Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DG RESEARCH 2 WORKING GROUP MEETING MINUTES by chenmeixiu

VIEWS: 13 PAGES: 91

									                                                           EUROPEAN COMMISSION
                                                                  DG RESEARCH

                                                           SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME




                          2nd WORKING GROUP MEETING MINUTES
                                                                           BUDAPEST, 27-28.4.2009




Deliverable no.                   D 3.1
Dissemination level               Public
Work Package                      WP3 Transferability of Innovative Concepts
Author(s)                         Mark Beecroft, David Jeffery – University of Southampton
Co-author(s)                      Karen Vancluysen, Ivo Cré - POLIS
                                  Sebastian Bührmann, Matthias Fiedler – Rupprecht Consult
                                  János Monigl, Zsolt Berki, Székely András – Transman
                                  Simon Edwards, Amy Weihong Guo - Newcastle University
Status (F: final, D: draft)       Template 13/5/2009
File Name                         NICHES_2nd_WG_meeting_minutes_270709.doc
Project Start Date and Duration   36 Months, started 1 May 2008




                                                       1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About NICHES+                                                                                         3
2.   Discussion topics and agenda                                                                     5
     2.1    Agenda of the 2nd WG meeting                                                              5
     2.2    Objectives of focus group session                                                         6
     2.3    Discussion topics and questions                                                           6
3.   Focus group sessions                                                                             8
     3.1    WG1 – Innovative Concepts to Enhance Accessibility                                        8
     3. 2   WG2 – Concepts for Efficient Planning and Use of Infrastructure and Interchanges         19
     3.3    WG3 – Traffic Management Centres                                                         28
     3.4    WG4 – Automated and Space Efficient Transport Systems                                    38
4    Plenary sessions                                                                                49
5    Excursion                                                                                       52
6    Conclusions                                                                                     53
7    Annex                                                                                           55
     7.1    List of participating experts, champion city representatives and consortium partners     55
     7.2    Presentations used at the WG meeting                                                     56
     7.3    Evaluation of WG meeting                                                                 73




Acknowledgements
The NICHES+ Consortium would like to thank all the experts that participated in the 2nd WG meeting
and contributed which their valuable input to the project.

Disclaimer
This document has been prepared by the authors on behalf of the European Commission, DG
Research. It does however not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission.




                                                               2
About NICHES+

The mission

NICHES+ ("NICHES plus") is a FP7 coordination action aiming to network key actors actively
engaged in developing innovative urban transport concepts and to facilitate the coordination of
their activities across Europe. The project duration is from 2007-2010.
NICHES+ shares the same mission as its forerunner project NICHES: "To stimulate a wide
debate on innovative urban transport and mobility between relevant stakeholders from
different sectors and disciplines across the EU and accession countries, in order to promote
the most promising new concepts, initiatives and projects from their current "niche" position to
a "mainstream" urban transport policy application."

Expected results

   •   In depth analysis and promotion of 12 innovative concepts in four thematic areas with
       the support of expert working groups (WGs, WG coordinators mentioned in brackets).

Table 1: NICHES+ Thematic Areas and Innovative Concepts
WG1: Innovative Concepts to enhance accessibility (Rupprecht Consult)
Concept 1.1: Travel training Concept 1.2: Neighbourhood Concept 1.3: Tailored traveller
for public transport           accessibility planning            information for users with
                                                                 reduced mobility
WG2: Efficient Planning and Use of Infrastructure and transport interchanges (Transman)
Concept 2.1: Passenger         Concept 2.2.: Innovative          Concept 2.3: Infrastructure for
friendly intermodal            cycling facilities for            innovative bus systems
interchanges                   intermodal interchanges
WG3: Urban Traffic Management Centres (Newcastle University)
Concept 3.1 Finance Models     Concept 3.2 Mobile Travel         Concept 3.3 Using
for Traffic Management         Information Services for the Environmental Pollution Data
Centres                        Public                            in Traffic Management
WG4: Automated and Space efficient transport systems (University of Southampton, TRG)
Concept 4.1: Group Rapid       Concept 4.2: Personal Rapid Concept 4.3: Advanced City
Transit (GRT)                  Transit (PRT)                     Cars(ACC)
   •   Effective networking by bringing together for personal exchange at least 500
       stakeholders relevant for the uptake of innovative urban transport solutions. Working
       group meetings, conferences and national events will provide the main platform for
       networking.
   •   Establish the success factors and conditions for transferability of the new NICHES+
       concepts, and issue concrete recommendations for integration into local policies.
   •   Preparing for the actual take-up of innovative concepts in European 7 NICHES+
       Champion Cities (see map next page) through the promotion of at least ten on-site
       visits, via a study tour catalogue and other targeted promotion activities. The cities will
       develop implementation scenarios for innovative transport concepts in co-operation
       with the NICHES+ partners and external experts.
   •   Expand the OSMOSE open source website for urban transport innovation as a
       comprehensive urban mobility innovation portal for local practitioners and decision
       makers.
   •   Recommendations for further research, demonstration and technical development
       within the EU's Framework Programmes for Research and Technical Development.
   •   Develop twelve additional policy notes for local decision makers on the impact and
       problem solving capacity of the innovative urban transport concepts to meet key


                                                3
      mobility challenges, also providing practical guidance on implementing the innovative
      transport concepts.

Figure 1: Niches + Champion Cities




                                            4
2.         Discussion topics and agenda
The 2nd NICHES+ Working Group meeting took place from 27-29 April 2009 at the European
Youth Centre in Budapest. More than 35 experts and representatives of the NICHES+
Champion cities (see participants list in annex) came together to discuss in interactive focus
group sessions issues surrounding transferability in planning and implementing innovative
urban transport and mobility concepts.
The smaller focus group sessions of the four Working Groups were framed by an opening and
closing plenary. . An excursion was organised for the invited experts to view aspects of the
Budapest public transport system. After an introductory presentation by Dr. Janos Monigl
about the traffic situation in Budapest, recent developments and future plans, experts visited
the renovated Combino tramline and its accessible stops.



2.1        Agenda of the 2nd WG meeting
 Day 1, Monday 27 April 2009
 12:00 h     Registration &
             Lunch
 13:00 h     Opening Plenary       Welcome                                                   POLIS
             Session               Introduction to NICHES+ and overview of innovative        POLIS
                                   transport concepts                                        (Project
                                                                                             Coordinator)
                                   Presentation of meeting agenda and objectives             DJ (WP Leader)
                                   Organisational information                                POLIS
 13.30       Changing rooms        Gathering the focus groups
 13:40 h     4 Parallel Focus      Introduction to innovative concepts and discussion of     Working Group
             Group Sessions        their impacts                                             (WG) leaders and
                                                                                             experts
 15:10 h     Joint Coffee Break    Opportunity for informal exchange
 15:30 h     4 Parallel Focus      Brainstorm and discussion of transferability issues       WG leaders and
             Groups                                                                          experts
 17:30 h     End of Focus
             Group Session
 19:15 h     Dinner with all       Restaurant St. Jupat, 1024 Budapest, Dékàn Utca 3
             participants
 DAY 2, Tuesday 28 April 2009
 9:00 h      4 Parallel Focus      Refinement of transferability issues                    WG leaders and
             Groups                                                                        experts
 10:30 h     Joint Coffee Break
 10:50 h     4 Parallel Focus      Discussion of refinement of transferability issues      WG leaders and
             Groups                Summary of key results and recommendations              experts
 12.20 h     Break for gathering
             groups
 12:30 h     Closing Plenary       NICHES+ Champion Cities panel discussion:               All - facilitated by DJ,
             Session               Discussion of the impacts of the credit crunch on       TRG
                                   transport innovation
                                   Closing remarks                                         POLIS
 13.15 h     End of WG meeting

 13.15-      Lunch
 14.30 h
 14.45-      Excursion             Introduction by Dr Janos Monigl, followed by visit to   POLIS
 16.30h      (optional)            the Combino tramline.




                                                         5
2.2    Objectives of focus group session
The main objectives of the focus group session can be summarised as follows:
Determine the impacts and criteria for success of the IC
In NICHES+ we want to learn from the “real world”. We analyse practical examples that can
give us hints on how to successfully implement the innovative transport concepts and how to
transfer them to other places. The experts participating in the 2nd WG meeting were invited to
point us to ways in which the impacts and success of an IC following its implementation might
be measured and to identify the relative benefits of alternative measures of success.
Identify the necessary framework conditions for a successful implementation
The focus groups used a PESTE analysis to identify Political, Economic, Social, Technology
and Environmental success factors and barriers which impact on the transferability of each IC.
Determine the relative importance of different barriers and success factors
The focus groups determined the relative importance of different transferability barriers and
success factors by ranking them according to a scale of importance (minor, significant, major).
Identify the relevance of different barriers and success factors over the course of the
implementation process for the IC
The focus groups identified the timing within the implementation process when the different
barriers and success factors were most important according to a series of defined options (i.e.
continuous, planning phase, implementation phase, operation phase, evaluation phase)
Identify generic understandings of transferability issues across the ICs
The focus groups considered the extent to which identified transferability issues apply across
each of the three ICs. There was an opportunity to consider if generic understandings of these
issues and their relative importance could be identified.
Develop recommendations on transferability of ICs
There was an opportunity to consider the key findings to emerge from the focus group
sessions and to identify key recommendations in relation to the transferability of ICs



2.3    Discussion topics and questions
Corresponding to the objectives outlined above, the discussion in the focus groups was
broadly oriented at the following sequence of topics. For each topic the key questions that
should be addressed are indicated.
      • IC impacts and measures of success
         •   What are the most useful/important impacts/measures of success?
         •   Are there any other impacts/measures of success that have not been identified?
         •   Is there an order of priority for these impacts/measures of success?
         •   Are these measures of success effective?
      • Transferability success factors and barriers
         •   Can we identify significant Political, Economic, Social, Technological and
             Environmental success factors and barriers in relation to transferability?
         •   Can we differentiate between different success factors and barriers in terms of
             their relative importance?
         •   Can we determine the stages during the implementation of an IC when different
             success factors and barriers are important?
      • Generic understandings of transferability issues across the ICs
         •   Can we identify transferability issues which apply across all 3 ICs?

                                               6
  •   Is there commonality across the 3 ICs in terms of the relative importance and
      timing of transferability issues?
  •   Can we identify key generic understandings to emerge from the comparison of
      transferability issues across the 3 ICs
• Key findings and recommendations
  •   Can we identify key transferability findings to emerge from the focus group
      discussions?
  •   Can we translate key findings into some key recommendations for transferability?




                                       7
3. Focus group sessions
The discussions in the four parallel Working Groups were moderated by the respective WG
leaders. The main issues and outcomes for the NICHES+ project are summarised below.

3.1     WG1 – Innovative Concepts to Enhance Accessibility

Table 2: WG1 participants
Name                          Organisation                      Role / Expertise

Eduardo Escudero              APEBU – Asociación Plan           Champion City / region
                              Estratégico de Burgos, Spain
Angelika Gasteiner            Salzburg AG Stadtbus, Austria     Travel training for older people
Patrick Hoenninger            Institut für Landes- und          Neighbourhood accessibility
                              Stadtentwiclungsforschung (ILS)   planning, Frankfurt example
Hervé Lambert                 Syndicat Mixte des Transports,    Champion City / region
                              Artois-Gohelle, France
Kevin Northrop                Manchester Travel Training        Travel training for young people
                              Partnership                       with special needs
Alexander Pilz                Verkehrsverbund Berlin-           Travel information for disabled
                              Brandenburg (VBB)                 people (BAIM+ project)
Mario V. Sanjuán García       APEBU – Asociación Plan           Champion City / region
                              Estratégico de Burgos, Spain
Urs Walter                    City of Zurich                    Neighbourhood accessibility
                                                                planning / walking and cycling
Matthias Fiedler              Rupprecht Consult                 Rapporteur
Sebastian Bührmann            Rupprecht Consult                 Moderator




The session started with a presentation on the approach for the session and an overview of
the three innovative NICHES+ concepts.
The Working Group split up in three smaller teams working on the innovative concepts:
    • Concept 1.1 “Travel training for public transport”: Angelika Gasteiner, Hervé Lambert,
        Kevin Northrop, Mario Sanjuán García
    • Concept 1.2 “Neighbourhood accessibility planning”: Patrick Hoenninger, Urs Walter,
        Sebastian Bührmann
    • Concept 1.3 “Tailored traveller information for users with reduced mobility”: Eduardo
        Escudero, Alexander Pilz, Matthias Fiedler


                                               8
3.1.1 Innovative Concepts – Impacts and Measures of Success
In the discussion, it was highlighted that (as for many soft measures), they may kick-off a
process of improvements. In general, mobility measures need some time to prove impacts.

Table 3: Overview of potential impacts and measures of success
Impact                                                                   How to measure success?                    Comments/ examples
Concept 1.1: Travel training for public transport
                                    Trainees gain confidence &       Visibly in daily life of trainees.              Manchester
  Young people with special needs




                                    independence, social inclusion,  Feedback from young people, their
                                    young people are less vulnerable parents and teachers/ carers.
                                    Good effect on social activities &   Visible in trainees’ daily life. Young Manchester
                                    school attendance                    people, parent, teacher/carer feedback
                                    Parents are less worried             Feedback from parents (home visits)         Manchester
                                    Potential to reduce costs of         Cost analysis, expenditures for special Essex
                                    special transport services           transport services.
                                    Increased awareness                  User feedback                               Manchester
                                    Image gain for PT and potentially User feedback, user number (but no
                                    higher patronage                  clear cause-effect determination)
                                    “Green effects”, reduced car use     User feedback
                                    to take kids to school
                                    Keeping older people in public       Surveys, analysis of user numbers in        Difficult to measure impact
                                    transport & reduce car use,          PT according to age groups                  statistically
                                    enable independence
  Older people




                                    Reduction of accidents with older Observation of how accident numbers            Difficult to relate accident
                                    people in PT                      and types develop                              statistics directly to training
                                    Older people feel more safe,         Questionnaires after training               Regular surveys in Salzburg
                                    secure & comfortable on PT                                                       among participants
                                    Image gain for PT operators          Surveys
                                    Potentially higher patronage         Analysis of user groups and numbers         Often PT patronage stats don’t
                                                                                                                     include this info
Concept 1.2: Neighbourhood accessibility planning (NAP)
Fostering lively neighbourhoods, use                                     Counting people, surveys                    Copenhagen: catalogue for
of public space & social interaction as                                                                              counting people in public
well as social inclusion                                                                                             space, Zurich counts &
                                                                                                                     surveys to assess changes1
Positive press coverage and image                                        Observation of media coverage,              Munich
gain for local authority                                                 citizen feedback
Supporting re-urbanisation trends                                        Difficult to measure effect of NAP,
                                                                         could obtain input on this by evaluating
                                                                         wishes and preferences of different
                                                                         types of households regarding the
                                                                         residential environment
Better citizen involvement &                                             Feedback from citizens (participatory       Munich, Frankfurt
legitimating of measures                                                 processes)
Better coordination within public                                        Difficult to measure                        Munich, Frankfurt
administration & better integration of
planning activities
Concept 1.3: Tailored traveller information for users with reduced mobility
Benefit for all passengers from                                          Positive user feedback, user trials         BAIM (VBB/ RMV)
accessibility information
Positive impact on independent living                                    Positive user feedback, user trials         BAIM (VBB/ RMV)
of mobility impaired people
Potential for increased patronage                                        No evidence, hard to measure impact
Save costs for D-t-D services                                            No evidence, hard to measure impact


1 The following websites and material provide further insight into the topic of surveying public space:
    http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/ted/de/index/taz/publikationen_u_broschueren/moberhebung_20071.html
    http://www.stadt-zuerich.ch/content/ted/de/index/taz/mobilitaet/fuss-_und_veloverkehr/fussverkehr.html


                                                                                         9
In the travel training scheme for young people with special needs in Greater
Manchester, pupils gain confidence when using public transport regularly, and become more
independent, with positive impacts on school attendance and social activities with friends.
Young people are less vulnerable when out after travel training (greater awareness of
personal safety, stranger danger, road safety and communication training using mobiles).
Given concerns regarding safety and security, personal contact with parents has been
important, as has informal personal communication (e.g. home visits). For public authorities,
the key aims are to increase public transport use and save money for dedicated services. In
Manchester, initial resources came from national government and there is still dependence on
external funding. In Essex, good cost savings have been achieved.
For travel training for older people in Salzburg, two key arguments convinced decision
makers. Firstly, increasingly older people use private vehicles, so action is needed to retain
public transport patronage. Secondly, accidents involving older people on public transport are
an issue of concern. Older people’s fears (accidents, harassment, getting lost …) must be
considered. Travel training can support independent living for older people. However, it must
be part of an integrated package including awareness raising, information, communication,
staff training and campaigns for younger users. This improves the image of public transport
resulting in higher patronage. It is difficult to link accident statistics directly to the training,
since few people are actually trained. It is almost impossible to measure the impacts of
accompanying PR and awareness raising activities, even though the benefits are obvious.
Neighbourhood accessibility planning goes beyond transport planning to address urban
planning issues. Unattractive public space, safety issues of non-motorised road users and a
bad image of an area are starting points for initiatives. When devising a project (and selling it
to decision makers), supporting more activities in public space (cafés, children playing… ) can
be effective. A further selling point might be the generation of positive press coverage.
Neighbourhood accessibility planning supports re-urbanisation and citizen participation. It is a
challenge to transfer the concept from “green-minded” inner city quarters to other areas;
quantitative evaluation is difficult. A further, non-public benefit from neighbourhood
accessibility planning can be better cooperation within public administration, as various
departments need to collaborate on the matter.
Tailor-made traveller information for people with reduced mobility benefits all
passengers, as it offers information that is relevant for all. It is hard to link increased patronage
to single measures. Projects like BAIM may raise passenger expectations. Intensive market
research and evaluation are crucial for success. While decision makers are aware of the
service, customers must be better informed. Better travel information for users with special
requirements may save costs for dedicated services whilst improving the patronage of
mainstream public transport. It is hard to objectively prove this, particularly in big cities like
Berlin. In general, public transport is not economically competitive. When introducing new
services, additional costs and cost savings must be considered.

3.1.2   Brainstorm and discussion of transferability issues


Concept 1.1 “Travel training for public transport”
The focus of the discussion was on two target groups: Older people and young people with
special needs. This was due to the expertise in these specific fields amongst participants.2




2 NICHES+ will also look at playful travel training for school children. The input will be collected via
interviews with practitioners.


                                                  10
Table 4: PESTE analysis of transferability issues, Travel training (TT)
Concept 1.1: “Travel training for public transport”
POLITICAL           ECONOMIC                 SOCIAL                 TECHNOLOGICAL/ ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                                    ORGANISATIONAL
                                              Success factors
Dedicated team      Initial cash injection   Involve NGO            Infrastructure        Reduce car use
                                                                    accessible
Will to start (in   Low cost project         Project champion       Training for bus      Personal one-to-one
one organisation)                            (testimonial)          drivers               training
Improves image      Start small and build    Independent life       Involvement of PT     Early access to
of public transport step by step             (political target)     company               public transport
Addressing the      Budget: Time & money     Personal touch in      Use experience of     Flexible approach
target group                                 delivery               other schemes
Demographic         Demographic              Communication          Dedicated team
change              development
                                             Reduce accidents –
                                             increase safety
                                             Information brochure
                                             & DVD build
                                             confidence
                                                   Barriers
Raise awareness                                                     Old infrastructure
                                                                    Bus driver training
                                                                    Dangerous urban
                                                                    environment


To run a successful TT scheme, a dedicated team (ideally 3 or more people) is necessary. It
needs the will to really want the project. Women have advantages, since empathy, patience
and communication skills are needed. It does not need to start as a perfect scheme, but can
be built up in small steps. A PR company could be directly involved, but it is not a good idea
to do TT schemes 100% externally.
TT improves the image of PT, not only among trained people, but in general. Face-to-face
work with customers can be used for PR as well. This helps to convince decision makers in
PT companies. It is necessary to raise awareness among politicians and decision makers
on travel training. Their view is often far from user needs. Decision makers must be clear that
TT contributes to independent living. In terms of demographic change, decision makers still
focus on low-floor buses. They are less aware of non-technical ageing issues. TT measures
can raise awareness. Politicians may be equally interested in accessibility improvements for
different target groups. TT may reduce accidents and social costs. Accidents can have a
psychological impact on older people, curtailing active participation in society. For young
people a lot of road safety is included in the training making independent travel safer.
When working with older people, it is important to address them personally, taking into
account their fears, wishes and concerns. Letters work better than leaflets; older people prefer
conservative media and dislike offensive advertising. When working with schools, you may
have organisational issues since schools rarely have staff responsible for this topic. Working
with a NGO or D-t-D organisation, which has credibility among the target group may help. TT
cannot work in isolation and must be embedded in a communication & information
strategy. People want a personal service. Older people struggle with anonymous delivery. It
needs special skills to communicate with older people. Special help lines are needed since
participants in travel training scheme for younger people with special needs (Manchester) are
not patient enough for “normal” telephone hotlines.
Concessionary fares for pupils are a major source of funding, but demographic change will
mean fewer children. Therefore, it is an economic need to attract older passengers – who
are no longer a captive user group. There is little data available on older people in PT. More
travel training for young people with special needs is needed in the future (e.g. autism seems

                                                       11
to be on the rise). TT schemes are low-cost measures, but require considerable staff effort.
An initial cash injection is necessary to make things running. National or European money
may help and also convince decision makers.
It is important to start TT schemes with small steps and small groups; each team has to
learn how it works. Brochures can be a good aid at the start. Involving a dedicated NGO may
help gather knowledge and expertise. It is important to work closely with all stakeholders. A
famous person or politician can serve as role model or “face” of the project. But it is
important that the actual team is not working anonymously. Sometimes, it just helps when
people know that there is a contact person they could call, even if they do not make use of
this opportunity. Working with children, it is crucial to stay in close contact with the parents
who must be sure that their children are safe.
Without TT people may stay at home and need even more care. However, not everybody is
eager to accept help, particularly older men.
TT schemes don’t need a perfect infrastructure as they are made to balance accessibility
gaps. However, there should be some level of accessibility before starting such a
scheme. It is crucial to involve bus drivers, who are the main contact person for passengers,
but may have limited social skills and be unaware of different user needs. When talking about
integrated measures, the urban environment around PT stops must be considered.
It helps to build on the experiences of other schemes and adapt good ideas to your
context. Also exchange between different travel trainers is helpful, e.g. in Manchester this
takes place 3 times a year. There are also 2 regional meetings for the north of England.
TT may have positive impacts on modal split. It is important to get older people into PT early,
so 60 is a better age than 84. Later, you can only train to maintain abilities, not to learn new
ones. It is best to start with children…


Concept 1.2 “Neighbourhood accessibility planning” (NAP)
This concept requires a relatively complex process that involves many stakeholders. The
scope of participatory processes and cooperation arrangements offers some flexibility in
setting-up activities.

Table 5: PESTE analysis of transferability issues, NAP
Concept 1.2: “Neighbourhood accessibility planning”
POLITICAL           ECONOMIC                   SOCIAL                 TECHNOLOGICAL/ ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                                      ORGANISATIONAL
                                                Success factors
Local champion      Special attention to local Despite single pilot   Cooperation within    Contribution to better
                    businesses (defined        projects, later need   public                air quality and noise
                    committee)                 for equal treatment    administration        reduction
                                               of quarters as long
                                               term objective
Strategy politically Efficient planning        Social legitimation    Realistic
confirmed            process                   (majority)             expectations
Public interest      Money: process &          Tailored involvement   Easy feedback tools
key argument for Implementation of             of different target
decision makers      measures                  groups
Public relations                                                      Feedback on input
                                                                      from team
                                                                      Adequate
                                                                      visualisation
                                                                      External moderation
                                                                      (controversial
                                                                      topics)
                                                                      Solve internal
                                                                      questions before


                                                        12
                                                                  going public /
                                                                  internal
                                                                  communication
                                                                  Project
                                                                  management
                                                                  (responsible
                                                                  person)
                                                  Barriers
Political “suicide   Perception of certain   Communication        Cooperation within
topics”              cost elements (e.g.     -  Language          public
                     moderation)             -  Cultural          administration
                                             -  “Intellectual”


A politically confirmed strategy is a pre-condition for successful implementation: It helps to
sets targets, define fields of action and ensure ideas can be realised without major
discussions. Some cities have an approved accessibility strategy (e.g. Burgos strategy, Zurich
“Stadträume 2010”3 and mobility strategy with sub-strategies for different target groups).
It is important to highlight the public interest in your activity to bolster support and address
opponents. You must ensure that you are planning for the majority of people in the relevant
area. It is useful to have “local champions” to promote activities. Political “suicide topics”
must be avoided, and it is necessary to keep them out of the participatory discussion.
Neighbourhood accessibility planning schemes must take account of the local economy.
Particularly in areas with decreasing economic activities, restrictions might initially meet
reluctance of shopkeepers and other business people. The benefits to these groups must be
shown. Local shopkeepers should be involved directly, their support can be decisive.
It is better to discuss sensitive topics with the stakeholders directly instead of having a
broad public discussion. Stakeholders must be shown good/best practice examples.
It is important to have an efficient planning process; this means discussions need to stop at
a certain point. External moderators can help to achieve this. It can be difficult to explain the
added value of using external moderation to decision makers. In terms of communication, it is
important to address all target groups in a tailored way, content and media may differ from
group to group (children, older people, women, migrants…). A wide range of participatory
tools is available. It should be used in a tailored way for different target groups (e.g.
neighbourhood walks for older, blind, children).
In the long run, there should be equal treatment of city areas. NAP is chiefly applied in inner
city neighbourhoods (with typically dense and mixed structures, but sometimes social
difficulties), often offering already high quality of life or at least good potential to reach this.
Schemes should avoid creating exaggerated expectations among citizens. NAP schemes
will rarely cause major investments, rather smaller interventions. These limits need to be
communicated clearly. It is crucial to make visible first results & interventions within a
short period, people want to see that their suggestions are put into practice.
The feedback tools should be accessible to all target groups with a focus on personal
feedback. Plans must be readable, citizens are not urban planners. Good non-technical
visualisation is a key. It is important to react to feedback: what will be implemented as
follow-up to citizen’s suggestions?
There must be good cooperation within public authorities to achieve results. This means
good project management and solving problems before going public. Often certain
measures are already planned in the relevant areas, so one task in NAP is to bundle, prioritise
and coordinate better already planned measures.
NAP itself is not expensive; however external moderation and certain elements on the
implementation side require higher efforts. In terms of moderation, decision makers need to be



3 For details see website of the City of Zurich: http://www.stadt-
zuerich.ch/content/ted/de/index/oeffentlicher_raum/heute_und_morgen/strategie/stadtraeume_2010.html


                                                      13
convinced of its utility, regarding investments, priorities must be set. The financial crisis could
affect NAP schemes, when agreed measures are postponed and citizens feel unheard.
NAP has potential to become fashionable, which could help sell it to decision makers. In
Artois-Gohelle, it is needed as public space is of poor quality, walking and urban design must
be improved. Car use prevails and urban sprawl is an additional challenge to be addressed.


