INTELLIGENT ENERGY EUROPE Contract Number S12.589406 · Quality management tool for Urban Energy...

INTELLIGENT ENERGY EUROPE Contract Number S12.589406

Quality management tool for Urban Energy efficient Sustainable Transport

Work Package 5:

QUEST audit and certifying process Synthesis report. Deliverable 5.2

September 2013

Deliverable no. D5.2 Dissemination level Public Work Package WP5: Quest audit and certifying process Author(s) Michael Koucky (ed.) Co-author(s) Willy Sweers, Radomira Jordova Status (F: final, D: draft) F File Name QUEST WP5-report Project Start Date and Duration 10 May 2011 – 10 November 2013 – 30 months

10/10/2013 1 K&P (ed.)

QUEST WP5 Synthesis Report Public

10/10/2013 2 K&P (ed.)

Document History Version Date Description/Changes

1 20th Sept. 2013

Authors version, final draft

2 Oct 10 Edited, final version

Document flow Sent Date

Authors version 22 Sept. 2013

Edited, final version 10 Okt 2013

Approval

By Approval date

Project Management Committee 3 Okt 2013


10/10/2013 3 K&P (ed.)

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Purpose and structure of this document 4 2 Description of QUEST Work Package 5 4

2.1 Introduction 4

2.2 Planned activities and deliverables within Work Package 5 5

3 Activities within WP5 6 4 Process evaluation 9

4.1 Introduction 9

4.2 The audit 9

4.3 Stakeholder involvement / meetings 11

4.4 Activity of the cities 14

4.5 Commitment of cities – important for Action Plan implementation and certification 15

4.6 General on the QUEST method 15

4.7 General conclusions 17

5 Evaluation of impact 18 5.1 Introduction 18

5.2 Chosen focal areas 18

5.3 Methodology for estimating effects in terms of CO2-emission reduction 20

5.4 CO2-emission reduction 22

5.5 Discussion 23

6 General conclusions and considerations 24


1 Purpose and structure of this document This report is the synthesis report of QUEST Work Package 5, deliverable D5.2. Within work package 5, QUEST city audits have been performed in 40 cities in 13 European countries according to the method developed within QUEST and described in the QUEST-manual. Previously, 6 audits have been performed in test cities within WP4. This report aims at describing the activities within WP5 and the accumulated results and learnings from this work package. It is structured as follows:

- Introduction to QUEST and Work Package 5 – gives an overview of the WP and the planned activities

- Activities within WP5 – describes the activities that took place - Process evaluation – describes the results from the evaluation with auditors - Evaluation of effect – describes the estimated effect of measures in cities initiated by

QUEST audits in terms of expected CO2-reductions - General conclusions – reflects on the outcomes of WP5 - Summary of action plans

This public report is accompanied by a separate attachment comprising of the full results of the QUEST auditor survey and a summary of the suggested actions for all cities. This attachment is confidential.

2 Description of QUEST Work Package 5

2.1 Introduction QUEST is a Quality Management method to help small- and medium sized cities to set up and further develop their sustainable mobility policies and actions with the assistance of an external expert – the QUEST auditor. The method has been developed and tested in partner cities within the QUEST Work Package 4. The overarching goal of QUEST is to facilitate improvement processes towards more sustainable mobility in cities. See the QUEST-project webpage (quest-project.eu) and the QUEST-manual for further information.

The QUEST process consists of ten steps as illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1: The ten steps of the QUEST method

10/10/2013 4 K&P (ed.)


10/10/2013 5 K&P (ed.)

The QUEST Auditor plays a key role within QUEST. The auditor guides the city through the QUEST Process: auditing, self-assessment and action plan.

The main purpose of Work Package 5 within the QUEST-project is to implement QUEST city audits in a substantial number of additional European cities and produce city reports and action plans for these cities.

2.2 Planned activities and deliverables within Work Package 5 The key activity within WP5 according to the Description of Work is to perform complete QUEST audits according to the QUEST manual in selected cities. Trained QUEST-auditors should evaluated the urban transport policies in the participating cities, analyse their mobility policy and guide them in the development of an improvement programme. The auditors should base their recommendations on the specific local circumstances and take the specific needs of the policy makers in the participating cities and national legislation into account. These tailor-made recommendations should give the participating cities hands-on guidance in their future work for more sustainable transport policies and measures. Following tasks were planned according to the Description of Work of QUEST: Task 5.1: QUEST Scan – collecting background data for each city Task 5.2: QUEST Audit – performing a complete QUEST-audit for each city, resulting in an action plan and city report Task 5.3: QUEST Certifying – recognition of the cities’ efforts Task 5.4: Synthesis of QUEST results – this report The deliverables for WP5 are: D 5.1 Audit reports and recommendations for each involved city D 5.2 Synthesis report of QUEST results


10/10/2013 6 K&P (ed.)

3 Activities within WP5 The activities within WP5 followed the Description of Work with slight adaptations and are described below. All described tasks within WP5 were performed and all deliverables were produced.

See table 1 for a list of activities and involved partners. The main addition to the DoW was the creation of a Quality Control Group (QCG) consisting of core members of the group developing the QUEST methodology. The purpose of the QCG was to assist auditors in case questions concerning the methodology should arise when conduction an audit and to ensure that all auditors consistently follow the steps of the method. All auditors were requested to send an English summary of their city report to the QCG for approval and to answer to follow-up questions. This additional activity was introduced as support to the auditors and to safeguard the quality of the audits.

