Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byJames Nelson Modified over 9 years ago
1
EMTA Questionnaire on Governance and Mobility Plans EMTA General meeting 27-28 April 2009 Valencia
2
Questionnaire Issued by STIF /Audrey Saunion on 21/10/2008 Four questions: Have you already designed and im^plemented urban/regional mobility plans Describe in few lines the actual organization of the governance of your mobility plans: who decides? How are decisions regarding loca lprojects implemented? Who is responsible for the following up of the projects? Inyour point of view what are the positive and negative effects of this organisation? Have you worked on ways to improve this governance, if yes what are the means you are willing to put into practice
3
PSO REGULATION 1/4 Answers were received from: Stadregio Amsterdam Barcelona ATM Berlin VBB Birmingham Centro Brussels Capital Region Budapest BKSZ Helsinki YTV London TfL Madrid CRTM Manchester GMPTE Montreal AMT (extensive study from external consultant no electroniv version available) Sevilla Consorcio de Transportes Vienna VOR Vilnius SP
4
Synthesis First group of answers received EMTA network has an experience in the field, many examples highlighting diverse success or difficulties As regard the organisation of the process: consultation phase at all levels always valuable even if translating into delays for it gives weight/ legitimacy (Helsinki) planning and organising priorities (Amsterdam) Follow up through a performance comittee (Manchester) About implementation of agreed measures/projects and who’s in charge of what Efficiency calls for evaluation of progress made (indicators sevilla/ report on performance Manchester) to re-orient if necessary.
5
Synthesis How to improve Extending scope of competencies (UK ITAs) Facilitating implementation by training expertise and funding at sub/local level (Amsterdam) Looking for a way to sustain dynamism all along the project (STIF) STIF drew conclusions about its own experience to re-orient the mobility plan (PDU) within overarching regional planning, ellicit political support and better define role of actors. STIF reflected on the benchmarking input and drew recommandations such as: Have a community or group of communities to stir up the process and political champion Arrange for high level of communication, for permanent platform of coordination and for training of all actors Plan regular follow up and process of re-orientation.
6
Synthesis Second group of answers arrived later Berlin: the mobility plan though not mandatory is an efficient tool that holds the whole transport strategy together Madrid also sees it as beneficial to higher level of integration in planning and fare policy except Cercanias/ Renfe Budapest: municipality more responsibel however still pending on insufficient State funding Vilnius deplores the difficulty in coordinating actions spread over different departments in municipalities Centro points out the difference in time scale between Central concerns and local concerns (long term planning difficult when pending on central fund / small projects locally funded do not necessarily serve long term vision planning
7
Synthesis Second group of answers arrived later London enjoys a comprehensive business plan, however reviewing priorities might be necessary inn the current economic context. Brussels explore a « Pay as you ride » scheme as an alternative to existing schemes of congestion charging. ********* We thank all members for their dedication in answering the questionnaire.
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.