Master Thesis

The future of public charging infrastructure roll-out

strategies in The Netherlands

Clemie C.J.M. van Meer

1507265

Master Sustainable Energy Technology

Department of Industrial Engineering & Innovation Science
Section Technology, Innovation & Society

Supervisors:
Technology, Innovation & Society
Prof. dr. F. Alkemade

HetEnergieBureau
Dr. ir. T.N. Manders
J.J.P.A. van Gestel

Version 1.0

Eindhoven, December 2, 2022

This report was made in accordance with the TU/e Code of Scientific Conduct for the Master thesis
 Summary
The influence of humans on the climate has rapidly increased since the industrial revolution. This is mainly
due to greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2 and methane. Greenhouse gases ensure that heat is retained
and, as a result, the temperature on Earth rises. The climate concerns of the Netherlands are, according to the
KNMI [47], increased sea levels, drier springs and summers, and more intense summer rains. Climate change
can also lead to a shortage of drinking water or food, forcing many people to flee their regions or countries.
This could have consequences for Dutch trade, which is highly dependent on the global economy [64]. The
transportation sector is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. In the Netherlands, the
sector emitted 11% of the total greenhouse gas emissions emitted by the Dutch economy [11]. Therefore,
mobility is one of the five sectors that the Dutch Climate Agreement aims to address. The most important
commitment in this agreement is that by 2050, the sector will be fully emission-free [63]. This should be
achieved, among other things, by the electrification of passenger transport.
Thanks to incentives from policy, the number of electric vehicles (EVs) in The Netherlands has already in-
creased significantly in recent years and will continue to increase even further in the coming decade. This
growth is accompanied by the development and implementation of public charging infrastructure. Without
public charging infrastructure, developments in the field of electric transport will come to a halt. To this end,
every municipality in The Netherlands must develop a charging vision and placement policy for its public
charging infrastructure. This is to ensure that municipalities can properly facilitate the growth of EV and
to ensure that charging infrastructure is not a limiting factor for the roll-out of EV. Difficult considerations
have to be made when it comes to implementing charging infrastructure in the public space. Placing objects
in precious and scarce public space is a hot topic, especially in the Netherlands, due to the lack of space in
many cities. Parking pressure is a problem in most Dutch cities, which is why careful consideration should
be given to the implementation of charging infrastructure for long-term development. The current dominant
roll-out strategy in the Netherlands for EV charging stations is based on a proactive roll-out strategy by
municipalities. However, since there are many differences in spatial layout for charging infrastructure and
user charging patterns, one roll-out strategy with one specific charging technology is likely not sufficient
to cope with the increase of EV users and therefore charging infrastructure up to 2030. Due to this lack of
knowledge, it is not possible to make well-considered choices when developing charging infrastructure in
the public space. A possible consequence of the current approach is that unnecessary investments are made
and counterproductive incentives are implemented for the long-term development of EVs. Not only does
this make it a problem for municipalities, but it also creates a social problem. Users are likely to encounter
charging issues as a result of misapplied charging strategies or technologies. This can lead to inconvenience
but even make the step to switch to an EV too big for certain users, which can reduce the overall growth in
the development of electric mobility.
The aim of the research was to create a long-term vision for the design and implementation of the charging
infrastructure in the Netherlands. Additionally, an attempt was made to establish a standard for these dif-
ferent charging technologies per neighborhood typology, so that the outcomes are less location-dependent.
To this end, the following main research question was formulated: "What will the charging needs of electric
vehicles in the Netherlands be in 2030 and which charging infrastructure roll-out strategy should be applied until
2030 in order to best facilitate these needs?"
The aim of this research was to determine how electric mobility and charging technologies will develop in
the coming years so that they can already be taken into account in the current roll-out strategy of the public
charging infrastructure. In addition, the interests of the various stakeholders in the implementation of public
charging infrastructure and the future vision of charging infrastructure in a city were examined, so that this
can also be taken into account. These different aspects were then brought together in a single approach that
also took into account the different neighborhood typologies of Dutch cities. To this end, a literature review
was conducted and a survey and interviews were conducted among stakeholders.
In order to answer this main question in a structured way, several sub-questions have been formulated.
The results of literature research and interviews with stakeholders for the first sub-question regarding the
development of mobility in urban areas in the Netherlands up to 2030 have shown that, despite certain
mobility-dimming trends such as location-independent working, the mobility-stimulating trends will still

1
prevail. This is mainly due to the expected population increase and economic growth.
The results of literature research and interviews with stakeholders for the second sub-question regarding the
characteristics of the charging technologies to be applied in 2030 have shown that, firstly, it is very likely
that other technologies of charging EVs will be on the rise in 2030. However, it is currently assumed that
these other methods of charging will not yet have a large enough market share in 2030 to really form a major
part of the charging mix in the Netherlands. Secondly, it is expected that these current technologies, i.e. fast
charging, regular charging, and smart charging, will be applied on a large scale in 2030 to meet the charging
demand. The Dutch vision on charging infrastructure within cities is to first build a comprehensive network
of public charging infrastructure. This means that there are enough charging stations spread throughout the
city that there is always a charging station in the immediate vicinity. That is what most municipalities are
currently working on. After this, they can choose to spread the charging stations further or cluster them.
Both methods have their advantages. The advice from this research is to start clustering after reaching this
network. This is because it improves the findability of charging stations and reduces search traffic. The
distance between the clusters of charging points in this network is determined not only by the acceptable
walking distance of the district, but also by the possibilities of integrating charging infrastructure into the
streetscape.
The results of the literature research for the third sub-question regarding the characteristics of cities in the
Netherlands in relation to the spatial layout of charging stations indicate that there is a clear distinction
between neighborhood typologies that are commonly present in Dutch cities. These differences in a parking
situation, functions of the neighborhood, importance of the cityscape, and location of parking ensure that
there are different approach routes for the placement of charging infrastructure. Taking into account the
advantages of certain charging station technologies, a mix of placement policies within a city is made that
works optimally for every neighborhood.
The results of the survey conducted among city residents without their own parking facilities for the fourth
sub-question regarding the similarities and differences the inhabitants of different Dutch neighborhoods
experience in user needs of charging infrastructure show that there are indeed differences between the wishes
with regard to charging infrastructure that depends on where they live. For example, there are differences
between the willingness to move their EV after fully charging, but also which walking distance to the nearest
charging point that is considered acceptable. The survey shows that residents of a neighborhood in the
center, which is known for the higher parking pressure, and residents of neighborhoods with a high parking
pressure are less willing to walk a little further to a charging point. Despite this finding, it is recommended
that the walking distance to the closest charging station for neighborhoods with a higher parking pressure
is higher than for neighborhoods with a lower parking pressure. This is mainly due to the cityscape of these
districts, but also to the applicability of the charging stations in public space. If the cityscape plays a very
important role in the district, it can be decided to install fast charging stations at tactical nodes around the
district or at tactical locations, such as at supermarkets. However, preference remains for regular charging
stations because of the lower load on the grid and the better match with the charging pattern of residents.
Interviews with stakeholders for the fifth sub-question regarding the interests of stakeholders in the realiza-
tion of charging infrastructure showed that, in principle, they have few requirements between technologies
and/or types of placement policy. However, they do have preferences. For example, it is important for the
municipalities that the interests of the resident come first, taking into account the streetscape, among other
things. However, it is advantageous for a network operator if charging stations are located in strategic loca-
tions in relation to network congestion, and the CPO naturally wants the most strategic location possible in
relation to charging turnover.
In Table 7, oversight of the defined neighborhood typologies by PBL [16], and the corresponding recommen-
dations with relation to the public charging infrastructure are given.
In several situations, exceptions can be made to this distribution in walking distance to a parking space with a
charging station. For example, there are neighborhoods in cities where the vast majority of houses have their
own parking facility. Here, you can choose to maintain an even higher walking distance or place the charging
stations in tactical locations such as parking squares within the neighborhood. There are also neighborhoods

2
Table 1: Oversight of neighborhood typologies defined by PBL [16] and their corresponding public charging
structure recommendations

Acceptable walking
Neighborhood typology Role of fast charging
distance in network
Revolution building 300-500 meters In addition to regular charging when the acceptable walking distance cannot be achieved
Mansions 300-500 meters In addition to regular charging when the acceptable walking distance cannot be achieved
Monumental 300-500 meters In addition to regular charging when the acceptable walking distance cannot be achieved
Garden village 200-400 meters As little as possible; only when necessary due to parking problems
Super blocks 100-200 meters No role
Early post-war 100-300 meters As little as possible; only when necessary due to parking problems
Late post-war 100-300 meters As little as possible; only when necessary due to parking problems
Residential areas 100-200 meters No role
Neo-rationalism 100-300 meters As little as possible; only when necessary due to parking problems
New garden areas 100-200 meters No role

in which there are predominantly high-rise buildings, where parking is usually solved in parking garages
under the building, or parking squares next to the building. In this situation, it therefore makes more sense
to cluster faster at these locations.
The current study is an addition to the existing literature on the opinions of EV drivers because this study
also includes the opinions of the group of future EV drivers for the first time. As mentioned earlier, many
studies only focus on current EV drivers, which mainly consist of innovators who may have very different
wishes and requirements from the masses that subsequently adopt an innovation.
However, it should be taken into account that due to the time frame, this study was not able to recruit a
very large group of respondents. A respondent group of thousands all over the Netherlands would of course
be much more representative. The survey was also distributed in the network of me and HetEnergieBureau,
which may have provided a respondent who meets a certain profile (highly educated, positive vision of energy
transition). For this reason, no general statement can be made about the definitive walking distance that
residents of different neighborhood typologies find acceptable. The entire report is built on the data obtained
from this survey, so it is better to talk about advice based on this research than hard facts. The advice for
follow-up research is, therefore, to conduct a similar study with a larger group of respondents as data. In
addition, it is also possible to talk to several stakeholders within a stakeholder category to see whether all
stakeholders within this category have the same interests.
In addition, there are a few other points that may be explored in more detail in further research or may be
seen as limitations of this study. For example, this research focuses on public charging, but private (and
semi-public) also play a major role in the diffusion of EV. Other mobility sectors outside passenger transport
have also been omitted from this study. Only passenger cars have been considered, but the charging demand
of delivery vans, for example, will also play a major role in the charging demand within a district. In addition,
this research was intended to develop a strategy for the longer term. However, during the research, especially
into new innovations in the field of EVs and their charging, it turned out that this is still fairly short-term
research because innovations need a much longer time to break through to the masses. A good addition to
this study would therefore be what the state of affairs is in the field of EV and charging technologies in, for
example, 2040 or 2050. This study can also ultimately be used as a recommendation and practice may show
that there are still there are additional points for attention within a district where charging infrastructure
must be coordinated. That is why it is also important to continue to monitor any implementation of this
research in policy, so that any improvements can be added.
 Acknowledgments
Before you lies the thesis ’The future of public charging infrastructure roll-out strategies in The Netherlands’.
This thesis was written in the context of my graduation from the Master Sustainable Energy Technology
at Eindhoven University of Technology and was commissioned by HetEnergieBureau. From April 2022 to
December 2022 I have been researching and writing this thesis.
I could not have completed this without the help of a number of people. I would therefore like to express my
gratitude to those who have given me wise advice and helped and supported me during my research. First
of all, I would like to thank my thesis supervisor Professor Floor Alkemade for her indispensable advice and
also the pleasant conversations during our progress meetings.
In addition to the help from TU/e, I sincerely thank everyone at HetEnergieBureau for their support in my
research and their confidence in me. In particular, I would like to thank Tanja Manders. She listened to
my weekly story about how my research was progressing and was always able to provide me with good
support and advice when necessary. I also thank Jeroen van Gestel for trusting me during the research and
the opportunity to develop myself after graduation when I will work at HetEnergieBureau as a consultant. In
addition, a special mention to the Mobility Team of HetEnergieBureau, who fully involved me in their team
from day one.
Finally, I would like to thank my girlfriend, friends and parents for their support during my graduation. Not
only have they all listened to the challenges I faced while writing my thesis, but they also offered me the
necessary distraction to continue writing every day with a fresh perspective.

Clemie van Meer

Eindhoven, 30 November 2022

Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Previous work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Problem statement and research objective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Main research question . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2 Theoretical framework 5
2.1 Diffusion of innovations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.1.1 EV diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 Charging infrastructure diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1.3 Roll-out strategy of public charging infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 General mobility developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Research visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3 Methodology 11
3.1 General mobility developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.2 EV diffusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3 Public charging infrastructure roll-out strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.1 Technological factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.2 Urban layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.3.3 Interests stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

4 General mobility developments 14

4.1 Mobility demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.1 Mobility trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1.2 Mobility behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2 Mobility supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.2.1 Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.3 Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.1 Current policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.3.2 Future policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.4 Key insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

5 EV diffusion 21
5.1 Price and models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.1 Price and models trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.1.2 Battery price trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5.2 Technology level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.1 Battery sizes and vehicle range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.2.2 Battery degradation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.3 Market structure and competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5.4 Consumer acceptance and expectation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.4.1 Benefits of using an ICE vehicle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.4.2 Perceived high expenses of EVs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.5 Policies and regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.6 Key insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

6 Technological factors 27
6.1 Regular charging vs. Fast charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.1 AC or DC charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.2 Charging modes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
6.1.3 Spatial layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5
 6.2 Smart charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2.1 Load balancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6.2.2 Bidirectional charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.3 Wireless charging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
6.4 Battery swapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.5 Spatial placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6.6 Key insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

7 Urban layout 34
7.1 Residential areas in the city center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1.1 Revolution-building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
7.1.2 Mansions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2 Residential areas in the pre-war shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2.1 Monumental . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2.2 Garden Village . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
7.2.3 Super blocks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.3 Post-war shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7.3.1 Early post-war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.3.2 Late post-war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.4 Suburban shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
7.4.1 Residential areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.4.2 Neo-rationalism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.4.3 New garden areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
7.5 Key insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

8 Interests stakeholders 40
8.1 Municipality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.2 Grid operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.3 Charge point operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
8.4 Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.4.1 Living situation and car use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
8.4.2 Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
8.4.3 Validation of assumptions from literature research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8.4.4 Notable findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
8.5 Key insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

9 Conclusion and recommendations 47

10 Discussion 50

A Appendix: Interviews stakeholders 56

A.1 Interviewed stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
A.2 Interview 1 questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
A.3 Interview 2 questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

B Appendix: Survey 58
B.1 Survey Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
B.2 Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
List of Figures
1 The diffusion of innovations according to Rogers [66]. With successive groups of consumers
adopting the new technology (blue line) and the market share (yellow line). The blue curve is
divided into categories of adopters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 Visualization of the influencing factors on the diffusion of EV according to [49] . . . . . . . . 7
3 Passenger (intra- and intercity) modal split in France, fractional shares of passenger-km per-
formed and model estimates [33] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
4 Development of charging infrastructure in the Netherlands, restyled from [52] . . . . . . . . . 8
5 Visualization of the influencing factors on the development of public charging infrastructure 9
6 Visualization of the influencing factors on the development of general mobility trends . . . . 9
7 Visualization of the general theoretical frame of this research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
8 Overview of the companies and organizations interviewed to answer sub-questions 1, 2 and 5. 12
9 Lithium-ion battery price outlook [1] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
10 Battery capacity for light-duty battery EVs, 2012 to 2019 [43] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
11 Forecast of the number of EVs in the fleet for the low (blue), medium (yellow), and high
(green) scenarios, with the number of EVs in millions on the vertical axis [24] . . . . . . . . . 23
12 Forecast of number of EVs (yellow line) and charging points (medium scenario) in a bar
chart, containing home charging points (blue), work charging points (green), public charg-
ing points (yellow), fast charging points (red) and charging points at parking squares and
parking garages (black) [24] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
13 Consumer price index (CPI) for gas (green) and electricity (purple) [9] . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
14 AC charging vs DC charging [] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
15 Charging modes [26] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
16 Battery swapping principle [42] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
17 Illustration of an imaginary neighborhood with a basic charging station coverage (left) and
its expansion by means of further spreading (middle) and clustering (right). . . . . . . . . . . 32
18 Examples of a Revolution building neighborhood (a) and a Mansion neighborhood (b) . . . . 35
19 Examples of a Monumental neighborhood (a) and a Garden village neighborhood (b) . . . . . 36
20 Example of a Super block neighborhood in Ypenburg (center), The Hague . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
21 Examples of an Early post-war neighborhood (a) and a Late post-war neighborhood (b) . . . . 37
22 Examples of a Residential area (a) and a Neo-rationalism neighborhoud (b) . . . . . . . . . . . 38
23 Example of a New garden areas neighborhood in De Vijfhoek, Deventer . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
24 Outcomes of the survey with regards to the living situation - questions 1-3 . . . . . . . . . . . 41
25 Outcomes of the survey with regards to living situation - questions 4 & 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
26 Outcomes of the survey with regards to car use - questions 6 & 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
27 Outcomes of the survey with regards to car use - question 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
28 Outcomes of the survey with regards statements 1 to 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
29 Outcomes of the survey with regards statements 8 to 14 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
30 Distribution of votes regarding neighborhood typology and parking pressure . . . . . . . . . . 44
31 Distribution of votes regarding the urge to drive electrically before 2030 and the need for
second-hand cars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
32 Distribution of votes regarding neighborhood location and the preference for a central point
of charging stations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
33 Distribution of votes regarding parking pressure and the willingness to move a fully charged
EV from a charging station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
34 Distribution of votes regarding parking pressure and charging pattern . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
35 Neighborhood typologies in Eindhoven (a) and Amsterdam (b), according to [8] . . . . . . . . 49
36 Neigborhood typologies based on climate resilience, restyled from [8] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
37 Outcomes survey - location dependent and car use questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
38 Outcomes survey - statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
List of Tables
1 Oversight of neighborhood typologies defined by PBL [16] and their corresponding public
charging structure recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Influencing factors on the diffusion of EV, based on [49] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Oversight of the research methodologies used per main research topic . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4 Characteristics of regular and fast charging in relation to the spatial layout of a city. . . . . . 29
5 Basic typologies of the different neighborhoods in Dutch cities, restyled from [16] . . . . . . . 34
6 Key insights of the neighborhood typologies by PBL [16] with regards to development of
public charging infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
7 Oversight of neighborhood typologies defined by PBL [16] and their corresponding public
charging structure recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
1 Introduction
1.1 Background
The influence of humans on the climate has rapidly increased since the industrial revolution. This is mainly
due to greenhouse gas emissions such as CO2 and methane. Greenhouse gases ensure that heat is retained
and, as a result, the temperature on Earth rises. The burning of petroleum, natural gas, and coal is the main
source of the increase in CO2 . If current rates of greenhouse gas emissions continue, the world will continue
to warm, with serious consequences for people, nature, and the environment [64]. Animal and plant habitats
are changing, causing an increasing number of animal and plant species to become extinct or leave their
natural habitat. Extreme weather, such as heavy rains, stronger storms, or prolonged periods of dryness and
heat, can greatly affect people. The climate concerns of the Netherlands are, according to the KNMI [47],
increased sea levels, drier springs and summers, and more intense summer rains. Climate change can also
lead to a shortage of drinking water or food, forcing many people to flee their regions or countries. This
could have consequences for Dutch trade, which is highly dependent on the global economy [64]. Energy
and climate goals must be converted into real measures in order to reduce climate change and accelerate
the transition to renewable energy sources. As a result, climate change is currently being addressed at the
global, European, national, and regional levels.
The transportation sector is a significant contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions. In the Netherlands
alone, the sector emitted 22 billion kilograms of equivalents CO2 in 2020 [11]. This represents 11% of the
total greenhouse gas emissions emitted by the Dutch economy [11]. Road transport is responsible for 28
percent of total emissions by the transportation sector [11]. Therefore, mobility is one of the five sectors
that the Dutch Climate Agreement aims to address. The most important commitment in this agreement is
that by 2050, the sector will be fully emission-free [63]. This should be achieved, among other things, by the
electrification of passenger transport. A concrete measure for this is, for example, that from 2030 onward all
new passenger cars sold must be 100% emission-free [63].
Thanks to this vision of the future and incentives from policy, the number of electric vehicles (EVs) in The
Netherlands has already increased significantly in recent years. For example, the number of full electric pas-
senger cars increased from 107 thousand cars in 2020 to 174 thousand at the start of 2021 [10]. In addition
to advances in technology, for example the range of EVs, there are also economic drivers in the Netherlands
that have contributed to the increase in sales. To meet the higher purchase price of EVs, it is possible for
individuals, for example, to receive a government subsidy to buy an electric passenger car, through the Elec-
tric Passenger Car Subsidy (SEPP) [62]. There are expected to be 1,9 million electric passenger cars in the
Netherlands by 2030 [63]. This growth is accompanied by the development and placement of charging in-
frastructure. Without charging infrastructure, developments in the field of electric transport will come to a
halt. The number of publicly available charging stations in the Netherlands increased from 65,6 thousand in
2020 to 85,5 thousand in 2021 [68] and is expected to reach 1,7 million in 2030 [63].
The National Agenda Charging Infrastructure (NAL) has been designed in The Netherlands to meet the
increasing number of EVs and, therefore, the development of the charging infrastructure [57]. The NAL states
that every municipality in The Netherlands must develop a charging vision and placement policy. This is to
ensure that municipalities can properly facilitate the growth of EV and to ensure that charging infrastructure
is not a limiting factor for the roll-out of EV. The NAL includes activities that will ensure [57]: (1) adequate
charging infrastructure; (2) a reduction in lead times and a strategic placement of the charging infrastructure
before demand arises; (3) accessible information such as the location and availability of charging stations and
charging rates; (4) a future-proof charging infrastructure focused on smart charging to prevent capacity load
on the electricity grid as much as possible. The NAL is further elaborated in a regional context, also referred
to as the regional charging infrastructure approach (RAL).
The role of a municipality within the public charging infrastructure roll-out strategy can be roughly divided
into 3 different models [57], which are:
1. The municipality as contractor: the municipality issues the order for the installation of charging sta-
tions on the basis of specifications. The municipality pays for the investment and owns the charging

