Questionnaire for Pilot Sites Collection of Facts and Information of Pilot Sites

Questionnaire for pilot sites

Collection of facts and information of pilot sites for building a comparative, transnational typology of alpine territories

For project partners: Please fill in the predefined gaps and boxes and try to answer all the questions clearly and completely. Use the predefined boxes and stick to the space limitations. If space isn’t enough, please use the attached document to add more information. The questionnaire will be

transferred directly into a kind of factsheet of your pilot site. Therefor please try to give clear information and formulate it well, so that it can be used for presenting your pilot site. If you have questions concerning the filling in, the meaning of a question or anything else, do not hesitate to contact us (iSpace – Dagmar Lahnsteiner, [email protected], CEREMA – David Caubel, [email protected])

Name and type of the territory: Fürstenfeldbruck, Bavaria, Germany Location (political district / region, federal province, country, other relevant position information): county (23 municipalities) in Bavaria, Germany, part of the European Metropolitan Region Munich(EMM)

- PART A: MAIN TERRITORIAL FEATURES -

Factor Description Please fill in… Population Number of inhabitants (main residence) and year 213,481 (2015) - shares by age groups - 14.5% under 15 years old 63.97% 15-64 years old 21.53% 65 and older - share of working population - 61.5 % working population Area Total area of the municipality in km² 434.79km² Pop. density Number of inhabitants per km² (year) 491 inhab./km² (2015) Settlement Number of inhabitants per km² settlement area/ 2,654.04 inhab./km² (2015) density theoretically inhabitable area (year) Elevation Height above mean sea level in m 559m Settlement Sprawled settlements or mainly compact? Satellite Fürstenfeldbruck county has structure areas around a centre or more disconnected the second highest population centres/settlements? Physical barriers? density in Bavaria right after Munich county. Therefore, it is subject to considerable urban pressure. The county lies in between the prosperous state capital Munich in the east and mainly rural areas in the west. In total, the county consists of 23 municipalities. The eastern municipalities have experienced a rapid growth during the 70s and 80s. Currently, 80% of the county’s inhabitants live in the eastern part, in an area with a diameter of 13 km. There are two different

settlement structures; The East is densely populated with urban characteristics while the west is more rural with partially small districts and hamlets. Nevertheless, a migration from east to west can be noticed due to higher land prices and insufficient land in the east. Thereby, a second commuter belt will be appearing in the west of Fürstenfeldbruck. Topography of Is it flat land / hilly terrain/ alpine valley and basin Mostly flat land in the eastern settlement area landscape? Other? and south-eastern area while the remaining landscape is characterized by hilly terrain. Functional Are there any characteristics describing special - High density of schools with characteristics functions of the municipality (e.g.: popular tourist - many crosslinks to the state destination, concentration of jobs, school centre, capital and Metropolitan regional centre, winter sport resort, economically Region Munich attractive, isolated/ central/ interconnected to,..) - excellent comprehensive public transport, 24/7

Jobs Number of workplaces and employees within the 10,978 (2014) with municipality (year) 49,202 employees (2016) Commuter Number of working population commuting to outside 57,008 (2016) balance the municipality (year) Number of people commuting from outside into the 20,488 (2016) municipality (year)

- PART B: MOBILITY SUPPLY AND DEMAND-

1. Modal split: Please insert the smallest-scale modal split values of traffic volume available for the municipality/territory adding also the scale, source, and year (= percentage of travellers using a particular type of transportation).

Scale, source, year At county level, “Mobility in Germany” (MiD), 2008 Share by foot value in % by foot 16% Share bicycle value in % bicycle 14% Share MIV value in % motorized individual transport 59% (driver & passenger) Share PT value in % public transport 11% Share other/n.s. value in % other / not specified 0%

2. Public transport - Existing offer: Please describe the existing mobility offer in the municipality/ territory. - Which means of transport do exist?

☒ Local bus ☒ Regional bus ☒ Local train ☐ Long-distance train ☒ Urban railways (S-Bahn) ☐ Tramway ☐ Metro ☐ Other:

- Frequency of public transport services: what is the shortest interval?

☐ < 5 minutes ☒ 5 - 15 min. ☐ 15 - 30 min. ☐ 30 – 60 min. ☐ > 60 minutes

- How long is the travel time to the next regional/national centre?

☐ < 15 min OR the next centre is within the pilot site /municipality ☐ 15 – 30 minutes ☒ 30 – 60 minutes ☐ > 60 minutes

- Is there a multi/intermodal hub? If yes, of which services does it consist (in the case of several hubs, choose a representative/ the best developed one)?

☐ No ☒ Yes, consisting of:

☒ Bus/tram station ☒ Railway station ☐ Metro station ☒ Park & Ride area ☒ Bicycle parking ☐ E-bike charging ☐ E-car charging ☐ Car sharing ☐ Bike rental ☒ Taxi rank ☐ Other:

3. Public transport - incentives: What is done to make public transport attractive?

☒ Dedicated tariff system (discounted tickets, annual passes, combined/integrated tickets for different means of transport, special offers, etc.) ☒ Dedicated information (websites, smartphone apps, campaigns etc.) ☐ Other (max.150 characters):

4. Supplementary mobility offer and initiatives: Please give a brief description (+ year of implementation, owner/ operator) of supplementary public transport systems and innovative initiatives in the municipality/territory which assist the PT or help to reduce private car use (Park & Ride areas, Carpooling/ Carsharing initiatives, bus-on-demand / call bus, share taxi, Secure hitchhiking, etc.). (max. 5 listings with max. 300 characters each) Park & Ride areas at all 16 stations in the county: http://www.p-r-

regional.de/fileadmin/mediapool/pdfs/P_R_Bestand_Dez_2015.pdf Share taxi: further development of the call system. Since 2016 comprehensive within the county, 24/7, included in the MVV tariff. Allocated by the district office Express busses: direct and quick connection from Fürstenfeldbruck to Starnberg since 12/2015. Direct connection between the district towns FFB and Germering since 12/2014 Car Sharing: “Stattauto” in Puchheim (1 vehicle), Gröbenzell (1 vehicle), Germering (3 vehicles), all close to the railway station Bike sharing: 5 bicycles are provided by the company “nextbike” in Germering at the railway station

5. Conditions for non-motorized private transport:

How is the situation for biking and walking within the Are there additional offers like (free) (electric) bicycle municipality/territory?(max. 500 characters) rental, bike sharing or special measures/initiatives for pedestrians? (max. 500 characters) Current analysis of the road network for bicycles with Current planning of bicycle rental systems by some the objective of reasonable development. Currently, municipalities. Only one is supposed to be free of the network reveals some gaps and dangerous spots. charge. Germering already provides nextbike. The Problems to deal with are difficulties with properties, county will advocate for a consistent system and cost and political willingness. Pedestrians play a coordination. “Bus with feet” is carried out in some subordinate role. municipalities by BUND nature conservation (Kids, guided by an adult, walk to school together)

6. Local mobility knowledge:

Which kind of data or studies are used or gathered on local mobility knowledge? Is there any kind of observation system in place to enhance the information about current and forecast local mobility needs, practices and CO2 impacts? (max. 5 listings with max. 300 characters each) MVV- Various passenger surveys & customer satisfaction sirvey Mobility in Germany (MiD) (nationwide study since April 2016) Regional database Germany (German federal statistic office) Carbon footprint of the county – subject Traffic (new in 2017, compared with 2012) Continuous updating of the local transportation plan and reachability analysis, since 2017

7. Mobility needs and demands:

Do inhabitants or local stakeholders express mobility needs or gaps with regard to the current situation and territorial issues? If yes, what are the major ones? (max. 5 listings with max. 200 characters each) Improvements for the motorised private transport (local bypass, better road infrastructure, more parking space) Public transport improvement (new lines, more express busses, easy and fair tariffs) Improvement of the bicycle infrastructure (more bicycle lanes, better signage, more bicycle stands, more fast lanes, service stations and rental systems) Intermodal mobility stations

- PART C: MOBILITY AND SPATIAL PLANNING BACKGROUND -

1. Planning authorities: Please give an overview of the responsibilities concerning mobility and spatial/housing planning in the municipality/territory. Are there also authorities combining the spatial and mobility planning aspect?

Mobility planning (max. 800 characters) Spatial/housing planning (max. 800 characters) Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital Federal Ministry for Environment, Nature Infrastructure: Plan federal traffic routes in Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety: coordination with every affected administrative nationwide guideline and objectives concerning department at the federal level. spatial and housing planning in coordination Interior Ministry of Bavaria for building and with every concerned administrative office at transport: project planning based on the plan for federal level. federal traffic routes in coordination with every Bavarian ministry of Interior, for building and affected administrative department at national transport: project planning based on the level guideline and objectives in coordination with Fürstenfeldbruck county: local transportation every concerned administrative office at plan, supra-local road and bicycle lane planning, national level. State development plan (LEP), conceptual planning (RES; concept for bicycle regional plan lanes and nature conservation), citizen Fürstenfeldbruck county: conceptual planning information. (RES; guiding principles and concept for nature Municipalities: planning and realization of conservation), statement on the LEP, citizen mobility projects in the city and municipal areas. information. Municipalities: planning and realization of projects in the urban and municipal areas

2. Planning instruments: Which planning instruments and strategic documents influence /control spatial/housing and mobility planning in the municipality/territory THE MOST? In which way, at what time and territorial scale do they act? Are they obligatory? Think of any programmes, concepts, regulation, strategic processes etc. (max. 5 listings with max 400 characters each)

RES – strategies for spatial development (2015-2017), commissioned by the county and a few municipalities. RES are informal and intercommunal concepts used as an action guideline for the development of settlements, open spaces and traffic. It can be seen as a spatial planning realisation of the results from the guiding principles discussion and the Environment Protection Concept - voluntary Local transportation plan - According to BayÖPNVG, the counties should set up a local transportation plan for their area about the public transport connections and services. Taking into consideration the principles of the local transport planning, the requirements of regional and urban planning, the interests of nature conservation & economic principles. Requested, but voluntary- (former obligatory) LEP – Main task is to determine the fundamental spatial development and arrangement. Plus, existing disparities within the state can be reduced and the development of new ones can be prevented. Other tasks are to coordinate important specialist planning and to give guidelines concerning spatial regional planning. – obligatory – on state level

3. Main objectives: What are current and forecast main objectives and guiding principles for the municipality/territory, linked with mobility issues(+ sources)? Think of local, regional and national scale. (max. 5 listings with max 200 characters each)

Accessible mobility Environmental friendly mobility Wide mobility offer with appropriate connections Extensive and at all times available information regarding mobility Consideration of mobility needs in future planning

4. Planning measures: What are concrete planning measures already in use within the municipality/ territory, helping to reduce CO2 and foster/push the usage and implementation of public transport and other low CO2 mobility options? E.g. car- reduced building projects, precautionary land use (saving areas next to public transport infrastructure for building compact settlements), subsidy for compact settlements, strengthening of town centres, regulation of residential densities next to public transport stops (max. 5 listings with max.300 characters each)

Densification Rail network development Concept for bicycle lanes Strengthen local supply

-PART D: STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES –

In conclusion, regarding requirements, offer, planning and implementation of low CO2 mobility and related issues, what are: (max. 800 charcters each)

- strengths & benefits of the municipality/territory? - weaknesses & problems of the municip./ territory? - Relatively flat topography - Demographic change - Relatively small area - Problems with properties (especially - Many inhabitants properties for traffic development) - Well-developed regional bus system with - High settlement pressure high satisfaction values - Big expansion of settlement areas (mainly - Three urban railway lines (S-Bahn) family homes) - Regional train stops - Difficulty with providing equivalent offers to - Good connection to the state capital Munich the different areas of the county. - Tendency to multimodality - High negative commuter balance - High living and location quality - High transit traffic - Complex coordination process in nationwide planning - Increasing number of car registrations per inhabitant - Providing PT in small towns is cost- intensive and unprofitable - opportunities & challenges of the municip./territory? - threats & restrictions of the municipality/territory? - Considering the mobility requirements for - Very dense development in the east settlement development - Most of the population (especially among - Intensify the cooperation with surrounding the older ones) are used to use of a car counties or with the state capital Munich to - Urban railway traffic is already overstrained create better connections (express busses) - The public transport connection to new - Usage of car sharing and bicycle rentals gets development areas is often planned more and more popular afterwards not beforehand - Using the internet and smartphones to provide information, sell tickets and route registration - Information of new citizens about the public transport (Package for new citizen since 2015) - The county’s roads are totally overstrained

-PART E: BEST PRACTICES AND EXPERIENCES TO SHARE-

Are there best practices or experiences examples (maybe yet mentioned) of reduced CO2 mobility offers / projects or initiatives:

- WITHIN THE MUNICIPALITY/TERRITORY OR THE REGION which work very well and can be recommended to other municipalities with similar conditions?

Examples with short explanations (max. 5 listings with Weblink or contact for further information max.300 characters each) Express busses from Fürstenfeldbruck to Starnberg Hermann Seifert, Leiter Stabsstelle ÖPNV im or Germering (preferably as direct as possible, with Landratsamt Fürstenfeldbruck, only a few stops but which connects the important [email protected] centres) Monika Beirer, stv. Leiterin Stabsstelle ÖPNV im Landratsamt Fürstenfeldbruck, [email protected] MVV share taxi, comprehensive and additional to Hermann Seifert, Leiter Stabsstelle ÖPNV im the regional bus lines whereby it’s possible to offer Landratsamt Fürstenfeldbruck public transport on all days of the week with the Monika Beirer, stv. Leiterin Stabsstelle ÖPNV familiar MVV tariff. im Landratsamt Fürstenfeldbruck, [email protected] mvv-muenchen.de/ruftaxi

- from OTHER MUNICIPALITIES/TERRITORIES which would be a good solution for the municipality/territory under review?

Examples with short explanations (max. 5 listings with Weblink or contact for further information max.300 characters) Car sharing system in Ebersberg county https://www.regierung.oberbayern.bayern.de/i mperia/md/content/regob/internet/dokument e/bereich3/energieeffizientesbauen/2014-05- 09_lk_ebersberg-mobili%C3%A4tskonzept- carsharing_klein.pdf

Are there lessons learned from less successful or failed experiences that could be shared in order to improve forthcoming actions in municipalities with similar conditions? (max. 500 characters)

Many trials in different counties have shown that Agencies for arranging lifts (so called “MiFaz” = Mitfahrzentrale) do not work nowadays. The citizens mostly organize their transport via Facebook or WhatsApp and not via the offered platform.

-PART F: TOOLS FOR MOBILITY AND SPATIAL PLANNING –

Are there any tools/ software products your local authority uses to model effects on land-use and/or transport (e.g. low carbon scenarios) within the process of mobility or spatial planning? Please name them (+ Link and contact Person if available).

No.

Do you make any tools for estimating effects of individual mobility behaviour and/or location choice available to your citizens? Or do you provide any information or links about such tools on your homepage? Please name them (+ Link and contact Person if available).

MVV cost calculator for housing and mobility (http://bayern.wowohnen.eu/)

If you could wish for a (software) tool for sustainable land-use and/or transport decision making, what would it be like? Please name important characteristics, input, output, geographical scale and target groups.

Simple output of significant maps and graphics regarding different problems which can be collectively used by district and local administrations. Target group: administrative staff and policy makers of the county.