8.3.1. Traffic management measures are not always “owned” by the city and by its technical agencies and this has resulted in the cancellation of traffic components from wider transport projects. The factors will vary from city to city but local ownership is not always embraced or maintained over time as a result of:
♦ lack of appreciation of the concepts and thus the importance of traffic management by cities;
♦ changes of personnel in the “traffic agency” or at the political level;
♦ lack of traffic management agency with sufficient powers to pursue schemes;
♦ a view that traffic management is a price to pay for the involvement of the Bank in wider urban transport investment such as new roads and that there is little real enthusiasm in the city to pursue the measures and ultimately cancellation of components.
8.3.2. “Ownership” is necessary for successful implementation and this requires cities to be convinced of the policy goals and objectives and project preparation has not always secured the necessary level of commitment from cities.
8.4.1. There are few known public involvement initiatives in past Bank traffic management related projects. It is reported that limited components of the Manila UTP have been subject to public consultation and the proposed Mumbai UTP includes public consultation for traffic schemes. In developed cities, public involvement in traffic management is vital and no policy or scheme can be implemented without some level of public information and consultation. Public consultation is also reported to be increasingly common in other countries and this may be one significant gain from the formation of a professional traffic management agency (in Brazil CET/RIO, CET/SP, BHTRANS etc employ public hearings). The issues and the manner in which public involvement may be approached and increased in developing cities are described in Chapter 10.
8.5.1. It would be impossible to analyse the content of all traffic management components in Bank projects within this Review. The general points which stand out are:
a) Lack of attention to demand management in general; although congestion pricing is theoretically the “best” demand management policy (see Chapter 9), it is conceded that there are immense difficulties in gaining acceptance and in implementation. However, although there are weakness and problems, parking policy offers a first step but few Bank projects have taken up parking;
b) Public transport (bus) priority and pedestrian measures are regarded, rightly, by the Bank as effective and efficient measures and should form essential components of urban traffic strategy. In recent projects, these measures, particularly bus priority have been promoted (e.g. Bogota, Lima, Mumbai, Manila, Mexico Medium Sized Cities, and others). However, in some cases, bus priority is not well understood and has been included in Bank projects with little enthusiasm[33] by the cities concerned; and
c) Most Bank traffic management projects are small elements of wider urban transport projects and even smaller elements of city-wide traffic strategy. Nevertheless, some traffic management project components appear to lack a policy context. Given the Bank's status more could be done under projects to achieve policy changes in the sector particularly in the areas of parking (demand management) and public transport priority (in countries outside Latin America where the cause is well advanced).
8.6.1. Inadequate attention has been given in project design to the fundamental factors needed for sustainability of traffic management namely (i) a capable traffic agency, (ii) systematic training for professional staff in traffic management activities, (iii) an appropriate institutional framework within which the agency can work and (iv) adequate funding for the agency to plan, design, implement and manage traffic measures.
Уважаемый посетитель!
Чтобы распечатать файл, скачайте его (в формате Word).
Ссылка на скачивание - внизу страницы.