Transforming transport planning in the postpolitical era

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to examine how the postpolitical era of planning has created both binaries and intersections in the reimaging of transport futures and how the latter precipitates a redefinition of democratic transport prioritisation. Focusing particularly on the point in the transport planning process when urban transport priorities are identified, the paper explores how citizens respond to the inherently political, yet not always democratic, aspects of setting transport investment priorities. This relationship is investigated through a single case study of Melbourne, Australia where a six km inner city road tunnel was deemed a ‘done deal’ by elected officials in the lead up to a state election, removing the controversial project from open public scrutiny. Drawing upon ethnographic research and semi-structured interviews with community campaigners opposing the proposed East West Link road tunnel, this analysis reveals how community-based groups and individual residents alike can evolve beyond NIMBY-focused agitation to garner a spatially dispersed re-politicisation of urban transport priorities. While the postpolitical framing of infrastructure delivery introduces a binary between state interventionist planning and citizen opposition, it is the mobilisation of action through the spaces of intersection where new political paradigms for transport planning are created.

Placing the Action in Context: Contrasting Public-centered and Institutional Understandings of Democratic Planning Politics

“…Allmendinger & Haughton, 2010;Haughton, Allmendinger, Counsell, & Vigar, 2009;Metzger, 2011;Metzger, Allmendinger, & Oosterlynck, 2014). In response to such observations, recent discussions in planning literature have suggested that the parallel upsurge in mobilizations of local urban publics could, if properly channeled, instill contemporary urban governance practices with a much needed "democratic(izing) makeover" (Metzger, 2011;see also, Haughton, Gilchrist, & Swyngedouw, 2016;Inch, 2012;Legacy, 2015;Raco & Lin, 2012;De Souza, 2006). Some of these discussions have drawn theoretical inspiration from the Dutch philosopher Noortje Marres (2005aMarres ( , 2005bMarres ( , 2007 who, in her seminal work on the nature of publics, brilliantly combines early 20th-century American pragmatism with contemporary Science and Technology Studies to radically rework conventional understandings of democratic politics.…”

“…Marres' issue-focused and public-centered conception of politics and democracy has had a direct impact upon a broad range of subjects/disciplines, including rural sociology (De Krom, Dessein, & Erbout, 2014), political philosophy (Asdal, 2008), political geography (Barnett & Bridge, 2013;Holifield & Schuelke, 2015), participatory design (Dantec & DiSalvo, 2013), and not least, urban and regional planning (Legacy, 2015;Leino & Laine, 2011;Metzger, 2011;Metzger et al, 2014;Paget-Seekins & Tironi, 2016;Tironi, 2015;). 1 However, her thinking can also be positioned within a broader political-philosophical trend that builds upon the idea that it is in the fleeting moments of public mobilizations that the true essence of democracy can be found (in relation to planning, see also e.g.…”

Place‐framing against automobility in Montreal

“…In particular, understanding the emergence and negotiation of place‐frames through the relations of activists with governmental actors seems key. Analysing these interactions involves locating the multiple arenas and temporalities of decision‐making – some of which Legacy () notes are in a consensus‐driven style avoiding public scrutiny, but in which activists nonetheless can be contesting. We think these relations of activists and governmental actors can illuminate the place‐framing moments more prone to challenging and re‐articulating institutionalised discourses.…”

The post‐politics of transport: establishing a new meeting ground for transport politics

“…Based on interview data with community campaigners and media commentary (Legacy, 2016a;2016b), the opposition against the East West Link proposal included concerns that the project lacked public legitimation, since the Liberals campaigned on an agenda to invest in public transport, which helped them win government in 2010. Citizens were also concerned that the business case supporting the project was not made publicly available and that the project had a low cost-benefit ratio.…”