An analysis of the mobility hub concept in the Netherlands: Historical lessons for its implementation

Tibor Rongen · Taede Tillema · Jos Arts · M.J. Alonso González · Jan-Jelle Witte

56 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Transport Geography

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Urban Transport and Accessibility Transportation Planning and Optimization transportation and logistics systems

Abstract

The mobility hub concept has become increasingly popular within international research and policies, including in The Netherlands. However, judging by the (still) limited share of multimodality in the Netherlands, similar historical concepts seemed insufficient to prompting a fundamental shift from individual car use to multimodal transport. To enable planners to be better positioned to implement the mobility hub concept, we compared its value with that of related concepts that were previously implemented. Specifically, we examined historical Dutch policy documents and conducted expert and frontrunner interviews to evaluate the mobility hub as a policy concept. We first traced the evolution of the mobility hub, focusing on node and place-based concepts that have been implemented since the second half of the 20th century. We found that related concepts, such as Park and Ride (P + R) or transit-oriented development (TOD), have typically focused on improving transfers between collective and feeder transport, while interactions with land use have gained increased attention. We derived policy lessons from the implementation of these historical policy concepts. Our findings suggest that strategically chosen locations, integrated mobility systems, flanking policies, multi-level policy coherence and public–private cooperation are important considerations when implementing mobility hubs. Moreover, shared mobility, mobility as a service, vehicle electrification, and demand-responsive transit could advance the implementation of TOD, P + R, neighbourhood and rural hubs. In conclusion, the design of different types of mobility hubs should ideally be based on underlying policy objectives and adapted according to context.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 56 citations exist upstream.

References

1999Spatial Development Patterns and Public Transport: The Application of an Analytical Model in the Netherlands 2007The access journey to the railway station and its role in passengers’ satisfaction with rail travel 2017Questions of governance: Rethinking the study of transportation policy 2002The value of integrated multimodal traveller information and its potential contribution to modal change 2002Design of multimodal transport networks: A hierarchical approach 2015Exploring the propensity to travel by demand responsive transport in the rural area of Lincolnshire in England 2021E-bike user groups and substitution effects: evidence from longitudinal travel data in the Netherlands 2013Transport and environmental effects of rail-based Park and Ride: evidence from the Netherlands

Cited by

2024Travel behaviour and multimodality: a conceptual framework and critical review of research 2022Towards a typology of mobility hubs 2023Exploring key spatial determinants for mobility hub placement based on micromobility ridership 2024Socio-economic and residential differences in urban modality styles based on a long-term smartphone experiment

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.