An Institutional Model For Land Use and Transport Integration

Urban Policy and Research
ISSN: 0811-1146 (Print) 1476-7244 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cupr20
An institutional model for land use and transport

integration
Carey Curtis & Bruce James
To cite this article: Carey Curtis & Bruce James (2004) An institutional model for
land use and transport integration, Urban Policy and Research, 22:3, 277-297, DOI:
10.1080/0811114042000269308
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0811114042000269308
Published online: 06 Sep 2010.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 411
View related articles
Citing articles: 10 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cupr20
Download by: [Curtin University Library] Date: 26 September 2017, At: 02:13
Urban Policy and Research,
Vol. 22, No. 3, 277–297, September 2004
An Institutional Model for Land Use and Transport

Integration
CAREY CURTIS* and BRUCE JAMES†

*Curtin University, Perth, Australia
†Transport Planning, Queensland Transport, Australia
Downloaded by [Curtin University Library] at 02:13 26 September 2017
ABSTRACT The integration of land use planning and transport planning to achieve
sustainable travel behaviour has been espoused as a desirable outcome for many years.
Development and establishment of appropriate institutional arrangements coupled with
effective policy and planning processes is a crucial component in the achievement of this
desirable outcome. The merging of the Western Australian Government’s planning and
transport agencies in 2001 provided the catalyst for the development of this institutional
model with the aim to achieve desired land use and transport integration outcomes. The
model draws together principles of transport planning, land use planning, public policy
and organisational behaviour. A local case study illustrates the potential for the model’s
application in practice. An organisational structure is suggested that employs a matrix
style approach, akin to a project-based approach, drawing on the multidisciplinary skills
within the planning and infrastructure portfolio, and using the full range of non-tra-
ditional resources.
KEY WORDS: land use and transport integration, coordination, institutions, place-
based planning
Introduction
There has been a tradition of separation of the land use planning and transport
planning functions into different government agencies, each responsible to a
different minister. However, there has been increasing interest in merging
agencies with the aim of improving integration between the two disciplines for
better overall outcomes, particularly in the context of delivering sustainable
transport.
In 2001 the Western Australian Government merged the land use and
transport planning agencies into one portfolio reporting to one minister (the
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure). The rationale for this included the
facilitation of better transport planning to create more liveable communities
(Labor Party of Western Australia, 2001). This reorganisation provided a catalyst
for this article, which proposes an institutional model for the achievement of
Correspondence Address: Carey Curtis, Faculty of the Built Environment, Art & Design,
Curtin University of Technology, GPO Box U1987, Perth, WA 6845, Australia; Email:
careycurtis@iprimus.com.au.
0811-1146 Print/1476-7244 Online/04/030277-21 © 2004 Editorial Board, Urban Policy and Research
DOI: 10.1080/0811114042000269308
278 C. Curtis & B. James
Figure 1. Government policy to outcomes
effective integration of land use planning and transport planning at the state
level. Integration of land use and transport planning is a current catchphrase,
but there is little published information that indicates how institutional arrange-
ments can achieve effective integration of these two functions.
This article is organised through a framing device as set out in Figure 1. This
assumes that government policy is progressed by institutions towards the
desired outcome by virtue of the approach institutions take to land use transport
integration, the use of resources and tools, and the relationships between the
agencies within the institution. The achievement of the desired outcomes then
informs government policy thereby closing the loop. In practice the process is
not linear and can comprise numerous iterations within this loop as each stage
informs previous stages.
The article includes a case study, the development of a structure plan for the
Brighton-Butler area, an example of a multidisciplinary approach to land use/
transport integration. This occurred before the merging of the Ministry for
Planning and Department of Transport into one agency but demonstrates in
practice the concepts proposed in the institutional model. Brighton-Butler is a
600-ha subdivision at the northern fringe of the Perth metropolitan area.
At the time of writing the internal structures within the new Western
Australian planning and infrastructure portfolio had not been finalised. One
author had the benefit of being a participant observer in the discussions and
workshops to develop the organisational structure. The other author draws on
her experience as a member of the Western Australian Planning Commission
(WAPC) to reflect on current practice. Both authors have participated in place-
based planning exercises similar to the Brighton-Butler case study. This collec-
tive experience provided an impetus for the development of this model.
Government Policy
Identifying the state government’s objectives is important in developing land
use and transport integration mechanisms. The present state government pro-
vided some insight into the desired outcomes it was seeking in land use and
transport integration when it published its pre-election transport platform prior
to the February 2001 state election. They committed to amalgamate the policy
divisions of the Department of Transport, Main Roads WA and the Ministry for
Planning to create the Department for Planning and Infrastructure as a means to
facilitate better transport planning for Western Australia. They also committed
to the development of local corridor transport plans in active consultation with
the community. These plans would “highlight projects required to create more
liveable communities and will assist communities to identify transport priori-
ties” (Labor Party of Western Australia, 2001, p. 14).
Shortly after being elected, the new state government appointed a Taskforce
to review the structure of the public sector. Its recommendation (Hicks et al.,
2001) to create a number of portfolios with each portfolio having a single
minister was immediately implemented. Planning and Infrastructure was one of
Land Use and Transport Integration 279
Figure 2. Integration of land use and transport outcomes
the portfolios and the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) has the
‘central agency’ or policy and planning lead role within the portfolio. The
WAPC continues to remain a separate decision-making authority reporting to
the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and charged with the responsibility
for planning for the future development of Western Australia.
The state government’s policy on land use and transport integration was
reiterated in the Taskforce report with the primary role of the newly created DPI
to:
“Improve co-ordination of land use and transport infrastructure plan-

ning and service delivery for better communities.” (Hicks et al., 2001,
p. 169)
The land use planning and transport planning objectives are drawn from
documents produced prior to the amalgamation. The State Planning Strategy
(WAPC, 1996) and the State Transport Policy (Government of Western Australia,
1996) provide the basis for establishing an integrated policy. However, the
amalgamation suggests the need to establish an overarching objective for land
use and transport integration. Figure 2 demonstrates how this could be
achieved. The previous land use planning and transport outcomes are set out in
the right and left columns, respectively. Land use and transport integration in
Western Australia is most likely to be relevant in urban settlements, and to
economic development in regional areas, where it is possible to locate industrial
and commercial development to minimise the transport task. The term coordi-
nation covers those areas of transport and land use planning that do not have
a direct role in achieving the land use and transport desired outcome (such as
marine safety, school bus services and land purchases to protect remnant bush
land).
The desired outcomes developed through the separate planning and trans-
port agencies focused on sustainable development and sustainable mobility,
respectively. The merging of the two agencies into DPI has arguably raised
political and professional expectations about the effective integration of land use
and transport to achieve desired outcomes.
There are different interpretations of what the desired outcomes of land use
and transport integration should be. Greiving and Kemper (1999) define the
outcome for land use planning as “reducing the need for travel” and for
transport planning as “making the remaining traffic (travel) sustainable” (p. 2).
Curtis (1999) describes the desired outcome of integration as achieving a better
balance in the use of transport modes. This is achieved in the land use context
with an increase in the number of shorter trips suitable for walking and cycling,
and a concentration of destinations that enhance the viability of public transport.
However, Greiving and Kemper, and Curtis both view the land use planning
outcome primarily from a transport perspective. The WAPC (1996) identified the
land use planning outcome as an orderly planning process that achieves regional
wealth, conserves and enhances the environment and builds dynamic and safe
communities. Based on this view, reducing the need for travel, or ‘accessibility
by proximity’, is the desired outcome for land use and transport integration
rather than just for land use planning. The State Transport Policy (1996) desired
outcome for transport matches Greiving and Kemper’s transport desired out-
come, that is, to make transport sustainable, equitable and safe.
Integrated transport planning has a much broader context than just land use
and transport integration. For example the UK White Paper on the Future of
Transport (Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions [DETR],
1998) identifies four areas of integration that we have condensed into three:
(1) Integration of modes—to make travel more sustainable;

(2) Integration of transport and land use—to reduce the need for travel; and
(3) Integration with ‘whole of government’ policies—education, health, etc.
Whichever interpretation is selected, both the land use and transport planning
desired outcome and the transport desired outcome are aimed at delivering
sustainable outcomes.
Approach to Integration
The terms coordination and integration are often interchanged. It is worth
clarifying the difference between the two terms as they have a major bearing on
the institutional model adopted. Greiving and Kemper (1999, p. 3) describe
coordination as “efforts to increase the coherence between sectoral policies on a
vertical and horizontal path”. The vertical path refers to the different levels of
government (e.g. state, regional and local) and the horizontal path is between
land use and transport policies and players at the same level. Voluntary
cooperation of the various players underpins coordination. Westerman (1998,
p. 5) defines integration as implying: “a concern with the whole; agreement on
the kind of outcomes we wish to achieve; having the means of achieving them;
and a collective commitment to make it happen”.
Westerman (1998) and Geerlings and Steed (2003) establish the importance
of shared agreement and collective commitment between the players, whereas
pursuing coordination alone still allows the players to pursue different out-
comes, and in some cases lead to inefficiencies in the provision of services. This
is reinforced by consultants Faber Maunsell (2002) who argue that coordination
leads to ‘lowest common denominator’ outcomes when applied at the regional
planning level in the UK.
Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of coordination and integration
Figure 3 illustrates the differences between coordination and integration

from an organisation perspective. Coordination occurs when a central organis-
ation coordinates other agencies (or functions) with no linkages between the
agencies, whereas integration occurs only when all the agencies are linked with
each other.
Westerman (1998) and Curtis (1999) both argue that the best results are
achieved where stakeholders participate in determining what is to be achieved
and reconcile their competing interests. However, Westerman doubts that exist-
ing structures are capable of achieving integration through coordination alone.
Integration is therefore seen as a balancing act between achieving conformity
and being able to achieve cooperation with the various stakeholders.
In discussing the Blair Government’s ‘joined-up government’ (integrated)
approach to public sector reform in the UK, Ling (2002) discusses the merits of
retaining separate agencies or creating a super agency in order to overcome
governance fragmentation. He argues that delivering an integrated outcome
cannot be achieved by either structure, instead the activities, cultures, incentives,
management systems and aims of separate agencies must be aligned towards the
shared or desired outcome.
Low and Gleeson (2001) remind us that the institutional divisions between
different transport agencies, exposed by the storylines constructed by players
within the institutions, have “prevented the emergence of integrated solutions to
transport problems” (p. 799). There are clearly a number of challenges in dealing
with the institutional arrangements, the interrelationships with people and the
resource allocation processes.
Placing a central organisation charged with managing the integration task at
the heart of the portfolio (refer to Figure 4), is likely to be a better theoretical
construct than those shown in Figure 3. The integration task of the central
Figure 4. Integration
Figure 5. Land use and transport coordination/integration model. Source: Greiving and Kemper
(1999).
organisation should be seen as one of ‘steering’ (managing) the whole process

while the other organisations are responsible for ‘rowing’ (implementation).
Achieving effective integration is a complex and multi-faceted task. The
reviewed literature suggests there are policy, behavioural and institutional
elements involved in effective integration of land use and transport. Faber
Maunsell (2002) identify integration as being relevant in terms of both the
integration of transport modes and integration between the transport system
and the pattern of social and economic activity that it serves. Greiving and
Kemper (1999) have developed a land use and transport integration model (refer
to Figure 5) that straddles the integration of policies or resources, coordination
of the actors or organisations, and integration of local, regional and state or
national levels.
Integration Principles for Institutions

