Space for mobility: towards a paradigm shift in Dutch transport ...

5 downloads 1054 Views 297KB Size Report
Historical development of transport and mobility planning. Current policies ..... application, are highly dynamic, strict and their implementation is complex. As a.
Space for mobility: towards a paradigm shift in Dutch transport infrastructure planning? Rik Struiksma, Taede Tillema, Jos Arts1 Faculty of Spatial Sciences University of Groningen, The Netherlands

Abstract Both water management and transport infrastructure planning have to deal with increasing flows and related problems. Traditionally, similar approaches have been used to solve these problems. However, in Dutch water management this has changed when a paradigm shift occurred. This paper discusses similarities and differences between water management and transport infrastructure planning in order to depict a paradigm shift towards more areaoriented approaches in Dutch infrastructure planning. We conclude that a more area-oriented approach may improve transport infrastructure planning because the infrastructure and the surrounding area are strongly linked in several ways. For instance, the capacity of infrastructure needed is determined for an important part by the spatial functions in the surrounding area (living, working, recreation, etc.). In addition, an area-based approach may result in more robust infrastructure – e.g. by blinking future developments to the dimensioning of the infrastructure – and may improve the time and cost needed for a successful planning by including local actors into the planning process. Keywords Transport infrastructure planning, water management planning, paradigm shift, area-oriented planning approaches, public-public partnerships.

1.

Introduction

The ongoing increase of mobility due to globalisation and changing spatial behaviour of people has a tremendous impact on the Dutch national transport infrastructure. Since mobility is seen as a necessary condition for economic growth and social quality in current policies, it is evident that new transport infrastructure is needed (V&W 2005). Currently, Dutch planning policies for transport infrastructure focus mainly on rather technocratic-rational and linear approaches of enlarging road capacity by constructing roads. However, the development of new infrastructure to enlarge road capacity proves to be difficult because of scarcity of space, complex environmental issues and huge (local) public resistance. In a changing society, traditional hedging strategies in transport planning – involving perseverance of national interests by central planning instruments, mitigation and offsets for local issues – seem to become insufficient to solve all problems caused by increasing traffic flows. The planning of new (or enlargement of) transport infrastructure proves to be cumbersome and has come to a deadlock. It costs much time, money and the quality of resulting planning proposals is considered as poor by many. Moreover, many projects have been halted because of negative court cases. This is exemplified by a recent statement of Elco Brinkman, an ex-minister, former candidate prime-minister and one of the most influential Dutch officials in a national newspaper: “Only a traffic infarct of about three days will lead to solutions for major congestion problems in the Netherlands” (Telegraaf 1

Contact information authors: Rik Struiksma MSc, PhD researcher Environment & Infrastructure Planning, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands, ++ 31 50 3633880, [email protected] • Taede Tillema, PhD, Senior researcher Environment & Infrastructure Planning, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands, ++31 30 3633895, [email protected] • Jos Arts, PhD, professor Rijkswaterstaat chair of Environment & Infrastructure Planning, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen, PO Box 800, 9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands, ++ 31 6 53748103, [email protected]; •

1

2008: April, 15th). This quote shows well the urgency of the mobility issue as well as the need for a more fundamental change in the planning approach – a paradigm shift. Also water management has to deal with increasing flows that need to be managed. Recently, in this spatial planning field successful approaches have been implemented in order to deal with problems related to increasing (fluctuations in) water levels. Basis for this success has been a fundamental change in water management policies and planning. This ‘paradigm shift’ involved a change in the role of water in spatial planning which has been laid down in especially the “Room for Rivers” program that sets in a broadening of the spatial scope of water issues. This paper aims to provide a greater insight into why infrastructure planning has come to a deadlock, into what we can learn in this respect from other planning fields (especially water management), and finally aims at determining possible consequences for the Dutch transport infrastructure planning. In section 2 we describe trends in mobility and give an (historical) overview of the Dutch infrastructure planning policies including the problems involved. Subsequently, we focus more specifically on the question why the Dutch planning of infrastructure is cumbersome and complex. In section 4 we argue that in order to deal with this complexity we need to broaden the scope of the planning approach with respect to the actors involved, the dimension of time in planning, and with respect to the spatial dimension. In section 5, we focus on the recent paradigm shift towards an area-based planning approach in water management. Subsequently, we discuss differences and similarities between Dutch water management and transport infrastructure planning and we discusses the implications for infrastructure planning. Finally, some conclusions follow in section 7. 2. Background: current Dutch transport infrastructure planning Growing mobility Internationally, an ongoing increase of mobility can be seen which is related to such developments as population growth, economic growth and globalisation (Banister, 2002). As in many other western countries, in the Netherlands growth of mobility is especially related to cars. Growth of car mobility is enormous: between 1970 and 2000 car mobility has doubled and the share of cars is some 70% of all travel kilometres (CPB 2006a). Current strategic policies in the Netherlands, laid down in the National Mobility Plan (V&W 2005), assume that passenger car traffic will grow by another 20% until 2020. In a recent scenario study by the Dutch planning agencies – Welvaart en Leefomgeving (Welfare and Environment; CPB 2006a/b) – it is predicted that in most scenarios mobility will continue to grow between 20202040 but that this growth (10-15%) will level off because of lower population growth and ageing population as well as saturation – everybody has car mobility (see Figure 1). The reasons for this continuous growth of (car) mobility is related to demographic and economic developments, distribution of residential-job locations, consumption patterns and energy consumption (CPB 2006a/b). The car fits especially well with life-style in modern Western society; it provides pace and flexibility.

