Is there a good governance model for the delivery of contemporary transport policy and practice? An...

(This is a sample cover image for this issue. The actual cover is not yet available at this time.)

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attachedcopy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial researchand education use, including for instruction at the authors institution

and sharing with colleagues.

Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling orlicensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party

websites are prohibited.

In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of thearticle (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website orinstitutional repository. Authors requiring further information

regarding Elsevier’s archiving and manuscript policies areencouraged to visit:

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Is there a good governance model for the delivery of contemporary transportpolicy and practice? An examination of Melbourne and Perth

Crystal Legacy a,n, Carey Curtis b, Sophie Sturup a

a University of Melbourne, Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australiab Curtin University of Technology, School of Built Environment, GPO Box U1987, Bentley, WA 6845, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Keywords:

Governance

Land use transport integration

Organisational structure

a b s t r a c t

Land use and transport integration (LUTI) is a contemporary planning policy and practice that supports

sustainable transport. Attempts to implement LUTI have raised questions about the appropriate

organisational structure and the role of governance to deliver this policy. This paper presents the

discussions from two public fora held in 2008 in Melbourne and Perth, Australia. Their purpose was to

examine the governance arrangements for land use and transport integration. It is concluded that

integration of land use and transport agencies does not mean that land use transport integration will be

achieved in practice. Rather than simple organisational re-structuring, a focus on networked govern-

ance, together with strong regulation, is conducive to inclusive policy development and the imple-

mentation of land use and transport integration policies.

& 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Land use and transport integration (LUTI) is an importantcontemporary transport policy and practice used to deliversustainable transport. Integration requires that land uses are moreproximate and accessible by the full range of transport modes. Theliterature suggests that this enables healthier and more sustain-able communities (Calthorpe, 1991, 1993; McCormack et al., 2008;Falconer et al., 2010). Unfortunately, in many cities where LUTIprinciples exist, there appear to be challenges, which are prevent-ing the full implementation of this policy (Curtis et al., 2010). Theability to implement LUTI is inhibited by a number of policyrelated factors, which include a lack of shared vision regardingsustainable transport (Hull, 2008, 102), the ability to communicatethis vision (Te Brommelstroet and Bertolini, 2008), institutional pathdependency (Low and Astle, 2009), and a lack of shared under-standing about the complex planning environments surroundingLUTI implementation (Te Brommelstroet and Bertolini, 2010). Innesand Booher (2010, 8) assert, ‘‘Very seldom do leaders or the publicquestion the institutions that have failed, nor do they often askwhether different kinds of practices and structures could be moreeffective, much less look to ways to transform the existing modelof government’’.

Empirical research in Australia has shown that key issues andbarriers to the implementation of LUTI are the result of failedgovernance arrangements supporting LUTI (Low, 2005). Govern-ance in transport planning requires a focus on the formal andinformal arrangements that link together the organisations activein designing, delivering, and managing transport planning. Addingland use planning to this mix provides a further dimension togovernance matters. As well as understanding the formal regula-tions that govern these organisations, there is a need to under-stand their mode of operandi, including their organisationalculture, internal management arrangements and the methodsby which information flows within and between these organisa-tions. In addition to the need to understand the land use andtransport organisations themselves, Peters (1998) posits that, inpractice, good governance manifests in the interrelationships andpolicy networks established between the government bureau-cracy, interest groups, business, and civil society. Therefore,considering governance arrangements fully requires an under-standing of the structures and processes of organisations involvedin setting and implementing land use policy and transport policy,as well as the relationships established with entities that existoutside of the government bureaucracy.

Given the aforementioned difficulties in implementing LUTI, akey question then concerns the appropriate governance model forthe delivery of LUTI. One core issue concerns the challenge ofpolicy integration within and between organisations (Hull, 2011).Where the agencies responsible for the delivery of LUTI arefragmented, referred to as operating in ‘silos’, it is argued thatLUTI is not delivered (Curtis and James, 2004). This paper adds to

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol

Transport Policy

0967-070X/$ - see front matter & 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.07.004

n Corresponding author. Tel.: þ61 3 432 590 845.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Legacy),

[email protected] (C. Curtis), [email protected] (S. Sturup).

Transport Policy 19 (2012) 8–16


the empirical research on this issue. This paper does so byreporting on the outcomes of two fora held to examine govern-ance arrangements for transport planning; one in Melbourne andone in Perth. The purpose of these fora was to engage policymakers, decision makers, interest groups, and the community inthe question of what would make a good governance model fortransport planning.

The first section of this paper describes the institutionalstructures that support the system of transport planning in twoAustralian States (Victoria and Western Australia). This is in orderto provide contextual information on the differences in govern-ance arrangements for land use and transport planning inMelbourne and Perth since this is pertinent to the findings.Second, the research approach is set out. Third, key outcomes ofthe discussion in each forum are reported. Finally, the findings areconsidered in the context of a wider literature concerninggovernance of transport and organisational change.

2. Transport governance in Australia: the case of Victoria andWestern Australia

In Australia, the development of the transport governancesystem has been influenced by its physical and human geography,and by the development of the state political system. Each statehas developed its own unique approach to land use and transportplanning. As a generality it can be seen that transport planning inmetropolitan areas of each state has been dominated by road-based solutions, initiated in the 1970s by the visions of Americantransport engineering consultants (Gleeson et al., 2003), leadingto a focus on car-based mobility.

During the late 1980s and 1990s, greater interest in planningfor public transport and in land use solutions to transport(i.e. planning for proximity in order to reduce car use) in Australiancities emerged. Western Australia led this change with majorinvestment in electrification of the railways, additional railway linesand the pursuit of transit oriented development (Curtis, 2008).While the dominant car-dependent paradigm surrounding transportplanning is beginning to shift, Newman and Kenworthy (1999, 292)assert that the institutions that support land use and transportplanning are slow to change.

