STATUS BASED ON ANSWERS TO CORE QUESTIONS

STATUS BASED ON ANSWERS TO CORE QUESTIONS

1. Power structures/decision making

• 
  at national level for urban transport the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Administration (MDRAP) either through the MA-ROP (the Managing Authority of the Regional Operational Programme) or through the General Directorate for Regional Development and Infrastructure; and for all national road transport and all rail transport, including urban rail, the Ministry of Transport;
  
• 
  at regional level the Regional Development Agencies that act as intermediaries between the national level (mainly MA-ROP) and the local level – cities’ local administrations
  
• 
  at local level the Mayor and the Local Council: the Mayor supported by the technic departments forwards proposals to the Local Council. The local councillors through vote approve the local strategies, the projects, their implementation and also their budget.
  

Interviewees have pointed out the contradictions and limitations resulting from the double management (local level and Ministry of Transport), when trying to define a regional/metropolitan transport strategy that covers not only the city area but rather the urban transport perimeter, extending beyond the legal city limits. This situation is also due to administrative ambiguities: though the growth poles and the capital city have an unofficially recognised metropolitan area, these areas are not legally constituted and do not the power to act and take decisions on behalf of the metropolitan entity. Thus it is rather difficult for them to defend and advocate for the local/metropolitan/regional urban transport interests and priorities when negotiating with the Ministry of Transport (in change with allocating funds for transport projects outside the urban/city area). There are however few successfully cases of cooperation for setting a regional public transport service – the cooperation between localities was formalised through Intercommunity Development Associations (the cases of Alba-Iulia and Oradea).

As for the cost-benefit analysis for selecting and prioritising transport projects opinions of interviewees are divergent. Some confirm the guidelines and government decision supporting cost-benefit analysis development and recognise it as a part of the feasibility study. Others claim that though CBA has an application framework and is conducted for some large transport projects, it is done however only formally to get the funding from the national and EU level, after its completion remaining a ‘drawer document’ having nothing to say in projects’ prioritisation.

Several interviewees had interesting remakes on the relevance of the CBA for sustainable transport projects’ prioritisation. Some drew attention to the fact that CBAs are done mainly for infrastructure projects and the methodology considers only direct economic impacts and some environmental parameters; social and health impacts are not included because they are difficult to quantify and integrate (partly due to lack accurate, up-to-date data). Another interesting point of view was that CBA is ‘adjustable’ to the wanted results, by integrating those inputs drawing towards the outputs that favour the projects seen as top priority by the decision-makers. Though not present in many statements this opinion is quite relevant as it came from experienced professional, mainly economists and modellers dealing with CBA in their activity.

In majority the interviewees recognised that during the last 5-7 years cycling association have been making their voice heard more clearly and loudly. Also the academia opinion is taken into account in the development of the SUMPs of Bucharest and of the Growth Poles. In the case of Bucharest the founding of Bucharest Mobility Group was a big step because brought together professionals and activists from various sustainable transport domains giving them the opportunity to express with a common voice recommendations for the transport projects proposed by the municipality and for the SUMP.

2. Funding sources

The question on whether funding could be diverted from the road construction sector to sustainable transport grouped respondents in four categories: one group considers the question as irrelevant in the Romanian context, as, in their opinion, both national and urban road infrastructure are poorly developed compared with other European countries (especially western European countries); the second group appreciated that a part may be diverted but however road construction is still a way of getting many villages out of isolation, in these cases investments in road infrastructure being justifiable and useful; the third group stated that it might be possible but the in-place procedural and legal frameworks do not facilitate this diversion; and the fourth group appreciated that this could be one of the solutions to give a boost to sustainable urban mobility measures and make their benefits more visible.

5. FUTURE of Romanian SUMP Implementation & EVIDENCE Project

Generally, there is a clear tendency in Romania towards decentralisation when decisions are made on what transport projects should be given priorities locally. As mentioned above, the new Regional Operational Programs allocates funds for projects focusing on electric and non-motorised transport as well as on developing the necessary infrastructure to support their operation. Depending on the local demand for mobility and the local public transport characteristics, cities should consider the costs and benefits arising from interventions which would complement the dedicated investments on reginal and national level in Romania. Per the studies reviewed, benefits will increase if interventions are integrated together with enhanced public transport network. Where possible, pricing and incentives should also be used to carefully manage the integration.

EVIDENCE project has analysed the costs and benefits of clean vehicles and fuels and non-motorised transport, namely:

• 
  Cleaner Vehicles (no.1)
  
• 
  Electric and Fuel Cell Vehicles (no.2)
  
• 
  New Models of car use (no.18)
  
• 
  Walking (no.19)
  
• 
  Cycling (no.20)
  
• 
  Bike Sharing (no.21),
  
• 
  Inclusive urban design (no.22)
  

Majority of interviewees claim to have very limited funding sources to support potential sustainable mobility initiatives. Some explained that the annual budget allocated by the national level cannot fund the full implantation of sustainable transport projects. Some cities depend mainly on the Regional Operational Programme while others depend on EU funds and private developers.

EVIDENCE project has analysed demand management strategies which are highly cost-effective and only induce little upfront investments, specifically:

• 
  Access restrictions (no. 4)
  
• 
  Roadspace reallocation (no. 5)
  
• 
  Environmental zones (no. 6)
  
• 
  Congestion charges (no. 7)
  
• 
  Parking policy (no. 8)
  
• 
  Site based travel planning (no.9)
  
• 
  Personal travel planning (no.10)
  
• 
  Marketing and rewarding (no.11)
  

Owning private cars is perceived as the most rapid and convenient way for travel in Romania. This is quite common especially in small and medium cities, where streets are not fully congested and where monthly fuel consumption is not a burden for the family budget.

Evidence project highlights that people active participation in sustainable mobility is key for successful implementation. The project analyses the socio-economic impacts of mobility management strategies and explains that mobility management strategies are key for the active participation of the population in sustainable mobility initiatives.

Often, these strategies include the collaboration of employers and employees. Those measures consider people perspective on mobility and thereby provides key support to boost travel behavioural changes. The interventions listed below have been discussed thoroughly within the Evidence project:

• 
  Site-based travel plans (corporate, school, university, public buildings, major traffic generators such as hospitals, stadia, measure review no. 9)
  
• 
  Individually focussed travel planning, e.g. in new housing developments (measure review no.10)
  
• 
  Marketing/social marketing which is brand/image/lifestyle focussed or rewards-based schemes, e.g. Ecodriving (measure review no.11)
  

Smart mobility concept has already been introduced in Romanian large cities, while small cities representatives have shown less or no interest in ITS and its benefits for urban transport.

EVIDENCE project provides information about Transport Telematics, clean vehicles and fuels. The information provided under the reviews listed below is very helpful for future implementation of the technology:

• 
  electric battery and fuel cell vehicles (no. 1)
  
• 
  cleaner vehicles (no. 2)
  
• 
  e-ticketing (no. 15)
  
• 
  traffic management (no. 16)
  
• 
  travel information (no. 17)
  

The environmental argument in Romania correlates with the impacts on health. The main argument concentrate on NOx and particles effects on citizen’s health. Moreover, the priority of the 4th Axis emphasises the role and necessity of developing SUMPs for adopting strategies to reduce CO2 and emissions, for all territories but particularly for urban areas.

EVIDENCE project provides information about Congestion Charges (Evidence measure review no. 7) and Environmental Zones (Evidence measure review no. 6) which could help foster local environmental initiatives.

The basis for decision-making - moving beyond CBA

As mentioned, views regarding the real value of cost-benefit analyses in Romania are mixed. Some confirm that the decision-making process supports CBA and recognise it as vital for making final decisions regarding funds’ allocations, some claim that CBA is conducted only formally to win national and EU funds whilst it has nothing to do with projects’ prioritisation. Others questions the importance of CBA for sustainable transport projects.

The EVIDENCE common practice reader discusses advantages and shortcomings of CBA and discusses other tools, which may be applied. These may be more appropriate to support decision-making in sustainable urban mobility planning processes. SUMPs may stipulate interventions which are not eligible for public (co-) funding or which do not need public (co-) funding.

1. 
   
   Directory: energy -> intelligent -> projects -> sites -> iee-projects -> files -> projects -> documents
   energy -> Energy Invention Suppression Cases
   energy -> Privacy impact assessment: org name system name
   documents -> Project Fact Sheet Sustainable marketdriven terminal solutions for efficient freight transport (smartset) Main information
   energy -> Strategic Energy Policy Challenges for the 21
   energy -> Table of Figures
   energy -> Office of Indian Energy Financial and Technical Assistance Fact Sheet
   energy -> Doe agency plan appendix a doe best practices
   energy -> Statement of work for the transaction advisor 0 the power africa program in liberia
   energy -> This report was produced using data, forecasts and price information current at the time of writing (2013). It should be noted that these inputs are likely to
   
   
   
   Download 0.84 Mb.
   
   Share with your friends: