Developing land use and transport PSS: Meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners Marco te Bro ¨ mmelstroet à , Luca Bertolini Amsterdam Institute for Metropolitan and International Development Studies, University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands article info Available online 30 July 2008 Keywords: Transport planning Land use planning Integrative strategies Joint vision building Planning support systems Models Information abstract One of the key barriers to integration of land use and transport planning is the lack of a ‘‘common language’’ (i.e. tools, instruments, indicators) that can support planners from both domains in developing shared visions and integrated strategies. Many of such tools and indicators have been developed in recent years, but not so many are implemented in practice. In this paper a new, participatory development approach for planning support systems (PSS) is proposed, termed ‘‘mediated planning support’’ (MPS) that addresses bottlenecks blocking this implementation. It is founded on insights from knowledge management, system dynamics and software innovation and is applied in the Greater Region of Amsterdam. This paper discusses the evolution of the PSS, highlighting the most useful elements which can be applied in other land use and transport planning projects. It offers insights for practitioners and researchers interested in land use and transport planning integration and for professionals that are dealing with supporting planning with information and technologies. & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Supporting the integration of land use and transport planning A better integration of transport and land use planning is believed to be crucial in achieving more sustainable mobility patterns in urban areas and is advocated by academics (e.g. Banister, 2005; Cervero, 1998; Meyer and Miller, 2001), profes- sionals (e.g. Transportation Research Board, 2004), governments (e.g. European Commission, 2007; European Conference of Ministers of Transport, 2002) and business (e.g. WBCSD, 2001, 2004) alike. Underlying this is the belief that if the land use and transport systems are reciprocally supportive, important benefits of mobility are increased (i.e. improved access to activities and jobs, a higher standard of living; WBCSD, 2004, p. 13), while negative impacts (i.e. pollution, risk, congestion, etc.; see e.g. Banister, 2005; WBCSD, 2001, 2004) are reduced. Several empirical studies support this belief, by showing strong interac- tions between both systems (overviews in Banister, 2005; Hanson and Giuliano, 2004; Meurs, 2002; Meyer and Miller, 2001; Wegener and Fu ¨ rst, 1999). It also reflects a long-standing body of theory on the relationship between land use and transport (Giuliano, 2004; Manheim, 1974; Meyer and Miller, 2001; Mitchell and Rapkin, 1954; Wegener and Fu ¨ rst, 1999). From planning theoretical considerations, such integration can be most fruitful if it occurs in early phases of the planning process (Friedmann, 1987; Healey, 2007). The minds of the planners in both domains are still open in these phases, which is needed to come up with innovative ideas and shared concepts and visions. The issues that are being dealt with here are also less contested due to their abstract nature. It is assumed that with shared land use transport (LUT) visions and concepts in place, the chances of conflicting land use and transport plans and projects are significantly reduced. Yet, in general, real integrated LUT planning processes are often absent in planning practice, especially in these early phases of planning (Banister, 2005; Stead et al., 2004; Transportation Research Board, 2004). Now both domains develop their own separate visions, scenarios, plans and projects focusing on either specific land use or transport issues. As a result, plans and interventions that are derived from these visions are often (unintended) suboptimal or, in the worst case, conflicting (e.g. car dependent development or unprofitable public transport systems). A number of factors seem to explain this difficult integration. The cited studies name both institutional/procedural discrepan- cies (i.e. different planning institutions, financial arrangements, etc.) and substantive differences (i.e. different planning objects, information, knowledge, etc.). This is also recognized in recent, dedicated research projects such as DISTILLATE in Great Britain (Hull and Tricker, 2006; Jones and Lucas, 2005) and IMPACT in Sweden (TransportMistra, 2007). Although we recognize that the institutional and substantive domains are strongly interrelated, the focus of this paper is mainly on the substantive barriers. There have been significant academic and professional efforts to develop common LUT concepts in recent years with the goal to bridge the substantive differences between the two planning ARTICLE IN PRESS Contents lists available at ScienceDirect journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tranpol Transport Policy 0967-070X/$ - see front matter & 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2008.06.001 à Corresponding author. Tel.: +3120 5254149; fax: +3120 5254051. E-mail address: marco@transport-planning.eu (M. te Bro ¨ mmelstroet). Transport Policy 15 (2008) 251–259