2.1. Land use and transport planning in Victoria

The most powerful player in transport governance inMelbourne is the State Government of Victoria, which is composedof key agencies including the Department of Transport (DoT) and thestatutory body corporate named ‘the Roads Corporation of Victoria’(VicRoads). The former was re-structured in 2008 and at the time ofthe Forum in Melbourne, two ministers led this department: theMinister for Roads and Ports and the Minister for Public Transport.Under this new structure, DoT contained several policy sections butonly two operation sections: the Freight Logistics and MarineDivision and the Public Transport Division. The latter had responsi-bility for managing the franchise arrangements with the privatelymanaged public transport companies (DoT, 2008, 19). VicRoads, onthe other hand, was a statutory body corporate established underthe Transport Act (Vic) (1983) whose purpose was to (and continuesto be) maintain, upgrade, and extend the state’s declared roadnetwork. In conjunction with local municipalities, VicRoads alsoassists in the maintenance, upgrading, and construction of otherroads. Under the Transport Act (Vic) (1983), VicRoads is alsoresponsible for providing advice concerning plans for the federalnetwork of roads in Victoria to the relevant Commonwealthgovernment minister. VicRoads reports to the Minister for Roadsand Ports. Thus, VicRoads has both operational and policy roles in

road development. Roads and public transport policy and operationare delivered through two distinctly separate agencies.

There have been key differences in the restructuring of trans-port organisations in Victoria over time (Low and Astle, 2009).The road agencies have been progressively consolidated since1983, with the functions of road safety, construction, mainte-nance and traffic management, driver licensing, and vehicleregistration, all brought within the one organisation. Conversely,the public transport agencies have been subjected to majorrestructuring since the early 1980s. This involved two periods:first, a concerted movement towards consolidation of functionsand modes in the period 1983�1993; second, a period ofsignificant disaggregation of both the functions of planning andoperation of public transport, and disaggregation by mode,cumulating in private franchising of the operation of trams andtrains in 1999 (Low and Astle, 2009). Low and Astle (2009)contend that the outcome of these organisational arrangementshas seen the strong development of road infrastructure, andpolicy supporting it, while policy development for public trans-port and active travel (e.g. walking and cycling) has been veryweak. There has been comparatively little urban public transportinfrastructure development, with federal funding for road con-struction in Victoria at $1.48 billion and rail investment at $85million the period of 2004–2009 (Low and Astle, 2009, 49).

In an era where land use planning is considered key to traveldemand management, the land use agencies are fragmented andseparated from transport planning agencies, which has been thecase since 2002 when planning was moved to the Department ofSustainability and Environment (DOI, 2003, v) (see Fig. 1). TheState Department of Planning and Community Development(DPCD) is responsible for state land use policy, which is primarilydirected at defining areas for population growth and conversionof agricultural to urban land (DPCD, 2007). At the time of the twofora, nine ministers of which the Minister for Planning is oneadvised this department.1 The state sets the broad planning policydirection and then delegates the responsibility for control ofdevelopment (including land use zoning) to local government.As shown in the next section this is different in WA, wherethe state maintains stronger control over land use planning.Melbourne’s 31 municipalities are responsible for local transportand land use planning. The Local Government Planning Schemesets out policies and requirements for the use, development, andprotection of land for each municipality in Victoria. Invariablyplanning functions rest within one department of local govern-ment while transport functions, including the responsibility forlocal roads, bridges, roundabouts, traffic calming measures, foot-paths, bicycle infrastructure, and other means of traffic and streetmanagement, sit within another department.

Three local government associations, which exist as volunteercollaborations, have sought to fill the gaps in public transport andactive travel policy, particularly at the state level, by providing theirown ideas about the composition of the public transport system inVictoria. At the time of the fora in 2008, these ideas appeared in theform of community-generated transport plans for Melbourne, byoffering alternative viewpoints to the State Government’s recentlyreleased transport strategy. These strategies were the MelbourneTransport Forum’s Melbourne Transport Plan: PT4ME2 for a Change

1 The nine ministers included the Minister for Sport, Recreation and Youth

Affairs and the Minister Assisting the Premier on Multicultural Affairs, Minister for

Community Services (Office of Disability) and for Senior Victorians, Minister for

Skills and Workforce Participation, Minister for Community Development, Minis-

ter for Assisting the Premier on Veteran’s Affairs, Minister for Women’s Affairs,

Minister for Local Government and for Aboriginal Affairs, Minister for Veteran’s

Affairs and for Multicultural Affairs and the Minister for Planning (DPCD, 2009, 6)

C. Legacy et al. / Transport Policy 19 (2012) 8–16 9


(2008), the Public Transport User Association’s Connecting to the

Future (2009), and the Green Party’s The People Plan (2009).

2.2. Land use and transport planning in Western Australia (WA)

The WA institutional structure has experienced a progressivechange over the past 50 years from a myriad of agencies responsiblefor transport (with many State Ministers) to just one organisationresponsible for both land use planning and transport. After the 2001state election that delivered a labour government into power, theDepartment of Transport, the Ministry for Planning, and theplanning and policy division of Main Roads Western Australia(MRWA) were amalgamated to create the Department of Planningand Infrastructure (DPI). Sitting under the DPI and within the same

portfolio, road operations remained within the MRWA who wereresponsible for service delivery. Similarly, public transport opera-tions remained with Transperth who retained responsibility forinfrastructure delivery and operations. Of importance was that allthe agencies reported to one minister who had control over theland use planning and transport portfolio. A report to the Ministryof Premier and Cabinet in 2001 by the Machinery of GovernmentTaskforce declared the advantages of such integration, suggesting itwould ‘‘improve coordination of land use and transport infrastruc-ture planning and service delivery for better communities’’ (Hickset al., 2001, 165). It was argued that the amalgamation wouldgenerate better coordination between land use planning and trans-port and therefore better integration than had previously beenexperienced in WA. However, evidence later emerged concerning

Fig. 1. Victorian planning and institutional structure, which illustrates the restructuring of the agencies resulting in the separation of transport and land use planning.

C. Legacy et al. / Transport Policy 19 (2012) 8–1610


the extensive distribution of resources across the single departmentand departmental fragmentation suggesting that such a structurewas not achieving its goal (Curtis and James, 2004, 289).

In addition to the department�ministerial relationship, landuse and transport planning was also managed through a tripartitemodel that interconnects the minister with the DPI and theindependent Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).The commission, established under the Western AustralianPlanning Commission Act (1985), is responsible for guiding landdevelopment in the state, coordinating aspects of the planningprocess and maintaining the partnership between the commu-nity, business, and government with particular attention given toland use planning and the implementation of strategies that guidelong term growth (WAPC, 2001, 3–4). WAPC also coordinatesthe transport planning and land use functions through its twosub-committees—the Sustainable Transport Committee and theInfrastructure Coordinating Committee. These committees pro-vide direction and decisions on all transport infrastructure (roadand public transport), particularly where it requires reservation ofland (Fig. 2).

While local governments have similar responsibilities to thosein Victoria, the state retains stronger control on both land useplanning and transport planning. Thirty-two local governments inthe Perth metropolitan region are responsible for producing localland use plans and zoning schemes but under the direction of thestate. The state government, through MRWA, also retains a stronginfluence even on local roads as it has responsibility for linemarking (with implications for provision of on-road cycle lanesand bus lanes) and traffic signs and control. In contrast to Victoria,few local governments in Perth have developed their ownstrategic transport plans: there are three sub-regional integratedtransport plans developed by sub-regional groupings of localgovernments, and four integrated transport plans developed byindividual local governments. None of these plans form part of thestatutory planning instrument required by regulation.

In 2008 the incoming liberal (conservative) state governmentproposed a change to the agency structure (finally enacted in July

2009), with the policy making functions of DPI split into twodepartments – Planning and Transport – each with its ownminister. It was this pending change in organisational structurethat prompted the Perth Forum.

3. Research approach—transport governance fora

The governance fora were set up by the Australasian ResearchCentre for the Governance and Management of Urban Transport(GAMUT). These two fora were prompted by two distinct events:in Melbourne by proposed transport infrastructure projects and inPerth by the proposed changes to the organisational structure oftransport and land use planning agencies.

In 2006, the Victorian State Government commissioned Sir RodEddington, an Australian businessperson and former CEO of BritishAirways, to assess east�west transport connections in the city(Eddington, 2008). Eddington proposed two controversial infra-structure projects—a tunnel under the inner north of the centralbusiness district of Melbourne to provide freeway connections tothree orbital freeways together with a rail tunnel that couldprovide the foundation for a possible Metro system. The appro-priateness of these proposals was being questioned in the media,and much of the attention was directed at the study’s Terms ofReference, which focused only on inner city Melbourne and didnot consider the transport challenges for the outer regions of themetropolitan region (Millar and Lucas, 2008; Moynihan, 2007).

On the other side of the country, in Western Australia, theelection of a Liberal Government in 2008 resulted in a proposal todisassemble the state government Department of Planning andInfrastructure (DPI). This move would break apart the organisa-tional integration of transport and land use planning put in placeafter the election of the former labour government in 2001. Thismove worked against the 2001 Hick’s report rationale (see above)where organisational integration was believed to better enablepolicy cooperation, coordination, and policy integration. This viewhas since been supported by others (see Stead, 2008), where

Fig. 2. Western Australia institutional structure, which illustrates the restructuring of the agencies over time with the aim of improved integration (dotted box indicates

agencies that sit within one portfolio).



organisational integration is seen as an essential part of deliveringsustainable transport outcomes.

Due to the different issues of public concern, which the forawere designed in response to, and the differences in governancearrangements in each city, the explicit focus of each forum wasslightly different. The first forum, in Melbourne, was on the topicof good governance for transport infrastructure in Victoria. Thesecond forum, in Perth, was on governance for transport and landuse planning in Western Australia. Together these fora weredesigned using an exploratory research approach, which focusedon bringing together a range of stakeholders to discuss andexplore these issues as they pertained to sustainable transportplanning in each city.

The research approach was designed on the basis that, together,these stakeholders possess different knowledge, including technical,institutional/political and tacit knowledge (Healey, 2006, 330-1;Lash, 1976, 79). Engaging the community was also critical. It is thecommunity’s experience of place, and indeed their experience ofmoving about the city, which is also an important body of knowl-edge crucial to informing land use and transport integration policy(Nonaka, 1994, 19; Reed, 1996). In planning theory, there is anincreasing interest in the idea of collaborative planning, which aimsto create an inclusive process of policy decision-making to ensurethat divergent views are encompassed in planning (Healey, 1997;Irazabal, 2005). It is when these processes engage with a broadrange of stakeholders that decisions are perceived to bemore legitimate, which is vital if plans are to be implemented(Habermas, 1984; Albrechts, 2004, 2006). Communicative practicesof engaging a wider set of stakeholders in debates about thestructures of governance can bring about new knowledge andunderstanding of what constitutes good governance arrangements.This is consistent with Lindblom and Cohen (1979), Nonaka (1994),and Caspary (2000) who posit that deliberative and inclusivediscussion bring about a collective understanding of what the issuesare while creating the foundation for new knowledge to emerge.Following these principles from the collaborative planning litera-ture, the fora provided stakeholders, from a range of agencies anddisciplines, the opportunity to deliberate on issues related togovernance in transport planning. The idea was to open up thegovernance system to public debate in order to develop a betterunderstanding of the key issues in each city.

Approximately 50 people attended each forum from differentgovernment organisations (transport planning, land use planning,strategic planning, health planning, and social planning), fromdifferent tiers of government (local, state and federal), as well asacademics, individuals from interest groups and members of thepublic (see Table 1). The fora were advertised through a mediarelease, advertisements in community newsletters and in theUniversity newspapers. Those who attended the fora came ontheir own accord and as a result it is not possible to claim that thefora are fully representative and inclusive of the range ofstakeholders that exist in the wider community.

As described above, the focus of each fora was to create asingle event that facilitated discussion and knowledge transferbetween policy makers, decision makers, transport practitionersand operators, and those who are affected by those decisions(e.g. the community). There were limitations to this approach.While reasonable effort was made to enable dialogue, there arepower differences between stakeholder groups that related topositions in government, access to decision makers, and technicalknowledge of land use and transport planning that we could notalter. Rather, the forum was designed to encourage all partici-pants to offer their opinions about the governance of transportand land use integration and so in this respect, power imbalanceswere managed, if only momentarily, to give all participants avoice. The structures of the fora were still ‘expert-driven’, in that

the researchers designed the agenda and discussion questions.Nevertheless, in line with contemporary views on deliberation,which describes the limits to expert-led, top-down planning byembracing inclusive decision-making structures (Healey, 1997;Forester, 1989), the event was organised to facilitate dialogue.

The events began with two fifteen-minute keynote addressesby a decision maker/well-regarded local practitioner from thetransport planning field. Following this were several brief three-minute presentations made by representatives from decision-making agencies, interest groups, practitioners, and academics.2

Speakers were invited to highlight what they felt were the keyissues regarding good governance for transport planning (Mel-bourne) and transport and land-use integration (Perth). Smallgroup discussions followed these addresses using four key ques-tions to frame the discussion (see Table 2). The small groupdiscussions were facilitated and recorded by GAMUT researchers.A plenary session followed where the small groups returned tothe larger group to report on their discussion. Incorporating anopportunity for participants to discuss the issues as part of theforum structure provided participants the chance to communicatetheir views on what they saw the key issues to be and to offercritical reflection on the perspectives presented by the speakerswho were widely regarded as experts in the field.

Following the events, draft reports containing summaries ofthe presentations and group discussions were circulated to theparticipants for comment, with the final text published on theGAMUT website (Curtis et al., 2008; Legacy et al., 2009).3

4. Findings—key governance issues in Perth and Melbourne

The deliberation undertaken in the breakout group discussionat each forum identified key issues, barriers, and solutions to good

Table 1Stakeholder groups present at the Melbourne and Perth fora.

Stakeholder groupspresent

Number of groupsparticipated inMelbourne

Number of groupsparticipated in Perth

Universities 3 2

Local government (not

elsewhere specified)

7

State government (not

elsewhere specified)

5 1

Local government

association

1 1

Research centres 2

Consultancies 9 2

Public transport

operators

2 1

Road operators 2 1

State planning body 1

Developers 1

Health organisation 1

Planning organisation 1

Community activist

groups

2 3

Newspapers 2

Environmental

authority

1

2 The keynote speakers at the Perth Forum included two former senior

bureaucrats from state transport and planning agencies and a Planning Professor

from the University of Melbourne. The keynote speakers at the Melbourne Forum

included a former federal politician and senior bureaucrat from the Department of

Transport.3 http://www.abp.unimelb.edu.au/gamut/publications-media/gamut-papers/

gamut-papers-zero-nine.html and http://www.abp.unimelb.edu.au/gamut/publi

cations-media/gamut-papers/gamut-papers-zero-eight.html.



governance in contemporary transport planning. The purpose ofthe fora was not to achieve consensus, but rather to canvas theissues and the different ways that these issues are framed (Schon,1983). The following sections highlight the issues that dominatedthe breakout group discussions at both fora.

4.1. Organisational structure and LUTI

One topic that evoked passion and debate at both fora was thelack of integration between land use and transport planning. InMelbourne, for half of the participants, the challenge for LUTI wasthe result of organisational fragmentation because land use andtransport exist as separate departments with different ministers.It is important to note that this was not a unanimous viewamongst the forum participants, as some participants believedthat organisational restructuring would not necessarily providethe solution for the delivery of LUTI.

The departmental ‘silos’ which exist limit the opportunity for acoordinated government response particularly the challengesassociated with transport land use integrationy . An effectiveinterface between the tiers of government is required. Untilthis happens, the lack of interface will remain a barrier.It is important to note that ‘mega-departments’, which canproduce division within departments, are not necessarily thesolution to these silos. Rather, better vertical communicationis required to draw local government into the collaborationas they are the implementers of many planning decisions(Melbourne Participant 1).

Interestingly, in Western Australia (where the creation of DPIhad integrated transport and land use administratively under oneminister) some participants echoed the sentiments expressed atthe Melbourne Forum arguing that the delivery of LUTI remainedproblematic despite the organisational structure. Some suggestedthat working practices had remained fragmented, referring to siloscurrently hidden under the overarching organisational structure.

There is a concern regarding the silo mentality within govern-ment, particularly the silos that exist both within local and stategovernmentythere are too many restructurings going on ingovernment. Somehow, the emphasis should also be on theimplementation of integration in practice (Perth Participants 1).

The issue of fragmentation was also a key concern for parti-cipants at the Melbourne Forum. One participant noted that theissue of government fragmentation and LUTI could be addressedby consolidating the agencies for land use and transport planninginto a single agency.

To address issues of fragmentation of governance betweenlocal government initiatives, coordination would be improvedwith the inception of a regional coordinating agency. Thisagency would be integrated and would allow for initiatives tobe coordinated between local government, and further provide

a forum for collaboration between local government to takeplace (Melbourne Participant 2).