2

Figure 1: Development of car mobility in the Netherlands (index 2002= 100; Source CPB 2006a). Because of this growth of car mobility, the use of highways has doubled in the period 1986-2000 while the capacity of the infrastructure network was enlarged by only 12% (KIM 2007, CPB 2006b). Not surprisingly, this has led to congestion, which has increased five-fold between 1985-2000 (KIM 2007, Verhoef 2003). This increase of congestion will continue the next years and might change in a decline of congestion after 2020 in most scenarios if the policies laid down in the Mobility Plan are implemented successfully. Without these policies implemented accessibility will diminish (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Congestion at the highway network in the Netherlands (congestion hours at speed < 50 km/h., index 2002= 100; Source CPB 2006a). Historical development of transport and mobility planning Current policies related to mobility and transport infrastructure are laid down in the national Mobility Plan (V&W 2005). The policy strategy focuses for an important part on provision of infrastructure. In general, two main policy strategies can be distinguished in order to deal with mobility problems. Strategies that focus on the demand side – e.g. minimizing mobility by reducing demand for cars and their use – or strategies that focus on the supply side – e.g. increasing the capacity of the transport system by development of new roads or better use of existing facilities (see O’Flaherty 1997, Bouwman & Linden 2004). Dutch national transport policy seems to vary its focus on supply and demand measures in the period 1960 to 2005 as is discussed by Bouwman and Linden (2004, see also Figure 3). The first national policy document on transportation focused on the construction and planning of (road) infrastructure. This policy was continued in the first Structure Scheme on Transport Traffic (SVV-I), which focused on “Accommodation of need for mobility of persons and freight, in such a way that it contributes positively to Society”. As the awareness of

3

environmental problems grew in the late 1980s the Second Structure Scheme on Transport Traffic (SVV-II) adopted a different policy strategy with two goals: accessibility and environment. The focus of the SVV-II plan was on the source, on reducing (car) mobility (behaviour, public transport), alternatives for car use and selective accessibility (mainports, hinterland connections). A clear shift from supply to demand focused policy. This direction was reversed in 2001 with the (draft) National Policy Plan on Traffic and Transport (NVVP) as the demand-side policies of the SVV-II proved to work not well. Government accepted that mobility will grow and that government should facilitate this by providing sufficient infrastructure, while minimizing adverse impacts. Policy was aimed at supply, with demandside measures only coming second. The most recent policy plan, the national Mobility Plan (“Nota Mobiliteit” or “NoMo”, V&W 2005) still focuses on supply-side measures (better management and maintenance; traffic management, more intensive use of existing infrastructure and construction), but it pays more attention to demand measures (such as road pricing). Mobility should be possible but not always and unlimited; its objectives relate to accessibility, safety and liveability.

  

"!$#&%

 

 "!('(%  )$%(%(% 

 +*

Figure 3: Trends in focus on supply and demand measures in Dutch transportation policies 1960-2005 (after Bouwman & Linden 2004). Mobility is now seen as a necessary condition for economic and social development, albeit within environmental boundaries (V&W 2006). To this end, the Mobility Plan focuses on limiting congestion, enhancing reliability and reducing total travelling time “from door to door”. In order to achieve these goals the Mobility Plan and the related implementation program (the Long-range Program for Transport and Traffic, V&W 2007) propose an enlargement of the capacity of the national road network by some 2900 km of traffic lanes until 2020 (= 20% increase of total highway network). This relates especially to extension of existing connections; few new highway connections are build. The total amount of investments for enlargement of highway capacity is some 18,5 billion Euros. The total investments related to the implementation of the national Mobility Plan policies involve the considerable amount of some 80 billion Euros for the plan period until 2020! Planning instruments As mobility and transport are seen as crucial national interests, an extensive set of (sectoral) planning instruments has been developed for the planning of transport infrastructure (see e.g. Arts & Van Lamoen 2005). On basis of the Traffic and Transport Planning Act (“Planwet Verkeer &Vervoer”) there is a system of national, provincial/regional and local policy plans which is supervised by the national Mobility Plan (V&W 2005). The Mobility Plan is not only a national traffic and transportation plan under the Traffic and Transportation Act but also a key planning decision under the Spatial Planning Act (“Wro”) and this plan is prepared by both the Minister of Transport, Water Management & Public Works and the

4

Minister of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment2. This in order to stress the strong relationship between transportation and spatial planning policies. In order to regulate the (considerable) budgets there is a programming and budgeting system under which every year the Long-Range Program Infrastructure & Transport (“MIT”; V&W 2007) is updated. The MIT provides an overview of current infrastructure projects and involves three stages of decision-making: explorative studies (‘reconnaissance studies’), project studies and realisation (Figure 4). In order to be realised, every infrastructure project progresses through each of these subsequent stages of the MIT programming and budgeting system (V&W 2004). The Ministers of Transport and Environment have a central role in decision-making in this process. During the process priority may be given to certain projects, while other projects may be delayed or even cancelled because of their limited (policy, political) relevance and/or for budget reasons. Finally, there is the Infrastructure (Planning Procedures) Act (“Tracéwet”) which provides a specific procedure for giving planning consent. Through this so-called combined “Route determination / EIA procedure” the decision-making on (national) transport infrastructure has been centralised considerably to National Government. The final Route Decision by the Ministers of Transport and Environment determines both the location or route and the design of the project. This decision is legally binding upon national government, provinces, municipalities and individuals with respect to land-use. On basis of the Route Decision even expropriation of land and buildings may take place. The Route Decision replaces usual decision-making on land-use by provincial and municipal authorities and (environmental) permits have to be issued on basis of this decision. As a consequence, the decision has huge impacts on fundamental interests such as health and property. In short, (national) government has a very strong set of planning instruments for transport infrastructure.

strategic

procedural aspects SEA

National Mobility Plan (Transport & Traffic Plan Act)

(Long-range Programme Infrastructure & Transport)

•definition problems, goals, constraints •‘flanking’ / supporting policies •designation of main ports/connections •Reconnaissance Studies, exploration of: •need for activity, purpose of activity •choice of modal split •choice building, intensification use existing infra, pricing •prioritising of projects

Elaboration project

Route Plan Tracéwet (Infrastructure Act)

(Draft) Route Decision Tracéwet

Physical Plans EIA Follow-up

National Policy

Initiating activities

MIT

EIA

aspects of content

(incorporation of route in land-use plans and permits etc.)

Management (Management Plans & Programs)

•preliminary design •determination route/location •elaboration preferential alternative •mitigation & compensation measures •funding of project

Implementation project

•detailed design •fitting project into physical plans •application (environmental) permits •mitigating/ compensating measures

Construction & Operation •management & use

operational Figure 4: Planning process for transport infrastructure in the Netherlands (Source, Arts & Van Lamoen 2005). 2

For convenient reasons, hereafter the Minister of Transport, Water Management & Public Works (“V&W”) will be briefly called Minister of Transport and the Minister of Housing, Physical Planning and Environment (“VROM”) as the Minister of Environment.

5

Cumbersome planning practice So far policies and planning instruments. Recent studies reveal that congestion is still growing quickly, and more than expected in current policies. Only in 2006 congestion grew with more than 11% (AVV 2007). Congestion not only leads to annoyance, but also to economic loss, social disturbance and environmental nuisance (Nederveen 2007). The social costs of this congestion are considerable: some 3 billion Euros for 2006 (KIM 2007). Most important reason for this congestion growth is that the road capacity of the highway network has reached its limits and cannot cope with current growth of mobility. Moreover, the planning and implementation of new transport infrastructure proves to be very (s)low. In response to the delayed planning and decision-making on infrastructure projects, the Ministers of Transport and Environment appointed an external Committee on ‘Faster decision-making of infrastructure projects’ (“Commissie Elverding”). The report by this Committee (Elverding 2008) concludes that projects, for which a final decision has been made, take some 9 years from start to final construction. Even more, many projects have not been decided on and have actually stagnated. When these projects are also taken into account, the duration of the planning process is much longer: on average some 15 years, while planning processes of more than 20 years are no exception. Many formal time limits are not met in planning practice. Over time, little or no improvement can be seen in speeding up planning and decision-making of infrastructure (Elverding 2008). However, to put this in perspective, it has to be said that also in other countries the planning of transport infrastructure may take long periods of 10-20 years (see e.g. TK 2004, Flyvbjerg et al. 2003, WRR 1994). In the last decades many studies have been done into planning and decision-making about infrastructure (for an overview, see Arts 2007). There seems to be a ‘ritual dance’ of research and discussion between Parliament, Cabinet and the Ministry of Transport (De Jong & Geerlings 2004). As a result of these studies many measures have been taken, especially with respect to formal regulations and organisation of infrastructure planning. New acts have been introduced, and subsequently revised, procedures have been streamlined and shortened, and frameworks for prioritising projects have been established. Also extra budgets for investment have been awarded as well as improvement of internal procedures and organisation within the Ministry of Transport. All this has resulted in the planning framework that has been discussed above and which has been depicted in Figure 4. Despite all these efforts, Dutch planning of transport infrastructure has still serious shortcomings including long time periods, cost overruns, lacking quality and (s)low production of new infrastructure. The development of new infrastructure seems to be almost a mission impossible. Why is this? 3.

Reflection: why is planning of transport infrastructure cumbersome?

Four trends adding to complexity of planning Transport infrastructure has a controversial character (see e.g. Teisman 1992, WRR 1994, Van der Heijden 1996, RVW 1998). The dilemma of transport infrastructure planning is in essence that the fast growth of mobility in modern society results in a need for expanding transport infrastructure which is conflicting with the objective of sustaining a healthy environment. Perhaps it is not surprisingly at all that transport infrastructure planning is so cumbersome. Looking at this issue in more detail, four mutually dependent trends can be distinguished that make transport infrastructure planning in the Netherlands more and more complex (see for an extensive discussion Arts 2007): 1. The huge interests involved, which are more and more conflicting. Infrastructure affects fundamental interests – such as property, health, safety and well-being – in a both negative and positive way. Adverse impacts relate to: the physical presence of infrastructure, which requires space; the construction of infrastructure that results in disturbance of the surrounding area for many years; impacts because of the use (traffic) and management of infrastructure – this relates to impact on air quality, noise, water, soil,

6

nature, safety etcetera. On the positive side infrastructure has: a function in connecting diverse spatial functions such as housing, working, recreation etc.; a structuring function in spatial-economic development; and it enables car mobility, which is seen as an important prerequisite for individual well-being and development by many in modern Western Society (VROM-Raad 1999). 2. The growing scarcity of space. The conflict between the interests mentioned before and the complexity of the planning task is aggravated because of the competing claims for space by the various spatial functions in a small and densely populated country as the Netherlands. 3. The changing roles of (national) government and other parties. As discussed earlier, traditionally the national government plays a leading role in the planning of transport infrastructure in the Netherlands. However, this role of national government is subject to fundamental changes. This is related to the controversial character of national infrastructure articulated clearly in the so-called ‘Not in my backyard’(NIMBY) phenomenon. The collective interest of new infrastructure on national or regional scale seems to conflict with the individual interests of people. As a consequence, the last decades national government has invested much in open, participative planning processes. It cannot assume a solitary position anymore. This relates to developments as: the requirement of stronger cooperation within national government with the other departments; the policy of decentralization and cooperation with regional and local governments; the policy of more privatisation to the market and public-private partnerships; the requirement of more participation by the public in the planning process. 4. The increasing influence of (European) environmental regulations. On planning, realisation and management of transport infrastructure in the Netherlands. Many Dutch regulations have their origin in ‘Brussels’. These regulations expand in their field of application, are highly dynamic, strict and their implementation is complex. As a consequence, government may easily make small failures in the preparation of plans and decisions. By appeal to court, parties that object to infrastructure development have huge hindrance power. The result is a juridification of infrastructure planning. Current planning responses The reaction of the Ministry of Transport to these issues in individual projects is often that it exerts even more pressure on the planning process. That is: even more hurrying the process, providing more detailed information, offering even more mitigation measures to limit negative impacts, buying off affected parties, pressing other parties to make deals and hedging against risks. The consequence, however, is more and more resistance of adversaries of a project and new court cases… Many infrastructure projects have been halted. The planning of infrastructure projects comes to a deadlock. In order to overcome these planning problems, the last decades a specific sectoral planning system for transport infrastructure has been developed. As discussed earlier (see also Figure 4), the sector has its own powerful set of planning instruments in order to persevere national interest of mobility and transport: the Infrastructure Act with the Route Decision (and other regulations focusing on dealing with NIMBY issues), a specific planning and budgeting system with huge funds (not only for the infrastructure measures itself but also for mitigation measures and compensation), and the Ministry of Transport is the central player involved from the earliest strategic policy planning (the national Mobility Plan) to project development and implementation up to the management and maintenance of the infrastructure network. However, this set of planning instruments is limited to linear infrastructure and is characterised by a strongly linear planning process with one central actor. As Van der Heijden (1996, p. 19) has stated “there exists much more societal and political dynamics and there are much more uncertainties, than assumed in this classical view [of transport infrastructure planning]”. In order to overcome the current problems of transport infrastructure planning it can be argued that new avenues have to be explored that take into account its complexity.

7

4.

Broadening the scope in order to deal with complexity

Complexity in planning In recent planning literature much attention has been given to the issue of complexity in planning (see e.g. Teisman 1992, 2001, De Bruijn et al. 2002, Nooteboom 2006, 2007, De Roo 1999). Without discussing this literature in detail, some important lessons can be drawn (see Arts 2007 for a discussion in more detail): • Complexity is a relative concept. What for one is simple may be complicated for another. Experience and knowledge help to get more grip on complex issues; • The elements in a complex system – such as the market, ecosystems or society – are interconnected (in)directly in networks by mutually dependent relationships; • These elements influence each other via interaction (e.g. communication). Change is caused by positive feedback. Stability by negative feedback. Both are necessary in order to prevent situations of inertia or chaos; • The changes that occur are not linear, they may be slow but also sometimes very quick. Unpredictable changes may occur. No element has complete control over the system; The ‘wrestling’ between government and interest parties in many infrastructure projects is a clear example of negative feedback. The resistance results in a standstill. As Nooteboom (2007, p.649) has stated, without some basic level of cooperation and trust, planning procedures will be just instruments to delay decision-making. In order to deal with complex planning situations (creation of) trust and cooperation are essential. However, there will always be a difference between interests and some competition between interests. Actually, this is not problematic as some tension is needed to overcome inertia and to create constructive change. • Cooperation and competition are both relevant. With respect to this Teisman (2001) uses the concept of ‘co-opetition’. Co-opetition is a combination of cooperation and competition. It differs from coordination, which is often used by government, as it focuses not just on unity or uniformity but on cooperation and variety. According to Teisman co-optition may be a useful avenue to get out of a deadlock by using the initiatives and ideas of other parties for one’s own interests; • Especially relevant are those initiatives that leave open many possibilities, which are robust with respect to many futures. This is related to the concept of ‘requisite variety’ (Ashby 1956 in Nooteboom 2007). In order to enable adequate reaction to a diversity of possible future changes, sufficient variety is needed to deal with intrinsically unpredictable changes. Dealing with complexity: towards more inclusive planning approaches Unpredictability and uncertainty are inherent to a future-oriented activity as planning. As Holling (1978, p.136) stated: “we do know we can expect the unexpected”. When dealing with uncertainty, the reflex of hedging against risks is not always the best route. Regarding this, Collingridge (1983) distinguishes two main principles for dealing with uncertainties: ‘hedging’ and ‘flexing’. One principle tries to ‘box’ them in by gathering as much information as possible and taking measures for the containment of risks (hedging). The other principle tries to master risks by using a process approach applying early warning and adaptive strategies (flexing). If problems do occur, reparation is possible and the focus is on adaptive management (Holling 1978). In unpredictable situations hedging may be insufficient. Trusting too much on this strategy may even lead to devastating results as planners are too focused on one type of solution and insufficiently prepared for unexpected situations. There is too little requisite variety to deal with unforeseen situations. In complex planning situations, a mix of both hedging and flexing is important. A variety in approach comprising both buffering and flexibility. Both principles are closely connected and can be considered as complementary. If hedging of uncertainties is not possible, flexing may be a way to overcome this (and vice

8

versa). Ideally, both principles should be in balance in order to deal well with uncertainty (Collingridge 1983). On basis of the discussion before, it can be concluded that for dealing with complexity in planning it is needed to broaden the scope of the planning approach. To be more inclusive with respect to involving other actors. The concepts of the ‘Harvard School’ (see e.g. Fisher and Ury 1981, Susskind & Cruickshank 1987) have been discussed intensively in planning literature with respect to such concepts as collaborative planning (Healey 1997), open, participative planning processes (De Rooij 2000), consensus planning (Woltjer 2000). The application of open planning instruments in order to involve better other parties in planning and decision-making processes has become general practice within the Ministry of Transport (Woltjer 2000, Linden & Voogd 2004). However, as has been discussed before, this has not (always) resulted in satisfactorily and timely planning of transport infrastructure. In addition, there is also need to adopt a more inclusive planning approach with respect to time. This relates to the inclusion of a life cycle approach in which pre and post consent decisions are connected and that provides for process elements in addition to mitigation measures for allowing follow-up and adaptive management responses to unexpected situations (flexing) – see for a discussion in more detail Arts (2007). Finally, there is need for a more inclusive approach with respect to space. The planning of transport infrastructure is linear in its approach in a literal and figurative sense – it is in every respect ‘line infrastructure’. Highways are usually isolated, physical lines through the landscape that intersect the surrounding area. In addition, there is often applied a serial, rational planning process. Planning of transport infrastructure is carried out as an isolated activity focused on providing solutions to mobility related problems in an area, on mitigation of negative impacts and on developing an acceptable road design. Although relations between area and road obviously do exist, in the planning process little attention is given to these relations and to the spatial and environmental quality of the broader area. Formal regulations do not stimulate a wider area-oriented scope as the Route Decision is only applicable to the road and the zone direct besides it.

A: from inside to outside infra => area

B: from outside to inside area => infra

Figure 5: Area-oriented approach in infrastructure planning, two perspectives. Area-oriented infrastructure planning Nevertheless, more area-oriented planning approaches seem to be desirable in order to focus on flexible, adaptive strategies, instead of a trust in hedging strategies and technical, mitigating measures. Until today, initiatives towards area-oriented planning approaches for transport infrastructure planning in case of highways are rarely applied. In adjacent planning fields, however, more knowledge from experiences has been gained, such as the ROM-policy, an area-oriented planning approach, which integrates environmental issues in spatial planning and in water management similar examples can be seen (see e.g. De Roo, 1999; Hidding & Van der Vlist, 2003). The essence of area-oriented approaches for transport infrastructure planning lies in the emphasis on the relation between on the one hand the needs, demands and opportunities of an area and on the other hand the design of new transport infrastructure (Arts, 2007). No longer, transport infrastructure should be considered as an isolated line. This needs a radical change in thinking within and about transport infrastructure planning: from thinking

9

from inside to outside to thinking from outside to inside – see Figure 5. Issues in this new approach concern possibly (European Union) environmental laws, which consider environmental issues more and more as area-based, relations with underlying road networks on regional or local scale level, future fixity of transport infrastructure projects, and what area should be considered as the plan or study area, in which area oriented planning approaches are applied (Arts 2007). Not only transport infrastructure planning has to deal with increasing flows and complex planning situations, also water management is supposed to handle growing flows. In water management, as mentioned, successful area-oriented approaches have been applied in order to find solutions to problems related to increasing water flows. 5.

Water management: Room for Rivers

A history of ‘taming’ the water The Dutch can look back upon a long history in water management. Large parts of The Netherlands, which are situated below sea level, were once taken from the sea. The country is well known by its large water management works to protect the land from the sea. Since the 1953 sea flood disaster, which afflicted the Southwestern part of the country, one of the main purposes of the responsible central government – the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (and especially its executive branch Rijkswaterstaat) – has been to protect against the sea. This resulted in a sophisticated system of infrastructure works consisting of dams, sluices and dikes (the “Deltaworks”-project). However, the danger not only comes from the sea but also from the rivers. The Netherlands are situated in the delta of four major European river systems, of which the Rhine and Meuse are the most prominent. Traditional Dutch river water management approaches were mainly focused on both protection against river floods and control over the river system. To protect areas surrounding rivers, technical mitigation measures accompanied with a strong belief in engineering and command-and-control approaches were used to solve emerging safety problems in the river system. This was done in a reactive way by canalizing the river streams and by building dikes – taming the rivers’ natural, unpredictable character. Year by year, dikes were reinforced and raised in the battle against the increasing threat of high floods. Most effort was put into technological measures. In line with the strong belief in technological solutions, in spatial planning the water interest was considered subservient to other interests. The room for the rivers was further reduced by the spatial planning practice that utilized original river forelands for e.g. housing projects. Due to global warming drainage will only increase in the years to come. Showers will occur more frequently and their intensity will increase (Commissie Waterbeheer 21e eeuw, 2000). In addition, due to the rising sea level, it is becoming harder to drain off the water that flows through the rivers. In Table 1 some estimations are given of the expected increase in water drainage of the Rhine and Meuse rivers in relation to possible temperature increases. It shows that compared to the current situation both rivers will have to deal with much more water in all three scenarios (low, central and high estimation). Table 1: Increasing flows, added current capacity (source: Demon & Alberts, 2005)

Current capacity Temperature (˚C) Average rain in Summer (%) Average rain in Winter (%) Effects on river drain off and sea level in 2100 Rhein (m3/s) 15000 Maas (m3/s) 3800 Sea level (cm) -

10

Low estimation +1 +1 +6

Central estimation +2 +2 +12

High estimation +4-6 +4 +25

16800 4180 +20

17600 4560 +60

19200 5320 +110

Threat of floods: a paradigm shift in water management In 1993 and 1995 The Netherlands were hit by a threatening flood of the Rhine and Meuse rivers. In 1995, for instance, 250,000 people and about 1 million animals had to be evacuated in a short time. It became painfully clear that traditional planning strategies were not adequate enough to guarantee protection against possible river floods. Shortly after these incidents, a “Deltaplan Big Rivers” was implemented, to speed up the dike reinforcements in order to reach an acceptable safety level for the river areas (PRvR 2006a). Afterwards, a paradigm shift in water management occurred. The Committee ‘Water Policy 21st Century’ (Commissie Waterbeheer 21e eeuw, 2000) was appointed by the central government to give advice about how to deal with the increasing water flows. The main advice was to give more room for the river system and to better connect the river systems. Following the advice, the central government formulated their policy in the report ‘Alternative ways for dealing with water’(Anders omgaan met water, V&W, 2000b). With that a new policy line was introduced, which contained the water opportunity map (Waterkansenkaart), the Water assessment test (Watertoets) and the Room for Rivers program (Ruimte voor de Rivier). Especially, the latter mentioned program (Room for Rivers) is relevant in our analogy of water management and transport infrastructure planning. The Room for the Rivers program was intended to give more room to the river system in both a literal and a figurative sense. The emphasis had to shift from dike reinforcements to river widening (V&W, 2000a). Dike reinforcements would only take place if other measures were unsuitable or financially unfeasible. Also the traditional approach to water interests had to change radically; water management had to switch from a subservient to a structuring element in spatial planning. In short, the central government’s view of the essence of the Room for Rivers program was “a new approach, in which the emphasis moved from reacting on actual changes to anticipating on longer term effects, from mainly focusing on technical solutions to working towards a more sustainable approach, by also taking into account possible spatial solutions” (V&W, 2000a p.6, translated from Dutch).

Clarification: 1. foreland dig out; 2. obstacle removal; 3. dike shift; 4. retention; 5. high water channel; 6. groin lowering; 7. Summer bed deepening; 8. dike raise; 9, dike improvement

Figure 6: Room for Rivers (Source: PRvR 2006b) In the field of spatial planning often three dimensions of planning can be distinguished: content, process and procedures. These dimensions can also be applied to the above discussed Room for Rivers program. Concerning the content of the plan, it is logical that, after the flood threats, the safety or protective aspect counts as the main objective. The second objective concerns the spatial quality enhancement with attention to nature-related, social and economic aspects. These aspects provide opportunities to gain societal acceptance (V&W, 2000a). The objective is focused on the development and the conservation of spatial qualities around river areas. In order to achieve this, the Room for Rivers program follows an area-oriented approach, in which attention is given to area-specific, tailor-made, integral and holistic solutions to problems related to increasing water flows by connecting safety issues to enhancement of spatial and environmental quality. The concept of multifunctional land use, therefore, seems to fit into this approach. The second dimension, the process of planning, concerns the broader spatial scope and the ordering element of water, included in the Room for Rivers program, which inevitably

11

means that more actors have to be involved in the planning process. Not only the central government, but also other central agencies, provinces, water boards and municipalities have to be involved. As Wolsink (2006: 475) argues, collaborative processes have to take place in order “to include other values than water safety”. The central government has to negotiate agreements with other actors involved (V&W, 2000a). The procedural context, the third dimension of planning, concerns the fact that in the Room for Rivers program more attention is given to integrated planning procedures, such as combining spatial planning, water management and nature issues in policies. The administrative-judicial instruments are the guiding principle in the parallel linking and in the coordination of statuary procedures (V&W, 2000a). Also, the program is in accordance with policies laid down in the European Water Framework Directive (200/60/EC). In conclusion, the Room for Rivers program is the result of a paradigm shift in water management. It is recognized that traditional mono-functional approaches are not adequate in both offering safety and in using the full potential of water – such as for transport, recreation, nature, and for drinking water. Therefore, nowadays a more multi-functional planning approach is preferred. 6.

Discussion: implications and directions for transport infrastructure planning

A strong analogy between the current Dutch transport infrastructure planning and the traditional Dutch river water management can be identified. In both fields, policies are or were particularly aimed at accommodating increased (traffic or water) volumes without paying specific attention to the spatial environment. As described before, problems of increasing water discharges were primarily dealt with by strengthening and heightening the dikes, without taking into account the possibilities of the wider area surrounding the rivers. This has a clear analogy to the transport infrastructure planning, in which a tendency exists to mainly focus on accommodating increased traffic flows via the highways, even though they lack the capacity to deal with the (increasing) demand, without giving much consideration to the relationships with the local (secondary) transport infrastructure network and other spatial developments in an area. Related problems such as increased noise levels are dealt with in a reactive way by building new or higher sound barriers, which can be regarded as the ‘dikes’ of the highways. Although such costly mitigating measures may reduce the objective noise intensities, it is questionable whether people living there actually perceive decreases in sound intensity; such barriers may rather work counterproductive if people see them as ‘landscape polluters’. Related to this, is that current infrastructure planning is focusing especially on acceptable development in stead of optimal development. As a consequence, the need for transport infrastructure is central in stead of the (environmental) carrying capacity and the spatial and environmental quality of the area (see also Koeleman et al. 2005). We can give several reasons why a more area-oriented approach may also benefit transport infrastructure planning – ‘Space for Mobility’ in analogy to ‘Room for Rivers. First of all, travelling can be seen as a derived demand. People need to travel in order to take part in activities (working, going to school, shopping, etc.) at different spatial locations. Therefore, the planning process should take account of the activity locations to be able to gain a good insight into the potential traffic demand and, as a consequence, into the needed road capacity. Can spatial functions – such as housing, working, recreation etcetera – in area be located in such way that the mobility demand is reduced and therefore the need for transport infrastructure? This relates to the connective function of transport infrastructure. Moreover, a more area-oriented approach has the advantage that the whole transportation network (both highways and secondary roads) is regarded. In some cases, for instance, it may be fruitful to accommodate more traffic via secondary roads to avoid massive congestion problems on the highways. Thirdly, widening the attention to the area around the infrastructure may also lead to new economic and socially interesting possibilities, such as searching for suitable locations for business parks, leisure activities, etc. relative to the road infrastructure or vice versa This is related to the structuring function of transport infrastructure. Somewhat related, an area-

12

based approach may also lead to the planning of more mixed-function areas (e.g., home and work in the same area), which on their turn may influence traffic demand and the needed road capacity. An area-oriented approach in which transport infrastructure and other spatial functions are jointly planned may result in an enhanced spatial-economic development potential of a region. Finally, in analogy with the ‘Room for Rivers’ concept, a more integrated process in which local actors (e.g., local public agencies, people living in the surrounding) are more actively consulted in the planning process itself may prevent possible resistances in an early stadium which on its turn may decrease time and cost delays. But why has the paradigm shift already occurred in water management and not yet in infrastructure planning? Some possible reasons can be given. An important one may relate to a difference in hierarchy of consequences. Dike bursts may lead to direct life-threatening situations and to enormous economic risks. Problems in transportation infrastructure planning relate especially to issues of accessibility and congestion. This common safety interest may have resulted in a higher urgency of improving this planning process. In addition, it may be related to the physical locations where mitigating measures have to be taken. In water management high flood problems occur along a large part of the river basin. This makes it possible to select suited ‘overflow’ areas that are of less economic and social importance. As such, mostly rural and agricultural areas are appointed. In transport infrastructure planning, however, mitigating measures are, generally speaking, needed at the locations where the mobility related problems occur. Often these problems take place in and around densely populated urbanized areas, where it is more difficult and expensive to implement measures due to, for instance, the scarcity of space, the many competing spatial claims and interests of different parties and due to environmental issues (see Arts 2007). A final potential reason given here relates to the possibility of multifunctional land use. Water management offers many opportunities for multifunctional land use because designated flood areas can, for example, be used for recreational purposes, nature developments, (special types of) agriculture, etc. Transport infrastructure, on the other hand, rather has a mono-functional character; during off-peak periods, a road, for instance, cannot easily be used for other purposes than driving. Possibilities to multifunctional land use must, therefore, rather be searched for in combined developments of infrastructure and the area around it (RVW 1998). In conclusion, in analogy to the ‘Room for Rivers’ program, transport infrastructure planning may benefit from a ‘Space for Mobility’ approach in which a more area-oriented approach to planning is applied. However, due to differences in, amongst other things, urgency and possible consequences, such a shift has not yet fully occurred in Dutch transport infrastructure planning. Scarce examples of area-based planning do exist but are characterized by a great ad-hoc character (Welles 2007). It is expected that in order to deal with the current problems in infrastructure planning a fundamental change – a paradigm shift – is necessary making area-oriented planning approaches a structural part of the infrastructure planning process. Recently, various developments can be seen in planning that direct towards areaoriented approaches in planning. For instance, the national Mobility Plan (V&W 2005) pays explicitly attention to initiatives in which area-oriented design is seen as a starting point for infrastructure development. Other initiatives concern amongst other things the report of the Luteijn Committee (Commissie Mobiliteitsmarkt A4, 2002) and more recently the report of the Elverding Committee (Elverding 2008), which call for more attention for coordination of spatial developments in the explorative stages of infrastructure proposals. Another significant recent development, is that the Long-Range Program Infrastructure & Transport (‘MIT’) has been replaced by the new Long-Range Program Infrastructure, Space & Transport – ‘MIRT’, in which the ‘R’ stands for ruimte which means ‘space’ (V&W, 2007). By introduction of the MIRT-programming the Dutch Cabinet strives for integration of spatial and infrastructure projects and public transport. The MIRT implies better coordination of national ministries and other government parties, better investments on basis of area-oriented strategies and an integrated programming of transport infrastructure, housing, business sites, water and landscape issues. The MIRT is the implementation program for both the national Mobility Plan and the national Spatial Planning Plan (“Nota Ruimte”).

13

7.

Conclusions

In this paper we aimed to give a first insight into why infrastructure planning has come to a deadlock and into what we can learn from other planning fields (especially water management). Finally, we aimed at determining possible consequences for the Dutch transport infrastructure planning. Traffic intensities and related congestion problems on the Dutch highways are increasing year by year. The measures that are applied to relieve the congestion problems can be assigned to mainly two categories: those that (try to) affect the travel demand, and those that enlarge the supply of capacity. Building new infrastructure is a policy measure that aims at increasing the road capacity. In spite of the ever increasing congestion problems, however, infrastructure planning in the Netherlands takes much time (in the order of 10-20 years). This is due to amongst other things huge, often conflicting interests of different actors, the growing scarcity of space, the changing roles of the (national) government and other parties, and due to the increasing influence of (European) environmental regulations. To deal with this increased complexity, it is needed to broaden the scope of the planning approach. This can be done by more specifically including the involved actors (earlier) into the planning process, and by applying a life-cycle approach in which infrastructure construction and maintenance issues and consents are already incorporated in the plan-making phase. Finally, there is a need for a more inclusive approach with respect to space. In transport infrastructure planning highways are usually seen as isolated, physical lines through the landscape that intersect the surrounding area. However, the environment and the road itself are not mutually independent. In a related planning field, e.g. water management, planners also had to deal with increasing, in this case water flows. High flood risks in the 1990s indicated that the rather reactive policies of only increasing and widening dikes were not sufficient anymore. Therefore, planners in this field successfully shifted towards a more area-oriented approach, in which certain spots were designated as potential flooding areas. Because of the clear analogy with increasing traffic flows, we examined to what extent such an area-based or spatial approach can improve the Dutch transport infrastructure planning both in time and costs needed for the planning process. We conclude that such an approach may improve transport-infrastructure planning because the infrastructure and the surrounding area are strongly linked. First of all, the road capacity needed is partly determined by people that undertake activities in the surrounding area (living, working, recreating, etc.). Also, an areaoriented approach may result in synergy effects by linking future developments to the planning of the infrastructure. Economic and social benefits may, for instance, occur if the infrastructure capacity already takes into account future spatial developments, such as new business parks. Finally, by already including relevant local actors (e.g., inhabitants, local public parties, the local market) into the first phase of the planning process, potential disagreements that may lead to court cases and as a consequence to time losses, higher costs and may be even to a total halt of infrastructure projects may more often be avoided. Although a paradigm shift towards a more area-oriented approach as has occurred in water management, may have several advantages, Dutch current transport infrastructure planning still has much characteristics of a sectoral planning approach. Recently, however, various developments can be seen that promise to a shift towards more area-oriented infrastructure planning.

• •

14

References

Alberts, F. (2003), Ruimte voor de rivier: trendbreuk en meervoudige kwaliteitsopgave, in: Hidding, M. and M. van der Vlist (eds.) (2003), Ruimte en water, planningsopgaven voor een rode delta, Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers Arts, E.J.M.M. (2007), Nieuwe wegen? Planningsbenaderingen voor duurzame infrastructuur [New roads? Planning approaches for sustainable infrastructure], inaugural speech,

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

• • • •

Groningen/Delft: University of Groningen / Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management (Rijkswaterstaat) Arts, J and F. van Lamoen (2005), ‘Before EIA; defining the scope of infrastructure projects in the Netherlands’, JEAPM (Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management), Vol.7/No.1, pp.51-80. AVV [Adviesdienst Verkeer & Vervoer] (2007), Nationale Mobiliteitsmonitor 2007, Rotterdam: Rijkswaterstaat, Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat. Banister, D. (2002), Transport Planning , second edition, London: Spon Bouwman, M.E. and G. Linden (2004), Transport Planning and Policy, in: Linden, G. and H. Voogd (eds.) (2004), Environmental and Infrastructure Planning, Groningen: Geo Press Bruijn, J.A. de, E.F. ten Heuvelhof & R. in ’t Veld (2002), Process Management, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Collingridge, D (1983). Hedging and Flexing, Two Ways of Chossing under Ignorance, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, pp. 161-17 Commissie Mobiliteitsmarkt A4 (2002), Beweging door samenwerking, Eindrapport, Den Haag: Projectsecretariaat Commissie Mobiliteitsmarkt Commissie Waterbeheer 21e eeuw (2000), Waterbeleid voor de 21e eeuw, Geef water de ruimte en aandacht die het verdient, Advies CPB [Centraal Planbureau], Milieu- en Natuur Planbureau, Ruimtelijk Planbureau (2006a), Welvaart & Leefomgeving, Een scenariostudie voor Nederland in 2040, Den Haag/Bilthoven: CPB/NMP/RPB CPB [Centraal Planbureau], Milieu- en Natuur Planbureau, Ruimtelijk Planbureau (2006b), Welvaart & Leefomgeving, Achtergronddocument, , Den Haag/Bilthoven: CPB/NMP/RPB Demon, A. & F. Alberts (2005), De Langetermijnvisie PKB Ruimte voor de Rivier Deel 1 Toekomstbeeld en Maatregelenpakket voor de lange termijn, Lelystad: RIZA, RWS Elverding [Commissie Versnelling Besluitvorming Infrastructurele Projecten] (2008), Sneller en Beter [Advice Committee on FasterDecision-making about Infrastructure Projects], The Hague Fisher, R. & W. Ury (1981), Getting to Yes: negotiating agreement without giving in, New York/London: Penguin Books Flyvbjerg, B., N. Bruzelius & W. Rothengatter (2003), Megaprojects and Risks, An anatomy of ambition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Healey, P. (1997), Collaborative Planning, shaping places in fragmented societies, London: MacMillan Press Heijden, R.E.C.M. van der (1996), ‘Planning large infrastructure projects: seeking a new balance between engineering and societal support’, DISP, 125 (18), pp. 18-25 Hidding, M. and M. van der Vlist (2003), Ruimte en water, planningsopgaven voor een rode delta, Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers Holling, C.S. (ed.) (1978), Adaptive Environmental Assessment and Management, Chichester, UK: John Wiley Jong, M. de & H. Geerlings (2004), A roadmap for infrastructure appraisal, Delft: TRAIL KIM, Kennisinstituut voor mobiliteitsbeleid (2007), Mobiliteitsbalans 2007, Den Haag: Ministerie Verkeer & Waterstaat. Koeleman, M., J.Arts, M.Roorda-Knape & J.W.Erisman (2005), ‘Environment and infrastructure, towards a new perspective in impact assessment’, in: H.van Bohemen (ed.), Ecological Engineering: Bridging the Gap between Ecology and Civil Engineering, Aeneas, Boxtel, pp.383-391. Linden, G. & H. Voogd (eds.) (2004), Environmental and Infrastructure Planning, Groningen: Geo Press Nederveen, J. (2007), Ruimtelijke inpassing van lijninfrastructuur, Een onderzoek naar de geschiktheid van inspraakrwacties voor het beoordelen van lijninfrastructuurontwerpen, Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft Nooteboom, S. (2006), Adaptive Networks, The governance for sustainable development, Delft: Eburon Nooteboom, S. (2007), ‘Impact assessment procedures for sustainable development: a complexity theory perspective’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 27, pp. 645-665

