Impediments for cycling

infrastructure funding

The case of Sweden

Emil Rensvala

November 2020

Supervisor: Peter Schmitt

Department of Human Geography

Stockholm University

SE-106 91 Stockholm / Sweden

-1-

Rensvala, Emil (2020): Impediments for cycling infrastructure funding: The case of Sweden Urban and Regional Planning, advanced level, master thesis for master’s degree in Urban and Regional Planning, 30 ECTS credits

Supervisor: Peter Schmitt

Language: English

Abstract Increasing cycling and making it safer has been a policy at the national level in Swe-den for nearly two decades. However, the policy has yielded limited success. Insuf-ficient funding for safe and attractive bicycle infrastructure have been singled out as a key factor. The aim of this study is to examine the intersection where the policy at the national level in Sweden is to be translated into transport planning budgeting and the impediments for the allocation of funds. The method consists of analysing key texts and performing 28 interviews with government officials and national and regional planners to examine professionals’ views on budgeting practices. Actor-network theory (ANT) is applied for the analysis. Impediments are found in disap-pearing funds, responsibility-delegation to municipalities, unbeneficial cost-benefit methods and organisational hypocrisy. The national transport planning system, as it is enacted in terms of legislation, objectives and practices, is in some aspects rigged in disfavour of cycling investments. Keywords: cycling, transport infrastructure, planning, policy, budgeting, national-level, Sweden. The research took place in the Spring of 2017, and it has taken some time to finalise the report. The researcher bore at the time the last name Törnsten. All quotations in the thesis originally written or spoken in Swedish are translated to English by the researcher. Declaration of conflicting interests The researcher was active in non-profit cycling advocacy at the beginning of the re-search period, and during the process started to work as a consultant for cycling advocacy organisations and later as an employee. This research has however not received any funding or been written on assignment. Contact: emil.rensvala@outlook.com

-2-

Abstract .................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Introduction: Examining cycling policies at the national level in Sweden 4

1.1 ‘Increased and safe cycling’ – the Swedish national cycling policy .................. 4

1.2 National-level cycling infrastructure funding – insufficient? ............................. 5

1.3 Aim and research questions ............................................................................................ 7

1.4 Demarcations ........................................................................................................................ 7

1.5 Empirical data collection .................................................................................................. 8

1.6 Theoretical approach .......................................................................................................10

1.7 Positionality and ethics ...................................................................................................11

2. Literature....................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 Budgeting and policy ........................................................................................................13

2.2 Budgeting for infrastructure and cycling .................................................................14

2.3 Summarising the budgeting literature ......................................................................16

2.4 Cycling and budgeting in the Swedish context.......................................................16

3. Planning and budgeting in Sweden ...................................................................... 19

3.1 Transport infrastructure in national-level policy-making ................................19

3.2 Budgeting of transport infrastructure .......................................................................20

3.3 Available funds for bicycle infrastructure ...............................................................21

4. Disappearing funds .................................................................................................... 23

4.1 Pushed in time ....................................................................................................................23

4.2 Long-term (dis)continuity .............................................................................................24

4.3 Cut-offs...................................................................................................................................25

4.4 Lack of earmarked funds ................................................................................................26

5. Allocating responsibility to municipalities ....................................................... 27

5.1 Displacing national responsibility ..............................................................................27

5.2 Municipal funding of state roads .................................................................................28

5.3 Road legislation limits the building of state cycling paths ................................29

5.4 Reshuffling interests and goals ....................................................................................32

5.5 Lack of administrative champions ..............................................................................34

6. Investments becoming unnecessarily expensive ............................................ 36

6.1 Insufficiently examined cycling projects ..................................................................36

6.2 Planning and design demands ......................................................................................36

6.3 (Un)common procurement and coordination ........................................................38

7. Methods for prioritising investments ................................................................. 40

7.1 Deficient data ......................................................................................................................40

7.2 Over-reliance on CBA .......................................................................................................41

7.3 Forecast planning ..............................................................................................................43

8. Status, prestige and hypocrisy ............................................................................... 45

8.1 Cycling as low status ........................................................................................................45

8.2 Cycling as non-prestigious .............................................................................................46

8.3 Minimising the need for action ....................................................................................47

9. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 50

9.1 What is the funding situation? ......................................................................................50

9.2 What are the views on funding responsibility? .....................................................51

-3-

9.3 How does planning processes impact funding? .....................................................52

Implications for practice and further research .............................................................53

List of interviews ............................................................................................................. 55

References ......................................................................................................................... 57

-4-

1. Introduction: Examining cycling policies at the national level in Sweden

1.1 ‘Increased and safe cycling’ – the Swedish national cycling policy Swedish national-level cycling policy has been substantially examined by cycling policy advocate Spolander (2013b, 2013c, 2014b). In a famous photograph, he holds in his hands a pile of over 30 documents which he has analysed: strategies, action programmes, committee reports and political decisions in transport (see Spolander, 2014b, p. 7). Sweden has for years expressed willingness to achieve ‘increased and safe cycling’, the national cycling policy mantra. All eight parties currently in the Riksdag (the Swedish parliament) are expressing the need for increased and safe cycling: for example, in the motions now to the Riks-dag’s Committee on Transport (see Trafikutskottet, [forthcoming]). The govern-ment (Social Democrats and Greens) recently produced a national cycling strategy (Regeringen, no date a). The political majority in the Committee on Transport ex-pressed the need as early as 1997 (Spolander 2013b). This evolved in the early 2000’s (Spolander, 2013b, 2013c, 2014b), and at least since 2008 (possibly earlier), all Riksdag parties, including opposition parties, expressed pro-cycling sentiments. In the right-wing government bill for transport in 2008 an entire section was de-voted to improve conditions for cycling, with infrastructure as the most important measure (Regeringen, 2008b), while cycling was simultaneously highlighted by all left and green opposition parties in motions (see Trafikutskottet, 2008). In 2010, the right-wing government requested a Swedish Government Official Report on cycling (Regeringen, 2010). This is also articulated in many state reports of various kind: published by adminis-trative authorities or the ministries (see Spolander, 2013b, 2013c, 2014b). Several national cycling strategies (e.g. Vägverket, 2000; Trafikverket, 2011b, 2014), inves-tigations (e.g. Spolander and Dellensten, 2003; Vägverket, 2007; Trafikverket, 2011b; Johansson, 2012; WSP, 2012; Johansson, 2013; Trafikverket, 2016c; Daniels and Eklöf, 2017), and recommendations (e.g. Boverket et al., 2005; Faskunger, 2007, 2008b, 2008c, Statens Folkhälsoinstitut, 2009, 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2013; Schantz, 2012; Trafikverket, 2010b) have been produced. The benefits of cycling are also well noted in these publications, and are also examined in other state-sanc-tioned reports (e.g. Faskunger, 2008a; Trafikverket, 2013; Johansson and Eklöf, 2015; Trafikverket, 2016c, 2016b; Schantz, 2016). Improved infrastructure is with-held as the key measure for increased and safe cycling. In contrast, it is extremely rare to find statements that cycling should decrease or not be prioritised. What is less known is, of course, cycling’s relation to other modes of transport and the ambitions for such. A thorough academic study would be needed to identify what future transport situation that is really sought after. The long-term transport objectives were set out by the Social Democratic minority gov-ernment in 1998 (see Regeringen, 1998). It should be societal-economically effec-tive and sustainable while contributing to sustainable development and welfare for citizens and business. The Riksdag’s 2006 decided principles of national transport policies underlined that a range of alternative transports should be optional (see Regeringen, 2006, pp. 42–8). In 2009, under the right-wing majority government,

-5-

two equally weighted objectives were added; that of accessibility and equality, and that of consideration to safety, environment and health (see Regeringen, 2009a). It is fairly easy to position cycling within these objectives, but so but so can be ar-gued for other modes transport. The latest government bill on transport (prop. 2016/17:21), by the minority Social Democratic and Green Party coalition, men-tioned six societal challenges related to infrastructure: fossil fuel, construction of new housing, business, employment, digitalisation, and inclusion (Regeringen, 2016b). Cycling was particularly highlighted within the objective ‘continuing the promotion of effective and sustainable road transports’ (p. 51-2). ‘Increased and safe cycling’ has been repeated in politics and bureaucracy nationally since the turn of the millennium (see the above cited publications), but it has never been an official, national objective (although such has been suggested by e.g. Vägverket, 2000; Traf-ikverket, 2011b; Johansson, 2013; and Persson et al., 2015). For road safety, the Swedish ‘Vision Zero’, of erasing deaths and severe injuries in traffic, has guided the adjustment of the ‘road system’s design and function’ since 1997 (Regeringen, 1997). Of quantified objectives, there is one1 that directly relates to bicycle infra-structure: 70 percent of large2 municipalities should be classified as having good quality maintenance of prioritised cycling paths by 2020 (Trafikverket, 2015a). There is also a second indicator that is used: safe walking/cycling/scooter road crossings within urban areas, but there is no quantified objective attached to it (Ibid.). Trafikverket (2016a) suggested a 2020 objective to be 35 percent for this, and also to include state roads in this indicator. There are also a range of environ-mental3 and health4 objectives that directly and indirectly relates to cycling and transports.

1.2 National-level cycling infrastructure funding – insufficient? There is a new, annual national evaluation of cycling policy performance (Trafikver-ket, 2015d). Cycling policy has been examined in state-sanctioned investigations (e.g. Spolander and Dellensten, 2003; Vägverket, 2007; Trafikverket, 2011b; Johans-son, 2012; WSP, 2012), indicating room for improvement. In terms of policies for increased cycling, the share is slightly below ten percent of all journeys, and has re-mained so for the last decade (Spolander, 2013a; Trafikanalys, 2015; cf. Svensk Cykling, 2014; Trafikverket, 2015d), despite many cities reporting significant in-creases in cycling traffic (Trafikverket, 2010a). In terms of policies for safe cycling, cyclists are over-represented in Swedish traffic accident statistics. Cyclist’s risk of injury or demise has decreased, but not as fast as for cars, and it now represents the

1 There are ten indicators of road safety development. 2 More than 40 000 inhabitants. 3 The agenda 2030 objectives (Finansdepartementet, 2016), the national environmental quality ob-jectives from 1999 (see Regeringen, 2001; cf. Naturvårdsverket, 2012), which since 2012 explicates cycle paths (Miljödepartementet, 2012, p. 102), and finally the objective that emission of greenhouse gases from transports should be close to zero by 2050 (see Regeringen, 2009b). 4 Better, and more equal, health of the population was a national level objective during the Social Democratic reign until up until 2006 (see Regeringen, 2002). The promotion of cycling was explicitly mentioned (Ibid., p. 80). In the health politics of the succeeding right-wing majority government, the role of cycling infrastructure in promoting physical activity was more highlighted (see Regeringen, 2008a). This was repeated in the right-wing minority government’s announced health politics in 2012 (Regeringen, 2012). The current Social Democratic and Green Party minority coalition men-tions the connection between cycling and health in its latest budget bill (see Regeringen, 2016a, p. 45).

-6-

largest category among the severely injured (Trafikanalys, 2015). In 2015, only 25 percent of road crossings were considered safe, and 40 percent of municipalities were considered to have good maintenance of prioritized paths (Trafikverket, 2016a, pp. 49–53). Determinants of bicycle use is complex, yet fairly researched matter. The overall quality and accessibility of the infrastructure (i.e. roads, parking, maintenance, sign-age, etc.) is often a key factor that influence the choice to cycle or not (e.g. Noland and Kunreuther, 1995; Pucher, 1997; Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003; Rietveld and Dan-iel, 2004; Moudon et al., 2005; Hunt and Abraham, 2007; Pucher and Buehler, 2007, 2008; Spolander, 2008; Akar and Clifton, 2009; Dill, 2009; Heinen, van Wee and Maat, 2010; Pucher, Dill and Handy, 2010; Buehler, 2012; Buehler and Pucher, 2012; Buehler and Dill, 2016; Harms, Bertolini and Brömmelstroet, 2016; Aldred et al., 2017; Brey et al., 2017; de Souza et al., 2017; Rojas López and Wong, 2017). Infra-structure is also key for avoiding injuries and deaths among cyclists (Reynolds et al., 2009; Niska and Eriksson, 2013; Trafikverkt, 2015e, Lindberg et al., 2016). Besides ‘hard’ infrastructure, ‘soft’ policies targeting the broader circumstances of transport and willingness to cycle contributes to ‘successful’ geographies of cycling (Pucher, 1997; Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003; Pucher and Buehler, 2007, 2008, 2009, Buehler and Pucher, 2009, 2011; Pucher, Dill and Handy, 2010; Gössling, 2013; Harms, Ber-tolini and Brömmelstroet, 2016; Buehler et al., 2017; cf. Trafikverket, 2012). Infra-structure in isolation may not be a guarantee for increased and safe cycling, but is perhaps the most important factor. And it needs funding. Insufficient funds have been singled out as a key factor in explaining the perceived lack of progress in cy-cling policy. Not only by cycling advocates, but also official documents calls for in-creased state funding of both state and municipal bicycle infrastructure (Kågeson, 2003; Spolander and Dellensten, 2003; Vägverket, 2007; Trafikverket, 2011b; Jo-hansson, 2012; Spolander, 2013b, 2013c, 2014b; Persson et al., 2015; Trafikverket, 2016d; Lindberg et al., 2016, pp. 39–40). This is also a view also amongst most of the fifty-one experts and practitioners who responded to the survey in the Swedish Government Official Report on cycling (see Johansson, 2012, pt. 2). Several of them were municipal officials, and such views have often been expressed (Lindberg et al., 2016, p. 39). Municipal officials claim that lacking resources, and continuity of such, is a major issue (WSP, 2012). Several ambitious cycling municipalities have jointly requested increased earmark funding (Styrelsen Svenska Cykelstäder, 2017)5. Also, in the preparations for the regional plans for transport infrastructure, several regional actors expressed the funding need (Regeringen, 2016b, p. 69). The costs for increasing cycling and making it safe was estimated up to 1 billion SEK6 “in the nearest years” (Johansson, 2012, p. 549). However, the inquiry makes no ref-erence to how this was calculated and the need is likely much higher. The Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions (SKR) estimated the mere costs of re-building 16 000 cycle passages in intersections across the country according to new legislation, to 3 billion SEK (see Johansson, 2012, p. 365). In 2007, Vägverket esti-mated the investment need to roughly 8 billion SEK for state roads (Vägverket, 2007). Spolander has estimated cycling investment needs to 15 billion SEK

5 Disclaimer: the researcher was not involved in Svenska Cykelstäder at the time. 6 10 SEK 1 €.

-7-

(Spolander, 2014b). The costs of fulfilling the investments of contemporary munic-ipal cycling strategies in Stockholm County is estimated to be 7,8 billion SEK (Envall, Johansson and Skiöld, 2015), and extrapolating this to the rest of the country leaves 40 billion SEK (Envall, 2016). An assessment made by Trafikverket (2016c) esti-mated costs for developing the transport system in accordance with a ‘climate sce-nario’ of decreasing fossil energy used in road transports with 80 percent until 2030, to 160-170 billion SEK. It suggested that at least 40 billion SEK should be earmarked funding in the form of grants for sustainable urban environments and public transport, cycling and walking.

1.3 Aim and research questions The aim of this study is to examine the intersection where the policy for increased and safe cycling at the national level in Sweden is to be translated into transport planning budgeting and the impediments for the allocation of funds. Three research questions have guided the research:

1. What is the current national-level funding situation for bicycle infrastruc-ture (in terms of what the existing funding streams are and how existing funds are utilised)?

2. What are the views amongst the involved stakeholders regarding funding responsibility (what should be funded by who)?

3. How does the tools and processes that are used in the transport planning impact on the distribution of funds?

‘Infrastructure’ in this thesis refers broadly to all the ‘hard’ measures that can be funded through public funding: building new roads and paths, improving existing ones, parking, signage, maintenance, and so on.

1.4 Demarcations The thesis focuses on nation-state budgeting for cycling infrastructure (e.g. road construction, asphalt, parking, signage, maintenance, et cetera). This means solely policies related to infrastructure, and not on non-infrastructure policies concerned with the mobility of individuals. This exclude also funding of ‘soft’, mobility-related funding (particularly since those are funded through other streams than the infra-structure in Sweden). Infrastructure in Sweden is also a municipal issue. As most cycling journeys are local (Trafikanalys, 2015, p. 17), it is often withheld by state officials as primarily a con-cern of municipalities. As to be seen, this discussion is in itself motivating this focus. County-specific geographies were not prominent in the empirical material. Envall (2016) identifies three ways in which the need for cycling infrastructure in-vestments can be solved: through reprioritising funds amongst competing infra-structure investments or other expenditure areas; through increasing the amount of available funding; or through utilising available funds more effectively. As the the-sis is interested in how cycling infrastructure is constructed and contested, the ma-terial has been allowed to ‘speak for itself’ and being open-minded in relation to En-vall’s alternatives. However, to examine all three areas in detail would open the scope to beyond what is possible to scrutinise within the frame of this thesis. Envall’s

-8-

second area, to increase the overall transport infrastructure budget, would broaden the scope massively to include negotiations within the government of how funds are distributed between the many expenditure areas. The same to some extent applies to the third area, lowering costs, which is another topic that can be extended far into details of production technologies, et cetera.

1.5 Empirical data collection Interviews with professionals were combined with text analysis. A sound starting point for a discussion on methodology, is on the ontology of the materials of the case, that is, what materials the researcher expects to find (cf. Whatmore, 2003). It was expected that those involved in the practice of balancing interests and prioritising that budgeting is, would be able to share their views of why funds were allocated as they were. It was needed to read the actual budgets, but it was also important to read other relevant texts to contextualise the interviews. ‘Texts’ contained digits, descriptions of digits, motivations for digits, statements, reports, laws and regula-tions, et cetera. Overall, the emphasis has been on words, artefacts, perceptions, meaning, events, details, flux, explanations, and connections (cf. Bryman, 2012, pp. 380–414). In selecting texts and respondents, the methods have emphasised flexibility and a limited structure (cf. Bryman, 2012, pp. 403–4). This means that the texts and re-spondents have been found and selected through ‘purposive sampling’ and ‘snow-ball sampling’ (Bryman, 2012, pp. 417–29), where texts and respondents made ref-erences to other texts and persons to interview. Texts and respondents were also found through informal conversations with a number of helpful researchers, experts and planners within the field. The texts included for analysis was primarily reports, strategies and budget pro-duced by national-level administrations and the government. They were read in an unstructured manner to allow for flexibility to return to sections and in examining and extracting the most relevant bits. Texts were seen as ‘black boxes’: products of the budgeting processes that entailed segments of the story, or was referred to by other texts or respondents and thus brought ‘back to life’. The method was the often unspecified ‘qualitative content analysis’, which here was a broad searching for un-derlying themes (Bryman, 2012, p. 557). Twenty-eight interviews were carried out with officials working with budgeting processes regarding state funding of transport infrastructure. Interviews were semi-structured and conducted in Swedish. Most interviews lasted some 30-60 minutes. The researcher listened and steered the direction of the interviews through more or less individualised interview guides, while the respondents did most of the talking. The form allowed both researcher and respondent to follow up on com-ments and ask for clarification. To a big extent, interviews revolved around ques-tions of “why?”, where the researcher generally explicated background and the hy-potheses while respondents reacted to it and discussed mechanisms. The setting of interviews varied greatly, as each was adjusted to the possibility to allocate time in the respondents’ often busy schedules. Thus, some interviews took place at lunch restaurants or at other locations where audio recording were inappropriate or oth-erwise difficult due to background noises. Transcription was in these cases instead based on notes, and took place directly after for the sake of remembrance. At two

-9-

occasions, two respondents were interviewed jointly to made the interview possi-ble. Many interviews were conducted on telephone, as the respondents worked in different parts of the country. These were audio recorded. There was little difference in responses gained in telephone respectively face-to-face interviews (cf. Bryman, 2012, p. 488), and both methods produced relevant material. The interview guide below summarises the various topics which were talked about with respondents (with some variations):

Respondent background and cycling situation (e.g. a region’s decided fund-ing)

The general challenges for cycling funding. The perceived willingness to invest in cycling. Cycling not considered a mode of transport of its own – if so and how that is

an issue. Prestigious objects and how cycling investments are seen. If and how cycling funding is disappearing. Existence of strategic misrepresentation. Attitude towards earmarked funding. Processes of deciding objects, including cost- and benefit analyses, and con-

sequences for cycling. Co-funding practices and effects on cycling funding. Distribution of responsibility. Road and funding legislation Cooperation with interest groups and other actors.

Seventeen were regional (county) infrastructure planners, working with producing the budget in county plans for regional transport infrastructure. They were asked about the structure of their county plans, their perception of the development of cycling funding and attitudes towards investments, how objects are prioritised and calculated, objectives and steering mechanisms (including legal frames), and coop-eration with road authorities (including co-funding) and NGO:s. A number of state-ments in the literature were specifically asked about, such as disappearing funds, ‘strategic misrepresentation’, earmarking funding, and diffusion of responsibility. This group was well represented, and the produced material seemed to fatigue to-wards the end. Five interviews took place with current or former employees of Trafikverket, plus two regional infrastructure planners who were former employees at Trafikverket and could also express themselves as such. Interviews covered the same topics as with the county planners. The research faced difficulties in gaining access to re-spondents and some interviewees at Trafikverket and the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation were reluctant to share their own reflections and were only willing to explain what could already be read in documents. Three interviews were carried out with political officials of the two government par-ties, involved in national-level transport politics. Given the role in governing state agencies, deciding on laws, initiating national funding schemes, and specifying the demands on the national plan (where most funding exists) and county plans, as well as deciding on them, these interviews were far more relevant than interviews with

-10-

regional politicians. These interviews covered the governing parties’ intentions quite well as they were asked to explain their actions and to elaborate on the issues discussed in literature and interviews. One interview was carried at the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation. Finally, two interviews were carried out with cycling ad-vocacy officials.