Concept 1.3 “Tailored traveller information for users with reduced mobility”
The reference example BAIM/ BAIM Plus is a relatively complex system, which offers a high
level of detail in information and requires substantial resources. The feasibility of a
downscaled approach which could increase the transferability potential was discussed.

Table 6: PESTE analysis of transferability issues, tailored traveller information
Concept 1.3: “Tailored traveller information for users with reduced mobility”
POLITICAL            ECONOMIC                  SOCIAL                   TECHNOLOGICAL/ ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                                        ORGANISATIONAL
                                                Success factors
Present your city / More economic              Social responsibility:   Tailored / requested   More people in PT =
region as           opportunities for more     Development by           information in time    less people in
forerunner          people                     citizens                 (as perspective)       dedicated services =
                                                                                               less CO2
                     Less costs: reduced       All people use same      Targeted market
                     need for D-t-D services   PT = social inclusion    research
                     All users benefit from
                     better information
                                                     Barriers
Lobbying of D-t-D    High development and      Privacy issues           Technology also can
service providers    maintenance costs         (personal service)       exclude people
Politicians prefer                             Direct contact with      Technology
to inaugurate                                  end users                becomes outdated
infrastructure                                                          quickly
                                               Lack of unfiltered       Possibilities vs.
                                               end-user opinion -       efforts
                                               only via lobbies
                                                                        Lack of marketing


The support of politicians is needed. If they can present their city / region as a forerunner
support is more likely. National funding helped make the BAIM project in Germany possible.
External funding is a success factor; making it easier for local decision makers to agree. It is
easier to convince politicians of infrastructure measures, software has less appeal.
One major issue is the door-to-door special transport service lobby (D-t-D). Politicians and
decision makers fear conflicts with them. D-t-D transport is often not in the transport
department but in social affairs, so it requires cooperation within authorities. There can be a
conflict of aims between political strategies, since social strategies favour D-t-D transport
while mobility plans tend to reduce it. D-t-D service providers are unwilling to cooperate (e.g.
combined PT / D-t-D) and are concerned passengers may be reluctant too.
Inter-municipal cooperation is less problematic. Smaller municipalities are often quite open,
as long they don’t have to pay. Cooperating with bigger cities and operators, it is sometimes
difficult to find a responsible person.
A (downscaled) version of such an information scheme is transferable to other cities. All
cities face the problem that not 100% of the physical environment is accessible. Better
information helps to find alternatives and balance the barriers. Each city must define the scale
and quality of information provided. Focusing information on the core network could provide a
good service at reasonable cost. It is unnecessary to include information on every bus stop,
but information on the main stops and interchanges should be available in detail. On much
frequented lines, no real time information on vehicle accessibility is required. It can be useful

                                                        14
to introduce different accessibility levels in the information (e.g. limited barrier free and fully
barrier free, which corresponds to the degree of impairment).
Operators are concerned about detailed information that uncovers gaps in their service
quality (e.g. if an accessible vehicle is scheduled but a high-floor bus is operating instead).
Improved PT information may contribute to better identification of the users with PT, since
the users contribute to the scheme (e.g. by informing operators on damaged infrastructure).
Involving more people in mainstream public transport increases social inclusion.
There is a conflict of aims regarding privacy: Offering tailor-made information requires user
data, which sometimes users prefer not to provide (relying on standard information systems)
When determining user needs, it is hard to gather end-user’s opinion. Different user groups
represent impaired passengers, but it is difficult to contact non-organised users. Un-biased
feedback is required from both associations and non-organised users to assess user needs.
Improved traveller information services require marketing. Limited marketing efforts mean
most (impaired) users are not aware of the new service. This is important, since user should
contribute to the scheme with information on problems with vehicles / infrastructure.
On the technological side, the opportunity to get tailor-made information is a clear success
factor. However, efforts to obtain the necessary data cannot be neglected. In terms of
operation, technology cannot replace personal service and information. Fears and other
concerns need to be addressed by other means. Technology becomes outdated quickly and /
or is not compatible with other equipment / software.
In terms of transferability, such measures can only be realised in cooperation with the
private sector that provides software and technology. Contractual, license and
compatibility issues can hinder transferability. Stockholm are interested in implementing such
a scheme. A homemade solution could save money and issues (Burgos bicycle example).

3.1.3      Refinement of transferability issues
Concept 1.1 “Travel training for public transport”
Travel training for public transport needs a dedicated team of implementers with involvement
of the public transport company and/or the “organisers” of public transport. The “will to do
something” and to change things is key. This is crucial throughout the whole implementation
process. Of course, the necessary budget for the activity and time for staff is needed.
For the planning phase it is advisable to involve an NGO working with the target group for the
training (a lobby group, or directly working with the target group). The NGO can be an initiator
of travel training (e.g. Salzburg, ZGB Salzburg – an organisation which acts for the interests of
older people). Experience from other places can help to avoid repeating mistakes. In the
operational phase communication with the target group is key. For travel training for young
people with special needs, communication to parents and teachers is crucial.

Table 7: Refinement matrix of transferability issues, Travel training
         Concept 1.1: “Travel training for public transport”
                                        Minor                     Significant                Major Importance
         Continuous           Accessible infrastructure    Improved image of PT          Involvement of public
                              (SF)                         (SF)                          transport company (and
                              Demographic                                                organisers, e.g. Public
                              development (SF)                                           transport executives) (SF)
                                                                                         Dedicated team (SF)
         Planning phase       Start small and build step     User experience of others   Involve NGO (SF)
                              by step (SF)                   (SF)
Timing




                              Initial cash injection (SF)
         Implementation                                                                  Communication
         phase                                                                           Information
                                                                                         -    Brochure
                                                                                         -    DVD
                                                                                         build confidence (SF)
                                                                                         Budget: time + money
                                                                                         (SF)
         Operation phase      Training for bus drivers       Addressing the target       Communication


                                                            15
                              (SF/B)                   group with tailored          Information
                                                       approach (SF)                -    Brochure
                                                       Flexible approach (one 2     -    DVD
                                                       one and/or group) (SF)       build confidence (SF)
                                                       Personal touch in delivery
                                                       (SF)
         Evaluation phase     Reduced accidents ,      Reduction in need for        Feedback from clients and
                              increased safety (SF)    home to school transport     other significant
                              Reduced car use (SF)     (SF)                         stakeholders (SF)
SF=Success factor, B=Barrier

Concept 1.2 “Neighbourhood accessibility planning” (NAP)
It is key to have a politically confirmed strategy that backs up the activities. This will usually
determine the available budget for the participatory process and the measures that will be
carried out as a result of the process.
The participation process gives social legitimation for implementation of the measures.
Planners often already know what the priorities are, but lack the legitimation to achieve
political support to carry out adequate measures or activate the required resources.
It is crucial to have good internal cooperation within the public administration and to solve
internal problems before going public.
Local businesses oppose the concept; they are usually strong stakeholders and may act in a
counterproductive way if they feel that their interests are not sufficiently taken into account. It
is advisable to pay special attention to communication with these stakeholders.
In potentially conflicting situations it may be advisable to use an external moderator who is
neutral and knows the tools and strategies to come to commonly accepted solutions. Well
managed and professional public relations (in all phases) are a key success factor.

Table 8: Refinement matrix of transferability issues, NAP
         Concept 1.2: “Neighbourhood accessibility planning”
                                      Minor                  Significant                Major Importance
         Continuous                                                                 Social legitimation
                                                                                    (majority) (SF)
                                                                                    Cooperation within public
                                                                                    administration (SF)
                                                                                    Strategy politically
                                                                                    confirmed (SF)
                                                                                    Money (SF/B)
                                                                                    -    Process
                                                                                    -    Implementation of
                                                                                         measures
                                                                                    Cooperation within public
                                                                                    administration (B)
Timing




         Planning phase                                Realistic expectations       Special attention to local
                                                       (SF)                         businesses (defined
                                                       Transfer of best practice    committee) (SF)
                                                       (make possible changes       Solve internal questions
                                                       visible) (SF)                before going public (B)
         Implementation                                Tailored involvement of      External moderation
         phase                                         different target groups      (controversial topics) (SF)
         (Participation                                (SF)                         Public relations (SF)
         process)                                      Adequate visualisation
                                                       (SF)
         Operation phase                               Easy feedback tools (SF)
         (Implementation of
         measures)
         Evaluation phase                                                           Feedback on input from
                                                                                    responsible persons (SF)
SF=Success factor, B=Barrier




                                                      16
Concept 1.3 “Tailored traveller information for users with reduced mobility”
A solely technological approach can be a barrier for certain user groups. Not all people are
comfortable with IT. The (theoretical) technical possibilities of traveller information are
enormous, but getting accurate and up-to-date data into the system requires a lot of effort. Not
all regions in Europe can realise a complex and resource intense system like BAIM.
Downscaling the approach and focussing on certain static information is easier to realise.
In the planning phase, lobbying with D-t-D service providers, which might see the new system
as a threat, may be crucial. Targeted market research is key to respond to user needs. Work
with interest groups is important, but their representatives may not agree with individual users.
It is important to involve both interest groups and individual users.
The best information system will only have an impact if potential users are aware of it.
Marketing is crucial in the implementation and operation phase. It should be communicated
that the service is not only for disabled and older people but for every citizen that has any form
of mobility impairment (also temporal, e.g. carrying luggage).

Table 9: Refinement matrix of transferability issues, Tailored traveller information
         Concept 1.1: “Travel training for public transport”
                                        Minor              Significant                      Major Importance
         Continuous           More economic                Technology becomes           Technology can also
                              opportunities for more       outdated quickly (B)         exclude people (B)
                              people (SF)                  Present your city/ region    Possibilities vs. efforts (B)
                                                           as forerunner (SF)
         Planning phase                                    Politicians prefer to        Lobbying of D-t-D service
                                                           inaugurate infrastructure    providers (B)
                                                           (B)                          Lack of unfiltered end-
                                                                                        user’s opinion (B)
                                                                                        Targeted market research
                                                                                        (SF)
         Implementation                                    Direct end-user contact      Lack of marketing (B)
         phase                                             (SF)
Timing




                                                           High development and
                                                           maintenance costs (B)
         Operation phase                                   All users benefit from       Lack of marketing (B)
                                                           better information (SF)      All people use same
                                                           Tailored requested           public transport   social
                                                           information on time          inclusion (SF)
                                                           (prospect) (SF)
                                                           Acceptance: privacy
                                                           (personalised service) (B)
         Evaluation phase                                  More people in PT=less in
                                                           dedicated services (less
                                                           CO2 etc.) (SF)
                                                           Social responsibility:
                                                           development by citizens
                                                           (SF)
SF=Success factor, B=Barrier

3.1.4 Key results
Positive impact and measuring success
All three concepts provide a range of positive impacts from the level of the individual user (e.g.
more self-confidence for PT users) to the level of societal benefits (e.g. quality of public space,
environment). User feedback (informal and via surveys) shows people benefit from the
measures. It is in many cases difficult to measure the concrete impact quantitatively. Counting
(e.g. people in public space over years, older users on bus) is possible, but does not always
tell much about the cause and effect and the relation to the implemented measure.
Political factors
All three concepts build on the interest and motivation of stakeholders involved in
implementation. The “will” to change something and to involve the potential users and other
affected stakeholders is a common feature. The positive perception of and image gain for

                                                          17
public transport operators or public administration is a success factor for the implementation
process. Support from politicians or back up through political strategies can be a key factor.
Economic factors
Travel training is a cost efficient measure requiring comparably little resources, but a constant
funding stream to keep activities alive. This needs to be looked at in a more differentiated way
for participatory approaches in NAP and tailored traveller information system. The full range of
participatory tools for NAP (as applied in Munich) may not be feasible for cities that do not
have sufficient financial resources for a complex approach. It may be possible to extract
certain elements that are less resources intensive and achieve valuable results. For tailored
traveller information systems for users with reduced mobility the BAIM approach is at the
forefront of what is currently possible. However, downscaling is recommended for places that
do not have the resources available for such a complex system with a lot of data
requirements. It will be a task for NICHES+ to look further into this. The positive societal
benefits of the concepts are an economic success factor and motivator for implementation.
Social
All three concepts respond to the user or affected citizen with tailored approaches. Compared
to the common ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach, considering the individual needs of certain groups
is a success factor for the implementation process. Key is to understand the user needs and
develop tailored responses. Ideally there is a “personal touch” in the communication with
users who are directly involved in the process (e.g. via trials, participatory approaches).
Technological/ organisational
A range of different factors was listed for a smooth technological and organisation
implementation of the three concepts. Good project management, the use of adequate tools
and methodologies and the involvement of the right expertise are crucial. Sometimes it is
highly recommended or a must to involve external experts, e.g. moderators for neighbourhood
accessibility planning or technical experts for traveller information.
Environmental
All three concepts can reduce the negative impact of transport on the environment, although
this is not the prime motivator, which is social inclusion.
Transferability
All three concepts appear transferable to other places. Perhaps easiest to transfer is the travel
training concept, which can be implemented with comparatively little resources and a small
dedicated team. Taking account of experiences in forerunner cities is highly recommended.
For neighbourhood accessibility planning and tailored traveller information, transferability
seems highly feasible, while it may be necessary to downscale the approaches to a level that
can realistically be implemented with less resources beyond the good practice examples.




                                               18
3.2 WG2 – Concepts for Efficient Planning and Use of Infrastructure and
    Interchanges

Table 10: WG2 participants:
Name                     Function/ Institution                     Role/Expertise


Zsolt Berki              Transman, Hungary                         Moderator

János Monigl             Transman, Hungary                         Rapporteur

András Székely           Transman, Hungary                         Rapporteur

Harling Hayes            Cork City Council, Ireland                Champion City representative

Peter Blake              Worcestershire County Council, UK         Champion City representative

Attila Gönczi            University of Timisoara, Romania          Expert

Yanni Papapanagiotu      Systema, Greece                           Expert

Javier Aldecoa           Consorcio Regional de Transportes de      Expert
                         Madrid, Spain
András Karsa             BKV (PT Operator for Budapest), Hungary   Expert

Klára Macsinka           ProUrbe, Hungary                          Expert

Silke Moshitz            Eurocities, Belgium                       Expert




A presentation was given about the project, the program, the agenda, the tasks and aims of
the meeting, and the concepts with examples. The following discussion led to the conclusion
that the experts invited had a broad view on the WG2 ICs and they tried to bring more
complex ideas and views into the discussion. This was especially the case for:
       IC 2.1 – Passenger friendly interchanges, where the interchange as a transport
       function was mixed partly with commercial and social centre features and, also the
       needs of first time and regular users raised different issues;
       IC 2.2 – Innovative bike facilities for interchanges, where the idea objective –
       promoting cycling – led to a general discussion on encouraging people to use their bike
       daily, thus including cycling as a means of transport instead of purely as an access
       mode to/from an interchange.
A general view on transferability was that it is difficult to select best practice examples that
might be transferred because of the variability of the context conditions for implementation.

The teams working on the different concepts were:
   • Concept 2.1. Passenger friendly interchanges: this group had real experience of these
       issues in relation to large scale interchanges

                                                      19
             o Javier Aldecoa
             o Yanni Papapanagiotu
             o (Silke Moshitz on behalf of the consortium)
             o (Zsolt Berki on behalf of the consortium)
   •    Concept 2.2. Bike parking at interchanges: these experts were particularly experienced
        in the promotion of cycling as a competitive mode
             o Klára Macsinka
             o Attila Gönczi
             o (András Székely on behalf of the consortium)
   •    Concept 2.3. Innovative bus systems
             o András Karsa
             o Peter Blake
             o Harling Hayes
             o (János Monigl on behalf of the consortium)
The PESTE approach worked well for all ICs but the results of the refinement matrix exercises
usually was characterised by the professional background of the experts (e.g. planners tend to
stress the importance and role of planning responsibilities).

3.2.1 Innovative Concepts – Impacts and Measures of Success
Summary of the outputs of the plenary discussion:
Impacts of IC 2.1:
     • increased safety
       • higher capacity
       • social impacts (difficult to measure)
       • most likely to act as a meeting point as well
       • noise level decrease
       • passengers are better informed – less complaints and need for personal care
       • landmark (sight) of the town
Measures of IC 2.1:
       • passenger satisfaction surveys
       • measure the number in the row in front of the information desk
       • setting standards for the key criteria (‘User Charter’)
       • staff interviews
Impacts of IC 2.2:
     • increase of number of bike users
       • decrease of number of cars
Measures of IC 2.2:
       • trip statistics
       • benchmarking
       • count the bikes at the interchanges
       • wider view: measures should be taken into consideration not only at the interchange


                                                 20
Impacts of IC 2.3:
     • increase of operation speed
     • higher capacity
     • time savings
     • impact on other modes of transport
     • impacts on car users
     • commercial and economic impacts
Measures of IC 2.3:
     • trip statistics
     • household surveys
     • video detection


Responses to the four questions:
1. What are the most useful/important impacts/measures of success?
   These ICs try to facilitate the public transport usage of current users by providing better
   facilities and shorter travel times (generalised travel cost savings) and to make public
   transport usage more attractive by removing/easing barriers during the trip. At the same
   time ICs should generate excessive operating costs. Safety and security issues were
   mentioned in several contexts and the general conclusion was that the measures could
   and should gain benefits in these areas as well. Among externalities, a reduction in noise
   pollution, particularly at junctions on the transport network, should be achieved (IC2.1).
   The success factors are primarily the time saving components and the number of
   new/attracted users achieved with costs savings; the latter is especially the case for IC
   2.3. Safety and security were highly ranked primarily in connection with IC2.1.
   The measurement tools and methods for the success factors mostly concentrated on user
   surveys and trip and other statistics. In case of IC 2.2 the simplest way was suggested:
   count the bikes in front of the station. However the importance of measuring a wider area
   arose for all ICs since the real needs and effects can be identified by broadening the
   monitored area only. Benchmarking was widely accepted and supported by the experts.
2. Are there impacts/measures of success that have not been identified?
   Further impacts and their measurements are mostly related to the possible accompanying
   measures and phenomena as summarised below:
   For IC2.1 the commercial impacts are difficult to identify and measure and involve many
   aspects. Another issue is the customer – staff relationship. If information for customers
   and/or staff (especially drivers) is not timely or clear than it can generate conflicts between
   these groups. New travel information technologies can help to address these issues, but
   their impact is difficult to measure. Only the row length and the number of interactive users
   were mentioned.
   For IC2.2 the ‘first’ and ‘last’ mile solution are often different (in the ‘first mile’ – e.g. a trip
   from home to the station – private bikes can be used, but in the ‘last mile’ – e.g. from
   interchange to the destination – a bike rental system is a more likely solution). IC2.2
   concentrates primarily on the ‘first mile’, therefore the impacts and measures of a bike
   rental system are not fully covered (where the business model and the operation of the
   system are crucial issues). The decrease of theft incidents is the most likely impact, but it
   is primarily a security issue (rather than a transport issue) to be addressed by the site
   manager/operator.




                                                   21
    For IC2.3 the enforcement of bus priority regulations and interaction with other road users
    was seen as a crucial issue during the discussions, but there are large cultural differences
    across Europe reflected in the variation in national legislation and its application.
3. Is there an order of priority for these impacts/measures of success?
    The number of users attracted was seen as the most important measure of success.
    Benefits to existing users came next. The ranking order reflected the need to market a new
    project to decision makers.
    Externalities (especially noise and safety) were specifically emphasised in connection with
    IC2.1 (interchanges), but were also relevant to the other ICs.
    The most important tools for measuring success were seen to be surveys of users and the
    collection, interpretation and presentation of appropriate statistical information was seen
    as key to establishing an evidence base for assessment
4. Are these measures of success effective?
    The attendees agreed that measurement of success and the collation of feedback were
    essential practices in the evaluation of any transport intervention. It was stated that a
    widely applicable guide on evaluation existed for IC2.1 and IC2.3.


3.2.2    Brainstorm and discussion of transferability issues

Table 11: PESTE analysis of transferability issues, WG2
Concept 2.1:
Passenger friendly
interchanges
POLITICAL               ECONOMIC               SOCIAL                 TECHNOLOGICAL           ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                Success factors
public transport        reduce walking         good sign              good travel             Increase patronage
share increase          transfers between      positioning            information (inside
                        modes                                         interchange)
institutional co-       interchange            functional design      good building design noise level decrease
operation               management
timetable                                      reference points                               high quality internal
coordination                                                                                  conditions
between modes
                                               commercial &
                                               cultural functions
                                               integrated ticketing
                                                     Barriers
ticketing               expensive design       Human+property         ticketing               land use around the
                        solution               safety                                         interchange
stakeholder needs       cost of travel info    Multi-language         travel planning
                        systems                environment            information
                        integrated ticketing
Concept 2.2:
Cycling facilities at
interchanges
POLITICAL               ECONOMIC               SOCIAL                 TECHNOLOGICAL           ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                Success factors

Political will          Economic crisis is     bike fleet bigger than lower PT network        modal share of bike
(Decision makers        an advantage for       the actual use         density
are bikers?)            cheaper modes
                        Low investment         theft safe             bike can be a part of   helps more
                        costs                                         a longer trip chain     environmental
                                                                                              friendly modes


                                                            22
                                             available for a wide don’t need high tech   Topology (plain)
                                             range of user groups
                                                                    existence of bike
                                                                    hiring system
                                                                    good/easy
                                                                    transferability
                                                   Barriers
Number of drivers >   less money for         society & economy                           Topology
number of bikers      marketing              is car based                                (mountainous)
                                             strongly connected
                                             to local conditions
Concept 2.3:
Innovative bus
systems
POLITICAL             ECONOMIC               SOCIAL                 TECHNOLOGICAL        ENVIRONMENTAL
                                              Success factors
public & professional available funding      population density     lane capacity        less environmental
pressure                                                                                 burdens in the city
political will        time savings for PT    more reliable          low emission         safety improvement
                      users                  services               vehicles
                      more efficient         better access to the   strict enforcement
                      energy use             city
                      operation speed        easier                 good frequency
                      increase-> less        pedestrianization of
                      vehicles               the city centre
                      cheaper realisation    improvement of
                      than other modes       modal share
                                                   Barriers
decision weakness     more congestion for    high dependency on     infrastructure       more congestion in
                      cars+commercial        car                    alignment            the city skirts
                      vehicles
commercial            hindering deliveries   resident parking       missing additional   more environmental
organisations                                                       elements             burden elsewhere



Concept 2.1: Passenger friendly interchanges
In connection with IC2.1, attendees emphasised that ticketing was as a crucial success factor
for a number of reasons:
    •     in political and economic terms, a good ticketing system could reduce the transfer and
          management costs, generate more passengers and improve revenues;
    •     in social terms, an easily understandable and open system could address language
          barriers;
    •     in technological terms, a well developed IT based system simplifies the ticketing
          process, reduce associated costs and helps to share revenues among operators. An
          example of the successful transfer of a ticketing system is that undertaken from
          Barcelona to Athens.
Attendees came to the conclusion that the ‘soft’ side of the interchange (ticketing, information,
coordination of services, institutional co-operation) was almost as important as good physical
design (short walkways, etc.).
In the general discussions the architectural value (landmark, sight) was mentioned but the
IC2.1 group judged that it is not typical enough to mention here.
Concept 2.2: Cycling facilities at interchanges
In many countries with limited motorised mobility, cycling has a poor reputation. In these
contexts political commitment to the promotion of the benefits of cycling and the provision of


                                                       23
complementary services at interchanges (e.g. cycle hire, maintenance and secure storage)
are key factors of success. An unsympathetic policy environment can be a barrier e.g. a
participant pointed to an example where cycle parking was not allowed inside a park & ride car
park. It was seen as important that interchanges take full account of the need to promote the
use of cycling and integrate the needs of cyclists into the facilities and services provided at
interchanges. Ticketing was an area in which cyclists’ needs were often poorly served.
The low costs associated with promoting cycling infrastructure were seen as an important
success factor, particularly in countries where economic conditions do not support large scale
investment in public transport infrastructure and services.
Concept 2.3: Innovative bus systems
For IC2.3 the main success factors identified related to economic and social benefits. The key
success factors are efficiency, time savings, less investment costs than other infrastructure
measures, and the mitigation of environment impacts.
However this is the only concept which is likely to hinder the use of other modes if buses
receive priority access to existing infrastructure. In this context, objections from users of other
modes represent the most significant barrier which must be addressed prior to
implementation.


