Minimetro, Tramway or Light railway

The background for this article is my final thesis “Minimetro, tramway or light railway”, elaborated at the Institute of Technology and Social Sciences, unit of Technology Assessment, DTU, June 1995. It is made through my surprise over the debate which arose in the press following the Ørestad Consortium's choice of a mini-metro in preference to a tramway or a light railway as Copenh agen's new cityline, three apparently very similar solutions but where each solution clearly had its proponents and o pponents. The debate was emotionally charged and the arguments forwarded concerned matters very di fferent to those presented by the Ørestad Consortium as being important. Following the decision in favour of the mini-metro and my own surprise concerning the links which developed among the actors' arguments and actions, especially concerning things not mentioned in the debate, I have deconstructed the Ørestad Consortium's choice of the mini-metro. The article, therefore, is based on the Ørestad Consortium's own presentation of the mini-metro in preference to the other two choices, and subsequently an unravelling of the process which led to the Ørestad Consortium's choice. This unravelling considers the participant in the debate, hereafter 'the actors', and the choices which influenced the requirements of the mini-metro. The background for the actors' power struggles lies in the rationalities. To unearth them would require a deeper dig. Transport- and town planning in Copenhagen express the ideologies, wishes and expect ations of future society. The rationalities are reflected in the objectives of these plans. Rationalities are the actors' perception of problems and solutions attached to a specific distinct, in this instance transport planning in Copenhagen. Attached to a rationality is a relevant social group, which is a group of actors who have the same perception of objectives, for example with respect to transport planning,, i.e. in other words a relevant social group is a group of actors who share the same rationality. The rationality, to which the actors, methods and structures (both institutions and infrastructures) are attached, is defined by the rationalities they hold. Rationalities are a part of society's discourses 1 and elements of these discourses are made concrete in the rationality.

本研究的背景源自本人1995年6月于丹麦技术大学（DTU）技术评估研究单元下属的技术与社会科学研究所（Institute of Technology and Social Sciences）完成的最终学位论文《迷你地铁（mini-metro）、有轨电车（tramway）与轻轨（light railway）》。本人之所以开展此项研究，源于对厄斯特德财团（Ørestad Consortium）选择迷你地铁作为哥本哈根新城市轨道交通线路，而非有轨电车或轻轨方案后，媒体引发的相关讨论感到诧异——这三种方案看似高度相似，但各自均拥有明确的支持者与反对者。这场讨论情绪色彩浓厚，所提出的论点与厄斯特德财团所强调的核心考量大相径庭。在迷你地铁方案敲定后，结合本人对各方参与者的论点与行动间关联的困惑，尤其是讨论中未被提及的细节，本人对厄斯特德财团选择迷你地铁的决策过程进行了解构。因此，本文首先基于厄斯特德财团优先选用迷你地铁而非另外两种方案的自身阐述，随后对促成该财团决策的全过程进行梳理。本次梳理将围绕讨论中的参与者（下文简称“行动者（actors）”），以及影响迷你地铁方案技术要求的各项选择展开。行动者间权力博弈的根源在于其各自秉持的理性认知（rationalities），若要深挖这些理性认知，则需进一步剖析。哥本哈根的交通与城镇规划承载着未来社会的意识形态、愿景与期许，而这些理性认知正体现于相关规划的目标之中。所谓理性认知，即行动者对特定领域（此处为哥本哈根的交通规划）内的问题与解决方案的认知。与某一理性认知绑定的是相应的相关社会群体，即拥有相同目标认知的行动者群体——例如在交通规划领域持有相同看法的群体，换言之，共享同一理性认知的行动者集合。行动者、方法与结构（包括制度与基础设施）所依附的理性认知，由其所秉持的理性认知所定义。理性认知是社会话语（discourses）¹的组成部分，而此类话语的要素会通过理性认知得到具象化。