LE AUTOSTRADE DEL MARE

THE HIGHWAYS OF THE SEA A balanced development of civil society depends on its ability to govern a particularly complex and in continually changing. A mathematician might think to solve the problem by looking for maxima and minima of a optimization function, but whatever is the effort of calculating current and future, he would be forced to recognize his helplessness when he should explain the algorithms that govern the mutual dependencies between variables. But even if this were not possible, the rigor of a theoretical approach would be impractical for a rigid model that prevails on the exercise of those individual and collective free choices, that are the essence of a modern democracy. Pursuing the function of ensuring the efficiency of sector strategies is a necessary way but the same experience denounce the limits of compromise when are not guaranteed two fundamental conditions: the correct hierarchy of decision making and, within each sector, the appropriate consideration of the constraints and boundary conditions. The transport sector is a negative example in which the expert systems, and urban planner who makes the infrastructure, both claim a record that would relegate to the other a subordinate role. The issue should be resolved at the plan proceeding from general to specific , but in fact the plan is limited in most cases to list those options that find the consensus without defining the time, tools and ways to achieve them. I hope that is not the same in all areas, but it is certain that such a discrepancy find in the transport sector an ample space to practice. From "Project '80" the things have changed only in form, not in substance. We theorized non-compliance "grid compatible" when, some years after its approval, the drafters of the first General Plan for transport wanted to justify the failure. We came up with master plans remained only on paper. We have interpreted the guidance established by community prescriptions, according to our advantage, as was the case for example of high-speed railway which reversed the priorities agreed to EU level. Similarly we have entrusted the planning coherences to the "concert", to the "feeling" of the various departments of which it is not difficult to obtain the consent when you confuse the objectives of the plan with the tools to be implemented to achieve it. In the decision-making context, the lack of communication between sectors and coordination of responsibilities expressed only in formal terms – can find an explanations but not a justification– in the importance of the interests involved. It’s not the same in academic context, where the instances of corporate tend to prevail on the need to form a future ruling class conscious of its role. At the time of the Punic Wars, when some persons of high moral and scientific value contributed to my education, I developed my belief that it’s not possible to adjust the infrastructure system to the needs of society without taking into account the vocation of the territory, its current and future design. At the same time they convinced me that urban planning is not an abstract science, and the analysis underpinning must take into account to the real possibilities of program implementation and the direct and indirect effects resulting from them. I also discovered that, in that time, the opinion of most was unanimous in believing that the timing of qualifying infrastructure design, was not the design of the shaft, geotechnical testing or calculation of structures, but rather the choice of Project inputs, identification of the best feasible alternative for meeting the mobility needs, consistent with the role attributed to the work of his functions.