Assessing communicative rationality as a transportationplanning paradigm

RICHARD WILLSON

Department of Urban and Regional Planning, California State Polytechnic University,Pomona3801 West Temple Avenue, Pomona, CA 91768, USA (E-mail: rwwillson@csupomona.edu)

Key words: communicative action, discourse, participation, planning theory, rationality,transport policy

Abstract. Communicative rationality offers a new paradigm for transportation planning. Drawingon the literature and lessons from transportation planning practice, this paper describes thecharacteristics of a “communicative” form of transportation planning and compares them withconventional practices. A communicative rationality paradigm would place language anddiscourse at the core of transportation planning. The paper argues that it would lead to greaterattention to desired transportation ends (goals), better integration of means and ends, new formsof participation and learning, and enhanced deliberative capacity. The paper explains theimplications of this paradigm for the role of the transportation planner, the purpose of planning,the planning process, communicative practices, problem framing, and the nature of planninganalysis. The paper concludes with an assessment of communicative rationality’s ability topromote more effective transportation planning. It seeks to create a dialogue that will supportthe investigation of new transportation planning processes.

“What if our language does not simply mirroror picture the world but instead profoundlyshapes our view of it in the first place?”(Fisher and Forester 1993, 1)

Introduction

Transportation planners use language as if it mirrors the world. If languageis a mirror, then, it is a neutral tool in the service of communicating infor-mation. In most transportation planners’ minds, language describes objectiveconditions, explains methodologies and expresses values. Numbers, moreover,are a precise form of language that provide unambiguous representations ofreality. Are not measures of vehicle flows, level of service or cost effective-ness robust representations of reality? Gridlock is gridlock, right?

For planning, however, gridlock is not gridlock until we have defined itas a problem and decided to do something to address it. Transportation plans

Transportation 28: 1–31, 2001 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

depend on what gridlock means, and establishing meaning is an inherentlysocial and linguistically based process. The way that transportation plannersuse language – understanding certain ideas and values and excluding others,hearing some things and not hearing others, and defining roles for them-selves, their organizations, decision makers and the public – shapes knowledge,public participation, problem definition, process design and negotiation, andthe outcome of planning. The perspective offered in this paper is that languageprofoundly shapes our view of the world.

The paper critically examines the formal scientific rationality that domi-nates the field and uses insights from planning practice, social theory andphilosophy to explore the promise of communicative rationality as a newparadigm for transportation planning – one in which language and commu-nicative processes form the basis for rational planning. Innovative forms oftransportation planning based on theories of communicative rationality holdthe promise of solving some of our most difficult transportation planningproblems.

The global aim of communicative rationality is to create a rational basisfor constructing ends and means in a democratic society, by enriching publicand political discourse. Communicative rationality focuses on interactiveprocesses rather than the deliberative process of a single actor, emphasizingthe design of planning processes, participation and learning, and a reconcili-ation of different ways of understanding planning opportunities. It reorientsplanning from a form of scientific, instrumental rationality to a form of reasonbased on consensual discussion.1

Alexander (2000) argues that there are many forms of rationality – com-municative, instrumental, strategic, and so on – and that the real question isappropriately matching the form of rationality to the planning circumstance.This paper takes a different approach, anticipating a paradigm shift that willradically change the basis of knowing and the process for making transportationplanning decisions. Kuhn (1970) explains that such shifts only occur whencontradictions in the predominant paradigm become great and a new, moreuseful paradigm is compelling. The reader is invited to consider his or her ownpractice to conclude whether the preconditions for a paradigm shift in trans-portation planning are present and whether communicative rationality willbe the new transportation planning paradigm.

To properly explore these questions, the transportation field needs an intensedialogue about planning processes and a willingness to look at how trans-portation planning really works. This effort has been hampered by the factthat transportation planners and planning theorists generally ignore one another.Communicative rationality has not been reviewed in transportation journals;planning theory research seldom links to transportation planning. Furthermore,theory articles are often presented in language that is difficult to understand

2

and disconnected from practice. In taking up these questions, therefore, I amseeking to foster a conversation between transportation planners and planningtheorists, one that will improve the quality of transportation planning andadd rigor to planning theory.

There is tension between the formal process of planning based on scientific,instrumental rationality and the day-to-day reality of political bargaining andgamesmanship. One might argue, therefore, that a concern with transporta-tion planning process is irrelevant, taking the view that real planning doesnot occur in formal planning processes, or in the preparation of plans, butthrough project entrepreneurship, bargaining and the exercise of political power.Transportation plans, then, either add sanction to what has already been decidedor provide technical information that shifts the power among competing inter-ests. I agree that this is sometimes the case, but if it is true that planningdoes not matter, it should not be that way.

The paper opens by reviewing and critiquing the instrumental rationalitymodel that is the espoused planning theory of the profession. It then examineschanges in the social context for transportation planning activities. The theo-retical basis for communicative rationality is then presented. This definitionis used to sketch the general outlines of a new form of transportation planningbased on the concept of communicative rationality.

Discussions of transportation planning processes in general and a case studyof a particular transportation planning issue (parking policy for fixed railtransit) are used to illustrate the general features of a communicative approachand how they differ from conventional practices. The paper concludes withan assessment of the promise of communicative rationality for transportationplanning, arguing that communicative rationality can form a new transporta-tion planning paradigm that addresses the problems of the coming decadesin an innovative way.

The orthodoxy of transportation planning process: Instrumental rationality and objectivity

The predominant method of transportation planning is instrumental rationality,a process of optimizing means (plans and programs) according to identifiedends (goals). Instrumental rationality requires that the desired ends of a unitarydecision-maker can be known. It assumes that efficient means can be identi-fied using algorithm-like methods. Instrumental rationality bases reason onlogic and scientific empiricism. It maintains that what we know is based onwhat we can observe in a neutral and dispassionate manner. Furthermore, itassumes that urban and transportation systems operate in mechanistic, pre-dictable ways – that immutable laws about travel behavior can be discovered

3

and used for prediction. Finally, instrumental rationality assumes that the actorsin a planning process are autonomous individuals who refine their knowl-edge against universal principles, and that planning roles can be divided intovarious analysis, evaluation and decision-making tasks. In this model, planningactivities focus on analytic issues such as modeling and forecasting, impactanalysis and economic evaluation.

Although recent advances in planning theory have had little connection totransportation planning, the roots of transportation lie in classical concep-tions of planning. Of the intellectual precursors to planning identified byFriedmann (1987), systems engineering, systems analysis, neo-classical eco-nomics, welfare and social choice, scientific management and policy sciencehave shaped the field most strongly. In the US context, Wachs (1985) high-lights the influence of progressive era ideas about professionalized planning,where administrative discretion is provided to planners to implement man-agement principles in areas that are too complex for political leaders or thepublic. The hope was that scientific management principles could be appliedto public affairs, much as scientific approaches advanced industrial produc-tion, leading to the idea of an expert-led, analytical-based transportationplanning.

These notions supported a transportation planning process that follows asequence of steps and treats ends and means separately. It is a process in whichthe core problem is optimizing means to achieve ends that are derived fromdecision-makers and society; transportation planners play a technocratic role.This model of transportation planning is remarkably unchanged over the last50 years. Pas (1995), for example, summarizes a step-by-step process thatelaborates the classic ends-means process.2 The nine-step process includesthe following:

1. Problem and issue identification; 2. formulation of goals and objectives; 3. data collection; 4. generation of alternatives; 5. analysis (including land use-activity system models, urban transportation

models and impact analysis models); 6. evaluation (economic and non-economic); 7. decision making;8. implementation and 9. system monitoring. (p. 60)

Figure 1 presents instrumental rationality in a broader decision makingcontext. The diagram shows planning as responding to societal values, publicopinion, institutions and stakeholders. These elements are assumed to beindependent of the planning activity itself – the planner’s challenge is simply

4

to understand them. Planners, then, assist decision-makers in expressing desiredends. This is often a cursory activity; sometimes it is ignored because it isassumed that goals are self-evident (e.g., enhancing automobile mobility).The main activity of planning, therefore, is designing, analyzing and evalu-ating alternative means as shown in number two of the numbered boxes inFigure 1.

