Attachment 0 2

Ref.
Ares(2016)1054823 - 01/03/2016
D1.3 Profiling of PT Authorities & Operators and Analysis of their Needs: Typologies and
Parameters
Project CIPTEC
Acronym:
Project Title: Collective Innovation for Public Transport in European Cities
Project 636412
Number:
Call: H2020-MG-2014_TwoStages
Topic:
MG.5.3-2014
Type of Action:
RIA
Enhancing the “silent” dimension of the Supply:
Profiling of Public Transport Authorities

& Operators and Analysis of their Needs:
Typologies and Parameters
(Version 4.0, 01/03/2016)
© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 1 of 55

Parameters
Deliverable: D1.3 Enhancing the “silent” dimension of the

Supply: profiling of PT Authorities and
Operators and analysis of their needs
Work Package: WP1 - Analysis of market & societal trends and

needs of involved parties in the Public Transport
sector
Due Date: 01 March 2016
Submission Date: 01 March 2016
Start Date of Project: 01/05/2015
Duration of Project: 36 Months
Organisation Responsible of EMTA/MOBYCON

Deliverable:
Contributors of Deliverable Task 1.3 partners
Version: 4.0
Status: Final/definite
Author name(s): Mr. R. van der Ploeg, Mr. T. Geier, Mr. F. Bouma
Internal Reviewer(s): TIEMME, AUTh
Nature: R – Report P – Prototype
D – Demonstrator O - Other
Dissemination level: PU - Public
CO - Confidential, only for members of the

consortium (including the Commission)
RE - Restricted to a group specified by the

consortium (including the Commission Services)
Disclaimer
This project has been carried out under a contract awarded by the European Commission. No part of
this report may be used, reproduced and/or disclosed in any form or by any means without the prior
written permission of the CIPTEC project partners. © 2015 – All rights reserved.

Parameters
The CIPTEC Consortium consists of:
Participant # Participant organisation name Short Name Country
1 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki- AUTh Greece

(Coordinator) Transport Systems Research Group
2 KU Leuven – The Research Centre KU Leuven Belgium

for Marketing and Consumer Science
3 Mobycon Concordis Groep Mobycon The Netherlands
4 Tero Ltd. Tero Greece
5 MemEx MemEx Italy
6 White Research WR Belgium
7 Ortelio Ortelio United Kingdom
8 Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag MRDH The Netherlands
9 TIEMME TIEMME Italy
10 traffiQ Local Public Transport traffiQ Germany

Authority of the City of Frankfurt am
Main
11 European Passenger‘s Federation EPF Belgium
12 European Metropolitan Transport EMTA France

Authorities

Parameters
Core Revision history
Version Date Modified by Comments

Mr. O. Cazemier, Mr. R.
29
Jorna, Mr. R. van der
1.0 September First Draft of workplan finalised
Ploeg, Mr. E. Genitsaris,
2015
Ms. M. Angelidou
1.2.1 20 Oct. 2015 All WP1 partners Teleconference with WP1 partners
Mr. S. Gini, Mr. A.
21 October Iacometti, Mr. I. Pettinelli, Input for task 1.3 by
1.2.2
2015 Mr. G. Ambrosino, Mr. M. MemEx/TIEMME
Pellegrini, Mr. M. Pelosi
Mr. R. van der Ploeg, Ms.
23 October H. el Aissatti, Ms. W. de Internally Reviewed by AUTh,
1.3
2015 Swart, Mr. E. Genitsaris, comments sent
Ms. M. Angelidou
13
Mr. F. Bouma, Mr. R. van Amendments made internally,
1.6 November
der Ploeg Comments made by EMTA
2015
Prof. A. Naniopoulos, Mr.
1.7 20 Nov 2015 Workplan accepted
E. Genitsaris
22
Mr. R. van der Ploeg, Mr. 4th Draft typologies amended by
2.12 December
F. Bouma EMTA, Mobycon
2015
24
MRDH/RET, MemEx, Review by relevant partners
2.2 December
Tiemme, traffiQ, AUTh (typologies and needs)
2015
Mr. S. Gini, Mr. G. Review document by
2.21 18 Jan 2016
Ambrosino MemEx/TIEMME
Mr. R van der Ploeg, Mr.
F. Bouma, Ms. H. El
Amended after brainstorm
2.3 08 Feb 2016 Aissati, Ms. W. de Swart,
session/SWOT
Ms. G. Uysal, Mr. T.
Geier
Mr. R. van der Ploeg, Mr.
2.6 15 Feb 2016 Final Draft for review
F. Bouma
3.0 15 Feb 2016 Mr. G. Ambrosino Formal Internal Review
Incorporation of comments,
29 February
3.3 Mr. R. van der Ploeg amendments, revisions, additions
2016
by all Task1.3 partners
01 March
4.0 Mr. E. Genitsaris Definite version sent to the EC
2016

Parameters
Table of contents
Table of contents ................................................................................................. 5
List of Figures ...................................................................................................... 6
List of Tables ....................................................................................................... 6
Abbreviations....................................................................................................... 7
List of Terms ........................................................................................................ 7
Preface ................................................................................................................. 8
Abstract ................................................................................................................ 9
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... 9
1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 10
1.1. Framework .......................................................................................................... 10
1.1.1. WP1 .......................................................................................................... 10
1.1.2. WP1, task 1.3 ............................................................................................ 10
1.1.3. Interrelations with other WPs ..................................................................... 11
1.1.4. Deliverable ................................................................................................ 12
1.2. Definition of „Typology‟ and „Parameter‟ .......................................................... 12
1.3. Definition of „Need‟ ............................................................................................. 13
1.4. Research Approach ............................................................................................ 14
2. TYPOLOGIES & PARAMETERS FOR PROFILING OF PTAs AND PTOs . 15

2.1. Planning and Control in Public Transport ........................................................ 15
2.1.1. Strategic level............................................................................................ 15
2.1.2. Tactical level ............................................................................................. 15
2.1.3. Operational level ....................................................................................... 15
2.1.4. Considerations on the Level of Planning and Control in Public Transport .. 16
2.2. Typologies and Parameters from Literature ..................................................... 17
2.2.1. Categorisation Based on the Level of Planning ......................................... 17
2.2.2. Categorisation Based on Contract Design ................................................. 20
2.2.3. Market Regimes ........................................................................................ 23
2.2.4. Entrepreneurship ....................................................................................... 24
2.3. Emerging Typologies Components ................................................................... 25
2.3.1. System Integration .................................................................................... 25
2.3.2. Physical integration in public transport ...................................................... 25
2.3.3. Logical integration ..................................................................................... 26
2.3.4. Tariff integration ........................................................................................ 26
2.3.5. Territorial Scope of Authority ..................................................................... 28
2.3.6. Area of Responsibility of Authority ............................................................. 28
2.3.7. Strategic Decision Making ......................................................................... 29
2.3.8. Status of the Operator ............................................................................... 30
2.4. Considerations on Links and Overlap amongst Typologies ........................... 31
2.5. Considerations on the links with the INTERREG IVC EPTA project ............... 33

Parameters
2.6. Appointing of Typologies to be utilised in CIPTEC .......................................... 34

2.7. Survey amongst EMTA Members for Findings Validation ............................... 35
2.7.1. General outline of survey results ............................................................... 35
2.7.2. Analysis of Real World Application of Appointed Typologies Based on
EMTA Survey Outcome ............................................................................. 38
3. IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS OF SUPPLY SIDE IN PT ............................. 41
3.1. Actual Research Approach ................................................................................ 41
3.2. Research on Needs based on Goals of the Supply Side of PT........................ 41
3.2.1. Dimensions of the Primary Goals .............................................................. 42
3.3. List of Needs of the Supply Side in Public Transport ...................................... 43
3.3.1. Allocation of Needs to PTAs and PTOs ..................................................... 46
3.4. Correlation between Needs and WP2 Innovation Categories .......................... 48
3.5. Reflection on the Research Approach .............................................................. 50
4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 51

5. Reference List ............................................................................................. 54
6. Appendix: questionnaire of the EMTA survey .......................................... 55
List of Figures
Figure 1: Graphical presentation of the CIPTEC components showing how they interrelate . 11
Figure 2: EPTA project, May 2014: Interplay of Levels of Planning in PT. ............................ 16
Figure 3: Outcomes of EMTA survey questions on procurement and vehicle ownership ...... 38
Figure 4: Pyramid of customer needs in transport by Mark van Hagen, 2011 ....................... 42
Figure 5: Scheme Showing the Innovation Categories of PT from WP2. .............................. 48
List of Tables
Table 1: Risk allocation per contract types with examples. ................................................... 22
Table 2: Scheme showing overlap amongst typologies......................................................... 32
Table 3: Table showing links to INTERREG IVC EPTA Project ............................................ 33
Table 4: Relations between the two appointed typologies..................................................... 35
Table 5: Scheme showing application of typologies amongst EMTA members based on Metro
systems .................................................................................................................. 39
Table 6: Scheme showing application of typologies amongst EMTA members based on Bus
systems .................................................................................................................. 40
Table 7: List of Needs of the PT Supply Side ........................................................................ 46
Table 8: List of needs allocated to supply side stakeholders…………………………………... 47
Table 9: List of Needs of PT Supply Side in In Relation to WP2 Innovation Categories ........ 49

Parameters
Abbreviations
AHP Analytic Hierarchy Process PTO Public Transport Operator
PT Public Transport ToC Transport operating Company
PTA Public Transport Authority WP Work Package
List of Terms
Innovation All new or modified (existing) ideas, methods, products, services,
technologies that were (or still are being) developed consciously using the
latest insights with the aim of improving the status quo and that can be
applied to public transport with the main goal to attract more customers
(preferably at lower costs) (CIPTEC Consortium, 2015)
Parameter From the Oxford dictionary1: (technical) A numerical or other measurable

factor forming one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of
its operation.
The Cambridge dictionary defines the term as follows 2: a set of facts or a

fixed limit that establishes or limits how something can or must happen or
be done.
Typology According to the Merriam Webster dictionary 3 , a typology is ‗a system

used for putting things into groups according to how they are similar: the
study of how things can be divided into different types‘. The Oxford
dictionary 4 : A classification according to general type, especially in
archaeology, psychology, or the social sciences
According to the Cambridge dictionary5, a typology is ‗the study of types,

or a system of dividing things into types‘.
1
[online], retrieved on December 15, 2015, from: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
definition/english/parameter
2
[online], retrieved on December 15, 2015, from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
dictionary/english/parameter
3
[online], retrieved on December 15, 2015, from: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typology
4
[online], retrieved on December 15, 2015, from: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/
definition/english/typology
5
[online], retrieved on December 15, 2015, from: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/
dictionary/english/typology

Parameters
Preface
To create a level playing field the European Commission defined framework rules concerning
the conditions of service contract award and rules for a fair award of grants and
compensation for public service provision. Public Service Obligation Regulation (COM
1370/2007) defines that competent local authorities in principle have the obligation to tender
and open their internal transport market to competition.
Moreover, laying down provisions for the procurement of service contracts and to separate
the role and responsibilities of operators from those of the competent local public transport
authority is one of the regulatory framework‘s main objectives.
By incorporating mandatory terms for transport planning, contracting and tendering as a
principle for granting public service contracts the competent local authority can choose to
implement incentives in the contract (i.e., to stimulate innovation). After 6 years of entering
into force one could argue that the Public Service Obligation Regulation (COM 1370/2007)
gradually managed to introduce clear rules for competition in public transport (PT) in Europe.
Urban mobility is primarily a competence of local, regional or national authorities. The EU-
Treaties provide no clear legal basis for EU intervention. On the other hand, urban transport
systems can be considered part of the EU Common Transport Policy: urban mobility is a
central component of long-distance transport, as most long-distance journeys start and end in
cities, and congestion in towns affects the Trans-European Transport Network (TEN-T).
Moreover, EU-wide goals such as tackling climate change and increasing energy efficiency
cannot be achieved without tackling issues and challenges faced by urban transport.
Due the subsidiarity principle, EU action in the field of urban transport so far is mainly focused
on measures of ―soft policy‖. European policy‘s added value may take several forms, among
others: data collection and monitoring, offering financial support, encouraging research,
establishing harmonised standards (e.g. for emission and noise), dissemination of information
and of best innovative practices.
Clearly, PT faces competition from private motorised transport. If PT is to be successful and

competitive in 2020, four main trends should be taken into account, namely public debt
increases, the change in mobility demand moving to flexible and erratic demand due to the
change of life style specially among the millennials (i.e., the decreasing relevance of car
ownership), oil price volatility and the expansion of metropolitan areas. All of these trends
result in a growing demand for PT or a possible lack of capacity of PT systems. The
organisation of PT includes network design with respect to the specific geographical area and
the programming of its service operation. For the sake of efficient operation, it is necessary to
determine the evolvement of market relations, the market structure and the scope of its
regulation, as well as the functioning of the financing system.

Parameters
Abstract
To create a clear overview of the different organisational forms (typologies and parameters),
their needs and the way these forms/needs influence the way organisations deal with
innovations, research has been conducted. In addition to desk research, a survey was
devised and spread among the network of EMTA members and relevant CIPTEC partners
(i.e., partners directly related to the supply side) were asked to review and add to the desk
research output. As a result, a combination of theoretical and practical input was incorporated
in this report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To create a clear overview of the different organisation forms existing in the sector, literature
review concerning existing typologies for the categorisation of organisation structures in
public transport (PT) has been conducted. A total of nine different typologies have been
identified of which four derive directly from literature study (i.e., market regime,
entrepreneurship, levels of planning, contract design), whilst five are emerging typologies and
their components based on categorisation by different parameters (i.e., the territorial scope of
PT Authorities (PTAs), the strategic decision-making process, the level of integration and the
scope of tasks of PTA, and the status of the operator (PTO).
In order to identify the real world application of these organisation concepts among larger
European PTAs, a survey questionnaire was elaborated and sent out to the members of
larger metropolitan authorities. This survey included questions on the subjective needs of
authorities, which were further investigated in task 3 (Needs of EU Public Transport
Authorities and Operators in the context of CIPTEC) of this work package. From this survey
the CIPTEC project expected to discover certain factors and correlations between the way an
urban transport authority carries out its key functions and responsibilities by giving licences or
grants to its operators either by a tendered or a directly award contract. The survey supports
the insight in the reality of occurring and most remarkable capacities of the authority in order
to assess what type of contracted responsibilities and financial risks between the authorities
and their operator could occur and exert a positive influence on the ability and propensity to
develop innovative solutions.
Next to that the survey has yielded some insight in key elements from the authorities‘
perspective that PTAs consider to represent their most significant needs (in terms of
objectives or basic requirements) to achieve better quality of service, higher customer
orientation and more planning efficiency. We have identified some recurring links in which
some key elements that are likely to mutually influence one another coincide as a standard
rule and that are most likely to occur within the circumstances in which these elements
appear in daily praxis.

Parameters
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Framework
1.1.1. WP1
WP1 is the basis of the CIPTEC project from which the results should be used in WP3 and
WP4, and possibly in WP2. The main stakeholders in the PT sector are represented by the
users (demand side), authorities and operators (provision side). This consideration runs
through the whole project structure from the beginning until the end. The analysis of customer
groups' and Public Transport authorities and operators' needs, as well as the overview of
the catalytic market and societal trends as described in WP1 is therefore the basis for further
research done in WP2, WP3 and WP4. WP1 will focus on understanding firstly the current
trends in society worldwide, and then investigating the needs of the involved parties. This
way, CIPTEC will define the opportunities, and the potential solutions, and concepts will
emerge in the following WPs after also taking into account the trends and choosing the key
points to address.
1.1.2. WP1, task 1.3

For WP1, task 1.3, a mapping and profiling of urban transport authorities at the European
level is required. Such a typology could take into account various parameters, for instance
network size, transport modes (rail/ road), ownership status (public or privately owned), and
the division of responsibilities (e.g. with the authority regarding fares, revenues, marketing,
network design and timetable). Apart from analysing the customer needs in task 1.2, the
needs of PT authorities/operators (PTAs and PTOs, respectively) in terms of their potential to
innovate businesses should be analysed to clarify significant discrepancies in their
mechanisms to steer towards a more innovative attitude. The typology of currently applied
contracts, the incentives used to foster innovation in those contracts vary depending on the
regulatory framework, the type of financial grants for the reward base, in-house or competitive
service provision and the level of freedom in network design and risk division.
To get a grip on these issues, the differences among the demand and the corresponding
required supply concerning innovation in the sector are in need of description and
categorisation.
The required solutions should emerge from this analysis, enabling us to match the supply to
users‘ demands and the needs of the sector. On the authorities‘ side, in this phase the final
report of the EPTA (European Model for Public Transport Authority) project, developed under
INTERREG IVC, provides useful input on the core functionalities and subtasks of PTAs, be it
that EPTA is focused on requirements for small and medium sized cities.
However, our scope is not restricted to large urban areas and hence the EPTA project, in
which TIEMME/Memex were involved as partners, was creatively exploited. This contribution
integrates the survey distributed by EMTA, an organisation that mainly comprises
metropolitan authorities and large cities.
The EMTA association was used to validate the typologies of institutional and societal shapes
of governance, fields of responsibility and interaction with customers and operators in terms of
innovation identified in the literature research.
Prior to this and based on literature a framework was devised to support categorisation of
each PTA and identify what their primary assets are in terms of capability to innovate and their

Parameters
capacity to build on resources for researching behaviour and develop new tools and services
to answer to customer needs.
On top of this EMTA collects annual indicators on the performance of authorities and their
networks. This Barometer provides data on different features and performance indicators of
the EMTA members..
On the PTO side the collection of data is more diffuse; in some case the level of co-operation
with the transport authority shows a kind or interdependence that both the shares of the
municipal company and the data are owned by the public body, while in other cases
depending on historical positions and the ownership situation the legal position shows full
separation of responsibilities between authorities and the contracted operator. The partners
have agreed to check if they have operators and/or organisations of operators in their network,
and to estimate the efficiency and effectiveness of using the networks in reaching the
operators.
1.1.3. Interrelations with other WPs

The scope of the Task 1.3 is not to reinvent the wheel but to contribute to the better
understanding of PTAs and PTOs profiling and needs (in terms of, among others, their
responsibilities, capability and resources) towards becoming more innovation oriented. The
exploration of the needs of the PT supply side in combination with the investigation of the
needs of the demand side (Task 1.2) will indicate gaps in provision that should be bridged,
ideally by innovations not applied yet. This way, WP1 could feed directly and is linked
conceptually with WP2 (existing innovations evaluation) and WP3 (implementation of
collective intelligence methods for generating new innovations).
Figure 1: Graphical presentation of the CIPTEC components showing how they interrelate
(Source: derived from the CIPTEC Description of Work)

Parameters
In the figure above the main technical WPs of the CIPTEC proposal as well as their inter-
relation is presented. Task 1.3 resulting in the current deliverable, is noted by a discontinuous
red cyclic line. The work done in WP1 will be the basis of work done in subsequent work
packages. In the shorter term, the (preliminary) results of task 1.3 will be used in WP2.
1.1.4. Deliverable
The deliverable for this task (D1.3) is a Report on PT Authorities and Operators‘
mapping/typologies and Needs. It is due in month 10 (29 February 2016).
1.2. Definition of „Typology‟ and „Parameter‟

In the final copy of the task 1.3 work plan (1.7), a definition of typologies was suggested:
A common understanding of the term ‗typology‘ and ‗parameter‘ needs to be established.
Typology
6
According to the Merriam Webster dictionary , a typology is ‗a system used for putting
things into groups according to how they are similar: the study of how things can be divided
into different types‘.
7
The Oxford dictionary :
A classification according to general type, especially in archaeology, psychology, or the

social sciences.
8
According to the Cambridge dictionary , a typology is ‘the study of types, or a system of
dividing things into types’
Parameter
9
From the Oxford dictionary : (technical) A numerical or other measurable factor forming
one of a set that defines a system or sets the conditions of its operation.
10
The Cambridge dictionary defines the term as follows : a set of facts or a fixed limit that
establishes or limits how something can or must happen or be done
This would mean that in Task 1.3 the following need to be developed:
(a) a typology or set of typologies of PTAs, comprising several types (profiles/parameters)
of PTAs and
(b) a typology or set of typologies/classification of PTOs, comprising several types

(profiles/parameters) of PTOs.
Output: Definition of ―Typology‖ for D1.3
Therefore, in relation to WP1, parameters can be seen as features of/defining the system of
typologies. Typologies are systems to define and categorise in this case Public Transport
(PT) organisations (PTAs and PTOs).
6
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typology
7
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/typology
8
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/typology
9
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/parameter
10
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/parameter

Parameters
1.3. Definition of „Need‟

Following the Oxford dictionary11, a need is ‗A thing that is wanted or required’. We prefer
applying requirement to this task; as it is not just something PTOs and PTAs want but
actually need in terms of necessity. A clear distinction has to be made between the needs
related to the supply side, PTOs and PTAs on the one hand and inversely those of
customers. Next to that there are institutional needs and societal needs to be distinguished.
The former is the (potential) need of organisations to have sufficient resources (i.e., money,
employees, continuity) and to improve internal processes and performances to carry out its
functions (in particular the design of the services and the monitoring of service operation,
quality and, more in general, the fulfilment of contractual obligations). Societal needs refer to
outcome, for example the level of service efficiency and reliability to serve the objectives of
energy efficiency, less pollution, noise, and congestion.
In literature the term ‗need‘ is predominantly linked to a ‗want‘ and requirement of an

individual or a group of persons to satisfy a specific longing for a tangible object, a good or a
service. Projected to PT that could equal the ‗want‘ to make a service easily accessible and of
a higher quality. Research when it comes to achieving a better understanding of the changes
in ―needs‖ for transport services is therefore always customer-client oriented. Notably in the
USA an extensive survey was produced by the American Public Transport Association
(APTA) in 201012. ‗Needs‘ in this report is categorically linked to either needs of a societal
group or to ‗needs‘ of market providers to develop the requirements to obtain a profit, an
advantage or a positive business case. A very interesting report was published by a Dutch
researcher named dr. Mark van Hagen13, who has developed a method to identify different
types of users depending on the motive of their journey. Van Hagen introduced the concept of
―needscope‖, that represents the various elements defining what customers deem needed as
a basic requirement to be fulfilled (reliability, safety, availability) and other ‗needs‘ translated
in so called ‗dissatisfiers‘ representing factors assumed present at every journey as a
minimum (speed, ease) and ‗satisfiers‘, to be defined as properties that make a journey a
pleasant experience with an positive dimension. He argues that the nature of what a traveller
values in his trip depends on his travel motive (work, school, leisure, business etc.). The
scope of the needs of every user profile can vary strongly also and determine if for example
time of travel and speed is deemed more or – reversely - less important that making a journey
an adventurous occasion.
Linking the term ‗needs‘ to the supply side of PT appears to be much less obvious. In the
context of our project, transport authorities‘ needs are explained as objectives that the PTA is
striving for to reach a better outcome. What the specific factor framing the actual need is,
depends on the kind of activity that the organisation wants to enhance. In this phase of
research the need is not translated into an instrument but into a desire to obtain a capacity
that enables to fulfil the goal of the business model. That can vary from increasing ridership
or evenly spread of capacity in certain periods, to obtaining better information for the traveller.
The technical tool to fulfil the functional need is the way this need is in the end satisfied. In
11
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/need
12
―Funding the Public Transport Needs of an Aging population‖ (APTA, March 2010 in cooperation with
Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates).
13
Dr. M. Van Hagen (Dutch Railways): How to meet the need of train passengers? A successful
customer segmentation model for public transport (October 2009).

Parameters
the interest of the identification of the needs, it is decided to consider a ‗need‘ as a broader
concept related to the achievement of the overall goals. For the fulfilment of all of these
‗needs‘ a certain (or several) instrument(s) or tool(s) become(s) necessary. These tools can
be considered as solutions at the level of the innovations which are inventoried and created in
the further workflow of the CIPTEC project. A supply side instigated ‗need‘ has to be primarily
defined as an objective or requirement of the local authority or of its operator described in
terms of a projected functionality, irrespective of the specific solution to fulfil an actual need.
In § 3.2, the concept of the ‗need‘ is further elaborated.
1.4. Research Approach

Corresponding with the Workplan action for task 1.3 the core task has been mapping and
profiling of urban transport authorities and operators at the European level to frame findings
into a typology of the transport supply side. In the WP D.1.3, the goal is to contribute to a
better understanding of PTA and PTO profiles as well as their ‗needs‘ in terms of their
proneness to innovate. The exploration of the needs of the supply side in combination with
the investigation of needs from the demand side (D.1.2) should result in identification of gaps
that by development of tools in service, planning and business should be bridged. These
tools to bridge these lacking answers to the demand should be innovative, in terms of
concepts, measures and tools that are rarely or not applied yet, and elaborated in a toolbox
devised in WP5.
EMTA and Mobycon have researched sources from literature on the theoretical framework
that enables categorisation of the stakeholder organisations in urban transport supply. That
has delivered useful input for typologies that you find in this document (Chapter 2). In the
process we identified a collection of general and specific notions that can be defined as
―needs‖ of the supply side (Chapter 3).

Parameters
2. TYPOLOGIES & PARAMETERS FOR PROFILING OF PTAs AND

PTOs
2.1. Planning and Control in Public Transport
In order to allow the production and selling of goods and services, a number of decisions will
have to be made, irrespective of the characteristics of the legal and regulatory setting. It is
generally accepted that planning and control structures within organisations, in PT as well as
in any other sector of customer oriented service markets, can be divided into hierarchically
ordered activities, which can be differentiated on the basis of the scope of the issue
addressed.
The hierarchical differentiation is a tool to describe the internal structuring of decision making
processes within a company or system and can be used as guideline to identify the principle-
agent relationships within firms and organisations whose size does not allow for
concentration of all decision making by the same individual (ISOTOPE Consortium 2000).
The denomination concept utilised here can be based on various theoretical definitions and
has been used and subsequently redeveloped in several scientific publications on the matter
(ISOTOPE Consortium, 2000). It describes three different levels of planning and control: The
strategic, tactical and operational level. The following concerns a short introduction into the
scope of the division aspects as well as the planning and controlling tasks of PT allocated
within these levels.
2.1.1. Strategic level

―Strategic planning is involved in the formulation of general aims and in the determination in
broad terms of the means that can be used to attain these‖ (ISOTOPE Consortium, 2000).
Planning tasks within the strategic level therefore respond to the question ‗What do we want
to achieve?‘ Within the strategic level, aspects like the general objectives of the system, like
profit and market share, the definition of target groups and the areas of supply can be found.
Also the level of integration and intermodality is defined by these general service
characteristics and aims.
2.1.2. Tactical level

―Tactical planning is about making decisions on acquiring means that can help reaching the
general aims and on how to use these means most efficiently‖ (ISOTOPE Consortium, 2000).
Activities within the tactical level of planning and control therefore seek to answer the
question ‗what product can help achieving the aims?‘ The tactical level translates the general
aims and characteristics defined in the strategic decision process into detailed service
requirements and sets the framework for the actual design of services to be supplied. Distinct
parameters like the route network, timetables and vehicles but also the fare structure as well
as additional services to the passengers like catering or entertainment should be developed
within this level.
2.1.3. Operational level

The operational planning enables the actual performance of the service with regards to the
orders defined in the planning levels above in an efficient way. Aspects of the operational
level provide an answer to the question ‗how to produce the product‘? The tactical aspects
are introduced into day-to-day practice, which includes the management of personnel in form

Parameters
of sales staff and drivers as well as the management of infrastructure and vehicles based on
the objectives and restrictions of the tactical planning level (See van de Velde, 1999). Also
procedures for the monitoring of the service quality are included in this level. Depending on
the relationship between the PTA and PTO, the above identified functions will be under the
responsibility of PTA or PTO, respectively; in case the operation of PT service is contracted
by PTA, the PTO is in charge of the daily operation for service provision (management of
drivers and other resources) and the PTA is in charge of the control of quality performances
(see sections 2.1.4 and 2.2.2).
2.1.4. Considerations on the Level of Planning and Control in Public Transport

At this point, nothing is said about the actual set-up of the transport system and the actual
aims of it. The concept does not give insight on the degree of competitiveness in the system
or the private and public actors involved. However, based on the allocation of the different
strategic, tactical and operational tasks amongst public and private stakeholders within the
PT system and under consideration of the design of the contractual connections between
these players, different organisational forms can be determined.
From the EPTA-project 14 this diagram shows different overlapping phases of involvement
from parties engaged in defining the transport policy (politicians, authorities and operators)
passing through different levels of decision making process abstraction between generic
setting of goals for the long term, the intermittent level of tactical levels and solutions and the
executive (instruments) level of work in the PTA core remit. The authority has to link the
strategic level with the operational level by translating political goals (‗what‘) and resources
(‗with what‘) via the tactical level of ‗how‘ to specify the plan to achieve these goals connected
to the operational level of deployment of the ‗means‘ to enable the actual production of
services.
Figure 2: EPTA project, May 2014: Interplay of Levels of Planning in PT.
14
Source: EPTA project ―Enhancing Public Transport Authorities‖ in a sustainable way. May 2014.

Parameters
2.2. Typologies and Parameters from Literature

General overview:
A global classification of organisational forms of PT delivery as they can be identified in

Europe had been proposed by Van de Velde D.M. in 1999. According to it, these forms are
distinguished by:
a. Authority initiative (concessions): including private concessions, in other words delegated
management, as well as public network (management contract or direct public
management). Market entry is impossible since transport authorities have the legal
monopoly of initiatives.
b. Market initiative (authorisations): refers to the open entry market, as well as regulated
authorisations that are dominated by either private or public companies. Transport
services are delivered by operators that enter into the market on an autonomous basis.
Transport organisational forms encountered in Europe were evolved during the passage of
time and they were categorised by van de Velde (2003) in the following grouping: (1) from
public management under authority initiative towards an involvement of the private sector, (2)
from public companies operating under market initiative towards a further involvement of the
private sector, (3) from public companies operating under market initiative towards authority
initiative with private involvement and at last (4) any reform of the existing regimes.
In addition, three emerging main models of PT authorities were presented in 2001 by EMTA
(S. Lecler). Particularly:
1) the model of authorities created ab nihilo [sic] by public authorities and responsible for the
strategic and tactical levels, mostly found in Spain, Germany and France,
2) the model of historic public operators turned gradually into PT authorities responsible for
the tactical level (e.g. Stockholm, Milan, London, Rome and Brussels): in this case entities
benefit from the already obtained knowhow regarding the operation of the PT system.
3) the model of public authorities in charge of several metropolitan issues, among which
transport is a primary one (e.g. Copenhagen, Helsinki).
According to EMTA (Lecler, 2001), there are three main systems in terms of who is
responsible for organising the PT: (1) areas where ordinary local authorities have the
competence, (2) areas where the operators have this responsibility and finally (3) areas with
a specific body engaged.
Finally, according to the study of Naniopoulos, et.al. (2012) three distinct scenarios of the
possible business models, in terms of the allocation and mixture of the potential tasks and
responsibilities, namely according to the core scope of a metropolitan Transport Authority,
were proposed. Particularly:
a) the Metropolitan Authority of Public Transport,
b) the Metropolitan Authority of Transport and Mobility,
c) the Metropolitan Authority of Transport, Mobility and Regional Development,
2.2.1. Categorisation Based on the Level of Planning

In this paragraph nine different organisational forms are identified based on the described in
section 2.1 level of planning and control in PT and the distribution of tasks of the tactical level
of planning among the stakeholders in the system (See van de Velde 1999; Van Elburg,
Terschüren, Beck & van de Velde, 2008; ISOTOPE consortium, 2000). All these

Parameters
organisational forms may also exist when planning and tendering capacities are outsourced
to a third party at arm‘s length of the actual authority (See van de Velde, 1999).
2.2.1.1. Public Service Obligation with Public Operator
In this organisational regime, the transport authority is either co-ordinating, planning and
producing the operational service by its own agency or by utilising an in-house operator. In-
house operators or publicly owned operators benefit from historical rights. The legal existence
of in-house operators are mostly derived from a legal regime granting exclusive rights or it
can be based on a temporary exclusive right granted to an operator who happens to be
publicly owned for historical or other reasons. In the first case, where the monopolistic
position is protected by law, so de jure, no entry threat of other operators legally exists, while
in the second, de facto situation, an entry threat theoretically exists at the moment the
exclusive rights to operate by contract have expired and need to be renewed.
The different legal status of the in-house operators may impact reforms or innovations and
changes in the provision of supply are being considered as the status determines the way in
which, and the ease with which, changes can be implemented.
2.2.1.2. Private Concessions including Infrastructure/Delegated Management
In Delegated Management, the authority makes the assets required for operations available
to a private operator to whom the authority delegates the management of the network. The
infrastructure remains under control of the public entity. The planning on tactical level, like
network design, defining modes and vehicle capacity is carried out by the authority. In certain
operational aspects like vehicles input and depots the operator is limited, since the operator
works with the publicly provided infrastructure (vehicles, depots, etc.). The main contrast in
regime 3 (Central planning and tendering of production) in comparison to this practice is the
fact that infrastructure (mainly vehicles) necessary to carry out the services is not publicly
owned but provided by the operators themselves.
2.2.1.3. Central Planning and Tendering of Production
In this regime, the transport authority determines and designs the services to be carried out
and awards an operator with the production of these services. The operator has in this case
no tactical freedom, which means the initiative for the introduction of services lies entirely in
the hand of the authority.
Within this model, which is also known as the ―Scandinavian model‖ or ―London model‖ for its
occurrence in the Scandinavian capitals Stockholm and Copenhagen and the British capital,
an awarding procedure per line or per (sub-)network can be utilised.
2.2.1.4. Tendering of Realisation with Redesign Possibilities
This regime is very closely related to the aforementioned regime 3 (Central planning and
tendering of production). The authority takes the initiative to introduce a service, performs the
planning procedures of the tactical level and awards the operational tasks to an operator. The
difference lies in the design freedom of the operator in the exploitation phase. The operator is
granted the possibility to adjust and redesign certain service characteristics during the course
of the exploitation phase.

Parameters
2.2.1.5. Tender of Network Design and Realisation
In comparison with the aforementioned regimes three (Central planning and tendering of
production) and four (Tendering of realisation with redesign possibilities), this regime gives
more tactical planning procedures and with it brings more design freedom to the operator.
The transport authority in this case defines and requests a set of minimum service standards.
The actual initiative for introducing a specific service therefore is in the hands of the operator,
since the operator defines where exactly the services are deployed, in compliance with the
minimum standards required by the authority. In this model, also known as the ‗French
model‘, several operators who define a service design concept and apply for the lot (or
market), the grants awarded is done by a competitive tendering procedure conducted by the
authority. The authority also exactly defines the level of service design freedom of the
operator by setting the minimum standards. These standards can, theoretically, define the
specifications of the entire service, which would render the service design freedom of the
operator into the margins.
2.2.1.6. Commercially Viable Deregulated Market with Tendering of Non-Commercial Routes
In this regime, commercially viable services emerge autonomously out of a free market
process. For these, services obligations can be set as mandatory by the authority, which are
connected to the authorisation (See van de Velde, 1999). Such ―rules of the game‖ can
include obligations to operate the services registered and to carry passengers according to
published timetables and fares, an obligation for the usage of vehicles accessible for prams,
handicapped, etc. Next to these restrictions, the financial viability and professional capability
of the operator may impact the authorisation process, in order to guarantee a safe and
continuous operation. However, it needs to be taken into account that more obligations may
result in fewer services being commercially viable. Competition is not limited by these basic
service obligations if these are equally applicable to both, incumbents and entrants.
In addition to these profitable services, a transport authority can order and subsidise services
that are necessary to fulfil social or other policy goals. For these services, the authority
directly carries out the tactical planning tasks itself or requires minimum standards whilst
allowing operators to design the services, which are then competitively tendered. The
authority‘s budget limitations define the extent of these additional, public service obligations.
2.2.1.7. Tendered Authorisation for Route Exploitation
In this regime, a temporary exclusive right (de facto monopoly) to operate a route or (sub)
network is tendered amongst private operators. The entire tactical planning procedures and
therefore the specifics of the service design are in the hands of the operator. Some specific
obligations may be imposed in order to guarantee a safe and continuous service.
2.2.1.8. Free Competition with Light Touch Regulation
In this regime, commercially viable services appear autonomously out of a free market
process. Authorities, however, use subsidisation in the appearance of profitable services in
order to compensate fare rebates given to certain target groups, like students or elderly. Such
subsidy allows the realisation of social policy plans in a free market environment and may
result in more commercially viable routes, which stimulates the market to provide more
services. For these autonomously appearing services, as mentioned in regime 6
(Commercially viable deregulated market with tendering of non-commercial routes) the

Parameters
authority can impose obligations in order to guarantee a fair competition as well as safe and
continuous services.
2.2.1.9. Free Competition in Deregulated Market
In this regime, as already mentioned earlier in regime 6 (Commercially viable deregulated

market with tendering of non-commercial routes) and 8 (Free competition with light tough
regulation) commercially viable services appear autonomously out of a free market process
without incentive from the authority in forms of subsidy etc. For these services, the authority
can impose some restrictions/demands which are connected to the authorisation of the
service. Such ―rules of the game‖ can include obligations to operate the services registered
and to carry passenger according to published timetables and fares, an obligation for the
usage of vehicles accessible for prams, handicapped, etc. (See van de Velde, 1999). Next to
these restrictions, the financial viability and professional capacity of the operator may impact
the authorisation process, in order to guarantee a safe and continuous operation to the
passengers. However, it needs to be taken into account that more obligations may result in
fewer services being commercially viable. Competition is not limited by these basic service
obligations if these are equally applicable to both, incumbents and entrants.
2.2.2. Categorisation Based on Contract Design

The functional division of tactical and operational tasks between stakeholders in PT is
expressed in either a regulatory framework or in the contract. The service contract states the
relationship between principal and agent as well as the distribution of risks resulting from
production and sales in the system. Contractual risks are production risks, which are
associated to the production costs of a fixed production quantity and revenue risks, which are
associated to the sale of transport services. The variety of allocation of different risks
amongst the partners in the system leads to a general classification of three basic contract
types: Gross cost contracts, Net cost contracts and Management contracts. The traditional
distinction between gross-cost and net-cost contracts must nowadays be considered
insufficient to cover the width of contracting types that actually occur in urban public transport.
New contractual forms with strong revenue incentive structures exist, which are rather based
on fully variable payments without taking anticipated amounts and lump-sums into account,
as for a further distinction in contract forms (Stanley & van de Velde, 2008). The following
categorisation approach for contractual forms in urban PT has been described in 2008 and
entails seven different contract categories (See Stanley & van de Velde, 2008; ISOTOPE
Consortium, 2000).
2.2.2.1. Management contracts
In Management contracts, the operator is paid a management fee for running the service
while the production costs of the services and passenger revenues account to the authority.
Therefore, both production cost risks and the revenue risk are borne solely by the authority.
The remuneration received by the transport operator is independent on its level of
performance. The introduction of bonus/malus payments to a higher standard of operational
performance may incentivise the operator to deliver better quality of service.
2.2.2.2. Gross cost contracts
In Gross cost contracts, the operator is responsible for all costs connected with the
production of the services and running the system. The revenue remains the responsibility of

Parameters
the authority. An agreed fixed price will be paid for a fixed amount of service. The difference
between the actually realised production costs and anticipated production cost (which defines
the fixed payment amount) is for the account of the operator, while the difference between
anticipated revenues and actual achieved revenues is on account of the authority. The
introduction of bonus/malus payments to operational performance may incentivise the
operator to deliver improved operational quality. The most common incentive structure is
explained in contract regime 4 (Gross cost contracts with ridership incentive).
2.2.2.3. Gross cost contracts with shared production cost risk
Shared production cost risk can be achieved by indexation clauses that transfer some risk on
the input price increases to the authority while the operator remains responsible for
production efficiency or by introduction of a specific level up to which the operator bares the
entire risk of production cost. Above that level, this risk, the authority takes over parts of the
risks. The revenue risk is fully with the authority.
Some authors argue that the focus should be on the type of contract and not so much on
the tendering process itself. A performance based contract could be just as effective for
performance improvement as public tendering while avoiding the transaction costs related
to the tendering procedure (Hensher, Stanley, 2002). Daniels ea. (2011) have observed a
trend towards more incentives and performance based contracts in public transport
provision. Hensher and Stanley (2008) also studied contracting processes in complex
public transport concessions. Because ex post (after the signing of the contract) involves
more coordination in complex concessions than for more straightforward concessions, they
believe a negotiated performance based contract could be a better alternative than
competitive tendering to achieve more value for money.
Source: Wijmenga N., Veeneman W, Contracting and Dutch urban public transport performances
2.2.2.4. Gross cost contracts with ridership incentive
The operator is incentivised to attract more passengers by a variable payment related to

ridership increase. In this way, the revenue risk is not solely borne by the authority, but
shared with the operator.
2.2.2.5. Net cost contract
The difference between anticipated total operation costs and anticipated revenues defines the
price of the tender, a lump-sum, which is to cover the expected deficit of operations and is
paid from the authority to the operator (or in the case of a fully profitable service, the operator
pays this sum as a franchise fee to the authority for the right to operate). The production cost
risk and the revenue risk lay on the side of the operator, since a produced difference between
costs and revenues that does not correspond to the anticipated difference between costs and
revenues is for the account of the operator. The operator bares the risk to produce too costly,
so that the production cost cannot be covered by the lump-sum payment and the revenues.
2.2.2.6. Net cost contract with shared revenue risk
In this case, the operator carries the revenue risk up to a specific level of divergence with the
anticipated ridership that defined the lump-sum payment. After this threshold, the revenue

Parameters
risk is shared between the authority and the operator. The production cost risk, however,
remains solely on the side of the operator.
2.2.2.7. Super-Incentive contract
The operator receives no lump-sum payments but only a variable payment fully dependent
upon specific performance, such as ridership, etc. In the case, both the production risk cost
and the revenue risk cost is borne by the operator.
Table 1: Risk allocation per contract types with examples.

Source: Stanley, J., & van de Velde, D. (2008).

Parameters
2.2.3. Market Regimes

In the urban PT market, different market regimes can be identified based on the degree of
state intervention. The following chapter shortly outlines the reasons for state intervention and
defines these market regimes.
In an environment where all main assumptions of perfect competition were fulfilled, free
competition would result in efficient market outcomes and welfare maximisation and state
intervention would be superfluous, if it was not for other social and political goals (see
ISOTOPE consortium, 2000). However, the complexity of the Urban PT market in general and
the following factors in particular, withdraw it from perfect competition models.
In a perfect competition environment, an unlimited number of identical suppliers exist, which

is due to the lack of available space, a basic resource for PT operations, not achievable.
Furthermore, consumer choices in PT are not only price-based but also influenced by factors
such as accessibility and qualities of connections, which further limits the concept of identical
supply by a large amount of firms. Another important complexity of the (public) transportation
market is the existence of competition on different decision levels. The PT system in general
competes in first instance with other available transportation modes existing, such as the
individual transport by private vehicle. Only at a lower level competition between different
firms, the different operators of PT modes, occurs.
If the assumptions for perfect competition in markets are not fulfilled, markets become
inefficient and ―market failures‖ occur, which are traditionally tackled by state intervention
(see ISOTOPE consortium, 2000). In this case, it becomes important to consider, that this
kind of intervention is not connected with the accomplishment of social policy or
compensation of negative externalities but solely targets the prevention of market failures.
There are two kinds of state intervention: indirect and direct state intervention.
In indirect state intervention, the government does not determine market outcomes but
facilitates the efficient play of market forces by, for example, lowering of market entry
burdens, introduction of standards or imposition of effective rules of competition to the
market. Indirect state intervention policy is limited by the costs of such interventions in
comparisons to their advantages and is in some instances not powerful enough to solve
market failures. With direct intervention policy the government actively determines market
outcomes, which can be achieved by direct regulation of companies or their nationalisation,
but also by creating a competition for a market rather than within a market by means of
tendering (ISOTOPE consortium, 2000).
On the basis of different levels of state intervention, three general market regimes can be
identified in PT.
1) Regulated markets,
2) Limited competition markets, and
3) Deregulated or free markets
A regulated PT market is dominated by a strongly regulated, publicly owned monopolistic

operator and does not support any competition. A limited competition market can evolve

Parameters
through competition of different operators for a market, where the operating rights for a
network or line are concession-based and tendered or based on a temporary authorisation. In
a deregulated, free market PT environment, a direct competition between different
autonomous operators on the same track or network is enabled and actually can take place
on the road. Even in this regime authority intervention is not fully absent. As a proof of the
professional level, the credit-worthiness and reliability a licence to grant access will usually be
required to warrant the minimum safety, professional ability and continuity of the operator‘s
business. Additional public services, that are considered socially necessary and therefore
government subsidised, can be provided by tendering additional contracts (ISOTOPE
consortium, 2000).
2.2.4. Entrepreneurship
2.2.4.1. Authority Initiative Regimes
In general economic theory, entrepreneurship is considered the process of starting a

business, offering an innovative product, process or service (Hisrich, 2011). The entrepreneur
perceives and exploits an opportunity by developing a business plan and acquiring the
human, financial and other required resources. The entrepreneur is responsible for the
success or failure of the operation (Yetisen, Yun, 2015).
Translated into the field of urban PT, the entrepreneur is the organisation within the particular
transport system that takes the initiative for the creation and supply of services, hereby takes
some form of risk and delineates at least the main characteristics of the services that will be
provided (see van de Velde, 1999). The initiative for the appearance of PT is strongly
correlated to the legal framework the system is set in and can evolve in the market or on the
side of the authorities, which then has a monopoly of initiative.
2.2.4.2. Market Initiative Regimes
Market initiative regimes can subsequently be distinct into open entry regimes, which
represent free market conditions and regulated regimes based on authorisation. Open entry
regimes can in principle be based on various reference frameworks such as pure and perfect
competition, contestable markets or monopolistic competition. Authority intervention is
present in terms of licences as a proof of professional capability of the operator in order to
guarantee the safety and continuity of the service. The role of the authority in this
organisational form is described with the term ‗watchdog‘, since it is regulatory only,
controlling and restricting the actions of autonomous companies on the market (see van de
Velde, 1999).
Authorisation regimes consider systems where the market is also the initiator, but transport
companies require an authorisation before being able to provide services. This limits
competition on the market to an extent that is desirable to the relevant policy maker. In this
organisational form, the authority is not only controlling the actions of the operators on the
market but also limits the market entry by means of regulatory authorisation. Regulation can
for example state that entry is prohibited if it influences existing services or that it is only
allowed if it improves the existing level of service. A further distinction may be made into
regimes where autonomous private companies dominate the market and those forms where
publicly owned companies dominate the market (see van de Velde, 1999).

Parameters
In the market initiative regimes, authorities can also have the role of a subsidiser and grant
fare reductions to specific target groups of users and subsidise transport companies by
transforming a number of unprofitable markets into profitable markets and thereby increase
the number of services that appear through market initiative. In limited cases it might occur,
that authorities create proper supply themselves in areas where the market does not come
forward with desired commercially non viable services by itself, for instance if these services
are needed to fulfil social policy goals.
2.3. Emerging Typologies Components

The typologies below have been devised by CIPTEC to entail the system Integration and the
set-up of a transport authority and the status of operators. EMTA has accumulated great
interest and expertise in the field of transport authorities and has therefore been considered
as one of the most suitable sources for collaboration in this topic in CIPTEC.
2.3.1. System Integration

―Integration in Public Transport stands for the situation that several services to the customer
are structured in combination with each other. […] Integration can be regarded as a quality
aspect and has the different aspects of physical integration, tariff integration and logical
integration‖ (ISOTOPE Consortium, 2000). System integration can contribute to the
stakeholder‘s overall target of growth in patronage, since the quality and usability of the
system increases or it can be introduced in order to increase the cost efficiency of the system
e.g. by avoiding duplication of services. Integration for the sake of cost efficiency may lead to
a situation where many passengers are not benefiting from the integration (ISOTOPE
Consortium, 2000).
Physical integration in PT pertains to network design, interchange stations and timetables.

These three elements together define a physically integrated transport system. Next to
integration of the modes within the PT system, integration with other modes like private
vehicles or demand responsive services can also be considered.
Tariff integration seeks to avoid unjustified tariff differences in case of transfer. In classical
non-integrated systems, a transfer usually implies additional costs since each transfer or
change of vehicle/mode/operator results in a new, separately payable trip. In integrated tariff
systems, a ticket purchase enables the customer to utilise all modes and vehicle, also of
different operators of the system necessary to pursue his journey from origin to destination,
regardless the number of the interchange points.
Logical integration appears to be the most difficult to achieve and means that the system
should be perceived by users as one, with a unified set of concepts and language in its
communication towards the user (ISOTOPE Consortium, 2000).
2.3.2. Physical integration in public transport

In physical integration, four different models can be identified on the basis of which degree
each mode of the system has its particular designated role within the system, benefitting of its
strong properties:
1) A strict feeder model without duplicating services,

Parameters
2) A feeder model extended with direct services on busy relations (peak time express
services),
3) The maintenance of parallel services on a limited scale aiming to provide better

accessibility to places of interest, and
4) Competition between direct routes and feeder routes.
The physical integration aspect is very much influenced by the distribution of planning
procedures and the distribution of operation amongst several stakeholders, which makes it a
very complex reference for categorisation as it holds an immense potential for confusion
among possibilities. Therefore, these categorisations based on physical integration are not
elaborated in further detail.
2.3.3. Logical integration

The concept of logical integration considers the information flow and the perception of the
system by the passenger. In logically integrated systems, uniform information should be
available over the whole journey a passenger plans to make but also within the system for the
different stakeholders.
The substantial amount of possibilities to logically integrate a PT system by making use of

different software packages provided on the market or self-developed applications make a
categorisation based on this aspect very complex. Further complication is added by different
initiatives of private stakeholders outside the PT system that utilise open source data
provided from within the system to, for example, create integrated route planning
applications. These create a certain amount of logical integration which is not steered by the
system itself and therefore can hardly be categorised. An example for such a private initiative
from outside the PT system is the integration of PT modes in the route planning options of
Google‘s Map application.
For these complexity reasons, categories based on this aspect have not been further
developed and the aspect will not be further considered for the classification of stakeholders'
typologies.
2.3.4. Tariff integration

Tariff integration can be targeted at more frequent travellers with integrated passes, but also
at the less frequent traveller with multi-ride tickets or single tickets, valid for a fixed period on
all modes in the PT-system, regardless of the amount of interchanges or distance travelled
(ISOTOPE Consortium, 2000). In general five parameters for the typology on tariff integration
can be identified. The degree of integration decreases from the first category down.
2.3.4.1. Integrated Fare System
In this regime a traveller after purchase of his ticket has no limits in the usage of PT. The
validity of the ticket is defined geographically (e.g. the borders of the city, a certain fare zone)
and the traveller is not limited in the usage of PT within this area of validity for the duration of
the journey or a certain time limit defined. The traveller can use every mode of PT present
and perform as many interchange procedures necessary to proceed to the destination of
choice.

Parameters
2.3.4.2. Integrated Fare System with exceptions for special services
This regime is very similar to the Integrated Fare System except that within this regime,
services occur which are not covered by the general, integrated fare but make a subsequent
payment for the usage of special services needed. Special services may for example be
express services or special peak hour service routes, which create an additional benefit to the
traveller. The subsequent payment can be introduced in form of a supplement, which needs
to be purchased upon the normal ticket or in the form of special tickets that have no
connection with the integrated fare.
2.3.4.3. Differentiation of fares per operator
In this regime, a traveller is after the purchase of the ticket limited to the services of a specific
transport operator and the modes this operator supplies. Transfer between the modes offered
by a single operator is possible. If the journey exceeds the services of the operator and
services of a different company need to be utilised in order to proceed to the destination of
choice, a separate ticket needs to be purchased for the services of the subsequent operator.
2.3.4.4. Differentiation of fares per mode network
The fare practice in this regime allows travellers to utilise a certain mode network, for
example the underground/metro network and enables the traveller to make transfers within
this network without the need to purchase another ticket. However, if the traveller changes to
another mode, for example to the bus system, a subsequent ticket needs to be purchased.
Interchange procedures within the subsequent network are therefore possible, not taking into
account whether all connected services in the network are performed by the same ToC
(transport operating company).
2.3.4.5. Non-integrated fare system – payment per trip
In this regime, every trip made needs to be paid separately. Interchanges from one vehicle to
another even with the same operator are therefore mostly not included in a single ticket price.
An important evolution to rule out this concept however is the usage of payment systems that
allow a variable fare payment per trip, like smart cards or mobile applications. In these Pay-
as-You-Go systems the passenger pays a fare that varies based on the distance covered (for
example per kilometre or per zone). The traveller therefore does not need to buy a flat fare
ticket per trip, but pays exactly for the actual distance covered. Consequently, the fare system
appears integrated on the bases of distance payment, although a validation of the e-card or
smart card is needed on every stage of a journey.
2.3.4.6. Confusions
These five regimes represent a theoretical categorisation for the fare systems in PT.
However, real world applications might show characteristics of several of these regimes in
one and the same system. An example for this is the Oystercard fare payment system in
London. When using the underground service, a variable fare collection based on several
fare zones is utilised and interchange from one line to another in London metro network is
possible without additional payment. When changing on to the bus system, however,
passengers pay a flat fare with their Oystercard per trip, which means the fare is neither
variably based on the distance, nor does it allow transfer from one bus to another, since with
every bus boarding procedure the flat fare is due.

Parameters
2.3.5. Territorial Scope of Authority

The representation of PT authorities varies substantially between different countries and
regions. There are cases where general administration at national, regional and local levels
are made responsible for transport, but also cases in which authority structures have been
specially created and endowed with powers and competences in urban PT (ISOTOPE
Consortium, 2000). The following categorisation differentiates between four territorial
concepts of transport authorities.
2.3.5.1. Local authorities (administrative)
This regime describes an authority that is responsible for the administrative territory of the
city. Administrative bodies on local level are municipalities or cities; the territory of the
authority is therefore defined by the administrative boundary of the municipalities or cities.
2.3.5.2. Regional authorities (administrative)
This regime describes an authority that is responsible for the same administrative territory of
the regional political body. Political bodies on regional level are provinces, counties, districts,
etc. The territory of the authority is therefore defined by the administrative boundaries of that
regional political entity.
2.3.5.3. Metropolitan authorities (functional)
Public bodies that do not represent a territory similar to that of a single administrative entity
but for functional reasons are endowed with competences to commission public services
covering several administrative levels (municipalities, cities) within a highly urbanised area.
Their territory is defined by the boundaries of administrative entities organised co-operating in
the authority. The boundaries of the metropolitan authorities therefore do not match with an
administrative territory.
2.3.5.4. Metropolitan authorities without central city (functional)
This authority structure is similar to the aforementioned metropolitan authority. It is also set up
to represent several administrative entities (i.e., municipalities, cities) and its territory does not
match with the boundaries of one administrative entity. Hence, in this typology the main city
of the conurbation is not represented by this authority and administers its own transport policy
body. This metropolitan authority encompasses the public transport connections between
municipalities in the agglomeration and with the central city, except for the steering of the
transport services within the central city itself.
2.3.6. Area of Responsibility of Authority

Integration of urban PT is very critical to harness the competitiveness of the system
compared to that of other individual modes of urban mobility, such as the private car and
bicycle use. The authority‘s structures dealing with urban PT are therefore meant to
understand and influence the urban mobility system as a whole. A strong need of articulation
is considered necessary with the private means of transportation in order to achieve the
common societal goals of congestion relief and environmental protection, and noise impact
reduction which are usually strongly connected with PT policy. Out of this need for co-
operation along the urban mobility system, different authority structures occur, which more or
less integrate the entire urban mobility duties (ISOTOPE Consortium, 2000).

Parameters
2.3.6.1. Authority responsible for urban public transport
This is the very basic form of a public transport authority (PTA), limiting its responsibilities to
PT. Other modes of the urban mobility market (car, bike, walking etc.) are represented by
different authorities or administrative public bodies.
2.3.6.2. Authority responsible for urban mobility
In this case, the authority is not only responsible for the PT modalities and their infrastructure
present in the city (or region, or metropolitan region, depending on the territorial scope
described in the previous chapter), but also bundles activities for individual transport, such as
traffic management, parking and road infrastructure and the integration and seamlessness of
individual and PT in provisions like ‗park and ride‘ parking concepts.
2.3.6.3. Authority responsible for urban mobility and land use planning
This regime is similar to the aforementioned (authority responsibility for urban mobility) except
that the authority also impacts the general land use planning of the city or the metropolitan
region. The land use planning with its distribution of activities and places to fulfil the needs of
the city‘s inhabitants defines where future demand for transportation occurs. The
transportation authority may therefore be consulted in the creation of land use plans or may
even actively define the land use planning of the city in order to avert land use situations that
cannot be handled by the transport system of the city.
2.3.6.4. Authority responsible for urban mobility and other public services
This regime is similar to the aforementioned authority regimes but does not limit the
competence of the authority on mobility but integrates the provision of other public services
into the authority. Examples of such public services are waste disposal, energy supply,
management of public parks etc.
2.3.7. Strategic Decision Making

Strategic decisions in PT concern aspects like general aims of the system, the area covered
and general service characteristics. The process of decision-making changed with the
reforms that were implemented in the PT sector.
These following regimes represent a theoretical categorisation for the strategic decision
making in PT. However, real world applications might show characteristics of several of these
regimes. The possible influence of the authority on the decision making process on strategic
level is expected to decrease, with the first mentioned showing the greatest amount of
influence.
2.3.7.1. Internal body of the authority
In this regime, the strategic decisions and policy are defined within the authority by an internal
board, which can also entail representatives from administrative bodies and other
stakeholders. The defined strategic policy goals and plans are then translated into day-to-day
tactical and operational practice.
2.3.7.2. Administrative body with same territory
In this case, strategic decisions are made within the administrative body with the same
territory that is represented by the authority and the authority is responsible for a translation
of these policy goals into tactical planning and a day-to-day operation (with the help of other,

Parameters
public and private stakeholders, like operators or planners). The strategic planning and the
formation of political goals are therefore concentrated at the municipality or city council for
local authorities or at the provincial/ regional councils for regional authorities.
2.3.7.3. Board formed of administrative bodies enclosed in a functional territory
This regime corresponds to metropolitan authorities, where the political power of the territory
of the authority is not represented by one political body but by several municipalities or
regions. These municipalities together appoint a board that collectively decides on the
strategic decisions level of PT. The voting power of each municipality or region represented
by the authority may be based on the size of the municipality in terms of inhabitants, etc. The
authority itself does not decide on the goals and political aims at the strategic level but has
the sole responsibility for a translation of these policy goals into a tactical plan and a plan for
day-to-day operation (with the help of other, public and private stakeholders, like operators or
planners).
2.3.7.4. Specially formed management body
In this case, a management body with different stakeholders is specially formed in order to
collectively define the goals and strategic plans for the PT system. The authority itself,
translates these goals into a tactical plan and daily practice.
2.3.7.5. Political body with different territory
In this case, the general policy aims and the strategic level are not determined by the political
bodies directly represented by the municipality but by a higher level of governance. In these
cases both the PT goals and the strategic planning are defined by either a regional, national
or federal public entity, whose territorial responsibility overrules the area covered by the
authority responsibility. The authority itself translates these goals into a tactical plan and daily
practice.
2.3.8. Status of the Operator

Contrary to categorisation of authorities it is less easy to categorise PTOs in cities. As the
market is dominated by a handful of international transport operating companies (ToC) who
based on their market entry strategy decide if they need a foothold in a certain country or city,
these larger operators do not depend on situational parameters of a technical nature like the
rail infrastructure or auxiliary facilities in workshops, maintenance facilities or staff. In general
the larger players readapt the management and strategic decision-making is done by the
management assigned by the executive board in such a country or city. ToCs winning a
tender in a city located in a country outside their origin need to adapt to the criteria of the EU-
framework on public transport (PSO regulation 1370/2007, Procurement directives). A bidding
ToC is bound by local laws and rulings. Mostly, direct and (part of) indirect staff is mandatorily
adopted. The culture of management and decision-making can be quite different, depending
on the priorities in the ToC‘s policy.
Looking at standard parameters (transport mode, type or geographic level of service) private
bidders in the market will reshape themselves to local circumstances that are required by the
tendering authority. Therefore, in our view the way these elements would define a ToC is
basically the way the ToCs are mirroring what local and urban transport authorities carry
forward. The main distinction that can be made is if the company operating is publicly or

Parameters
privately owned; if privately, is it considered part of an international consolidated enterprise or

a local private enterprise and if it has acquired a contract after public tender or direct award.
Knowing these circumstances and the fact that market variety is more international with less
new players to enter that market, categorising urban operators looking at the aforementioned
typologies and parameters is sometimes sensible by identifying a specific object of the
tender. The type of functions and adhering tasks or level of planning and control of a contract
are mostly congruent. Parameters like the size or turnover of private or public transport
companies or the scale of operation (local, national or international) is considered less
relevant for this study.
Taking the ownership as leading parameter for urban operators we can distinguish 4 main
types of operators:
1. Owned by one single public administration as a service division of the city,

integrated in its urban utilities company (e.g. Stadtwerke in Germany)
2. a. Operator as a municipal company with 100% shares of the city.

b. Operator as a publicly owned company with shares partly held by the city and
partly by third parties.
3. a. Publicly owned transport company owned by the (national) state organised

under private company law (Deutsche Bahn, SNCF, Nederlandse
Spoorwegen).
b. Publicly owned transport company owned by the (national) state organized

under private company law but at arm‘s length of the government (RATP).
4. Operator organised under private company law,

a. Owned by a (private) international consortium (Transdev owned by Veolia
Environment SA, Caisse des Depots);
b. Owned by a national transport company (category 2a) that is in public
ownership (Arriva as subsidiary of Deutsche Bahn)
c. Owned by private local transport companies, (e.g. ATAF in Florence, owned by
CAP, BusItalia, GIA Autoguidovie)
2.4. Considerations on Links and Overlap amongst Typologies

The different typologies and categorisation approaches presented in the previous chapters
show strong links to each other. The typologies based on the level of planning and control in
PT, for instance, can be put in very close context to the typology of contract design. The
following illustrates this connection with an example: a PTO that operates in a system setup
as a ‗Central planning and tendering of production‘ regime, is not able to or could hardly
influence tactical planning aspects, such as timetables and route design. The PTO in this
sense has no possibility to alter the design of service and will therefore not agree to a
contract design that bears the entire risk of the operation on his account. Net-Cost and
Super-Incentive contracts can therefore not be considered in this regime, which leaves gross-
cost contracting and the different minor variations of this form. The graphic below tries to
indicate these links and overlap situations of the typologies, which are indicated by the
coloured blocks surrounding the relevant linked typologies.

Parameters
Table 2: Scheme showing overlap amongst typologies

Parameters
2.5. Considerations on the links with the INTERREG IVC EPTA project
To be able to compare this research with prior projects the EPTA study comes into our view.
In EPTA the 10 primary functional areas of medium-sized and larger authorities in European
cities are defined. This diagram shows the main functions of a PTA with adhering sub-tasks.
This table below describes the connections between the functions coming forward from the
EPTA study with the typologies that are defined in this document.
Primary Functional
Areas of PTA from Typology from CIPTEC 1.3 Incorporating this Function Chapter
EPTA
Categorisation Based on the Level of Planning 2.2.1
Organisational 2.3.6
Area of Responsibility of Authority
2.2.2
Financial Categorisation Based on Contract Design
Area of Responsibility of Authority 2.3.6

Policy 2.3.7
Strategic Decision Making
Categorisation Based on Contract Design 2.2.2
Regulatory Categorisation Based on the Level of Planning 2.2.1
Planning Categorisation Based on the Level of Planning 2.2.1
2.3.4
Fares Tariff integration

Procurement
2.2.4
Intervention Entrepreneurship

Promotional 2.3.3
Logical integration
Strategic Decision Making 2.3.7
Political Territorial Scope of Authority 2.3.5
Table 3: Table showing links to INTERREG IVC EPTA Project

Parameters
2.6. Appointing of Typologies to be utilised in CIPTEC

For the further project flow of the CIPTEC project it is vital to utilise a classification typology
that provides sufficient information on the PT system in question. The targets, goals and
needs of the stakeholders in PT systems differ from each other and are strongly related to the
set-up of the system in terms of the division of planning and operation responsibilities
amongst the stakeholders. Furthermore, the design of the contract, dividing the risks but also
the finance possibilities between the Operator(s) and Authority of a system, provides very
detailed information on the more substitute goals of the stakeholders. The following examples
try to indicate these connections: a PTO working in a system, that is set up as a ‗Central
planning and tendering of production‘ regime does hardly have tactical planning
responsibilities and does therefore not have a need for planners and innovation concerning
planning solutions. The Authority, on the other hand, does have a need for planners and
innovative planning practices. In another case, where the system is set up as a ‗Tendering of
Network design and Realisation‘ regime, the operator is allocated with the planning
procedures and shows a need for planners and innovative planning practices, while the
authority is more concerned with controlling than actual planning. In a next step, it becomes
important to know, which stakeholder bears which risk and how incentives are introduced; an
operator working under a gross cost contract is rather not concerned about the amount of
customers transported, whereas an operator working in a gross cost contract with ridership
incentive or a net cost contract is very much interested in the amount of passengers, since
higher patronage in these cases leads to higher revenue for the operator.
It is considered that particularly this information, the division of responsibilities in planning and
operation and the substitute goals, is important for the further project work flow of CIPTEC,
since this information defines, which stakeholder is interested in which sort of innovation.
Therefore, it was decided to appoint the two typologies ‗Categorisation Based on Level of
Planning‘ and ‗Contract Design‘ for the further utilisation within CIPTEC.
The graphic below indicates the different parameters of these typologies and their
interrelation.

Parameters
Organisational Form based on Level of Planning Contract Design
Management Contract
Gross Cost Contract
Gross Cost Contract with Ridership Incentive
Public Service Obligation with Public Operator
Net Cost Contract
Net Cost Contract with Shared Revenue Risk
Super Incentive Contract
Private Concessions Including Infrastructure Management Contract
Management Contract
Gross Cost Contract
Gross Cost Contract with Shared Production Risk
Central Planning and Tendering of Production
Net Cost Contract
Management Contract
Gross Cost Contract
Tendering of Realisation with Redesign Possibilities Gross Cost Contract with Ridership Incentive
Net Cost Contract
Gross Cost Contract
Tendering of Network Design and Realisation
Net Cost Contract
Gross Cost Contract
Deregulated Market for Commercially Viable Routes and Gross Cost Contract with Ridership Incentive
Tendering of Non Commercial Routes Net Cost Contract
Tendered Authorization for Exploitation of Commercially viable
No Cost related contracting
routes
Free competition with Light Touch Regulation No Cost related contracting
Deregulated Free Market No Cost related contracting
Table 4: Relations between the two appointed typologies
2.7. Survey amongst EMTA Members for Findings Validation

2.7.1. General outline of survey results
A survey carried out amongst the members of the association of European Metropolitan
Transport Authorities was utilised to analyse if the adopted typologies on their organisational
structure, planning and contracting was mirrored also in their praxis. 25 EMTA larger urban
authorities in EMTA completed the survey (96%). The survey encompassed 64 questions for
which the answers build a ground base to validate some findings and real world applications
of the typologies that were investigated in task D1.3. The survey aimed to clarify:

Parameters
The organisational set-up of transport authorities, their ownership structure and internal
governance, decision making and procurement processes, contracting practice award;
Main features and characteristics of metropolitan authorities and cities that could be
emblematic for possible incentives and needs towards innovation;
Main challenges that drive forward innovation in public transport supply.
From consolidating the survey results the following points of interest come forward (please
refer to the appendix of this document for the questionnaire of the survey):
- Geographical area:
The size of the PTAs‘ geographical area varies from 401 km2 (Vilnius) to over 30,000 km2
(Berlin-Brandenburg). The average surface of 25 metropolitan areas amounts to 5,425
km2.
- Inhabitants:
The size in terms of the number of inhabitants varies from 540,000 for the smallest
(Vilnius) to 12 million for the most populated metropolitan area (Ile de France); the
average size of cities is 1,56 million and 3,3 million for the whole PTA area.
- Administrative scope:
15 out of 25 cover metropolitan areas; from the other 10 there are 9 covering an
administrative region or county (Madrid, Ile de France, Stockholm County, Barcelona
Metropolitan area, Region of Bilbao, Regione Piemonte (It), Rhein-Main, Copenhagen
Region, Vienna (Ost Region) and one is local (Vilnius).
- Funding:
Thirteen out of 25 PTAs receive its main funding from the central or from regional state
government. The members from France (Lyon, IdF) have income mainly from passenger
ticket sales and on top from versement de transport (national transport tax imposed on
companies). Only for Montreal (Canada) goes that funding comes mainly from gas tax
and car ownership fees. Remarkable is that some PTAs like in Oslo and Helsinki depend
for over 50% on passenger revenues. Oslo, Stockholm and London retrieve budget from
toll ring levy and congestion charging as well.
- Governance:
The functional areal scope of 14 (of 25) metropolitan PTAs coincides with the scope of
responsibility for its local / regional government. So 11 public entities have a scope of
deviation from the administrative borders of the city or region.
- Decision making competence:

15 (of 25) members have either a separate legal entity empowered to take decisions in
their city, region or metropolitan area or a local delegated agency within their
organisation; 4 PTAs have the governance power with involvement of an inter-
administrative consortium of municipalities and with regional or national state involvement
(Metropolitan Region of Barcelona, Stockholm County, Rhine-Main, Vienna, Copenhagen
and Oslo Akershus Region).
- More specific answers from the survey:

Parameters
Tariff specification: On the question of ―what is a passenger with a single ticket in the city
allowed to do?‖ answers widely deviate: in 9 city networks a single ticket allows for valid
title to one trip per mode. In two of those cities the single ticket does not allow an
interchange by the same mode. In 5 of the EMTA networks access to all services by the
same operator is enabled with one single ticket payment, and in 4 others a passenger is
entitled to use as many services as needed but in a designated zone of the network. Only
in 6 cities a single ticket allows access to all services in the entire regional or urban
network area (i.e., Vienna, Prague, Helsinki, Rhine-Main, Piemonte Torino, Oslo
Akershus).
Other fields in the scope of metropolitan PTAs covered by a regional or metropolitan transport
authority that were mentioned were ‗urban mobility‘ (i.e., taxi, traffic management, congestion
charging) and 7 PTAs noted alternative tasks (Budapest, Vilnius, Barcelona, Metropolitan
Region Rotterdam-The Hague, Stuttgart, London and Birmingham). Region Stuttgart
discerned a most exceptional scope of tasks with parks and land use planning.
On the question if the PTA is exploring ways to introduce innovation and changes in their
core business, almost all PTAs gave a range of answers. Most recurring: new information
technology, new ways of fare setting and fare integration and new ways of marketing and
communication. Inquiring for the degree of autonomy that any authority has to pursue
innovation 70% filled out that it is deemed large, with Copenhagen and Metropolitan Region
The Hague stated as very large. Considering the number of issues that were mentioned as
ways to innovate no less than 8 cities checked in to all the optional innovation items that they
could select from.
On the question what type of barriers are needed to overcome (or reduce) to stimulate your
organisation's propensity for implementing innovation the most frequently given answers are:
―will we be able to afford the implementation of innovation?‖ and secondly ―will the innovation
be accepted by politicians and will citizens vote in favour of it?‖. Doubts that were expressed
further relate to ―will we be able to introduce the measure smoothly?‖ and ―will the measure
solve the problem that it is supposed to solve?‖ With regard to this aspect most remarkable
was the connotation of Torino-Piemonte: ―We do not test innovations just for research
purposes, innovations are adopted only if they are capable of problem solving and they bring
benefits to the public transport users.‖
On the final question if the PTA in question has any idea on the priority needs of its local
operator to innovate, only 7 authorities (Prague, Paris, Stuttgart, Budapest, Piemonte region,
Vilnius and Madrid) answered positively. All other PTAs had to admit that they do not know.
The two aspects mentioned most often are: operators are assumed to have the need to
primarily reduce the cost of operations and operators want to get a better grip on preferences
of their travellers. The creation of new integrated offer of services to specific groups of
customers was mentioned by 70% as a driver for their operator‘s need to innovate.
In the survey, the EMTA members were furthermore asked to indicate specific characteristics
of their transportation system based on the modes of public transport occurring in their area.
This included aspects like the procurement procedure, with which the transportation services
are ordered, the way how the services are planned, how the different planning tasks are
allocated to authorities and operators and aspects on the vehicle ownership per mode. The
following graphs present the outcomes of the questions about the procurement procedure

Parameters
and the vehicle ownership based on the modes ‗Metro‘ and ‗Bus‘, presenting a very capital
intensive mode and a rather cheaply to employ mode of transport.
Figure 3: Outcomes of EMTA survey questions on procurement and vehicle ownership

The comparison of the graphic above allows shows, that in the case of ‗Metro‘, public and in-
house operators are much more present than in the ‗Bus‘ systems of EMTA members. Market
forces in the form of tender based awarding are present in the case of the bus systems but
much less observed in case of metro systems. This is partly to be explained by the
requirement that strategic assets for metro (rolling stock, stations, workshops etc.) should not
be compromised in a tender by securing that all strategic local rail infrastructure components
remain in ownership of the local administration or their in-house operator.
2.7.2. Analysis of Real World Application of Appointed Typologies Based on EMTA

Survey Outcome
A part of the survey carried out amongst EMTA member authorities was utilised to analyse
the real world application of the appointed typologies amongst these EMTA members. 25
EMTA member authorities answered, amongst others, questions on the set-up of their
systems and the contract characteristics, which allowed making this analysis. The analysis
has been carried out on the basis of two modes of PT: Metro, representing a very capital and
infrastructure intensive mode (upper scheme) and Bus operations, a mode that is found in
any PT system in Europe (lower scheme). The schemes below, as outcomes of this short
analysis show the vast variety in organisational set-up and contract choice amongst the
responding authorities‘ systems. The schemes presented are based on the outcome of the
EMTA survey.15
15
Please note that these schemes present a brief reflection of the outcome of the EMTA survey.
Additional information on the profile of EMTA members scope, missions and performances in supply
and demand can be found in the EMTA Barometer 2014 (March 1, 2016), available at:
http://emta.com/IMG/pdf/2014_barometer_brochure.pdf

Prague;
Helsinki;
Public Service Obligation with Public Operator Warsaw;
Bilbao; R'dam-The
Parameters
Barcelona; Madrid; Hague; Amsterdam;

London Budapest Paris; Berlin Vienna
Private Concessions Including Infrastructure
Central Planning and Tendering of Production
© CIPTEC consortium
Lyon;
Tendering of Realisation with Redesign Possibilities Piemonte
region;
Stockholm
Deregulated Market for Commercially Viable Routes and Tendering of Non Commercial
Routes
Tendered Authorization for Exploitation of Commercially viable routes Montreal

Free competition with Light Touch Regulation
Deregulated Free Market

Gross
www.ciptec.eu
Gross Net Cost
Cost
Cost Contract
Contract Super No cost-
Manageme Gross Cost Contract Net Cost with
with Incentive based
nt Contract Contract with Contract Shared
Shared Contract contracting
Ridership Revenue
Productio
Incentive Risk
n Risk
Page 39 of 55
Table 5: Scheme showing application of typologies amongst EMTA members based on Metro systems
Paris;
Public Service Obligation with Public Operator Prague; Madrid; Berlin;
Vilnius; R'dam-The Piemonte
Barcelona Hague region
Parameters
Private Concessions Including Infrastructure
Central Planning and Tendering of Production Helsinki; Vienna;

Warsaw Frankfurt Copenhagen Stuttgart London
Tendering of Realisation with Redesign Possibilities
© CIPTEC consortium
Budapest Lyon

Stockholm Amsterdam
Deregulated Market for Commercially Viable Routes and Tendering of Non Commercial
Routes
Tendered Authorization for Exploitation of Commercially viable routes
Free competition with Light Touch Regulation
Deregulated Free Market

Manchester;
West
Midlands (UK)
Net Cost
Gross Cost Gross Cost
Contract
Contract with Contract Super
www.ciptec.eu
Manageme Gross Cost Net Cost with No cost-based
Shared with Incentive
nt Contract Contract Contract Shared contracting
Production Ridership Contract
Revenue
Risk Incentive
Risk
Page 40 of 55
Table 6: Scheme showing application of typologies amongst EMTA members based on Bus systems
Parameters
3. IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS OF SUPPLY SIDE IN PT

3.1. Actual Research Approach
In the original project planning, the investigation on the Needs of the PT supply side, so of the
Transport Authorities and Operators in European Cities, was planned to be carried out on the
basis of literature review. The outcomes produced by this review were then to be validated by
the project consortium, especially those consortium partners representing transport
authorities and transport operators (EMTA, MRDH, traffiQ, Tiemme).
The literature study has been carried out but did not produce considerable results. During the
literature review, it turned out that scientific literature is rather limited on the matter and
predominantly focusing on the direct performance tasks and responsibilities of the supply side
of PT. However, these studies hardly consider the instruments necessary to fulfil these tasks,
so the needs of these stakeholders.
On the basis of this unexpected low amount of scientific information, it was decided to
approach the research on the needs of the supply side of PT in a more practical manner and
based on the assumption that the needs are aspects that directly relate to the achievement of
the goals of the supply side stakeholders.
On the basis of this assumption, a more targeted literature review has been carried out to
create a list of needs of the supply side of PT. Contributions of several consortium partners
has been incorporated in this list, which then formed the basis for a targeted brainstorm
session held with the consortium partners allocated with the first work package of the project.
This brainstorm session created the final list of needs of the supply side of PT.
3.2. Research on Needs based on Goals of the Supply Side of PT

The primary goals of PTAs and PTOs could be identified as the achievement of high
customer satisfaction through the creation of services of high quality and the raise of the
market share of PT in the area covered. Furthermore, efficient work performance, enabling
the organisation to achieve the two previously mentioned goals in a cost-effective manner.
For (private) transport operating companies (ToC) the efficient operation is needed to ensure
a profitable business case. In short the three main goals of the supply side of PT are:
High customer satisfaction

Increase in the number of customers
Efficient and goal oriented working.
In the interest of the identification of the needs, it is decided to consider a ‗need‘ as a broader
concept related to the achievement of the overall goals. As said before, for the fulfilment of all
of these ‗needs‘ a certain instrument or several instruments/tools become necessary. These
tools can be considered as solutions on the level of the innovations that are inventoried and
created in the further workflow of the CIPTEC project. The following example illustrates this
line of definition; in order to achieve higher customer satisfaction (Goal), PT needs to be
prioritised in Traffic (Need), which can be achieved by dedicated PT infrastructure (Tool) or
new forms of traffic management installations (Tool).
In order to facilitate the investigation and identification of the needs and aspects necessary
for the achievement of the above-identified goals, research has been carried out on the

Parameters
different features and dimensions of these goals. The list of needs of the PT supply side is
structured on the basis of these dimensions, which are explained in further detail in the
following chapter.
The identified dimensions of each of the goals enabled a more targeted research on the
aspects necessary to fulfil these multidimensional goals. Next to information from this
targeted review of literature, input provided in a contribution paper by consortium partners
MemEx and Tiemme has been incorporated into the list of needs of the PT supplying
stakeholders. The contributions have been revised on the basis of the general assumption
that the needs of a PTA and a PTO refer to the general goals of these organisations.
This input has been incorporated into the list of needs of the supplying stakeholders. The
goals defined and the investigated list of needs was later validated by the consortium
partners allocated with the first work package and representing the supply side of public
transport in a meeting of consortium partners working on WP1 and particularly task 1.3. This
validated list has been utilised as basis for a targeted brainstorm session which took place
during the same meeting and which created the final list of needs of the supply side in urban
PT.
3.2.1. Dimensions of the Primary Goals

In order to achieve high satisfaction amongst customers, it becomes vital to consider which
aspects of a product or service may have a negative impact on the perceived service quality
and which aspects may foster customer satisfaction.
Figure 4: Pyramid of customer needs in transport by Mark van Hagen, 2011
The pyramid of customer needs in transport, that has been developed on the basis of
Maslow‘s need pyramid (hierarchy of needs) reflects the perception of the service offered.
The base of the pyramid reflects safety and reliability, two aspects that are to be considered
the basic needs and the ground for the customer‘s trust towards the PT system. Speed in the
sense of travel time can be considered the principle customer need which leads to a certain
travel choice and the Ease aspect describes the convenience or hassle the customer
connects with the travel. The two remaining aspects atop the pyramid, the comfort and
experience factor, relate to the perceived travel as satisfiers, which makes these two aspects
the only factors where an actual increase of customer satisfaction can be achieved, which

Parameters
makes these particularly vital for the achievement of the higher customer satisfaction goal
(see Van Haagen, 2011),
The four previously mentioned base aspects, safety, reliability, speed and ease, are to be
considered dissatisfiers; a service that does not fulfil these aspects is perceived to be
dissatisfying, which will lead to a movement of customers away from this service. However, a
service that scores particularly well on these four aspects but not on the satisfier aspects of
comfort and experience is not likely to lead to higher customer satisfaction. The six aspects
mentioned in the pyramid of customer needs in transport define the six dimensions connected
to the higher customer satisfaction goal.
The second goal, the increase of customers, is strongly correlated to the perceived quality of
the service, which makes the two satisfier aspects of comfort and experience dimensions of
the second goal, the customer increase as well. Additionally, the positioning of the services
on the market and the appearance of the services in terms of marketing are combined in the
dimension Promotion, which is vital to the customer increase goal.
In order to achieve the two mentioned goals, increase in numbers of customers and higher
customer satisfaction, in an efficient, cost effective or even profitable manner, working
procedures within the organisations are to be strongly connected with the actual performance
of the services in order to foster efficiency. Furthermore, the undertakings within the
organisation should be connected to and create a benefit for the customers. In the interest of
achieving and sustaining high efficiency and customer-oriented working, it becomes vital to
create a great understanding for changing customer needs and evolving market situations.
These aspects form three dimensions related to the third goal of the supply side of public
transport, goal oriented and efficient organisation, namely performance orientation, customer
orientation and the adaptability to evolving markets and customer needs.
3.3. List of Needs of the Supply Side in Public Transport

The following list containing the needs of the PT supply side is the final outcome of a targeted
literature research on the basis of the defined goal dimensions. It does, furthermore, as
mentioned, incorporate input from the consortium partners MemEx and Tiemme on that
matter and has been validated and upgraded during a targeted brainstorm session of the
consortium partners working on WP1 of the project. The list is sorted on the basis of the
defined goal dimensions. List aspects without reference emerged during the brainstorm
session, which took place in The Hague, with co-workers of consortium members responsible
for WP1.
As mentioned earlier, a ‗need‘ is considered as a broader concept related to the achievement

of the overall goals of the PT supply side. For the fulfilment of all of these ‗needs‘ a certain
instrument or several instruments/tools become necessary. These tools can be considered as
solutions on the level of the innovations that are inventoried and created in the further
workflow of the CIPTEC project. The following example has already been mentioned in
previous chapters but is for clarification of the line of definition stated here as well: In order to
achieve higher customer satisfaction (Goal), PT needs to be prioritised in Traffic (Need),
which can be achieved by dedicated PT infrastructure (Tool) or new forms of traffic
management installations (Tool).

Parameters
 Technical Safety of Vehicles and Systems
Security
Safety
and
 High Level of Perceived Safety

 Contract conform (or better than contract stated)

Reliability  Minimisation of impact of disruptions (Pucher, Korattyswaroopam,
& Ittyerah, 2004)
 Punctuality

 Competitive travel times concerning entire Door-to-door trip

Speed (Travel
(Higher) customer satisfaction
 Prioritisation of Public Transport in Traffic leading to higher travel

Time)
speeds (Weber, Fellow, Arpi, & EMBARQ, 2011)

 Minimisation of waiting time through more transport integrating
scheduling
 Seamless travel throughout the system which includes:

 Physical integration of Modes
(access, convenience)
 Tariff integration and payment interoperability

 Clear and integrated information provision (logical integration)
Ease
 Clear ticketing system incorporating technical possibilities or

usage of open standards to allow integration of payment
technology providers (Near Field Communication),
 Wayfinding and user information in stations, transfer hubs and

stops
 Personalised information provision

 Public transport tickets/ access cards embedded in other service

cards and tickets so that also non-users always have a transport
pass with them (e.g. entry tickets for other events, combined with
other services access cards for services like libraries, concerts,
museums etc. or reversely: payments in stations can be made by
enabled debit or smart card)
 Minimisation of Interchanges
 Comfort within the system which includes:
Comfort
 Preservation of basic comfort (e.g. seat opportunities,

cleanness) (Pucher, Korattyswaroopam, & Ittyerah, 2004)
 High Quality Stations/Waiting areas
 Appealing vehicle interior fostering comfort (e.g. comfortable
seats, tables, etc.) (Pucher, Korattyswaroopam, & Ittyerah,
2004)
 Access to utilities (e.g. power sockets, the Internet, etc.)
 Comfort around the system which includes:
 Solutions for the first and last mile

Parameters
 Adequate access to the system by individual and slow means

of transport (e.g. Park and Ride, Bicycle parking, etc.)
o
(Pucher, Korattyswaroopam, & Ittyerah, 2004)
 High Perceived Speed
Experience  High Perceived Comfort (e.g. seat availability)

 Improvement of waiting time perception (Van Hagen, 2011)
 Infotainment systems (Van Hagen, 2011)
 Enabling productive/purposeful use of travel time (e.g. working

compartments)

 General marketing campaigns (Weber, Fellow, Arpi, & EMBARQ,

2011)
 Target group oriented marketing
 Political promotion in order to lobby for PT-supportive policies
(Weber, Fellow, Arpi, & EMBARQ, 2011)
More customers
 Internal communication concepts in order to make every

Promotion
employee working with the PT system an ambassador of the

services (Weber, Fellow, Arpi, & EMBARQ, 2011)
 Co-ordination and Involvement of Stakeholders and Interest
Groups
 User education
 Identity and branding (Weber, Fellow, Arpi, & EMBARQ, 2011)
 Consideration of existing customers in marketing plans (e.g.

reward programs, etc.)
 Definition of Key Performance Indicators for service quality and
efficiency
 Continuous information flow of performance/performance
monitoring (Quantitative Data collection),
Performance orientation
 Standardised Data-Collection Systems amongst all stakeholders

Goal-Oriented/ Efficient Organisation
of the system or open standard systems which may also be

utilised by a third party organisation and allow exchange of data
Goal-Oriented and Efficient
 Performance- and Demand Data driven operation planning

 Clear and effective procedures for procurement and licencing of
transport services (Input from Consortium Partner
MemEx/Tiemme)
 High overall efficiency and cost effectiveness

 Definition of Performance Indicators based on customer

Customer orientation
satisfaction
 Measuring, metering and analysis of customer experience data
(subjective)
 Research on evolving customer needs and trends (Input from

Consortium Partner MemEx/Tiemme)
 Development of products and services based on customer needs



Parameters
 Contracts granting adaptation possibilities in order to achieve
markets and customer needs

sufficient and more efficient service quantities
Adaptive-ness to evolving
 More flexible, demand oriented service possibilities (Input from
Consortium Partner MemEx/Tiemme)
 Framework for regulation of new supply forms and new market
driven entries (e.g. Uber, Car-sharing, etc.)
 Measures to influence transport demand (Input from Consortium
Partner MemEx/Tiemme)
 Equitable revenue distribution systems amongst an increasing
amount of stakeholders in the system
Table 7: List of Needs of the PT Supply Side
3.3.1. Allocation of Needs to PTAs and PTOs

The list of Needs described in the chapter above is considering the needs of the stakeholders
on the supply side of PT. In this chapter an allocation of the needs towards PTAs and PTOs
is considered. The graphic below visualises this allocation and shows, that a direct
assignment of a certain need on to a certain stakeholder in the PT system is generally only
possible for the minority of the needs listed. The main reason for this difficulty can be found in
the typologies chapter of this document that seeks to clarify the immense differences in the
organisational set-up of PT. Mainly the distribution of planning and control tasks of all levels
in combination with a certain contract design defines whether a certain player is faced with a
certain need. For a better understanding of the specific needs of a specific stakeholder
working in a certain organisational set-up, it becomes necessary to further investigate the
impact these different set-up forms, mainly defined by the typologies ‗level of planning‘ and
‗contract design‘, have on the needs.

