Advertisement

Examining the Influence of Political Factors on the Design of a New Road

  • Paulo Rui AnciaesEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

Transport policy is often influenced by political factors. The few existing studies on this topic analyse patterns arising from a series of past decisions. This chapter adds to this knowledge by exploring the implications of political bias in the design of an individual project. The objective is to compare socially and politically optimal decisions for different hypothesis about the level and nature of political bias. GIS methods are used to derive route alignments for a new road, taking into account the level and distribution of community severance effects. The results show that even when bounding the problem with several restrictions, attending to political interests leads to deviations from the social optimum, producing alignments not only with higher aggregate severance impacts, but also with higher land use costs and important distributional effects.

Keywords

Optimal Route Political Factor Transport Infrastructure Vote Share Arterial Road 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology. Thanks go to Giles Atkinson, Steve Gibbons, Helena Titheridge and Andrew Lovett for their comments.

References

  1. Boschken HL (1998) Upper-middle-class influence on developmental policy outcomes: the case of transit infrastructure. Urban Stud 35(4):627–647CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. BrentRJ (1976) The Minister of Transport’s social welfare function: a study of the factors behind railway closure decisions (1963–1970). PhD thesis, University of ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  3. Brooks N, Sethi R (1997) The distribution of pollution: community characteristics and exposure to air toxics. J Environ Econ Manag 32(2):233–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burstein P, Linton A (2002) The impact of political parties, interest groups, and social movement organizations on public policy: some recent evidence and theoretical concerns. Soc Forces 81(2):380–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Camacho DE (1998) The environmental justice movement: a political framework. In: Camacho DE (ed) Environmental injustices, political struggles—race, class and the environment. Duke University Press, Durham, pp 11–30Google Scholar
  6. Castells A, Solé-Ollé A (2005) The regional allocation of infrastructure investment: the role of equity, efficiency and political factors. Eur Econo Rev 49(5):1165–1205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Congleton RD, Bennett RW (1995) On the political economy of state highway expenditures: Some evidence of the relative performance of alternative public choice models. Public Choice 84(1/2):1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Earnhart D (2004) The effects of community characteristics on polluter compliance levels. Land Econ 80(3):408–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hamilton JT (1993) Politics and social costs: estimating the impact of collective action on hazardous waste facilities. Rand J Econ 24(1):101–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamilton JT (1995) Testing for environmental racism: prejudice, profits, political power? J Policy Anal Manage 14(1):107–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hårsman B, Quigley JM (2010) Political and public acceptability of congestion pricing: ideology and self-interest. J Policy Anal Manage 29(4):854–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hillman M (1997) Public policy on the green modes. In: Tolley R (ed) The greening of urban transport, Chapter 6, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester, pp 71–79Google Scholar
  13. Jussila Hammes J (2012) The political economy of infrastructure planning in Sweden: supporting analyses. Centre for Transport Studies Stockholm—Working papers in Transport Economics 2012, vol 21Google Scholar
  14. Schade J, Schlag B (eds) (2003) Acceptability of transport pricing strategies. Elsevier, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Taylor BD, Kim EJ, Gahbauer JE (2010) The thin red line—a case study of political influence on transportation planning practice. J Plann Educ Res Dec 29(2):173–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Walden ML, Eryuruk G (2012) Determinants of local highway spending in North Carolina. Growth Change 43(3):462–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.London School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations