Water and Sewage
Green Blue
Buildings & land use
Project Summary Project Description Application of Tools Opinion of Tools Decision making process Contact Details

Decision making process

Name of the case study
Helsinki Metropolitan Area Transport System Plan (PLJ 2002)

Decision making process - stages
Firstly a transport system plan was produced and the impacts of all measures were studied. Simultaneously a land use estimate was formed in close co-operation, and finally four alternative transport systems were compared in an impact assessment. On the basis of the results the alternatives were finalised, and a combined approach was composed and recommended to the decision makers. This alternative was also operationalised: the list of investments included was released.

Decision making process - levels
The decision-making during the process was mainly technical and done by a project group consisting of e.g. mayors, experts and representatives of various (state) administrations - but the politicians were informed regularly.

Decision making process - sources of information
Transport and land-use planners in the municipalities provided information during the decision making process as did the transport operators, road and rail administrations etc. with all their knowledge and data; forecasts.

Decision making process - who are the decision makers
The project decision-makers were members of the project group. The political decision on accepting the strategy was made in the Metropolitan Area Council, where the members are politicians chosen by the participating municipalities. The organisations involved, but not in control by the Metropolitan Area (e.g State Road Administration) were asked successfully to approve the strategy.

Decision making process - who made the final decision for project implementation
The decision of implementing the chosen strategy in principle was political (see d.). What is essential is that the implementing of particular investments included in the strategy needs another (political) decision by the organisation implementing the investment in the future, and that is not self-evident. For example, even if the State Road Administration now accepted the Plan, in reality there could not be a 100% certainty that a particular road would be built in the year 2010, accordingly to the plan as situations can change.

Name of tool
Multi-criteria analysis -(Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (YTV))

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
The tool was implemented by the experts and the results were used by politicians at all stages of the process. The tool had enormous effect on the process, since the whole procedure was composed around the tool output; there is no existing decision-making process for this kind of complex procedure, which is only needed from time to time.

The benchmarks were concerned with efficiency in transport investments, compared to economical possibilities of various collaborators. Plenty of data on pollution, travel times etc. etc. was collected for every alternative and compared to each other. The result of the strategy was public transport and rail transport -oriented, and all this was supported by the results achieved by using the tool.

Decision making process - how was the information for the dmp disseminated
The whole decision making process was very open. Information was distributed to all decision-makers and NGO-organisations involving. Both mass media, internet and brochures were used to increase debate on the item.

Decision making process - how was the public involved
Exhibitions, leaflets and hearings were used to involve and inform the public.

Decision making process - was there public discussion over the project
Public discussions was lively, especially during the last stages with political decisions.

What tools were used to assess sustainability?

Multi-criteria analysis -(Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council (YTV))

More information

Click here for a full description (pdf)