7.1.4. Traffic management measures should be planned and designed in accordance with the objectives given in Chapter 2, namely, the primary objective of traffic management should be to improve travel for “people” and not necessarily “vehicles”. Not only will this lead to the most efficient use of scarce road space (“1 bus carries 30-40 times more passengers than 1 car in only 3 times the road space”) but the policy will have a positive poverty impact.
7.1.5. Traffic management directed towards modes and measures which favour “people” and not "vehicles", will include:
1997
a) Measures to assist public transport generally but in developing cities mainly bus transport through bus priority measures including the positive reallocation of road space from cars to buses;
b) Pedestrian facilities; and
c) Bicycle facilities.
7.1.6. As with all aspects of the traffic management sector, there are no straightforward
answers “to what extent is TM used to improve conditions for private vehicle users rather than pedestrians, bicycles and buses”. (from TOR). In developed cities, the acceptance that full and unrestrained car use cannot be accommodated has lead to a traffic management strategy which positively promotes “people” and not “vehicles” and thus places assistance to buses, pedestrians and bicycles at the top of the hierarchy of traffic management actions.
7.1.7. In cities in most Latin American countries, traffic management places great emphasis on seeking to improve on street bus operations through busways or bus lanes. Many Latin American cities also have pedestrianised areas or streets, particularly in the city centres. Although not strictly “traffic management”, road paving in poor areas is undertaken to provide bus access and most of these roads are provided with pedestrian footways. Pedestrian facilities for safe crossing of streets is perhaps less well handled. There are examples of bicycles schemes but bicycles are not a major mode. In other regions, the situation is less encouraging as regards measures to assist buses-pedestrians-cycles. There are of course examples of cities with bus priority measures but these are relatively few compared to say Brazil, where almost all cities of significant size have bus priority measures; the same applies to well designed pedestrian and bicycle measures. The experience and issues on buses-pedestrians-cycles are discussed in the following sections.
7.2.1. Prior to discussion of issues surrounding measures for buses-pedestrians-cycles in relation to poverty impacts, it is necessary to consider the implications of other traffic management actions. Some traffic management that is directed primarily towards cars (such as junction capacity improvements) may improve general traffic flow and thus assist buses and while poverty reduction is not an explicit objective, the poverty impact may still be positive. However, measures such as the provision of more car lanes at the expense of pedestrians or bicyclists clearly does not have poverty impacts as an explicit objective and is likely to have an adverse poverty impact.
7.2.2. Area traffic control (ATC – computerised control of traffic signals) is now almost
universal in application or is being planning in developing cities. For example, recently implemented or proposed ATC schemes include Mumbai, Urumqi, Guangzhou, Leon, Guadalajara, Monterrey, Bangkok, San Jose Hanoi, Ho-Chi-Minh, Moscow, Manila (the latter 8 cities not Bank project financed) and no doubt many others. ATC is seen by most cities as a fundamental traffic management measure. For example, a review[21]of traffic management in Chinese cities has placed a very high importance on ATC and suggests “make an appropriate ATC system the heart of traffic management components in Bank urban transport projects” (Table 11.4 of reference) in order to elevate the status of traffic management as well as achieving traffic benefits.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.