Thredbo 19 Workshop Themes

Workshop 1a,b: Resetting Bus Contracts After 40 Years of Experience

Chair: Roger Vickerman (University of Kent, UK)
Rapporteur: Wijnand Veeneman (TU Delft, the Netherlands)

Chair: Andrei Dementiev (HSE University, Russia)
Rapporteur: Patricia Galilea (Pontifica Universidad Catolica de Chile)

In the last 40 years we have seen an accumulation of global experiences in delivering bus services under a range of contractual arrangements, including public ownership and hybrid governance structures. The focus has been on the relationship between contracting authority and operator rather than the wider social and economic value to the community.  This Workshop will look again at the role and nature of bus contracts in the context of changing market circumstances, changing technologies, concern about accessibility and equity for bus users, constraints on public finances and governance.

Driven initially by an ideological position that competition in the market is highly desirable in delivering cost efficient services (linked mainly to competing bus services, in contrast to the broader multi-modal competitive element), it was not long before the natural monopoly argument was used, especially in urban contexts, in recognition of the risk and often evidence of inefficient competitive outcomes through economic deregulation. This led to a global preference for competition for the market (or competitive tendering) in settings where government wished to move away from publicly owned and provided bus services. In some contexts, it was decided to stay with an incumbent operator under a negotiated performance based contracting regime. We now have a significant amount of real-world experience with many versions of such contracts, with lessons learnt, positive and negative, giving a rich array of ideas that should be embedded in what we might do to improve on the delivery of bus services, given the set of primary objectives linked at least to customer service and value for (taxpayers) money.

This workshop will discuss a contract reset strategy within which we can propose significant changes to the way in which bus contracts are delivered. The arguments and proposals are sufficiently generic to apply to any context in which all relevant stakeholders, not just the regulator and the operator, but also the passenger and taxpayer, would want to venture in developing and implementing the next generation of bus contracts. Some key elements that need reform include a move to more flexible contracts, identifying risk and ensuring it is shared appropriately across all who benefit. The need to deal with major unforeseen technological and social changes requires simplifying contracts at the ex ante bid stage with a recognition of an ability to review and revise during the tenure of the successful bidder, the opportunity to migrate to a collaborative contract (of great value in the decarbonisation transition), and to protect trust in the partnership between the principal and agents.

Widening the focus to include passengers and taxpayers as key stakeholders in the contract raises the importance of ensuring an appropriate form of ownership structure and governance to hold both regulator and operator to account. This needs to ensure that accessibility and environmental sustainability as well as economic and financial sustainability are key elements in setting objectives and contractual terms, not least in dealing with the deployment of emerging and promoted technologies.

References:

  • Dementiev, A., Alexandersson, G., Thredbo17 Workshop 2a Report: Public transport governance via contracting, collaboration and hybrid organisational arrangements
  • Hansson, L., Aldenius, M., Paulsson, A., Thoresson, K., Vitestam, B., Innovation in stable competitive tendering regimes: An insoluble knot?
  • Preston, J., Notes from a small island: The continuing evolution of the local bus industry in the British Isles

Workshop 2: Efficient Design and Planning of Public Transport, Including Relevant Integration with Shared Modes and New Technologies

Chair: Alejandro Tirachini (University of Twente and Universidad de Chile)
Rapporteur: Aitan Militao (ITLS, University of Sydney, Australia)

This workshop will focus on the efficient or optimal design and planning of public transport at strategic, tactical and operational levels, either alone or considering the integration with shared modes (bike sharing, car sharing, ride pooling, ride sourcing) and disrupting technologies like vehicle automation. For instance, modelling on how a micromobility (bike, e-bike or e-scooter) sharing system should be designed in combination with the PT system, including decisions on fleet sizes, pricing, subsidies and incentives to use shared mobility for first/last mile connections to mass public transport. Other applications may focus on the advantages and disadvantages of flexible public transport services (e.g. ride-pooling) from the perspectives of efficiency, spatial equity or social equity. To what extend the traditional principles of public transport economics and policy making apply to this new context in which vehicle automation may have significant effects on the provision cost of public transport and in which new shared mobility modes both complement and compete with public transport will also be discussion topics in this workshop. What distinguishes the workshop from other workshops is a focus on design and optimisation. 

The spatial scope of applications might include full cities, subnetworks, specific corridors or specific mobility hubs. Contributions from both developed and developing countries are welcome, including discussions on data requirements for system analysis.

References:

  • Yeh, C.‑J., Ho, C. Q. & Nelson, J. D. (2024). “Enhancing public transport accessibility: Should we use feeder bus or shared‑bike system?” Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 18), Cape Town, South Africa, 29 Sept – 3 Oct 2024 
  • Aarhaug, J., Egner, L. E. & Fearnley, N. (2024). “What makes people choose e‑scooters for the first or last mile of a public transport trip?” Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 18), Cape Town, South Africa, 29 Sept – 3 Oct 2024
  • Arnold, T., Dale, S., Timmis, A., Frost, M. & Ison, S. (2022). “An exploratory study of Mobility Hub implementation.” Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 17), Sydney, Australia, 4 – 9 Sept 2022 
  • Mokoma, L. & Venter, C. (2022). “Pathways to integrating formal and informal public transport, case studies from Tshwane, South Africa.” Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 17), Sydney, Australia, 4 – 9 Sept 2022 
  • Borsje, R., Hiemstra‑van Mastrigt, S. & Veeneman, W. (2022). “Bus Rapid Transit configurations and their value to passengers: Preferred recipes.” Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 17), Sydney, Australia, 4 – 9 Sept 2022 
  • Montes Rojas, A., Geržinič, N., Veeneman, W., van Oort, N. & Hoogendoorn, S. (2022). “Shared micromobility and public transport integration – A mode choice study using stated preference data.” Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 17), Sydney, Australia, 4 – 9 Sept 2022 

Workshop 3: Urban Transport Planning in Rapidly Developing Cities

Chair: Ricardo Giesen (PUC, Chile)
Rapporteur: Barbara Yen (National Chiao Tung University, Taiwan)

This workshop will focus on sharing experiences and lessons learned from cities undergoing rapid urbanization and infrastructure expansion, sustainable Infrastructure development, including case studies from the Middle East and Global South. These will include balancing the need for new infrastructure with environmental sustainability and social considerations as well as cultural and societal impacts: to gain a greater understanding on how local culture and societal norms influence transport planning and user behaviour. The workshop will discuss country public (bus) transport solutions including the funding and operational efficiencies which are shared as a way to offer an excellent comparative ‘what and how to do and the why not’. A common challenge is to understand how and why countries differ in their approach the similarities of ensuring subsidies and greatest social reach.

References:

  • Mulley, C., & Yen, B. T. (2020). Workshop 6 report: Better service delivery through modal integration. Research in Transportation Economics, 83, 100913.
  • Hansson, L., & Leong, W. (2024). Workshop 3 report: Infrastructure, services and urban development. Research in Transportation Economics, 103, 101396.
  • Attard, M., & Balbontin, C. (2024). Workshop 6 report: Micromobility movement in urban transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 103, 101399.

Workshop 4: Technological Innovation Implementation, Big Data, AI in Transport Planning for Achieving Sustainable Public Transport Outcomes

Chair: Niels Van Oort (TU Delft, the Netherlands)
Rapporteur: Brian Caulfield (Trinity College Dublin, Ireland)