15

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

16

O’Flaherty, C.A. (1997) ‘Traffic planning strategies’, in|: C.A. O’Flaherty and A Coleman (eds.), Transport planning and traffic engineering, Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 132153 PRvR [Projectorganisatie Ruimte voor de Rivier] (2006a), PKB deel 1 Ruimte voor de Rivier, Ontwerp Planologische Kernbeslissing, Nota van Toelichting, Inspraak, Den Haag: Projectorganisatie Ruimte voor de Rivier PRvR [Projectorganisatie Ruimte voor de Rivier] (2006b), Planologische Kernbeslissing Ruimte voor de Rivier, Kabinetsstandpunt, Nota van Toelichting, Deel 3, Den Haag: Projectorganisatie Ruimte voor de Rivier Roo, G.de (1999), Planning per se, Planning per saldo, Over conflicten, complexiteit en besluitvorming in de milieuplanning, Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers, Rooij, A.de (ed.) (2000), Fysica van Samenwerking, naar een krachtenfusie van Burgers, Bestuurders, Bureaucraten en Bedrijven, Den Haag: Rijkswaterstaat RPB, Ruimtelijk Planbureau (2006), Bloeiende Bermen, Verstedelijking langs de snelweg, Rotterdam/Den Haag: NAi Uitgevers/RPB RVW [Raad voor Verkeer & Waterstaat] (1998), Ambities Bundelen, Advies over de Inpassing van Infrastructuur, Den Haag: Raad voor Verkeer & Waterstaat Susskind, L. & J. Cruickshank (1987), Consensual approaches to resolving public disputes, Basic Books, New York. Teisman, G.R. (1992), Complexe besluitvorming, een pluricentrisch perspektief op besluitvorming over ruimtelijke investeringen, 2e herziene druk (1995), Den Haag: VUGA Teisman, G.R. (2001), Ruimte mobiliseren voor coöptief besturen, Over management in netwerksamenlevingen, inaugural speech, Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam Telegraaf (2008), Verkeersramp zou goed zijn voor Nederland, De Telegraaf, April 15th, 2008 TK [Tweede Kamer der Staten Generaal] (2004), Grote projecten uitvergroot, een infrastructuur voor besluitvorming, vergaderjaar 2004-2005, 29283, nrs. 5-6. V&W [Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat] (2000a), Ruimte voor de rivier, Den Haag: Ministerie van V&W V&W [Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat] (2000b), Anders omgaan met water, Waterbeleid in de 21e eeuw, Kabinetsstandpunt, Den Haag: Ministerie van V&W V&W [Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat] (2004), Spelregels van het meerjarenprogramma Infrastructuur en transport, herzien door B. Dircksens, J. Arts & N. de Koning, Den Haag: Ministerie van V&W V&W [Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat] (2005), Nota Mobiliteit, Naar een betrouwbare en voorspelbare bereikbaarheid, Deel III Kabinetsstandpunt, Den Haag: Ministeries V&W en VROM V&W [Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat] (2006), Nota Mobiliteit, Deel IV, Na parlementaire behandeling vastgestelde PKB, Den Haag: Ministerie van V&W V&W [Ministerie van Verkeer & Waterstaat] (2007), Meerjarenprogramma Infrastructuur, Ruimte en Transport, MIRT-projectenboek 2008, Den Haag: Ministeries V&W, VROM, EZ en LNV. Verhoef, E. (2003), Rijen? De economie van verkeerscongestie en andere stedelijke externaliteiten, Amsterdam: Vrije Universiteit VROM-Raad (1999), Mobiliteit met beleid, Advies 017, Den Haag Welles, H. (2007), Infrastructuur van lijnopgave naar gebiedsopgave: V&W anders in het proces! [concept] Wolsink, M. (2005), River basin approach and integrated water management: Governance pitfalls for the Dutch Space-Water-Adjustment Management Principle, Geoforum, 37, pp.473-487 Woltjer. J. (2000), Consensus Planning, The relevance of communicative planning theory in Dutch infrastructure development, Aldershot: Ashgate WRR [Wetenschappelijk Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid] (1994), Besluiten over grote projecten, Rapporten aan de regering 46, Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers