REGIONAL APPROACH TO INFRASTRUCTURE PROVISION

1

[„Regional Approach To Infrastructure Provision‟ is a specific type of project approach carried out by the Province Fryslân and is a combination of infrastructure

provision and area development. This thesis focuses on the scientific definition of RATIP and endeavors to construct an Analysis Framework, by which the project success of diverse „infrastructure planning classifications‟ can be qualitatively analyzed. This Analysis Framework is composed of the success criteria and success & failure factors that are synthesized from the fields of infrastructure planning, project & process management and (sustainable) area development. The extracted lessons from the cross-case analysis, based on the Analysis Framework, are expected to enrich

Fryslân‟s knowledge on the approach to RATIP.]

(Thesis page count: 110 pages; 239 pages with appendices)

1 The picture is obtained from: http://ensia.com/features/urban-infrastructure-what-would-nature-do/ COLOPHON Title: Regional Approach to Infrastructure Provision Location: Rotterdam, the Netherlands Date: Monday, 13 October 2014

Author Name: James Tjan On Cheung Student Number: 1536982 Email: [email protected] University: Delft University of Technology Faculty: Civil Engineering and Geosciences (CEG) Master program: Construction Management Engineering (CME)

Graduation Committee Chairman: Prof. Ir. Dr. Marcel Hertogh Faculty of CEG, Infrastructure Design and Management Daily supervisor company: Dr. Ir. Jeroen Rijke Triple Bridge – consultant Daily supervisor academic: Dr. Ir. Jeroen Rijke, UNESCO-IHE – specialist water management Academic educator: PhD. Fransje Hooimeijer, Faculty of Architecture: Assistant Professor ETD Committee member: Sieds Hoitinga, Province Fryslân – Program manager „CIP‟

Delft University of Technology: Faculty of CEG Postbus 5 2600 AA Delft T: +31 (0)15 27 89111 http://www.tudelft.nl/en/

Triple Bridge B.V. Achter Sint Pieter 140 3512 HT Utrecht

Tel: +31 (0)30 22 00828 http://www.triple-bridge.nl/

Colophon II

PREFACE This dissertation will be my concluding chapter as a student at the TU-Delft. It is sad to leave this student life behind, as throughout the years dating back since 2008, I have met great people and learned lot of things. For those reasons, I am first of all very grateful to those people who made this all happen.

That is my family, my dad and mom who have always supported me. I will not forget this. I will also not forget Melissa and Onno, as we always had a good time and your help in my thesis has been truthfully very helpful and reflecting.

Reflecting back at my years as a student, I can proudly say that I have reached everything that I have always wanted to do. The first two bachelor years were very fun – almost too much fun, which delayed my studies for a year. Nevertheless, I managed to reduce that gap, by doing pre- master for CME and at the same time finishing my bachelor. During this period, I also worked part-time for a civil engineering company „Unihorn‟, so that year was certainly tiresome, but fun. I only missed one thing, which was going on academic exchange in Asia! With some luck and much effort, I managed to get an exchange in Japan at the Osaka University. This was a great once in a life time experience. In September 2013, I came back, fresh as a tomato and pumped up to finish the last bit of my master‟s curriculum, the master thesis. I planned to finish my dissertation, upon my return in roughly a half year, which is 30+ ECTs. Ultimately, 6.5 years for my Master of Science.

This is where things went awkward. Due to miscommunication with the CME committee, I was granted less ECTs than I have originally planned. So despite having this thesis job already, I needed to get more ECTs and just like other many undergraduates, doing a thesis is not an easy task: scope creeping, constant iteration, lack of documentation of projects etc.

Now, finally finished, in truth 9+ months later, I present you the final version of my thesis. I am satisfied with the results. It was really a lot of work, due to the underexposed research domain of „RATIP‟ and the rather broad research question – to really know what RATIP is; both extreme ends of the domains of (sustainable) infrastructure and area development had to be studied.

Nevertheless, I learned a lot and this research thesis would not have these results, if my graduation committee was not here in guiding me on the critical moments in which I almost dwelled off. I would hereby like to express my gratitude to Jeroen Rijke, Marcel Hertogh, and Fransje Hooimeijer for their effort and guidance.

I would also like to take a moment to thank several other people whom I had an interview with. Those people were Sieds Hoitinga, Albert de Vries, and Mirjam Cauvern. The talks were very interesting and meaningful. It certainly brought more insight into RATIP.

For the readers, I wish you happy reading on this thesis.

Preface III

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background:

Spatial planning is the distribution of space, which includes infrastructure planning and area development. In the Anglo-Saxon world, the infrastructure planning and area development are converging to increase the spatial quality and spatial cohesion of the environment, so that the quality of life can be enhanced. „‟Regional Development To Infrastructure Provision‟‟ (RATIP) is an approach on project-level, in which infrastructure development and area development are intertwined and executed in a certain manner. Uniquely for RATIP is the desirability of creating added-societal value through synergy and intertwinements with other area development projects. It is a rather new and unique concept, which is applied in the projects of the province of Fryslân with relatively great success. How is this phenomenon described in the scientific literature and how does it fare real life project cases of other provinces?

Goal of thesis and main research question:

There is a rich amount of literature available on the spatial planning and area development research domains, but the available literature on this combined domain is rather limited: the research goal of this thesis is therefore to contribute new knowledge to this somewhat underexposed domain, to which Fryslân can use to enhance its own RATIP. The research question is:

From the pre-initiation phase to the development phase, what aspects in the process design and what activities in the phases are important for a successful implementation of the regional approach to infrastructure provision?

Methodology:

This question is addressed through by the development of an Analysis Framework, by which the project success of diverse „infrastructure planning classifications‟ can be qualitatively analyzed, based on the careful configuration of success criteria and success & failure factors that are synthesized from the scientific fields of infrastructure planning, project & process management and (sustainable) area development. In this research, four case studies are selected and analyzed through the framework. In order to derive the commonalities and identify the success factors for RATIP implementations, the case studies are compared in a cross-case analysis. The findings will result into conclusions, learned lessons and recommendations for further research.

Conclusion on main research question:

There are five classifications of planning approaches, in which these two cores of infrastructure and spatial planning are getting more interwoven.

1. line-oriented infrastructure planning (classification 1)

2. network approach (RATIP) (classification 2) Executive summary IV

3. context-sensitive approach (RATIP) (classification 3) 4. area-oriented approach (RATIP) (classification 4) 5. (integrated) (sustainable) area development (classification 5)

RATIP can be network-approach, context-sensitive, or area-oriented approach on infrastructure planning. RATIP is also a pragmatic approach, precursory to area development, as it makes the attempts of adding extra value to the road infrastructure project by incorporating values which are specific to area development. RATIP is therefore neither a very simple project, nor a very complex one in these planning classifications. The planning class determination of RATIP depends on the succeeded couplings to area development, to which the couplings can be expressed in three ordinal scaling modules:

 Spatial intertwinement levels.  Financial intertwinement levels.  Procedural intertwinement levels.

The spatial ladder is focused on the spatial intertwinement in a project, whereas the other ladders are focused on the phases and financial content of that spatial intertwinement in a project. The intertwinement will form one of the success criteria on which RATIP will be evaluated.

The success of RATIP, as measured till the end of the plan development phase, will depend on the intertwinement, but also on other project success criteria such as the Iron Triangle, stakeholders‟ satisfaction, learning opportunities and reputation improvements. The success and failure factors, such as project-based and process-based strategies, will influence these criteria:

these factors are put into the Analysis Framework as INPUT and PROCESS.

Executive summary V

It is concluded that increasing intertwinement itself does not directly contribute to project success, such as higher spatial quality or lower project costs. In fact, higher levels of intertwinements will only make the project unnecessarily complex. The intertwinements are only considered useful, if the other project success criteria are rated positively on average. If so, then the comparison vis-à-vis will put the much more interwoven project ahead of the lesser one in terms of project success and synergy through intertwinement that creates the added- value.2 The case studies in cross-case analysis, in which some were successful and others were less successful had corresponding success and failure factors with the aforementioned studied literature. The success and failure factors that influence these intertwinement criteria, possible synergies, and other project success criteria are:3

 Fit for purpose approach: hybrid form of project and process managerial actions in line with the problem context and input of project (vision, ambition, goals, project scope and boundaries).  Important key figures: influential actors whom are able to inspire others, keep the coalition together and connect dreams with the realities; also actors with capabilities to absorb and utilize the intertwined couplings.  Political stability: the socio-technical problem is already complex enough, so a political- socio-technical problem should be avoided.

Within these three factors, the activities in the phases and aspects that are important to the process design of RATIP are concluded. These three factors may look plain and straightforward, but they are compressed bundles containing much more factors than probably noticed at first sight – this is the result of deductive and inductive reasoning: getting the overall big picture (Analysis Framework, with many factors) first, because of the lack of a clear foundation in the literature and then trying to get pre-conclude rules and lessons out of the specific cases in the cross-analysis. This methodology is, however, prone to coincidences in the studies cases. Recommendations for further research are the fine-tuning of this analysis framework and use quantified methodologies to define the correlations. Nevertheless, with this thesis, it is hoped that it has contributed additional knowledge to the rather underexposed domain of infrastructure and spatial planning: there is still much to win.

2 That is, if also assumed that the most interwoven project has a good spatial cohesion. This can be checked with a matrix form, in which the 4P (spatial quality: project & process) puts the living environment as the central object of sustainable spatial development.

3 Indirectly, the intertwinement criteria can be related to the Iron Triangle. The Iron Triangle is for 60% correlated with the stakeholder‟s satisfaction and 56% with the overall project success. This correlation depends on the project performance (output vs. input), expectations (input) and unexpected and unanticipated risk and changes in environment (external conditions). Hence, the success and failure factors will thus also impact other project success criteria. Lastly,

the external project factors will always impact these 3 success factors. Executive summary VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS Colophon ...... II Preface ...... III Executive summary ...... IV Table of Contents ...... VII Lists of tables and figures ...... X PART I: Introduction ...... 1 1. Project context ...... 2 1.1. Introduction of topic “RATIP” ...... 2 1.2. The problem statement ...... 4 2. Research approach ...... 5 2.1. Research goal ...... 5 2.2. Research question and sub-questions...... 5 2.3. Research methodology ...... 6 PART II: Defining RATIP ...... 8 3. What is RATIP? ...... 10 3.1. Infrastructure planning: SVIR and spatial planning ...... 10 3.2. Infrastructure planning: the evolvement in time ...... 11 3.3. Infrastructure planning: the evolvement trends in other countries – CLIOS system ...... 17 3.4. Infrastructure planning: sustainability ...... 18 3.5. Area development: introduction ...... 20 3.6. Area development: the evolvement in time ...... 21 3.7. Area development: sustainability, transdisciplinarity and T-shaped engineers ...... 22 3.8. Conclusion: what is RATIP? ...... 26 4. The process design of RATIP ...... 28 4.1. Phases and activities: infrastructure planning ...... 29 4.2. Phases and activities: area development ...... 31 4.3. Discussion: Potential structure of phases & activities of RATIP ...... 34 5. Process management and succes & failure factors ...... 38

5.1. When is it useful? Network vs. hierarchy ...... 38 5.2. Process management and process design ...... 42 5.3. Strategic behaviours on process design ...... 46

