Report 2 Research programme RUG: Planning approaches for sustainable roads Content and coherence

Transcription

1 Faculty of Spatial Sciences Report 2 Research programme RUG: Planning approaches for sustainable roads Content and coherence Taede Tillema and Jos Arts Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen May

2 1. Introduction The research project sustainable roads, planning approaches for sustainable infrastructure is part of a five year cooperation programme between Rijkswaterstaat (the executive department of the Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management) and the University of Groningen (i.e. the Faculty of Spatial Sciences), that is meant to enhance the interaction between science and practice in the field of infrastructure and environmental planning. The cooperation comprises: (i) the education of potential employees, (ii) the contribution of practical experiences to academic education, (iii) the enhancement of an (international) network of contacts, and (iv) the development of joint research projects. The latter contain both small, short-term studies/advices and four PhD research projects. Whereas report 1 aimed at placing the already occurring developments in a broader scientific and societal perspective, this document describes the concrete content and coherence of the RUG research programme. The different research directions link up or are inspired by the trends in society and science. As such, report 1 can be seen as an overarching umbrella for our research programme. Whereas this report focuses on explaining the programme, report 3 aims at extending the scope by relating the programme to its broader context i.e. research conducted at Dutch universities. The outline of the report is as follows. Section 2 describes the goal of the research programme and outlines the different directions. Research links are presented in section 3, where section 3.1 focuses on the relationships between the directions and section 3.2 in a brief way relates the research themes to trends in Dutch road infrastructure planning (see also report 1). 2. Goal of programme and research directions Considering the complex (physical, social and political) environment in which planning of road infrastructure takes place, and given the often resulting time and cost overruns and lacking quality of planning proposals, the purpose of the research programme is to develop approaches for a more sustainable road infrastructure planning. Next to the scientific importance, it also aims to do research that is of direct use in the planning of Dutch road infrastructure. The main line is to broaden the scope of road infrastructure planning. It is a search for a new equilibrium in the area of tension between protecting and developing, between the environment and socialcultural values, between controlling risks and utilizing opportunities both from a self-interest point of view, here and now, and by also taking into consideration the interests of others, elsewhere and later in time (see, figure 1). Starting from this point of view, the following four research themes have been developed: 1. A life-cycle approach for improving road infrastructure planning in the Netherlands; 2. From a line to an area-oriented planning approach for road infrastructure in the Netherlands; 3. Improving road infrastructure planning in the Netherlands: towards a programmatic planning approach; 2

3 4. An actor perspective on accessibility-location trade-offs and implications for road infrastructure in the Netherlands. Sociocultural Balance in opportunities/ risks Economy Ecology I, Now, Here Sustainable development We, There, Later Figure 1: Sustainable development as trade-off between economic, socio-cultural and ecological opportunities and risks in the dimension space, time and actors 2.1 The life-cycle approach The first theme relates to the issue of earlier and stronger involvement of the market sector in the planning of infrastructure (see report 1). Life-cycle integration aims on the one hand at a better involvement of governmental plan-makers into the construction and operational phase by including follow-up elements in plans and decisions such as monitoring, auditing, evaluation and adaptive management (i.e., forward integration). This type of integration has not received much attention in the planning theory community, which traditionally has focused especially on relationships between strategic and operational plan-making and less on final implementation. On the other hand, contractors and other private actors may participate more actively in the plan making phases: backward integration. Involvement of the market may enhance a more business-like approach in planning focussing more on project control and management of costs and time over the stages of project preparation, construction and operation. Moreover, by involving the experiential knowledge of private actors into the earlier stages of the process, also the view of end-users can be included in a better way into plan making. This may lead to innovation and higher quality end results as decisions can be based on committed buildable bids of the market party that will implement the project. Life cycle integration, of course, has the advantage that the expertise of different (market) parties can be used in all phases from agenda setting via planning all the way to the operational phase. However, this may also complicate the earlier phases, since they get more crowded with potentially conflicting ideas and interests, which may slow down the process. This research theme, therefore, aims at gaining greater insight into the actual effects of different forms of life-cycle approaches. Part of the research project will involve studying legal/judicial aspects (of public planning and procurement procedures, contracting issues), will focus on the demands, wishes and 3

