Evaluation played a crucial role in the cities.multimodal project as it monitored whether project objectives were achieved or not. In cities.multimodal the concrete activities that were undertaken to achieve the overall project objectives of the project culminated in Work Packages 2 and 3. The evaluation focused on measurable objectives which are described more closely in the Work Packages section. The Technical University of Berlin (TUB) was responsible for cities.multimodal's evaluation.
The purpose of the impact evaluation was to demonstrate the impact of measures and to what extent they have had an impact. The first step of the impact evaluation was to establish a baseline of data collections collected for example during the preparatory work and analysis. The second step was to establish a business as usual scenario which shows what the future would look like without any measures taken. The third step was to collect data after the measure implementation, the results of the before and after situation were analyzed.
Peer review evaluation
The peer review evaluation wasprimarely carried out by the host city of the peer reviews. The host city was responsible for gathering input and feedback from the visiting cities during the peer review itself, the results were then analysed a peer review report made by the hosting city. Read more about the peer reviews and access the peer review reports.
During the lifespan of a project a range of factors will affect the measures and the plans for how they originally were planned to be carried out. Processes of planning, developing, testing, implementing and operating will all affect the final output of a measure. The purpose of the process evaluation is to to understand what has influenced the measure process in either a positive or negative way.
The results of the data gathering carried out within cities.multimodal preparatory analysis culminated into “fact sheets” presenting the gathered data in spider graphs. The main aim of the spider graphs was to initiate and facilitate discussions regarding the status of multimodality, both within city borders (administration/ politics/ private stakeholders) and beyond (among the partner cities). A comparative analysis amongst all 10 cities was carried out to identify strengths and weaknesses in order to tailor measures specific to each city’s requirement. As the 10 participating partner cities are all varying significantly regarding parameters such as area and population, and the methods for data gathering in the cities were different, this method of analysis by comparison cannot present scientifically valid information. Thus, the comparative function of the spider graphs in the fact sheets is limited since - for example - bigger cities, having higher numbers would be an advantage (no. of public transport modes). However, these should be considered merely as a tool to provide an impression of the multimodality status to the different cities in the Baltic region. A few of the indicator figures (such as length of bus lines, monthly bus trips, bus fleet size, bike lanes etc.) were however modified to show a relation with the city size.
Access the cities´ fact sheets here
Figure: Evaluation tasks for Work Packages 2 and 3, TUB 2018