Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
the use of the term “transport” or “mobility” as long as the plan reflect the concept
of mobility regarding objectives, policies and measures (Expert Working Group on
SUTP, Rupprecht Consult, 2004).
On the other hand, if is true that there is nothing new under the sun, we could
ask then which could be the added value of the EU initiative derived from the
Green Paper. The answer is written on it, adopting different forms: promoting the
exchange of good practice at all levels (local, regional and national); underpinning
the establishment of common standards and the harmonization of standards if
necessary; offering financial support to those who are in greatest need of such
support; encouraging research the applications of which will make it possible
to bring about improvements in mobility safety and environmental; simplifying
legislation and, in some cases, repealing existing legislation or adopting new
legislation. Not certainly minor questions to put into practice, although none of
them are a big novelty.
The cases analyzed in this paper show that regardless the existence or not of
a specific law, and the different names adopted, there are some countries where
successful urban mobility plans are implemented. In Spain for instance, these plans are
not compulsory. Many municipalities that have started to implement them benefiting
from the national subsidies, what is, at last, the main problem: funding.
Regarding funding schemes, it is very important to link it to the achievement
of the objectives (as in the UK). Closely related is the importance of a good set
of homogeneous key indicators, available and clear that allow calculating the
effectiveness and level of achievement of the measures implemented. This in turn,
will allow the design of alternatives and become a key support of the decision
making process.
Another important aspect is the need of coordination between the different levels
of the administration, both hierarchical and horizontal, that is, National Government/
Region/Department/Local, and between departments of the same administration,
beyond informal cooperation agreement. The coordination is especially visible in
France and the UK, where the urban plans must be coherent and consistent with the
national and regional land use planning, and with the air quality legislation. In the
UK, integration with sectoral policies (disabled, social inclusion, noise) is required
as well.
Plans must be realistic, since in some cases it seems obvious that the objectives
are clearly Utopian, and public institutions seems more interested in “sell” it than
implement (at last, are the citizens who vote). Sometimes, results may be better
acting on a
small
area, such as universities, whose mobility is half a commuter plan
and half an urban mobility plan.
Finally, it is highly recommended to avoid the temptation brought about by the
language tricks: pompous names do not turn into better what is not and, all in all,
it is the same a Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan that a Local Development Strategy
… as long as it is sustainable, of course.