The theory of knowledge, or epistemology, that is implied by instrumentalrationality is scientific objectivism. Drawing from the natural sciences, engi-neering and certain of the social sciences, this view assumes that objectivefacts can be known and that the analyst is able to observe a system withoutparticipating in it or effecting it. Furthermore, it is assumed that facts can beseparated from subjective information and abstracted from complex socialsettings. Data analysis and modeling results provide the primary informationupon which alternatives are evaluated, information such as level of service,air quality conditions or cost effectiveness. Objectivist epistemology and instru-mental rationality method go hand-in-hand – if one element cannot besupported it is difficult to justify the other.

Some aspects of the practice of transportation planning are well suited tothe traditional focus described above. Many transportation conditions are quan-tifiable and certain aspects of travel behavior are quite predictable (e.g., traveler

5

Figure 1. Conventional planning process.

route selection). Most plans involve complex technical aspects that are suitedto a scientific approach. If there is a social consensus about ends and therange of alternatives is within an aspect of travel behavior that is predictable,then the traditional model has much to recommend it. Indeed, the efficiencywith which people and goods are moved in developed countries is a testa-ment to the efficiency of these methods.

Criticisms of the conventional model

It is not new to observe that the practice of transportation planning does notfollow the classic instrumental rationality model. It important to review thosecriticisms, however, because they illustrate the possibilities for communicativerationality. Conventional transportation planning practice reflects a tensionbetween the espoused theory just described and a theory-in-use of strategicrationality. By strategic rationality, I mean a form of rationality that is orientedtoward achieving political action.

One of the realities of practice is that transportation planners are frequentlynot able to achieve a consensus concerning the ends of planning. The multiplestakeholders to transportation planning often have different goals and objec-tives; in recent decades the range of goals for transportation have widenedsignificantly. Instead of acting as advisors to a rational actor decision-makerwho is functioning in a closed system, transportation planners find competinginterest groups in an organizationally defined and differentially empoweredsetting. Instead of well-defined problems, they find multiple, perhaps ideo-logically defined problems. Instead of perfect information and analyticcertainty, they find contested, ideological information and models that arestretched to represent complex behavioral realities. The transportation planner’schallenge is to reconcile the espoused theory with these conditions to findpractical wisdom and a process that will lead to decision-making and planadoption. The conventional model is not helpful in this regard. Furthermore,transportation scholarship has abandoned the issue except for offering post-mortem on failed processes.

The claims for objectivity in data and models that underpin instrumentalrationality have been challenged from numerous standpoints. Quantificationdraws attention to some things and hides other things, such as equity issuesor qualitative considerations. For example, studies of travel patterns by genderreveal differences formerly hidden in aggregate data. Wachs (1985) pointsout that models are also manipulated to produce predetermined outcomes. Morebroadly, Throgmorton (1993) argues that analytic techniques do not presentan objective truth, but instead act as figures of speech and argument. In otherwords, a survey instrument or model does not exist disconnected from speech

6

in a place and time. Surveys and models have an audience, they respond towhat came before, they construct the roles of planners and others and theyare built on language concepts. Finally, Harvey (1985) suggests that trans-portation models must respond to the fact that “values are invoked andmediated through the process, rather than resolved at an early stage” (pp. 458).When models ignore this reality, as they often do, their results become lessrelevant to decision making. Yet model results and analytic data are oftenpresented as “findings” rather than a form of discourse.3

Many observers of transportation planning recognize that political andinstitutional aspects in transportation are ignored by the conventional approach(Wachs 1985). Reviewing planning theories that bear on transportationplanning, Meyer and Miller (1984) advocate decision-centered transportationplanning and identify a broad range of influences on the planning process,including rational comprehensive planning, incrementalist planning, advocacyplanning, policy planning, and strategic planning. They argue for an approachthat will help decision-makers reach good decisions rather than focus exclu-sively on the “right” answer.

The literature contains many accounts of how little rational planning hasto do with actual decision-making (for example, see Altschuler 1979, Wachs1995, Richmond 1998). Stakeholders, institutions and decision-makers usuallyknow the alternatives they prefer and may seek to structure analysis torationalize their preferences. Figure 1 shows these groups as direct influ-ences on the evaluation of alternatives even though that is classically thedomain of the planner/analyst. In short, political processes rarely “hold still”for the rigid and time-consuming methods of conventional rational planning.

It is clear that the determinants of political choice are different from thoseof rational analysis. For example, Altschuler (1979) argues that politicalsystems seek inclusiveness and broad support for policy, rather than opti-mization. He points out that they seek to accommodate new demands whileleaving existing arrangements largely undisturbed, and attempt to confine issuesto create “win-win” outcomes, or at least the appearance thereof. Technocracticplanners’ orientation to “optimization within a resource constraint” tends toreinforce this conservatism, resulting in the posing and answering of narrowquestions.

Rather than adopt rational criteria, such as cost effectiveness, politicalsystems seek flexibility and projects in which the benefits are focused andthe costs are dispersed. For example, rational planning may consider overallsystem efficiency while decision-makers attend to the geographic incidenceof costs and benefits. Efficiency goals may be at odds with the need to controlconflict between decision-makers representing different areas (Taylor 1995).These different bases for selecting policy must be reconciled if choices areto be made. Taking the politics of transportation decision-making into account

7

in transportation planning process represents a shift from pure instrumentalrationality to a form of strategic rationality (explicitly recognizing the socialdimension of decision-making).

Left out in the tension between conventional planning and politics is thepublic. Although there have been growing requirements for participation, itis generally participation with a small ‘p’. Members of the public are rarelyengaged in a substantive dialogue about transportation. Instead, their inputis usually sought after the problem has been defined, after analysis has beencompleted and after alternative projects have been designed. Participationprocesses are highly constrained – often the public is presented with a narrowproblem definition and asked to comment on small variations of similaralternatives.

Consequences

The result of the split between the traditional transportation planning paradigmand politics is an increasingly dysfunctional planning process. Borrowing fromDryzek’s (1993) characterization of the instrumental rationality model as“clean, calculating, and homogenizing” (p. 214) we can see that such a modelis not a good fit with the setting of most transportation planning. In highlycongested regions, private sector-led transportation planning often steps into fill the void left by dysfunctional public transportation planning, either bytaking on planning functions or by providing substitutes for travel. In eithercase, public objectives related to social equity, community development orenvironmental policy receive less emphasis.

Older regional transportation plans rarely resolved the tension betweenrational planning and politics. Responding to Federal requirements, thoseregional plans assembled the projects proposed by State highway depart-ments, county governments, and local governments. They contain lists ofprojects rather than functioning as true plans in the sense of making substantivechoices about future directions. Many early plans did not identify meaningfulgoals or objectives, nor did they change the outcomes beyond the collectionof projects that were submitted. Lacking the power to alter these projects, manyMetropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) assembled projects, modeledthem, completed conformity findings and prepared the appropriate documen-tation.

Unresolved tension between instrumental rationality and politics producespoor plans, cynical planners, frustrated politicians, and a mistrustful public. Atthe same time, however, the Intermodal Surface Transportation EfficiencyAct (ISTEA) and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century(TEA-21) ask for regions to prepare more substantive and participatory trans-portation plans. Transportation plans are supposed to mean something; more

8

local discretion is offered on how funds are spent and there are more require-ments for public participation, consistency with other policy initiatives andfinancial feasibility.

The social context for transportation planning

The problems with instrumental rationality are not unique to transportationplanning – they stem from changes in the larger social context for planning.The changes, in turn, touch on the most basic questions in philosophy andsocial theory. Instrumental rationality and objectivism are part of traditionalnotions of modernism and progress, yet these foundational elements have beentransformed. Starting in the 1950s, critiques of scientific social science emergedin sociology and planning (see Guhathakurta (1999) for an overview). Yet inpractice and research, transportation planning has followed a schizophrenicpath – acknowledging problems in instrumental rationality but continuing toemploy it in research, practice and teaching.

In the recent years, social theorists use the term postmodernism to describechanges that undermine traditional modernist notions, including instrumentalrationality and objectivism. Stated simply, postmodernism recognizes that thereis not longer a single organizing narrative around which a plan can optimize(e.g., a consensus notion of what constitutes progress). Without such anorganizing narrative, a plan cannot optimize means with respect to ends, andmany assumptions of rational transportation planning come apart.4 Milroy’s(1991) four observations about the implications of postmodernism for planningare used here to discuss the context for transportation planning.

First, a postmodern perspective questions conventional beliefs and seeksto understand the power relations beneath them. The changing notions aboutthe appropriateness of mobility as a transportation planning goal are an exampleof this. Mobility (taken here to mean vehicle throughput) was once assumedto be the general aim of transportation planning, but now there are com-peting ideas about such goals (e.g., mobility versus accessibility, and recently,restricting travel opportunity). Transportation planning rarely optimizes arounda single goal; it usually balances multiple, often contradictory goals. Inaddition, more is understood about who benefits and who loses from dif-fering goals definitions, so terms and ideas that were formerly uncontroversialbecome contested.

Second, a postmodernism perspective challenges the notion of universals asbases of truth. Mobility enhancement used to be associated with a generalnotion of progress. Just as old postcards show factories billowing smoke asa sign of economic prosperity, the freedom to live and work where one chooseswas a cornerstone of American land use and transportation policy. Althoughthat freedom is still sought, the question of progress is now contested, not

9

consensual. In the realm of project evaluation criteria, the cost/benefit calculusof economic evaluation is not offered as the sole decision criterion as it mighthave been in the past.

Third, a postmodernism perspective asserts that a clear delineation betweensubjective and objective is not possible. There is, for example, recognition thatobjective analysis leaves out forms of knowing important to understandingtravel behavior and making policy choices, such as qualitative factors, aethes-tics and morals. For example, Talvitie (1997) challenges the economic theorythat underlies transportation models by introducing psychoanalytic under-standings of travel behavior, aspects outside the realm of traditional notionsof objectivity. He calls for examination of the “dark” side of transportationbehavior instead of focusing solely on utility maximization.

And finally, a postmodernism perspective is said to value plurality anddifference. Recent research shows how transportation systems function dif-ferently for women, people of color, children, the elderly, the disabled, the poorand other groups. As we begin to recognize the perspectives and claims of amore diverse society, a type of planning that is “clean, calculating and homo-genizing” seems a poor fit with the likely planning and decision-makingenvironment.

What is communicative rationality?

What is the theory of communicative rationality? This section provides anoverview that is further developed for transportation planning in the rest ofthe paper. As previously mentioned, communicative rationality is concernedwith creating a rational basis for constructing ends and means in a democ-ratic society – an approach that integrates scientific and interpretive/sociallearning approaches. A precise definition of communicative rationality iselusive because it is a theory “in action” that can result in different formula-tions depending on the circumstances of a planning problem. In practice,however, communicative rationality has clearly distinguishing features – afocus on discourse, interpretation and design of deliberative processes. It isdistinguished by its attention to participation and learning, particularly throughthe reconciliation of different problem frames. The communicative rationalityperspective enriches public and political discourse by reorienting planningto a form of reason based on consensual discussion (the theorists call it “inter-subjective communication”). The basis for knowledge (or epistemology) andmethod of planning shifts from a predominantly analytical basis to a com-municative basis. Communicative rationality integrates traditional notions ofscience with communicative rationality’s critical social theory origins.

The communicative model argues that reason derives from a communica-

10

tive practice that is specific to people, time and place. It maintains that reasonis a process that creates both means and ends and constitutes both subjectand object. Yet communicative rationality is not relativism or purely anindividual interpretive activity. Knowledge is derived through discourse inwhich the participants proceed according to consensual principles of validityand communication, in which they seek a rational basis for unifying dualismssuch as subject and object, knowledge and practice, and so on. It is thecommunicative process, then, that is the universal. The communicative modelassumes that consensual understanding is sought and can be approached.

Habermas’s theory of communicative action and its implications forplanning

Jürgen Habermas is the major figure in the development of communicativerationality. Habermas proposed communicative rationality as a form of ratio-nality that transcends scientific rationality while avoiding pure subjectivity.His work seeks to describe a form of reason that encompasses both means(instrumental rationality) and ends (teleological rationality). He responds tothe decline of logical positivism by attempting to create standards of truthand goodness that do not rely on ontological or transcendental bases, but aregrounded in a science of everyday communication. He integrates an interpretive(hermeneutic) approach with a causal, empirical/analytical approach rather thanarguing for one to the exclusion of the other. His theories attempt to bridgeand integrate science and ethics in an open, process-oriented model thatsupports a democratic social order.

Just as economic theory offers a criterion such as marginal cost pricing,or design theories might offer universal prescriptions about spatial arrange-ments, Habermas offers normative criteria for rational discourse (see Outhwaite(1998) for an overview of Habermas’s work). His notion of “ideal speech”would create a collective self consciousness about the claims to validity offeredin public discourse. For him, democracy prospers and is rational as we seekto approach ideal speech. Habermas (1979, 1984) uses four criteria to under-stand the rationality of communication and ideal speech. They are 1) thecomprehensibility of statements, 2) the accuracy of statements (their rela-tionship to the objective world), 3) the legitimacy of the speaker (in relationshipto the social world) and 4) the sincerity of the speaker (in relationship to thespeaker’s subjective world). These elements exist in the background of allpolicy discourse; considering them explicitly means making more transparentthe process by which communicative action occurs.

The implication of this model is that planners should work to reduce dis-tortions of communication and support conditions for discourse that recognizethe four elements mentioned above (Forester 1989). Distortions can range from

11

inevitable distortions related to patterns of speech (affecting comprehensibility),to deliberate distortions designed to conceal or make false claims. Obviously,such distortions can be sustained by power imbalances among those engagedin discussion. Better conditions for discourse emerge from carefully designedplanning and participatory processes that critically examine legitimacy,encourage sincerity, and enhance accuracy and comprehensibility.

From this base, Habermas considers how society might achieve the formof rationality he espouses. His concept of communicative action provides manyideas for planning. Communicative action is a circumstance in which the socialactors participate in dialogue/action with active and critical consideration ofthe bases for validity of the claims that they and others make. Through thisprocess, participants can arrive at more fully reasoned conclusions than theycan if they follow a narrower model of ends-means rationality.

Habermas’s concerns are directly relevant to planning. Forester (1989, 1993,1999) shows how planners can shape communicative practices to supportcommunicative action and counteract distortions to communication. Anexample of a distortion would be a transportation planner making what isessentially a moral claim on the basis of technical expertise. Further elabo-rating, Healey (1993) argues that communicative rationality is an interactiveand interpretive process that involves various “discourse communities.” It is“. . . a process of mutual learning through mutually trying to understand. . .” (Healey 1993, p. 243). Communicative planning creates not only programsof action but arenas in which programs are formulated, including multipledimensions of knowing, expressing and judging. They constitute a commu-nicative process that includes a critical perspective on how communicativeaction (a line of thinking or plan) occurs. Finally, Innes (1998) focuses oninformation in communicative processes. She argues that information“. . . becomes gradually embedded in the understandings of actors in thecommunity, through processes in which participants, including planners,collectively create meanings. The participants, moreover, rely on many typesof ’information’, and not primarily on formal analytic reports or quantitativemeasures.” (p. 53). In short, communicative rationality offers a framework thatcan help address some of the key dilemmas of transportation planning, suchas the relationships of facts and values.

The greatest misconception about communicative rationality is that it issimply “more participation.” Communicative rationality places language as thecore planning activity, and therefore is inclusive of community participation,modeling, policy exploration and politics. Communicative rationality is theworking out of claims, the interpretation of knowledge and values, and thesharing of facts and stories, while maintaining a critical self awareness ofthe ground rules for communication.

12

Applying communicative rationality to transportation planning

Can a new focus on language and communicative rationality respond to theweaknesses of instrumental rationality and the changing social context fortransportation planning? This section explores the implications.

Although communicative rationality is rarely spelled out in the step-by-step manner, Figure 2 attempts to remedy this by diagramming its implicationsfor transportation planning. Compared to Figure 1, discussed previously, thisapproach is not a sequence of discrete steps. Instead, the planning process trans-forms participants, knowledge and preferences. Figure 2 shows a dynamicplanning system that is transformed through time; its ultimate goal beingenhanced capacity for democratic deliberation and decision-making.

Participants in this form of transportation planning learn about ends andmeans and understand the perspectives of other stakeholders. The planningprocess is influenced by societal values, public opinion, stakeholders andinstitutions, but the process in turn may change societal values, public opinion,stakeholders and institutions, as indicated by the multidirectional arrows anddotted line between the outer and inner rings. Finally, the planning processconsiders ends and means simultaneously in the context of interpretive meaningand potential for action. Language, discourse and interpretation are the key

13

Figure 2. Planning process for communicative rationality.

method of achieving this interaction, as indicated by the multidirectional arrowsconnecting means, ends, meaning and action.

Table 1 expands consideration of the differences between models by com-paring instrumental and communicative rationality along six dimensions ofplanning: the role of the planner, the purpose of planning, the planning process,the communication process, problem framing and analysis/modeling. Thecolumn labeled “instrumental rationality” summarizes characteristics that werepreviously discussed. They are not discussed further because most readersare familiar with those aspects. The paragraphs that follow discuss the impli-

14

Table 1. Comparing instrumental and communicative rationality.

Issue Instrumental Rationality Communicative Rationality

1. Role of the Expert/analyst. Often a specialist Communicative expert with 1. planner (e.g., modeling, community affairs, technical knowledge and skill.

finance, etc.) Official role is Plays multiple roles--process design,objective, but usually plays a activist mediation, education and political role. technical roles. Self discloses roles.

2. Purpose of Problem solving and optimization, Reaching an understanding that 1. planning with a rational decision-maker as facilitates action. Increasing

the client. Finding the best solution capacity for reasoned deliberation for a fixed and known set of ends. and democratic decision-making.

3. Planning A sequence of linear steps (with Recursive process: fact, value and 1. process feedback). Assumes that facts and discovery are interlinked.

values can be addressed separately. Emphasizes learning and consensusAction follows knowledge. building. Is invented/modified as

part of the planning activity. Actionand knowledge are simultaneous.

4. Communication Planners’ communication is Communicative processes produce assumed to provide accurate meaning and linguistic “action”. representations of facts and values; Planners seek to improve the has standard meaning outside of validity with which claims are action. made, e.g., truthfulness, legitimacy

and sincerity.

5. Problem Problems can be defined and Multiple problem definitions and 1. framing bounded in a single frame; frames are acknowledged; problems

problems can be broken into pieces are broadly bounded. Planning and recombined; problems can be actively engages multiple problemdefined in the absence of solutions; frames, seeks creative redefinition.problems can be “solved”.

6. Analysis/ Reductionism, reliance on data Quick-response models used along 1. Modeling and models as forms of inquiry. with other forms of knowing.

Knowledge is empirically Modeling claims are part of established. discourse.

cations of communicative rationality model described in the right hand columnin Table 1, for the six dimensions of planning.

The text discusses the practice implications of a communicative rationalityform of transportation planning, while the accompanying text boxes high-light its application to a specific transportation policy, parking policy for railtransit station areas.

1. Role of the planner. Communicative rationality requires that transporta-tion planners function as communicative and technical experts who designand implement collaborative transportation planning processes. The mainfocus is helping decision-makers, stakeholders and the public learn aboutthe dimensions of transportation problems from one another and developingplans in a collaborative manner. But transportation planners are not justfacilitators – they articulate economic, social and technical knowledgeand represent values that might be neglected by other participants, suchas social justice or the interest of future generations.

Transportation planners are attentive to the way in which languageframes the possibilities for action, helping planning participants discoverhow information and metaphor to shape perceptions, preferences and policychoices.5 They seek arrangements with decision-making bodies that givethem the latitude to develop processes that promote inclusive and fairdiscussion. They seek to reduce communicative distortions brought aboutby unequal access to information, the influence of special interests, orthe restrictive nature of an engineering problem frame. Their work coun-teracts false claims and the disguising of value issues as technical issues.Planners articulate their own value positions as participants in the planningprocess, but disclose the basis for the claim (e.g., technical or moral).

Transportation planners balance specialized and interdisciplinary knowl-edge and participate in cross-functional teams. For example, modelersengage in participatory activities with the community so they understandindividuals’ motivations for travel behavior and the consequences of theiranalytic work. The role of the planner, then, is centrally as a communica-tive and process design expert with technical expertise – a person whocan design and guide processes for making sense about controversial issueswith decision-makers and the public. This greater range of discourse facil-itation, education, mediation and negotiation roles distinguishes thecommunicative rationality model from its instrumental rationality coun-terpart.

As mentioned, an example transportation planning issue – parking policyat fixed rail transit stations – follows in the text boxes for each of the sixdiscussion areas. The scenario is a transit agency considering parkingcharges for facilities in a regional rail transit system. Assume that the system

15

experiences high parking demand levels and is receiving pressure for policychange from the agency’s funding partners and stakeholders. A wide rangeof problem definitions, goals, and preferred means exist among staff,board members, stakeholders and the public.6

2. Purpose of planning. The purpose of transportation planning continues tobe to develop strategies for connecting people and goods with destina-tions. However, transportation planning is not divorced from larger issuessuch as the development of human potential, social justice, environmentalimprovement or aesthetic appreciation. Its purposes broaden from theprimary task of designing and selecting programs to enhancing the delib-erative capability of decision making bodies and the public, and promotinglearning about transportation phenomenon. Transportation planning alsoprovides a way for the public to reflect on broader social issues, such asthe relationship of travel choices to the environment and social equity.Transportation planning is a creative activity that adds meaning to people’slives as well as helping them link origins and destinations. It is intendedto increase the capacity for reasoned deliberation and democratic decision-making.

Whereas the larger project of instrumental rationality could be describedas increasing rationality, social progress and individual freedom, the largerproject of communicative rationality is to enhance the quality of commu-nity and political dialogue in support of democracy, creating a transportationplanning process that fully addresses both means and ends and links trans-portation issues to broader social concerns. The effects of this approachare greater attention to ends (goals), better integration of means and ends,new forms of participation and learning, and enhanced democratic capacity.

16

Example: The transportation planner explicitly identifies the roles heor she will play in leading the parking policy process. The planner seeksthe consent of decision-makers on those roles, e.g., technical expert,process facilitator, educator, coordinator, negotiator, shuttle diplomat,or mediator. These roles will change as the planning process progresses– some transitions are predictable and others depend on the uniquecircumstance of the planning exercise. For example, there may be aneed for a technical/education role in helping decision makers andthe public understand the dynamics of parking demand across thesystem, while later in the process the planner’s main focus might bemediating conflict between suburban and urban elected representatives.When there are multiple planners on the team a strategy can be craftedaround the strengths of team members in these various areas.

Because of the educational function of planning, planning documentsand presentations do more than document technical analysis – they engagethe public in thinking about fundamental questions, explore images, idealsand values, and open up the process to creative participation. Public par-ticipation is seen as a part of an ongoing learning process, not an episodicevent prior to the adoption of a new plan.

3. Planning process. As shown in Figure 2, communicative transportationplanning does not involve a linear progression from ends to means. Instead,it is an iterative process that transforms the decision environment and theparticipants themselves. Participants simultaneously consider means andends. Communicative transportation planning emphasizes listening, con-veying, interpreting, mediating and bridge-building between stakeholders– encouraging them to ease their commitment to pre-existing positionsand to share interests and goals. It is open to and influences the largercontext of societal values, public opinion, institutions and stakeholders.Consequently, communicative planning itself may develop or modify theplanning process. Finally, communicative transportation planning encour-ages a continuous critique about the planning process and its effects. Itdraws attention to that process rather than using a cookbook-like set ofprocedural steps for planning.7 Accordingly, communicative rationality

17

Example: The parking planning effort has multiple purposes: 1) todesign and implement parking policies; 2) to promote learning aboutthe ridership, fiscal, environmental and social equity goals of theagency; and 3) to build a deliberative capacity among decision-makersand community stakeholders for addressing other strategic transit issues.

The planning process helps decision-makers, stakeholders and thepublic learn about how transit agency goals are realized in specificpolicies and informs the broader goals of the transportation agencyand society. For example, one board member may see free surfaceparking as the impediment to economically feasible transit-orienteddevelopment while another might see it as a basic right of a commuter.The planning process helps them explain their perspectives, searchfor common ground and agree to tradeoffs. Similarly, discussion aboutthe distributional consequences of alternative parking charges may leadto discussion of broader station access strategies, or even a discoursethat redefines the mission of the organization. The parking issue is away of developing the strategic plan of the organization and can be acatalyst for broader public debate about transportation pricing, trans-portation equity and the environment.

involves experimental approaches because developing the planning processis an explicit part of the planning activity.

Planning processes are designed with attention to the time it takes fordecision-makers and stakeholders to learn and adopt new positions. A com-municative planning process has simultaneous research, forecasting, valueexploration, and alternative testing activities, ensuring that each elementinforms the other. Modeling and research, for example, is an on-goingprocess that responds to policy questions as they occur rather than a discretestep that produces a product for policy consideration.

4. Communicative practices. Communication reveals knowledge, values andpreferences, but also constructs roles for participants, makes appeals tolegitimacy and creates new understandings. Communicative action is atthe core of learning and deciding. The range of acceptable communica-

18

Example: Parking policy goals and policy options are addressed simul-taneously because decision-makers will not endorse parking goals (suchas making parking economically productive) without knowing what thatmeans in terms of programs that affect their constituents. The giveand take between means and ends is used as an educational processconcerning microeconomics, community planning, and customerservice. Workshop-type activities allow planners, decision-makers andthe public to explore goal/program combinations, learning more aboutboth elements. This process is supported by analytic capability to dosketch planning type exercises, e.g., analysis of parking utilizationpatterns, station access modes, parking operation costs, etc. A diverserange of public outreach strategies/approaches is used, includingtraditional hearings, workshops and discussions with stakeholdergroups. Parking policy and program development is part of an on-goingprocess of enhancing station area access rather than a one-time event.

The transportation planner guides participatory processes so theyfacilitate the expression and sharing of values but resist prematurebargaining over specific policy options. For example, if one boardmember wants more free parking provided, participatory processescan delve into the goals behind that recommendation and open up awider consideration of alternatives.

The transportation planner provides a conceptual framework toparticipants that sets parking in a larger context and explains oppor-tunities for more effective policy. Parking policy, for example, canbe placed in the context of new ideas in customer service, asset man-agement and travel demand management.

tion forms is widened – both literal and metaphoric speech enlarge under-standing and insight. Stories, anecdotes, creative expressions and otherqualitative information become valid complements to data and forecasts.Processes of discourse and interpretation create an opportunity to searchfor transformations of understanding and points of agreement even whendecision-makers seem to have opposing or incommensurable perspectives.In short, communicative practices focus on creating meaning and mutualunderstanding to enrich the basis for deciding and acting.

Transportation planners are clear about the basis upon which they makeclaims in their own communication and they disclose analytic and value-bases for their own claims. They build relationships with decision-makersso they are given some room to act as discourse “referees”, identifyingcircumstances in which communication is distorted or dominated by narrowinterests (e.g., a construction company lobbyist arguing that alternativesbe limited to a narrow range of capital intensive projects). They are alertnot only to the exercise of this power, but the way in which language andparticipation are structured to allow this to happen. They act with cautionin translating concerns and interests into technical language and seek toavoid making value differences appear as technical problems.

Conditions that support communication, dialogue, learning and decidingare a high priority. They create activities that allow participants to stepout of adversarial and bargaining roles and into a process of articulating,understanding and redefining interests. Planners frame discussions in waysthat shift the focus from bargaining over what are assumed to be pre-existingpositions to discovering the interests and perceptions of participants.

Transportation planners draw attention to how language defines problemsand solutions. For example, they seek to understand speech acts more fully,distinguishing different forms of speech in their interpretation of dialogueand their own speech. Statements may assert that an expressed proposi-tion is true, direct another person to act (in the form of questions orcommands), commit the speaker to a future course of action, express apsychological state, or declare action. If the participants to a discussionare engaging in different forms of speech acts without awareness, theymay well talk past one another. Communicative transportation plannerscreate awareness about speech, seeking to help participants understandone another. In designing participatory activities, planners encouragesincerity of expression and examination of the legitimacy with which claimsare made, and in the process, enrich the quality of political claims.

19

5. Problem-framing. A communicative rationality model frames problemsdifferently than the conventional model. Rather than assume that problemscan be defined and bounded in a single frame, communicative plannersplace greater emphasis on acknowledging different problem frames andmediating between frames. A problem frame is a construct that organizesone’s understanding of problems, their causes and the effectiveness ofalternative responses.8 Although the existence of different problem framessuggest that participants to planning do not agree on the criteria by which

20

Example: Discourse about parking is linked to notions about the futureof cities, sustainability and progress so that parking policy optionsare relevant to the larger questions about which people care. Forexample, some might see plentiful free parking at rail transit stationsas a sign of a well designed transit system while for others the samecondition is seen as worsening automobile dependence and contributingto sprawl. Common ground may be found around notions of accessimprovement, and that common ground might be a base for planningthat could address more controversial parking policies.

Transportation planners seek processes that ease the adversarialrhetoric used in debating parking issues. If planning policy is seen asa zero-sum game, where one point of view can gain only at the expenseof the other, all discourse will be strategic and purposeful. However,the longer participants can be kept in a pre-negotiating stance, the morelikely they will learn from one another and invent new solutions tothe problem at hand.

