University of California Transportation Center
UCTC Research Paper No. 880
Good Practice in the Exploitation of Innovative
Strategies in Sustainable Urban Transport:
City Interview Synthesis
Greg Marsden, University of Leeds
Karen Trapenberg Frick, University of California, Berkeley
Anthony D. May, University of Leeds, and
Elizabeth Deakin, University of California, Berkeley
Page | 1
Good Practice in the Exploitation of
Innovative Strategies in Sustainable
Urban Transport
City Interview Synthesis
Project Manager : Professor Tony May
Author( s) : Marsden, G., Frick, K. T. May, A. D. and Deakin, E.
Date : 12 May 2009
© Institute for Transport Studies, University of Leeds
Institute for Transport Studies
FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT
Page | 2
Executive Summary
The Volvo Foundation is concerned about the extent to which innovative sustainable
transport policies are taken- up and spread amongst major cities in the world. It is
suggested that serious gaps exist between the research and practitioner community
and that barriers exist to city- to- city transfer of good practice. The Foundation is
considering investing a significant proportion of its available funds on interventions
which might most effectively meet the challenges to the wider exploitation of that
best practice which arises from research and from innovative policies.
A literature review of policy transfer in transport and cognate fields was conducted.
It shows that there is little evidence on how cities learn from each other and even
less on how this process occurs in the transport sector. The review identified a series
of key aspects of policy transfer which the literature suggests might be important in
understanding the process of, advantages and barriers to transferring innovative
transport policies. Interviews were then conducted in 11 cities to further investigate
the process of policy transfer and the role of academics within this. Seven cities were
studied in Northern Europe ( Leeds, Edinburgh, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Bremen and
Lyon, Nancy) and four in North America ( Vancouver, Dallas, San Francisco and
Seattle). This report presents the results of the synthesis of the city interviews. The
key findings are:
1. Cities are actively looking to learn from another but this process is unsystematic
and sometimes inefficient
2. The search for new policies is constrained by a lack of resources, particularly
personnel
3. Informal networks and information sharing based on professional contacts is the
predominant method of initial knowledge transfer
4. Local context is critical in determining whether policies will transfer well across
cities and lack of fit is one reason for limited transfer
5. Institutional barriers also exist to policy transfer which seem most likely to
influence what gets implemented rather than what gets considered
6. Key facilitators to overcome barriers to implementation are:
a. A supportive political environment;
b. Sufficient staff resources to commit to the projects;
c. A culture of engaging with other cities and a structure that allows for staff at
all levels to seek out information by contacting staff internally or at other
organizations that are of a different staff/ management level;
d. An internal organisational culture to try new things; and
e. co- funding of implementation from other government tiers or the private
sector
7. Academic research is one potential source of information on innovation and
implementation but one which is underutilised in many cities. This was
particularly true of the European cities compared with those in North America
8. The academic and practitioner networks are not well connected and there are
both practical and cultural barriers to better integration.
In the light of these findings and a more detailed consideration of the cultural and
practical barriers to better integration between academics and practitioners nine
Page | 3
potential areas for future action are identified. Those which appear to be of highest
merit are:
1. Improving cities’ policy learning: The fairly unsystematic approach to policy
learning suggests that there could be some benefit in training both local
government staff and elected officials to undertake more effective lesson
learning which will also help to reduce the staffing resource constraint.
2. Investing in policy networks: More needs to be done to integrate the ‘ parallel’
practitioner and academic networks. Opportunities need to be created for new
networks to develop, e. g. through conferences and one- day focused workshops.
3. Improved information searching: The strengths and weaknesses of existing
search tools and knowledge centres should be identified to determine whether
these tools can be modified, whether the tools are functional but are not being
used effectively or whether new tools are required.
4. National funding for innovation: To overcome the financial and political risk of
innovation at a city level, some form of external support at a national or
international level is important.
5. Investment in joint research: Focused co- research between academics and
practitioners should be encouraged. When funding is available to both parties
this provides a stimulus but attention must be given to evaluating the true
degree of interaction and knowledge transfer both promised and delivered.
6. Encouragement of joint posts: Academics and city officials both reported
positive experiences of jointly funded posts. It might be beneficial to co- fund
such a programme or to develop a network of placements.
7. Concise policy- focused literature: Research reports are often too technical and
time consuming to read, attention should be given to how the research is
presented and for whom. This can be required within existing research
programmes, and possibly applied retrospectively to past research results.
The second category of medium merit includes:
8. Encouraging institutional innovation: Complex institutional structures can
inhibit policy transfer. However, within different institutional settings there are
cities which resolve particular constraints. Case studies that demonstrate how
this has been achieved would be useful to cities in overcoming these hurdles.
9. Independent evaluation of innovations: There appears to be a strong case for
some independent evaluation data of the impacts of major innovations.
However, it is not clear that ‘ host’ cities would necessarily welcome this.
10. Better dissemination: It is clear that communications strategies could be more
effective for academics and cities. This may include identification of appropriate
media outlets and formats, how to communicate messages, how to meta tag
web resources etc.
The proposed solutions listed above could be undertaken individually or packaged
together as part of an aggressive and holistic approach to improving policy transfer.
With increasing public concerns about sustainability and mounting transportation
issues in our cites, the opportunities are there to facilitate city innovation,
strengthen the connections between research and practice, and inform broad policy
debates at all levels.
Page | 4
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY........................................................................................................................ .... 2
1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 6
2 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 7
2.1 SITE SELECTION...................................................................................................................... ........ 7
2.2 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................... ......... 7
3 POLICY CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 POLICY OBJECTIVES, PROBLEMS AND STRATEGIES ................................................................................. 10
3.2 INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE............................................................................................................. 11
4 POLICY TRANSFER....................................................................................................................... . 14
4.1 WHY UNDERTAKE POLICY TRANSFER?............................................................................................... 14
4.1.1 Strategic Need ................................................................................................................ 14
4.1.2 Project or Policy Collapse................................................................................................ 14
4.1.3 Curiosity .......................................................................................................................... 15
4.1.4 Political intervention....................................................................................................... 16
4.1.5 Enhanced support ........................................................................................................... 16
4.1.6 Legitimization & Influence .............................................................................................. 17
4.1.7 Summary........................................................................................................................ 18
4.2 WHO IS INVOLVED IN POLICY TRANSFER?............................................................................................ 18
4.2.1 Other agents in raising awareness ................................................................................. 19
4.2.2 Other agents in transferring experiences ....................................................................... 20
4.3 WHAT WAS LEARNT? ..................................................................................................................... 21
4.3.1 Concepts ......................................................................................................................... 21
4.3.2 Design and Operation ..................................................................................................... 22
4.4 HOW DID THEY APPROACH LEARNING ................................................................................................ 23
4.4.1 Informal Information Gathering ..................................................................................... 23
4.4.2 Initial Scoping ................................................................................................................. 24
4.4.3 Formal scoping................................................................................................................ 25
4.4.4 Learning Summary.......................................................................................................... 26
4.5 FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL IMPACTS ON POLICY TRANSFER & IMPLEMENTATION............................................ 27
5 DISSEMINATION OF CITY EXPERIENCES....................................................................................... 30
6 THE ACADEMIC- PRACTITIONER NEXUS ....................................................................................... 33
6.1 INTERVIEW FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 33
6.2 CONSTRAINTS ON ACADEMIC INVOLVEMENT ....................................................................................... 34
6.2.1 Culture ............................................................................................................................ 34
6.2.2 Support for research ....................................................................................................... 35
6.2.3 Conducting joint research ............................................................................................... 35
6.2.4 Dissemination ................................................................................................................. 36
6.2.5 Implementation .............................................................................................................. 36
6.3 WAYS OF ENHANCING COLLABORATION ............................................................................................. 37
6.3.1 Culture ............................................................................................................................ 37
6.3.2 Support for Research ...................................................................................................... 38
6.3.3 Conducting the research ................................................................................................. 39
6.3.4 Dissemination ................................................................................................................. 39
6.3.5 Implementation .............................................................................................................. 40
7 BARRIERS TO INNOVATION.......................................................................................................... 42
7.1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... ......... 42
7.4 THE SEVERITY OF THE BARRIERS ........................................................................................................ 44
7.2 FEEDBACK FROM FUT CONFERENCE ................................................................................................. 45
Page | 5
8 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS................................................................................................................ 47
8.1.1 Improve city policy learning ............................................................................................ 47
8.1.2 Invest in policy networks................................................................................................. 47
8.1.3 Government Support for Innovation............................................................................... 47
8.1.4 Improve Benchmarking................................................................................................... 48
8.1.5 Institutional innovation .................................................................................................. 48
8.1.6 Independent evaluation of innovations .......................................................................... 48
8.1.7 Concise policy- focused literature .................................................................................... 48
8.1.8 Better dissemination....................................................................................................... 49
8.1.9 Improved information search ......................................................................................... 49
8.1.10 Joint research.................................................................................................................. 49
8.1.11 Joint appointments ......................................................................................................... 49
8.1.12 Use of consultants .......................................................................................................... 49
8.1.13 Other issues .................................................................................................................... 50
8.2 A FOCUSED SET OF POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.......................................................................................... 50
8.3 FEEDBACK FROM FUT CONFERENCE ................................................................................................. 54
9 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................... ............ 56
10 GLOSSARY....................................................................................................................... ............. 58
APPENDIX A: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE..................................................................................................... 59
APPENDIX B: POLICY INNOVATIONS STUDIED...................................................................................... 62
Table of Tables
TABLE 1: CASE STUDY CITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9
TABLE 2: KEY POLICY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................... 10
TABLE 3: FUNDING STREAMS ACCESSED .......................................................................................................... 17
TABLE 4: WHY UNDERTAKE POLICY TRANSFER .................................................................................................. 18
TABLE 5: WHO WAS INVOLVED IN INITIATING POLICY TRANSFER............................................................................ 19
TABLE 6: WHO WAS INVOLVED IN TRANSFERRING EXPERIENCE.............................................................................. 20
TABLE 7: RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN POLICY TRANSFER............................................ 26
TABLE 8: MATRIX OF SOLUTIONS AGAINST BARRIERS........................................................................................... 55
Page | 6
1 Introduction
The Volvo Foundation is now funding seven international centres of excellence in
sustainable urban transport, covering the needs of cities in both the developed and
developing world. Its interests are principally in conurbations with populations of
1m or more. While its centres’ research, and the work of academics elsewhere, is
identifying novel approaches to the design, implementation and management of
sustainable urban transport strategies, the Foundation remains concerned that there
is a serious gap between the presentation of such research findings and their wider
implementation. In a similar vein it is concerned that innovative transport strategies
developed by cities themselves are not being disseminated and applied more widely.
Against this background, the Foundation is considering investing a significant
proportion of its available funds on interventions which might most effectively meet
the challenges to the wider exploitation of that best practice which arises from
research and from innovative policies. The Foundation is also concerned that issues
raised by practitioners that might be resolved by academic research are for a variety
of reasons not always addressed by the academic community. It has an open mind as
to the types of intervention which might be appropriate, and is willing to consider a
wide range of approaches, which might for example involve further research,
education and training, case study development, partnerships between leader and
follower cities, or partnerships between academics, consultants and cities.
In May 2008 a decision was taken to further support the investigation of these issues
through a series of interviews with participants from 11 cities. 1 The set of interviews
was informed by a literature review ( Marsden, 2008). The findings from the
interviews will then be used to inform either:
1. a further round of interviews with key actors in different cities
2. a workshop involving elected officials, practitioners and academics
3. a combination of these.
Section 2 of this report briefly introduces the cities that were interviewed and the
methods. The findings in this report are a synthesis of the city interviews. A full
report of the city interviews will be available shortly. Section 3 describes the policy
context facing the cities. Section 4 examines why cities undertake policy transfer, the
types of information cities seek and how they approach the learning task. Section 5
briefly describes how cities approach the dissemination of their own policies. Section
6 considers the limits to effective collaboration with academics. Section 7
summarises the findings on the constraints to effective policy learning. Section 8
identifies and assesses possible solutions and a offers a list of recommendations for
the Foundation to consider.
1 Note that this report is currently based on the findings from 10 cities as the interviews in Nancy are
yet to be conducted.
Page | 7
2 Background and Methodology
2.1 Site Selection
This stage of the research allowed for interviews with 11 cities, as set out in Table 1.
The research team were asked to study cities with a core population of over 250,000
and a wider metropolitan area of at least 1 Million. The focus was then on identifying
cities meeting these criteria that have tried and succeeded with some leading edge
transport policies. Through this, the project would be able to determine what
motivated cities to look for new solutions and to study this process. The focus was
not solely on success stories as these cities have also experienced some form of
policy failures over time and these are equally valuable. The reasoning for the
selection of these cities was two- fold. First, the literature suggests that policy
innovations are most likely to be adjusted and tailored more specifically to local
needs by early adopters or ‘ pioneer cities’ ( Kern et al., 2007) who take a more pro-active
role in the policy learning process. By contrast, later adopters tend to adopt
policies as a response to pressure to do so and are more likely to accept the most
common practices ( Westphall, Gulati and Shortell, 1997). It may be more productive
to study early adopters to capture in- depth thinking about policy transfer. Secondly,
the literature suggests that one enabler to adopting new policies may be greater
personnel and resource capacity within an organisation ( Berry, 1994). Whilst we
cannot confirm this hypothesis, two of the three cities that were approached, but
felt unable to participate, were small with a wider metropolitan area closer to half a
million than one million.
In Europe the selection of city sites was based on a review of cities involved in
innovative transport implementation projects funded by the European Commission,
notably the CIVITAS cleaner and better cities network ( http:// www. civitas-initiative.
eu/) , CURACAO road pricing ( http:// www. curacaoproject. eu/), Citymobil
Advanced Transportation Systems ( www. citymobil- project. eu/) and actively engaged
in the ELTIS transport information portal ( http:// www. eltis. org/). This was
supplemented by discussions with experts. In North America the selection of city
sites was based on known innovations in aspects of sustainable transport policy.
2.2 Methodology
Data were collected for each city through interviews and document review. The
interviews were conducted using a semi- structured approach which allowed issues
not considered by the research team to be raised. The outline interview schedule is
included as Appendix A. The research is qualitative in nature and the interview
process allows for rich insights of the processes involved. There are however some
important limitations which need to be acknowledged.
 The cities were purposively sampled. The cities are all large, from developed
countries and those within Europe are all North European. These were
deliberate choices to limit the sources of variation at this stage. However, this
means that extrapolations to other regions would be risky.
Page | 8
 The cities determined who would be interviewed to a large degree, which in
turn was conditioned by the types of innovations that were proposed.
Different post- holders were therefore interviewed in different cities. The
responses from each city only represent the views of these individuals. The
key ‘ gatekeepers’ were interviewed however and these individuals seem to
exert strong influence over implementation processes.
 The interviewees determined the innovations which were discussed. It was
not part of the study to assess whether these were the most appropriate
innovations for the city to have pursued, or how effective they were. Since
we were primarily concerned with the innovation process, it was sufficient
that the interviewees considered them important. However, the fact remains
that the findings might have been different had a different set of innovations
been discussed.
 The interviews, with the exception of Nancy, were conducted in English. This
had only a marginal impact on the pool of interviewees within the cities
selected in Europe ( two being UK based and two Scandinavian). However, it
seems likely that policy learning across boundaries where there is less of a
tradition of English as a second or third language will be more problematic.
These limitations raise question marks over the transferability of the results for
example to small cities in a developed country context and to developing countries.
The literature suggests that transfer is most likely to occur between close geographic
neighbours and to some extent those sharing common outlooks ( Heichal et al.,
2005). The selection of North America and North Europe as the main areas of study
provided sufficient breadth of experience and context to examine this whilst also
providing an element of comparability which would have been more difficult with a
more dispersed sample. We acknowledge these limitations but the sites still have
substantial breadth and by analyzing the results on a themed basis interesting
contrasts emerge. The consideration of transferability is one potential element of
future work.
Page | 9
Table 1: Case Study Cities
Site Population Innovations known about at time of site selection
City
( 000)
Met Area
( M)
Lyon
France
415 1.78
Highly integrated public transport system with bus, trolley bus, Metro and rail. Advanced information systems and ticketing. Early
adopter of driverless Metro system. Rent- a- bike system and school travel initiatives. Home of research institute CERTU
Nancy, France 260 0.5 Rubber tyred tram
Edinburgh
Scotland
450 0.78
Held a referendum on congestion charging, early adopter of high priority bus corridors, planning a tram implementation project and
UK’s leading car club city.
Leeds
England
443 1.5
Early adopter of HOV lane, home zones and safe routes to school. A major hub for commercial car share. Involved in several road
pricing studies. Recent failed tram proposal with trolley bus system now under consideration.
Bremen
Germany
546 2.37
Participant in CIVITAS Vivaldi project with car sharing, introduction of some CNG stations, environmentally friendly delivery vehicles,
tram- bus integration and environmental residential zones.
Stockholm
Sweden
744 1.95
Active adopted of sustainable travel measures such as cleaner bus fleet ( Ethanol buses), smartcards, car sharing, safe routes to
school. One of the few cities adopting congestion charging. Linked to sensitive urban area there are environmental restrictions and
a freight consolidation centre.
Copenhagen
Denmark
656 1.6
High levels of cycle use, public cycle rental and evidence of policy transfer to other cities ( Copenhagenize). Urban rail, bus and
Metro system. Famous ‘ finger plan’ land use approach. Host of Walk 21 conference and major pedestrianisation. Adoption of high
quality bus corridors.
Seattle
USA
582 3.9
High quality transit service and transit information, early visioning process for multiple dense centers ( 1970’ s and 1980’ s), creative
use of density bonuses for transit & highway shoulders for bus lanes
Dallas
USA
1230 6.15
healthy core downtown with high rise buildings, free market transit- oriented development sites along light rail, also TOD- like sites
along highway but without transit
San Francisco
USA
765 7.3
Congestion pricing proposals, multimodal transit and pedestrian/ bicycle planning and issues, parking management, carsharing.
Complex institutional dynamics due to numerous cities and transportation agencies.
Vancouver
Canada
600 2.5
Significant transit service, high quality design for buildings and overall sites, long term strategies for high density urban
development/ infill coordinated with transit and to build markets for transit, traffic calming, busways
Page | 10
3 Policy Context
3.1 Policy objectives, problems and strategies
Interviewees were asked what their principal policy objectives were and hence,
implicitly, what the underlying problems were which they faced. Underlying all of
the key challenges faced by the cities is strong projected growth in housing,
population and employment over the next two to three decades. This growth agenda
was shared although the impacts on policy objectives of accommodating this growth
were expressed in different ways by the interviewees as shown in Table 2. It is
important to note that this Table reflects the issues reflected in the interviews and
therefore is only partial in its coverage of overall objectives as expressed in written
plans. For example, Edinburgh has an air quality management area but this did not
emerge as a motivation for the innovations studied. Efficient energy use was
sometimes raised as a separate objective ( Nancy) but more often as part of the
climate change objective.
Table 2: Key Policy Objectives
Lee Bre Cop Sto Edi Lyo Nan SFra Dal Sea Van
Growth/ Economy                  
Congestion               
Air Quality                
Climate Change            
Safety         
Accessibility            
Built Environment           
Bus/ Tram Subsidy
Reduction    
  A strong recurrent theme
 Discussed
The cities share a strong degree of commonality of overarching key strategy
elements:
 Reducing the need to travel
 Reducing the growth in car use
 Improving public transport supply
 Improving public transport operations
 Reducing vehicle emissions
 Improving walking and cycling
 Improving freight travel
 Improving vehicle technology
Whilst the overarching strategy elements are generally present, the degree of
emphasis varies from city to city. So, for example, those cities such as Stockholm and
Bremen which face the most extreme air quality problems are leading in terms of
clean vehicle procurement. Clean vehicle procurement is a part of strategies
Page | 11
elsewhere ( e. g. Leeds) but not at the same rate. Similarly Bremen and Stockholm
have important freight flows through their ports which, combined with air quality
problems, make freight management strategies more important. Cities with historic
cores are more focussed on minimising the impact of deliveries to the core area.
The current modal mix is also an important determinant of emphasis. So, for
example, Copenhagen has a very high cycle and walk mode share ( 33% within the
city) and is seeking to maintain this. Bremen, whilst not at the level of Copenhagen
has a high cycle mode share ( 22%) and is strongly promoting policies in this area.
Other cities have cycling strategies but the levels of investment and innovation are
not as high.
Even where cities share a common ‘ strategy’ this can manifest itself in quite
different decisions about the preferred policy option to achieve a strategy. So, for
example, Copenhagen and Stockholm have adopted radically different new public
transport services to improve their supply.
3.2 Institutional Structure
Institutional structures have an influence over the types of policies that can be
brought forward, the barriers faced when projects are brought forward and the ways
in which they are implemented ( e. g. Rietveld and Stough, 2005). The case study
cities all exist within different institutional frameworks. Some key differences and
similarities are highlighted in brief below as they provide an important context to
interpret the findings in. However, it is important to note that the study was not
designed to isolate the role of specific institutional factors in explaining the uptake of
innovations or the interactions of cities with academia.
Within Europe, Copenhagen is the most ‘ independent’ of the cities. The governance
structure in Denmark is such that, with the exception of collaboration on the Metro
