POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Transparencies 2003
EU-funded Urban Transport Research Project Results
www.eu-portal.net
TRANSPORT TEACHING MATERIAL
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
OVERVIEW: FROM THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS TO THE IMPLEMENTATION IN LOCAL OR REGIONAL TRANSPORT POLICY
Policy formulation in
transport planning
Strategic planning process
Transport policy formulation
General concept of measures
Transport masterplan
Planning process of the allocated measures Design
of the measures
Concept of implementation- Information- Awareness raising
Implementation process
Realised / implemented measures
Evaluation of success,quality control
Implementation of transport measures
Key topics Steps of the process Output
Decision
Political Decision
Political
BOKU-ITS
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
STRUCTURE/CONTENTS OF POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Transport Planning
Policy Formulation Planning process Goals of policy
formulation Problem analysis Development of
scenarios etc.
Implementation Realisation of defined
measures / plans Paying attention to
social & political acceptability
Quality control etc.
Scenariotechnique
Participationprocess
Awarenessraising
Awarenessraising
Participation process
Project management
Project management
etc.
Tools for Implementation
Tools for Policy Formulation
etc.
BOKU-ITS
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
TRANSPORT POLICY FORMULATION
Trend Development
Current Situation
Vision of a Desirable Future
Current Development
(Drawing: DIETIKER, LOOSER 1985)
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Possible Future Scenario “Car Friendly City”
Possible Future Scenario “Trend”
Possible Future Scenario “Soft
Mobility”
Possible Future Scenario “Environmentally Friendly Transport
System”
Current Development
(Drawing DIETIKER, LOOSER 1985)
WHICH SCENARIO DO WE WANT TO FOLLOW?WHAT IS THE ”RIGHT” POLICY FORMULATION FOR OUR REGION OR CITY?
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
ALTERNATIVES AND SCENARIOS – DEFINED INDICATORS
Defined indicators
Determination of the defined indicatorsunder the conditions / measures
of each scenario / alternative
Comparison of the impacts / indicatorsof each scenario with the defined goals
Evaluation
Description of each scenario by the indicators
Ranking of scenariosdepending on the fulfilment of the goals
(BOKU-ITS; adapted from RVS 2.1, 1984)
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
ACCEPTABILITY vs. EFFICIENCY OF FUEL SAVING MEASURES
Fuel saving vs. Public acceptability of measures
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0 20 40 60 80 100
Acceptability (% of acceptance, citizens)
Ran
ge o
f savin
g
(% w
ith
resp
ect
to r
efe
ren
ce) road pricing
parking pricing
Fuel +50%
traffic calming
pedestrianisation & bicycle lanesreduce bus fares &new PT-supplybus priority
Ran
ge o
f Sav
ing
(% w
ith r
espe
ct to
re
fere
nce)
Fuel saving vs. Public acceptability of measures
Acceptability (% of acceptance, citizens)
Road pricing
Park pricing
Fuel + 50%
Traffic calming
Pedestrianisation & bicycle lanes
Bus priority
Reduce bus fares & new PT-supply
EU-PROJECT REFLEX
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
FUEL SAVINGS OF THE ER (ENERGY CONSUMPTION REDUCING) – PACKAGES EXAMPLE WIENER NEUSTADT/AUSTRIA
Ib/ Fuel-tax + 100%
X/ All measures
Ib/ Fuel-tax + 50%
IVb/ Non-motorised traffic
Vb/ Parking management
II/ Vehicle Tax
Va/ Parking management
IX/ Transport masterplan
IVa/ Non-motorised traffic
VIII/ PT-priority+
III/ Speed limit
VI/ PT-priority
VII/ Through ticketing
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
1528t/a (-24.1%)
1018t/a (-16.1%)
784t/a (-12.4%)
268t/a (-4.2%)
258t/a (-4.1%)
192t/a (-3.0%)
174t/a (-2.7%)
164t/a (-2.6%)
134t/a (-2.1%)
100t/a (-1.6%)
68t/a (-1.1%)
62t/a (-1.0%)
36t/a (-0.6%)Fuel-saving in ton per year (1996)
EU-PROJECT REFLEX
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
REASONS FOR DEFICIENCIES IN IMPLEMENTATION
• Insufficient awareness of the problem among decision makers
• Insufficient persuasive power of traffic experts
• Too little acceptance by authorities and the public
• No awareness of the problems among media representatives
• Gap between attitudes and real behaviour of transport users (attitudes are dominated by social values, personal behaviour is dominated by personal interests)
• Lack of acceptance for unpopular, but necessary measures / transport policies for an environmentally friendly and sustainable transport development
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
EXAMPLES OF MEASURES/INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORT POLICY (1)
Investment & Services
• Transport infrastructure network
• Co-ordination of different transport modes
• Transport system operation
• Rationalisation of PT
• etc.