Planners are attentive to the tension between different modes oflanguage. For example, the anecdotes told by decision-makers andthe public (e.g., “You’ll never guess what happened when I lookedfor a parking space this morning . . .”) are different from the analyticdiscourse of transportation planners. Communicative transportationplanners find important information about values embedded in storiesand seek to guide communicative processes to balance the richnessof individual experience with good analytic bases for decisions.

The planner provides written, oral and graphic communication thatexplains concepts such as marginal cost pricing or cross subsidy issuesin non-technical language, providing ways of understanding thatdecision-makers and the public can internalize. For example, the ideaof latent demand ridership replacement associated with parking chargescan be represented more easily graphically than in words and numbers.Planners offer decision-makers technical and metaphoric devices tocommunicate key parking issues with constituents.

one might judge a rational decision, communicative rationality providesa basis for examining and seeking redefinition of problem frames. In doingso, the planning process becomes more realistic and transparent, albeitpotentially more complicated. In fact, the acknowledgment of differentproblem frames can be an effective strategy for depersonalizing conflict.

Decision-makers may discourage planners from identifying problemframes if that process sharpens conflict or empowers opposing groups.Recognizing this reality, communicative planners seek appropriate waysto facilitate understanding of alternative frames, alter pre-existing problemframes, and/or discover new ways that respond to multiple frames. The ideais not pure relativism, where all frames have equal value, but to establisha rational process where some frames hold greater weight on the basis ofa better argument.

A better argument will not emerge if exclusion, unequal power andvarying access to information and expertise exist among stakeholders.Therefore, communicative transportation planners take advantage ofopportunities to counteract distortions of communication along the linessuggested by Forester (1989). A planner might indicate how a way ofdefining a problem might exclude consideration of an important issue oran unexpressed interest that is influencing the plan’s direction. Furthermore,planners draw attention to how language and discourse is used to construct,modify and reconcile these problem frames. Because the planner is notseparate from the planning process, s/he also discovers how her or hisown frames guide perception and thinking about solutions.

21

Example: Assume that a decision-maker believes that more parkingshould be constructed and provided free of charge at transit stations.That view rests upon a certain way of looking at the problem. Theplanning process must examine the perspectives and bases underlyingthe positions of different participants. Once these bases are revealedand engaged, a wider range of problem solutions may emerge. Inexploring the need for parking, the problem could be reframed as accessenhancement, which would bring in a wider range of solutions.However, it is unlikely that any decision-making body will adopt asingle problem frame. Rather, the planning process can make problemframes a bit more flexible and open, which in turns allows for creativeredefinitions of problems. Decision-makers consider parking timelimits, pricing, new parking services in relation to different problemframes (e.g., maximize ridership by adding parking versus a maximizelong-term ridership through transit-oriented development) and seek aworkable consensus on what to do. The problem framing process is

6. Analysis/Modeling. Data analysis and modeling are crucial elements of com-municative planning but they are in the service of deliberative processes,not ends in themselves. They serve group processes, not a unitary decisionmaker. To function as discourse, models are quick-response so they becomepart of the flow of conversation in which decisions are made and plansare developed. Obviously, if models are to become part of the conversa-tion, they must integrate transportation, land use, demographic, social andenvironmental consequences simultaneously. They must answer the ques-tions people ask, quickly. Guhathakurta (1999) provides an explanationof how communicative modeling systems might work in describing a GroupDecision Support System (GDSS).

Models developed under a communicative rationality model would notrestrict the variables to numeric information. Such models are based onan understanding that language is at the core of travel behavior – behaviorthat is shaped by notions of utility but also by history, identity and culture.Furthermore, language is the way in which the numeric results of modelingprojects are understood and made meaningful. Numeric and languagedimensions, therefore, are treated in an integrated fashion.

Quantitative and qualitative models are used as learning devices toexplore how different ways of perceiving conditions and understandingproblems might lead to different conclusions about future conditions andthe merits of alternative transportation plans. They are also used to moveconversations away from personal disagreements and fixed positions andtoward substantive examination of phenomenon and values. Thereforedata analysis and modeling takes a place along with and in support ofother modes of knowing, such as qualitative analysis of historical, socialor spatial aspects, aesthetic appreciation and moral exploration. Formalanalytic techniques are not privileged over other forms of knowing.Accordingly, analysis and modeling budgets commit resources to studyingqualitative dimensions of travel behavior.

Finally, the logic of models does not become the logic of planning,e.g., the metaphors introduced by the four-step UTPS model do not deter-mine the way that problems are framed. The structures contained in modelsare not confused with the behavioral dimensions of travel behavior.

22

dynamic, not static, so planners guide this process over time, takinginto account external forces (such as demands by funding partners),shifting composition of decision making bodies, changing public valuesand new precedents established elsewhere.

Is communicative rationality a promising model for transportationplanning?

The prospects for communicative rationality in transportation planning dependon many factors. The paper has reviewed criticisms of instrumental rationality,changes in societal context for transportation planning, and explained theidea of communicative rationality. This section reviews arguments againstcommunicative rationality and those that support it.

The promise is insufficient to displace the traditional model

Communicative rationality aspires to conditions where all participants canreach an understanding about the context for planning, the options for action,and the values that inform choice. Furthermore, it assumes that they agreeto coordinate their actions. In these ideal conditions, more powerful groupsor individuals are not able to manipulate and control communication, andunderstanding and consensual positions can be found.

Flyvbjerg (1998) uses a transportation planning case study to make an

23

Example: Parking policy alternatives have implications for transitsystem ridership, revenues and costs, customer satisfaction, jointdevelopment at transit stations and other critical issues. Modelingresponds to the process of problem reframing and policy generationby answering “what if” questions as they emerge, e.g., Is the netrevenue generation of a modest parking charge worth the politicalcost of imposing parking charges? What happens to those who choseto not pay for parking; do they switch access modes or leave thetransit system? What is the mid-day demand that might emerge ifmore spaces are made available? These “what if” questions areanalytically challenging and interdisciplinary, encompassing ridership,fiscal impacts, public perception, environmental impact, relationshipswith funding partners and communities, and the political future ofelected representatives. Quick response modeling can further learningprocesses and support consensus-building activities.

It is not enough to present modeling-based estimates of the impacts– decision-makers, stakeholders and the public need to understandthe concepts embedded in the models. Analytic concepts such as latentdemand and marginal cost pricing are explained, illustrated and taughtthrough the use of models.

argument that the context for rationality is power – power that turns rationalityinto rationalization. He might challenge the characterizations offered here,arguing that they are based on naîve idealism, rather than what really happens.Indeed, one could argue that communicative rationality is best suited to a“blank slate” planning exercise undistorted by power and unconstrained bygovernment regulations and funding formulae. Furthermore, the communica-tive dimensions introduced by planners might seem “soft” compared to the“hard” numbers provided by traffic engineers, and therefore be judged lessworthy.

Transportation planning practitioners might envisage that communicativerationality would result in time consuming, unrepresentative and expensiveplanning processes that will not move beyond expressions of individuals’self interest. Transportation planners may shudder at the thought of “openingup” transportation planning, thinking that the only way to move policy forwardis to control discourse enough so that a working consensus can be created.

Transportation planning, by virtue of the large capital investment and impacton land value, attracts powerful interests who seek to manipulate communi-cation to their advantage. Without the authority achieved by claiming scientificexpertise, transportation planners may be unable to resist projects that areill-conceived or wasteful but nonetheless linguistically appealing (e.g., whena nostalgia for rail transit supports a light rail project that is not cost effec-tive). For many transportation planners, science is more important than wordsin counteracting special interest lobbying.

