Dealing with interrelatedness and fragmentation in road infrastructure planning: an analysis of integrated approaches throughout the planning process in the Netherlands

References

• A2 Maastricht. (2003). Bestuursovereenkomst A2 Passage c.a. Maastricht [Administrative agreement A2 Maastricht]. Ministry of Transport and Waterworks, Province of Limburg, Maastricht Municipality, Meerssen Municipality.
   Google Scholar
• A2 Maastricht. (2006). Samenwerkingsovereenkomst A2-Maastricht [Cooperation agreement A2 Maastricht]. Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management, Province of Limburg, Municipality of Maastricht, Municipaility of Meerssen.
   Google Scholar
• A2 Maastricht. (2012). Een plan voor stad en snelweg [A plan for city and highway]. Maastricht: Projectbureau A2 Maastricht.
   Google Scholar
• A2 Maastricht. (2015). Extra kansen voor Maastricht Oost [Extra chances for Maastricht eastside]. Retrieved October 25, 2015, from http://www.a2maastricht.nl/nl/meer-weten/page_nieuws.aspx?id=3058
   Google Scholar
• AdB. (2002). Maastricht raakt de weg kwijt II [Maastricht looses the road]. Holten: Aveco-de Bondt.
   Google Scholar
• Albrechts, L. (2013). Reframing strategic spatial planning by using a coproduction perspective. Planning Theory, 12, 46–63. 10.1177/1473095212452722
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amekudzi, A., & Meyer, M. D. (2006). Considering the environment in transportation planning: Review of emerging paradigms and practice in the United States. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 132, 42–52. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9488(2006)132:1(42)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arts, J. (2007). Nieuwe Wegen? Planningsbenaderingen Voor Duurzame Infrastructuur [New Roads? Planning approaches for sustainable infrastructure]. Groningen: University of Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• Baccarini, D. (1996). The concept of project complexity – a review. International Journal of Project Management, 14, 201–204. 10.1016/0263-7863(95)00093-3
   Google Scholar
• Baker, M., & Hincks, S. (2009). Infrastructure delivery and spatial planning: The case of English local development frameworks. Town Planning Review, 80, 173–199. 10.3828/tpr.80.2.4
   Google Scholar
• Banister, D., Anderton, K., Bonilla, D., Givoni, M., & Schwanen, T. (2011). Transportation and the environment. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 36, 247–270. 10.1146/annurev-environ-032310-112100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• BD. (2015). Geen Ruit, maar wel bestaande, slimme wegen [No ring road, but smarter existing roads]. Brabants dagblad, 13 may 2015. Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://www.bd.nl/regio/brabant/geen-ruit-maar-wel-bestaande-slimme-wegen-1.4919671
   Google Scholar
• Bertolini, L. (2012). Integrating mobility and urban development agendas: A manifesto. disP-The Planning Review, 48, 16–26. 10.1080/02513625.2012.702956
   Google Scholar
• Brabantstad. (2006). Netwerkanalyse Brabantstad [Network analysis Brabantstad]. Brabantstad cooperation network.
   Google Scholar
• Brainport 2020. (2011). Top economy, smart society: Visie, strategie en uitvoering [Top economy, smart society: Vision, strategy and implementation]. Eindhoven: Brainport Development NV.
   Google Scholar
• Buck. (2009). Kosten-batenanalyse op hoofdlijnen [CBA main points]. The Hague: Brainport Eindhoven / A2-zone.
   Google Scholar
• Busscher, T., Tillema, T., & Arts, J. (2013). Revisiting a programmatic planning approach: Managing linkages between transport and land use planning. Planning Theory & Practice, 14, 492–508.
   Google Scholar
• Cervero, R. (2009). Transport Infrastructure and global competitiveness: Balancing mobility and livability. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 626, 210–225. 10.1177/0002716209344171
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collingridge, D. (1983). Hedging and flexing: Two ways of choosing under ignorance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 23, 161–172. 10.1016/0040-1625(83)90051-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Decisio. (2014). MKBA Ruit Eindhoven: Maatschappelijke kosten en baten van de voltooiing van de Verkeersruit rond Eindhoven [CBA Eindhoven Ring Road. Societal costs and benefits of the completion of the Eindhoven Ring Road]. ‘s Hertogenbosch: Province of North Brabant.
