Prof. Dirk Lauwers Artesis University College Antwerp – Department of Design Sciences

Network meeting Zagreb, 9-10 November 2009

Learning from incidents in infrastructure planning processes:

the Kingdon model as an assessment tool. The case of the Oosterweel link in Antwerp.

Prof. Dirk LauwersArtesis University College Antwerp – Department of Design Sciences

Ghent University of Ghent - Department of Mobility and Spatial Planning

Based on research by Sandra Vanveldhoven at Artesis University College Antwerp


Learning from incidents in infrastructure planning processes: the Kingdon model as an assessment tool. The case of the Oosterweel link in Antwerp.

Contents of the research – what to expect in this presentationIntroductionProject descriptionThe Kingdon model as an assessment toolAssessment of the Oosterweel link planning processEpilogue: main developments after the research periodLessons learnt



Introduction

Oosterweel link (= completion of the Antwerp ring road, including a river Scheldt crossing)

Was planned to be the largest infrastructure projectever built in Belgium

Started as a noiseless process for more than 15 years

Then became controversial in as well academic, political and professionalworld; action groups dominated the debate and could according to Belgian law enforce a public referendum held last October 18th

The project was rejected by Antwerp citizens



Introduction

Actual situation:

The Antwerp Council formulated a negative advice to the building permit for the project (towards the Flemish Government that has to authorize the permit)

The Flemish Government installed a ministerial committee (DAM=Sustainable Mobility for Antwerp) to untangle the mobility knots in Antwerp

Seven working groups are being created to study the different aspects of the mobility dossier

It is still unclear if a completely new or adapted project will be the result



Introduction

Basis of presentation = master exam research by Sandra Vanveldhoven (2009) at Artesis University College

Subject: policy making process – agenda setting (as a learning process)Spatial : completion of the Antwerp Ring RoadPeriod : 1990-2005

Time frame of the research: 1990-2005 = ‘quiet’ phase: from first agendasetting of the project till definition to preliminary statutory definition of thespatial project area by the Flemish Government

In this presentation: also reflections on period after 2005( based on the research results + own interpretation of events)



Project description

Result of the planning process: approved route by FlemishGovernment on 16/09/ 2005extends over a length of approx. 10 km and makes a link between a new traffic exchange to be built between The R1 – E17 – N49 on theleft bank node and nodes of the R1 with A12 and E313 on the right bank



Project description

Oosterweel link project consists of:

- rebuilding of interchange ring road on left bank

- a (toll) tunnel under the river Scheldt - a new interchange with the port area and city- a double deck viaduct of some 2,3 km lengthover Royers lock and Straatsburg dock(north of new development area ‘Eilandje’)

- interchange and rebuilding R1 northern ring road

+ accompanied with nature compensation projects



Project description

In its decision of 2 March 2007 the Flemish Government put a cap of 1.850 Bio EUR on the estimated cost price of the infrastructure, excl.VAT and excl. the cost for financing

Flanders opts to finance this investment by a joint venture between government and private companies (Public Private Partnership). Investment costs are paid back over time by toll collection

DB(f)M formula

Toll rate 2012 (Flem. Gov. 2005)- Passenger cars: €2.44- Lorries 3.5 tons -12 tons: €15.85- Lorries over 12 tons €15.85 – 19.02



The Kingdon model as process assessment tool

The project (was) seen as cornerstone for the accessibility of city and port of Antwerp and the viaduct cold ‘Lange Wapper’ designed as a new landmark for the city

Result of study and decision process of almost 2 decennia, since 2003 led by a dedicated management organisation for mobility projects in the Antwerp region (BAM)

Can the current rejection be explained by opening the black box of the planning process ?

research based on the model developed by John Kingdon in ‘Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies’ (1984, revised 1995)




Kingdons theory = based on empirical research (interviews with top decision makers in the US)Basic question: how does emerge an issue to theforefront of attention or ‘How does an idea’s time come?’Public policy making = set of processes1. Setting of the agenda2. Specification of alternatives3. Authoritative choice amongst alternatives4. Implementation of the decision

Success in one process does not imply success in others Kingdons model (and this presentation) considers first two processes




Kingdons theory = revised ‘garbage can theory’How to understand policy process?1. Tracing the origin of initiatives is not relevant

ideas can come from anywheretracing origins involves infinite regressnobody leads anybody elseinstead a combination of factors makes an item prominent

2. Comprehensive rational decision making models do not describe well real processes

actors often do not follow clear set of goalsactors often do not assess the alternatives systematicallyinstead a somewhat accidental confluence of factors occurs