Technology encompasses a wide range of tools that enhance or enable mobility services of whatever kind. Sustainability is also a central theme – to what extent do digital transformation and technological innovation support sustainable mobility outcomes or not? This workshop welcomes papers on definitions of sustainable transport outcomes and associated achievable KPIs, in both developing and developed world contexts. Papers on advanced technology (e.g., digital twins) and innovative ways of travelling (e.g., new modes) are of interest to this workshop as are the governance and funding of infrastructure supporting future transport eco-systems. One aspect of this is how to build technology innovation into contracts designed to achieve sustainable transport outcomes. This includes developing a more inclusive approach to technology implementation as much of the current and future public transport user base is or remains vulnerable to digital exclusion. Submissions should recognise the potential of co-design / co-production technology-led solutions for achieving sustainable transport outcomes. Due to both technology and climate change moving so rapidly, the aim is to “Think big!”, which includes exploiting new markets and new modes such as 3D mobility. Themes that apply to this workshop include (i) Big Data Analytics: Harnessing large datasets from sensors, GPS, and mobile devices to inform planning decisions; (ii) Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning: Applying AI and machine learning to predict traffic flows and optimize network operations; (iii) Digital Twins: Utilizing digital twin technology to create virtual models of transport networks for planning and optimisation; (iv) Stated Preferences and Choice Studies in Land Passenger Transport; (v) IoT in Transport: Implementing Internet of Things technologies to monitor and manage traffic conditions in real time; and Connected and Autonomous Vehicles: Preparing infrastructure and policies for the integration of autonomous vehicles into urban networks.

References:

Workshop 5: Competition and Ownership of Public Transport

Chair: Didier van de velde (TU Delft, the Netherlands)
Rapporteur: John Preston (University of Southampton, UK)

Public transport markets experience periods of stability, often for several decades, but sooner or later face a step-change in how they are regulated, the respective roles of public and private actors, the degree of freedom in market entry, and organisational and ownership form of operators. Change may reflect broader government policy towards markets and the appropriate role of the public sector; or transport policy, such as how it should function; or emerge from transport actors exerting themselves and gaining opportunity in a dysfunctional context. The changes may be orderly, under strong government guidance, or disruptive as a previous system breaks down. In either case, a new stability emerges for a time, only to itself be subject to another step change at some future point.

Certain patterns have been observed over time, such as periodic opening of the market to private operators and subsequently reverting to stronger public control or ownership (or vice versa); of displacement or disruption of major operators by large numbers of independent operators, who over time begin to consolidate, eventually into a few or monopolistic corporations or associations; of introducing permissive regimes that give many freedoms to operators, but later tightening up controls for reasons such as quality and safety.
It has also been observed that, over time, a series of changes tends to arrive back at the approaches of an earlier time, rather than always lead to novel approaches. The concept of a “Regulatory Cycle” has been presented at previous Thredbo conferences, reflecting that things tend to come full circle in a set of fairly recognisable phases. Different cycles were identified for industrialised countries, in which public transport remained strongly supported in the face of major mode shift to car; and for (some) post-colonial countries, where the organised public transport typically declined and was then overwhelmed by various forms of informal transport that arose to meet rapidly growing demand.

Workshop 2 of Thredbo 17 identified the need to revisit the concept of the “Regulatory Cycle”. Workshop 2 also identified that an expanded version of the Regulatory Cycle, that captures possible pathways and dynamics, could accommodate most contexts around the world. To the two cases in the original model can be added major cases, such as the transition in China from State Owned Enterprises to privatised ownership; the emergence of competitive tendering and contracting in Indian cities; the move towards “formalisation of the informal” in African and Asian cities; and new forms of engagement with paratransit associations around mass transit in Latin America and elsewhere. A Workshop in Thredbo 18 sought to develop a dynamic “Regulatory Cycle” model that captures the full range of global experience and its dynamics, based on actual policy and practice.

The focus of this Workshop is on the key themes of competition and ownership and specifically on regulation (and how to avoid perverse incentives). This includes the demarcation and interaction between transport regulators and policymakers: how regulations are made and implemented (e.g., rules around competition/monopoly) vs how transport policies are developed and delivered (e.g., subscriptions, integrated fares and "political" fare setting, including free fares and fare capping). It also may consider the role of transport operators (and their associations), end-users and other stakeholders in the evolution of regulatory processes.

References:

  • Dementiev, A., and Han, H. J. (2020). A theory of deregulation in public transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 83, 100953.
  • Finn, B. and Yen, B. T. (2024) Workshop 2B Report: Governance of relationships between authorities and operators with particular reference to situations of fundamental change. Research in Transportation Economics. 103, 101395.