Looking at the concepts of efficient planning and use of infrastructure and interchanges
attendees shared the view that key success factors for implementation are political will and
commitment. Without such support the best project of the world is likely to fail. All ICs have
economic benefits to some extent, which, if effectively promoted, could facilitate
implementation. IC2.1 and IC2.3 involving buses generate more social issues than IC2.2,
while a number of technological success factors were mentioned for IC2.2. Ticketing has an
important role in the ICs, especially in IC2.1 and IC2.2 as described above.
Environmental issues are important factors in the acceptability of the ICs; usually success
factors were mentioned for IC2.1 and IC2.2, but barriers in 2.3.
A key difference looking across the ICs is that in case of bus systems the factors addressing
the impacts of implementation on all modes of transport sharing the same infrastructure have
a determining role in assessing the viability of such projects.
The success factors and barriers in relation to transferability reflect both ‘external’ issues, such
as land use and economic impacts, and ‘internal’ issues directly connected to the design and
implementation of schemes. In general these findings fit well with the PESTE approach,
however not all design elements were classified as technological issues (reduced walking
transfers was classified as economic success factor in IC2.1).

3.2.3 Refinement of transferability issues
The refinement exercise enabled the experts both to share their views on identified barriers
and to highlight some missing or misinterpreted factors.




                                                24
Table 12: Refinement matrix of transferability issues, WG2
         Concept 2.1: Passenger friendly                                 Issue of Major Importance
         interchanges
                                                          Success Factors             Barriers
         Continuous                                       Public transport share      Land use around the
                                                          increase                    interchange
                                                          Timetable coordination
                                                          between modes
         Planning phase                                   Functional design
                                                          Reduce walking transfers
Timing




                                                          between modes
         Implementation phase                             Good sign positioning
                                                          Good travel information
                                                          (inside the interchange)
         Operation phase                                  Interchange management      Human and property safety
                                                          Integrated ticketing
         Evaluation phase

         Concept 2.2: Innovative cycling facilities for                  Issue of Major Importance
         interchanges
                                                          Success Factors             Barriers
         Continuous                                       Economic crisis is an       Mountainous topology
                                                          advantage for cheaper
                                                          modes
                                                          Bike can be a part of a
                                                          long trip chain
                                                          Modal share of cycling
Timing




                                                          Plain topology
         Planning phase                                   Political will
                                                          Easy transferability
         Implementation phase                             Low investment costs
         Operation phase                                  Low investment costs        Society and economy is car
                                                          Integrated ticketing        based
         Evaluation phase

         Concept 2.3: Infrastructure for innovative                      Issue of Major Importance
         bus systems
                                                          Success Factors             Barriers
         Continuous                                       Population density
         Planning phase                                   Political will              Decision weakness
                                                          Available funding           Infrastructure alignment
         Implementation phase
Timing




         Operation phase                                  Strict enforcement
                                                          Less environmental
                                                          burdens in the city
         Evaluation phase                                 Less environmental
                                                          burdens in the city




Concept 2.1: Passenger friendly interchanges
The transferability prospects for this IC might be deemed to be strong given that 80% of the
issues of major importance were success factors. The IC is particularly associated with social
benefits which show that its impacts are mainly connected to the perceived conditions of
interchanges. Political attitudes are viewed as having an important and continuous impact on
implementation. The major economic factor (reduced walking transfers) was classified to be
evaluated during planning phase, while the major technological success factor (good travel
information) was important in the implementation phase. The principal environmental barrier
(land use around the interchange) was classified as continuous while the main social barrier
(human and property safety) as operation factor.
Ticketing in technological terms is seen as a continuous issue, whilst in economic terms it is
an issue at the planning stage, whereas in political terms it is an issue at the operational


                                                          25
phase. At the evaluation stage, the barrier of a multi-language environment and the success
factor of an increase of patronage as a success factor were seen as significant issues.
It is surprising that good building design was seen as being of minor importance at the
planning phase. This could be the explained by an emphasis being placed on its architectural
value whilst greater importance was devoted issues involving the services of an interchange
like reduced walking transfers and functional design. The cost of a travel information system
was classified as a minor issue too as part of the operation phase.
During the discussion of the results two major comments were added to the IC2.1 results:
      • Multi-language environment is included in the other factors.
      • The cost of travel information systems is also an important implementation issue.
It was emphasised that the assessment of the identified issues was dependent on the
stakeholder group in the planning and evaluation phases.
Concept 2.2: Cycling facilities at interchanges
Six of the issues of major importance were continuous in nature and environmental issues
were strongly represented. It was noted that both society and economy are car based, which
is explains the high proportion of barriers in these PESTE categories, particularly in the
planning and operational phases. Social factors relating to operation and evaluation were
seen as significant as well as supporting measures such as the ticketing/tariff regime in the
planning phase and bike hire schemes in the operational phase.
Concept 2.3: Innovative bus systems
Among the major factors only population density was seen as a continuous issue. Political
factors should be evaluated in the planning phase, as should available funding. Strict
enforcement as a technological success factor is part of the operational phase, whilst the
mitigation of environmental impacts takes place at the evaluation stage.
Among the 16 significant factors 5 are of technological nature, typically of concern in the
planning and operational phases. Social issues are primarily part of the evaluation phase and
were seen as more important than environmental issues. Attendees assigned almost all
economic factors to the continuous phase with significant importance attached to direct
impacts (savings and efficiency). Political and commercial considerations were seen as
significant factors in the planning phase.
The refinement matrix exercise brought up several interesting issues regarding the role of the
already identified factors in the context of transferability. The importance and timing of the
factors provides guidance to identify relevant examples and an adequate strategy to transfer
solutions. The refinement matrix exercise was crucial to identify the different characteristics of
the ICs: the importance of planning in IC2.1, the prominent role of environmental and social
factors in IC2.2 and the political and economic nature of IC2.3.

3.2.4 Key results and recommendations
The following issues were identified by the experts as generic across the three ICs:
      • Political will is always a crucial factor.
      •   Stakeholder views should be collected and analysed carefully before implementation
          and their feedback should be obtained during operation.
      •   Finance/funding is crucial, especially in IC 2.3 which involves higher costs.
      •   Integrated ticketing (time table integration, traveller information integration, physical
          integration etc) is necessary for concepts related to the efficient planning and use of
          infrastructure and interchanges.
Some general issues were raised by attendees on the transferability as follows:
    • Success factors are more important for transferability than barriers (do not ignore
       barriers of course).


                                                26
        •     Cultural difference is a general barrier.
        •     The transferability within the country or between countries is quite a different issue.
        •     Development of an evaluation tool /methodology would be very helpful in identifying
              the best projects and to prove and demonstrate their success.


Recommendations were made by the experts and are summarised briefly by IC:
•  IC 2.1
    •       Identification of key successful criteria of design: physical layout, coordination of
            services, integration of passenger information and ticketing.
    •       Cooperation of the responsible bodies, institutions.
    •       Look after interchange management aspects (staff, commerce).
    •       Provide high quality conditions (indicators: length of queue, chairs, air quality,
            temperature, cleanliness).
    •       Human and property safety and security.
    •       Travel information design and operational issues (easy to understand, multi language).
    •       Issues about interchange internal and external environments should be considered.
    •       Take disabled and impaired issues into account (legislation across Europe).


•   IC 2.2
    •       Make surveys because the society is usually car based.
    •       Local characteristics should be surveyed: culture, topology, traditions.
    •       Advertisement campaigns (promotion) should be specific.
    •       Take into account potential negative impacts on other modes of transport.
    •       Low cost, easy to transfer.
    •       Safety and security issues are important for cyclists (tools: cycling transport policy,
            promotion etc…).


•   IC 2.3
    •       Usually single political (local government) responsibility.
    •       Higher risks of conflicts among stakeholders.
    •       Implementation means restrictions on other modes (car).
    •       Benefits should cover the costs (take into account the impacts on other modes).
    •       Analyze pre-conditions (infrastructure and other modes).
    •       Bus service frequency should be sufficiently high.
    •       The impact of the scheme should be significant.
    •       Needs complementary measures in order for success.
    •       Strict enforcement!
    •       Consultation should be as broad as possible.
    •       Shared usage of the lanes (taxi, bike, HOV lanes etc) is the subject of strong criticism.
    •       Develop an evaluation method.



                                                     27
3.3    WG3 – Traffic Management Centres


Table 13: WG3 Delegates 10-11 December 2008
Name                    Function/ Institution                        Role/Expertise


Simon Edwards           Newcastle University, UK                     Moderator

Amy Guo                 Newcastle University, UK                     Rapporteur

Birger Elvestad         City of Trondheim, Norway                    Champion City representative

Ian Winning             Cork City, Ireland                           Champion City representative

Eric Sampson            Ex-Department for Transport, UK              Expert

Gary Bridgeman          Ertico, Belgium                              Expert

Giuliano Mingardo       Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands   Expert

Danny Vroemen           Imtech, Netherlands                          Expert

Andras Karsa            BKV                                          Expert




An overview presentation delivered the following information:
   • Application of the focus group methodology
   • Objectives of the focus group
   • Background to the concept of transferability
   • Background to the WG3 Innovative Concepts

The overview presentation was used as guidance throughout all four focus group sessions.
The aims of the focus group were:
   • To show how the selected NICHES+ Innovative Concepts (ICs) could be implemented
       successfully in other ‘cities’ in order to encourage the transfer of good practice;
   • To assess whether the success of an IC is dependent on any particular conditions, and
       whether the success achieved and the lessons learnt in one ‘city’ can be transferred to
       other ‘cities’;
   • To focus on success factors and barriers that impact on the development and
       successful implementation of an IC.




                                                   28
An ‘icebreaker’ question was used to get the experts feeling comfortable. This asked about
personal experiences of transferability issues, whether as a ‘donor’, ‘adopter’ or a ‘facilitator’.
Points raised include:
   • Cities should not feel ashamed if something goes wrong when adopting a new
        concept, the crucial thing is to recognise that something has gone wrong;
   • Cities should be prepared to work with other cities (in a ‘club’) to learn from each other
        (both good and bad practice);
   • Cities should seek to learn from previous experience;
   • Research projects are also useful sources of knowledge and expertise;
   • Personal (often informal) relationships between cities can provide many benefits;
   • Political outlook can be a barrier in some circumstances;
   • Neighbouring cities may be competitors and therefore less inclined to work together or
        share knowledge and expertise;
   • The opportunity to ‘pioneer’ a new concept might be attractive;
   • Interoperability of technologies may be a barrier to adopting a new concept.

During the second half of the focus group sessions the delegates split into three groups to
discuss each concept independently:
    • IC1 Eric Sampson, Andras Karsa, Danny Vroemen
    • IC2 Giuliano Mingardo, Birger Elvestad
    • IC3 Ian Winning and Gary Bridgeman


3.3.1   Innovative Concepts – Impacts and Measures of Success

The first WG3 focus group session examined the three Innovative Concepts in terms of their
likely impact and measures of success. Four key questions were asked of the experts:
     • What are the most useful/important impacts/measures of success?
     • Are there impacts/measures of success that have not been identified?
     • Is there an order of priority for these impacts/measures of success?
     • Are these measures of success effective?

As a starting point potential impacts/measures of success were identified by the focus group
moderator for each concept. These were presented to the group in the overview presentation,
as follows:

IC3.1 Finance Models for Traffic Management Centres
   • New TMC facility is implemented
   • Existing TMC facility is upgraded

IC3.2 Mobile Travel Information services for the Public
   • Increased efficiency (capacity, journey times, congestion, etc.)
   • Improved safety
   • Environmental benefits (through traffic planning and modal switch, etc.)
   • Enhanced accessibility (prioritisation of commercial vehicles, public transport, etc.)
   • Enhanced Mobility (for public transport passengers with disabilities)




                                                29
IC3.3 Using Environmental Pollution data in Traffic Management
   • Health of residents, workers, transport staff, passengers
   • Environmental management
   • Traffic management
   • Data for health professionals
   • Impact on driver behaviour of policy measures and environmental info
   • Impact on accessibility of activities if revised traffic management and environmental
       policies are implemented

A lengthy discussion took place, much of it focusing on IC3.3, and specifically the need to
engage both politicians and the public in environmental issues in order to work towards
achieving environmental targets. An example was provided whereby CO2 targets have to be
achieved, but this particular pollutant may not resonate with people at an individual level; it
may be easier to engage the public when attempting to reduce other pollutants that they
perceive as impacting on them more directly, e.g. noise. The most successful measures are
therefore those which can be perceived as personal benefits rather than social impacts.

Contradictions between policies were also illustrated e.g. encouraging the use of ‘clean’
vehicles in a city but then not supplying enough free parking to accommodate them.

A further key point raised was the ability to measure success. Quantifiable measurements are
easier to understand and tend to be easier to prioritise.

Finally, the need to share data is important to the concepts within this work group (especially
for IC3.2 and IC3.3). Data might be commercially sensitive, and the need to share it with
possible competitors might therefore be a barrier to successful implementation. There are
different approaches to this dilemma in different countries, e.g. in the Netherlands most traffic
data is centrally owned, thus data sharing is not an issue.

Following the discussion several success factors were clearly identified. These are listed
below in priority:
•      Engage the public
•      Engage politicians
•      Know starting point (evidence-based policies)
•      Set measurable targets
•      Understand primary and secondary impacts
•      Integrate with other concept implementations
•      Implement an innovative funding scheme to enable innovative management schemes
•      Understand local culture and politics
•      Enable technical solutions that encourage efficiency improvements (operations,
       compliance etc.) and durability
•      Understand the long-term impacts of implementation
•      Introduce a clear policy of allocation of the revenue accrued by the scheme

Barriers were identified at the:
•      Political level
•      Implementation level
•      Technological level



                                               30
The success factors and barriers were discussed in more detail in the following sessions.


3.3.2 Brainstorm and discussion of transferability issues
The second focus group session analysed success factors and barriers to adopting innovative
concepts divided into the following categories: Political (P), Economic (E), Social (S),
Technological (T), and Environmental (E) – a PESTE analysis. The success factors and
barriers are allocated as shown in the table below.

Table 14: PESTE analysis of transferability issues, WG1
Concept 3.1: Finance Models for Traffic Management Centres
POLITICAL               ECONOMIC                SOCIAL                  TECHNOLOGICAL            ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                 Success factors
Sharing with another Saving opportunity         A good TMC opens        TMC can be the           New technology in
site is sensible                                up new travel           basis for other          scheme is greener
                                                options & services      functions
TMCs are voter-         Revenue opportunity A good TMC opens            Risk reduced             Good TMC is
friendly                                    up new policy                                        beneficial for
                                            options                                              emission reduction
Opens up new policy Opens up new policy Model has user                                           Opens up new policy
options             options             payment but social                                       options
                                        climate improves
                                                      Barriers
Not done this           Few opportunities       Different legal         Donor design is          Adopted model
before/not done it in   for private sector      systems                 stand alone but          favours flows over
this way                profit                                          adopter must             environment
                                                                        integrate
Politicians & public    If model has a public   Socio-economic split    Donor sets output
have conflicting        payment & revenue       of donor & adopter      specification &
views of model          goes outside the        could be very           adopter process
                        state                   different               specification or visa-
                                                                        versa
Sharing with another    Care with finance to    If model has public     Technology of donor
site is perceived or    ensure truly open       payment over a long     differs from
presented a             standards &             period & social         technology of
weakness                architecture            climate changes in      adopter
                                                adopter
Adopting may be         Adopted model                                   Poor TMC design
difficult if donor      could lock in state                             closes options
policies do not         operations &
match adopter           exclude private
policies                sector competition
Concept 3.2: Mobile Travel Information services for the Public
POLITICAL               ECONOMIC                SOCIAL                  TECHNOLOGICAL            ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                 Success factors

Political support       Dedicated marketing Reduced need for            Running time of the
                                            assisted travellers         system
                                            (especially VRU)
Understanding the       MTIS is a tool to       User friendliness       Interoperability for
needs of users          create added value                              the users
                        for public transport
                        Quantify the benefits Investment in
                        of MTIS               education
                                                      Barriers
Cost-benefit ratio of   Scale problem for       “Big Brother” effect    Access to                Technology may
MTIS might be a         the service provider    (invasion of privacy)   Broadband etc.           have a negative
problem                                                                                          environmental side
                                                                                                 effect
                                                Social exclusion if     Interoperability for     “Big Brother” effect



                                                          31
                                                  reliant on new           the provider
                                                  technologies to
                                                  deliver MTIS
Concept 3.3: Using Environmental Pollution data in Traffic Management
POLITICAL                ECONOMIC                 SOCIAL                   TECHNOLOGICAL           ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                    Success factors
Strong political         Identify the business Green issues                When solution is not    Agreed standards
leadership essential     case early on         generate a positive         technology-led,
                                               response                    outcome is more
                                                                           likely
Bi-partisan approach Visibility of how            Improve access to        Open systems
could succeed        income is spent              open air or outdoor      should cater for
                     (“rule of three”)            activities               transferability
                         Facilitate inward        Improve social           Agreed ontology is
                         investment               integration              essential
                                                        Barriers
Different political      Difficult to achieve a   Unwilling to accept      Various sources cant    Different physical
parties                  direct return on         costs                    be identified, thus     and climatic
                         investment                                        specific measures       conditions – cities
                                                                           cant be implemented     are all different
Conflict between EU      Impacts on               Local culture and        Closed systems          Complexity of how
& national policies &    profitability            practices                allocated locally bar   conditions change
local interests                                                            transferability         day-to-day
Demarcation                                       Clean air not            Economies of scale      Relevant
between different                                 perceived as a                                   environmental data
govt & local authority                            benefit for particular                           is not widely
departments                                       groups                                           understood



Concept 3.1: Finance Models for Traffic Management Centres
Of the five PESTE categories, the environment category was most difficult to interpret in the
context of this concept. It was noted that some apparent barriers can be success factors. The
following one sentence summary is provided for each category:
P – Financing a new or enhanced TMC will be a political challenge. The public like free
services but politicians are less enthusiastic. There will also be concern about public image in
terms of a financial model;
E – If the chosen model involves public payment, then this is a potential barrier. Furthermore,
the public do not like it when the private sector makes the profits;
S – If a city adopts a certain model, it may implement it in a different way from the donor city;
T – It is important to understand who is going to pay what. It is no good having an excellent
financial model if the technological model is deficient. Donor designs may utilise a different
generation of technology, making integration difficult. However, if a model is borrowed from
donor cities, overall risks are reduced;
E – Impact largely depends on the policy objectives.


Concept 3.2: Mobile Travel Information Services for the Public
The following one sentence summary is provided for each category:
P – MTIS will generally have political support, but must understand user needs, particularly
those of the younger generation in order to keep them using public transport. The drawback is
that it is not always easy to assess the benefits;
E – MTIS will create added value to public transport, however it may be difficult to quantify the
benefits, or understand the scale of service required;




                                                            32
S – It should be user friendly and easy to understand, with new technology reducing the need
to travel, or encouraging public transport use when travel is required. MTIS can also promote
independent travel. There may be “big brother” concerns with some technologies, though this
is generation-specific;
T – The technology infrastructure is essential and may be a barrier to the service providers if it
is prohibitively expensive or inappropriate systems are purchased;
E – There may be possible side-effects of the technology or induced trips from improved
MTIS. It is important to promote improved information for public transport in particular and to
encourage lasting loyalty to non-car modes.


Concept 3.3: Using Environmental Pollution Data in Traffic Management
P – Different political parties have different agendas/objectives, whilst these may also conflict
with EU/national policies. Strong political leadership is essential;
E – Costs and benefits cannot be directly identified. Green models can be barriers to some
companies as they may require new equipment, re-engineered management or business
case;
S – Public acceptance of the direct costs may be difficult to attain. Local culture may have an
impact which is not easy to quantify because there is no direct return e.g. improve social
inclusion, mobility;
T – It is important that a solution is not technology–led. A technology-led solution may not suit
the city, or sensing technology may not identify where the pollution is from;
E –Different physical conditions may impact on a solution, whilst pollution data may be poorly
understood. Agreed standards/measurements are key for a sound understanding of the impact
on neighbouring areas, an example which demonstrates the complexity of pollution analysis.


Generic Factors
Several key generic factors emerged from the discussions:
   •   Understand why an adopting city wants to implement a concept;
   •   Get a focussed message across to the public and politicians, i.e. sell the idea;
   •   Understand which stakeholders are responsible for which aspect of the concept;
   •   Understand the costs and benefits to all stakeholders, including how any accrued
       revenue will be spent;
   •   Understand the consequences of implementing a concept;
   •   Understand the consequences of not implementing a concept;
   •   Understand the secondary consequences of implementing a concept;
   •   Plan each phase of implementation carefully;
   •   Ensure the correct data is available, the technology used is efficient and up-to-date,
       and that operation, maintenance and processing capabilities are available;


Limitations to PESTE Analysis
Although the PESTE analysis worked well and was clearly understood by the teams, certain
identified success factors or barriers were not easy to allocate to the five categories. An
example is legal issues, which could almost warrant a category of its own.




                                               33
3.3.3 Refinement of transferability issues
Session three of the focus group aimed at refining the transferability issues discussed in
session two. It looked in particular at the following:
    • The timing and relative importance of different barriers and success factors
    • Similarities/differences in the matrix outputs between the 3 concepts.
Issues identified as having major importance are presented in the table below. One point
arising is the use of the word ‘importance’. It was suggested in the focus group that ‘impact’
would be more appropriate.

Table 15: Refinement matrix of transferability issues, WG1
         Concept 3.1: Finance Models for Traffic                      Issue of Major Importance
         Management Centres
                                                      Success Factors               Barriers
         Continuous                                   Sharing with another site     Different legal systems
                                                      is sensible;
                                                      Risk reduced
         Planning phase                               TMC can be the basis for      Donor design is stand-
                                                      other functions               alone but adopter needs to
                                                                                    integrate;
                                                                                    Donor sets output
                                                                                    specification and adopter
                                                                                    process specification or
                                                                                    visa-versa;
Timing




                                                                                    Technology of donor differs
                                                                                    from technology of adopter;
                                                                                    Poor TMC design closes
                                                                                    options;
                                                                                    Care with finance to ensure
                                                                                    truly open standards and
                                                                                    architecture
         Implementation phase
         Operation phase
         Evaluation phase                                                           Adopted model favours
                                                                                    flows over environment

         Concept 3.2: Mobile Travel Information                       Issue of Major Importance
         services for the Public
                                                      Success Factors               Barriers
         Continuous                                   Dedicated marketing;
                                                      User friendliness;
                                                      Running time of the
                                                      system
Timing




         Planning phase                               Political support             Access to Broadband, etc.
         Implementation phase
         Operation phase                                                            Scale problem for the
                                                                                    service provider
         Evaluation phase

         Concept 3.3: Using Environmental Pollution                   Issue of Major Importance
         data in Traffic Management
                                                      Success Factors               Barriers
         Continuous                                   Strong political leadership   Different political parties
                                                      essential
         Planning phase                               Identify the business case    Different physical and
                                                      early on;                     climatic conditions – cities
                                                      When solution is not          are all different
                                                      technology-led, outcome
Timing




                                                      is more likely;
                                                      Open systems should
                                                      cater for transferability
         Implementation phase                                                       Difficult to achieve a direct
                                                                                    return on investment
         Operation phase
         Evaluation phase



                                                      34
Concept 3.1: Finance Models for Traffic Management Centres
Technological, economic and social issues are of key relevance. Environmental issues are
relatively low in consideration. There are ten major success factors/barriers, six of which are
technical. All technical factors are of major importance, and focus on the system design and
interoperability. In fact all the major factors are concerned primarily with getting the
specifications for the system absolutely correct as a pre-requisite for robust financing.
Success factors and barriers are spread throughout the matrix to a greater extent than for the
other two concepts. Most social factors affect the operation and evaluation phases, whilst
most political factors affect the planning phase (although a small number are continuous). The
environmental factors are relevant only to the operation and evaluation phases. The
implementation phase isn’t really addressed.
Any system must be open to all involved parties, a recommendation which includes data
sharing requirements.


Concept 3.2: Mobile Travel Information services for the Public
There are only six major success factors or barriers for this concept. Three of these affect the
concept on a continuous basis, although the political factors tend to be only relevant to the
planning phase. Encouragingly four of the six are success factors. These are:
    •   Dedicated marketing;
    •   User friendliness;
    •   Running time of the system;
    •   Political support.
The two barriers are: the problem of scale for the service provider and bandwidth/capacity
challenges.
All technical, political and economic success factors or barriers are of at least ‘significant’
importance. The technical factors relate to efficient operation and interoperability of the
system. The economic factors relate chiefly to the business case for all parties, but especially
service providers. The political issues are fewer in this concept because the concept is
relatively easy to ‘sell’ to the public; there may be relatively minor concerns about privacy
where personal data is used in mobile information systems. Environmental issues are few and
appear to be of minor significance, arising in the evaluation phase.


Concept 3.3: Using Environmental Pollution data in Traffic Management
Most of the barriers and success factors discussed in this concept are relevant to the planning
and implementation phases, although a number are continuous. Only seven are of major
importance, and of these four are success factors. This is a positive finding when assessing
transferability. All political and technical factors/barriers are of at least ‘significant’ importance.
The key issues are political, notably the need for strong leadership and if possible consensus
between political parties. The other key issues are economic and technical, the economic
ones being based around the need for a strong, coherent business case, and the technical
ones based around good decisions on infrastructure, making sure it will be open and
interoperable. Above all there is a need to understand the context conditions in an adopting
city, in terms of technology, political climate and physical/environmental characteristics; for
example, in certain cities success factors or barriers that are cited in this study as ‘minor’
could assume greater significance.


There are some key comparisons revealed by the transferability matrices for Concepts 3.1,
3.2 and 3.3:



                                                  35
   •    The importance of political and technical factors, in particular the need for political
        support, communication with public and technically interoperable systems;
   •    The relatively small number of ‘major’ factors, which should enhance transferability;
   •    The dominance of factors in the planning phase;
   •    Economic factors mostly revolve around strength of business case with the opportunity
        for revenue creation, especially for private sector partners;
   •    Environmental factors assume relatively low importance, and when they do arise do so
        in the operational/evaluation phases;
   •    Every adopting city will be different therefore some factors which are listed as ‘minor’
        may assume greater significance given local characteristics.


3.3.4   Key results and recommendations
Generic understandings of transferability issues across the 3 ICs
  • Social issues were the most mentioned but the least explicit in terms of timescale or
      importance;
   •    Social engagement with the public is crucial to any scheme;
   •    Environmental issues appear to be low down the priority list of donors and adopters,
        and when they do arise do so in the operational or evaluation phase;
   •    Political support for a scheme is a pre-requisite;
   •    The right technology should be sourced, and should be interoperable and open;
   •    Economic issues concern the business case.


Key transferability findings
   • Learn ‘best practice’ during the planning phase;
   •    Environmental issues play a minor role and are likely to be city-specific;
   •    The focus should be on transferring knowledge and experience from the donor city;
   •    The donor city should be able to supply detailed records of all phases;
   •    Formal or informal knowledge-sharing is valuable to an adopting city;
   •    Learn how political and public support was obtained, don’t worry about the media
        (advice for politicians as well as scheme implementers);
   •    Learn from bad practice;
   •    Ensure that the donor city carried out an accurate evaluation;
   •    Create a “framework of dialogue”.


Key recommendations for transferability
   • There is a need for open standards, however these may need to be defined and
      people will need to stick to them;
   •    An expert should be brought in from a donor city to ensure accurate transfer of
        knowledge and expertise;
   •    A generic template (starting point) should be available based on good practice,
        ensuring that the basics are not re-invented;


                                                 36
•   Implementers can also learn from ‘closed’ systems, e.g. airline booking, rescheduling,
    billing systems, etc.;
•   Political support must be obtained, for which leadership is essential;
•   Public support is also essential.




                                           37
3.4        WG4 – Automated and Space Efficient Transport Systems


Table 16: WG4 Delegates 10-11 December 2008
Name                       Function/ Institution                  Role/Expertise


David Jeffery              University of Southampton, UK          Moderator

Mark Beecroft              University of Southampton, UK          Rapporteur

Richard Caple              Daventry District Council, UK          Champion City representative

Malcolm Buchanan           Colin Buchanan & Partners, UK          Expert

David Rowe                 Transport for London, UK               Expert

Michel Parent              INRIA, France                          Expert

Adriano Allessandrini      University of Rome, Italy              Expert

Gilbert Koskela            City of Vantaa, Finland                Expert




Working Group 4 participants discussed transferability issues associated with three innovative
concepts (ICs) related to automated and space efficient transport systems:
     • Group Rapid Transit (GRT)
       • Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)
       • Advanced City Cars (ACC)
Following an introductory presentation some general comments were made:
      • Cities wishing to adopt an IC have a greater opportunity to access funding when the
         success of that concept is clearly proven in other contexts
       •    WG4 ICs are more futuristic/innovative than most others in NICHES+. A weaker
            evidence base of implementation makes it difficult for pioneers to get funding.
       •    Morgantown GRT is a success story over 20 years, why has it not been transferred?
            Is it an isolated system, lacking suppliers for further roll-out?


                                                       38
     •   Pressures which lead to considering alternative transport solutions vary by location in
         type and emphasis, but fuel and congestion issues associated with private car usage
         are generally predominant.
     •   Many larger towns are successful on modal split and promoting existing public
         transport is the way forward. ICs can support existing public transport services,
         providing connections/local travel to link journey origins and destinations


Participants offered their perspectives and experiences on transferability:
A (partial) ACC adopter: Engaged in transferring electric cars into London car club scheme.
Scheme began in 2004 with 20 vehicles; in 2009 there were 1,300 vehicles and 60,000
members, all petrol vehicles until 2008. The model of car share use in London is a major
challenge with intensive use for 2-3 hours then return and pick up. Each vehicle has usage of
6-7 times per day which offers very limited re-charge opportunities for electric vehicles. The
first stage introduction of cleaner vehicles has involved hybrids/plug-in hybrids which offer
petrol back up if electric runs out (Toyota are developing vehicles with lock-in device). 10 mile
range of electric vehicles is a challenge in terms of efficient use and user needs. The concept
of car share is new to many, when coupled with new vehicle technology it’s a very big jump, so
a gradual implementation process is needed. Paris autolib is not comparable to London which
is a purely commercial model, operators bid for bays on street - EDF provide storage /
charging. The London scheme is unlike La Rochelle as a vehicle must be hired from a
designated bay and returned to the same bay. This prevents use for short, 1-way trips which is
the ideal model for electric vehicle use. Full ACC as envisaged in NICHES+ is not on the
table. Prior electric vehicle operators in London have failed!
A transport consultant: Core business is transferability. Transferred London bus lane
methodology to Edinburgh and car clubs to Madrid. Transferring hardware is more difficult.
Many involved in transferability process, consultants and hardware manufacturers are key
players. There are issues if new systems are involved in relation to commercial and
operational transfer. The private sector is best placed to facilitate transfer if ICs are
commercially viable.
A potential GRT or PRT adopter: City of Vantaa expanding to new town (30,000 people).
Public transport links to Helsinki and Airport are under construction, but local links across new
town and with existing adjacent settlements are needed. Considering PRT as too few people
to justify bus services. If installed would look to transfer to other parts of city.
A university researcher: Works at margins between academia and business on transferring
from research concept to first city. Promoting and birthing technology is challenging, needing a
vendor and technology.
A potential PRT adopter: had no transferability experience because employer is not the
highways authority. The council is looking adopt PRT and are facing a public who have been
aware of the idea since 2007 and have concerns about the appropriateness of technology.


3.4.1 Innovative Concepts – Impacts and Measures of Success
Existing list of impacts and measures of success:
Impacts on efficiency             Vehicle occupancy       BCA value
Impacts on safety                 Passenger waiting       MCA results
Impacts on environment            statistics
Accessibility                     Trip statistics


Additional impacts and measures of success identified:
Land/resource use impact        Contribution to innovation
Impacts on labour               policy
Impacts on modal split          Impacts on quality of life


                                               39
Discussion questions:
1. What are the most useful/important impacts/measures of success?
     •   ICs should be evaluated like any other transport policy, but there are arguments as to
         whether standard appraisal methodologies fit ICs.
     •   Accessibility is a key impact/success measure – it incorporates user perspectives:
         personal cost, ease of use, reliability, comfort, convenience, quality of travel
         experience and journey time.
     •   Daventry PRT is focussed on economic impacts for town – transport science park,
         high level employment, access to jobs. Quality of jobs is an issue, engineering and
         system development, reduction in drivers; need to consider relative effects not a
         simple headcount. Political issues surrounding employment. Fear of unemployment
         is a key concern for decision makers.
2. Are there impacts/measures of success that have not been identified?
     •   Reducing land space for transport is important for all 3 ICs. Enables space to be
         used by other modes/travel choices, or for other purposes – consequences for city
         design / planning. Widen to minimising use of scarce resources (land use and fuel) -
         a key impact/ measure of success.
     •   Minimising public expenditure is important measure of increasing significance.
     •   Impacts on labour – economy/jobs market/manufacturing and operations.
     •   ACC key impact/measure of success is reduction in car ownership rate – central
         objective of TfL scheme, getting people to re-think travel choices by reducing
         ownership, so car is no longer the default option.
     •   New additions may be included within existing list (with the exception of land use and
         innovation policy) under wider categories e.g. labour under BCR and modal split
         under efficiency. Be careful not to double count criteria.
3. Is there an order of priority for these impacts/measures of success?
     •   A transport consultant: Joint 1st. Economy & Accessibility (improve quality of life)
         2. Good BCRs critical
     •   A (partial) ACC adopter: 1. Land use 2. Accessibility 3. Environment
     •   A university researcher: 1. Environment 2. Land use 3. Quality of life/happiness
     •   A potential GRT or PRT adopter: 1. Land use 2. Environment 3. Economy
     •   A potential PRT adopter: 1. Accessibility 2. Land use 3. Economy 4. Environment
Comments
     •   Safety not discussed – seen as a key issue, but it is a given constraint
     •   Personal prejudice/politics are an unspoken but real impact/success measure
     •   Land use/minimising use of scarce resources is a highly rated issue
     •   Quality of life is an additional factor identified as important
     •   Environment would be top if considering long term sustainability
4. Are these measures of success effective?
     •   Quantitative measures take precedence (critical to BCR analysis); must establish
         fundamental need for policy/scheme as basis to rank schemes, hard economic
         evaluation must come first as it is logical and rigorous.
     •   MCA attempts to cover qualitative factors, but it is not always easy to measure so it is
         often underplayed or inadequately considered.

                                                 40
        •    GRT and PRT economic figures are persuasive, there is an expensive initial
             investment, but long term benefits
        •    Risk is a key issue with ICs which is inadequately covered in conventional measures.
             Attitude to risk varies by funding body – if publicly funded then money needs to be
             invested safely, but private finance can be more speculative
        •    Can we measure land use benefits? – is it simply the physical area of the parking
             space saved? Could it include environmental, safety, social (reduced
             severance/alternative use of space) impacts? It may sometimes be difficult to re-use
             land. Need to lock-in land use benefits –if London residents give up parking permits
             they get 1 year free car club membership + 100 free hours of use.
        •    Environmental benefits are becoming easier to measure e.g. noise and air pollution,
             energy use, saved vehicle miles
        •    Accessibility indicators exist – journey time/money saved. Accessibility planning
             software is useful as planning tool, but not for evaluation of accessibility benefits,
             which requires surveys
        •    Quality of life/happiness are subjective terms, but survey data is available!

3.4.2       Brainstorm and discussion of transferability issues

The participants undertook a PESTE analysis of transferability issues for each of the
innovative concepts:

Table 17: PESTE analysis of transferability issues, WG4
Innovative Concept: GRT
POLITICAL           ECONOMIC                  SOCIAL                  TECHNOLOGICAL          ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                Success factors
P1: Environmental      EC1: Reducing          S1: Reducing            T1: Vehicle life       EN1: Better use of
concern                congestion             walking distance        expectancy             energy
P2: Claiming credit    EC2: System            S2: City space for      T2: Vehicle handling   EN2: Lower CO2
for system success     responsiveness to      social use              / manoeuvring          emissions
                       demand                                         capabilities (future
                                                                      SF but current B)
P3: City space         EC3: Lowering         S3: City space           T3: Resilience of      EN3: No local
requalification for    private investment in requalification into     obstacle avoidance     pollution
citizen use            cars                  green areas              system (future SF
                                                                      but current B)
                       EC4: Freeing space S4: Improved safety                                EN4: More space
                       for commercial and                                                    available for green
                       economical activities
                       EC5: Overall BCR in S5: Improved                                      EN5: Reduced noise
                       long period           accessibility for the
                                             mobility impaired
                       EC6; Saving           S6: Improved                                    EN6: Reduced
                       spending public &     accessibility for non-                          vibrations
                       private for car parks drivers
                                                                                             EN7: Less damage to
                                                                                             cultural heritage
                                                     Barriers
P4: Lack of            EC7: Financing         S7: Behaviour           T4: Vehicle            EN8: Community
consensus with car                            change toward car       autonomy               severance
users                                         ownership
P5: Consensus          EC8: System            S8: Potential           T5: Reliability
building               responsiveness in      dangerous
                       peak hours             behaviour to test
                                              system response
P6: Accepting new      EC9: Investment        S9: Vandalism           T6: System must
ideas                  costs                                          work in extreme
                                                                      weather
P7: Legal matters                             S10: Security
                                              concerns
P8: Money raising


                                                        41
Innovative Concept: PRT
POLITICAL           ECONOMIC                    SOCIAL                  TECHNOLOGICAL             ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                   Success factors
P1: New industry /      EC1: Jobs / Wealth      S1: School journeys     T1: Deliverability        EN1: Energy
employment              creation                by PRT                                            efficiency
P2: Reduced of          EC2: Tourism /          S2: Accessibility /     T2: Acceptance by         EN2: Reduction in
removed subsidies       interest / investment   access opportunity      users                     emissions
P3: Actual              EC3: Revenue /          S3: Efficient journey   T3: Reliability           EN3: Reduction of car
implementation /        operating balance                                                         parking land
delivery                no more subsidy?
P4: Increased status    EC4: Commercial       S4: Attractive public     T4: Quality of service EN4: Reduction in car
of town / city          delivery by private   transport – personal      delivered / number of use / dependency
                        sector entrepreneurs                            users attracted
P5: Delivering a                              S5: Security of                                  EN5: Reduction in
solution / less                               travel                                           taxis
highway investment
                                                                                                  EN6: Accommodating
                                                                                                  tracks in urban areas!
                                                                                                  EN7: No more buses!
                                                       Barriers
P6: Fear of failure     EC5: Economic           S6: NIMBY / privacy T5: Reliance on               EN8: Track space
                        climate / risk averse                       battery power                 requirements
P7: Political           EC6: Funding /          S7: Unrealistic     T6: Fear of the new           EN9: Severance
changes / shifting      finance                 expectations
objectives
P8a: Funding            EC7: Divert funds       S8: Local political     T7: Is the technology     EN10: Visual impact /
control                 from elsewhere          agenda                  really deliverable?       intrusion
P8b: safety approval
P9: Organisation        EC8: High upfront       S9: Public
policy’s hierarchy of   cost                    acceptability
responsibility
P10: legislative    EC9: Potential job
                    losses overall
Innovative Concept: ACC
POLITICAL           ECONOMIC                    SOCIAL               TECHNOLOGICAL                ENVIRONMENTAL
                                                   Success factors
P1: Photo               EC1: Energy             S1: Personal         T1: Ease of use              EN1: More amenity
opportunities           consumption             mobility             “don’t make me               space in urban areas
                                                                     think”
P2: City flagship       EC2: De-congestion      S2: Job              T2: ADAS – still             EN2: Lower car
velib                                           opportunities        pleasure of driving          ownership
P3: Will electorate     EC3: Frees up land      S3: Health (more     T3: Selling energy           EN3: Less energy use
support (SF & B)        for commercial use      walking and cycling) back to the grid
P4: Kudos being 1st     EC4: Advertising        S4: Community        T4: Exciting/sexy!           EN4: Lower local
                        and partner revenue     coherence                                         emissions
                        EC5: User income        S5: Personal         T5: Recycling e.g.           EN5: Lower pollutant
                                                security             batteries (could be          emissions
                                                                     B)
                                                S6: Safety (may                                   EN6: Reduce (or
                                                also be B)                                        increase) distance
                                                                                                  travelled by car! (could
                                                                                                  also be B)
                                                       Barriers
P5: Institutional       EC6: Price              S7: Privacy             T6: Vehicle range
structures                                      concerns (big
                                                brother)
P6: Cost escalation     EC7: Availability       S8: Declining car       T7: Vehicle reliability
                                                manufacturing
P7: Car reliability     EC8: Maintenance        S9: Vandalism           T8: Platooning not
                                                                        currently permitted
P8: White elephant      EC9: Redistribution                             T9: Charging
– will it be used       costs                                           infrastructure
P9: Is public           EC10: Reliability of                            T10: Robustness
authority               technology                                      (vandalism)
responsible?
P10: Legislative
reqs e.g. planning



                                                           42
Discussion of PESTE analysis:
GRT:
       •   Economic success factors from all 3 ICs include more efficient use of roadspace –
           GRT and PRT offer higher capacity than a car lane.
       •   Response to demand and level of service in peak demand periods are the key
           economic issues
       •   Technology can be a current barrier, but also a potential future success factor
PRT:
       •   Political barriers – who makes decisions?
       •   Quality of service is the key test of PRT technology
       •   PRT must have close headways (2 seconds) for viable capacity/operations
       •   Daventry is unusual as local authority officers have led the way for PRT
       •   Removing the need for a car can increase freedom/lifestyle benefits
       •   Taxis are a rip off and a sign of poor public transport/transport policy in a city
       •   PRT faces the greatest political challenge in terms of public space use of 3 ICs:
            1. Land space benefits include the removal of car park land (intrusive)
            2. Daventry settlement pattern suited to PRT, other towns/cities may be less easy
               to retrofit causing an environmental barrier
            3. Severance, elevated guideway/privacy issues are very difficult
            4. Road interaction with other vehicles on infrastructure is unlikely
            5. Most Daventry track will be at grade, elevation is costly: £2m/km, stations are
               also costly, but overall revenue will pay the capital costs
ACC:
       •   Electoral support variability is a major contingency. It can be a success factor or
           barrier – most IC applications take more than 1 term to be delivered.
       •   La Rochelle retains its image as a pioneer 20 years on!
       •   Platooning is the only significant legal barrier
       •   Availability of technology at the right price is an economic barrier
       •   Safety is a success factor and barrier because providing access to those who cannot
           afford a car may bring safety concerns
       •   Refurbishment of vehicles will bring more jobs
       •   Variable costs/free trips for certain trip types/destinations


General discussion:
       •   Meeting national and local policy objectives is crucial to funding
       •   ICs generally support sustainability
            1. Very easy for politicians to support ACC, easy to retrofit unlike GRT/PRT
            2. PRT provides links within cities e.g. Thames Gateway
            3. PRT supports regional environmental/economic/social inclusion policy but this
               is NOT ENOUGH, fear of failure is a major political barrier


                                                  43
          •    Flexibility of ICs (networks not line operations) and demand responsiveness are
               selling points compared to traditional public transport line services
          •    Awareness raising and consensus building are massive issues
          •    ACC:
                 1. Could have different kind of car, better designed for urban sharing e.g. lighter
                    weight. New type of car is not on market so this is a technology barrier
                 2. Stockholm/Paris aim to order large fleets for economy of scale benefits
                 3. Need complementary policies to gain uptake – carrots then sticks
                 4. Availability of parking more important than public transport provision
          •    GRT/PRT:
                 1. Initial legal barriers (certification of vehicles/mixed mode running) seem
                    daunting but progress in addressing them is being made
                 2. Rivium got a temporary waiver for driverless operation


Table 18: Key additional findings: barriers and success factors
GRT                                     ACC                                   PRT
Freeing up space – land use /           Advertising potential – cars across   Relieving subsidies
parking – with eco/soc/env              the city as mobile billboards
dimensions
Access for non-drivers                  Legacy good/bad - White elephant      Political change
Vandalism                               Health                                Tourism
Vehicle technology capabilities         Privacy                               Private sector delivery
Community severance                     Vehicle range                         Risk/risk aversion
                                                                              School transport



3.4.3         Refinement of transferability issues

Participants applied the PESTE analysis findings to a refinement matrix which ranked success
factors and barriers by timing and importance. Table 2 summarises the key messages to
emerge from the exercise.

Table 19: Refinement matrix of transferability issues, WG4
Innovative Concept:                                       Issue of Major Importance
GRT
                            Success Factors                               Barriers
         Continuous                                                       EC7: Financing
                                                                          S7: Behaviour change toward car
                                                                          ownership
                                                                          P8: Money raising
         Planning phase     EN2: Lower CO2 emissions                      P6: Accepting new ideas
                                                                          P4: Lack of consensus with car users
                                                                          EC9: Investment costs
                                                                          EN8: Community severance
Timing




         Implementation
         phase
         Operation phase    EC1: Reducing congestion                      T5: Reliability
                                                                          S10: Concern for security
         Evaluation phase   P2: Claiming credit for system success
                            EN3: No local pollution
                            EC5: Overall BCR in long period
                            S4: Improved safety
                            S5: Improved accessibility for the mobility
                            impaired




                                                           44
Innovative Concept:                                        Issue of Major Importance
PRT
                            Success Factors                               Barriers
         Continuous         EC3: Revenue / operating balance – no
                            more subsidy?
                            P2: Reduced or removed subsidies
         Planning phase     S4: Attractive public transport – personal    P7: Political changes / shifting
                            EN6: Accommodating tracks in urban            objectives
                            areas!                                        P8a: Funding control
                                                                          EC5: Economic climate / risk averse
Timing




                                                                          S6: NIMBY / privacy
                                                                          EN8: Track space requirements
         Implementation     P3: Actual implementation / delivery
         phase
         Operation phase    P4: Increased status of town / city
         Evaluation phase   T2: Acceptance by users
                            T3: Reliability
                            T4: Quality of service delivered / number
                            of users attracted

Innovative Concept:                                        Issue of Major Importance
ACC
                            Success Factors                               Barriers
         Continuous
         Planning phase     T1: Ease of use ‘don’t make me think’         P3: Will electorate support
                            P3: Will electorate support
         Implementation     P1: Photo opportunities                       P6: Cost escalation
         phase
         Operation phase    EC2: De-congestion                            EC7: Availability
                            S1: Personal mobility                         EC8: Maintenance
Timing




                            T2: ADAS – still pleasure of driving          EC9: Redistribution costs
                                                                          EC10: Reliability of technology
                                                                          T7: Vehicle reliability
         Evaluation phase   EN1: More amenity space in urban areas
                            EN2: Lower car ownership
                            EN3: Less energy use
                            EN4: Lower local emissions
                            EN5: Lower pollutant emissions
                            EN6: Reduce (or increase) distance
                            travelled by car! (could also be a barrier)




Discussion of Refinement matrix
GRT:
          •   Financing is a major continuous issue– GRT is likely to lose money on an ongoing
              basis and so needs heavy investment/subsidy
          •   Most investments are unknown at the beginning and grow as the project progresses.
              Even the best plans are not wholly accurate as there is less knowledge of real costs
              than with conventional public transport. Rome operator/service provider had to
              change frequency and add a communications system, these cost were not clearly
              known at the time of initial financing.
          •   Rising costs and establishing the commercial viability of schemes are significant risks
              which may be a barrier to public subsidy
          •   Money raising is mainly a concern at the beginning of the project - distinct from the
              ongoing financing of project
          •   Legal issues are major concerns to be solved at the planning stage. Some issues are
              technical problems requiring minor legislative change to fit an idea when accepted –
              but it depends who has the power.
          •   No distinct implementation issues, these should all be solved in the planning phase!



