Coordinating public transport with land use and road infrastructure Investigating mechanisms involved in two Scandinavian urban projects Research Director Frode Longva Institute of transport Economics

Page The objective Background  The transportation sector is a major contributor to climate change  Current measures are not sufficient to stop the negative effects The challenge:  Need to transcend PT policies into a wider sustainable agenda  Combing PT policies with issues of land use and road infrastructure  Ultimately increases the complexity involved in policy making and coordination This paper:  Examines the way PT measures are considered and implemented together with land use and road infrastructure policies  In two Scandinavian urban areas: Trondheim and Helsingborg 2

Page The cases Trondheim:  PT initiatives in the context of a policy package: The Environmental Transport package  The municipality, the region/PTA and the Road administration Helsingborg:  PT initiatives in the context of a partnership agreement: The Busvision  The municipality, the region/PTA, the operator Similarities  Seen as “upfront” in their PT solutions due to high actions taken towards reducing congestion and carbon dioxides  Combines PT measures with infrastructure and/or land use measures to achieve them 3

Page What is policy coordination?  Pressman&Wildavsky (1984): No suggestion for reform is more common than ”what we need is more coordination”  No generally agreed-upon definition of coordination exists  As a starting point:  “instruments and mechanisms that aim to enhance the voluntary or forced alignment of tasks and efforts of organizations within the public sector” (Bouckaert et al 2010:16)  The literature further separates between:  Horizontal and vertical coordination  Policy formulation and policy implementation 4

Page Coordinating mechanisms – moving beyond the formal instruments 5 Organisational coordination Complete contracting Incomplete contracting Discursive coordination Deployment; how? Actors; who? Strength; what? Authority - control - sanctions - incentives - trust - consensus

Page Organisational coordination  Same, same: Both cases combine  Working groups, administrative and political steering committees  All parties involved  But different: The organisations serve different purposes  Trondheim: the committees have hierarchically superior positions  Helsingborg: no pre-defined superior positions  The strain of coordination is put on  the consensus/equality based working groups in Helsingborg  the authority based steering committee in Trondheim  And same again:  Land use included in policy formulation, excluded from organizational instruments in both cases 6

Page Complete contracting  Authority mechanisms are replaced by control, sanctions and procedures of non-compliance  Two cases: 1.The service contract from PTA to operator in Trondheim 2.The service contract from PTA to operator in Helsingborg  Equal contractual arrangements despite functioning in different organizational surroundings  Both are highly detailed, incentivized, one-sided contracts  In line with aim of no operator involvement in Trondheim  At stake with aims of mutual partnership in Helsingborg  Complete contracting is less flexible and harder to adjust during the lifetime of the contract 7

Page Incomplete contracting  Control/sanctions are replaced by negotiation and trust  Two cases: 1.The Norwegian reward fund 2.The agreement between Helsingborg and the PTA  The Norwegian reward fund from state to the region/municipality  Specifies goals, financial obligations, monitoring forms etc  However, the evaluation form is open for interpretations  A vertical instrument spurring horizontal policy coordination  The agreements in Helsingborg are more vague  Evaluation through ongoing consultations and no sanctions  Control through the ongoing cooperation in the working groups  Contrast to the contractual clauses between the PTA and the operator 8

Page Discursive coordination  Coordination through consensus building  For the PT planner, coordination leads to a variety of new partners  A variety of competencies and meeting of different knowledge claims.  In Helsingborg, the inclusion of the operator revealed knowledge and power struggles with those of the PTA  Initially, all involved parties were conceived equal  The operator was not allowed to lead any working groups + unlevelled resources  In Trondheim, the inclusion of the Road Administration revealed different cultures from those of the city planners and PTA  Planning of road investments without sufficient PT improvements 9

Page Conclusion  The findings calls for a system wide perspective: One mechanism may counteract another  The chosen coordinating instruments may be at stake with policy formulation  Land use was excluded in both cases  Complete contracting hardly consistent with mutual partnerships  Power structures may undermine policy coordination  Unlevelled amount of resources and competencies  Clashes of knowledge  Hierarchical and network mechanisms may be mutually reinforcing  Cooperation in working groups may require at strong authority based mechanism.  A vertical mechanism may spur horizontal coordination, eg. Reward fund  The findings stresses the importance of trust and cultural factors when designing the coordination process 10

Page So what?  Goal achievement in both cases  Sharp increase in PT patronage  Do we need all these coordinating efforts?  However:  In both cases: Thanks to isolated PT measures  In both cases: Infrastructure + land use endangers goal achievement  What happens in the long run?  More research is needed:  On the effects and limits of coordination  On the coordination problems and tensions which can exist between representatives of different planning sectors 11