15 years of planning for Delft Station, Netherlands. Good or bad practice?
Delft, a small city in the Netherlands, has become one of my favorite places to visit. I enjoy walking for 10 minutes from the Delft Station to my favorite open cafe, Cobus, which is located near a canal. The station has a lively atmosphere, especially during sunset, and is modern and spacious. When I compare Delft to Rotterdam, where I currently reside temporarily, I can see myself happily living in Delft in the future.
However, Delft was not always like this. It has undergone significant improvements, especially in its railway system and station. The “Delft Station Improvement Project” took 15 years to plan, not including construction. This essay will analyze the governance of this project from the perspective of the network governance model. It aims to understand the reasons behind the lengthy planning process and what urban designers and city planners can learn from it in their daily practices.
Backgroud of different governance model
In order to fully comprehend the significance of the planning process involved in the Delft Station improvement project, it is essential to examine the evolution of decision-making over time. The first model is Traditional Public Administration (TPA), which prioritizes hierarchy and rational decision-making and emphasizes the crucial role of the government in maintaining bureaucracy through rules and procedures to create an equal playing field for all. The government identifies problems, formulates solutions, and implements them in a linear fashion (agenda-goal-decision-making-implementation-evaluation). However, this approach is problematic due to excessive bureaucracy and limited resources on the government’s side in terms of both money and knowledge.
The New Public Management (NPM) model attempts to address these issues by introducing the fundamental idea of market mechanisms. It recognizes the government’s limitations in delivering public services and involves private parties as delivery agents. The government acts only as a principal that measures the delivery of services to ensure more efficient resource management. However, there is an imbalance of information between the principal and client which creates opportunistic behavior on both sides, leading to more control and more procedures.
The final model, New Public Governance (NPG), is based on a network model where resources are distributed among each actor. This model acknowledges that to tackle complex issues, a collaborative approach is needed through interactions and partnerships. “The government is no longer seen as occupying a superior position to other parties, but as being on equal footing with them” (Klijn & Koppenjan, pp 4, 2007). However, this model is not without its drawbacks. This essay will critically examine how the network model is applied in the case study of Delft Station due to its multiple stakeholders and intricate interactions between them.
Method of Analysis
This essay uses the analytical framework developed by Klijn & Koppenjan (2016) to analyze the governance network model. It categorizes into three main analytical activities: actor, games, and institutional analysis, as explained in Figure 1. These three main steps will provide a sense of direction on what’s happening in the complex interactions of different stakeholders.
What happens?
I decided to explain the ‘Game Analysis’ first because I can simultaneously explain the context of what is happening in the planning process. However, if it’s applied to analyze a new project, it’s better to follow the flow from Klijn & Koppenjan (2016). The first step is to analyze the ‘arenas’ where the game is played. It helps demarcate different playing fields of interactions. Identification of each arena can be made with three main indicators:
a. What happens, and what is the issue? Arenas is limited to the setting and time where it happened. The start and finish of an arena are indicated by critical events that take place in that particular setting.
b. What is the institutional setting that allows interaction between actors? It can be in the form of formal interaction, such as the decision-making process in parliaments, councils, and board meetings. Or it happens informally outside the legitimate process.
c. Which actors are allowed to participate in the arenas? The arena is not accessible to all actors. There is a decision-making process that is limited to specific actors. Each actors have a different influence across the whole planning process.
There are a total of eight rounds of Delft station improvement projects (Group F IHS, 2023).
1. Round 1: Rejected overpass railway (1988–1990)
Back in 1988, the city of Delft was approached by Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS) to increase the rail capacity as a part of a larger plan known as Rail21. This plan aimed to double the number of public transport users in the Raanstad Region, which covers multiple major cities, as shown in Figure 2. Since the city of Delft is located between Amsterdam, The Hague, and Rotterdam, there was a need to improve the rail capacity by doubling the track in many locations. During this process, there were three major players involved: NS, the House of Representatives (second chamber), and the Municipality of Delft. The House of Representatives had already approved the Rail21 plan to enhance the railway capacity. NS proposed to create a double track through Delft with another overpass on top of the existing railway, as shown in Figure 3. NS chose this strategy as it was more efficient to construct another overpass on top of the existing one.
In 1990, the city of Delft declined the proposal due to concerns about noise pollution and the potential disruption to residents’ livelihoods, as the city would be split in half. The dialogue surrounding this decision took place primarily between the national and municipal governments.
2. Round 2: In search for alternatives (1990–1992)
In 1990, they enlisted an expert to conduct a feasibility study on constructing an underground track. The study showed that doubling the track was necessary, and building it underground would have multiple benefits for real estate development above ground, such as office buildings and housing. In 1991, a policy study called ‘Structuurvisie’ (Structure Sketch) was published, which supported underground development due to its potential for providing more efficient rail transition and overall performance improvements.
However, the NS had a different perspective and still tried to defend the idea of an overpass railway in 1992. They proposed constructing noise barriers along the track, but this idea was rejected by the Delft municipality since it would be impossible to isolate the noise along the track.
At the same time, the National Government has a strategic agenda to develop High Speed Line (HSL) to connect Amsterdam with Brussels and Paris. The city of Delft is being considered as part of the possible trajectory. To determine the feasibility of the HSL project, the Delft municipality funded a research study which concluded that building a tunnel would be the best approach. However, the NS expressed dissatisfaction with the result due to cost-efficiency concerns. In the second round, there was more interaction in terms of exchanging ideas supported by research.
3. Round 3: Convergence of Actors (1993–1995)
In 1993, the Ministry of Public Works and Water Management established a joint committee to form the Underground Traffic Infrastructure (SOVI) group. Their task was to investigate the feasibility of the High-Speed Line (HSL) going under Delft. The Municipality actively participated in this effort and partly funded the research. However, the national government decided to divert the HSL route east of Delft, leading it through more rural areas. This round shows the national government to participate in the improvement of Delft railways infrastructure. However, it does not match the expectation of the Municipality.
4. Round 4: Plan to Improve the Overall Area (1995–1998)
This round started when the Municipality of Delft continued their effort to ensure the development of the railway went underground. In order to accomplish this, the Municipality contacted Ballast Nedam, a private company, to conduct a feasibility study for the area surrounding the central station. The study showed that the proposed improvement plan would result in a significant number of new homes and offices. The national government recognized the plan as an exemplary project for its innovative use of existing public space. As a result, the Municipality of Delft was awarded funding from the national government to support the implementation of the plan.
5. Round 5: Huge Interest to Develop Underground Tunnel (1999–2000)
In 1999, the national government approved a budget of 174 million euros for the tunnel project, which was part of the MIT (Multi-Year Program for Infrastructure and Transport). Railned, the organization responsible for maintaining the tracks under the NS, was tasked with conducting a study to explore the feasibility of implementing a four-track system near Delft. The study, which was completed in 2000, concluded that a four-track system was necessary to meet the growing demand for passenger transportation by 2020. Around the same time, the Municipality of Delft hired Spanish Urban Architect Busquets to design the area. His plan aimed to make better use of public spaces, preserve the historic nature of Delft, and create a coherent infrastructure system. The homeowner organizations also provided input, which helped to foster unity at the local level.
6. Round 6: Financial Deficit (2000–2001)
In the year 2000, the national government provided an additional 280 million guilders towards the construction of a tunnel in Delft. The amount MIT collected for Delft was 640 million guilders, which still fell short of the projected cost of 1.1 billion guilders. The Municipality of Delft expressed their willingness to invest up to 100 million from their local budget.
Another challenge in the construction of the tunnel was the allocation of responsibility and commitment between stakeholders, particularly in the government sector. The Municipality of Delft was disappointed with the Ministry of Public Works and Management as they were not willing to commit additional funds. The Municipality expected stronger support from the Ministry, at least for the first phase of the construction. This led to a diverging perspective and worsened the relationship between the two parties. Furthermore, the Municipality of Delft took the initiative to bypass the Ministry and request additional funds from the Second Chamber, which further strained the relationship.
7. Round 7: Onboard and Offboard (2002–2003)
In 2002 all of the stakeholders from the national government, province, Municipality, and NS had finally onboard with the notion the railway must be constructed underground. They agreed to resolve the problem of financial deficit together with the potential to search for alternatives from PPP.
The key actors in this process were Rail Infra Management, a part of NS, and the Municipality of Delft. The Rail Infra Management wanted for shorter and cheaper options for tunnels. This proposal was not favorable from the City of Delft side because it provided less opportunity for the area’s overall development. The attention to the Delft tunnel project was short-lived as in 2003, the national government decided to prioritize the maintenance of existing tracks, halting the tunnel project in Delft.
8. Round 8: Protest and Realization (2004–2009)
A group of residents living near the Delft station formed an organization called ‘Spoortunnel Delft NU’ (Railway Tunnel Delft NOW), which caught the attention of the House of Representatives (Second Chamber). They urged the responsible minister to allocate a budget, and in 2004, Minister Carla Peijs announced that the necessary financial budget would be reserved for the tunnel projects. The Municipality of Delft prepared a draft design for the tunnel and its surroundings, which was presented to the Delft community and officially approved by the municipal council. They also established a ‘development company’ to oversee the project as a branch of the municipal government. In 2007, the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment and the Municipality of Delft agreed on the financial risk of the project. Construction of the tunnel complex began in 2009.
Reflection of rounds
Decision-making is not a continuous process where the interaction becomes more complicated as new actors are introduced into the arena (IHS Group F, 2022). The interesting thing about the overall planning process is it was deliberative. All of the actors had the willingness to listen to another actor through different means. The actors involved depend on the other actors' resources as explained in the next part.
Who is involved?
There are multiple actors from different backgrounds involved in the Delft station planning process. It’s divided into three main categories of government, private, and public actors, as shown in Figure 4.
One of the reasons the planning process took a very long time is because of resources to realize the plan were evenly distributed (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2016). They were interdependent, and no action will be taken without consideration of other actors. The type of resources are categorized into:
a. Financial: money and budgets to cover the transaction cost of realizing solutions and also includes transaction costs
b. Production: means to realize the solutions, policies or services. In more detail terms, it includes physical needs such as building or personnel.
c. Competencies: formal authority to make decisions where it also included private actors whose given authority from the government
d. Knowledge: included knowledge or expertise to realize the service delivery. If the knowledge is hard to gain/access, the other actors will be more dependent on them.
e. Legitimacy: relevancies and support for certain solutions. It includes elected politicians/government or even societal groups that voice their concerns.
In the case of Delft station, we need to map out all of the actors involved in the planning process and determine their resources. The key players include NS, the Municipality of Delft, and the National Government. NS serves as the delivery agency responsible for planning and executing rail infrastructure projects. The Municipality of Delft has administrative authority and access to financial resources from their municipal budget, although this is smaller compared to the National Government’s resources. Figure 5. shows the major actors with their different resources.
In order to effectively engage with actors, it is important to understand their critical resources and prioritize accordingly. A matrix of replaceability and importance, as shown in Figure 6. can help illustrate this prioritization. The top right quadrant represents actors who are essential to the success of the project and cannot be replaced. These actors must be given top priority. However, actors from the top left quadrant, such as homeowners, may not play as crucial a role in steering the project, but they still have legitimacy as constituents in their area and cannot be replaced.
Overcoming barriers
The planning process of Delft Station is far from a smooth process, in fact, it’s been a back-and-forth situation for years. It requires constant deliberative action from all of the actors involved (Group H IHS, 2023. The network management strategies aim to identify the type of strategies implemented by actors to achieve their goals. In the Delft station project, there are 4 network strategies implemented by the actors for specific moments:
Arranging
This strategy involves organizing and structuring interactions between different parties, as outlined by IHS in 2023. On several occasions, these actors have come together to facilitate a smoother planning process. For example, the Steering Group (SOVI) was established to explore the feasibility of a four-track tunnel. Such actions are not limited to those initiated by the government but can also emerge from a bottom-up process. In 2003, frustrated residents organized a movement called “Spoortunnel Delft NU” when the tunnel project was put on hold. This is a great example of collective action from the grassroots level.