Having established the nature of integration and its complexities, it is important
to identify the principles central to integration in order to achieve desired land
use and transport planning outcomes. Ker’s (2001) framework comprises three
principles: function, organisation and accountability. These integration princi-
ples can be seen as the modus operandi for structuring the institutional arrange-
ments. Each principle has an aim and a number of implementation criteria, as
shown in Table 1.
Testing Ker’s framework by comparison with other policies and models
confirms its consistency and currency in informing effective integration from an
institutional perspective. For example, Faber Maunsell are critical of the UK
planning system’s ability to deliver integration, and argue that “integration
requires depth of information and breath of understanding about how transport
interactions work in a particular context” (Faber Maunsell, 2002, p. 4). Their
view is also based on the conclusion that effective integration in Europe is
predicated on “a strong regional level of responsibility for transport policy,
funding and service provision co-exists with defined (and complementary)
national and locality roles” (p. 13). These views are consistent with Ker’s
framework, with ‘accountability’ matching ‘responsibilities’, ‘functional’ match-
ing ‘funding alignment’ and ‘organisational’ matching ‘roles’.
The Irish Department of the Environment and Local Government (2001)
identified five critical success factors to achieve integration of land use and
transport. These are also consistent with Ker’s principles of accountability
Table 1. Integration principles
Functional principle (Who does what)
Aim Implementation
Allocation of functions Outcomes derived from integrated planning processes include:
is aligned with • reduced travel distances through transport and land use integration
government • better balanced mode shares
policy and strategic • strategic asset management with non-built solutions and more
planning outcomes. efficient/effective use of existing assets used before new assets are
purchased
• community involvement.
Principal funding priorities based on:
• contribution to community and government objectives beyond
transport, as well as transport-specific ones
• integrated assessment (including financial, economic, social and

environmental impacts and strategic asset management criteria)
• encouragement of innovation.
Accountability principle (Where does responsibility lie)

Aim Implementation
Outputs expected of Outcome requirements could be negotiated with the delivery agencies
agencies are aligned (e.g. Treasury/DPI; DPI/local government).
with the allocation of Outcomes specified for/required of an agency should align with the
functions. funding provided.
Responsibility for outcomes should align with funding allocation and
management.
Organisational principle
Aim Implementation
Organisations are able Allocation of functions and tasks to agencies should be carried out on
to deliver the outputs a ‘whole-of-portfolio’ basis, recognising the need to achieve an
expected of them. appropriate mix between:
• modes
• investment, maintenance and operations (levels of service)
• land, infrastructure, services, regulation, pricing and non-built
solutions (strategic asset management)
• building community capacity.
All agencies should have a role in resource allocation, at their
appropriate level of competence (i.e. within their functional remits) and
not simply be postmasters or contract managers for a ‘higher’
organisation.
Source: Ker (2001).
(‘strategic body’), functional (incentives to ensure delivery) and organisational

matters (the ‘right’ people):
(1) Public and political support for a ‘strategic body’ that is accountable for
integration, cost effectiveness and value for money in the delivery of its
functions;
(2) A strong legislative framework;
(3) A clear government mandate;
(4) The ‘right’ people to do the job; and
(5) The necessary financial and organisational resources and appropriate incen-
tives to ensure delivery.
The United States Transportation Equity Act (TEA-21) challenges urban areas to
improve the balance between traditional transportation goals (congestion relief,
mobility, accessibility and safety) and sustainability goals (economic develop-
ment, environmental protection and social equity). Accountability is required
through annual reporting by metropolitan planning organisations (MPOs) that
provide the organisational element. The functional element is provided by the
participation of the key players within the region covered by the MPO. Land use
and transport integration is included; however, the focus tends to be on
integration of transport modes and integration with other government objectives
(e.g. environmental justice).
Resources
If Ker’s three integration principles are applied, a fuller range of resources is

required than traditionally conceived to achieve effective integration of land use
and transport. It is possible to categorise four different resource types available
to the portfolio to achieve the desired outcomes. These resources are interdepen-
dent.
• ‘Authorisation and Regulation’ through use of statutory planning controls for
land use planning or transport regulation (usually through licences) is the
traditional resource.
• ‘Pricing’ achieved through taxation and subsidies to service providers and
users, and through regulation of prices.
• ‘Strategic Asset Management’ (SAM) enables the management of public assets
for land use transport integration, for example, through the management of
land (government strategic land holdings), services (subsidised transport
services like public transport) and physical assets in the form of infrastructure.
Intangible assets (travel behaviour) derived from demand management and
non-built solutions, and intellectual assets should also be included.
• ‘Building Community Capacity’ through the state government skilling, empow-
ering and resourcing stakeholders, the general community, industry and
professionals is an important but often undervalued resource. This is achiev-
able through education, advocacy, grants and partnerships.
Greiving and Kemper (1999) identified similar resources including investment
and services, regulation, pricing and information. They also include ‘informal
policies’ (such as labour market flexibility), but it is difficult to see how these can
be implemented at portfolio level, instead requiring a whole of government
approach. They include planning, although in their definition this means the use
of planning as a means of integrating the resources rather than being a resource
in itself. In this way it is more aptly defined as part of the process of integration.
Tools
Resources alone will not deliver the desired outcomes. It is necessary to consider
the tools available within the planning and infrastructure portfolio to combine
these interdependent resources. Four tools have been identified:
• ‘policy making’;
• ‘integrated planning’;
• ‘funding’; and
• ‘research and monitoring’.
To be effective it is suggested these four tools should reside within one core
division within the organisation responsible for the integration function, as
shown in Figure 4.
Policy Making
The policy-making mechanism provides the overall strategic direction for the
portfolio and the settings in which plans are developed and actions conceived.
The policy role also provides the integration framework for the various func-
tional elements within the portfolio and coordinates policies that sit outside land
use and transport integration (in this way there is the possibility of achieving
Greiving and Kemper’s ‘informal policy’ approach, for example, in relation to
health and transport, and education and transport). Examples of policy issues in
the portfolio context are policies for individual transport modes, transport
pricing, housing, energy, employment and greenhouse gas abatement. The
integration of these policy issues is a key challenge of policy making in the
context of the planning and infrastructure portfolio.
An example of a policy-making issue that pervades much of the portfolio is
the application of the concept of sustainability. The State Sustainability Strategy
(Government of Western Australia, 2003) indicates that embracing sustainability
is likely to require a different way of thinking, different decision-making
processes and different planning approaches. It is therefore a critical issue within
the institution where the integration functions reside.
Integrated Planning
Integrated planning is the tool that could be used to integrate the resources
within a geographical (place-based) setting, ranging from the regional level,
through sub-regional and local levels to site-specific areas. The product of
integrated planning processes is often a two-dimensional plan with actions and
timelines. The integrated planning process should involve community partici-
pation, negotiation and option-testing to arrive at a desired outcome that is
acceptable to the stakeholders. The case study in this article illustrates the use of
integrated planning processes as a key tool to achieve desired outcomes.
To achieve the desired outcomes of land use transport integration, the
integrated planning tool must progress from single-mode transport planning to
multi-modal and accessibility planning. This progression is shown in Figure 6
highlighting the relationship with tools (planning approaches) and resources.
Single-mode planning comprises the development of specific mode network
plans (e.g. roads or public transport) and, in some cases, funding hypothecated
to that mode. More often than not, each mode-specific agency submits annual
applications for capital and recurrent funding for the expansion, enhancement
and maintenance/operation of their specific network and this is the case in
Western Australia.
The multi-modal approach is undertaken through integrated transport plans
that are driven from a broader transport perspective and usually focus on the
integration of modes. In this case, land use is often treated passively as a
Figure 6. Progression from single-mode network planning to accessibility planning

criterion in assessment of integrated transport plans (Department for Transport,

2002a). As a consequence, transport network planning often matches existing
land use patterns and mixes the provision of different modes, non-built solutions
and transport regulation and pricing to achieve the desired outcome of sustain-
able travel.
The accessibility approach is applied through use of a place-based plan that
brings together land use planning, transport planning and urban design. The
focus is on the geographical aspects of the specific site, spatial land use patterns
(i.e. mixed use), the form of the physical environment at a sub-regional and local
level (i.e. the interface between the transport network and adjacent land uses),
and potential of economic and social drivers (i.e. retail shopping and employ-
ment). To some extent this place-based planning approach is captured in the
approach to transit-oriented development, new urbanism and the US Smart
Growth movement, but treatment of the sub-region through place-based plan-
ning sets it apart from these approaches.
The UK Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000)
developed a useful framework that compares the mechanisms used within the
traditional single-mode approach with those of the integrated transport ap-
proach. It also highlights the relationship between the other three tools (funding,
research and policy making). This framework has been adapted (refer to Table
2) to include the accessibility approach achieved through the use of place-based
plans.
The common element in both integrated transport planning and place-based
planning is that both are undertaken within a spatial setting where the location
of transport modes and land uses affect the operation of each other. The
objective is to maximise the benefits from the interactions of the different land
uses and transport modes rather than just maximising the performance of the
transport network. The focus on the transport network is still important, but
must be considered within the broader objectives of mode and land use
integration so that transport network decisions made in this context might be
different. An effective place-based planning approach is able to achieve the
depth of understanding about how transport interactions work at a regional or
local level that Faber Maunsell (2002) argues is required for effective integration.
Both approaches work with the complexity of the urban environment and its
users. In doing so the planning process demands a more extensive input in order
to integrate the needs of all stakeholders. This enables full use of the array of
resources. Single-mode network planning will remain relevant, but not as the
Table 2. Comparison between plan types
Single-mode plans Integrated transport plans Place-based plans
Single transport agency. Multiple transport agencies. Multiple transport and land use
agencies.
Capital bids determined Five-year plans with greater certainty of future funding as well
annually with longer term as agreed commitments from other players, including the private
network plans. sector.
Just a ‘bidding document’ for The plan is partly a bidding document, but also a strategic
government funds. planning document.
Program of capital investment. Consideration of capital and recurrent, as well as other revenue
sources and contributions.
Resources tightly ring-fenced Greater local discretion over allocation of resources within the
to particular areas of context of the regional or local plans.
expenditure.
Historically constrained to Integrates modes and transport Integrates modes, urban design,
hard infrastructure. pricing and voluntary land use patterns and economic
behaviour change drivers (e.g. retailing and
interventions. employment).
Limited input from operators Inclusive approach, involving public and greater business
and local partners. participation. Also solves local problems in a holistic way.
Network objectives and Greater emphasis on targets, performance indicators and
network performance monitoring in areas not previously covered (e.g. performance
standards. indicators linked to outcomes—increase in local employment).
Historic emphasis on road Emphasise integrated Emphasise urban design,
and occasional urban railway transport solutions to settlement patterns and
schemes. encourage walking, cycling integrated transport solutions to
and public transport. encourage walking, cycling and
public transport.
Adapted from Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000).
only approach, and should be considered within the context of integrated

transport plans.
The review of planning and funding models used in the USA and UK
indicates the need for a different funding model as planning progresses to
multi-mode and accessibility planning (Department of the Environment, Trans-
port and the Regions, 2000; Department of Transportation, 2000; Boston Region
Metropolitan Planning Organisation, 2002; Department for Transport, 2002a). In
both countries, there is a link between the planning process and the funding
process to ensure the elements within the plans deliver the desired outcomes.
Funding
The difference between the funding tool and the pricing resource discussed in
the previous section is that funding can affect the price resource through the use
of subsidies, land purchase, services, infrastructure and intangible assets (SAM).
Funding can be used to build community capacity.
Application of integrated transport and place-based planning within an
environment of single-mode planning is likely to challenge traditional network
funding processes. This will occur because these planning approaches generate
different projects that compete for funding and create tension with traditional
service agency/Treasury bilateral arrangements when third parties are involved

