| Summary: | The purpose of this study is to empirically investigate the occurrence of Step 1 measures ofthe “four step principle” and the role of Strategic Choice of Measures (SCM) as it pertains tothe development of a sustainable transport system. The “four step principle” has been a partof Swedish transport planning for the last two decades with the purpose of modernising it. Byimplementing SCM the “four step principle” was supposed to take a central role in planning.SCM was supposed to offer an earlier and more open process to make strategic, nationaltransport planning more efficient and enable new perspectives in the process. However, newperspectives are few and far between and it is questionable how sustainable the measuressuggested in SCM processes actually are. The step-wise examination of the “four stepprinciple” seldom leads to suggestions where Step 1 measures are a considerable part, andit is even unclear what Step 1 actually is. Going beyond the SCM process it is questionable ifthe Measure data bank (Åtgärdsbanken), where all SCM-recommended measures aresupposed to be registered, works as a data and knowledge management database.This thesis steps in at that point.The goal of this report is to explain what Step 1 actuallyrepresents, how this is expressed in the SCM methodology and what the output of the SCMprocess is. By text analysis of documents from 150 SCM processes with possible Step 1measures an examination is made of what Step 1 represents and how Swedish TransportAdministration and other participants in SCM processes reach the measures suggested.What kind of so called primary Step 1 measures that are generated in the SCM process isalso within the scope of this report. In addition a more detailed investigation of patterns isperformed for SCM processes that generate primary Step 1 measures, pertaining to thedelimitation and actor setup in SCM:s. This is done in order to answer questions surroundingthe process of generating measures in SCM is concerned, and also to attempt to answer thecriticism that has been brought forth concerning the SCM process.The main conclusion of this report is that there are clear flaws in the SCM process. Theseshortcomings and flaws include difficulties in classifying measures, that particularly Step 1measures are packaged without individual effect evaluation, and that the process at largelacks the “rethink” perspective which the SCM process aims at. Looking at the primary Step1 measures generated, they are characterised as having a time scope connected to otherplanning processes, a limited, local geographical expanse, and as being multi-modal. Theresearch shows a contrast in that certain primary Step 1 measures occur at particulargeographical delimitations. Two common conditions for the generation of primary Step 1measures are the exclusion of Step 4 in the generation of measures, and packeting of Step1 measures for ease of handling. When investigating the SCM process the criticism that isbrought forth towards it shows signs of being legitimate. At the same time it is clear the theMeasure data bank does not function correctly as a data and knowledge management bankand improvements are needed for it to serve its intended purpose.Keywords: “four step principle”, Strategic Choice of Measures, sustainable transport,transport planning, Measure data bank, actor, Step 1, Primary Step 1 measure, instrument.
|
|---|