1
 stations, as is the case for, for example, traffic lights or waste bins.
2. The municipality as concession provider: the municipality gives one provider of charging stations the
exclusive right to install and operate charging stations for a number of years on the basis of a program
of requirements.
3. The municipality as licensing authority: the municipality grants providers of charging stations who
meet the conditions permission to install and operate charging stations. Several providers can be active
in the municipality at the same time (open market model).
All models have their advantages and disadvantages. For example, the financial risk in the first model lies
entirely with the municipality, but the municipality has more influence on the roll-out speed, the rate and
the technology. The latter is also the case in the second model, but in this model the agreements are fixed for
a longer period of time, which leads to less flexibility to adjust the policy in the meantime. In the third model,
everything is left to the market, which can also lead to positive and negative developments. A number of
municipalities use this third open market model, but most municipalities participate in a regional concession.
Within such a concession, various agreements can be made about the roll-out strategy of the municipality.
Broadly speaking, there are two different roll-out strategies for public charging stations: a proactive and a
reactive roll-out. In a proactive roll-out strategy, strategic locations for charging infrastructure are desig-
nated based on data and forecasts, while a reactive roll-out waits for a request from a resident, after which a
charging station is installed within a specified distance of the applicant’s home address. The reactive place-
ment of charging infrastructure in particular was maintained in many municipalities, because up until a few
years ago there were not enough EVs in most Dutch cities to realize a comprehensive network of profitable
charging stations. After all, when a charging station was placed near the user, the municipality was sure
that it would be used. In recent years, however, the number of EVs in the Netherlands has increased greatly.
More and more municipalities are therefore making the transition to a proactive roll-out strategy, but are
encountering problems .
Difficult considerations have to be made when it comes to implementing charging infrastructure in the public
space. Placing objects in precious and scarce public space is a hot topic, especially in the Netherlands, due
to the lack of space in many cities. Parking pressure is a problem in most Dutch cities, which is why careful
consideration should be given to the placement of charging infrastructure for long-term development. There
are many considerations to be made when choosing a suitable location for charging infrastructure. For
example, municipalities prefer not to put charging stations right in front of someone’s door, because this
can affect the cityscape. But also placing in green areas or in areas where there is a high parking pressure
are consideration criteria to take into account. The intention is that public charging infrastructure has as
little impact as possible on the social space, but this cannot always be guaranteed. The challenge is that
choices have to be made now for later, which makes it a long-term tactical and strategic decision. Therefore,
understanding the effect of different roll-out strategies and charging technologies is crucial.
Many parties are working on the challenges of the public charging infrastructure and thus the developments
in the field of EV in order to steer this in the best possible direction. Municipalities often enlist the help
of consultancy firms to help them with their specific task. HetEnergieBureau (HEB) is a consultancy that,
together with its clients, is taking steps towards a sustainable Netherlands. Clients are mainly governments
(The state, Provinces, Regions, and Municipalities), housing corporations, and social institutions, but increas-
ingly also companies and private individuals. HEB helps and supports clients in formulating, achieving, and
managing energy and sustainability goals. They have a wide range of services in the areas of Policy, strategy
and monitoring, Built environment and heat transition, and Mobility and charging infrastructure. HEB’s
advisors have years of experience, and each has their own knowledge and expertise. By combining this ex-
perience and expertise, HEB is able to actually help its clients. HEB commissioned this research due to the
issues and challenges about the future of charging infrastructure, for which they are receiving increasing
demand for advice from various parties.

2
1.2 Previous work
In recent years, research interest in EVs and charging infrastructure has increased in line with the exponential
increase in EV sales. This section provides an overview of academic research on (i) the adoption of EVs and
their relationship to the charging infrastructure and (ii) charging infrastructure roll-out strategies.
EV adoption studies [48, 70] show that investments in public charging infrastructure are more effective in
promoting EV sales and reducing CO2 emissions. Kahn et al. (2022) go so far as to say that lack of investment
in public charging infrastructure can result in inequality [46]. They observed that the number of EV chargers
is unrelated to population density. In practice, the distribution of EV charging stations in New York City
is significantly biased against low-income, black-identified and underinvested neighborhoods and therefore
hinders New York’s EV adoption and decarbonization goals [46]. Hardman et al. (2017) conducted a review
of articles with a specific focus on the link between the adoption of EVs and the charging infrastructure and
discovered that home charging is the most important factor in the decision to adopt EVs [34]. The use of re-
vealed preference data is however uncommon in this field, with most studies depending on data from surveys
or stated choice experiments [34]. An example of such a survey is the Dutch National Charging Survey by
ElaadNL, the Association of Electric Drivers (VER) and the Netherlands Enterprise Agency (RVO) [20]. The
National Charging Survey is an annual, large-scale survey among Dutch EV drivers into the charging of EVs.
In the 2021 survey, the dominance of the home charger in the charging mix of EV drivers is striking. No less
than 78% of current EV drivers indicate that they can charge at home [20]. This, while only 42% of all Dutch
people claim to have their own driveway or private parking space [25]. By incorporating the conclusions of
these surveys into the research and development of public charging infrastructure, the needs and opinions
of the group of people who benefit the most from public charging infrastructure are likely underrepresented.
In addition, the current driving behavior and patterns of EV users are often assumed when predicting the
charging demand in 2030. EV drivers who can charge at home are likely also over-represented in these data
and insufficient account is taken of the large group of vehicle users without a private parking space who
will switch from Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles to fully EVs in the coming years. In conclusion,
research on EV adoption has identified the availability of charging infrastructure as one of the main barriers
to the large-scale introduction of EVs. However, since most of these studies are not based on revealed pref-
erence data but, for example, on data from surveys of current EV drivers, the results of these studies could
be different if a representative reflection of all EV drivers of the future is made.
The same can be said when looking at studies on charging infrastructure roll-out strategies [53, 58]. Studies
that try to optimize the roll-out of charging infrastructure often use ICE vehicle travel patterns, according
to Wolbertus et al. (2022) [77]. Using agent-based simulation, this study examines the effects of numerous
charging infrastructure roll-out strategies that allow the large-scale deployment of EVs [77]. Their approach
is based on the charging patterns of EVs rather than the travel patterns of ICE vehicles. Furthermore, the
simulation includes a variety of user categories (residents, visitors, taxis, and shared cars) to represent the
diversity of charging behaviors in an urban setting [77]. A mixed roll-out strategy, in which sufficient charging
stations create network formation and thus return to scale benefits, and charging hubs and possible backups
of fast charging stations provide possible solutions in which the policymaker can best satisfy the EV driver
demand in terms of accessibility and convenience, according to the study [77]. However, the results are
stated to be strongly location-dependent and so optimal solutions may differ from city to city [77].

1.3 Problem statement and research objective

The current dominant roll-out strategy in the Netherlands for EV charging stations is based on a proactive
roll-out strategy by municipalities. However, since there are many differences in spatial layout for charg-
ing infrastructure and user charging patterns, one roll-out strategy with one specific charging technology is
likely not sufficient to cope with the increase of EV users and therefore charging infrastructure up to 2030.
Due to this lack of knowledge, it is not possible to make well-considered choices when developing charg-
ing infrastructure in the public space. A possible consequence of the current approach is that unnecessary
investments are made and counterproductive incentives are implemented for the long-term development of
EVs. Not only does this make it a problem for municipalities, but it also creates a social problem. Users are
likely to encounter charging issues as a result of misapplied charging strategies or technologies. This can

3
lead to inconvenience but even make the step to switch to an EV too big for certain users, which can reduce
the overall growth in the development of electric mobility.
The aim of the research was to create a long-term vision for the design and implementation of the charging
infrastructure in the Netherlands. Additionally, an attempt will be made to establish a standard for these
different charging technologies per neighborhood typology, so that the outcomes are less location-dependent.

1.4 Main research question

The main research question is “What will the charging needs of electric vehicles in the Netherlands be in 2030
and which charging infrastructure roll-out strategy should be applied until 2030 in order to best facilitate these
needs?”
To answer the main research question, the following sub-questions must be answered:
1. How will mobility in urban areas in the Netherlands develop up to 2030?
2. What are the characteristics of the charging technologies to be applied in 2030 in relation to spatial
layout, financial feasibility, and influence on the grid?
3. What are the characteristics of cities in the Netherlands in relation to the spatial layout of charging
stations and how will this develop up to 2030?
4. Which similarities and differences do the inhabitants of different Dutch neighborhoods experience in
user needs of charging infrastructure?
5. What interests do stakeholders (e.g. municipalities, network operators) have in the realization of charg-
ing infrastructure, and how can this be taken into account in a roll-out strategy?

4
2 Theoretical framework
The development of infrastructure presents a chicken-and-egg problem that, to varying degrees, complicates
the general diffusion of a technology [71]. In the absence of a supporting infrastructure, consumers are less
likely to adopt a technology, but providing such an infrastructure is unprofitable in the absence of a larger
number of users [71]. This is also the case with the diffusion of EVs and the development of public charging
infrastructure. EV investors are waiting for more EVs on the road to develop charging infrastructure. On the
other hand, consumers are waiting for more charging infrastructure before buying an EV [71].

2.1 Diffusion of innovations

For any new technology diffusion process, the adoption follows an S-shaped curve when plotted over a period
of time [29]. The S-shaped curve implies that, during the early diffusion stage of innovation, the number of
users contains only a relatively small proportion of all potential adopters. The adoption rate, measured as
the share of new users in a given time interval compared to all potential adopters, continuously increases
until it reaches a maximum at the point of inflection. Beyond this point, it continuously decreases and the
diffusion curve slowly saturates toward an asymptote, given by the total number of potential adopters [29].
In Figure 1, the Diffusion of Innovations theory is visualized.

Figure 1: The diffusion of innovations according to Rogers [66]. With successive groups of consumers adopting
the new technology (blue line) and the market share (yellow line). The blue curve is divided into categories of
adopters.

Diffusion of Innovations is a theory described by Rogers (2003) that explains and predicts consumer behaviors
related to innovation adoption [66]. Rogers defines adopter categories as ’the classifications of members of
a social system on the basis of innovation’ (p. 22) [66]. The categories of adopters are: innovators, early
adopters, early majority, late majority, and laggards [69].
• Innovators: People who are willing to experience new ideas. Innovators are the gatekeepers who bring
innovation to the outside of the system, and their entrepreneurial nature requires them to have complex
technical knowledge.
• Early adopters: People who are interested in trying new technologies and establishing their utility in
society. Early adopters are more likely to hold leadership roles in the social system, other members
come to them to get advice or information about the innovation.

5
 • Early Majority: Those who pave the way for the use of innovation within mainstream society and are
part of the general population. The early majority are deliberate in adopting innovation, and they are
neither the first nor the last to adopt it.
• Late Majority: Another part of the general population who follows the early majority into adopting
innovation as part of their daily life. Although they are skeptical about innovation and its results,
economic necessity and peer pressure can lead them to adoption of the innovation.
• Laggards: People who lag behind the general population in adopting innovative products and new
ideas. This is primarily because they are risk-averse and set in their ways of doing things. Eventually,
the sweep of innovation through mainstream society makes it impossible for them to conduct their
daily life (and work) without it. As a result, they are forced to begin using it.
Figure 1 shows this innovation diffusion phenomenon including the five adopter categories. The rate at which
the diffusion of a particular innovation occurs, or how steeply the S-curve increases, can be influenced by
many external and internal factors.

2.1.1 EV diffusion
The Research by Liu et al. (2017) into the critical factors influencing the diffusion of EVs in China shows that
seven main groups of factors can be identified [49]. These specific factors that influence the development of
EVs in China were collected in this research through a comprehensive review of the literature and interviews
with government experts, manufacturer experts, and academics [49]. In Table 2, the identified main groups
of influencing factors and a description per factor are given.

Table 2: Influencing factors on the diffusion of EV, based on [49]

Dimensions Factors Descriptions
Industry and production Production willingness Whether incumbent manufacturers are willing to produce would directly influence
systems the availability of EVs in the markets
Business model The innovative and appropriate business model for EVs
Availability of material The abundance of some critical materials for EV and its parts, such as rare earth
inputs
Vehicle-related factors Price and models It is very difficult for EV to appeal to large markets when it initial price is very high
and only has a small variety of models at the early stage.
Technology level Compared to ICEV, EV technology has a number of technical barriers and most are
related to the battery.
Brand The popularity degree of the EV brands
Use cost The total lifetime cost that EV users should pay except the purchasing cost
Vehicle insurance The availability of EV insurance. It is difficult for insurance companies to introduce
appropriate insurance for EVs when the diffusion scale is small.
Post-sale service and Who is responsible for after-sale maintenance? Are there enough maintenance
maintenance networks?
Markets and user Market structure and Whether new actors including foreign firms are permitted to enter the market
practices competition
Consumer acceptance and The formed routines including driving patterns and refueling behavior of users and
expectation their expectations about safety, speed, and convenience of EVs
Symbolic meaning Social and cultural The owners’ personality profiles and self-identify with the purchase of EVs
implications
Infrastructure and urban Charging infrastructure The amount and spatial scheduling of charging infrastructure. ‘Chicken and egg’
planning conundrum is one of the main barriers to the diffusion of EVs.
Urban layout Road infrastructure and urban planning, including the available land in inner cities
for charging infrastructure
Vehicle-to-grid Vehicle-to-grid, the power inter-transmission between EVs and power grid which
can decrease the use cost of EVs
Policy-related factors Policies and regulations Whether the government can introduce appropriate industry policies
Industry vision Clear and specific visions about the future EV industry. It is important for
governments to formulate and share their visions with the public.
Local protectionism The local governments tend to protect local EV manufacturers by restricting the
entry of other manufacturers
External factors Environmental stress The deterioration of the environment would exert pressure on the ICEVs. The
environmental impacts of large-scale EV diffusion.
Energy security The availability of oil in the future would influence the sustainability of the ICEV industry
Gasoline price The price of gasoline would influence the relative use cost of EVs compared to
ICEVs

It follows from the research by Liu et al. (2017) that the factors ’technology level’ (under vehicle-related
factors) and ’policies and regulations’ (under policy-related factors) are the most critical factors for influenc-

6
ing the diffusion of EVs in China [49]. The study also reveals that ‘consumer acceptance and expectation’
(under markets and user practices), ‘market structure and competition’ (under markets and user practices),
and ‘price and models’ (under vehicle-related factors) are high relation factors among all the common factors
[49]. In Figure 2, the influencing factors on the diffusion of EV are visualized.

Figure 2: Visualization of the influencing factors on the diffusion of EV according to [49]

2.1.2 Charging infrastructure diffusion

In ’The Rise and Fall of Infrastructures’ by Arnulf Grübler [33], a detailed description of the diffusion of most
major modern transport systems in several different countries is given. Figure 3 illustrates the modal split in
France of the last centuries, for example.

Figure 3: Passenger (intra- and intercity) modal split in France, fractional shares of passenger-km performed and
model estimates [33]

In this figure, it can be seen that these diffusion curves are very similar to the market share diffusion curve
of Rogers shown in Figure 1. It can be concluded from this that the diffusion of infrastructure innovations
also follows the S-curve and that the same will likely apply to the diffusion of charging infrastructure. The
charging infrastructure diffuses both on public and privately owned areas. As the infrastructure can be built
at different locations for different purposes and users, it is not uniform. The most commonly used division
between different forms of charging infrastructure is the private charging infrastructure, the public charging

7
infrastructure, and the semi-public charging infrastructure [23]. There may also be differences in the applied
technological features of charging points, such as regular charging and fast charging, for example.
• Private charging points are charging points that are realized on a private site on a private electricity
connection. These charging points are not accessible to other EVs except for the owner of the charging
point. These can also be charging points that the employer has installed for his employees who own
an EV. [23]
• Public charging infrastructure: Public charging points are accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week,
and are located in public areas. Public charging points differ from other charging points because the
charging points are placed in a specific location according to the municipal roll-out strategy. [23]
• Semi-public charging infrastructure: Semi-public charging stations are charging stations that are pub-
licly accessible, but are not located in public spaces. For example, in the private parking lot of a shop
or an office. It is possible that these semi-public charging stations are not available 24/7. [23]
Depending on the interests of the user group, there can be differences between which form of charging
infrastructure will develop faster compared to other forms. For example, current e-drivers in the Netherlands
are mainly business lease drivers and people with their own driveway [20], which has resulted in the rapid
growth of the private charging infrastructure in particular in recent years. This can be seen in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Development of charging infrastructure in the Netherlands, restyled from [52]

Since this research focuses on the development of public charging infrastructure, the remainder of the chapter
will only look at this part of the charging infrastructure in the Netherlands.

2.1.3 Roll-out strategy of public charging infrastructure

As mentioned above, public charging points are accessible 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and are located in
public areas. Additionally, they are placed at a specific location according to the municipal roll-out strategy.
This roll-out strategy is therefore the largest factor that determines how the public charging infrastructure
develops. A charging policy and roll-out strategy are required for all Dutch municipalities under the National
Agenda Charging Infrastructure (NAL), a task under the Climate Agreement [55]. The intention is that such
a policy prevents unexpected challenges when electric transport scales up within a municipality. In such a
charging policy, strategic choices are made about the intended user groups, charging infrastructure, type of
charging points, implementation model, roll-out strategy, and the role of the inhabitants [55]. In addition,
it is also important that the policy corresponds to the interests and demands of the various stakeholders of

8
public charging infrastructure. These factors influencing the development of public charging infrastructure
are grouped and illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5: Visualization of the influencing factors on the development of public charging infrastructure

Interests stakeholders
Research by Wolbertus et al. (2021) shows that there are three groups of stakeholders that operate in the
vicinity of a city where charging stations are located. These agents are EV drivers, owners of non-electric
vehicles, and the CPO [77]. Therefore, in this study, these groups, plus the municipality itself, will be included
as stakeholders in the placement policy for the public charging infrastructure.

2.2 General mobility developments

In addition to the mutual dependence on EVs and their charging infrastructure, the diffusion of EVs is also
determined by the general mobility developments that will take place up to 2030 and onwards. General
trends such as population growth and economic development can influence this, but also, for example, the
developments of other mobility technologies, such as shared mobility and Mobility as a Service (MaaS).
To assess how new technologies and services will shape future mobility options and their sustainability per-
formance, it is necessary to analyze how societal and technical dynamics co-evolve. In order to do so, an
assessment can be made regarding the demand side and supply side of the mobility market. This can be
done using a Transport System Models (TSM) framework. TSMs can be used to simulate a transport system
through a process in which transport supply and travel demand interact [54]. In addition, a mobility policy
can be set up to influence both the supply and demand side of mobility developments. This is primarily to
ensure that developments are in line with regional, national and international climate objectives. In Figure 6,
these three components are visualized.

Figure 6: Visualization of the influencing factors on the development of general mobility trends

9
2.3 Research visualization
As shown in Table 2, infrastructure is considered an influencing factor by Liu et al. (2017) [49]. Given the
mutual dependence of public charging infrastructure development and EV diffusion, charging infrastruc-
ture is separated from the other factors that influence this research. Furthermore, the mutual dependence
on general developments in mobility, such as the development of mobility demand in the Netherlands and
other emerging technologies, is also considered. As policies and regulations influence both general mobility
developments and EV diffusion, this aspect is included in both main topics. In Figure 7, a complete overview
of all relationships between the discussed trends and phenomena is presented. This overview will be used in
the remainder of this research as a general theoretical framework.

Figure 7: Visualization of the general theoretical frame of this research

10
3 Methodology
The aim of this research was to determine how electric mobility and charging technologies will develop in
the coming years so that they can already be taken into account in the current roll-out strategy of the public
charging infrastructure. In addition, the interests of the various stakeholders in the placement of public
charging infrastructure and the future vision of charging infrastructure in a city were examined, so that this
can also be taken into account. These different aspects were then brought together in a single approach that
also took into account the different neighborhood typologies of Dutch cities. To this end, a literature review
was conducted, and a survey and interviews were conducted among stakeholders.
The general theoretical framework of this research, as described in the theoretical framework, guides the
structure of this research. First, the general developments in mobility will be discussed, after which the
specific factors influencing the diffusion of EV will be explained. Finally, the public charging infrastructure is
examined through the different aspects that influence the roll-out strategy. In Table 3, an oversight is given
of the used research methodologies per main research topic of this thesis.
Ultimately, these three main parts of the research influence each other. General mobility developments are
used in this research to indicate the state of mobility in 2030. This is because other developments in the mo-
bility sector can also influence EV diffusion and therefore the placement of public charging infrastructure.
The diffusion of EVs has been included in this research to analyze how quickly the demand for infrastructure
will increase and what effects this will have on the demand for public charging infrastructure. Ultimately,
advice was given, looking at the different types of neighborhood, charging technologies and mobility devel-
opments, on what the public charging infrastructure roll-out strategy should look like to anticipate these
developments now.

Table 3: Oversight of the research methodologies used per main research topic

Literature research Interviews Survey

General mobility developments
EV diffusion
Public charging infrastructure
Urban layout
Technological factors
Interests stakeholders
X X
X
X X
X X
X X

3.1 General mobility developments

The literature collected for this part of the study was analyzed using a supply and demand analysis of the
general mobility developments. Academic peer-reviewed articles from Google Scholar and Science Direct on
developments in the field of (sustainable) mobility were used for the literature review. In addition, data from
Statistics Netherlands (CBS) was used to substantiate trends.
Based on this literature review, stakeholders were asked for their opinion on charging infrastructure devel-
opments in semi-structured interviews. In Appendix A, the interview questions are presented. To find out
what the relevant stakeholders were with regard to this topic, a stakeholder analysis was carried out. Be-
cause these interviews were combined with questions from the part of the research on the developments of
charging infrastructure and EVs, it was decided to include an expert in the field of charging infrastructure
and EVs, in addition to specific charging infrastructure and EV stakeholders (charging infrastructure opera-
tor, charging infrastructure manufacturer and car manufacturer). In Figure 8, an overview of the interviewed
companies and organizations is given. For this research question, an expert on public charging infrastructure
at Hogeschool van Amsterdam and an expert on EV diffusion at ElaadNL were interviewed as experts on the
matter. In Appendix A, a list of the stakeholders interviewed can be found. During the interviews, notes were
kept and an audio recording of the conversation was made.
Only recent data and information (c.q. published after 2016) were included in the literature review. Further-
more, only data from the Netherlands or the European Union (EU) were used.

11
 Figure 8: Overview of the companies and organizations interviewed to answer sub-questions 1, 2 and 5.

3.2 EV diffusion
This topic has been elaborated by means of literature research. The influencing factors described in the
theoretical framework have been elaborated on and summarized here. Academic sources were searched in
databases such as ScienceDirect and Google Scholar. Only recent data and information (c.q. published after
2016) were included in the literature review.

3.3 Public charging infrastructure roll-out strategy

Because this topic contains several research questions, it is divided into three parts according to the same
format as in the general framework of this research described in the theoretical framework.

3.3.1 Technological factors

The first topic concerns the technological factors that influence the roll-out strategy of public infrastruc-
ture. In this topic, sub-question 2 is answered by explaining specific charging technologies through literature
collection, supplemented with semi-structured interviews with experts in the field of electric mobility and
developers of charging infrastructure. For this research question, charging station manufacturer Lanova,
car manufacturer Volvo, and CPO Vattenfall Incharge were interviewed as stakeholders regarding the tech-
nological factors of the charging infrastructure. The emphasis during these interviews was on how these
technologies are characterized in relation to spatial planning in a city, financial feasibility, and influence on
the grid.
Based on this literature review, stakeholders were asked for their opinion on technological developments
in semi-structured interviews. To find out what the relevant stakeholders were with regard to this topic, a
stakeholder analysis was carried out. In Appendix A, the interview questions are presented. These interviews
were conducted in the same way as described under ’General Mobility Developments’

3.3.2 Urban layout

The second topic concerns the urban layout and its influence on the roll-out strategy of public charging
infrastructure. In this sub-topic, the focus was in particular on the neighborhood typologies that are common
in the Netherlands. From the literature review done in this sub-question, an overview of common types of
neighborhoods in cities was formed, with a focus on how these neighborhoods characterize in relation to the
spatial layout for charging infrastructure.

12
3.3.3 Interests stakeholders
To find out which stakeholders have interests in the roll-out strategy of public charging infrastructure, a
stakeholder analysis was first performed. This showed that, in addition to the interests of companies and
institutions, such as network operators, municipalities, and CPOs, there are also many interests from the
users of the charging infrastructure.
A survey has been conducted through SurveyMonkey to find out what the interests of the users are. Where
these results stand out compared to other studies is the fact that not only current users were questioned, but
the opinion of all residents of neighborhoods and potential EV drivers was included. The only requirement
imposed on respondents is that they live in a city and do not have their own driveway or parking space.
In the survey, questions were first asked about the neighborhood in which the potential user of the public
charging infrastructure lives and their current car use. After that, 14 statements were presented to the po-
tential user with which they could agree or disagree on a 5-point Likert scale. In subsection B.1, the survey
questions are presented.
In the end, the survey counted 54 respondents, of which 50 surveys were completed in full. The results of the
survey were then imported into Excel, where comparisons between the interests and opinions of different
residents were made. To be able to draw a valid conclusion from these group averages, it was determined
that the researched group must have at least 10% of the respondents (i.e. 5 respondents).
The other stakeholders were asked about their interests regarding the roll-out strategy of public charging
infrastructure by means of semi-structured interviews. In this, Vattenfall Incharge (CPO), the municipality
of Venlo, and Enexis (grid operator) were interviewed. They were asked what requirements the charging
infrastructure should meet from their point of view and what their perfect situation would look like. In
Appendix A, the interview questions are presented.

13
4 General mobility developments
4.1 Mobility demand
In general, the demand for mobility will increase in the coming years. This is mainly due to a growing
population and growing prosperity, given that mobility, demand has historically grown along with a country’s
economy [22]. Without external interventions, such as policy, this is almost certain. This puts additional
strain on the existing transport network from car to public transport and even bicycles, particularly in urban
areas where there is less room for expansion.
Currently, the Netherlands has approximately 8.5 million passenger cars that are available to households, out
of a total of approximately 8 million households [13]. According to the CBS [13], 74% of Dutch households
have at least one car. Predictions by Meerkerk et al. [51] indicate that the number of cars will have increased
to approximately 9.5 million by 2030. According to van Meerkerk et al., the average number of cars per
household will rise from the current 1.06 to 1.08-1.10 [51].
Public transport also plays an important role in the daily mobility of millions of people in The Netherlands,
especially in combination with a bicycle. In 2017 alone, 25 billion passenger kilometers were traveled by
public transport. Public transport plays a major role in and between cities in particular. Toward 2030 and
2040, autonomous growth in public transport is expected to increase from 30% to 40% according to Contouren
Toekomstbeeld OV 2040 [61].

4.1.1 Mobility trends

Living
Until the end of the twentieth century, population growth and changing population composition were im-
portant driving forces behind the increase in (car) mobility [17]. In particular, the increase in the number
of working baby boomers in the 1980s led to rapid growth in mobility. That pattern has changed in the last
decade [17]. Not only has population growth decreased, but the age structure has also changed. From 2010
onward, this generation of baby boomers started to retire. This has had consequences for travel behavior:
They have exchanged daily trips from home to work for irregular leisure trips. Therefore, the aging popula-
tion has had a dampening effect on the development of mobility [17]. However, as this generation of older
people is more prosperous, vital, active, and mobile than previous generations, they move more often, longer,
and further than previous generations. This effect somewhat compensated for the damping effect of aging
on mobility [17].
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), the Dutch population will have grown to approximately
18.5 million people by 2030 [14]. The Regional Population and Household Forecast 2022-2050 by the Nether-
lands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) and CBS [15] shows that the large and medium-sized munic-
ipalities in particular will continue to grow, as will various peripheral municipalities around the large cities.
Smaller municipalities on the fringes of the country are expected to see their population decline [15]. These
municipalities are also aging more rapidly. One reason for this is that young people move elsewhere, for
example, for their studies or work. The four largest cities in the Netherlands (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den
Haag, and Utrecht) are aging less than the smaller municipalities, but here too the aging of the population
is expected to increase in the coming years. Nevertheless, the difference in aging between urban and rural
areas is increasing [15].
Housing supply and employment do not match geographically in the Netherlands [22]. Employment is grow-
ing faster in the Randstad than in other areas, while the housing supply is lower. The rising demand for hous-
ing in larger cities is leading to a tight housing market and rising prices. This creates a mismatch between
jobs and housing availability, especially for lower and middle incomes. Housing in large cities is becoming
too expensive for people with low and middle incomes who work there [22]. In addition, middle-income
earners in large cities earn too much for social housing. As a result, more kilometers are traveled to and from
work in these areas.
Research by ABF Research commissioned by the Ministry of Internal Affairs shows that the housing shortage
in The Netherlands will be a major problem until at least 2030 [32]. In 2030 there will still be a shortage of

14
200,000 homes, mostly located in the Randstad [32]. As a result, the mismatch between housing supply
and employment will continue in the coming years and therefore the distance between home and work will
increase.
As stated above, demographic changes up to 2030 also influence living behavior in the Netherlands. Based
on the household forecast for 2018-2060, CBS reports that the Netherlands is expected to have 8.5 million
households by 2030 [19]. In 2018 this number was 7.9 million. According to the household forecast, [19],
there will be more single-person households in particular, a large proportion of which are elderly people
living alone. The number of over 65s in the Netherlands will increase to 4.2 million in 2030, which is a 4%
increase compared to the number of over 65s in 2019 [14].
In conclusion, a lot of factors can influence the living aspect of mobility up to 2030. Despite the dampening
effect of aging on mobility, it is predicted that the average number of yearly driven kilometers by a person
in The Netherlands will continue to increase slowly up to 2030 [37].
Leisure
Roughly half of the kilometers traveled by the Dutch are for leisure activities. This growth has been fairly
stable over the years, both in number and in average length of a journey. According to the Trend Report
Tourism, Recreation and Leisure 2019 by CBS [60], almost a quarter of these leisure activities in 2018 was
outdoor recreation. Shopping comprised about 12 percent of all leisure activities [60]. However, in recent
years, this has changed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For example, the number of online purchases of
products from online stores increased by 41% in 2020 compared to 2019 [74]. It is expected that a further
shift from physical shopping to online shopping will continue until 2030.
Work
In general, there is a certain trend that economic growth leads to more commuter traffic. This certainty also
applies to the more or less constant home-work distance in the Netherlands, which has been slightly above
twenty kilometers for about ten years, and to the associated travel time, which is stable at just over half an
hour [22].
The Dutch economy is expected to continue to grow. However, it is difficult to predict exactly how much this
will happen each year. A foresight study by the Central Planning Bureau and the Netherlands Environmental
Assessment Agency [50], predicted with two reference scenarios that this growth will be between 1 and 2
percent per year. This means that economic growth in the Netherlands will also cause more commuter traffic.
In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought major changes in the field of, for example, location-
independent working. However, it is currently unclear whether these temporary changes due to COVID-19
will bring about lasting changes. The Central Planning Bureau (CPB) [44] expects that after the pandemic
there will be twice as much work from home as before the corona crisis, namely from an average of 4 hours
a week to an average of 8 hours a week. According to research by Gartner [31], the influx of Generation
Z into the job market will further amplify this trend. Remote work demand is expected to increase by 30%
due to Generation Z fully entering the workforce in 2030 [31]. Generation Z (the generation born between
1997 and 2012) is the generation that grew up in the digital age. Digital interaction is the norm for them
above personal interaction [31]. Therefore, it is expected that Generation Z’s preference for remote work will
ensure that working from home will become increasingly a standard employment benefit and no longer an
employee benefit [31].
Production
In production, there has also been a fairly large connection over the years between a growing world econ-
omy, which results in greater growth in world trade and associated goods flows [22]. The Netherlands has
traditionally played a significant role in this, with steady growth in road, rail, and water transport. However,
it is difficult to predict how a technique such as 3D printing will influence these global production patterns
[22]. As this report will mainly focus on passenger transport, this will not be further included in this mobility
development forecast.

15
4.1.2 Mobility behavior
Several patterns stand out in the mobility behavior of the Dutch. The distribution between cars, trains, other
public transport, bicycles, and walking in kilometers traveled has been fairly stable in recent years [12].
According to CBS [12], the car is clearly dominant with 70% of the total kilometers traveled in 2019. The
bicycle occupies a much more prominent place in the number of trips (with more than a quarter), and there
is also a small shift from cars to bicycles and trains. Despite the increase in car sharing in recent years, this
does not yet seem to reduce car use and environmental impact [22].
Another constant factor is daily travel time. Over the years, the Dutch have been prepared to travel 70 to 90
minutes a day [22]. However, traveling slowly is considered a little less as ’lost time’, which lowers the value
of time. In the future, autonomous vehicles could even enable people to spend their travel time even more
usefully [22].
The arrival of new mobility options results in a greater variation in mobility behavior [22]. However, some
people cannot or do not want to deal with these new technologies. In addition, these new technologies lead
to expensive mobility options that are accessible to a smaller audience. As a result, lifestyle and mobility
choices will increasingly differ between groups, such as different levels of education [22].
Another trend is emerging that carriers are increasingly using larger vehicles for long distances and smaller
vehicles for the last mile [22]. For example, the demand for bicycle parking at stations is increasing due to the
increased use of the train/bicycle combination. The quality of the journey in multimodal journeys strongly
depends on the quality of the transfer.

4.2 Mobility supply

Mobility providers offer increasingly custom-made mobility services. A trend in the mobility supply is the
introduction of Mobility as a Service. The core of this is that providers sell mobility as a service in the form of
personalized options for door-to-door travel, where they can switch seamlessly between different transport
options, such as bicycle, car, and train [22]. Consumers then no longer spend their money on owning their
own cars, but buy their mobility from the providers. This trend is partly the result of technological develop-
ment, which makes it increasingly easier to share means of transport, such as cars, vans, and bicycles [22].
More and more foreign providers are already entering the Dutch mobility market, such as Uber. However, it
also presupposes some form of cooperation between providers in the market, for example, for the exchange
of data and money. An important uncertainty is how this range will expand and resonate with consumers
[22]. Additionally, providers are currently also looking for ways to make MaaS a profitable revenue model.

4.2.1 Technology
In the field of technology, some exciting trends are visible with potentially major consequences. First of all,
the development of autonomous and communicating vehicles. Auto manufacturers around the world are
testing vehicles that can drive independently, first in a controlled environment and then in increasingly com-
plex environments. In addition to driving themselves, these vehicles also increasingly ’talk’ to each other
and to the environment, such as with intelligent infrastructure. This offers additional opportunities for ef-
ficient and safe road use. Experts believe that by 2030, cars will be able to drive perfectly autonomously in
predictable environments, such as on highways [22]. At the same time, this will not be the case for highly
urban and unpredictable environments. Only if the infrastructure is designed for this, such as through allo-
cated lanes, will autonomous driving in Dutch cities be possible to some extent [22]. A related technological
trend is the increasing use of data for freight transport. This use makes it possible to organize goods flows
in a fully automated manner. Goods ’talk’ to vehicles and transfer points and thus plan their own optimal
transport chain. Experts expect that this will undoubtedly lead to a huge efficiency improvement towards
2030 [22]. In-home delivery, new vehicles, such as drones and self-driving vehicles, and the use of data make
just-in-time delivery increasingly possible. Technical developments such as the hyperloop and the passenger
drone are not expected to have developed to such an extent by 2030 that they will have a substantial impact
on mobility in the Netherlands [22].

16
4.3 Policy
In the Netherlands, all government layers have their own tasks in relation to mobility and infrastructure,
with even extra layers for regional coordination. In addition, the policy for various modalities (car, bicycle,
public transport) is fragmented across various departments within administrative levels. Collectively, this
creates administrative coordination problems [22]. Municipalities are increasingly making their own mobility
choices, such as with environmental zones, and are increasingly collaborating to resolve issues on a regional
scale [22]. Citizens are also increasingly making it clear to administrators what mobility facilities they want in
their neighborhoods [22]. They are becoming increasingly critical when it comes to integrating infrastructure
and traffic flows, making it more difficult and more expensive [22].
Research by KANTAR for the National Ombudsman [45] among 1,500 Dutch people on the relationship be-
tween citizens and government in 2030 shows that the Dutch want a government that is more understandable
and simpler by 2030. The desire for less bureaucracy is also mentioned here as a point of improvement. How-
ever, it is difficult to predict what this division of tasks regarding mobility will look like in 2030, as there are
no concrete actions from the government to tackle and improve these points.

4.3.1 Current policy

Regulation on promoting clean road vehicles (Clean Vehicles Directive)
As of 2 August 2021, the Regulation on promoting clean road vehicles will apply to contracting authorities.
This regulation results from the European Directive for the promotion of clean and energy-efficient road
vehicles (2019/1161/EU), usually referred to as the Clean Vehicles Directive (CVD). The aim of the scheme
is to promote the market for clean and energy-efficient vehicles through public procurement. The Regula-
tion obliges contracting authorities to comply with a minimum percentage of clean and emission-free road
vehicles in European tenders for road vehicles and services. The scheme applies to all contracting authori-
ties, namely governments and semi-public institutions, such as (air)ports, network operators, environmental
services, higher education, and energy companies. [2]
European mobility policy
In addition to the Clean Vehicles Directive, there is more European legislation that is relevant for the design of
mobility policies. In December 2019, the European Commission presented the Green Deal with the ambition
of climate neutrality for 2050. In July 2021, the European Commission presented a large package of measures
(Fit for 55) to achieve the desired reductions. [2]
The ESR (Effort Sharing Regulation) regulation, together with the EU ETS, forms the cornerstone of European
climate policy. National reduction targets (compared to 2005) have been set in the ESA that relate to the non-
ETS sectors (built environment, agriculture, mobility, and industry outside the ETS). The Netherlands has a
reduction target of 48% for 2030 instead of 36% compared to 1990. In addition, it has been established that
the Member States are free to define the reduction target themselves. [2]
The Renewable Energy Directive (REDII) sets a certain share of renewable energy in transport and a subtarget
for advanced renewable fuels. The REDII prescribes that fuel suppliers realize at least 14% renewable energy
in transport and that there are sub-targets and limits for the use of specific types of renewable energy. In
2021, the implementation of RED will be approved by the Senate and the House of Representatives. The
Directive is included in the Environmental Management Act. [2]
The Fuel Quality Directive (FQD) aims to reduce emissions in the entire production chain through fuel sup-
pliers. In addition to fuel specifications, the FQD also includes a reduction target for the average greenhouse
gas intensity of fuels. The FQD also sets the framework and maximum percentage for blending biofuels into
conventional fuels. In the Netherlands, the FQD is included in the Environmental Management Act. [2]
Dutch Climate Agreement
The most important policy intention in mobility policy in the Netherlands is to drastically reduce CO2 emis-
sions from traffic and transport until 2030, which is in line with the climate ambitions of the Paris Agree-
ment of 2015. The Dutch policy for this is described in the National Climate Agreement [63]. The Climate
Agreement is the leading national policy document for making transport more sustainable, in particular the

17
reduction of CO2. The agreement contains more than 600 agreements to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
Various Green Deals, covenants, and administrative agreements have been concluded that contribute to
making mobility more sustainable. In addition, there are various initiatives and policy documents that also
influence (local) mobility policy. The central goal of the Climate Agreement is to reduce national greenhouse
gas emissions by 49% by 2030 compared to 1990 [63]. Which is 48.7 megatons of CO2 less than should already
be achieved with existing policy [63].
Mobility is one of the five key pillars targeted by the agreement and is responsible for a saving of 7.3 megatons
of CO2 [63]. The aim is that by 2050 Dutch traffic and all transport will no longer emit harmful exhaust gases
and CO2 [63]. This must be achieved through, among other things, the use of sustainable energy carriers,
such as electrification and biofuels. There is also a large focus on stimulating electric transport. From 2030,
for example, all new passenger cars sold must be emission-free and the amount of charging infrastructure
available must also increase significantly [63]. For taxis, the goal is that 50% of taxis must be zero-emissions
by 2025 [2]. From 2025, the environmental zones in many urban areas will set strict (often zero emissions)
requirements for logistics. In 2025 all new public transport buses must be zero-emissions and in 2030 the entire
fleet, with regard to public transport buses [2]. This is in line with the previously concluded Administrative
Agreement on Zero Emission Buses (BAZEB).
The Climate Agreement also sets a target for the national government’s vehicle fleet. This should be com-
pletely emission-free by 2028 [2]. The national government aspires to a minimum of 50% CO2 reduction in
its own related mobility by 2030 [2]. This reduction will be achieved through, among other things, person-
nel policy and collective bargaining. The national government is also developing the charging infrastructure
required for this (approximately 2,400 charging points) [2].
The joint ambition of municipalities and market parties and other organizations in the sector is completely
zero-emission (emission-free) target-group transport from 1 January 2025 [2]. This is laid down in the Ad-
ministrative Agreement on Zero-emission target group transport. The Zero Emission Target Group Transport
Monitor was published at the beginning of 2020, which showed that municipalities that have signed are en-
gaged in the deployment of ZE target group transport and that green gas is used in some cases as a transition
fuel. In addition, more and more suitable vehicles are coming onto the market, including wheelchair buses.
[2]
The Clean Air Agreement (SLA) has been drawn up nationally in the Netherlands for air quality. The agree-
ment was concluded after the Climate Agreement and aims to achieve a 70% reduction in the negative health
effects of traffic emissions throughout the Netherlands by 2030 compared to 2016 [2]. The SLA does not
specifically mention any fuel, but it is based on health effects. The agreement stipulates, among other things,
that health targets, in the form of emission requirements, must be included in tenders. The SLA also aims to
end the use of (old) diesel vehicles as soon as possible.
The employer approach consists of supporting and encouraging employers to change their mobility policy.
It is not a legal policy, but an option for various governments to promote accessibility and sustainability
through employers. For example, employers can be advised about smart and sustainable mobility via the
employer approach and they can in turn inform governments about needs and possibilities. [2]
The Vision of sustainable energy carriers for mobility from 2020 is in line with the agreements from the Cli-
mate Agreement, such as the main focus on hydrogen and electricity. Various measures have been announced
to support this, such as hybrids as an interim solution, sustainable biofuels will continue to be required for
heavy transport, aviation and maritime shipping and biofuels should mainly originate from residues, waste
streams, e-fuels, and additional renewable electricity [2]. This means that no more additional biofuels from
food and feed crops may be used than the level of 2020 [2].
Many European and national policies for sustainable mobility have a specific regional or local elaboration.
This local policy can be important in specific tenders. It has been agreed in the Climate Agreement that
various agreements at the regional and municipal levels will be elaborated in Regional Mobility Programs
(RMPs) [2]. In addition to the Regional Mobility Programs, some municipalities draw up additional policies
for making mobility more sustainable, which is laid down, for example, in the municipal mobility program
or the local climate plan [2]. For all categories of purchases within transport, it is important to take into

18
account local environmental zones in purchasing conditions [2]. Environmental zones for diesel trucks apply
in various Dutch cities. In addition, additional environmental requirements apply in some cities for passenger
cars, delivery vans, buses, taxis and mopeds, and light mopeds.

4.3.2 Future policy

In the future, many regulations are expected to be amended or implemented to support the electrification
of passenger transport and/or energy savings in the mobility sector. An example of this is an MRB system
of payment according to use. In the system of payment according to use, the current MRB system will
disappear in 2030 and car owners will no longer pay for car ownership, but for car use [65]. Each kilometer
driven costs a certain amount. The exact amounts for this are not yet known, but it is certain that people
who drive a lot will also be more expensive [65]. This scheme also applies to electric cars, but for the time
being, it is not clear whether kilometers for EVs and fuel-efficient cars will be cheaper. With the introduction
of payment according to use, drivers are encouraged to use their vehicles more consciously. In this way, cars
also contribute to reducing CO2 emissions [65].
From 2025, Dutch municipalities have the option of introducing a zero-emission zone. A zero-emission zone
is an area in and/or around a city center where only 100% zero-emission vans and trucks are allowed to drive.
If a municipality wants this, it must announce this at least 4 years in advance, so that entrepreneurs have the
opportunity to replace their vehicles with zero-emission vehicles [72]. 27 municipalities have now taken a
decision on introducing an emission-free zone [72]. Examples are Tilburg, Eindhoven, Nijmegen, Rotterdam,
Utrecht and Amsterdam.
Commuting and business travel are responsible for almost half of all mobility emissions in the Netherlands.
Before working from home due to corona, the mobility sector emitted 35 million tons of CO2 in 2019, almost
20% of the total emissions that year, according to numbers from the Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency. From the Climate Agreement concluded in 2019, a mandatory measurement for CO2 emissions
will therefore follow in 1 January 2023 [41]. In this, employers with more than 100 employees are obliged to
register all commuting and business kilometers. This concerns kilometers with all forms of mobility: by public
transport, by bicycle or by car. It may also be necessary to find out what type of car the employee travels in,
as not every car or fuel has the same CO2 emissions. There are approximately 8,000 organizations with 100
or more employees in the Netherlands [41]. In total, more than 60% of all employees work there [41]. For the
first few years, organizations will only have to measure emissions, but from 2026 the government wants to
impose a standard for CO2 emissions for business travel. This should result in more mobility by train, bus,
bicycle, and electric cars.
For freight traffic on motorways and motorways, the national government aims to introduce a levy in 2026 in
which the rate is differentiated by euro class and weight [2]. The bill for this so-called truck tax is currently
being prepared. Part of the revenues from the truck levy will be redirected back into the transport sector as
an impulse to make truck traffic more sustainable [2].
To achieve the higher EU targets, the European Commission has proposed tightening the requirements for
CO2 emissions for passenger vehicles and vans (Regulation 2019/631). This should lead to making it more
attractive for manufacturers to bring more alternative fuels or vehicles to the market, stimulating innovation
for zero-emission vehicles, and lowering the purchase costs of such alternatives for consumers. The reduction
targets are as follows.
• for 2025: the reduction target for both passenger vehicles and delivery vans remains at 15
• for 2030: for cars up from 37.5% to 55%, for vans from 31% to 50%.
• for 2035: 100% reduction is proposed for both modes of transport.
If passed, the proposal will have an impact on manufacturers, but also contribute directly to targets set for
governments. [2]
According to the European Commission, the EU-wide target of -55% compared to 1990 cannot be achieved
without a significant reduction in emissions from buildings and mobility. For these two sectors, the Com-

19
mission has proposed a separate emissions trading system that obliges fuel suppliers to buy allowances for
the amount of fuel they market in those sectors, and suppliers are responsible for reporting the amount of
fuel supplied and surrendering the corresponding rights. The ETS complements the ESA, which prescribes
national reduction targets and continues to apply to the built environment and transport. The plan is to have
the system – which is otherwise similar to the already existing EU ETS – come into effect in 2025. [2]
The REDIII proposal of the Fit-for-55 package aims for transport to reduce CO2 emissions by 13% in 2030
compared to 1990. The methodology is to change the volume target based on the energy content to CO2
intensity. The 13% target is approximately double the previous target (which was still based on energy con-
tent). The subtarget for advanced biofuels will be increased from 3.5% with double counting to 2.2% without
double counting by 2030. The Commission, therefore, proposes to end double counting in the methodology.
Since the RED is a directive that requires national implementation, it is not yet certain that (if the proposal
is adopted) the Netherlands will also abandon double counting. [2]
The European Commission is preparing a proposal for the new emission standard for passenger cars and vans
(Euro 7) and heavy commercial vehicles (Euro VII). This emission standard is the successor to the current Euro
6/VI emission standard. It determines the established limit values for air-polluting emissions, which every
vehicle entering the European market must meet. [2]

4.4 Key insights

Looking at the development of mobility demand in the Netherlands up to 2030, it can be seen that, despite
certain mobility-dimming trends such as location-independent working, the mobility-stimulating trends will
still prevail. This is mainly due to the expected population increase and economic growth. The persistent
housing shortage will also continue to cause a mismatch between living and working in cities and the Rand-
stad. This will put great pressure on public space and it is therefore of great importance to set up public
charging infrastructure as smartly, efficiently, and strategically as possible.
Many emerging innovations and technologies in the field of mobility supply will be developed further and
implemented in the years ahead. It is expected that a growing number of people will use other forms of
mobility other than having their own car. Until 2030, however, this change is not expected to be significant
enough to drastically affect the mobility mix in the Netherlands. This also follows from the interviews with
the experts in the field of mobility.
From the overview of current and future mobility policy described in this chapter, it can be concluded that
there is currently a great deal of pressure at the European, national and local levels to make the transition to a
more sustainable mobility sector. There are many policies that want to see a change in the short term, which
will mean an increase in EVs, and therefore also an increase in the demand for public charging infrastructure
in the near future. How these factors will affect EV diffusion will be described in the next chapter.

20
5 EV diffusion
Research by Liu et al. (2017) into the critical factors influencing the diffusion of EVs in China shows that seven
main groups of factors can be identified [49]. These factors are listed in Table 2. In this chapter, the most
critical factors that influence the diffusion of EVs according to Liu et al. are elaborated. These are ’technol-
ogy level’ (under vehicle-related factors), ’policies and regulations’ (under policy-related factors), ‘consumer
acceptance and expectation’ (under markets and user practices), ‘market structure and competition’ (under
markets and user practices), and ‘price and models’ (under vehicle-related factors).

5.1 Price and models

5.1.1 Price and models trends
The average price of an EV in The Netherlands peaked in 2016 at more than €79,000 [59]. This price has
dropped by more than €28,000 to an average of €51,000 in 2021 [59]. It is expected that even more affordable
models will be available in the coming years, which would lead to further expanding the private EV market.
Whereas between 2013 and 2018 the luxury car segment was dominant in EV registrations, today it is mainly
the middle-class C and D segments that are the most popular [59]. In 2021, 78% of newly registered electric
cars came from one of these segments [59]. IEA’s Global EV Outlook of 2021 [39] stated that there were 42
Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) available in the European Union in 2020. The Global EV Outlook of 2022 [40],
showed that in one year, the total number of EV models had more than doubled to 90 models.

5.1.2 Battery price trends

The cost of a lithium-ion battery pack, which was over $1,200 per kilowatt-hour in 2010, has decreased by 89
percent in real terms to only $132 per kWh in 2021 [36]. The price has decreased by 6% from $ 140 / kWh in
2020 [36]. These costs represent an average across a variety of battery applications, such as various types of
EVs, buses, and stationary storage projects. On a volume-weighted average basis, the prices of EV battery
packs, in particular, were around $ 118 / kWh in 2021 [36]. By 2024, average pack prices should be below $
100 / kWh, according to BNEF’s 2021 Battery Price Survey (see Figure 9). Automakers should then be able to
manufacture and sell mass-market EVs at the same cost (and profit margin) as similar internal combustion
vehicles around this pricing range.
However, because of increasing raw material costs, average pack prices could potentially increase to $135/kWh
in 2022 [36]. This could delay the moment that prices drop below $100/kWh by two years in the absence of
additional improvements that could reduce the impact [36]. The report’s lead author and the head of BNEF’s
energy storage research, James Frith, claims that in order for manufacturers, particularly those in Europe, to
meet average fleet emissions limits, EV sales must increase [36]. These car manufacturers may now have to
decide between lowering their profit margins or passing costs on, running the risk of discouraging consumers
from buying EVs [36].

Figure 9: Lithium-ion battery price outlook [1]

21
5.2 Technology level
Compared to Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles, EV technology has a number of technical and psy-
chological barriers that have to be overcome. Most of these barriers are related to the battery.

5.2.1 Battery sizes and vehicle range

Range anxiety is considered to be one of the fundamental psychological roadblocks to the large-scale public
adoption of EVs [21]. Over the years, the average battery capacity and therefore the range of EVs, have
increased [43]. This reflects battery technology development, changes in policies that favor longer ranges,
manufacturer strategy, and changes in consumer preferences [43]. The limiting factor on battery technology
development for extending vehicle range is mainly price and battery weight due to energy density [18]. As
energy densities increase and prices decrease, the potential for increasing battery capacity and kilometer
range for a certain price increases [18]. Figure 10 shows the average battery capacity weighed in sales for
2012 through 2019 in several regions [43]. This figure shows a tripling of the battery capacity in Europe in
just seven years.

Figure 10: Battery capacity for light-duty battery EVs, 2012 to 2019 [43]

5.2.2 Battery degradation

The main causes of EV battery degradation are temperature, cycles, and time [38]. The lifespan of an EV
battery is greatly influenced by storage and operation temperatures; generally speaking, warmer climates
have a negative impact [38]. The battery gradually loses its maximum potential as it goes through charge
cycles. An EV battery does not necessarily have to be used or charged in order to degrade; calendar degrada-
tion is the battery’s gradual loss of life [38]. Manufacturers of EVs may provide guarantees for their vehicles’
batteries. For example, Tesla promises that the battery will keep 70% of its capacity for the first eight years, or
240,000 kilometers, for the Model S and Model X [76]. The European Union wants to see such a guarantee for
all-electric and hybrid cars [76]. Under the current EU bill, car manufacturers must guarantee that batteries
should not lose more than 20 percent capacity in five years or 100,000 km [76]. After eight years or 160,000
km, the degradation should not exceed 30 percent [76]. This could be implemented in the countries that
agree to it by 2023.

5.3 Market structure and competition

A market structure is the set of circumstances under which companies compete with each other [28]. Which
market form is involved is mainly determined by two factors: the nature of the products and the number of
suppliers. In the nature of the products, a distinction is made between homogeneous products and hetero-
geneous products. A homogeneous product is a product in which each unit is exactly the same in the eyes of
the customer [28]. Examples include currencies, stocks, or crude oil. Heterogeneous products are products
that differ in the eyes of the customer [28]. The brand, quality, and service of the provider are important.

22
Examples include soft drinks, clothing, and cars. With regard to the number of suppliers, a distinction can
be made between markets with one supplier (monopoly), a limited number of suppliers (oligopoly) and very
many suppliers (full competition) [28]. In the traditional framework, these factors are summarized into the
following categorization of market structures:
• Perfect competition: many sellers of a homogeneous product.
• Monopolistic competition: many sellers of a heterogeneous product.
• Oligopoly: few sellers of a homogeneous or a heterogeneous product.
• Monopoly: a single seller of a product for which there is no close substitute.
As the EV market can be seen as a market of heterogeneous products, it can be concluded that it does not fall
under the ’Perfect Competition’ market structure categorization. Which market structure it does fall under
therefore depends on the number of suppliers.
Currently, about 20% of all EVs in the Netherlands are Teslas [3]. One in eight (12.5%) is a Volkswagen, just
over 9% is a Hyundai, and just under 8% is Kia [3]. Audi completes the top five with almost 6% market share
[3]. This means that the top five brands of electric cars have a market share of 55.5%. It can therefore be
said that the current EV market appears to have a Monopolistic Competition market structure. Monopolistic
competitive markets are, among other things, characterized by the fact that there are few barriers to entry
and exit [30].

5.4 Consumer acceptance and expectation

In the ElaadNL Outlook of 2021 [24], research was carried out on the electrification of passenger cars up
to and including 2050. By analyzing research reports, and data and conducting interviews with experts in
the market, various growth scenarios have been drawn up in this Outlook. In Figure 11 the forecasts of the
numbers of EVs in the Dutch fleet are presented for a low, medium, and high scenario.

Figure 11: Forecast of the number of EVs in the fleet for the low (blue), medium (yellow), and high (green)
scenarios, with the number of EVs in millions on the vertical axis [24]

Looking at the above outlook of ElaadNL, it can be concluded that EV use, and therefore indirectly also the
acceptance of EVs by users, is expected to increase greatly in the coming years. A study by Bockarjova and
Steg [7] into the adoption of EVs in the Netherlands has tried to find out what the underlying motives of
users are by means of the Protection Motivation Theory. They found that benefits linked with using an ICE
vehicle and perceived high expenses of EVs were the main obstacles to the adoption of EVs [7].

23
5.4.1 Benefits of using an ICE vehicle
According to Bockarjova and Steg [7], the benefits of using an ICE vehicle are the ability of an ICE vehicle for
all trips at any time, the convenience of existing infrastructure, and the fact that drivers feel comfortable in
an ICE vehicle. As a result, addressing these obstacles to the adoption of EVs might be an efficient interven-
tion. The majority of these obstacles are largely related to the charging infrastructure and the battery (long
charging times, uncertain longevity, and limited range) [7]. While the battery itself and its advancements
fall under the scope of technology, the other aspect, namely charging infrastructure, can be changed right
away. Increased perceived self-efficacy in adopting an EV, as well as the availability of both regular and fast
charging points, may increase EV acceptability and adoption intention. This once again demonstrates the
relevance of this study.
For current EV drivers, home charging is the most dominant option in the charging mix, followed by public
and work charging and fast charging [20]. The relative share of public and workplace charging points are
expected to increase further in the coming years based on recent trends and policy plans [24]. In Figure 12,
the medium scenario of the development of EVs and the development of charging points per location are
visualized.

