12 13 august dhaka integrated transport planning, policy ... integrated transport... · formulation...

UNESCAP‐MOC

National Capacity Building Workshop onSustainable and Inclusive Transport Development

12‐13 August 2014, Dhaka

Integrated transport planning, policy formulationand coordination

Transport DivisionUNESCAP, Bangkok

http://www.unescap.org/our‐work/transport

ESCAP Transport Division

Purpose of this presentation:

Two major issues – integrated planning and policy formulation and coordination of actions• Purpose of integration• Why integration is needed• Importance of coordination of actions• Some suggestions• Way Forward


Why integrated planning and policies are needed (examples):

• Road safety – national targets can be achieved if coordinated policies and actions by transport, police, health, education

• Transport logistics efficiency improvement – much depends on ICT policies and available facilities

• Dry ports needed for Multi-modal transport – Transport Ministry needs policies and actions by other ministries

• Vehicle type and use – case of Bangkok, policy contradiction

• Inclusive highway development – complementary policies and actions by other ministries – for example, rural logistics centres by highways


Why integrated planning and policies are important:

• Transport has a multi-sectoral dimension –integration of plans and policies needed

• Multiple agencies under different levels of Govt.require coordinated actions based on integrative policies

• Consistency between policies in different sectors and levels of decision-making

• Greater understanding of effects on other sectors• Each mode should be planned and used for what it

does best – integration for seamless transport service(national and urban)


Integrated planning - present practicesLand Use Transport (LUT) Planninga. Rational planningb. Travel demand modeling ‐ very similar approach for both national

and urban/metropolitan levels ‐methodologies may differ

Participatory approaches

Policy planning supported by studies based on methodologies developed for LUT planning ‐most common for both national and urban transport

Strategic choice approach – structuring decision problems, decision graphs, AIDA, input from technical studies ‐ requires direct involvement of decision makers


Integrated planning and policy formulationThree main objectives:

Balanced, integrated transport system development ‐to provide seamless transport service (urban and national; passenger and freight)

Reduction of travel demand

Reduction of adverse effects – social and environmental


Integrated transport planning (ITP) - LandUse Transport Planning (LUTP) – ProcessIntroduced in 1960s – based on demand modelingmethodology vastly

improved over decades. LUTP considers:

• Travel is result of people’s desire to participate inactivities and a firm’s logistical needs

• A complex process of interaction between TS and LU

• Transport system is influenced by land use configuration and travel needs of people and businesses –

• Transport supply influence people’s home and worklocation choices and business locations – influencing landuse, which in turn influence transport


An operational Land Use Transport Model

Source: Southworth (1995)

Examples of LUTP:• Tens of major cities (ex: Chicago)

• Transport impact (TIS) studies for large projects inmany cities (ex: Bangkok, Manila)

• National Expressway System Plan – ROK; modelingmethodology – CGEM

• ESCAP study (CGEM based) – Impactof AH1, AH2 and AH14 (part) – ESCAP 2012

Theme study “Growing Together”


Runcorn New Town

Source: Runcorn New Town Master Plan

Spatial organization concept

Concept fitted to actual site

Example: Curitiba – Land-Use Transport Planning and Surface BRT Innovation

Conceptual plan – transit based development

Example: Land-Use Transport PlanningArterial expressway Network in ROK

Major Limitations of LUTP:• Lacks sustainable transport orientation• Limited policy sensitivity• May not meet the needs of decision-makers– considered as “black box” - technocratic

• Lacks political dimension of planning• Expensive, limited capacity to undertake in DCs• Environment, energy, pollution etc - external tomodeling but important to sustainable transport

• Other typical limitations of modeling


Participatory approaches: why favoured• Ensures involvement of all actors• Better understanding of the issues from others’ perspectives

• LUTP cannot accommodate all ST objectives • A negotiated position and consensus onactions (Note: transport is as much political astechnical in nature)

• Agreed set of actions and responsibilities

US DOT has a manual for transport applications;Common for local level planning; ESCAP has a manual


Limitations of participatory approaches• Lacks substantive contents, knowledge and

rigor of analysis• May degenerate into venting of opinions• Institutional framework and / or organizational

capacity to follow participatory approachesmay be lacking


A compromise: Planning as a strategic choice approach - considers substantive and political dimensions (may use AIDA or other tools)• Integrative – considers a holistic approach• Interactive – supports negotiation• Transparent – clearly understood no “blackbox” – a common complain for LUT planning

• Communicative and educational• Authorative – analytical and political standards