Critics of communicative rationality might also challenge the notionsadvanced for ideal discourse. For example, sincerity is at odds with conven-tional technocratic behavior (e.g., since planners claim objectivity, sincerityis irrelevant). As has been said, planners are sometimes directed to beinaccurate. Such critics might even argue that transportation planners shoulddistort language in a strategic manner. First, communicative distortions are asource of power in an environment where the planner’s influence is sometimesoutweighed by special interests. Second, more subtly, if the only way areasonable consensus for action can be achieved is by watering down andmystifying policy language, distorted communicative practices may in factallow progress to be achieved. Finally, is it too much to ask to expect prac-titioners to not manipulate information and language to gain advantage for theirorganizations and themselves?

Friedmann (1987) criticizes communicative action as being disconnectedfrom action and power. His comment that communicative action is “the idealof a graduate seminar” suggests that it is too idealistic for the reality of inter-ests, power relationships and politics. Practicing transportation planners mayalso ask if they can actually guide the communicative processes that swirlaround planning.

24

Adopting a communicative rationality model will undermine traditionalforms of professional authority for transportation planners. Transportationplanners receive good salaries in part because of their linkages with engineeringand a scientific approach. As well, the technocratic role provides distance frompotentially career-threatening political conflict. Decision-makers want tocontrol the discourse environment surrounding planning and may see no advan-tage is allowing planners more authority in this area.

Finally, the broadest concern with this approach comes from those whoreject the philosophical underpinnings of communicative action. For trans-portation planners basing their work on a positivist tradition, whose problemframe is “getting the prices right” and protecting freedom of choice, com-municative rationality may sound like a recipe for coercion of the many bythe few. To the postmodern critic of transportation planning, the hope for areinvigorated modernism based on communicative rationality may seem naiveand ill suited to a fragmented, diverse society.

The promise is substantial

I maintain that communicative rationality is a desirable and practical approachto transportation planning. Communicative rationality can help transporta-tion planning move beyond its objectivist roots to a broader epistemologicalbase. It can support innovative approaches to transportation problems and helpplanners move forward from seemingly intractable conflicts. While perhapsrequiring more time in its initial stages, it can move more quickly thanconventional planning if it avoids decades-long, litigious controversies.Communicative rationality can enhance the quality of deliberation and supportconsensus-based decisions. It can help decision-makers find a way out ofintractable conflicts that might endanger their political careers.

Many effective transportation planning practitioners already employ it.When decisions are made and plans are adopted, those acts are based on appealsto communicative rationality, even if the participants do not have in mind aframework related to accuracy, legitimacy and sincerity. Model results, costbenefit analysis and impact analyses are of little use without communicativeprocesses that allow planners, decision-makers and members of the commu-nity to make sense of them. Planners are confined to limited roles if they donot fully participate in the communicative realm. Building on these generalpoints about its desirability and practicality for planning, the paragraphs thatfollow discuss why communicative rationality has great potential for trans-portation planning.

Transportation planning is a language-based activity. Transportation planningis based on meaning, not numbers. Planners will always use numbers to develop

25

and present plans. Data on existing and predicted conditions is vital, but thelevel of service at an intersection is nothing more than information. Theplanning idea always comes from the linguistic realm, something imagined,discussed, linked to stories and meanings.

Richmond’s 1998 exploration of the mythical conceptions used to justifyrail transit projects that do not pass traditional cost effectiveness tests demon-strates the importance of language in the planning process. The stories toldby decision-makers and planners seem stronger than the numbers providedby analysts. Furthermore, some types of language can limit the terrain of theplanning process, introducing barriers and mistrust. The 710 Freeway com-pletion controversy in Los Angeles is one case where participants perceivedplanning as an “either/or” battle. The discourse that ensued failed to fosterlearning among stakeholders, learning that could have produced new alter-natives.

Attention to language is already changing the practice of regional trans-portation planning. For example, Southern California’s regional transportationplan has a name, Communitylink 21, instead of just being called the RegionalTransportation Plan as it was in previous years (SCAG 1998). This is signif-icant because name suggests some of the key concepts of the plan. The plan usesperformance indicators that are expressed in everyday language, such as speedand delay rather than level of service or volume/capacity ratios. This makesit more possible for the plan to be part of policy and community discourse.

The “problem” of transportation planning increasingly requires a commu-nicative rationality approach. The terrain of transportation planning has shiftedfrom engineering problems (in which behavior following mechanistic andimmutable laws) to travel behavior questions beyond the scope of currentconditions. The terrain has shifted from building new highways to managingtravel behavior and services. This shift in emphasis makes language and dis-course more important because they underpin the roots of the behavioralphenomena that are of interest. When transportation planning considers issuessuch as ridesharing, car-sharing, telecommuting, or vehicle choice, the lin-guistically formed meanings people assign to their actions are powerful policylevers. A shift from instrumental rationality to communicative rationality isthe key to addressing these new issues.

Conventional transportation planning is not sufficiently creative to addresscurrent problems. Instrumental rationality tends to be a reductive processthat narrows possibilities rather than expanding them. When there are unrec-onciled problem frames in the background there is little learning, redefinitionof problem frames, or opportunity to discover new approaches. Althoughtechnological innovations and research eventually find their way into trans-

26

portation planning, there is sameness in the way of understanding the problemand the type of solutions that are considered. When, for example, is the lasttime a regional transportation plan developed a truly new idea?

There is real urgency to finding new solutions to transportation problems,yet transportation plans rarely produce them. Many regional transportationplans include projects and behavioral assumptions that are unlikely to berealized. They may produce the necessary conformity findings, but many aredeficient in terms of helping their regions develop innovative policies and maketough choices. When this occurs, transportation planning starts to move outof the hands of public agencies, as private innovations produce “work-arounds”such as telecommunication replacement of travel, and employers and resi-dents vote with their feet by leaving regions that cannot manage their growthand transportation systems.

Communicative distortions impede effective transportation planning.Communicative distortions create serious problems for the transportationplanning process. The ideal of instrumental rationality breaks down whenthe participants in planning refuse to follow its structure. Decision-makers resistprocesses that separate means from ends, the public resists restricted problemframes, and planners often play limited technical roles. Modelers lack credi-bility if their conceptual framework does not include the dynamics of publicperception and decision-making. Communicative rationality may help trans-portation planners understand and resolve the dichotomous way that they oftenthink about the rational and political dimensions of their work.

Transportation planners often give confusing messages about the scope oftheir power and the constraints they face. For example, if air quality confor-mity issues really determine transportation policy, a failure to disclose thatrelationship mystifies the public. Given planning processes that are difficultto interpret, members of the public take the easiest route – ignoring the wholeprocess or practicing focused issue advocacy. In the communicative environ-ment around most transportation planning, few are willing to learn somethingnew. Communicative rationality can create a planning process that rebuilds thequality of discourse and the deliberative capacity of institutions and the public.

The transportation problems of major metropolitan areas provide a strongimpetus for improved transportation planning. Furthermore, enabling legisla-tion in North American and Europe emphasizes a more adaptable and opentransportation planning process. But ultimately, it is the discomfort thatplanners, politicians and the public feel with status quo transportation planningthat suggests that change is coming. The profession should proactively examineits planning processes, reevaluate its planning methods, experiment withalternatives, and build capacity for new approaches.

