Experience in judging controversial road projects

Abstract

Abstract Road construction of all kinds, especially of urban motorways, has in recent years acquired a very bad reputation in industrialized countries. Traffic engineers are, because of their attitude, not entirely without blame for this development. With their attention glued nearly hypnotically to dimensions and technical design, considerations about the meaning and function of the construction are very often neglected, all the more since the engineers might otherwise risk their own jobs. It is, however, becoming increasingly clear that the cause of the scepticism and uneasiness prevailing in the public is the lack of a comprehensive judgement. Using a concrete example, this paper describes how decision‐making can degenerate when such judgement is omitted. Using a second example, it is then demonstrated how such a comprehensive judgement can be integrated in decision‐making from the very beginning. Such an integration sets very high methodological and procedural standards and constructive aids are offered for this purpose. It is shown that, while the substantial findings of a comprehensive judgement should be logically consistent, plausible and up to the latest standard of knowledge, the nature and intelligibility of the presentation and the preparedness for a publicly presented explanation in the form of ‘after‐care’ are of much greater importance for decision‐making in the political sphere. This ‘after‐care’ should accordingly become an indispensable component of the decision‐making process. All those involved should become aware of the fact that a ‘positive’ result of decision‐making in the field of road construction is not a priori defined as the construction of road and a ‘negative’ one as its prevention. The actual positive result is rather the creation of a consciousness of the problem on hand, which can serve as a basis on which a decision is taken in full realization of all its consequences.