Examples: Netherlands’ Second Transport Structure Plan; manyexamples around the world (South Side example is famous)


Example: ESCAP study in Bangkok based onModified Strategic choice approach


Inclusive local development – examples in practice

How to make better use of the road network?• Development and promotion of rural logistics centre

– rural supply chain – post-harvest losses of cereal due to poor storage and transport, may represent 4-16 per cent of total production; about 50% fresh food and vegetables may be lost on their way to market

• Roadside facilitiesMichinoekis Facilities offering

information on roads and the local region

Rest facilities

Toilets

for promotion of local region

Parking Lots

Example: Roadside facilities – Michinoeki (Sirajgonj)

Michinoekis (a Japanese concept) are roadside stations, which provide rest space and social/ commercial service (and can also be a delivery point for some public services)

Development of integrated transport system • Physical interface between modes• Operational integration between modes• Service integration – common fare,ticketing system, etc.

• What may be done in future

What is happening in practice?


Some cities have made progress; but take the case of BTS in Bangkok There was not much thought to developBTS as part of Bangkok’s overall transport system. • Hardly any thoughts on its integration• Result? Limited use and benefits, financial loss in early years, ........

• Fortunately now both BTS, MRTA, the private sectorand other actors taking corrective measures;working on a common ticketing systemBut retrofitting has many limitations


BTS alignment dotted with high rise buildings on both sides‐ Very different than a few years back – who benefited most?

What about integration with other modes?

A desirable situation? Skyway access to BTS stationsAn innovative solution indeed

Bangkok BRT – integration with MRT

Photo credit: Ridwan Quaium

What countries are doing • Policy on National and Urban Transport (some

efforts have also gone in developing integrativepolicies on x-sectoral matters)

• Institutional framework – at metropolitan/urban level

• Regulatory standards – fuel, emission, vehicle• Demonstration projects• Knowledge products and management• Capacity building –


ST - What countries are doing (examples)Project and programme based approach • Bangladesh – MMTP (national), SUTP• Lao PDR – LTMP 2013, EST (Draft?)• Philippines - EST• India – NUTP, other major national programs –inclusive transport in rural areas, pilot projects

• China – national and urban transport policies –low-carbon transport, NMT, public transport,new energy vehicles etc.; three city level policydocuments – pilot projects, financial support

• Japan – ITS, new technologies, social needs• ROK – Green logistics, ITS


Institutional framework - examples of current practices (integrated policy and coordination)

• Strong central planning agency (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Thailand….)

• Top-down, cadre performance system (China)• MPO – USA; all cities with > 50k popn. – responsible

for transport planning – mandated 5 core functions• UMTA – India, in 14 cities (funding if UMTA established)

• Ad-hoc/Informal committee, Steeringcommittee, joint meetings (Bangladesh, China..)


Direction of future development • Multimodal transport system development• Regulatory measures – vehicle, fuel, emission • ITS/ICT applications and new technologies• Integrated public transport system development• Transport logistics services and city logistics• Livability of cities – greater integration of transport

planning with social needs – a major focus in Europe

All of these are x-sectoral matters; success will depend onintegrative policy and coordinated actions by actorsAvoid policy pitfalls of ignoring the larger systems within which thetransport sector is embedded


Some important considerations for sustainable transport development • Travel is a derived demand – the need for travel

can be replaced or reduced• Often better a solution in other sectoral policies • Integrated policies and coordinated actions needed toaddress x-sectoral issues

• Consistent and complementary policies acrosssectors to have the desired results


Some suggestions for actions:• Common understanding on Sustainable Transport in the

national context - Japan, ROK, Europe have; do we have?• Institutionalize policy formulation and coordination of action

by multiple agencies• Agreed integrated policy framework for planning

(national and urban); Launching a national programme onsustainable urban transport

• Integrated planning and set of actions for each actor(agencies operators etc)

• A supportive environment - institutions, capacity, knowledge product, knowledge mgmt., funding support tolocal authorities, innovative (carbon and other) financing



Way Forward• Strong institutional framework for integrated policy

formulation and coordination of implementation• National ST Policy and strategy• National guidelines, standards, tech mat, KM• A framework of indicators and benchmarks• Awareness of elected officials – a single champion

can change a city’s face• Demonstration/pilot projects, funding support• New technology (ICT/ITS, pavement, pavement etc)

Strong government actions and reorientation of policy and planning focus are needed

Thank you


12 13 august dhaka integrated transport planning, policy ... integrated transport... · formulation...

Documents