Workshop 6: Transportation in Rural and Regional Areas

Chair: John Nelson (ITLS, University of Sydney, Australia)
Rapporteur: Lisa Hansson (Molde University College, Norway)

Well-designed transport services in rural areas can provide significant social and environmental benefits. From both a policy and an operational perspective, compared to urban areas, public transport is more difficult to provide in rural and regional areas. Key challenges include the distribution of rural dwellings over large areas, low population density, and hence limited numbers of passengers, and unpredictable demand. These challenges are exacerbated by population ageing and older persons, along with the young, disabled persons and those with low incomes, are most likely to be at risk of social exclusion due to relatively poor mobility opportunities (for a discussion within the Thredbo conferences, see e.g. Hansson and Leong, 2024; Hansson and Ho, 2025). Rural public transport is usually subsidised and regulated by the government, often with the objective of promoting social equity and inclusivity, but effectiveness varies considerably. While it is impractical to provide full equality in the context of rural public transport targeted bus services can be introduced successfully and fixed route services may be augmented or replaced by flexible and demand responsive transport services.

Whilst useful advances have been made in highlighting the potential of Flexible Transport Services (FTS) in improving and supporting the public transport system in rural areas little progress has been made in integrating these services. More recently, the potential for Rural Mobility as a Service (MaaS) has been recognised as an opportunity to integrate a fragmented transport base (for a discussion within the Thredbo conferences see e.g. Smith and Ho, 2024). Importantly, this will require a greater role for the car, for example in the form of car community clubs based on informal sharing. Such recognition could lead to greater integration of the totality of mobility options. To achieve this new governance arrangements will be required and a greater appreciation of how incentives can be used to harness trust in car sharing. Examples will be identified that are scalable such as hospitals, retirement villages and sport events. This implies the need to engage with a widening stakeholder group to also ensure that user-based needs are taken on board in government policy making rather than as a virtue signalling exercise.

The importance of transport modes, such as railway access in regional areas and commuter ferries connecting islands to the mainland, has also been highlighted. Despite reliability of these services, challenges remain due to limited access to and from stations, which in turn increases reliance on cars. There is a need to further understand the challenges with multi-modal transport planning, for example in terms of planning and coordination of service supply between regulatory authorities.
Themes for this workshop include:

  • The role of subsidy of rural public transport in promoting social equity.
  • Wider benefits of transport services in relation to social capital and community building in rural areas
  • Efficient transport policy and governance arrangements to meet the declining demand, e.g. via regional public transport associations.
  • Strategies to engage with a widening stakeholder group to also ensure that user-based needs are captured in rural transport provision.
  • The role of Public-Private Partnerships as a funding model for transport infrastructure
  • Interventions to improve spatial coverage (e.g., extended supply outside peak hours on regional public transport services) and encourage modal integration.
  • Strategies for the integration of different Flexible Transport Services (including bus, taxi and health and social services transport, including community transport) to provide uninterrupted and efficient service to residents in rural areas.
  • Exploration of the role for the car in the integrated rural transport offer including the role of incentives to harness trust in car sharing.
  • Measures to enhance access to railways in regional areas (by walking, cycling, bus and car).
  • Multi-modal transport solutions designed to meet rural and regional demand.
  • Improving the utility of school bus services by opening them up to the wider public in rural areas or using the vehicles in the off-peak. 
  • The role of technology as an enabler in the delivery of rural transport services

References:

  • Hansson, L., & Leong, W. (2024). Workshop 3 report: Infrastructure, services and urban development. Research in Transportation Economics, 103, 101396.
  • Hansson, L & Ho, C. (2025, forthcoming). Workshop 7b report: Sustainable transport systems designed to meet the needs of both users and residents. Research in Transportation Economics.
  • Smith, G., & Ho, C. (2024). Workshop 5 report: New service models–Governing emerging mobility services. Research in Transportation Economics, 103, 101398.

Workshop 7: Emerging Practice in Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Transport – Developing the Informal Sector for Better Outcomes

Chair: Brendan Finn (Consultancy, Ireland)
Rapporteur: Marianne Vanderschuren (University of Cape Town, South Africa)

Workshop 2 of Thredbo 18 identified that ‘Informal public transport’ (IPT), often also called ‘paratransit’, is widespread throughout many of the developing and emerging countries. IPT appears in many forms, most typically as smaller vehicles, individually owned, with low-paid drivers working on a rental basis, and operations organised through unions or associations. There is a broad spectrum in the degree of informality, which can be considered in three key dimensions of informality of service, informality of authorisation, and informality of organisation. “Informal” does not equate to “illegal”, and much of the IPT sector has some degree of authorisation for the services it provides.

IPT poses many questions to policymakers and regulators. On the upside, in many cases IPT is the primary mode, carrying large numbers of people daily, reaching all parts of the city, employing many people and providing an essential service without any government support. On the downside, low barriers to entry lead to lower quality of vehicles and drivers, poor maintenance, unsafe operations, lack of scheduled or integrated service, low accountability, etc.  Increasingly, national and city authorities are accepting the presence of IPT. Many now seek to improve their quality and behaviour as part of a negotiated strategy to give IPT a recognised and more formal role within the passenger transport system. This invariably requires adaptation of organisational models, agreed operating standards, resource rationalisation, and acceptance of stronger regulation and some form of service agreement or contract. It also requires a rethinking of the relationships between authorities and IT stakeholders. These approaches are often collectively termed “formalising the informal”.  

Workshop 2 of Thredbo examined global experience in development, upgrading and formalisation of IPT through the lens of the primary Thredbo themes – regulation, competition, ownership, agreements, organisational form, capacity development, relationships and outcomes. It sought to identify emerging pathways for IPT development and practical landing points, their context-appropriate application, along with transitional arrangements, key enablers and barriers (van Ryneveld, Olyslagers). Experience, lessons learned and ways forward were identified (Gaspay, Mokoma, Yang)

Workshop 7 of Thredbo 19 seeks to build on the prior work, to examine some leading issues in improving the frameworks, conditions, viability and quality of IPT. Themes of particular interest include, but are not limited to: (1) Consolidation and corporatisation in the IPT industry sector, including business models and gaining buy-in from the diverse stakeholders; (2) Vehicle financing, with particular regard to fleet renewal and modernisation requirements; (3) Building trust and negotiating with the diverse IPT stakeholders; (4) Improving conditions, pay and security for workers in the IPT sector; (5) Serving the non-commute markets, with particular attention to the travel made by women; (6) Improving/restoring compliance, and its role as a tool for safety, quality and sector development; (7) Practical measures for improved maintenance and fuel efficiency, with focus on  inexpensive and readily-deployed methods to improve costs, viability, quality and safety.

Papers are invited that present practice and experience in the above primary themes. Papers can be from any global setting, at any phase of formalisation, as long as they deal with cases that have actually occurred or are in the deployment process. A limited number of structuring or conceptual papers will also be welcomed, which should be based on observed practice. 

References:

  • Gaspay, S. M., Salison, A. J., Sunio, V., & Stringer, T. Driving change: Lessons on the electrification and modernisation of jeepneys in the Philippines
  • Mokoma, L., & Venter, C. Passengers’ informal institutions and the implications for public transport integration
  • Olyslagers, F. Governance and reform of paratransit: An institutional strategy to strengthen the role and function of the regulator.
  • Van Ryneveld, P. A framework for understanding the formalisation of informal transit and its application to South Africa since the 1970s.
  • Yang, Y., & Kumar, A. Challenges and opportunities in mobility in secondary cities in Ethiopia.

Workshop 8: Does Integrated Modal Mobility Have a Future?