1.6 Theoretical approach A budget regularly consists of two elements: digits, and written descriptions that act as explanations of the intended use of these digits. These intend to trigger certain actions within the state apparatus and, in turn, certain changes in space. In actor-network theory (ANT), a network is a collective of associated humans and non-hu-mans. ANT may not be a theory (Mol, 2010), but a set of methodological principles about tracing and uncover relations and connections between actors (Bosco, 2006, p. 136). In this ontology, the world consists of networks of actors. Through studying and acknowledging the symmetrical potential of humans and non-humans to act to be and enacted, this ontology opposes the modernist division between society and nature that “renders invisible the political process by which the cosmos is collected in one liveable whole” (Latour, 1999, p. 304). Actors are active ‘mediators’ (Latour, 2005, pp. 37–42) that perform movements to allow this (Latour, 1999, p. 303). In this aspect, a budget can be seen as a ‘black box’, a ready-made product which, inde-pendent of its potentially controversial history and complexity is a given fact. ’Spokespersons’ speaks for black boxes (Latour, 1987, pp. 70–4). ANT travels ‘up-stream’ to uncover the construction of this black box (Latour, 1987). H – h The concept of ‘translation of interests’ is of fundamental importance. For action to occur, the locking in of other actors is necessary (Callon, 1986). For a stakeholder to shape the budget according to its interests, it need to translate this need into actual digits. In this process, this interest is transformed in different way: becoming digits, and eventually a reshaping of space through infrastructure. Through this chain of translation, it interacts with a myriad of other actors and networks. As actors are drawn into a chain of translation, artefacts are created. A machine can only become successful if the right components are put in place and it is put into further practice. It is not that when a machine works that people will be convinced. Rather, a machine will work when all the relevant people are convinced (Latour, 1987, p. 10). This is how networks change, as they intend to become more sustainable in relation to other interests. In a translation, conventionally a word, it become equivalent but not exactly the same, and translation thus necessarily involves transformation (Law, 2009). This concept will allow the thesis to identify the development of the budget-ing process and the actors that were made important in construction the budget as such, as well as in the rationalities underlying its construction. At the ‘centre of calculations’, where facts are brought together (Latour, 1987, pp. 215–257, 1999, p. 304), digits become ‘inscriptions’. For Latour, inscriptions refer to “transformations through which an entity becomes materialised into a sign, an archive, a document, a piece of paper, a trace” (Latour, 1999, p. 306). Thus, inscrip-tions are ‘matters of fact’: the outcome of a longer processes, which in turn can be further referenced, articulated and transformed while keeping some relations in-tact. Like maps of the Amazonia (cf. Latour, 1999, p. 29), budgets are necessary for orientation in the landscape of transport planning, without which everyone would be lost. Various instruments, or ‘inscription devices’ (Latour, 1987, p. 68), can be

-11-

used to make translations possible. Artefacts are loaded with meaning through what Latour (1999, pp. 49–51, 303) calls ’articulation’. The question is not whether it re-fer to a state of affairs or not, but how well it is articulated. To allow translations, events, places and people must be brought ‘home’ through being rendered mobile, being kept stable to disallow additional distortion, and being combinable “so that, whatever stuff they are made of, they can be cumulated, aggregated, or shuffled like a pack of cards” (Latour, 1987, p. 223). The quandary of a ‘fact-builder’ is to diffuse a fact in time and space (Ibid. p. 108): a fact, an argument or a thing must travel further and be used by others for its success. A ‘proposition’ is for Latour (1999, p. 309) not a sentence that is true or false in the epistemological sense, but as what an actor offers other actors in the ontological sense. This is an important part of how translations occur. Latour (1987, pp. 108–21) identified five strategies for an actor to translate interests: to enrol others, to be enrolled by others, to take a mutual detour, to reshuffle interests and goals (through five tactics: to displace goals, invent new goals, invent new groups, rendering the detour invisible, and, besides the primary mechanism of make collective action pos-sible, to win the secondary mechanism of being attributed a successful innovation), and, in sum, to become indispensable. A main programme of action might require ‘sub-programmes’, where successive movements are needed to reach the main ob-jective (Latour, 1996, p. 217). ‘Anti-programmes’ are programmes of action that are in conflict with the programme chosen as the point of departure for the analysis (Latour and Akrich, 1992, p. 261). Translations necessitates an object being ren-dered mobile, as “[a] thing can remain more durable and be transported farther and more quickly if it continues to undergo transformations at each stage of this long cascade” (Latour, 1999, p. 58). A ‘reference’ is an example of how a material object can be rendered mobile and exist in a thought or on a piece of paper through various transformations: “[i]t seems that reference is not simply the act of pointing or a way of keeping, on the outside, some material guarantee for the truth of a statement; ra-ther it is our way of keeping something constant through a series of transfor-mations” (Latour, 1999, p. 58). ‘Historicity’ (Latour, 1999, p. 306) is a term to high-light how time evolves through events and mediation, where actors are trans-formed. ‘Institutions’ provide all the mediations necessary for an actor to maintain a durable and sustainable substance (Latour, 1999, p. 307). After the enrolment of actors, in-terested groups must be controlled and kept stable to make action predictable through ‘machination of forces’ (Latour, 1987, p. 128). The successive and automo-tive movements of parts of a machine is an objective for a fact-builder, as depend-ency on other actors inherently means less control. Moreover, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link (Ibid., p. 121), which means that any component working improperly, whether in a product’s construction or diffusion, may mean its failure.

1.7 Positionality and ethics Research is a two-way encounter affected by positionality. As Massey (2003, pp. 77–80) argues, the researcher is constrained by discourse and data filtered existing frames of thought and language. Disinterestedness is one important aspect of ethics in research, and “means that the researcher must have no other motive for his or her research than a desire to contribute new knowledge” (Gustafsson, Hermerén and

-12-

Petterson, 2011, p. 70). This should be considered especially important when re-searching a topic closely bound to political priorities and (spatial) ideologies. The researcher is involved in interest groups for cycling and is thus neither distant from or disinterested in the conclusions from this research. This position has by large been positive for the execution of the research, since it has provided the researcher with insights and contacts. It has been important to disallow conclusions without scientific support, and not to withhold any material except for when it is ethically motivated. There has not been any interest of finding any particular results within the frame of the research questions. Infrastructure planning consists of a small community and this motivated anonym-ity of respondents. Respondents could have a bias to exaggerate the negative impact of other actors and elevate their own role. To compensate for this, the study strived to interview ‘both sides’. To ensure credibility, ‘respondent validation’ (Bryman, 2012, p. 390; Caretta, 2016) was used as quotations and/or my interpretations of the interviews were e-mailed to respondents let them correct these. Translation from Swedish to English were made with careful attention how things were said.

-13-

2. Literature

2.1 Budgeting and policy For decades, it has been attempted to explain how public budgets are formed, and a number of theories of public budgeting in general exist. One group of normative the-ories concerns the overall purpose of the budget. These are, for example, the budget as a provider of collective goods, the budget as an instrument to counter economic fluctuations, the budget as provider of individual goods, the budget as promoter of effective programmes, and the budget as an instrument to maximise state income (Lane and Back, 1989, pp. 143–222). Another group of theories have been developed to quantitively explain how succes-sive budgets develop in size and content. Two such theories of budgeting are domi-nant in political science (Breunig and Koski, 2009): incrementalism (hi occurrence of small-scale shifts in politics) (cf. Bäck and Larsson, 2008, p. 294), and punctuated equilibrium (occasions of dramatic change). In the incremental theory, last year’s budget is the largest determining factor of the size and content of upcoming year’s budget (Mortensen, 2005). Budgets can be characterized by both stability and punc-tuations (Mortensen, 2005). These studies are often quantitative, and focus on size and content rather than the decision-making process (e.g. Jones and Baumgartner, 2005; Mortensen, 2005) Within this quantitative literature, there are also studies of that have attempted to explain why budgets change. In studying the reasons for budget change in American state politics, Breunig and Koski (2009) found that the governor’s role was central (see also Barrilleaux and Berkman, 2003). A study by Jacoby and Schneider (2001) found that budgets varied across US states in the same way as interest group partic-ipation and public opinion. However, in a Danish study, newspapers had little impact on local budgeting (Mortensen and Serritzlew, 2006). Epp et al (2014) examined partisanship and budgets and found that it had little impact on budgeting. Rather, inconsistent allocations occurred at almost exactly same rate as consistent. The ex-istence of ‘political budget cycles’ is also one area that has been subject of research to verify if and how expenditure is related to the electoral cycle (e.g. Bojar, 2017). A third group of literatures have instead taken interest in the processes that shape budgets. A multitude of theoretic approaches have been deployed. In incremental theory, budgeting decisions evolve in a limited social system (parliament, govern-ment, authorities, etc.) of clearly identified roles of those who demand funds and those who decide on expenditures. Neither have full information of alternatives and consequences, and cannot act rationally (Lane and Back, 1989, pp. 172–86). Thus, this pragmatic theory argues that the implementation of policy is more likely when more people are ‘on board’ (Allmendinger, 2009, p. 142). In one such study, Cova-leski and Dirsmith (1983) discovered that budgeting is not a process where top lev-els controls middle and lower tiers of the organisation. Rather, budgeting is a pro-cess with an upward flow of advocacy. This approach is closely linked to new institutionalist theories. These are united by their conviction that institutions (customs and rules that provide the structures, context, stability, and constraints for interactions) matter (Dodds, 2013, pp. 231–8).

-14-

A distinct theory is the ‘garbage-can’ theory. In argues that decisions are made based insufficient information, inconsistency, inability to connect means to ends, and changing rules and participants. Problems, solutions, participants and choice oppor-tunities are mixed in an irrational process (Lane and Back, 1989, pp. 194–6; Bäck and Larsson, 2008, pp. 294–5; Dodds, 2013, p. 242), where decisions are shaped by bounded rationality (Eisenhardt and Zbaracki, 1992). Another study of budgeting within this group of literatures is by Nils Brunsson. For Brunsson (2007, ch. 5), budgeting can have many effects on organisations; it can for example be at the heart of policy processes, have a symbolical function, act as an instrument of control, be a source of negotiations, and as a final product turn out quite different from what was first expected. Brunsson discovered different roles in the budgeting process: those who championed various operations, those who were guardians of the cash box, and those who were hoarders who argued for stockpiling revenues. The size of the budget was shaped by a struggle between stakeholders regarding access to information and construction of responsibility. Moreover, allo-cated money does not necessitate action: “the coupling between budget decisions and action is a very loose one” (2007, p. 70). The theory of ‘hypocrisy’ (Brunsson, 1986, 1993, 2007) states that political talk, decisions and actions can take different directions. For Brunsson (2007, p. 112), “to talk is one thing; to decide is a second; to act is yet a third […] People may talk or decide about a certain action but act in the opposite way. The result is hypocrisy.” Inconsistencies occur. Conflicting exter-nal demands can be satisfied through inconsistencies, and lack of action can quiet opposition through talk. To talk or decide things can be as valuable for organisations in modern society as actions, since publicity matters. This is the primary driver, but a factor can also be that some issues can only be talked about, decided or acted upon, and not vice versa. The model assumes that consistency in all three levels will create dissatisfaction. Thus, the more something is talked about, the less likely is action, since talk about one area must be compensated with decisions and actions in other areas, and vice versa. An alternative, closely linked perception of budgeting departs from rational choice and public choice theories. Individuals and authorities act according to self-deter-mined preferences (Dodds, 2013, pp. 190–3). Authorities will apply for more fund-ing than needed, and they also have monopoly on their services. This results in so-cietal-economic ineffectiveness (Lane and Back, 1989, pp. 200–7). The significance of this approach is, like the above, that budgeting consists of a multitude of interests. However, in empirical testing, it is not necessarily so that too much funding is pro-vided. For example, Hagen (1997) studied budgeting from a principal-agent per-spective, and found that the principal, in this case counties in Norway, had a firm position in relation to the agent (hospitals).

2.2 Budgeting for infrastructure and cycling In transport studies, research on the ‘economic’ dimension has mostly concentrated on economic instruments to manage travel behaviour, such as taxation (Schwanen, Banister and Anable, 2011, p. 995). While there are small threads in various aca-demic and non-academic reports that help to give insight into factors that may affect funding, resource allocation is occasionally noted or described in transport policy research (e.g. Marsden and Rye, 2010, pp. 673, 674), but rarely investigated. One such example is Mahendra et al (2013), who notes that there is a mismatch between

-15-

objectives and resource allocation in India, where most resources are invested in infrastructure for motorized vehicles. In analysing the transport budget for the In-dian city Pune, Menon (2011) found a similar mismatch. Makarewicz et al (2010) contrasted national transport policies and funding shares in the UK, Canada, Sweden and the USA. Like for political science approaches to budgeting as described above, there exist studies of how infrastructure budgeting change in overall size and con-tent (e.g. Legacy, 2016). In Global North geographies, scholars have identified a shift from the public provision of infrastructure into more market and individually fi-nanced and managed infrastructure projects (Graham, 2000; Koppenjan and En-serink, 2009; O’Brien and Pike, 2015; Strickland, 2016). For cycling, there is a broad range of academic literature that notes a lack of funding, suggest increased funding to improve conditions for cycling, or highlight the role of funding in best-practice (e.g. Pucher and Dijkstra, 2003; Rietveld and Daniel, 2004; Moudon et al., 2005; Pucher and Buehler, 2007, 2008, Buehler and Pucher, 2009, 2011; Cradock et al., 2009; Pucher, Dill and Handy, 2010; Knight-Lenihan, 2013; Gössling and Choi, 2015; Buehler et al., 2017). Determinants of bicycle infrastruc-ture funding are largely unaccounted for. In Ireland, clientelism has been noted in distribution of cycling funds (Manton, 2016). In New Zealand, Knight-Lenihan (2013) could identify how legislation affected funding for sustainable transporta-tion. There, discursive storylines also shape budgeting practices (Imran and Pearce, 2015). In Canada, local planners felt that funding was determined by different ob-jectives at different governmental levels (Hatzopoulou and Miller, 2008). Cradock et al (2009) quantitively examined funding shares across the USA, and found that counties characterized by persistent poverty or low educational status were less likely to fund cycling. In the UK, funding has been doubly devolved; away from the state, and away from transport, according to Aldred (2012). Funding mostly appeared on the local level, as well as being sourced from non-transport budgets such as for schemes in health (Aldred, 2012). However, the ‘English Cycling Demonstration Towns’ was a joint na-tional-local funded investment programme (Department for Transport, 2010). The UK Department for Transport recently announced a Cycling and Walking Invest-ment Strategy with earmarked funding (Department for Transport, 2017). Such na-tional funding of local bicycle infrastructure is common in many countries, such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Germany (Rietveld and Daniel, 2004; Pucher and Bueh-ler, 2007, 2008, Buehler and Pucher, 2009, 2011; Pucher, Dill and Handy, 2010), the USA (Cradock et al., 2009), New Zealand (Knight-Lenihan, 2013), Norway and Swe-den; it is generally the size of allocated funds that differ. Moreover, in the UK, the central government adjusted funding allocations up or down based on quality of lo-cal plans and achievement against the targets proposed in these plans (Marsden, Kelly and Nellthorp, 2009). In the USA, the federal level was the one which increased funding for cycling, which did not occur in a similar rate at state level (Pucher and Buehler, 2006). In Canada, funding was almost exclusively local (Ibid.). But in the USA, other financing mechanisms than government funding are also common (Riggs and McDade, 2016).

-16-

2.3 Summarising the budgeting literature In sum, little is known of budgeting and prioritising funds within the context of pro-moting sustainable transportation. Budgeting in general is a complex set of pro-cesses where political and administrative concerns come together to shape the out-put. Infrastructure budgets are also shaped by how a topic such as cycling is enacted in relation to problems, solutions, responsibility, and so on. Yet, the end product is not a guarantee for anything to happen in the next step. Studies have primarily focused on the overall size of budgets and on the political struggle of increased expenditures versus keeping expenditures low. Although gen-eral theories exist that can explain how certain policy areas are translated into budg-ets, there are limited empirical accounts of this. One exception to this is a study on how the defence budget decreased in Argentina (Pion-Berlin, 1998). It found that the shift to democracy shifted also the institutional structure. As budgeting become more institutionalised and less individualised, politicians saw less reasons to inter-fere. There are also limited accounts of the role of non-human actors in the budgeting processes. Quantitative approaches have formed a substantial share of research in the area in, and qualitative approaches have focused on strategies employed by var-ious human actors (e.g. politicians and authorities). How legislation, documents, ob-jectives, et cetera, shapes budgets, is largely unknown. One exception here is a qual-itative study by Albert-Roulhac (1998), which analysed how national and suprana-tional budgeting process became increasingly hybridized, which happened due to, amongst other things, regulations. Third, budget processes are virtually unstudied in geography, planning and transport studies.

2.4 Cycling and budgeting in the Swedish context Some directions of areas to explore can be identified in various academic and ‘grey’ literature related to cycling and budgeting in the Swedish case as well as in some more general theories of planning and politics that does not fit into the ‘budgeting’ strand examined above. A first point of departure concerns the construction of bicycle funds. It has been claimed in several non-academic reports (Kågeson, 2009; Spolander, 2013b, 2014a, 2014b) that allocated funds tends to disappear. A highlighted reason is that funds are concentrated towards the latter half of the budget period and thus can be more flexible. The disappearing can perhaps be caused by, first, earmarking of funds for older, ongoing projects, (see Trafikverket, 2016c, p. 48). Second, continuity in fund-ing has been highlighted as an issue (WSP, 2012). Third, cycling funds might be sub-ject to reallocation to cover cost-overruns in other projects. That cycling paths are the ones first cut off from funding is noted in a European context (Buehler and Pucher, 2009, p. 51) as well as a Swedish (e.g. Spolander, 2013b). Flyvbjerg (2009) have suggested deliberate miscalculations; ‘strategic misrepresentation’, as a rea-son for cost-overruns. Fourth, in light of requests for earmarked funds for cycling (e.g. Vägverket, 2007; Kågeson, 2009; WSP, 2011; Spolander, 2014b), it is of interest to enquire how this is anticipated.

-17-

A second strand is about allocation of responsibility. In politics, responsibility for unwanted actions are best avoided through not executing them, making someone else seem responsible, hiding them, or reframing them as positive (Brunsson, 2007 ch. 5). First, how responsibility is constructed is of interest, not only for revealing how actors approach cycling, but specifically for identifying if lack of action in in-creasing funding is connected to unwanted responsibility. Second, this also includes how legal frames and planning practices distributes responsibility. The 2000 Na-tional Cycling Strategy underlined the need for a clear-cut division of responsibility when it comes to cycling paths (Vägverket, 2000). Since about a decade (Trafikver-ket and SKL, 2011), an increasing number of regions have a principle that munici-palities should co-fund cycling paths along state roads, and has been criticised by Spolander (2013b, 2014b). Third and fourth, defendants of investments could or could not perhaps be found within the administration (Brunsson, 2007, ch. 5) or in objectives, assignments, and strategic development plans at national and regional levels (Spolander, 2006; Kågeson, 2009). A third area to explore is the cost of bicycle infrastructure and if it is lessening in-vestments incentives. That cycling interventions are insufficiently examined and are faced with cost-overruns can be one reason (Kågeson, 2009). A second issue is if design demands are causing interventions to be costly. It has been suggested that design manuals need improvements to better accommodate cycling (WSP, 2011; Jo-hansson, 2012). Third, it has been suggested that costs arise due to lack of common procurement (Envall, 2016) and increased coordination efforts have been requested (e.g. Vägverket, 2000). Fourth, it has been put into light that cycling paths need to be located where there is a [motor] road (e.g. Olsérius, 2016). Potentially, this can in-crease costs, and so can other aspects of planning processes. A fourth point of departure concerns the role of methods used to prioritise projects over others. The Swedish Government Official Report on cycling (SOU 2012:70 [Jo-hansson, 2012, p. 155]) express the need to develop calculation principles for cy-cling. This is related to road data and data of need for investments, which are two areas where there has been lacking knowledge (Spolander, 2006; Vägverket, 2007). The issue was noted already before the 2004-2015 planning period (Kågeson, 2003), and before the 2010-2021 period (Kågeson, 2009). Related to this is lacking knowledge of shares and flows of cyclists (Vägverket, 2000, 2007; Regeringen, no date a; Trafikverket, 2013). Moreover cost-benefit analyses (CBA) has potential to be developed to better incorporate benefits of cycling (van Wee and Börjesson, 2015). The need to develop calculation principles for cycling has been expressed by Vägverket (2000, 2007), Trafikverket (Schantz, 2016, pp. 56–8), SIKA (2008), Jo-hansson (2012, p. 155), Spolander (2013c), the government (Regeringen, 2016b, p. 27, no date a, p. 17), and in academic literature (e.g. van Wee and Börjesson, 2015). Johansson and Rosander (2017) have found that such analyses is given highly val-ued in planning. A final issue here is the role of forecasts in planning (Johansson and Eklöf, 2015, p. 71). A final topic is how the willingness to invest is enacted. First, the traffic engineer was a key actor in the production of a ‘car society’ in Sweden in the mid 1900’s, ‘techni-fying’ (de-politicising) a political question (Lundin, 2005). In planning theory, the role of planners as advocates and political actors is increasingly acknowledged in research (Allmendinger, 2009, ch. 7). Amongst transport infrastructure planners,

-18-

studies have identified a path dependency in that professional groups are character-ized by knowledge and skills aiming at optimizing the flow of car traffic (e.g. Aretun and Robertson, 2013). Second, it has been acknowledged in earlier studies (e.g. Flyvbjerg, 2014) that politics tends to concentrate investments to prestigious pro-jects. If this is the case, it can be a reason why little funding is left for cycling. Third, it has been concluded that the legal framework for safe and increased cycling gen-erally exists, but that there is a lack of willingness to improve it (Johansson, 2012). This is where politics enter. In politics, stakeholders struggle to shape the agenda of the public debate, as which issues exist at the forefront of the public debate (and which not), and ‘how’ they are discussed (and not), tend to pressurise politicians in making certain decisions (cf. Bachrach and Baratz, 1962). Therefore, it is important to enquire how cycling infrastructure is constructed in the political debate. A theory related to this that of ‘hypocrisy’ examined above.