Kingdons theory = revised ‘garbage can theory’How to understand policy process?3. Rejection of incrementalism

in many processes people proceed step by stepbut agenda changes appear discontinuous and

nonincremental4. Garbage can model (Cohen, March and Olsen)

model applicable to understand a type of organizations(called ‘organized anarchies’ i.e. different actorsdefine their own preferences – preferences are inconsistent)outcome of process depends on choice momentcoupling of problems and solutions, interactions of

participants




The Kingdon modelThree major and INDEPENDENT PROCESS STREAMS:

1. Problem streamRepresents information and events that may unchain a series of events related to placing or eliminating an issue from the agenda

2. Policy Stream:Refers to the knowledge or advice derived from researchers, consultants and technicians that offer alternatives or solutions that may or may not be considered or used by decision makers

3. Political Stream:The will of the political system and actors to place an issue on the agenda.




The Kingdon modelEach of the process streams has it owns logic an driving forces




The Kingdon modelPOLICY WINDOWS:

“Separate streams come together at critical times. A problem is

recognized, a solution is developed and available in the policy

community, a political change makes it the right time for policy

change, and potential constraints are not severe … these policy

windows, the opportunities for action on given initiatives, present

themselves and stay open for only short periods”

J. Kingdon, 1995




The Kingdon modelPOLICY WINDOWS: created by a policy maker (entrepreneur)




The Kingdon modelCriteria for SURVIVAL of policy alternatives:

- Technical feasibility- Value acceptability- Anticipation of future constraints



Assessment of Oosterweel link planning process

Some findings of the research:

1. It is possible to describe the planning process of the Oosterweel link within the three streams model (problems-policy alternatives-politics) in each stream actors intervene with their own logic (e.g. experts use traffic models, politicians make political deals, administrations refer to administrative rules...)

2. The three streams were bundled by a policy maker : the former Governor of the Antwerp Province (retired April 2008, at the moment nobody overtook his role as policy maker in the sense Kingdon describes it, although their is a Belgian top manager leading the BAM since 2008). The policy window was opened end 1996.





3. The project idea of the Oosterweel link was not the result of a rational planning process (vision-strategies-actions): the idea of the closing of the inner ring was not incorporated in the at time current spatial or infrastructural planning documents. Instead they included a second outer ring project without completing (‘closing’) the inner ring.

In fact the idea came from an action groupthat resisted the building of the outer ring at the left bank (Schakelplan 1989).





4. The problem definition at the starting point is very narrow: solving the traffic congestion on the ring road and connected access highways. Policy alternatives at the regional scale are limited to traffic simulations of inner and outer ring solutions (independent of the environment they cross), starting from trend scenarios (without incorporating modal shift).

5. During the rest of the planning process a constant discussion/’battle’ emerges to broaden the problem definition. At some points this happens at other points the project is enclosed in a technocratic shielded organisation.





6. In the phase of the agenda setting the main policy alternatives were conceived on the scale of the urban region. As there was/is no political/administrative organisational structure or dealing with the policy fields of the urban region an ‘unsettled politics' environment, fertile to ‘garbage can’ style policy processes existed.

7. Though later on the project is embedded in a multimodal set of projects (including tramway prolongations, inland waterway upgrading etc.), the so called Master plan for Antwerp, chances to incorporate the project in a mobility planning process at the scale of the urban region are missed (the ongoing planning process is even stopped in 1996 with the opening of the policy window for the building of the Oosterweel link.





8. Changing in the political positions and the administrative personnel can explain some crucial decisions during the planning process. The starting position of the city council was very weak because of internal problems (emerging of strong right wing party to be tackled by established political parties, financial disabuse scandal by some main counsellors, top of city administration leading to the resign of them). Partly this can explain why the policy alternatives proposed by the city administration were not really taken serious.

9. The decision process of the Oosterweel link is marked by a lack of transparency. This leads to tension with not only the city but also administrations of concerned policy domains (e.g. spatial planning).





10. The external communication in the beginning of the process was limited to some external stakeholder groups (especially economic actors, later on with the environmental movement concerning nature compensation). The communication with the general public was limited an one directional (informative), using press releases and TV spots on the regional channel.

11. New policy items that where taken on board were architectural design standards (input of a ‘Quality Chamber’ with e.g. the State and City architect) and nature compensation.




Epilogue: main developments after the research period

a. Under pressure of a Flemish parliament commission the project process became more transparent. A new general manager was installed at the top of BAM.

b. The City re-installed good governance and developed some new planning documents: a Mobility plan for the City and a Strategic Spatial Structure Plan Antwerp (sRSPA). The vision of the latter is seen as conflicting with the Oosterweel link. The City administration was re-organised and a project oriented agency was created to implement the strategic projects identified in the sRSPA.





c. New style action groups emerged with a highly professional profile. When a technical oriented group started to work together with a group around high skilledcommunication expert they started to dominate the debate based on a new issue : health (PM - air quality).





d. When it became clear that the action groups would succeed in collecting 60.000 signatures of city citizens, according to the Belgian the Flemish Government commissioned a comparative study on the BAM Oosterweel project versus two alternatives (one being the alternative proposed by the action group (a tunnel instead of a viaduct and following another route).

e. The outcome of this study (done by ARUP/SUM) was not positive for the Oosterweel link project: a fourth alternative was proposed (an optimized version of the action group proposal).





f. The City Council commissioned a feasibility study of the ARUP/SUM tunnel proposal. The outcome was controversial:the action groups and some politicians followedthe ARUP/SUM conclusions, other politiciansand BAM attacked the technical feasibility of the tunnel alternative.

g. Some local politicians took individual positions in the debate apart from party linesh. The outcome of the referendum and its follow upwas already mentioned in the beginning of the presentation





SO THE POLICIY WINDOW IS CLOSED AGAIN....

AND THERE IS NOT YET A NEW POLICY MAKER

Hypothesis : only if the Flemish Government and City Council (supported by the local public opinion) will agree on a new project concept a new window can be opened...



Lessons learnt

Checking Kingdons criteria for SURVIVAL of policy alternatives:

1. Technical feasibilityThe Oosterweel link project was conceived as a high standard technical

masterpiece. It was rather its strong point than it Achilles heel.However, the original rejection of the tunnel alternative became

controversial as know how for tunnel building developed (see also: expiry date of a project proposal)



Lessons learnt


2. Value acceptabilityDuring the process of agenda setting a closed network (that was enlarged

step by step) of specialists was engaged in the project planning process. The original disciplines of civil and traffic engineering were enlarged with financial experts and urban designers.

Critics grew in disciplines of urban planning and medicine (public health)



Lessons learnt


3. Anticipation of future constraintsFinancial constraints: though the original set budget had to be augmented

several times (the originally approved budget by the Flemish Government of 1,82 billion euro has been adjusted by BAM to 2,5 billion euro and even this budget is criticised by the Financial Court) the project is seen as strategic and not (officially) doubted for this reason

Public and political acceptanceTuned out the be the weakest point: position of (local) politicians changed,

public opinion took the side of the activist (David versus Goliath)



Lessons learnt

A project proposal has an expiry date:Weak point of the Oosterweel project is its small original problem definition (traffic congestion on main road system)Problem setting should be broad enough to generate a broader set of project design criteria (see also the Kingdon set of project survival criteria)

Major projects should refer to the mobility issue and not only to a traffic problem

Infrastructure project planning should not be limited to the physical object to be build, regardless of the environment but be embedded in urban/regional development strategies (avoid white backgrounds in project evaluation and design!)



Lessons learnt

A project proposal has an expiry date:The growing complexity of administrative procedures of large infrastructure

projects tents to enlarge the planning process whilst the key issues that dominate the public opinion and the political agenda change more and more rapidly

Burocratic rules should be simplified, maybe LIP’s need other procedures than regular projects?

Quality checks in view of sustainable development policy and democratic and legal rights should be checked in a pro-active way

Urban (or if applicable regional) political representatives should be regarded as equal partners as national (or if applicable regional) ‘owners’ of the project in the planning process

Project proposals should be based upon best practice



Lessons learnt

Conclusions in short based on Kingdon: Keep in mind the differentiated dynamics in the three process streams

as described by Kingdon and try to keep them tight Respect the stakeholders : keep in mind that the strength of

stakeholders might change during the processGeneral conclusions in short: Mind the Achilles’ heel of the project (you can hide it for a while, but

not always till the end of the decision process) Start with communication from the beginning of the project

(communication is a two way process) Keep in mind the expiry date of the project proposal Public opinion can be a stronger factor than commonly (e.g. by

Kingdon) agreed because of new style activism



Thank you for the attention

For more information: [email protected]

Prof. Dirk Lauwers Artesis University College Antwerp – Department of Design Sciences

Documents

Transcript of Prof. Dirk Lauwers Artesis University College Antwerp – Department of Design Sciences