European Platform On Mobility Management WORKSHOP PROMOTING THE INTEGRATION OF MOBILITY MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE POLICIES

Transcription

1 Europan Platform On Mobility Managmnt WORKSHOP PROMOTING THE INTEGRATION OF MOBILITY MANAGEMENT AND LAND USE POLICIES Th importanc of Public-Privat Partnrship Carlo Sssa ISIS Institut of Systm Intgration Studis, Rom, Italy 9 March 2001

2 1. Public Privat Partnrship: main issus Changs in bhaviour and in dmand for transport infrastructur gnrally hav fostrd a nw, complx approach to infrastructur construction, xtnsions and maintnanc. This approach has givn ris to nw ways of working, with th formation of nginring, construction, financing and oprating consortia, for xampl. Public- Privat Partnrship (PPP) is a growing practic almost vrywhr. Th volving contxt in which public/privat sctor partnrships ar bing formd is rshaping th rspctiv rols of th public sctor (cntral govrnmnt and rgional and local authoritis) and th privat sctor (firm and lnding institutions). Howvr, rvision of accountability and th division of rsponsibility would rquir a stabl lgislativ framwork and a bttr sprad of risk btwn th diffrnt partis involvd which is far from bing achivd in th Europan institutional contxt. In fact, th lgal framworks govrning contracts btwn public and privat oprators vary gratly from country to country and ar changing fast. Th commrcial risks involvd, spcially in larg transport infrastructur dvlopmnt, ar quit wll known: for a road or a bridg, thy amount to th possibility of rror in traffic forcasts and/or in th lasticity of dmand of motorist to th lvl or structur of tolls lvid. Whn a fr-of-charg ntwork alrady xists (th situation in virtually all cass), th capability of invstors, b thy privat or public, to stimat th rturns to a spcific (tolld) addition to th ntwork raiss substantial difficultis whos rsolution might hav to await th dvlopmnt of systm-wid pricing. In ordr to b succssful, PPP nds to prvnt as far as possibl ths risks. Th following rcommndations hav bn producd in a rcnt OECD Documnt (OECD, 2000) with ths aims in viw: Intgrat privat sctor involvmnt into ovrall urban stratgy: projct that ar part of a cohrnt urban transport stratgy hav a much bttr chanc of bing accptd by usrs/citizns. Do not ignor th limitations of th all-public or all-privat financ modls: both public and privat solutions hav thir shortcomings. Th diffrnc is that th public sctor cannot shy away from its rsponsibilitis. In many cass, combining th tax-funding modl with privat financ will rquir usr tolls. A numbr of diffrnt mixd-financing solutions can b dvlopd, but non is prfct. Introduc land and proprty valus in infrastructur financ: trying to rcovr capital costs solly through usr charging is scarcly fasibl. Japans xprincs (i.. th Tokyo cas) dmonstrat th potntial of approachs that intgrat land and proprty valus into schms. Valu captur can b sn as a mchanism for additional funding of infrastructur projcts, thus incrasing thir fasibility and rducing public spnding. Sparat social and financial rturns: whr financ is largly privat, th proccupation has bn with stting tolls at lvls that scur optimal rvnus for 2

3 th oprator, with considrabl wlfar loss for th usr. In th sam way, public financ tnds to focus mor on socio-conomic rturns than on financial targts. Of cours a balanc btwn th two ky ratios has to b gathrd. Mixd financing offrs a way of achiving this balanc. Dfin th rsponsibilitis and risks to b assumd by public and privat actors: gnrally govrnmnt is playing a smallr rol in PPP schms, but it plays a largr part in rgulatory issus. Usually th public sctor bars th risks of planning, sit provision and accss, changs in laws and rigiditis in urban managmnt. Planning risks ar in particular too grat for th privat sctor, rsulting in high pr-projct costs and long dlays: th privat sctor should b involvd in PPP only aftr public inquiris and planning procdurs hav bn concludd. Financ, construction, oprations, tchnology and patronag ar risks covrd by th privat oprators Byond th abov mntiond issus, thr is anothr whos importanc is fast growing, as it is signalld by th fact that traditional tchnocratic approachs to infrastructur planning ar inadquat, whil thr is a claim for mor participatory approachs, and adquat mchanisms that could mak mor opn th dcision-making procsss towards citizns. Indd, as again it is highlightd in th OECD Rport (OECD 2000), w ar mor and mor confrontd with a basic failur of th dominant approach to urban infrastructur planning. By and larg, this assums that usrs bhav prdictably. Prdictiv modlling is currntly applid to valuat x-ant costs and bnfits of an infrastructur projct. Sinc th srvic lif of an infrastructur runs to svral dcads, it is obviously vry dsirabl to b abl to prdict how dmand for facilitis would dvlop so as to optimis dsign. Most advancd mthods us bhavioural modls to improv th quality and dtail of th forcasts. Howvr, th fundamntal drawback of this currnt approach is that it fails to rcognis that th bhaviour chang. Th bhaviour of individuals changs as thy matur and larn how to improv thir wll-bing through mor, lss or diffrnt utilisation of th urban systm and srvics. Th sam applis to firms and othr institutions, and this ultimatly has an impact on infrastructur utilisation that is impossibl to prdict, spcially at th outst of its dploymnt. An almost dramatic dmonstration of how rcnt prdictions basd on currnt mthods and modls wr wrong has bn givn in a rcnt sminar by Vincnt Piron (Piron 2000), that prsntd th following comparisons of forcastd against ral prformancs: Eurotunnl 5,5 Gfrancs against 9,5; Orlyval 2M pax against 4M pax; Toll highway North-Lyon 25% of traffic prvision; Tago bridg in Lisbon 150% of traffic prvision, to quot only som xampls. Thn, an altrnativ (or at last a strong complmnt) to this still dominant prdictiv modlling approach has to b lookd for, and can b found in th concpt and practic of social larning. Larning is important, bcaus to a larg xtnt infrastructur contributs to social and conomic wll-bing as conomic agnts larn to rcognis th bnfits that nw infrastructur affords. Such larning oftn rquirs adaptation by housholds, firms and othr institutions in ordr to tak advantag of th changs, as wll as by plannrs, dsignrs, constructors and oprators, which larn to improv 3

4 procsss and procdurs through xprinc and xprimntation. In ordr to fostr this larning approach, howvr, som important barrirs hav to b rmovd: th rmot rlationship btwn infrastructur and srvic supplirs and thir customrs and othr stakholdrs; tchnical and procdural rquirmnts that ar xclusionary, typically rlying on complx planning and analysis procdurs that xclud constructiv participation by som stakholdrs; th currnt too havy focus on fostring th conomic fficint us of facilitis, instad of fostring th us of infrastructurs to produc conomic and social valu. 2. Enlarging th scop of participation and co-opration A projct may b dfind in gnral trms as th managmnt of a st of coordinatd activitis undr th dirction of a managr, for th ralisation of a spcific objctiv, with prdtrmind rsourcs and during a limitd priod of tim. Th procss involvs th obligation to provid a rsult, a limitd tim-span, and could prsnt an innovation. As such, a projct is a coordination mchanism. Howvr, with rgard to th scop and final rsult of a larg infrastructur projct, th main issu is to undrstand th intrplay of two dimnsions which ar sldom if not at all rcognisd: th concrt projct itslf, th output, whos fficint ralisation is th final goal of projct managmnt, and th mor global but not lss important dimnsion of rgional dvlopmnt, which should b th final outcom of larg scal infrastructur dvlopmnt. Not always ths two dimnsions ar idntifid, and in any cas thy ar oftn managd from sparatd ntitis (rgional planning institutions and projct xcutors): th challng is to manag an intgratd vision and action on ths two dimnsions, allowing for a common undrstanding of th dsird outcom of th projct and a bttr co-ordination btwn institutions rsponsibl for rgion-wid planning and thos dirctly in charg of projct monitoring activitis. An additional altrnativ outcom could b that th institutional framwork in itslf comprhnds both dimnsions, although this prspctiv is mor difficult to ralis, at last for vry larg projcts. Bst practic should imply a cohrnt vision and planning stratgy, and a prmannt monitoring of nw infrastructur impacts, at th diffrnt spatial lvls to which thy manifst thmslvs. This can b mor asily achivd whn th scal of th projct is rlativly small, allowing for dcision-making and projct managmnt fully undr th rsponsibility of a local authority. It is a mor challnging aim whn, on th contrary, a larg infrastructur crosss th trritory of a multiplicity of local authoritis or, in any cas, has a wid impact on rgional or vn national and cross-bordr rgions dvlopmnt. Th concpt of larg scal infrastructur dosn t rfr to an absolut yardstick to valuat projct dimnsion, such as a larg dimnsion of costs, financing nds, building complxity, total incras of transport volums and land us impacts. On th 4

5 contrary, th dfinition is rlativ to th contxt and th spatial scal in which th projct is includd, and any transport infrastructur can b dfind larg if it prsnts: - substantial financing problms rlatd to building, opration and maintnanc aspcts; - snsibl impacts on diffrnt public and/or privat actors, which ar (or should b) mor or lss activly involvd in th dcision and implmntation procss, and that must in som way co-ordinat thir action for a succssful outcom of th projct; - finally, a snsibl ntwork ffct. Th lattr point dsrvs a spcial attntion. Urban transport infrastructurs ar intrlinkd to form ntworks. Th usag of a nw infrastructur will hav rprcussions on th rst of th ntwork: th bnficiaris of on link in th chain will not b just th usrs of that link, but all th usrs of th ntwork. A distinction should b mad btwn bnficiaris of positiv impacts (.g. rduction of travl tims) and barrs of ngativ impacts (.g. ngativ xtrnalitis such as nois, visual intrusion in th proximity of th infrastructur, or rduction of rvnus for frry boat oprators whn a nw bridg is opn to traffic). Morovr, w should also considr transport impacts sparatly from land us impacts. By this global point of viw, a larg infrastructur projct will b charactrisd by vidnt and potntially masurabl rprcussions on traffic flows and land us valus in an ara largr than that formd by th land occupid by th infrastructur and th immdiat proximity. 3. Lssons larnd from th COST332 cas studis A rcnt survy of institutional arrangmnts for co-ordination of land us and transport policis has bn ralisd undr th Europan Commission Transport Rsarch COST 332 Action, whos aim has bn to valuat th ffctivnss of institutional at work in diffrnt Europan countris prforming cas study analysis of rlvant projcts and procdurs (EU 1998). In particular, thr cas studis focusd on co-ordination by projct xampls: th financing, building and opration of th Copnhagn-Malmo (Dnmark-Swdn) bridg, a local dvlopmnt projct in th city of Staffanstorp of th Scania rgion (Swdn), and th Barclona Dlta Plan (Spain). All ths cas studis includd larg infrastructur projcts and aspcts of PPP btwn svral actors, at diffrnt spatial scals: vry larg in th cas of th Copnhagn- Malmo bridg, larg in th cas of th Dlta Plan, and small for th Staffanstorp cas. By and larg, projct managmnt tchniqus to manag all th projct chain from dsign of th infrastructur, financing, building opration and maintnanc ar wll known, and svral xampls of bst practics can b found. Looking at th COST 332 cas studis, th Copnhagn-Malmo bridg was surly a bst practic, which was succssfully ndd with th opning to th commrcial traffic in July A spcific consortium was cratd, which is 50% ownd by th Danish Stat and 50% by th 5

