FLIPPER Final Conference Almada 21 st October 2011

FLIPPER Final Conference, Almada, 21.10.11

PartnerLogo

1

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

FLIPPER Final Conference

Almada21st October 2011

Presented by:Prof John Nelson, University of Aberdeen, Scotland

Title: Title: The role of FLPPER in FTS developmentThe role of FLPPER in FTS development


PartnerLogo

2

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s Overview of PresentationOverview of Presentation

• Characteristics of FTS

• An introduction to FLIPPER

• Cross-site Evaluation

• Contribution to Good Practice: A business model for sustainable FTS

• Implications for FTS


PartnerLogo

3

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

What are Flexible Transport Services?What are Flexible Transport Services?

“services provided for passengers (and freight) that are flexible in terms of route, vehicle allocation, vehicle operator, type of payment and/or passenger category”

Increasing flexibility

routeFixed months in

advanceFixed one hour

before trip

vehicle

Special transport services e.g. CT

Available all day

One type of vehicle Many types of vehicle

operator Contracted Commercial

passenger

Available for only part of the day

General public only

No restrictions

One day in advance


PartnerLogo

4

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

“Agents”

User Groups

Service Providers

• Goals• Constraints• Limitations

Sophisticated, comfortable and cost effective transport options

• Resources• Schedules• Fares

Components of a Flexible Transport ServiceComponents of a Flexible Transport Service


PartnerLogo

5

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s The FLIPPER ProjectThe FLIPPER Project

MAIN OBJECTIVES:• Investigation, experience exchange, transfer of good practices and profitable

co-operation on FTS in relation to mobility in cities, rural areas and small towns

• Exploitation of real results, experiences and good practices gained

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES Creation of a Knowledge Transfer Network among different EU areas and Authorities in the domain of FTSUnderstanding of the passengers´ point of view and learning about the socio- economic effects of FTS in the served areasKnowledge raising through analytical studies of local needs and possible solutions in order to identify the most appropriate ICT tools and solutions and their optimal roll-out and operationElaboration of guidelines for an effective European policy for collective transport services for cities and rural areasPromotion at local, regional and European level of the concept, approach and results of FTS as a “real” component of the overall area/region transport chain


PartnerLogo

6

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s FLIPPER ConsortiumFLIPPER Consortium- 7 EU Countries- 9 EU Regions- 11 partners:• Studio Reti e Mobilità

(SRM, IT) LEADER

• ATL (IT)

• ATAF (IT)

• University of Thessaloniki (AUTH, GR)

• University of Vienna (BOKU, AT)

• Municipality of Purbach (AT)

• University of Aberdeen (UK)

• DOYK - Municipal Organization for Health and Social Affairs - Volos Municipality(GR)

• Consell Insular de Formentera (ES)

• Municipality of Almada (PT)

• Ring a Link, not-for- profit organisation (RAL, IE)


PartnerLogo

7

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s


PartnerLogo

8

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s Decision support for Service Design and Decision support for Service Design and EvaluationEvaluation

• FLIPPER adopted a structured framework for the design and implementation of flexible transport services (Brake, Nelson and Wright, 2010).

• This more formalised approach can act as a decision support tool for the feasibility studies, providing

– guidance on the sequence in which aspects of design should be considered

– details on what should be considered at each stage in the sequence

• A template is used to record details on certain decisions and choices that are made at the different stages in FTS design

• Use of the framework provides a strong and consistent basis for identifying and explaining variations between designs and assists subsequent evaluation.


PartnerLogo

9

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s Strategic Level Policies and Local Political Priorities

Local Geography Constraints

Demography

Local stakeholders and partnerships

Existing Registered Services

Coordination with other existing services

Legal / Regulatory Constraints

Service Design

Minimum Vehicle Requirements

Key features of contract

Vehicle Choice

Dispatch Centre Scenarios

Booking Scheduling and Dispatching software choices

in Vehicle equipment choices

Communication with vehicles

Cost Model Cost Model

Pla

nn

ing

Sta

ges

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

S

tag

es

Ch

an

ge

Imp

lem

en

tati

on

Sc

en

ari

os

User Requirements

DESTINO Method

How many potential users ?

