Discussion » eDiscussion on “The role of cross sector integration in building a sustainable urban transport system”
eDiscussion on “The role of cross sector integration in building a sustainable urban transport system”
Dear All,
First of all, I would like to thank the participants in the Ideation Contest for their valuable input!
The winner of the Ideation Contest is topic number 3, namely: The role of cross sector integration in building a sustainable urban transport system.
In order to set stage for our eDiscussion please take a moment to read the below selection from the study Formulating an Urban Transport Policy – Choosing between Options (the study is available on the platform’s front page under “What’s New”) and then join the discussion in this thread where panelists from different fields provide online facilitation to answer your questions/comments.
The eDiscussion will kick off at 4pm EST on Tuesday, February 24th and go to 4pm EST the next Tuesday, March 3rd.
THE MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF URBAN TRANSPORT
“Because cities are complex and multifaceted, urban mobility planning needs to be multidimensional. Though this approach is intricate, it is not difficult. It simply calls for more holistic thinking and comprehensive planning. In other words, construction of mass transit systems need to be backed up by complementary transit oriented development, the right kind of feeder systems, pricing signals that discourage personal motor vehicles, and public awareness campaigns. Further, transport infrastructure and services need to be provided in an integrated manner so that seamless travel—across different modes—becomes possible. They need to be affordable for the poor and at the same time be financially sustainable; they need to be designed to accommodate the needs of women, children, the elderly, the disabled, and other vulnerable populations.
Thus, they need to be universally accessible. Rarely is building facilities and adding to infrastructure capacity an adequate or durable response to the growing demands for mobility. It has to be complemented by several other interventions that simultaneously channel demand in a desired direction. Without this cohesion, additions in infrastructure capacity will not result in the desired outcomes.
The comprehensive and holistic planning approach requires a combination of supply-side and demand-side measures. It must consider land use planning, urban geography, environment, human behavior, local culture, economics, finance, public policy, political economy, governance, health, safety, gender, disability, affordability, livelihoods, communication, information technology (IT), and a host of other things. It is important to fully understand the links between the different dimensions in order to secure the best outcomes. Often the most obvious remedies are not the most appropriate ones. For example, the most obvious remedy for congestion is to create more road space; however, the benefits that are initially secured by easier travel are soon lost as more vehicles come on the road and congestion
resurfaces.
The capacity to adequately deal with such a multidimensional subject is generally lacking in many cities—particularly, though not exclusively, those of the developing world. Very often, institutional structures are highly fragmented and not conducive to coordinated planning. Several agencies undertake initiatives, which then conflict and compete with each other, thus constraining the ability to secure the best out of any investment. Legal and administrative frameworks are not in place to handle this problem effectively. Further, policy makers and political leaders charged with the responsibility of dealing with the problem often lack transport or urban planning backgrounds. Sometimes they seek expert opinions, which at times conflict, leaving them confused and unsure of what to do.”
Looking forward to your comments, questions and evaluations. I will get back to you later on in the day when we will officially launch the eDiscussion!
Have a great day,
Rodica
LUTP French
LUTP Spanish
| 1
Dear All,
The eDiscussion is officially active! Please feel free to share your introductory comments on the topic and highlight the relevance of cross-sector integration for urban transport.
First of all, thank you Rodica for this interesting discussion and for your invitation to participate of it.
After reading the extract of the study "Formulating an Urban Transport Policy", a first (and probably obvious) conclusion is that the role of cross sector integration is definitely strategic and necessary to contribute to create real multidimensional urban transport policies in order to build a strong foundation for a future sustainable transport system, especially in developing countries.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that we are talking about including all possible sectors (*) like an immense mixture of complementary components to be considered. I still not read the complete study, but I am sure that there should be a hierarchical organization or distribution of these components by scales, sizes and types of cities, political, enconomic and social context, etc. I totally agree that we need to promote cross-sectorial integration in urban planning and, as a direct outcome, in urban transport planning. But we also need to consider an specific order and a priorization of sectors according urban scales and contexts.
And in this part, I would like to engage with the question of Rodica to Saul about competences in urban transport planning. From my point of view, the national government should contribute with the policies that promote the development and planning of sustainable urban transport systems by local governments. Nonetheless, in the case of metropolis from developing countries, local governments need the additional economic and political support from national governments. As it was mentioned in the extract, the challenge for cities in the developing world is that their public transport systems should be "afordable for poor people but financially sustainable".
So, this is my first point or question to discuss: It is really possible to include all sectors at the same time and at the same scale or governmental level?
In my opinion the first level should be the construction of cross-sectorial public transport policies developed by national governments in order to create a solid foundation for the progressive generation of new and innovative local scale policies, plans and projects which include the most important issues (sectors) to tackle by each city according to its social, economic and political context. In other words, there should be an strategic distribution of responsabilities and competences in order to build an efficient cross-sectorial sustainable urban transport planning.
Finally, I liked this phrase from the text: "Often the most obvious remedies are not the most appropriate ones". It implies the necessity to question our previous statements, no matter how obvious they seem to be. It is perfect for this discussion!
Please, let me know your opinions!
Kind regards,
Ricardo
(*) land use planning, urban geography, environment, human behavior, local culture, economics, finance, public policy, political economy, governance, health, safety, gender, disability, affordability, livelihoods, communication, information technology (IT), and a host of other things.