-19-

3. Planning and budgeting in Sweden

3.1 Transport infrastructure in national-level policy-making The provision of road and parking infrastructure in Sweden is largely provided by public funds and free to use (Hasselgren, 2013b; Dillén and Haapaniemi, 2017). The central state plays a key role in shaping infrastructure through funding, legislation, policy directions and executing those. Roads are according § 1 Road Act (1971:948) (see Näringsdepartementet RS T, 1971) open for public traffic, with the state or a municipality as road authority. Pub-lic roads in Sweden total some 8 000 km of state trunk roads, 90 000 km of other state roads, and 41 000 km of municipal roads (Trafikverket, 2017a, Trafikverket Official 1). Some 430 000 km are private roads (Trafikverket, 2017a). National level policy is produced by the national government and the Riksdag (the Swedish national parliament). The government decides on decrees, such as instruc-tions to state agencies (e.g. Trafikverket) on their purposes, while the Riksdag de-cides on ordinary laws and constitutions, and controls the government (Bäck and Larsson, 2008, pp. 66, 84). Decisions in the Riksdag are in practice most often taken in the committees (Ibid., p. 82). Infrastructure is primarily discussed in the Commit-tee on Traffic (Trafikutskottet). The Swedish government is the primary institution for suggesting law changes and the state budget, and in executing the Riksdag’s decisions (Bäck and Larsson, 2008, p. 178). It currently consists of a minority Social Democrat and Green Party coalition. The Minister for Infrastructure Anna Johansson, Social Democrat, is responsible for these questions but formally, the government make decisions collectively (Ibid., pp. 178-81). Minsters have, besides their political staff, an administrative staff at the ministries (Ibid., pp. 181-8). Infrastructure is currently dealt with by the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation (Näringsdepartementet), although cycling has been in-volved in policies at Ministry of the Environment and Energy (Miljö- och energide-partementet) and the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs (Socialdepartementet). These shapes much of the content in the government’s politics, including bills, the budget, Riksdag interpellation answers, and administrate matters. National administrative authorities carry out the government’s politics through bal-ancing three principles: according to the political majority, to legislation, and to ef-fectiveness (Bäck and Larsson, 2008, p. 195). These are controlled through six means: 1) legislation, such as ordinance containing terms of reference for the au-thority, 2) funding, such as letters of appropriation, 3) recruitment, through control-ling leading positions in the authorities, 4) form control, through controlling the form of the authorities, as well as information and education, 5) board members, which are elected by the government, and 6) informal contacts (Ibid., pp. 198-206). The Swedish Transport Administration (Trafikverket) is such an administrate au-thority7. According to § 1 SFS 2010:185 (see Näringsdepartementet RS T, 2010), Trafikverket is responsible for long-term planning infrastructure planning for all

7 In 2010, it replaced an authority called Vägverket, which was responsible only for roads.

-20-

modes of transport and for constructing and operating state roads and rail. Moreo-ver, it should on the basis of spatial planning create conditions for a societal-eco-nomically effective, internationally competitive and long-term sustainable transport system, and strive towards the transport-political objectives. It budgets the 12-year National Plan for the Transport System (hereafter ‘the national plan’) (Näringsdepartementet RS T, 2009a). There are also other state administrative au-thorities that are related to infrastructure matters. County administrative boards carry out and coordinate the government’s politics at the regional level in the 21 counties of Sweden (Bäck and Larsson, 2008, pp. 196, 207–8). County councils are another regional authority that follow the same borders as the county administrative boards, but are self-governed by regionally elected pol-iticians, and thus cater regional interests. The distribution of tasks between county administrative boards and county councils differ. Some county councils are entitled ‘regions’, and have taken over responsibilities of regional development and infra-structure from the county administrative boards (Ibid., pp. 233-6). In some counties, there are other municipal cooperation organisations at the regional level which have the responsibility for regional development (Ibid.). The island Gotland is a special case, with a combined municipal-regional authority. In each county, either of these three regional organisations establish a binding County Plan for Regional Transport Infrastructure (hereafter ‘county plans’) (Näringsdepartementet RS T, 1997, 2009b).

3.2 Budgeting of transport infrastructure At the beginning of the annual state budget process (for all expenditure areas), the government receives various allocation proposals, analyses and accounts. A budget bill is proposed during the spring, and in the autumn a definite budget proposal. Eventually, the Riksdag decides on the budget in December after discussions in the different committees (Petersson, 2007, p. 165, 2017, pp. 106–8; Bäck and Larsson, 2008, pp. 88–90). The long-term economic road transport infrastructure planning is manifested in 12-year plans, renewed every four years. The current period is 2014-2015, and the up-coming period 2018-2029 is under preparation. The national plan budgets invest-ments in construction and maintenance on trunk roads (stamvägnät) and grants for maintenance of private roads (Näringsdepartementet RS T, 2009a). Measures esti-mated to cost more than 50 million SEK (100 million in the coming period) are named and put on a list, (hereafter: ‘named-and-listed’) (Regeringen, 2017c). The government ultimately decides on the plan. Similarly, regional authorities (see above) in the 21 counties produces county plans (Näringsdepartementet RS T, 1997). Of relevance here, these plans budget funds for non-trunk state roads and co-funding of non-state infrastructure8. Measures over 25 million SEK are named-and-listed (Ibid.). Trafikverket execute the plans. The 4-year planning process is performed in two steps: orientation planning (inrik-tningsplanering) and measure planning (åtgärdsplanering), which are repeated every fourth years in preparing the renewed 12-year National and County plans 8 E.g. measures for improved environment and traffic safety on municipal roads (e.g. cycling paths) (Näringsdepartementet RS T, 2009b). However, state grants. such as grants for sustainable urban environments [stadsmiljöavtal], are not funded through the county pns.

-21-

(Wennberg et al., 2011, pp. 19–30). The orientation planning centres around inquir-ies of the strategic development of the transport system, based on a government mandate (Ibid.). When the overall budget frames are set by the Riksdag, the govern-ment provides a new mandate to establish the measure planning, which is to budget the plans in detail (Ibid.). Besides the national and county plans, there is a third way in which the state fund transport infrastructure: grants. Since 2017, municipalities and county councils can apply for national cycling co-funding through ‘grants for sustainable urban environ-ments’ (stadsmiljöavtal), if they in return do measures for increased shares of sus-tainable transport or more housing (Miljö- och energidepartementet, 2015). An-other grant is the ‘Klimatklivet’ [grants for climate investments], managed by Natur-vårdsverket. Funds are distributed to a broad range of actors for measures that mit-igate emissions (Naturvårdsverket, 2016). Thirdly, the county plans can also co-fund municipal infrastructure.

3.3 Available funds for bicycle infrastructure In the current planning period (2014-2025), the overall frame is 522 billion SEK (Trafikverket, no date b). Of these, 281 billion SEK is for development of the transport system, 155 billion SEK is for maintenance and improvement of state roads and grants for private roads, and the remaining 86 billion SEK is for mainte-nance and improvement of state rails (Ibid.). Most of this sum is for the national plan: only 35,4 billion SEK is for all the county plans. In the upcoming period (2018-2029), the total infrastructure budget will increase to 622,5 billion SEK (Regeringen, 2016b). The county plans will get 36,6 billion SEK (Regeringen, 2017c, app. 1 p. 21). Exactly how much money that is spent on cycling in Sweden at any level is unknown (Vägverket, 2007, Trafikverket official 1). For named-and-listed interventions that contain cycling, but where the key object is another (often a road for motor traffic or parking in public transport hubs), cycling funding cannot be identified separately (Trafikverket Official 1). This is the case for both the national and regional plans. The issue was perhaps even greater some years ago (Kågeson, 2003). What can be identified, is the funding in the named-and-listed projects that are primarily for cy-cling, as well as pools for cycling. However, these projects and these pools are in most cases also for walking, and in some cases for public transport and other inter-ventions. Cycling funding can therefore only be estimated. In 2000, cycling was estimated to make up one percent of the total national spending on transport infrastructure (Vägverket, 2000, p. 64). The government currently es-timates total bicycle funding in the current planning period (2014-2025) to be 4,8 billion SEK or around 0,9 percent of the total frame (Regeringen, no date a, p. 8). In the national plan, there are two named-and-listed cycle paths, totalling 0,16 billion SEK (Trafikverket, no date a), one of which was stopped recently for being too ex-pensive (see more in ch. 6). The government estimates total cycling funding in the national plan to be 1,4 billion SEK, and 3,4 billion SEK in the county plans, or around 10 percent of the county plans’ total sum (Regeringen, no date a, p. 8; see also Spolander, 2014a, 2014b; Svensk Cykling, 2014). In average over the three most re-cent years, Trafikverket have spent 136 million SEK on newly built walking and cy-cling paths (Trafikverket, no date d, table 38). Simultaneously, 16 million SEK have been spent on levelled intersections for walking, cycling and mopeds (Ibid.).

-22-

Of the mentioned state grants, the sum of funds for cycling depends on granted ap-plications. Total available funding for grants for sustainable urban environments in 2017 is 750 million SEK (Regeringen, 2017b). Some 700 million SEK9 per year is available for grants for climate investments (Naturvårdsverket, 2016). In 2016, for the first time10, the government earmarked 25 million SEK for cycling in Trafikver-ket’s letter of appropriation (Regeringen, 2016c). The money was extended in 2017 to 75 million SEK (Regeringen, 2017b). Funds should be used for attractive and safe cycle paths along both trunk and other state roads (Ibid.). In the ‘Sweden negotia-tions’ (Sverigeförhandlingen), a multi-level negotiation programme to increase housing through major infrastructure investments (Regeringen, 2014b, 2014a), the state will earmark 233 million SEK for cycling investments in the Skåne and Stock-holm regions (Sverigeförhandlingen, 2015, 2017b, 2017a).

9 See also Regeringen (2017a). 10 At least back to 2010, likely longer.

-23-

4. Disappearing funds The tendency of cycle funding to disappear in Swedish national funding is claimed in several reports, as seen in section 2.4. This chapter verifies that it can happen and uncovers its mechanisms.

4.1 Pushed in time

When something is further away in the plan it’s easier to move it […] They’re not decided upon in the same way. It’s much more difficult to move an object closer in time. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 12)

Cycling funding can be concentrated towards the end of the budgeted planning pe-riod (Spolander, 2014a). Projects decided years ago are delaying investments in cy-cling:

We have a plan now where there are strong [cycling] priorities further in the period […] We don’t reinvent the new plan. The foundation is… at least the first six years are pretty steered. The first four or five [years] are in principle mort-gaged. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 9)

The many years it takes for projects to be planned and constructed locks funding for a long time. Most of the 281 billion SEK for development of the transport system in the current planning period (2014-2025) are already earmarked projects starting in the first years, which means that only some twelve percent are available for new projects within this time period (Trafikverket, 2016c, p. 48). As noted by a Trafikver-ket official (no. 5), “we live now with decisions taken long ago”. The institution (Latour, 1999, p. 307) that provide all the mediations necessary for this network to maintain a durable and sustainable substance is dependent on a number of translations. A first translation is that named-and-listed projects seldom are primarily for cycling, as expressed by a regional planner (no. 3): ”it’s difficult to find cycling paths of that size”. Many regional planners speak of cycling as a measure belonging in the non-named-and-listed section, as does the main rapport from Traf-ikverket’s orientation planning (Trafikverket, 2015b). In the analyses provided, there is no mentioning of the strategic need to develop the cycling path network, as there is for other modes of transport. It thus kept off from developing into a costlier undertaking. A second translation is to fill up budgets with named-and-listed objects. Such objects “have an upper hand in the plans” (Regional Infrastructure Planner 9). The govern-ment’s directives for the measure planning (Regeringen, 2017c) offers a proposition (Latour, 1999, p. 309) in this case: orders are to finish already started projects, and that projects starting in the plans’ early years are investigated properly. This mobi-lisation makes budgets resistant to policy punctuations. To halt initiated projects is difficult: “we can’t stop an object in our county plan, then I’ll have to inform our pol-iticians that it has become more expensive and they’ll have to accept [it]” (Regional Infrastructure Planner 9).

-24-

A third translation is to view total frames as too small, causing little funding to be “left over” for cycling after other modes of transport have been prioritised. Several regional planners (no. 3; 4; 8; 9; 10; 12; 17) have complaints about the small frame of the county plans. One regional planner speaks of lack of leeway:

We, who doesn’t have a vast economic space, we can fit one major object, one can say. That is – one major road project. If one is unfortunate it will take a considerable share of the plan. […] It’s problematic that we don’t have that much money to use. One doesn’t have leeway, in some way. I note that quite big parts of the plan are locked on certain measures that I know will be exe-cuted. […] Then one will have to use the remaining millions as best as possible, and distribute them. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 8)

However, there are also examples of anti-programmes (Latour and Akrich, 1992, p. 261). One region has opposed disappearing funds through a policy that funds in pools cannot be moved to other pools (a sort of earmarking), and managed in that way to secure allocating funds (Regional Infrastructure Planner 10).

4.2 Long-term (dis)continuity

Many feel [the grants] should be more long-term. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 7)

Continuity in funding could lock up funds for cycling over several years. But conti-nuity has been highlighted as an issue, which hampers cooperation between munic-ipalities (WSP, 2012) and common procurement. The different time frames of mu-nicipal and state plans create an uncertainty in co-funding processes. While national and county plans range for twelve years, municipal budgets often have shorter time spans. This means that municipalities are facing difficulties in living up to their long-term undertakings:

Some municipalities have applied for and received funds, but […] have not done what they promised to do […] At a guess, one has been compelled to reprioritise in the budget for different reasons, and there hasn’t been money left to do this. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 17)

In this quote, the regional planner underlines how lack of available funding in com-bination with their flexibility translates into discontinuity. Another planner empha-sises the importance of coordination:

We are definitely not alone to such a coordination problem. And one of the reasons is […] that municipal plans often are 1-year. […] Even if one has a 1-year budget, one has a plan for the next year. But [the issue] is to […] share these plans. That the right people are part in this, it can be about that as well – that the right people are part in the measure process. So of course, when it comes to state co-funding, we have a problem, and I’m sure you’ve heard of it – that they [municipalities] apply for funding but doesn’t use it. It’s difficult to control unless one is demanding, but also to have multi-years planning. But it also has to be that the processes are better synced. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 16)

-25-

Here, it is argued that taking regions and municipalities should take a common de-tour (Latour, 1987, pp. 111–3) to move from weaker to stronger associations. One can, however, imagine the weak link of that chain: it becomes quite person-depend-ent unless institutionalised so that it can maintain a durable and sustainable sub-stance.

4.3 Cut-offs In what he describes as ‘survival of the unfittest’, Flyvbjerg (2009, see also 1996, 2014; Flyvbjerg, Skamris Holm and Buhl, 2003) illustrates how for large infrastruc-ture projects costs are often overrun, benefit shortfalls, and the risks being system-atically underestimated. Flyvbjerg (2009) suggests three explanations for this: inac-curate methods, over-optimism and cognitive biases, and deliberate misrepresenta-tion and lying to gain approval and funding of one’s project. This ‘strategic misrep-resentation’ could in this case not be verified amongst interviewees. The problem of cost escalations was however well known. It was described by sev-eral respondents as one of inadequate calculation methods (Regional Infrastructure Planner 2; 4; 6). Cost overruns in non-cycling projects becomes a problem for cycling since it absorbs allocated cycling funds. It is a common view amongst respondents that when bigger projects have faced cost overruns, its cycling measures have been first to be cut off (Regional Infrastructure Planner 1; 6; 8; 9; 14; 15; 17; Trafikverket official 4; 5). One regional planner expresses:

As soon as a project has cost escalations, it is cycling paths that go up in flames to keep costs down. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 3)

This has also been common in a European perspective, at least for maintenance (Buehler and Pucher, 2009, p. 51). Less expensive and prestigious projects are often the ones that are cut off. Describing an expensive rail project, a planner describes how cost overruns would be solved by taking funds from smaller ones:

Should it face cost-overruns, which it already has […] of course it won’t be that one takes a step back and say ’no, we won’t build it’, after having invested mil-lions in it. Then it’s easier to say that ‘this cycle path between these two towns can wait’. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 11)

From these quotes, the reason why bicycle infrastructure is cut might be by several factors explored in this thesis: difficulties in motivating cycling investments (ch. 7), lack of will (ch. 8) and the degradation of smaller projects (section 4.1). Also, rele-gation of responsibility (ch. 5) plays in. The multi-level nature of transport infra-structure in Sweden, with several road authorities, can be used an excuse to cut funds, since there can be someone else who can take care of it. One regional planner explains how municipalities can be mobilised rhetorically:

That is very familiar to me – that [Trafikverket] says that ‘there can costs be saved’, and the so they cut it off. Or they leave it to the municipalities to fix that final piece in some way. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 8)

-26-

The view of cut-offs also indicates signs of change. Some regional planners (no. 1; 2; 6; 10) and Trafikverket officials (no. 4; 5) feels that cycling funds are not disappear-ing any longer. Rather the opposite, a planner (no. 1) feels like cycle paths are added to non-cycling projects. This view is supported by another planner (Trafikverket of-ficial 5). As claimed by a Trafikverket official (no. 4): ”it’s rather add[ed] where it’s not included already”. Through directives, such practices are perhaps lessening:

Before, one didn’t always want to include it in objects, but saw it as something like ‘well, that can be funded through some cycling pool’. Then it was sharply marked from the executives that ‘no, cycling should be treated within the frame of those [objects] and be implemented well’. (Trafikverket Official 2)

4.4 Lack of earmarked funds In 2007, Vägverket recommended the government to earmark funds for cycling (Vägverket, 2007). This has also been suggested in grey literature (Kågeson, 2009; Spolander, 2014b). It has been argued that earmarked funding can be beneficial in speeding up a transition to more funding for bicycling (WSP, 2011). In the UK, the Department for Transport recently announced a Cycling and Walking Investment Strategy, which earmark funds for these modes of transport (Department for Transport, 2017). While earmarking could prevent cycling funds from disappearing, most regional planners however are afraid it could diminish their own range of ac-tion and flexibility, as highlighted in this quote:

I personally wouldn’t be aided by earmarking funds for a certain measure, since it would make the planning process I do now more complicated. (Re-gional Infrastructure Planner 17)

No interviewed respondent therefore requests earmarking, although many re-spondents expressed that it “of course would have an effect” (Regional Infrastruc-ture Planner 6).

-27-

5. Allocating responsibility to municipalities This chapter explores how responsibility for cycling infrastructure is relegated to local levels.

5.1 Displacing national responsibility Enabling and disabling of certain alternatives has consequences for allocation of re-sponsibility. Through ‘policy framing’ and ‘issue attention’, problems and solutions evolve on the political agenda, where black-boxing (Latour, 1987) of what ‘can’ and ‘should’ be done happens (Dodds, 2013, pp. 216–8). A Social Democrat official con-siders the government pro-bike, but is not convinced that infrastructure is the sole answer:

It’s quite obvious that this government thinks increased and safe cycling is im-portant and are willing to promote it. It’s effective, compact, good for public health – there are many reasons why cycling should increase. And naturally, improved infrastructure for cycling is a part of that. I personally don’t think I share the view with those who say that it [infrastructure] is the solution and what’s causing children and young ones not to bike to school. I think it’s much more complex, and that infrastructure doesn’t necessarily help overcoming some thresholds for those who don’t consider cycling an option. But bicycle infrastructure is of course also important. (Social Democrat Official 1)

Here, a translation is made where a new group is invented (cf Latour, 1987, p. 115); children and young ones, and a new goal (cf. Ibid., p. 114), namely to deal with de-creased cycling in this group. This group of cyclists particularly came into public consciousness in Trafikanalys’ 2015 report on cycling, where decreasing cycling in this group was particularly highlighted (Trafikanalys, 2015). The appearance of this ‘new’ situation is utilised by the government to create incitement for renewed en-ergy in cycling policy. It is has been accentuated not only in this quote, but also in the government’s bill on transport (Regeringen, 2016b), cycling strategy (Regeringen, no date a) and mandate to inquire this (Regeringen, 2016e). Unfortu-nately for cycling infrastructure funding, this move is also one where focus is shifted from action to decision (to further investigation). Responsibility and action is instead relegated to future politicians; a pleasant way of dealing with unwanted action (Brunsson, 2007, ch. 5). Moreover, in this translation where children are referenced (cf. Latour, 1999, ch. 2), future action is in this quote shifted from infrastructure to other measures. Responsibility is also relegated to municipalities. A government official argues against increased state funding of municipal infrastructure from the perspective of the municipal planning monopoly:

One should be clear that, just as we don’t plan public transportation or munic-ipal roads, it isn’t the state that plan cycling paths in municipalities. And some-times there’s a feeling that there’s a demand on us to invest in cycle infrastruc-ture on municipal roads, but not have opinions on the design. (…) I have re-spect for those who say that the state should take on a greater responsibility, but it gets strange that we shouldn’t touch the municipal planning monopoly

-28-

when one put in more resources. Then I think a much better solution is stad-smiljöavtal [grants for sustainable urban environments], where the state at least can say that we want something in return, in housing or something else of national interest. But I don’t really believe in having funding in one place and the authority to plan somewhere else. (Social Democrat Official 1)

To allow this translation, a sub-programme (Latour, 1996, p. 217) is launched where a view that it should be invested in cycling only in localities where cycling is common is mobilised:

That is also why I think that the county plans are better tool for distribution [of funds] for cycle infrastructure [than the National plan], since places look different – in some municipalities and counties cycling is very important, while in other counties, it isn’t. Because the […] vast distances and other things, it… well, makes cycling impossible even if it would be an infrastructure for it. (So-cial Democrat Official 1)

Cycling is often constructed as a municipal responsibility by state officials11. The municipal planning monopoly here offers a powerful proposition (cf. Latour, 1999, p. 309) to the government. Once the division of responsibility amongst road author-ities has been settled (see below), and it has been established that cycling infrastruc-ture is primarily needed within urban areas (see ch. 7), cycling becomes constructed as a municipal rather than state responsibility. Through being combinable (cf. Latour, 1987, p. 223), these translations jointly disenable increased state funding. Once the responsibility is established as municipal, lack of progress can also be blamed there, as seen in this quote:

It’s this with most ‘bang for the buck’ – the most effective way of progress. I think it’s fairly easy to call on the state for more money, but what one can do only with the municipal planning monopoly: parking limits, demands on de-velopers […] This is about putting demands and be planning for cycling, but it needs to be a volition all the way. (Social Democrat Official 1)

5.2 Municipal funding of state roads The 2000 National Cycling Strategy underlined the need for a clear-cut division of responsibility when it comes to cycling paths (Vägverket, 2000). A road authority (or road keeper if it is private), is in legislation responsible for construction and maintenance of roads (Näringsdepartementet RS T, 1971). The principle should be that the municipalities are responsible for roads in urban areas, with an exception of overarching state roads which, together with rural roads, is a responsibility of the state12 (Trafikverket, 2015f). Since about a decade (Trafikverket and SKL, 2011), an increasing number of regions have a principle that municipalities should co-fund cycling paths along state roads, often in 50/50 share, based on the principle that the municipality is the beneficiary of cycling measures. This principle diverges from the principle of responsible road authorities, and has been criticised by Spolander (2013b, 2014b). A planner reflects on the confused situation:

11 E.g. the Minister for Infrastructure Anna Johansson (Social Democrat) in TV4 (2016) or the Minister for the Environment Karolina Skog (Green Party) in podcast Snåret (Svensk Byggtjänst, 2017). 12 Private road keepers should be responsible for rural roads with benefit only for certain property owners.

-29-

It has become a discussion amongst us: if Trafikverket builds paths, or if it’s municipalities who builds them along state roads – who is responsible for maintenance? Who ‘owns’ the path after it has been built? Some municipalities can consider building it if Trafikverket is responsible for snow shovelling and the like. As I understand it, there’s no good solution. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 8)

The concept of ‘beneficiaries’ explains the occurrence of this practice: the one who benefits from a measure should fund it. When cycling is mobilised as mainly a lo-cal/municipal interest and is combined with a lack of explicit national and regional needs or benefits of cycling (see below) and thus results in a machination of the principle that municipalities should be the primary investor in bicycle infrastruc-ture. Several regional infrastructure planners (no. 4; 6; 7; 8; 12; 17) and Trafikverket officials (no. 5) note a situation where the major, wealthy municipalities put a lot of effort into cycling, while smaller, poorer and more rural municipalities are less am-bitious and spend less money:

We have smaller municipalities of some 6-12 000 inhabitants. They can’t come up with 25 million. Probably, they can’t even come up with some 6-7 million in co-funding. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 6)

This can also be an issue when it comes to the grants for sustainable urban environ-ments (stadsmiljöavtal):

[…] Then one must be able to fund half of the sum with one’s own budget. And that is difficult to do. Municipalities often have very tight budgets so it’s diffi-cult to balance national intentions. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 2)

However, several regional planners (no. 6; 7; 13; 15) considers it the better model, since the regional planning authority otherwise becomes an authority which munic-ipalities demand funding from without giving anything in return. As such, it levels roles as provider and receiver. Another argument is that it increases total funding:

In many cases, the municipalities are very eager to have these cycling paths. They have probably thought that it has a municipal benefit, perhaps rather than a benefit for the regional system, so to speak. And that has made it appro-priate for municipalities to co-fund. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 5)

5.3 Road legislation limits the building of state cycling paths In current law, Trafikverket is prohibited to build a cycle path without a functional relationship to a public road13, and it is disputed whether this mean an immediate connection to a motor traffic road. There is also an uncertainty regarding how to secure land access for cycle paths, and what Trafikverket (2017b, p. 1) calls ‘an un-certain situation regarding pieces of land where the landlord allows cycling’. Olsérius (2016) examines eight ways in which it is possible to gain land access, but

13 I.e. a road for several modes of transport, especially motor traffic. In writing the law, motor traffic was considered ‘inter-regional’, while cycling was considered ‘local’. Cycle paths was considered to be a kind of road only for a ‘certain and more special mode of transport’ (Trafikverket, 2017b, pp. 1–2).

-30-

recommends a legal clarification. It is discussed if this could be clarified through a court case, legislation or a government bill on infrastructure (Olsérius, 2016; Traf-ikverket, 2017b; Johansson, 2012, pp. 250–290; Sjödin, 2002; Johansson, 2013). The case has been debated in the Riksdag (see Finstorp and Johansson, 2015), and there has been an unpublished inquiry at the Ministry of Justice (Ibid., Johansson, 2012). It is currently debated in the Riksdag’s Committee on Traffic (Trafikutskottet, [forth-coming]). A report on cycling legislation argued that the existing law increases costs (WSP, 2011). The interpretation that it is not possible to build cycling paths where there’s no road has an indirect impact on budgeting. First, it can make cycle paths more expensive by locating it in places more difficult to build at, or by letting the path take a detour (Regional Infrastructure Planner 9). In one region, there is a need for a cycling path. But since it cannot be built, it was discussed whether they should build a mixed traf-fic road instead, which would increase costs (Regional Infrastructure Planner 5). Second, if a cycle path is to be located where fewer potential cyclists can use it, it can diminish the benefits of having it built. This has been the case in at least one region, where, eventually, no path was built since there was no state road inside the villages where the potential was high, as the state road bypassed them (Regional Infrastruc-ture Planner 13). Third, it can impact on Trafikverket’s possibilities to build a path, since a path must be located within the road area [vägområde] (Regional Infrastructure Planner 3; 6). In a region in northern Sweden, Trafikverket threatened to not fund a cycling path unless it was located next to a road:

”At one occasion, at [Location], we had a need for a cycling and walking path […]. There is no alternative route between these two villages, and this road is during the tourist season heavily used by motor traffic. It is located on a slope, and there’s a railing, and is really frightening to travel on unless one is inside a car […]. There was a question of where a cycling and walking path should be located, and many thought it was a good idea if it was placed further away from the road, along the beach instead of up on the slope. But then Trafikverket said that ‘then there is no functional connection, and we cannot fund it’. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 4)

Fourth, to use private roads for cycling paths becomes a complex undertaking with regards to funding signposts and maintenance since they then have to be accessible for all modes of transport (Regional Infrastructure Planner 6; 13). It is a general problem since private roads could be utilised for extending the rural cycle network:

There are many small roads which we would like to use. And then it’s needed to build links between many parts. But then we don’t have the right to go in […] We have the right to direct traffic there but not to put up sign posts – one can bike, but we can’t show them there. […] It’s not only problematic in the sense that it can become expensive and complicated, but it also takes a whole lot more time. And there are many road keepers in [the county] which we should call and talk to if we can put up sign posts […] but it would be a full-time service. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 11)

-31-

Fifth, this means that promising cycle paths are not invested in, as the uncertainty makes it better to focus on other investments first:

The problem is that the Road Act most likely disallows us to put up a road plan here [shows a railway on a map, where a cycle path is requested], since it’s way too far from nearest state road. And the path the goes there today is private. And since the Road Act prohibit us from building next to a state railway, now this is not a state railway, but if it would have been, it would still not allow us to build […] We could test it, that is, take it to the highest court. It would take x number of years and quite [many] millions of tax payers’ money […] So […] should we spend tax payers’ money on this, or should we meanwhile actually build cycle paths somewhere else for the same funds? (Trafikverket Official 4)

The legislation thus triggers certain actions which act as inscription devices (Latour, 1987, p. 68) through carrying the legislation into budgets were it makes a difference, although in highly transformed forms. A Trafikverket memorandum regarding con-structing cycle paths along rails (Trafikverket, 2017b) requests a clarification on the legal situation regarding the possibility to invest in cycle paths where there is no road. The issue has been discussed within the government. The Green Party would like to have the law changed:

I think the biggest issue is that of land access. ‘Cycle path’ is not a proper cate-gory in the law. Instead, bicycle paths are subjugated as ‘attachments to roads’. This lead bicycle paths to not to be seen as a proper state responsibility. There-fore, the law should be changed. (Green Party Official 1)

In this quote, the Green Party official enrol the question of responsibility (see ch. 5) to the argument. But the Social Democrats have a different approach:

Well, we have looked into that, and we don’t recognise it [as a problem]. […] In Uppsala where they’re building a super cycle path into town, it’s no problem at all. (Social Democrat Official 1)

The official refers most likely to an internal, unpublished memorandum by the Min-istry of Enterprise and Innovation (Näringsdepartementet, 2017), which assembles statements from the Swedish Government Official Report on cycling (SOU 2012:70, see Johansson, 2012) and recent statements by the Minister for Justice (see Finstorp and Johansson, 2015). The memorandum states that the Ministry for Justice finished its inquiry in 2015, without suggesting a legislative change. The conclusion in this memorandum is also that no legislative change should be made. The Social Demo-crat official argues:

They [municipalities] have the municipal planning monopoly, and it can for example be that someone rejects [a road]. Yes, but it’s the same no matter what you’re building, and then you always have the tool of expropriation. And then I think one is timid when one thinks it’s obvious [to use it when] building mo-torways or rails. And then one thinks it’s okay to use whatever legal means that exist. But that one is timid with cycling and like: ‘but one shouldn’t be able to [use expropriation] …?’. Why shouldn’t one be able to do so? […] We have

-32-

the tools the settle conflicts regarding land access. And sometimes maybe one doesn’t need to reinvent, but to use what we already have. (Social Democrat Official 1)

The machination (Latour, 1987, p. 128) of ‘expropriation’ is a necessity for this ar-gument to hold. A character of this actor, however, is that it seals this problem with-out solving other issues such as that of responsibility, or that of the uncertainty re-garding the legal situation amongst different actors.

5.4 Reshuffling interests and goals Trafikverket has no assignment to deal with cycling particularly, and there is no na-tionally defined cycling path network. The government has not given its administra-tive authority a clear directive to prioritise cycling. In the government’s mandate to produce orientation material for the 2018-2029 period, there was no particular mandate to examine how to increase cycling or make it safer (Regeringen, 2015). Neither was it explicit in the mandate for the measure planning, besides a sweeping formulation that it is desirous to promote opportunities to travel with public transport, walking or cycling (Regeringen, 2017c). The Green Party would like to give Trafikverket such an assignment:

We would like to give Trafikverket a sharp cycling objective. Or a task to work with cycling and give it priority. (Green Party Official 1)

Trafikverket are in need of specified objectives related to cycling. They also need a specified assignment to work with cycling. There are many ways to do this [politically]: in their ordinance [containing terms of reference for the au-thority, [myndighetsinstruktion], letter of appropriation [regleringsbrev], a government mandate [regeringsuppdrag], ... (Green Party Official 2)

A strategic development plan at the national level of a nationally defined cycling path network could perhaps be another way. It has been suggested by Spolander (2006) and Kågeson (2007). A regional planner mobilises lacking data of investment needs (see more in ch. 7) and a discussion of the uncertainty whether national cy-cling paths should be the same as trunk roads, to argue for a plan:

We don’t have a national cycling road network […] One could argue that eve-rything is regional and allocate more funding to the county plans […] Today there’s money in the national plan and in the county plans, but it’s unclear what we’re allowed to use national funding for. And there’s no national cycling path network. One talks more in terms of ‘here’s a national road, then maybe we should build a national cycling path next to it’. I think one should make a statement: how should cycle paths be treated? Should it be a national plan, and which roads is it then? […] It’s a matter of becoming more specific. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 11)

No report or analysis at the national level have so far dealt with this issue. But in-creasingly, different kinds of plans and strategies incorporate cycling at the regional level. It is experienced that to have plans and strategies for cycling tend to levitate funding to cycling (Regional Infrastructure Planner 2; 8; 15; Trafikverket Official 5).

-33-

To clarify and solidify national and regional benefits of cycling, objectives, targets and goals could be sharply formulated. One regional planner explains how a state objective affect the national and regional levels as beneficiaries of cycling invest-ments:

What is important nationally? Maybe it’s not cycle paths […] The same with regions […] Naturally, it’s good if they tell us from above that now we need to focus on it […] It’s not like we gather our funds freely – we got instructions on how it’s to be done. And then it’s good with a statement that cycling needs to be prioritised even more than before. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 11)

The need for cycling objectives in Sweden has been underlined by Trafikverket (2011b), Persson et al (2015) and the Swedish Government Official Report on fossil free roads (Johansson, 2013). In an international literature review, Malekpour et al (2017) found that having a long-term vision and letting it adjust planning efforts was one key to success in avoiding ‘disruptions’ from development of sustainable infrastructure. Aldred (2012) has found that cycling in the UK has not been seen as a state task of strategic transport planning, which limited state engagement and funding. There are many similarities with Swedish situation. A Social Democrats official in the government claim not to be against an objective as such, but refer to the lack of statics:

We have had discussions in the different groups that have taken part [in pro-ducing the national strategy] and it’s a strong pressure on adopting an objec-tive. But we have nothing to depart from. That is… can we just say ‘fifty percent increase’? ‘From what?’ […] So that was one of the first assignments we de-cided on. Because it’s not that we’re reluctant to having an objective, or that we don’t understand the criticism of the need for having an increased target management. But we need to know how things are. (Social Democrat Official 1)

A range of other objectives are mobilised to motivate or hinder cycling investments. To reshuffle interests and goals (Latour, 1987, pp. 113–9) is one way in which actors are enrolled. This is to use tactics to formulate problems which planning can re-spond to. For example, in one region, accessibility for the forest- and tourist industry (not including bicycle tourism) is given high priority (Regional Infrastructure Plan-ner 4). In another region, a regional planner (no. 15) point to the need to fund rural roads to show the rural society that they are “taken care of”. Here, the symbolical rather than practical value of infrastructure is emphasised. In these cases, highly lo-calised objectives are referenced in budgeting at the regional level. A third example is how what is seen as regional transport responsibilities disfavour cycling:

It often revolves in a discussion of development […] If we then talk commuting and labour market and such, maybe the bike isn’t the most concrete measure for it. It has other benefits which are not equally prioritised at the regional level. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 11)

National objectives other than cycling are also mobilised. ‘Safety’ is an example of this, as it is mobilised as a key objective. It can actually de-motivatate cycling

-34-

measures through connecting increased cycling to increased road fatalities (Traf-ikverket, 2015b). According to a cycling interest group official (no. 1), the safety dis-course is often also putting cyclist at responsibility for their safety (e.g. protective gear, speed) while infrastructure (e.g. roundabouts, fences) is seen improving safety for motorists. A planner (no. 12) describes how Vision Zero [the Swedish vision of zero deaths in traffic] has been centred around road infrastructure investments in the county’s planning, limiting cycling investments. In another region, such interventions were, besides cycling measures, also highly requested by municipalities (Regional Infra-structure Planner 9). These examples illustrate how budgeting can be shaped through mobilisations of a multitude of interests and goals. Such can be explicit or tacit, but can shape budget-ing anyhow. Objectives can be champions of investments, but need to be translated into budgeting practices to make a difference. However, there are also examples of anti-programmes. In some regions, roads are now so extensively built, which is ref-erenced in arguments that there is simply no longer a need for more roads:

We are pretty much done with road infrastructure as it is […] ’Now we can put in luxury things [in the budget] such as cycle paths’, as some express […] That’s a discussion that evolves sometimes, that ‘now when we’ve completed for all cars, we can move on to other modes of transport further down in rank’. (Re-gional Infrastructure Planner 6)

5.5 Lack of administrative champions To mobilise the regional or national levels as beneficiaries would require anti-pro-grammes were champions of increased investments were influential in budgeting processes. The role of champion can be played by administrative authorities, who argue for more funding for their field of practice. However, that seems not to have been the case. As concluded in chapter 4, earmarked funding is rejected by planners as it limits their range of action. Planning documents, reports and policies could also have played the role of cham-pions for increase funding. However, besides the many documents produced by Trafikverket and others that concern cycling, it is often missing in analyses in key reports from the budgeting processes. One such example is the main report from the 2018-2029 orientation planning (Trafikverket, 2015b). It talks repeatedly about the need to promote walking, cycling and public transports, but cycling is largely miss-ing in analyses for decisions, and it suggest little action to substantially increase funding or deal with factors that might restrict it. When cycling is missing in the analyses, it does not become a ‘reference’ (Latour, 1999, ch. 2) in subsequent budg-ets. Potentially could a national cycling office, tasked with coordination cycling interven-tions, be another such champion. Of course, associations must still be strong for the diffusion fact-builder’s (Latour, 1987, p. 103) interest; for a champion to become a champion. A national cycling policy office or similar was suggested already in Vägverket’s 2000 strategy (Vägverket, 2000) and in reports following up the strat-egy (Spolander and Dellensten, 2003; Spolander, 2006). Such an institution could

-35-

also deal with many other factors identified in this thesis. This also suits well with other interventions suggested in the 2000 strategy, such ‘forum of cycling ideas’; national and regional annual cycling accounts; research, development and educa-tion; a knowledge database; pilot projects, and others (Vägverket, 2000). Aretun and Robertson (2013) have suggested something similar: institutional measures such as increased support to municipalities from state agencies and establishing increased cross-sectoral governance for cycling. Trafikverket (2016c) suggested a triple helix ’climate council’, to identify issues, coordinate efforts and suggest measures related to mitigating emissions from transport. The National Cycling Council is a ‘quadruple helix’ formation mainly focused on knowledge sharing (Cycling Interest Groups Of-ficial 1). It has produced a joint cycling strategy (Trafikverket, 2014) and an annual cycling closing account (Trafikverket, 2015d), but lacks further mandate and has no staff.

-36-

6. Investments becoming unnecessarily expensive This chapter examines mechanisms that make cycling investments costlier than they otherwise could have been – reducing investment will and capacity.

6.1 Insufficiently examined cycling projects A respondent says that it has for long been an inaccurate view that cycling paths are cheap to build (Trafikverket Official 4). If investments are deviating from this expec-tation, seemingly expensive paths can become difficult to motivate: “it costs a lot to build cycling paths […] and it thus gets more difficult to motivate cycling measures”, says a regional infrastructure planner (no. 11). It has been suggested that cycling interventions that are insufficiently examined is a reason why bicycle funding falters (Kågeson, 2009). Lack of closer examination is, according to a Trafikverket official (no. 5), often combined with deficient calculation methods when it comes to cycling. Trafikverket use different methods in the plan-ning process to analyse different alternatives and to evaluate projects’ costs and benefits. The fundamental demands are regulated in 16 § Road act (Näringsdepar-tementet RS T, 1971) and in the government’s directives for the plans (Regeringen, 2017c). The latter states that cheaper objects (see section 3.2) does not have the same demands for being examined as costlier ones. Insufficiently examined projects are not only put into binding plans, but also into non-binding strategic documents. For example, as expressed by a regional infra-structure planner:

The costs for the regional bicycle strategy was estimated, and it was gravely undervalued. Now, when we are starting to build the regional paths, it turns out that everything is twice as expensive. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 1)

This illustrate how ‘cycling as cheap’ can be mobilised from professional planning practices. Of the two named-and-listed cycling projects in the national plan 2014-2025 (Trafikverket, no date a), one (a regional path in northern Stockholm) was put on hold, as after more detailed investigations and calculations the expected costs rose sevenfold (Regional Infrastructure Planner 1; Trafikverket Official 4; 5). When it came into the national plan, it was only an idea-based study that had been under-taken (Trafikverket Official 4), which means a study to identify possible measures in the forthcoming planning (Trafikverket, no date e). There had been a strong will to increase cycling investments, so cycling objects was put in the plan despite proper examination (Trafikverket Official 5). In this example, funding was put on hold due to costs exceeding available funds, in combination with a lack of will to cover those costs with other funds. A key institution that enabled this translation was the 4-year time frame of the budgeting process.

6.2 Planning and design demands While insufficiently examined projects can make cycling appear costly, there are also factors that make cycling unnecessarily costly. First, “planning can cost more than construction” (Regional Infrastructure Planner 10). It is exemplified in this quote:

-37-

If one ’only’ wants to build a cycle path, one can sometimes think there’s a hell of fuzz only to build the path […] It’s sometimes a little cumbersome, the sys-tem. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 8)

The number of studies, and people involved in producing those, can mediate (Latour, 2005, pp. 37–42) projects into becoming more costly:

What have caused [cycle paths] to become more and more expensive? It could be a connection to ‘the good as enemy of the good’ […] Maybe it’s about a miss-ing link of 400 metres. ‘But build the path then’ – everyone agrees that it should be built […] But then one must go back to do a strategic choice of measures study. One needs four or five [persons] from Trafikverket who examines this. Sometimes there’s a consultant […] That is one explanation of what has made it more expensive. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 15)

The demands of what is needed to produce plan are enacted against planners who wants to construct smaller roads quickly and cheaply:

If one look at the planning process: if one is to build a new walking and cycling path outside so called ‘road areas’ [vägområde], it’s in principle a question just as big as if building a road. It’s negotiations of property, it’s producing plans, it’s stakeholder consultation… So, when building along state roads, costs are high even for tiny pieces. It’s still cheaper than building roads, but there has been a thinking that one doesn’t need to allocate funds for cycling because it’s cheap. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 6)

Second, when Trafikverket is involved with constructing new roads, or major recon-structions, road design must follow what is specified in their manual known as ‘VGU’ (Trafikverket, 2015c). It has been suggested to update it to better accommodate cy-cling design (WSP, 2011; Johansson, 2012). Particularly, Trafikverket is criticised for too strictly sticking to this manual. As a regional planner express it:

Trafikverket is a bit inflexible […]. They have their specific demands on cycling paths that they need to be of a certain width, paving, and have street lights, and so on… And we think that’s good often, but not all the time. Sometimes it’s al-right for it to be narrower, and sometimes, when it is for summer tourism, it might not require asphalt, street lights and winter maintenance, and then we could build more for the same amount of money. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 4)

This need is identified by several other regional planners (no. 11; 14), and revolves around perception that qualitative paths cannot or should not be built where there are low flows of cyclists:

We have concluded that building cycling paths is very expensive today. So, we want that when looking at cycling routes for commuting to work or school, or for cycle tourism, that one can cycle in mixed traffic […] To create cycling routes on paths that doesn’t need asphalt, to use existing roads, or fix trails to a certain standard – to make more use of the money. Maybe, we need to create cycling routes like that in the future, not just building traditional walking and

-38-

cycling paths […] it will not be able to build [such] out in the countryside and so on. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 9)

Vägverket (2007) have expressed a need to develop different categories of cycling paths, and Johansson and Rosander (2017) identified the need in respect to rural cycling infrastructure. A Trafikverket official (no. 2) and a regional planner (no. 11) compares with how there are different road categories, which brings about certain criteria for design and maintenance, and eventually, costs, and argues that it should be applied for cycling as well. Trafikverket are in progress of establishing such a dis-tinction, but there is an issue that all municipalities and counties already have dif-ferent ways of labelling categories (Trafikverket Official 2). Different stakeholders thus mobilise VGU to argue for using allocated funds differ-ently. However, some regional planners (no. 2; 3; 8) and a Trafikverket official (no. 4) are of the view that demands on width or paving is not a problem. Rather, they argue for the necessity of a high-quality infrastructure:

Cycling paths should maybe have a higher quality standard: better asphalt, and disallow too much decline. Bikes are more sensible than cars. For a car, it might not be the end of the world if there’s a bump, but if one comes with a bike and there’s a hole in the road, it can be really troublesome. So, standards should be higher somehow. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 3)

This differences in articulation here departs from views that cycling funds should be used differently, in contrast to views that overall funding for cycling should increase.

6.3 (Un)common procurement and coordination Another issue is lacking coordination of efforts. Common procurement could make bicycle infrastructure investments cheaper and enable a more efficient use existing funds (Envall, 2016). In national and regional cycling path planning and construc-tion, several road authorities can be involved in the production of single regional road (Trafikverket Official 4). This require several plans, which makes the process more complicated (Ibid.), more expensive (Regional infrastructure planner 1; Traf-ikverket Official 5) and of varying quality (Regional infrastructure planner 1). ‘Cy-cling as a municipal responsibility’ (see ch. 5) motivates coordination of municipal efforts at the regional level:

Regional Infrastructure Planner 1: [common procurement] is major issue. If municipalities don’t coordinate their efforts, it often becomes a situation where one municipality makes one intervention, and then the rest of the path is really crappy.

Researcher: Then it becomes cheaper too…? Planner 1: God yes, much more efficient. That’s what we want – to build larger sections at once. We have started [an institutional structure] to deal with that.

The issue at stake here is that municipalities are largely responsible for regional planning. Regional cycling paths are increasingly identified in regional cycling strat-egies, but can be planned and executed by several municipalities and Trafikverket.

-39-

This issue is described as a problem in following dialogue, discussing how a section of a regional cycling path became a municipal responsibility because there was no state road (see also section 5.3):

Trafikverket Official 4: An analysis was made that the functional connection to the state road was lost. Then it [the section] should be a municipal responsi-bility […] If one is to build here and here [points on a map], it’s more effective to have one project all the way than to end here and here [points on a map]. A plan must be independent, it needs to be connected to… Trafikverket Official 5: There must also be funding…

Official 4: Exactly. It cannot end just nowhere. Which requires the municipality to sort of… Which makes it much more complicated. Official 5: [It’s] probably more expensive if one needs to re-establish and some-one else should… Official 4: Yes, they’re not connected.

This dialogue recalls the ‘more chefs, worse soup’ proverb. Thus, it is not only a problem that multiple road authorities make the production of infrastructure more expensive and complicated, as several plans and planning processes are needed. It can also create a situation of dependence, where a regional authority, responsible for a regional cycling plan, needs to rely on municipalities for fulfilling it. It has been suggested that roads and rails should be rebalanced to the regional level (Has-selgren, 2013b; for cycling see WSP, 2011). A way to launch an anti-programme at the regional level within existing institutional structure to increase procurement gains is to have a flexible pool of funding ready:

We merged public transport and cycling in the last budget, and have decided not to name-and-list them to be able to build where and when there’s a need. If one is down in the streets and dig for sewers for example, we have money to build a cycling path there, to get some procurement gains and keep costs down. (Regional infrastructure planner 3)

-40-

7. Methods for prioritising investments To determine priorities between investments, different methods are used, examined in this chapter.

7.1 Deficient data Cycling path data and the need for investments are two areas where there has been lacking knowledge, as seen in section 2.4. As expressed by a regional planner, the lack of data makes it more difficult to argue for increased funding:

Newspapers say: ’there’s chaos on the motorways, there’s chaos on the motor-ways!’. And if one wants to suggest an alternative, one needs to be able to argue against it. What quickly arrives is that ‘we need to spend more money on ex-tending motorways’. There’s a real knowledge gap there: you can’t equate bike and car, because you know so much more of cars and public transport – how a small intervention will affect the bigger system and all that, than for cycling traffic […] It’s treated in the margins since one doesn’t realise how big poten-tial it has, because we can’t show that potential in the same language as we speak for cars. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 5)

So, to motivate bicycle funding at the arena of negotiations, where cycling is con-trasted with other modes of transport, planners must in some cases launch a sub-programme and adjust the language. The ‘language of cars’ in which to speak is one where transport measures must be argued for in quantitative terms: it is not enough to speak in the language of, say, basic accessibility or safety. Rather, this language is one based on numbers and flows of traffic where arguments revolves around impact on traffic, something measures must be able to show to have:

One has to able to show that there is an interest: that invested cycling paths actually will be used – that it will be worth to invest in them. (Regional Infra-structure Planner 3)

After this language has been established, investment needs to become important. If there is no need, a measure simply cannot be motivated. So, to motivate bicycle fund-ing, planners must launch a second-degree sub-programme to identify needs:

There’s been a lack of data to know needs and how much money one needs […] The important thing if one wants more funds for cycling in a county plan is to have gathered good data – to understand needs and flaws in the county, sum-marise them, understand how much funding has been invested before… […] Otherwise it tends to be ad hoc – to put the same sum as before. (Regional In-frastructure Planner 14)

Initiating such work in preparing a regional plan, several regions have been able to levitate cycling investments in the county plan once the investment need became clear (Trafikverket Official 4). With a mandate to investigate the need, it is likely that even more projects will be named-and-listed in the upcoming planning period (Traf-ikverket Official 5). A regional planner (no. 15) discovered that there were no speci-fied needs, and this limited cycling funds in the county plan. To levitate funding in the next plan, they realized that they needed a plan and thus commenced such work.

-41-

Another region has just finished such work (Regional Infrastructure Planner 3). In-vestment need is based on potential, and potential is based on flows of traffic. And again, a subsequent third degree sub-programme is to collect data, as explained in the following quote:

What has been the problem to do [calculations]: then we haven’t had the input parameters, that is, how many cyclists are there? We don’t have a cyclist coun-ter. One can estimate based on town size, but there’s very little statistics in this case to perform these calculations properly. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 15)

Lacking knowledge of shares and flows of cyclists has been a reoccurring theme in the recent decades (Vägverket, 2000, 2007; Regeringen, no date a; Trafikverket, 2013). To be able to motivate bicycle funding, the language of cars must be spoken, investment need must be assembled and data must be enrolled. However, a fourth-degree sub-programme must also be launched: enrolled data must be showing flows of cyclists.

For cycling, there’s less data […] For roads, it’s easy to say that ’this is the traffic today and there’s a lack of capacity’. But for cycling […] it can be roads with traffic which one knows of, but don’t have statistics for, and then it becomes harder to motivate. And there’s lots for roads where there could be traffic if only it would be more suitable to bike there. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 11)

Since traffic flow monitoring is uncommon for cycling, estimations are often made with the ‘Kågeson model’ (Kågeson, 2007). Based primarily on town sizes and dis-tance between them, it evaluates the cycling potential based on how big flows of cyclists paths can amass. It is widely used for prioritising cycling investments in the national plan (Trafikverket Official 2) as well as the county plans (Regional Infra-structure Planner 3; 7). The consequence of the fourth-degree sub-programme is that only certain cycling interventions becomes valid. Once the best cycling paths have been selected, it is possible to argument for cycling investments properly. How-ever, this is not possible where there is a lack of data. And if data exists, arguments can clash in the language of cars, where flows matter. On state roads, which are pri-marily rural, cycling flows are seldom particularly high. As expressed by one re-gional planner (no. 13): the consequence of the demand for cycle paths to be located where the highest potential is, often means that no cycle path will be built at all.

7.2 Over-reliance on CBA One of the methods used to prioritise projects is cost-benefit analysis (CBA): quan-titative calculations of projects’ benefits in relation to costs. Calculation models of-ten benefit new roads for motor traffic with high(er) traffic flows and speed limits due to time gains (Johansson and Eklöf, 2015, p. 69). The need to develop calculation principles for cycling has been expressed in various literature, as seen in section 2.4. Several CBA methods exists for cycling internationally, and Trafikverket have devel-oped their own tool for walking and cycling: ‘GC-kalk’. It uses the same type of values as for other modes transport, but with (bicycle) specific values, plus additional health effects (Trafikverket, [no date]; see also Vägverket, 2007).

-42-

It is under sustained critique from respondents. According to a Trafikverket official (no. 2), the main issues with GC-kalk is that health benefits are uncertain, that it is so dependent on knowing existing and future flows of cyclists, and that it is not widely used. Trafikverket use it on trunk roads, but it has become clear during in-terviews that it is rarely used by regional (county) planners. Two other officials (no. 4; 5) point out that the model assumes that new cycling paths increases the risk of demise, so when building a path where there is none, new flows of cyclists will mean road accidents become possible. One of them (no. 5) says: “CBA for cycling has not been as mature and good as for other modes of transport.” The other (no. 4) argues that methods to calculate cycling costs and benefits are only in an early stage of de-velopment, and compares it with a drawing of a child compared to those of an archi-tect. Some regional planners are also critical:

Societal-economic analyses are not a good guide for us when it comes to cy-cling. They don’t incorporate the benefits of cycling, but show cycling to be un-profitable. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 1)

This is strange, given that many peer-reviewed academic papers on cycling cost and benefits show positive results for cycling investments and/or reduced automobile use (e.g. Sælensminde, 2004; Cavill et al., 2008; Gotschi, 2011; Rojas-Rueda et al., 2011; Grabow et al., 2012; Macmillan et al., 2014; Gössling and Choi, 2015; Brey et al., 2017). This is also the view of a regional planner (no. 9). Trafikverket have writ-ten that measures that improve accessibility for bicycle are often societal-economi-cally beneficial and should be seen as cost-effective ‘instruments’ for mitigating cli-mate change (Trafikverket, 2016c, p. 28). An explanation might be found in that CBA are based on forecasted flows of traffic:

Societal-economic benefit depends on forecasts. For example, the benefits of physical investments are strongly affected by traffic forecasts used in the anal-ysis. The reason for this is primarily that a large proportion of the benefit stems from shorter travelling times. If there, for example, is a lower traffic in-crease or traffic decrease, the total travelling time benefits and the societal-economic benefits of these are lowered proportionally. In the measure plan-ning for 2014-2025, a […] sensitivity analysis of societal economic benefits was performed for all road objects >200 million SEK with Trafikverket’s ‘climate scenario’. The results indicates that a third of road objects becomes unprofita-ble in such a scenario. (Trafikverket, 2016c, p. 24)

Thus, modify the forecasted traffic flow data, and investment priorities change rad-ically. In rural areas, where most state roads are situated, the flows are simply ex-pected to be too low to generate positive cost-benefit ratios. A Trafikverket official (no. 2) even questions the need to use GC-kalk in rural areas, as such investments rather are for improving accessibility or safety than societal-economic benefits. It is primarily within urban areas where CBA for cycling proves beneficial, but this is not where it is primarily put into use14. Johansson and Rosander (2017) found that over-reliance on societal-economic arguments is limiting investments in rural cycling in-frastructure in Sweden. This over-reliance on CBA has also been identified in the UK.

14 Outside the scope of this study, it is to the researcher’s knowledge uncommon for most municipal-ities to use CBA methods for cycling.

-43-

Aldred (2015) found that speed and utility is given high importance in infrastruc-ture planning, meaning that health, environmental, social, and other benefits of in-creased cycling was undervalued. As seen in chapter 1, societal-economic effectiveness is a key objective in Swedish national-level transport planning (Regeringen, 1998) and formulated in Trafikver-ket’s governmental instruction (Näringsdepartementet RS T, 2010):

It’s the whole set of rules that Trafikverket has: they can’t hand out money if there’s no benefit for society. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 15)

To give CBA too much influence in decision-making is identified as a problem by Trafikverket, since there are uncertainties in the calculations and some values might be missing since they are difficult to quantify (Trafikverket, no date c). Yet, its dura-bility stems from it being institutionalised with these formulations as transport ob-jectives and legislation. It translates into planning:

It’s easier to invest in big things where great effects can be shown, than the little ones which may be contributing to bigger things – that can contribute to a whole lot more that is more difficult to describe. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 11)

In this respect, planning is embedded in a rational planning discourse, where strive for being ‘scientific’ and ‘objective’ (Allmendinger, 2009, p. 50) prevail. There are also other methods that are used. CBA provides monetary values on investments (Trafikverket, no date c), while societal-economic analyses and effects assessments has both qualitative and quantitative aspects (Von Koch, 2016). ‘Overall effects as-sessments’, gathers analyses in an overall estimation of the suitability of a project (Trafikverket, no date c). But when regional planners are to convince politicians it is difficult to motivate needs when speaking the language of cars: “one needs to be better to frame it and quantify the benefits” (Regional Infrastructure Planner 11). Another regional planner comments:

When there is a societal-economic estimation, it is attached disproportionately big importance. Even when there’s overall effects assessments […] which is a more qualitative assessment, the quantitative assessments are the ones easy to understand and communicate, and are thus given great importance. (Re-gional Infrastructure Planner 13)

7.3 Forecast planning In the ‘language of cars’, data of present flows of traffic can be of significant im-portance for determining projects’ benefits at the microscale, as seen in the previous sections. The articulation of traffic flows at the macro level is too. It is institutional-ised as central in all infrastructure decision-making, and must be taken into account (Strömberg, 2016). Trafikverket has in the orientation planning suggested three al-ternative developments of travelling and transports at the macro level until 2030 (see Regeringen, 2016b, pp. 36–42). The first direction consists of the already de-cided politics, the second of already decided politics plus some announced measures, and the third of already decided politics and announced measures plus additional measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Traffic for all modes of

-44-

transport are in all scenarios expected to increase, and “the car is expected to also in the future dominate individual transports” (Trafikverket, 2015b, p. 9). This effects planning:

Forecasts indicate increased car traffic. You have a problem and you compare it to find a solution. But if you look at forecasts which counts on increased car traffic, they will always suggest extended roads to deal with increased car traf-fic. And then you will have increased car traffic because you extend them. So, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 5)

Forecasts that probe investments in other modes of transport are brought to the centres of calculation (Latour, 1987, pp. 215–257) and act as inscription devices; shaping budgeting digits. The issue was highlighted by Vägverket (Vägverket, 2000, pp. 65–6), who argued that societal-economic calculations could differ from national objectives, such as emission and noise objectives. It has also been highlighted in re-ports by Trafikverket that forecast-based planning is not combinable with climate objectives (Johansson and Eklöf, 2015, p. 71). Trafikverket’s ‘climate report’ (Traf-ikverket, 2016c) also pushed the question of forecast-based planning to the public debate by Trafikverket employees (Aronsson, 2015). Alternatively, to forecast plan-ning, priorities could depart from objectives and visions:

Societal-economic assessments are not the only truth. One can look benefits, but where do we want to go? (Regional Infrastructure Planner 12)

National traffic forecasts should be taken in consideration when infrastructure in-vestments are decided, but so should environmental objectives (Trafikverket, 2011a). As noted by Trafikverket, increased motor traffic is unsustainable, and car and truck traffic needs to be reduced by 30 percent until 2030 (Trafikverket, 2016c). Forecasts instead suggest an increase of cars by 25 percent. Cycling and walking needs to increase 240 percent, but forecasts suggest only an increase by 10 percent (Ibid.). From this, it is obvious that climate change mitigation and forecasts, which both should be considered in planning, takes transport infrastructure investments in opposite directions. It is believed that the focus of forecasts, rather than objec-tives, is having too much an influence on budgeting:

Forecast planning has always characterised Trafikverket and all infrastructure planning for a long time. One look at forecasts and how one experience things and one measures […] One needs to work with target management [målstyrning]. And that is really difficult to get it in at Trafikverket, I have to say. Because it’s very much about forecasts. They talk of target management but when at work they use forecasts. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 12)

-45-

8. Status, prestige and hypocrisy The previous chapters have examined the funding situation, the views on funding responsibility and the tools and processes used. The legal and practical impediments aside, it must be questioned if a willingness to invest in cycling genuinely exist and if there are impediments to that willingness.

8.1 Cycling as low status

Walking and cycling is considered low status to do [at Trafikverket] and that often means the project managers are not very experienced […] One gets a try-it-out object, one can say, before one becomes a full-scale project manager. (Former Trafikverket Employee 1)

A regional planner experience unwillingness to invest in cycling in fellow profes-sionals’ attitudes:

Regional Infrastructure Planner 12: I received a comment not so long ago, that within Trafikverket they don’t think cycling should be funded nationally […] Researcher: Was it a real proposal or something someone just said? Planner: That is the view that exists within National planning [a unit] at Traf-ikverket. What they have decided, I don’t know, but there’s a really strong re-sistance against putting in walking and cycling. It doesn’t belong there, they think.

In this quote, the resistance towards national funding implies that it should occur somewhere else. One regional planner informs how this can also be an issue at re-gional authorities:

In a way, [specified funds for cycling] can disfavour cycling, because it gets so clear how much money is spent on it. Then the bosses can say [sceptical voice]: ’what, are we really spending this much on cycling?’ (Regional Infrastructure Planner 1)

Budgeting is a planning process in which expectations of the future are of central importance (Brunsson, 2007, p. 78). An earlier study of Swedish infrastructure plan-ners indicate that planners construct the future without radical changes in the transport system, partly because of lacking faith in their ability to achieve such (Hen-riksson, 2014). This has been apparent in this piece of research: several respondents were reluctant to at all talk about the underlying causes of the research question, but referred to it as simply “political decisions” (Trafikverket official 1; 3; Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation Official 1). In a report to the government, Trafikverket suggests that investments in cycling is not needed to deal with climate change miti-gation, which often is constructed as a key argument for bicycle infrastructure (see Regeringen, 2016b, pp. 42–3; Trafikverket, 2016b). This might mirror an uncer-tainty whether cycling is necessary or even desired in the future transport system. But there are also expressions of changing attitudes:

-46-

It’s a major difference only since I started working here. I started working here in 2010 […] That’s when we started with the regional bicycle strategy. And only in that period, those three or four years to produce the plan, one could see how the mentality changed, at least theoretically. Both within Trafikverket and municipalities in how one expresses oneself in planning documents and how one says there willing to prioritise. So, there has been a shift there. (Trafikver-ket Official 4)

Another Trafikverket official (no. 5) speaks of an increased ‘maturity’, and that cy-cling is high status in the official’s unit.

8.2 Cycling as non-prestigious Lack of willingness to act can also be caused by ‘prestige’ around non-cycling pro-jects, which attracts available funding on cycling’s expense. In planning, the ten-dency for prestigious investments to find its way to through politics has been noted by Flyvbjerg (2014). These projects are rarely cycling projects:

One notice that cycling often comes in second. One gets first the bigger road investments […] It’s not as big things and as attractive to invest in it. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 11)

The conception of what the public want, expressed through public debate in media tend to pressurise politicians in making certain decisions (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962). It is not always cycling, as exemplified in this quote:

Politicians like to build big things, which they can cut the ribbon for. And […] building car infrastructure is easier for that. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 13)

How the opinion becomes a matter of fact (Latour, 1999, p. 307) is noteworthy. Most regional planners (Regional Infrastructure Planner 2; 3; 6; 8; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17) highlights a perceived change in to opinion in favour of environmental sustainabil-ity, public health and congestion as a main driver of increased allocation for cycling. As opinion change, prestige can also be formed around cycling projects. In one re-gion, a cycle path was built because municipal politicians were persistent in request-ing it (Regional Infrastructure Planner 8). However, it is not only about content, but also about size. And in infrastructure planning, size matters:

I personally think there’s higher status to build the big, costly projects, and these smaller cycling paths will perhaps have to wait sometimes. (Regional In-frastructure Planner 5)

Another regional planner (no. 8) express that cycling paths “are seldom monumen-tal”. As size come to matter, plans are becoming filled with named-and-listed ob-jects:

It has been that politically, one is allowed to squeeze in some named-and-listed object in the end before deciding on the plan. And what will be removed? Well, that’s pools, smaller objects… that decreases […] Politics fight for named-and-

-47-

listed interventions more than [for] the little ones. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 9)

Some regional planners have complaints on what they perceive as prestige at Traf-ikverket:

Now there’s funding, but there are plugs in the system. Orders on smaller measures get caught at Trafikverket. There’s a prestige there for only taking on bigger projects, and then smaller ones, which could be of great use, are avoided. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 1)

Or, as expressed by another regional planner:

In Trafikverket’s world, walking and cycling has not been particularly attrac-tive, not amongst county planners either. There, roads have been the big… it’s what they have wanted. It should be big, ‘flashy’ projects. (Regional Infrastruc-ture Planner 12)

8.3 Minimising the need for action The theory of ‘hypocrisy’ (Brunsson, 1986, 1993, 2007) states that political talk, de-cisions and actions can take different directions to satisfy different public opinions. The new national cycling strategy (Regeringen, no date a) is one such recent exam-ple: 38 pages the mimics the theory’s talk and decisions. The minister Anna Johans-son sets the tone in the preface, where the strategy is described as a “platform for the continuing, common efforts”. This formulation can be seen as a decision, which forwards action in time. The strategy also contained decisions on possible regula-tory changes to improve conditions for cycling (Regeringen, no date b). Further-more, a number of government mandates have been announced, which consist of various inquiries (also to be seen as decisions) and support to non-profit organisa-tions15. But the strategy contained little funding for cycling: only the 100 million SEK already printed in Trafikverket’s letters of appropriation for 2016-2017, used also to fund the inquiries. Hypocrisy can be seen at the regional level too. In most counties, regionally elected politicians decide on the county plans. At this level, respondents voice disagree-ments on whether money should be spent on cycling:

We have spent lots of money [on cycling] in the last couple of plans. But it is not entirely… well, the decisions are to do so, but it’s not everyone who think that it’s the right thing to do, some think we spend too much [on cycling], there are some politicians who express that it is not reasonable, that it’s too much. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 4)

How talk does not necessitate action is illustrated also in the following quote of di-rectives and strategies contra funding:

15 Six so far: an inquiry on cycling amongst children and young ones (Regeringen, 2016e), lower standard speed limits in urban areas (Regeringen, 2016d), funding for soft measures performed by non-profit organisations (Regeringen, 2017e), an inquiry on measuring cycling traffic (Regeringen, 2017d), an inquiry on knowledge gaps in scientific cycling research (Regeringen, 2017f), and to col-lect experiences of bicycle best-practice in urban and regional planning (Ibid.).

-48-

Cycling is [now] very clearly written in the directives from the government. But I’m not so sure if it affects the politicians here regionally so very much […] This discussion about getting more people to not choose the car on shorter distances and to cycle instead is for certain something we have written in our Regional Development Strategy and other documents, but it’s no one… amongst politicians it’s not so many who are impelling these questions. (Re-gional Infrastructure Planner 4)

Here is a hypocritic construction where regional planning documents favour cycling (talk), but less so when it comes to funding (action). This can also occur at the mu-nicipal level:

Fundamentally… Everyone [the municipalities] says they’re willing to promote cycling, but when it comes to funding, one’s more eager to fund roads and pub-lic transport. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 1)

An explanation brought forward by planners is a misconception that bicycle infra-structure is cheap. One planner illustrates this with a planned new path:

Regional Infrastructure Planner 6: A coarse estimation indicates some 80-90 million. And it’s interesting because it’s a massive cost for a walking and cy-cling path. And it can be interesting in the near future when we present it for the politicians – that it’s about these costs, for a not even 20 km long path […] Researcher: Do you think that if you suggest if for the upcoming plan, that it will be a ‘no’ from the politicians? Planner: Yes, there’s a significant risk for that.

Once expectations of cheapness are established, lack of action can be motivated through surprisingly high costs. Another translation, besides cycling as surprisingly expensive, is the articulation (Latour, 1999, pp. 49–51, 303) of a ‘lack of available funding’. According to a Green Party official, unwillingness to increase funds for cy-cling at the national level is associated with increased overall costs, and not a matter of priorities within the transport sector budgets:

There is strong opposition at the Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation and the Ministry of Finance. The problem is that anything that might risk increased state costs is held back by these two ministries. It is the same with objectives for cycling – if cycling would be an actual national responsibility it would of course require economic funding. (Green Party Official 1)

The articulation of a lack of available funding is also ingrained in the main report from the orientation planning (Trafikverket, 2015b). And when such thinking holds, it starts becoming truer than the other option, that it is a matter of priorities (cf. Latour, 1987, p. 12).

-49-

If funds are increasingly allocated for cycling, it would also indicate that hypocrisy is becoming redirected into action. Some respondents report a political will to in-creasingly invest in cycling. In one region, it was a pronounced political decision that more funds should be allocated to cycling in the upcoming plan (Regional Infrastruc-ture Planner 8). The same regional planner argues that change is occurring as not so many cyclists that have been in position to decide over these questions before. An-other regional planner presents a similar argument:

It has been talks of cycling for a long time, and I think to some extent that we, whom have been talking of cycling, are now in positions with responsibility for the money, actually. (Regional Infrastructure Planner 15)

-50-

9. Conclusion The aim of this study has been to examine the intersection where the policy for in-creased and safe cycling is to be translated into transport planning budgeting and the impediments for the allocation of funds. The impediments are briefly summa-rised in the table below:

Impediments for the allocation of national funds for bicycle infrastructure

Chapter 4 Allocated funds are disappearing

Chapter 5 Cycling is being mobilised as local rather than regional or na-tional matter

Chapter 6 Investments in cycling are becoming unnecessarily expensive

Chapter 7 Methods determining which projects to carry out disfavour cy-cling

Chapter 8 Planning and political practices result in an unwillingness to fund cycling infrastructure

9.1 What is the funding situation? The first research question was: what is the current national funding situation for bicycle infrastructure (in terms of what the existing funding streams are and how existing funds are utilised)? It can be concluded that approximately one percent of budgeted national (and thus regional) transport infrastructure funding is allo-cated for cycling, although this number is uncertain since additional cycling in-vestments are hidden and since allocated funds for cycling are claimed to have a tendency to disappear. These funds are also in general intended for walking. There are two types of funding streams. The first is investments in the state’s cy-cling infrastructure through the national plan (trunk roads) and the county plans (regional roads). The government decides on the former, and regional authorities on the latter. The other funding stream is national or regional co-funding of mu-nicipal cycling infrastructure through ‘stadsmiljöavtal’ [grants for sustainable ur-ban environments] or through the county plans. A potential third stream could be grants for maintenance of private roads as cycling paths. This is however not possible due to current legislation, since they then have to be accessible for all modes of transport. It could be concluded that cycling investments in general are a marginal feature of the national funding and that the funding system in itself is an impediment to allocating national funds for cycling. The funding streams and the road planning system are constructed to fund roads for motor traffic, while cycle paths are seen as attachments to those roads. This frame is combined with practices and cultures that in various ways reinforce cycling infrastructure as pri-marily a funding matter for municipalities. Increased possibilities for municipal-ities to receive co-funding by the state are increasing national and regional com-mitments, but with comparably small sums in relation to the whole budget and while simultaneously cementing cycling as a municipal responsibility. Another issue is disappearing cycling funds, which is widely recognised amongst re-spondents. Budgets are flexible, but some particular translations cause cycling to be

-51-

hit. A first is that older projects push cycling funding forward in time. Cycling invest-ments are often located in the latter and more flexible half, with first years covered by older, named-and-listed projects. This is regulated in government directives, which make budgets resistant to policy punctuations. The result is what seems as inertia in the historicity (Latour, 1999, p. 306) of budgets as more incremental than punctuated. ‘Cycling as non-named-and-listed’ (i.e. cheap, small and less prestig-ious) is reproduced in various documents and is expressed by respondents, and it is possible that lack of analyses of the strategic development of bicycle infrastructure prohibits costlier undertakings. To make this programme (Latour, 1996, p. 217) du-rable, budgets can be de-politicised in the sense that increased funding for cycling is mobilised as matter of increased total budgets frames. Within existing frames, fund-ing shares become locked in a few named-and-listed measures rather than many small ones. Second, co-funds disappear due to lack of long-term continuity, as budg-ets at different levels mismatch. Third, funds suffer from cut-offs, when other pro-jects face cost overruns. Besides the above-mentioned translations, difficulties in motivating cycling investments, lack of will, the degradation of smaller projects, and relegation of responsibility are making cycling the projects from which additional funds are collected when needed. Fourth, little funding is earmarked cycling, which potentially could combat this.

9.2 What are the views on funding responsibility? The second research question was: what are the views amongst the involved stakeholders regarding funding responsibility (what should be funded by who)? The situation seems to be characterised by unclear roles, where stakeholders at each level desires stakeholders at other levels to invest more. National responsibility for cycling investments is to some extent being displaced. The focus on children’s cycling is one example of shifting responsibility to future decisionmakers and other measures than infrastructure. When it comes to ‘hard-ware’, responsibility is largely relegated to municipalities. ‘The beneficiary pays’, is a principle that is applied in bicycle infrastructure provision in Sweden and, amongst many things, this means that municipalities tend to fund bicycle invest-ments along state roads. A key translation for this is the mobilisation of cycling as a municipal responsibility and benefit. In combination with this, it is being mobilised as a way to increase overall funding, to level undesired regional and municipal roles as ‘provider’ and ‘receiver’, and to make possible certain investments that are re-quested by municipalities. These translations make this principle triumph over the principle of state responsibility over rural and regional roads and municipal respon-sibility only within urban areas. An important reason for the state’s limited ability to build cycling paths is the road legislation, which restricts Trafikverket (The Swedish Transport Administration) to the current road network for motor traffic, but except of motorways. To mobilise the regional or national levels as beneficiaries could require anti-programmes were champions of increased investments were influential in budgeting processes. But in the absence of such champions at the national level, be it analyses in important budgeting documents, national objectives, national assignments, a national strategic development plan or administrative units such as a national cycling coordination office, no stakeholder is there to deliver such anti-programmes. Cycling could be seen as key to reaching ‘fuzzy’ national transport objectives, but also not, and there

-52-

is no specification of cycling’s desired future mode share at the national level or what role national authorities should play in enabling it.

9.3 How does planning processes impact funding? The third research question was: how does the tools and processes that are used in the transport planning impact on the distribution of funds? The national transport planning system is in some aspects rigged in disfavour of cycling in terms of legislation and formalised practices. This is combined with less regu-lated, ‘soft’ practices and attitudes. Disappearing funds and relegation of respon-sibility, as discussed above, are examples of this. The 12-year budgets inevitably cause inertia in shifting to sustainable and active transportation, and the system makes it convenient to cut off unnamed cycling pools and small cycling invest-ments. At the same time, prestigious and expensive (motor)projects are politi-cally more difficult to put on hold. The allocation of responsibility to the local level is likewise a combination of a rigged system (e.g. a limited road network where state cycling paths are possible) and a mindset (e.g. the beneficiary-principle given more importance than the principle of road authority distribution). Cycling investments becoming unnecessarily expensive is an issue for funding since, when negotiating projects, it is more difficult to motivate more expensive ones. A tendency for cycling infrastructure to be insufficiently examined can be identified. This means that later in the process, when more investigations have been under-taken, they appear surprisingly expensive. Not examining projects thoroughly and using inadequate calculation tools contribute to this situation. A key institution that enable this translation is the 4-year time frame of the budgeting process. Other is-sues revolve around making bicycle infrastructure more expensive from the start. One ongoing discussion concerns the role of planning and design demands. De-mands on planning processes makes planning costs high even for small infrastruc-ture measures. Similarly, some planners argue that with lower quality infrastruc-ture, more can be built with the same amount of money. To able to perform such an argument, it is necessary to mobilise funds as limited, instead of opening up the scope in such way that the overall allocated funds for cycling can increase through prioritising it. Another contributor to increased costs, according to respondents, can be lack of common procurement and coordination. With cycling infrastructure as primarily a municipal responsibility, many road authorities can be involved in the production of regional cycling path. The more plans needed makes it more expen-sive and time consuming, and so does lack of common procurement. It should also be mentioned that road legislation could make cycle paths more expensive by locat-ing it in places more difficult to build at, or by letting the path take a detour. To determine priorities between investments, different methods are used. There has been a general lack of data regarding paths, investment needs and traffic flows when it comes to cycling, which makes it difficult to argue for cycling in relation to invest-ments in other modes of transport. Unfortunate for cycling, the arena in which in-frastructure is negotiated use the quantitative ‘language of cars’, as one respondent put it. This means that investments’ impact on traffic is a significant input when es-timating costs and benefits. Several successive movements are required for cycling to be negotiated in this arena: investment needs must be determined, which re-quires evaluating potential costs and benefits, which in turn requires traffic flow data. In this process, cycling projects can be positioned against each other due to the

-53-

de-politicisation of increased funding for cycling as matter of increased total fund-ing. This means that some projects intended for basic accessibility or safety does not make it to the ‘arena of negotiation’. Moreover, it is often difficult for cycling paths along state roads to be competitive when the language of cars is practiced, since the traffic flows are too low. Methods for cost-benefit analysis, CBA, frequently disfa-vour cycling when put into practice along state roads as investments prove unprof-itable in rural areas. A rational planning discourse machinates this quantitative lan-guage into being given significant importance in prioritising situations, causing an over-reliance on CBA. The role of forecasts as institutionalised in infrastructure de-cision-making can also disfavour cycling, as it is not expected to increase as much as other modes of transport. This risk turning budgeting into a self-fulfilling prophecy, decumulating funds for cycling. Had there been a strong will increase national and regional funds for cycling, it could have been done. However, the willingness to act might not as strong as the policy ambitions made it appear to be. The situation mirrors ‘organisational hypocrisy’ (Brunsson, 1986, 1993, 2007), with inconsistencies in terms of talk, decisions and action. Willingness to invest is low at multiple levels of government. Four transla-tions seem to be of particular importance for hindering action. One is expectations of cycling to be cheap. When it suddenly appears as expensive, there is risk that in-vestments are not carried through. The second is that investments in cycling are perceived as increasing overall investments. If funds allocated for other modes of transport are closed for negotiations, investments in cycling must be solved through increasing the overall frame. Then, talking and deciding is easier (cheaper) than to act. Thirdly, political actions are instead concentrated on prestigious projects, which seldom are for cycling. How the public opinion is conceptualised has major impacts on which projects prestige revolve around. But size seems to matter too, and cycling projects are not mobilised as sizeable as projects for other modes of transport. There are some claims of consistency within the administration: that Trafikverket prefers prestigious projects too. A fourth translation that is meaningful for hypocrisy to oc-cur is the mobilisation of responsibility as relegated to future decision-makers, and to municipalities. The referencing of children and young ones as a primary challenge for cycling, which de-activates actions for the moment. The other is built primarily of the ‘language of cars’, where investment are motivated only where flows are high. Also, the municipal planning monopoly is brought in to strengthen this argument. Feedbacking into this ‘culture’ is also a visioning of the future as one without radical changes in the transport system.

Implications for practice and further research The implications for practice are, first, to consider improving the legal frames, such as adjusting road legislation to open the scope of where and how the state can build cycling infrastructure. Second, tools and methods in infrastructure planning are also in need of attention. Finally, this thesis has showed how a renewed mindset of cy-cling investments as desired, even indispensable, is necessary to improve cycling infrastructure. The thesis has implicated the lack of participation in national transport policy and transparency of how infrastructure is created through public funding. When hypoc-risy enables political consensus across parties, while the case simultaneously illus-

-54-

trates a differentiation in action, decisions and talk, this gives little leeway for inclu-sive and democratic policy-making. Further research could examine the post-politi-cal practices of national infrastructure policy-making from this perspective.

-55-

List of interviews Trafikverket Official 1, national planner, administrating cycling interventions. Tele-phone interview 2017-03-31. No audio, notes only. Trafikverket Official 2, investigator with broad experience from Trafikverket cen-trally. Telephone interview 2017-04-10. Trafikverket Official 3, planner with broad experience from Trafikverket centrally and locally. Telephone interview 2017-04-27. Trafikverket Official 4, regional planner. Joint interview 2017-05-05, with Trafikver-ket Official 4. Trafikverket Official 5, regional planner. Joint interview 2017-05-05 with Trafikver-ket Official 3. Former Trafikverket Employee 1, experience from various sections of transport planning, including the former Vägverket. Also interviewed as regional infrastruc-ture planner. Telephone interview 2017-04-24. Former Trafikverket Employee 2, experience from various sections of transport planning. Also interviewed as regional infrastructure planner. Telephone interview 2017-04-24. Regional Infrastructure Planner 1, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, mid-Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-03-30. Regional Infrastructure Planner 2, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Southern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-11. Regional Infrastructure Planner 3, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Southern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-11. Regional Infrastructure Planner 4, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Northern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-13. Regional Infrastructure Planner 5, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Southern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-13. Regional Infrastructure Planner 6, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Northern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-13. Regional Infrastructure Planner 7, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Southern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-17. Regional Infrastructure Planner 8, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Southern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-19. Regional Infrastructure Planner 9, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, mid-Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-19.

-56-

Regional Infrastructure Planner 10, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Southern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-21. Regional Infrastructure Planner 11, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Southern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-21. Regional Infrastructure Planner 12, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, mid-Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-24. Regional Infrastructure Planner 13, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, mid-Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-24. Regional Infrastructure Planner 14, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, mid-Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-24. Regional Infrastructure Planner 15, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, Southern Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-25. Regional Infrastructure Planner 16, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, mid-Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-25. Regional Infrastructure Planner 17, working with County Plan for Regional Infra-structure, mid-Sweden. Telephone interview 2017-04-18. Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation Official 1, working with national transport planning. Telephone interview 2017-04-10. Green Party Official 1, working at the government offices. Joint lunch interview 2017-04-03 with Green Party Official 2. No audio, notes only. Green Party Official 2, working at the Riksdag offices. Joint lunch interview 2017-04-03 with Green Party Official 1. No audio, notes only. Social Democratic Official 1, working at the government offices. Interview 2017-05-05. Cycling Interest Group Official 1, active in pro-cycling advocacy. Lunch interview 2017-02-22. No audio, notes only. Cycling Interest Group Official 2, active in pro-cycling advocacy. Lunch interview 2017-04-06. No audio, notes only.

-57-

References Akar, G. and Clifton, K. (2009) ‘Influence of Individual Perceptions and Bicycle Infra-structure on Decision to Bike’, Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Trans-portation Research Board, 2140, pp. 165–172.

Albert-Roulhac, C. (1998) ‘The Influence of EU Membership on Methods and Pro-cesses of Budgeting in Britain and France, 1970-1995’, Governance, 11(2), p. 209.

Aldred, R. (2012) ‘Governing transport from welfare state to hollow state: The case of cycling in the UK’, Transport Policy, 23, pp. 95–102.

Aldred, R. (2015) ‘A Matter of Utility? Rationalising Cycling, Cycling Rationalities’, Mobilities, 10(5), pp. 686–705.

Aldred, R. et al. (2017) ‘Cycling provision separated from motor traffic: a systematic review exploring whether stated preferences vary by gender and age’, Transport Re-views, 37(1), pp. 29–55.

Allmendinger, P. (2009) Planning theory. 2nd edn. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

Andrén, N. (no date) Politik, Nationalencyklopedin. Available at: http://www.ne.se/uppslagsverk/encyklopedi/l%C3%A5ng/politik (Accessed: 31 May 2017).

Aretun, Å. and Robertson, K. (2013) ‘Ökad cykling: Professionella utmaningar och hinder i den lokala transportplaneringen [Increasing the share of bicycling: The challenge of professional path dependency in local transport planning]. VTI rapport 781’. VTI, Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut [Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute].

Aronsson, C. (2015) ‘Trafikverket stoppade klimatrapport’, Sveriges Radio, 11 De-cember. Available at: http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?pro-gramid=83&artikel=6323588 (Accessed: 3 June 2017).

Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. S. (1962) ‘Two faces of power’, American political science review, 56(04), pp. 947–952.

Bäck, H. and Larsson, T. (2008) Den svenska politiken. Struktur, processer och resul-tat. 2nd edn. Malmö: Liber.

Barrilleaux, C. and Berkman, M. (2003) ‘Do Governors Matter? Budgeting Rules and the Politics of State Policymaking’, Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), pp. 409–417.

Bojar, A. (2017) ‘Do political budget cycles work? A micro-level investigation of pre-electoral budgeting and its electoral consequences’, Electoral Studies, 45, pp. 29–43.

Bosco, F. J. (2006) ‘Actor-network theory, networks, and relational approaches in human geography’, in Aitken, S. and Valentine, G. (eds) Approaches to Human Geog-raphy. London: Sage.

Boverket, [National Board of Housing, Building and Planning] et al. (2005) ‘Trafik för en attraktiv stad [Traffic for an attractive city]’.

-58-

Breunig, C. and Koski, C. (2009) ‘Punctuated budgets and governors’ institutional powers’, American Politics Research, 37(6), pp. 1116–1138.

Brey, R. et al. (2017) ‘Is the widespread use of urban land for cycling promotion pol-icies cost effective? A Cost-Benefit Analysis of the case of Seville’, Land Use Policy, 63, pp. 130–139.

Brunsson, N. (1986) ‘Organizing for inconsistencies: On organizational conflict, de-pression and hypocrisy as substitutes for action’, Scandinavian Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 2(3), pp. 165–185.

Brunsson, N. (1993) ‘Ideas and actions: Justification and hypocrisy as alternatives to control’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 18(6), pp. 489–506.

Brunsson, N. (2007) The consequences of decision-making. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bryman, A. (2012) Social research methods. 4th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Buehler, R. (2012) ‘Determinants of bicycle commuting in the Washington, DC re-gion: The role of bicycle parking, cyclist showers, and free car parking at work’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 17(7), pp. 525–531.

Buehler, R. et al. (2017) ‘Reducing car dependence in the heart of Europe: lessons from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland’, Transport Reviews, 37(1), pp. 4–28.

Buehler, R. and Dill, J. (2016) ‘Bikeway networks: a review of effects on cycling’, Transport Reviews, 36(1), pp. 9–27.

Buehler, R. and Pucher, J. (2009) ‘Sustainable transport that works: lessons from Germany’, World Transport Policy & Practice, 15(1), pp. 13–46.

Buehler, R. and Pucher, J. (2011) ‘Sustainable transport in Freiburg: lessons from Germany’s environmental capital’, International Journal of Sustainable Transporta-tion, 5(1), pp. 43–70.

Buehler, R. and Pucher, J. (2012) ‘Cycling to work in 90 large American cities: new evidence on the role of bike paths and lanes’, Transportation, 39(2), pp. 409–432.

Callon, M. (1986) ‘Some elements of a sociology of translation: domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in Law, J. (ed.) Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? London: Routledge.

Caretta, M. A. (2016) ‘Member checking: A feminist participatory analysis of the use of preliminary results pamphlets in cross-cultural, cross-language research’, Quali-tative Research, 16(3), pp. 305–318.

Cavill, N. et al. (2008) ‘Economic analyses of transport infrastructure and policies including health effects related to cycling and walking: A systematic review’, Transport Policy, 15(5), pp. 291–304.

Covaleski, M. A. and Dirsmith, M. W. (1983) ‘Budgeting as a means for control and loose coupling’, Accounting, Organizations and Society, 8(4), pp. 323–340.

-59-

Cradock, A. L. et al. (2009) ‘Factors associated with federal transportation funding for local pedestrian and bicycle programming and facilities’, Journal of Public Health Policy, 30, pp. S38–S72.

Cushing, M. et al. (2016) 'Vision Zero in the United States Versus Sweden: Infrastruc-ture Improvement for Cycling Safety', American Journal of Public Health (AJPH), 106(12), pp. 2178-2180.

Daniels, J. and Eklöf, H. (2017) ‘Trafikverkets miljörapport 2016 [The Swedish Transport Administration’s environmental report 2016]. 2017:090’. Trafikverket [The Swedish Transport Administration].

Department for Transport, [UK] (2010) ‘Cycling Demonstration Towns Develop-ment of Benefit-Cost Ratios’. Available at: http://webarchive.nation-alarchives.gov.uk/20110407094607/http://www.dft.gov.uk/cyclingeng-land/site/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/cdts-development-of-benefit-cost-ra-tios.pdf (Accessed: 15 February 2017).

Department for Transport, [UK] (2017) ‘Cycling and walking investment strategy. We want to make cycling and walking the natural choices for shorter journeys, or as part of a longer journey’. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/up-loads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/603527/cycling-walking-invest-ment-strategy.pdf (Accessed: 23 May 2017).

Dill, J. (2009) ‘Bicycling for transportation and health: the role of infrastructure’, Journal of Public Health Policy, 30, pp. S95–S110.

Dillén, M. and Haapaniemi, M. (2017) ‘Finansiering av infrastruktur med privat ka-pital? Delbetänkande av Kommittén om finansiering av offentliga infrastrukturinve-steringar via skatter, avgifter och privat kapital [Financing infrastructure with pri-vate capital? Part report from the Committee on financing ublic infrastructure in-vestments through taxes, fees and private capital] SOU 2017:13’.

Dodds, A. (2013) Comparative public policy. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Eisenhardt, K. M. and Zbaracki, M. J. (1992) ‘Strategic Decision Making’, Strategic Management Journal, 13, pp. 17–37.

Envall, P. (2016) ‘Utbyggnad av cykelinfrastruktur: hur får vi mest för pengarna? [Extended cycling infrastructure: how do we get the most out of the money?]’. Tra-fikutredningsbyrån [Consultancy firm].

Envall, P., Johansson, P. and Skiöld, J. (2015) ‘Stockholms läns 24 cykelplaner: vad kan vi lära av varandra? [The 24 cycling strategies in the Stockholm County: what can we learn from one another?]’. Trafikutredningsbyrån [Consultancy firm].

Epp, D. A., Lovett, J. and Baumgartner, F. R. (2014) ‘Partisan Priorities and Public Budgeting’, Political Research Quarterly, 67(4), pp. 864–878.

Faskunger, J. (2007) ‘Den byggda miljöns påverkan på fysisk aktivitet. En kunskaps-sammanställning för regeringsuppdraget“Byggd miljö och fysisk aktivitet” [The built environment’s influence on physical activity. A knowledge compilation for the

-60-

government inquiry “Built environment and physical activity”]. 2007:3’. Statens Folkhälsoinstitut [The Public Health Agency of Sweden].

Faskunger, J. (2008a) ‘Aktiv transport – på väg mot bättre förutsättningar för gång- och cykeltrafik [Active transport – on the way to better conditions for pedestrian and bicycle traffic]. 2008:31’. Statens Folkhälsoinstitut [The Public Health Agency of Sweden].

Faskunger, J. (2008b) ‘Barns miljöer för fysisk aktivitet – samhällsplanering för ökad fysisk aktivitet och rörelsefrihet hos barn och unga [Children’s environments for physical activity – urban and regional planning for increased physical activity and mobility among children and adolescents]. 2008:33’. Statens Folkhälsoinstitut [The Public Health Agency of Sweden].

Faskunger, J. (2008c) ‘Samhällsplanering för ett aktivt liv – fysisk aktivitet, byggd miljö och folkhälsa [Urban and regional planning for an active life – physical activity, built environment and public health]. 2008:30’. Statens Folkhälsoinstitut [The Pub-lic Health Agency of Sweden].

Finansdepartementet, [Ministry of Finance] (2016) ‘Kommittédirektiv. Genomfö-rande av Agenda 2030 för hållbar utveckling [Committee Directive. Implementing Agenda 2030 for Sustainble Development]. Dir. 2016:18’.

Finstorp, L. and Johansson, M. (2015) Åtkomst av mark vid bygge av cykelleder. In-terpellationsdebatt i riksdagen 2015/16:70 [Land access when building cycle paths. Interpellation debate in the Riksdag 2015/16:70].

Flyvbjerg, B. (1996) The Dark Side of Planning: Rationality and ‘Realrationalität’. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2278431. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) ‘Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research’, Qualita-tive Inquiry, 12(2), pp. 219–245.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2009) ‘Survival of the unfittest: why the worst infrastructure gets built—and what we can do about it’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 25(3), pp. 344–367.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2014) ‘What You Should Know About Megaprojects and Why: An Over-view’, Project Management Journal, 45(2), pp. 6–19.

Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. K. and Buhl, S. L. (2003) ‘How common and how large are cost overruns in transport infrastructure projects?’, Transport Reviews, 23(1), pp. 71–88.

Gössling, S. (2013) ‘Urban transport transitions: Copenhagen, City of Cyclists’, Jour-nal of Transport Geography, 33, pp. 196–206.

Gössling, S. and Choi, A. S. (2015) ‘Transport transitions in Copenhagen: Comparing the cost of cars and bicycles’, Ecological Economics, 113, pp. 106–113.

Gotschi, T. (2011) ‘Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon’, Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 8(s1), pp. S49–S58.

-61-

Grabow, M. L. et al. (2012) ‘Air Quality and Exercise-Related Health Benefits from Reduced Car Travel in the Midwestern United States’, Environmental Health Perspec-tives, 120(1), pp. 68–76.

Graham, S. (2000) ‘Constructing premium network spaces: reflections on infrastruc-ture networks and contemporary urban development’, International Journal of Ur-ban and Regional Research, 24(1), pp. 183–200.

Gustafsson, B., Hermerén, G. and Petterson, B. (2011) ‘Good research practice. The Swedish Research Council’s expert group on ethics. Report 3:2011’. Veten-skapsrådet [the Swedish Research Council].

Hagen, T. P. (1997) ‘Agenda setting power and moral hazard in principal-agent rela-tionships: Evidence from hospital budgeting in Norway’, European Journal of Politi-cal Research, 31(3), pp. 287–314.

Harms, L., Bertolini, L. and Brömmelstroet, M. T. (2016) ‘Performance of municipal cycling policies in medium-sized cities in the Netherlands since 2000’, Transport Re-views, 36(1), pp. 134–162.

Hasselgren, B. (2013a) Government’s role for transport infrastructure. Theoretical approaches and historical development. Doctoral dissertation. KTH Royal Institute of Technology, School of Architecture and the Built Environment, Planning and Deci-sion Analysis.

Hasselgren, B. (2013b) ‘Rapport till Expertgruppen för studier i offentlig ekonomi 2013:4’. Available at: http://eso.expertgrupp.se/wp-content/up-loads/2013/07/ESO-2013_4-till-webben.pdf (Accessed: 17 May 2017).

Hatzopoulou, M. and Miller, E. J. (2008) ‘Institutional integration for sustainable transportation policy in Canada’, Transport Policy, 15(3), pp. 149–162.

Heinen, E., van Wee, B. and Maat, K. (2010) ‘Commuting by Bicycle: An Overview of the Literature’, Transport Reviews, 30(1), pp. 59–96.

Henriksson, M. (2014) Att resa rätt är stort, att resa fritt är större : Kommunala pla-nerares föreställningar om hållbara resor. Doctoral dissertation. Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 602. Linköpings universitet, Institutionen för tema, Tema teknik och social förändring. Linköpings universitet, Filosofiska fakulteten.

Hodson, M. and Marvin, S. (2010) ‘Can cities shape socio-technical transitions and how would we know if they were?’, Research Policy. (Special Section on Innovation and Sustainability Transitions), 39(4), pp. 477–485.

Hodson, M. and Marvin, S. (2012) ‘Mediating Low-Carbon Urban Transitions? Forms of Organization, Knowledge and Action’, European Planning Studies, 20(3), pp. 421–439.

Hunt, J. D. and Abraham, J. E. (2007) ‘Influences on bicycle use’, Transportation, 34(4), pp. 453–470.

-62-

Imran, M. and Pearce, J. (2015) ‘Discursive Barriers to Sustainable Transport in New Zealand Cities’, Urban Policy and Research, 33(4), pp. 392–415.

Jacoby, W. G. and Schneider, S. K. (2001) ‘Variability in State Policy Priorities: An Empirical Analysis’, The Journal of Politics, 63(2), pp. 544–568.

Johansson, C. and Rosander, P. (2017) ‘Förstudie: Integrerad cykelinfrastruktur och cykelnätverk – landsbygdens transportsystem ]Pre-study: Integrated infrastructure for cycling and bicycle network – Rural transport system]’. Luleå tekniska universi-tet, [Luleå Technical University]. Available at: http://ltu.diva-por-tal.org/smash/get/diva2:1070210/FULLTEXT03.pdf (Accessed: 22 April 2017).

Johansson, H. and Eklöf, H. (2015) ‘Trafikverkets kunskapsunderlag och klimatsce-nario för energieffektivisering och begränsad klimatpåverkan [Trafikverket’s report and climate scenario for energy efficiency and mitigated climate impact]. TRV 2014:137’. Trafikverket [The Swedish Transport Administration].

Johansson, K. (2012) ‘Ökad och säkrare cykling – en översyn av regler ur ett cyk-lingsperspektiv. Betänkande av Cyklingsutredningen [Increased and safer cycling – an overview of regulations from a cycling perspective. Report from the cycling in-quiry]. SOU 2012:70’.

Johansson, T. B. (2013) ‘Fossilfrihet på väg. Betänkande av Utredningen om fossilfri fordonstrafik [Fossil free on road. Report from the fossil free vehicle traffic inquiry]. SOU 2013:84’.

Jones, B. D. and Baumgartner, F. R. (2005) ‘A model of choice for public policy’, Jour-nal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART, 15(3), pp. 325–351.

Kågeson, P. (2003) ‘Gång- och cykelvägsinvesteringar i ”Förslag till nationell plan för vägtransportsystemet 2004-2015” samt förslag till länstransportplaner’. Nature Associates.

Kågeson, P. (2007) ‘Modell för regional inventering och planering av cykelvägar. Vägverket Publikation 2007:13’.

Kågeson, P. (2009) ‘Cykelinfrastruktur i de slutliga förslagen till länstransportplaner 2010-2021 [Bicycle infrastructure in the final County plans for regional transport infrastructure 2010-2021]’. Nature Associates, Föreningen Bilfria Leder, Svensk Cykling. Available at: http://www.natureassociates.se/wp-content/uplo-ads/2011/03/Cykel-i-l%C3%A4nstransportplanerna-slutlig-nov-09.pdf (Accessed: 6 May 2017).

Knight-Lenihan, S. (2013) ‘Governance and ecological sustainability: the case of transport funding in New Zealand’, World Transport Policy and Practice, 19(1), pp. 25–34.

Koppenjan, J. F. M. and Enserink, B. (2009) ‘Public–Private Partnerships in Urban Infrastructures: Reconciling Private Sector Participation and Sustainability’, Public Administration Review, 69(2), pp. 284–296.

-63-

Lane, J.-E. and Back, S. (1989) Den svenska statsbudgeten. 1st edn. Stockholm: SNS Förlag.

Latour, B. (1987) Science in action: how to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (1996) Aramis, or the love of technology. Cambridge: Harvad University Press.

Latour, B. (1999) Pandora’s hope. Essays on the realities of science studies. Cam-bridge: Harvard University Press.

Latour, B. (2005) Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: University Press.

Latour, B. and Akrich, M. (1992) ‘A summary of a convenient vocabulary for the se-miotics of human and nonhuman assemblies’, in Bijker, W. E. and Law, J. (eds) Shap-ing technology/Building society: studies in sociotechnical change. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Law, J. (2009) ‘Actor network theory and material semiotics’, in Turner, B. (ed.) The new blackwell companion to social theory. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Legacy, C. (2016) ‘Infrastructure Planning: in a State of Panic?’, Urban Policy and Re-search, pp. 1–13.

Lindberg, J. et al. (2016) ‘Analysrapport. Översyn av etappmål för säkerhet på väg till 2020 och 2030, med en utblick mot 2050 [Analysis report. Overview of interim objectives for road safety until 2020 and 2030, with an outlook to 2050]. 2016:109’. Trafikverket [The Swedish Transport Administration].

Lundin, P. (2005) ‘American Numbers Copied! Shaping the Swedish Postwar Car So-ciety’, Comparative Technology Transfer and Society, 2(3), pp. 303–334.

Macmillan, A. et al. (2014) ‘The Societal Costs and Benefits of Commuter Bicycling: Simulating the Effects of Specific Policies Using System Dynamics Modeling’, Envi-ronmental Health Perspectives, 122(4), p. 335.

Mahendra, A., Raifman, R. and Dalkmann, H. (2013) ‘Financing Needs for Sustainable Transport Systems for the 21st Century’, in. 7th Regional Environmentally Sustaina-ble Transport Forum in Asia, 23-25 April 2013, Bali, Indonesia: EMBARQ, World Re-sources Institute (WRI) Center for Sustainable Transport, pp. 1–52. Available at: http://www.wrirosscities.org/sites/default/files/Financing-Needs-for-Sustaina-ble-Transport-Systems-21st-Century.pdf (Accessed: 1 February 2017).

Makarewicz, C., Schipper, L. and Deakin, E. (2010) ‘National Transportation Policies, Financing, and Co2 Policies of the United Kingdom, Canada, and Sweden: Lessons for the United States?’, in. 12th WCTR, July 11-15, 2010, Lisbon, Portugal. Available at: http://www.wctrs.leeds.ac.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/abstracts/lisbon/gen-eral/02116.pdf (Accessed: 2 February 2017).

-64-

Malekpour, S., Brown, R. R. and de Haan, F. J. (2017) ‘Disruptions in strategic infra-structure planning—What do they mean for sustainable development?’, Environ-ment and Planning C: Politics and Space, Published online before print, pp. 2–19.

Manton, R. (2016) ‘Spokes or strokes? Clientelism and cycling funding in Ireland’, Irish Political Studies, 31(4), pp. 443–460.

Marsden, G., Kelly, C. and Nellthorp, J. (2009) ‘The likely impacts of target setting and performance rewards in local transport’, Transport Policy, 16(2), pp. 59–67.

Marsden, G. and Rye, T. (2010) ‘The governance of transport and climate change’, Journal of Transport Geography. (Special Section on Alternative Fuels and Vehicles), 18(6), pp. 669–678.

Massey, D. (2003) ‘Imagining the field’, in Pryke, M., Rose, G., and Whatmore, S. (eds) Using social theory. Thinking through research. London: Sage.

Menon, R. P. (2011) ‘Transport budget analysis 2011-12. Report 9 August 2011’. Parisar. Available at: http://www.indiaenvironmentpor-tal.org.in/files/file/transport%20budget%20analysis%202011-12[1].pdf (Ac-cessed: 1 February 2017).

Miljö- och energidepartementet, [Ministry of the Environment and Energy] (2015) Förordning (2015:579) om stöd för att främja hållbara stadsmiljöer, Svensk författ-ningssamling 2015:579.

Miljödepartementet, [Ministry of the Environment] (2012) ‘Svenska miljömål – pre-ciseringar av miljökvalitetsmålen och en första uppsättning etappmål [Swedish en-vironmental objectives – specification of the national environmental quality objectives and a first set of intermediate targets]. Ds 2012:23’.

Mol, A. (2010) ‘Actor-network theory: sensitive terms and enduring tensions’, Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie. Sonderheft, 50(1), pp. 253–269.

Mortensen, P. B. (2005) ‘Policy Punctuations in Danish Local Budgeting’, Public Ad-ministration, 83(4), pp. 931–950.

Mortensen, P. B. and Serritzlew, S. (2006) ‘Newspapers and Budgeting: The Effects of Media Coverage on Local Expenditure Decisions’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 29(3), pp. 236–260.

Moudon, A. V. et al. (2005) ‘Cycling and the built environment, a US perspective’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 10(3), pp. 245–261.

Näringsdepartementet, [Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation] (2017) ‘PM angå-ende planering och genomförande inkl. markåtkomst av utbyggnad av cykelinfra-struktur. Intern Promemoria [Memorandum regarding planning and construction including land access for building bicycle infrastructure. Internal memorandum]’.

Näringsdepartementet RS T, [Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation] (1971) Väglag (1971:948) [law], Svensk författningssamling 1971:948 t.o.m. SFS 2016:535.

-65-

Näringsdepartementet RS T, [Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation] (1997) Förord-ning (1997:263) om länsplaner för regional transportinfrastruktur [law], Svensk för-fattningssamling 1997:263.

Näringsdepartementet RS T, [Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation] (2009a) För-ordning (2009:236) om en nationell plan för transportinfrastruktur, Svensk författ-ningssamling 2009:236.

Näringsdepartementet RS T, [Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation] (2009b) För-ordning (2009:237) om statlig medfinansiering till vissa regionala kollektivtrafikan-läggningar m.m., Svensk författningssamling 2009:237.

Näringsdepartementet RS T, [Ministry of Enterprise and Innovation] (2010) Förord-ning (2010:185) med instruktion för Trafikverket [law], Svensk författningssamling 2010:185.

Naturvårdsverket, [Swedish Environmental Protection Agency] (2012) ‘Sweden’s environmental objectives – an introduction’. Available at: http://www.swe-dishepa.se/Documents/publikationer6400/978-91-620-8620-6.pdf?pid=6759 (Accessed: 2 February 2017).

Naturvårdsverket, [Swedish Environmental Protection Agency] (2016) Klimatklivet – stöd till klimatinvesteringar [grants for climate investments]. Available at: http://www.naturvardsverket.se/klimatklivet (Accessed: 18 May 2017).

Niska, A. and Eriksson, J. (2013) ‘Statistik över cyklisters olyckor. Faktaunderlag till gemensam strategi för säker cykling. Rapport 801 [Cycling accident statistics. Back-ground information to the common policy strategy for safe cycling. Report 801]’. VTI, Statens väg- och transportforskningsinstitut [Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute].

Noland, R. B. and Kunreuther, H. (1995) ‘Short-run and long-run policies for increas-ing bicycle transportation for daily commuter trips’, Transport Policy, 2(1), pp. 67–79.

O’Brien, P. and Pike, A. (2015) ‘The governance of local infrastructure funding and financing’, Infrastructure Complexity, 2(3), pp. 1–9.

Olsérius, C. (2016) Markåtkomst för gång- och cykelvägar. Vilka olika alternativ finns utanför detaljplanelagda områden och när ska de tillämpas? [Land access for com-bined walkways and bicycle paths. What options exist outside of zoned areas and when should they be used?]. Master thesis. Real Estate Science, Lund University. Available at: https://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/search/publication/8874771 (Accessed: 20 February 2017).

Persson, A. et al. (2015) ‘Cykeln och cyklisten – omvärld och framtid. 2014:103’. Trivector. Available at: http://www.trafa.se/globalassets/rapporter/underlagsrap-porter/trivector_cykeln-och-cyklisten---omvarld-och-framtid.pdf (Accessed: 24 May 2017).

Petersson, O. (2007) Svensk politik. 7th edn. Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.

-66-

Petersson, O. (2017) Svensk politik. 8th edn. Stockholm: Dialogos.

Pion-Berlin, D. (1998) ‘The limits to military power: Institutions and defense budg-eting in democratic Argentina’, Studies in Comparative International Development, 33(1), p. 94.

Pucher, J. (1997) ‘Bicycling boom in Germany: a revival engineered by public policy’, Transportation Quarterly, 51(4).

Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. (2006) ‘Why Canadians cycle more than Americans: A com-parative analysis of bicycling trends and policies’, Transport Policy, 13(3), pp. 265–279.

Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. (2007) ‘At the frontiers of cycling: Policy innovations in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany’, World Transport Policy & Practice, 13(3), pp. 9–56.

Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. (2008) ‘Making cycling irresistible: lessons from the Neth-erlands, Denmark and Germany’, Transport Reviews, 28(4), pp. 495–528.

Pucher, J. and Buehler, R. (2009) ‘Cycling for a few or for everyone: the importance of social justice in cycling policy’, World Transport Policy & Practice, 15(1), pp. 57–64.

Pucher, J. and Dijkstra, L. (2003) ‘Promoting safe walking and cycling to improve public health: Lessons from the Netherlands and Germany’, American Journal of Pub-lic Health, 93(9), pp. 1509–1516.

Pucher, J., Dill, J. and Handy, S. (2010) ‘Infrastructure, programs, and policies to in-crease bicycling: An international review’, Preventive Medicine, 50, Supplement, pp. S106–S125.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (1997) ‘Regeringens proposition 1996/97:137. Nollvisionen och det trafiksäkra samhället [Government bill 1996/97:137. Vision Zero and the traffic safe society]. Prop. 1996/97:137’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (1998) ‘Regeringens proposition 1997/98:56. Transportpolitik för en hållbar utveckling [Government bill 1997/98:56. Transport politics for a sustainable development]. Prop. 1997/98:56’.

Regeringen, (Government of Sweden) (2001) ‘Regeringens proposition 2000/01:130. Svenska miljömål – delmål och åtgärdsstrategier [Government bill 2000/01:130. The Swedish environmental objectives – interim targets and action strategies]. Prop. 2000/01:130’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2002) ‘Regeringens proposition 2002/03:35. Mål för folkhälsan [Government bill 2002/03:35. Objectievs for the population health]. Prop. 2002/03:35’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2006) ‘Regeringens proposition 2005/06:160. Moderna transporter [Government bill 2005/06:160. modern trans-ports]. Prop. 2005/06:160’.

-67-

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2008a) ‘Regeringens proposition 2007/08:110. En förnyad folkhälsopolitik [Government bill 2007/08:110. A re-newed health politics]. prop. 2007/08:110’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2008b) ‘Regeringens proposition 2008/09:35. Framtidens resor och transporter – infrastruktur för hållbar tillväxt [Government bill 2008/09:35. Future travelling and transports – infrastructure for sustainable growth]. Prop. 2008/09:35’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2009a) ‘Regeringens proposition 2008/09:93. Mål för framtidens resor och transporter [Government bill 2008/09:9. Objectives for the future’s travelling and transport]. Prop. 2008/09:93’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2009b) ‘Regeringens proposition 2008/09:162. En sammanhållen klimat- och energipolitik – Klimat [Government bill 2008/09:162. A cohesive climate and energy politics – Climate]. Prop. 2008/09:162’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2010) ‘Kommittédirektiv. Översyn av regler ur ett cyklingsperspektiv. Beslut vid regeringssammanträde den 9 september 2010 [Committee directive. Overview of regulations from a cycling perspective. Decided a government meeting 9 Septermber 2010]. Dir. 2010:93’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2012) ‘Regeringens skrivelse 2011/12:166. En folkhälsopolitik med människan i centrum [Government communication 2011/12:166. A health politics with the individual in the centre]. Skr. 2011/12:166’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2014a) ‘Kommittédirektiv. Tilläggsdirektiv till Utredningen om utbyggnad av nya stambanor samt åtgärder för bostäder och ökad tillgänglighet i storstäderna (N 2014:04) [Committee directive. Additional di-rective for the Inquiry on investments in new trunk rails and measures for housing and increased accessibility i the major cities (N 2014:04)]. Dir. 2014:113’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2014b) ‘Kommittédirektiv. Utbyggnad av nya stambanor samt åtgärder för bostäder och ökad tillgänglighet i storstäderna [Com-mittee directive. Investments in new trunk rails and measures for housing and in-creased accessibility i the major cities]. Dir. 2014:106’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2015) ‘Regeringsbeslut II 4 vid regerings-sammanträde 2015-05-21, N2015/4305/TIF. Uppdrag om att ta fram inriktnings-underlag inför transportinfrastrukturplanering för perioden 2018–2029 [Govern-ment decision II 4 at government meeting 2015-05-21, N2015/4305/TIF. Mandate to produce orientation material for transport infrastructure planning for the period 2018-2029]’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2016a) ‘Regeringens proposition 2016/17:1. Budgetpropositionen för 2017. Förslag till statens budget för 2017, finansplan och skattefrågor, kapitel 1-12, appendix 1-21 [Government bill 2016/17:1. Budget bill for 2017. Proposed state budget for 2017, finance plan and tax issues, chapter 1-12, appendix 1-21]. Prop. 2016/17:1’.

-68-

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2016b) ‘Regeringens proposition 2016/17:21. Infrastruktur för framtiden – innovativa lösningar för stärkt konkur-renskraft och hållbar utveckling [Government bill 2016/17:21. Infrastructure for the future – inovative solutions for a competitive and sustainable development]. Prop. 2016/17:21’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2016c) ‘Regeringsbeslut II 1 vid regerings-sammanträde den 1 december 2016. N2016/07455/SUBT N2016/07334/KLS (partly) Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2016 avseende Trafikverket inom utgiftsom-råde 22 Kommunikationer [Government decision II 1 at government meeting 1 De-cember 2016. N2016/07455/SUBT N2016/07334/KLS (partly). Letter of appropri-ation for budget year 2016 regarding The Swedish Transport Administration within expenditure area 22 Communications].’

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2016d) ‘Regeringsbeslut II 2 2016-09-01 N2016/05491/TS. Uppdrag att utreda sänkt bashastighet i tätort [Government de-cision II 2 2016-09-01 N2016/05491/TS. Mandate to inquire slower standard speed limit in urban areas]’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2016e) ‘Regeringsbeslut II 11 2016-12-22 N2016/07594fTS. Uppdrag att ta fram en kunskapssammanställning om orsakerna bakom minskad cykling bland barn och unga [Government decision II 11 2016-12-22 N2016/07594fTS. Mandate to gather knowledge of why cycling decreases amongst children and young ones]’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2017a) Regeringen föreslår ytterligare en halv miljard på klimatåtgärder. Available at: http://www.regeringen.se/press-meddelanden/2017/04/regeringen-foreslar-ytterligare-en-halv-miljard-pa-klimatatgarder/ (Accessed: 18 May 2017).

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2017b) ‘Regeringsbeslut II 5 vid regerings-sammanträde den 9 mars 2017. N2017/01835/SUBT. Regleringsbrev för budgetå-ret 2017 avseende Trafikverket inom utgiftsområde 22 Kommunikationer [Govern-ment decision II 5 at government meeting 3 March 2017. N2017/01835/SUBT. Let-ter of appropriation for budget year 2017 regarding The Swedish Transport Admin-istration within expenditure area 22 Communications].’

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2017c) ‘Regeringsbeslut II 6 vid regerings-sammanträde den 23 mars 2017, N2017/02312/TIF m.fl. Uppdrag att ta fram för-slag till nationell trafikslagsövergripande plan för utveckling av transportsystemet och trafikslagsövergripande länsplaner för regional transportinfrastruktur (rskr. 2016/17:101) [Government decision II 6 at government meeting 23 March 2017, N2017/02312/TIF and others. Mandate to produce a proposed national plan for de-veloping the transport system for all modes of transport, and county plans for re-gional transport infrastructure for all modes of transport (rskr. 2016/17:101)]’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2017d) ‘Regeringsbeslut II 7 2017-04-27 N2017/03128/TS. Uppdrag att utveckla metoder för uppföljning av cykeltrafik [Go-vernment decision II 7 2017-04-27 N2017/03128/TS. Mandate to develop methods to monitor bicycle traffic]’.

-69-

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2017e) ‘Regeringsbeslut II 8 2017-04-27 N2017/03129/TS. Uppdrag att fördela medel till ideella organisationer för inform-ations- och utbildningsinsatser som främjar ökad och säker cykling [Government decision III 8 2017-04-27 N2017/03129/TS. Mandate to distribute funds to non-profit organisations for information and education measures]’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (2017f) Två nya regeringsuppdrag inom ra-men för cykelstrategin [Two new government mandates within the frame of the cycling strategy].

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (no date a) ‘En nationell cykelstrategi för ökad och säker cykling – som bidrar till ett hållbart samhälle med hög livskvalitet i hela landet [A national cycling strategy for increased and safe cycling – which contribute to a sustainable society with high quality of living in the entire country]. N2017.19’.

Regeringen, [Government of Sweden] (no date b) ‘Promemoria. Cykelregler [Mem-orandum. Cycling regulations]. N2017/03102/TIF’.

Reynolds, C. C. et al. (2009) ‘The impact of transportation infrastructure on bicycling injuries and crashes: a review of the literature’, Environmental Health, 8, p. 47.

Rietveld, P. and Daniel, V. (2004) ‘Determinants of bicycle use: do municipal policies matter?’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38(7), pp. 531–550.

Riggs, W. and McDade, E. (2016) ‘Moving from planning to action: Exploring best practice policy in the finance of local bicycling and pedestrian improvements’, Case Studies on Transport Policy, 4(3), pp. 248–257.

Rojas López, M. C. and Wong, Y. D. (2017) ‘Attitudes towards active mobility in Sin-gapore: A qualitative study’, Case Studies on Transport Policy.

Rojas-Rueda, D. et al. (2011) ‘The health risks and benefits of cycling in urban envi-ronments compared with car use: health impact assessment study’, BMJ, 343, p. d4521.

Sælensminde, K. (2004) ‘Cost–benefit analyses of walking and cycling track net-works taking into account insecurity, health effects and external costs of motorized traffic’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38(8), pp. 593–606.

Schantz, P. (2012) ‘Om färdvägsmiljöers betydelse för gång, cykling, hälsa och välbe-finnande [About travelling route environment’s significance for walking, cycling, health and wellbeing]. 2012:157’. Trafikverket [The Swedish Transport Administra-tion].

Schantz, P. (2016) ‘Rapport: Om gång och cykling, hälsa och en hållbar utveckling [Report: About walking and cycling, health and a sustainable development]. 2015:153’. Trafikverket [The Swedish Transport Administration].

Schwanen, T., Banister, D. and Anable, J. (2011) ‘Scientific research about climate change mitigation in transport: A critical review’, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 45(10), pp. 993–1006.

-70-

SIKA (2008) ‘En planeringsprocess för innovation och förnyelse i transportsyste-met. 2008:4’.

Sjödin, E. (2002) ‘Översyn av anläggningslagen [Reviewing anläggningslagen (law)]. 2002:9’. Lantmäteriet [The National Land Survey].

de Souza, F. et al. (2017) ‘Modelling the potential for cycling in access trips to bus, train and metro in Rio de Janeiro’, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 56, pp. 55–67.

Spolander, K. (2006) ‘Cykeln i transportsystemet - utvecklingsmöjligheter’. Availa-ble at: http://www.spolander.se/pdfpolicy/Cykeln_i_transportsystemet.pdf (Ac-cessed: 24 May 2017).

Spolander, K. (2008) ‘Cykel i medvind. Om målsättningar och utvärderingar’. SKL, Sveriges Kommuner och Landsting.

Spolander, K. (2010) ‘Cykelorganisationer och myndigheter i samverkan för ökat cyklande En studie av Storbritannien, Norge, Tyskland, Danmark och Nederlän-derna med några reflektioner för svensk del [Cycling organisations and state agen-cies in cooperation for increased cycling. A study of the United Kingdom, Norway, Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands with some thoughts about Sweden]. 2010:047’. Trafikverket [The Swedish Transport Administration].

Spolander, K. (2013a) ‘Cykling i Sverige. En studie av variationen mellan regioner och kommuner [Bicycling in Sweden. A study of the variation between regions and municipalities]’. Available at: http://www.spolander.se/documents/Cykling_i_Sve-rige_rapport_Spolander_sept_2013.pdf (Accessed: 20 April 2017).

Spolander, K. (2013b) ‘Det statliga sveket mot cyklisterna. Planer utan pengar är bara papper mellan pärmar’. Available at: http://www.spolander.se/docu-ments/Statlig_cykelpolitik_rapport_Spolander_nov_2013_000.pdf (Accessed: 24 May 2017).

Spolander, K. (2013c) ‘Resultat av arbetet för ökad och säkrare cykling samt förslag till forskning, utveckling och innovation’. Available at: http://www.spolander.se/documents/FoI_for_utveckling_av_cykeltrafik.pdf (Ac-cessed: 24 May 2017).

Spolander, K. (2014a) ‘Statens satsningar på cykeltrafik 2014 – 2025’. Available at: http://www.spolander.se/documents/Rapport_cykeln_i_infrastruktur-planeringen_2014-2025.pdf (Accessed: 24 May 2017).

Spolander, K. (2014b) ‘Statlig cykelpolitik – på pappret och i realiteten’. Natur-skyddsföreningen. Available at: http://www.fot.se/documents/Statlig_cykelpoli-tik_rapport_sept_2014.pdf (Accessed: 21 May 2017).

Spolander, K. and Dellensten, B. (2003) ‘Mer cykeltrafik på säkrare vägar. Uppfölj-ning av Vägverkets Nationella strategi, avsiktsförklaring och handlingsplan. Slutrap-port.’ Available at: http://www.spolander.se/pdfpolicy/Mer_cykeltrafik_pa_sak-rare_vagar.pdf (Accessed: 24 May 2017).

-71-

Statens Folkhälsoinstitut, [The Public Health Agency of Sweden] (2009) ‘Grönområ-den för fler – en vägledning för bedömning av närhet och attraktivitet för bättre hälsa [Green areas for more people – a guide to analysing proximity and attractivity for improved health]. 2009:02’.

Statens Folkhälsoinstitut, [The Public Health Agency of Sweden] (2010a) ‘Aktivt liv i byggda miljöer – Manual för kommunal planering [Active living in built environ-ments – A manual for community planning]. 2010:04’.

Statens Folkhälsoinstitut, [The Public Health Agency of Sweden] (2010b) ‘Bostad-sområdet – en hälsofrämjande arena [The residential area – a health-promoting arena]. 2010:18’.

Statens Folkhälsoinstitut, [The Public Health Agency of Sweden] (2011a) ‘Den byggda miljöns påverkan på fysisk aktivitet i landsbygd. En kunskapssammanställ-ning för regeringsuppdraget“Byggd miljö och fysisk aktivitet” [The built environ-ment’s influence on physical activity in rural areas. A knowledge compilation for the government inquiry “Built environment and physical activity”]. 2011:28’.

Statens Folkhälsoinstitut, [The Public Health Agency of Sweden] (2011b) ‘Målom-råde 9: Fysisk aktivitet. Kunskapsunderlag för Folkhälsopolitisk rapport 2010 [Ob-jective domain 9: physical activity. Knowledge base for the Public health policy re-port 2010]. 2011:15’.

Statens Folkhälsoinstitut, [The Public Health Agency of Sweden] (2013) ‘Främja goda levnadsvanor genom åtgärder i livsmiljön. Planera och följ upp fysisk aktivitet [Promote healthy habits through intervetions in the environment. Plan and monitor physical activity]’.

Strickland, T. C. (2016) Funding and Financing Urban Infrastructure: A UK-US Com-parison. Doctoral Dissertation. School of Geography, Politics and Sociology, Newcas-tle University.

Strömberg, H. (2016) ‘Rapport. Riktlinjer för framtagande av trafikprognoser [Guidelines for producing traffic forecasts]. 2012:045’. Trafikverket [The Swedish Transport Administration].

Styrelsen Svenska Cykelstäder, [The board of Swedish Cycling Towns] (2017) ‘Svå-rare och farligare att cykla på landsväg [More difficult and dangerous to cycle on rural roads]’, Dagens Samhälle, 10 January. Available at: http://www.dagenssamhalle.se/debatt/svarare-och-farligare-att-cykla-pa-landsvaeg-30716 (Accessed: 17 March 2017).

Svensk Byggtjänst, [Interest organisation] (2017) ‘Snåret #32 Del 1 - Kommer vi att omvärdera den “heliga” bilen? [Podcast Snåret #32 Part 1 - Willl we re-evaluate the “holy” car?]’. Available at: https://soundcloud.com/svenskbyggtj-nst/snaret-32-del-1-kommer-vi-att-omvardera-den-heliga-bilen (Accessed: 22 March 2017).

Svensk Cykling, [Swedish Bike Association] (2014) ‘Cykeltrendrapporten. Span-ingar om cykling [The cycling trends report. The latest in cycling]’. Available at: http://svenskcykling.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Cykelrap-port_SvenskCykling_2014_WEB_small.pdf (Accessed: 20 April 2017).

-72-

Sverigeförhandlingen, [the Sweden Negotiations] (2015) ‘Cykelåtgärder i storstä-derna [Bicycle measures in the major cities]’.

Sverigeförhandlingen, [the Sweden Negotiations] (2017a) ‘Lund, Helsingborg och Region Skåne. Avtal i Sverigeförhandlingen [Lund, Helsingborg and Region Skåne. Agreements in the Sweden Negotiations]’.

Sverigeförhandlingen, [the Sweden Negotiations] (2017b) Stor satsning på cykel i Stockholm [Major investments in cycling in Stockholm].

Trafikanalys, [Transport Analysis] (2015) ‘Cyklandets utveckling i Sverige 1995–2014 – en analys av de nationella resvaneundersökningarna [The development of cycling in Sweden 1995-2014 – An analysis of the National Travel Surveys]. Rapport 2015:14’.

Trafikutskottet, [Committee on Traffic] ([forthcoming]) ‘Trafikutskottets betän-kande 2016/17:TU16 [Committee on Traffic report 2016/17:TU16].’

Trafikutskottet, [Committee on Traffic] (2008) Motioner behandlade i samband med propositionen: Framtidens resor och transporter – infrastruktur för hållbar tillväxt, i Trafikutskottets betänkande 2008/09:TU2 [Motions treated in connection to bill: Fu-ture travelling and transport – infrastructure for sustinable growth, in Committee on Traffic report 2008/09:TU2].

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] ([no date]) ‘GC-kalk. Manual och bakomliggande formler. [GC-kalk. Manual and formulas]. Version 1,4’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2010a) ‘Cykeltrafiktillväxt och medelantal cyklister i Malmö, Västerås, Linköping och Umeå [Cycling traffic increase and mean cyclists in Malmö, Västerås, Linköping and Umeå]. 2010:055’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2010b) ‘Den goda staden. Gå och cykla för ökad hälsa [The good city. Walk and cycle for better health]’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2011a) ‘Metod för miljöbedömning av planer och program inom transportsystemet [Method for envi-ronmental impact analysis of plans and programs within the transport system]. 2011:134’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2011b) ‘Ökad och säker cyk-ling - Redovisning av regeringsuppdrag [Increased and safe cycling - Report from government mandate] 2012:196’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2012) ‘Steg 1 och 2 – åtgär-der för ökat cyklande. Effekter och nyttor [Step 1 and 2 – measures för increased cycling. Effects and benefits]. 2012:167’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2013) ‘Cykelåtgärder [Bicy-cle measures], ACY002. TRV 2012/29166. TDOK 2012:58 Samlad effektbedömning v. 1.1 [Overall effects assesment v. 1.1]’.

-73-

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2014) ‘Säkrare cykling Ge-mensam strategi för år 2014–2020 [Safer cycling. A common strategy for the period 2014-2020]. Version 1.0. 2014:030’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2015a) ‘Analys av trafiksä-kerhetsutvecklingen 2014. Målstyrning av trafiksäkerhetsarbetet mot etappmålen 2020 [Analysis of traffic safety development 2014. Performance management of traffic safety measures for the 2020 objectives]. 2015:073’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2015b) ‘Inriktningsun-derlag inför transportinfrastrukturplanering för perioden 2018-2029 [Orientation plan for transport infrastructure planning for the period 2018-2029]. 2015:180, TRV 2015/42946’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2015c) ‘Krav för vägars och gators utformning [Demanded standards for road’s and street’s design]. 2015:086’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2015d) ‘Nationellt cykel-bokslut 2014. Hur utvecklas cyklandet i Sverige och vart är det på väg? [National annual cycling account. How is the cycling in Sweden developing and where is it go-ing?]. 2015:060’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2015e) ‘Rapport: Analys av cykelolyckorna i Stockholms och Gotlands län 2009-2014 [Report: Analysis of the cycling accidents in Stockholm and Gotland counties 2009-2014]. 2015:093’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2015f) Rätt väghållaransvar för en effektivare väghållning. Available at: http://www.trafikverket.se/om-oss/var-verksamhet/sa-har-jobbar-vi-med/Ratt-vaghallaransvar-for-en-effek-tivare-vaghallning/ (Accessed: 25 May 2017).

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2016a) ‘Analys av trafiksä-kerhetsutvecklingen 2015. Målstyrning av trafiksäkerhetsarbetet mot etappmålen 2020 [Analysis of traffic safety development 2015. Performance management of traffic safety measures for the 2020 objectives]. 2016:077’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2016b) ‘Åtgärder för att minska transportsektorns utsläpp av växthusgaser - ett regeringsuppdrag [Measures to decrease the transport sector’s emissions of greenhouse gases - a gov-ernment mandate]. 2016:111’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2016c) ‘Styrmedel och åt-gärder för att minska transportsystemets utsläpp av växthusgaser - med fokus på transportinfrastrukturen [Instruments and measures to mitigate the transport sy-stem’s greenhouse gas emissions - with focus on transport infrastructure]. 2016:043’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2016d) ‘Trafikverkets un-derlag för genomförande av Agenda 2030. Bilaga 1. Trafikverkets redovisning av verksamheten med avseende på Agenda 2030 [Trafikverket’s report for executing Agenda 2030. Appendix 1. Trafikverket’s report of action regarding Agenda 2030]. TRV 2016/34957’.

-74-

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2017a) Enskilda vägar [Pri-vate roads]. Available at: http://www.trafikverket.se/resa-och-trafik/vag/En-skilda-vagar/ (Accessed: 17 May 2017).

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (2017b) ‘Utredning om all-männa cykelvägar [Inquiry on public cycle paths]’. Available at: http://media.sveri-geforhandlingen.se/2015/01/Utredning-om-allm%C3%A4nna-cykelv%C3%A4gar.pdf (Accessed: 20 February 2017).

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (no date a) ‘Bilaga 1 Na-tionell transportplan 2014-2025 [Appendix 1 National plan for transport infrastruc-ture 2014-2025]’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (no date b) ‘Nationell plan för transportsystemet 2014-2025 – sammanställning och läshänvisning [National plan for transport infrastructure 2014-2025 – compilation and reading instruc-tions]’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (no date c) ‘Sam-hällsekonomisk analys – förklarat på ett enklare sätt [Societal-economic analysis – explained with simplicity]’. Available at: http://www.trafikverket.se/conten-tassets/de3459c23d0f471cb76f06794915ea45/sam-hallsekonomisk_analys_20160620.pdf (Accessed: 16 May 2017).

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (no date d) ‘Trafikverkets årsredovisning 2016 [Trafikverket’s yearly closing account for 2016’.

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] (no date e) ‘Vad är skillnaden mellan en förstudie och en idéstudie? [What is the difference between a pre-study and an ideas study?]’. Available at: http://www.trafikverket.se/conten-tassets/b41fb87c9f774bfe8a4b07612336de5f/infomaterial/ideforstudie.pdf (Ac-cessed: 14 May 2017).

Trafikverket, [The Swedish Transport Administration] and SKL, [Swedish Associat-ion of Local Authorities and Regions] (2011) ‘Medfinansiering av statliga infrastruk-turinvesteringar. Sammanfattning av Trafikverket och SKL:s gemensamma arbete hösten 2010’.

TV4 (2016) ‘Så mycket tjänar vi på att cykla [This is the economical benefit of cycling]’, Nyhetsmorgon [Morning News]. Available at: http://www.tv4.se/ny-hetsmorgon/klipp/s%C3%A5-mycket-tj%C3%A4nar-vi-p%C3%A5-att-cykla-3516832 (Accessed: 22 March 2017).

Vägverket, [the Swedish Road Administration] (2000) ‘Mer cykeltrafik på säkrare vägar. Nationell strategi för ökad och säkrare cykeltrafik. [Increased cycling traffic on safer roads. National strategy for increased and safe cycling]. 2000:8’.

Vägverket, [the Swedish Road Administration] (2007) ‘Uppdrag att utveckla den na-tionella cyklingstrategin m.m. [Assignment to develop the national cycling strategy, and more]. TR 40 A 2006:21345’.

-75-

Von Koch, A. (2016) ‘Samlad effektbedömning och samhällsekonomiska analyser. Riktlinjer [Overall effects assesmens and societal-economical analyses. Guidlines]. TDOK 2015:0142. Version 2.0’. Trafikverket [The Swedish Transport Administra-tion].

van Wee, B. and Börjesson, M. (2015) ‘How to make CBA more suitable for evaluat-ing cycling policies’, Transport Policy, 44, pp. 117–124.

Wennberg, H. et al. (2011) ‘Stafettbeskrivning för bättre målstyrning i planeringen – slutrapport 2010:57 [Relay description for target management in planning – final report 2010:57]’. Trivector.

Whatmore, S. (2003) ‘Investigating the field. Introduction’, in Pryke, M., Rose, G., and Whatmore, S. (eds) Using social theory. Thinking through research. London: Sage.

WSP (2011) ‘Del II i Cyklingsutredningen. Rapport. Reglers påverkan på förutsätt-ningarna för cykelplanering och cykling – underlag till Cyklingsutredningen. [Part II in the Cycling Inquiry. Report. The role of legislation in bicycle planning and cycling – material for the Cycling Inquiry].’ WSP [consultancy firm].

WSP (2012) ‘CyCity: Cykelplanering över kommungränser. Ett projekt om cykelpla-nering över kommungränser och betydelsen av samverkan. Slutrapport inom Pro-gramaktivitet 1 (PA1)’. WSP [consultancy firm].