   Google Scholar
• Dodson, J. (2009). The ‘infrastructure turn’ in Australian metropolitan spatial planning. International Planning Studies, 14, 109–123. 10.1080/13563470903021100
   Google Scholar
• Drewe, P. (2011). Mixed scanning new style: A useful tool for Poland? In M. Kolzynski, & P. Zuber (Eds.), New paradigm in action: Recent developments and perspectives of regional policies (pp. 37–42). Warsaw: Ministry of regional development.
   Google Scholar
• Ecorys. (2006). Kentallen kosten-batenanalyse project A2 [CBA A2 Maastricht]. Maastricht. Rotterdam: Ecorys.
   Google Scholar
• ED. (2014). Uitkomst steekspel Ruit ongewis [Outcome of ring road debate remains unclear]. Eindhovens Dagblad, 28 februari 2014. Retrieved June 20 2016, http://www.ed.nl/mening/uitkomst-steekspel-ruit-ongewis-1.4239014
   Google Scholar
• EIA Commission [Commissie MER]. (2004). A2 passage Maastricht: Advies over aanvullende richtlijnen voor het milieueffectrapport [Advice about additional guidelines for EIA]. Netherlands commission for environmental assessment, reportnr. 744–133.
   Google Scholar
• FEHRL. (2013). Transport infrastructure integrated with land use planning (TILUP): A road map for research. Brussels: Forum of European National Motorway Research Laboratories.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, J. M., & Amekudzi, A. (2011). Quality of life, sustainable civil infrastructure, and sustainable development: Strategically expanding choice. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 137, 39–48.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forester, J. (1985). Designing: Making sense together in practical conversations. Journal of Architectural Education (1984-), 38, 14–20. 10.1080/10464883.1985.10758365
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S. (2009). Networked infrastructure and the urban condition. In T. Rieniets, J. Sigler, & K. Christiaanse (Eds.), Open city: Designing coexistence. Amsterdam: SUN.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism, networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203452202
   Google Scholar
• Hamersma, M., Tillema, T., Sussman, J., & Arts, J. (2014). Residential satisfaction close to motorways: The impact of accessibility, nuisances and motorway adjustment projects. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 59, 106–121.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeres, N., Tillema, T., & Arts, J. (2012a). Integration in Dutch planning of motorways: From “line” towards “area-oriented” approaches. Transport Policy, 24, 148–158. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.08.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heeres, N., Tillema, T., & Arts, J. (2012b). Duurzame planning van weginfrastructuur: Een internationaal perspectief’, report for Rijkswaterstaat [Sustainable road infrastructure planning: An international perspective]. Groningen: University of Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• Herder, P. M., Bouwmans, I., Dijkema, G. P. J., & Stikkelman, R. M. (2008). Designing infrastructures using a complex systems perspective. Journal of Design Research, 7, 17–34. 10.1504/JDR.2008.018775
   Google Scholar
• Hertogh, M., & Westerveld, E. (2010). Playing with complexity: Management and organization of large infrastructural projects. Rotterdam: Erasmus University.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, J. H. (1998). Emergence: From order to chaos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hull, A. (2008). Policy integration: What will it take to achieve more sustainable transport solutions in cities? Transport Policy, 15, 94–103. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huxham, C. (1993). Pursuing collaborative advantage. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 44, 599–611. 10.1057/jors.1993.101
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hysing, E. (2009). Greening transport – explaining urban transport policy change. Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 11, 243–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• I&M. (2015). MIRT Overzicht 2016 (MIRT programming overview 2016). The Hague: Ministry Infrastructure & Environment.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufman, S., & Smith, J. (1999). Framing and reframing in land use change. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 16, 164–180.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Legacy, C., Curtis, C., & Sturup, S. (2012). Is there a good governance model for the delivery of contemporary transport policy and practice? An examination of Melbourne and Perth. Transport Policy, 19, 8–16. 10.1016/j.tranpol.2011.07.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lenferink, S., Arts, J., Tillema, T., van Valkenburg, M., & Nijsten, R. (2012). Early Contractor involvement in dutch infrastructure development: Initial experiences with parallel procedures for planning and procurement. Journal of Public Procurement, 12(1), 1–42.
   Google Scholar
• Lenferink, S., Tillema, T., & Arts, J. (2009). Marktbetrokkenheid in infrastructuurplanning: Stilstand voorkomen door als overheid minder zelf te doen? [Market involvement in infrastructure planning: Preventing delays through public action]. Paper presented at CVS-conference 2009, Antwerp.
   Google Scholar
• Lenferink, S., Tillema, T., & Arts, J. (2013). Public-private interaction in contracting: Governance strategies in the competitive dialogue of dutch infrastructure projects. Public Administration, 91, 928–946. 10.1111/padm.2013.91.issue-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maastricht. (2008). Stadsvisie 2030 [Urban vision 2030]. Municipality of Maastricht.
   Google Scholar
• Mäntysalo, R., Saglie, I. L., & Cars, G. (2011). Between input legitimacy and output efficiency: Defensive routines and agonistic reflectivity in nordic land-use planning. European Planning Studies, 19, 2109–2126. 10.1080/09654313.2011.632906
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martens, K. (2007). Actors in a fuzzy governance environment. In G. de Roo & G. Porter (Eds.), Fuzzy planning: The role actors in a fuzzy governance environment (pp. 43–66). Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Mouter, N., & Annema, J. A. (2010). Synergie-effecten van ruimtelijk-infrastructurele projecten [Synergy effects of infrastructure-land use projects]. Paper presented at CVS-conference 2010, Roermond.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, M. (2006). Infiltrating infrastructures: On the nature of networked infrastructure. Journal of Urban Technology, 13, 3–31. 10.1080/10630730600752728
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Niekerk, F. (2000). Het effect geraporteerd: De gebruikswaarde van effectrapportages voor de planning van verkeersinfrastructuur [The effect reported: The use of effect analysis for infrastructure planning]. Groningen: Geopers.
   Google Scholar
• Noord-Brabant. (2011). Structuurvisie ruimtelijke ordening Noord-Brabant: Deel D Brainport Oost [Structure vision Noord Brabant: Part D Brabant East]. ‘s-Hertogenbosch: Province of Noord-Brabant.
   Google Scholar
• Noord-Brabant & Limburg. (2015). Bereikbaarheid Zuid-Nederland: samen slim robuust. Provinces of Noord Brabant, Province of Limburg and 139 regional partners. Retrieved from http://onlinepublisher.nl/Brabant/2015/BidB.html
   Google Scholar
• OB. (2015). Aanleg Ruit rond Eindhoven verder weg na verkiezingen: Brabanders af van gezondheidsproblemen [Realization of Eindhoven Ring Road on hold after elections: Health problems avoided]. Omroep Brabant, 19 march 2015 (accessible through:) Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://www.omroepbrabant.nl/?news/226474992/Aanleg+Ruit+rond+Eindhoven+verder+weg+na+verkiezingen+%E2%80%98Brabanders+zijn+af+van+gezondheidsprobleem.aspx
   Google Scholar
• OECD. (2010). National place-based policies in the Netherlands. Paris: Organization for Economic -operation and Development.
   Google Scholar
• Peek, G.-J. (2006). Locatiesynergie: Een Participatieve Start Van De Herontwikkeling Van Binnenstedelijke Stationslocaties [Location synergies: A participative approach to redevelopment of inner urban locations]. Delft: Eburon.
   Google Scholar
• Priemus, H. (2007). System innovation in spatial development: Current Dutch approaches. European Planning Studies, 15, 992–1006. 10.1080/09654310701448147
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ruth, M. (2010). Economic and social benefits of climate information: Assessing the cost of inaction. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 1, 387–394. 10.1016/j.proenv.2010.09.026
   Google Scholar
• RVW. (1998). Ambities bundelen: Advies over de Inpassing van Infrastructuur [Bundling ambitions: Advice about the alignment of infrastructure and surroundings]. The Hague: Raad voor Verkeer en Waterstaat.
   Google Scholar
• RWS. (2005). ‘Eén plan voor stad en snelweg Onderzoek alternatieven en varianten A2-passage Maastricht’ [EIA A2 Maastricht] [One plan for city and highway. Study about alternatives A2 Maastricht]. Maastricht: Rijkswaterstaat.
   Google Scholar
• Salet, W., & Woltjer, J. (2009). New concepts of strategic spatial planning dilemmas in the Dutch Randstad region. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 22, 235–248.
   Google Scholar
• Stead, D., & Meijers, E. (2009). Spatial planning and policy integration: Concepts, facilitators and inhibitors. Planning Theory & Practice, 10, 317–332.
   Google Scholar
• Teisman, G. R., & Edelenbos, J. (2011). Towards a perspective of system synchronization in water governance: A synthesis of empirical lessons and complexity theories. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77, 101–118. 10.1177/0020852310390121
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teisman, G. R., & Klijn, E. H. (2002). Partnership arrangements: Governmental rhetoric or governance scheme? Public Administration Review, 62, 189–198.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tillema, T. (2012). Trends in American transportation planning, with a specific focus on sustainability. Groningen: University of Groningen & Rijkswaterstaat.
   Google Scholar
• TK. (2007). Bijlage 1 Netwerkaanpak: uitkomsten bestuurlijk overleg voorjaar 2007 [Appendix 1 Network approach: Outcomes of political deliberations spring 2007], Tweede Kamer [Dutch House of Representatives], Br. 1542.
   Google Scholar
• V&W. (2007). MIRT projectenboek 2008 [MIRT Project overview 2008]. The Hague: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
   Google Scholar
• V&W. (2008a). Actieplan Sneller en Beter [Action plan Faster and Better]. The Hague: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
   Google Scholar
• V&W. (2008b). MIRT-Verkenning Zuidoostvleugel Brabantstad [MIRT Explorative studies Brabantstad southeast wing]. The Hague: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
   Google Scholar
• Van Buuren, A., Buijs, J. M., & Teisman, G. (2010). Program management and the creative art of coopetition: Dealing with potential tensions and synergies between spatial development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 672–682. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.12.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van de Riet, O. (2003). Policy Analysis in multi-actor policy settings; Navigating between negotiated nonsense and superfluous knowledge. Delft: Delft Univeristy of Technology.
   Google Scholar
• van der Brugge, R., Rotmans, J., & Loorbach, D. (2005). The transition in Dutch water management. Regional Environmental Change, 5, 164–176. 10.1007/s10113-004-0086-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van der Heijden, J. (2010). Combineer wat je hebt: duurzaamheid door het verbinden van maatschappelijke functies [Combine what you have: Sustainability by integrating societal functions]. Delft: Uitgeverij Eburon.
   Google Scholar
• van der Laan, L. (1998). Changing urban systems: An empirical analysis at two spatial levels. Regional Studies, 32, 235–247. 10.1080/00343409850119733
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Oort, F., Burger, M., & Raspe, O. (2010). On the economic foundation of the urban network paradigm: Spatial integration, functional integration and economic complementarities within the Dutch randstad. Urban Studies, 47, 725–748. 10.1177/0042098009352362
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verhees, F. (2013). Publiek-private samenwerking: Adaptieve planning in de praktijk [Public-private cooperation: Adaptive planning in practice]. Groningen: University of Groningen.
   Google Scholar
• Verweij, S. (2012) .‘Management as system synchronization: The case of the Dutch A2 passageway Maastricht project’, Emergence: Complexity and Organization, 14, 17–37.
   Google Scholar
• VK. (2014). Ruit rond Eindhoven in de prullenbak: kamer stemt tegen [Eindhoven Ring road rejected by parliament]. Volkskrant, 27 november 2014 (accessible through:) Retrieved October 1, 2015, from http://www.volkskrant.nl/binnenland/ruit-rond-eindhoven-in-de-prullenbak-kamer-stemt-tegen~a3799813/
   Google Scholar
• VROM, LNV, V&W, & EZ. (2004). Nota Ruimte: Ruimte voor ontwikkeling [National spatial plan: Space for development]. The Hague: Ministries of VROM, LNV, V&W and EZ.
   Google Scholar
• Wegener, M., & Fürst, F. (2004). Land-use transport interaction: State of the art. Dortmund: Universität Dortmund.
   Google Scholar
• Williams, T. M. (1999). The need for new paradigms for complex projects. International Journal of Project Management, 17, 269–273. 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00047-7
   Google Scholar
• Woltjer, J. (2000). Consensus planning: The relevance of communicative planning theory in Dutch infrastructure development. Aldershot: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• WRR. (1998). Ruimtelijke ontwikkelingspolitiek [Spatial development politics]. The Hague: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid.
   Google Scholar
• Yu, N., de Jong, M., Storm, S., & Mi, J. (2013). Spatial spillover effects of transport infrastructure: Evidence from Chinese regions. Journal of Transport Geography, 28, 56–66. 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.10.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zonneveld, W., Waterhout, B., & Trip, J. (2009). Van projectologie naar planologie en vice versa [From project planning to strategic planning and vice versa]. Delft: TU Delft.
   Google Scholar