Parameters
Table 8: List of needs allocated to supply side stakeholders

Parameters
3.4. Correlation between Needs and WP2 Innovation Categories

In CIPTEC‘s WP2, innovations from the fields of Public Transport, Other Transportation and
Other Businesses are being inventoried. The extensive long lists of innovations are then
categorised using a classification of Product, Process and Organisational innovations, with
several subcategories. The scheme below shows the classification categories for PT
innovations.
Figure 5: Scheme Showing the Innovation Categories of PT from WP2.
The colour code of the scheme above can be found in the following table, in which the Needs
inventoried during work package one are put in relation with the shown classification
categories of innovations applied in WP2. The classification of the Needs of the PT supply
side on the basis of the categories used to categorise the innovations inventoried in WP2
enables the project consortium to identify the gaps and discrepancies between the needs of
the PT supply side, which define the demand for solutions and innovations, and the
innovative supply that could be identified in WP2. This identified gap between demand for
innovation and innovative supply available can be considered one of the major challenges of
the CIPTEC project which tries to overcome this gap with the creation of new, innovative
concepts and solutions.
For the description of the creation of the innovation categories, please refer to WP2
Guidelines deliverable D2.1 and for the actual long-list and shortlist of inventoried
innovations, categorised by the described classification aspects, please refer to WP2
deliverables D2.2 and D2.3. The following table presents the List of Needs of the supply side
of PT with regard to the innovation categories of WP2, shown by the colour code in the right
column. Needs for which several colours are indicated on the right, may be considered
suitable for categorisation in both indicated classification categories.

Parameters
Table 9: List of Needs of PT Supply Side in In Relation to WP2 Innovation Categories

Parameters
3.5. Reflection on the Research Approach

Since relevant literature on the needs of PTAs and PTOs turned out to be scarce, we decided
to use a different approach.
In co-operation with consortium partners allocated with task 1.3 of the project, a more
practically oriented and applied research approach has been chosen. The main aspect of this
new approach was the orientation based on the goal of the PT supply side. In this stage of
the research it was particularly chosen for considering the supply side as a whole and divide
the identified needs amongst the PTA and PTOs, respectively.
The main assumption made in this approach, stating that the needs directly contribute to the
three mentioned major goals of the supply side as well as the defined three major goals were
validated by the consortium partners working on work package one (WP1) in a brainstorm
session and allowed a more targeted research towards the different dimensions of these
goals, which also allowed a targeted research and later on brainstorm on the needs that the
supply side faces in order to fulfil all these goal dimensions.
Therefore, the approach is considered a very practical manner for the identification of needs,
directly making use of the specific knowledge fields of the consortium partners working on the
task. The strongest point of this approach is the mix foundation on literature research and
practical expert opinion even if it is not possible to further allocate the needs between PTA
and PTO in very much detail, since the actual need of a specific stakeholder in a specific
transport system is most dependent on the set-up of the system in terms of task
responsibilities and contract design. The open approach, however, leaves the possibility to
further investigate this matter in later work packages of the project, which concern the
creation of a toolbox and the content of this tool. The open approach also allows to continue
inventorying and validating needs of the supply side.

Parameters
4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As much as literature levers sources on distinctions of organisational forms and structures
from regimes governing PTAs, as scarce are useful sources that examine the profile of urban
PTOs. In local PT, larger cities cherish the transport operators exercising their grandfather
rights that they claim to retain building a protected position not open to challengers and
therefore based on direct award. The regulation framework is different country by country; in
some cases - firstly the UK where a deregulated regime with market initiative has been
mainstream since 1986 16 – private operator consortia are scarcely awarded bus service
contracts, mostly in peripheral parts of the local bus network. In other cases (i.e., in Italy) bus
services are awarded mostly by open competition. The contracts often do not cover the better
and more viable sections of the public service network. They do not challenge the financially
viable and capital-intensive core of the network modalities that are retained by state or city
owned ToCs.
Undeniably, the trend to expand the fields of responsibilities of public bodies entrusted with
competences and tasks that exceed the purely PT related pillars of their functions is gaining
ground. Awareness tends to rise that PT, however important as a mean to shape mobility and
accessibility, needs to be integrated into a broader scope of social-economic policy
encompassing other fields of interest that interact with both private and public transport.
Integration of functions for PTAs is becoming an indispensable requirement to conduct an
effective strategy to combat negative impacts of growing private car use. In some countries
metropolitan PTAs are gradually endowed with more capacities and by governmental ruling
entrusted with legal capacities and roles. More and more authorities are expected to deploy a
coherent strategy, combined with scaling of their geographical area of competence into the
surrounding metropolitan areas.
One of the main goals of this task 1.3 was to identify correlations between particular
regulatory and contractual settings of a PTA and its ability to foster new concepts and
innovative services. In that respect it cannot come as a surprise that in the contracts with net
costs and ridership incentives the authorities granting these contracts steer the contracted
operator towards a higher quality of service and increase of passenger numbers. In transport,
contracts operators are rewarded partially by what they manage to achieve in terms of more
than a minimum level of revenue or bear the full risk of production cost and revenues.
Additionally, a bonus/malus system incentivises a quality impetus from doing better than
needed (i.e., on customer satisfaction rate).
In spite of multiple efforts and asking a European stakeholder platform, relevant literature on
the needs of authorities, even more so regarding the needs of the operators, turned out to be
scarce. What could be articulated is that research gives evidence that even more than the
legal framework - or rules for market initiatives in certain urban areas - the requirements of a
contract that a PTA negotiates with an operator after tender determine warrants to perform
better and (more) customer orientation. In negotiated contracts offering a certain level of
16
The Thatcher Government launched the Transport Act 1985 put into force on 26 October 1986. This Act
ordained deregulation of bus services in England, Scotland and Wales. Deregulation did not apply to London
Buses. The Act abolished road service licensing and allowed for competition on local buses.
Source: National Audit Office (1995): The Sale of London Transport's Bus Operating Companies.

Parameters
freedom and interplay for marketing tools, like price offers and fares, the operator will appear
stronger inclined to raise quality and benefit that will be conducive to its business. Improving
the perceived quality of service is one of the tools that operators resort to in order to pave the
way to continue the contract with a PTA and possibly to prolong the contract after expiring.
Despite all of this there is not one specific way to assess what needs are in particular fitting
the daily business of operators, without the risk of stating the obvious. Therefore, we found
that when looking at what type of needs PTOs would be inclined to search for, they are often
reflecting the need-scope of their organising authorities that have as a primary responsibility
keeping the regular customers satisfied.
The survey conducted among metropolitan authorities has enabled us to mirror the typologies
we discerned in chapter 2 with actual organisation of transport systems in a real-world of
metropolitan authorities. Although carried out on a limited scale of larger metropolitan areas it
has delivered an interesting impression as to how in very different regimes from market
initiative and deregulated to strong governmental interference in closed markets the functions
of the supply are organised, ruling is administered and the award of public service contracts
by modes is working in practice. The overview of how on a range of strategic and tactical
aspects production cost and revenue risks are re-distributed makes the understanding of
what level of freedom operators are able to bear much more clear. Some urban PTAs
originate in cultures in which they have to cope with scrutiny of politics and involvement of the
public. Overall, the EMTA survey showed that cities in North-Western Europe seem to be
relatively more poised to push for innovations than others. It seems to depend on their
objectives and their need perceived to better serve their users. It also indicates what types of
concerns stand in the way of innovation; over 80% of the authorities selected mentioned
having to cope with doubts as to the affordability (of the costs) of developing and deploying
innovations. The survey outcome also learnt that the propensity to innovate depends on the
assessment of how a particular innovation would be supported by the general public and by
the politicians.
The common denominator of needs shared by authorities and operators is to have more
knowledge on how customers use the system, controlling the cost of operations and
excluding risks of service disruption. EMTA authorities were asked if their board authority
explores ways to introduce innovations/changes in their core network. New information
technology (improved road and line management, use of big data), integration of different
modes of collective and individual transport, and exploring new ways to communicate with
users17 are perceived as highly important.
The needs research defined the major fields in which change is considered necessary by the
supply side, and defined - on the basis of these dimensions - a list of direct needs that
correspond to the goals of the supply side of PT. These needs basically define the areas in
which innovative solutions and tools are to be found during the project workflow. For a clearer
allocation of the needs towards the different stakeholders in a specific system, it is
17
Some of these, such as integration of different modes of transport (i.e., Mobility as a Service
equivalent in WP2), use of big data, ICT solutiuons, seem to correspond to the needs of customers
groups as identified in WP1, task 1.2 and the innovations that were selected/ researched in WP2, D2.2
and D2.3.

Parameters
recommended to further put the typology research and the need research in context of the
expected outcome for each transport typology.
Overlooking this all, it is possible for us to recommend the following use of this document in
the further project workflow. The typology research and especially the chosen typologies
based on the planning responsibilities and contract design, enables us to categorise the
supply side of PT in a way that already through the classification helps us to identify the major
characteristics of the needs that drive forward the ability to innovate production, processes
and organisation of the urban public transport systems.

Parameters
5. Reference List
Beck, A., van Elburg, J. C., & van de Velde, D. (2008, January). Contracting in Urban Public
Transport. Amsterdam: European Commission - DG TREN.
Hisrich (2011). Entrepreneurship 6/E. [online] Retrieved December 2, 2015, from:

https://books.google.nl/books?id=s01P0agnLPUC&redir_esc=y
ISOTOPE Consortium, & EU Commission (2000). Improved structure and organization for
urban transport operations of passengers in Europe: Isotope (transport research).
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Innovation and Innovative Capacity. Retrieved December 2, 2015, from

http://www.isc.hbs.edu/research-areas/Pages/innovation-and-innovative-capacity.aspx
Lecler, S. (2001), What role for public transport authorities in the European Metropolitan
Areas?, Association for European Transport (EMTA).
Naniopoulos A., Genitsaris E., Balampekou I. (2012), The Metropolitan Transport Authority in
Europe. Towards a methodology for defining objectives, responsibilities and tasks, Procedia -
Social and Behavioral Sciences, Volume 48, 2012, Pages 2804–2815, Transport Research
Arena 2012, doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1249
Pucher, J., Korattyswaroopam, N., & Ittyerah, N. (2004). The crisis of public transport in India:
Overwhelming needs but limited resources. Journal of Public Transportation, 7(3), 95–113.
Stanley, J., & van de Velde, D. (2008). Risk and reward in public transport contracting.
Research in Transportation Economics, 22(1), 20–25.
Taylor, M. A. P. (1988). The performance of urban public transport — an overview. Transport

Reviews, 8(4), 331–340. doi:10.1080/01441648808716697
UITP Europe. (2014). Organization and Major Players of Short-Distance Public Transport.
Brussels: International Association of Public Transport.
Van Hagen, M. (2011). Waiting experience at train stations. Retrieved from

http://doc.utwente.nl/80061/1/thesis_M_van_Hagen.pdf%20
Van de Velde, D.M. (2003), Regulation and competition in the European land transport
industry: some recent evolutions, 8th Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land
Passenger Transport, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil, 14-18.09.03.
Van de Velde, D. (1999). Organisational forms and entrepreneurship in public transport:

Classifying organisational forms. Transport Policy, 6(3), 147–157.
Weber, E., Fellow, V., Arpi, E., & EMBARQ. (2011). A creative guide to making public
transport the way to go from here to tHere. Retrieved December 2, 2015, from:
http://www.wrirosscities.org/sites/default/files/EMB2011_From_Here_to_There_web.pdf
Wright, S. (2015). A European model for public transport authorities in small and medium
urban areas. Journal of Public Transportation, 18(2), 45–60. doi:10.5038/2375-0901.18.2.4
Wright, S. (2015). A European model for public transport authorities in small and medium
urban areas. Journal of Public Transportation, 18(2), 45–60.
Yetisen, A. K., Yun, S. H., & al, et (2015). Entrepreneurship. Retrieved December 2, 2015,
from http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2015/lc/c5lc00577a#!divAbstract