project and mega projects such as the Oresund crossing, the city is responsible for
developing and funding its own transport policies. Cities in France are also
significantly devolved from national government, particularly with regards funding of
their activities. However, unlike Copenhagen Lyon has access to a specific local tax
on businesses ( Versement Transport) which can be used to support public transport
investments. The state is still involved in larger projects as a funder.
Bremen exists within the strong regional structures ( Lander) present in Germany.
Due to the dominance of the city of Bremen in the small Lander of Bremerhaven, it
has a very strong connection to the regional government. Whilst Bremen has a
strong degree of control over policy and spending locally, it still needs to work within
legal and regulatory frameworks defined by the national government which, as with
all cities, can act as a constraint.
Stockholm, Edinburgh and Leeds all have slightly different structures but are joined
by a strong connection between the budget setting process at the national level and
the actions of the city. In the case of Stockholm the process is for periodic
Page | 12
agreements for funding for new infrastructure. Whilst the city is clearly a powerful
negotiator it is also the case that the state dictates to the city, for example
mandating the trial of a congestion charge. In Edinburgh and Leeds, the cities are
largely dependent on individual bids to the respective national governments for
major new schemes. The national government then decides on whether the proposal
is of sufficient priority to fund ( although there is a move to increased regionalisation
of infrastructure funding allocation in Leeds).
In the United States, cities work to varying degrees with their regional transportation
planning agencies, called metropolitan planning organizations and their state
departments of transportation. In most cases, the cities have local land use
authority; whereas federal transportation funds fall under the purview of state
departments of transportation and regional transportation planning agencies, called
metropolitan planning organizations ( MPOs). . Thus, in the Dallas, San Francisco and
Seattle cases, the cities have control of their own local transportation funds and set
their own policies; however, they also must coordinate with their respective MPOs
and state departments of transportation for state and federal transportation funds.
In the case of Vancouver, Canada, it is fairly independent in setting its own policies
and uses of funds; however, it must defer to the Province of British Columbia for
intercity projects in the province. The national government has been less involved in
local transport policy setting and funding, but has recently increased funding to
regions for transport and created new programs to coordinate urban redevelopment
and infrastructure projects.
A major difference in formal institutional structures in the European case studies
surrounds the ownership and planning of public transport. In the UK, outside of
London, the bus services are provided in a deregulated environment whilst in all of
the other cities there is a local and/ or regional agency responsible for specifying and
planning service delivery and setting fares. In all cities the provision is by the private
sector. One example of the importance of this emerged where an interviewee in
Leeds noted that some operational integration innovations in Europe were not
possible or likely to emerge in a deregulated environment so the need to learn was
diminished. By contrast, the similar institutional environment in other cities led to
searches for similar solutions. For example, the pressures for subsidy reduction
outside of the UK seemed to influence policy choices and innovations. Lyon opted for
a driverless Metro system as did Copenhagen despite the very high capital costs and
Bremen favours tram expansion over bus based options in general partly due to the
lower operational costs. Vancouver's main public transit is provided by Translink, a
separate public agency, that contracts out for bus, rail and ferry services and it is
therefore similar to the non- UK European model of provision.
In contrast, US public transit agencies typically have full control over planning service
and setting fares, similar to other non- UK cities in Europe. In some cases these
agencies are part of city government and in others, they are independent public
agencies. They also typically provide their primary services and do not contract them
out as is the case in Dallas, San Francisco and Seattle.
Page | 13
One common institutional issue which was prevalent across all of the sites was that
of limited resources. This was both in terms of the availability of funds to try new
ideas and in terms of personnel. As noted above, cities differ considerably in the
types of financial resource available to them, and the extent to which they are
reliant on higher tiers of government for funding. The interviews did not attempt to
explore the full implications of financial structures, but did discuss the sources used
for financing innovations, which are summarised below in Table 3 ( Section 4.1.5). It
appears that staffing levels in local authorities have fallen in recent years relative to
the range of tasks which the authorities are now responsible for.
The regulatory environment also is important, particularly in relation to what cities
have control over doing and the extent to which approaches from other cities can be
implemented. For example, congestion charging normally involves modifying
national laws in the EU to allow a new charge or tax to be levied. In the San Francisco
case, state legislation is needed to institute congestion pricing and thus no single
agency in both the US and EU typically has the authority to institute this innovation
without a higher level of government’s approval.
Page | 14
4 Policy Transfer
4.1 Why Undertake Policy Transfer?
This section summarises the main motivations for looking outside of an
organisation’s own experience for new policy ideas. Six main classes of motivation
were identified which are broadly consistent with the literature review ( Marsden,
2008). The findings here relate to the motivations reported by interviewees for the
particular innovations discussed.
4.1.1 Strategic Need
The literature ( e. g. Rose, 2003) identifies ‘ policy failure’ as a key motivator for
looking for new policies. Policy failure occurs where it is apparent that continuing
with current policies will not lead to the achievement of the organisation’s
objectives. The term should not be seen as implying a failure on the part of the city
concerned, but more positively a demonstration that there is a strategic need for
new policies. In transport planning, there is a tradition of forecasting ahead and
considering different policy futures, and this practice offers a means of testing new
ideas. Projections in the absence of new policies can highlight the problems to be
faced, and these in turn can be used to initiate a search for new policy options. From
this process comes the identification of “ strategic need”, that is, an acknowledgment
that a particular course of action is needed to achieve desired goals.
This notion of “ need” for a new intervention was a common theme across all of the
case study cities and is the primary driver for looking at solutions ( both internally
and externally). The futures posited were based in part on legal mandates ( e. g.,
attain air quality standards) and in part on political mandates ( offer transit service to
low income households, cut congestion, improve the built environment). Within this
process there is still a requirement for options to be included in the future scenario
planning to be developed and it is here where the influence of staff members,
politicians and other agents can influence what innovations are looked at ( Section
4.2).
4.1.2 Project or Policy Collapse
Section 4.1.1 highlights the periodic planning cycle approach to considering which
policies and projects should be pursued. There were examples however of more
pressing cases where a search for new projects or policies was instigated due to the
failure of a planned project. In these cases it appears that the search for alternative
ideas can be more urgent, due to the political difficulty generated by the failure of a
previous plan ( where the politicians have ownership of the idea). Examples of this
were seen in Leeds ( where funding for a tram scheme was withdrawn), Bremen
( where clean vehicle technologies for vans were not delivered) and Edinburgh ( when
a planned Metro scheme failed to get backing and where a congestion charge
proposal was rejected in a referendum). In the case of both Leeds and Bremen
money was committed to the project ( in principle in Leeds and in practice in
Page | 15
Bremen) so alternatives were quickly sought. In Edinburgh no funding had been
committed to the Metro project so this fed back into a more strategic review of
options and the congestion charge rejection led to a recasting of ambitions ( Section
4.1.1).
4.1.3 Curiosity
Whilst the interviewees reported only considering the implementation of ideas
which fitted the strategic needs of the city, a process of curiosity about the policies
put in place elsewhere or seen on a visit ( work or holiday!) often led organisations to
consider new policies which might not currently be in their plans. The ideas could be
identified by officials, elected officials or other agents such as suppliers and non-governmental
organisations. This was seen to be part of a natural cycle of
continuous self- improvement. For example, Vancouver and Copenhagen are
continuously trying to improve their cycle and walk networks even though they
would already be the envy of many cities. The staff still actively look elsewhere for
lessons and this seems to be an important source of personal motivation.
Some of the policies were identified and tested as ‘ experiments’ with the potential
for much broader city- wide adoption. Examples include guided busways and high
occupancy vehicle lanes in Leeds, cleaner vehicle fleets in Bremen and Stockholm,
city car clubs in Edinburgh, and transit- oriented development projects in Seattle.
Each of these interventions had already been implemented successfully in other
cities, sometimes in many instances. The ‘ experiment’, then, was to test local
feasibility and acceptance.
The ability of authorities to take on these kinds of initiatives seems to be conditioned
by:
 A supportive political environment ( for example, a mayor or council member
or faction that publicly endorsed trials of the initiative, providing both
leadership and direction and political cover for staff action)
 Sufficient staff resources to commit to the projects
 A culture of engaging with other cities and a structure that allows for staff at
all levels to seek out information by contacting staff internally or at other
organizations that are of a different staff/ management level
 An internal organisational culture to try new things
It is interesting to note that this varied quite substantially across the cities studied.
For example, Copenhagen was, for example, much less likely to be involved in broad
( outside of its closest geographical neighbours) searches of what is happening
elsewhere than was Stockholm.
It is also interesting to observe that these factors vary over time within a city. Both
Leeds and Edinburgh, for example, brought forward a series of policy innovations in
the late 1990s but have done less of this over recent years. The interviewees in
Edinburgh felt that this was largely a result of more conservative attitudes amongst
senior managers and a slightly less bold political lead ( the former being more
important than the latter). In Leeds the tightening of personnel resources, relative to
Page | 16
the tasks to be achieved, meant that looking for and taking on new ideas was that
much more difficult. This was also reflected on to some degree by interviewees in
other cities such as Stockholm, Edinburgh, Dallas and a city in the San Francisco Bay
Area. These observations are important because an environment in which a search
for new ideas is seen positively will influence the extent to which ideas are brought
forward. Support from senior management or political leaders can accelerate the
introduction of new ideas; if such support is lacking, change most likely will be
slowed or not even considered.
4.1.4 Political intervention
Local agency officials determine the majority of proposals for new policies but ideas
are also brought to the table by directly elected officials. The mandate which elected
officials has provides these ideas with an initial momentum which official- led
suggestions sometimes lack. The highest profile example is the Stockholm
Congestion Charge where the six month trial was decided as part of negotiations to
form a national coalition government and the solution essentially imposed on the
city. Elsewhere, in Edinburgh, a local elected official had tried the ‘ VéloV’ bike rental
scheme whilst visiting in Lyon and, through the Council’s transport committee
instigated a feasibility study. In San Francisco, the chair to the county board of
supervisors was a key supporter of congestion pricing and council representatives in
Dallas were influential in steering the planning process to successful adoption of its
new transportation/ land use plan. We note that elected officials, although engaged
with the local electorate, do not necessarily have the same perception of problems
and solutions as the local population ( Bonsall et al., 2005).
4.1.5 Enhanced support
Undoubtedly, the availability of funding for at least part of any new innovation, has
acted as a catalyst for policy transfer. In the European cities for example, the
availability of EU project funds has supported policy transfer in all of the sites. Whilst
for some initiatives this has accelerated developments which were already planned
and added greater potential to learn from partner sites, for others it has provided
the spark for investments which might not otherwise have been made. Similar
findings were also seen in Leeds and Edinburgh where national government funding
is more important ( relative to other sources) and where national initiatives brought
forward schemes which may not have otherwise happened. Interestingly the US
state level appears less important than EU member state level. Although the levels of
funding are not sufficient to pay for complete implementation, they were seen by
interviewees as being a significant bargaining tool to then confirm local matching ( or
better) funding commitments with. In San Francisco, federal funding for congestion
pricing was successfully won through competitive processes, and provided the
incentive to pursue pricing. Table 3 provides a qualitative assessment of how
important the interviewees in the cities viewed the different funding sources in
facilitating the innovations discussed.
Page | 17
Working with other cities through co- funded projects has other benefits. In
particular, in the field of clean technologies and procurement of new vehicle fleets,
collaboration with other cities was seen as important in terms of reducing the risk
and the unit purchase costs but also as valuable in generating a larger data set of
comparative performance than would be possible within any one city site. This was
particularly true of Stockholm and Bremen where both national and pan- European
procurement had been undertaken. Nancy also identified the risks of acting as a lead
innovator in the absence of central government support both in terms of financial
and political risks.
Table 3: Funding Streams Accessed
Lee Bre Cop Sto Edi Lyon Nan SFra Dal Sea Van
EU or
National
US/ Canada
level
       
EU Member
State, US
State,
Canadian
Province
          
Regional      
Local                    
Fares and
User charges       
Charges on
third parties
( e. g.,
employers,
developers)
         
4.1.6 Legitimization & Influence
Whilst none of the cities looked at implementing policies which did not fit their
strategic need, some of the motivations for engaging in policy transfer ( both in
seeking and providing information) were to build support and recognition for ideas
and to influence future funding and policy decisions to further support
developments in these areas.
Whilst for interviewees in some cities ( Bremen, San Francisco and Dallas) drawing on
policy experiences from elsewhere helped to demonstrate that ideas were rational
and could work, in other cities ( Copenhagen and Edinburgh) the fact that a policy
worked elsewhere was sometimes seen as antagonism to elected officials rather
than proof that it would work in their own city.
Bremen and Stockholm were both actively engaged in trying to influence EU policies
on policies and funding programmes in areas of interest to them. They both felt that
Page | 18
concerted action by several cities was key to breaking through the reluctance of
vehicle manufacturers to push innovation at the rate they required. The
interviewees in other cities in the EU and North America were not motivated in this
way.
4.1.7 Summary
It is clear that many motivations to undertake policy transfer exist ( see Table 4 for
the summary of the innovations studied in our cities). Most commonly, this is an
identified strategic need and part of a natural cycle of cities looking for new ideas to
meet new challenges or ways to do things they already do better. Cities vary as to
the extent to which they look outside for lessons and this also varies over time
within a city. The organisational culture and resourcing appears to be particularly
important in determining how pro- active a city is at any given time.
Table 4: Why Undertake Policy Transfer
Lee Bre Cop Sto Edi Lyo Nan SFra Dal Sea Van
Strategic Need           
Project or policy
failure
   
Curiosity           
Political
Intervention
     

Enhanced Support      
Legitimization &
Influence
    
As resources, both personnel and financial, are limited it appears that the presence
of special funding streams for new activities are a major facilitator in converting
potential interest in new policies into action and the funds can help to overcome
organisational inertia.
Whilst these findings hold for most of our cities the final motivation was specific to a
sub- set of cities. Legitimization of proposed activities through comparison with
important peer cities and through influencing top level policy making was an
important part of the rationale for participating in policy learning activities for some
cities. We return to this issue later.
4.2 Who is involved in policy transfer?
As described in Section 4.1.3, local officials and elected officials are the main
determinants of what policies are looked at in more detail. However, there was
evidence of a number of other players feeding into the determination of which ideas
to consider and, where the city was minded to pursue a new idea, how knowledge
about other applications was obtained.
Page | 19
4.2.1 Other agents in raising awareness
Residents, lobby or advocacy groups, system suppliers, non- profit organizations and
academics were all identified as having influenced the consideration of different
innovations. In Leeds, for example, a resident’s group campaigned for the city to
implement a Home Zone scheme. In Edinburgh, Copenhagen and Bremen, the very
active local cycle groups were all identified as contributing suggestions for
improvement and ideas from other places which their members had visited. System
suppliers were very aware of which cities were potentially considering new public
transport systems and were noted as bringing forward new innovations to the cities
which they had not been aware of ( e. g. Leeds and Copenhagen). Academics were
identified as agents in raising awareness in 6 cities:
 Edinburgh – through a joint post with a member of staff at Napier University
 Leeds – through the presence of academic staff on a steering group
 Stockholm – where an academic led the evaluation work for the Stockholm
Congestion Charge and where lessons were taken from the London scheme
 Dallas— studies on transit- oriented development
 Vancouver— assistance with major street design plan
 San Francisco— informal consultation
Not all cities reported that they engaged with academics and the level of
engagement tended to vary over time. The role of academics in the case study cities,
when used was generally acting as a sounding board, pointing people to available
evidence. ( Interactions between academics and practitioners are discussed further in
section 6).
Table 5 summarises the role played by different groups in initiating policy transfer in
the innovations we discussed.
Table 5: Who was involved in initiating policy transfer
Lee Brem Cop Stoc Edi Lyon Nan SFra Dal Sea Van
Elected
officials
             
Local Officials                      
Private
Suppliers
    
Consultant
firms

Residents 
Interest
Groups
   
Academics  
The Table shows a dominance of local agency officials. Whilst many people have a
role in discussing policy transfer it is rare for agents other than politicians to initiate
policy transfer. Aside from politicians, the impact of proposals for new policies or
Page | 20
projects will be dependent on the receptiveness of the local officials to the idea as
these are the gatekeepers of implementation for most types of actions. 2
4.2.2 Other agents in transferring experiences
Interviewees generally highlighted the benefits of going to see potential new policies
and systems for themselves. This was because:
 It is difficult to know what questions need to be asked in advance
 Issues can emerge during trips ( including other innovations being seen) which
were not initially part of the visit
 Officials and elected officials understand their own delivery environment
better than a third party and can relate better to other officials/ elected
officials in asking about this.
Nonetheless, there were examples provided where consultants and suppliers had
been involved in facilitating the transfer of experiences. Consultants had been used
to prepare benchmarking reports, system descriptions but also, in the case of the
Edinburgh Greenways bus routes, to prepare a training programme for staff on how
to implement the new scheme. System manufacturers often provided tours as part
of visits to see public transport systems and this was also true of the London and
Stockholm Congestion Charging schemes. Officials were interested in seeing both of
these parties to fully understand the implementation, operation and procurement
processes.
Table 6 summarises the role of different actors in transferring experience.
Table 6: Who was involved in transferring experience
Lee Brem Cop Stoc Edi Lyon Nan SFra Dal Sea Van
Elected
officials

Local Officials                      
Private
Suppliers
             
Consultant
firms
         
Residents
Interest
Groups
 
Academics     
In nearly all cases, local officials played the largest role in transferring information.
This was suggested by interviewees to be crucial as their role encompasses the
political and institutional setting, the policy or project goals and implementation
process. Some of this task could not be effectively outsourced. Private suppliers are
more important in transferring experience as they have system implementation and
2 The private sector can and does innovate in public transport supply provision but this will vary with
institutional context.
Page | 21
operational knowledge from elsewhere which the city will be dependent on. In a
similar manner, consultants are important agents in this process as they may have
been involved in similar implementations in other cities. It was acknowledged in two
cities where this topic was explored that this was one of the reasons for an
increasing reliance on consultants, allied to cutbacks in staff in the public sector.
Other agents appear less important in the transfer of implementation detail
although academic researchers have played a role, particularly in advising staff and
elected officials on project details and key contacts.
4.3 What was learnt?
The scale of information that is sought and learning which results is highly context
specific. This can range from very specific issues ( such as how to implement secure
cycle parking around a rail station) to more general ( such as how do different mass
transit systems perform and how are they designed). The post- hoc reflections of the
interviewees about learning from other cities and sources suggest that there are two
main types of lessons that cities are looking to learn.
4.3.1 Concepts
There appears to be a high degree of interest in new policies both within a country
and in other countries. The extent to the search is discussed further in Section 4.4.
Many more visits are received by cities that can demonstrate new concepts than are
evidenced by subsequent implementations. This suggests that many people are
coming to visit to look at the concept and consider whether it can work for them.
Some examples from the case study cities include:
 Edinburgh was studying the potential to develop a ‘ Vélib’ type bike hire
scheme such as those implemented in Paris, Lyon and Barcelona.
 In the 1990s Bremen had introduced ride sharing as part of business travel
plans on the basis of experience in the US.
 San Francisco officials and senior managers have visited London to examine
the congestion pricing scheme and are interested in the Stockholm
implementation.
 Dallas hired a consultant based in Portland, Oregon and experienced with the
Denver plan to draw on knowledge with land use and transportation planning
in these cities.
 The Home Zones project in Leeds was directly motivated by the Dutch
‘ Woonerf’ developments.
 Leeds has looked to various European cities ( Strasbourg, Lyon, Gothenburg)
and taken elected officials there to consider which public transport concepts
might work for Leeds instead of a tram.
 Copenhagen can receive as many as 100 visitor requests per month to look at
its cycling infrastructure
Page | 22
4.3.2 Design and Operation
A decision to proceed with a policy might be based on in- depth learning about a
concept from another city or a more general awareness of the potential of a policy
and its strategic fit with the cities’ transport strategy. In both cases however, there
are opportunities for policy lessons to be learnt on the detailed design and operation
of the policies in other places. It was stressed by participants that it is seldom
possible to transfer these lessons directly as the institutional and operational
environments are quite different. Nonetheless, many examples of elements of
system design and operation were highlighted as having been adopted from
elsewhere including:
 Approaches to enforcement ( Leeds looked to Madrid for its experience with
HOV lanes but not the US and Edinburgh looked to London’s experience with
Red Routes when adopting its Greenways bus priority)
 Back office operations and supplier relationships ( Copenhagen is looking to
learn from Stockholm if they introduce a charge and Edinburgh is looking to
learn from Paris regarding a Vélib type scheme).
 Infrastructure and vehicle design ( In Seattle the transit agencies work with
the bus suppliers to identify and adopt innovative bus designs. Copenhagen
and Bremen have both copied cycle storage approaches from Amsterdam.
Leeds looked to the Essen guided busway scheme although ultimately
developed its own standards which are now adopted across the UK).
 Operational design ( Bremen adopted the notion of a guaranteed lift home for
its ride share scheme on the basis of US scheme experience, Copenhagen is
likely to adopt the Hamburg ‘ big bang’ approach to bus network changes and
Stockholm adopted a similar approach to clean vehicle exemptions as London
in its congestion charge scheme)
 Demand forecasts ( Leeds has accessed patronage data from various system
operators in Europe in developing the business case for a new high quality
mass rapid transit system).
 Evaluation lessons and analysis techniques ( Stockholm adopted the business
impacts assessment evaluation lessons from the London congestion charging
scheme)
It is difficult to generalise on what cities learn as every policy has its own special set
of issues and contextual transfer constraints which impact on exactly what is
transferred. It is however worth noting that both in North America and Europe it was
often a case of several different aspects of different systems being brought together
to achieve something “ new” for the city which may not in its totality be new either
for the city or for others. Interviewees noted that cities were not necessarily pushing
to be the first to have a particular system or policy. In fact, implemented innovations
in other cities provides a comforting sense of familiarity with the concept at both the
staff and elected official level in that if the innovation can be accomplished in
another city, it might also be tailored to fit local conditions.
It does not appear that institutional barriers constrain the search for lessons
although it is clear that they do constrain the extent to which different aspects of
policies from elsewhere might be implemented in a different local context. Examples
Page | 23
included the inability of Leeds to develop the same degree of public transport
integration as Lyon due to different regulation of operations and the inability of
Bremen to use automatic number plate recognition to enforce its environmental
zone ( as in London) due to data protection laws in Germany.
4.4 How did they approach learning
City officials and staff learn about policy innovations in several different ways, such
as through: 1) informal information gathering, 2) initial scoping activities, and 3)
formal scoping efforts. These approaches may be done sequentially, but also may
done in an iterative process and cities may not necessarily pursue through all three
methods, as discussed below.
4.4.1 Informal Information Gathering
The interviews revealed that staff gather information about innovations informally
and sometimes quite by happenstance. For example, they may read about an
innovation when perusing an item “ in print” ( such as newspaper, newspaper,
professional journal, technical press) or learn about it through interactions with
others through conference attendance, word of mouth, formal strategy groups, and
external contacts. E- newsletters and mailings are also growing in use although it was
suggested however in one city that such sources are not locally relevant enough and
that the sheer volume of information can render these sources difficult to read.
Sometimes members of the public bring innovations from other cities to the
attention of city officials. In other cases, these requests are from senior management
to staff to look for information on the internet or in the literature.
The interviewees often look to contacts or acquaintances in their professional
networks for advice. Since they are part of loose networks with overlapping
interests, they then may be referred to contacts in other fields with related
knowledge or expertise. These overlapping interests are called “ boundary objects”
( Star and Greisemer, 1989). 3
Concepts such as congestion pricing, bus rapid transit, compact development,
pedestrian and bicycle safety, context- sensitive design, and more broadly
“ sustainability” are examples of boundary objects that can lead into knowledge
networks of a variety of disciplines and thus quickly spread knowledge across the
disciplines. Interested in a particular boundary object, participants contact others in
their loose networks in search of information and additional contacts who have
substantive knowledge of the boundary object. A “ snowball effect” then occurs in
which an initial inquiry generates substantially more information across a variety of
fields For example, a city staff person contacts an acquaintance or colleague in an
3 “ abstract or concrete. They have common meanings in different social worlds but their structure is
common enough to more than one world to make them recognizable, a means of translation. The
creation and management of boundary objects is a key process in developing and maintaining
coherence across intersecting social worlds.” ( Star and Greisemer, 1989, p. 393)
Page | 24
innovative city who then recommends one or more of the following: a couple of
contacts in other cities, a well- respected researcher, online sources or publications.
In addition to informal networks, formal networks4 also provide an opportunity for
learning. Although many cities are part of more formal networks ( e. g in Europe
EUROCITIES, C40, POLIS, CIVITAS5, UITP) these networks often perform more of a
status boosting and lobbying role than being the route through which practitioners
seek information ( as the informal networks which underpin them are easier to use).
The UITP database was mentioned as one tool which was used by public transport
operators in cities for the purposes of benchmarking. In the US and Vancouver cases,
many interviewees participated in committees or reviewed publications associated
with established organizations such as the Transportation Research Board ( TRB),
Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE), American Public Transit Association and
Women’s Transportation Seminar. These associations provide opportunities for
information sharing, networking ( meeting), and in some cases developing research
programs, and platforms for advocacy to influence policy at the national level.
4.4.2 Initial Scoping
As a result of the initial informal information gathering or because of the motivations
described in Section 4.1, city officials and/ or staff then may begin an initial scoping
effort to gather more specific information about an innovation. Some scoping may
be through requests from senior management to staff to look for information on the
internet or in the literature. The internet ( particularly Google) was often quoted as a
resource which is used but there was a general feeling that there is so much
information that it can be like looking for a needle in a haystack. In Europe no- one
had accessed academic databases for information whilst in the US articles from the
Transit Cooperative Research Board and conference papers published by
Transportation Research Board were mentioned.
Other staff may rely on contacts they have in their professional networks as
described in Section 4.4.1 but this is in the context of a search for specific
information ( such as ridership estimates, contractors, costs).
Practitioner conferences on themes of interest and good practice guides were also
mentioned as a means of finding out more about policies but some interviewees
were sceptical about what was heard. Indeed, one participant pointed out the
different spin on findings that they would give in a formal conference presentation
versus an informal workshop. However, conferences do provide a route in to
speaking with the individuals involved in implementation.
4 A formal network we define as typically operating with a board or steering group and will be a
subscription based organisations or subsidised by central government
5 CIVITAS in particular has made extensive efforts to act as an outreach project to other cities and has
even funded a city learning project ( CIVITAS- CATALIST). Awareness of this initiative amongst cities not
involved in running the project was very low however.
Page | 25
4.4.3 Formal scoping
After some level of information gathering, a city may delve more deeply into learning
about an innovation. In particular, a city may commission a consultant or researcher
for assistance, devote substantial staff time to oversee development of a planning
process for developing the innovation, and/ or to arrange for site visits, which may
include foreign travel and coordination.
Here, the learning styles of the organizations and the culture of interaction between
practitioners, consultants and academics strongly determines the approach taken.
Some key differences identified through the research are:
1. Where organizations look for lessons
Commonality of policy context has some influence on where staff and others
are prepared to look for lessons and new ideas. So, for example, Bremen saw
other harbour cities with similar size populations in northern Europe as good
comparators. Copenhagen saw other Nordic cities which have similar
populations, similar political conditions and similar problems as key
comparators. There is some support for the notion of looking to local
neighbours and cities which are close ‘ philosophically’ most strongly. Dallas
was interested in learning from Denver, also a growing city looking to transit-oriented
development. The experiences of the interviewees suggested that
cities were prepared to and had engaged in a search for new ideas which
stretched beyond their most obvious comparators, but there is a difference
in the extent to which they are open to this broad search. It seems that the
European Union research programme has been an important facilitator of
contacts amongst cities which perhaps otherwise would have not seen
themselves as obvious partners. Strong on- going working relationships at
many levels through various rounds of funding has developed often thick
layers of now informal policy networks to which individuals look for new
ideas. This was also true in the North American case studies. Trust in the
findings of other cities is critical and this helps to explain why personal
networks are so important.
2. Who is sent to look
In some cities, the organizational culture is such that foreign travel is seen to
be a ‘ perk’ rather than part of a necessary search for information ( and this is
also reflected in the extent to which foreign experiences are seen as relevant
in decision- making). Other cities see the search for lessons from elsewhere as
a more serious endeavour and one which is important to the development of
staff within the organization ( e. g Bremen, Stockholm, Dallas, San Francisco,
Vancouver). It is important to note that it is generally more difficult to justify
a trip outside of a country than within due to local government rules.
3. The extent to which academics are involved
The EU experience suggests generally low levels of academic involvement in
the more formal learning processes with inputs largely being kept to strategic
level discussions, evaluation and expert workshops on specific issues. Whilst
Page | 26
consultants are more likely to tap into academic literature than local
government officials, this is still very limited in nature. By contrast, in North
America it was often the case that senior management might come across
reference to an article and funnel it to their staff to review. Alternatively, a
junior staff person would compile more academically focussed research-based
information and summarize it for management.
4.4.4 Learning Summary
Table 7 summarises the relative importance of the various information sources
across the different case study cities in the innovations studied. As discussed
throughout Section 4.4, peer to peer contacts are crucial sources of information and
they appear to be trusted and knowledgeable. This is true across all of the case study
cities, the principal difference being the reach of the these networks which itself is a
function of where cities are looking for lessons ( Section 4.1.3).
Table 7: Relative importance of information sources used in policy transfer
Lee Bre Cop Sto Edi Lyo Nan SFra Dal Sea Van
Peer to peer
contacts
                      