6 Swdish stat, to tak th rsponsibility to financ, construct, own and oprat th bridg (Matthissn 2000). By th sam tokn, howvr, coordination mchanisms to str projct impacts on rgional dvlopmnt aftr its compltion cannot b asily idntifid from th currnt practics. Taking again th xampl of COST 332 cas studis, in th cas of Copnhagn-Malmo bridg planning activitis in th Orsund ara ar still basd on an intra-rgional dimnsion, orintatd towards dvlopmnt prspctivs and planning issus concrning only ons own part of th ara, whil th markt driving forcs ar now going in th dirction of fully xploiting th opportunitis cratd by th two bordr rgions physical connction. A nw location dcision pattrn is alrady vidnt: for xampl th Mrcds Bnz company has dcidd to mov its Swdish hadquartrs from Stockolm to Malmo, and its Danish hadquartrs to a position nar th fixd link. Whil construction of th fixd link wnt as plannd, th othr cross boundary planning activitis which includ th ongoing stablishmnt of an intgratd public transport systm and an nvironmntal agrmnt strd by a nwly cratd Orsund Commit ar lacking bhind. A common cross-sctoral and comprhnsiv spatial planning for th Orsund Ara, giving priority to sustainabl sttlmnt and land-us pattrns, is yt to b sn (Matthissn 2000). Th situation is vn worst for th Barclona Dlta Plan: th ntring into forc of th Dlta Infrastructur Agrmnt among th Spain cntral govrnmnt, th Catalan autonomous govrnmnt, th municipalitis of Barclona and Prat dl Llobrgat, th rgional council of Baix and th othr municipalitis of th Barclona mtropolitan ara, in th yar 1994, has bn not abl to avoid svral conflicts which slow down th projcts dvlopmnt and hindr a comprhnsiv planning stratgy (Junynt 2000). An intrsting xcption sms to b th Staffanstorp cas of city cntr rdvlopmnt, whr th strong involvmnt from th municipality and th comprhnsiv approach to dvlopmnt cratd th possibilitis for bttr coordination of planning as wll as implmntation of th actions. Howvr, this was favourd b th local scal of th city rdvlopmnt projct. Morovr, th most important nabling factor was that th municipality ownd most of th land involvd, which facilitatd th ralisation of coordinatd dvlopmnt programms basd on xtnsiv us of PPP schms (Book & Eskilsson 2000). Th main lssons larnd from th mntiond COST332 cas studis ar summarisd blow: whn it coms to th implmntation of a spcific stratgy, th most fficint coordination arrangmnt is on basd on formalisd agrmnts whr a prviously informal ntwork has bn rplacd by mor formal structurs, and whr innovation has dvlopd into organising capacity. This approach has provn to b ffctiv for th construction of th fixd link btwn Dnmark and Swdn giving ris to a consortium for financing, building, opration and maintnanc and, in a lssr dgr, for th implmntation of th Dlta Plan in Barclona, with th signatur of a formal agrmnt among th various national, rgional and local actors concrnd. 6

7 A comprhnsiv viw of th planning and implmntation aspcts is important. Actors with a comprhnsiv viw can promot far-raching coordination of land us and transport planning, as it was in th cas of th municipality of Staffanstorp. In this cas, a quit uniqu plan procdur th Stanstad mthod - has bn fasibl and it was implmntd. Thanks to th fact that th municipality ownd 90 prcnt of th land in th city cntr, th municipality mad a markt analysis in ordr to valu th land. Thn it sold th attractiv, cntrally locatd land at markt prics to dvloprs. Th blocks wr sold on by on to diffrnt dvloprs. In rturn for th xpnsiv land th dvloprs got xtndd right to xploit th proprtis. Staffanstorp usd th incom from th land sal to improv infrastructurs and public spac, and in this way th rdvlopmnt didn t cost anything to th municipality. Also from th point of viw of coordination of planning and implmntation th Staffanstorp xprinc was intrsting: all th planning phass from th arly concption of th structur plan to th dtaild land us plan whr opn by th local politicians to comptition among svral proposals of profssional tams and othr stakholdrs, and city officials and politicians chos projcts and ngotiatd th bst solution for all actors involvd, until building prmits hav bn issud and th projcts ralisd. All along th procss, various stakholdrs hav bn involvd in th framing of th nw rdvlopmnt. Howvr, on ssntial pr-condition was th fact th municipality ownd th land, and thus th practic sms transfrabl only to thos situations in which planning authoritis hav th control ovr th land to b dvlopd. This pr-condition is mor asy to b found for projcts at th local scal than for larg infrastructurs, as for instanc rgional or intrrgional transport links. A mor gnral conclusion concrns, finally, th nd to st-up a powrful ntwork organising capacity which should hav th authority and comptnc to dal with all th complxity of th projct, achiving objctivs of balanc, cohsion and cohrnc among th svral aspcts concrnd including transport, land us impacts and ntwork ffcts and fostring th sustainabl dvlopmnt of th initiativ in th widr contxt of rgional (or vn national) dvlopmnt. Organising capacity could tak svral forms a nw ad hoc agncy, a govrnanc mchanisms linking togthr svral actors with formalisd agrmnts and can includ only public actors as wll as public and privat actors stting up PPP schms. Th lattr ida is not totally nw, bcaus thr ar alrady xampls of linking diffrnt transport and land dvlopmnt projcts by singl providrs, of ithr privat or public sctors, to captur part of th incrmnts of land us valus causd by a nw infrastructur. With this mchanism of valu capturing (transport) low profit infrastructur projcts and (land-us) high profit commrcial projcts can b providd by th sam dvlopr, making total projcts profitabl, through intrnalisation of xtrnal conomy and slf cross-subsidy. This typ is spcially usd by privat railways companis who dvlop th land along th railway. It is rlativly common in th Far East Asian countris (Japan, Hong Kong), whr th addd-valu to land is vry 7