Parameters
6. Appendix: questionnaire of the EMTA survey

Survey EMTA
Introduction
EMTA is as consortium partner involved in the Horizon2020 CIPTEC (Collective Innovation for
Public Transport in European Cities) project (see www.ciptec.eu for more information). EMTA
assumes a number of tasks in the first Work Package of the project related to the supply side.
One of the main issues is the mapping and profiling of urban transport authorities at the
European level. In order to do this we are hereby kindly asking you to help us by filling in this
survey. Answering this query should take you about 12 to 15 minutes, depending on your
authority’s situation.
Mapping and Profiling European Public Transport Authorities: typologies and parameters
We have researched a typology taking into account various parameters, such as network scope,
transport modes, ownership, and the division of responsibilities regarding fares, revenues,
marketing, network design and timetable. The needs of Public Transport authorities and urban
operators in terms of their potential to innovate have to be analysed in order to clarify significant
discrepancies in their mechanisms to steer towards innovations.
This analysis should enable us to better match the supply to users’ demands and the needs of
the sector.
The goal of this task is to produce an inventory of the supply side of urban transport that is
composed of authorities and operators. We aim to verify to which level the organisational forms,
contract types and level of design freedom enable the authorities in urban areas to innovate
services and their procedures and business cases. To verify different profiles defined by the
typology that we developed with CIPTEC partners, your expertise is required.
By responding to the questions in this survey you will be supportive of gathering useful
knowledge on categorising the types of contracts and the division of responsibilities concerning
planning, coordination, tendering and managing contracts for Public Transport in your city
(region) or metropolitan area.
Furthermore, we included some questions to assess as to what level, in your opinion, your
authority is prone to implement innovations[1] in your transport networks.
On behalf of the partners in CIPTEC we would like to thank you for your help by answering the
questions in this survey. We would appreciate if you were to fill in the form no later than January
6, 2016.
Wishing you a very nice, peaceful and harmonious festive period.
Ruud van der Ploeg

Otto Cazemier
Frank Bouma
1
(1) The CIPTEC definition of innovation (and the definition to be used in answering the relevant
questions in the survey:
all new or modified (existing) ideas, methods, products, services, technologies that were (or still
are being) developed consciously using the latest insights with the aim of improving the status
quo and that can be applied to public transport with the main goal to attract more customers
(preferably at lower costs).
2
Survey EMTA
General
* In which country is the City, Region or Metropolitan Area in Question located?
* What is the Name of the City, Region or Metropolitan Area in Question?
* What is the Surface size and the Population of your City, Region or Metropolitan Area?
km²
Inhabitants
How is the Public Transport Authority funded?
by earmarked central government funds
from the level of local taxes
by the fees paid operators
by contribution of the businesses (e.g. versement de transport)
Other sources (please specify)
3
Survey EMTA
General
* In what area does your transport system operate?
City (within its administrative boundaries)
Region (administrative e.g. county, province)
Metropolitan area
* In order understand the nature of your authority within the local or regional government, does the scope
of responsibility of your public authority coincide with the areal scope of your regional or city government
administration?
Yes, the authority’s responsibility covers the same scope as that of the local (or regional) government administration
No, the areal scope of the transport authority’s responsibility deviates as it is broader than our local (or regional) government
administration
No, the areal scope of the transport authority’s responsibility deviates as it is more limited than our local (or regional)
government administration.
4
Survey EMTA
General
* Is decision making on public transport in your area of competence carried out by:
the executive board of your main city (or region)
a specific local (or regional) delegated agency in your administration
a legally empowered local (or regional/metropolitan) entity
a higher level of government (province, state government)
Other (another body/combination of, please specify)
5
Survey EMTA
General
* Which (additional) modes are present in the Public Transport System?
Please note: if you ticked one of the boxes corresponding to the main transport modes in your network you
will be guided along a range of questions pertaining to the contracting and dealing with that specific mode
(e.g. suburban railways). Be aware that at the end of this series of questions you will be asked (again) if you
have other (additional) modes in your transport system. If you then tick the box of metro, or tram or bus, you
are requested to pass the same line questions pertaining to that other (additional) mode until you have
followed up on these. So please don’t stop by thinking that your answers got lost. They are not, the survey
systems demands that you continue this drill for every separate mode. It can deliver different answers for
contracts, incentives, freedom of design
Suburban Railway
Metro/Underground
Tram/Lightrail
Bus
Other (e.g. Ferry, Cable car, Gondola)
6
Survey EMTA
Suburban Railway
Which of the following methods of contract granting is applicable to the Suburban Railway Network?
Direct award to in-house operator
Direct award to other public operator (not in house)
Award after public tender
Tender based on a mix of economically viable services and non economically sevices
Free market
licensing (Route exploitation based on Authorization)
Mode not existent (click here to return to mode selection)
Does it apply to the whole network?
Yes the whole network
No, per line/subnetwork
7
Survey EMTA
Suburban A
* Who owns the vehicle fleet?
Owned by the authority and made available to the operator for operation of services
The operator utilizes its own vehicle fleet
Operational lease / hire from a public or private fleet owner pool
Which stakeholder is responsible for the following aspects of tactical planning?

Authority only, Role/Responsibility Operator only,
Operator very Authority majority, Authority & Operator majority, authority very
limited to none Operator minority Operator balanced Authority minority limited to none
Fares
Ticketing
Routes
Timetables
Vehicle (Type)
Image/Marketing
Does the operator have redesign possibilities once the concession is awarded?
No
Yes, in Fares
Yes, in Route
Yes, in Timetable
Yes, in Vehicle (Type)
Yes, Image/Marketing
Yes, Other (please specify)
8
Which stakeholder is responsible for the following aspects of operational planning?
Sales
Information
Infrastructure Mgnt.
Vehicle Rostering
Personnel Mgnt.
Which stakeholder bears the production cost risk?
The Authority alone
The Operator alone
The operator bears the production risk up to a fixed level; above this level, the authority takes over production risk (e.g. with
rising energy prices, etc.)
Which stakeholder bears the revenue risk?
The Authority
The Operator: receives a lump sum based on forecasted revenues. The risk of higher or lower revenues than forecasted is
fully with the operator
The Operator: receives a lump sum based on forecasted revenues and bears the risk of lower revenues than anticipated up
to a certain defined level
The Operator: revenue is based on e.g. ticket sales, vehicle kilometres etc. (a socalled ‘superincentive contract’: the
operator bears the full risk of both production costs and of revenues)
* Does the contract foresee ridership incentive structures?

(e.g. for every passenger more than prognosed, the operator receives additional remuneration)
No
Yes, in terms of bonuses
Yes, in terms of bonuses and malus payments
Yes, in terms of malus payments
Yes, supplementation (contract whereby the financial compensation of the operator depends fully on the earnings from
ridership revenues)
Yes, superincentive (contract whereby the operator bears the full risk of both production costs and of revenues)
9
Survey EMTA
Suburban B
Is market access limited in terms of authorisation?
No
Yes, based on direct awarding
Yes, based on competitive tendering
Does the Authority provide compensation for fare rebates granted to certain user groups?
No
Yes
* Does the Authority Incentivise certain services and thereby influences the market outcome?
No
Yes
10
Survey EMTA
Metro
Which of the following methods of contract granting is applicable to the Metro/Underground Network?
Free market
11
Survey EMTA
Metro A
Owned by the authority and made available to the operator

Fares
Ticketing
Routes
Timetables
Vehicle (Type)
Image/Marketing
No
Yes, in Fares
Yes, in Route
Yes, in Timetable
12
Sales
Information
Vehicle Rostering
Personnel Mgnt.
The Authority alone
The Operator alone
The operator bears the production risk to a certain level, above this level, the authority takes over production risk (e.g. in
connection with energy price development etc.)
The Authority

No
ridership revenues)
13
Survey EMTA
Metro B
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
14
Survey EMTA
Tram
Which of the following methods of contract granting is applicable to the Tram/Lightrail Network?
Free market
15
Survey EMTA
Tram A

Fares
Ticketing
Routes
Timetables
Vehicle (Type)
Image/Marketing
No
Yes, in Fares
Yes, in Route
Yes, in Timetable
16
Sales
Information
Vehicle Rostering
Personnel Mgnt.
The Authority alone
The Operator alone
The operator bears the production risk up to a fixed level; above this level, the authority takes over production risk (e.g. with
rising energy prices, etc.)
The Authority

No
ridership revenues)
17
Survey EMTA
Tram B

(e.g. an authority awards/tenders licenses for the exploitation of routes to an/certain operator, who are
then temporarily granted with monopolistic exclusive rights)
No
Yes, based on direct award
No
Yes
No
Yes
18
Survey EMTA
Bus
Which of the following methods of contract granting is applicable to the Bus Network?
Free market
19
Survey EMTA
Bus A

Fares
Ticketing
Routes
Timetables
Vehicle (Type)
Image/Marketing
No
Yes, in Fares
Yes, in Route
Yes, in Timetable
20
Sales
Information
Vehicle Rostering
Personnel Mgnt.
The Authority alone
The Operator alone
The Operator bears the production risk to a certain level, above this level, the authority takes over production risk (e.g. in
connection with energy price development etc.)
The Authority

No
ridership revenues)
21
Survey EMTA
Bus B

(e.g. an authority awards/tenders licenses for the exploitation of routes to an/certain operator, who are
then temporarily granted with monopolistic exclusive rights)
No
No
Yes
* Does the Authority incentivise certain services and thereby influences the market outcome?
No
Yes
22
Survey EMTA
Additional modes
* Apart from the previous answered questions on modality, does your transport system consist of other
(additional) modes of transport?
Yes, you will be sent back to the page where you can select the next mode (please note that the mode you chose before is
still visible on that page. Please select another mode and you will be directed to the relevant pages)
No, you will be forwarded to the finalization questions
23
Survey EMTA
Finalization
Please finish the sentence below with the applicable statement describing the fare system
A purchased single ticket allows a passenger to…
make one trip on one mode without interchange (Check-in and Check-out procedures are included in this option)
make as many trips as needed on the same mode (e.g. bus only) to reach his destination
access all services offered by the same specific operator (with a time or distance limit)
access all services in a designated area or corridor with exception of special services (e.g. express services to work locations
or airports)
make use of all services in the area to reach his destination
Which fields of the following are covered by your city or metropolitan transport authority
Public Transportation
Urban Mobility (incl. all modes, taxi, congestion charging, parking, traffic management)
Waste management
Parks
Water and energy supply
Land use planning
Other (please specify)
24
Is your authority exploring ways to introduce innovations/changes in your core business?
No
Yes, new forms of public transport management
Yes, integration of different modes of collective and individual forms of transport
Yes, the efficacy of the service delivery (e.g. process, planning, coordination)
Yes, new information technology (e.g. improved road and line management systems, use of big data, network planning)
Yes, new contracting schemes for operators to increase their effectiveness
Yes, improving the physical access of customers to the network (e.g. stations, stops in the network)
Yes, new ways of marketing and communication (e.g. promotion of the service, branding, loyalty schemes, customer care)
Yes, in fare setting and tariff integration
What degree of autonomy does your authority have to pursue innovation?
very large large Mediocre small none
Rank
What type of barriers do you need to overcome (or reduce) to stimulate your organisation’s propensity for
implementing innovations?
capacity: is our expertise sufficient to push the preferred type of innovation forward?
financial: will we be able to afford the measure?
political: will the measure be accepted by politicians, and will citizens vote in favor of it?
capability: do we have the managerial ability to change?
effectiveness: will the measure solve the problems that it is supposed to solve?
implementation: will we be able to introduce the measure smoothly, without delays or extra costs?
Is your authority’s main staff management (CEO’s, managing officers) selected or appointed
in accordance with the mandate of the elected political leadership in your city or area?
Yes
No
25
Do you have insight in the priority needs of your local operator(s) to innovations?
No
Yes, reduce the operational costs of driving and/or the cost of indirect staff
Yes, obtain more data to improve the reliability of travel planning
Yes, enhance the efficiency of scheduling vehicles
Yes, get a better grip on the preference of travellers
Yes, receive incentives to introduce new services and offers
Yes, new contracting methods to increase their efficiency
Yes, create new integrated offer or services to specific group of customers
26
Survey EMTA
Thank you
You have now concluded the survey. Thank you very much for your time. You will automatically
be sent to the EMTA homepage.
Should you have any more comments/queries, please do not hesitate to post them here:
27

Attachment 0 2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Attachment 0 2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ref.

Project Title: Collective Innovation for Public Transport in European Cities

Enhancing the “silent” dimension of the Supply:

Profiling of Public Transport Authorities

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 1 of 55

Deliverable: D1.3 Enhancing the “silent” dimension of the

Work Package: WP1 - Analysis of market & societal trends and

Due Date: 01 March 2016

Submission Date: 01 March 2016

Start Date of Project: 01/05/2015

Duration of Project: 36 Months

Organisation Responsible of EMTA/MOBYCON

Contributors of Deliverable Task 1.3 partners

Internal Reviewer(s): TIEMME, AUTh

Nature: R – Report P – Prototype

Dissemination level: PU - Public

CO - Confidential, only for members of the

RE - Restricted to a group specified by the

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 2 of 55

The CIPTEC Consortium consists of:

Participant # Participant organisation name Short Name Country

1 Aristotle University of Thessaloniki- AUTh Greece

2 KU Leuven – The Research Centre KU Leuven Belgium

3 Mobycon Concordis Groep Mobycon The Netherlands

4 Tero Ltd. Tero Greece

5 MemEx MemEx Italy

6 White Research WR Belgium

7 Ortelio Ortelio United Kingdom

8 Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag MRDH The Netherlands

9 TIEMME TIEMME Italy

10 traffiQ Local Public Transport traffiQ Germany

11 European Passenger‘s Federation EPF Belgium

12 European Metropolitan Transport EMTA France

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 3 of 55

Core Revision history

Version Date Modified by Comments

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 4 of 55

2. TYPOLOGIES & PARAMETERS FOR PROFILING OF PTAs AND PTOs . 15

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 5 of 55

2.6. Appointing of Typologies to be utilised in CIPTEC .......................................... 34

4. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 51

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 6 of 55

Parameter From the Oxford dictionary1: (technical) A numerical or other measurable

The Cambridge dictionary defines the term as follows 2: a set of facts or a

Typology According to the Merriam Webster dictionary 3 , a typology is ‗a system

According to the Cambridge dictionary5, a typology is ‗the study of types,

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 7 of 55

Clearly, PT faces competition from private motorised transport. If PT is to be successful and

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 8 of 55

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 9 of 55

1.1.2. WP1, task 1.3

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 10 of 55

1.1.3. Interrelations with other WPs

(Source: derived from the CIPTEC Description of Work)

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 11 of 55

1.2. Definition of „Typology‟ and „Parameter‟

A common understanding of the term ‗typology‘ and ‗parameter‘ needs to be established.

A classification according to general type, especially in archaeology, psychology, or the

(b) a typology or set of typologies/classification of PTOs, comprising several types

Output: Definition of ―Typology‖ for D1.3

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 12 of 55

1.3. Definition of „Need‟

In literature the term ‗need‘ is predominantly linked to a ‗want‘ and requirement of an

© CIPTEC consortium www.ciptec.eu Page 13 of 55