Table 1: List of activities within WP5 Activity Partner Comment

WP management CDV

QUEST Scan (Task 5.1) for all QUEST cities (see table 2)

All QUEST auditors (see table 2)

This step has now been integrated in Step 1 in the QUEST method

QUEST Audit (Task 5.2) for all QUEST cities (see table 2), production of QUEST Action Plan and City Report

All QUEST auditors and all participating cities (see table 2)

Quality control of QUEST city reports

Quality Control Group: CDV, TTR, K&P, L&P

A Quality Control Group (QCG) consisting of the core partners developing the QUEST methodology was introduced to ensure compliance with the QUEST methodology. All city reports have been sent to members of the QCG for feedback and approval. The QCG also served as support to auditors.

Endorsement of the QUEST Action Plan

participating cities The produced Action Plan was presented to the cities decision making bodies for endorsement

Certification of 46 Cities, handing over QUEST-certificates

L&P, participating cities

During the final conference on September 6 2013.

Feedback questionnaire to all auditors

CDV, with assistance of K&P

To gather the feedback and experience of the QUEST auditors to further improve the method.

Evaluation of feedback questionnaire, feed-back to method development

K&P The findings from the evaluation were used as input when further developing the method and as input for revising the QUEST manual

Production of the synthesis report

K&P, with assistance of L&P, CDV and information from all auditors.

To summarise the results and findings from WP5.

In total, 40 complete QUEST city audits were performed in WP5, in addition to the 6 city audits with partner cities in WP4. See tables 2 & 3 for a complete list of cities. For each of these cities, a city report was produced and the cities were granted a QUEST-certificate during the QUEST final conference in Budapest on September 6 2013. The full city reports of the cities who agreed on making them public are available on the QUEST webpage. They are written in local languages but all include a English summary. Three cities – Tournai (BE), Galati (RO) and Derry (U.K.) unfortunately ended their participation during the project for various reasons, mainly lack of time/resources.


10/10/2013 7 K&P (ed.)

Table 2: List of pilot cities of QUEST that have undergone a complete QUEST-audit (under WP4). A QUEST City Report including an Action Plan has been written and approved and all listed cities have been granted a QUEST certificate. Nr. City County Auditor Population (estimate)

41 Gent Belgium L&P 515 000

42 Padua Italy ISIS 212 000

43 San Sebastian-Donostia Spain ETT 180 000

44 Gävle Sweden K&P 94 000

45 Bath U.K. TTR 181 000

46 Chomutov Czech Republic CDV 51 000

Table 3: List of participating cities within WP5. All listed cities have undergone a complete QUEST-audit. A QUEST City Report including an Action Plan has been written and approved and all listed cities have been granted a QUEST certificate. Nr. City County Auditor Population (estimate)

1 Ceske Budejovice Czech Republic CDV 95 000

2 Hradec Kralove Czech Republic CDV 94 000

3 Jihlava Czech Republic CDV 52 000

4 Karvina Czech Republic CDV 65 000

5 Opava Czech Republic CDV 60 000

6 Liege Belgium L&P 200 000

7 Chambery France Citec 125 000

8 Valence France Citec 66 000

9 Grand Angouleme France Citec 108 000

10 Halle Germany L&P 230 000

11 Bekescsaba Hungary Mobil City 65 000

12 Szekesfehervar Hungary Mobil City 102 000

13 Veszprem Hungary Mobil City 64 000

14 Sopron Hungary Mobil City 61 000

15 Koprivnica Croatia Uni Maribor 32 000

16 Reggio Emilia Italy ISIS 170 000

17 San Benedetto del Tronto Italy ISIS 48 000

18 Treviso Italy ISIS 83 000

19 Pisa Italy ISIS 200 000

20 Baia Mare Romania Eurodite 138 000

21 Cluj Napoca Romania Eurodite 306 000

22 Satu Mare Romania Eurodite 113 000

23 Kranj Slovenia Uni Maribor 55 000

24 Murska Sobota Slovenia Uni Maribor 21 000

25 Ptuj Slovenia Uni Maribor 24 000

26 Burgos Spain ETT 180 000


10/10/2013 8 K&P (ed.)

27 Mostoles Spain ETT 205 000

28 Orihuela munic. Spain ETT 95 000

29 Rivas-Vaciamadrid Spain ETT 76 000

30 Borås Sweden K&P 104 000

31 Halmstad Sweden K&P 91 000

32 Lidköping Sweden K&P 38 000

33 Mölndal Sweden K&P 60 000

34 Trollhättan Sweden K&P 56 000

35 Breda Netherlands L&P 175 000

36 Deventer Netherlands L&P 97 000

37 Eindhoven Netherlands L&P 217 000

38 Blackburn with Darwen U.K. TTR 141 000

39 Milton Keynes U.K. TTR 246 000

40 Inverness U.K. TTR 60 000

All deliverables for WP5 according to the DoW have been produced and are available as presented in table 4. Deliverable 5.2 has been slightly delayed, mainly due to difficulties in estimating the CO2-impact of measures. This delay does not affect other parts of the project.

Table 4: List of deliverables for WP5 Deliverable Availability Comment

D 5.1 Audit reports and recommendations for each involved city

The full city reports for all cities that agreed on making them public (most cities) are available on the QUEST webpage, including summaries in English (quest-project.eu). See also tables 2&3.

The full city reports of all cities all available to EACI through the project coordinator L&P. The decision whether the full report is made public has been left to each participating city. The participating cities can choose their own channels of dissemination.

D 5.2 Synthesis report of QUEST results

Sent to EACI on XXXX and published on the QUEST webpage

This deliverable has been slightly delayed.


10/10/2013 9 K&P (ed.)

4 Process evaluation

4.1 Introduction This chapter describes the results of the evaluation of the QUEST process by the auditors. To be able to evaluate and further develop the QUEST methodology, all QUEST auditors have been asked to fill in an extensive questionnaire concerning their experiences with the method. The questionnaire was sent out in spring 2013, after the auditors had finished their city audits and the return rate of the questionnaire was 100%. The result can thus be considered giving a well-grounded feedback on the experience with the QUEST method. The questionnaire including the auditors full answers (anonymised) are included in appendix 1. Below, the questions, a summary of the auditors’ answers and the drawn conclusions and proposed actions are presented.

4.2 The audit Question 1: Were the cities willing to provide information for the audit part of QUEST? Was the subsequent phone interview sufficient or would you prefer personal meeting? Summary of answers Basically all cities provided the necessary information. If problems occurred it was uncertainty whether certain documents existed or lack of information. The telephone interview has proved an efficient method to clarify questions and verify data. Some auditors found personal meetings very useful and stressed the importance of those to engage city staff, explain the QUEST process but also to sort out questions. Also, personal meetings could potentially provide more details. Findings and recommendations

• Most cities seem to be able and willing to provide the necessary information, some needed extra help. No changes in the method are suggested.

• Performing telephone interviews to verify the answers and provide additional information proved a valuable method and it is suggested to keep this a mandatory part of the QUEST-method.

• The auditor should be free to replace the telephone interview with an equivalent personal meeting if considered appropriate and possible. Such a meeting should be performed after the city sent in its answers (as the phone interview) and could be combined with a field visit by the auditor to get an impression of the mobility situation in the city.

• A kick-off meeting to introduce the QUEST-process to the city is certainly positive but not recommended as mandatory.

Question 2: Would you prefer to receive more documents for the audit appraisal? Which ones? Summary of answers Most auditors found the amount of documents received sufficient to perform the audit. Issues raised were that also information on planned projects or activities should be provided and considered, not only finalised ones, and that information in cities without a mobility plan can


10/10/2013 10 K&P (ed.)

be scattered in different policy documents that need to be identified by the auditor. Further, additional background research on the mobility situation of the city by the auditor is suggested, e.g. through internet- and map-searches. Findings and recommendations The proposed level of detail and documents seem sufficient, no changes are suggested. Auditors are recommended to also request information on upcoming projects and policy changes and to consider those in the audit. For cities that lack a coherent mobility plan, the auditor should point out the policy documents that have relevance for mobility and suggest this collection of documents as a starting point for a mobility plan. The auditor should also point out contradictory goals or policies if applicable. Question 3: Have you had enough documents and data for allocating the cities into the tracks? If not what were you missing the most? Why were not the documents available, what was the barrier? Summary of answers Generally, the auditors considered that they had sufficient information to allocate the cities to tracks. The most common problem was lack of or unreliability of modal split data. Some auditors used their personal experience of the city and additional research to allocate cities to a track. Allocating a city to a track which the city cannot associate with, e.g. due to lack of information, can lead to the city losing confidence in the method. Findings and recommendations The necessary information seems available. However, the formal allocation of a city to a track is a blunt instrument and does not provide much additional value in the QUEST-process (compared to the assessment-results). It can further be perceived as stigmatising by cities. This does of course not mean that the auditor has no need to consider whether he/she deals with a beginner- or an advanced city, but that information is available without a formal allocation to a track. The auditor should therefore form him/herself an own opinion on how advanced the city is and adapt the process and suggested measures to that, but not formally use the concept of tracks or ranking. Question 4: How did you feel about the modal split data that the cities provided? How were these data collected? Were you confident that these were accurate and robust data? Summary of answers Generally, the availability and reliability of modal split data for cities was poor. Either did the data not exist at all, or it was outdated. In some cases the latest data was collected 13 years ago. Another problem was reliability and comparability of data due to differences in methodology. The lack of up-to-date modal split data in itself has however been an important finding in several cities Findings and recommendations Poor or no modal split data seems to be rather the norm than the exception. Auditors should find ways to at least roughly estimate modal split, if nothing else by observation and comparison with other cities. Cities with lacking or outdated modal split data should be recommended to work on this issue.


10/10/2013 11 K&P (ed.)

4.3 Stakeholder involvement / meetings

Question 5: Please evaluate the selection process of stakeholders for the self-assessment (SAT) group and its final list. How were the stakeholders contacted? Was it appropriate? Was there any difficult target group, any lack of certain kind of stakeholders? Do you have any recommendations for improvement?

Summary of answers Generally the selection of stakeholders was performed according to the suggestions in the manual. In most cases, the city recruited the stakeholders after discussions with the auditor. This was done by sending e-mails but also through personal communication, which proved more successful. One auditor stressed the importance that the city clearly presents the QUEST goals and tasks when communicating to stakeholders. For the stakeholder-survey, a web-based approach was suggested by one partner. One partner (K&P) has successfully used internet-based tools for performing the survey (Survey Monkey). To balance the different stakeholder groups has partly proven difficult. Whilst city officials were easy to recruit, it was more difficult to identify and attract representatives of the business community. Further, it was not always easy to find representatives for end-users and this group was partly poorly represented. Representatives for end-users that are organised in associations (e.g. cyclists ass.) could be found, but not for other groups as e.g. public transport users or „ordinary car-drivers“. Further it was found that it is important to fix meeting dates early. One partner suggested to involve journalists in the process, this was accepted in one city and rejected by another city. Findings and recommendations The suggested stakeholder groups and the distribution seems adequate and should remain as such. However, city officials easily become the largest group and the auditor should take care that this group does not become too dominant. The auditor should stress the importance to identify and involve representatives from the business community, end-users and other interest-groups and NGO:s. To achieve that, the purpose of the QUEST-process and the stakeholders’ possibility to influence should be stressed in communication. Some partners report very positive experiences of involving the business sector in meetings. Further the auditor should stress the importance of relatively equal distribution. The use of online-tools for the stakeholder-survey is recommended in countries where internet-usage is common. It facilitates to reach out to larger groups of end-users and greatly facilitates the processing of results. Whether or not to use online-tools should however be the choice of the auditor. One partner used the Survey Monkey, but probably many other survey-tools are suitable. The date of the meetings should be set well in advance and adapted to key-stakeholders availability if necessary. Question 6: Do you find the Self Assessment Questionnaires (SAQ) appropriate? If not, do you or your city/ies have any recommendation for improvement of the questionnaire? If the SAQ was not seen by the SAT groups as the best way to elicit the information we require, could you please suggest alternative means how to collect their views (e.g. an interview)? Summary of answers


10/10/2013 12 K&P (ed.)

