Metropolitan infrastructure, planning & institutions – a comparative world view

Abstract

This paper develops inter-relationships between planning ‘culture’, influential institutions and on-the-ground infrastructure-related outcomes in cities. The paper begins with a discussion of general trends across planning cultures and planning rhetoric, alongside tangible drivers of change in city infrastructure. Industry cultures, and the lines of discussion they produce in various locations, are seemingly influenced by person-to-person interaction as much as actual planning documentation or empirical evidence. We then develop a series of ‘reference cities’, which are clustered and cross-analysed primarily according to population scale and growth, and transport mode shares. Further intriguing comparison begins to emerge when attributes such as rail system scale are considered. Five different categories of city are ultimately developed – based on metropolitan population scaling. The paper then re-emphasises leading influences on urban policy and infrastructure outcomes (some are well-known, but others are sometimes either hidden from discussion or treated casually). Initially this involves detailing ‘cultures’ of planning on a linguistic or super-regional basis. It then involves qualitative inquiry into the drivers and priorities of a selection of prominent institutional exemplars in order to allow us clearer reflection on how these influencers might facilitate progress, or otherwise, on issues like smart growth and sustainable infrastructure development. Findings emphasise the idea that planning and infrastructure policy formulation and research should emerge beyond the current tendency for ad hoc and incoherent sources of influence. It should increasingly come from a stronger empirical base – in order to improve the implementation of advanced land use/transport infrastructure concepts in cities facing a globalised world of policy challenges.

Keywords:

• metropolitan planning
• infrastructure
• rail networks
• comparative planning

Acknowledgements

Chris Hale benefited from travel support and knowledge exchange provided by OTB at TU Delft during the development of this paper.