Mobility Hubs
Multimodal Transportation Terminals
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated 18 July 2017
Transportation terminals designed to integrate diverse travel options and support services.
Mobility Hubs are transportation terminals, such as bus and train stations, and ferry terminals, designed to integrate diverse travel options including Walking, Cycling, Taxi, Ridehailing, Ridesharing, Carsharing, Bikesharing, Local Delivery Services and Public Transit, with Travel and Tourist information, and other support services (restaurants, shops, hostels and hotels) in order to facilitate efficient transportation. They support and are supported by Transit Oriented Development.
Although the largest and most comprehensive mobility hubs tend to occur in large cities, they can be useful in many situations, including Campuses, Resorts and Smaller Communities, where better coordination between modes can significantly improve non-automobile travel options.
Mobility hubs are generally developed by government agencies responsible for transportation terminals such as bus and train stations, ferry terminals and sometimes airports, as part of Campus, Transit Oriented Development or Downtown planning, and Transit Station Improvements. They often involve incremental improvements to existing transportation terminals.
By improving the connections between modes, Mobility Hubs help people travel by non-automobile modes. Although the impacts of each individual Mobility Hub may seem modest, an integrated program that
Table 1 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
3 |
Supports use of alternative modes. |
|
Reduces peak period traffic. |
2 |
" |
|
Shifts peak to off-peak periods. |
0 |
" |
|
Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes. |
3 |
" |
|
Improves access, reduces the need for travel. |
3 |
" |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
2 |
" |
|
Increased public transit. |
3 |
" |
|
Increased cycling. |
2 |
" |
|
Increased walking. |
2 |
" |
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
1 |
Can facilitate local delivery services. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
By improving intermodal connections at transportation terminals, Mobility Hubs can significantly improve accessibility and people’s ability to travel without a car, particularly in denser urban areas. It is therefore particularly effective at reducing urban traffic problems such as congestion and parking costs, and improving mobility for non-drivers.
Table 2 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Improves alternatives to driving in urban conditions. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
2 |
" |
|
Consumer Savings |
2 |
" |
|
Transport Choice |
2 |
" |
|
Road Safety |
2 |
" |
|
Environmental Protection |
2 |
" |
|
Efficient Land Use |
2 |
" |
|
Community Livability |
2 |
" |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Mobility Hubs can significantly improve people’s ability to travel without an automobile, and so helps increase Affordability and Basic Mobility for non-drivers. Horizontal Equity impacts may depend on whether Hubs require subsidies, and if so, how those compare with subsidies for automobile travel, and who bears those costs.
Table 3 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
2 |
Improves mobility options. |
|
Individuals bear the costs they impose. |
2 |
May depend on whether Hubs require subsidies, and if so, how those compare with automobile subsidies. |
|
Progressive with respect to income. |
3 |
Improves mobility for non-drivers. |
|
Benefits transportation disadvantaged. |
3 |
Improves mobility for non-drivers. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
Improves mobility for non-drivers. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Mobility Hubs can be useful in many situations, including large cities, suburbs and small towns.
Table 4 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
2 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density, urban/suburban. |
2 |
Regional government. |
3 |
|
Town. |
3 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
2 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
2 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
1 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
2 |
Developer. |
2 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
2 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improved transportation option
Mobility Hubs support and are supported by Walkability Improvements, Bike/Transit Integration, Shared Mobility Services, Carsharing, Bikesharing, Public Transit Improvements, Tourist Transport Management, Transit Station Improvements, and Transit Oriented Development.
Stakeholders include transportation agencies, public transit agencies, local governments, local business associations and users (particularly public transit passengers).
Barriers include a lack of institutional support and funding for multimodal planning, and practical constraints to incorporating additional modes into a terminal.
For case studies and examples of Mobility Hubs see the Center for Transportation Excellence (www.cfte.org) and Engel-Yan and Leonard’s 2012 article, “Mobility Hub Guidelines: Tools for Achieving Successful Station Areas”.
Salsberg, et al. (2010) recommend these Mobility Hub development guidelines:
1. Seamless integration of transit modes, systems, and routes for a high quality user experience.
2. Mobility prioritized upon the following traveller transportation hierarchy: (i) Trip reduction, shortening or avoidance (ii) Walking (iii) Cycling (iii) Transit (iv) Ride-sharing and taxis (v) Single-occupant vehicles.