5.4. Conclusion: success & failure factors for RATIP ...... 51 Table of Contents VII

Sub-question 1: What is Regional Approach To Infrastructure Provision? ...... 55 Sub-question 2: How can the process design and project of RATIP be structured? ...... 56 Sub-question 2a: What are the possible phases of RATIP? ...... 56 Sub-question 2b: What are the possible activities of RATIP? ...... 57 6. RATIP success definition: criteria and factors ...... 59 6.1. All kinds of project success criteria and factors ...... 59 6.2. Conclusion: what are success criteria and factors of RATIP? ...... 64 Sub-question 3: What are the success criteria of RATIP?...... 69 Sub-question 4: What are the success and failure factors of RATIP? ...... 70 PART III: Analysis Framework ...... 71 7. Synthesis of success criteria and factors: RATIP ...... 72 PART IV: Case studies & Cross analysis ...... 77 8. Enumerations of the findings per study case ...... 78 9. The cross-case analysis ...... 82 10. The result of the cross-case analysis ...... 85 Sub-question 5: How do these success definitions meet up with the case studies? ...... 92 PART V: Conclusion ...... 94 11. Conclusions for succesful implementations of RATIP ...... 95 12. Lessons from case studies ...... 102 13. Recommendations for further research ...... 109 PART VI: bibliography and appendices ...... 111 Bibliography ...... 112 Appendix A: Supplement to PART II ...... 121 Supplement to section 3.2: the Circle of Wegner ...... 121 Supplement to section 3.3: evolvement and CLIOS-system ...... 122 Overview of the steps of the CLIOS-system ...... 125 Regional planning architecture...... 127

Technical, economic and organizational tools for CLIOS ...... 128 Success factors for CLIOS-system, similar to RATIP ...... 130 Supplement to section 3.5: area development definitions ...... 132 Supplement to section 3.7: transdisciplinarity & T-engineer ...... 133

Supplement to section 5.2: process design in process management ...... 135 Table of Contents VII I

Supplement to section 6.1: project success criteria and factors...... 144 Appendix B: Supplement to PART IV – the case studies ...... 146 a. Case I: Junction Joure ...... 148 a.1. Outline of junction Joure ...... 148 a.2. Evaluation analysis on Junction Joure ...... 149 a.2.1. The input of Junction Joure ...... 149 a.2.2. The output of Junction Joure ...... 151 a.2.3. The process of junction Joure ...... 155 b. Case II: N31 Traverse Harlingen ...... 158 b.1. Outline of N31 Traverse Harlingen ...... 158 b.2. Evaluation analysis on N31 Traverse Harlingen ...... 161 b.2.1. The input of N31 Traverse Harlingen ...... 161 b.2.2. The output of N31 Traverse Harlingen ...... 162 b.2.3. The process of N31 Traverse Harlingen ...... 166 c. Case III: RATIP in the province Brabant ...... 170 c.1. RATIP in Brabant; terminology, usage, policy ...... 170 c.1.1. Recap: RATIP and PVVP in the province Fryslân ...... 170 c.1.2. RATIP in the province Brabant ...... 172 c.2. Overview of brainport east - the diamond ...... 180 c.2.1. Overview of the diamond ...... 180 c.2.2. Organizational structure and decision-making process ...... 181 c.2.3. North-east corridor ...... 187 c.2.4. Other development projects: KODA and MEROS ...... 188 c.3. Evaluation analysis on RATIP and Brainport East ...... 191 c.3.1. The input of NEC ...... 192 c.3.2. The output of NEC ...... 193 c.3.3. The process of NEC ...... 198 d. Case IV: N23 Westfrisiaweg ...... 200 d.1. Outline of the N23 Westfrisiaweg ...... 201 d.2. Evaluation analysis on the N23 ...... 208

d.2.1. The input of N23 ...... 208 d.2.2. The output of N23 ...... 210 d.2.3. The process of N23 ...... 212

e. Appendix of the studied cases ...... 216 Table of Contents IX

LISTS OF TABLES AND FIGURES

The tables

Table 1-1: level of scope analysis by Triple Bridge ...... 3 Table 3-1: the evolvement of area development ...... 21 Table 3-2: recommended actions and implications to reach sustainable development ...... 23 Table 3-3: what is RATIP? ...... 27 Table 4-1: the extensive and shortened Infrastructure Act ...... 31 Table 4-2: the spatial quality: in societal and spatial components ...... 36 Table 4-3: potential RATIP phases with its activities and documents ...... 37 Table 5-1: hierarchical & horizontal management ...... 39 Table 5-2: comparing decision-making in hierarchies and networks ...... 40 Table 5-3: project-managerial versus process-managerial approach in networks ...... 40 Table 5-4: the four key elements in the process design with sub-factors ...... 44 Table 5-5: project-managerial approach versus process-managerial approach ...... 46 Table 5-6: problem formulation in network (DM means decision-making) ...... 47 Table 5-7: goals in a network ...... 48 Table 5-8: information in a network ...... 49 Table 5-9: decision-making & implementation in a network ...... 51 Table 5-10: key groupings of important success factors to RATIP ...... 53 Table 6-1: project success throughout time as indicated in four dimensions ...... 60 Table 6-2: project success factors adopted from D. Dvir et al. (1998) ...... 62 Table 6-3: project success adopted from Chow and Cao (2008) ...... 62 Table 6-4: criteria and factors for (sustainable) area development ...... 63 Table 6-5: spatial intertwinement adapted from Van Enter (2011) ...... 65 Table 6-6: procedural intertwinement adapted from Van Enter (2011)...... 66 Table 6-7: financial intertwinement adapted from Van Enter (2011)...... 66 Table 6-8: success depends on planning classification, success criteria & factors ...... 67 Table 6-9: Success factors of Analysis Framework ...... 70 Table 7-1: output of the project in the Analysis Framework ...... 73 Table 7-2: input of the project in the Analysis Framework ...... 74 Table 7-3: process of the project in the Analysis Framework ...... 75 Table 9-1: cross-case analysis, applied with the Analysis Framework ...... 82