8 high bcaus of land scarcity. Noticabl and succssful applications in Europ ar lss common. Howvr, th ida of crating strong organising capacity to manag larg scal infrastructur projcts is innovativ in at last on rspct: it is not mant to b limitd to finding suitabl financing to th projcts, but to cop with all th potntial conflicts of intrst raisd by th infrastructur during all th projct lif and byond, in th opration phas, managing th diffrnt conomic staks and social concrns. Morovr, whn thr ar rlvant ntwork ffcts at national or vn intrnational lvl, this organisation should b abl to balanc th staks not only of th local actors, but also of thos actors that at mor global lvl can b thratnd by th ntwork impacts. Th Copnhagn-Malmo bridg cas study can b quotd again, bcaus it prsnts an mblmatic xampl of contradictory ntwork impacts which crat tnsions for a crucial actor - th Danish National Railway Agncy (DNRA). DNRA owns th frry link in th North of Dnmark, whos traffic will b in comptition with that through th nw fixd link in th South nd of th Orsund ara. As it stands now, DNRA is also havily involvd in th projct aimd at stablishing an intgratd public transport systm for th Copnhagn-Malmo conurbation, bing on out of four partnrs in th official coopration schm cratd with this aim. Thus, thr is an incntiv for DNRA to spcialis th nw bridg for local rail traffic, without supplying comptitiv long distanc srvics through th nw bridg which could rprsnt a thrat for th traffic on th northrn frry link. Ths kinds of conflict could b bttr managd in th futur if an organising capacity for th whol Orsund Ara is cratd, basd on th following lmnts: rgional managmnt and planning foundd in lgally binding agrmnts and political support, consistncy of stratgis and policis, institutionalisation of ntwork rlations and stablishmnt of a ladrship capabl of dvloping and implmnting dcision cross-sctoral and trans-national (Matthissn 2000). 4. Concluding rmarks: how to intgrat partnrs and policis around complx public projcts Whn th scop of th projct is local, problms ar rlativly simplifid, bcaus th intrplay should b mainly among local institutions and actors. But whn th scop of th projct is larg, diffrnt public intrst, at th local as wll as rgional and national lvl, ntr into th gam, as thy ar rprsntd by diffrnt tirs of govrnmnts, stakholdrs (.g. national utilitis), tc. Th public concrns at th local, rgional and local lvls ar not always harmonious, crating conflicts, vtos tc. among th diffrnt lvl of govrnmnts. A typical xampl in oldr urban aras ar potntial conflicts btwn cultural hritag prsrvation offics (usually at a national lvl) and local planning bodis, whnvr a nw infrastructur thratns a prsrvd ara. A lading principl, adoptd by th Europan Union, to rationalis th distribution of powrs and rsponsibilitis among svral layrs of public authoritis is subsidiarity. Basd on th subsidiarity rul, th dcision to ralis a land us or transport infrastructur in a givn trritory should b allottd to th smallr lvl of govrnmnt 8

