ARTICLE IN PRESS

Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

A strategic planning methodology

Robert Kölbl , Martin Niegl, Hermann Knoflacher
1040 Vienna, Austria

a r t i c l e in fo abstract

Available online 6 September 2008 The aim of this paper is to develop a method for strategic transport planning, which can be applied from
Keywords: the local up to the international level. A newly developed strategic transport plan is verified in
Strategic planning comparison to four strategic transport plans, i.e. on the national level: Austria’s Generalverkehrsplan-
Transport policy Österreich 2002, the German Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2003, and from Switzerland the Sachplan
Control theory Schiene/öV [BAV, 2002. Sachplan Schiene/öV—Konzeptteil (Teile I bis IV and Anhänge)—Vernehmlas-
Hierarchical systems sungsentwurf, September 2002, Bern, Schweiz, Bundesamt für Verkehr] and the Sachplan Strasse [Astra,
Method 2002. Der Sachplan Strasse, September 2002, Bern, Bundesamt für Strassen, Bundesamt für
Raumentwicklung]; on the international level, the EU White paper on transport policy [European
Commission, 2001. White paper—European transport policy for 2010: time to decide. Technical Report,
EU]. The methodology is based on a combination of control theory and hierarchical systems theory,
which the former provides a stringent-ordered structure of the complexity between objectives,
measures and indicators and the latter a consistent hierarchy for the involved topics and issues. The
method allows an assessment and comparison with the above mentioned plans, which is required if a
consistent transport strategy should be achieved between these levels.
& 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction different issues consistently in a single schema and which can

Strategic planning (SP) is taking up an increasing part of
transport planning, which can be seen on all levels of public
administration, i.e. from urban, regional up to national and
international levels. One main difficulty of such plans is that they
are not consistent or are interpreted in different ways which may
be a reason for the divergence between transport policies and
traffic development (May et al., 2005).
Another main aspect lies in the complexity of transport with
all the technical, socio-economic and environmental facets, which
may be seen, for example, when people of the same organisation
take different decisions. Furthermore, such decisions may also
alter the state of the whole transport system which triggers new
situations due to their dynamic effects (Sterman, 2000). Such
dynamics may in addition possess a ‘‘counterintuitive behaviour’’,
which can especially be seen in social systems (Forrester, 1971,
p. 52).
The question arises, how to deal with such complexity and
dynamics, when also different actors have different intensions
(Button and Hensher, 2005). The obvious answer lies in the need
for integration, an approach for the understanding of the system
as whole (May et al., 2006; Knoflacher, 2007). A qualitative
method is therefore required which attempt to integrate these
be followed and monitored stringently over the years. Whereas
the urban and regional level have been tackled in different
European framework programs (e.g. www.lutr.net), we would
like to concentrate on the national and international level, where
even ‘‘strategic appraisal is in its infancy’’ (Short and Kopp, 2005,
p. 366).
The paper will firstly discuss the preliminaries for a SP
methodology. Afterwards, the two concepts of control theory and
hierarchical systems are discussed to form the theoretical basis.
Thirdly, an exemplary transport plan according to the developed
method is described which should show the practicable applic-
ability, an essential requirement of this methodology. Fourthly,
three national strategic plans and the EU White paper are
summarised and the details can be found in Appendix A.4. The
paper closes with an analysis and discussion of the methodology
which allows a comparison of the four strategic plans, a further
essential property, if a common strategy for several countries such
as in the European Union, should be obtained.
2. A SP methodology
2.1. Preliminaries of a strategic method

 Corresponding author. Tel.: +43 1 58801 23120; fax: +43 1 58801 23199. A precondition for this methodology lies in the fact that the
E-mail address: robert.koelbl@ivv.tuwien.ac.at (R. Kölbl). transport and land-use system can be influenced or should be

0967-070X/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2008.07.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
274 R. Kölbl et al. / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282
controlled by policies and regulations, although it has been
suggested that the regulatory influence may be unelectable
(Axhausen, 2000; Hesse, 2001; Hickman and Banister, 2005).
However, the argument here is to develop a methodology which
can control, steer or ‘‘govern’’ the transport system, as required
principally by a SP approach.
SP methodologies in transport are tackled from different
perspectives, i.e.
 from a decision making perspective with vision-, plan- and
consensus lead approaches, or
 from a process or definition oriented approach for objectives,
problems, indicators, targets, etc., or
 from a public participation, or
 from a package forming of instruments, or
 from an implementation or overcoming barriers one (Ember-
ger and Timms, 2003).
When all these items are put into an overall scheme (May et al.,
2005), such frameworks become quickly very complex and
difficult to relate the different stages (Banister, 2000; Button
and Hensher, 2005).
One basic requirement is thus to keep the underlying method
simple (but not simplistic) and straight forward without losing
the methodological stringency. A further important aspect will be
to provide a general understanding, which makes it necessary to
develop the approach from an every-day language viewpoint in
order to have the broadest common basis, since various view-
points and disciplines have to be accommodated. In scientific
terms, this aspect can be termed as a requirement of ‘‘discipline
neutrality’’ (Wuketits, 1981) in order to give not rise to
philosophical discussions between technical, social and natural
sciences.
Although the general definitions of SP may be known, the main
definitions will be stated due to reasons of completeness and for
some derivations:
A strategy can be defined as a plan for successful action based
on the rationality and interdependence of the moves of the
opposing participants or as the art of projecting and directing
the larger military movements and operations of a campaign
(Oxford University Press, 2006).
Although this definition contains the reference to military, the
directions and aims are generally applicable. The key element, i.e.
‘‘a plan for successful action based on the rationality’’, is related to
the notion of methodology and can be defined as following:
A methodology can be defined as a systematic classification or
procedure with the use of suitable techniques for studying and
analysing directions and implications of empirical research
(Oxford University Press, 2006).
The topical constraint to ‘‘empirical research’’ does not need to be
required and can also be applied to ‘‘strategies’’, for yielding
successful actions. The key point here is regarding ‘‘systematic
classification’’ and ‘‘suitable techniques’’, which will be high-
lighted in the following section.
2.2. An application of control theory
Transport systems from the physical to the communication
level provide the multi-dimensional network to the social and
economic system and these therefore interact in an open manner
(for basic definitions see Appendix A.1). N. Wiener, one of the
fathers of control and communication theory, used the Greek
word of steersman for the definition of ‘‘cybernetics’’, which can
also be traced back to Clerk Maxwell’s article from 1868 on
governors (Wiener, 1965, p. 11). Several forms of transport have
emerged which have considerably influenced and regulated the
progress of the socio-economic development and their effects on
the environment (Black, 2004). In order to decompose this
complexity, a modular structure of building blocks is required to
be able to tackle the problems in manageable entities without
losing the overall picture. And to extend the usual linear thinking,
an understanding on the strategic level is required to think
beyond the so-called ‘‘solution to the problem’’; or as Saaty (2001,
p. 83) put it: ‘‘Feedback enables us to factor the future into the
present to determine what we have to do to attain a desired
future.’’
2.3. The control cycle of SP
The above concepts, especially those of the feedback, can be
specified in technical terms of a standard control cycle, which
provides all the key elements of a SP approach as also set-out in
Section 2.1. The standard terms in square brackets (DiStefano
et al., 1990) can thus be converted into SP terms, to yield the SP
cycle (Fig. 1).
The definition of the ‘‘objective’’ or ‘‘aim’’ is stated as
‘‘externally . . . aimed at or sought; a target, goal, or end’’ (Oxford
University Press, 2006), which is very similar to those of control
theory:
The reference input is an external signal . . . in order to
command a specific action of the plant. It usually represents
ideal (or desired) plant output behaviour (DiStefano et al.,
1990, p. 17).
The key feature in both definitions is external, and the important
consequence is that the objectives or aims should be defined not
within the (transport) system but from outside. If the aims would
be defined internally, a positive feedback1 cycle may be triggered.
An example of such a positive feedback could be seen in the
attempts of easing congestion but congestion levels have further
increased and this is seen as one major problem (see e.g. European
Commission, 2001). The comparison of ideal objectives and
realisation or outcome will lead to the adjusted objectives. This
step will be required for a revision or correction which will be
considered later. Therefore, the objective and adjusted objective
are used as uniformly at this stage.
Policies (and regulations) are generally defined as a ‘‘course of
action adopted and pursued by a government, party, ruler,
statesman . . .’’ (Oxford University Press, 2006). This could be
interpreted in more concrete terms as jurisdictional statements
within the governmental or legal systems. Their function is clearly
of regulatory or controlling nature as in control theory, which
should generate the control signal, i.e. the instruments and
measures, and their intention is also to achieve the objectives or
aims.2
Instruments or measures is ‘‘a material thing . . . to serve or
contribute to the accomplishment of a purpose or end; a means,
capacity, or quantity . . . designed or used for the accomplishment
of some mechanical or other physical effect’’ (Oxford University
1
‘‘Positive loops are self-reinforcing. . . . Of course, no real quantity can grow
forever. There must be limits to growth. These limits [are set by boundaries or] can
be created by negative feedback. Negative loops are self-correcting. All systems, no
matter how complex, consist of networks of positive and negative feedbacks, and
all dynamics arise from the interaction of these loops with one another’’ (Sterman,
2000, p. 13).
2
In KonSULT, ‘‘a combination of policy instruments, as they are applied over
time’’ is also defined as a strategy (ITS Leeds, 2006). The difficulty of this definition
should be seen in regard to that of a closed/positive feedback.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Kölbl et al. / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282 275

Fig. 1. Feedback loop of strategic planning and standard terminology.

Press, 2006). This can be understood as the practical implementa-

tion of policies and regulations in transport systems, for example,
projects, which serve as an input for the plant, i.e. the transport
system. It should be noted that instruments are also understood in
a legal way, where they would need to be listed under policies and
regulations.3
The disturbance affects as ‘‘an undesired stimulus or input
signal . . . the value of the controlled output’’ (DiStefano et al.,
1990, p. 21). In SP this could be termed as barriers which is defined
similarly as ‘‘an obstacle which prevents a given policy instrument
being implemented, or limits the way in which it can be
implemented’’ (May et al., 2005). The distinction made in this
report with legal/institutional, political/cultural, resource and
financial, and practical/technological barriers could be related
more or less directly to the SP feedback cycle of Fig. 1.
‘‘Key Performance Indicators are . . . metrics used to quantify
objectives to reflect the strategic performance . . . which is made
up of a direction, . . . benchmark, target and timeframe’’ (wikipe-
dia, 2006). A similar definition, although not so comprehensive,
can also be found in transport planning with ‘‘ways of quantifying
objectives’’ (compare ITS Leeds, 2006). The essential aspects for
the SP approach are, firstly, the quantification for the key units of
the ‘‘plant’’, i.e. the transport system, measuring the performance
over a period of time and secondly, the quantification for the
outcome and, thus, for the objectives, where the linear thinking is
extended to one of a feedback. A further function of indicators is
in respect to monitoring, which is an essential feature during the
implementation phase of a strategic plan (European Environment
Agency, 2007).
2.4. Hierarchical systems
The second fundament of the methodology is based on the
concept of hierarchical systems, which is required to distinguish
the involved subjects, for example, regarding the economy, society
and the environment in a consistent way and to monitor the
related strategies in a transport planning approach.
Hierarchical systems can be defined as a concept of a multi-
level structure for a decomposition of complex problems, where
the ‘‘dilemma is basically one between the simplicity in descrip-
tion, one of the prerequisites for understanding, and the need to
take into account a complex system’s numerous behavioural
aspects’’ (Mesarovic et al., 1970, p. 37). Hierarchies are used in
different ways and for different purposes and therefore can have
3
In transport planning, instruments are sometimes defined in way, combining
several aspects: ‘‘Instrument (or policy instrument)—Also known as measures,
policy instruments are the specific means by which policies are implemented
(e.g. lower bus fares, road pricing)’’ (ITS Leeds, 2006).
Fig. 2. Hierarchical system of emergence exemplified in regard to the environ-
ment, society and economy (Riedl, 1985).
different interpretations. For example, the above control cycle can
also be interpreted as a hierarchy in regard to goals—
criteria–  –evaluation factors—alternatives with the aspect ‘‘to
assess the impact of the elements of a higher level on those of
lower level or alternatively . . .’’ (Saaty, 2000, p. 94).
In order to substantiate the above criteria, we would apply the
definition of hierarchy in the meaning of a material-formal sense.
In this way, a system hierarchy can be developed simply from the
relativity of duality between ‘‘the parts’’ and ‘‘the whole’’, i.e. the
parts on the lower level constitute the ‘‘whole’’ on the next higher
level, and so on (Klir, 1991). Such a hierarchical schema, however,
is not arbitrary but determines a defined structure and direction
in relation to a required level. One consequence, for example, is
that bottom-up or top-down approaches describe two opposite
directions but have to be complementary.
This duality can only be understood with the inclusion of the
concept of emergence (see Appendix A.1): A new layer is therefore
a making of the below, where it obtains its material parts
(or components or elements), and from above, where it obtains
its formal structure and thus showing the dependencies of either
interactions (Riedl, 1985). Depictions, which usually can be found
in the literature, are those of nested or embedded figures or
pyramids (e.g. Wilson, 1981). However, the depiction according to
this concept contains a double pyramid as in Fig. 2, where
the outer layer through the original connections defines also the
boundaries for the inner one. An example of this duality can
be viewed in the problem of natural resources and emissions,
where society produces not only the exploitation on the level of
parts but also the impacts on the whole, i.e. the environment, in
form of e.g. the greenhouse gases.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

276 R. Kölbl et al. / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282

QUALITATIVE QUANTITATIVE envisaged degree of detail for the hierarchical classification

(see Table 1).
SYSTEM THE CONTROL CYCLE
Since the whole process is very much an iterative one, the
HIERARCHY
order of specifications is variable, i.e. although the objectives are
OF Objectives Policies Instruments Indicators
usually listed first, they necessarily do not need to be the starting
MACRO

point due to the revolving feedback process. In other terms, the

LEVEL 1 Objective 1,1 Policy 1,1 Measure 1,1 Indicator 1,1
usual objective-led approach becomes secondary to a bi-directional
… … … … consistency-driven approach, since consistency and compatibility
are required in the horizontal direction of a level between
Objective 1,n Policy 1,n Measure 1,n Indicator 1,n objectives–policies–measures–indicators as well as in the vertical
direction between the different levels of subjects. An exemplary
LEVEL 2 Objective 2,2 Policy 2,2 Measure 2,2 Indicator 2,2 application is provided in the following section which will then be
… … … … compared with the four selected transport plans.

Objective 2,n Policy 2,n Measure 2,n Indicator 2,n

2.6. The STP matrix

In advance, it should be noted that the following plan can only

be regarded as exemplary in order to show the application of the
LEVEL N Objective n,n Policy n,n Measure n,n Indicator n,n
above developed methodology.
The application can be developed, starting from the hierarchy
MICRO

… … … … of Fig. 2 with the environment—society—economy and the

Objective n,n Policy n,n Measure n,n Indicator n,n
Fig. 3. Combination of system hierarchy and feedback loop.
2.5. Connecting the control and the hierarchical system
In the literature, these two items are usually handled
separately (e.g. Wilson, 1981). Here, the hierarchical system
describes qualitatively the vertical dimension and the control
cycle (of Fig. 1) explains the processes horizontally within the
hierarchical levels. The complementary connection can be
depicted with a matrix (Fig. 3). From this representation, it
becomes evident that the matrix goes methodologically beyond
the usual listing or the separate treatment. Each row and each
column has a defined elementary representation and determines
so the methodological stringency. The application comprehends
three degrees of specification and an example of the strategic
transport plan (STP) is described in the following section.
While only three (or five) levels have been described in Fig. 2,
the degree of detail in Fig. 3 can be increased from the macroscopic
to the microscopic one accordingly. The levels are simply
numbered in one direction although from the hierarchical
building schema they should be paired according to their relative
duality, emergence and boundaries. Even if only one side of the
pyramid is taken, the structure establishes the first specification
of the addressed subjects or domains as in Fig. 2.
The control cycle in the horizontal provides through its defined
elements the layout from the qualitative of envisaged objectives to
the quantitative of the indicators. This association triggers the
feedback cycle in regard to the second specification, raising, for
example, the question of how a certain objectives, policies and
measures can be achieved and assessed. Comparing those again
with the hierarchical layers, the description will be enhanced
further and the ordering power of the methodology constrains one
inevitably towards a repeated revision and clarification and thus
give an equal importance to all elements.
The third specification goes into the detailed definitions in
relation to the matrix cells, for capturing the multi-dimensionality
of the actual issues involved. For this specification of the n; n-
elements, a taxonomic classification needs to be introduced as an
auxiliary step. This classification can be described with the
notions of domain–area–issue–objective, providing eventually the
definition of sustainability, where ‘‘the goal of economic and
social development must be defined in term of sustainability’’
(WCED, 1987) with the concept of needs and the idea of
limitations; and with respect to complementary property of the
relative duality, i.e. ‘‘not to undermine either its physical or its
social system of support’’ (Meadows et al., 2004, p. 254).
Sustainability can be understood in terms of the control cycle as
stability, which is one of the most desired performance properties.
The application to transport and travel can be derived from it
most fundamental unit, i.e. a ‘‘trip’’ or a ‘‘journey’’ (Becker et al.,
1991). A definition, which satisfies the requirements of control
theory and of the hierarchical system, can be stated as following:
‘‘A trip can be defined as a locomotion of a person [the formal
part], who goes with or without the use of one or several means
of transport, from an origin over a route to a destination,
[i.e. the material parts] with an energy and according to a
purpose’’ (Kölbl, 2000; Kölbl and Helbing, 2003). In regard to the
elements of the feedback cycle, the trip purpose can be assigned
to the reference input, the traveller to the feedforward (control)
element and ‘‘the locomotion with or without the means of
transport from an origin to a destination’’ is the process or plant.
The output is the level of satisfaction (or utility) through the
locomotion, which ‘‘feeds back’’ to the reference input.
The trip purpose is usually associated with ‘‘work’’, ‘‘educa-
tion’’, ‘‘shopping or provision’’ and ‘‘leisure’’, which are related to
the basic functions of living as defined by Maslow (1943).
Additionally, safety or quality of life can also be included to the
domain society in order to develop the matrix according to the
taxonomic classification (Table 1). Finally, the connection between
objectives—instruments—indicators and their detailed formula-
tion can now be determined (Table 2). There are numerous
measures and indicators available, which should be chosen in
order to meet the required demands. In the appendix, exemplary
tables related to the environment (Tables 3 and 4) and the
economy (Tables 5 and 6) have been described for reasons of
completeness.
To fill in all cells accordingly, a reiterative process is required to
establish the consistency and compatibility of the STP. The
emerging stabilisation of the description may therefore be taken
as another application of control dynamics. In the four STPs of
Appendix A.4, policies and regulations are not separated in a strict
way and therefore they are combined here as instruments. The
juxtaposition to these documents is analysed in the following
section.

Table 1
Taxonomic specification regarding the society for the definition of objectives
Domain Area
Society Quality of life
Security and safety
Basic functions of living
Table 2
Transport plan regarding the society
Objective
Enhance usability and accessibility
Foster health and well-being
Securing the satisfaction of the human
needs
Enhancing safety standards for all
participants
Sustain and develop working,
shopping and supply opportunities
around the living areas
Sustain and develop educational
opportunities around the living areas
Sustain and develop green and leisure
opportunities around the living areas
3. A summary of four strategic plans
The STPs of Austria, Germany, Switzerland and the EU White
paper are very briefly summarised (see Appendix A.4). Only
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Kölbl et al. / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282 277
Issue Objective
Fairness, solidarity Enhance usability and accessibility
Health Foster health and well-being
Social (long-term) security Securing the satisfaction of the human needs
Physical (immediate) safety Enhancing safety standards for all participants
Work, supply, education, leisure Sustain and develop working, shopping and supply opportunities around the living areas
Sustain and develop educational opportunities around the living areas
Sustain and develop green and leisure opportunities around the living areas
Measure/instrument Indicator
Equal and barrier-free usage of the public Trip time, length, and frequency of different social groups
space for all
Prioritisation of non-motorised mobility Casualties per area and year
structures
Reduce traffic pollution Population health statistics in regard to pollution
Enable non-motorised travel through Pollution levels of various gases and particles
respective infrastructure and access provision
Create green areas Street temperature
Level of humidity
Create high functional mix and diversity Modal split
regarding work, education, leisure, shops and
green space
Efficient and equal use of public space Density of population, jobs, shops, schools
Development of off-road car parking schemes Area and access comparison from home to parks and green areas
Distance to cycle lanes, public transport stops and car parks
Crime rates
Reduce speed of traffic Number of fatalities and accidents per year [pers or no./year]
Reduce traffic volume Accident locations and type of accidents in relation to speed and
traffic volume
Enhance traffic and driver education and
traffic control
Policing
Investment, which meets the needs of the Number of jobs or companies per area or region
local economy
Development of local economies with local Number of job functions per area or region
responsibilities
Number and distance of commuting and shopping trips between
internal, incoming, outgoing for an area and region
Commuting distance according to modal split
Height of regional development investment
Development of local schools and educational Modal split and trip length regarding educational trips
centres
Develop and densify the non-motorised Length of non-motorised transport network
infrastructure
Develop car-free zones and green areas around Modal split and trip distance for leisure activities
living areas
Develop barrier-free access to non-motorised Distance to parks and green areas
and public transport
objectives, instruments and indicators are very concisely de-
scribed where applicable. Due to these limitations, it must be
noted that these summaries cannot be regarded as a critical
analysis in any way.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

278 R. Kölbl et al. / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282

3.1. Austria—The General Transport Plan 2002 casualties between 2000 and 2010 or maintaining the 35% of rail
freight share for 2010. The aim of ‘‘eliminating bottlenecks’’ is
From the six objectives, two, i.e. (regarding safety and the actually a measure and, thus, the underlying aim is not defined.
economy) satisfy the criteria developed above. ‘‘Sustainability’’ is There is no clear connection between aims and measures.
mentioned without a concrete definition although it contains the Indicators are only mentioned in respect to the people killed
only link to the indicator of ‘‘modal split’’. It is mentioned that and rail freight share. In general, it is difficult to identify a clear
‘‘aspects of traffic safety and environmental protection’’ should be and comprehensive approach for the achievement of a sustainable
considered in further planning processes but without appropriate transport system in the long run.
measures, as, for example, with legal procedures of a strategic
environmental assessment or an environmental impact assess-
ment, ‘‘Financing’’ and ‘‘the ease of implementation’’ are not
4. Analysis and discussion
independent but derived from ‘‘the extension of the network’’.
This objective lies within the transport system and therefore bears
The first step of the analysis is usually a simple comparison.
the preconditions for a positive feedback. In terms of the above
The grid of the matrix can be used as a framework, where the grey
definitions, they should actually be measures, especially ‘‘finan-
coloured cells of Fig. 4 represent the allocation of issues addressed
cing’’ and thus listed in another column. In terms of measures, the
within the respective STPs. From the taxonomic specification, it
GTPA 2002 does not make the direct connection between
can be seen that definitions of objectives such as ‘‘to foster
the defined aims and proposed measures. This is justified by the
sustainable mobility’’ (BMVIT, 2002) or ‘‘to master the globalisa-
argument that ‘‘a general (or strategic) transport plan should
tion of traffic’’ (European Commission, 2001) are too general and
focus less on the completeness of measures but rather on the
would require additional specification. Thus, only those items
concentration of forces for the urgent and important projects’’.
with the required level of specification can be used to fill the
Overall, the GTPA 2002 is oriented towards the objectives which
matrix cells of Fig. 4. From here, the main advantages are:
are described vaguely without clear measures or indicators.

3.2. The German Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2003
Appendix A.4 shows that the German BVWP 2003 is similar to
the Austrian GTP 2002 although more objectives have been
formulated. Most aims are defined outside the realm of the
transport system, but in such a manner that their achievement
cannot be assessed. The issues regarding the infrastructure and
financing are described also on comparable lines; as are measures,
which are defined independently of the aims. This leads partly to
inconsistencies such as ‘‘45% of overall funding for new and
extension projects’’ and ‘‘a reduction of the use and demand on
nature, landscape and non-renewable resources’’. In respect to
indicators analogous difficulties occur, for example, with a
‘‘reductions of emissions . . . especially CO2’’, where two scenarios
are listed with 17% and 11% increase but without any cross-
referencing. As a general assumption it is mentioned that ‘‘an
exclusion of projects based on currently supposed conflicts, . . . is
therefore not possible’’.
 Only a certain substantiation of definitions can be taken into
account and non-tangible descriptions will require to be
reformulated accordingly.
 It can be seen if a plan is comprehensively defined and where
are the missing parts.
 The level of detail can be defined accordingly and the relations
are preserved in respect to the overall schema.
 The schema provides a basis for the connection between the
actual subject involved and the decision making process, a
problem which is difficult to uphold in political discussions.
In terms of items covered, Fig. 4 shows that the Swiss
Factual Plans 2002 address the three domains quite comprehen-
sively although they are oriented towards the objectives
and instruments. The issue, which has been addressed in all
STPs, is regarding fair pricing on an economic level. Similarly,
this juxtaposition of national and international plans shows

3.3. Switzerland

In Switzerland, a distinction is made between ‘‘The factual plan

rail and public transport (FP-R/PT) (Der Sachplan Schiene/öV)’’
(BAV, 2002) and ‘‘The factual plan road (FP-Ro) (Der Sachplan
Straße)’’ (ASTRA, 2002) and will be reviewed here combined. Most
aims have been defined transport-externally but without a
respective implementation. The aims are defined in a general
way and distributed over the documents, which makes it difficult
to relate aims to the respective measures and their realisation.
However, with the ‘‘shifting bill’’, ‘‘Vision Zero’’ and ‘‘CO2 ’’, there
are well-defined connections between the aims, their measures
and indicators. Otherwise only few indicators are mentioned
which could be used for assessment purposes, although a strategic
environmental assessment with an environmental impact assess-
ment is explicitly required for project assessment.

3.4. The EU white paper on transport 2001

Aims are defined, on the one hand, in a general sense, such as

‘‘a sustainable transport system that will ideally be in place in
30 years’ time’’ or in a concrete form such as halving of road Fig. 4. Comparison between strategic transport plans.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R. Kölbl et al. / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282
exemplarily how different STPs at different levels of administra-
tion can be compared and analysed for a later integration.
As already noticed above in regard to the control cycle
(see Section 2.3), several elements can be added through
additional columns to complement the matrix. These elements
are, for example, in relation to policies, laws and regulations, which
form the legal basis for an implementation, and the jurisdiction of
the administrative bodies, in respect to measures, the envisaged
projects and in respect to the previous mentioned elements and
system indicators, or barriers which can have a considerable
influence, too (May et al., 2006; Vieira et al., 2007).
Similarly, the financial allocations (as the essential component
from the system definition viewpoint) should be added to obtain
an overview of funding in relation to different levels and
measures. Quantitatively, that would enable the linkage to
assessment methods such as a cost–benefit analysis. A further
linkage, which would demand further research, can be made to
measurement methods such as the analytical network process,
where the dominance of influence is measured in respect to a
criteria or indicator and a prioritisation of measures would be
obtained for the optimal achievement of the defined objectives
(Saaty, 2001).
For further assessment methods, the analysis of the different
measures on different levels could provide an indication in regard
to the concept of synergies (May et al., 2006). In addition, a
connection between measures and indicators could provide a
quantitative assessment for estimating trends in the simplest way.
Otherwise, a modelling exercise would be required which would
open up the field to systems analysis and optimisation, but which
would be of further research.
5. Conclusions
The key items for the above developed strategic planning
methodology in transport can be concluded as following:
 A jargon-independent definition of the methodology is based
on a general language usage as shown, for example, in the
preconditions or key elements of the control cycle, enabling a
common understanding between all stakeholders involved.
 The approach puts equal importance on all elements of the
control cycle in comparison to an usual objective-led approach.
A minimum set of elements is required containing objectives,
instruments and indicators. Further extensions (represented by
additional columns) can be made in terms of policies, law,
administration or financing.
 The hierarchical system provides an understanding of the
material vs. formal duality, i.e. combining the source or parts
point of view with the effects on the whole for problems such
as resources vs. greenhouse gases. It provides also an order in
terms of subjects involved and defines the levels and
boundaries between the economic, social and environmental
realms.
 The combination of the previous points can be shown in a
qualitative matrix framework where the control items are in
the horizontal and the hierarchical in the vertical. The
structure of the matrix provides a bi-directional consistency-
driven approach for the cells depicting the interrelations of the
items involved and thus brings forth the feedback process with
the increasing stabilisation of the developing strategic trans-
port plan.
 From the practical application, the definitions of the cells and
their items require a tangible detail and content which
becomes evident through the previous point. General formula-
tions such as ‘‘to promote sustainable mobility’’ require
279
additional specifications and thus sharpen and enhance the
expressiveness and significance of such transport plans and
their understanding.
 The analysis of current strategic plans shows that they are
mainly oriented towards objectives. Instruments and measures
do have an equivalent weighting for the planning process. The
definition process can start at any of the matrix cells because
several runs are required in terms of the methodological
stringency to obtain the consistency and complementarity
between the cells and their neighbouring items.
In this paper, the focus of the SP methodology was on the basic
concepts. Further extensions as indicated in various sections can
be made in terms of assessment methods, monitoring or
modelling. However, more research and implementations of the
methodology are required to further verify its validity.
Appendix A
A.1. Basic concepts of control theory
The following basic concepts are used above (Wuketits, 1981):
 Open–closed system: A system should always be in the
interaction with its environment. Simple linear paths of
development are therefore quickly extended to relations of a
multi-dimensional network.
 Self-organisation can be seen as the boundary of the opera-
tional closeness of a system with the interaction of the system
environment. Also defined as emergence, it includes the
property of a system’s regulation, steering and self-regulation,
i.e. the possibility to develop towards an aim or its purposeful-
ness as a whole or as one of its parts.
 Modularity, which enables to view the structure of the
system’s parts in building bock and the whole in a system
hierarchy.
 Thinking in feedback circles: Control theory goes beyond the
usual linear thinking pattern and can provide new perspectives
for overcoming traditional problems.
A.2. The environment
Tables 3 and 4 present the taxonomic specification and STP for
the environment.
A.3. The economy
Tables 5 and 6 present the taxonomic specification and STP for
the economy.
A.4. Four selected STPs
The following four STPs are analysed in Section 2.6.
A.4.1. Austria—The General Transport Plan 2002
Objectives: The GTPA 2002 lists the following objectives or
aims:
 To promote the economic position of Austria through the
extension of the road network to balancing out of the regional
differences and accessibility gradients between federal states.
 To extend the network efficiently and demand-oriented towards
the global environmental aims and to minimise the consump-
tion of resources with a better use of traffic technology.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

280 R. Kölbl et al. / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282

 To enhance safety, especially in critical areas of the motorway
network such as tunnel sections.
 To promote sustainable mobility towards environmental-
friendly travel behaviour and to improve the modal split
noticeably towards rail.
 To secure financing of transport infrastructure through funding
by the user and interested parties and to disburden the
national budget.
 To make the implementation easier without restricting the
public participation.

Table 3
Taxonomic specification for the environment

Domain Area Issue Objective

Environment Resources Biological resources Minimise land-use

Secure bio-diversity
Reduce habitat separation and barrier effects

Raw material Extending the life cycle of commodities

Recycling

Fuel Reduction of fuel usage

Increasing the share of renewable fuel

Last sinks Atmosphere Reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

(Ground-level) dumps Reduction of particulate matter and exhaust emissions

Table 4
Transport plan for the environment

Objective Measure/instrument Indicator

Extending the life cycle of Enhance the durability of tracks and rolling stock Durability (years)
commodities
Reduction of axel load Allowed axel load (tons)
Tax incentives for the extension of vehicle usage Average yearly heavy vehicle traffic (vehicle/year)

Recycling Usage of materials with low energy expense Percentage of recyclable products in the vehicles
Non-recyclable and recycled material (tons)

Reduction of fuel usage for Pricing to reduce fuel consumption Transportation distances (km)
transportation
Energy consumption (kJ/Pers km), (kJ/t km)

Increasing the share of renewable Development of alternative fuels and engine Share of alternative fuel in relation to the total energy usage (%)
fuel
Electricity from renewable fuel

Minimise land-use Reduce land-use consumption of transport Absolute and relative (ha)
infrastructure
More efficient use of transport infrastructure Land consumption in relation to the overall land (%)

Secure bio-diversity Reduce speed Traffic volume

Reduce the traffic volume

Reduce habitat separation and Adjust track alignment Relation of direct alignment to deviation (%)
barrier effects
Create sufficient possibilities for level-free crossing Size (ha) and distances (km) of compensation areas

Table 5
Taxonomic specification for the economy

Domain Area Issue Objective

Economy Competition Fair pricing Implement the polluter-pays principle

Research and Development Provide sufficient funding for basic research
Public finances Enhance efficiency of public finances regarding building and operation of
transport infrastructure

Production and Manufacturers and service providers Enhance the production of ecological and social compatible products
Consumption and services
Consumers Enhance the product information regarding transport patterns
 ARTICLE IN PRESS

R. Kölbl et al. / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282 281

Table 6
Transport plan for the economy

Objective Measure/instrument Indicator

Implement the polluter-pays principle Include external costs in cost calculations Costs regarding pollution, noise, accidents in
relation to mode of transport
Vehicle travelled pricing and tolling Amount of toll rate regarding vehicle travelled

Enhance efficiency of public finances
regarding building and operation of
transport infrastructure
Optimise operation of existing infrastructure Costs for new or extensions and operation of
infrastructure (regarding different modes of
transport)
Introduce PPP-models Investment cost comparison of infrastructure
maintenance to extension

Enhance the production of ecological and
social compatible products and services
Certification for environmental-friendly products and
services with the inclusion of the transport aspects
Transport and mobility management
Evaluation of product transport costs
Number of certified production and service units
per area or region
Number of production and service units with the
mobility management
Kilometre travelled per product unit

Enhance the product information regarding
transport patterns
Develop networks between producers, services and
consumers and create a standard scheme of evaluation for
better comparison
Implement transport information in the product’s
description
Set up eco-standards for tourist areas
Number of products resp. services with a high
ranking in the evaluation scheme
Number of tourist areas with a high ranking
according to the eco-standard scheme

Instruments are listed projects, which are ranked according to Table 7

main corridor and connections to neighbouring states, project aim Objectives of the Swiss transport plans 2002 (ASTRA, 2002; BAV, 2002)
and description and other transport effects:
Aim/objective Rail/ Road
PT
 Regional Integration: through ‘‘attractive and capacity or-
iented’’ connections. To strengthen Switzerland’s location and its competitiveness  
Access for all people and regions to mobility  
 Capacity and Capability of unwanted bottlenecks should be
Regional areas should be sustained as living and economic areas 
reduced. Regional transport should provide an area-wide access function 
 Network effectiveness should establish a continuous quality of with an one-hour timed sequence, and denser depending on
supply. demand
 Efficiency between revenues of the network usage, e.g. tolling To steer mobility towards sustainability  
To relieve the roads from motorised individual transport 
of lorries, and investments of planned infrastructure and their To secure an area-wide basic-needs care 
packaging. To secure and develop a framework for the competitiveness of 
rail over road
For freight transport, a harmonisation with the EU guideline 
A.4.2. Germany—Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2003 (BMVBW, 2003) 2001/12-14/EG and a maximum of 650 000 lorries crossing the
Objectives: alps per year
To co-ordinate a inter-modal infrastructure planning 
To enable a macro-economic most efficient satisfaction of 
 To ensure an enduring environment-friendly mobility. mobility needs, internalisation of external costs
 To promote the economic position of Germany for establishing To reduce considerable emission and noise to 2010 
and securing employment. To enhance the modal split for slow modes 
 To foster sustainable land-use and urban structures. To follow a ‘‘vision zero’’ (300 death per year by 2010) 
To lower the fuel consumption (by 8% or from 8.41 in 2000 and 
 To create fair and comparable conditions for a competition
6.41 in 2008) and the CO2 emission to 10% lower than 1990
between all modes of transport.
 To improve traffic safety for all traveller and for the general
public.
 To reduce the use and demand on nature, landscape and non-  To strengthen the infrastructure in East-Germany.
renewable resources.  To increase the investment of the current network.
 To reduce the emissions on noise, pollution and greenhouse  To support and promote modern transport technologies
gases (especially on CO2 ). (Transrapid, Galileo).
 To promote the European integration.

Further aims up to 2010 have been listed in the Future Program Instruments regarding ‘‘special forms of financing’’ are
Mobility (Federal Government Act from the 6/3/2002): mentioned:

 To remove transport bottle necks.  Toll for lorry (on average 12.4 Cent/km).
 To relieve the urban area of traffic with the building of 300 by-  Private advance financing.
pass and enhance so the quality of life.  Private operator models for motorways.
 To strengthen to maritime locations through a connection  Financing through the EU (TEN-T, EU fond for regional
extension of the hinterland. development).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
282 R. Kölbl et al. / Transport Policy 15 (2008) 273–282
A.4.3. Swiss transport plans 2002
Objectives: Table 7 present the objectives of the Swiss transport
plans, i.e. ‘‘The factual plan rail and public transport (FP-R/PT)
(Sachplan Schiene/ÖV)’’ (BAV, 2002) and ‘‘The factual plan road
(FP-Ro) (Sachplan Strasse)’’ (ASTRA, 2002).
Instruments from FP-R/PT: The financing of the basic network
follows a performance agreement with the carriers and hauliers
on the principle of ‘‘program financing’’, i.e. a list of actual projects
is not defined on purpose but a program, which combines the
aims of the federal government and the status of expansion. From
a global budget the cantons receive their share for financing for
the complementary network. Major projects are financed over
special funds, i.e. the FinöV-Fonds. Terminals and connecting lines
are financed from specially allocated funds of the fuel tax. A ‘‘track
price’’ is calculated for the direct costs of infrastructure usage by
the carrier and haulier (mainly the SBB—The Swiss Railway).
Instruments of FP-Ro: The road network is also divided into a
basic and a complementary network. The FP-Ro defines only the
framework in which projects can be realised. Related projects are
derived from a development plan and a problem analysis of the
road traffic according to safety, capacity and the environment. The
essential criterion for a project implementation is the fulfilment of
function within the network and not the current state. The
financing of the road network comes from the net-income of the
fuel taxes ð90%Þ and the motorway tolls ð10%Þ. As future
sources are considered CO2 taxes and road pricing.
A.4.4. The EU White paper on transport (European Commission, 2001)
The aims are captured in four sections:
 Shifting the balance between modes of transport with
regulating competition and linking up the modes of transport.
 Eliminating bottlenecks with unblocking major routes and
tackling the problem of funding in order to priorities multi-
modal corridors for freight and high-speed networks for
passengers and limit public budgets and reassure private
investors.
 Placing users at the heart of transport policy with safer roads,
halving the number of deaths and gradually charging the
community costs of infrastructure in order to achieve a human
face of transport and rationalising urban transport.
 Managing the globalisation of transport according to the
enlargement and infrastructure challenges and through a more
assertive and single voice on the world stage.
Measures and financing includes public funds, public–private
partnerships (PPPs) and alternative concepts:
 Infrastructure projects should generally be financed from
public funds of the national member states and with a
contribution of EU.
 The interest for PPP models should be encouraged in order to
generate an involvement of the private sector and capital as
early as possible of an project.
 ‘‘An innovative approach: pooling of funds’’ is proposed for
tolling or charging an area, where competing routes can
generate income or financial reserves before the usual
operating revenues of infrastructure projects.
References
Astra, 2002. Der Sachplan Strasse, September 2002, Bern, Bundesamt für strassen,
Bundesamt für raumentwicklung.
Axhausen, K.W., 2000. Geographies of somewhere: A review of urban literature.
Urban Studies 37 (10), 1849–1864.
Banister, D., 2000. Sustainable urban development and transport—a Eurovision for
2020. Transport Reviews 20, 113–130.
BAV, 2002. Sachplan Schiene/öV—Konzeptteil (Teile I bis IV and Anhänge)—Ver-
nehmlassungsentwurf, September 2002, Bern, Schweiz, Bundesamt für
Verkehr.
Becker, U.J., Schneider, R., Schwartzmann, R., 1991. Transportation planning:
microscopic approach. In: Papageoriou, M. (Ed.), Concise Encyclopaedia of
Traffic and Transportation Systems. Pergamon Press, Great Britain.
Black, W.R., 2004. Recent developments in US transport geography. In: Hensher,
D.A., Button, K.J., Haynes, K.E., Stopher, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Transport
Geography and Spatial Systems. Handbooks in Transport. Elsevier Ltd.,
Amsterdam, New York, Oxford, pp. 13–25.
BMVBW, 2003. Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2003 - Grundlagen für die Zukunft der
Mobilität in Deutschland. Technical Report, Bundesministerium für verkehr,
Bau und wohnungswesen.
BMVIT, 2002. Generalverkehrsplan Österreich 2002 - Verkehrspolitische Grund-
sätze und Infrastrukturprogramm. Technical Report, Bundesministerium für
verkehr, Infrastruktur und technologie.
Button, K.J., Hensher, D.A., 2005. Handbook of Transport Strategy, Policy and
Institutions. Handbooks in Transport. Elsevier Ltd., Amsterdam, Oxford, New
York.
DiStefano, J.J.I., Stubberud, A.J., Williams, I.J., 1990. Theory and Problems of
Feedback and Control Systems. Schaum’s Outline Series, second ed. McGraw-
Hill, Inc., New York.
Emberger, G., Timms, P., 2003. Strategy Development, EU, City of Tomorrow.
European Commission, 2001. White paper—European transport policy for 2010:
time to decide. Technical Report, EU.
European Environment Agency, 2007. Indicators about Europe’s environment
hhttp://themes.eea.europa.eu/indicators/i.
Forrester, J.W., 1971. Counterintuitive behavior of social systems. Technology
Review 73 (3), 52–68.
Hesse, M., 2001. Mobilität und verkehr im suburbanen kontext. In: Brake, K.,
Dangschat, J.S., Herfert, G. (Eds.), Suburbanisierung in Deutschland. Aktuelle
Tendenzen. Oladen, Leske + Budrich.
Hickman, R., Banister, D., 2005. Reducing travel by design: what about change over
time? In: Williams, K. (Ed.), Spatial Planning, Urban Form and Sustainable
Transport. Aldershot, Ashgate.
ITS Leeds, 2006. Konsult—knowledge base on sustainable urban land use and
transport hhttp://konsult.leeds.ac.uk/public/level0/l0_hom.htmi.
Klir, G., 1991. Facets of System Science. Plenum Press, New York, London.
Knoflacher, H., 2007. Grundlagen der Verkehrs- und Siedlungsplanung. Böhlau,
Wien, Köln, Weimar.
Kölbl, R., 2000. A bio-physical model of trip generation/trip distribution. Ph.D.,
University of Southampton.
Kölbl, R., Helbing, D., 2003. Energy laws in human travel behaviour. New Journal of
Physics 5 (48), 48.1–48.12.
Maslow, A.H., 1943. A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review 50,
370–396.
May, A., Karlstrom, A., Marler, N., Matthews, B., Minken, H., Monzon, A., Page, M.,
Pfaffenbichler, P., Shepherd, S., 2005. Developing Sustainable Urban Land Use
and Transport Strategies: A Decision Makers’ Guidebook.
May, A.D., Kelly, C., Shepherd, S., 2006. The principles of integration in urban
transport strategies. Transport Policy 13 (4), 319–327.
Meadows, D.H., Randers, J., Meadows, D.L., 2004. Limits to Growth. The 30-year
Update. Green, White River Junction, VT.
Mesarovic, M.D., Macko, D., Takahara, Y., 1970. Theory of Hierarchical, Multilevel
Systems. Mathematics in Science and Engineering, vol. 68. Academic Press,
New York, NY.
Oxford University Press, 2006. Oxford English dictionary hhttp://www.oed.com/i.
Riedl, R., 1985. Die Spaltung des Weltbildes. Verlag Paul Parey, Berlin, Hamburg.
Saaty, T.L., 2000. Fundamentals of Decision Making and Priority Theory; With the
Analytic Hierarchy Process. The Analytic Hierarchy Process Series. RWS
Publications, Pittsburgh.
Saaty, T.L., 2001. Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback the Analytic
Network Process; The Organization and Prioritization of Complexity. The
Analytic Network Process. RWS Publications, Pittsburgh.
Short, J., Kopp, A., 2005. Transport infrastructure: investment and planning. Policy
and research aspects. Transport Policy 12 (4), 360.
Sterman, J.D., 2000. Business Dynamics: Systems Thinking and Modeling for a
Complex World. Irwin, McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Vieira, J., Moura, F., Manuel Viegas, 2007. Transport policy and environmental
impacts: the importance of multi-instrumentality in policy integration.
Transport Policy 14 (5), 421–432.
WCED, 1987. Our common future. Technical Report A/42/427, World Commission
on Environment and Development—United Nations.
Wiener, N., 1965. Cybernetics: Or the Control and Communication in the Animal
and the Machine, second ed. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston.
wikipedia, 2006. Key performance indicators hhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_-
performance_indicatorsi.
Wilson, A.G., 1981. Geography and the Environment: Systems Analytical Methods.
Wiley, Chichester.
Wuketits, F.M., 1981. Biologie und Kausalität. Parey, Berlin, Hamburg.