Lists tables of andfigures X

The figures

Figure 1-1: illustrative overview of the level of implementation of RATIP ...... 3 Figure 2-1: research Methodology ...... 7 Figure 3-1: the two separated silos are likely to converge (Struiksma & Tillema, 2009) ...... 13 Figure 3-2: the trend from line-oriented to area-oriented development (Struiksma et al., 2010) ...... 14 Figure 3-3: A shows that infrastructure is being adapted to the region; vice versa as seen in B (Struiksma et al., 2010) ...... 15 Figure 3-4: adapted from „From line towards area-oriented approaches in road infrastructure planning‟ by Struiksma et al.: the types of infrastructure planning, level of integration, actor involvement and spatial dimensions; the thickness of the line reflects the spatial focus (local focus: thin line; regional focus: thicker lines) ...... 16 Figure 3-5: introducing the 4th P: Project implying spatial quality, robustness, aesthetics and diversity (Dorst & Duijvestrein, 2004) ...... 24 Figure 3-6: balance of societal components and spatial components with regard to the spatial quality (De Zeeuw, 2011) ...... 24 Figure 4-1: 3 phases of infrastructure planning, according to the MIRT rules ...... 30 Figure 4-2: the four distinctive phases of area development (WRO) ...... 32 Figure 4-3: sustainable area development (H2Ruimte, 2014) ...... 33 Figure 4-4: non-PPP & PPP involvement (Eversdijk & A., 2007; Wolting, 2006) ...... 34 Figure 4-5: cyclical rounds in each process phase, adopted from H2Ruimte (2014) ...... 35 Figure 5-1: decision-making in erratic and iterative round model ...... 41 Figure 5-2: the 4 key elements important to a process design (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008) ...... 43 Figure 6-1: project success adopted from (Bjeirmi, 1996; De Wit, 1988) ...... 68 Figure 7-1: RATIP Analysis Framework Use ...... 72 Figure 7-2: overview of the Analysis Framework ...... 72 Figure 7-3: project success adopted from (Bjeirmi, 1996; De Wit, 1988) ...... 73 Figure 7-4: scope extension of RATIP ...... 73 Figure 11-1: overview of the Analysis Framework ...... 96

Lists tables of andfigures XI

PART I: INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: PROJECT CONTEXT The first chapter will introduce the project context: background problem and problem statement. CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH GOAL Chapter two will elaborate on the research goal and research questions which are derived from the project context. Here is also presented the research methodology.

PART I: Introduction 1

1. PROJECT CONTEXT The project context will introduce the topic Regional Approach To Infrastructure Provision (RATIP), as well as acquaint the reader with the problem statement concerning RATIP.

1.1. Introduction of topic “RATIP” Until 2040, the national policy strategy for infrastructure and spatial planning are defined in the Structural Vision document of the Rijksoverheid (2012). These are based on the following expected developments and challenges of the future:  the spatial uses of areas will change, due to population declination and an increase in vacancy, prosperity, employment, one-person households,  and the need for mobility (Rijksoverheid, 2012, p. 5). Additionally, the current national government is decentralizing (Huizenga, 2011; Rijksoverheid, 2013b; Verkeersnet, 2011): many of the tasks and responsibilities, that were once in the hands of the National government, will now be transferred to the lower governmental bodies such as provinces and municipalities. Therefore, the environmental law for spatial planning has been simplified to make implementation much easier (Renooy, 2012). Infrastructure and spatial planning are vital for keeping the economy fit, and thus the main driver behind this development are the citizens, employers, travellers, and shippers. The national government regards end-users as most important in the Structural Vision (Rijksoverheid, 2012). Due to the increasing spatial differences, an approach based on generic policy enforced by the government is less effective than an integrated regional approach optimized by the province. This asks for a different approach, such as the one that the province of Friesland implemented.

The Regional Approach To Infrastructure Provision (RATIP) is an integrated approach combining regional complex infrastructure and spatial planning. RATIP is translated from the Dutch “GebiedsGerichte Aanpak-(GGA): Complexe Infrastructurele Projecten”.

In 2013, Triple Bridge (2013b, p. 63) evaluated complex infrastructural provision in Friesland. Since 2000, these projects have been applied successfully by Friesland in conformity with its strategic vision on the regional approach to infrastructure provision (RATIP). 4 This vision does not only refer to the provision of complex infrastructure, but also entails a fit for purpose implementation and combinations with other projects; this would lead to added-value in that region. This added-value was cited in Dutch as „Friesland wil het gebied mooier achterlaten dan alleen een nieuwe weg, een + toevoegen‟ (Triple Bridge, 2013b, p. 7). In other words, RATIP is not only for the purpose of delivering infrastructure, but it also seeks other opportunities to improve the infrastructure and the nearby located region. The outcomes of the projects are

generally successful, although this varies among the evaluated projects. Here, the project‟s

4 Regional approach (RA) is defined as „gebiedsgerichte aanpak‟ (GGA). So „Gebiedsgerichte aanpak: complexe infrastructurele projecten‟ is regional approach to infrastructure provision

(RATIP). Project context 2 success is defined as the achievement of the strategic vision by applying RATIP. This thesis continues the research on the recommendations set out by the evaluation report of Triple Bridge on Friesland‟s GGA.

In practice, RATIP depends on the context of the infrastructure project and whether the scope of the project can be extended to achieve that vision. This is done by incorporating other infrastructure projects, area development, and social-economic projects (Triple Bridge, 2013b, p. 63). Area development is here defined as Dutch word for „gebiedsontwikkeling‟. In addition, it can be compared with the scope of the project analysis set out by Verhaeghe (2012) to evaluate infrastructure projects. See refer to table 1-1.