Chair: Göran Smith (RISE Research Institute of Sweden)
Rapporteur: Corinne Mulley (ITLS, University of Sydney, Australia)

The rise of new service models for passenger transport, such as ridehailing and shared e-scooters, is transforming mobility landscapes. At the same time, the increase in remote work since the COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted mobility patterns and challenged conventional public transport models. As a result, there is an ongoing debate among policymakers and academics about how public transport authorities can renew their strategies, and redefine the role of public transport, to achieve systemic integration with other forms of shared and active mobility. The goal is to create systems of shared and active mobility (including public transport) that are not only attractive to a broad range of user groups but also energy-, space-, and cost-efficient, thereby contributing to local sustainability and accessibility objectives.

The ambition to integrate public transport with services within and beyond the mobility sector is far from new. Related concepts include Integrated Transport, Combined Mobility, Mobility as a Service, Mobility as a Feature, and, most recently, Collective Mobility. In many places around the world, public transport is, moreover, indeed partially integrated with other shared and active modes through mechanisms such as integrated transport planning, mobility hubs, multimodal travel apps, and joint branding and marketing. However, few of these integration initiatives have reached a systemic level, meaning that they either have limited integration scope or are confined to temporary or small-scale operations. Walking, bicycling, and shared mobility services are, for the most part, still not ingrained in the long-term strategies for public transport developments, and end-users typically experience the modes as separate systems. This raises the question: does integrated modal mobility have a future?

This workshop sets out to explore how public transport can be systemically integrated with other forms of shared and active mobility and what public transport authorities can do to achieve this. In doing so, the workshop continues the dialogue, ongoing since Thredbo 15 in Stockholm, on how emerging mobility services can contribute to long-term policy objectives and what governments must do to enable that contribution.

The topic may be approached from any discipline or perspective, and the workshop welcomes both conceptual and empirical papers. It does, however, especially welcome papers that analyze policy processes, and encourages all contributions to place special emphasis on the involvement and influence of under-represented groups, communities, and silent majorities, or the lack thereof, in the development and implementation of mobility integration policies.

References:

  • Mulley, C., & Bell, K. (forthcoming). Workshop 5 report: Governing emerging mobility services including rethinking MaaS. Research in Transportation Economics.
  • Mulley, C., & Kronsell, A. (2018). Workshop 7 report: The “uberisation” of public transport and mobility as a service (MaaS): Implications for future mainstream public transport. Research in Transportation Economics, 69, 568-572.
  • Smith, G., & Theseira, W. (2020). Workshop 5 report: How much regulation should disruptive transport technologies be subject to? Research in Transportation Economics, 83, 100915.
  • Smith, G., & Ho, C. (2024). Workshop 5 report: New service models–Governing emerging mobility services. Research in Transportation Economics, 103, 101398.

Workshop 9: Micromobility and Active Travel in Urban Transport

Chair: Peter Jones (University College London, UK)
Rapporteur: Camila Balbontin (PUC, Chile)

Micromobility continues to affect the nature and structure of urban transport systems worldwide, the theme of micromobility remains central. This workshop identifies the need for (i) a better understanding of micromobility diffusion across different geographies, (ii) the challenges and opportunities experienced so far and (iii) multimodal integration. Developments in technology and smart phone adoption have significantly improved the potential for integration, however good examples remain few and far between with some cities experiencing operational and other challenges. This is particularly true for cities in the Global South where research on such systems remains low. The innovation linked to micromobility, the evolutionary process across different contexts and the governance issues that emerge are of great interest. The opportunities and barriers to complementary multimodal integration, as well as research that investigates the impact of incentives and practices within the industry are covered. The relationships between private operators, public operators (where these still exist) and governments need to be discussed in view of governance issues that will continue to dominate micromobility deployment.
References:

  • Attard, M., Balbontin, C. Workshop 6 report: Micromobility movement in urban transport
  • Montes, A., Gerzinic, N., Veeneman, W., van Oort, N., Hoogendoorn, S. Shared micromobility and public transport integration – A mode choice study using stated preference data
  • Aarhaug, J., Egner, L.E., Fearnley, N. What makes people choose e-scooters for the first or last mile of a public transport trip?