Transportation Planning Policy - Annotated Bibliography Example

Running head: Transportation Planning Policy Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Report 1: Docherty, I., Shaw, J., & Gray, D. (2007). Transport Strategy in Scotland Since Devolution. Public Money and Management, 27 (2). Pp. 141-148. The article named above reviews the approach taken by the Scotland Executive in the transport sector since devolution. It critically reviews and tracks the progress and challenges the executive has encountered in developing transport infrastructure. The article takes note of commendable progress. It also gives the executive an equal share of criticism regarding congruence between development and economic strategy and the actualization of these through policy-decisions. It identifies disconnect between the two. Additionally, it explores the impact of new transport policy. However, this is not until the authors discuss the importance of project appraisal. The article’s main aim is to appraise the executive’s approach to nation-wide transport, examining policy-decision making. This is by analyzing the current transport policies. Additionally, it aims at contributing to works and literature on transport and devolution in the UK. The article does this by taking a comparative approach in which literature is reviewed. In the literature review, the authors explore transport policy development in the context of financial implications. They also explore the relationship between strategy and policy decisions. The results indicate that the current transport policies may not be sustainable. The government has been running transport industry incentives that are socially inclusive, but economically inhibitive for the majority of the economically active, with respect to accessibility. There is also disconnect between the government intended economic strategies and policy-decisions. The lack of congruence between these is responsible for Scotland’s lagging in transport infrastructure relative to peers. It is important for the Scotland’s executive to reconcile the transport infrastructure strategy with project investment decisions. This is linking strategic plans with actualization policies that are implemented. Regardless of the global size of budget, transport investment effect on an economy is dependent on the infrastructural decisions and implementation. There is a need in the country for the executive establish concrete solution strategies given that the disconnect results from the effect of conflicting dissimilar policy statements. It is paradoxical that these statements are all intended at stimulating economic yet they conflict at implementation. Article critique The general overview of the article presents concepts and argumentative results in a flow. There is general natural progression of well presented facts. Firstly, the title of the article is succinct and precise. It captures the content of the article in a few words “Transport Strategy in Scotland since Devolution”. A critical review of the content reveals congruence with the article’s objective to analyze transport strategy since devolution. However, the authors may have indicated the context of this analysis in the title. The analysis of transport is in the context of executive approach. Although the addition of the sense of the executive would make it longer than it is, this may give readers a relatively more straight-forward grasp of the articles intentions. The introduction of the article finds strength in the abstract and an argumentative approach. The abstract delineates the general overview of the article. It makes up for the context of the executive by indicating the main objective of the article and the context. … This article critically reviews how the Scottish Executive’s approach to transport has developed since devolution (Docherty, Shaw, & Gray, 2007). Although it does not specifically point out the methodology and results, the abstract presents conclusive remarks on the general. It highlights disconnect between political and technical fronts of the transport strategy. Article techniques The article seeks to explore the development of transport strategy in Scotland since devolution. In this investigative search, the article takes a comparative design methodology that entails a literature review. The data are secondary from other literature relating the article to others. Literature reviewed compares the transport infrastructure condition in both the pre- and post-devolution Scotland. This brings out the opportunities, challenges and pot holes as well for the executive. In addition, the article compares Scotland to peers in the UK and outside such as France. This is the rationale for the discussions under each objective. The design explores two key contexts related to transport infrastructure: financial and policy decisions. In linking the two highly dependent yet different contexts, the authors explore the importance of appraising projects. This interjection enables the article expound on the disconnect between strategy and policy decisions. Readers are also able to appreciate the authors concern for sustainability of the current financial incentives and the detrimental economic imbalance thereof. In addition, the interjection lays a basis for the authors critique the impact of newly-developed transport structure. Results and discussions While exploring the objectives, results of the analyses are presented and as well discussed under each. They present an argumentative comparative approach in which policy-decision making is described with a multiplicity of contexts. A major argument on the policy issues relates to social inclusion versus accessibility. In the financial context, the executive has currently rolled out several incentives, since devolution. The current policy spends a larger proportion of the transport budget on subsidized bus, train and ferry services. This caters adequately for the extensively rural Scotland (Docherty, Shaw, & Gray, 2007). However, there is a reduction of resources for the development of gross national transport infrastructure. As such, the executive has ensured social inclusion for all. This is economically and financially detrimental due conflicting accessibility concerns for the economically active populations sector, basically comprised of school leavers, youths and young couples in the job market (Docherty, Shaw, & Gray, 2007). The article has a focus on the financial implications of disconnect between transport strategy and policy and investment decisions. The results and discussions address various contexts based on figures. The authors argue that although the proposed transport investment is about 1.2% of Scotland’s GDP, it may not effectively change the Scottish system relative to peer benchmarks. However, the decision to increase spending to £1,400 million from £600 million is hailed as being historically sizeable with reference to capital and revenue (Docherty, Shaw, & Gray, 2007). This builds on previous literature on road transport strategy and as well lay a basis for future works. The evaluation relates to what has been done before. The detailed need for appraisal and of policy-decisions and reconciling of transport strategy with project investment decisions sets a platform for future works. Articles in the future of this may objectively analyze the success of the executive in appraising policy and project decisions, in the short and long-terms. In conclusion, the article sufficiently explores its objectives using a technique that is comparative and argumentative. It discusses the issues of concern from multiple contexts presenting to the readers literature that is both rich and that has a natural flowing. Report 2: Commission for Integrated Transport (2001), European Best Practice in Delivering Integrated Transport: Key Findings (London). The article is a government agency report on the current situation in the transport sector of the UK. It is authored by the Commission for Integrated Transport (CfIT) comparing the UK transport system achievements, challenges and initiatives with reference to other European countries. An overview of the article indicates that the UK is lagging behind her peers in areas of investment, holistic transport planning and delivery. However, the UK leads in areas such as road safety scoring higher than the peers. The report also appreciates the hope of change expected with the implementation of the 10-year plan. Article review The article’s main objective is to report on the UK current transport system by scoring it against her European peers. It is a comparison of how the UK government approaches and delivers all modes of transport with reference to all European countries. It seeks to evaluate the transport patterns, cost of transport and transport investment and as well new initiatives. This evaluation is based on the premise that the government has rolled a 10-year strategic plan for the transport sector. The report also indirectly examines the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the plan. This is along the indicators of expected outcomes, inputs, outputs and transferability indices. The article reported that the UK had the worst congestion in Europe with workers commuting for 45 minutes. Output indices related to environmental conservation results indicated that the UK scored poor for emissions being the 6th and 4th highest producer of CO2 and NOx respectively. The social exclusion index was high due to high public fares which were related to lowest revenue support subsidies at 32%. Although there was no data on related health issues, the UK transport system scored highest for road safety with only 3,000 deaths per year; 6 deaths/100,000 population Commission for Integrated Transport (2001). The inputs indices indicated that the UK government had under invested in development. Additionally, public transport was relatively more expensive than the private due to low government subsidies. Public transport, cycling and walking output scored lowest in the UK relative to the EU counterparts. Based on the report, the article makes a recommendation for delivering the 10-year plan. Transferability entails the integration of themes such as integrated institutional and funding arrangements, balanced street-space use and ensuring public transport co-ordination, quality and affordability. This should be transferable to all modes of transport. The article concepts are presented in a well structured argumentative manner, highlighting a multiplicity of contexts. However, the author falls short of some data. As such, the comparative analysis is insufficient, given that some data is missing or is too old, as the CfIT admits. Relationship between the articles The articles reviewed above have demonstrated a lot of similarity and congruence, especially given the stay over policy development and delivery. While Docherty, Shaw & Gray (2007) detail on delivery in Scotland exploring the policy-decision dilemma and conflict facing the executive since devolution the CfIT report is on the results of an analysis of policy-impacts in the whole of the UK. The article by CfIT lays a basis for Docherty, Shaw & Gray (2007). The historical analysis by the latter in the financial context is based on CfIT indication of the UK’s low investment in transport relative to France, Italy and Germany. In addition, a review of the UK’s performance in the transport sector within the EU provide Docherty, Shaw and Gray (2007) rationale to compare Scotland with other areas in the UK, and the EU alike. They indicate that Scotland spends higher than other UK counterparts, but remains low on the overall European standards. The results indicated by Docherty, Shaw & Gray (2007) corroborate the index scores by CfIT. The concerns of investment choices as affected by policy making reflected in report 1 are a concern for CfIT in report 2. CfIT hails the initiation of the the 10-Year Plan for its projected ability to spur and influence capital investment in the national transport industry. The concern social inclusion conflict with economic effectiveness is demonstrated in both. The executive’s dilemma is in balancing the need to ensure social inclusiveness and providing economically accessible transport for the economically active. The national outlook by CfIT is a case where the government has not adequately addressed social inclusion. The public transport fares are relatively more than her peers. This is also related to the dependence on cars by the economy. Conclusion The articles reviewed have demonstrated a lot of similarities. Both take up a comparative technique that involves literature review and analysis. Although CfIT’s article is more detailed than Docherty, Shaw & Gray (2007), both report that there is a need for authorities to address transport policy making and delivery more objectively. This review reports congruence of the results indicating that they do not conflict. The Commission for Integrated Transport sets precedence for Docherty, Shaw & Gray (2007) who narrow it down to Scotland. References Commission for Integrated Transport (2001), European Best Practice in Delivering Integrated Transport: Key Findings (London). Docherty, I., Shaw, J., & Gray, D. (2007). Transport Strategy in Scotland Since Devolution. Public Money and Management, 27 (2). pp. 141-148. Read More