IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v40y2003i1p35-55.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

New Realism and Local Realities: Local Transport Planning in Leicester and Cambridgeshire

Author

Listed:
  • Harriet Bulkeley

    (Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Dowreing Place, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, UK, hab1001@camac.uk)

  • Tim Rayner

    (Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, Dowreing Place, Cambridge, CB2 3EN, UK, tjr20@cam.ac.uk)

Abstract

In this paper, we seek to contribute to the debate concerning the emergence of a 'new realism' in transport planning in the UK, through an examination of the development of Local Transport Plans. After describing the background to these policy changes, we consider how one central tenet of the new realism—the need to manage demand—is taking shape within the local transport planning process in Cambridgeshire and Leicester. We argue that although a 'climate of desperation' exists in each case over levels of traffic growth and their associated impacts, policy learning and change have been confined to a 'weak' interpretation of new realism where transport planning remains effectively subservient to prevailing local notions of how economic competitiveness ought to be promoted. In conclusion, we argue that this poses fundamental challenges for national government's transport and sustainable development policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Harriet Bulkeley & Tim Rayner, 2003. "New Realism and Local Realities: Local Transport Planning in Leicester and Cambridgeshire," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 40(1), pages 35-55, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:40:y:2003:i:1:p:35-55
    DOI: 10.1080/00420980220080151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1080/00420980220080151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00420980220080151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Owens, Susan, 1995. "From 'predict and provide' to 'predict and prevent'?: Pricing and planning in transport policy," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 43-49, January.
    2. Jon Shaw & William Walton, 2001. "Labour's New Trunk-Roads Policy for England: An Emerging Pragmatic Multimodalism?," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(6), pages 1031-1056, June.
    3. Karen Bickerstaff & Gordon Walker, 2001. "Participatory Local Governance and Transport Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 33(3), pages 431-451, March.
    4. Susan Owens, 2000. "‘Engaging the Public’: Information and Deliberation in Environmental Policy," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 32(7), pages 1141-1148, July.
    5. Ison, Stephen, 1998. "A concept in the right place at the wrong time: congestion metering in the city of Cambridge," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 5(3), pages 139-146, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Melia, Dr Steve, 2019. "Why did UK governments cut road building in the 1990s and expand it after 2010?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 242-253.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tornberg, Patrik & Odhage, John, 2018. "Making transport planning more collaborative? The case of Strategic Choice of Measures in Swedish transport planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 416-429.
    2. Alexander Walter & Roland Scholz, 2007. "Critical success conditions of collaborative methods: a comparative evaluation of transport planning projects," Transportation, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 195-212, March.
    3. Tapio, Petri, 2005. "Towards a theory of decoupling: degrees of decoupling in the EU and the case of road traffic in Finland between 1970 and 2001," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 137-151, March.
    4. Tennøy, Aud, 2010. "Why we fail to reduce urban road traffic volumes: Does it matter how planners frame the problem?," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 216-223, August.
    5. Karen Bickerstaff & Emma Hinton & Harriet Bulkeley, 2016. "Decarbonisation at home: The contingent politics of experimental domestic energy technologies," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 48(10), pages 2006-2025, October.
    6. Yunxin Peng & Adel A. Zadeh & Sheila M. Puffer, 2023. "Unearthing the Construction Industry’s Awareness of and Reactions to the Global Sand Crisis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(21), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Chidambaram, Bhuvanachithra & Janssen, Marco A. & Rommel, Jens & Zikos, Dimitrios, 2014. "Commuters’ mode choice as a coordination problem: A framed field experiment on traffic policy in Hyderabad, India," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 9-22.
    8. te Brömmelstroet, Marco & Skou Nicolaisen, Morten & Büttner, Benjamin & Ferreira, Antonio, 2017. "Experiences with transportation models: An international survey of planning practices," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 10-18.
    9. Lowry, Michael B., 2010. "Using optimization to program projects in the era of communicative rationality," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 94-101, March.
    10. Peter Loukopoulos & Roland W Scholz, 2004. "Sustainable Future Urban Mobility: Using ‘Area Development Negotiations’ for Scenario Assessment and Participatory Strategic Planning," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 36(12), pages 2203-2226, December.
    11. Thorpe, Neil & Hills, Peter & Jaensirisak, Sittha, 2000. "Public attitudes to TDM measures: a comparative study," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 7(4), pages 243-257, October.
    12. Nostikasari, Dian, 2015. "Representations of everyday travel experiences: Case study of the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Area," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 96-107.
    13. Heather Kohls & Russell Kashian, 2006. "Committee Size and Smart Growth: An Optimal Solution," Working Papers 06-03, UW-Whitewater, Department of Economics.
    14. Mirosława Witkowska-Dabrowska & Natalia Świdyńska & Agnieszka Napiórkowska-Baryła, 2021. "Attitudes of Communities in Rural Areas towards the Development of Wind Energy," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(23), pages 1-24, December.
    15. Patsy Healey, 1999. "Sites, Jobs and Portfolios: Economic Development Discourses in the Planning System," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 36(1), pages 27-42, January.
    16. Rothstein, Henry, 2003. "Precautionary bans or sacrificial lambs? Participative regulation and the reform of the UK food safety regime," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 352, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Jakub Zawieska & Hanna Obracht-Prondzyńska & Ewa Duda & Danuta Uryga & Małgorzata Romanowska, 2022. "In Search of the Innovative Digital Solutions Enhancing Social Pro-Environmental Engagement," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-18, July.
    18. Cadena Gaitan, Carlos, 2012. "Political determinants of sustainable transport in Latin American cities," MERIT Working Papers 2012-072, United Nations University - Maastricht Economic and Social Research Institute on Innovation and Technology (MERIT).
    19. Keiron Bailey & Benjamin Blandford & Ted Grossardt & John Ripy, 2011. "Planning, Technology, and Legitimacy: Structured Public Involvement in Integrated Transportation and Land-Use Planning in the United States," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 38(3), pages 447-467, June.
    20. Nick F. Pidgeon & Wouter Poortinga & Gene Rowe & Tom Horlick‐Jones & John Walls & Tim O'Riordan, 2005. "Using Surveys in Public Participation Processes for Risk Decision Making: The Case of the 2003 British GM Nation? Public Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 467-479, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:40:y:2003:i:1:p:35-55. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.