On the issue of fragmentation, not all WA participants agreed.Some argued that while silos were still embedded, there had beenprogress made to create networks with the department in orderto improve integration, as one invited presenter from Perth noted:

Did the 2001 experiment work? Well the jury is still out onthat one. We never got the chance to get the department upand running in full geary.But there has been significantprogress regarding the concept of ‘‘networks’’. All sorts ofnetworks have sprung up within the department – people,vehicles, infrastructure. ‘Network City’ was profound andexciting and would not have made so much progress withouta single Minister (Perth Invited Presenter 1).

Other participants in Perth believed that integration of landuse and transport at the administrative level overwhelmed thediscussion about how to achieve land use and transport integra-tion on the ground. As one participant noted, attention needs tobe given to the flow of information, which is irrespective ofwhether land use and transport is organisationally integrated.Building on the idea that organisational integration does notnecessarily lead to integration of land use and transport inpractice, another participant emphasised the importance ofimplementation.

There are too many conflicts with land use and transport integra-tion. We need to establish common ground between diverseinstitutions and actors. Information needs to flow between actorsin an effort to break the silos (Perth Participant 2).

Whether, or not, consolidating the agencies into one depart-ment is a solution is highlighted by the discussion from the WAForum. Participants argued that they had already achieved thisagency consolidation and offered instead that they could bestaddress issues of fragmentation and integration by giving moreattention to substantive planning outcomes and the processinvolved in delivering LUTI. So, rather than getting the organisa-tional structure right, focus should be given to the delivery ofdesired outcomes.

We need to concentrate more on planning outcomes andworry less about the structure of institutions. Rather, we needto define what we want to do and how we are going to do it(Perth Participant 4).A potential split of land use and transport would require newarrangements for dialogue. This new arrangement should considera broadened scope that would enable integration beyond just landuse planning and transport (Perth Participant 5).

What is interesting from the debate in these two fora is thatthe organisational arrangements in each state represent a spec-trum of approaches. In Victoria, there is a lack of institutionalintegration, where in WA the agencies were situated in what

Table 2Break out group discussion questions.

Melbourne questions Perth questions

Q1: What do you see as the key issues surrounding governance for

transport infrastructure?

Q1: What do you see as the key issues surrounding governance for transport and land use

integration?

Q2: What are the main barriers to good governance? Q2: What are the strengths and weaknesses of current arrangements for infrastructure

governance in Western Australia?

Q3: How can we overcome issues preventing good governance for

transport infrastructure?

Q3: Do any of the recent developments in the environment for infrastructure investment require

new arrangement?

Q4: What can we all do in the future to help overcome the barriers? Q4: What can we all do in the future to ensure good governance in transport and land use

integration in WA continues/develops?



could be considered a further stage in institutional integrationwhere at least the administrative arrangements provide for oneportfolio. This may explain why some Melbourne participantsargued for a single portfolio while the participants in Perth arguedthat processes of communication and relationships between landuse and transport planners and agents is what matters in thedelivery of outcomes. In Perth, it was mooted that no oneorganisational structure had proven more effective at deliveringLUTI. Instead, it was argued, a range of structures is capable ofdelivering this mandate and structural change alone would beunlikely to deliver the changed behaviours required to trulyintegrate land use and transportation planning.

In Melbourne, again drawing on the experience of WA, someparticipants argued that the lack of an independent planningagency such as the Western Australian Planning Commissioncontributed to problems in delivering LUTI. It was posited thatthe metropolitan region of Melbourne needs a metropolitan wideplanning authority (as in WA), so here the interest was onorganisational arrangements as a way to help ensure the imple-mentation of policies.

An independent agency to act as an arbitrator between tiers ofgovernment and the designated Minister would encourage thepresentation of sound evidence to support investment intoinfrastructurey.Somewhat related to the ideas of a regionalcoordinating agency and an independent agency is the sugges-tion of better integration of the departments and agenciesinvolved in infrastructure planning, development, and oper-ationy.Better sector integration would enable informationsharing and better communication between sectors of varioussuccesses and failures (Melbourne Participant 3).

This suggests that it is not simply the organisational structurethat needs attention, but also the decision making regime and theway in which a regional, independent agency can provide forcoordination across the departments and/or ‘silos’.

4.2. Action�vision versus demonstration projects

Participants at the Perth forum argued that the issue offragmentation could be resolved by adopting a shared vision thatwould guide integrated decision-making.

We need a bigger picture plan that is tied to legislation andtherefore enforceable. We need to include the developmentindustry in the development of this vision of how we are goingto achieve land use and transport integration (Perth Participant 6).

Perth participants clearly believed that integrated decision-making is possible with the right vision. This was in contrast tothe view from the Melbourne Forum where it was argued that the‘big picture’ strategic planning process (e.g. the three-year plan-making process that produced the strategic plan, Melbourne2030) had proven in the past to be unsuccessful at deliveringsubstantive change (Melbourne Transport Forum, 2008).

Currently, there is a lack of vision for the infrastructureprogramme and provision. Rather, state governments haveconcentrated on the short-term at the cost of consuming thelonger-term impacts. States have focused excessively and almostexclusively on ‘big projects’ and assumed that this amounts toinfrastructure provision and planning (‘too much big projects andtoo little big picture’) (Melbourne Participant 4).

ythere is dissatisfaction with the performance of the Melbourne

2030 strategic plan, especially in its implementation. There is aconcern that political interests have intervened to stymie orcircumvent urban planning (Melbourne Participant 5).

Without an institutional framework that might deliver anintegrated strategic vision, participants at the Melbourne forumwere interested in ideas such as demonstration projects thatillustrate the kinds of changes that are possible. Participantsargued for a real-life working example that could be taken upby a number of different agencies, rather than further articulationor attempts to enrol people into visions.

Melbourne participants, instead, were in favour of an ‘opera-tional vision’ rather than another strategic framework or vision, ofwhich they had experienced several. They argued that this visionwould articulate where in the city current inefficiencies arelocated (e.g. areas in the city that are poorly serviced by publictransport) and what substantive change to the system wouldsupport a better functioning city.

5. Discussion

The Melbourne and Perth fora revealed several key social andinstitutional differences between the two cities, which conse-quently support quite different systems of governance. Forinstance, the discussion that manifested at the Perth forumrevealed a strong perception of a system of regional planningcontrol. It was also suggested that Perth had already achieved anintegrated institutional structure through the 2001 state agencyamalgamation. Melbourne, however, exhibited neither regionalplanning control nor integrated institutional structures. One ofthe key institutions ‘missing’ from the landscape in Melbournewas an independent regional planning body to help facilitatedecision-making and implementation.

5.1. Organisational structures as a mechanism to implement land

use and transport integration

Despite the organisational integration of land use and trans-port under one portfolio, Perth participants identified issues offragmentation and silos. The Perth forum revealed that the lack ofimplementation of LUTI was a result of a lack of proceduralgovernance, which is the continuous involvement and informa-tion exchange of stakeholders in policy decision-makingprocesses (Legacy, 2010, 2716), within the DPI portfolio:

There are too many conflicts with land use and transport integra-tion. We need to establish common ground between diverseinstitutions and actors. Information needs to flow between actorsin an effort to break the silos (Perth Participant 7).

They argued that silos existed within the department and thatcross-departmental communication was lacking. This suggeststhat the kind of change required to create land use and transportpolicy and planning integration goes beyond organisationalrestructuring. It requires both mechanisms to improve commu-nication as well as a means to secure a cultural shift amongst adiverse group of practitioners (including town planners,urban designers, transport engineers, and operational planners).Certainly, it indicates that the complexity of the change manage-ment task required for LUTI goes beyond what top�down organisa-tional change alone can impose. Beer et al. (1990) asserts, forexample, that the failure of change management processes is thatthey commonly seek to integrate administrative units throughtop�down structural approaches, rather than enabling changethrough a bottom�up approach attached to deliverable tasks.

Lewis (1993), in writing on organisational theory, contendsthat an organisational structure that supports policy integrationand is achieved by restructuring the relevant policy and planningagencies is the appropriate direction. It is evident from thediscussion at the fora that these principles of organisational



theory have been used to pursue LUTI in Perth. This approachmakes the assumption, commonly found within organisationsseeking to change their way of doing business, that behaviour ischanged by altering a company’s organisational structure andsystems (Beer et al., 1990). The literature on organisationalstructure as a way of integrating policy domains, however,suggests a tension between horizontal integration and verticalintegration of organisations (Peters, 1998, 302). Peters notes thatvertical integration of policy and delivery sets up rival organisa-tions. Horizontal integration on the other hand requires thedevelopment of robust networks, parts of which are excludedin situations of strong vertical integration (Peters, 1998). InVictoria, and in WA (despite the one portfolio), the division ofLUTI activity between the development of strategic policy and thedelivery of operational aspects of transport planning (such as roaddesign and construction, or public transport network design) mayhave been key contributors to the problem of delivery of LUTIwithin the organisational structure.

Stead and Meijers (2009, 328) posit an alternative view onLUTI and organisational structure: ‘‘achieving more integratedpolicies is dependent on a multitude of different types of factorsthat encompass individuals, organisations, culture, processes,instruments and politics’’. In other words, LUTI requires muchmore than simple agency restructuring, it must also include afocus on regulatory instruments, procedural planning and thecultural practices of the organisation including its individuals. Ofimportance is the need for a particular concentration on thenetworks of information and flow of ideas. The findings from thegovernance fora concur with the work of Stead and Meijers (2009,330), but what is of particular interest is how policy integrationtranslates into implementation on the ground. They posit that thechange that is of interest is one where there is more openness interms of information exchange, knowledge and capacity to deliverintegration in practice (Stead and Meijers, 2009, 330; Stead,2008, 148).

In light of Perth’s experience, it is asserted that Melbourne’saspiration for LUTI through organisational change (by reorganis-ing the Department of Transport and the Department of Planningand Community Development under one portfolio similar to thatof DPI in Perth) may be misguided. To do so would be to miss theopportunity to develop the networks of communication with keystakeholder groups (for instance, those that were present at thetwo fora) required to implement effective change as evidenced inthe Perth Forum. Adoption of LUTI, therefore, must address theprocedural governance issues related to the implementation ofLUTI policies within and between these departmental structures(or silos).

5.2. Implementing strategic plans that integrate land use and

transport

In Australian cities the support for LUTI is evident in themetropolitan plans for Sydney, City of Cities: A Plan for Sydney’s

Future (NSW Government, 2005), Melbourne, Melbourne 2030

(DSE, 2002), and Perth, Network City (WAPC, 2004) and Directions

2031 (WAPC, 2009). These plans acknowledge the need to betterintegrate land use and transportation policy and planning activ-ities, which have been developed traditionally, in separate orga-nisations and indeed disciplines (Curtis and James, 2004). Theseplans are examples of ‘‘joined-up’’ policy approaches wheretransport and land use exists as an integrated unit of policy(Stead, 2008, 140). Hull (2008, 99), in reflecting on inter-sectoraltriggers for cooperation to deliver sustainable transport outcomesat the local government level in the United Kingdom, posits,‘‘Where there are clear political priorities and strategies identifiedin the Community Strategy, or other local authority corporate

document, officers find that joint working on a scheme can beintegrated more successfully’’. Hull goes on to articulate thebarriers to sustainable transport brought forth by fragmentedstructures of government (2008, 101). In an ideal world, metro-politan planning strategies are developed to help guide decision-making (Albrechts, 2006, 1153; Healey, 1997, 13; 2003, 102–103),including the formulation of policies supporting transport infra-structure investment.

Despite these higher-order strategic plans, it was evident thatsomething more detailed is required to ‘operationalise’ the plan.Perth participants were interested in operationalising a broadvision for the region using their Metropolitan Region Scheme(a broad-brush land use zoning scheme with statutory status) as ameans of delivery. Interestingly, in Melbourne, participants of theforum were more interested in seeing operational detailexpressed through the use of examples, or ‘demonstration pro-jects’ which provided practical and on-the-ground measuresrather than more vision documents. This interest may be theresult of Melbourne not having a metropolitan-wide zoningscheme through which a strategic vision type plan could beoperationalised. These operational examples, it was argued,would show what works and what does not work by actuallyimplementing demonstration projects that illustrate, for instance,the elements of particular land use and transport integrationpolicies. This is consistent with Stead (2008, 143) who posits that‘‘Instruments can help to reach decisions and policies that providebetter consistency between sectors but achieving multi-sectoralpolicy objectives requires that policies are not only formulatedbut are implemented’’.

The interest in getting on-ground implementation raises keyconcerns about the process of planning—or procedural practicesof LUTI. The idea of demonstration projects is also to show/demonstrate to all stakeholders including civil society whaton-ground change may consist of—a means of clearly articulatinga vision. The governance fora provided the opportunity to considerwhether these benefits could be brought to bear on the governancesystem itself, rather than just policy and plan making. By bringing ina wider network of stakeholders into the operational end of policyintegration and delivery it may be possible to ‘‘build the activesupport that policy needs for its effective implementation and longterm success’’ (Friedman, 2006, 2). Doing so can break down thecultural silos that remain in the way of integration of land use andtransport planning and implementation.

6. Conclusion

The two fora provided the opportunity for frank and opendiscussion about the governance of transport in each city. Theinclusion of a wider variety of voices, in an environment designedto allow freethinking, provided new insights into the issuesconfronting transport governance in these two cities. Whetheror not the reported, or perceived, institutional barriers are real orimagined remains to be further tested by future research. Never-theless, these reported views are relevant and it is reasonable toreport this discourse and suggest avenues for further research.

The discussion at the governance fora in Melbourne and Perthhighlights the importance of going beyond a simple top�downorganisational restructuring to providing opportunities for thedevelopment of cultural change and procedural change. Beer et al.(1990) argue for bottom�up change both in the implementationof policy and in the procedures relating to public engagement.These processes built upon the foundation of governance to createan environment where, ‘‘problems are treated like puzzles as[stakeholders] work jointly to put pieces together to create ashared picture of the future a strategy for getting there’’ (Innes



and Booher, 2010, 9). A core issue is the need to operationalise theLUTI vision and demonstrate how to assist cultural change withinthe professional groups and in civil society. Without the devel-opment of networks to overcome difficulties with vertical inte-gration between strategic planning and operational planning,cultural change in understanding LUTI will tend to silos, regard-less of organisational structure. While regulatory change suggestssome way forward for LUTI (WA’s WAPC model for example), thestakeholder base must be broadened and structures made looseenough to allow interaction between groups. This broadenedstakeholder base must be allowed to engage beyond policydevelopment into governance structures and implementation.This requires the provision of sufficient connection betweenpolicy, planning, and implementation so that changed practicesand processes can be tried and proved, thereby embedding a newculture in land use and transportation planning.

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the funding contributions ofthe Australasian Centre for the Governance and Management ofUrban Transport (GAMUT), the Volvo Research EducationalFoundation, Professor Marcus Wigan for his leadership on theMelbourne forum and the participants involved in the Melbourneand the Perth governance fora.

References

Albrechts, L., 2004. Strategic (spatial) planning reexamined. Environment andPlanning B 31, 743–758.

Albrechts, L., 2006. Shifts in strategic spatial planning? Some evidence fromEurope and Australia. Environment and Planning A 38 (6), 1149–1170.

Beer, M., Eisenstat, R., Spector, B., 1990. Why change programs don’t producechange. Harvard Business Review, 158–166.

Calthorpe, P., 1991. Managing Growth: New Models for metropolitan Develop-ment and Redevelopment. Paper presented at the Building a Livable Future:1991 Regional Growth Conference, Portland.

Calthorpe, P., 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community and theAmerican Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, New York.

Caspary, W.R., 2000. Dewey on Democracy. Cornell University Press, London.Curtis, C., Armstrong, R., Babb, C., 2010. The capacity of state and local govern-

ments to deliver land use transport integration: an analysis of land use andtransport policies in Perth and Melbourne. In: Proceedings of the WorldTransport Research Conference, Lisbon, June 2010.

Curtis, C., James, B., 2004. An institutional model for land use and transportintegration. Urban Policy and Research 22 (3), 277–297.

Curtis, C., 2008. The evolution of the TOD model for low density cities: a case studyof Perth’s new railway corridor. Planning Practice and Research 23 (3),285–302.

Curtis, C., Glover, L., Legacy, C., Wigan, M.R., 2008. A Report of the GAMUT PublicForum on Good Governance for Transport Infrastructure. GAMUT, Melbourne.

DOI (Department of Infrastructure), 2003. Annual Report 2002�2003, State ofVictoria, Melbourne.

DPCD (Department for Planning and Community Development), 2007. Planning.http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/dse/nrenpl.nsf/HomeþPage/DSEþPlanning�HomeþPage?open (accessed 19 November 2007).

DPCD (Department of Planning and Community Development), 2009. Departmentof Planning and Community Development Annual Report 2008�2009, State ofVictoria, Melbourne.

DoT (Department of Transport), 2008. 2007-08 Department of Transport AnnualReport. State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.

DSE (Department of Sustainability and Environment), 2002. Melbourne 2030:Planning for Sustainable Growth, State of Victoria, Melbourne.

Eddington, R., 2008. Investing in Transport: East West Link Needs Assessment. DPI,Melbourne.

Falconer, R., Newman, P., Giles-Corti, B., 2010. Is Practice aligned with theprinciples? Implementing New Urbanism in Perth, Western Australia. Trans-port Policy 17, 287–294.

Forester, J., 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. University of California Press,Berkeley.

Friedman, W., 2006. Deliberative democracy and the problem of scope. Journal ofPublic Deliberation 2 (1), 1–29.

Gleeson, B., Curtis, C., Low, N., 2003. Barriers to sustainable transportation inAustralia. In: Low, N., Gleeson, B. (Eds.), Making Urban Transport Sustainable.Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Green Party. 2009. The People Plan. /www.thepeopleplan.org.auS (accessed 17September 2009).

Habermas, J., 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action: Reason and theRationalization of Society. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London.

Healey, P., 1997. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies.Macmillan Press Ltd., London.

Healey, P., 2003. Collaborative planning in perspective. Planning Theory 2 (2),101–123.

Healey, P., 2006. Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies,2nd ed. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, U.S..

Hicks, S., Langoulant, J., Shean, R., Wauchope, M., 2001. Government Structures forBetter Results: The Report of the Taskforce Established to Review theMachinery of Western Australia’s Government. Perth, Australia: Ministry ofthe Premier and Cabinet.

Hull, A., 2011. Transport Matters: Integrated Approaches to Planning City-regions.Routledge, Abingdon.

Hull, A., 2008. Policy integration: what will it take to achieve more sustainabletransport solutions in cities? Transport Policy 15, 94–103.

Innes, J., Booher, D., 2010. Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Colla-borative Rationality for Public Policy. Routedge, London.

Irazabal, C., 2005. City Making and Urban Governance in the Americas. Ashgate,Aldershot.

Lash, H., 1976. Planning in a Human Way: Personal Reflections on the RegionalPlanning Experience in Greater Vancouver. The Ministry of State for UrbanAffairs, Vancouver, Canada.

Legacy, C., 2010. Investigating the knowledge interface between stakeholderengagement and plan-making. Environment and Planning A 42 (11),2705–2720.

Legacy, C., Sturup, S., Curtis, C., 2009. A Report of the GAMUT Public Forum onGood Governance in Transport, Land Use Planning and Transport Infrastruc-ture, GAMUT, Melbourne.

Lewis, G., 1993. Concepts in strategic management. In: Lewis, G., Morkel, A.,Hubbard, G. (Eds.), Australian Strategic Management: Concepts, Context andCases. Prentice Hall, New York.

Lindblom, C., Cohen, D., 1979. Usable Knowledge: Social Science and SocialProblem Solving. The Macmillan Press Ltd., Great Britain.

Low, N., Astle, R., 2009. Path dependence in urban transport: an institutionalanalysis of urban passenger transport in Melbourne, Australia, 1956�2006.Transport Policy 16 (2), 47–58.

Low, N., 2005. The discourse network: a way of understanding policy formation,stability, and change in the networked polity. In: Albrechts, L., Mandelbaum, S.(Eds.), The Network Society: A New Context for Planning. Routledge, London.

McCormack, G.R., Giles-Corti, B., Bulsara, M., 2008. The relationship betweendestination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviors.Preventative Medicine 46, 33–40.

Melbourne Transport Forum, 2008. Melbourne Transport Plan-PT4ME2 For aChange, MTF, Melbourne.

Millar, R., Lucas, C., 2008. Freeing Up the Gridlock. The Age, 15 March.Moynihan, S., 2007. New rail tunnel proposal gains momentum. The Age, 16

August.NSW Government, 2005. City of Cities—A Plan for Sydney’s Future, Syndey.

Department of Planning.Newman, P., Kenworthy, K., 1999. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Auto-

mobile Dependence. Island Press, Washington.Nonaka, I., 1994. A dynamic theory of organisational knowledge creation. Orga-

nisation Science 5 (1), 14–37.Peters, B.G., 1998. Managing horizontal government: the politics of co-ordination.

Public Administration 76, 295–311.Public Transport Users Association, 2009. Connecting to the Future—The Alter-

native to the Victorian Transport Plan, PTUA, Melbourne.Reed, E.S., 1996. The Necessity of Experience. Yale University Press, London, U.K.Schon, D., 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professional Think in Action.

Basic Books Inc., New York, U.S.Stead, D., 2008. Institutional aspects of integrating transport, environment and

health policies. Transport Policy 15, 139–148.Stead, D., Meijers, E., 2009. Spatial planning and policy integration: concepts,

facilitators and inhibitors. Planning, Theory and Practice 10 (3), 317–332.Te Brommelstroet, M., Bertolini, L., 2010. Integrating land use and transport

knowledge in strategy-making. Transportation 37 (1), 85–104.Te Brommelstroet, M., Bertolini, L., 2008. Developing land use and transport PSS:

meaningful information through dialogue between modelers and planners.Transport Policy 15 (4), 251–259.

Transport Act (Vic), 1983.Western Australian Planning Act, 1985.Western Australian Planning Commission, 2001. Information Statement. WAPC,

Perth.Western Australian Planning Commission, 2004. Network City: Community Plan-

ning Strategy for Perth and Peel, WAC, Perth.Western Australian Planning Commission, 2009. Directions 2031: A Draft Spatial

Framework for Perth and Peel, WAPC, Perth.


Is there a good governance model for the delivery of contemporary transport policy and practice? An...

Documents

Transcript of Is there a good governance model for the delivery of contemporary transport policy and practice? An...