Urban Transport Strategy. Management in Developing Countries John A Cracknell, страница 18

1.2         Objectives of the Review

1.2.1.      The objectives of the Review are:

a)  To examine experience in traffic and demand management in developing countries with particular attention to the institutional requirements for sustainability;

b)  To determine the issues affecting successful planning and implementation of traffic management and demand management components of Bank projects; and

c)  To suggest traffic management and demand management policies and approaches to be discussed in the UTSSR.

1.3         General Scope of the Review

1.3.1.      Audience for the Review – Based on discussions with the Urban Transport Thematic Group in the World Bank and with TRL and DfID, it was concluded that the Review should provide information to Bank staff and to technical staff in cities to enable traffic management and demand management policies, measures and components to be promoted.  Thus, the Review should be aimed at a wide technical, but not necessarily traffic planning specialist, audience.

1.3.2.      What the Review is not – The Review is not a “traffic management planning/design handbook” and thus does not contain detailed guidelines on planning procedures, standards, norms, or design criteria for traffic management measures.  Good traffic management depends on the ability of city traffic planners to develop policies and measures which capitalise on the unique problems and opportunities in their city and on

the planners ability to convince stakeholders and politicians of the need for action. Thus “fixed” or “standard” solutions are not possible.

1.3.3.      City-specific nature of traffic management and demand management – All cities in the world apply traffic management to a greater or lesser extent – it is an essential element of good city governance and no city traffic system can function without some level of traffic management.  However, the level and sophistication with which traffic management policies and measures are applied depends widely on individual cities and depends, for example, on:

a)  the “starting point”.  The level of development of the transport system, levels of car ownership and use, development of the road network and similar factors determine the severity and nature of traffic problems faced within a city and thus determine the types of traffic policies and measures which are appropriate;

b)  the size, population and spatial characteristics of a city.  Measures and policies which apply in mega cities will not necessarily find application or success in small or medium sized cities and vica-versa.  Even with cities of similar size, population and level of development, locational and physical constraints will impose differing traffic policies;

c)  the level of development and traffic congestion.  For example, measures which, say, aim to provide buses with priority or to restrain traffic may be appropriate in mega cities with relatively high car ownership and intense peak period (or longer) traffic congestion (such as Bangkok, Moscow, Cairo, Sao Paulo, Mumbai etc) but such measures may not be appropriate in smaller cities with short periods of traffic congestion or in cities with low car ownership; and

d)  the degree to which traffic management is given political support and developed institutionally.  Policies and measures which may be acceptable in one city could be unacceptable or unable to be implemented in another city of equivalent size and with equivalent traffic problems.

1.3.4.      Lack of quantitative data – the TOR for the Review poses questions for which quantified responses would be desirable - “what are the impacts of traffic management”, “how many people are employed in traffic management”, “what is the level of inter-agency co-operation” etc.  However, there is a general lack of real and representative data to respond to these and similar questions.  Thus, the Review is selective and qualitative at least for the following reasons: