Securing public values in public transport projects: Four Dutch cases on innovation

Public transport projects, like its operations, most often have a substantial dependence on public funding. The rationale behind the public contribution is that governments on different levels want to secure certain public values by supporting public transport, e.g., mobility, accessibility, sustainability, social inclusion. These are all public values that public transport, projects and operations are expected to support. Evaluations show that the outcomes of the projects are often different than expected. The goal of the research described here was to understand what happens to the public values during the process of project realisation. Four Dutch projects were researched: ZuidTangent (a bus rapid transit project near Schiphol); ParkShuttle (a people mover near Rotterdam); Phileas (guided bus rapid transit near Eindhoven); and RandstadRail (a light rail conversion near The Hague). All the projects were initiated with innovation as one of the key elements/values. Moving away from the traditional ante-post analysis, we saw patterns in the way in which public values shift during the project. First, the projects under study show how too much focus on innovation can harm the project. Second, we see crowding out of values; high ambitions of key values during the early phases of the project lead to neglect of values which were not key to the project. Third, although more innovation was a key reason to introduce competition in the governance of Dutch public transport, it became apparent that introducing competition has complicated execution of these innovative projects significantly.     

Workshop report - System development

The workshop considered system development as a key element of improving the performance of public transport. The main theme was the governance of decision making, design and development of public transport projects. A first main finding is that governance should be improved to keep focus on the original values for which the projects are started. Many projects lose sight of their original aims through the long and often problematic process from inception to operation. A second main finding is that the technological choice, mainly between rubber on tarmac and steel on rails, can be postponed, as both technologies start to overlap in their capacities. A stronger focus on functional needs in the earlier phases of the projects could help. Finally, as the different technologies provide similar options and can be used interchangeably, communicating the service they provide in other ways then through vehicle and infrastructure technology becomes more important.     

Decision-making for light rail

In transport literature there is an ongoing discussion on the potential of light rail in mitigating congestion and supporting mobility around urban centres. Throughout Europe and the United States, many policy makers see light rail as an interesting option to improve the accessibility of urban centres. The Dutch national government wanted to support swift light rail realization in a number of promising situations.Several projects gained support from the national government for implementation. However, the decision-making on a local level was not nearly as swift as expected and not in line with the promise. This paper presents an analysis of that perceived slowdown and shows that the approach of the national government with a strict focus on light rail and a detachment from the local processes has played an important role in the slowdown. It shows that light rail can very well be a solid option. However, its successful implementation is not solely dependent on light rail suitability for the mobility patterns in the region, but very much on the approach of the implementation of those supporting the option.     

Changing public transport governance in Dutch metropoles: To tender or not to tender

With winds of change from the European Commission reaching the Netherlands, the national government altered the Law on Passenger Transport in 2000 to best reflect European demands. This new law meant competitive tendering became obligatory. At first, the metropolitan transport authorities in the three largest cities (Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam) were granted an extended deadline for tendering. However, due to shifting winds from Brussels, in 2007 the Dutch national government dropped the obligation to tender for the three cities. Suddenly the authorities had to decide for themselves whether or not to tender. This article describes the different routes and outcomes of the three metropolitan authorities. Where the metropolitan authority in Rotterdam aimed at conservation of their existing model, the authorities of Amsterdam and The Hague embraced change. In The Hague conformation to the letter of the law seemed an important driver, whereas confrontation between different interests in the region was the starting point for change in Amsterdam.