                                                           45
       •   Engine system reliability is a technical barrier in the operational phase
       •   Need to prove/guarantee safety for implementation


PRT:
       •   As with GRT, financing is a major continuous issue although subsidy free operation is
           a selling point
       •   Major issues in the planning phase:
            o   Economic climate is a risk - PPP funding can avoid / mitigate the risk
            o   Local context is key, this is an issue for city planning with any system, but more
                important with an elevated system
            o   Displacing other uses for infrastructure, although traffic reduction benefits may
                counter-balance this.
       •   System attractiveness is a major selling point at the implementation stage
       •   Quality of service is a major issue at the evaluation stage
       •   Major issues with integration in existing space, utilising existing structure for
           automated public transport is not practicable
       •   PRT applications are all ‘one of a kind’ systems; this is a barrier to compatibility.
       •   Infrastructure should be compatible
       •   PRT could be a complementary system for public transport except in small
           towns/campus locations
ACC:
       •   Major issues in the planning phase:
            o   Electoral support is either a success factor or barrier according to attitude of
                politicians who will not sign a cheque without public support, especially as
                commercial viability is unproven
            o   The concept is poorly understood and there is a confusion of terms. It may be
                easier if distinct vehicles used which are visible and desirable to use. Do most
                motorists want familiarity? – difference is a barrier, unknown territory
            o   Photo opportunities, decided at the planning stage, but kudos of autolib in Paris
                in implementation phase
       •   Major issues at the operational phase:
            o   ACC vehicles may become desirable to own, can the technology be applied to
                other cars?
            o   Levels of awareness/phased implementation; in London members only sell
                their own car 9 months into car club use
            o   Currently there is no training aspect in London, ACC technologies would mean
                training is needed and this could be a barrier
            o   Automation issues are an big ongoing concern for car manufacturers
            o   Car club success has focussed on environmental benefits not driver aids
                (except safety); the intelligence should be placed in the vehicle not the driver,
                movement of empty cars, parking in confined spaces at street level. ACC
                should be badged as simply the next generation of car clubs
            o   La Rochelle vehicles are sited at main travel generators (rail station and
                university), charging by time/mileage prevents unwanted use. Antibes and Ulm
                (Germany) schemes allow cars to be dropped anywhere within city area, this

                                                  46
                    creates redistribution tasks and charging issues. However, such 1-way trip use
                    may replace walk/cycle/bus trips which is not viable in London, where return
                    trips are preferred.
               o    The implementation context is key, ACC can be a substitute for public transport
                    in small towns
       •    Major issues at the evaluation phase:
               o    Car distance travelled is a key measure to evaluate success
               o    Seeing real costs and upfront costs discourages short distance usage
               o    There are more issues in the evaluation phase than for PRT/GRT, it is harder to
                    plan ACC and predict usage, sign up is needed before usage is known. ACC
                    requires buy-in, so evaluation is critical
               o    Evaluation of actual use is very easy through ‘big brother’ monitoring of trips.
               o    Some London scheme members are suffering survey overload


3.4.4 Key results and recommendations


Table 20: Generic issues from the refinement matrix exercise:
                                     GENERIC ISSUES ACROSS ALL 3 ICs
Political                Economic           Social           Technological              Environmental
Political support /      Cost escalation    Accepting new    System and                 Pollution
consensus building                          ideas            vehicles reliability
Institutional barriers   Investment costs   Changing         Technology                 Energy use
/ decision making                           behaviour        reliability
hierarchy
Legacy / fear of         Reducing            Improved            Ease of use            Land use benefits –
failure                  congestion          accessibility                              amenity space
City ownership /                             Reduce car          Maintenance
flagship - status                            ownership
Car lobby                                    User acceptance     Quality of service –
opposition - loss of                                             users attracted
parking
Legislative issues
Photo opps - credit
Delivery
Being first
Improved safety


       •    There are many GRT/PRT common issues, links to ACC are less clear
       •    Reliance on models is not good, mass use is needed to prove system viability
       •    Limited implementation of ICs makes transferability difficult


Key recommendations
     • If you can secure public support first then politicians will follow – convince them the
        improvement will be better than the car, win public support and change mindsets
        toward car use.
       •    Selling benefits across all 3 ICs applies from the planning stage
       •    Application must fit with land use and city planning/design
       •    Transferability issues raised by visit to Heathrow PRT system. There are obvious
            issues of local public support as you cannot transfer the physical/visual impact of the



                                                      47
    Heathrow system to a market town such as Daventry. Past experience could actually
    increase barriers to implementation.
•   Transferability helps identify issues and encourage more sympathetic
    implementation
•   Legislative structure is an increasing barrier to delivery for all ICs
•   ACC is a much easier sell than GRT/PRT, it is simply the next generation of vehicles
    for an existing system so there is a basis of experience, understanding and
    awareness
•   ACC has a strong evidence base of existing examples to transfer from
•   Barriers to implementation can be addressed if all key actors are brought together–
    unity of stakeholders is critical to addressing problems downstream
•   Are any ICs significant and new and will they produce order of magnitude
    improvements on current transport systems? Barriers can be swept aside if this kind
    of impact is achieved.
•   Service is critical as it is different from existing public transport services – PRT offers
    significant improvement on the bus, reducing travel times/energy use. PRT will pay
    its capital costs –which is revolutionary for public transport
•   All 3 ICs complementary, universal PRT is feasible in urban areas
•   The private sector will pick up an IC if it is viable, users will want it if it delivers –
    there is likely to be a huge pressure for implementation through the private sector




                                            48
Deliverable D3.1                            Public




4    Plenary sessions

Opening plenary session
Karen Vancluysen from POLIS welcomed the NICHES+ experts and champion cities to
Budapest, after which she presented the overall NICHES+ objectives and expected results,
and gave an overview of the twelve NICHES+ innovative concepts.
David Jeffery from the University of Southampton then presented the meeting agenda and
objectives of the parallel focus group session.
The opening session was concluded with some practical information on room distribution and
experts’ dinner, after which the experts were guided to their respective Working Groups.

Final plenary session
The final plenary session was chaired by David Jeffery from the University of Southampton
with a panel comprised of champion city representatives from Artois-Gohelle, Daventry, Cork,
Trondheim, Worcestershire and Burgos. The theme of the session was innovation in urban
transport in times of economic crisis. NICHES+ is a project that aims at mainstreaming
innovation at city level. In this regard it is important to have insight in societal context.
Economy is also an important category in the pEste – analysis that was conducted during the
2nd WG meeting. Economic feasibility is crucial when discussing transferability. The transport
sector appears to be one of the principal victims ((rail)freight, car industry, etc.) of the
economic crisis. There is also an interest to prepare the economy for when the crisis is over,
including a paradigm shift (e.g. Electrification).
As an introduction to the debate, Ivo Cré presented the findings of the small scale poll that
was conducted within the audience. The poll results were the following:
    a) Does the current financial and economic crisis affect your daily professional
        activities? One third is affected, most is not affected.
    b) Does the current financial and economic crisis affect the ambitions in local transport
        policy in the public authorities you cooperate with? The respondents are distributed
        evenly over the categories to answer. .
    c) Does the current financial and economic crisis affect the implementation and
        financing of innovative urban transport projects on the short term? The respondents
        see no effect on the short term.
    d) Does the current financial and economic crisis affect the implementation and
        financing of innovative urban transport projects on the long term? The respondents
        see an effect on the longer term.
    e) Innovation in urban transport in times of economic crisis is important because it is a
        smart way of investing public money into the economy. Most respondents agreed.
    f) Innovation in urban transport in times of economic crisis is important because this is
        the time that major changes brought along by innovation are accepted. This polarises
        the respondents.
    g) Innovation in urban transport in times of economic crisis is important because
        innovation increases the overall efficiency of the transport system and thus saves
        money on the long run. Almost all respondents agreed.
Public authorities have undoubtedly suffered in the economic crisis, but they also have the
capacity to address many of the associated problems. Hervé Lambert from Artois-Gohelle
reported that the region will notice the economic downturn with some delay due to the fact
that the transport budget is constituted from a local tax (versement de transport) which is
based on local employment. If employment goes down, the income of the region goes down.
Local transport plays a role in the stimulus package, as the two tramlines that are under
planning and construction are seen in relation to employment and economic regeneration.

27/7/09                                                                 University of Southampton
                                             49
Deliverable D3.1                               Public


The environmental aspects are still important even in this economic context. PT is growing in
importance, and employees are asking for better access to jobs by PT.
The representative from Burgos reminded the audience that Spain has been severely hit by
the economic crisis with amongst the highest rates of unemployment in Europe. Construction
is not affected, but small scale projects, including important research features have been
affected. Transport is not represented in the stimulus packages. This is currently not included
(e.g. Scrapping). Burgos is an important industrial centre. 1 out of 3 jobs in Burgos are
situated in the car industry. This has slowed down, and this affects the local traffic situation:
less traffic jams and lower PT demand. Spain did not meet the Kyoto commitment. Given the
economic importance of the car industry for Burgos, an effort is put in changing towards less
polluting technologies. Spain is quite strong in energy policy: a shift has been made to
photovoltaic and wind energy. A same shift could happen for car manufacturing.
Peter Blake stated that the situation in the UK is complex. There is a slow down in the
economy, which is mainly reflected in private sector spending. There is a strong interest in
presenting investments in major transport projects. At the local level, capital project
investment will be maintained. The problems lie in covering the operational costs. Capital
investments should be made with the intention to reduce operation costs.
Daventry faces a 15% reduction of budgets over the next years. The long term objective is to
expand the town, but some of the developments are on hold. There might be a change in the
public perception: citizens expect their local authority to revert to core responsibilities. This is
difficult to combine with innovation. Daventry is planning to develop a transport technology
park, to install a pole for high level employment. Environmental targets are still supposed to
be met. At national level there are commitments towards national and cleaner transport. At
county level there are strong modal shift targets, but no programmes to back this up. To rely
on people's own initiative to change behaviour might not be sufficient to meet environmental
challenges. Demand management and shared vehicles can be a solution.
Birger Elvestadt from Trondheim said his city/country was not hit very hard by the crisis.
Trondheim's employment is situated in high tech engineering that is looking at deploying
efficient and cheaper technologies. In this regard, Trondheim is doing better than financial
centres such as Oslo. Trondheim notices some slow down in the transport sector. Oslo has
counted a reduction of 20% in commuter and service traffic. This might be influenced by a
change of mode; the number of second household cars is going down. There is an increasing
desire for efficiency in both the private and corporate economy. Norway did not install a car
scrapping scheme yet.
Ian Winning from Cork had seen a big impact of the economic crisis. The DoT's budget has
decreased 16%. 240 buses were taken out of circulation in Dublin. Regional traffic grants
have dropped substantially and significant schemes are not going ahead. There is however
momentum for change. The three ministers for the Environment, Energy and Transport
cooperate to an important degree. Cycling is an important alternative travel mode.
Electrification of captive fleets is one of the issues that are discussed. 40% of the countries
oil imports go to transport – a better balance could improve the national economy. EU project
participation is crucial in this regard.


Questions from the floor:
Michel Parent saw electrification as an important driver for an EU recovery plan.
Eric Sampson referred to the EU ITS action plan. He called for a rethink on capital and
revenue costs, with a full lifecycle economic analysis made for transport schemes.
Malcolm Buchanan noticed that Trondheim - untouched in its economy – is the only city that
is situated in a country that has its own oil reserves.



27/7/09                                                                     University of Southampton
                                                50
Deliverable D3.1                            Public


Mrs. Gasteiner asked to look into the user needs of all users, including the 50% of women
that will use innovative transport services. Consumers should be placed at the heart of the
project development. With more consumers, measures will also generate more financial
resources. She also stated that she had expected more female experts. DJ explained that
more women were invited but only two were available.
Birger Elvestadt explained that the high quality of life in his city and high level of women
participating to the economy coincides with proactive transport policy. e.g. the kindergartens
are built following transport planning ideas.
Zsolt Berki asked how the panel looks at using the tariff structure of PT for the improvement
of the local economy. Burgos sees the possibilities, and Artois-Gohelle already has this in
place. The region's PT tariffs rate the lowest of all French local PT networks. Worcestershire
sees other concerns of travellers: journey time and reliability, but recognises the cost of the
PT ticket is a concern of citizens. Ian Winning says that Cork's P&R will become more
expensive in operation over time, but the level of the rates (5euro) stays the same.




27/7/09                                                                 University of Southampton
                                              51
Deliverable D3.1                             Public




5    Excursion

After the end of the Working Group meeting, interested experts were invited to participate in
a dedicated site visit. It looked at the current traffic situation in Budapest, including recent
developments and future plans (presentation of Dr Janos Monigl). Particular attention was
paid to the renovated Combino tramline, with accessible stops. Mr Gabor Lendvai from the
Budapest City Council’s transport department guided the visit.




27/7/09                                                                  University of Southampton
                                              52
Deliverable D3.1                              Public




6    Conclusions

The second NICHES+ Working Group meeting focused on transferability issues relating to
the implementation of the innovative concepts. The meeting continued a process to better
understand the 12 innovative transport concepts (see table below) that will be examined
throughout the project and for which NICHES+ will provide guidance on implementation and
transferability.

Table 21: NICHES+ Thematic Areas and Innovative Concepts
WG1: Innovative Concepts to enhance accessibility (Rupprecht Consult)
Concept 1.1: Travel training Concept 1.2: Neighbourhood Concept 1.3: Tailored traveller
for public transport           accessibility planning            information for users with
                                                                 reduced mobility
WG2: Efficient Planning and Use of Infrastructure and transport interchanges (Transman)
Concept 2.1: Passenger         Concept 2.2.: Innovative          Concept 2.3: Infrastructure for
friendly intermodal            cycling facilities for            innovative bus systems
interchanges                   intermodal interchanges
WG3: Urban Traffic Management Centres (Newcastle University)
Concept 3.1 Finance Models     Concept 3.2 Mobile Travel         Concept 3.3 Using
for Traffic Management         Information Services for the Environmental Pollution Data
Centres                        Public                            in Traffic Management
WG4: Automated and Space efficient transport systems (University of Southampton, TRG)
Concept 4.1: Group Rapid Concept 4.2: Personal Rapid Concept 4.3: Advanced City
Transit (GRT)                  Transit (PRT)                     Cars(ACC)


When considering impacts and measures of success it is heartening that both the
participating experts and the champion city representatives felt that all the innovative
concepts had the potential to deliver significant positive impacts and societal benefits. There
were issues regarding the measurement of success with many of the concepts. It was difficult
to quantify the benefits of some of the innovative concepts, either because they involved new
systems or concepts that had been insufficiently tested to provide a robust evidence base for
quantitative assessment or because the qualitative nature of the intervention was difficult to
measure quantitatively. The case for the transferability of an innovative concept is strongest
where demonstrated and measurable application with associated positive benefits can be
shown rather than relying on forecasts and predictive models of application.
The ‘innovative’ nature of the concepts under discussion inherently means it is difficult to
demonstrate a track record of successful application that would enable the rapid
transferability of the concepts to other areas. Lack of familiarity can be a particular barrier to
implementation of innovative concepts because potential adopters may be reluctant to risk
the implementation of a system or service of which they have little experience or limited
awareness.
However, past experience can also be a barrier to transferability. If it is seen that an
innovative concept has been poorly implemented elsewhere, or that the context for an
existing implementation is not comparable with that being considered for future application,
then take-up can be hindered. This is particularly likely to be an issue if the system or service
is not well aligned to the existing land use/urban design/transport service environment.
It is to be hoped that early and successful implementation can be achieved in contexts (such
as the NICHES+ Champion Cities) which offer a good prospect of replication elsewhere.
A major factor in the transferability of innovative concepts is the degree of impact that
implementation is likely to achieve. If the system or service that the innovative concept
provides can offer order of magnitude improvements compared to existing/conventional
systems and services then it is likely that barriers to implementation can be surmounted.

27/7/09                                                                    University of Southampton
                                               53
Deliverable D3.1                               Public


Successful implementation is also most likely if the innovative concept being introduced is
clearly aligned with existing policy objectives both in terms of transport policy and the wider
urban environment policy context.
Consideration of potential success factors and barriers at the planning stage of the
application of an innovative concept is critically important to successful implementation. If the
key stakeholders are united in their understanding of the issues surrounding transferability at
the planning stage they are more likely to be able to successfully address barriers and exploit
opportunities further downstream in the implementation process. It is also important that a
clear and coherent message regarding the benefits of implementation can be agreed and
understood at the planning stage. This is particularly important when considering the
economic justification for implementation; any successful application must be supported by a
compelling business case. There was some discussion regarding who is best placed to take
forward implementation. For some of the more radical/futuristic innovative concepts it was
argued that the private sector is best placed to embrace the innovation and risk associated
with implementing and running a system or service.
Political will was seen as a critical success factor or barrier in relation to transferability across
all the innovative concepts. Securing a committed champion to argue the political case for an
intervention is vital. However the balance between political and public will was a matter of
debate amongst the different focus groups. Some argued that a political champion was key
to generating public good will towards an intervention whereas others stated that the key
issue was to engage and secure public support and then the politicians would follow the
prevailing mood. Either way, the positive engagement of both these communities at the
earliest possible stage was seen a key to successful transferability of innovative concepts.
Knowledge transfer from existing best practice in donor cities was seen as a vital ingredient
for any successful implementation. The use of generic templates for best practice was
advocated as a useful tool for implementation and a guard against ‘re-inventing the wheel’.
The spatial context for transferability was seen as an important issue. The issues involved in
transferring ideas between cities in the same country compared to those involved in
transferring ideas between cities in different countries were quite different. This is particularly
an issue when considering factors like cultural and geographical issues and the political and
environmental context.
The NICHES+ Consortium will use the WG meeting results as basis to elaborate a
deliverable (D3.3) on transferability issues relating to the implementation of innovative
concepts. This document will provide hints and recommendations to actors that are interest
in uptake of the innovative concepts.

Next Steps
The next step of the project will lead to targeted recommendations on each of the 12
NICHES+ concepts that are of high practical value to implement the concepts and will assist
the selected Champion cities in choosing suitable implementation strategies.
A broad debate will be initiated during the third Working Group meeting at the end of
November 2009 on research and policy requirements to enhance the development and take-
up of urban transport innovations and achieve a targeted involvement of stakeholders.
Existing gaps and coordination requirements will be addressed by developing European
research recommendations for urban transport innovations, particularly in the thematic areas
covered in NICHES+.
Finally, cooperation and coordination needs at the level of policy and decision making will be
looked at by formulating ‘Policy recommendations’ targeted at the local, regional, national
and European level.




27/7/09                                                                      University of Southampton
                                                 54
Deliverable D3.1                                Public




7       Annex
7.1      List of participating experts, champion city representatives and
       consortium partners



surname            name        institution / company                                          Country
Aldecoa            Javier      Consorcio Regional de Transportes de Madrid                     Spain
Allessandrini      Adriano     University of Rome                                               Italy
Beecroft           Mark        University of Southampton                                        UK
Berki              Zsolt       Transman                                                       Hungary
Blake              Peter       Worcestershire County Council                                    UK
Bridgeman          Gary        Ertico                                                         Belgium
Buchanan           Malcolm     Colin Buchanan & Partners                                        UK
Bührmann           Sebastian   Rupprecht Consult                                             Germany
Caple              Richard     Daventry District Council                                        UK
Edwards            Simon       Newcastle University                                             UK
Elvestad           Birger      City of Trondheim                                              Norway
Escudero           Eduardo     APEBU – Asociación Plan Estratégico de Burgos,                  Spain
Fiedler            Matthias    Rupprecht Consult                                             Germany
Gasteiner          Angelika    Salzburg AG Stadtbus,                                          Austria
Gönczi             Attila      University of Timisoara                                       Romania
Guo                Amy         Newcastle University                                             UK
Harling            Hayes       Cork City Council                                              Ireland
Hoenninger         Patrick     Institut für Landes- und Stadtentwiclungsforschung (ILS)      Germany
Jeffery            David       University of Southampton                                        UK
Karsa              András      BKV (PT Operator for Budapest)                                 Hungary
Koskela            Gilbert     City of Vantaa                                                 Finland
Lambert            Hervé       Syndicat Mixte des Transports, Artois-Gohelle                  France
Macsinka           Klára       ProUrbe                                                        Hungary
Mingardo           Giuliano    Erasmus University, Rotterdam                                Netherlands
Monigl             János       Transman                                                       Hungary
Moshitz            Silke       Eurocities                                                     Belgium
Northrop           Kevin       Manchester Travel Training Partnership                           UK
Papapanagiotu      Yanni       Systema                                                        Greece
Parent             Michel      INRIA                                                          France
Pilz               Alexander   Verkehrsverbund Berlin-Brandenburg (VBB)                      Germany
Rowe               David       Transport for London                                             UK
Sampson            Eric        Ex-Department for Transport                                      UK
Sanjuán García     Mario V.    APEBU – Asociación Plan Estratégico de Burgos                   Spain
Székely            András      Transman                                                       Hungary
Vroemen            Danny       Imtech                                                       Netherlands
Walter             Urs         City of Zurich                                               Switzerland
Winning            Ian         Cork City Council                                              Ireland




27/7/09                                                                        University of Southampton
                                                 55
Deliverable D3.1                                                 Public



7.2        Presentations used at the WG meeting

Introductory plenary presentation on NICHES+


                                                                                         NICHES+ Facts
                                                                   • Coordination Action funded under the 7th Framework
                                                                     Programme – DG Research
                                                                   • 3 years (2008-2011)
                                                                   • Coordinator: Polis
                                                                   • 6 partners: Rupprecht Consult, Eurocities, Newcastle
                        NICHES+                                      University, Transman, University of Southampton


                 Second WG meeting
               Budapest, 27-28 April 2009
                                                                   • 7 Champion cities




              NICHES+ Champion Cities                                                          Mission

                                                                   • To stimulate a wide debate on innovative
  •   Artois-Gohelle                                               urban transport and mobility among relevant
  •   Burgos                                                       stakeholders from different sectors and
  •   Cork                                                         disciplines
  •   Daventry
                                                                     –NICHES+ (as NICHES did) will promote the
  •   Worcestershire
                                                                     most promising new concepts, initiatives and
  •   Trondheim
                                                                     projects from their current ‘niche’ position to a
  •   Skopje
                                                                     mainstream urban transport policy application




                       Why NICHES+?                                                      Principal Aims
  • A range of other innovative themes in addition to the ones     • Networking opportunities: stimulate exchange between a
  studied in NICHES, have potential to become crucial for            wide range of urban transport stakeholders from all over
  sustainable local transport                                        Europe
  • Significant need for further guiding local authorities in      • Publishing effective guidance for cities: brochures
  taking up the challenge of actually integrating and                including key information on how to successfully
  implementing innovative concepts in urban transport policy         implement the selected urban transport innovations
                                                                   • Spreading the word: European and national events to
  How can urban policy makers efficiently move from the              effectively disseminate the project results and to
  development of innovative mobility solutions to their              encourage uptake of the twelve innovative concepts
  practical implementation? What are the barriers and how          • Working with cities on the ground: resources and support
  can they be overcome?                                              for 7 champion cities, helping them to develop concrete
                                                                     implementation plans for NICHES+ concepts




                       Working Groups                                                    Working Groups

  • Four new thematic areas have been                              1. Innovative concepts to enhance
  identified, which are important for more                            accessibility
  sustainable urban mobility.                                      2. Concepts for efficient planning and use
  • An equal number of working groups (WGs)                           of infrastructures and interchanges
  consisting of dedicated experts explores                         3. Urban Traffic Management Centres
  these priority areas and identifies and                          4. Automated and space efficient transport
  elaborates promising concepts for further                           systems
  replication.




27/7/09                                                                                                          University of Southampton
                                                                  56
Deliverable D3.1                                                                          Public




                               5 Working Steps                                                             WG 1: Enhanced Accessibility

  During the 3 year duration of the project NICHES+ will                                    • Travel training for public transport
  follow 4 successive steps to meet its goal:

  1.Selection of champion cities & innovative concepts
                                                                                            • Neighbourhood accessibility planning
  2.Identification of needs and expectations of potential users
  and implementers
     –   1st Working Group meeting (December 2008)
  3.Reviewing the transferability of innovative concepts                                    • Tailored traveller information for users with
     –   2nd Working Group meeting (now)                                                      reduced mobility
  4.Research and policy recommendations
     –   3rd Working Group meeting (end 2009)
  5.Implementation scenarios and preparation of take-up




                       Enhanced accessibility                                                                       WG 1: Participants

                                                                                            • Moderator: Sebastian Bührmann
                   Internet info: travelling without barriers
                                                                                            • Rapporteur: Matthias Fiedler
                                                                                              Experts
                                                                                              Angelika Gasteiner      Salzburg AG
                                                                                              Patrick Hoenninger      ILS
                                                                                              Kevin Northrop          Manchester City Council
                                                                                              Alexander Pilz          Verkehrsverbund Berlin
                                                                                                                      Brandenburg
                                                                                              Urs Walter              Stadt Zürich Tiefbauamt

                                                    Munich: Neighbourhood
                                                    accessibility                             Champion Cities
                                                    planning with citizen participation       Hervé Lambert           Artois-Gohelle
                     Salzburg: Training for older                                             Eduardo Escudero        Burgos
                     passengers
                                                                                              Mario San Juan          Burgos




                WG 2: Efficient infrastructure                                                                  Efficient infrastructure and
                     and interchanges                                                                                  interchanges
  • Passenger friendly intermodal                                                                                     Public bicycles at interchanges


    interchanges

  • Innovative cycling facilities for intermodal
    interchanges
                                                                                                                       Short interchange distance and time

  • Infrastructure for innovative bus systems

                                                                                                                      Nantes BusWay system




                                                                                                                   WG 3: Urban Traffic
                              WG 2: Participants
                                                                                                                   Management Centres
  • Moderator: Janos Monigl                                                                 • Finance models for traffic management
  • Rapporteur: Andras Szekely, Zsolt Berki                                                   centres
     Experts
     Javier Aldecoa                   Consorcio Regional de
                                      Trasportes de Madrid                                  • Mobile travel information services for the
     Andras Karsa                     BKV
                                                                                              public
     Yanni Papapanagioutou            SYSTEMAz
     Klara Macsinka                   Pro Urbe
     Attila Gönzci                    University of Timisoara
                                                                                            • Using environmental pollution data in
     Champion Cities
     Peter Blake                      Worcestershire                                          traffic management
     Martin Rowe                      Worcestershire
     Harling Hayes                    Cork




27/7/09                                                                                                                                                 University of Southampton
                                                                                           57
Deliverable D3.1                                                                 Public



                      Urban Traffic Management
                                                                                                               WG 3: Participants
                              Centres
                                                                                   •   Moderator: Simon Edwards
                                                                                   •   Rapporteur: Amy Weihong Guo
                                                                                       Experts
                                                                                       Gary Bridgeman      ERTICO - ITS Europe
                                                                                       Giuliano Mingardo   University of Rotterdam
                                                                                       Eric Sampson        Newcastle University
                                                    Delivery to Mobile Devices         Tamas Luspay        Computer and Automation Research Institute
 Environmental info in Leicester (DfT)
                                                                                       Tamas Tettamanti    Budapest University of Technology

                                                                                       Danny Vroemen       Imtech Infra BV

                                                 Inter-agency cooperation for          Aron Palvölcyi      BKV
                                                 intermodal                            Champion Cities
                                                 traffic management
                                                                                       Ian Winning                    Cork

                                                                                       Birger Elvestadt               Trondheim




                    WG 4: Automated and space                                                        Automated and space efficient
                    efficient transport systems                                                           transport systems
                                                                                                                    The ULTRA test track
    • Group Rapid Transit (GRT)

    • Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)

    • Advanced City Cars (ACC)                                                                                                       Parkshuttle Rotterdam




                                                                                                                       Making shared vehicles smarter




                                                                                                           Concrete outcomes of
                               WG 4: Participants
                                                                                                                NICHES+
    • Moderator: David Jeffery                                                     •   7 local implementation scenarios
    • Rapporteur: Mark Beecroft                                                    •   Policy notes on 12 innovative concepts
        Experts
        Adriano Alessandrini             University of Rome
                                                                                   •   7 national events in champion cities
        Malcolm Buchanan                 Colin Buchanan                            •   Study tour catalogue
        Gilbert Koskela                  City of Vantaa
        Jacques Mollard                  City of La Rochelle                       •   Research recommendations
        Michel Parent                    INRIA
        David Rowe                       Transport for London

        Champion Cities
        Richard Caple                    Daventry




                               Project Websites                                                                       Contact Info

                                                                                   POLIS
                                                                                   • Ivo Cré
                  www.niches-transport.org                                             – icre@polis-online.org
                                                                                       – Phone: +32 2 5005676
                        www.osmose-os.org                                          • Karen Vancluysen
                                                                                       – kvancluysen@polis-online.org
                                                                                       – Phone: +32 2 5005675




27/7/09                                                                                                                                                 University of Southampton
                                                                                  58
Deliverable D3.1                                                                                           Public


Introductory plenary presentation on Working meeting agenda and objectives


                                                                                                                                                          Agenda Day 1
                                                                                                           Day 1, Monday 27 April 2009
                                                                                                           12:00 h    Registration &
                                                                                                                      Lunch
                                                                                                           13:00 h    Opening Plenary      Welcome                                           POLIS
                                                                                                                      Session
                                                                                                                                           Introduction to NICHES+ and overview of           POLIS (Project Coordinator)
                                                                                                                                           innovative transport concepts
                                                                                                                                           Presentation of meeting agenda and objectives     DJ (WP Leader)

            2nd NICHES+ Working Group Meeting                                                              13.30      Changing rooms
                                                                                                                                           Organisational information
                                                                                                                                           Gathering the focus groups
                                                                                                                                                                                             POLIS


               Meeting agenda and objectives                                                               13:40 h    4 Parallel Focus
                                                                                                                      Group Sessions
                                                                                                                                           Introduction to innovative concepts and
                                                                                                                                           discussion of their impacts
                                                                                                                                                                                             Working Group (WG)
                                                                                                                                                                                             leaders and experts
                                                                                                           15:10 h    Joint Coffee Break   Opportunity for informal exchange
                                                                                                           15:30 h    4 Parallel Focus     Brainstorm of transferability issues              WG leaders and experts
                               2nd WG meeting                                                                         Groups
                                                                                                                                           Discussion of transferability issues
                                                                                                           17:30 h    End of Focus
                           Budapest, 27-28 April 2009                                                                 Group Session
                                                                                                           19:15 h    Dinner               Restaurant St. Jupat, 1024 Budapest, Dékàn
                                                                                                                                           Utca 3




                                              Agenda Day 2                                                                                    Aims of WG meeting
  DAY 2, Tuesday 28 April 2009                                                                                • To show how the selected NICHES+ Innovation Concepts
  9:00 h    4 Parallel      Refinement of transferability issues                 WG leaders and experts
            Focus Groups                                                                                        (ICs) could be implemented successfully in other ‘cities’ in
  10:30 h   Joint Coffee                                                                                        order to encourage the transfer of good practice.
            Break
  10:50 h   4 Parallel      Discussion of refinement of transferability issues   WG leaders and experts
                                                                                                              • To assess whether the success of an IC is dependent on
            Focus Groups
                            Summary of key results and recommendations                                          any particular conditions, and whether the success
  12.20 h   Break for                                                                                           achieved and the lessons learnt in one ‘city’ can be
            gathering
            groups                                                                                              transferred to other ‘cities’.
  12:30 h   Closing
            Plenary
                            NICHES+ Champion Cities panel discussion:
                            Messages for take-up from first WG meeting
                                                                                 All - facilitated by DJ      • Focus on success factors and barriers that influence the
            Session
                            Closing remarks                                      POLIS
                                                                                                                development and successful implementation of an IC
  13.15 h   End of WG
            meeting
  13.15-    Lunch
  14.30 h
  14.45-    Excursion       POLIS to provide short description of Excursion      POLIS
  16.30h    (optional)      activities.




                               Aim: Outputs from focus                                                                                     Conceptual Framework for
                                   group sessions                                                                                               Transferability
   • Determine the impacts and criteria for success of the IC
                                                                                                                     Implementation of Innovative Concepts: the context
   • Identify the necessary framework conditions for a
     successful implementation                                                                                              and stake for transferability issues
   • Determine the relative importance of different barriers and
     success factors                                                                                                                Transferability                               Transferability
   • Identify the relevance of different barriers and success                                                                          issues                                        issues
     factors over the course of the implementation process                                                           Case                                                                               Future
                                                                                                                                                             Champion
   • Identify generic understandings of transferability issues                                                       Study                                     City                                    Adopting
     across the ICs                                                                                                   City                                                                               City
   • Develop recommendations on transferability of ICs                                                                                    Highest                                    Highest
                                                                                                                                          Stake:                                  Stake: Future
                                                                                                                                         Champion                                 Adopting City
                                                                                                                                            City




                             Transferability – the donor
                                                                                                                                                     Discussion rules
                             and adopter perspectives
                                    Transferability benefits                                                  •      Participation is voluntary
 Donor City                                                 Adopter City                                      •      Personal views as experts – no „official“ statements
 Prestige as pioneer/catalyst                               Supports proposal as                              •      Open discussion about all points
                                                            feasibility demonstrated                          •      No consensus required
 Catalyst role = more likely to                             Reduces risk to follow ‘proven                    •      Record of statements is non-attributable
 get Gov’t funding at outset                                success’                                          •      Proposal: Use of first names only
 Sell experience to adopters –                              Learning lessons from donor
 additional revenue source to                               experience supports effective
 identify in proposal                                       implementation




27/7/09                                                                                                                                                                                              University of Southampton
                                                                                                            59
Deliverable D3.1                                               Public



                       Meeting minutes
  •   The meeting will be documented in minutes
  •   Record of statements non-attributable
  •   Minutes will be a public document
  •   Participants will have a chance to review and comment
      minutes before they are published




WG1 Introductory presentation


                                                                                    Your experience with
                                                                                       transferability
                                                                 Short statements in introductory round:
                                                                 What’s your experience with adopting good practice
                                                                   from other places (or sharing your lessons with
                                                                   others)?
                        WG1
          ‘Innovative concepts to enhance
                    accessibility’
                        NICHES+ Workshop
                     Budapest, 27-28 April 2009
              Sebastian Bührmann and Matthias Fiedler
                         Rupprecht Consult




                                                                             WG1 “Innovative Concepts to
                     Introduction round                                        Enhance Accessibility”
  •   Angelika Gasteiner, Salzburg AG Stadtbus                   • Meeting daily mobility needs of all citizens
  •   Kevin Northrop, Manchester Travel Training Partnership     • Possibility for independent living and accessible
  •   Urs Walter, City of Zurich                                   environment
  •   Patrick Hoenninger, ILS Dortmund
                                                                 • Accessibility not only physical access but also sensory,
  •   Alexander Pilz, VBB, BAIM project
                                                                   cognitive and psychological aspects
                                                                   “easy to reach” and “easy to use”
  • Eduardo Escudero & Mario V. Sanjuan Garcia,                  • At any one time 25% of population with some degree of
    Asociación Plan Estratégico Ciudad de Burgos                   reduced mobility
  • Hervé Lambert, SMT Artois-Gohelle                            • Europe facing tremendous demographic change
                                                                 • NICHES+: Innovative approaches with unexploited
  • Sebastian Bührmann & Matthias Fiedler, Rupprecht
    Consult                                                        potential




                                                                              Concept 1.1: Travel Training
                NICHES+ concepts WG1
                                                                                 for Public Transport
  1.1: Travel Training for Public Transport                      • Aim: enabling independent use of public transport without
                                                                   fears or concerns

  1.2: Neighbourhood Accessibility Planning                      • Main target groups: older people, disabled people, people
                                                                   with learning difficulties, school children
                                                                 • Training providers: PT operator or associations,
  1.3: Tailored traveller information for users with reduced       authorities, NGOs
       mobility
                                                                 • Training contents: tailored to trainees, e.g. physical
                                                                   accessibility, planning a trip, information, ticketing,
                                                                   behavioural aspects
                                                                 • Training formats: tailored, e.g. short term courses, longer
                                                                   term buddying, playful travel games




27/7/09                                                                                                            University of Southampton
                                                                60
Deliverable D3.1                                             Public



                                                                            Concept 1.2: Neighbourhood
                  Concept 1.1: Examples
                                                                              Accessibility Planning
  • Salzburg,                                                  • Aim: Improving local conditions for walking and cycling +
    Passenger training                                           safe access to local facilities and public transport +
    for older people                                             optimising local bus lines
                                                               • Targets whole community
  • Bury, UK – “Out and
    About Scheme” for                                          • Implementers: local authorities (often supported by
    adults with learning                                         NGOs or consultants)
    difficulties
                                                               • Stakeholder consultation and participatory process
                                                                 to identify main issues to be addressed
  • Munich, MobiRace
    rallye for pupils aged                                     • Possible resulting actions: education, engineering,
    10-13                                                        marketing, encouragement, enforcement, environmental
                                                                 and policy initiatives, etc.
                                                               • Also contributes to better quality of public space and
                                                                 reduce car use




                                                                                        Concept 1.3:
                  Concept 1.2: Examples                                    Tailored traveller information for users
                                                                                    with reduced mobility
  • Munich and Frankfurt                                       • Aim: providing people with reduced mobility with tailored
    Neighbourhood mobility                                       travel information on public transport
    concepts                                                   • Information on barrier-free travelling options to be tailored
                                                                 to different user groups, e.g. availability of lifts, service
                                                                 personnel
  • Switzerland, “Slow traffic”
    concept & Zurich                                           • Implementers: PT operators, public authorities, user
                                                                 groups, research institutes
    experience
                                                               • Access to information via internet and phone, mobile
                                                                 devices
  • Burgos, Spain: Public
    Space for walking and                                      • Information needs to be accurate, useful and
                                                                 understandable for wide range of users
    cycling
                                                               • NICHES+: Not only technical questions, but also
                                                                 organisational structure behind information provision




                                                                                 Impacts and success of
                   Concept 1.3 examples
                                                                                       concepts
  • BAIM project, Frankfurt                                    We want to “sell” the concepts as successful approaches to
    and Berlin regions (DE):                                    cities across Europe.
    RMV and VBB with new
    planning tool for travel                                   It is obviously important that there is clear evidence of
    without barriers on their                                      success in terms of positive change in order to warrant
    website.                                                       effort on transferability.
  • Prague (CZ): static web
    information for Persons                                    Therefore we want to examine criteria for assessing
    with Impaired Mobility.                                      impacts & success of concepts.
                                                                 How to measure if the concepts achieved what was
                                                                 planned (quantitative/ qualitative)?
                                                                 Is there evidence of success for our 3 concepts?




                  Impacts and measures of                                       Impacts and measures of
                         success 1                                                     success 2
 Examine criteria for assessing impacts & success of           Questions
   concept                                                     • What are the most useful/important impacts of success? How
    • Accessibility and independent living                       to measure? “Hard facts” and evidence?
    • Safety and security
    • Environment (noise, pollution, reduction of car use)     • Are there additional impacts of success that have not been
    • Quality of urban space                                     identified? How to measure?
    • Image of public transport
    • Image of those in charge of urban mobility               • Is there an order of priority for these impacts of success?
    • User numbers                                               Which ones can be measured best?
    • Costs for special transport services
    • Better social interactions                               • Are the measures of success effective?
    • Local economy
    • Others?                                                    What are your selling points?




27/7/09                                                                                                            University of Southampton
                                                              61
Deliverable D3.1                                                        Public



                 Success factors and barriers                                          Brainstorm of Transferability
                     for implementation                                                     Issues – 3 Teams
  • Brainstorm of transferability issues – success factors and            Work in small teams (1 per concept)
    barriers of implementation process (and long term
    success of concepts)                                                  • Team 1: Travel training
  • Success factors                                                         Angelika, Kevin, Mario, Hervé
    factors (e.g. political, economic, social, technological,
    environmental, etc.) that contributed to the development
    and successful implementation of a concept/example.                   • Team 2: Neighbourhood accessibility
                                                                            Urs, Patrick, Sebastian
  • Barriers
    factors that hinder or impede the development and
    implementation of concepts (e.g. institutional structures,            • Team 3: Tailored traveller information
    level of economic development, market issues,                           Alexander, Eduardo, Matthias
    environmental conditions, technical issues, etc).




                            PESTE analysis                                             Presentation and discussion
  •   Use PESTE categories i.e. Political success factors / barriers,     • Presentation by groups and comments by others
      Economic, Social, Technological, Environmental
                                                                          • Any important issues missing?
      What are success factors and barriers for implementation of the
      concepts in the 5 PESTE areas?

  •   Topic cards to collect input
       – different colour topic cards for 5 PESTE topic areas
       – Label cards: success factors ‘SF’, barriers ‘B’
       – Only one factor per card! Few text!
       – Focus on the most relevant factors only!
       – place on PESTE sheets (see next slide)

  •   Discussion of results in whole group
  •   Presentation by groups and comments by others
  •   Any important issues missing?




                  Refinement of transferability
                                                                                          Results and discussion
                           issues
  Back into 3 small teams                                                 • Presentation of results by teams
  • Exercise to determine the timing and relative importance of
    different barriers and success factors                                • Discuss results in whole group
  • Each group to place success factor and barrier cards on                   – Are there notable similarities/differences in the matrix
    timing/importance matrix (see next slide)                                   outputs between the 3 groups?
  • If necessary (to keep manageable) you may use selected cards
    only or summarise several cards on one                                    – What are the “must” factors to have for successful
                                                                                uptake (prohibitive factors) in different phases?
  • Presentation of results by teams
  • Discuss results in whole group
       – Are there notable similarities/differences in the matrix
         outputs between the 3 groups?
       – What are the “must” factors to have for successful uptake
         (prohibitive factors) in different phases?




                  Summary of key results and
                     recommendations
  Whole group (with flipchart rapporteur)
  • Discussion to reflect on findings from focus group
    sessions:
     – Can we identify key generic understandings to
       emerge from the comparison of transferability issues
       across the 3 ICs?
     – Can we identify key transferability findings to
       emerge from the focus group discussions?
     – Can we translate key findings into some generic key
       recommendations for transferability?
     – Situation of Champion cities    transferability to local
       context?
  • Summarise findings on flip chart




27/7/09                                                                                                                      University of Southampton
                                                                         62
Deliverable D3.1                                                                  Public


WG2 Introductory presentation


                                                                                                                  Icebreaker

                                                                                       What is your personal experience of
                                                                                       transferability issues:
             Presentation of WG 2                                                        As a donor?
        ‘Efficient planning and use of                                                   As an adopter?
      infrastructure and interchanges ’                                                  As a facilitator of transferability (e.g.
                  NICHES+ Workshop                                                       service provider)?
                Budapest, 27-28 April 2009




                   Overview of WG2 concepts                                                          Overview of WG 2 concepts

  • More efficient use of infrastructure and
    interchanges in stead of building new ones                                         • Passenger friendly interchanges
  • Comfortable way of travelling                                                      • Innovative cycling facilities for
  • Sustainable solutions                                                                interchanges
                                                                                       • Infrastructure for innovative bus systems




                     Concept 2.1 Passenger                                                              Concept 2.1: Passenger
                      friendly interchanges                                                              Friendly Interchanges
  • shorten pathways, transfer times, and form interchanges                            • perfect, accessible, easy-understandable information;
    in a way, that using them becomes easy, logical, simple                            • safety; and service – in terms of the facility and the staff
    and safe; with other words: passenger friendly                                     • minimising overcrowding, congestion, and conflicting
  • plenty of unexploited opportunities in the field of                                  flows, optimising of positioning key facilities, fine tuning
    monitoring (and simulating) pedestrian behaviour                                     of development proposals to balance capacities, and
                                                                                         efficient use of space
                                                                                       • make pathways and community areas more attractive,
                                                                                         and accessible (e.g. straight pathways, avoiding dark
                                                                                         corners, and level differences etc).




                       Concept 2.1: Passenger                                                           Concept 2.1: Passenger
                        Friendly Interchanges                                                            Friendly Interchanges
  Birkenhead Bus Station, Merseyside, UK
                                                                                   •   Straight pathway
  •   nine CCTV cameras providing surveillance
                                                                                   •   Proper information
  •   public address system
                                                                                   •   Good lighting
  •   staff or a contracted security presence at the bus station for 24
                                                                                   •   Cleanliness
      hours, seven days a week
  •   "there's plenty of information and it's clear and up-to-date. I find just
      having that makes travelling by bus a lot easier" [Station user]
  •   "the design is where you start from for security - this is light, with
      good visibility throughout"[Station staff]
  •   "this station is very passenger friendly. It doesn't need help points
      because the help is there already"




27/7/09                                                                                                                                 University of Southampton
                                                                                       63
Deliverable D3.1                                                   Public



                     Concept 2.2: Innovative bike                                        Concept 2.2: Innovative bike
                      facilities for interchanges                                         facilities for interchanges
     • The main idea is to bring cycling, as a non-                     Bike-public transport system in the Netherlands
       motorized mode into intermodal interchanges                      • Good bicycling infrastructure to and from the public
                                                                          transport hub
         Comprehensive Services:                                        • Good cycling storage facilities
         • guarded bicycle storage                                      • Possibility of convenient and cheap bike hire for the last
           (easy to use parking system)                                   part of the trip
         • bicycle rental (public bike)                                 • Including the bike in the travel advice system
         • maintenance services
         • extra cycle lanes




                        Bike-public transport system in                                   Bike-public transport system in
                               the Netherlands                                                   the Netherlands
 •       Underground                                                •       Cycle storage
         bike parking                                                       at a bus stop
         in Zutphen                                                         in Drenthe




                                                                                       Concept 2.3: Infrastructure for
                                Further examples
                                                                                          Innovative Bus System
     Bike station at stations, city of Chambéry, France                 •    give (any kind of) priority to buses
     • situated near the railway station                                •    improving cost efficiency, modal shift
                                                                             from car to PT, (environmental)
     • bike rent for short or long term                                      sustainability and accessibility
     • guarded bicycle storage                                          •    pass through congested (central) road
                                                                             sections
     Finsbury Park, London                                              •    connect suburban areas to each other
     • Secure, covered parking for 125 bicycles                         •    with the speed, performance and
     • 24-hour access, covered by CCTV                                       reliability of a light rail, and with the
                                                                             flexibility of buses
     • safe and easy for passengers to switch between bus, Tube,
       train, bicycle and foot




                                  Nantes Busway                                                          Nantes Busway

     •    7 km long
     •    15 stations
     •    connects the ring road to the centre
     •    operation speed is between 21 and 23
          km/h
     •    provides cca. 25,000 trips/day
     •    frequency of 4 minutes at peak hours




27/7/09                                                                                                                   University of Southampton
                                                                        64
Deliverable D3.1                                                  Public



                       Zuidtangent, Amsterdam                                             Quality bus corridors, Dublin

  •   Dedicated bus lanes                                           •   faster, more frequent and more reliable bus service
  •   Priority at road crossings                                    •   improve safety for all classes of road users including pedestrians,
  •   Good integration with other modes                                 combined with new or improved cycling facilities and crossing
                                                                        facilities for pedestrians
                                                                    •   direct high frequency bus services operated by stylish, comfortable
                                                                        environmentally friendly buses
                                                                    •   staff highly trained in customer service
                                                                    •   high quality shelters at most stops, incorporating seats and real-time
                                                                        information
                                                                    •   improved lane markings, using different coloured surfaces
                                                                    •   bus priority measures




                                                                                  ICs - impacts and measures of
                      Quality bus corridors, Dublin
                                                                                            success 1
                                                                   • Examine criteria for assessing impacts & success of ICs:
                                                                      – Impacts on efficiency (capacity, journey time, congestion
                                                                        etc)
                                                                      – Impacts on safety
                                                                      – Impacts on environment (emissions, noise, visual
                                                                        intrusion etc)
                                                                      – Accessibility
                                                                      – Vehicle occupancy
                                                                      – Passenger waiting statistics
                                                                      – Trip statistics
                                                                      – BCA value
                                                                      – MCA results




               ICs - impacts and measures of                                       Brainstorm of Transferability
                         success 2                                                           Issues
  Questions                                                         In small groups (1 per IC)
  • What are the most useful/important impacts/measures of          • Brainstorm of transferability issues – success factors and
    success?                                                           barriers
  • Are there impacts/measures of success that have not been        • Use PESTE categories i.e. political success factors /
    identified?                                                        barriers, economic…
  • Is there an order of priority for these impacts/measures of         – different colour topic cards for 5 PESTE topic areas
    success?                                                            – Label cards: success factors ‘SF’, barriers ‘B’
  • Are these measures of success effective?                            – place on PESTE sheets (see next slide)
                                                                    • Discuss results in whole group – any issues missing?




                 Refinement of transferability                                      Summary of key results and
                          issues                                                       recommendations
  Back into small groups                                            Whole group (with flipchart rapporteur)
  • Exercise to determine the timing and relative importance of     • Discussion to reflect on findings from focus group sessions:
    different barriers and success factors                             – Can we identify key generic understandings to emerge
  • Each group to place success factor and barrier cards on              from the comparison of transferability issues across the
                                                                         3 ICs?
    timing/importance matrix (see next slide)
                                                                       – Can we identify key transferability findings to emerge
  • Discuss results in whole group                                       from the focus group discussions?
     – Are there notable similarities/differences in the matrix        – Can we translate key findings into some key
        outputs between the 3 groups?                                    recommendations for transferability?
                                                                    • Summarise findings on flip chart




27/7/09                                                                                                                       University of Southampton
                                                                   65
Deliverable D3.1                                           Public


WG3 Introductory presentation


                                                                                Transferability –
                                                                               Your Experiences
                                                             What is your personal experience of
                                                             transferability issues:
                                                               As a donor?
             Presentation of WG 3
                                                               As an adopter?
         ‘Traffic Management Centres’
                                                               As a facilitator of transferability (e.g.
               NICHES+ Workshop                                service provider)?
             Budapest, 27-28 April 2009




              General Context & Challenges                             Overview of WG3 Concepts
   • Need to ‘manage’ road transport                         • Optimising the Traffic Management
      – Control environmental impacts (COX, NOX, ppm,
        noise), congestion, etc.
                                                               process from financing of a scheme
      – Improve safety                                         through to day-to-day operation
      – Increase efficiency (including public transport)     • Providing reliable real-time data to the
      – Keep traffic flowing
                                                               public and practitioners (traffic-related and
   • People need/want to travel
                                                               environment-related)
   • Aim to enhance economic growth, social
     cohesion and environmental sustainability               • Making the most of new ITS
   • Informing people helps towards these aims




                  Overview of Pre-Selected                              Concept 3.1 Finance Models for
                         Concepts                                        Traffic Management Centres

   1. Finance Models for Traffic Management                  • To identify appropriate financial models for
      Centres                                                  implementing, improving or upgrading a
   2. Mobile Travel Information Services for                   Traffic Management Centre
      the Public                                             • Public-private partnership?
   3. Using Environmental Pollution Data in                      – Berlin: Traffic Management Centre (VMZ)
      Traffic Management                                         – Krakow: Traffic Management Control Centre
                                                                 – Wales: setting up of SWTMC




                                 Berlin                                               Wales
 • The Berlin Traffic Management Centre                      • The South Wales Traffic Management
   (VMZ Berlin) integrates Berlin’s
   transport into a single city centre                         Centre (SWTMC) provides dynamic traffic
   management system for public, private                       information for motorists through variable
   and commercial transport                                    message signs, the internet, WAP-enabled
                                                               mobile phones, and local media
 • Set up and operated through a public-
   private partnership involving the City-
   State of Berlin, DaimlerChrysler
   Services, Siemens AG, VMZ Berlin                          • Traffic Wales is set up and operated by a
   GmbH, Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe                             public-private partnership involving the
   (BVG), and S-Bahn Berlin GmbH                               Welsh Assembly and Atkins




27/7/09                                                                                              University of Southampton
                                                            66
Deliverable D3.1                                                     Public


                         Concept 3.2 Mobile Travel
                        Information Services for the                                                          Gothenburg
                                  Public
                                                                      •    Volvo Mobility Systems developed
     • To provide comprehensive information for a trip-                    ITS4Mobility during 2002. It provides
       maker during a trip                                                 passengers with better traffic information and
                                                                           traffic managers with an up-to-date picture of
                                                                           the traffic situation
     • To encourage improved use of on-board and at-
       station information for public transport users                 •    Specifically it allows tracking of bus locations,
                                                                           two-way messaging, bus arrival forecasts, and
     • To utilize mobile device and Internet technology                    other services. It can also signal to traffic lights
                                                                           and request priority treatment
       to provide integrated, multi-modal, real-time
       travel information and alerts                                  •    ITS4mobility tracks over 450 buses and trams
                                                                           in Gothenburg, providing real-time passenger
         – Torino: 5T                                                      information to traffic controllers, information
                                                                           officers, passengers (at more than 140 at-stop
         – Gothenburg: ITS4Mobility                                        displays), and via the internet and WAP
         – London: iBus




                                                                                          Concept 3.3 Using Environmental
                                  London i-bus                                                Pollution Data in Traffic
                                                                                                   Management
     • iBus will be deployed on all buses on all routes and at all        • To make use of the potentially large amounts of
       depots in London from April 2009
                                                                            pollution data that are becoming available in
     • Passengers will receive next-stop audio-visual                       many urban areas
       announcements, including public service information on
       nearby points of interest, and final destination                   • To use such data in meaningful ways to agree
       information                                                          policy decisions, and present to the public to
                                                                            help them make informed travel decisions
     • Automatic announcements keep passengers informed                       – Leicester (UK): Area Traffic Control
       when a bus diverts from the planned route, whilst
       improved emergency response will be provided as the                    – London, Leicester, Cambridge and Gateshead (UK):
       precise location of every bus in the fleet can be shared                 MESSAGE Project
       with the emergency services
                                                                              – HEAVEN, EQUAL and subsequent projects




                                                                                         ICs - impacts and measures of
                                       Leicester
                                                                                                   success 2
 •    Leicester (UK) possesses an advanced                                Questions
      TMC in the form of the Area Traffic                                 • What are the most useful/important impacts/measures of
      Control Centre (ATC)
                                                                            success?
 •    The feature that differentiates Leicester                           • Are there impacts/measures of success that have not been
      from similar systems is the role that air                             identified?
      quality monitoring plays in the city                                • Is there an order of priority for these impacts/measures of
                                                                            success?
 •    The key for a city considering this                                 • Are these measures of success effective?
      concept is identifying appropriate uses
      for large amounts of data collected,
      including how to manage that data, and
      how to employ it as a traffic
      management tool




                    IC3.1: Funding Mechanisms:                                                   IC3.2 MTIS: Impacts and
                  Impacts and measures of success                                                  measures of success
     • New TMC facility is implemented                                    • Efficiency (capacity, journey times, congestion,
                                                                            etc.)
     • Existing TMC facility is upgraded                                  • Safety
     • Other?                                                             • Environment (through traffic planning and modal
                                                                            switch, etc.)
                                                                          • Accessibility (prioritisation of commercial
                                                                            vehicles, public transport, etc.)
                                                                          • Accessibility (for public transport passengers
                                                                            with disabilities)
                                                                          • Other?