Table 1-1: level of scope analysis by Triple Bridge

Scope of Level 1 [T] Level 2 [TF] Level 3 [TF] Level 4 Level 5 [TFES] analysis5 [TFE]

Scope Infrastructure Integration by Couple with Combining Creation of societal value: extension as base improved other with other sustainable society, maintaining operation. implementation developments functions: quality of life, maintaining the (cost: quality such as vitality of areas, shops, and ratio). greenery, employment recreation

To illustrate the meaning of table I-1, the following illustration in figure I-1 gives an overview: starting from infrastructure as base (Triple Bridge, 2013b, p. 9).

Figure 1-1: illustrative overview of the level of implementation of RATIP RATIP concerns every facet of its service life, which begins in the phases of conception, feasibility studies, design, execution, exploitation, and maintenance until the disposal phase. Every phase must be dealt with the consideration which is guided by the overall socio-economic and socio-ecologic concerns. In other words, RATIP is guided by the principles of sustainable development, where the infrastructure is the spatial change in area. The delivery of

5 Explanation for the abbreviations: t: technical, f: financial, e: economic, s: social. E.g. level 3

[TFE] will be an economic evaluation, but it embeds also a technical and financial analysis. Project context 3 infrastructure comes first; Secondly, improvements can be obtained through technical or financial improvements with or without area development or sustainable area development.

1.2. The problem statement The programme „complexe infrastructure projecten‟, from which the Friesland‟s projects are derived from, will finish around 2017. Therefore Friesland is concerned about several important issues such as (S. Hoitinga, 2013):

 What does RATIP exactly deliver?  How to structure the RATIP process?  What tools are necessary for RATIP?  What are the success criteria and success factors for a successful RATIP?  Can RATIP be applied elsewhere in other area or themes? These questions will form the problem statement, which will be analyzed within the project scope. The project‟s scope for this thesis is set between the pre-initiation phase and the end of development phase. Respectively, it starts from the point where it is decided that there will be infrastructure, and ends in the phase in which there is a declaration of implementation with regard to the final design brief. These terms and goals (ambition) in the design brief vary from simple to complex.

A complex problem can at times be called wicked. Rittel and Webber (1973) explain that a solution to this wicked problem is never morally right or wrong, nor is there a clear solution in the sense of a definitive answer. This is due to the dissension on the norms, and lack of knowledge and consensus on the facts. If RATIP wants to maximize its results, it has to involve stakeholders with different values who have different frames for understanding the problem at hand. This issue is also bound by the problem of the resources that changes over time. To effectively tackle this wicked problem, collaboration is necessary instead of using authoritative or competitive strategies (Robert, 2000, p. 3). This collaboration and its associated activities and products are particularly important in the aforementioned phases of pre-initiation and the development. Collaboration at the start in the (pre)initiation phase is important. Thus whether RATIP is successful depends on the success criteria, which are influenced by the success and failure factors, but it also depends on the input in project.

Process management could be a possible method to structure the complex process; this is a structured process concerning collective decision-making that satisfies all involved stakeholders. The process design guides this decision making: creating collective rationality through integration of different perspectives and preferences (J. A. de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 1998).

This design also focuses on the process of problem identification, decision-making, and change instead of emphasizing the content.6 In practice, aspects or factors in the design process are

6 The word „content‟ refers to the topic in question instead of the actual content itself. I.e. to get a collective mindset, regardless what the topic on content might be, the recommended steps are less or more the same if it concerns a wicked problem in a network situation. Project context 4 interlinked with the activities in the phases, which results in milestones and no-go/to-go moments to the next phase (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2010; H2Ruimte, 2014; Wolting, 2006). This happens cyclically until an explicit and confirming decision has been made (H2Ruimte, 2014).

A closer look at the factors of the design process, we can see that there are factors in the organization and communication of the phases, but there are also factors in the phases‟ activities that lead to certain products. Theoretically, one could describe these as process- oriented aspects and substance-oriented aspects. An example is given to illustrate the difference between these two aspects. A process-oriented aspect is the level of willingness to maintain the highest level of ambition to reach a successful ambitious RATIP, which in this case is infrastructure provision with area development (H2ruimte & Liefland Milieu, 2014), whereas a typical substance-oriented aspect would be level of viability in the business case represented by the classic „iron triangle‟ of money, quality, and time (Atkinson, 1999).

2. RESEARCH APPROACH Section 2.1 contains the elaboration on the research goal. Then it continues in section 2.2 with the main question and its sub-questions. It ends in section 2.3 with a description of the research methodology: this plan & approach will lead to the answer on main question.

2.1. Research goal RATIP, regional approach to infrastructure provision, can be seen as a part of a larger entity: regional approach (RA). Regional approach is known as „gebiedsgerichte aanpak‟ in Dutch.

The application of RA is not only restricted to Friesland. Other provinces such as Brabant (GGA: Verkeer & Vervoer Hart van Brabant, 2013) are also using this method, although the interpretation and implementation of RA might differ. For instance, Friesland takes complex infrastructure as the starting point in its implementation and searches for further improvements. We compare case studies and analyze similar RA-projects of the provinces to identify the advantages and disadvantages of their processes. This will help Friesland to revise its own approach. Thus, to address the aforementioned questions in the problem statement - the following research goal can be formulated:

The research goal is to contribute to the current development of knowledge concerning regional approach to infrastructure provision by providing further insight into this development through the synthesis of existing literature with case studies analyses. Together with the lessons at the end, this will lead to information that Friesland can use to reflect on its

regional approach.

2.2. Research question and sub-questions Considering the research goal with regard to the project scope, the research question is as

follows: Research approach 5

From the pre-initiation phase to the development phase, what aspects in the process design and what activities in the phases are important for a successful implementation of the regional approach to infrastructure provision?

Regional approach to infrastructure provision (RATIP) is defined as that the first and foremost priority is the delivery of infrastructure, and its second priority, if possible, would be the added-value creation through technical or financial improvements with or without area development or sustainable area development. Thus, the following sub-questions are formulated:

1) What is RATIP? 2) How can the process design and project of RATIP be structured? a) What are the possible phases of RATIP? b) What are the possible activities in RATIP? 3) What are the success criteria of RATIP? 4) What are the success & failure factors of RATIP? 5) How do these success definitions meet up with the case studies?

The answers on these sub-questions will naturally lead to the answer on main research question.

2.3. Research methodology Preliminary desk research shows that RATIP is similar to infrastructure projects with or without (sustainable) area development and it is similar to sustainable area development. Therefore, further desk research will be done on the infrastructure projects and sustainable area development with respect to the process design and its project phases. If these are known, then they can potentially be synthesized by looking at the similarities and differences. However, the process of infrastructure projects will remain the basis of RATIP in which it will be more structured to give it overall more structure. The desk research also provides insights to determine the success criteria of RATIP and its potential factors influencing it. The findings of the desk research are the basis for construction of the Analysis Framework. In addition, several expert interviews were conducted to validate the concepts and complete the framework.

For answering the remaining sub-questions, to determine which aspects and critical factors define a successful implementation of the „Regional Approach To Infrastructure Provision‟, an Analysis Framework is developed to review RATIP projects in a structured manner and to underpin the conclusions and recommendations.

The Analysis Framework for RATIP comprises of aspects to evaluate successful RATIP implementations. The framework takes into account the lifecycle of RATIP projects, and analysis indicators such as the iron triangle, satisfaction, intertwinement and learning opportunities. Secondly, the Analysis Framework is applied to real-life cases. Four cases will be analysed through use of expert interviews and available policy documents, media documents,

and project documents. Lastly, the findings from the case studies are compared to each other in Research approach 6 the cross-case analysis, which will lead to the conclusion on the main research question and recommendations of this thesis.

An overview of the research methodology with regard to its specified chapters: Part I to Part V and research sub-questions are displayed in figure 2-1: Research methodology. Part VI containing the bibliography and appendices are not included in figure 2-1.

Each PART starts with a reading guide to guide the readers through the sections.

Figure 2-1: research Methodology

Research approach 7

PART II: DEFINING RATIP RATIP is mentioned in the introduction as the combination of infrastructure provision and area development. This definition can be more specified and in order to fully understand what RATIP is, both two sectoral fields needs to be explained fully in detail – along with their sustainable versions, processes, success criteria and success & failure factors. Some parts of PART II are kept brief and its full details can be grasped in appendix A: supplement to PART II. CHAPTER 3: WHAT IS RATIP? Section 3.1 is about the current policy on infrastructure and spatial planning is explained. Knowing how infrastructure fits in the spatial planning, one can look up at the historical development of infrastructure. This happens in section 3.2 on the evolvement of infrastructure towards spatial planning. This evolvement does not concern only the Netherlands, but it is happening in many Anglo-Saxon countries. Section 3.3 concerns an intensive research on similar evolvement, but then in the U.S.A by the MIT university: they provide a complete tool, which covers the entire spatial spectrum. What is sustainable infrastructure will be handled in section 3.4.

That is the story so far for infrastructure, now for the area development sector. The sectoral policy of area development will be covered in section 3.5 in the same fashion: what is area development? The question on how did it evolve during the years, is described in section 3.6. The topic on area development ends in section 3.7 on the sustainable area development, transdisciplinarity and T-shaped engineers.

Chapter 3 ends with a conclusion in section 3.8. CHAPTER 4: THE PROCESS DESIGN OF RATIP A process design guides the decision making by creating collective rationality through integration of different perspectives and preferences. Inherent in this decision-making are the activities, which are bound to certain acts. These acts will lead to certain project phases, procedures and activities. Chapter 4 discusses the phases and activities of the two extreme ends - infrastructure planning and sustainable area development and RATIP as potentially somewhere in between.

Section 4.1 concerns the phases and activities of infrastructure planning. Then section 4.2 will continue on the phases and activities of sustainable area development. Then at last, section 4.3 concludes this chapter with the discussion on a potential structured RATIP procedure. CHAPTER 5: PROCESS MANAGEMENT AND SUCCES & FAILURE FACTORS Not only the activities and procedures are affecting the process design, but the design can be

influenced too, regardless of the chosen activities. Process management is only useful in certain PART II: Defining RATIP 8 situations: this is explained in section 5.1 on network vs. hierarchy. Hereafter, the process management and process design will be explained in section 5.2. Strategic behaviours of actors can influence the process design, so all those strategies are taken into account as factors that impact the project success criteria. These strategies (and success factors) are discussed in section 5.3. Lastly, the other relevant success & failure factors are taken into account as well: section 5.4. CHAPTER 6: RATIP SUCCESS DEFINITION: CRITERIA AND FACTORS In section 6.1, many literatures on project success criteria and factors are studied: this involves a diverse amount of projects that are not typically infrastructure road projects, but they are still applicable, since they do share other similarities such as the same project goals. This chapter ends with a concluding section on project success for RATIP in section 6.2.

PART II: Defining RATIP 9

3. WHAT IS RATIP? Chapter 3 starts with sections on infrastructure and it slowly progresses to the most complete infrastructure planning, which is the sustainable area development.