27

How can this change occur? Regional transportation organizations canlead the way, supported by Federal and state programs that recognize the valueof communicative planning. New forms of professional education shouldaddress listening skills, writing and speaking for diverse, non-technical audi-ences, mediation and consensus building processes, qualitative researchmethods and social theory. Researchers and practitioners need to developand document new processes for transportation planning, conduct case studiesof best practices and further develop models based on theory and fieldexperience (see Anson and Willis 1993). Finally, theorists need to help resolvethe challenges that new models encounter in practice.

When an espoused theory (instrumental rationality) and a theory-in-useare at odds, it creates a baffling set of discourses for decision-makers andthe public. The resulting confusion harms the planning process. Transportationresearch and practice communities should come together to develop trans-portation planning processes that are suited to the problems and the societalcontext of the coming decades. We must be able to recognize dysfunctionaltransportation planning processes when they occur and have the courage andinitiative to develop new approaches. The world has changed – the problemsare different, the institutions are different, and the values are different.Language is not a mirror, but the very basis for planning. This new recogni-tion challenges us to integrate theory and practice and develop new processesfor transportation planning. Communicative rationality offers a promising placeto start.

Acknowledgements

I would like to acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Jeffrey Brown, DouglasFeremenga, Ann Forsyth, Robin Scherr, and the anonymous reviewers.Sabbatical release time from California State Polytechnic University, Pomonasupported this research effort.

Notes

1. Instrumental rationality is a form of rationality in which optimal means (policies, programs,projects, etc.) are sought to fulfill desired ends (goals, objectives, standards, etc.) Meansare selected using objective, empirical analyses. For example, in transportation planningthis has traditionally meant an exploration of the most cost-effective methods of providingmobility.

2. This model is found in many other transportation planning textbooks, including Dickey (1983)and Shunk (1992), and it is embedded in many of the planning requirements of the evolvingFederal transportation planning requirements that have culminated in the TEA-21.

28

3. The emphasis on technical issues can be so strong that the distinction between planning theoryand analytic tools is blurred. A symptom of such a problem is when traditional four-stepmodeling systems become the planning process. Furthermore, the recent emphasis on graphicrepresentations of traffic flows and congestion carry with them the meta message thattransportation planning is a scientific/technical activity--that solutions are a click of the mouseaway rather than a reflection of complex interrelated aspects of human behavior.

4. The reader might wonder why postmodernism is discussed in a paper that introduces theideas of Habermas. Habermas is usually seen as seeking to create a new basis for themodernist project. I do not find a contradiction in this. Observing trends in society is differentthan thinking about how planning should be carried out. Habermas’s ideas are an appro-priate response to the social conditions that are termed postmodernism.

5. A metaphor is a word or phrase used to represent something else. For example, gridlock isa metaphor for Level of Service F, and ‘F’ is a metaphor for a particular set of trafficdensity and flow conditions. Metaphors can help simplify and communicate in useful ways,but they can also confuse. For example, policy makers often declare “we can’t build ourway out of the problem” in discussing solutions to congestion. This metaphor represents acomplicated set of issues related to triple convergence, latent demand, funding availabilityand community acceptance of roadbuilding, and therefore may confuse as much as enlighten.The point of communicative rationality is to be aware of the way in which metaphors shapediscourse and understanding.

6. Under the conventional instrumental rationality approach, one would base parking policyobjectives on strategic goals about ridership, fiscal health and rider satisfaction, and thenconduct an analysis of the most appropriate parking strategies or pricing policies along thelines described in Table 1. Planners would conduct public outreach, evaluate alternatives,and recommend a program. Economic principles regarding parking demand elasticity, latentdemand, marginal cost pricing, and cross subsidies would figure prominently in such a report.

7. The cookbook approach disguises how process influences outcomes by encouraging a viewthat the process is “neutral” or “natural”. It directs attention away from broader questionsand toward technical ones.

8. Dryzek (1993) notes various frames of reference within social science (e.g., welfareeconomics, public choice, information processing, etc.), all of which may be brought tobear on a transportation planning problem. In addition, multiple problem frames may relateto interests and ideology (e.g., regional mobility versus local impact mitigation, or economicefficiency versus an equity-of-accessibility). Finally, problem frames are shaped by fundingstructures and the procedural requirements imposed by higher levels of government.

References

Altschuler A (1979) The Urban Transportation System: Politics and Policy Innovation.Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

Anson G & Willis K (1993) Planning with vision: The development of traffic strategies forMelbourne. Transportation 20: 59–75.

Alexander Ernest (2000) Rationality revisited: Planning paradigms in a post-postmodernistperspective. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19: 242–256.

Argyris C & Schon D (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. SanFrancisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishing Company.

Dickey J (1983) Metropolitan Transportation Planning. New York: Hemisphere PublishingCorporation.

Dryzek J (1993) Policy Analysis and Planning: From Science to Argument. In: Fisher F & Forester

29

J (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (pp 211–241). Durham,NC: Duke University Press.

Flyvbjerg B (1998) Rationality and Power: Democracy in Practice. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Fisher F & Forester J (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning. Durham,NC: Duke University Press.

Forester J (1999) The Deliberative Practitioner. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Forester J (1993) Critical Theory, Public Policy and Planning Practice. Albany, NY: State

University of New York Press.Forester J (1989) Planning the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the Public Domain: From Knowledge to Action. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.Guhathakurta S (1999) Urban modeling and contemporary planning theory: Is there a common

ground? Journal of Planning Education and Research 18: 281–292.Habermas J (1979) Communications and the Evolution of Society. Translated by McCarthy T.

Boston: Beacon Press.Habermas J (1984) The Theory of Communicative Action: Volume 1. Reason and the

Rationalization of Society. Boston: Beacon Press.Harvey G (1985) Research directions in travel demand analysis. Transportation Research A 19A:

455–459.Healey P (1993) Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory. In:

Fisher F & Forester J (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis and Planning (pp121–148). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Innes J (1995) Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactivepractice. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14: 183–189.

Kuhn T (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edition. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Meyer M & Miller E (1984) Urban Transportation Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach.New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Milroy BM (1991) Into postmodern weightlessness. Journal of Planning Education and Research10: 181–187.

Outhwaite W (1998) Habermas: A Critical Introduction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Pas E (1995) The urban transportation planning process. In: Hanson S (ed) The Geography of

Urban Transportation, 2nd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.Richmond J (1998) The mythical conception of rail transit in Los Angeles. Journal of Architecture

and Planning Research 15: 294–320.Shunk G (1992) Urban transportation systems. In: Edwards J Jr (ed) Transportation Planning

Handbook. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Southern California Association of Governments (1998) Communitylink 21: 1998 Regional

Transportation Plan. Los Angeles, CA: Southern California Association of Governments.Talvitie A (1997) Things planners believe in, and things they deny. Transportation 24: 1–31.Taylor B (1995) Program performance versus system performance: An explanation for the inef-

fectiveness of performance-based transit subsidy programs. Transportation Research Record:Public Transit 1496: 43–51.

Throgmorton JA (1993) Survey research as rhetorical trope: Electric power planning argumentsin Chicago. In: Fisher F & Forester J (eds) The Argumentative Turn in Policy Analysis andPlanning (pp 78–96). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Wachs M (1985) Planning, organizations and decision-making: A research agenda. TransportationResearch A 19A: 521–531.

Wachs M (1985) When planners lie with numbers. Journal of the American Planning Association55: 476–479.

30

Wachs M (1995) The political context of transportation policy. In: Hanson S (ed) The Geographyof Urban Transportation, 2nd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

About the author

Richard Willson is a professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planningat California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. His research interests includetransportation planning theory and process, travel demand management and parkingpolicy. In addition, he has extensive experience in strategic planning for academicand regional transportation organizations.

31