[sustran] REQUEST: comments on Governance Indicators for Transport

[SUSTRAN Resource Centre]

Dear sustran-discussers

I am seeking opinions for a project that I am carrying out for
The Urban Governance Initiative (TUGI).  TUGI is a Kuala Lumpur-based
project developed and funded by the UNDP. The objectives of TUGI are to (a)
strengthen capacity of local authorities to practice good governance and
(b) promote good urban governance throughout the Asia and Pacific region. 

TUGI is developing a series of "Good Governance Report Cards" on various
issues. I am helping them to improve their draft REPORT CARD ON TRANSPORT
AND ACCESSIBILITY. 

The Report Card is intended to be used by local authorities, metropolitan
governments, NGOs, research bodies and others to promote good urban
governance in their own local area or city. Your comments will help me to
make sure that the Report Card is an effective tool that can make a
difference in many cities around the region. 

MY FIRST MAJOR TASK IS TO IMPROVE THE INDICATORS FOR THE REPORT CARD. I
have produced a draft list of indicators and I would like your opinions on
these.  If possible, I would like your comments by Monday 9 October. 

I will then improve and finalise the indicators and test the Report Card
with stakeholders in several cities. The aim is to create an easy-to-use
kit as a tool for anyone who wants to organise a Report Card process in
their own city. 

The Report Cards are meant to be filled in by a wide range of people -
"stakeholders" - who will give the city a score from 1 for "very
poor" to 5 for "very good". People will usually fill in the Report Cards in
the context of a workshop. Each local authority or city's overall score on
the Report Card will reflect many people's subjective opinions about how
well it is doing. The indicators are meant to stimulate discussion and to
motivate change.


HERE IS MY REQUEST:  YOUR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LIST OF INDICATORS 
Please reply to me at sustran at po.jaring.my and I will later summarise 
the responses.

Please look at the qualitative indicators below and imagine a "Report Card 
workshop" for government staff and stakeholders that focuses on these 
indicators witheveryone giving the city scores from 1 for "very poor" 
to 5 for "very good". 

*  Please RANK the indicators in each category from "most useful" to "least
useful".
*  Please suggest improvements to the indicators to make sure they promote
the cause of good governance in urban transport. Even very brief comments
will be helpful.
*  Have we have missed any important issues? 


HERE IS THE DRAFT LIST OF INDICATORS with space for your comments: 

1.  Indicators to measure the level of PARTICIPATION 
a)  Openness to dialogue on transport issues between municipality and
community organisations. 
b)  Timely and genuine consultation with the community and with
stakeholders on significant transport changes or projects.
c)  How welcome are members of the public to attend committees and council
meetings that deal with transport issues.
d)  Avenues for the public to participate in transport planning and
vision-making (eg via surveys or workshops).
e)  Level of informed and constructive media debate on local transport
matters.

YOUR RANKING of these indicators (from "most useful" to "least useful"): 


YOUR COMMENTS on these draft indicators of Participation:




2.  Indicators to measure the level of RULE OF LAW
a)  Adequate procedures for award of contracts for transport
infrastructure, services or supplies.
b)  Fairness in award of contracts for transport infrastructure, services
or supplies.
c)  Adequate and fair road rules and parking regulations
d)  Adequate and fair enforcement of road rules and parking regulations.
e)  Public respect for existing road rules and parking regulations.
f)  Adequate and fair regulation of public transport and informal transport
operators.

YOUR RANKING of these indicators (from "most useful" to "least useful"): 


YOUR COMMENTS on these draft indicators of Rule Of Law:




3.  Indicators to measure the level of TRANSPARENCY
a)  Availability of information on transport-related municipal revenue and
expenditures.
b)  Availability of transport-related statistics and indicators
c)  Openness and proper scrutiny of transport-related contracts and tenders
d)  Availability of minutes of transport-related committee meetings
e)  Transparent process for transport policy-making (is it clear to the
public how decisions are made and by whom)

YOUR RANKING of these indicators (from "most useful" to "least useful"): 


YOUR COMMENTS on these draft indicators of Transparency:




4.  Indicators to measure the level of RESPONSIVENESS
a)  Constructiveness of responses by municipal authority to criticisms over
transport matters.
b)  Effort to find out and respond to transport-related problems and
aspirations of the public.
c)  Effort to find out and respond to transport problems of disadvantaged
groups in the community.
d)  Effective monitoring of transport matters under municipal responsibility.
e)  Transport policies are carefully considered (based on both realistic
technical assessments and participatory processes).