27/7/09                                                                                                                           University of Southampton
                                                                      67
Deliverable D3.1                                                  Public



                IC3.3 Environmental Data:                                       Brainstorm of Transferability
             Impacts and measures of success                                              Issues
  • Health of residents, workers, transport staff,                  In small groups (1 per IC)
    passengers                                                      • Brainstorm of transferability issues – success factors and
                                                                       barriers
  • Environmental management                                        • Use PESTE categories i.e. political success factors /
  • Traffic management                                                 barriers, economic…
  • Health professionals                                                – different colour topic cards for 5 PESTE topic areas
                                                                        – Label cards: success factors ‘SF’, barriers ‘B’
  • Impact on driver behaviour of policy measures
                                                                        – place on PESTE sheets (see next slide)
    and environmental info
                                                                    • Discuss results in whole group – any issues missing?
  • Impact on accessibility of activities if revised
    traffic management and environmental policies
    are implemented
  • Other?




               Refinement of transferability                                     Summary of key results and
                        issues                                                      recommendations
  Back into small groups                                            Whole group (with flipchart rapporteur)
  • Exercise to determine the timing and relative importance of     • Discussion to reflect on findings from focus group sessions:
    different barriers and success factors                             – Can we identify key generic understandings to emerge
  • Each group to place success factor and barrier cards on              from the comparison of transferability issues across the
                                                                         3 ICs?
    timing/importance matrix (see next slide)
                                                                       – Can we identify key transferability findings to emerge
  • Discuss results in whole group                                       from the focus group discussions?
     – Are there notable similarities/differences in the matrix        – Can we translate key findings into some key
        outputs between the 3 groups?                                    recommendations for transferability?
                                                                    • Summarise findings on flip chart




WG4 Introductory presentation


                                                                                               Icebreaker

                                                                    What is your personal experience of
                                                                    transferability issues:
              Presentation of WG 4                                    As a donor?
           ‘Automated space efficient                                 As an adopter?
               transport systems’                                     As a facilitator of transferability (e.g.
               NICHES+ Workshop                                       service provider)?
             Budapest, 27-28 April 2009




              General Context & Challenges                                        Overview of WG4 concepts

  • Need to constrain private cars                                  • New driverless transport systems
     –   Moderate growth
     –   Control unsustainable use of fossil fuels                  • Mainly clean, quiet, PT concepts
     –   And Environmental impacts (COX, NOX, ppm, noise)           • But aim to reproduce the feel of travel by
     –   Improve Safety                                               private car, and hence the same
     –   Increase Efficiency
                                                                      attractiveness, by using:
  • But people want /need to travel
  • So need to provide acceptable, sustainable                      • Small vehicles
    alternatives                                                    • On demand service
  • Solutions for small towns                                       • Go from O to D directly, without stopping




27/7/09                                                                                                              University of Southampton
                                                                   68
Deliverable D3.1                                          Public



                 Overview of preselected
                        concepts
                                                                                  Concept 4.1 GRT
                                                            •   Group Rapid Transit (GRT)
                                                            •   E.g. Morgantown, Rivium, Rome,
  • Group Rapid Transit (GRT)                               •   Small buses (~ 8 seats, 12 standing)
  • Personal Rapid Transit (PRT)                            •   Operates like a lift (press button to call, and button for
                                                                stop)
  • Advanced City Cars (ACC)                                •   Faster operation (30 kph) on segregated guideway,
                                                                slower (25 kph) in mixed traffic e.g. with pedestrians and
                                                                cyclists
                                                            •   On line stops
                                                            •   Scheduled service in peak hours
  • As promoted by: CityMobil & CityNetMobil                •   On-demand service in off-peak
  • i.e. extensive R&D, but lack of deployment              •   Low waiting time




               Morgantown GRT (USA)                                              Morgantown GRT
  • Group Rapid Transit
  • Connects University of W.Virginia campus with
    the city of Morgantown, USA
  • Fully operational since the 70’s (i.e. > 30 years )
  • 6 km line (14 km guideway)
  • 5 stops
  • 71 vehicles:
     – driverless, electric
     – each with room for 8 seated +13 standing pax
  • Scheduled or demand responsive service
     – depending on predictability of demand




                    Morgantown GRT                                       Parkshuttle at Rivium (NL)
                                                            • Group Rapid Transit
                                                            • Connects metro station and Rivium business
                                                              park
                                                            • Operational since 2006 (on and off !)
                                                            • 2 km line (approx 4 km guideway)
                                                            • 5 stops
                                                            • 6 vehicles:
                                                                – driverless, electric
                                                                – each with room for 12 seated + 8 standing
                                                            • Scheduled or demand responsive service
                                                                – depending on predictability of demand




                                                                             GRT at Rome Exhibition
                   Parkshuttle at Rivium
                                                                                    Centre (I)
                                                            •   Group Rapid Transit
                                                            •   Connects exhibition hall with car park
                                                            •   Operation planned for 2009
                                                            •   3.2 km line (approx 6 km guideway)
                                                            •   12 stops
                                                            •   6 vehicles:
                                                                – driverless, electric
                                                                – each with room for 19 seated + 11 standing
                                                            • Scheduled or demand responsive service
                                                                – depending on predictability of demand




27/7/09                                                                                                      University of Southampton
                                                           69
Deliverable D3.1                                     Public



               GRT at Rome Exhibition                                          GRT
                       Centre                                        at Rome Exhibition Centre




                    Concept 4.2 PRT                                 PRT at Heathrow T5 (UK)
  • PRT (Personal Rapid Transit)                       •   PRT
  • None implemented yet, but Heathrow going in,       •   Connects T5 with car park
    and great interest e.g. Daventry, Uppsala,
    Almelo….                                           •   Operation planned for 2009
  • like CTS but smaller ~ 4 - 5 seat vehicles for     •   1.5 km line (approx 4 km guideway)
    individuals or small groups                        •   5 stops
  • All segregated guideway (speed 50 kph)             •   16 vehicles:
  • Off line stations so no intermediate stops             – driverless, electric
  • All on-demand operation                                – each with room for 4 seated + luggage
  • virtually zero waiting time                        • On-demand service




                                                                     PRT on Vectus Test Track
                PRT at Heathrow T5
                                                                              (SE)
                                                       •   PRT
                                                       •   Test track in Uppsala
                                                       •   Operating since 2007
                                                       •   circular raised track, 1 stop
                                                       •   3 vehicles:
                                                           – driverless, electric (linear motors)
                                                           – each with room for 4 seated + luggage
                                                       • Proposed on-demand service




            PRT on Vectus Test Track                                     RUF Concept (DK)

                                                       • A proposed system for combining PRT,
                                                         GRT and conventional vehicles
                                                       • Conventionally driven cars and buses
                                                       • Adapted to also run automatically on a
                                                         special guideway
                                                       • Guideway is an inverted V shaped steel
                                                         beam
                                                       • Extra wheels under the vehicle serve to
                                                         centre the vehicle, provide grip and drive




27/7/09                                                                                              University of Southampton
                                                      70
Deliverable D3.1                                          Public



                        RUF concept                                        Concept 4.3 ACC

                                                            • ACC (Advanced City Cars)
                                                            • E.g. Liselec (La Rochelle), Genova
                                                              (planned)….
                                                            • Car share club
                                                            • Small ‘green’ electric vehicles
                                                            • Fitted with ADAS (e.g. ISA, Stop&Go, lane
                                                              keeping, obstacle detection, auto parking)
                                                              to improve use and safety for drivers &
                                                              pedestrians in historic city centres




                                                                       Liselec electric cars in La
                           Liselec (F)
                                                                                Rochelle
  •   La Rochelle
  •   Operating since 1999
  •   Car share scheme using all electric vehicles
  •   50 cars
  •   Pick up/drop off at 7 charging stations
  •   Users take out a subscription
  •   get a pass that will unlock any of the vehicles
  •   Pay by use and mileage




                 Liselec using ACCs (F)                              Fiat’s Advanced City Cars

  • As Liselec i.e. electric cars
  • But now also fitted with automatic car following
  • so a single operator can collect up several
    vehicles in a ‘car train’ and redistribute them

  • Plus fitted with obstacle detection and intelligent
    speed adaptation for extra safety




                     ACCs in Genoa (I)                                      ACCs in Genoa

  • As Liselec i.e. electric cars
  • But now also fitted with navigation, guidance and
    auto parking assistance systems
  • so they are particularly suited for use in the
    narrow streets of historic city centres

  • Plus fitted with obstacle detection and intelligent
    speed adaptation for extra safety




27/7/09                                                                                       University of Southampton
                                                           71
Deliverable D3.1                                                   Public



             ICs - impacts and measures of                                      ICs - impacts and measures of
                       success 1                                                          success 2
 • Examine criteria for assessing impacts & success of ICs:          Questions
    – Impacts on efficiency (capacity, journey time, congestion      • What are the most useful/important impacts/measures of
      etc)                                                             success?
    – Impacts on safety                                              • Are there impacts/measures of success that have not been
    – Impacts on environment (emissions, noise, visual                 identified?
      intrusion etc)                                                 • Is there an order of priority for these impacts/measures of
    – Accessibility                                                    success?
    – Vehicle occupancy                                              • Are these measures of success effective?
    – Passenger waiting statistics
    – Trip statistics
    – BCA value
    – MCA results




               Brainstorm of Transferability                                     Refinement of transferability
                         Issues                                                           issues
  In small groups (1 per IC)                                         Back into small groups
  • Brainstorm of transferability issues – success factors and       • Exercise to determine the timing and relative importance of
     barriers
                                                                       different barriers and success factors
  • Use PESTE categories i.e. political success factors /
     barriers, economic…                                             • Each group to place success factor and barrier cards on
      – different colour topic cards for 5 PESTE topic areas           timing/importance matrix (see next slide)
      – Label cards: success factors ‘SF’, barriers ‘B’              • Discuss results in whole group
      – place on PESTE sheets (see next slide)                          – Are there notable similarities/differences in the matrix
  • Discuss results in whole group – any issues missing?                   outputs between the 3 groups?




               Summary of key results and
                  recommendations
  Whole group (with flipchart rapporteur)
  • Discussion to reflect on findings from focus group sessions:
     – Can we identify key generic understandings to emerge
       from the comparison of transferability issues across the
       3 ICs?
     – Can we identify key transferability findings to emerge
       from the focus group discussions?
     – Can we translate key findings into some key
       recommendations for transferability?
  • Summarise findings on flip chart




Introductory presentation site visit




27/7/09                                                                                                              University of Southampton
                                                                    72
                                                                                                                                                          2009.07.31.




                                                                       Janos MONIGL                                       Janos MONIGL
                                                                                                        Main experiences
    About Budapest’s transport system                    Studies                                        Bulding of transport demand and impact models
     (Problems – Development prospects - Measures)       1963-68
                                                         1963 68 HfV Dresden (MSc. Traffic eng)
                                                                               (MSc                       (CITY-600; TRANSURS TRANSWAY → VISUM)
                                                                                                          (CITY 600; TRANSURS,
                                                                                                        National highway network planning (1985, 1995, 2005)
                                                         1972-74 TU Budapest (MSc. Eng. econ.)
                    Dr. János MONIGL                                                                    Traffic/revenue calculation for tolled motorways (M1,M5)
                   Dr. Zsolt BERKI
                                                         1975    dr. techn. (TU Budapest)               Urban transport system planning (BTSDP 2001, 2008)
                   Zoltán UJHELYI
                   Melinda ÁBEL
                                                         2001    habilitation (TU Budapest)             Regulation of public transport operation
                   András SZÉKELY
                                                         2002    p       professor (
                                                                 private p                  p
                                                                                   (TU Budapest))          p
                                                                                                        Preparation of Budapest Transport Association (
                                                                                                                             p         p                      )
                                                                                                                                                         (BKSz)
                                                         Scholar ships                                  Reorganisation of transport companies (BKV, MAV)
                TRANSMAN Consulting (Budapest)
                      (www.transman.hu)                  1972-73 DAAD (Bonn, Aachen)                    Definition of requirements for national e-ticketing
                                                                                                        Investigation of „megaprojects” (motorways, metro)
                                                         1990    JIACA (Tokyo)
                      Budapest, May 2009

                                                     1




                                                                  Position of Budapest in the
    Structure of the presentation                              Pan-European Transport Corridors
                                                                                                               TINA Rail Network in HUNGARY

                                                                                                                   CIVITASból Úthálózat,


- Positioning and explaining the area
- Situation and problems in transport
- Transport organisations

- Development plan context

- Modelling approach and tools

- Development measures

(metro line M4; area access fee; e-ticketing)
                                                     4                                              5                                                          6




                                                                                                                                                                   1
                                                                                                                                      2009.07.31.




TINA Road Network in HUNGARY                     Budapest’s surrounding area


                                        BP Area: 525 km2                          Motorisation:
                                        Inhabitants: 1,7 million                  ~350 car/1000 IH
                                        (in 1990: 2,0 mill IH)                    Main roads: 20
                                        Buda (hilly)                              Rail lines: 11
                                        Pest (plain)                              Suburban rails: 3
                                        9½ bridges                                PT operators:
                                        2 rail bridges                             BKV, MAV, Volan




                                    7                                                                 8                                      9




  Road network and traffic loads
          in Budapest                                    Public transport passenger loads                  Trends in Budapest’s transport




                                   10                                                                 11                                    12




                                                                                                                                                 2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            2009.07.31.




  Main internal passenger flows                       Border crossing passenger flows                                                      Changes in modal split by trip Nr?




                                                                                                           Public transportation         Invidual transportation                        Public transportation     Invidual transportation



                                                                                                           Within Budapest                                                      At the boundary of Budapest




   Modal split:~60:40% (by trip Nrs)     13             Modal split:~ 35:65% (by trip Nrs)            14                                                                                                                                      15




PT co-operation in the Budapest region                                                                            The Structure of Responsibilities in
Transport Assotiation (BKSz/BTA)                         Budapest Transport Association
                                                                                                                  the Budapest Transport Association

                                                            Main role: coordination in PT                                                                            ASSOCIATION

                                              Actors of the BTA:                                                             Budapest
                                                                                                                            Municipality
                                                                                                                                                                          State
                                                                                                                                                                      Min.of
                                                                                                                                                                      Min of Finance
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     State
                                                                                                                                                                                                                Min.of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                Min of Transport

                                              -   Budapest Municipality – for local PT
                                              -   State gowernment – for interurban PT                                                                                Fares/discounts


                                              -   Association company (BTA) – to coordinate                                                                              Services


                                              -   Service providers (service contract) – revenue                                                                       Concessions

                                                  sharing
                                                        g                                                   Cost
                                                                                                           subsidy
                                                                                                                                                 Fare subsidies                                   Revenue                           Cost
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   subsidy
                                                                                                                                                                          BTA
                                                  ▪ BKV (in Budapest+suburban rail(HÉV)+some buses)
                                                  ▪ MÁV (11 lines)
                                                                                                                                   BKV                                  Volánbusz                                              MÁV
                                                  ▪ Volánbusz (in/to/from the Region)
                                                                                                                                                            Others

                                         16                                                           17                                                                                                                                      18




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          2009.07.31.




                              Share of PT-performances
                                     in Budapest                                                                                                                                                                 Development of BKV performances                                                                                                    Shares of transport means of BKV
       70 000 000
                       66 636 876


                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Number of transported passengers by BKV branches (1990 - 2007)
       60 000 000

                                                                                                                                                                                                       1800000                                                                                                                                      22%
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         Bus        Tram     Metro+Millenium Undergr.         Trolley bus     (HÉV) Suburban railway
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         26%
                                                                                                                                                                                                       1600000
       50 000 000


                                                                                                                                                                                                       1400000




                                                                                                                                                                         Number of passengers (1000)
       40 000 000                                                                                                                                                                                      1200000                                                                                                                                 4%
                                                                                                                                           Placekm/day
                                                                                                                                           Passangerkm/day                                             1000000
                                                                                                                                           Passanger number/day                                                                                                                                                                                                                 6%
       30 000 000
                                                                                                                                                                                                        800000

                                                                                                                                                                                                        600000
       20 000 000
                                    16 005 486                                                                                                                                                          400000
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          42%      public road railw ay
                                                                                                                                                                                                        200000
       10 000 000
                                                                  10 237 046                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       trolleybus

                                                 5 189 313                                                                                                                                                  0                                                                                                                                                      bus
                                                                               3 248 837             3 162 686                                                                                                   1990   1991   1992   1993   1994   1995   1996   1997   1998   1999   2000   2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007                       suburban railroad
                                                                                           274 641               770 867   109 690
               0                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   metro
                                      BKV                                        MÁV                             Volán
                                                                                                                                                                    19                                                                                                                                                                   20                                                 21




                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Population and facts of the
            Tendencies in BKV’s finances                                                                                                                                                                                            different areas                                                                                                             Population density

                    Passenger transport revenues and costs of Budapest Transport Co (BKV)
Million HUF
    90000

   80000                                                             Net costs
                                                                     Fare box revenue
   70000                                                             Fare subsidy
                                                                     Cost subsidy
   60000

   50000

   40000

   30000

   20000

   10000

       0
           1985      1990       1991             1992        1993 1994           1995 1996 1997          1998 1999                   2000 2001 2002          2003

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         23                                                 24




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  2009.07.31.




                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Air pollution of road traffic (NOx kg/day)
                             Population distribution by areas                                                                                                                                                                (inner city crucial!)




                                                                                                                                                                                          25                                                                                                                                                                                               26                                                                       27




                                   Age of car fleet (2004)                                                                                                                                                           Daily car usage ratios (2004)                                                                                                                                                  Immissions in Budapest (2008)

                                                                                                                                                                                               100%   2,0      0,5
                                                                                                                                                                                                               1,0     1,0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       0,8    2,4       1,3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        1,2      0,7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 1,1   1,7       1,5       1,1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1,6      1,3       1,0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              1,6       2,1    1,3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               1,4         1,5        0,7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      0,6
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1,1   2,0       0,1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1,3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1,0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0,4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                0,0    1,8     1,1
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               1,6       1,2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         1,1
                                                                                                                                                                                                      2,2      1,9     1,2    2,1       2,7      1,3   2,6       2,0       2,3      1,9       1,8       0,9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        1,2                1,9              1,0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1,9                 4,3    2,1     2,0       1,5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       4,3    2,6                3,0             2,0                3,0                        3,0         1,6        3,9                              2,9
                                                                                                                                                                                                      3,5      8,2                      4,1            3,1                                                                                            8,6       4,2                      5,0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 6,1       5,4                7,4       6,8    5,0         6,6              7,1                                6,5
                                                                                                                                                                                                      6,4              6,1    7,4                7,2   7,3                          9,2                                               6,5                              7,4
  60,00                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 7,6                                                                                                                                              6,3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 5,6       6,6                          6,0    6,8                          6,0       6,1                      6,9
                                                                                                                                                                                                               7,6                                                                            7,5
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               ,                            ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           8,0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              8,5                      7,6                                                                                                      18 0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                18,0   8,2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       82
                                                                                                                                                                                               80%    11,2
                                                                                                                                                                                                                       17,7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    8,6
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                20,2                                                                                19,3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        18,9                                                                             20,3
  50,00                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    22,9                                                                                 2,6
                                    51,69




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      24,5
           50,34




                                                                                                                                                                                                              24,8                     27,6                                                                    28,7        23,0             27,4
                                                                                                                                       49,71




                                                                                                                                                                                                                       2,1                                       32,6                                                                 2,5                                      29,3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 3,7                                          32,7                                                                                       2,6
                                                                                                                                                                  46,80




                                                                                                                                                                                                                              30,0                                                                      2,7                                                            30,0
                                                                                      46,24




                                                                                                                                                                                                      25,6                                             31,9
                                                                                                                                                                                               60%                                                                         2,4      31,7
                                                                                                               44,09




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      1,5
                                                             42,94




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           3,9
  40,00                                                                                                                                                                                                        5,0                      3,1                                                                    1,7                          2,0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               3,5
                                                                             33,27                                                                                                                                                                               3,5
                                                                                                                               32,74                                                                  4,8                     3,1                                                             3,6                                                                      3,6
                                                                                                      30,35                                                                       29,81                                                                4,6                          3,4
                                                                                                                                                       27,89                                   40%
% 30,00                    25,88                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                70,5
                                                    25,22                                                                                                                                                              66,9                                                                                                         65,4
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                62,8                                                    61,4                                                                             62,0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           57,7                                                                       56,8
                                                                                                                                                                                                              51,1                     52,4                                                                    52,3        53,6             52,7
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               49,2
                    3,78




                                                                      3,79




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 46,8
                                                                                              23,41




                                                                                                                                                                          23,39
                                              ,10




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              44,4
                                                                                                                         ,18




                                                                                                                                                                                                        ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                      44,2                    43,9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                ,                                                                                                                                        ,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       44,0
                                                                                                                                                  40




  20 00
  20,00                                                                                                                                                                                        20%                                                     41,3
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       41 3                         40 9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    40,9
                   23




                                                                     23
                                            23,




                                                                                                                                               22,4
                                                                                                                       23,




  10,00
                                                                                                                                                                                                0%
                                                                                                                                                                                                      <5      6 - 10   >10    <5       6 - 10   >10    <5       6 - 10     >10      <5       6 - 10     >10       <5      6 - 10    >10     <5       6 - 10     >10    <5     6 - 10     >10

                                                                                                                                                                                                           Buda- South              Buda-North                Pest-South                   Pest-North                  Pest-Transit                Inner City            Budapest total
   0,00
          Buda-South               Buda-North               Pest-South               Pest-North               Pest-Transit             Inner City              Budapest total                                No trip                 1 trip             2 trip                    3 trip                 4 trip                    5 trip               6 trip                > 6 trip

                                                            <5                            6 - 10                               >10                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Ministry of Environment and Water 
                                                                                                                                                                                          28                                                                                                                                                                                               29   PM10: 24 hour: 50 μg/m3 , yearly average  40 μg/m3                  30
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                NOx (incl. NO2): 24 hour: 150 μg/m3 , yearly average  70 μg/m3 




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           5
                                                                                                                     2009.07.31.




Inner City sensitive area?        Transport sensitive area?                   Transport affected area?




                             31                                     32                                                   33




      Traffic density                                                           Main reasons for planning activities


                                                                         Increase in motorisation, congestion
                                                                         Decline of public transport patronage
                                                                         Environmental burdens, restrained liveability
                                  Development planning activities        Financing lacks in public transport operation

                                                                         New developments with EU funding
                                                                                     p                      g
                                                                         Main project: M4 metroline
                                                                          Requirements:
                                                                          Embedding in system plan,
                             34                                     35
                                                                           Detailled traffic and impact study            36




                                                                                                                              6
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             2009.07.31.




