Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The rationality of transport investment packages

  • Published:
Transportation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Investment packages, involving several modes, emerge as a widely used element in urban transport policies. Package policies entail some specific possibilities and traps in the planning and decision-making processes. To assess these properties, the concepts of instrumental and communicative rationality are applied. These rationality concepts serve to structure the pro and con arguments concerning four crucial considerations in package planning: The use of formal impact assessment methods, the overall size and changeability of the investment packages, the share of road vs green modes investments, and the sequence of implementation. These issues are investigated by drawing on experience from transport investment packages in six Norwegian cities.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ahlstrand I (1998) The rise and fall of the heroic transport plan for Stockholm. Transport Policy5: 205-211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderstig C &; Mattson L-G (1992) Appraising large-scale investments in a metropolitan transportation system. Transportation19: 267-283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banfield EC (1959) Ends and means in planning. International Social Science Journal11(3): 361-368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop ER, Wornum C &; Weiss M (1998) Experience of metropolitan planning organizations with Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act financial planning requirements. Transportation Research Record1606: 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Black A (1993) The recent popularity of light rail transit in North America. Journal of Planning Education and Research12: 150-159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boardman A, Vining A &; Waters II WG (1993) Costs and benefits through bureaucratic lenses: Example of a highway project. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management12(3): 532-555.

    Google Scholar 

  • Breheny MG &; Hooper AJ (1985) Introduction: The role of rationality in urban and regional planning. In: Breheny MJ and Hooper AJ (eds) Rationality in Planning(pp 1-14). London: Pion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunsson N (1989) The Organization of Hypocrisy. Chichester: John Wiley &; Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruzelius N, Flyvbjerg B &; Rothengatter W (1998) Big decisions, big risks; improving accountability in mega projects. International Review of Administrative Sciences64(3): 423-440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bull D &; Seale K (1994) A sustainable transport package for London. In: Transport Policy and its Implementation(pp 29-40). Proceedings from the 22nd PTRC Summer Annual Meeting. Warwick: University of Warwick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins A and O'Doherty R (1996) Trunk road investment, environmental costs and bureaucracy. International Journal of Transport Economics23(2): 187-203.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeCorla-Souza P &; Cohen H (1999) Estimating induced travel for evaluation of metropolitan highway expansion. Transportation26(3): 249-262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diesing P (1962) Reason in Society: Five Types of Decisions and Their Social Conditions. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forester J (1989) Planning in the Face of Power.Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fridstrøm L &; Elvik R (1997) The barely revealed preference behind road investment priorities”, Public Choice92:145–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaister, S. (1999) “Observations on the new approach to the appraisal of road projects. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy33(2): 227-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 1: Reason and Rationalization of Society. London: Heinemann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas J (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action. Vol. 2: Lifeworld and System: A Critique of Functionalist Reason. Boston: Beacon press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johansson B &; Mattson L-G (1995) From theory and policy analysis to the implementation of road pricing: The Stockholm region in the 1990s. In: Johansson B &; Mattson L-G (eds) Road Pricing: Theory, Empirical Assessment and Policy(pp 181-204). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones P (1991) Gaining public support for road pricing through a package approach. Traffic Engineering and Control32(4): 194-196.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones P (1994) Methodological Issues Surrounding the Design and Evaluation of Transport Packages. Paper presented to the 22nd PTRC Summer Annual Meeting. Warwick, University of Warwick.

  • Jones P (1995) Road pricing: The public viewpoint. In: Johansson B &; Mattson L-G (eds) Road Pricing: Theory, Empirical Assessment and Policy(pp 159-179). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P &; Lucas K (1999) Developing joined-up policy assessment frameworks. In: Transport Planning, Policy and Practice(pp 345-360). Proceedings of Seminar B, European Transport Conference, Cambridge 27-29 September 1999. London: PTRC.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langmyhr T (1997) Managing equity. Transport Policy4(1): 25-39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langmyhr T (1999) Understanding innovation: The case of road pricing. Transport Reviews19(3):255-271.

    Google Scholar 

  • Langmyhr T (forthcoming) The rhetorical side of transport planning. European Planning Studies.

  • Langmyhr T &; Sager T (1997) Implementing the improbable urban road pricing scheme. Journal of Advanced Transportation31(2): 139-158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lemberg K (1995) Decision-making for trans-European links - the Danish case. In: Banister D, Capello R &; Nijkamp P (eds) European Transport and Communications Networks(pp265-285). Chichester: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lindblom C (1959) The science of ‘muddling through’. Public Administration Review19(2):79-88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mackie P &; Preston J (1998) Twenty-one sources of error and bias in transport project appraisal.Transport Policy5(1): 1-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • May AD &; Roberts M (1995) The design of integrated transport strategies. Transport Policy2(2): 97-105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RH (1987) The economics profession and the making of public policy. Journal of Economic Literature25(1): 49-91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson M &; Brand D (1982) Methods for identifying transportation alternatives. Transportation Research Record867: 19-22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nijkamp P &; Ubbels B (1999) How reliable are estimates of infrastructure costs? A comparative analysis. International Journal of Transport Economics26(1): 23-53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nilsson J-E (1991) Investment decisions in a public bureaucracy. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy25(2): 163-175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nyborg K (1996) Environmental Valuation, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Policy Making: A Survey.Oslo: Statistisk Sentralbyrå.

    Google Scholar 

  • Odeck J (1996) Ranking of regional road investment in Norway. Does socioeconomic analysis matter? Transportation23(2): 123-140.

    Google Scholar 

  • PIARC (1998) Economic Evaluation Methods for Road Projects in Member Countries. Report of C9 Committee.

  • Pickrell DH (1992) A desire named Streetcar: Fantasy and fact in transit planning. APA Journal58(2): 158-176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Read G &; Quinn D (1994) The package approach - dawn of a new age for urban transport funding. In: Transport Policy and its Implementation(pp 17-28). Proceedings from the 22nd PTRC Summer Annual Meeting. Warwick: University of Warwick.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richardson T &; Haywood R (1996) Deconstructing transport planning. Transport Policy3(1-2):43-53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riksrevisjonen (1999) Riksrevisjonens undersøkelse av vegmyndighetenes styring i fem utvalgte bompengeprosjekter.(An investigation by the Public Accounts Committee concerning the road authorities' governing in five selected toll projects.) Dokument 3:3. Oslo: Riksrevisjonen.177

    Google Scholar 

  • Sager T (1984) Formal evaluation in participatory planning. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research1: 215-234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sager T (1994) Communicative Planning Theory. Aldershot: Avebury.

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon H (1957) [1945] Administrative Behavior. Second edition. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skamris MK &; Flyvbjerg B (1997) Inaccuracy of traffic forecasts and cost estimates on large transport projects. Transport Policy4(3): 141-146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Still B (1995) The importance of transport impacts on land use in strategic planning. Traffic Engineering and Control37(10): 564-571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Throgmorton JA (1996) Planning as Persuasive Storytelling. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • van Geenhuizen M, van Zuylen H &; Nijkamp P (1998) Limits to predictability. In: Proceedings of Seminar D, European Transport Conference(pp 291-302 ). Loughborough University.

  • Wachs M (1982) Ethical dilemmas in forecasting for public policy. Public Administration Review42(6): 562-567.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wachs M (1995) The political context of transportation policy. In: Hanson S (ed) The Geography of Urban Transportation, Second edition (pp 269-286). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. County Municipality of Sør-Trøndelag, N-7004, Trondheim, Norway

    Tore Langmyhr

Authors
  1. Tore Langmyhr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Langmyhr, T. The rationality of transport investment packages. Transportation 28, 157–178 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010396029605

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010396029605

Search

Navigation