Many cities have ambitious climate targets, like becoming climate-neutral by 2050, 2040 or 2030, but are uncertain about how mobility and land use should change in order to reduce GHG emissions to levels consistent with the cities’ aims. Finding answers on this, and also on the question of how to strike an effective balance between desired fundamental transformation and realistic expectations, was at the heart of the Interreg Europe project 2050 CliMobCity (2050 Climate-friendly Mobility in Cities). The project partners were four medium-sized but otherwise quite different cities (Bydgoszcz, Plymouth, Thessaloniki and Leipzig), along with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and TU Delft. Each partner city conducted a so-called demonstration study, which required defining ambitious packages of measures (mobility, land use, electrification) and forecasting changes in mobility by macroscopic transport modelling. PIK then analysed GHG emissions using its carbon model. This paper extends the demonstration studies into a case-study approach. This is preceded by an exercise in consistently structuring types of GHG and mobility performances and corresponding measures. The case-study approach is supplemented by a review of the literature on shared and micromobility. A conclusion drawn from the case study is that none of the partner cities is in fact sufficiently reducing GHG emissions. Even if electricity production was completely green, the remaining gap between GHG reduction aims and analysed GHG delivery lies between 30–81 %, dependent on the scenario and city. Shared and micromobility seem not to lead to strongly deviating conclusions. We discuss policies to close the gap. One major option discussed is tackling GHG emissions from urban freight, in forms such as organising public-private cooperation designed to accelerate the electrification of freight vehicles.

To achieve the modal shift projected by public transport policies, intermodal rail transport needs to improve its performance in order to become more attractive. Hub-and-spoke (HS) bundling is an option to improve its performance. It potentially increases the attractiveness of intermodal rail freight services, also for flows that are too small to fill a direct train on the required frequency level. HS bundling can be carried out in different ways (types of hubs, trains and operations). Only some of them lead to competitive transport services. This paper argues that – in many situations – the best HS network employs terminal hubs and shuttle trains, and that the hub terminal should be a real hub terminal. A real hub terminal is designed to fulfil its main function, rail-rail transhipment, effectively and efficiently.

Despite their apparent advantages HS networks with real hub terminals are penetrating the market at a very slow pace. The paper discusses major barriers for a faster implementation, and advocates a change of perception of rail operators, and also of public transport policies. It is recommended that the development of hub terminals is supported by public vision-making and cooperative or more centralised network design within the sector.

Innovatie van intermodaal railvervoer moet ertoe bijdragen dat het vervoersaandeel van intermodaal vervoer sterk groeit naar niveaus die Europa en zeehavens ambiëren. Marathon, Spider/Twin hub en Spectrum zijn drie concepten die een redelijk brede range van innovatierichtingen vertegenwoordigen, reikend van schaalvergroting tot versnelling van treinomlopen op netwerkniveau. Alle hebben vernieuwing van knooppuntprocessen in het vizier. Marathon en Spectrum focussen daarnaast op innovatieve voertuigconcepten (locs, wagons, hun aansturing en gebruik). Ieder concept pretendeert de prestaties van intermodaal vervoer te verbeteren, waaronder kostenverlaging. De bewijsvoering door de projecten bevestigt de conceptuele logica van de concepten niet altijd. Ook zijn de concepten moeilijk te vergelijken waar het gaat om prestatieverbetering. Deze paper schetst de vernieuwingsopgave, de innovatielogica van de alternatieve concepten, en de door de projecten aangegeven prestatieverbeteringen. Vervolgens worden de belangrijkste maatregelen van ieder concept ingevoerd in een railkostenmodel om op indicatieve wijze de ordes van grootte van kostendalingen in beeld te brengen en te vergelijken. De exercitie tempert enkele verwachtingen, maar brengt ook kansrijke perspectieven in beeld die niet tot de resultaten van de projecten behoorden.