Policy
networks
                
Private
Suppliers
          
Consultants         
General
Literature
          
Academic
literature
  


Academics       
Policy networks are used in all cities although this appears to be slightly stronger
route in North America than Europe. Private sector system suppliers are
acknowledged to be important as would be expected although experiences about
interacting with different suppliers and the effectiveness of systems are exchanged
amongst peers alongside supplier engagement. Consultants can play an important
role when they are engaged in policy transfer. They appear particularly important in
overcoming personnel constraints and skills gaps. Even where they are used the
interviewees saw limits to the role consultants should have ( e. g. Leeds and
Copenhagen suggest that implementation learning is for the cities whilst design
might be for the consultants). It is interesting to observe that general literature such
as government guidance or resources found on Google are more likely to be
accessed than academic literature ( reasons for this are discussed in Section 6)
although there is more of a tradition of using academic sources in North America
than Europe. There is also some further support given in France with the national
government funding dissemination of research programmes through CERTU. The
Page | 27
reasons for this and the impact that greater access to academic resources has could
usefully be explored further as it is not immediately obvious that this leads to more
or more effective policy transfer in North America.
The interviewees were generally able to find out the information they needed and
were more positive about their peer to peer networks and informal search processes
than other routes they could have used. When asked to reflect on the effectiveness
of their search process however the interviewees generally described the approach
as:
 Unsystematic and ad hoc;
 Constrained ( particularly by time but also by budgets); and
 Capable of improvement
The unsystematic nature of their current search processes might lead cities to come
across practices which they otherwise might not seek out and may not be
problematic. However, the heavy reliance on the peer to peer network suggests that
the potential for policy transfer will be heavily conditioned by how engaged and
networked a city is.
Even the most networked individuals in cities noted that it could take a lot of time to
find the right people to talk to, that knowledge gets lost in the system when people
move on and that finding the right written resources is difficult. It is also worth
noting that some of the cities found managing the volume of visitors to see their
policies as time and resource consuming and that there were limits to the degree of
reciprocity which was possible and useful.
The issues described are problematic in that they imply a time intensive search
process. Time is a commodity which all staff reported being short of and most
interviewees suggested ways in which their search process could be improved
( discussed further in Section 7).
4.5 Formal institutional impacts on policy transfer & implementation
As noted in Section 3.2, the institutional structures within which the cities operate
vary considerably, and earlier research had suggested that institutional structure can
have a significant impact on policy making ( Peter et al., 2005). It is useful to
distinguish here between institutional barriers to policy learning, and institutional
barriers to implementation.
In the case of our interview cities, formal institutional barriers seem to have fairly
limited influence on the search for policy ideas. One exception was Leeds where
there are two organisations that do not always agree on the preferred solution for
high quality public transport corridors. Leeds also indicated that the split between
public and private sector discouraged them from studying some integration
innovations in Europe, since they would not be able to be implemented. The Lyon
interviewees suggested that the six year franchise contracts discouraged innovation,
Page | 28
since operators would not want to take the risk of introducing an innovation whose
benefits would not arise during the franchise period. They noted that the next
franchise round was being designed to provide greater stimulus and protection for
innovations.
While Leeds, and to some extent Lyon, have found that institutional arrangements
constrained policy learning, there are counter examples. In particular, both
Copenhagen and San Francisco are actively promoting congestion pricing projects
despite not having the formal powers to implement them. The ability to overcome
institutional barriers is a part of the policy learning process.
Formal institutional relationships will principally act as barriers once policy or project
ideas are brought forward beyond the informal scoping stage. Here we have
examples including:
 Lack of funding from upper governmental tier ( Edinburgh Metro and Leeds
tram)
 Split responsibilities at a local level ( Lyon’s REAL project can only develop at
the rate at which the many partners are able to agree; Vancouver can set its
land use policies within the city but the neighbouring jurisdictions have
separate land use responsibilities and can limit the policy’s effectiveness)
 Regulatory barriers ( Bremen environmental zones enforcement, Stockholm
ethanol storage)
 Relationship with private sector ( franchise- led public transport cities in EU
were innovating to a much greater degree with service provision and the
cleanness of their urban fleets than UK deregulated operators; in Vancouver
and Dallas, innovative plans were developed but relied on the transit
agencies supporting and being willing to implement the transit components).
However, all of the cities studied had implemented innovative policies. Within any
given institutional setting there are cities which seem to innovate more than others
and bring forward more progressive and successful transport policies. This suggests
that institutional issues can be overcome, though doing so may prove difficult and
time consuming. Institutional constraints may help explain why policies do not
transfer as fast as would perhaps be desirable. The production of information about
how to overcome these barriers could be an important part of the policy learning
process.
It is also interesting and important to observe that even within a city it is not always
possible to achieve broader implementation of a project or policy innovation. For
example a new public transport priority approach was implemented on two
corridors in Leeds but it has taken nine years for the second HOV lane to be opened.
In Edinburgh it was suggested that were ‘ Greenways’ public transport priority
schemes to be proposed now that they would not be accepted. Conversely, North
American interviewees commented that a key policy window has opened with the
heightened public interest and awareness in climate change and sustainability. Many
innovations are being positioned as a means to address these major issues. In Dallas
and Vancouver, reference to sustainability and climate change were made
Page | 29
throughout the interviews and can be seen in the plans. Interviewees in Seattle and
San Francisco also stated their policies are also being considered in part because of
greater public and elected official concerns. This appears to fit with the notion of
“ policy windows of opportunity” ( where political will, funding and scheme fit to
objectives all align) being crucial to the filter of what actually gets implemented
( Kingdon, 2003).
Page | 30
5 Dissemination of City Experiences
During the interviews, city staff mentioned the difficulty of finding detailed
information on good practice from other cities in their informal search processes.
Such information will only become available if cities record and disseminate their
own experience. Interviewees were asked to reflect on the extent to which they
reported systematically on their policy implementations. Interviewees noted that the
starting point was to evaluate the performance of innovatory policies. The main
focus of such evaluation work is on internal learning for future project roll out. A few
interviewees noted that improvements are needed to provide in- depth evaluations
to demonstrate the long- term value and outcomes of projects and policies. Time
constraints limited the likelihood of this occurring for several cities. Also, local
authorities rarely have the resources to conduct such evaluations. Interestingly, an
interviewee in one city suggested that where projects were implemented
successfully it was sometimes not in the interest of officials to spend too long raking
over the detail of the outcomes as this could lead to pressures to withdraw schemes
if performance was not maintained.
Several interviewees appreciated the value to other cities of disseminating the
results of such evaluations, but relatively few cities did so consistently. Of note
however, Vancouver widely publicizes its successful planning policies through easy-to-
read documents and evaluation reports made available on the city website. In
addition, in the EU cities where policies were partially funded by European or
National funds, there is typically a reporting requirement which ensured that an
evaluation report was produced, although these were not necessarily stored
systematically. Information on the effectiveness of other policy innovations is not
always recorded and the availability was at best piecemeal. In many cases, although
descriptions of the innovations were available on- line, the research team
experienced difficulty in accessing good information on effectiveness from the
Internet in advance of visits. This may, in part be due to the evaluations being
published in the native language rather than English for some of the EU case studies.
In addition to published materials, cities disseminate information through a range of
channels. First, officials present findings at conferences or sometimes organize
conferences in their city to promote innovations. This was seen as part of awareness
raising of activities and promotion of the city. Stockholm suggested that this was
essentially part of the “ marketing budget” for the city of Stockholm. Bremen was
also particularly active in this regard. Staff in the North American cases also saw this
kind of dissemination as an excellent opportunity for two- way learning as both
conference attendees and speakers both learn from each other.
Second, staff in all cases committed time to hosting site visits from other cities to see
and discuss their innovations. However, interviewees in the EU also noted that there
was a limit to the volume of visitors that could be accommodated and there were
varying opinions on the value of the exchanges. Stockholm summarised their need to
Page | 31
focus on exchanges where there were mutual learning benefits. There appears to be
scope for more effective exchanges and visits as part of city- city learning.
Third, several interviewees interpreted the concept of dissemination to include use
of the media as an important way of “ getting the word out.” Press releases often are
used to get information into the public domain, particularly to the local citizenry and
key stakeholders. As a co- benefit, other cities and regions may read about the city’s
innovations, particularly if the articles are in major newspapers. In Edinburgh, it was
suggested that the main transport practitioner news magazine picked up on these
key messages in this way. In a US case, an interviewee noted that a media
communications strategy and “ messenger” are needed; however, planners and
engineers are not typically trained in working with the media. A strategic
communications consultant was hired to assist staff with the media through role
playing, development of talking points and mock debates.
A fourth avenue for disseminating information is through participating in city award
programmes that recognise best practices and innovation. Interviewees had a mixed
attitude to such awards. Some cities are proactive and see the value in raising the
profile of the city nationally and abroad as well as assisting locally in the
continuation of innovative policies. For example, Vancouver has won many Canadian
awards and Bremen has been selected as a showcase city for the Shanghai 2010
World Expo. Lyon noted its status as “ beyond the best” in the awards announced by
a leading professional journal. In contrast, several North American interviewees
were less than impressed by awards, noting that award applications are time
consuming to complete and that the acknowledgment does not meaningfully alter
resources or competitiveness. To reduce costs of award competitions, once an
application is developed, it may be recycled and reshaped for future submittals,
thereby reducing some staff time and effort. Other cities in the sample were pleased
to be acknowledged but did not actively seek recognition.
It is clear that a range of reasons exists for dissemination. It is particularly important
to acknowledge the potential influence of ‘ place marketing’ on the extent to which
new policies are disseminated and on the manner in which this is done ( Agnew,
2000). There is a danger that cities wishing to promote their successes may present
information in a less than objective fashion. Whilst the potential thus exists for
conflict between dissemination for learning and dissemination for self- promotion
there is little evidence that this significantly reduces the benefits of dissemination.
Cities receiving such information employ methods for policy learning, as outlined in
Section 4.4, which protect them to some extent against misinformation.
Overall, the key issues surrounding city dissemination therefore appear to be:
 Commitment to detailed policy evaluation is uneven
 Only some of these policy innovation results are reported
 The results are not necessarily publicly available and/ or easy to locate
 Some cities and individuals are more pro- active in actively disseminating
information through conference participation and hosting site visits from
other cities
Page | 32
 Cities are happy to share information and see a benefit to two- way learning,
but limited resources constrain these activities
 The media is used in several cities to facilitate information sharing at the local
and national levels.
The interviews point to the lack of a thorough project and policy evaluation evidence
base. Academics could provide an important source of independent evaluation.
Indeed, academics played a leading part in the evaluation of the Stockholm
Congestion Charge and continue to monitor and evaluate it. The independence of
the evaluation was seen to be important to public trust in the results. It is not clear
however that cities will, in all cases, be motivated to conduct and publish, or even
cooperate in, long- term independent evaluations if they challenge preferred policies
and apparently successful implementations. Cities often do not currently see enough
value in such longer- term evaluations to invest in them. The transferability of
evaluation results from one context to another will still be an issue. Here, the
informal networks act as important and trusted information sources which can also
communicate the unwritten lessons which cities might not wish to publish ( such as
mistakes). Independent evaluations may therefore play a supporting role but it is
not clear to what extent they would be welcome or used and this requires further
consideration.
Page | 33
6 The Academic- Practitioner Nexus
One recurring finding, particularly in the European cities, was the limited role of
academics in the innovation process. This is evident in Table 5, where only two cities
report that academics contribute to initiating policy transfer, Table 6 where four
occurrences were identified of academics being engaged in transfer of knowledge
during the process and Table 7, where six cities learn to some extent from
academics, but only four make some use of academic literature. Since the
Foundation has a particular interest in enhancing the contribution of academic
research to policy making, we review this evidence in more detail in this Section. We
also draw on our own experience of the barriers to academic contributions and of
some examples of good practice.
In understanding the academic- practitioner nexus, Boyer’s ( 1990) work on
‘ scholarship reconsidered’ offers a conceptual framework through which the
tensions and opportunities can be considered. Boyer suggests that academic pursuit
might involve four separate elements although these inevitably overlap ( drawing on
Hambleton, 2007):
 The scholarship of discovery – which is largely pure or ‘ blue skies’ research
which generates intellectual knowledge, and around which much of
university culture has been built.
 The scholarship of integration – which brings together facts from across
disciplines and generates new insights but which is largely an intellectual
activity.
 The scholarship of application – which deals with the cross- over between
research and policy in terms both of defining research problems and of
conducting research in and with practice.
 The scholarship of teaching – both in the time at an institution and also in
stimulating a longer- term culture of learning amongst practitioners
throughout their careers.
6.1 Interview findings
In all of the cities it was found that decision- makers valued staff that had academic
training and most interviewees had academic background in planning, engineering or
public policy. Many interviewees noted that they still had ties to their former
university, through their cohorts of peers or through academics still in post. This
suggests an important role for the scholarship of teaching.
There was little evidence, however, of academics being involved in stimulating policy
transfer. The most productive relationships that were described included joint staff
placements, joint research and membership of broader steering groups.
In Europe, there was little culture of looking to academic literature. The North
American case studies suggested a greater level of access to academic papers, at
least amongst junior staff, than was the case in Europe. In both areas there is a
Page | 34
general pressure of too much information and not enough time. Even academics
interviewed suggested that they do not have time to read the journal articles that
they would like to.
In the light of the time pressures staff are operating under and a preference for
accessing information via newspaper style summaries there was a strong feeling that
the way in which academics present their information is often too far removed from
the direct policy question to be of value. Even in the North American studies
academic research was criticised for being overcomplicated in its presentation and
for making the policy relevance difficult to extract. This was acknowledged in part by
academics. Both the EU and North American case studies suggest that simply
expecting the scholarship of discovery and integration to filter into practice is not an
effective model.
The approach to engagement was, in general, unstructured and ad hoc which led to
both sides observing inefficiencies in some of the exchanges which did happen. The
following section examines the issues raised above in more detail drawing on the
literature review and experience of the report authors.
6.2 Constraints on academic involvement
6.2.1 Culture
Much traditional academic research identifies research problems from unanswered
questions or contested results arising from earlier research projects. This traditional
approach sits within a spectrum of research motivations, with “ blue skies” research
( the scholarship of discovery), which may well have no immediate application, at one
end, and applied research ( the scholarship of application) at the other. Collaborative
research with local government is likely to be applied research, and sits at the latter
end of the spectrum. Not all researchers are motivated to conduct this sort of
research or see it as their role to be too closely associated with implementation.
There is a longstanding tradition of applied research being conducted jointly with
commerce and industry, in situations in which firms identify research needs and seek
solutions from academia. Applied research for local government could potentially
follow a similar model. As discussed in Section 6.3, there have been some successful
examples of collaboration between academia and practice to identify relevant
research issues. However, they rely critically on the continued commitment of
participants from both sides, and the availability of practitioners who are able to
identify their research needs.
Academics and practitioners also work under different incentive systems. Rewards in
academia tend to focus on those issues most closely associated with the strong
academic traditions based around the scholarship of discovery, such as research
grant income, quality of publications and professional esteem. Local officials are
seeking recognition for themselves and their authorities, which generally requires a
Page | 35
focus on more immediate delivery and achievements. Whilst this is not a mutually
exclusive set of incentives there is only limited overlap. It is not certain for example,
that cities would ask questions which are deemed of sufficient research value to
attract research funding.
US universities differ from their European counterparts in having an additional
mission to support their local community and institutions. This may help explain
why the contribution of academic advice appears stronger in the North American
case study cities.
6.2.2 Support for research
Unlike the private sector, local government is unlikely to have significant funds to
support research in its own right, and typically it does not receive government
support or encouragement for such activities. In some countries, and notably in
France, local government research units conduct research on behalf of local
government, but these may well operate in competition with the academic sector
and hence not stimulate wide collaboration between the sectors.
As noted in Section 6.3, there are some successful examples of collaboration in
obtaining research funding. The main pitfall has been the process of approving
research funding. It is uncertain ( success rates of around 25% on average in the UK),
can often be protracted and appear to outsiders unnecessarily critical. In some cases
local authority partners have lost interest in obtaining funding when the process has
appeared to take too long, or when assessors have questioned the need for the
research which they have identified. Given the constraints on time which local
officials are operating under, this reduces the impetus for investing significant
amounts of time in developing research specifications.
6.2.3 Conducting joint research
While local government may well be ready to offer practical support, and
contributions in kind, to facilitate research to meet its own research needs, it can
prove more difficult to sustain that support over the duration of the project.
One frequent problem with empirical research into the effectiveness of a particular
policy is the failure of local government to implement the policy on time, or at all.
Where policies are implemented, but found to be less effective than expected, local
authority officers and elected officials may well lose interest in the research itself.
For example, one recent project designed to study the synergies between awareness
campaigns and physical improvements in bus services was rendered far less effective
by the failure of one local authority to implement the promised schemes.
A second common problem is the lack of time among local authority staff to
participate in, and comment on the outcome of, research projects. While in most
examples of collaborative research projects, local authorities have committed to
such input, the more immediate pressures of policy implementation often make this
difficult. This problem is made worse by the rapid turnover in staff which many
Page | 36
authorities experience. In one recent UK project, which involved 16 local authorities
over a five year period, hardly any of the staff who had been in post at the outset
were still involved when the final results were discussed. In two cases, changes in
senior staff had led to the virtual withdrawal of the authorities concerned. Most of
the research case studies within the project faced substantial challenges in achieving
what the academics considered to be a desired level of interaction, thus indicating
the several constraints under which the scholarship of application can operate in the
public sector.
6.2.4 Dissemination
It is clear that there is an almost complete divergence between the format and style
in which academics write and that which practitioners will look to access, certainly at
the informal scanning stage and, in many cases, beyond that. Academics in general
place a low priority on disseminating research outcomes through popular
practitioner routes. Their preferred dissemination routes are through journals and
academic conferences, reflecting the reward structures under which they operate. A
notable exception to this is the US Transportation Research Board Annual
Conference which has a greater mix of academics and practitioners than is found in
Europe. The conference also leads into a series of technical journal reports.
As noted in Section 6.3, greater attention is now being given to the encouragement
of more targeted dissemination strategies in the assessment of research proposals,
and some examples exist of effective alternative dissemination routes. However, the
interviews suggest that awareness of these resources is low. Instead, Google is
widely used to seek information, leaving academics reliant on ensuring that their
material is accessed by Google. Moreover, some interviewees expressed concerns
over the large amounts of semi- relevant and potentially unreliable data which their
Google searches generate.
The strong preference shown by practitioners for finding out about new policies
through trusted personal networks raises a clear challenge to a number of traditional
or assumed best routes to dissemination. The findings from the interviewees concur
with the literature where a systematic review found that “ one of the most important
facilitators of moving research into policy is personal contact between researchers
and policy makers” ( Brownson et al., 2006, p 166).
6.2.5 Implementation
While policy- focused research may well lead to, or be based on, the implementation
of an innovative policy, the wide application of its results will typically be dependent
on the production of a product which practitioners can use. This may be in the form
of guidance, or a software package. As noted in Section 6.3, there are some
excellent examples of such outputs continuing to be used by cities over a period of
decades. However, academics’ role in providing such outputs conflicts to some
extent with the traditional role of consultants in providing context- specific advice to
cities. In practice some academics bridge this gap by working in and with
Page | 37
consultancies, but the growing emphasis in Europe on academic excellence is to
some extent discouraging such involvement. Without such links, consultants may
well wish to promote the software and other products which they have developed,
rather than supporting the outputs of academic endeavour. Experience suggests
that ensuring take- up of new software can be difficult, unless a commercialisation
route is established at an early stage.
6.3 Ways of enhancing collaboration
In this section we review, under the same headings, our own experience of ways of
stimulating the scholarship of application through enhanced collaboration between
academics and practitioners. This section is designed to complement the interview
results, which generated few examples of such collaboration.
6.3.1 Culture
As noted in Section 6.2.1, an underlying challenge is for academics and practitioners
to reach a common understanding of research needs and researchable problems.
For some time the UK Universities Transport Study Group had a joint working group
with local government, which met twice a year to discuss particular subject areas,
identify areas in which research might be needed, and discuss the results of research
which had recently been completed. This approach worked well, and led to a
number of jointly conducted research projects. However, it relied critically on the
continued commitment of participants from both sides, and the availability of local
government staff who were able to identify their research needs. The increasing
pressures of day to day workloads made it harder to sustain this input, and the
working group folded during the 1980s.
More recently, the UK Research Councils have established the Local Authorities and
Research Councils Initiative, LARCI, whose aim has been to identify research needs
which the Councils could support. In one programme which was monitored by
LARCI, an international review of barriers to sustainable urban transport was used to
seed a discussion with a group of local authorities who were interested in
participating in a collaborative research programme. The local authorities identified
some 40 problems with the policy formulation process. These were assessed in
terms of the importance of resolving them and the ability to address them through
research; this in turn led to a priority list of nine researchable problems which were
submitted for funding.
In the US, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program is established within
the NAS TRB offices with funding taken “ off the top” from state planning and
research funds in the highway portion of federal surface transport legislation. The
Transit Cooperative Research Program similarly receives a portion of transit funding.
The programs are administered by TRB but their content is determined largely by the
agencies who are the primary beneficiaries, i. e., state DOTs and transit operators.
The NCHRP only considers proposals that have a state sponsor. Both programs
establish panels of stakeholders, often with one or two academic members, to
Page | 38
oversee the drafting of the project statement, to evaluate the proposals from
bidders, and to review the work products of the successful contractor.
In a less formal way, several research groups have established jointly funded
lectureships with their local transport authorities. Arrangements differ, but in one in
which we were involved, the appointee spent two days a week with the local
authority, participating in policy discussions and identifying areas where further
information and understanding was needed. These topics were then converted into
a list of research needs which, depending on their scale, were addressed through
student projects or bids for external research funding. It is much more common
place for academics to move in and out of the policy arena in the US although the
literature also notes that this can come at a cost to the academic outputs of the
individuals concerned ( Eriksson and Sundelius, 2005).
In a similar vein, research needs have been identified through collaboration, and in
some cases joint posts, with consultancy firms and professional institutions who
advise local government. Research needs are identified by observing the
consultancy process and the gaps in knowledge which are limiting the advice given.
However, the contact with local government in such cases is mediated through
consultancy.
6.3.2 Support for Research
The government- sponsored initiatives in the UK and the US outlined above have
typically led to funding for the most successful proposals developed in response to
the identified research needs. The UK Research Councils in particular have been
supportive of an approach in which academics bring to them research proposals
which meet practical needs and which can be conducted with practical support from
local government or consultancy. However, as the interviews quite clearly
demonstrate, the availability of funding to local authorities is a significant motivator
for the uptake of innovations so this model clearly has some limitations. There are
some initiatives ( such as CIVITAS and US State research initiatives) where cities and
academic institutions can both receive funding.
In addition, the University Research program of the USDOT in the 1970s and 80s
funded a number of projects that had local impact. But during the Reagan
administration the program shrank in funding and retracted from its original broad
mixed portfolio of projects to a highly applied set of tasks that had little new
research content. The program finally ended and the University Transportation
Centers program took its place. This program, which funds centers selected in
periodic competitions as well as a larger number of centers designated by legislators,
requires a 50% non- federal match and a number of centers receive this match from
state and local partners.
In the US, large cities such as San Francisco, New York, and San Diego sometimes
sponsor research in transport with universities as part of the research team. In San
Francisco, university researchers helped develop the first urban design plans for the
city and more recently helped design an express bus plan for entire region. They also
Page | 39
have helped evaluate rail extensions and have designed transit- oriented
developments, new boulevards and terminals ( sometimes as consultants, sometimes
as university studio practice.) In New York, university researchers helped develop the
recent congestion pricing proposals and in San Diego they have helped to evaluate
HOT lane projects. As these examples indicate, the work that cities sponsor is,
however, very applied.
In our experience, funding opportunities where both cities and academics can
receive funds will be most likely to motivate both parties to pursue new projects.
The nature of the research programme will however, be critical to the degree to
which it balances the need for implementation lessons for cities and intellectual
value for academics. For example, one city funded under such a model in several
European projects still reported a large disconnect between the city and its academic
partners.
Underneath this, research programmes which support academic- practitioner links
but which only fund academic activities will also stimulate partnerships, although
given the time and resource constraints on cities this may see greater success in
places where there are already strong interactions between the two communities.
6.3.3 Conducting the research
Joint research with local government needs to be based on a common understanding
of the problem to be researched, which itself can often be illustrated by case studies.
Such case studies are also helpful as a foundation for developing research- led
solutions and for testing their applicability. In one recent example of a research
programme designed to develop decision- support tools, some 35 case studies were
made available by local authorities. The research team selected those which were
likely to be of most benefit in the three stages of problem identification, solution
development and solution testing. This approach enables practitioners to be directly
involved in the formulation of solutions, and to appreciate at first hand their
applicability. The case study focus subsequently facilitates dissemination in ways
which will more directly appeal to practitioners elsewhere.
6.3.4 Dissemination
As noted in Section 6.2.4, the mismatch between journals in which academics are
expected to publish and the media used by practitioners severely restricts
dissemination. In the US this problem has been successfully handled by the USDOT
Research Innovation and Technology Administration ( RITA), whose website includes
all DOT funded projects including cosponsored projects at University Research
Centers. Keeping the website updated is a requirement of the federal contractors.
Many states have similar reporting requirements for state- funded research. The
TRIS library system in the US also provides ready access to both the literature
( including research reports) and progress reports for work in progress. One issue
with both the RITA and the TRIS efforts is whether practitioners actually make use of
them. We were unable to locate analyses of this on either RITA or TRB websites.
While European research programmes also require contractors to complete final
Page | 40
reports, there is little attempt to ensure that they are easy to access or readily
assimilated by practitioners.
US university transportation centers are required as a condition of funding to
produce at least two newsletters per year providing information on their work.
These newsletters vary widely, from two to four page promotional pieces to Access
magazine, produced by the UC Transportation Center, which provides summaries of
research written in a style intended to be accessible to a non- specialist, and has over
40,000 readers, the majority of whom are practitioners.
More recently there has been a growing emphasis on other forms of dissemination,
including good practice guides and web- based dissemination sites. For example, in
the EU the ELTIS6 ( European Local Transport Information Service) web site offers a
series of case study reports on transport innovations and the KonSULT7
knowledgebase offers a synthesis of the effectiveness of different policy
instruments. Other web- based communities of practice, such as the UK Local
Transport Planning Network, also exist for practitioners.
Although discussion of the role of consultants was relatively limited in the
interviews, they, together with think tanks and advocacy groups were all identified
as ways of disseminating research findings to practitioners. This suggests that
dissemination to, and involvement of, such intermediaries can be helpful.
Eriksson and Sundelius ( 2005) suggest that the longer term impact of academic
research on teaching and therefore the ‘ worldview’ of graduates is often neglected
as a route for knowledge transmission. The city case studies here identified examples
of where awareness of ideas from graduate or post- graduate studies had filtered
into practice. In Leeds, for example, the awareness of one officer about the potential
of Home Zones was suggested as important in making him more open to the
development of a pilot for the city. In other cities, such as San Francisco, ongoing
links between practitioners and faculty staff remain strong. In our observations, new
ideas also enter into practice through new employees who were recently university
graduate students. As students, they are exposed to the academic literature and
learn cutting edge methods and engage in debates over alternative policy directions.
They bring this new knowledge to the workplace and introduce it into the dialogue
implicitly ( by challenging convention) as well as explicitly ( by citing sources etc.). This
can contribute to organizational change.
6.3.5 Implementation
While effective dissemination should make local government aware of relevant
research results, local authority staff may still need help in applying those results to
their particular situation. This, traditionally, is the role of consultants, which
suggests that academics in turn need to ensure that consultants understand and
appreciate what their research has shown. In some cases this can be done by
developing a method, or piece of software, which consultants then use.
6 www. eltis. org
7 www. konsult. leeds. ac. uk
Page | 41
In the UK for example, the SATURN program for traffic management design
developed in the 1980s is now in use in 20 or more countries across the world. It is
marketed by one firm of consultants, but used by most of the other UK
consultancies, and the licence revenues are used in part to finance further
developments.
In the US for example, the NSF- funded Travel Demand Forecasting Project carried
out by Daniel McFadden and his team at UC Berkeley in the 1970s led to the
widespread use of disaggregate behavioural travel demand models both in the US
and elsewhere. Part of the effort of the TDFP was to work with the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission to implement some of the models and this was done in
part by Berkeley graduate students. In a similar vein the advanced model design and
implementation in the Sacramento region was initially funded by UCTC and later
carried out as a partnership between the Sacramento Area Council of Governments
( SACOG), UC researchers, and consultants. It now is the basis for much of California’s
work on greenhouse gas reduction.
A characteristic of these experiences is that university research programmes carried
out the first ( risky) phases of the research but did so in partnership with local
authorities or consultants, who provided both data and case examples of problems
in need of research. Then as the products developed, the local agencies or
consultants took on a larger role in testing and implementing the research results.
Transit oriented development offers a different model. University work on this topic
in the US started with architects and planners who were academic- practitioners –
individuals who often had a foot in practice and a foot in the university, as is
common in the design fields in the US. These academic- practitioners variously
conducted scans of best practices in the US and abroad, critiqued the problems of
low density suburban sprawl and single use development patterns, and developed
new urban designs and policy proposals for less car dependent cities and towns. In
parallel, academics and practitioners worked with developers and with cities to
design new developments that would be transit and pedestrian oriented. In this
model, individuals who span the worlds of practice and research introduce new ideas
into both realms and serve as conduits for new ideas and information flows in both
directions.
More generally, the presence of effective agents who operate at the boundaries
between disciplines is critical to the communication of findings across these
boundaries. These can be academics, local government officials or intermediaries
from consultancy and elsewhere. It seems from our case studies that these
intermediaries are not always present. The bridge between the development and
presentation of findings in an academic context and their application in practice also
appears too wide to cross easily in some organisations at the moment.
Page | 42
7 Barriers to Innovation
This project was commissioned because the Volvo Foundation is concerned about
the extent to which innovative sustainable transport policies are taken- up and
spread amongst major cities in the world. Two key aspects were identified for
investigation:
 that barriers exist to city- to- city transfer of good practice; and
 that serious gaps exist between the research and practitioner community.
7.1 Introduction
Through their descriptions of the processes adopted for the development and
subsequent implementation and failure of policies and projects, the interviewees
provided a list of different types of barriers which they face. For many innovations
the barriers were expressed through the description of mechanisms which overcame
them; these are considered in Section 8. These barriers can arise either in the
process of learning policy lessons or in the implementation of selected innovative
policies. The barriers have been described throughout the report. In this section we
summarise them below and indicate our sources of evidence. We also attempt a
rating of the severity of these barriers based on this evidence.
7.2 Barriers to learning policy lessons
The research reported here suggests that there is a significant amount of informal
scanning for new ideas and good practice conducted by cities. The interviews also
confirmed that there is a substantial amount of city to city visiting to study new
ideas. The extent to which this occurs varies between cities and over time within a
city and is dependent partly on the organizational learning culture which is strongly
shaped by the attitude of key individuals in senior management who encourage new
ideas and active staff learning and engagement ( Section 4.4). Cities can be classified
as operating on a scale of pro- active to passive information seekers. The degree of
connectedness of a city with other cities appears to be another potential indicator of
the extent to which innovations will be considered from elsewhere ( Sections 4.1.3,
4.4.3).
Individuals from even the most pro- active cities describe the search for information
as unsystematic or ad- hoc. Cities often do not consistently analyse and document
their successes and it appears that staff rely quite heavily on informal networks and
word of mouth ( Section 4.4.4).
The search for new ideas is constrained by staff time and resources, ( Sections 4.1.3,
4.1.7). This is in terms of finding the time both to scan effectively for new ideas
( informal information gathering) and to investigate ideas which seem interesting
( initial scoping). This confirms the notion from the literature that the degree of
Page | 43
‘ slackness’ of institutional resources is important ( Berry, 1997). This is potentially
important when considering the implication of these findings for smaller cities where
resources will be even tighter. Indeed, two smaller city sites were unable to
participate in this project due to resource implications, despite the visits taking a
total of one to two days of staff time.
The search for new ideas is subsequently constrained by the lack of available and
accessible information on innovations elsewhere ( Section 4.4.4 and Section 5). This
relates in turn to the willingness of cities to evaluate and disseminate their own
innovations ( Section 5). An underlying lack of information is sometimes the principal
barrier under this heading. But if cities do not know of the existence of available
information, or cannot readily access it, then this will also impede policy learning.
Some interviewees also raised concerns over the reliability or objectivity of the
information available ( Section 4.4.3 and Section 5). Conclusions which cast a
particular innovation in an unduly favourable light, or fail to highlight limitations to
its wider application, will serve to undermine the credibility of those who use it, as
well as those who conducted the study in the first place.
7.3 Barriers to implementation
There is a substantial on- going search for better policies although this is variable and
could, according to the cities, be done more effectively. The European case studies in
particular suggest that the number of new policies which get implemented is small
relative to the numbers considered. Policy learning can and should lead to policies
being rejected as unsuitable. However, it is clear that there are also substantial
implementation barriers which mean that suitable policies either never make it to
the drawing board or are rejected.
Where there are several organisations involved in developing and approving new
investments, conflicts of objectives and preferred solutions can occur. This has been
the case for example historically with the Leeds ‘ Supertram’ scheme. These
governance structure barriers are likely to be more serious in cities where transport
responsibilities are spread across tiers of government ( Section 4.5).
The presence of funding streams which are specific to innovations, even if they only
cover a part of the innovation played a very strong role in their uptake, suggesting
that funding requirements are a potential barrier where such funding streams do
not exist. This appears particularly strong when the cities depend on national
governments for funding settlements ( Section 4.1.5).
Copenhagen has developed a congestion charging proposal but does not have the
powers to introduce a new tax and will therefore require a national legislative
change. This is also the case in San Francisco where state legislative authorisation is
needed to implement congestion pricing. The investment in policy learning is
uncertain therefore at this stage. Equally, there were examples where policies had to
be amended to take account of local legal differences ( enforcement of a low
emissions zone in Bremen) which underlines the potentially important role of
Page | 44
legislation and regulations. These constraints of legislation and regulations can
discourage policy learning and make any investment in such learning worthless
( Section 4.1.6).
While the private sector is often a significant source of innovation, private sector
involvement can in some situations limit the implementation of new policies. In
particular it can influence the ease with which new systems are developed,
responsibilities for funding them and the attribution of risks between different
parties. In general, the de- regulated case study sites in the UK have greater
implementation barriers as some co- ordination initiatives are seen as potentially
anti- competitive. Where franchise systems exist, short- term franchises were seen to
limit innovation as the ability to achieve a return on investment over the franchise
period was constrained. By contrast, public sector owned public transport
organisations are facing much greater pressures for subsidy reduction and
operational efficiency gains ( Section 3 and Section 4.2).
The risks associated with the introduction of innovations can be quite substantial,
both financially and politically. The difficulty with the introduction of the rubber
tyred tram in Nancy is a good example as was the failure to introduce cleaner
delivery fleets in Bremen.
It was suggested that it has become more difficult to introduce innovations over
time due to the tightening of staff resources within local government. Staff time
must be focused on basic programmes and services. Some cities focused on a single
innovation at a time as a result ( Sections 4.1.3 and 4.1.7).
Public acceptability of certain types of innovation, or more often fear that an
innovation will not be acceptable, often arises in the literature as a barrier to
implementation. Perhaps surprisingly, it was seldom mentioned in our interviews.
The Lyon respondents felt that the private sector was unduly wary of public reaction.
In Bremen, a tram scheme had not been supported by areas that would be affected
and in Edinburgh, the congestion charge proposal was rejected in a public
referendum ( in cont