policy formulation and implementation transparencies 2003 eu-funded urban transport research project...

POLICY FORMULATION AND IMPLEMENTATION


Transparencies 2003

EU-funded Urban Transport Research Project Results

www.eu-portal.net

TRANSPORT TEACHING MATERIAL


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


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


TRANSPORT POLICY FORMULATION

Trend Development

Current Situation

Vision of a Desirable Future

Current Development

(Drawing: DIETIKER, LOOSER 1985)


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?


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)


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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)


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

policy formulation and implementation transparencies 2003 eu-funded urban transport research project...

Documents

right policy formulation

implementation process

implementation acceptability

implementation tools

implementation overview

implementation transparencies

implementation alternatives

implementation fuel