3. Safe and efficient movement of people.
4. A well-designed transit station as the focal point within a high quality public realm.
5. Strategic parking management to reduce parking supply, support transportation demand management, promote transit ridership, improve pedestrian access to stations and major destinations, and to use land efficiently
6. A vibrant, mixed-use environment of higher land use intensity and local and regional destinations
7. Healthy and livable places that strengthen community identity.
8. An attractive public realm with well-designed buildings, streets, and public spaces.
9. A minimized ecological footprint through excellence in green design.
10. Creative, dynamic, and collaborative clusters of population and employment.
11. Effective partnerships and incentives that foster increased public and private investment and capitalize on rapid transit investments.
12. Flexible Mobility Hub plans that accommodate growth and change.
The Introduction to Mobility Hubs Brochure (UDS 2016) discusses various types of mobility hubs (Neighborhood, Central and Regional), provides guidelines for planning them, and describes several successful examples.
The report, Planning for Mobility Hubs: Creating Great Transit Places (Salsberg, et al. 2010) describes the process for planning the Kipling Interregional Station Mobility Hub, which includes the western terminus of the Bloor-Danforth Subway Line, a stop on a commuter rail line, and interregional bus terminals, in Toronto, Canada.
The Hub planning process considered two perspectives. The first considered the immediate needs of the transit operators in developing a new interregional bus terminal. The second considered the long term vision to best realize the full potential of the site as a mobility hub. The two needs were developed in parallel with an eye to ensuring that work carried out in the short term would not preclude optimizing future development opportunities.
The project required commitments from diverse stakeholders to create a comprehensive Mobility Hub master plan. The planners learned the following lessons:
1. Mobility Hub’s principles and objectives should be established and clearly communicated early on in the project as to avoid the risk of a compromised design and schedule delay brought about by differences in stakeholder project priorities.
2. Project objectives require high level buy-in by major stakeholders very early in the project to help establish credibility for the objectives.
3. A thorough, inclusive, and well established foundation document, such as the RTP, or the Mobility Hub Guidelines presently under development, can be used as the basis for the project’s objectives. A document such as this provides further credibility and understanding of the reasoning behind the adoption of the project’s objectives.
4. Reliable transit ridership and population density forecasts need to be developed. This is most important since planned regional rapid transit projects at Mobility Hubs may have varying implementation phasing timelines. Reliable density and ridership analysis is key to understanding the dynamics between station planning, station area planning and the larger surrounding community planning contexts.
5. Participative community and stakeholder engagement through, such as a design charrette, builds trust between the parties ensuring that the resulting vision is based predominantly upon the issues that stakeholders feel are most crucial to them.
6. A thorough understanding of development plans for the area is much easier to achieve if the project team includes experts who not only have knowledge of local projects but also have a reputation for being able to see past individual priorities to achieve big-picture thinking.
7. Where multiple parties will be involved in the construction, maintenance and operations of a Mobility Hub facility, it is necessary to clearly delineate each party’s roles and responsibilities from the onset. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), for instance, can cover issues such as financial matters, cost-sharing agreements, real property matters, design and construction matters, permission to enter, conditions precedent, and parking construction and management. After the completion of a facility’s conceptual design, further clarification of roles should be pursued as to ensure a thorough understanding of the project’s complexities.
Joshua Engel-Yan and Amanda Leonard (2012), “Mobility Hub Guidelines: Tools for Achieving Successful Station Areas,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 82, No. 1, pp. 42-47; at http://bit.ly/2sriQT5.
UDS (2016), Mobility Hub Readers Guide, Urban Design Studio (www.urbandesignla.com); at www.urbandesignla.com/resources/MobilityHubsReadersGuide.php.
Lisa Salsberg, et al. (2010), Planning for Mobility Hubs: Creating Great Transit Places, Transportation Association of Canada (http://conf.tac-atc.ca); at http://conf.tac-atc.ca/english/resourcecentre/readingroom/conference/conf2010/docs/b4/salsberg.pdf.
Matt Williams (2014), “L.A. County Wants Tech Input on ‘Integrated Mobility Hubs’” Government Technology (www.govtech.com); at www.govtech.com/transportation/LA-County-Wants-Tech-Input-on-Integrated-Mobility-Hubs.html.
Susan Zielinski, William Haase and Stephen Gazillo (2010), Mobility Hubs, WTS International (www.wtsinternational.org); at www.wtsinternational.org/assets/55/7/TMS10_2_Mobility_Hubs.pdf.
This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC, V8V 3R7, CANADA
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#135