YOUR RANKING of these indicators (from "most useful" to "least useful"): 


YOUR COMMENTS on these draft indicators of Responsiveness:




5.  Indicators to measure the level of CONSENSUS ORIENTATION
a)  Level of public involvement in planning of transport to promote
consensus on transport strategic vision.
b)  Strength of formal mechanisms for genuine consultation with
stakeholders on transport issues, plans and policies.
c)  Success at keeping the public and stakeholder groups informed on
transport-related decision-making processes.
d)  Success in finding workable resolutions to contentious transport debates.

YOUR RANKING of these indicators (from "most useful" to "least useful"): 


YOUR COMMENTS on these draft indicators of Consensus Orientation:




6.  Indicators to measure the level of EQUITY
a)  Effort to improve accessibility for the poorest people and other
disadvantaged groups.
b)  Success in promoting and enhancing low-cost transport modes used widely
by the poor (such as walking, cycling, public transport).
c)  Attention to gender and social equity in transport plans and policies?
d)  Progress in reducing transport subsidies that benefit primarily
high-income people.
e)  Encouragement of mixed land use patterns and "proximity planning" to
allow short travel distances. 
f)  Sensitivity in handling the trade-offs between maintaining transport
rights-of-way and regulating street hawking and informal transport modes. 
g)  Efforts to reduce the stigma attached to low-cost transport modes.

YOUR RANKING of these indicators (from "most useful" to "least useful"): 


YOUR COMMENTS on the draft indicators of Equity:




7.  Indicators to measure the level of EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY
a)  Cost-effectiveness of recent major transport-related investments (eg
are they offering high benefits for modest cost?)
b)  Timeliness of maintenance of transport infrastructure and facilities
(to reduce need for costly replacements).
c)  Progress in reducing road crash deaths (including pedestrians and
bicyclists).
d)  Sufficient skilled staff for municipal transport-related responsibilities.
e)  Level of coordination among agencies responsible for transport in the
municipality.
f)  Progress on meeting targets set in the strategic transport plan? 

YOUR RANKING of these indicators (from "most useful" to "least useful"): 


YOUR COMMENTS on these draft indicators of Effectiveness and Efficiency:




8.  Indicators to measure the level of ACCOUNTABILITY
a)  Effective grievance mechanisms for transport-related complaints.
b)  Effective channels for redress in case of proven negligence by
municipal transport-related agencies?
c)  Publicly reported assessment of performance by municipal
transport-related agencies.
d)  Progress to reduce overlap in transport-related responsibilities of
municipal and other agencies.

YOUR RANKING of these indicators (from "most useful" to "least useful"): 


YOUR COMMENTS on these draft indicators of Accountability:




9.  Indicators to measure the level of STRATEGIC VISION
a)  Quality of long-to-mid term Strategic Planning for transport and
accessibility
b)  Level of public understanding and support for the strategic plan for
transport
c)  Level of official commitment to the strategic plan for transport
d)  Effectiveness of integration between transport planning and urban planning
e)  Availability and quality of information on the status of transport

YOUR RANKING of these indicators (from "most useful" to "least useful"): 


YOUR COMMENTS on these draft indicators of Strategic Vision:




Thank you very much for any comments at all that you can offer. It will be
most helpful in the process of improving the Report Cards to be a useful tool.

Best wishes,

Paul


Paul BARTER
SUSTRAN Resource Centre
P.O. Box 11501,  50748 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
sustran at po.jaring.my

Information services for the Sustainable Transport Action Network
for Asia and the Pacific (the SUSTRAN Network)
http://www.malaysiakini.com/sustran
http://www.geocities.com/sustrannet