This is a closed event.
Amid an era of deep uncertainty, transport planning is undergoing a fundamental transformation. Over the past two decades, travel behaviours have shifted in unexpected ways—slowing car use, increasing cycling, the emergence of new mobility services, and pandemic‑driven changes such as reduced travel and widespread remote work. These shifts were not predicted because they stem primarily from broader societal and lifestyle changes rather than changes within the transport system itself. The Covid‑19 pandemic further accelerated disruptions, creating lasting effects.
In this context, conventional planning approaches are grounded in forecasting future demand based on past relationships, be these population growth or vehicle ownership. However, transport demand is not independent of planning decisions. It is actively shaped by infrastructure provision, service levels and spatial accessibility. Failure to account for this dynamic interaction risks reinforcing self-fulfilling planning logics, inducing additional demand and hindering transformative changes. Moreover, conventional planning approaches typically only factor in lower levels of uncertainty, making them less suited for the increasingly volatile and complex realities of the transport sector.
An alternative paradigm, decide‑and‑provide or vision‑led planning, has therefore gained prominence. Vision‑led planning begins by defining the desired future for society and the role of transport systems within it. Though it does not imply a rejection of past planning practices, it reflects the need to explicitly articulate expected societal outcomes that were previously implicit. It acknowledges uncertainty and the limitations of forecasting, incorporates multiple possible futures (including low‑probability but high‑impact scenarios), and uses these to inform robust decision‑making. This approach integrates the vision into a decision-making framework, enabling planners and policymakers to make strategic choices that align with broader societal goals.
Effective vision‑led planning relies on structured analytical tools and corresponding competencies throughout the process. A clear vision, supported by a realistic timeline, provides a shared direction, motivates stakeholders, and anchors the plan’s intended outcomes, while collaborative governance supports coordinated implementation. A key strength of this approach is its flexibility, enabling policy measure adjustments as uncertainties arise.
However, moving towards vision‑led planning requires a significant cultural and institutional shift. It challenges established norms and demands an explicit high-level political mandate to sustain change. Governments must move beyond short‑term trend thinking, embrace uncertainty, and adopt strategic foresight and whole‑of‑government approaches. This transition also requires broader collaboration across ministries, government levels, industry, and civil society, supported by new governance mechanisms and consensus‑building to legitimise long‑term, potentially transformative change.
Suggested topics for discussion:
1. What opportunities and challenges do governments face in adopting vision‑led transport planning under deep uncertainty and long‑term adaptability needs? What lessons have emerged so far? How can governments promote cross-sectoral coordination and integrated planning approaches between transport and other sectors of the economy (e.g., land-use, energy, digital)? How have governments and transport authorities structured the uptake of analytical tools and built the necessary internal capabilities (e.g., specialised units, outsourcing, capacity‑building)?
2. How can stakeholders foster a cultural shift towards vision‑led transport planning in policy and practice? What mechanisms can improve coordination within governments (“whole-of-government approaches”) and between governments and stakeholders (industry, civil society, academia) in planning towards a common desirable future? How can governments secure the political and institutional mandate required to move from conventional approaches to truly transformative vision‑led planning?