In general the SAQ has been considered suitable to gather stakeholder views, but improvements were suggested. A main problem seems to have been that the provided options are perceived as ambiguous and some stakeholders wanted to choose more than one answer as correct for their city. Some stakeholders found the questionnaire difficult and time-consuming. Some detailed changes were suggested. Findings and recommendations The questionnaire should be revised. If the current format, with text-answers is continued, the options have to be described in a way that allows for more distinct choices. A suggested option is to abandon the method of describing options to choose and rather formulate the question in a way that allows for answering on a scale of e.g. 1-4 (poor-excellent). This will probably imply some loss of detail, but on the other hand facilitate filling in the questionnaire and evaluation. Further, the questions of the Self-Assessment should be brought in line with the city-audit performed by the auditor, so that the results can be directly compared. This is today only partly the case. Question 7: Evaluate the process of focus areas selection. At which phase was it done, what was the basis for the selection? Do you have any recommendations for improvement? Summary of answers All in all the selection of a focal area seems to have worked well in cooperation with the city. In most cases the selection has been based on weaknesses identified in the QUEST-audit and confirmed by the city, but sometimes the city tended to focus also on the areas which were already on a good way, wanting to deepen it and discuss more possibilities, not only on the weakest ones. Findings and recommendations The selection of the focal area seems to work well. It is to be seen as a cooperative decision between the auditor and the city, but the city always has the final word. When choosing the focal area, several aspects need to be considered:

‐ There is potential for improvements within the focal area, as identified by the QUEST-audit

‐ The focal are needs to fit in ongoing processes in the city, e.g. what topics are on the (political) agenda

Question 8: In terms of discussion process and objectivity, was the fact that the role of moderator and auditor were connected convenient? According to your opinion would you prefer to separate these two roles? Summary of answers Most auditors felt that combining the role of the auditor and the role of moderator in meetings unproblematic and in most cases beneficial. The auditor has best knowledge of the QUEST-approach and is a neutral in the sense that he/she is not representing the city or particular interests. This neutral role was easy to perform in the first stakeholder meeting, but more difficult during the second meeting where measures for action plan are presented and the auditor gives his/her expert opinion. In some cases, the auditor “pointed” some stakeholders towards measures they were not familiar with.


10/10/2013 13 K&P (ed.)

Several auditors expressed that it is useful to have a colleague present during the stakeholder-meetings to take notes, so that the moderator can concentrate on the group process. Findings and recommendations It is recommended that the moderator-role remains with the auditor. Having city-staff taking on the role of a meeting moderator would demand that they are briefed and suitable for the task, which cannot be taken for granted. The external auditor has further the advantage of being perceived as more neutral by all stakeholders since he/she is not directly representing the city. If possible, it is strongly recommended that the auditor is supported by a colleague or city staff to take notes during the meetings, so that he/she can concentrate on managing the discussions rather than taking notes. This person could also be asked to present a summary of the discussions at the end. If this is not possible to find person to take notes, it is recommended to record the meeting if all parties agree. Question 9: Would you prefer short field excursion for deeper involvement of stakeholders within one of the stakeholder meetings? Would it be contributing? In what phase? Or would you appreciate a short field trip just for yourself together with the city staff to get more insight into transport activities of the city (if it is a new city you do not know well) in the early audit phase? What about combination of both? Summary of answers Most auditors found that a field visit by the auditor in the early stages of the audit could proof useful, with or without city staff. A field visit with stakeholders is however considered nor necessary nor practical due to time restrains. Findings and recommendations A field visit to the city in the early stages of the audit is strongly recommended if the auditor is not already familiar with the city. This can be combined with a meeting with city staff. This should however not be a mandatory part of the method. A field trip involving stakeholders is not recommended due to time restrictions. Question 10: Do you feel that two visits to a city are sufficient (for the stakeholder meetings)? How useful would it have been to visit each city prior to the first stakeholder meeting (either for the audit in person or technical visit etc.)? To what extent would it have improved the process if the Meeting 3 was conducted on a separate day, (entailing an additional visit)? Summary of answers Many auditors pointed out that it would be beneficial for the process to have more than two visits to the city during the process. This mainly to familiarise with the situation in the city but also to allow for time to prepare between the second stakeholder meeting and the meeting with city staff. It is however not considered an absolute necessity for the QUEST-process and the need depends on the auditors’ previous knowledge of the city and on practical considerations. Findings and recommendations


10/10/2013 14 K&P (ed.)

Two visits should be considered an absolute minimum but can be sufficient if the auditor has previous knowledge and contacts with the city. If possible, a start-up meeting with the city is recommended to explain the QUEST-process and to familiarise the auditor with the mobility situation in the city. This visit could also be combined with the interview with city staff necessary for the audit and/or a field visit by the auditor. Whether the third meeting (with city staff) should be arranged on the same day as the second stakeholder meeting is up to the auditor. There are practical benefits with arranging the meeting the same day and this might be a necessity if a visit implies considerable travel time. There are however benefits in separating the visits, e.g. that the auditor and city staff have more time to prepare. The benefits of a separate meeting day or additional visits have therefore to be balanced against the disadvantages in form of added travel-time and –cost for each individual case.

4.4 Activity of the cities Question 11: What was the main motivation for the cities to join the QUEST project? Were politicians interested in QUEST? Why? Summary of answers Most cities joined the QUEST project to identify possibilities for improvements in the field of sustainable strategy and to get an outside view on their current situation. For some cities, the possibility for learning from other cities in a EU-project was a further factor. The fact that QUEST would lead to a certificate had a certain importance, but was not a key factor. Findings and recommendations Most cities chose to join the QUEST-project to get assistance to improve their work on sustainable mobility and to get outside support. This is exactly in line with the intentions of QUEST. It is therefore important to stress the practical benefits for the city when trying to convince new cities to use the QUEST method. The certificate should be seen as an additional benefit rather than the main selling argument. Question 12: Were the cities in general open for the cooperation? Have you have to overcome any barrier? Were they active themselves? Did they bring some tips for improvement for ex. for Action Plan or their transport planning / policy? Or did you make the proposals yourself and the cities did just selection from the list? How did they respond? Recommend how to stimulate their activity. Summary of answers In general, the cities were open and collaborated actively. In some cases, the cities expected the auditor to provide solutions rather than actively developing them with own suggestions in cooperation with other stakeholders. Some cities had to be reminded about deadlines and needed support, e.g. for identifying stakeholders. Findings and recommendations All in all the cities seem to understand their role and obligations in the QUEST-process well. To facilitate the process, it is recommended that the auditor provide the contact person of the city with a clear list of practical tasks needed in QUEST and agreed deadlines for each task. This can include e.g. filling in the audit-questionnaire, coming up with a list of stakeholders, send out invitations etc. Further, the auditor needs to stress in early contacts with the city that it is an integral part of the QUEST-methodology that suggested actions are developed


10/10/2013 15 K&P (ed.)

collectively within the stakeholder group rather than suggested by the auditor as an external expert only.

4.5 Commitment of cities – important for Action Plan implementation and certification

Question 13: How will / did you evaluate the city is really committed to implement the AP and eligible for QUEST certification? Summary of answers Most cities seemed committed to implement at least some of the suggested actions developed within QUEST. Proof of commitment can vary – in some cases the action plan has been politically endorsed and some actions have been financed in the city budget. For longer-term actions, it is more difficult to proof the cities real commitment more than through the existence of long-term goals and strategies. Findings and recommendations The very fact that the cities actively work within QUEST is proof of commitment itself. Auditors should strongly suggest that there is budget set aside to implement at least some of the suggested short-term actions and that suggested structural changes and long-term actions are integrated in steering documents or politically endorsed. If possible is further recommended to identify possible actions that can be implemented quickly without major changes in the cities existing budget.

4.6 General on the QUEST method Question 14: Did you adapt the QUEST method in any element (process or content) to the city particularities in some phase of the project? In which way? Why? Could this adaption be beneficial to the whole method? In what sense? Summary of answers In most cases, the QUEST-methodology was used without major adaptations. However, some adaptations occurred, e.g.:

• Choice of focal area: The focal area was agreed upon by the auditor and the city, not influenced by the results of the stakeholder questionnaire

• Another focal area than the ones suggested by the QUEST-manual was chosen when found suitable.

• Some auditors chose not to show the audit-results and stakeholder questionnaire by using the spiderweb-diagramme but explained the results more qualitatively.

• Some auditors chose to organise the discussions in stakeholder-meeting two (defining actions) by splitting the participants in several smaller groups, and then to discuss the results of these sub-groups in the large groups.

• The questionnaire was adapted to better reflect the national circumstances.

Findings and recommendations


10/10/2013 16 K&P (ed.)

All in all the QUEST-method was found to work well as it is. Some adaptations to better fit local circumstances should however be allowed as long as the key elements of the QUEST-process are not lost. The suggested focal areas should be seen as guidelines and inspiration rather than binding. If the auditor in dialogue with the city decides on a suitable focal area not listed in the QUEST-manual then this is no problem. The choice of the focal area should be based on the cities needs and where progress seems necessary and possible, not on a set list. If the use of figure-scores or diagrams seems out of place for the discussions with the city and stakeholders, the auditor should be allowed to use other means to explain and communicate the current status of the city. The auditor has however the obligation to clearly communicate the current situation of the city as compared to best practice so that the city and the stakeholders understand where they stand and where improvements are necessary. When it comes to organising the discussions in the stakeholder-meetings, the auditor should choose the most suitable meeting form given the local situation. Important is to ensure that all participating stakeholders get the possibility and are encourage to actively take part in discussions and to present their views. Question 15: Please estimate the time needed for the different steps and tasks in QUEST process. Where do you see possibilities to save time, where is more time needed? Summary of answers In general the timeframe suggested in the QUEST-manual seems to be realistic but maybe on the short side for some tasks. Especially the writing of the action plan took more time than anticipated for several auditors. Tools like using an on-line survey for data collection and the stakeholder-questionnaire can save time in the process. Findings and recommendations The suggested timeframes in the QUEST-manual have proven to be realistic but can be on the lower-end of the scale in some cases. Auditors need to be efficient and careful not to waste time in the process, and it can be expected that new auditors will need more time than more experienced ones to go through the QUEST-process. The use of time-saving tools such as using online questionnaires for the stakeholder survey etc. (when adequate) is encouraged to free time for the development of the action plan. Cities that already have a SUMP and are advanced in the field of urban mobility can be expected to demand less time for the audit since the availability of data is generally better, whereas more time-demand needs to be expected in less advanced cities. Question 16: Would it be appropriate to focus more on the definition of sustainable mobility (before distribution of the Self Assessment Questionnaires and at the beginning of the first meeting)? Summary of answers The auditors have mixed experiences in this area, probably depending on the general awareness level on sustainable mobility in the respective country and city. The general impression seems however to be that a general introduction to the concept of sustainable mobility seems appropriate during the first stakeholder meeting. Findings and recommendations Despite not being a formal part of the QUEST-methodology, it seems appropriate that the auditors sets the QUEST-process in a larger context during the first stakeholder meeting.