Figure 12: Forecast of number of EVs (yellow line) and charging points (medium scenario) in a bar chart, containing
home charging points (blue), work charging points (green), public charging points (yellow), fast charging points
(red) and charging points at parking squares and parking garages (black) [24]

5.4.2 Perceived high expenses of EVs

As mentioned in Chapter 5.1, the purchase price is currently generally higher for an EV than for an ICE
vehicle. This is mainly due to the high cost of batteries. Chapter 5.1 also explained that these battery prices
will decrease significantly in the near future, even to the point where automakers will be able to manufacture
and sell EVs at the same cost as similar ICE vehicles. Fuel costs and savings in repair and maintenance are
already said to be lower for EVs [73].
Electricity used to be about as expensive as fuel in terms of energy. However, because an EV is more efficient,
it consumes 3x less electricity and therefore 3x less energy is needed for the same number of kilometers [73].
The electricity price depends on many factors, such as the user’s energy contract at home, the location or
operator of the (semi)public charging station, and/or whether the user can use locally generated energy such
as electricity from solar panels [73]. Charging at home or at work is generally cheaper than charging at a
public charging point, although this theory has been under pressure since the energy crisis of autumn 2022
[73]. In Figure 13, it can be seen that electricity prices have increased greatly in the last months.
Milieu Centraal states in an interview with ’de Volkskrant’ [5] that even with these rising prices, an EV is still

24
 Figure 13: Consumer price index (CPI) for gas (green) and electricity (purple) [9]

less expensive when all costs are taken into account. However, the steep increase in the price of electricity
has made the comparison more difficult. Currently, it makes a significant difference whether an EV driver
charges their vehicle using power from their own solar panels or using grid electricity from a recently signed
energy contract. According to Milieu Centraal, an EV is only more expensive in the latter scenario [5]. It
can therefore be concluded that the perceived high expenses of EVs will become less of an obstacle to the
adoption of EVs in the near future.

5.5 Policies and regulations

Current tax incentives mainly focus on vehicle ownership and not on use, such as purchase tax and road tax.
However, a number of tax benefits have already been set in place by the government when purchasing or
owning an EV, namely:
• No tax on passenger cars and motorcycles (BPM) has to be paid until at least 2025. The level of BPM
is determined by the amount of CO2 that the car emits. As EVs do not emit CO2 , no BPM has to be
paid.
• Until 2024, no motor vehicle tax (MRB) has to be paid for a fully electric car. In 2025, EV drivers will
pay 25% of the MRB.
• In addition to the above tax benefits, a subsidy for the purchase of a new or used electric car is available
for private individuals. In 2023, the subsidy amount for a new car will be €2,950 and for a used car €2,000.
This subsidy will run until 31 December 2024.
The National Agenda Charging Infrastructure (NAL) is a multi-year policy agenda with ambitions and ac-
tions that will ensure that charging can be done anywhere, anytime, and in a smart way [56]. In the NAL,
governments, network operators, and market parties have made agreements to ensure that the number of
charging points grows in line with increasing demand. Electric drivers must be able to rely on the fact that
they can easily charge anytime and anywhere, at a cost that encourages electric driving. This makes the
transition task to mobility from the coalition agreement of 1.9 million EVs by 2030 possible [56]. Each munic-
ipality was obliged to adopt an integrated vision of charging infrastructure by the end of 2020. Local needs
would thus be given a place in regional mobility plans.
On April 22, 2021, the User Information Charging Points Regulation was signed [67]. As a result, from 1 July
2021, charging operators are obliged to share current information from publicly accessible charging points in
the Netherlands with users via the National Access Point Web Portal. This concerns information about the
location, the occupancy status, and the ad-hoc charging price. From January 1, 2022, the following additional
information was added: power supplier, power product supplied, percentage of sustainably generated power,
and opening hours. The purpose of the regulation is to make this information available to app developers

25
and navigation providers, for example, [67]. This makes it easier for EV drivers to compare current prices and
find available charging points.
ID & Data Collection for Sustainable Fuels in Europe (IDACS) is a European project that collects information
about charging points. With internationally agreed codes (e-mobility codes), it is possible to see exactly at
which station a customer charges his EV. This data makes international payments possible, among other
things. It also helps EV drivers to easily find charging and filling points, at home and abroad. This allows EV
drivers to conveniently plan their travel routes. [67]
The Formula E Team (FET) has been set up by the national government to promote developments in electric
mobility. The FET is a public-private partnership between the business community, knowledge institutions,
and the government. Through a Green Deal, the government and the FET aim for 50% of newly sold cars to
be equipped with an electric powertrain and plug by 2025 and that at least 30% of these - or 15% - be fully
electric. [67]

5.6 Key insights

Liu et al. (2017) stated that the most important factors influencing the diffusion of EVs in China are technol-
ogy level, policies and regulations, consumer acceptance and expectation, market structure and competition,
and price and models. In this research, it is assumed that these factors are also likely to greatly influence the
diffusion of EVs in the Netherlands. In this chapter, an overview of these most critical factors is given, along
with an explanation of the trends and developments within these factors.
Under the price and models factor, it has been described that the purchase price of an EV is currently con-
siderably higher than that of an ICE vehicle. This is mainly due to the battery costs of the EV. However, these
costs are expected to fall to such an extent that they will no longer play a role in this price difference. It
was first expected that this point at which manufacturers can sell EVs for the same prices as comparable ICE
models would be around 20224. However, this has been postponed to a few years later, due to the recent
increase in raw material costs.
A positive trend was also found in the field of market structure and competition. The current EV market
seems to have a Monopolistic Competition market structure, which is known for the fact that there are few
barriers to entry and exit.
A study by Bockarjova and Steg (2014) shows that the underlying motives of users for consumer acceptance
and expectation mainly depend on benefits linked with using an ICE vehicle and the perceived high expenses
of EVs. The first comes down to the fact that users find the benefits of an ICE vehicle still too different from
the EV system and that the switch is still too big. A large part of this is the charging security, which is
precisely what is brought to the attention in this report. The second, the perceived high expenses of EVs will
also develop positively in the coming years. However, the current energy crisis is causing a setback here.
The policies and regulations currently in force in the Netherlands show that there is a strong urge from the
Dutch government to become more sustainable. This with direct benefits for EV drivers, but also through
indirect incentives for the charging infrastructure or developments in the field of EVs.
Looking at these important factors, it can therefore be seen that the trends and incentives in the Netherlands
support the diffusion of EV.

26
6 Technological factors
A study by Hemavathi and Shinisha (2022) on trends and developments in EV charging technologies provides
a comprehensive picture of existing charging technologies and how they work [35]. In the following para-
graphs, this will be further elaborated upon. Additionally, the spatial layout of the charging technologies is
also explained. This is not directly related to the technology but can have a major effect on the appearance
of the city and the grid layout and is therefore also included.

6.1 Regular charging vs. Fast charging

The time it takes to charge depends on several factors, such as the battery capacity and the power and setting
of the charging station. A regular charging point is defined as a charging point with a maximum capacity
of 22 kW, with which electrical energy can be transferred to an EV. Fast charging is defined as the transfer
of electrical energy to an EV with a power greater than 22 kW. There are several underlying technological
aspects that determine the maximum loading speed that can be achieved.

6.1.1 AC or DC charging
The first underlying technological aspect is the use of AC or DC charging. The grid supplies alternating
current (AC), while the battery of an EV requires direct current (DC). The conversion from AC to DC can take
place in the vehicle as well as at the charging point.
Charging with alternating current
When charging with an AC, the conversion from AC to DC takes place in the vehicle using an onboard
charger [75]. Charging with an AC usually means charging at limited power, which is also known as regular
charging. Fast charging (> 22 kW) is possible, but this is not as fast as DC charging (due to limitations of the
inverter in the vehicle) [75]. On the left side in Figure 14, the AC components are illustrated.
Charging with direct current
When charging with DC, the conversion from AC to DC takes place at the charging point instead of in the
onboard charger of the vehicle [75]. The inverter in the charging station allows charging at higher capacities
[75]. On the right side of Figure 14 it can be seen that DC charging does not require such an onboard charger.
Both strategies have their advantages and disadvantages. An AC charging station is, for example, slower, but
cheaper and gentler [27]. Charging via a DC charger is ultimately more expensive, but can take place in a
few minutes [27].

Figure 14: AC charging vs DC charging []

6.1.2 Charging modes

The second underlying technological aspect is the use of a charging mode. The term ’mode’ refers to the
charging technology (power, communication, and safety). Four charging modes are distinguished. In Fig-
ure 15, the technical components of these four charging modes are illustrated.

27
Mode 1
Mode 1 is charging via a standard Dutch 230-volt AC socket [75]. This charging method lacks communication,
and thus security. Therefore, in Mode 1 the charging power is limited to a maximum of 2,3 kW (1 phase, 10A)
according to a technical standard (IEC 61851-1) [75]. Mode 1 chargers are the cheapest option for charging
EVs, but they also take the most time to charge a car battery. Fully charging a car can take up to 12 hours
[75]. Charging via Mode 1 is due to safety concerns not being used for cars.
Mode 2
Mode 2 charging usually takes place via a standard Dutch 230-volt socket or via a simple charging station at
home (AC) [75]. The In-Cable Control Box (ICCB) built into the cable functions as a mobile safety device and
regulates the charging capacity. In practice, the maximum charging power is often 2,3 kW (1 phase, 10A), but
in mode 2, a maximum charging capacity of 7,4 kW (1 phase, 32A) or 22 kW (3 phases, 32A) can be delivered
[75]. The security risks are significantly smaller than with Mode 1 charging. However, the long loading time
remains a major drawback of this mode.
Mode 3
Mode 3 is charging via a charging station and is the most widely used method of charging EVs [75]. It is a
controlled way to charge using a charging station. Communication takes place between the charging point
and the vehicle about the correct power (AC). Mode 3 charging stations can mainly charge with 11kW, 22kW,
or sometimes even 43kW [75].
In modes 1 to 3, charging is always done via the on-board charger present in the car (from AC from the
electricity grid to DC for the battery) and the charging process is determined by the car itself [75]. The
power of the inverter determines how much of the available charging power from the charging station can
actually be used.
Mode 4
Mode 4 is charging with direct current and is mainly used for fast charging [75]. The conversion from al-
ternating current to direct current takes place at the charging point itself. The delivered charging power
varies mainly from 50 kW to 175 kW [75]. This charging power is expected to increase further in the coming
years. Despite the advantage of this mode that charging an EV can be done a lot faster, it also has a major
disadvantage. A fast charger can have a major impact on the network capacity within a district.

Figure 15: Charging modes [26]

28
6.1.3 Spatial layout
The technical advantages and disadvantages of the existing charging modes are listed above. However, how
these different modes (can) influence the spatial layout is also of importance for this research. The biggest
difference between regular and fast charging is, of course, in the speed of charging. However, this difference
has several consequences for the integration of such charging stations in relation to the spatial layout of a
city, neighborhood, and/or street. A higher charging speed also indirectly means that more EV drivers can
use a charging point, which would mean that fewer charging points need to be realized in an area. However,
this advantage is not fully exploited when fast charging is applied in the user’s neighborhood. The charging
pattern of many residents will be that once in a while, when they come home from work, they want to
charge their EV at a charging station and will stop charging when they leave the next morning. When fast
chargers are applied to this usage profile, this will mean that residents will have to move their cars, because
otherwise there will be a shortage of charging stations for other residents. Therefore, fast charging can be
used more effectively at locations where the charging speed matches the charging demand, for example, at
supermarkets and regular gas stations. In addition, this higher number of users per charging point of fast
chargers can also lead to extra traffic, for which the location in the neighborhood may not be suitable. The
characteristics of regular charging and fast charging in relation to the spatial layout of a city are summarized
in Table 4.
Table 4: Characteristics of regular and fast charging in relation to the spatial layout of a city.

Regular charging Fast charging

- Fewer users per charging station
- Less impact on the grid
- More charging points in cityscape
- Less (search) traffic
- Charging pattern of neighborhood residents
corresponds to charging speed
- Can only be used in places where EV drivers
park for a longer period of time
- More users per charging station
- Big impact on the grid
- Fewer charging points in cityscape
- Higher concentration of (search) traffic
- Charging pattern of neighborhood resident
is less consistent with charging speed
- Can be used in places where EV drivers
park for a short period of time

6.2 Smart charging

Smart charging is a broad term used to indicate that smart technologies can control the charging transaction
remotely [75]. At a minimum, this means that electric cars are charged at the most optimal time, for example
when costs are low and the supply of (sustainable) energy is high [75]. Numerous studies concentrate on
the smart charging station, which connects a significant number of EVs and aims to improve bidirectional
communication, acquire fast charging, and reduce the risk of power outages [35].

6.2.1 Load balancing

Load balancing is a specific application of smart charging. It is a technology that adjusts the charging speed
to the other energy consumption of other charging vehicles, and/or of the business premises, for example
[75]. There are two forms of load balancing, namely local load balancing and dynamic load balancing.
Local load balancing: ensures that the available capacity (e.g. 22kW) at the pole level is divided between
two charging EVs. How it is distributed depends on the respective charging speeds of the EVs. The control
takes place in the charging station. [75]
Dynamic load balancing: Dynamic load balancing ensures that the charging capacity at one or more
charging points is matched to the available capacity at the connection. It, therefore, takes into account the

29
current electricity demand of, for example, a business building or the houses in a neighborhood. By reading
the smart meter on a secondary basis, the available power at the charging stations is adjusted to this other
consumption. Such that the available bandwidth in capacity is used to the maximum. [75]

6.2.2 Bidirectional charging

With bidirectional charging, or Vehicle-to-Everything (V2X), the battery of the EV also acts as a buffer ca-
pacity for the electrical installation to which it is connected. This collective term covers various purposes,
including, for example, exchange with the electricity grid (Vehicle-to-Grid and Grid-to-Vehicle), another elec-
tric car (Vehicle-to-Vehicle), or other electrical appliances (Vehicle-to-Load).
Grid-to-Vehicle (G2V)
Grid-to-vehicle technology makes it possible to control the time of electricity supply to electric cars. Using
G2V to supply power to the battery of the EV in a controlled and reliable manner, local peak loads on the
electricity grid are prevented [75]. Based on the energy demand and the available capacity at a local level,
the charging station determines when and how to charge the battery. The charging station communicates
about this with the transformer station and, if necessary, at a higher network level [75].
Vehicle-to-Grid (V2G)
V2G technology enables the battery of an EV to function (temporarily) as a buffer capacity in the network
and thus absorb (local) peak loads in the network [75]. On the one hand, this buffer capacity can be used to
send power to other vehicles (in the local network) that need to be charged earlier; on the other hand, this
buffer capacity can be used to store a surplus of energy if more energy is generated than is demanded (sun
during the day, wind at night), and this is returned at a later time [75].
Due to these technical possibilities, smart charging has the potential to benefit both the user and the network
operator and is seen as a desirable social development. For the private user, for example, it can be advanta-
geous on the energy bill, because charging can be done with cheaper charging rates. This, for example, by
adjusting the charging station to dynamic energy prices. It can also have advantages for a network oper-
ator because smart charging can take into account the available network capacity and can postpone some
reinforcements, and therefore also the social costs of this.
From a direct point of view, there is little difference between the influence on the urban layout of a city of a
"stupid" charging point and a smart charging point. However, the use of smart charging stations for electric
cars can contribute to limiting grid congestion. The Netherlands is dealing with an overcrowded electricity
grid, which can lead to grid congestion. Smart charging can therefore contribute to accelerating the energy
transition, which in turn has a direct and major effect on the urban layout.

6.3 Wireless charging

The electromagnetic induction principle is considered to play a crucial role in wireless charging [35]. It takes
place via two magnetic coils, between which the energy transfer takes place. One of the coils is on the
ground and connected to the power grid. The other coil is mounted in the vehicle and is connected to the
car’s charging system and battery. Additionally, a battery management system (BMS) is incorporated for
better safety operation. Energy is transferred via a magnetic field between the two coils: from the coil in the
ground to the coil in the car. Based on the application of wireless charging, it can be categorized as dynamic
charging and static charging.
Static wireless charging means the vehicle gets charged when it is in static condition [75]. This type of
method is used at parking stations or garages. Here, the transmitter coil is placed under the parking pads
and the receiver coil is placed in the charging vehicle. The wireless charging time of an EV depends on the
high-frequency ac power, the size of the transmitter, receiver coils, and the distance between them [75].
Dynamic wireless charging means the vehicle gets charged when it is in moving condition. This type of
method is used on roadways or highways. Therefore, the transmitter coil placed under the road charges
the vehicle continuously. The continuous charging vehicle can eliminate the need for large energy storage
which leads to reducing the weight of EVs [75]. Currently, many countries are investing in research and

30
development for the new concept of smart road technology [75]. Several companies are now experimenting
with the wireless charging of EVs. Due to its innovative character, it is impossible to predict whether and
when wireless charging will make a breakthrough [75].
At the moment, however, the Dutch government is not actively moving towards a public charging infrastruc-
ture based on wireless charging, which makes it doubtful how big the role of wireless charging will be in the
country in 2030. For this reason, this study assumes that this technology will not bring about major spatial
changes in 2030.

6.4 Battery swapping

Battery swapping involves swapping out a fully drained or used battery for one that has been fully charged.
As early as 2013, Tesla investigated options for interchangeable batteries and in 2018 the Swedish company
Power Swap came up with an innovative battery exchange concept [42].
The starting point for battery swapping is that the EV parks in a battery swapping station, after which a
robot changes the battery via the bottom of the vehicle (see Figure 16). The condition is that the electric car
must have a battery that is suitable for exchange. To this end, all EVs must have a standardized battery pack
in the future [42]. A battery can then be leased separately and, if it has been replaced, can be recharged in
the power station itself.

Figure 16: Battery swapping principle [42]

When compared to the other EV charging technologies, battery swapping is a quick and efficient way that
enables the customer to continue driving without being distracted [35]. Additionally, when comparing battery
swapping with the fast-charging method, the battery swapping method could extend the battery life as it
can charge for a longer time at the desired voltage [35]. The Chinese government has been focusing on the
possibilities of battery swapping [42]. The government has embraced the idea of battery standardization with
the aim of allowing all EV drivers in China to simply swap batteries in just two minutes. China has the largest
electric car market in the world; approximately half of all EVs worldwide are used here [42]. According to
the Chinese government, the possibility of a replaceable battery will not only improve charging speed and
therefore mobility and economy, but it will also make EVs much cheaper [42]. This is because cars can then
be sold completely separately from a battery. All possibilities are currently being extensively investigated
with the involvement of parties such as Tesla [42].
According to Astute Analytica (2022), the global EV battery swapping market was valued at US$ 125.93 million
in 2021 and is projected to reach a valuation of US$ 901.71 million by 2030 at a Compound Annual Growth
Rate (CAGR) of 24.9% during the forecast period 2022–2030 [4]. At the moment, however, the Dutch govern-
ment is not actively incorporating this technology into its policy, which makes it doubtful how big the role
of battery swapping will be in the country in 2030. For this reason, this study assumes that this technology
will not bring any major spatial changes in 2030.

