Route Management Strategy in UK &Public Involvement Activities in Japan

Group 8: Hitoshi YASUI Daisake KUBO Khin Yu Ya Hlaing Meiyun LIN

PART 1: Route Management Strategy in UK

Background of RMS

Main Features of RMS

RMS elements, process and key stages

RMS Projects in UK

Critical points for discussion

Background to Route Management Strategy

the way of transport planning local needs? the regional picture? Planning integration?

RMS by the Highways Agency taking a strategic approach to the maintenance, operation and

improvement of its network, and involving regional stakeholders and the public in the decision-making process

Major aims of RMS 1. Assist optimum investment 2. Provide consistency and integration with other related strategies 3. Maximize customer focus

To form an interface for information exchange between the road provider and the users

Main Features of RMS

Study of existing and likely future conditions

Involving key groups including road user organisations and local authorities from an early stage

Encouraging partnerships to develop between various transport modes, encouraging a more unified approach to improving services

Workshops and seminars, public exhibitions and roadshows

Publishing strategy and delivering improvements

Elements of an RMS

Policy Objectives Route Functions and Performance Route Problems and Issues Land Use and Development Control Statement (LU&DCS) Route Outcomes

Strategy Impact Statement

Route strategies

Collate existing information

Route Management Strategy Initiation

Development of Initial Policy Objectives, Route Functions,

Problems and Land Use &Development Control Statement

Production of Initial Route Management Strategy

Confirmation of Policy Objectives, Route Functions, Problems and Land Use & Development Control Statement

Development of Route Outcomes and Strategy Impact Statement

Route Management Strategy Seminar

Public Consultation

Revisions to Strategy

Publication of Final Route Management

Strategy

Press Announcement

Stakeholder Consultation

0 Months

2-3 Months

4-6 Months

7-12 Months

3 MonthsPublic Consultation can be Pre-Seminar, At Seminar or Post Seminar

Fig 1. RMS Process and timeframe

Key Stages

Fig 3.Potential meetings, activities and RMS elements during the key stages

RMS Initiation Production of Initial RMS

RMS Seminar & Consultation

Publication of Final RMS

Potential Meetings

Internal HA Meeting

HA + Others

Strategy Group Meeting

Project Board Meeting

Seminar

VM Workshop

Project Board Meeting

Strategy Group

Meeting

HA Meeting

Activities

Agree members of the ProjectBoard and Strategy Group.

Confirm the members of the Wider Reference Group.

Appoint Consultant.

Identify consultation strategy (pre-seminar, at-seminar, post-seminar).

Agree the format of the Seminar.

Consultation with Wider Reference Group

Undertake Consultation

Receive views.

 

RMS Elements

HA to set out their understanding of the RMS

Agree the Initial RMS

Present the Initial RMS

Agree the Draft RMS

Consult on the Draft RMS

Agree and publish final

RMS

Fig 2. RMS Inputs

Route Management Plan

Public consultation in an RMS study

Initial consultation (informal); Consultation on the Draft RMS (mandatory).

When to undertake Consultation pre-seminar, at-seminar, post-seminar

timescale 1. fit in with any other studies or announcements which the HA need to

make

2. the mandatory public consultation should allow at least twelve weeks for

consultees to submit their responses

RMS Studies in UK

• Initiated in 1999• 51 RMS projects until now 15 completed 34 current 2 planed

• Route Object : individual trunk routes as part of wider transport networks

• Role: Interlock with Local Transport Plan (LTP) / Multi Mode Study

• Periods: 3-year Investment Plan

10-year Strategy Plan

The Highways Agency The Highways Agency NetworkNetwork

Points for Discussion of RMS in UK

the role of RMS in the planning systems----restricted influence 1. RMS may be restricted by Multi Mode Study (MMS) 2. RMS route problems may have been addressed by Targeted Programme of Improvement (TPI)

Lack of active involvement of local community 1. residence control along the Lay-by in UK 2.low publicity of RMS in local residences 3.low priority of local needs Lack of continuous work 1.uncertainty in long term planning 2.who are responsible for a potential failure? 3.how to undertake a review and how to apply the outcomes

actively?

PART 2: Public Involvement in Japan

Public Involvement(PI) In general

PI is…A newly developed method for involving

the public (People) in planning process of public work (project) by the government

Active approach from project owners side to the public

Workshop, Public Hearing, Questionnaire, Discussion, Symposium

To avoid serious conflicts on infrastructure project caused byComplaints against a project itself Complaints against process of planning

• Environmental pollution followed economic boom (’60s to ’70s) 　

Public Involvement(PI) In general

Purpose

Conflict on constructing Narita Airport (1970s)

Growing concern for infrastructure Projects

Background

(1)Extension of the duration of the project planning

(2)Negative impact after completion

(3)Fatal impact for execution of the project

Framework

Phase

Detailed

Plan

Outline

Planning

After BeforePlanning (by Project owner)

Master Plan

Assessment

Publication

Public Hearing

Experts Consultation (third party)

Finalize road Project

Assessment

Original Plan (Draft)

Master plan

Publication

Finalize road Project

Opinion Release

report

Public Involvement(PI) On Road Project

Case study- Trunk Road Construction Project -

Approx.

16km

Ring road of Tokyo Metropolitan Area

Case study- Chronicle -

Preliminaries of PI

PI Process

Conflict

Halt

Case study- Draft Plan -

Component Draft plan Discussion Issue(1) Route previously Planned

routePresent land use, underground water, traffic assignment etc.

(2)Structure Tunnel structure Local Perspective, Community preservation, Regional economy,

(3)Junction and Intersection Place

3 Junction Intersection: up to local needs

Impact of local community, connectivity, traffic assignment and regional development

(4)Use of ground above the tunnel

Undecided (several Proposal)

reasonable use such as New route, park, taking the regional environment into account

(5)Respect for Environment

Reduction of impact with underground route

Environmental assessment, further observation of the site, to minimize the impact of the project

Suggested by Project owner

Case study- Draft Plan -

Structure of road

Use of Ground

Publication

Public Hearing

Experts Consultation (third party)

Opinion Release

The stage in the PI process

Case study- PI Consultation -

Crucial assumptions PI Consultation of Ascend to the stage before determining master plan made

in 1966. Start the discussion from necessity of constructing route.

It is Made up of 18 Representatives of neighbor inhabitant 7 of city office 4 of Tokyo Pref. offices and the Government

42 conferences and 36 sub meeting Report

Case study- PI Consultation -

Main issues of the conference are…

1. Necessity of the road

2. Impact on the environment

3. Impact on the regional community

4. Effect of the road

5. Transportation Policy

6. Setting of the Route

The conclusions and suggestions are…

1. Couldn’t reach a consensus on the necessity of road

2. Made the point of discussion clearer

3. Agree to the subsequent process the plan

4. Confirm the need of PI of coming assessment, construction and operation period (If determined)

Case Study - Other PI activities-

Expert Consultation

To Consult, Assess and counsel the PI process

Open House

Leaflet

◆Advantages◆Providing the interface between Project owners and

the public Giving information and opened process of planning→Transparency & AccountabilityCollecting Public opinion for detailed planning

→improvement of PlanRecovery of Confidence of the executants Moderate mediation of Conflicts→ Prevention of serious conflicts

◆Problem◆• Lack of Know How

• Silent Majority

• Cost increase

• Extending duration of planning

• Unclear responsibility allocation

• Injustice escape from responsibility

• NIMBY (Not in my backyard) problem

Key issues for the comparison between UK and Japan

the route outcome targets the level of public’s involvement targeted groups for involvement

Appendix A-C: Examples

Appendix A- example of Route Functions and Assessment of Performance

Appendix B- the 3-year Route Action Plan of M62 Project

Appendix C-M62-the ten-year Route Management Plan of M62 Project

Useful links: http://www.highway.gov.uk/roads/rms/

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/comments.htm