Who else is involved in helping access key services ?

What transport services are already provided ?

What do different users need / want ?

How much budget do I have ?

Can I coordinate with existing services ? How ?

What legislation applies ?

How do I design the service? What locations should be

served at what times ?

What vehicle design ?

What operator to choose ?

What is potential fare box revenue?

What type of operator contract is suitable ?

What should I expect this to cost ?

How do I buy vehicles ?

How much do they cost ?

Do we need our own dispatch centre ?

How else can we take bookings ?

What does all this cost ?

Do I need software to help with bookings and scheduling ?

Which one ?

How much cost ?

What equipment do the vehicles need ? What cost ?

Will communication with vehicles work ?

Who is best provider?

Approximately how much does all this cost

and can we afford it ????

Who are the targeted / likely users ?

How do I establish partnerships ?

What is the area like ?

Is it remote, hilly, with narrow roads?

How many vehicles ?

How else can we get money to pay for it ?

transport in Area A to meet our accessibility planning strategy targets. Fixed routes cant reach our priority

We need better transport in Almada for health serviceusers and people with disabilities.

Fixed routes can’t reach our priority groups

Design a DRT service that can!

How many potential users ?

Who else is involved in helping access key services ?

What transport services are already provided ?

What do different users need / want ?

How much budget do I have ?

Can I coordinate with existing services ? How ?

What legislation applies ?

How do I design the service? What locations should be

served at what times ?

What vehicle design ?

What operator to choose ?

What is potential fare box revenue?

What type of operator contract is suitable ?

What should I expect this to cost ?

How do I buy vehicles ?

How much do they cost ?

Do we need our own dispatch centre ?

How else can we take bookings ?

What does all this cost ?

Do I need software to help with bookings and scheduling ?

Which one ?

How much cost ?

What equipment do the vehicles need ? What cost ?

Will communication with vehicles work ?

Who is best provider?

Approximately how much does all this cost

and can we afford it ????

Who are the targeted / likely users ?

How do I establish partnerships ?

What is the area like ?

Is it remote, hilly, with narrow roads?

How many vehicles ?

How else can we get money to pay for it ?


PartnerLogo

10

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Cross-site EvaluationCross-site Evaluation

• In FLIPPER D8 key indicators which define service performance for FTS have been identified as: – Subsidy per passenger trip (€)– Subsidy per vehicle hour (€)– Subsidy per veh-km (€)– Subsidy per pass-km (€)– Ratio of fare revenue to operating cost– Passenger trips per vehicle hour– kg CO2 per passenger km


PartnerLogo

11

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Plot of subsidy per passenger trip against target population density at pilot sites


PartnerLogo

12

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Pilot user surveysPilot user surveys

• All seven pilot site partners conducted a short user survey to elicit the changes in mobility and travel patterns which the FTS has enabled as well as establishing the satisfaction of the service with users.

• The questionnaire, which is based on previous materials developed for the evaluation of FTS, contains the minimum necessary questions to enable cross-site comparison on satisfaction and impacts on mobility and travel patterns amongst users.

• The questionnaire was kept as short as possible to enable surveys to be conducted while passengers were on the bus/vehicle as well as via telephone.


PartnerLogo

13

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Average walk time to/from bus stop

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

Alm

ad

a

Bo

rgo

Pa

nig

ale

Fo

rme

nte

ra

Ka

sto

ria

Pu

rba

ch

So

uth

Tip

pe

rary

Vo

los

Tim

e in

Min

ute

s

Walk time to stop before FLIPPERservice

Walk time to stop after FLIPPERservice

Walk time from stop to destinationbefore FLIPPER service

Walk time from stop to destinationafter FLIPPER service

Comparison of public transport access times before and after FLIPPER services


PartnerLogo

14

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Overall satisfaction with service

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Almada BorgoPanigale

Formentera Kastoria Purbach SouthTipperary

Volos

Poor

Adequate

Good

Excellent

Overall satisfaction with FTS at pilot sites from user surveys


PartnerLogo

15

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

If more services were like the FLIPPER service would you use public transport more or less

-20%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Almada BorgoPanigale

Formentera Kastoria Purbach SouthTipperary

Volos

More

Less

Likelihood of travelling by PT more or less if FTS was available


PartnerLogo

16

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s Service design based on economic performance Service design based on economic performance

criteriacriteria


PartnerLogo

17

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Summary of Key findingsSummary of Key findings

• The FLIPPER cross-site analysis provides decision makers with evidence-based service guidance for different environments derived from analysis of economic performance of the FLIPPER pilot site applications.

• It is hoped that this will prove to be a valuable aid in helping decide on the most suitable and cost effective FTS solutions in both urban and rural environments across Europe.


PartnerLogo

18

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Contribution to Good PracticeContribution to Good Practice

• FLIPPER D9 proposes eight central facets of FTS service development which can be reasonably expected to contribute to more sustainable service delivery: – Reduce cost of operation – Increase revenues– Applications of technologies– Integration– Promotion and publicity– Training – User Needs – Monitoring and evaluation


PartnerLogo

19

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s


PartnerLogo

20

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s Good Practice examples from FLIPPERGood Practice examples from FLIPPER

• Each facet of FTS service development is illustrated with a good practice example from the FLIPPER project explaining how the good practice was implemented in FLIPPER


PartnerLogo

21

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Summary of Good PracticeSummary of Good Practice

• It is hoped that the best practices highlighted in D9 will provide sites throughout Europe with inspiration that their mobility issues can be improved by learning from the experiences gained by FLIPPER partners.

• The success of EU projects such as FLIPPER ultimately lie in their ability to bring organizations from different countries together and breakdown barriers in the successful transfer of knowledge and experience


PartnerLogo

22

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Summary of Good PracticeSummary of Good Practice

• The FLIPPER project has demonstrated that FTS should not be limited to bus services. The use of Taxis, Community Transport and Local Authority Services can also provide integrated mobility solutions.

• In this project some sites have introduced fully flexible door to door services, while at other sites semi-fixed routes operating to fixed timetables have successfully been introduced to meet local demands.

• Sites have recognised the importance of developing FTS within the overall PT network, e.g. where FTS can act as feeder services to main line PT services and provide an integrated solution.

• Experience demonstrates the important role of technologies while recognizing that they need to be introduced within a coherent economic framework.

• Marketing of FTS has been shown to be essential in promoting what can still be a misunderstood concept. Branding has been successfully used by FLIPPER partners.


PartnerLogo

23

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Implications for FTSImplications for FTS

• FTS are an integral component of the public transport offer and there are a number of distinct markets for FTS

• Long-term planning is essential

• A structured approach towards planning and evaluation of new services is required

• Good practice should be captured!


PartnerLogo

24

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Key ResourcesKey Resources

DRT Good Practice Guide (2006) Available from:http://www.ceg.ncl.ac.uk/info/pdf/goodpracticeguide.pdf

Published March 2004. Available from: http://old.enea.it/com/ingl/New_ingl/publications/demand_transport.html

Published October 2010 Available from: http://old.enea.it/com/ingl/New_ingl/publications/V2010-Infomobility.html


PartnerLogo

25

FL

IPP

ER

FL

exi

ble

tra

nsp

ort

se

rvic

es

an

d I

CT

Pla

tfor

m fo

r e

co-m

obi

lity

in u

rba

n a

nd

rur

al E

uro

PE

an

aR

ea

s

Contact details @ UNIABDN

• Prof John Nelson, Director, Centre for Transport Research– Tel: +44 1224 272354– [email protected]

• Dr Steve Wright, Research Fellow, CTR– [email protected]

• www.abdn.ac.uk/ctr www.interreg4cflipper.eu

THANKYOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION THANKYOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

FLIPPER Final Conference Almada 21 st October 2011

Documents

Transcript of FLIPPER Final Conference Almada 21 st October 2011