IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdl/uctcwp/qt6pf9k6sk.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission

Author

Listed:
  • Innes, Judith E.
  • Gruber, Judith

Abstract

After a 5-year study of transportation planning in the San Francisco Bay Area, we have concluded that the contentiousness we observed in the process was due in great part to differences in participants’ styles of planning and not solely to disagreements over desired outcomes. Each style involved different assumptions about information, public participation, and what a good plan is like, as well as about the process of planning. Practitioners of each tended to believe deeply in their approach and to regard with suspicion, if not hostility, those practicing different styles. We identified four coexisting styles, which we label technical/bureaucratic, political influence, social movement, and collaborative. Each style tended to be associated with different types of outcomes, though this was not explicit in discussion. The political planners divided resources among players, whereas the collaborative and the social movement planners were associated with strategies designed to benefit the region as a whole.

Suggested Citation

  • Innes, Judith E. & Gruber, Judith, 2005. "Planning Styles in Conflict: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt6pf9k6sk, University of California Transportation Center.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdl:uctcwp:qt6pf9k6sk
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/6pf9k6sk.pdf;origin=repeccitec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Karner, Alex & Niemeier, Deb, 2013. "Civil rights guidance and equity analysis methods for regional transportation plans: a critical review of literature and practice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 126-134.
    2. Dotti, Nicola Francesco, 2018. "Knowledge that matters for the ‘survival of unfittest’: The case of the new Brussels' rail junction," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 131-140.
    3. Marco Te Brömmelstroet & Luca Bertolini, 2010. "Integrating land use and transport knowledge in strategy-making," Transportation, Springer, vol. 37(1), pages 85-104, January.
    4. 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.
    5. Gaber, John & Gaber, Sharon L., 2010. "Using face validity to recognize empirical community observations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 138-146, May.
    6. te Brömmelstroet, Marco, 2017. "Towards a pragmatic research agenda for the PSS domain," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 77-83.
    7. Xu, Haiyun & Meng, Miao & Zhu, Fangyu & Ding, Qi, 2024. "The role of local officials in promoting public participation during local urban planning processes: Evidence from Chinese cities," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    8. Weir, Margaret & Rongerude, Jane & Ansell, Christopher K., 2011. "Collaboration Is Not Enough: Virtuous Cycles of Reform in Transportation Policy," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8tk7d8kr, University of California Transportation Center.
    9. Weir, Margaret & Rongerude, Jane & Ansell, Christopher K., 2011. "Collaboration Is Not Enough: Virtuous Cycles of Reform in Transportation Policy," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8sh5v9jq, University of California Transportation Center.
    10. David G Proffitt & Keith Bartholomew & Reid Ewing & Harvey J Miller, 2019. "Accessibility planning in American metropolitan areas: Are we there yet?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 56(1), pages 167-192, January.
    11. Sciara, Gian-Claudia, 2012. "Financing congressional earmarks: Implications for transport policy and planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1328-1342.
    12. Weir, Margaret & Rongerude, Jane & Ansell, Christopher K., 2011. "Collaboration Is Not Enough: Virtuous Cycles of Reform in Transportation Policy," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8nk5s4w3, University of California Transportation Center.
    13. Geoffrey A. Battista & Kevin Manaugh, 2019. "My way or the highway? Framing transportation planners’ attitudes in negotiating professional expertise and public insight," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 1271-1290, August.
    14. Moşneanu Diana, 2020. "Corporate Governance in the Digital world," Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Excellence, Sciendo, vol. 14(1), pages 333-342, July.
    15. Singleton, Patrick A. & Clifton, Kelly J., 2017. "Considering health in US metropolitan long-range transportation plans: A review of guidance statements and performance measures," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 79-89.
    16. Terry van Dijk & Hiska Ubels, 2016. "How Dutch professionals conduct interactive design sessions to foster ‘shared understanding’," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 43(3), pages 464-479, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Social and Behavioral Sciences;

    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:cdl:uctcwp:qt6pf9k6sk. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Lisa Schiff (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/itucbus.html .

    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.