31
6.5 Spatial placements
The goal of the Dutch government is to create a nationwide network of charging infrastructure in order to
provide sufficient charging security to electric drivers. In this way, charging is not an obstacle to driving
electrically. The focus here is on charging at the destination of electric drivers, i.e., the places where EV
drivers park their cars (such as in the neighborhoods where they live and areas they work). The coverage
and thus charging security are measured by the available public charging infrastructure. In addition, the
intention to develop a national network is fine-meshed. This means that the charging occurs where the
charging point is within walking distance of the destination. Therefore, a certain spread of charging stations
within a residential area is desirable. On the other hand, however, a certain degree of clustering is also
desirable, as this improves findability and recognisability.
Clustering multiple charging points is especially an interesting strategy in areas with high parking pressure,
scarce public space, and relatively large parking facilities within a few meters of walking distance. In other
areas, the preference may lie in spreading for better network coverage and a lower threshold for use. There
may also be differences between the definition of an acceptable walking distance to the nearest charging
station. The maximum walking distance from the front door to the charging station varies in other Dutch
municipalities between 150 and 500 meters. In a report on acceptable walking distances by Blankers et al.
(2021), a distance from home to a parking lot with a charging station of 100-200 meters is stated [6]. This is
based on a survey of more than 1,800 people and the opinion of professionals in the field, based on sources
and their own experiences [6]. In Figure 17, an example of charging station coverage in a neighborhood
is shown (left); this has been extended with a situation that illustrates further spreading (middle), and a
situation that shows clustering (right).

Figure 17: Illustration of an imaginary neighborhood with a basic charging station coverage (left) and its expansion
by means of further spreading (middle) and clustering (right).

6.6 Key insights

This chapter deals with the technical aspects of charging infrastructure. A comparison between regular
charging and fast charging shows that regular charging is more suitable for the usage pattern of EV drivers
who want to charge their car at the public charging infrastructure in their neighborhood or street. This is
characterized by a longer charging time. However, fast charging is not immediately written off, because it
can be applied in places where EV drivers park for shorter periods. Because on average more people can use
a fast charger, fewer charging stations need to be incorporated into the streetscape in this situation. This
can be a solution in locations where it is not possible to realize a fine-meshed network of charging stations,
for example, in old city centers where parking pressure is high and the streetscape is important. These fast
chargers can also be placed further away from the city centre, because the user pattern generally means that
people drive there, charge for a while, and then drive home.
The subject of smart charging has also been discussed. The most important insight from this is that it
would not immediately change much about the charging stations themselves, except for some technical
requirements (e.g. communication technologies). Indirectly, however, it could ensure that more charging
stations are realized because smart charging could postpone or reduce grid congestion.

32
Both wireless charging and battery swapping are technologies that could improve user-friendliness and thus
reduce certain barriers to EV diffusion. However, because the Dutch government is currently not actively
steering these technologies, it is not expected that these technologies will already have a major impact on
the Dutch charging mix in 2030. It is unclear what major long-term effects these innovations will have on
the mobility transition, but it is clear that they certainly have the potential to do so. This also follows from
the interviews with experts. For example, both car manufacturer Volvo and charging station manufacturer
Lanova indicated that they mainly want to be an instrument in the electrification of mobility. This means
that they will anticipate the technologies that are most plausible and feasible at that time and in the near
future. Wireless charging technology, for example, is technically developed, and once these manufacturers
realize that mobility is moving in that direction, they will anticipate this. However, this is currently not the
case, which means that they will continue to focus mainly on charging via current conventional technologies.
It can be deduced from several Dutch objectives that a nationwide charging infrastructure network is desir-
able to accelerate the transition to electric mobility. This is also the case in residential areas, where the aim is
always to have a charging station within walking distance of the front door. However, there are currently still
differing views on what constitutes an acceptable walking distance. This can also differ per district. What
is also unclear is what the tactics for placing charging stations will be once this network coverage has been
realized within a district or area. Here there is the option to spread the charging stations further, but also
the option to place the new charging stations next to the existing charging stations in the form of clustering.
In the next chapter, different neighborhood typologies of Dutch cities will be discussed, in order to eventually
link them to a specific public charging stations roll-out strategy suitable for this typology.

33
7 Urban layout
In this chapter, in particular, the urban layout of certain common neighborhoods in Dutch cities will be
discussed with a view to the parking situation. The way and extent to which parking facilities are inte-
grated within residential areas is highly dependent on the construction period and the spatial structure of
the residential area in The Netherlands. In a study by PBL [16], a distinction has been made between ten
neighborhood typologies based on the nature of the buildings and its urban structure, location, amount of
public space, network design and parking situation [16].
In Table 5 an oversight is given of the ten neighborhood typologies of the Netherlands. Because some transla-
tions of the neighborhood typologies are not sufficient, the neighborhood typologies are also listed in Dutch.
In the remainder of this chapter, the characteristics of these neighborhoods are further explained using the
English translations.

Table 5: Basic typologies of the different neighborhoods in Dutch cities, restyled from [16]

Location Neighborhood type Construction period

Revolution Building (Revolutiebouw) 1880-1920
City center
Mansions (Herenhuizen) 1880-1920
Monumental (Monumentaal) 1920-1940
Pre-war shell Garden Village (Tuindorp) 1920-1940
Super blocks (Superblokken) 1990-present
Early post-war (Vroegnaoorlogs) 1940-1970
Post-war shell
Late post-war (Laatnaoorlogs) 1940-1970
Residential areas (Woonerven) 1970-1985
Suburban shell Neo-rationalism (Neorationalisme) 1980-present
New garden areas (Nieuwe tuinwijken) 1990-present

7.1 Residential areas in the city center

In the residential areas in the city center, there are many ’mansions’ and ’revolution buildings’, especially
in the large cities in the west of The Netherlands. Both neighborhood types are characterized by a closed
building block, stony streets and a small amount of public space [16]. In the revolution buildings area, the
densities are very high and there is also little public space here. The mansion areas have a less high density
and there is more public space here, usually in the form of a park or canal [16]. In Figure 18 examples are
given of both neighborhood typologies.
The neighborhood types from this period are not geared to the presence of cars and the space for parking is,
therefore, limited [16]. Cars are mainly parked along the streets. In many of these areas, the space is used to
the maximum with parking spaces on two sides of the road (along or perpendicular), and in addition, where
possible, cars are parked in the inner areas of the building blocks [16].

7.1.1 Revolution-building
The revolution-building neighborhoods can be found throughout the Netherlands, often near the center of
the city. These neighborhoods have traditionally been very cramped, have a high density, and consist of
closed building blocks of three to five stories. The inner areas are particularly narrow and furnished with
private gardens or collective greenery. The small amount of public space is concentrated in a few squares
or parks. Along the (narrow) streets, which arise from the old polder allotment, there is also little room for
trees, which makes the streets look very ’stony’. The streets are optimally designed for the car: there is often
one-way traffic with parking spaces on one, and where possible on two sides.

34
7.1.2 Mansions
Residential areas with mansions are mainly found in the west of the country, often in the center. They have a
relatively low density. They consist of spacious closed building blocks with stately facades of approximately
three layers. There are also sometimes detached villas in this neighborhood type. The road structure in the
neighborhoods is fairly spacious with wide roads and sidewalks. The district has a lot of mixed functions
(residential, offices, and shops). People from the higher income groups generally live here. Parking here
generally takes place on the street, often on two sides, which has been made possible by the introduction of
one-way traffic.

(a) De Pijp, Amsterdam (b) Nijmegen

Figure 18: Examples of a Revolution building neighborhood (a) and a Mansion neighborhood (b)

7.2 Residential areas in the pre-war shell

The neighborhood types from the 1920-1940 period can often be found around the city center areas. They are
generally more spacious than the neighborhoods in the previous period and have a lower housing density.
In these neighborhoods, little account has been taken of the car. Despite the lower densities (particularly in
garden villages), parking problems do occur here.
The two neighborhood typologies of ’Monumental’ and ’Garden village’ differ significantly. The garden
villages have a village character, while the monumental residential areas strive for an urban character. Due
to the current housing crisis in the Netherlands, locations within this shell that are currently vacant are being
built on. This includes port areas, for example. These locations often require a high density, which is achieved
with the so-called super blocks. In Figure 19, examples are given of the ’Monumental’ and ’Garden village’
neighborhood typologies. In Figure 20, an example of the Superblocks neighborhood typology is presented.

7.2.1 Monumental
The monumental neighborhood type mainly occurs in the west of the country, around the center of the cities.
The building density is high. The buildings in this neighborhood type consist of closed building blocks with
houses of four to five stories with private gardens in the inner areas. The neighborhoods have narrow streets.
This neighborhood type is also not designed for the car. Parking is mainly along the streets: along, diagonally,
or transversely. The district is predominantly mono-functional, with shops located only along a few main
roads.

7.2.2 Garden Village

The garden villages can be found throughout the Netherlands, especially in the shell around the center. The
neighborhoods are village-like: the buildings in the garden villages consist of spacious closed blocks with rows
of two to six ground-bound houses. These are characterized by large roofs with a ridge that runs parallel to
the street. The size of the blocks differs per garden village. In some districts, blocks are spaciously laid
out with houses with their own front and deep backyard, sometimes even involving a green collective space
within this private space. In some neighborhoods the blocks are very narrow, they have a cramped backyards

35
and the neighborhood looks petrified due to the absence of front gardens. There is a hierarchical structure
in the public space: there are several small squares and sometimes a central public square/greenery in this
neighborhood type. The streets are narrow, often with wide sidewalks along them, and in between, there are
sometimes green strips. The neighborhoods are mono-functional (residential function). The neighborhood
is not designed for the parking of cars. There is sometimes space for a car on a residents’ lot, but in general,
the cars are often parked along the streets.

(a) Spangen, Rotterdam (b) Oostzaan, Amsterdam

Figure 19: Examples of a Monumental neighborhood (a) and a Garden village neighborhood (b)

7.2.3 Super blocks

The superblocks mainly occur in infills around the center of the larger cities where very high densities are
required. They are also sometimes part of a central area in Vinex neighborhoods, on the outskirts of the city.
The superblocks are often closed metropolitan building blocks of four to ten stories high. The public space is
concentrated outside the blocks but is limited as much as possible in order to achieve a high housing density.
Within the blocks are often collective courtyards.
Parking is often solved within the block, in a parking basement (under the courtyard or under the buildings),
or at ground level. Due to the scarce amount of public space, cars are avoided here, but sometimes there are
parking spaces around the blocks on the street. The neighborhoods are almost always provided with parking
regulations and a permit system from the start and are well connected to the public transport network.

Figure 20: Example of a Super block neighborhood in Ypenburg (center), The Hague

7.3 Post-war shell

With the expansions from the period after the war, functionalism became very important in city design.
Throughout the country, the tradition of closed building blocks is being broken and neighborhoods are in-
creasingly characterized by open building blocks. At the beginning of this period, the neighborhoods con-
sisted of a lot of strip construction and they were relatively small-scale. The large-scale functionalist neigh-
borhoods soon followed, with more variation in height and housing type. The buildings in these neighbor-

36
hoods are organized in ’stamps’, which are endlessly repeated. In the late post-war neighborhoods, the car
is given a place in urban design. In Figure 22, both neighborhood typologies are presented.

7.3.1 Early post-war

These neighborhoods are located throughout the Netherlands, often on the outskirts of the city. The neigh-
borhoods are designed according to the ’neighborhood idea’. Characteristic of this is the strict rectangular
structure of the access, the one-sided construction of strips of porch houses, and a large amount of green
public space. The district is spacious: there is quite a bit of public space in the form of courtyards between
the strip construction, and there is greenery along the roads. The roads and sidewalks are spacious. Facilities
(schools, library, and sports) and shops are often concentrated along the main road.
Although cars are increasingly becoming part of the streetscape during this period, they are not yet an
obvious part of the urban development plan. In residential streets, often with green strips and spacious
sidewalks, parking is provided on both sides. This often involves parking alongside, but transverse parking
also occurs; the spacious sidewalks are then narrowed. This neighborhood is becoming more attractive for
higher income groups due to the housing crisis, which means that car ownership will increase.

7.3.2 Late post-war

Just like the early post-war districts, these districts, which are located on the outskirts of the city, can be
found throughout the Netherlands. In the late post-war neighborhoods, the ’neighborhood idea’ is further
elaborated, the layout is expanded, the ’stamp’ with differentiation in homes is introduced and the functions
of living, working, and recreation are more strongly separated. The building block is completely open in this
neighborhood type. Since the structure is even more spacious than in the early post-war neighborhoods, the
stamps have spacious public green spaces. The height of the buildings varies from two to four stories to a
number of higher gallery flats. In the middle of the neighborhood is often a large shopping center.
The car has a place in this neighborhood type; there are parking spaces around the flats in particular, which
form a link between the network and the buildings. Parking is done collectively on the parking fields within
the ensembles and on both sides along the streets (along, transverse or oblique).

(a) Morgenstond, The Hague (b) Buitenveldert, Amsterdam

Figure 21: Examples of an Early post-war neighborhood (a) and a Late post-war neighborhood (b)

7.4 Suburban shell

The suburban shell is dominated by low-rise neighborhoods, which were created in different periods with
different views. From 1970, there was resistance to large-scale functionalism, and ’urbanism on a human
scale’ began to dominate the expansions from this period. These neighborhoods consist almost entirely of
low-rise buildings and an erratic network in which narrow, traffic-calmed, and dead-end residential streets
dominate.
In the eighties, a new movement emerged, which opposed the obscure housing estates of the seventies, neo-
rationalism. In these residential areas, an organized street pattern regains importance, with a preference

37
for rational rectangular street patterns, as well as closed building blocks. From the 1990s, the street pattern
becomes more erratic again.

7.4.1 Residential areas

The residential areas are found throughout the Netherlands; they are often located on the outskirts of the city.
The network of these residential areas is hierarchical, the broad main roads wind through the neighborhood
and eventually branch off into narrow dead-end side roads that lead to the residential area.
The car has been given a place in these neighborhoods. Collective parking is possible in residential areas.
In addition, habitants of terraced houses can often park on their own property, under carports, for example.
During this time, many experiments have been conducted with new forms of living and the role of the car.
Examples of this are ’parking cases’ (parking niches along the road) and ’residential decks’, where parking
is done on the ground floor and the residential streets are realized on the first level. The neighborhoods are
often mono-functional (residential); many families live here.

7.4.2 Neo-rationalism
The neo-rationalist neighborhoods are located throughout the Netherlands, mainly on the outskirts of the
city. They have a clear layout: instead of winding, the street pattern is rectangular and the neighborhood
is uncluttered. Building blocks with single-family homes are often closed. The inner areas are arranged as
private gardens. The networks often have a large mesh size and are hierarchical, with broad main roads
structuring the neighborhood, secondary roads separating neighborhoods, and (car-free) residential streets.
On the main roads, there are often green belts. The residential streets are often minimally designed with
just enough space on both sides for sidewalks and parking spaces. The streets are often stony. The district is
mono-functional.
In these neighborhoods, the parking standard plays an important role in urban planning. Although the car
is taken into account, the parking standard in many neighborhoods is on the low side: 1.2 cars per home.
Parking is mostly done publicly.

(a) Waldeck, The Hague (b) Venserpolder, Rotterdam

Figure 22: Examples of a Residential area (a) and a Neo-rationalism neighborhoud (b)

7.4.3 New garden areas

The new garden districts occur throughout the Netherlands; they are often located on the outskirts of the city.
They refer back to the garden villages from the 1920s to the 1940s: lots of greenery, village character, erratic
street pattern, semi-closed building blocks with ground-bound homes with private gardens at the front and
back. There may also be dead ends, which are typical of the residential area. The residential streets are often
traffic-calmed. In the district, a distinction can be made between closed buildings (residential courtyards
and row buildings) and open buildings (detached or semi-detached). Apart from the shopping center, where
shops and facilities are concentrated, the neighborhoods are mono-functional (residential).

38
In this neighborhood type, there is a lot of experimentation with parking solutions: parking is not only done
along the street, but also in courtyards, parking boxes in greenery, on collective fields, habitants’ own lot,
and combinations thereof. The parking solutions have been given a place within the refined urban design.
Because many families live in these new-built areas, the number of cars in these neighborhoods is higher
than in urban areas.

Figure 23: Example of a New garden areas neighborhood in De Vijfhoek, Deventer

7.5 Key insights

In Table 6, oversight of the neighborhood typologies defined by PBL [16] is given. A number of factors have
been listed for each typology that influences the placement of public charging infrastructure. This includes
parking pressure, the mix of functions, whether the cityscape is important, and where parking takes place.

Table 6: Key insights of the neighborhood typologies by PBL [16] with regards to development of public charging
infrastructure

Neighborhood typology Parking pressure Functions Cityscape Parking location

Revolution building Very high Mixed Important Mostly public

Mansions Very high Mixed Important Mainly public
Monumental Very high Mono Not important Mostly public
Garden village High Mono Less important Mainly public
Super blocks Medium Mono Not important Mix of public and private
Early post-war Medium to high Mono Not important Mostly public
Late post-war Medium to high Mono Not important Mostly public
Residential areas Medium Mono Less important Mix of public and private
Neo-rationalism Medium to high Mono Less important Mostly public
New garden areas Medium Mono Less important Mix of public and private

39
8 Interests stakeholders
A stakeholder analysis was carried out to find out what the interests of the stakeholders of public charging
infrastructure are.
• Municipality: drawing up placement policy and ultimately allocating locations
• Grid operator: providing grid connections for the charging stations
• Charge point operator (CPO): Installing and exploiting the charging station
In addition to these stakeholders who are directly involved in the installation and commissioning of public
charging infrastructure, there is also a very large stakeholder whose interests are often overlooked: the (po-
tential) users. The users of this public charging infrastructure are mainly the inhabitants of a city, but also
visitors.

8.1 Municipality
To find the interests of municipalities in relation to the installation of public charging infrastructure and their
perspective on roll-out strategies, a meeting was held with a mobility policy advisor from the municipality
of Venlo. It followed from this conversation that the Municipality is currently mainly installing the charging
stations based on current demand. The municipality does not yet have a clear vision on the question of
whether to cluster or spread after a certain spreading network of public charging stations should be realized.
However, the municipality is one of the first in the Netherlands to work on a charging vision and roll-out
strategy that is neighborhood-oriented, which means that they already realize that the roll-out strategy of
charging infrastructure must be tailored to the characteristics of a neighborhood.
The municipality of Venlo indicated that it always thinks in the interest of residents. In addition, it is very
important for a municipality that the integration of charging stations in public space is taken into account.
Various interests are weighed in this, such as parking pressure and cityscape. So in addition to the charging
wishes of the inhabitants, the roll-out strategy must also be strategically incorporated into a city so that it
also promotes quality of life in the long term.

8.2 Grid operator

To find the interests of grid operators in relation to the installation of public charging infrastructure, a meet-
ing has been held with a senior energy transition partner of Enexis, the grid operator in a large part of the
Netherlands, including Venlo. Enexis indicated that they do not have a direct preference in the placement
policy of charging infrastructure. However, something can be said about this in relation to network conges-
tion. If grid reinforcement can be remedied by tactically distributing the charging infrastructure in the public
space, this will lead to lower social costs. It could therefore be argued that fast charging is less attractive to
the grid operator than regular charging because it has a greater impact on the grid. Charging plazas (cluster-
ing) also require a larger connection and can lead to a higher local peak load. However, this clustering offers
more opportunities for, for example, smart charging and regulation.

8.3 Charge point operator

To find the interests of CPOs in relation to the installation of public charging infrastructure, a meeting has
been held with an Account manager of Public charging infrastructure at Vattenfall Incharge. In the munic-
ipality of Venlo, they follow the collective concession of RAL-Zuid in which Vattenfall is responsible for the
installation and exploitation of charging stations. Vattenfall Incharge indicated that it had no clear preference
for the roll-out strategy for charging stations. As long as the charging stations are placed at a location that is
economically attractive and tactical for them, either at the moment or in the future, it makes little difference
to them whether this is done in the form of clustering or spreading. Clustering does have an advantage for
the findability of charging stations, which could be a tactical choice for the CPO.

40
8.4 Users
To find out what the interests of users of charging infrastructure are, a survey was held among city residents
without their own private parking spots. This was completed by 50 respondents. This survey is shown in
subsection B.1. The results of the survey are given in subsection B.2.

8.4.1 Living situation and car use

First, ten questions about the living situation and car use of the respondent were given. Of this, the first two
questions were control questions regarding living in a city and not having a private parking spot. The results
of the five questions regarding the living situation of the respondents are shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25.

Figure 24: Outcomes of the survey with regards to the living situation - questions 1-3

Figure 25: Outcomes of the survey with regards to living situation - questions 4 & 5

These figures show that there are a number of categories regarding the living situation of the respondents that
are not sufficiently represented in the survey. Earlier it was stated that a category had to contain at least 10%
of the respondents, which means 5 respondents. So the categories such as people who live in neighborhoods
where parking mainly takes place in a parking garage, where there is a lot of common greenery, where there
are mainly (semi-)detached houses, and in the historic city center, can unfortunately not be included in this
research. Other categories, such as people who live in a neighborhood where mainly longitudinal parking

41
takes place, where mainly terraced houses are, and in the city center, are sufficiently represented in the
survey, which means that this large group of residents was included in the survey results.
The results of the three remaining questions regarding the car use of the respondents are shown in Figure 26
and Figure 27.

Figure 26: Outcomes of the survey with regards to car use - questions 6 & 7

Figure 27: Outcomes of the survey with regards to car use - question 8

42
8.4.2 Statements
After the ten questions about the living situation and car use of the respondents, 14 statements were pre-
sented where they could indicate on a scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree how much they agreed
with the statement. In Figure 28 and Figure 29, the general voting outcomes are presented with the state-
ments being the numbers 1 to 14. These numbers correspond to the following statements:
1. The parking pressure in my neighborhood is too high
2. I would like there to be less (motorized) traffic in my neighborhood, even if this means that my car has
to be parked further away from my house
3. I want more greenery in my street, even if this means that my car has to be parked further away from
my house
4. I want to drive electrically before 2030
5. When I buy an electric car in the coming years, it will be a second-hand car
6. When transport options other than having your own car (such as shared cars or public transport) are
accessible and affordable, I will switch to this
7. I’d rather have a central point with all the charging stations in my neighborhood than have them
scattered all over my neighborhood
8. I find it annoying to have to walk further to a central point of charging stations in my neighborhood
9. I find it annoying to use another means of transport to go to the charging point of my car ((shared)
bicycles, for example)
10. I prefer to charge my (future) electric car after every use so that I always have a full battery
11. I only charge my (future) electric car after several trips, when the battery is empty
12. I am willing to move my (future) electric car from the charging point when it is full
13. Before I look for a vacant public charging station, I will first check a website/app to see where there is
one available in my area
14. If the vast majority of my neighborhood drives electrically, I think that every parking space should
have a charging point as standard

Figure 28: Outcomes of the survey with regards statements 1 to 7

Figure 29: Outcomes of the survey with regards statements 8 to 14

43
These figures show that there are some ranking trends among all survey respondents. For example, when
looking at the fourth statement: "I want to drive electrically before 2030", it can be seen that 29 out of 50
respondents agree. Only 7 respondents disagree with this claim. Another example of a statement where the
respondents have a general opinion is statement nine: "I find it annoying to use another means of transport
to go to the charging point of my car ((shared) bicycles, for example)". Here, 40 respondents agree to find this
annoying. Only 4 respondents disagree here. Other general results that can be deduced from this are that the
vast majority of respondents will first search for an available charging station on an app/website and believe
that every parking space should be equipped with a charging point if the majority of their neighborhood
drives electrically. Opinion on the other statements is divided.
However, the importance of this research was not to find out the general opinions of residents of cities
without their own parking facilities, but also to establish connections between certain residential areas and/or
characteristics and these statements. That is why the questions about living situations and car use are linked
to the statements.

8.4.3 Validation of assumptions from literature research

In this study, a number of assumptions have been made based on literature research. This chapter examines
whether these assumptions about neighborhoods and the behavior of residents correspond with the findings
from the survey.
The first assumption made in this research is that the parking pressure in residential areas in the city center,
or with its own center, is higher than in suburbs without its own center. In an Excel model, a comparison was
made between the neighborhood type and the parking pressure statement to see whether the same relation
can be found. The neighborhoods that contain less than 10% of the respondents are not included here, to
ensure validity. Figure 30 shows the distribution of votes based on percentages of the total number of respon-
dents within that specific category. The rows regard the statement: "The parking pressure in my neighborhood
is too high" and the columns contain the numbers for the following neighborhood characteristics:
2. In the city center (within the ring road)
3. A residential area outside the center with its own neighborhood center
4. A residential area outside the center without its own neighborhood center

Figure 30: Distribution of votes regarding neighborhood typology and parking pressure

The figure shows that respondents who indicated that they lived in the city center all agreed with the state-
ment that the parking pressure in their neighborhood was too high. This while 52% of the respondents who
indicated that they live in a residential area outside the center with its own neighborhood center thought
that the parking pressure is too high. Only 35% of the respondents who indicated that they live in a resi-
dential area outside the center without its own neighborhood center think that the parking pressure in their
neighborhood is too high. From this, it can be concluded that the relationship between neighborhood typol-
ogy and parking pressure found in literature research also applies to the respondents of the survey and can
therefore be used as a valid assumption in this research.
The second assumption made in this research is that there will be a large increase in EV drivers in the coming
years. This group will be characterized as the early majority/late majority and will have different character-
istics than the current group of EV drivers. An assumption in this is that the second-hand market for EVs

44
will also increase, which will attract a different group of car owners. Figure 31 shows the distribution of votes
based on percentages of the total number of respondents for the statements "I want to drive electrically before
2030" (rows) and the statement "When I buy an electric car in the coming years, it will be a second-hand car"
(columns).

Figure 31: Distribution of votes regarding the urge to drive electrically before 2030 and the need for second-hand
cars

This figure shows that the vast majority of respondents responded neutrally or in agreement with the state-
ment about whether they want to drive electrically before 2030. Respondents who responded in disagreement
were omitted because they were in such a small group (<10%). The rankings show that as respondents in-
creasingly agree with electric driving before 2030, the urge to buy second-hand cars decreases. This can be
explained by the fact that the second-hand market for EVs is not yet very large, which means that people
who have concrete goals to drive electrically will have to rely on the new market for EVs in the short term.
However, it does show that this demand is certainly there and may also depend on the development of this
second-hand market.

8.4.4 Notable findings

In addition to the assumptions made from the literature review that could be validated with the survey,
connections were also made between other topics. The most notable results from this are discussed in this
chapter.
The first finding comes from the relationship between the statement "I find it annoying to have to walk to a
central point of charging stations in my neighborhood" and the living situation with regard to the location of the
respondents’ neighborhood. Figure 32 shows this relation. In this, the columns contain the numbers for the
neighborhood location according to the same numbering as in Figure 30. This figure shows that respondents
living in the city center would generally find it more annoying to walk to a central point of charging points
in their neighborhood.

Figure 32: Distribution of votes regarding neighborhood location and the preference for a central point of charging
stations

The second finding comes from the relationship between the statements "The parking pressure in my neigh-
borhood is too high" and "I am willing to move my (future) electric car from the charging point when it is full".
Figure 33 shows this relation. This figure shows that respondents who indicated that they find the parking
pressure in their neighborhood too high are generally more willing to move their fully charged EV away from
the charging spot.

45
Figure 33: Distribution of votes regarding parking pressure and the willingness to move a fully charged EV from
a charging station

The third finding comes from the relationship between the statements "The parking pressure in my neigh-
borhood is too high" and "I only charge my (future) electric car after several trips, when the battery is empty".
Figure 34 shows this relation. This figure shows that respondents who indicated that they find the parking
pressure in their neighborhood too high are generally less likely to charge their (future) EV after several trips.

Figure 34: Distribution of votes regarding parking pressure and charging pattern

8.5 Key insights

This chapter summarizes the results of the interviews and the survey with the stakeholders. The most im-
portant result derived from this is that both the municipality and the network operator look from the point
of view of social interest and weigh the interests of the various residents and other stakeholders. Here, for
example, they strive for quality of life and low costs, but they also have to make concessions to accommo-
date all parties. The municipality does this by including the liveability of a city as an important factor in
the development of charging infrastructure, and the network operator does this by trying to keep the social
costs of network expansions due to network congestion as low as possible. The CPO indicated that it was
acting in its own interest, as they want to make as much profit as possible with the charging station. These
charging stations must therefore be placed at the most strategically suitable location. This can be in line with
the wishes of the resident, after all a strategically suitable location is a location where the charging demand
is high. But this is not necessarily in line with the liveability of a city. The fact that the charging demand is
high at a certain place does not necessarily mean that this is also the best location in relation to, for example,
the cityscape or desired travel routes.
A number of general and neighborhood-dependent results emerged from the survey among city residents
without their own parking facility. For example, it turned out that a large proportion of the respondents want
to drive electrically before 2030 and find it annoying to use a different form of transport to get to the charging
point of their EV. Other general results that were deduced are that the vast majority of respondents will first
search for an available charging station on an app/website and believe that every parking space should be
equipped with a charging point if the majority of their neighborhood drives electrically. In addition to these
general findings, there were also location-specific findings. These findings showed that respondents living
in the city center would generally find it more annoying to walk to a central point of charging points in their
neighborhood and respondents who indicated that they find the parking pressure in their neighborhood too
high are generally more willing to move their fully charged EV away from the charging spot and less likely
to charge their (future) EV after several trips when the battery is empty.

46
9 Conclusion and recommendations
This research sought an answer to the question: "What will the charging needs of electric vehicles in the Nether-
lands be in 2030 and which charging infrastructure roll-out strategy should be applied until 2030 in order to best
facilitate these needs?". To this end, research has been done into the influence of general developments in
mobility on EV diffusion and the influence of this in turn on public charging infrastructure. This was done
through literature research, as well as interviews and surveys among stakeholders.
In order to answer this main question in a structured way, several sub-questions have been formulated.
The results of literature research and interviews with stakeholders for the first sub-question regarding the
development of mobility in urban areas in the Netherlands up to 2030 have shown that, despite certain
mobility-dimming trends such as location-independent working, the mobility-stimulating trends will still
prevail. This is mainly due to the expected population increase and economic growth. The persistent housing
shortage in The Netherlands will also put great pressure on public space and it is therefore of great importance
to set up public charging infrastructure as smartly, efficiently and strategically as possible.
The results of literature research and interviews with stakeholders for the second sub-question regarding the
characteristics of the charging technologies to be applied in 2030 have shown that, firstly, it is very likely
that other technologies of charging EVs will be on the rise in 2030. However, it is currently assumed that
these other methods of charging will not yet have a large enough market share in 2030 to really form a major
part of the charging mix in the Netherlands. Secondly, it is expected that these current technologies, i.e. fast
charging, regular charging, and smart charging, will be applied on a large scale in 2030 to meet the charging
demand. The Dutch vision on charging infrastructure within cities is to first build a comprehensive network
of public charging infrastructure. This means that there are enough charging stations spread throughout the
city that there is always a charging station in the immediate vicinity. That is what most municipalities are
currently working on. After this, they can choose to spread the charging stations further or cluster them.
Both methods have their advantages. The advice from this research is to start clustering after reaching this
network. This is because it improves the findability of charging stations and reduces search traffic. The
distance between the clusters of charging points in this network is determined not only by the acceptable
walking distance of the district, but also by the possibilities of integrating charging infrastructure into the
streetscape.
The results of the literature research for the third sub-question regarding the characteristics of cities in the
Netherlands in relation to the spatial layout of charging stations indicate that there is a clear distinction
between neighborhood typologies that are commonly present in Dutch cities. These differences in a parking
situation, functions of the neighborhood, importance of the cityscape, and location of parking ensure that
there are different approach routes for the placement of charging infrastructure. Taking into account the
advantages of certain charging station technologies, a mix of placement policies within a city is made that
works optimally for every neighborhood.
The results of the survey conducted among city residents without their own parking facilities for the fourth
sub-question regarding the similarities and differences the inhabitants of different Dutch neighborhoods
experience in user needs of charging infrastructure show that there are indeed differences between the wishes
with regard to charging infrastructure that depends on where they live. For example, there are differences
between the willingness to move their EV after fully charging, but also which walking distance to the nearest
charging point that is considered acceptable. Almost all respondents agree on a few things, for example, few
people are willing to take another means of transport to their charged car. The survey conducted among
city residents shows that residents of a neighborhood in the center, which is known for the higher parking
pressure, and residents of neighborhoods with a high parking pressure are less willing to walk a little further
to a charging point. Despite this finding, it is recommended that the walking distance to the closest charging
station for neighborhoods with a higher parking pressure is higher than for neighborhoods with a lower
parking pressure. This is mainly due to the cityscape of these districts, but also to the applicability of the
charging stations in public space. By increasing this walking distance, for example, tactical junctions or
parking spaces can be chosen, which should reduce search traffic and thus impact on public space. After
all, it is also easier to place a charging station closer together in an area where there are many parking
spaces available for this purpose, which is not the case in these close to the city center and high parking

47
pressure neighborhoods. If the cityscape plays a very important role in the district, it can be decided to install
fast charging stations at tactical nodes around the district or at tactical locations, such as at supermarkets.
However, preference remains for regular charging stations because of the lower load on the grid and the
better match with the charging pattern of residents.
Interviews with stakeholders for the fifth sub-question regarding the interests of stakeholders in the realiza-
tion of charging infrastructure showed that, in principle, they have few requirements between technologies
and/or types of placement policy. However, they do have preferences. For example, it is important for the
municipalities that the interests of the resident come first, taking into account the streetscape, among other
things. However, it is advantageous for a network operator if charging stations are located in strategic loca-
tions in relation to network congestion, and the CPO naturally wants the most strategic location possible in
relation to charging turnover. However, because this cannot be classified as standard under a certain neigh-
borhood type or charging technology, this will have to be kept in mind when drawing up charging visions.
As the parking pressure decreases in neighborhoods, this study, therefore, recommends reducing the walking
distance in a charging infrastructure network. Numbers that go towards the findings of Blankers et al. (2021)
of an acceptable walking distance of 100-200 meters can be implemented here. In Table 7, oversight of the
defined neighborhood typologies by PBL [16], and the corresponding recommendations with relation to the
public charging infrastructure are given.

Table 7: Oversight of neighborhood typologies defined by PBL [16] and their corresponding public charging
structure recommendations

Acceptable walking
Neighborhood typology Role of fast charging
distance in network
Revolution building 300-500 meters In addition to regular charging when the acceptable walking distance cannot be achieved
Mansions 300-500 meters In addition to regular charging when the acceptable walking distance cannot be achieved
Monumental 300-500 meters In addition to regular charging when the acceptable walking distance cannot be achieved
Garden village 200-400 meters As little as possible; only when necessary due to parking problems
Super blocks 100-200 meters No role
Early post-war 100-300 meters As little as possible; only when necessary due to parking problems
Late post-war 100-300 meters As little as possible; only when necessary due to parking problems
Residential areas 100-200 meters No role
Neo-rationalism 100-300 meters As little as possible; only when necessary due to parking problems
New garden areas 100-200 meters No role

In several situations, exceptions can be made to this distribution in walking distance to a parking space with a
charging station. For example, there are neighborhoods in cities where the vast majority of houses have their
own parking facility. Here, you can choose to maintain an even higher walking distance or place the charging
stations in tactical locations such as parking squares within the neighborhood. There are also neighborhoods
in which there are predominantly high-rise buildings, where parking is usually solved in parking garages
under the building, or parking squares next to the building. In this situation, it therefore makes more sense
to cluster faster at these locations.
To find out which neighborhoods fall under which neighborhood typology, the map of Klimaateffectatlas.nl
can be used. The Klimaateffectatlas map of Climate Adaptation Services (CAS) (2017) has made a subdivi-
sion of neighborhood types that is in line with climate resilience [8]. The map provides an overview of the
neighborhood typology of every city in the Netherlands and the degree to which this neighborhood typol-
ogy is dominant. Figure 35 shows the neighborhood typology distribution of Eindhoven and Amsterdam, as
examples. Additionally, Figure 36 shows the legend of the colors used in the map.
This mix of literature research and stakeholder surveys and interviews has shown that electric mobility will
still increase greatly in the coming years in The Netherlands. This is mainly due to global, EU-wide, na-
tional, and local policy plans that drive the transition to a more sustainable form of mobility. To properly
anticipate this, a well-thought-out and substantiated placement policy for charging infrastructure with a

48
 (a) Eindhoven (b) Amsterdam

Figure 35: Neighborhood typologies in Eindhoven (a) and Amsterdam (b), according to [8]

Figure 36: Neigborhood typologies based on climate resilience, restyled from [8]

vision for the future is of great importance. This research shows that a connection can be made between the
advantages of certain charging technologies and placement options in relation to the characteristics of the
various neighborhoods that are common in Dutch cities. The general conclusion of this study is therefore
that when drawing up a placement policy, account must be taken of the characteristics of a neighborhood
or city and the wishes of all stakeholders must be taken into account. In this study, the link between neigh-
borhood characteristics, charging characteristics and interests of stakeholders has been made, which leads
to the advice to adopt a different approach for each neighborhood typology, as explained in figure Table 7.

49
10 Discussion
A literature study was carried out for this study, which indicates which sources were used and it was vali-
dated whether these sources are reliable. In addition, the survey was completed by a significant group of 50
respondents, which can be considered sufficient for a thesis of this duration. In addition, only the research
results from this survey were included if more than 10% of the respondents belonged to a certain inhabitants
group. An attempt was made to involve stakeholders from all perspectives in the interviews, to be able to
include multiple points of view in the conclusions. Based on this, it can be stated that if this study were
repeated, the results would be the same and that the results of this study are therefore valid.
The answers to the survey showed that the distance that residents are willing to walk to a charging point in
their neighborhood can depend on the parking pressure in the neighborhood. Respondents living in the city
center were found to object more to having to walk further to a central point of multiple charging stations in
their neighborhood. This result is not entirely in accordance with the expectation prior to the administration
of the survey. The hypothesis here was that these residents would have fewer objections, because they are
already accustomed to parking their car further away from home due to the high parking pressure in their
neighborhood. Therefore, the increased distance to the beach would have a greater impact on residents who
can almost always park their cars near their homes. A possible explanation for the fact that they object
more to a further walking distance is that they already experience this as an inconvenience, so that this idea
contradicts them even more because they are more aware of the consequences.
Another finding is that respondents who indicated that they find the parking pressure in their neighborhood
too high are generally more willing to move their fully charged EV away from the charging spot. This is
also against the predetermined assumptions, because it was reasoned that these residents would have more
objections to this because they would then have to look for a free parking space in their neighborhood with
a high parking pressure. A possible explanation for this is that these residents may be better aware of what it
is like not being able to find a parking space, and that is precisely why they better understand the potential
frustration of looking for a free charging station.
The current study is an addition to the existing literature on the opinions of EV drivers because this study
also includes the opinions of the group of future EV drivers for the first time. As mentioned earlier, many
studies only focus on current EV drivers, which mainly consist of innovators who may have very different
wishes and requirements from the masses that subsequently adopt an innovation.
However, it should be taken into account that due to the time frame, this study was not able to recruit a
very large group of respondents. A respondent group of thousands all over the Netherlands would of course
be much more representative. The survey was also distributed in the network of me and HetEnergieBureau,
which may have provided a respondent who meets a certain profile (highly educated, positive vision of energy
transition). For this reason, no general statement can be made about the definitive walking distance that
residents of different neighborhood typologies find acceptable. The entire report is built on the data obtained
from this survey, so it is better to talk about advice based on this research than hard facts. The advice for
follow-up research is, therefore, to conduct a similar study with a larger group of respondents as data. In
addition, it is also possible to talk to several stakeholders within a stakeholder category to see whether all
stakeholders within this category have the same interests.
In addition, there are a few other points that may be explored in more detail in further research or may be
seen as limitations of this study. For example, this research focuses on public charging, but private (and
semi-public) also play a major role in the diffusion of EV. Other mobility sectors outside passenger transport
have also been omitted from this study. Only passenger cars have been considered, but the charging demand
of delivery vans, for example, will also play a major role in the charging demand within a district. In addition,
this research was intended to develop a strategy for the longer term. However, during the research, especially
into new innovations in the field of EVs and their charging, it turned out that this is still fairly short-term
research because innovations need a much longer time to break through to the masses. A good addition to
this study would therefore be what the state of affairs is in the field of EV and charging technologies in, for
example, 2040 or 2050. This study can also ultimately be used as a recommendation and practice may show
that there are still there are additional points for attention within a district where charging infrastructure

50
must be coordinated. That is why it is also important to continue to monitor any implementation of this
research in policy, so that any improvements can be added.

