport (emissions) Zero Emission Bus pilot (new business models)

10. I 10 Barriers No congestion, no parking problems: no pressure to change mode Declining population: might lead to less mobility and reducing energy emissions Own focus points of different authorities creates a barrier for one vision / cooperation Inventing own wheel, working parallel Tender procedures not allowing operators to be strategic partners Ticketing system: cross-border and cross-authority Availability of source data from chipcard / parking / etcetera to develop chain mobility