The Rotterdam meeting provided a chance to assess pilot progress and joint activities while focusing on during the thematic meeting: tackling hindrance in shared mobility across cities and regions.
The project meeting in Rotterdam offered a valuable opportunity to review the progress of each pilot and the joint activities of the ShareDiMobiHub project. But even more importantly, it served as a platform to delve into pressing issues that impact shared mobility in cities and regions. This time, the focus was on addressing hindrance in shared mobility. The hybrid format of the meeting allowed experts and city representatives from outside the project to contribute to the discussion, fostering an exchange of ideas. Disruptions, including improper parking, overcrowded streets, and community complaints, continue to pose significant challenges as cities expand shared mobility networks. By bringing together diverse perspectives, the session explored strategies to mitigate these issues while improving the efficiency, accessibility, and sustainability of micromobility services across Europe.
Introduction by Arjen Rodenburg
Arjen Rodenburg, ShareDiMobiHub’s project coordinator, opened the session by highlighting the need to address hindrance caused by shared mobility, such as improper parking, congestion, and community complaints. He underscored the importance of balancing user convenience, operator sustainability, and urban harmony.
Enhancing digital parking with NIVEL
Harald Sævareid, CEO of NIVEL, presented how their digital regulation platform addresses hindrance in cities like Frankfurt, Helsingborg, and across Norway. By leveraging geofencing, their system ensures that micromobility vehicles remain within designated zones, reducing street clutter and nuisance. He also showcased the “poor parking” app, which empowers residents and parking guards to report improperly parked vehicles, leading to over 25,000 reports in its first year. Sævareid emphasised that NIVEL’s data-driven tools allow cities to manage shared mobility services proactively, bringing together operators and municipalities while improving urban environments.
Structured solutions and mobility hubs in Frankfurt
Jan Heissler from the City of Frankfurt shared their approach to mitigating hindrance through their network of mobility hubs. Frankfurt plans to implement 1,000 hubs by 2029, with three distinct hub types tailored to varying urban contexts, from city centres to suburban areas. By linking micromobility services to public transport and clearly designating parking areas, Frankfurt is reducing nuisance while improving service reliability. Heissler highlighted how data analytics and operator regulations ensure hubs are strategically located, meeting demand without creating disorder. This structured approach also helps to manage e-scooter and bike-sharing programs in a way that integrates with the city’s public transport system.
Rotterdam’s approach to hindrance prevention
The City of Rotterdam presented its comprehensive strategy for preventing hindrance, focusing on the role of data and collaboration. With over 108 mobility hubs operational and plans to exceed 200 by year-end, the ShareDiMobiHub partner uses geofencing and data dashboards to monitor parking behaviours, track complaints, and adjust hub locations. Their approach includes behavioural campaigns to promote proper parking and regular consultations with operators to refine shared micromobility policies. Rotterdam’s use of physical and virtual hubs at high-demand locations has significantly reduced complaints, demonstrating the value of prioritising user behaviour and localised planning.
Check and how to drive user-centric engagement
Paul van Merrienboer, Managing Director of Check, introduced their measures to address hindrance while maintaining user satisfaction. Check uses data analytics to understand user behaviours and improve hub placement. With their “Hinder-Tinder” concept, they will perfection real-time engagement between users and operators to address complaints effectively. Through reward systems that encourage responsible parking, Check has managed to reduce complaints and improve service adoption. Van Merrienboer stressed the importance of balancing user needs with the community’s expectations, ensuring shared mobility remains a sustainable and attractive option.
Amsterdam’s lessons on hindrance and hub design
The City of Amsterdam shared its approach to addressing micromobility hindrance through data-driven hub design and responsive measures. Using the CROW dashboard, Amsterdam evaluates locations based on usage, proximity to transport, and community feedback. A key example is Metrostation Kraaiennest, where complaints about excessive mopeds led to the creation of a designated hub with geofencing and improved parking management. This type or targeted intervention are increasing and, combined with regular monitoring and collaboration with operators, it proves that the city’s efforts to reducing disruptions are welcomed.
Conclusion
Addressing shared mobility hindrance is a main concern for all the cities and operators offering these services. The thematic meeting raise this and proved how there are still common challenges cities face. Through a mix of innovative tools, such as geofencing and data dashboards, and practical measures like behaviour-focused campaigns and tailored hub designs, cities can effectively balance user convenience with community and operator needs. By bringing together diverse perspectives, this thematic meeting in Rotterdam underscored the how critical is collaboration and cocreation and shared learning in building inclusive, sustainable, and well-regulated mobility systems for the future.