in the decision process. The place-based planning approach takes the funding
allocation process a step further by drawing on all four resources (authorisation
and regulation, pricing, strategic asset management, and capacity building).
This new integrated approach also brings different professional disciplines
into the funding process. This means that previous funding determination
practices aligned to single-mode networks and the associated professional disci-
plines might no longer be appropriate. This is also likely to lead to a shift from
traditional financial assessment tools (e.g. net present value) to broader out-
come-based assessment tools such as seen in the UK ‘New Approach to Ap-
praisal’ (Department for Transport, 2002a).
Hicks et al. (2001) identified the need for the policy and regulation role to
reside within the central agency. To help align operations with policies and
plans, they recommended that the service agencies within the planning and
infrastructure portfolio “should not have direct access to allocations from the
Consolidated Fund, but should receive funding through the Department for
Planning and Infrastructure” (p. 166). Using the funding tool in this way
highlights Ker’s (2001) integration principles. The alignment of funding with
objectives meets Ker’s functional principle and achievement of outcomes with
prescribed funding meets his accountability principle.
Whitelegg (2002) adds another dimension to the funding process. He argues
that “at the core of best value thinking is ‘compare and challenge’” (p. 17). In this
context, the task of acquiring, assessing and allocating funding should be based
on comparing the mix of resources and challenging which achieve the desired
outcomes.
Elements of Ker’s integration principles and Whitelegg’s ‘compare and
challenge’ thesis can be seen in the UK approach. When completing the assess-
ment process to bid for central funding, local authorities are required to compare
options (Department for Transport, 2002a). This means the mix of mode funding
is determined by the plan without funds hypothecated to a specific mode.
However, it could be argued that the diversity of options being tested, such as
non-built solutions, could be greater. There is one fundamental difference
between this UK approach and that proposed by Hicks for Western Australia.
The planning and infrastructure portfolio comprises agencies within the same
level of government reporting to the same minister. The implication of a bidding
process in this situation might lead to inter-agency competition and behaviour
that does not foster integration.
The use of the funding tool explored here generates several challenges in
meeting Ker’s integration principles. Nevertheless, the integration of the funding
allocation into the integrated transport planning and place-based planning
processes, as evident in the UK approach, is fundamental.
Research and Monitoring

Research and monitoring is an important and often overlooked mechanism
available to achieve the integration of resources. The aim is to inform the policy
and planning process and to ascertain if the policies and plans are achieving
their desired outcomes. The UK approach to the integrated transport planning
approach involves ongoing annual performance reporting attached to central
Figure 7. Planning and infrastructure portfolio

government funding provided to local transport plans (Department for Trans-

port, 2002b).
The issue of who is responsible for the actual data collection task might
generate debate. The agencies implementing the various components of the plan
collect data for evaluation. However, it could be argued that the implementers
should not be the sole determinants of the evaluation process since they have a
vested interest in demonstrating success.
Institutional Arrangements
Having identified the integration principles, resources and tools available, the
final step is to consider the institutional arrangements appropriate for delivery
of sustainable outcomes. Clearly the earlier discussion on integration and
coordination has a bearing on this. Hicks et al. (2001) recommended the forma-
tion of the Department for Planning and Infrastructure (DPI) to undertake a
“central agency” or coordination role for the portfolio and the transport plan-
ning functions within Main Roads WA be transferred to DPI. The state govern-
ment implemented this recommendation. Ideally the DPI role then should also
extend beyond coordination to integration. Both the minister and the WAPC
have a role setting the goals to be achieved.
The arrangements shown diagrammatically in Figure 7 indicate that the
new DPI can provide for implementation through its role as the core organisa-
tional area charged with integration. DPI would be responsible for the use of the
aforementioned tools. DPI together with the implementation agencies (service
and commercial) within the planning and infrastructure portfolio would take
responsibility for actual implementation of required outputs using the four
resources (Authorisation and Regulation, Pricing, SAM, Building Community
Capacity). The rationale for this arrangement lies in the different types of
responsibility agencies within the portfolio have. This can be categorised as
shown in Table 3.
The portfolio is structured such that all agencies report to the Minister for
Planning and Infrastructure, although a number of agencies are accorded a
degree of independence prescribed by their legislation and the extent to which
their operating revenues cover their expenditures. Conversely, the service agen-
cies strongly reliant on state government appropriations are generally more
affected by day-to-day government decision making.
Table 3. Agency types
Category Criteria
1 Central (Integration) The central agencies provide a whole of portfolio view and have the
responsibility of providing the coordination and integration.
2 Commercial Commercial agencies operate on a commercial basis and derive
(Implementation) sufficient revenue through ordinary activities or community service
obligations.
3 Service These agencies are responsible for delivering specific outputs and,
(Implementation) unlike the commercial implementation agencies, are reliant on state
government appropriations.
The DPI as the central agency has both an integration function and a service
agency role. The integration functions, residing together with the planning and
regulatory functions of the WAPC, provide the ‘steering’ mechanisms for the
integrated use of the extensive resources.
With the integration function residing within the one core area (DPI)
through the use of the set of four tools, questions arise about the best organisa-
tional structure, corporate culture and work processes to achieve effective use of
these tools. Huse and Cummings (1985) identify four types of organisational
structures. In the public sector the hierarchical or functional structure is most
common. A variation of the functional structure is the product structure. The
functional and product structures are typically pyramid shaped. The organis-
ation is divided into functional or product units, such as corporate services,
policy, service delivery, asset management, etc. These traditional bureaucratic
structures are designed for vertical integration (i.e. policy to implementation)
but can create ‘silos’ and the resultant behaviour can hinder integration. How-
ever, an advantage of this approach is that it is legible for external customers.
Hicks et al. (2001) recommended the policy and planning groups from three
agencies, Department for Transport, Ministry for Planning and Main Roads WA,
be combined into one organisation. Weller (1991) identified a challenge to the
amalgamation of two or more agencies is whether full integration or a just
confederation of the two agencies or sections within the agencies is achieved.
Low and Gleeson’s (2001) storylines have relevance here. If the confederation
scenario occurs, the outcome at best could be coordination rather than inte-
gration.
A matrix organisation is sometimes advocated as a solution to limitations
created by functional and product organisational structures. This imposes a
project coordinator and team across the standard vertical hierarchical structure
and the project teams operate only for the life of the project. This approach
evolved from the need to apply adaptable resources and skills to achieve specific
project objectives (e.g. an integrated transport plan). To be effective, matrix
structures are contingent on power balancing between hierarchical leaders and
project leaders, projects having a clear objective, and an acceptance of blurring
accountability within traditional bureaucratic structures (Huse & Cummings,
1985).
A fourth structure, collateral organisational structure, is a parallel or informal
structure operating in tandem with the formal structure using the same staff.
This option is similar to the matrix option but the collateral structure is issue
focused and more than likely to be better suited to ill-defined knowledge

problems that cut across an entire organisation, such as the application of
sustainability.
To achieve integration of the resources and tools within the organisational
structure probably requires a combination of the matrix and collateral options
applied to specific projects (e.g. integrated planning) and knowledge issues (e.g.
policy making), respectively.
The resources identified earlier are distributed across the planning and
infrastructure portfolio (Table 4). The Strategic Asset Management lever is
divided into physical (land, services and infrastructure), intangible and technical
assets. The technical assets within the agencies, required to implement the
resources, are also included in the regulation category as they tend to have legal
standing in court cases. The resources presented in Table 4 are indicative rather
than exhaustive in detail.

It is evident from the agency assets identified in Table 4 that effective
integration of these assets could deliver large benefits to Western Australia. The
resources range from LandCorp with its ability to act as a land developer to the
prescribing of transport network requirements by the WAPC. The structure
shown in Figure 7 suggests the task of portfolio integration resides with the
minister, with support from the Director General (DG) of DPI who is also the
coordinating CEO for the portfolio. The DG is also a member of the WAPC.
The resources in their different forms are extensively distributed across the
agencies. The wide distribution of the resources highlights the challenge to
achieving integration. Ker’s (2001) accountability principle is more interesting in
that the assets of each agency could contribute to or hinder effective integration
to achieve the desired outcomes. There are a number of accountability issues
confronting effective use of resources to deliver the outcome. Chief Executive
Officers are accountable for the assets under their responsibility as prescribed by
the specific legislation the agency operates under and the more general legis-
lation as it applies to the public sector (e.g. Finance Administration and Audit
Act). These accountability requirements could create tension between the man-
agement of these assets and possible trade-offs that may be required with the
integration of the assets for broader portfolio outcomes.
A key conclusion is that the integration issue needs to look at both the
co-location of functions and the organisational arrangements within which these
functions operate.
Outcomes
The model must provide the opportunity to assess the effectiveness of outputs
and the extent to which the desired outcomes have been achieved. The use of the
research and monitoring tool within the resources component offers a number of
choices for this. For example the UK Department for Transport has developed
extensive guidance on the use of “performance indicators” to annually assess the
effectiveness of local (integrated) transport plans adopted by local and county
councils (Department for Transport, 2002b). The performance indicators are
included in the local transport plans that are submitted for funding consider-
ation by the UK National Government.
While the audit and evaluation function may be performed by implemen-
tation agencies, the overall responsibility and accountability for an effective
Table 4. Portfolio agencies resources (indicative)
Resource →
Delivery Authorisation and Regulation Pricing Strategic Asset Management Build Capacity
agency ↓ Legal Technical Physical Intangible
Main Roads WA Road use licences Road design and Road use licences Infrastructure and Community support Regional road groups,
traffic standards land local government
Public Transport Centralised Service planning Fares Infrastructure, Public transport
Authority contracting powers vehicles, land public patrons
transport services
Dept of Land Legal processes Land title Land and intellectual
Administration management property
LandCorp Commercial acumen Land sales Land Developers
Regional Development Subdivision, Land sales Land Developers
Agencies development and
zoning approvals
WAPC Subdivision, Land use planning Headwork charges Land Developers, local
development and govt., planning
zoning approvals profession
DPI (Service)— Standards, approvals Infrastructure and Subsidies, regulations Land Transport users’ Stakeholders
Implementation and licences land and licences attitudes
Table 5. Approach to intergration
Organisational The portfolio agencies with a direct role in the case study area—MfP,
DoT, MRWA, PTA, LandCorp and WAPC.
Accountability MfP—steering the process to achieve the desired outcomes.
DoT—advice on traffic management standards and public transport
provision.
MRWA—arterial road provision and standards.
LandCorp—obtaining a commercial return from land assets.
Functional MfP—responsible for land use planning and facilitated the place-based
planning process.
DoT—responsible for transport planning policy and planning future
provision of public transport services.
MRWA—provision of suitable access to freeway.
LandCorp—a key landowner in the case study area.

WAPC—approving the structure plan which provides the regulatory
backing to the agreed plan.
Local authority—approving subdivision and development proposals.
monitoring and evaluation process should remain within the DPI coordination
and integration area.
Butler-Brighton—The Potential for the Institutional Model in Practice

The Brighton-Butler case study illustrates the operation and potential of the
proposed model in an integrated land use and transport planning process that
was recently undertaken in the Perth metropolitan region. The case study area
comprises greenfield land holdings totalling 600 ha located about 40 km north-
west of the Perth CBD. The planned population for the area is 25 000 residents,
10 000 jobs and a District Centre comprising 23 500 m2 of retail floor space. The
site is bounded on its eastern side by a freeway reservation. There is also an
opportunity to extend the suburban railway connected to the Perth CBD.
The aim of the planning exercise was to maximise ‘accessibility through
proximity’ by integrating the suburban railway into the proposed urban devel-
opment, with a focus on mixed use transit-oriented development and town
centres as the location for employment creation. The property developers
involved in the planning process wanted certainty in terms of market acceptance
of the proposed development and had to be convinced that the ‘accessibility by
proximity’ approach would deliver greater benefits than traditional develop-
ment patterns with segregated land uses.
A place-based planning approach was initiated requiring multidisciplinary
involvement in order to draw on a range of professional skills, knowledge and
responsibilities. Agencies involved included the then Ministry for Planning
(MfP) and Department of Transport (DoT), MRWA, PTA, LandCorp and the
WAPC. Organisations external to the portfolio also included the Water Corpor-
ation (owner of a wastewater treatment site in the case study area), the City of
Wanneroo and private landowners. Consultants were also engaged by the MfP
and landowners to provide additional expert input and knowledge. The inte-
gration framework based on Ker’s integration principles comprised the arrange-
Table 6. Available resources
Authorisation and Land use structure planning process with supporting zonings and
Regulation sub-regional level urban design (e.g. arterial road alignments).
Pricing Use of regulation to increase lot yields and future rateable income.
Strategic Asset LandCorp land holdings, land reserved/purchased for roads, freeways
Management and public open space. Knowledge of resident’s preferences and
behaviour.
Community Capacity The ability of local government, consultants and developers to provide
useful information in a way that facilitated the planning process was
crucial achieving desired outcomes.
ment given in Table 5. Working in this way the players within the agencies were
able to draw on the resources given in Table 6.
A charrette process was used (akin to the matrix organisational structure) to
arrive at the shared desired outcome. A charrette is “a consensus-building,
non-adversarial approach to resolving complex planning projects” and it
“provides an alternative to the traditional sequential planning process by being
an interactive forum where concepts are drawn, discussed and iterated in a live
environment” to derive win–win solutions (Department for Planning and Infra-
structure, 2002, p. 12). Using this approach provided an opportunity for the
different professions to move outside their traditional silos and question each
other’s storylines. This was a prerequisite to achieving a shared outcome. The
process identified win–win situations, although compromises were required on
some traditional requirements.
The MfP acted as the ‘Central Agency’ because (a) it facilitated and fostered
the integration process in order to achieve the desired outcome, and (b) it
provided the integrated policy advice on employment, retail and social issues.
Ultimately the WAPC is responsible for adopting the draft structure plan and
supporting zonings, subdivisions and development approvals. The City of
Wanneroo also has planning responsibilities at the local level. LandCorp acted
as the ‘Commercial Agency’ with responsibility for developing their land
holding in accordance with the plan. The private land developers had the same
responsibilities as LandCorp. In both cases, commercial imperatives were funda-
mental. Several ‘service agencies’ including Main Roads WA, DoT, the City of
Wanneroo and the developers, had responsibility for delivering the transport
infrastructure and services (i.e. roads, footpaths, cycleways and public trans-
port).
The outcome of the planning process incorporated many of the agreements
reached in the charrette and produced a structure plan that would be well
placed to deliver higher levels of walking, cycling and public transport use. This
would be achieved in part through the realignment of the suburban railway with
supportive land uses around railway stations. Negotiations to achieve higher lot
yields that provide financial benefits to the state government, the local authority
and land developers also ensured that densities around railway stations would
support public transport patronage. The estimated financial benefit for the state
was envisaged to offset a major portion of capital cost to construct the railway.
Figure 8. Institutional model for land use transport integration
This approach was ahead of its time in Western Australia in that it

comprised the integrated working of individual agencies in advance of the
re-organisation of the planning and infrastructure portfolio. Whilst it is too early
to draw definitive conclusions, there is little evidence of this approach forming
the mainstay of the new institutional structure.
Conclusions
The institutional model we propose for land use transport integration comprises
a complex interrelated web, driven by government policy and guided by the
integration principles (as shown in Figure 8). This model requires a different
approach to the traditional institutional approaches based on single transport
modes and a separate land use agency. It is this fragmentation of approach
which compounds the ability to deliver an integrated solution. The traditional
approach tends to allow these separate agencies to maximise the achievement of
their own objectives, such as transport network enhancement, rather than deal
with the compromises that may often be associated with effective integration.
The separate agencies have a variety of resources, categorised into authorisation
and regulation, pricing, strategic asset management, and building community
capacity, focused on their respective objectives. Resources applied to these
specific objectives will be held closely for reasons of power and accountability.
This article identifies a number of mechanisms and success criteria in the

use of these mechanisms. The four resources need to be supported by appropri-
ate tools, and both the US and UK national governments have taken steps in this
direction by integrating the four tools of policy making, integrated planning,
funding and research and monitoring. In a Western Australia context this may
require negotiating for funding from a different perspective than the traditional
longer term capital funding based on single-mode network asset management.
The US and UK integration focuses on multi-modes rather than accessibility
planning. The accessibility planning approach developed and applied in West-
ern Australia, as evident in the case study, shows that it is possible to progress
integration further, and work as multidisciplinary project teams. The strength of
this aspect of the model is that it creates a forum in which the beliefs and
perspectives of the different professions can be challenged with the aim of
working towards an integrated outcome.

Effective integration, as opposed to coordination, also must consider the
policy setting, behavioural factors, resource allocation processes and the capacity
to deliver integrated transport and place-based planning. Ker’s functional,
organisational and accountability principles provide a useful framework to assist
in developing effective institutional arrangements to deliver land use and
transport integration. This requires an outcome beyond just transport network
management and enhancement. In this case the position of the responsible
minister, the role of the central agency CEO and the reporting relationships of
the other portfolio agency CEOs to the minister is fundamental.
The Western Australian planning and infrastructure portfolio has the ingre-
dients based on this framework to be successful with the distribution of the
resources across a number of agencies within the portfolio. This is both an
opportunity and a challenge. The challenge lies in the effective implementation
of the integration processes and also the effectiveness of the core organisational
area within the central agency to advance this integration.
Acknowledgements
The model and critiques presented in this article are the views of the authors and
may not necessarily correspond with the views of the Government of Western
Australia or the Western Australian Planning Commission. Evan Jones and Ian
Ker are acknowledged with thanks for their ideas that have contributed to the
development of this rticle.
References
Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organisation (2002) Boston Region MPO 2000–2025 Transporta-
tion Plan. Available at http://www.ctps.org/bostonmpo/resources/plan/plan.htm
Curtis, C. (1999) Turning strategies into actions: integrated land use and transport planning in
Western Australia. Paper presented at the 23rd Australasian Transport Research Forum 1999 and
published in Conference Proceedings, Perth, pp. 349–363.
Department of the Environment and Local Government (2001) New Institutional Arrangements for Land
Use and Transport in the Greater Dublin Area (Dublin: Government of Ireland).
Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR) (1998) A New Deal for Transport:
Better for Everyone, Cm. 3950 (London: HMSO).
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000) Guidance on Full Local Transport
Plans (London). Available at www.local-tranport.dft.gov.uk/fulltp/pdf/Itp1-3.pdf
Department for Planning and Infrastructure (2002) Butler-Brighton Charrette: Accommodating Future
Growth through Liveable Neighbourhood Principles (Perth: Western Australian Planning Commission).
Available at www.planning.gov.au/udmp/documents/butler.pdf
Department for Transport (2002a) Guidance on the Methodology for Multi-Modal Studies (London:
Government of the United Kingdom). Available at www.dft.gov.uk/itwp/mms/vol1/03.htm
Department for Transport (2002b) How to Monitor Indicators in Local Transport Plans and Annual
Progress Reports—2002 Update (London: Government of the United Kingdom). Available at
www.transtat.dft.gov.uk/ltplans/downloads/miltp02.doc
Department of Transportation (2000) Transportation Decision Making: Policy Architecture for the 21st
Century (Washington DC). Available at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/data/polarch.pdf
Faber Maunsell (Consultants) (2002) Commission for Integrated Transport Response to Planning Green
Paper; 10 Year Transport Plan Monitoring (St. Albans: Faber Maunsell).
Geerlings, H. & Stead, D. (2003) The integration of land use planning, transport and environment in
European policy and research, Transport Policy, 10, pp. 187–196.
Government of Western Australia (1996) State Transport Policy (Perth, Australia).
Government of Western Australia (2003) Hope for the future: The Western Australian State
Sustainability Strategy (Perth: Department of the Premier and Cabinet).
Greiving, S. & Kemper, R. (1999) Integration of Transport and Land Use: State of the Art (Dortmund,
Germany: University of Dortmund—European Commission Transland Project).
Hicks, S., Langoulant, J., Shean, R. & Wauchope, M. (2001) Government Structures for Better Results:
The Report of the Taskforce Established to Review the Machinery of Western Australia’s Government
(Perth: Western Australian Government).
Huse, E. & Cummings, T. G. (1985) Organisational Development and Change (St. Paul, MN: West
Publishing).
Ker, I. (2001) Unpublished work undertaken on the principles of integrated funding.
Labor Party of Western Australia (2001) Labor: Getting Transport Back on Track: Pre-election Commit-
ments for the 2001 Western Australia State Election (Perth, Western Australia).
Ling, T. (2002) Delivering joined-up government in the UK: dimensions, issues and problems, Public
Administration, 80(4), pp. 615–642.
Low, N. & Gleeson, B. (2001) Ecosocialisation or countermodernisation? Reviewing the shifting
‘storylines’ of transport planning, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 25(4),
pp. 784–803.
Weller, P. (1991) Amalgamated departments—integrated or confederated: Establishing criteria for
evaluating machinery of government changes, Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, No. 65,
pp. 41–47.
Westerman, H. L. (1998) Cities for Tomorrow: Integrating Land Use, Transport and the Environment
(Sydney: Austroads).
Western Australian Planning Commission (1996) State Planning Strategy (Perth: Government of
Western Australia).
Whitelegg, J. (2002) Investing in Transport: An International Perspective on Methods, Priorities and Models,
National Transport Secretariat, Australia, unpublished report.

An Institutional Model For Land Use and Transport Integration

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Institutional Model For Land Use and Transport Integration

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Urban Policy and Research

ISSN: 0811-1146 (Print) 1476-7244 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cupr20

An institutional model for land use and transport

Carey Curtis & Bruce James

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0811114042000269308

Published online: 06 Sep 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 411

View related articles

Citing articles: 10 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

An Institutional Model for Land Use and Transport

CAREY CURTIS* and BRUCE JAMES†

Figure 1. Government policy to outcomes

Figure 2. Integration of land use and transport outcomes

“Improve co-ordination of land use and transport infrastructure plan-

(1) Integration of modes—to make travel more sustainable;

Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of coordination and integration

Figure 3 illustrates the differences between coordination and integration

organisation should be seen as one of ‘steering’ (managing) the whole process

Integration Principles for Institutions

Table 1. Integration principles

Functional principle (Who does what)

• integrated assessment (including financial, economic, social and

Accountability principle (Where does responsibility lie)

Source: Ker (2001).

(‘strategic body’), functional (incentives to ensure delivery) and organisational

If Ker’s three integration principles are applied, a fuller range of resources is

Figure 6. Progression from single-mode network planning to accessibility planning

criterion in assessment of integrated transport plans (Department for Transport,

Table 2. Comparison between plan types

Single-mode plans Integrated transport plans Place-based plans

only approach, and should be considered within the context of integrated

service agency/Treasury bilateral arrangements when third parties are involved

Research and Monitoring

Figure 7. Planning and infrastructure portfolio

government funding provided to local transport plans (Department for Trans-

Table 3. Agency types

focused and more than likely to be better suited to ill-defined knowledge

than exhaustive in detail.

Table 4. Portfolio agencies resources (indicative)

agency ↓ Legal Technical Physical Intangible

Table 5. Approach to intergration

LandCorp—a key landowner in the case study area.

Butler-Brighton—The Potential for the Institutional Model in Practice

Table 6. Available resources

Figure 8. Institutional model for land use transport integration

This approach was ahead of its time in Western Australia in that it

This article identifies a number of mechanisms and success criteria in the

working towards an integrated outcome.

You might also like