Transport planning has for a long time been characterised by rational methods and tools that have had a hard time handling the social dimensions of sustainable development (Thoresson, 2014, p.23-24). However, the transport system influences the conditions of societies possibilities for sustainable development (Stren & Polèse, 2000, p.28-29). In 2010, Trafikverket (The Swedish Transport Administration) was formed by merging several separate administrations, to create the possibility for a more integrated and long term solution for transport planning (Ingo, 2013, p.114). In 2013, Trafikverket (2015a, p.3) introduced a new step in the planning process, as a means of contributing to the new long term sustainable transport planning: Åtgärdsvalsstudier (ÅVS), where in they would study different suggestions of intervention that could be used to solve transport problems (Trafikverket, 2015a, p.8-9).
In relation to the above mentioned development, we will pose the following question in this paper: how are social dimensions incorporated within Swedish transportplanning? This paper has been limited to only treat the process of ÅVS. During the study we have done a case study including interviews with a team working on a ongoing ÅVS. A conversation with a focus group consisting of consultants working with ÅVS has also taken place. This empirical study has been compared to theories of social sustainability and transport planning. The result of the paper highlights the problems of discussing social dimensions within the rational perception of knowledge. This is because the rational processes used within transport planning make it difficult to identify groups in the society, which is neccesary for social justice and social sustainability (jfr. Fainstein, 2000; Stren & Polèse, 2000, s.15-16)”. In addition to this, the rational perception of knowledge and rational methodology creates difficulties in integrating qualitative values of social dimensions. It also appears that the ÅVS-process is characterised by negotiation planning, which makes it possible for people invited to the process to influence the interventions according to their own preferences. Linked with the negotiation planning is however the limitation it puts on the citizen participation and insight, which jeopardises the democratic ideals and creates an imbalance in who gets to have a say.