TIDE Workshop on Training and Exchange
Stuttgart, 12-13 November 2013
Prof Nick Hounsell, Transportation Research Group
University of Southampton, UK

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

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

Context conditions
•There are no cities with exactly the same context conditions.
•Differences can include transport/raffic conditions (demand, supply, infrastructure, traffic control/management, etc.), geographical,environmental, demographic, socioeconomic 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 .

-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

• 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

(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

Pioneer city
Adopter city
Advanced public transport priority
London
Source: www.londonphototours.com/big_ben.htm
Southampton
Source: www.lbbc.co.uk

• 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

• 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.

• Efficiency (capacity, journey time)
• Environment (emissions, noise, visual intrusion)
• Safety
• Accessibility
• Vehicle occupancy
• Benefit-to-cost ratio (BCR)
• Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA)

• 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

• 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.

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

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

According to the pioneer city
• High/medium/low
• Supporting comments

Sub-components Importance
Bus priority policy High
Traffic management policy
Capital costs
High
High
Comments
The main objective to be supported by the measure
Bus priority had to operate within an overall traffic management policy
Running costs
Economic benefits
Medium
Medium
Urban Traffic manager High
Bus operators
Local government High
Equipment and Tools High
Software
High
High
The major cost involved: detection, communication, priority algorithm, etc (hardware and software)
Similar to existing traffic control systems
Increased benefits due to passenger waiting time savings
Traffic manager were in favour of fewer priority interventions as a result of advanced priority, but concerned over potential complexity
Operators needed to be convinced the about the benefits of differential priority instead of priority to all buses
TfL approved and financed the scheme
Adaptive traffic control system and AVL system were crucial for the implementation.
Traffic control software needed to be upgraded

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

Components Sub-components
Strategies and Public transport policy policies
Finances
Traffic management policy
Capital costs of design,
Stakeholders involvement implementation
Running costs
Economic benefits
Urban Traffic manager/controller
Public transport operators
Technical requirements
Government (local)
Equipment and Tools
Software
Importance
High
High
High
Medium
Medium
High
High
High
High
High
Assessment
+2
+2
-1
0
+1
+1
-1
-1
-1
0

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

• 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

• Nick Hounsell
N.B.Hounsell@soton.ac.uk
Transportation Research Group