      Key development planning works                                                                                                                                                           principles,
                                                                                                                                                                             General planning principles,
                                                                                                       Base documents at BTSDP                                               conditions at investigations

Suburban Rail System Concept (2008)                                                            • European Transportation Policy „White Paper”
                                                                                                                                                      - Inclusion of the whole Central Region in the investigation area
(                                         )
(FŐMTERV – Közlekedés with TRANSMAN et al.)                                                       U
                                                                                               • EU’ Urban Transportation Policy „Green Paper
                                                                                                                                  Green Paper”                       demography,
                                                                                                                                                                     demography structure
                                                                                                                                                                                 y
                                                                                                                                                      - Changes in demography, structure and volumes of land use
                                                                                                                                                          ll-                                     car)
                                                                                                                                                      - All-transport mode (BKV, MÁV, Volán, car) traffic modelling
                                                                                                              Transport.
                                                                                               • Nat. Uniform Transport. Development Strategy         - More detailed factors for modal shift and route choice
Budapest’s Transport System Development Plan                                                   • Budapest Urban Development Concept                                      developments, organisatorical
                                                                                                                                                      - Infrastructure developments, organisatorical and also fiscal
                                                                                                                                                      measures to drive users to clean transport modes to enhance
Client: Budapest Transportation Association
                                                                                               • Podmaniczky Program                                  viability
Planner:FKT Urb Consortium (FŐMTERV-                                                                                                                  - Integration of different modes in the development packages
  Kö l k dé TRANSMAN) (2008)
  Közlekedés-TRANSMAN)                                                                         • Transport System Development Concept 2001              Comprehensive,                  ll-
                                                                                                                                                      - Comprehensive, wide range all-transport mode impact
                                                                                               EU Projects (CIVITAS, ASSET, LINK, etc)                calculations
                                                                                                                                                      calculations
                                                                                                                                                      -Prioritisation of projects by efficiency analysis (CBA, MCA)
Updating Traffic and Impact Study of Metro Line M4
                                                                                                                                                                                     well-
                                                                                                                                                      - It is a necessity to have a well-founded and sensitive planning
 (TRANSMAN –BME/TU Budapest; 2009)                                                                                                                    tools

                                                                                         37                                                      38    2009.07.31.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    39




                Target and priority system in                                                                                                                            Integrated all-transport mode
                       BTSDP (2008)                                                                                                                                           planning framework
                                                                                                                                                            Development target               Development tools and           Development impacts
                                                                                                                                                            groups             ►              measures (Examples)►               (indicators)
                                                                                                                                                                   ▼                                 ▼                                ▼
                                                                                                                                                       •    I
                                                                                                                                                            Improve ttravel conditions
                                                                                                                                                                           l    diti                      •                  •   Investment costs
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 I    t     t   t
                                                                                                                                                            by mode and area                              •                  •   Operation costs
                                                                                                                                                       •    Minimize environmental       •   Construct transp.infrastr.                    •
                                                                                                                                                            intrusion and damages        •   Reconstruct transp..infrastr.   •   Transport time costs
                                                                                                                                                       •    Enhance accessibility and    •   Re-design feeder lines          •   Transport user costs
                                                                                                                                                             development chances         •   Re-design road network                        •
                                                                                                                                                       •    Ensure maximal economic      •   Unifying fare system            •   Accident costs
                                                                                                                                                            and social efficiency        •   Introducing e-ticketing         •   Air pollution
 Less motorized mobility        More efficient transportation     Development of external                                                              •    Keep transport financeable
                                                                                                                                                                p      p                 •   Applying city access fee        •   Noise
More efficient utilization of       network, desirable            connections of the town,                                                                                               •       l        i
                                                                                                                                                                                             Implementation of passenger
                                                                                                                                                                                                               f                           •
existing transport system       configuration of modal-split    coexistence with the suburb,                                                                                                 information system              •   Accesibilities
                                                                    better international                                                                                                                  •                  •   Location potentials
                                                                        accessibility                                                                                                                     •                                •
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             •   Efficiency (CBA,MCA)


                                                                                                                                                      From policy goals until measure impact indicators in one model chain!
                                                                                         40                                                      41                                                                                                 42




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         7
                                                                                                                                  2009.07.31.




 Outline of the analysis of strategic
                                                Main road network structure(present)                 Road network (future)
measures and development packages




                                           43                                          44                                                45




                                                                                                              (S-Bahn-
                                                                                            Complete Suburban (S-Bahn-) System
Public transport network structure (present)      Public transport network (future)


                                                                                                                             V1. phase
                                                                                                                                SC1)
                                                                                                                               (SC1)




                                           46                                          47                                                48




                                                                                                                                              8
                                                                                                                      2009.07.31.




Developments in the S-Bahn network
                    S-                                 S-Bahn network                       Bike network (present)




                                     49                                           50                                    51




 Bus lanes 2007 (~ 16 km)                 Parking regime and and truck restrictions




                                                                                       Modelling approach and tools




                                     52                                           53                                    54




                                                                                                                               9
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Procedure of transport system




                                                                                                                                                                                 Space model for the integrated transport
                                                                                                                                                                                system planning in the region of Budapest
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   development planning and modelling




     58
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            55




                                                                                                                      Region
                                                                                                                                            Budapest




                                     Modal shift




                                     Calibration:
                                                                                                                      Rest of country




                                       Interurban trips:
                                                                                                                          transport
                                                                                                                        BP inner local
                                                                                                                        Budapest (BP)




                                                                                                                       From RoC to BP
                                                                                                                      From Region to BP
                                                                                                                                                     Region


                                                                                                                         Inner region
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             fee (Example)




                                                                                                                                                 From BP to region


                                                                                                                      From RoC to region




                                     Growth-factor generation models: by regression functions
                                     Weight factors for redistribution: by regression functions



                                                                 models based on O-D surveys (2007-08)
                                                                 mode shift by stated preferences → logit
                                                                                                                                                 From BP to RoC


                                                                                                                      From RoC to RoC




                                       Local trips in Budapest: models based on household survey (2004);
                                                                 mode shift by revealed preferences → logit
                                                                                                                      From region to RoC




                                                                 at 200 cross-sections on PT and road network
                                                                                                                                                                                       Considered demand segments
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Main impact mechanisms of area access




                                                                                                                                                 Rest of country (RoC)




     59
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            56




                                                             0%                20%                      40%     60%                        80%                           100%
                                             G0/J‐/aktiv/HTF/B0
                                             G0/J‐/aktiv/HTF/B1
                                             G0/J‐/aktiv/HTF/BS
                                             G0/J‐/aktiv/HTE/B0
                                             G0/J‐/aktiv/HTE/B1
                                             G0/J‐/aktiv/HTE/BS
                                             G0/J‐/aktiv/HTS/B0
                                             G0/J‐/aktiv/HTS/B1
                                             G0/J‐/aktiv/HTS/BS
                                           G0/J‐/inaktiv/HTF/B0
                                           G0/J‐/inaktiv/HTF/B1
                                           G0/J‐/inaktiv/HTF/BS
                                           G0/J‐/inaktiv/HTE/B0
                                           G0/J‐/inaktiv/HTE/B1
                                           G0/J‐/inaktiv/HTE/BS
                                           G0/J‐/inaktiv/HTS/B0
                                           G0/J‐/inaktiv/HTS/B1
                                           G0/J‐/inaktiv/HTS/BS
                                           G0/J‐/tanuló/HTF/B0
                                           G0/J‐/tanuló/HTF/B1
                                            G0/J‐/tanuló/HTF/BS                                                                                         Car Driver
                                           G0/J‐/tanuló/HTE/B0
                                           G0/J‐/tanuló/HTE/B1
                                           G0/J‐/tanuló/HTE/BS                                                                                          Car Passenger
                                           G0/J‐/tanuló/HTS/B0
                                           G0/J‐/tanuló/HTS/B1
                                            G0/J‐/tanuló/HTS/BS                                                                                         Public Transport
                                            G0/J‐/egyéb/HTF/B0
                                            G0/J‐/egyéb/HTF/B1
                                            G0/J‐/egyéb/HTF/BS
                                                                                                                                                        Bike
                                            G0/J‐/egyéb/HTE/B0
                                            G0/J‐/egyéb/HTE/B1                                                                                          Walk
                                            G0/J‐/egyéb/HTE/BS
                                            G0/J‐/egyéb/HTS/B0
                                            G0/J‐/egyéb/HTS/B1
                                            G0/J‐/egyéb/HTS/BS
                                             G1/J0/aktiv/HTF/B0
                                             G1/J0/aktiv/HTF/B1
                                             G1/J0/aktiv/HTF/BS
                                             G1/J0/aktiv/HTE/B0
                                             G1/J0/aktiv/HTE/B1
                                             G1/J0/aktiv/HTE/BS
                                             G1/J0/aktiv/HTS/B0
                                             G1/J0/aktiv/HTS/B1
                                             G1/J0/aktiv/HTS/BS
                                           G1/J0/inaktiv/HTF/B0
                                           G1/J0/inaktiv/HTF/B1
                                           G1/J0/inaktiv/HTF/BS
                                           G1/J0/inaktiv/HTE/B0
                                           G1/J0/inaktiv/HTE/B1
                                           G1/J0/inaktiv/HTE/BS
                                           G1/J0/inaktiv/HTS/B0
                                           G1/J0/inaktiv/HTS/B1
                                           G1/J0/inaktiv/HTS/BS
                                           G1/J0/tanuló/HTF/B0
                                           G1/J0/tanuló/HTF/B1
                                           G1/J0/tanuló/HTF/BS
                                           G1/J0/tanuló/HTE/B0
                                           G1/J0/tanuló/HTE/B1
                                           G1/J0/tanuló/HTE/BS
                                           G1/J0/tanuló/HTS/B0
                                           G1/J0/tanuló/HTS/B1
                                           G1/J0/tanuló/HTS/BS
                                           G1/J0/egyéb/HTF/B0
                                           G1/J0/egyéb/HTF/B1
                                           G1/J0/egyéb/HTF/BS
                                           G1/J0/egyéb/HTE/B0
                                           G1/J0/egyéb/HTE/B1
                                           G1/J0/egyéb/HTE/BS
                                           G1/J0/egyéb/HTS/B0
                                           G1/J0/egyéb/HTS/B1
                                           G1/J0/egyéb/HTS/BS
                                             G1/J1/aktiv/HTF/B0
                                             G1/J1/aktiv/HTF/B1
                                             G1/J1/aktiv/HTF/BS
                                             G1/J1/aktiv/HTE/B0
                                             G1/J1/aktiv/HTE/B1
                                             G1/J1/aktiv/HTE/BS
                                             G1/J1/aktiv/HTS/B0
                                             G1/J1/aktiv/HTS/B1
                                             G1/J1/aktiv/HTS/BS
                                           G1/J1/inaktiv/HTF/B0
                                           G1/J1/inaktiv/HTF/B1
                                           G1/J1/inaktiv/HTF/BS
                                           G1/J1/inaktiv/HTE/B0
                                           G1/J1/inaktiv/HTE/B1
                                           G1/J1/inaktiv/HTE/BS
                                           G1/J1/inaktiv/HTS/B0
                                           G1/J1/inaktiv/HTS/B1
                                           G1/J1/inaktiv/HTS/BS
                                           G1/J1/tanuló/HTF/B0
                                           G1/J1/tanuló/HTF/B1
                                           G1/J1/tanuló/HTF/BS
                                           G1/J1/tanuló/HTE/B0
                                           G1/J1/tanuló/HTE/B1
                                                                                                                                                                                       Local travel patterns of groups




     From the BKV household survey 2004




                                           G1/J1/tanuló/HTE/BS
                                           G1/J1/tanuló/HTS/B0
                                           G1/J1/tanuló/HTS/B1
                                           G1/J1/tanuló/HTS/BS
                                           G1/J1/egyéb/HTF/B0
                                           G1/J1/egyéb/HTF/B1
                                           G1/J1/egyéb/HTF/BS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   shift forecasting; impact calculation




                                           G1/J1/egyéb/HTE/B0
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Integrated travel demand and modal




                                           G1/J1/egyéb/HTE/B1
                                           G1/J1/egyéb/HTE/BS
                                           G1/J1/egyéb/HTS/B0
                                           G1/J1/egyéb/HTS/B1
                                           G1/J1/egyéb/HTS/BS
     60
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            57




10
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           2009.07.31.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               2009.07.31.




              Interurban travel patterns by settlement                                                                                                   Model structure for local urban travel
                                                                                                                                                                      (Budapest)                                                               Traffic demand forecasting
                              groups
    100%        3,14                                            2,13                            1,16    2,63            3,45    3,71
                            6,91     4,22                               6,23                                    5,18
                                                                                        9,22
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Trip flow development by growth factors
     80%
                                               34,01
                                                                                                39,73
                                                                                                        27,88
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     FH ij ,t = FH ij , o ⋅ ni ⋅ s j
                                    40,33                      44,13                                                    42,96
                           41,31
                           41 31                                                                                                46,87
                                                                                                                                46 87

                62,87                                                   58,82           51,30
                                                                                                                51,27
                                                                                                                                                                                                                     ni ,t = Yi , t / Yi , o                              factors for trip generation growth
                                                                                74,36
     60%                                                                                        1,07                                         other

                                               32,31
                                                                                                                                             car                                                                     Yi = f ( IH i ; EM i ; MOi ;...)                     regression for originating trips
                                                               12,82                                                    11,57                bus

     40%                   23,67                                                                                                20,02
                                                                                                                                             rail                                                                                                                         (IH=inhabitants, EM=employees,
                                                                                        13,31
                                                                                                        69,48
                                                                                                                21,01                                                                                                                                                     MO=motorization…)
                                    53,23                                                       58,04

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 X ij , t / Cij ,t / ∑ X k , t / Cik ,t
                                                                        18,23

                                                                                                                                                                                                                     s j ,t =
                                                                                                                        42,02
     20%        28,92                                          40,92
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          factors for trip attraction weight change
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                X j , o / Cij , o / ∑ X k , o / Cik , o
                                               33,69
                           28,12                                                21,16                                           29,40
                                                                                        26,17
                                                                                                                22,53
                                                                                                                22 53
                                                                        16,72
                5,07                 2,22                                       4,48
       0%
                near        far     near        far            near      far    near     far    near     far    near     far     all    To BP                                                                        X j = g (WPj ; EM j ; SH j ;...)                     regression for destinating trips
                 no         no       yes        yes             no       no      yes     yes     no      no      yes     yes     all    Motorway
                 no         no       no         no             rare     rare    rare    rare    dense   dense   dense   dense    all    Rail serv.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          (WP-workplaces, EM=employers,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          SH=shop m2…)
                                 From the BKSz household survey 2007                                                                                                                                                                                  Cij                 generalised costs (public + car)
                                                                                                                                                 61                                                             62                                                                                                    63




                        Modal shift forecasting in motorized                                                                                                    Changes in structural data
                                       traffic                                                                                                                                                                                    Increase of daily trips in Budapest
                                                                                                                                                                      (Examples)
                                                                                                                                                             Inhabitants 2005- 2034   Work Places 2005 - 2034



Base: calibrated modal traffic matrices
             FH c , b , ij , m        matrices by traveller groups (c ), base groups (b)
                                      and modes (m)
Probability of mode choice:
by logit model; based on “stated” preferences survey (2007)
            Pc , b, ij , m = eU , c ,b ,ij , m / ∑ e
                                                       U c ,b ,ij , k



Changing probabilities of modal shifts by transport measures
            ΔFH c , b , ij , m = FH c ,b ,ij , m ⋅ ( Pc*,b ,ij , m − Pc ,b , ij , m )                                                                 Legend (%)

FH c ,b , ij , m = FH c , b , ij , m + ΔFH c , b , ij , m
   *




                                                                                                                                                 64                                                             65                                                                                                    66




                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           11
                                                                                                                                          2009.07.31.




Future Example: Metro line M5 ? Circular rail ?            Main impact fields of transport             Calculation of indicators depending on
H5U07M5U07 – HA07MJ07
                                                           developments and measures                          traffic volume and speed




                                                  67                                              68                                            69




            Air pollution of road transport            Investigation plan of the are access fee        All-transport mode impact evaluation
                     (NOx kg/day)                                impact assessment                     with staging of system developments




                                                  70                                              71                                            72




                                                                                                                                                     12
                                                                                                                                               2009.07.31.




                                                                                                     Passenger loads after completing section 1 of
                                                     Alignement of metro line M4 (BTSDP)                         metro line M4 (2011)




     Computation Example:
    Impacts of metro line M4




                                              73                                                74                                                    75




Difference loads of the network with section 1.    Zonal changes of PT modal share as a result of     Zonal changes of air pollution as a result of
       and the present network (2011)                  the implementation of M4 metro line               the implementation of M4 metro line




                                              76                                                77                                                    78




                                                                                                                                                           13
                                                                                                                                                                                                              2009.07.31.




                                              Main aspects of the area access fee
                                                                                                       Parking regime and and truck restrictions
                                                            regime
                                          Main policy targets
                                           Reduction of congestion
                                           Decrease of air pollution
     Computation Example:                  Gaining of revenues
   Impacts of area access fee
                                          Main tools for targets ( role of Parking Ltd!)
                                           Unification of PT fares (2009; EU citizenns!)
                                                            ,       p            (
                                           Truck area bann, route permissions (2008)   )
                                           Parking fee-system (only destinating traffic)
                                           Area access fee (multi-target tool)
                                            Low emission zone (depends on fleet)

                                     79                                                    80                                                                                                                             81




                                                   Calculation scheme for applying                                   The impact of access fee on the
Where should be access fee considered?             area access fee (2.75 EUR/entry)                                behaviour of car users in the model

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Trip mode
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   to city
                                                                                                                                                                          (without access fee)
                                                                                                                                                     city return trips                           driving in         car
                                                                                                                     it     id t
                                                                                                                    city residents
                                                                                                                                                     other trips                                                    car

                                                                                                                                                                                                 mode shift        pub
                                                                                                BP residents                                                              rigid purpose
                                                                                                                                                                                                 driving in         car

                                                                                                                                                     city tdestin.trips                          mode shift        pub
                                                                                                                                                                          flexible purpose       destin.change     car
                                                                                                                    non city residents                                                           driving in        car

                                                                                                                                                                                                 by-passing         car
                                                                                                                                                     through trips
                                                                                                                                                                                                 go-through         car



                                                                                                                    mode shift to public transport                                                                 pub

                                                                                                                                                                          rigid purpose          driving in         car
                                                                                                BP non-residents                                     city destin.trips
                                                                                                                                                                                                 destin.change      car
                                                                                                                    travel to BP by car                                   flexible purpose
                                                                                                                                                                                                 driving in         car

                                                                                                                                                                                                 by passing         car
                                                                                                                                                     trough trips
                                                                                                                                                                                                 go-through         car
                                     82                                                    83                                                                                                                             84




                                                                                                                                                                                                                               14
                                                                                                                                                                                                              2009.07.31.




Redistribution of trips by the area           Daily traffic load difference map
            access fee                           (A.FEE 2020 – BAU 2020)
                                                                                                    Daily traffic on Danube bridges

                                                                                                 180 000
                                                                                                                                                inside the area

                                                                                                 160 000

                                                                                                 140 000

                                                                                                 120 000

                                                                                                 100 000




                                                                                       PCU/day
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Base
                                                                                                  80 000                                                                                                       BAU
                                                                                                                                                                                                               Impact
                                                                                                  60 000

                                                                                                  40 000

                                                                                                  20 000

                                                                                                      0
                                                                                                           M0-Nord   Árpád   Margit   Lánchíd     Erzsébet        Szabadság   Petőfi   Lágymányosi M0-South
                                                                                                                                                  Bridges


                                      85                                          86                                                                                                                            87




                                           Additional PT-passenger loads and
       Road network (future)                                                                                                 Traffic density
                                             savings (A.FEE 2020 – BAU 2020)




                                      88                                          89                                                                                                                            90




                                                                                                                                                                                                                        15
                                                                                                                                                                              2009.07.31.




      Emission density                                                    Traffic density                                                     Emission density




                                    91                                                                                 92                                                          93




Possible technical system of area
access fee charging, enforcement              Economic valuation of effects                                                     Leasons learned, conclusions
                                                                                                                            ▪ the measure influences the travel costs and affects the
                                                                                                                               distribution of traffic in the network (move to less
                                         Traffic impacts (ASSET):                                                              sensitive areas → advantage, but congestion problems)
                                                                                                                              therefore external costs should be differently
                                                                                                                            ▪ th    f       t     l      t h ld b diff      tl
                                                                            Base case → BAU (2020)    BAU → A. FEE (2020)      considered (e.g. in inner city and peripherial zones)
                                                                                                                            ▪ the access fee can be useful for the community
                                         - travel time (car)                  +688,2    mill. EUR/y          +85,0
                                         - travel time (PT)                      -                           -48,9             (envrionment, finances), but disadvantageous for the
                                         - running costs                      +207,9    mill. EUR/y          - 6,6             transport users and economy
                                         - accidents costs                    + 89,4    mill. EUR/y          - 2,9          ▪ introduction before infrastructure developments (M4
                                         - (local) air pollution costs        + 89,1    mill. EUR/y          - 2,8                    line,
                                                                                                                               metro line roadring + bridges) causes tensions
                                         - (global) air pollution costs       + 54,4    mill. EUR/y          - 1,7 (20,9)
                                                                                                                            ▪ combination with low emission zone can be seen as a
                                         Investment costs                     ~50,0     mill. EUR                              gradual implementation
                                         Operation costs                      ~10,0     mill. EUR/y                         ▪ the technical system for enforcement and controll
                                         Fare revenue (2020)                  ~150,0    mill. EUR/y
                                                                                                                               should be adaptable to the national system elements
                                    94                                                                                 95                                                          96




                                                                                                                                                                                        16
                                                                                                                                                  2009.07.31.




    Development planning context                             Main aspects of the area access fee               Ratio of arreving car-driver trips by
                                                                           regime                                 purpose into Pest Inner area
Budapest’s Transport System Development Plan             Main policy targets
Client: Budapest Transportation Association               Reduction of congestion
                            (FŐMTERV
Planner:FKT Urb Consortium (FŐMTERV-                      Decrease of air pollution
  Közlekedés-TRANSMAN) (2008)                             Gaining of revenues
                                                         Main tools for targets (Parking Ltd!)
Road charging studies                                     Truck area bann, route permissions
EUROPRICE – Budapest case (TRANSMAN; 1999)                Parking fee-system (only destinating traffic)
Efficient traffic management in Budapest – are                                ( p
                                                          Low emission zone (depends on fleet)  )
  access fee; (Városkutatás ;2008)                        Area access fee (multi-target tool)
ASSET – Budapest case: area access fee
                                                         Differentations?
  (TRANSMAN; 2008-)
                                                          Charge levels? (2,75; 2; 1,5 PT ticket price)
Preliminary feasibility investigation of the car area
  access fee (Városkutatás – TRANSMAN ; 2009-)            Daily time periods? (peak/off peak fee?)
                                                    97    Double cordon line? (inner cordon?)             98                                           99




           Concluding questions?
Right analysis done and diagnosis defined?
Thresholds, limit values, standards exceeded?
Efficient goals defined and approved?
Appropriate measures selected?
Driving mechanism of measure known?
Adequate transport models existing?
Sufficient impact modules available?
All essential impacts considered?
Proper unit costs of impacts by exposures known?
Right assessment methods applied?
Results interpretable to decision makers?
Willingness and sources for realisation available?
                                                   100




                                                                                                                                                            17
Deliverable D3.1                                     Public



7.3        Evaluation of WG meeting

                                                                              Level of satisfaction (1-5):
      1.    How satisfied were you:
                                                                               low .… medium …. high

 h)   With the registration process and pre-event information?                            4,3

 i)   With the organisation of the meetings?                                              4,6

 j)   With the documents provided?                                                        4,3

 k)   With the plenary sessions?                                                          3,6

 l)   With the focus group methodology?                                                   4,1

 m) With the networking opportunities outside the meetings?                              3,85



2. Which parts of the event were most useful for you?
Focus groups (16x)
      feedback on ICs
      good selection of experts
      good timing
      the methods and rules for brainstorming have been well respected
      interesting to learn from related fields of expertise
      learning from issues that play within the Champion Cities
Networking (5x)
       Discussion during the breaks
       Dinner
Nice location (2x)


3. Which parts of the event were of little or no use to you?
Opening plenary session (5x)
Closing plenary session (6x)
      too many people in the panel
      guiding questions not clear
      one way communication
Networking in the coffee breaks


4. What changes or improvements should be made?
Regarding practicalities
      Budapest is a lovely city, but what about the CO2 cost?
      What about translation? Working in second language is ok, but ideas are clearer in
      the native tongue.
Regarding the meeting methodology
           Make more use of the assembled expertise. We all travelled far but we did only work
           7 hours or so.
           Measures and their impacts should be better separated in the methodology


27/7/09                                                                   University of Southampton
                                                       73
Deliverable D3.1                               Public


      Build more on the findings of the previous meeting, summary of findings of previous
      work should be done at the beginning of the session
      More time for networking
      more explanation about existing practical cases
      contacts and exchanges between the groups (3x)
      Case studies in focus group meetings.
Regarding the experts
      Gender balance
      bigger focus groups
Regarding the plenary sessions
          Keynote speaker for plenary sessions.
          It would be interesting to hear a 5 minute overview from each of the four working
          groups on the key issues and findings.


5. Do you have any other comments or suggestions?
Communication
      Interested in good meeting minutes and a good report.
      Dissemination of the results.
      Increase visibility of EU projects
Meeting methodology
       We could have formed these recommendations without this methodology as well. It
       shows that either the methodology itself or its application during these two days have
       been not so successful.
       Too little networking opportunities.
Practicalities
     Send list of participants in advance
     Restaurant at night was not very good
Champion cities
          Perhaps greater focus on each Champion City scenario, Experts focussing on actual
          implementation plans and offering constructive criticism.
          Information to third parties on bilateral exchange




27/7/09                                                                   University of Southampton
                                                74

								
To top