Planning Major Infrastructure

Marshall, Tim

doi:10.4324/9780203112120

Cited by 29 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2007 another external committee, led by well-known businessman Peter Elverding, was appointed by the Cabinet to prepare a proposal that would help to speed up the process of infrastructure projects' realization. The committee's proposal was accepted by the government (Marshall, 2013). Although the Elverding committee's focus was on time and the TCI's focus was on cost, their recommendations showed similarities (Shiferaw, 2013a).…”

Section: Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…To realize Elverding committee's recommendations, I&M developed the 'Faster and Better' program to shorten planning periods of infrastructure projects by 50% and make better decisions through improved public participation, adjusted legislation, and better procedures for evaluation and prioritization of project initiatives (Arts, 2010;Marshall, 2013). The 'faster' element focuses on reducing unnecessary information load and focusing on relevant issues, whereas the 'better' element involves the application of an integrated approach and early participation of public, market parties and government agencies.…”

Section: Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taming the ‘trolls’: Major public projects in the making

Klakegg

Williams

Shiferaw

2016

International Journal of Project Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Major projects are not yet sufficiently understood, and practices in project governance and project management do not yet reflect the current state of knowledge of large, complex projects. In an attempt to understand the reasons, the authors therefore investigated the latest relevant findings documented in three countries: the UK, Norway, and the Netherlands. Their examination of the effect of implementing governance frameworks for public projects in these countries indicates that efforts to improve major projects are giving rewards: Even if complex public projects, the 'trolls', become more challenging, efforts to 'tame' them are improving. The results of the study show that project planning has improved and cost overruns are reduced. However, recent observations indicate that the effect may wear off remarkably quickly. Hence, the need for continuous improvement and change is prominent. There are fundamental limitations in the use of formal systems as they cannot detect all problems and there are limitations to humans' ability in terms of optimism bias that cannot be eliminated.

show abstract

Section: Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Netherlandsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Taming the ‘trolls’: Major public projects in the making

Klakegg

Williams

Shiferaw

2016

International Journal of Project Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Infrastructural investment has recently become a part of planning policy which has been attracting more attention, both amongst policy makers and academics (Fischer 2012, Flyvbjerg et al 2003, HM Treasury 2011, Marshall 2012a,b, OECD 2006, Priemus et al 2008. This attention results in large part from the perception that the planning and approval of large infrastructure schemes has been becoming more difficult, across many countries.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparative work on the way in which different European states manage infrastructure planning made clear the weak steering capacities or desires in most cases (Marshall 2012a). Such weakness was observed in Germany for example, where the planning of energy systems showed little direction, arguably hindering the possibility of serious progress to a lower carbon society.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The European Union and Major Infrastructure Policies: The Reforms of the Trans-European Networks Programmes and the Implications for Spatial Planning

Marshall

2014

European Planning Studies

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The EU has been involved in influencing major infrastructure in the fields of transport and energy mainly by means of the TENs programme begun in the 1990s. Other macro planning and wider spatial planning exercises, including the ESDP, made reference to such infrastructure systems, particularly in relation to the need for connectivity and mobility, but normally did not attempt to intervene in an area seen as one of the prerogatives of national states. Much more important have been the wider programmes of liberalisation pressed by the EU since the 1980s, but these have had no specific geographical content.A revision of the TENs programmes since 2008 has led to proposals to increase the role of the EU, by drawing up continent wide schemas indicating needs for future investment in many fields of both transport and energy, and introducing new procedures to streamline decision making by designating projects as of European interest. The initiatives in transport and energy are described here, including the two Regulations currently under discussion within the EU institutions. These include major proposals for cross European multi-modal transport corridors within an EU core network, and regional schemas for energy drawn up primarily by energy industries and government counterparts. Both are likely to be of real significance for spatial planners throughout the continent, and have major impacts on the shapes of future infrastructure networks.These proposals are analysed, as cases of the rescaling and re-ordering of government, giving more force to the EU in these fields, and reinforcing sectoral or silo based decision making. It is argued that somewhat different outcomes will result in the few areas, such as the Baltic, where long term macro-regional collaboration has been present, from the rest of Europe, where these sectoral programmes may complicate further the mix of planning impacting on each region, making even more confused the accountability of governance. Suggestions are made for the careful assessment of these schemas by national and regional governments, and for the creation of some spatial planning analytical capability at EU level, which could examine this type of proposals, with powerful spatial impacts.

show abstract

“…These are generally largescale infrastructure projects, extending high-speed networks instead of contributing to intensification. This might be caused by "infrastructuralism" (Olesen 2013;Marshall 2013).…”

Section: Reflectionsmentioning

confidence: 99%