10/10/2013 17 K&P (ed.)

This could be achieved by shortly explaining the main challenges concerning sustainable urban mobility, e.g. as defined in the EC-White Paper on urban transport. Further, European, national and local goals on sustainability and urban transport could be introduced to frame the purpose of the QUEST-process, before explaining the QUEST-approach. It is important to stress the intention of QUEST, to find locally adapted and acceptable solutions to challenges that are universal to most cities.

4.7 General conclusions The feedback from the auditors provided valuable information for the further development of the QUEST method. The overall feedback is that the method works well, the suggested timeframe for the various steps is realistic and the provided tools adequate. Improvements in detail and adaptations to local circumstances are however suggested. Several of the suggested improvements have been incorporated in the revised version of the QUEST manual (Deliverable 4.1 Revised version). The most significant change to the method due to the results from the feedback from auditors was to skip the assignment of cities to a specific track. It showed that some cities might see this as labelling and a poor mark might be perceived as negative and distractive to the task improvement-process. Further it is stipulated that auditors use web-based tools for data collection, namely the stakeholder-survey if this is adequate in the context of the city to be audited.


5 Evaluation of impact

5.1 Introduction This chapter describes the expected results of the QUEST Action plans in the 46 involved cities. It describes the main chosen focal areas and gives an estimate of the effect of the proposed actions in terms of expected CO2-emission reductions. A summary of the suggested actions for each city can be found in appendix 2.

5.2 Chosen focal areas The most commonly chosen focal areas were public transport, parking and cycling. The distribution of the most common focal areas is presented in figure 2, a list with chosen areas in table 5. Observe that most cities have chosen more than one focal area.

Figure 2: Frequency of chosen focal areas. Observer that most cities have chosen more than one focal area.

0 5 10 15 20 25

Spacial planning

Goods delivery/Freigth

Traffic Management

Walking

Mobility Management

Others

Cycling

Parking

Public transport

Table 5: List of chosen focal areas Nr. City County Focal area(s)

1 Ceske Budejovice Czech Republic cycling, public transport, spatial planning

2 Hradec Kralove Czech Republic cycling and parking

3 Jihlava Czech Republic Public Transport

4 Karvina Czech Republic public transport and parking

5 Opava Czech Republic cycling, public transport and parking

6 Liege Belgium Parking

7 Chambery France Parking, delivery of goods

8 Valence France Parking, bicycling

9 Grand Angouleme France Delivery of goods, mobility management

10 Halle Germany User needs, How can ‘local mobility’ support local structures

10/10/2013 18 K&P (ed.)


10/10/2013 19 K&P (ed.)

Nr. City County Focal area(s)

11 Bekescsaba Hungary cycling, public transportation and parking

12 Szekesfehervar Hungary walking, public transportation and mobility management

13 Veszprem Hungary walking, public transportation and parking

14 Sopron Hungary cycling, public transportation and parking

15 Koprivnica Croatia Cycling, walking, parking

16 Reggio Emilia Italy Traffic management, Mobility management

17 San Benedetto del Tronto

Italy Public Transport, Cycling policies, Traffic Management and parking policies

18 Treviso Italy Cycling mobility, Public Transport and Information on mobility

19 Pisa Italy Public Transport; Cycling policies

20 Baia Mare Romania Public transport, Parking, Mobility Management

21 Cluj Napoca Romania Cycling, public transport, public awareness

22 Satu Mare Romania Public transport, Parking, Cycling

23 Kranj Slovenia public transport, with walking and parking as secondary objective

24 Murska Sobota Slovenia walking, parking and public transport

25 Ptuj Slovenia cycling, public transport and parking

26 Burgos Spain Bicycle mobility, Public Transport

27 Mostoles Spain Cycling Mobility, Freight traffic and distribution.

28 Orihuela munic. Spain Urban planning, public transport, School mobility management

29 Rivas-Vaciamadrid Spain Cycling, Mobility Management

30 Borås Sweden Parking

31 Halmstad Sweden Commuter travel

32 Lidköping Sweden Mobility management

33 Mölndal Sweden sustainable mobility in new developments

34 Trollhättan Sweden Parking

35 Breda Netherlands Access restrictions, parking

36 Deventer Netherlands traffic network, cycling, pedestrianisation

37 Eindhoven Netherlands parking, walking

38 Blackburn with Darwen

U.K. Cycling, public transport

39 Milton Keynes U.K. public transport, cycling and stakeholder engagement processes

40 Inverness U.K. Public Transport, Parking and Traffic Management


10/10/2013 20 K&P (ed.)