Discussion » eDiscussion on “The role of cross sector integration in building a sustainable urban transport system”
eDiscussion on “The role of cross sector integration in building a sustainable urban transport system”
Dear All,
First of all, I would like to thank the participants in the Ideation Contest for their valuable input!
The winner of the Ideation Contest is topic number 3, namely: The role of cross sector integration in building a sustainable urban transport system.
In order to set stage for our eDiscussion please take a moment to read the below selection from the study Formulating an Urban Transport Policy – Choosing between Options (the study is available on the platform’s front page under “What’s New”) and then join the discussion in this thread where panelists from different fields provide online facilitation to answer your questions/comments.
The eDiscussion will kick off at 4pm EST on Tuesday, February 24th and go to 4pm EST the next Tuesday, March 3rd.
THE MULTIDIMENSIONALITY OF URBAN TRANSPORT
“Because cities are complex and multifaceted, urban mobility planning needs to be multidimensional. Though this approach is intricate, it is not difficult. It simply calls for more holistic thinking and comprehensive planning. In other words, construction of mass transit systems need to be backed up by complementary transit oriented development, the right kind of feeder systems, pricing signals that discourage personal motor vehicles, and public awareness campaigns. Further, transport infrastructure and services need to be provided in an integrated manner so that seamless travel—across different modes—becomes possible. They need to be affordable for the poor and at the same time be financially sustainable; they need to be designed to accommodate the needs of women, children, the elderly, the disabled, and other vulnerable populations.
Thus, they need to be universally accessible. Rarely is building facilities and adding to infrastructure capacity an adequate or durable response to the growing demands for mobility. It has to be complemented by several other interventions that simultaneously channel demand in a desired direction. Without this cohesion, additions in infrastructure capacity will not result in the desired outcomes.
The comprehensive and holistic planning approach requires a combination of supply-side and demand-side measures. It must consider land use planning, urban geography, environment, human behavior, local culture, economics, finance, public policy, political economy, governance, health, safety, gender, disability, affordability, livelihoods, communication, information technology (IT), and a host of other things. It is important to fully understand the links between the different dimensions in order to secure the best outcomes. Often the most obvious remedies are not the most appropriate ones. For example, the most obvious remedy for congestion is to create more road space; however, the benefits that are initially secured by easier travel are soon lost as more vehicles come on the road and congestion
The capacity to adequately deal with such a multidimensional subject is generally lacking in many cities—particularly, though not exclusively, those of the developing world. Very often, institutional structures are highly fragmented and not conducive to coordinated planning. Several agencies undertake initiatives, which then conflict and compete with each other, thus constraining the ability to secure the best out of any investment. Legal and administrative frameworks are not in place to handle this problem effectively. Further, policy makers and political leaders charged with the responsibility of dealing with the problem often lack transport or urban planning backgrounds. Sometimes they seek expert opinions, which at times conflict, leaving them confused and unsure of what to do.”
Looking forward to your comments, questions and evaluations. I will get back to you later on in the day when we will officially launch the eDiscussion!
Have a great day,
Rodica
Dear All,
The eDiscussion is officially active! Please feel free to share your introductory comments on the topic and highlight the relevance of cross-sector integration for urban transport.
I look forward to this week's discussion!
Best,
Rodica
Hi all,
First of all, thank you Rodica for this interesting discussion and for your invitation to participate of it.
After reading the extract of the study "Formulating an Urban Transport Policy", a first (and probably obvious) conclusion is that the role of cross sector integration is definitely strategic and necessary to contribute to create real multidimensional urban transport policies in order to build a strong foundation for a future sustainable transport system, especially in developing countries.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that we are talking about including all possible sectors (*) like an immense mixture of complementary components to be considered. I still not read the complete study, but I am sure that there should be a hierarchical organization or distribution of these components by scales, sizes and types of cities, political, enconomic and social context, etc. I totally agree that we need to promote cross-sectorial integration in urban planning and, as a direct outcome, in urban transport planning. But we also need to consider an specific order and a priorization of sectors according urban scales and contexts.
And in this part, I would like to engage with the question of Rodica to Saul about competences in urban transport planning. From my point of view, the national government should contribute with the policies that promote the development and planning of sustainable urban transport systems by local governments. Nonetheless, in the case of metropolis from developing countries, local governments need the additional economic and political support from national governments. As it was mentioned in the extract, the challenge for cities in the developing world is that their public transport systems should be "afordable for poor people but financially sustainable".
So, this is my first point or question to discuss: It is really possible to include all sectors at the same time and at the same scale or governmental level?
In my opinion the first level should be the construction of cross-sectorial public transport policies developed by national governments in order to create a solid foundation for the progressive generation of new and innovative local scale policies, plans and projects which include the most important issues (sectors) to tackle by each city according to its social, economic and political context. In other words, there should be an strategic distribution of responsabilities and competences in order to build an efficient cross-sectorial sustainable urban transport planning.
Finally, I liked this phrase from the text: "Often the most obvious remedies are not the most appropriate ones". It implies the necessity to question our previous statements, no matter how obvious they seem to be. It is perfect for this discussion!
Please, let me know your opinions!
Kind regards,
Ricardo
(*) land use planning, urban geography, environment, human behavior, local culture, economics, finance, public policy, political economy, governance, health, safety, gender, disability, affordability, livelihoods, communication, information technology (IT), and a host of other things.