Connecting
Initiating new interactions, building coalitions, removing obstacles, and mediating between actors is a common strategy utilized by various actors due to the widespread distribution of resources. For instance, in 1999, the Delft Municipality hired a Spanish architect firm to design the area, while in 2002, Rail Infra Management was tasked by the Ministry of Public Works to carry out a feasibility study on railways.
Process Agreement
Rules about the decision-making process will dictate how the network between actors is executed. A clear example of this strategy can be seen in the Municipality of Delft, where development rights were granted to Ballast Nedam, a private company, under the PPP scheme. This process established rules, parameters, and information-sharing guidelines to ensure successful long-term collaboration.
Exploring Content
Strategy to create a variation of solutions and provide creative competition between actors. This approach resulted in a lengthy planning process as each party presented their arguments supported by research that had taken years to complete. For instance, the Delft Municipality funded research on the feasibility of constructing a tunnel for the HSL Line using its own resources, while Rail Infra Management used its own findings to support the proposal for a shorter track for railways, opposing the Delft Municipality’s proposal.
Summary: Is it applicable outside the Dutch context?
The network model in the Netherlands is authentically a Dutch invention that has been around since the middle ages and is difficult to apply in other countries. Schreuder (2001) argued that the Nederlands are unique because they still maintain corporation tradition; meanwhile, the other developed countries fall into divisive policies. This tradition is also known as the “Polder Model,” where organized social groups are recognized in the political structure, giving a chance for negotiation and compromise (Vries, 2014). It acknowledges that a welfare society can only be achieved when there is coordination among actors and the maintenance of power distribution. The Dutch intentionally maintain the distribution of power in a network of actors with openness in decision-making, representativeness, and horizontal accountability (Klijn & Koppenjan, 2012).
There are several examples of how special the Dutch network is in the study case of railroad tunnel development in Delft Central from 1990–2010. Klijn and Scholten (2015) identify the consensus building in the project that took nearly 20 years. The first example is the equal power distribution shown during the solution exploration. Not only the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment can conduct a feasibility study, but the Municipality of Delft also has the capability to delegate to other actors. This condition leads to the second example of openness, where each actor shows great respect towards other opinions. Klijn (2012) explained that in network governance, the representative bodies must allow citizens to express opinions and appeal when needed. In 2003 the residents organized themselves to appeal to the National Government to prioritize the project, and they managed to sway the Ministry through interaction with the house of representatives. The Dutch government also showed openness toward contrasting findings for the railway project. Their value is to prioritize evidence-based policy in every decision made. In the Delft case study, they were willing to wait for years until the evidence was clear, even if it came from the opposition.
Reference
Group E IHS Urban Governance. (2023). Delft Central: A Complex Dance around a Railroad Tunnel [PowerPoint slides]. IHS Erasmus University.
Group FIHS Urban Governance. (2023). Delft Central: A Complex Dance around a Railroad Tunnel [PowerPoint slides]. IHS Erasmus University.
Group H IHS Urban Governance. (2023). Delft Central: A Complex Dance around a Railroad Tunnel [PowerPoint slides]. IHS Erasmus University.
Klijn, E. (2007). Governing policy networks : A network perspective on decision making in network society. In G. Morcol (Ed.), Handbook of decision making (pp. 169–187). New York: CRC press.
Klijn, E., & Koppenjan, J. (2016). Analyzing governance networks. In E. Klijn, & J. Koppenjan (Eds.), Governance networks in the public sector (pp. 259–288). Abingdon: Routledge. Retrieved from https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9781315887098
Klijn, E., & Scholten, P. (2015). Delft central : A complex dance around a railroad tunnel (interactions only!). Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Schreuder, Y. (2001). The polder model in dutch economic and environmental planning. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 21(4), 237–245. doi:10.1177/027046760102100401
Vries, J. D. (2014). The netherlands and the polder model: Questioning the polder model concept. BMGN — Low Countries Historical Review, 129(1), 99–111. doi:e-ISSN 2211–2898
