Systematic Transfer in TIDE TIDE Workshop on Training and Exchange Stuttgart, November 2013 Prof Nick Hounsell, Transportation Research Group University of Southampton, UK

Outline Introduction to Systematic Transfer Introduction to TIDE transferability methodology Transferability methodology step-by-step

Concept of transferability Transferability A process of verifying the chances of a successful implementation of a measure from a pioneer city to the adopting city at an operational or implementation level Pioneer city A city where an innovative measure is successfully implemented Adopter city A city which wish to implement an innovative measure that is successfully implemented in a pioneer city

Context conditions There are no cities with exactly the same context conditions. Differences can include transport/raffic conditions (demand, supply, infrastructure, traffic control/management, etc.), geographical,environmental, demographic, socio- economic and cultural backgrounds as well as institutional and legal frameworks. So we must identify those context conditions which are key to the measures success and which must also be addressed in any new location – or which have created barriers to success so that they can either be overcome or transferability avoided where such factors exist.

Advantages of systematic transfer -Systematic approach to innovation -Reduces the risk of bad decision making -Feasibility check at an early stage -Clearer definition of measures – What exactly is it that we want to transfer? -Comparability between different Innovative Measures -Dont have to reinvent the wheel -Cost savings -Learn from the mistakes of others -The process itself leads to stakeholder and expert involvement

TIDE Transferability Methodology A systematic qualitative methodology to analyse the potential transferability of an innovative transport measure from one city to another. Designed to maximise the usability for practitioners in European cities. A Handbook for transferability analysis in urban transport and mobility will be produced by the cities involved in TIDE, for wider use

Source: Dziekan et al, 2013

The 7 step Methodology (1) Mission statement/objectives and scoping (2) Clarification of the impacts of the measure (3) Identification of up-scaling/down-scaling need (4) Identification of the main components and sub-components (5) Identification of the level of importance of components (6) Assessment of the situation in the adopter city (7) Conclusions

Example Source: Southampton London Advanced public transport priority Pioneer city Adopter city

Step 1: Mission statement and scope A clearly defined mission statement (or clear objectives) and a realistic scope for a measure Should avoid any misunderstanding during the subsequent transferability and implementation processes The following transferability steps should only be carried out after the adopter understands and agrees with the objectives and scope of the measure

Mission statement (bus priority) To provide priority to buses at traffic signals to improve their regularity Scope Differential bus priority only. It does not cover the traffic signalling system itself.

Step 2: Impacts: Generic (Examples) Efficiency (capacity, journey time) Environment (emissions, noise, visual intrusion) Safety Accessibility Vehicle occupancy Benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA)

Impacts (bus priority) Improve bus regularity Improve bus journey time Reduce passenger waiting time Reduce bus overcrowding Increase bus patronage Increase bus revenue May reduce bus operating costs and emissions May increase delay to general traffic Provide a good economic return (cost-benefit)

Source: Dziekan et al, 2013

Scaling (bus priority) Southampton is much smaller than London and hence needs down-scaling of the implementation This may have implications on system requirements, costs and benefits. Note also: Southampton has a different model of bus operations.

Step 4: Main components & sub-components Factors that can contribute to the success (or failure) of a measure : Components (main factors): -Policy, stakeholders, finance, technical requirements, etc. Sub-components e.g. for policy: -Public transport policy, traffic management policy, accessibility policy, pollution reduction policy

Main components & sub-components (bus priority) Examples ComponentsSub-components Strategies and policies Public transport policy Traffic management policy Finances Capital costs of design and implementation Running costs Economic benefits Stakeholders involvement Urban Traffic manager/controller Public transport operators Government (local) Technical requirements Equipment and Tools (Infrastructure) Software

Step 5: Level of importance of sub-components According to the pioneer city High/medium/low Supporting comments

Level of importance of sub-components (bus priority) Sub-componentsImportanceComments Bus priority policyHighThe main objective to be supported by the measure Traffic management policy HighBus priority had to operate within an overall traffic management policy Capital costsHigh The major cost involved: detection, communication, priority algorithm, etc (hardware and software) Running costsMediumSimilar to existing traffic control systems Economic benefitsMediumIncreased benefits due to passenger waiting time savings Urban Traffic managerHigh Traffic manager were in favour of fewer priority interventions as a result of advanced priority, but concerned over potential complexity Bus operatorsHigh Operators needed to be convinced the about the benefits of differential priority instead of priority to all buses Local governmentHighTfL approved and financed the scheme Equipment and ToolsHigh Adaptive traffic control system and AVL system were crucial for the implementation. SoftwareHighTraffic control software needed to be upgraded

Step 6: Assessment of the situation in the adopter city Subjective assessment of ease/difficulty in implementation by adopter city Assessment scale: +2strong support for transferability +1modest support for transferability 0neutral -1modest constraint for transferability -2strong constraint for transferability

Assessment of components (bus priority) by the adopter city ComponentsSub-componentsImportanceAssessment Strategies and policies Public transport policyHigh+2 Traffic management policyHigh+2 Finances Capital costs of design, implementation High Running costsMedium0 Economic benefitsMedium+1 Stakeholders involvement Urban Traffic manager/controllerHigh+1 Public transport operatorsHigh Government (local)High Technical requirements Equipment and ToolsHigh SoftwareHigh0

Step 7: Conclusions Drawing conclusions through the assessment One or more strong constraints (-2) to transferability -no transfer unless the conditions can be overcome One or two modest constraints(-1) (no strong constraints) -difficult to transfer the measure unless the conditions can be addressed If there are no constraints at all -likely that the measure could be successfully transferred

Conclusions (bus priority) The measure is potentially transferable to Southampton dependent on: Cost of the system – this could be justified by improved bus operations and the benefits associated with it (e.g. journey time/waiting time benefits, increased patronage) Bus operators support – operators may need convincing!

Source:

Nick Hounsell Thank you! Transportation Research Group