9 which rprsnts at last th gratr majority of impact population. As illustratd in th attachd diagram, th public choic procss in modrn dmocratic systms is basd on th functioning of national, rgional and local govrnmnts, ach with thir lctoral bass and thir tax bass, which assur financing of govrnmnt activitis. Th lattr activitis typically includ dcisions concrning lgal and planning acts, rgulations, invstmnt and srvic provision at th national, rgional and local lvl, which can b financd with rsourcs coming from th local tax bas or vn as it is oftn th cas for larg scal infrastructurs th rgional and national tax bass, through th intrgovrnmntal allocation of grants. Basd on th mor or lss wid scop of a public action rgulation, srvic, infrastructur th impact population can b idntifid into a local, rgional or vn a nation-wid ara. Th full application of th subsidiarity principl should guarant that lctoral bass and impact populations mostly ovrlap. For instanc, th control of larg scal dvlopmnts (.g.shopping mall) should b allottd to a lvl of govrnmnt highr than th municipal on, bcaus ths larg scal infrastructur hav a rgional impact. But oftn th subsidiarity rul is ill applid, and dcision ar takn at th wrong lvl, as it happns currntly in various Europan countris, whnvr th powr of land us rgulation and control is fully dlgatd to th local govrnmnt, vn if it rlats to larg scal dvlopmnts. It is a common xprinc nowadays to s jurisdictional comptition btwn bordring municipal authoritis, which compt in various ways to attract businss activitis, commrcial dvlopmnts tc., vn if thy caus social cost and spill-ovr ffcts in trms of congstion, pollution tc. This is mainly causd by th wish of local authoritis to gathr nw tax payrs that dpnding from th various EU mmbr countris local tax systms can includ companis, tourist activitis, ownrs of holidays houss tc. without changing th lctoral bas. In fact, local authoritis which succd in attracting non-rsidnt tax payrs which vot lswhr for local lctions hav a sort of political doubl dividnd, gaining financial rsourcs to spnd for local infrastructurs and srvics without incrasing th tax burdn of thir local lctoral bas. Pushing on xcssivly an uncontrolld city markting logic could rprsnt a thrat for th corrct functioning of local dmocracy, bcaus it contributs to widn th gap btwn local dcision makrs and thir lctoral and tax bass, i.. th wills of citizns which ultimatly should lgitimat and control public choics and actions. On th contrary, a cohrnt and widsprad application of th subsidiarity rul to allocat th right dcision powrs at th right plac (lvl of govrnmnt) should rsult in a balancd composition and substantial ovrlap among th thr population catgoris thos which ar affctd by th political dcision to build th infrastructur, thos which dlgat th dcision powr to th local politicians giving thm thir vot, and thos which financ th govrnmnt paying th local taxs. In th attachd diagram this is rprsntd by th ratio btwn citizns and impact population (C/I), and th ratio btwn citizns and tax payrs (C/T). Basd on th actual spatial scal of th impacts of a plannd larg scal dvlopmnt, th highr ordr 9

10 domains national or rgional govrnmnts should b rsponsibl for rgulation and control of actions in th lowr ons, down to th lvl of actions in th local landscap. In this way dcisions will b ultimatly takn undr th rsponsibility of thos govrnmnts lctd and financd by th sam population bas that is dstind to rciv th futur impacts of th infrastructur dvlopmnt dcisions. Usually th right balanc of powrs concrning land us and transport infrastructur dcisions is achivd through th spatial, land us and transport planning institutional framworks. In a rcnt study for th EU Commission, TRANSLAND, ths institutional framworks hav bn rviwd country by country, and th EU mmbr stats hav bn groupd into thr catgoris: A) countris with formal rgional planning with lgally binding rgional plans or othr forms of binding ffcts; B) countris with formal rgional planning without lgally binding ffcts; C) countris without rgional planning and/or rgional plans, with coordination taking plac just on th local lvl (EU 2000). At national lvl all mmbr stat govrnmnts hav som rsponsibility for spatial planning xcpt in th cas of Blgium. Rgional planning oprats at a lvl blow th national lvl but abov th local municipal lvl. In som countris an institutional lvl of rgional planning is lacking, and rgional dvlopmnt stratgis, plans and initiativs ar rathr th rsults of local govrnmnts coopration schms. In contrast to th rgional lvl, municipal planning is institutionalisd in all EU mmbr stats. With a fw xcptions, th organisation of spatial planning at th local lvl in th EU mmbr stats is a two-tir local planning systm. Th first tir producs gnral structur mastr plans. Th scond tir is th dtaild land-us plan, a rgulatory instrumnt that in gnral srvs as a basic rquirmnt for building prmission. Th most typical institutional framwork for an EU mmbr stat includs diffrnt layrs of govrnmnt and th rlatd spatial and transport planning rsponsibilitis. Th powr of land us rgulation and control is usually dlgatd to th local govrnmnt, which howvr acts with som limitations. If this has bn th way of doing in svral Europan countris (but not all) in th rcnt past, nowadays it is challngd by th nd of a mor flxibl and participatory approach. In fact, som limitations ar apparing in th traditional planning approach: firstly, its rigidity. National and rgional plans usually rflct only thir spcific viws and choics, and cannot b changd asily and timly to adapt to proposd innovations, whos mrit can b oftn bttr apprciatd at local lvl; scondly, th cultur of diffrnt planning lvls actually nforc th ngativ tndncy to sparat th planning activity from what happns in th ral world whn an innovation is implmntd. W may assist in this cas at a dfnsiv attitud of national and/or rgional plannrs, which dfnd thir plans against nw proposals. To offst ths limits of traditional planning mthods, nw approachs basd on mor comprhnsiv viws, participation and bargaining of choics among svral public and privat actors, and continuous adaptation of plans to nw dvlopmnt activitis 10

11 ( planning by doing ), ar bing applid in svral Europan countris. Th cas studis prsntd abov contain many aspcts of ths nw approachs. Vry oftn a nw flxibility is achivd thanks to th playing of govrnanc mchanisms which allow to coordinat diffrnt dcision making lvls national, rgional and local - basd on voluntary participation of th diffrnt actors concrnd (public and vntually privat), on qual bass. Ths mchanisms can tak diffrnt forms and ntail various procdurs nw agncis, programm agrmnts, convntions, tc. 11

12 Diagram - THE PUBLIC CHOICE PROCESS IN A MODERN DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM National ruls, invstmnts, srvics NATIONAL GOVERNMENT: NATIONAL PROGRAMMES BUDGET ALLOCATION POLICY PLATFORM Rgional ruls, invstmnts, srvics Nation Rgion REGIONAL GOVERNMENT: REGIONAL PROGRAMMES LOCAL GOVERNMENT: LOCAL PROGRAMMES Local ara BUDGET ALLOCATION Local ruls, invstmnts and srvics BUDGET ALLOCATION Grants Grants POLICY PLATFORM POLICY PLATFORM L o c a l l c t i o n s R g i o n a l l c t i o Local n ara s Rgion N a t i o n a l l c t i o n s Nation Rsidnt tax payrs Rsidnt tax payrs Rsidnt tax payrs NATIONAL TAX BASE REGIONAL TAX BASE LOCAL TAX BASE Non-r tax pa I: IMPACT POPULATION C: CITIZENS (lctoral bas) T: TAX PAYERS Ratio C/I Ratio C/T

13 Rfrncs Book, K. And Eskilsson, L. (2000): Coordination btwn transport and land us planning in th xpansiv Scania rgion. In: Europan Commission, COST 332 Final Rport (forthcoming) Clark, E. and Hagrstrand, T. (1998): On th Political Gography of Transportation and Land-Us Policy Coordination. In: Europan Commission. COST 332. Transport and Land Us Policis: Rsistanc and Hops for Coordination, p Europan Commission, DGTREN (2000): TRANSLAND Final Rport, in: Junynt, R. (2000): Actors in co-ordination for th construction of transport infrastructurs in Barclona. Th Dlta Plan. In: Europan Commission, COST 332 Final Rport (forthcoming) Matthissn, C. W. (2000): Innovations in Institutional Coordination. Th Orsund Rgion. Larg scal Cross Boundary Infrastructur as a Driving Forc bhind Organisational Chang: Rgional Intgration. In: Europan Commission, COST332 Final Rport (forthcoming). Organisation for Economic Co-opration and Dvlopmnt (2000): Intgrating Transport in th City. Rconciling th conomic, social and nvironmntal dimnsions. OECD procdings, Paris Vincnt Piron, Dirctor for th Stratgy and Dvlopmnt SGE Concssion, Group Vinci: intrvntion to th Round Tabl on Political and Social Accptability of Road Charging Schm: How to Build Consnsus? Europan Commission Sminar on Europan Bst practics on Infrastructur Charging and intrnalisation of xtrnal transport costs, Brussls, 8-9 Novmbr 2000.