Planning of National Transport Infrastructure
In the Islamic Countries
13
outputs required of the projects will deliver outcomes defined in the programme, while most
IFIs also process projects using project cycle management/PCM (KFAED, NA, European
Commission, 2018). The PCM foresees a self-improving cycle where evaluation of the relevance,
efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and wider impacts of the programmes and projects will
feed back into the planning process.
Being more research focussed, but none the less instructive, academia sets outs the
environmental, social and economic agenda for contemporary transport planning (Banister and
Berechman, 2003) who notes that the belief that public investment in infrastructure will
generate economic growth has often been used as a justification for the allocation of resources
to the transport sector. Much of the road-building programme in developed and developing
countries has been promoted on these grounds, yet the arguments seem far from clear. Issues
of equity in transport planning have been considered by Litman (2002), who concluded that
equity analysis can be difficult because there are several types of equity, many potential impacts
to consider, various ways to measure impacts, and many possible ways to categorize
people. Since transport provision is no longer the exclusive domain of the public sector, private
funding is an essential component to contemporary transport planning as noted by Koppenjan
(2005) and the vital aspect of risk allocation in transport investments must be considered
(Medda, 2007). Public participation and consultation is covered by Booth and Richardson
(2001) who argues that there is a need for a more nuanced debate over the place of public
involvement in transport planning due to changes in governance; the aspect of subsidiarity
becomes important. The policy shift towards integrated transport has also been accompanied
by significant institutional changes, which has created a new framework for transport planning,
with important implications for public involvement. Yet many issues underlying the
new participative approach to transport planning have yet to be resolved. Integration with land
use is considered by Hull (2005), who explores the need for new planning authorities, practices
and structures to accommodate new policy requirements and approaches to urban
management. In this context a rhetorical shift in paradigm from provide for road transport
to one that addresses sustainable mobility has been very noticeable. Integration between
transport and energy has been examined by Birk and Zegras (1993) who observed that traffic
congestion in some countries has become so aggravated that urban economies have
suffered losses due to the productive time wasted in commuting. These observations being
based on transportation systems in four Asian cities: Bangkok, Thailand; Surabaya, Indonesia.
Integration between modes of transport by Qun-qi and Qi-peng (2006) made the point that
market conditions are very important. Overall, Mackie (2005) noted that there is room for
improvement, using better economic appraisal and using macro-economic productivity effects
of transport infrastructure investment and not only those of transport efficiency as currently
practiced.
Transport planning has thus become one of accessibility planning. For many developed
countries minimizing traffic while maximizing accessibility has become the mantra. The
argument being that transport is a derived demand that needs to beminimized, the consumption
of which should be decoupled from economic growth (Banister and Berechman, 2001,
McKinnon, 2007). For those committed to constructing infrastructure whose inclination was to
happily forecast endless growth in transport demand, this line of thinking was sacrilegious to
say the least. But several countries have proactively sought to reduce traffic demand by reducing