Research and practice have produced valuable recommendations on transport infrastructure elements or programs that can contribute towards more sustainable urban transport development (see Schiller, Bruun & Kenworthy 2010 for a comprehensive overview). However, conflicting values and competing interests among stakeholders in the transport policy process often create barriers to the implementation of these policies (Baumann & White 2010a). These transport stakeholders range from community organisations through to business interest groups, infrastructure and service providers and pedestrian, cyclist and motorist associations. Problem situations like these, for which there are no solutions that completely satisfy all parties, are often referred to as wicked problem (Rittel & Webber 1973). An increasing number of transport commentators have identified collaborative stakeholder dialogue (CSD) as a constructive alternative to the conventional adversarial style of policy making for establishing more sustainable forms of urban transport development in wicked problems (see for example Healey 2003; Innes & Booher 2010). In CSD, participants that represent the full diversity of interdependent organised interests in the issue at stake engage in collaborative dialogue to find a consensus on the way forward (Innes & Booher 2010). CSD is different from the public participation procedures, promoted by deliberative democrats, that engage lay citizens rather than representatives of interest groups (see for example Booth & Richardson 2001; Gastil & Levine 2005). To be clear, we do not consider these two types of procedures as mutually exclusive. In fact, as we argue elsewhere, we recommend them as complementary sources of input into transport policy development (Baumann & White, forthcoming). This paper starts with an introduction to collaborative stakeholder dialogue and its contribution to sustainable development, illustrated by the Munich case study. We then review existing theory on transferability, concluding that while existing guidelines provide valuable instructions for transferring individual policies they face limitations with regards to governance processes that require fundamental changes in the way stakeholders interact. To fill this gap we develop a framework of preconditions for process transferability based on lessons from Munich and other case studies. In the final section we test this framework in the context of Sydney, based on a series of discussions with key transport stakeholders.