3.1. Infrastructure planning: SVIR and spatial planning Due to decentralization in the Dutch government, the national and local policies for infrastructure and spatial planning are changing (Huizenga, 2011; Rijksoverheid, 2013b; Verkeersnet, 2011). Until 2040, the policies for infrastructure and spatial planning in the Netherlands are defined in the Structural Vision (SVIR). This document defines the long-term strategy on infrastructure and spatial planning based on expected developments and challenges of the future. The most important ones are briefed here shortly, to take into account the future as predicted by the government. (Rijksoverheid, 2012, p. 5):

 The increasing spatial differences, due to o population decline; o an increased vacancy; o change of spatial uses of areas;  The increasing need for better mobility, due to o increasing prosperity; o increasing employment rate; o increasing one-person households,; o increasing need for mobility; . Also for population declining areas;  The increasing need to the coherent use of more sectoral policies with regard to spatial development, e.g. infrastructure planning with energy sector;  Maintaining national value in urban areas of the main ports, brain ports, green ports and others important assets;  The recognition of the important drivers behind the economy: citizens, employers, travellers, and shippers. These end-users as most important in the mobility system.

Many of the tasks and responsibilities which were in hands of the government will now be put into the hands of lower governmental bodies such as provinces and municipalities. At the same time, the environmental law for spatial planning is being simplified to make the law concerning spatial development much easier (Renooy, 2012). Due to increasing spatial differences an approach based on generic policy enforced by the government is not so effective compared to an integrated regional approach which is optimized by the province. Thus, as from now on as stated in the Structural Vision, the province has the responsibility of integrating national

interests among their usual regional and local concerns. This asks for different approach, for instance, the RATIP that Friesland did. The trend of the government shifting its responsibilities to the lower governmental bodies such as the provinces and the municipalities has been trending and it impacts more than only the mobility section (Huizenga, 2011;

Rijksoverheid, 2013b; Verkeersnet, 2011). What RATIP? is 10

3.2. Infrastructure planning: the evolvement in time It is important to invest in infrastructure projects, because infrastructure is the bedrock of a nation‟s competiveness, prosperity and social well-being, which interconnects our modern economies around the world (World Economic Forum, 2014).

What is infrastructure?

Infrastructure can be put into sections such as electric power, oil and gas, potable and waste water, transportation, urban development, and communications. Each sector is made of physical components, which are touchable and which can be built, enabled, and disabled. They are individual links in a chain that are dependable on each other to provide an overall function. In case of a redundant link, a defect link will deteriorate a part, if not all, its infrastructure network. Infrastructure is an interrelated mean that is being designed as network to address a societal need. Infrastructure itself is not a target, but its addressed purpose is, for instance, improving mobility or creating recreational value on waterways. Often, infrastructure requires a significant amount of capital investment and they are important assets in local or regional areas. They link the supply, demand, and involve other assets with different functions and ensure the operability of its respective networks (European Commission: Development and Cooperation - Europaid, 2014).

Infrastructure types

Thus, infrastructure can be many, but its common components can be described as „the physical components of interrelated systems providing commodities and services essential to enable, sustain, or enhance societal living conditions‟ (Fulmer, 2009). Components can be called assets. An asset is „something that has potential or actual value to an organization‟ (The Institute of Asset Management, 2012, p. 6). The possible assets for transport infrastructure are (UBS: global asset management):

 Roads and highways, including the structures such as e.g. bridges, tunnels;  Bicycle paths, pedestrian roads and all including structures such as pedestrian bridges and underpasses.  Canals and other navigable waterways that requires maintenance;  Mass transit systems, such as e.g. subways, bus transportation systems;  Railways, including the structures such as e.g. railway stations;  Seaports, lighthouses, and airports;

The sections such as energy and telecom systems are also infrastructures, but these kinds of infrastructure systems requires less space in the spatial area and therefore have less spatial

interaction. As consequence, the impact on the environment is less on contrary to transport infrastructures: transport infrastructures have a big and direct spatial impact on the environment (Federal Office for Spatial Development, 2003, p. 12).

Spatial Planning Act and infrastructure planning What RATIP? is 11

The decision-making on the spatial plans of the national government, provinces, and municipalities are governed by Spatial Planning Act (WRO) (Rijksoverheid, 2014b). These plans are written in the SVIR, which is based on future developments and the SVIR also describes how these developments will be directed or implemented by government, provinces or municipalities (Rijksoverheid, 2012). Infrastructure is situated in space, thus closely related to spatial planning. Spatial planning is the searching process in the physical organisation of space of a changing society and the deliberate decision-making to implement and justify certain activities in space for long-term oriented development (European Commission, 1997; Spit & Zoete, 2006). For infrastructure planning, there are two general cases. The first often occurring case is the implementation of a new road connection between one city or region to another city or region. The second case is the application of a distributor road of e.g. new residential, industrial, commercial, and office areas.

This paragraph shows the complexity of spatial planning and if not well harmonized with infrastructure planning, this could lead to problems which are clearly shown in the paragraph on the evolvement of infrastructure.

Transport infrastructure as explained in terms of mobility and accessibility

Appendix A1 contains the full details on this theory. The circle of Wegener (1999, p.99) shows that the distribution of road infrastructure creates opportunities for spatial interactions, e.g. from residential area to shopping places, and thus creating accessibility. This distribution of accessibility can either be positive or negative, depending on the user of the transport. The distribution of accessibility results in the change in land-use, in which the distribution of the land-use on its place will impact the transport system such road infrastructure, or possible also others like public transits. Good accessibility will attract more urban development, more employment opportunities due to staying companies, more educative and commercial facilities (Van Nes, Sanders, Van Lint, & Wiggenraad, 2011, p. 7). Bad accessibility does not necessarily mean bad attractiveness: H2Ruimte and Liefland Milieu (2011) mentions that bad accessibility can lead to smaller, more quiet and picturesque settlements with beautiful sceneries untouched by urbanism.

