Task 5 Preparation of the Implementation Program

Task 5-1 Preparation of Implementation Programs

(1) Preparation of Project List

The CMP includes the list of all proposed urban transport projects and this list can be called a Project Long List. The long list will be prepared by reviewing existing and ongoing projects which will become potentially effective measures to approach the vision(s) and goals stated at the outset of the CMP. The long list will include a very brief summary of each project, as shown in Survey Format 7-1A in Annex 1.

(2) Selection of Priority Measures

When considering the implementation timeframe of proposed measures, a selection process should be developed to screen prime candidates based on certain critical criteria, such as their importance and any constraints to implementation. The criteria that make up these two conditions are described in Table 17.

Table 17 Criteria for Selection of Priority Measures

Criteria Description
Project Importance
(i) Consistency with Overall Policy Framework Assessment of the degree of consistency between a project and the existing development policy in the city, such as the NUTP, CDP, Land Use Plan, and other master plans.
(ii) Consistency with Strategic Framework for Transport Network: Assessment of the level of consistency with the strategic framework described above.
(iii) Impact on Reducing Traffic Congestion Assessment of the anticipated impact on reducing traffic congestion. This impact should be considered from the viewpoint of the whole road network. Therefore, a locally limited impact, such as congestion reduction at only one intersection, should not be given a high score.
(iv) Promotion of Public Transport Projects that promote public transport should be given high scores. Not only public transport projects, but also some road infrastructure and traffic management projects can promote public transport.
(v) Enhancement of Traffic Safety Projects that enhance traffic safety should be given high scores. Traffic safety includes not only road traffic safety, but also railway safety.
(vi) Cost Effectiveness Comparison of project costs with project benefits.
(vii) Level of Commitment by Implementing Agency Projects that local government is strongly committed to implement should be given high scores. The stronger the support for the project, the higher the score.
(viii) Degree of Support from Transport Users This involves an assessment of the support from transport users. Projects with stronger user support should be evaluated highest and ideally based on the results of a transport user interview survey.
(i) Whether the transport measure can be implemented within the timeframe of the CMP
(ii) Whether land acquisition/resettlement is manageable
(iii) Whether the environmental impact is adverse

The long list projects should be prioritized in a systematic manner. Qualitative scoring is one productive method for prioritization. The scoring methodology may be decided in discussions in each city. Table 18 shows a sample methodology for scoring in consideration of the above criteria. The scoring form is shown in Survey Form 7-4A.

Table 18 Example Methodology for Scoring/Selecting High-Priority Projects

Project Importance Criteria Score Weight (Example)
Consistency with Overall Policy Framework 1~3 (S1) 1 (W1)
Consistency with Future Framework for Transport Network 1~3 (S2) 1 (W2)
Impact on Reducing Traffic Congestion 1~3 (S3) 2 (W3)
Promotion of Public Transport 1~3 (S4) 3 (W4)
Impact on Enhancing Safety 1~3 (S5) 1 (W5)
Cost Effectiveness 1~3 (S6) 1 (W6)
Level of Commitment by Relevant Agencies 1~3 (S7) 3 (W7)
Degree of Support from Transport Users 1~3 (S8) 1 (W8)
Constraint Criteria Score Weight
(i) Whether the transport measure can be implemented within the timeframe of the CMP 0, 1 (C1)
(ii) Whether land acquisition and resettlement are manageable 0, 1 (C2)
(iii) Whether environmental impact is adverse 0, 1 (C3)

The total score can be calculated as shown below.

Total Score = ∑i SiWi x C1 x C2 x C3

Through the above evaluations, all projects should be classified into at least three categories: (i) high-priority, (ii) medium-priority and (iii) low-priority projects. The evaluation results should be presented in the CMP.

(3) Implementation Agencies/Organizations

Implementation and operating agencies for each project should be identified, together with other relevant organizations that require a coordinated approach. In addition, considering existing implementation capacity, new agencies may be proposed. Usually implementation of an MRT system requires a new agency. A unified metropolitan transport agency (UMTA) can be implemented to strengthen coordination between concerned agencies.

(4) Identification of Possible Financing Options

Financing options for each project, in particular for high-priority projects, should be assessed. The options outlined below should be considered. Some projects could use a combination of options. The evaluation form is shown in Survey Form 7-5A:

  • funding by the Local Government;
  • funding by the Central Government (including from the JNNURM fund);
  • private sector financing (or PPP); and
  • funding by international development partners (donor agencies).

In addition, the financial constraints of the local body should be clarified. The possible budget for the transport sector for 5, 10 and 20 years should be considered.

(5) Implementation Program

Based on the above examination, the implementation program should be summarized. While certain projects such as improvement of NMV facilities, design and implementation of transport demand measures, or bus service development may be completed within a relatively short-term, some other projects such as development of MRT systems or major highway projects will require longer periods to complete. Considering the timeframe of each project, prepare an implementation program can be prepared which indicates a realistic schedule for implementing all recommended projects and measures. Such an implementation program includes:

  • assumed growth patterns (maps) after 5, 10 and 20 years;
  • implementation schedule of all proposed projects/measures (with indication of inter-dependence) over the entire planning period; and
  • funding requirement for the projects in each planning periods.

Through the preparation, the mobility improvement projects and measures should be classified into the following three categories according to the planned implementation schedule: (i) Short-Term Projects (to be implemented within 5 years), (ii) Medium-Term projects (within 10 years), and (iii) Long-Term Projects (within 20 years)

Next page Page top