Imagine an analogy where an obviously sick patient is dragged into a public space where the public are invited to prescribe remedies for him. If the public is not given enough information to prescribe a solution, then all suggested remedies risk endangering the patient.
A better way to involve the public would be to first present the patient to a doctor, who would then: (i) examine the symptoms, (ii) assume an ailment, (iii) prescribe medical tests to verify his assumptions and investigate the root cause(s) of the symptoms and (iv) recommend treatments to the verified ailment.
It is at this time when the public may be invited to recommend alternate treatments having been informed of the patient’s: symptoms, test results, root-cause ailment(s) and recommended treatment. The doctor responsible for the patient should attend the public event to explain the benefits and side effects of each publicly suggested treatment.
TRAFFIC PATIENT.
We have a traffic patient that is getting worse and needs attention. In 2004, the Government wisely invited the doctors of traffic patients, namely civil (transportation) engineers, to analyse the symptoms, do the required tests, determine the root causes of the symptoms and recommend effective and economical national solutions. Engineers responded to this public tender. However, before any work was done, a foreign entity convinced the Government to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a known ineffective initiative.
Flyovers are known to be ineffective on congested urban and sub-urban roads. They tend to move the congestion from one location to another making the overall traffic problem worse – therefore, it may not even qualify as a solution. There are several economical and effective solutions that may be explored, but they should be considered after the symptoms have been analysed.
MODELLING TRAFFIC FLOWS.
Before pursuing a path that is foreseen to make things worse, the Government should do the national traffic study it wisely intended in 2004. Given the plan of inviting the public to suggest alternate solutions, the mathematical analysis of traffic flows should be presented in a dynamic video manner.
When a member of the public then suggests an improvement at a public meeting, the traffic model may be amended in real time and the effects on Barbados’ traffic network of: installing signs, installing traffic lights, constructing by-pass roads, constructing flyovers, widening lanes, installing bicycle lanes, using flexible hours of work and school and any other suggestion may be viewed immediately on a large video screen.
Using this method, the public may observe the effects of their suggestions on traffic flows at nearby junctions in real-time. They may then determine which suggestions are beneficial to Barbados and which are not. The other method used to determine whether a traffic suggestion is beneficial or not is to assess it after it has been built – but that method should be reserved for inexpensive initiatives that cost less than the traffic study. Pursuing a suggestion where a traffic model predicts no net benefit to the public is to purchase a problem.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.