Nr. City County Focal area(s)

41 Gent Belgium

42 Padua Italy

43 San Sebastian-Donostia

Spain

44 Gävle Sweden Public transport

45 Bath U.K.

46 Chomutov Czech Republic

5.3 Methodology for estimating effects in terms of CO2-emission reduction The fields of impact of the actions suggested for urban transport in the QUEST Action Plans are multiple – energy use and CO2-emissions, local air quality, congestion, noise, accessibility, quality of life to name the most central ones. To estimate the impact of measures on all these aspects of urban transport is beyond the scope of this report. This report concentrates on estimation the expected reduction of CO2-emissions from traffic due to the actions suggested and endorsed during the QUEST-project. All QUEST action plans have been analysed for their impact on carbon emissions. A calculation template has been set up to estimate the impact of the measures proposed to the city from implementation starting 2013 up to 2020. The estimation of the climate impact of policy measures is difficult and filled with assumptions. We have tried to base our estimations on the integral anticipated impact of the suggested package of measures on the modal split between transport modes.

The principles of estimation The main objective of Quest is to help the city indentify and set up mobility planning measures the reduce the citizens’ dependency of the car for their everyday travelling. People are being encouraged to change their travel modes from the car towards walking, cycling and public transport as the preferred and climate friendly modes of travelling. We assume that the reduction of car use is directly related to the reduction of carbon emissions, because:

- walking doesn’t emit carbon from fossil fuels - cycling doesn’t emit carbon from fossil fuels - we assume that public transport will not expand its services when taking up new

passengers, we assume that they can travel using capacity that is currently available. So shifting to pt does not increase current carbon emissions.

Effects of introducing electric vehicles or freight consolidation services have been excluded from the estimation. The effect of electric vehicles is very depending of the source of electricity. If it has been generated in fossil fuel power plants, the effect is subject to controversy. Freight consolidation systems have not yet been analysed for their fuel consumption effects; their main purpose is to facilitate urban development in a low traffic environment.

So by estimating the reduction of car trips, we roughly estimate the carbon impact of the action plan:


Carbon impact = (number of reduced trips) x (average trip length-km) x (emission per km – gCO2/km).

Usually, only short car trips will be replaced by walking and cycling. People tend to avoid trips that take longer than 30-45 minutes. So we differentiate between short and long trips. National statistics on mobility show often that the car is being use even for short and very short trips. Parameters of national statistics have been used to calculate the appropriate average trip lengths. For the carbon emission, the European average has been used, 186 gCO2/km. We are aware that new cars that are coming to the market, have a far better performance. But we still don’t know what the impact of that will be on the car fleet as a whole. The average emission of the vehicle fleets will gradually sink, but slowly since the replacement rate is relatively low. For this reason, we use the current average for the estimate until 2020.

The estimation of the reduction of car trips has been carried out by the local auditors. We are convinced that this can only be done by experts involved in setting up the action plan and taking into account the national context and local conditions. The local auditors were requested to provide their estimate of the potential reduction of car trips once the measures are fully implemented. The absolute figures are calculated based on population size, average number of trips per day and modal split figures provided by the local auditors.

See table 6 for an calculation for an example city (anonymised). In this example, the measures are expected to reduce car use with 84 995 car-km daily, ca. 3% of all car-kilometres.

Table 6: Example of the calculations to estimate the change of car-travel in an anonymised QUEST city, based on population size, current travel data and the estimated accumulated impact of all suggested measures.

QUEST Action Plan Potential Impact Estimation City Code Auditor

Number of inhabitants of City 170 960 XXXX XX L&PDaily Car trips BEFORE Quest Action Plan

2,71 total trips per day per inhabitant40,0% modal share car1,08 total car trips per day per inhabitant 19,16556 total car trip pp kms 185 115 daily car trips0,54 of which: trips < 7,5 km 1,8949 total car trips pp < 7,5 km 92 558 daily sh trips17,70 average car trips length 31,90 avarage all trips length 3 276 544 daily car km3,50 average trip length < 7,5 km 33,78 year ‐million car trips long186 g/km car carbon emission 33,78 year ‐million car trips short609 total daily Tons car carbon emission 2012 1 196 year ‐million km car

222 445 total yearly Tons car carbon emission 2012Modal shift impact: trips : 750 km : 2 625 to walking

18 000 63 000 to cycling2 500 8 750 to pt short500 8 850 to pt long100 1 770 stay@home % of reduction

12% 21 850 84 995 total trips 3%

To allow for that measures are not likely to have full effect already year one or might take time to become fully implemented, a stepwise approach has been used for calculating the accumulated effect, according to table 7 below.

10/10/2013 21 K&P (ed.)


Table 7: Assumed factors to which extend the suggested measures will give effect once they have been adopted.

Year 1 / 2013 2 / 2014 3 / 2015 4 / 2016 5 / 2017 6 / 2018 7 / 2019 8 / 2020

% of expected full effect

15% 40% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Based on the results from the calculations of the reduction of car-kilometres on a daily basis, the total annual reduction is calculated for the years 2013-2020, using the weighting-factors from table 7. Based on these reduction figures and the average CO2-emission of cars, the potential annual CO2-reduction of the measures is thus roughly estimated and accumulated for the period 2013-2020. Emission-reductions beyond the year 2020 have not been accounted for.

Table 8: Estimated reduction of CO2-emissions from traffic in an example city due to measures suggested during the QUEST-project. The estimated emission-reductions are accumulated emission-reductions

Car trips AFTER Quest Action PlanPOTENTIAL REDUCTIONS KM‐car year one year four

15% 40% 75% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%from/to 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20to walking 0,0% 0,0% 0,

201% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1%

to cycling 0,3% 0,8% 1,4% 1,9% 1,9% 1,9% 1,9% 1,9%to pt short 0,0% 0,1% 0,2% 0,3% 0,3% 0,3% 0,3% 0,3%to pt long 0,0% 0,1% 0,2% 0,3% 0,3% 0,3% 0,3% 0,3%stay@home 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1%total reduction of km from long trips: 0,0% 0,0% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1% 0,1%total reduction of km from short trips: 0,4% 1,0% 1,8% 2,5% 2,5% 2,5% 2,5% 2,5%total reduction of car trips: 0,4% 1,0% 1,9% 2,5% 2,5% 2,5% 2,5% 2,5%

km reduced per year: 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 20km reduction o

20f long trips: 484 538 1 292 100 2 422 688 3 230 250 3 230 250 3 230 250 3 230 250 3 230 250

km reduction of short trips: 4 072 031 10 858 750 20 360 156 27 146 875 27 146 875 27 146 875 27 146 875 27 146 875 km reduction of all car trips: 4 556 569 12 150 850 22 782 844 30 377 125 30 377 125 30 377 125 30 377 125 30 377 125 ton CO2 reduction car 848 2 260 4 238 5 650 5 650 5 650 5 650 5 650 total reduction since 2013 848 3 108 7 345 12 995 18 645 24 296 29 946 35 596

5.4 CO2-emission reduction These calculations presented in chapter 5.3 have been performed for all 46 QUEST cities. Table 9 shows the accumulated results for all cities for which data was available, clustered according to development-tracks where Track 1 stands for beginner cities and track 3 for the most advanced cities in terms of sustainable mobility within the QUEST-project (see also the QUEST-manual).

Data was available for 41 out of 46 QUEST cities, representing over 80% of the accumulated number of inhabitants of all QUEST cities. See also the separate appendix for a full table of results.

10/10/2013 22 K&P (ed.)


Table 9: Estimated reduction of CO2-emissions from traffic due to measures suggested during the QUEST-project. The estimated emission-reductions are accumulated emission-reductions for the period 2014-2020. Reductions beyond 2020 are not included in the estimation.

5.5 Discussion We are aware of the quite modest accuracy of the carbon impact estimation as we have set it up. The calculation is based on an accumulation of assumptions, given the limited knowledge of mobility planning effects. Besides that, we have done a forecast on actions that cities have committed themselves to take up but in most cases still need elaboration and implementation. But then again, this is as good as it gets. Some action plans might have been overestimated in their effects, and some have been very modest in their impacts. For some cities, data is missing and an estimate was not possible.

For the Quest-project as a whole, we think that the outcome nevertheless provides a useful exercise in quantifying the merits of the method. We have decided not to present outcomes of individual cities or countries; these data would not be reliable enough for prudent interpretation and after all – QUEST is not a beauty contest. We present the results for the tracks and for the project as a whole. We compare the results with the expected impact as stated in the deliverable on impact estimation.

The expected reduction of CO2-emissions from transport in the QUEST cities due to actions suggested in the QUEST Action Plans is in the scale of magnitude of 5%. This can be considered both a realistic and positive impact, given that the QUEST process aims at policy changes and focuses on selected focal areas only. This figure also underlines the fact that reducing CO2-emissions from urban transport is a considerable challenge that needs policy efforts on all levels combined with progress in technology.

10/10/2013 23 K&P (ed.)


10/10/2013 24 K&P (ed.)

6 General conclusions and considerations WP5 is the key work package of the QUEST project. In this work package all research, method development and auditors’ training culminate in the actual guiding of cities in setting up an Action Plan with measures towards sustainable mobility.

The work package has achieved its goals as stated in the DoW and resulted in 40 full city reports, including detailed action plans for each city with proposed short- and long-term measures for sustainable transport as well as for organisational improvements to strengthen the city’s capacity. These measure are expected to receive support when implemented, since they have been discussed with city representatives and local stakeholders. Including the 6 test cities in WP4, in total 46 cities have been awarded the QUEST Certificate at the Final Conference. Only three cities decided for various reasons not to go through with a full QUEST Audit, compared to the initial ambition of 50 audited cities at the end of the project, this is a success rate of 92%.

It is not only the achieved number of certificates that presents a good result. The action plans clearly focus on important issues that really matter for shifting modes to sustainable mobility. Public transport, parking and cycling were the most common areas that were chosen as focal areas. But many cities included also other, related areas to their action plans. These cities have become aware that in the end success will depend on achieving an integrated approach to urban and mobility planning.

The experiences of the performed audits clearly shows that the QUEST method is practical and applicable, both from the perspective of the auditor and the cities. There is a general acceptance of the method and strong commitment to the results in the Action Plans. Practical testing and evaluation has been a key element in the development of the QUEST method – in line with the spirit of Total Quality Management – with systematic feedback both after the first round of pilot city and at the end of WP5. Room for improvement and considerations for adaptability to local needs and context have been identified, incorporated into the manual and communicated to the QUEST auditors for future use in European cities.

The expected impact of the action plans has been assessed with regard to carbon footprint. With a clear set of assumptions estimations have been made of the expected modal shift from car use to environmentally friendly modes of transport in each city. The overall results show a predicted yearly reduction of approximately 5% of car related carbon emissions, culminating in 2,8 million ton C02 up to 2020, which is almost 0,5 ton CO2 per inhabitant. For a relative simple and easy-to-use tool, this is a good and promising result with a high effort/result ratio. On top of that, we have to keep in mind that these reductions do not represent the full potential for mobility planning. A QUEST Action Plan only addresses one or a few focal areas. A next cycle of policy development will address other topics that can add to the impact of the first generation QUEST Action Plan. We are quite confident that cities will be widening their range of measures, since most cities have indicated specific topics with regard to staff training, capacity building and stakeholder involvement. Their participation in the QUEST-project ended with receiving their Certificate; concerning mobility planning it was only the end of the beginning.

INTELLIGENT ENERGY EUROPE Contract Number S12.589406 · Quality management tool for Urban Energy...

Documents

Transcript of INTELLIGENT ENERGY EUROPE Contract Number S12.589406 · Quality management tool for Urban Energy...