4. Readiness Indicators

Methodology

The second theme tackled by TWG1 concerned the Readiness Indicators, analysed as indicators of the readiness of a region to introduce and utilise e-buses.

Readiness Indicators (RI) are thus meant to assist public and private stakeholders in assessing the present conditions of their region concerning the introduction of electric buses and the provision of related infrastructure.

Within TWG1 the initial step was in defining those indicators. Some help came from Stefan K. Johansen who, in his Master Thesis “E-Mobility Maturity Model: Measuring E-Mobility Readiness of Countries” (see Appendix 2 for more details), believes that with the creation of such a model, countries, companies and researchers alike can contribute with substantial value to the environment by being able to measure progress within a given scope. In his document, key success factors of e-mobility were divided into five distinct categories, where each category forms a parameter for the evaluation of the overall maturity.

This was the first step. Next, the categories adopted in the identification and evaluation of Drivers and Barriers to e-bus deployment by TWG1 were considered (see Section 1.1 above and the Thematic Article n. 10, Drivers and Barriers to electric bus deployment ).

The working group resolved that readiness indicators (RI) should be related to an ex-ante situation in every region, that is before e-bus deployment or fleet diversification/innovation. As a general approach, the partners agreed to try and identify at least four to five main RI for each category plus some others to be added for specified categories, using a top-down method.

The working group prepared a spreadsheet including a description of the indicators, presence/absence (Y/N) of the relevant criteria and further details. A logical link was established between the Barriers and Drivers identified earlier and the RIs. In addition, the structure established in the research document Barriers-to-adopting-electric-buses published by WRIROSSCITIES.org in 2019 (see Appendix 2) was considered as well.

The aim was to arrive at a final compact structure of an analytical framework. The spreadsheet capitalizes upon the indications derived from the Status Quo reports and prepared by the project partners, similar to what was done when identifying Drivers and Barriers.

The initial layout was jointly reviewed, found useful and coherent with the scope of identifying and documenting RI as proposed. In addition to the logical link kept between the Barriers and Drivers and the RI, an additional link was also provided between a RI and relevant stakeholders.

As readiness cannot be defined as yes or no but rather as development in stages, it was recognized that it would be useful to set some criteria to be fulfilled when establishing the level of readiness. A semaphore-type indication (rather than a YES/NO binary option) was chosen with three columns indicating:

- Not ready (red) - Getting ready (yellow) - Ready (green)

A choice between the three options requires, however, to be supported by an explanation: this is being provided in an ad-hoc column which has been added to this purpose.

The working group realized that the RI list would be best if kept simple. Indicators not strictly relevant for identifying a region’s readiness level were consequently removed.

The question of how to transfer the theoretical model into the practical application has been also examined. Considerations about “what should be green, yellow or red” would help establish some sort of indicative thresholds or priorities.

An additional column was inserted to reflect the categories applied in Johansen’s Maturity Model. After a thorough literature review, field studies and discussions in the working group, the following categories of RI were selected:

1. Government policies and investment 2. charging infrastructure construction and operation / Energy production & distribution 3. business models and maintenance service system 4. consumer and other awareness education 5. operation scope and environmental benefits / Other features

- category - maturity parameters - drivers - barriers - readiness indicator number - criteria - description - when red, not ready yet - when yellow or green, details needed to justify - stakeholders involved

Work progress and results

Three eBussed project partners, Livorno, South Transdanubia and Utrecht, compiled the spreadsheet (see Appendix 1). Results of the test application are indicated in the following Fig. 2. The digits refer to the number of Readiness Indicators for each category and level of readiness.

Partner Level of readiness 1. Government policies and investment Number of Readiness Indicators for each of the 5 Categories 2. Charging infrastructure construction & operation / Energy Production & Distribution 3. Business models and maintenance service system 4. Consumer and other awareness education 5. Operation scope and environmental benefits / Other features

Livorno

South Transdanubia

Utrecht 4

2

2

2

1

8 2

1

8 3

1

1

0

1

7 0

1

2 2

0

1

0

1

8 0

1

5 0

0

0

0

1

2 1

1

1 0

1

5

2

0

6 0

5

3

Livorno province and the provincial capital town are in a situation of start-up, whereas electric buses were deployed in the past but to limited and temporary use. A series of technical hitches caused the bus fleet to become non-operational; it is only recently that initial steps are being taken to introduce electric buses again.

The present situation of limited readiness, as outlined by the indicators in Fig. 2 above, is due to:

- Lack of ongoing public investment - Limited low-emission zones in urban areas; limited access zones - Previous positive experience of introducing alternative fuel public transport - Decision-making process in e-bus deployment: absent, being or already established - No activity (design or implementation) regarding charging infrastructure

A “getting ready” situation concerns areas such as grant availability, R&D support and energy company’s experience in installing rapid charging infrastructure.

However, favourable environmental conditions, such as mild temperatures and low emission levels, the existence of sensitive areas in the urban centres where e-buses can be introduced, and a good rate of renewable energy sources in Tuscany’s total sources contribute to the efficient deployment of electric buses.

University of Applied Sciences and Province of Utrecht

Utrecht’s score on indicator 5, Operation scope and environmental benefits / Other features, may seem relatively low. The reason is that there is currently no longer any transgression of the European limit for the yearly average concentration of the pollutants mentioned in the tool (CO, NO2, PM10 and non-methane volatile organic compound. Some hot spots with high concentrations of PM10, however, still exist. Noise is a problem, but not to the extent that limit values are exceeded. However, air quality and noise remain a political issue in many Dutch cities, so the ‘yellow’ score does not quite reflect e-bus readiness from an environmental quality perspective, which is, in fact, rather high.

In 2025, new concessions will be issued, probably with more strict concession requirements, to comply with the clean energy policy and the national covenant. The ‘yellow’ score on indicator 3, Business models and maintenance service system, will then presumably turn to green.

The score on indicator 2, Charging infrastructure reflects the fact that, although about 80 charging locations are operational (± 1/3 overnight; 2/3 opportunity), none of these, as yet, are used for grid balancing.

For Government policies and investment, the red indicators stem from the fact that there are no rebates used. Government loans do exist, as well as policies conducive to eBus deployment, e.g. the National Agreement BAZEB 2016. A ‘red’ score on Consumer and other awareness education is due to the absence, so far, of congestion charges to limit private traffic, which is a national issue.

Readiness Indicators are meant to assist public and private stakeholders in assessing the present conditions of their region with regard to the introduction of electric buses and the provision of related infrastructure.

South Transdanubian Regional Innovation Agency / South Transdanubia, Hungary

Within the convergence region of South Transdanubia two cities, Pécs, the regional capital with 10 solo e-buses and Paks, the district seat town with six solo e-buses and four midi e-buses, have already been operating e-bus fleets.

In terms of government policies, South Transdanubia has a favourable position: loans and rebates are not available for local municipalities and public transport operators. Instead, non-refundable grants are provided by the state for e-bus procurement and public financed demonstration programs, too. The large-scale state-supported initiatives also aim at renewing the already existing bus fleets, partly by e-buses. Research and development are also present in the public transport system as joint research including universities and bus manufacturer companies - such as the cooperation between Óbuda University and Ikarus Járműtechnika Ltd. - aiming at developing new electric bus technological solutions. Thanks to the harmonisation of different strategies and laws, such as the National Energy Efficiency Action Plan, National Electromobility Strategy and National Bus Strategy, the policy instruments or initiatives work in effective tandem. There are traffic-calming zones defined in all Hungarian cities, including also South Transdanubian ones, although the practical designation of these zones sometimes lags behind in practice.

Focusing on charging infrastructure and energy provision issues of e-bus public transport, the opportunity for grid balancing is given by the national transmission system operator organisation. At Pécs and Paks overnight/depot charging is applied, and competent national/regional/local actors reinforce the energy provision-bus connections. Similarly, e-buses are often communicated from a climate-friendly perspective within South Transdanubia and Hungary.

Referring to business models and maintenance-service systems, the whole public transport system is regulated by national laws and by-laws. This provides no room for manoeuvring at the regional and national levels. Even though, local (i.e. settlement level) transport is organised by municipality-owned public transport operator companies that should operate by these laws and by-laws. Smaller private bus companies also operate, but those mainly render their rental and transport services to private and market customers. In 2019, the average age of the Hungarian bus fleet was 13,25 years. Local supply chains of bus manufacturers located in Hungary are given, whilst the public transport operator companies choose their sub-contractors by different procurements.

When speaking about consumer and other awareness education, public and education campaigns support the local passengers’ awareness-raising and the young generations with the advantages of the clean and environment-friendly e-bus public transport. Their contribution to the air quality improvement is a convincing aspect at cities like Pécs, where the concentrate of flue dust and pollutants in the air is relatively high. These are also complemented with pilot e-bus trials before the deployment in a given settlement (such as it happened in Pécs and Paks). These demonstrations are available country-wise, thanks to the Green Bus demonstration Pilot Project.

As regards operation scope and environmental benefits, the Hungarian dry continental climate, in general, is in favour of the deployment of e-buses and their seamless operation in the four seasons of the calendar year. Similarly, 33% in South Transdanubia and 73% in Hungary (% on total regional area) are considered as flatlands, therefore geomorphological conditions are favourable, too. Above the limit emissions in terms of NO2 and PM10 are registered and the excess compared to the threshold is limited.

Conclusion

The identified and classified Readiness Indicators signal the readiness status of a given region, particularly because most indicators are not qualitative, but are relatively easy to justify because they are based on metrics and statistics.

The working group agreed that, once a region’s readiness level is identified, further progress could be made, by carrying out a “risk and opportunity” analysis of the various actions planned to increase the readiness level for each category.

This may represent the content of a useful complementary activity to the Drivers & Barriers and RI analyses carried out in sections 3 and 4 of the present report or be introduced in the exercise of preparing the Action Plan in the latter stage of eBussed Phase 1.

As a final methodological note, it was resolved to keep the indicator count as in the above table, without any attempt to establish composite indicators (as an aggregation of more RIs by category) or an overall index, as they were not recognized to be of significant convenience.

The final RI spreadsheet version (in Excel format) is available on request.

Readiness cannot be defined as yes or no but rather as development in stages.