Planning
• Improvement of the PT network
• Combination of environmentally friendly transport modes
• Co-ordination of transport planning with urban development
• etc.
Information & Information Policies
• Information & awareness campaigns
• Mobility management
• etc.
EU-PROJECT TRANSLAND
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
EXAMPLES OF MEASURES/ INSTRUMENTS OF TRANSPORT POLICY (2)
Regulation
• Access restrictions for motorised traffic
• Parking space management
• Parking licenses linked to car ownership
• Speed limits
• Traffic calming
• Vehicle manufacturing & emission standards
Pricing
• Subsidies
• Restrictive pricing policies – vehicle tax, fuel tax, parking charges, road pricing, impact fees
• etc.
EU-PROJECT TRANSLAND
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
EXAMPLE: ACCEPTABILITY OF TDM-MEASURES BY TRANSPORT USERS IN SIX EUROPEAN CITIES
19,2
15,6
16,5
14,3
9,4
95,9
92,0
59,1
43,7
0,0 20,0 40,0 60,0 80,0 100,0 120,0
Reducing parking space
Increasing parking cost
Cordon Pricing
Congestion Pricing
Distance based Pricing
Improve Public Transport
Park & Ride
Access Restriction
1) Package Approach
Acceptability of TDM- measures by the population [%]
Low acceptability (approval rate) for restrictive measures for car traffic
High acceptability for promoting measures of alternative modes
1) Transport pricing package. In: TRANSPRICE report – Public Acceptability of TDM (traffic demand management) in Europe.
EU-PROJECT TRANSPRICE
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
EXAMPLE: HOW TO INCREASE ACCEPTABILITY?
• Objectives reflecting public concerns, positive aims
• Perceived traffic problems
• Perception of pricing policies as effective solutions
• Package approach – providing alternatives
• Trust in the proposed measures and in the use of the revenues
• Guarantee of equity
• Freedom of choice
• New cognitive image of the mobility situation
EU-PROJECT TRANSPRICE
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
We Request:
Integration of all transport modes
Sufficient space for cars
Save are attractive areas for pedestrians
Strict adherence to
threshold values of pollutants
Priority for PT
Less separation caused by traffic
Traffic safety
Promotion of cycling
Safe ways to school
(Drawing: DIETIKER, LOOSER; in: SELLE 1996)
SNAP-SHOT OF A PARTICIPATION WORKSHOP
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS - GOALS
• Inclusion of all stakeholders
• Planning as a joint process
• Identification of the stakeholders’ needs
• Information of the stakeholders about the planning process
• Creation of trust between decision makers, planners and stakeholders
• Gaining consensus by balancing of interests during the planning process
• Participation as a democratic principle to raise awareness and acceptance of decisions
• Mediation and conflict management
• Harmony between individual interests and social values (awareness raising helps to harmonise both)
POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
BASIC PRINCIPLESPROCESS OF INFORMATION EXCHANGE AND MESSAGE TRANSFER
Receiving person
Containing four elements:
- objective contents of the message
- subjective ”revelation” / input of the ”transmitter”
- relationship between the ”transmitter” and the ”receiver”
- appeal by the ”transmitter” to the ”receiver”
Message
is influenced by the manner of information and public relation
Transmitting person
BOKU-ITS