Report on second Workshop Trikala

Interactrive session 1: Plenary

Make participants guess how citizens responded to the interviews and focus groups.

Question E1: were you aware about the presence of CCAM in your region/city mobility system?

  • Stakeholder 1 (traffic and municipal police):  both stakeholders were fully aware of the automated buses that have been tested on the area. They estimated that almost all citizens were aware of the automated buses during CITYMOBIL2
  • Stakeholder 2 (Taxi company): They believed that mostly people at the city center new about the buses
  • Stakeholder 3 (Bus company): they estimated that at least 70% of the people could answer positive in this question
  • Stakeholder 4 (Mobility app developers): most people were aware of the automated buses, however not so many know the SMARTA2 app.
  • Stakeholder 5 (Municipal authorities): more than 80% of the citizens should be aware of the automated buses
  • Stakeholder 6 (journalists): during citymobil2 there was a large media coverage of the pilot. Even if they haven’t try it, almost everybody was aware of it
  • Stakeholder 7 (Youth council and bikers): at least 70% of the people should answer positive
  • Stakeholder 8 (GISEMI, CitiesNET & ICCS): Trikala is a city that has been testing different kind of CCAM services for many years. The majority of the citizens are aware of them.

 

Question F2: rank the first three words that best represent your attitude towards CCAM (provide the list from the questionnaire)

  • Stakeholder 1 (traffic and municipal police): curiosity, fear, uncertainty
  • Stakeholder 2 (bus & taxi company): interest, scepticism, uncertainty
  • Stakeholder 3 (mobility app developers): interest, curiosity, scepticism
  • Stakeholder 4 (municipal authorities): interest, excitement, scepticism
  • Stakeholder 5 (youth council and bikers): excitement, curiosity, interest
  • Stakeholder 6 (Gisemi, CitiesNet & ICCS): interest, curiosity, excitement

 

Question F7: Can you imagine specific features of autonomous vehicles for certain categories of people with special mobility needs?

  • Stakeholder 1 (traffic & municipal police): autonomous vehicles could allow people that cannot drive to be independent and travel safe
  • Stakeholder 2 (bus & taxi company): provide personalized travel services
  • Stakeholder 3 (municipal authorities): provide the last mile service to a number of people with mobility needs
  • Stakeholder 4 (youth council): provide safer way to travel
  • Stakeholder 5 (GISEMI & CitiesNet): a fully automated bus service could offer more flexible bus routes 24 hours a day

 

Question F9: For the future digital and automated mobility, how would you prioritise the following characteristics? (provide the list from the questionnaire)

  • Stakeholder 1 (traffic and municipal police): accessibility, acceptability, availability and affordability
  • Stakeholder 2 (bus company): affordability, accessibility, availability, acceptability
  • Stakeholder 3 (taxi company): availability, affordability, accessibility, acceptability
  • Stakeholder 4 (Municipal authorities): accessibility, availability, affordability, acceptability
  • Stakeholder 5 (youth council and cyclists): accessibility, affordability, availability, acceptability
  • Stakeholder 6 (GISEMI & CitiesNet): availability, accessibility, affordability, acceptability
  • Stakeholder 7 (Digital app developer): accessibility, availability, affordability, acceptability

 

Compare responses guessed by the participants with the ones resulting from the citizens’ participation (interviews and focus groups).
Response of the GoI (Free text): More or less the stakeholders’ estimations was in accordance with the citizen’s answers.

  • Approximately 50% of the public was aware of the CCCAM service in the area.
  • The stakeholders were surprised that although most people were aware of the CCAM service only a small percentage of them actually used it.
  • In terms of first feelings towards CCAM, the stakeholders guessed correctly that interest, curiosity along with scepticism are the most popular answers among the citizens
  • In to Question 9, the stakeholder also had a hard time to have a common opinion in terms of priorities. This was the case with citizens as well.

 

Discuss in plenary around the following topics:
What result from the investigation surprised you the most, and what makes it so surprising?

  • Stakeholder 1 (Traffic and Municipal police): they were surprised that a large number of people are willing to use automated vehicles even in case of an accident.
  • Stakeholder 2 (Public bus): they find it discrouging that the majority of the citizens will choose a private automated vehicle and not a public one. Meaning that citizens preference to use their private vehicles instead of the public means of transportation is still very strong.
  • Stakeholder 3 (mobility app developers): they were very interested to see the questions concerning digital maturity and acceptance of the citizens. They found the results encouraging
  • All Stakeholders spend some time discussing some of the citizen’s comments on the open questions. It seems that most citizens believe that a CCAM service could be useful, however they find automated buses to be slow. They also believe that it will be better to operate outside the city centre.

 

In your opinion, does the emotional feedback from citizens serve as an encouraging, discouraging, or neutral factor in the advancement of automated transport?

  • Stakeholder 1 (Traffic police): encouraging
  • Stakeholder 2 (Municipal police): encouraging
  • Stakeholder 3 (Mobility app developer): encouraging
  • Stakeholder 4 (Bus company): discouraging
  • Stakeholder 5 (taxi company): neutral
  • Stakeholder 6 (Municipal authorities): encouraging
  • Stakeholder 7 (youth council): neutral
  • Stakeholder 8 (cyclists): neutral
  • Stakeholder 9 (GISEMI): encouraging
  • Stakeholder 10 (CitiesNet): encouraging

 

How can we guide technology progress to better fulfil the requirements of mobility?

  • Stakeholder 1 (GISEMI): GISEMI pointed out the importance of adopting Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS) in order to enhance the safety and efficiency of transport by making high-quality and timely data available for services such as multimodal journey planners and navigation services. They believe that it is of high importance that the bus company, along with the train company and the taxis work together and offer their services and information via the city’s CCAM app, SMARTA 2
  • Stakeholder 2 (Mayors advisor): The Mayors advisor pointed out the importance of having a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan that invests on technological advances and public motivation to adopt new transport modes in order to shift from private car ownership to shared mobility options.

He also mentioned that the city of Trikala is a part of the Intelligence Cities Challenge (https://www.intelligentcitieschallenge.eu/) and is also one of the  100 Climate neutral and smart cities by 2030 initiative (https://netzerocities.eu/) In addition to this the city is under a digital reformation and all public services (mobility services included) will soon go under a major reform and digital integration via the City’s Restart My City Strategic Plan (https://trikalacity.gr/restart-mai-city-to-psifiako-mellon-toy-d-trikkaion-meso-toy-tameioy-anakampsis/)

 

Interactrive session 2: Parallel Round Tables
First Round

Round Table 1:

Facilitate participant discussion on the key factors that could bolster public acceptance of automated transport as a solution to mobility challenges

The citizens need to feel that the CCAM service is well tested and has proven to be safe and reliable.

The public needs to trust that CCAM can operate safely under various conditions
 

We need a well-established ethical and legal framework that sets clear ethical guidelines and addresses liability in the event of accidents.

By offering an easy to use and practical service we can increase public acceptance.

Increase public acceptance by educating citizens on the benefits and functionality of CCAM services and reduce fears and misconceptions

Any CCAM service should not only be of high quality but also affordable to the average citizen

The government should invest on infrastructures that could support CCAM services

The government should support CCAM services with regulations that facilitate their integration into the current transport systems

All CCAM services should be designed to be accessible to all, including those with disabilities or other challenges

Based on the responses gathered, develop a common list of benefits that CCAM can provide to address citizens’ future mobility needs.

  1. It is expected that CCAM will eventually reduce the number of road fatalities and accidents
  2. People shifting to shared mobility and public transport means that private car use and harmful emissions will reduce. CCAM will support the objectives of the Green Deal
  3. CCAM services can provide more inclusive transportation services to all people, especially to people that face everyday mobility challenges
  4. Shared mobility that promotes connectivity and cooperation among vehicles and transportation services will significantly improve traffic efficiency

To sum up full the mobility solutions enabled by CCAM will lead to increased safety, reduced environmental impacts, and inclusiveness in transportation

Second round

Round Table 1:

Facilitate participant discussion on the key obstacles that could prevent public acceptance of automated transport as a solution to mobility challenges

Safety concerns, fear of malfunction or accidents

High cost of an automated vehicle, impact of employment for professional drivers

Lack of infrastructure such as roads, pedestrian sites, bike lanes, data and communication systems

Lack of specific liability framework in case of an accident

Cultural resistance , especially when shifting from private vehicle to public transport

Low public acceptance due to citizens lack of knowledge  on CCAM technology

Based on the responses gathered, develop a common list of challenges that CCAM can bring in future mobility:

  1. Integrating CCAM with existing transport systems and infrastructure will be challenging and costly. What is more, asking different CCAM services e.g apps and platforms, to collaborate will also be difficult
  2. People in general have many concerns over CCAM services safety, reliability and practicality, thus gaining their trust is critical. In order to promote acceptance and proper use, it is of high importance that people are informed about the benefits and limitations of CCAM
  3. The regulatory challenges are many and need to be addressed at a government level. Issues such as, protecting CCAM systems from cyber threats, managing data generated while respecting user privacy and addressing ethical and liability issues, such as decision-making in critical situations, need to be addressed
  4. Governments need to estimate the financial impact of CCAM e.g job displacement, cost of infrastructure and investments on CCAM

Check if trust, safety & security, transparency are mentioned in the discussions/list and if not, raise the points.
Response of the GoI (Free text):
Matters of safety, security and transparency were adequate addressed by all stakeholders during this round table.

Participants to the second Workshop:
Service providers
  • Public Transport operators. 
  • Mobility providers. 
  • Private ride hauling companies. 
  • Bus Company
  • SMARTA APP operator. 
  • Advisor of the Mayor on Smart Infrastractures
Government
  • Transport Authorities. 
  • Road Authorities (Public bodies). 
  • Infrastructure managers. 
  • Municipalities/Cities/ Regions. 
  • Traffic police
  • Municipal police
  • Representatives from the Municipality
Industry
  • (Autonomous) vehicles’ manufacturers. 
  • (Autonomous) vehicles’ suppliers. 
  • ITS solutions’ providers. 
  • AI providers. 
  • Digital app Company
  • ICCS
  • GISEMI HUB
Non-profit organization and representative bodies 

At least two among: 

  • Drivers’ associations. 
  • Trade associations. 
  • Cyclists’ associations. 
  • Environmental associations. 
  • Consumers’ associations. 
  • Taxi company
  • Cyclists of Trikala
  • Youth Council of Trikala
  • CitiesNet
Agenda and Invitation

The workshop took place on the 28 of June in the Mill of Matsopoulos. It was a joined event with another project on sustainable mobility that Trikala is a pilot city, called IN2CCAM. The meeting started with IN2CCAM, where sustainable mobility was thoroughly presented along with SMARTA 2 app, that provides CCAM services to the city and continues with SINFONICA, the results of the interviews and focus groups and the 2 interactive sessions.