No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Public transport policies appear to be extremely important in almost every aspect of the life of a community and a major component of the economy. However, their viability is not conditioned only by technical aspects affecting engineering problems or economic viability, as there are other components that contribute to the decision of the public official to act or not to act. The failure in the implementation of viable transport projects, technically and economically, can often be attributed to the lack of these external components to the engineering environment. One such component occurs in the arena of disputes and negotiations between actors. This paper presents a proposal for actions and resources to work on the political viability of transport projects in addition to the technical and economic justification. It draws its theoretical basis from the Policy Cycle model, which defines the decision-making steps and advocacy, along with the actions and resources that make it possible to convince the stakeholders involved. The proposed test was performed for two public policy projects, a public transport operation project and a change in traffic safety legislation. The first and third phases of the Policy Cycle forecast 100% of the items for advocacy action, the barriers to policy, actions to overcome these barriers, and resources that support these actions. In the second phase, the barriers and actions were also 100% forecast, but for the resources that support the forecast actions were low, about 33% for the transport project and 22% for the draft amendment of the legislation.

Pages 60-66 60 www.ijntr.org  Abstract-The present contribution addresses the construction of political wills in the elaboration of governmental projects. "Lack of political will" is often deplored when certain projects, even though they have their established value, can not be imposed on the government agenda or, when they do, are not effectively implemented. The literature has dealt with the issue from various angles and frames of reference (public policy cycles, stakeholder analysis, advocacy, among others). In order to test the explanatory power of the groups approach or the coalitions of interest (here treated as a synonym), in infrastructure policy, the present article explores the history and content of the concept and establishes a research roadmap to be applied in studies of the decision process in selected infrastructure projects.Index Terms-Interest Group, political entrepreneur, infrastructure investment. I. INTRODUCTIONThe "lack of political will" is always alleged, in a mix of resignation and revolt, when public projects and actions of great utility or even social necessity are not able to get on the government agenda. In fact, a large number of value-aggregating ideas, even though some will already have consumed public resources in preparatory studies, provide every year, countless tombstones in a big dreams graveyard that is the public sector. Of this fate suffer even projects that for years, if not decades, have been enrolled in sectorial national plans.However, behind this frustration, hides a poor comprehension of the public decision process behavior. It is extremely complex, given being "a continuum of decision-making moments" [1].As the author warns, everything starts in the proposal insertion from a relevant problem, which is subject to state intervention and in the choice of solution alternatives. The author proceeds: "The transport sector is a fertile field in the actor request dispute and claims. [10]. In each stage, the proposing individual of a specific project will encounter different agents, both supporters and opponents.