4 ideas of different involved actors (market parties, public institutions, etc.) and will investigate forms of cooperation ((international) comparative analysis of publicprivate partnerships). Such insights may lead to the development of practical forms of life-cycle integration that are supported by parties involved in the planning process. Case studies and an inventory of international experiences are being used to assess if and to what extent such new approaches improve the current infrastructure planning. 2.2 The area-oriented approach As discussed in report 1, the context of road infrastructure planning in the Netherlands has been broadened which requires the development from a traditionally line-based planning towards a more integrative area-oriented planning with a stronger emphasis on development and on opportunities. Especially when it comes to more complex planning tasks, the linear approach of infrastructure planning leads to several shortcomings in infrastructure planning (i.e. time, cost overruns, and low quality). Area-oriented approaches aim to overcome these limitations by emphasizing the relationship between on the one hand the needs, demands and opportunities of an area and on the other hand the design of new transport infrastructure. Currently, areaoriented planning approaches for infrastructure development are not (yet) common practice in the Netherlands. In adjacent planning fields, such as environmental planning and water management, area-oriented planning approaches are more commonly applied. This research theme aims at gaining insight into the opportunities and limitations of area-oriented planning approaches for road infrastructure planning. Relevant questions relate to scope (what specific area should be considered as plan or study area?), scale issues (at what geographical and/or institutional scale level should plan preparation and project development take place?), and institutional questions (how to develop cooperation between government agencies at various levels, for instance by public-public partnerships?). Case studies, questionnaires and interviews are used to gain such insights. Finally, the derived knowledge is used to formulate practical recommendations for the use of area-oriented planning approaches in Dutch road infrastructure planning. 2.3 Programmatic approach Decision-making at a programmatic level may offer opportunities to give more attention to use and usefulness discussions and gives the possibility to deal with complex issues in a more flexible way compared to the intrinsically limited scope of a project level planning (see report 1). Because a programmatic approach of e.g. the NSL- and MIRT-programmes is still rather new or even in the proposal stage, currently there is not much practical experience in Dutch infrastructure planning. Consequently limited insight is available about the actual effects of such an approach in infrastructure and environmental planning. Lessons on how to construct it, however, may be derived from best practices in related fields, such as from the ROM approach ( Spatial and environmental planning Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieu ), the city & environment approach ( Stad & Milieu ). In these area-oriented planning approaches spatial and environmental issues in an area are mutually traded-off in an integrated programme in order to obtain more flexibility and better project plans than would be possible without this coordination (see, e.g., ROM-policies; De Roo, 2001; Bouwer and Van Geleuken, 1994). 4

5 This research theme specifically aims to gain insight into the extent to which a programmatic approach for infrastructure planning can relieve the current problems in Dutch infrastructure planning (i.e., time, cost overruns, and low quality project plans). The success of programmatic approaches may depend on the flexibility of public institutions to adapt their current (often project-based) procedures. Moreover, the success of programmes may depend on the willingness of relevant actors to cooperate in a programme and the potential institutional hindrances. With respect to the latter point, fragmentation of competencies between government agencies and budgetary fragmentations may complicate programmes, which would both contain infrastructure and spatial projects. Budgets for motorway developments, for example, are administered by the Ministry of Transport, Water Management & Public Works ( V&W ), whereas spatial developments are financed by the Ministry of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment ( VROM ). Another relevant issue is how projects will be prioritised (agenda-setting of problems and projects) and their implementation will be coordinated in such programmes. In this research theme the effectiveness of programmes is mapped out and key factors for success and failure as well as essential conditions to come to a useful programme planning approach are explored. Case study methods, questionnaires and interviews are used to gain such insights. 2.4 Accessibility-location preferences The area-oriented approach does not only include the physical area but also aims to pay attention to the social/actor environment. As described in report 1, the expectation in the current political debate is that a stronger and earlier involvement in the planning process of relevant actors (e.g., firms, households) may well lead to more acceptable and innovative plans, which may reduce opposition-related delays (see, e.g., Elverding, 2008). Opinions and preferences may strongly depend on the specific situation (e.g., the area characteristics, the type of project). However, infrastructure development may strongly benefit from some more generally applicable background knowledge, because of the large spatial, environmental and social consequences of infrastructure developments. Its large implications ask for a thorough problem analysis in infrastructure planning. First of all, in the plan making process by determining how big traffic problems are and whether new infrastructure is the only alternative. Secondly, in the process of determining where potential infrastructure improvements have the highest added value from a spatial, economical and societal perspective; actors such as households and firms take such aspects into account in an integrated way when making decisions. Both (interrelated) aspects of the problem analysis may benefit from insights into accessibility and location preferences of households and firms. This research project goes beyond the scope of just infrastructure planning, by studying the (reasons for) the demand for new infrastructure i.e. the way mobility problems are framed in policy. This research theme, therefore, aims to gain insight into accessibility and location preferences of households and firms. This can lead to better understandings of where improvements of, for instance, roads and access lanes have the highest added value as well as where measures for enhancing spatial quality are most effective and useful. Such information can be used to better tune road infrastructure and area-oriented development projects, and, as a consequence, may lead to more commonly accepted and high(er) quality plans. Also it may be relevant for substantiating project proposals ( business cases ) for combined infrastructure and spatial development, which is 5

6 important to both governmental parties and market parties for making decisions about starting or joining a certain project (e.g., the appraisal of business cases for publicpublic and public-private partnerships). More specifically it also provides information to give answers to questions such as: What kinds of people prefer a high accessibility and what are they willing to sacrifice or pay for it? How do people make the trade-off between a high accessibility and NIMBY (not in my backyard) effects, and how does this depend on the distance between the residential location and the highway? And, on what kind of locations do different people prefer to live? Moreover, the project will involve a critical assessment of economic valuations of travel time ( values of time/vot ). These VOTs play an important role in cost benefit analyses that are used to evaluate the economic surplus value of (infrastructural) plans. To derive all these insights, an empirical research with respect to households and firms is carried out. This research theme follows a quantitative research approach; the empirical research particularly includes questionnaires with households and firms. An important part of the questionnaire study will consist of stated choice experiments regarding accessibility and location preferences. 3. Research links 3.1 Links between the four research themes The life-cycle research and the area-oriented study are comparable in the sense that both studies focus on the improvement of the planning process on a project level. Differences are related to the type of integration (time vs. spatial) and the way actors are involved (public-private vs. public-public cooperation). The life-cycle approach aims to improve the planning process by strengthening the linkages between the various planning stages specifically by an earlier involvement of market parties (timeintegration of the various phases of the planning process and public-private cooperation), whereas the area-oriented approach tries to achieve synergy effects by incorporating spatial constraints and opportunities into the planning process (spatial integration). This latter approach only works well when different public institutions (on e.g. the national, regional and local scale) cooperate efficiently (public-public cooperation). Whereas these two research projects deal with the enhancement of the planning process, also the quality of the product (e.g., the resulting plan) may improve. For instance, in the area-oriented approach this might be achieved by realizing physical synergy effects between the road infrastructure and the adjacent area (i.e., spatial quality). In the life-cycle approach one could think of higher quality decisions as they are based on more robust information ( buildable bids ), but also of more innovative (technical) solutions in mitigating environmental impacts and/or enhancing the spatial quality of the road and the surrounding area. One step higher on the planning scale, we distinguish the programme-related research. A programme contains different projects and aims at an overarching goal, such as improving the general air quality in a region. This research project has a more procedural focus as (European/international) regulations and administrative cooperation (especially between public actors/institutions) play an important role in the success or failure of programmes. The area-oriented research and the programme theme are partly linked in the sense that infrastructure and area-oriented projects can be combined into an integrated development programme for a specific area. 6

7 In contrast to the other projects, the fourth research project focuses on the need and necessity of (new) infrastructure development. It specifically focuses on the individual actor level by studying accessibility and location preferences of households and firms. These insights can help in making higher quality and more broadly accepted areaoriented projects and programmes (and strategic policies). In addition, insights may be relevant for substantiating project proposals ( business cases ). Well-grounded (quantified) proposals may facilitate decisions of governmental parties and market parties to start or join a project or programme. Life-cycle approach: Integration of planning realisation operation publiek-private partnerships (market) Time Later Planning level Program approach: Project program management Implementation of (EU) regulations in infrastructure planning practice (fairness, efficiency, sustainability) Environmental utilization space concept Actors We Actors approach: Households, firms Accessibility-location preferences Building blocks for participation of actors (governments, market, public) Current approach: Now Limited scope of infra projects for dealing with complexity and sustainable development (I, now, here => We, later, there) Here I There Space Area-oriented approach: Infra line/network area public-public cooperation (governments) Figure 2: Overview of themes in research programme The links are also schematized in figure 2. The current infrastructure planning has a quite limited scope with respect to dealing with complexity and sustainable development. This can simply be characterized as I, now, here, referring to the fact that the planning is dominated by the central government ( I ), that planning focuses on realizing infrastructure without specifically regarding the future robustness of the outcome ( now ) and with a specific focus on the line-infrastructure ( here ). In this programme we aim to move away from this perspective and want to change it into the more sustainable we, later, there. This resembles the importance of taking into account the opinions of actors and the potential opportunities they may offer ( we ). Furthermore, we want to extend our view with respect to time, both regarding the planning process as well as the outcome. With respect to process, the programme contains the life-cycle approach that deals with the earlier involvement of market parties in the planning process. And, the outcome can be made more sustainable by broadening the scope and aiming at achieving a higher spatial quality by extending the perspective from the line-based to the area-oriented approach ( there ). 7

8 3.2 Links with trends in the Dutch road infrastructure planning In line with what was described in section 5.4 of report 1, our research programme deals with trends related to content, process, and (administrative and judicial) steering questions regarding road infrastructure planning. The life-cycle research particularly focuses on the content and process side (see Table 1); early actor involvement is seen as a way to improve infrastructure planning (content), but the question how this can be done in a fruitful way strongly links to the process-side. In addition important questions arise how to coordinate spatial, environmental and procurement, contracting procedures. The area-oriented study can also be seen as a content-related measure since it aims at achieving a higher spatial quality. However, it also strongly relates to the process side of planning (see Table 1), such as how to involve relevant actors into the plan-making process. In addition new procedural issues related to new regulations and legal instruments are important (e.g. new instrument of structure visions and national land-use plans because of the new Spatial Planning Act). The third theme, the programme approach, particularly deals with programme planning and with how programmes should be managed and steered. Therefore, it links particularly with the more process and steering/management related trends in the current infrastructure planning. Nevertheless also content plays a certain role, since programmes are aimed at achieving content-related goals, such as reducing air-pollution. The latter is also an example of a programmatic approach that is fuelled by strict (EU) regulations. The fourth research theme (accessibility-location trade-offs), on first sight, does not directly relate to trends in infrastructure planning that were listed report 1. However, in fact there is a strong content-related relationship (see Table 1); the research is aiming to provide background knowledge that can be used, amongst other things, to improve the outcome of area-oriented projects and programmes and to gain more insight into the validity of time valuations used in project appraisal studies. Table 1: Links between current trends in the Dutch infrastructure planning and the four research themes (X: strong link; x: weaker but existing link) LCA AOA Programme Access./loc. trade-offs Content X X x X Process X X X x Steering x X X x Literature Bouwer, K., B. van Geleuken (1994). "Beleid op schaal [De zin van gebiedsgericht milieubeleid]." Bestuurskunde 3(7): De Roo, G. (2001). Planning per se, planning per saldo [Over conflicten, complexiteit en besluitvorming in de milieuplanning]. Sdu Uitgevers, Den Haag. Elverding [Commissie Versnelling Besluitvorming Infrastructurele Projecten] [Advice External Committee on Faster Decision-making about Infrastructure Projects] (2008), Sneller en Beter [Faster and Better], The Hague, The Netherlands. 8