systematic transfer in tide tide workshop on training and exchange stuttgart, 12-13 november 2013...
TRANSCRIPT
Systematic Transfer in TIDE
TIDE Workshop on Training and ExchangeStuttgart, 12-13 November 2013
Prof Nick Hounsell, Transportation Research GroupUniversity of Southampton, UK
Outline • Introduction to Systematic Transfer
• Introduction to TIDE transferability methodology
• Transferability methodology step-by-step
Concept of transferability
•TransferabilityA process of verifying the chances of a successful implementation of a measure from a pioneer city to the adopting city at an operational or implementation level
•Pioneer cityA city where an innovative measure is successfully implemented
•Adopter cityA city which wish to implement an innovative measure that is successfully implemented in a pioneer city
Context conditions
•There are no cities with exactly the same context conditions.
•Differences can include transport/raffic conditions (demand, supply, infrastructure, traffic control/management, etc.), geographical,environmental, demographic, socio-economic and cultural backgrounds as well as institutional and legal frameworks.
• So we must identify those context conditions which are key to the measure‘s success and which must also be addressed in any new location – or which have created barriers to success so that they can either be overcome or transferability avoided where such factors exist.
Advantages of systematic transfer
-Systematic approach to innovation -Reduces the risk of bad decision making -Feasibility check at an early stage-Clearer definition of measures – What exactly is it that we want to transfer?-Comparability between different Innovative Measures-Don‘t have to reinvent the wheel-Cost savings-Learn from the mistakes of others-The process itself leads to stakeholder and expert involvement
TIDE Transferability Methodology
• A systematic qualitative methodology to analyse the potential transferability of an innovative transport measure from one city to another.
• Designed to maximise the usability for practitioners in European cities.
• A ‘Handbook for transferability analysis in urban transport and mobility’ will be produced by the cities involved in TIDE, for wider use
Source: Dziekan et al, 2013
The 7 step Methodology
(1) Mission statement/objectives and scoping
(2) Clarification of the impacts of the measure
(3) Identification of up-scaling/down-scaling need
(4) Identification of the main components and sub-components
(5) Identification of the level of importance of components
(6) Assessment of the situation in the adopter city
(7) Conclusions
Example
Source: www.londonphototours.com/big_ben.htm
Source: www.lbbc.co.uk
Southampton
London
Advanced public transport priority
Pioneer city
Adopter city
Step 1: Mission statement and scope • A clearly defined mission statement (or clear objectives)
and a realistic scope for a measure
• Should avoid any misunderstanding during the subsequent transferability and implementation processes
• The following transferability steps should only be carried out after the adopter understands and agrees with the objectives and scope of the measure
Mission statement (bus priority)
• To provide priority to buses at traffic signals to improve their regularity
Scope
• ‘Differential’ bus priority only. It does not cover the traffic signalling system itself.
Step 2: Impacts: Generic (Examples)
• Efficiency (capacity, journey time) • Environment (emissions, noise, visual intrusion)• Safety• Accessibility• Vehicle occupancy• Benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR) • Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA)
Impacts (bus priority) • Improve bus regularity• Improve bus journey time• Reduce passenger waiting time• Reduce bus overcrowding• Increase bus patronage• Increase bus revenue• May reduce bus operating costs and emissions• May increase delay to general traffic• Provide a good economic return (cost-benefit)
Source: Dziekan et al, 2013
Scaling (bus priority)
• Southampton is much smaller than London and hence needs down-scaling of the implementation
• This may have implications on system requirements, costs and benefits.
Note also: Southampton has a different model of bus operations.
Step 4: Main components & sub-components
Factors that can contribute to the success (or failure) of a measure :
• Components (main factors):- Policy, stakeholders, finance, technical requirements, etc.
• Sub-components e.g. for policy:- Public transport policy, traffic management policy,
accessibility policy, pollution reduction policy
Main components & sub-components (bus priority)
ExamplesComponents Sub-componentsStrategies and policies
Public transport policy
Traffic management policy
Finances Capital costs of design and implementation
Running costs
Economic benefits
Stakeholders involvement
Urban Traffic manager/controller
Public transport operators
Government (local)
Technical requirements
Equipment and Tools (Infrastructure)Software
Step 5: Level of importance of sub-components
According to the pioneer city
• High/medium/low
• Supporting comments
Level of importance of sub-components (bus priority)Sub-components Importance Comments
Bus priority policy High The main objective to be supported by the measure
Traffic management policy
High Bus priority had to operate within an overall traffic management policy
Capital costs High The major cost involved: detection, communication, priority algorithm, etc (hardware and software)
Running costs Medium Similar to existing traffic control systems
Economic benefits Medium Increased benefits due to passenger waiting time savings
Urban Traffic manager High Traffic manager were in favour of fewer priority interventions as a result of advanced priority, but concerned over potential complexity
Bus operators High Operators needed to be convinced the about the benefits of differential priority instead of priority to all buses
Local government High TfL approved and financed the scheme
Equipment and Tools High Adaptive traffic control system and AVL system were crucial for the implementation.
Software High Traffic control software needed to be upgraded
Step 6: Assessment of the situation in the adopter city
Subjective assessment of ease/difficulty in implementation by adopter city Assessment scale:
+2 strong support for transferability+1 modest support for transferability 0 neutral
-1 modest constraint for transferability -2 strong constraint for transferability
Assessment of components (bus priority)by the adopter city
Components Sub-components Importance Assessment
Strategies and policies
Public transport policy High +2Traffic management policy High +2
Finances Capital costs of design, implementation
High -1
Running costs Medium 0Economic benefits Medium +1
Stakeholders involvement
Urban Traffic manager/controller High +1Public transport operators High -1
Government (local) High -1Technical requirements
Equipment and Tools High -1
Software High 0
Step 7: Conclusions
Drawing conclusions through the assessment
• One or more strong constraints (-2) to transferability- no transfer unless the conditions can be overcome
• One or two modest constraints(-1) (no strong constraints)- difficult to transfer the measure unless the conditions can be addressed
• If there are no constraints at all- likely that the measure could be successfully transferred
Conclusions (bus priority)• The measure is potentially transferable to
Southampton dependent on:
• Cost of the system – this could be justified by improved bus operations and the benefits associated with it (e.g. journey time/waiting time benefits, increased patronage)
• Bus operators’ support – operators may need convincing!
Source: http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2829/9719701724_53b5de8a10.jpg