51
References
[1] A Behind the Scenes Take on Lithium-ion Battery Prices. Mar. 2019. url: https://about.bnef.
com/blog/behind- scenes- take- lithium- ion- battery- prices/ (visited on
11/08/2022).
[2] Expertisecentrum Aanbesteden. Nationaal mobiliteitsbeleid. url: https://www.pianoo.nl/
nl/sectoren/mobiliteit/mobiliteitsbeleid/nationaal-mobiliteitsbe
leid (visited on 10/26/2022).
[3] Aantal elektrische auto’s verdrievoudigd. Sept. 2022. url: https : / / www . raivereniging . n
l/artikel/nieuwsberichten/2022- q3/220922- 300.000e- elektrische-
auto-geregistreerd-in-nederland.html (visited on 11/14/2022).
[4] Astute Analytica. Global Electric Vehicle (EV) Battery Swapping Market Size Projected to be Valued at
US$ 901.71 Million By 2030. Nov. 2022. url: https : / / www . globenewswire . com / en /
news-release/2022/11/15/2555907/0/en/Global-Electric-Vehicle-EV-
Battery- Swapping- Market- Size- Projected- to- be- Valued- at- US- 901-
71-Million-By-2030-Astute-Analytica.html (visited on 11/16/2022).
[5] H. Ariëns. Wat is met de huidige energieprijzen goedkoper: een elektrische- of een benzineauto? Oct. 2022.
url: https://www.volkskrant.nl/gs-b52ef553 (visited on 11/08/2022).
[6] S. Blankers, E. Oostenbrink, and A. Lankhorst. Inzicht in acceptabele loopafstanden. CROW-KpVV, 2021.
[7] M. Bockarjova and L. Steg. “Can Protection Motivation Theory predict pro-environmental behavior?
Explaining the adoption of electric vehicles in the Netherlands”. In: Global Environmental Change 28
(2014), pp. 276–288. issn: 0959-3780. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2014.06.010.
[8] CAS. Climate Adaptation Services. 2017. url: www.climateadaptationservices.nl.
[9] CBS. Aardgas en elektriciteit. Last Modified: 30-09-2022T16:23:14. Aug. 2022. url: https://www.
cbs.nl/nl-nl/dossier/energieprijzen/aardgas-en-elektriciteit.
[10] CBS. Groei aantal stekkerauto’s zet door. webpagina. Oct. 2021. url: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-
nl / nieuws / 2021 / 41 / groei - aantal - stekkerauto - s - zet - door (visited on
04/29/2022).
[11] CBS. Hoeveel broeikasgas stoot de transportsector uit? 2022. url: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-
nl/dossier/dossier-broeikasgassen/hoofdcategorieen/hoeveel-broei
kasgas-stoot-de-transportsector-uit- (visited on 04/21/2022).
[12] CBS. Hoeveel reisden inwoners van Nederland en hoe? url: https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/vis
ualisaties/verkeer-en-vervoer/personen/hoeveel-reisden-inwoners-
van-nederland-en-hoe- (visited on 09/02/2022).
[13] CBS. Onderweg in Nederland (ODiN) 2020. June 2021.
[14] CBS. Population in the future. 2021. url: https : / / www . cbs . nl / en - gb / visualisati
ons/dashboard- population/population- dynamics/population- in- the-
future (visited on 08/03/2022).
[15] CBS and PBL. Regionale bevolkingsen huishoudens prognose 2022–2050. 2022.
[16] Paul van de Coevering, Lotte Zaaijer, Kersten Nabielek, and Daniëlle Snellen. Parkeerproblemen in
woongebieden: Oplossingen voor de toekomst. Den Haag: NAi Uitgevers, 2008.
[17] F. van Dam and H. Hilbers. “Vergrijzing, verplaatsingsgedrag en mobiliteit”. In: Vergrijzing en ruimte.
Gevolgen voor de woningmarkt, vrijetijdsbesteding, mobiliteit en regionale economie. Den Haag: Planbu-
reau voor de Leefomgeving, June 2013.
[18] T. Denne. “Review and analysis of electric vehicle supply and demand constraints”. In: Resource Eco-
nomics (Mar. 2021).
[19] C. van Duin, S. te Riele, and L. Stoeldraijer. Huishoudensprognose 2018-2060: opmars eenpersoonshuishoudens
zet door. Dec. 2018.
[20] Thijs Duurkoop, Lotte Gardien, Ellen Hiep, and Maarten van Biezen. Nationaal Laadonderzoek 2021:
Laden van EV’s in Nederland - Ervaringen en meningen van EV-rijders. July 2021.
[21] U. Eberle and R. von Helmolt. “Sustainable transportation based on electric vehicle concepts: a brief
overview”. In: Energy & Environmental Science 3.6 (June 2010), pp. 689–699. doi: 10.1039/c001674h
.

52
[22] B. Ebskamp, S. Zonderland, and M. Bulsink. “Verkenning mobiliteit 2030”. nl. In: De ArgumentenFabriek
(Aug. 2018).
[23] Ministerie van Economische Zaken. Visie op de laadinfrastructuur voor elektrisch vervoer. Den Haag:
Xerox/OBT, Nov. 2016.
[24] ElaadNL. “Elektrisch rijden in stroomversnelling - Elektrificatie van personenauto’s tot en met 2050”.
Oct. 2021.
[25] Nederland elektrisch. Elektrisch Rijden Monitor 2021: consument steeds meer aangetrokken tot elektrische
auto, aantal elektrische occasions nog klein. Aug. 2021. url: https://nederlandelektrisch.
nl/actueel/nieuwsoverzicht/i1973/elektrisch-rijden-monitor-2021-
consument- steeds- meer- aangetrokken- tot- elektrische- auto- aantal-
elektrische-occasions-nog-klein (visited on 05/05/2022).
[26] EV Charging Modes. en-US. Aug. 2019. url: https : / / deltrixchargers . com / about -
emobility/charging-modes/ (visited on 11/14/2022).
[27] EV Expert. AC / DC Charging. en. url: https://www.evexpert.eu/eshop1/knowledge-
center / ac - dc - charging - electromobil - current - alternating - direct
(visited on 09/30/2022).
[28] C. Fischer. “What Can Economics Learn From Marketing’s Market Structure Analysis?” In: A journal
of applied topics in business and economics (). url: https://www.westga.edu/~bquest/
1997/ecnmkt.html (visited on 11/14/2022).
[29] T. Fleiter and P. Plötz. “Diffusion of Energy-Efficient Technologies”. In: Encyclopedia of Energy, Natu-
ral Resource, and Environmental Economics 1-3 (2013), pp. 63–73. doi: 10 . 1016 / B978 - 0 - 12 -
375067-9.00059-0.
[30] J. Gans, S. King, R. Stonecash, and N. Mankiw. Principles of Economics. Thomson Learning, 2003. isbn:
0-17-011441-4.
[31] Gartner. 2020 Future of Work Hidden Trends: Rising Demand for Remote Work. Nov. 2019.
[32] L. Groenemeijer. Inventarisatie Plancapaciteit Oktober 2021. Delft: ABF Research, Dec. 2021.
[33] A. Grübler. The Rise and Fall of Infrastructures: Dynamics of Evolution and Technological Change in
Transport. Contributions to Economics (CE). Physica-Verlag Heidelberg, 1990. isbn: 3-7908-0479-7.
[34] S Hardman, T Turrentine, N Daina, E Figenbaum, D Garas, P Jochem, S Karlsson, D Naberezhnykh,
J Pontes, N Refa, B Sovacool, F Sprei, and G Tal. Driving the Market for Plug-in Vehicles - Understanding
Reoccurring Incentives. Sept. 2017.
[35] S. Hemavathi and A. Shinisha. “A study on trends and developments in electric vehicle charging tech-
nologies”. In: Journal of Energy Storage 52 (2022), p. 105013. issn: 2352-152X. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.est.2022.105013.
[36] V. Henze. Battery Pack Prices Fall to an Average of $132/kWh, But Rising Commodity Prices Start to Bite.
Nov. 2021. url: https://about.bnef.com/blog/battery-pack-prices-fall-
to- an- average- of- 132- kwh- but- rising- commodity- prices- start- to-
bite/ (visited on 11/08/2022).
[37] H. Hilbers, J. van Meerkerk, D. Snellen, R. Euwals, T. Hendrich, K. van Ruijven, and P. Verstraten.
Ontwikkeling mobiliteit. nl. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving en Centraal Planbureau, 2020.
[38] How Long Does an Electric Car Battery Last? en-US. url: https : / / www . evconnect . com /
blog/how-long-does-an-electric-car-battery-last (visited on 11/08/2022).
[39] IEA. Global Electric Vehicle Outlook 2021. en. 2021.
[40] IEA. Global Electric Vehicle Outlook 2022. en. 2022.
[41] Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat. Grote werkgevers op weg naar schonere kilometers. Last
Modified: 2022-04-19T17:25 Publisher: Ministerie van Algemene Zaken. Apr. 2022. url: https://
www.rijksoverheid.nl/actueel/nieuws/2022/04/19/grote-werkgevers-
op-weg-naar-schonere-kilometers (visited on 10/26/2022).
[42] Innovaties Elektrisch rijden: Battery Swap. Sept. 2020. url: https : / / www . evservice . eu /
innovaties-elektrisch-rijden-battery-swap (visited on 11/16/2022).
[43] L. Jin, H. He, H. Cui, N. Lutsey, C Wu, Y. Chu, J. Zhu, Y. Xiong, X. Liu, and Y. Zhang. Driving a green
future: A retrospective review of China’s electric vehicle development and outlook for the future. Interna-
tional Council on Clean Transportation, Jan. 2021.

53
[44] E. Jongen, P. Verstraten, and C. Zimpelmann. Thuiswerken vóór, tijdens en ná de coronacrisis. Jan. 2021.
[45] M. Kaal, S. Plantinga, and J. ter Berg. “Relatie burger overheid 2030”. In: KANTAR (Apr. 2019).
[46] Hafiz Anwar Ullah Khan, Sara Price, Charalampos Avraam, and Yury Dvorkin. “Inequitable access
to EV charging infrastructure”. In: The Electricity Journal 35.3 (2022), p. 107096. issn: 1040-6190. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2022.107096.
[47] KNMI. KNMI Klimaatsignaal ’21 - Hoe het klimaat in Nederland snel verandert. Tech. rep. De Bilt, Oct.
2021.
[48] Catherine Ledna, Matteo Muratori, Aaron Brooker, Eric Wood, and David Greene. “How to support EV
adoption: Tradeoffs between charging infrastructure investments and vehicle subsidies in California”.
In: Energy Policy 165 (July 2022), p. 112931. issn: 0301-4215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.enpol.2022.112931.
[49] H.C. Liu, X.Y. You, Y.X. Xue, and X. Luan. “Exploring critical factors influencing the diffusion of electric
vehicles in China: A multi-stakeholder perspective”. In: Research in Transportation Economics 66 (2017),
pp. 46–58. issn: 0739-8859.
[50] T. Manders and C. Kool. Toekomstverkenning Welvaart en Leefomgeving Nederland in 2030 en 2050: twee
referentiescenario’s. Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving en Centraal Planbureau, 2015.
[51] J. van Meerkerk, D. Blomjous, M. Nauta, G. Geilenkirchen, H. Hilbers, and M. Traa. Actualisatie invoer
WLO autopark mobiliteitsmodellen 2020. Den Haag: Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, 2021.
[52] Monitoring Landelijk. nl. url: https://www.agendalaadinfrastructuur.nl/monito
ring+2021/monitoring+landelijk/default.aspx (visited on 10/13/2022).
[53] Yutaka Motoaki. “Location-Allocation of Electric Vehicle Fast Chargers—Research and Practice”. In:
World Electric Vehicle Journal 10 (Mar. 2019), p. 12. issn: 2032-6653. doi: 10.3390/wevj10010012.
[54] G. Musolino. “Sustainable Mobility as a Service: Demand Analysis and Case Studies”. In: Information
13.8 (2022). issn: 2078-2489.
[55] NAL. Infographic Laadvisie en plaatsingsbeleid. url: https://agendalaadinfrastructuur
.mett.nl/nieuws/2119326.aspx?t=Nieuwe- infographic- aan- de- slag-
met-een-laadvisie-en-plaatsingsbeleid (visited on 10/14/2022).
[56] NAL. Over de Nationale Agenda Laadinfrastructuur (NAL). nl. url: https://www.agendalaadi
nfrastructuur.nl/default.aspx (visited on 08/17/2022).
[57] NOVI. Nationale Agenda Laadinfrastructuur (NAL). url: https : / / www . denationaleomge
vingsvisie . nl / samenwerking + en + uitvoering / programmas / nationale +
agenda+laadinfrastructuur+nal/default.aspx (visited on 04/29/2022).
[58] Elena Paffumi, Michele De Gennaro, Giorgio Martini, and Harald Scholz. “Assessment of the poten-
tial of electric vehicles and charging strategies to meet urban mobility requirements”. In: Transport-
metrica A: Transport Science 11.1 (Jan. 2015), pp. 22–60. issn: 2324-9935, 2324-9943. doi: 10.1080/
23249935.2014.913732.
[59] Particuliere EV-markt komt steeds meer op stoom. Mar. 2022. url: https://bovag.nl/nieuws/
particuliere-ev-markt-komt-steeds-meer-op-stoom (visited on 11/03/2022).
[60] PleisureWorld NRIT, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek, CELTH, Nederlands Bureau voor Toerisme en
Congressen, and CELTH. Trendrapport toerisme, recreatie en vrije tijd 2019. OCLC: 1129251290. Breda:
NRIT Media, 2019. isbn: 978-94-91625-09-1.
[61] Rijksoverheid. Contouren Toekomstbeeld OV 2040. Den Haag, 2019.
[62] Rijksoverheid. Hoe krijg ik als particulier subsidie voor mijn elektrische auto? Mar. 2020. url: https:
/ / www . rijksoverheid . nl / onderwerpen / auto / vraag - en - antwoord / ond
erwerpen / auto / vraag - en - antwoord / hoe - krijg - ik - als - particulier -
subsidie-voor-mijn-elektrische-auto (visited on 04/29/2022).
[63] Rijksoverheid. Klimaatakkoord. Den Haag, June 2019.
[64] Rijksoverheid. Klimaatverandering en gevolgen. Apr. 2022. url: https://www.rijksoverhei
d . nl / onderwerpen / klimaatverandering / gevolgen - klimaatverandering
(visited on 04/21/2022).
[65] Rijksoverheid. “Vanaf 2030 betalen automobilisten naar gebruik”. In: (July 2022). Last Modified: 2022-
07-01T17:50 Publisher: Ministerie van Algemene Zaken. url: https://www.rijksoverheid.

54
 nl/actueel/nieuws/2022/07/01/vanaf-2030-betalen-automobilisten-
naar-gebruik (visited on 08/17/2022).
[66] E. Rogers. Diffusion of Innovations. 5th ed. Aug. 2003. isbn: 978-0-7432-5823-4.
[67] RVO. Beleid Elektrisch rijden. May 2017. url: https://www.rvo.nl/onderwerpen/elekt
risch-rijden/beleid (visited on 11/16/2022).
[68] RVO. Electric Vehicles Statistics in the Netherlands - Up to and including February 2022. Mar. 2022.
[69] Ismail Sahin. “Detailed review of Rogers’ Diffusion of Innovations theory and educational technology-
related studies based on Rogers’ theory”. In: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology 5.2
(2006). issn: 1303-6521.
[70] Felix Schulz and Johannes Rode. “Public charging infrastructure and electric vehicles in Norway”. In:
Energy Policy 160 (2022), p. 112660. issn: 0301-4215. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2021.112660.
[71] Lefeng Shi, Ying Hao, Shengnan Lv, Liana Cipcigan, and Jun Liang. “A comprehensive charging net-
work planning scheme for promoting EV charging infrastructure considering the Chicken-Eggs dilemma”.
In: Research in Transportation Economics 88 (2021), p. 100837. issn: 0739-8859. doi: https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.retrec.2020.100837.
[72] Zero Emissie Stadslogistiek. Alles over de Zero-Emissiezones. url: https://www.opwegnaarze
s.nl/over-zes/zero-emissiezones (visited on 10/26/2022).
[73] TCO elektrische auto’s. url: https://evkenniscentrum.nl/tco (visited on 11/08/2022).
[74] J. Visser and M. Knoope. Online winkelen en COVID-19: De effecten op mobiliteit en transport - achter-
gronddocument. Mar. 2022.
[75] W. Visser. Laden van elektrische voertuigen. nl. Apr. 2019.
[76] J. van Wingerden. EU wil garantie voor levensduur accu elektrische auto. Section: automotive. Dec. 2021.
url: https://www.autoweek.nl/autonieuws/artikel/eu- wil- garantie-
voor-levensduur-accu-elektrische-auto/ (visited on 11/08/2022).
[77] Rick Wolbertus, Robert van den Hoed, Maarten Kroesen, and Caspar Chorus. “Charging infrastruc-
ture roll-out strategies for large scale introduction of electric vehicles in urban areas: An agent-based
simulation study”. In: Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 148 (2021), pp. 262–285. issn:
0965-8564. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.04.010.

55
A Appendix: Interviews stakeholders
A.1 Interviewed stakeholders

56
A.2 Interview 1 questions
During the first interview with Hogeschool van Amsterdam, ElaadNL, Volvo Cars, Lanova, and Vattenfall
Incharge, the following questions were posed to the stakeholders:
• How does your company/institution see developments of mobility in cities up to 2030?
– Which direction(s) do you want to take with your technology/product/research?
Keywords: Electrification passenger transport, EV range, Modal shift, Shared mobility, Mobility-as-
a-Service (MaaS), Autonomous driving
– Why was this specific direction(s) chosen?
• How does your company/institution see charging infrastructure in 2030?
– Which direction(s) do you want to take with your technology/product/research?
Keywords: Fast charging, Wireless charging, Load balancing, Smart charging
– Why was this specific direction(s) chosen?
– What is the effect of these desired technical developments on the net?
– What is the expected potential of these technical developments in 2030?
– What is the effect of these desired technical developments on the spatial planning of a city?

A.3 Interview 2 questions

During the second interview with Vattenfall Incharge, Municipality of Venlo, and Enexis, the most important
research results of sub-questions 1 to 4 were discussed. After the results of each sub-question were discussed,
the following questions were asked:
• Do these results match your findings in practice?
• Do these results match the vision for the future of your company/institution?
• What do you think is missing from these results?
• Do you have any general insights on this subject that I may not have thought of?
Looking at sub-question 5: “What interests do stakeholders have in the realization of charging infrastructure
and how can this be taken into account in a roll-out strategy?”
When only taking into account the wishes of your company/institution:
• “What will public charging infrastructure in cities look like in 2030?”
Keywords: Fast vs regular loading, Clustering vs scattering, Differences between different neighborhood
typologies
• Which of these wishes are required and which are desired?

57
B Appendix: Survey
B.1 Survey Questions

58
B.2 Survey Results

Figure 37: Outcomes survey - location dependent and car use questions

71
Figure 38: Outcomes survey - statements

72