Transportation in this theory is mainly seen as mean for economic growth: 3Ps, Profit only. The other 2Ps have also to be considered: People, Planet.7

The evolvement of infrastructure planning to spatial planning

Since 1970, road infrastructure planning is undergoing a change. Struiksma and Tillema (2009) shows that planning and realization of road infrastructure are getting more interwoven

with spatial planning. Struiksma, Tillema, and Arts (2010) explains two kinds of internal and external integration within the section of traffic and transport.

The following explanations now is largely extracted and inspired from their findings.

7 Another P, Project for spatial quality, will be introduced later in section of sustainable area development What RATIP? is 12

Figure 3-1: the two separated silos are likely to converge (Struiksma & Tillema, 2009) Internal integration originated from the fact that there was less and less public support for line- oriented road infrastructure: the improvement of mobility had to be realized without the realization of additional road infrastructure. Internal integration is the process of integration of several components within the policy sector of transport and traffic. E.g. the attempt to get multi-modal solutions to work for improved coordination between transport networks and modalities or trying to make public transport more attractive (Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1975, 1988) Also, most importantly, the network approach was introduced in the National Mobility Plan of 2006, which takes into account the coherent body of the main road network and the network of underlying roads; the main aim to improve the traffic flows in network, under the rather known motto of „From A to B‟ (Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2004). The Multiannual Programme for Infrastructure and Transport had as goal to extend the network approach by optimizing the flow by constructing parallel highroads to the existing ones (Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2011). Also the ladder of Verdaas, also known as the mobility ladder, was implemented to improve the decision-making on these infrastructures; to gain more „sustainable‟ mobility (Verdaas, Slob, Hofstra, & Mastwijk, 2005).8 The new road infrastructure is certainly last option; it is preferred to do better spatial planning, if not then price policy, better mobility management, optimizing of public transports, better utilization of current infrastructure or lastly adjustment of the current infrastructure. The fifth and sixth steps are related to this network approach. In short, internal integration was aimed at optimizing the current infrastructure with a network approach.

External integration as explained by De Roo (2003) is the integration of infrastructure policy and planning with other related policy sectors. Struiksma et al. (2010) considers three gradations in external integration in the road infrastructure planning.

1) Routing (Dutch: tracering) 2) Landscaping & mitigation (Dutch: inpassing en compensatie)

3) Total design

8 The sustainability in sustainable development incorporates a more complete picture than this one; therefore it is between two apostrophes. What RATIP? is 13

This ideology corresponds with Triple Bridge‟s figure 1-1 (Triple Bridge, 2013b, p. 9). The scope extensions of RATIP are similar. The second level might correspond with landscaping & mitigation, whereas the total design would correspond with level three to five.

Figure 3-2: the trend from line-oriented to area-oriented development (Struiksma et al., 2010) Line-oriented infrastructure started without much considerations for the environment, thus when less public support was given for the infrastructure projects, the people started to protect the environment through implement the proposed route (routing) more carefully. Only specific regional aspects were taken into account; scale of landscape, the eco-system, and the infrastructure safety zone with regard to vulnerable nature zones (Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 1979).

Even though careful routing has been applied, the road infrastructure will still have a barrier effect. As a result and in due time, there was an increased tension on the question whether road infrastructure is necessary or is the liveable in area more important? To gain public support and a harmonious solution to this, it is necessary to prevent damage and mitigate it. The adverse effect of road infrastructure, which was not taken in consideration with pure routing, is considered in the approach of landscaping & mitigating. For instance, the construction of under passages and over passages for the wildlife, or noise barriers nearby residential areas. However, this approach appears to be expensive or not adequate mitigating the adverse problems; high costs for constructions or landscape cluttering (Struiksma & Tillema, 2009). When the government realized this, special corridors were set up, which limited unwanted development and future expansion of roads which again can cut through the landscape. The routing of these corridors remained part of the planning, thus the scope of routing was broadened, leading us to

the 21st century where road infrastructure should be adapt to its surroundings and vice versa.

What RATIP? is 14

Figure 3-3: A shows that infrastructure is being adapted to the region; vice versa as seen in B (Struiksma et al., 2010) The previous described approaches did not solve the complexity in road infrastructure and spatial planning. The underlying problem is the disconnection in relationship between these two sectors in planning and practice: planning and realization of roads remains sectoral and line-oriented, whereas spatial planning do not consider the mobility consequences of new the physical planning such as new residential areas (Rijksadviseur voor de infrastructuur & BAPS, 2008).This external integration of infrastructure provision should be deducted from the outside to inside: deduction region to infrastructure (Struiksma & Tillema, 2009): This kind of total design and reconstruction from the viewpoint that the region holds (societal need), would prevent cost-overruns and delay in constructions (Elverding, 2008). Elverding concludes that early exploration in the pre-initiation or initiation/exploration phase of the infrastructure projects would probably lead to a higher spatial quality and a more regional and local support for infrastructure measures. The total design would only work if the government related to spatial planning comes with a shared, integral vision on affluence, economy, space, and mobility, to serve as a national framework: this is basically the most recent policy document on mobility and transport (Rijksoverheid, 2012). In the SVIR are located the regional agendas that should result in better synchronisation (synergy, added-value) of these spatial issues.

The aforementioned strategies of routing, landscaping & mitigation, and total design can be visualized into a forecast of how road infrastructure planning process will progress in the future (Struiksma et al., 2010). This is visualized in figure 3-4. The numbers in this figure will be elaborated.

(1) As stated before, the traditional line-oriented approach can be seen as sector-oriented: the planning process is focused on the road without considerations of both the physical and social environment. Residents are rarely involved in the planning process, but so are the private sector and municipalities. Those were mainly formal involvements without any direct influence on projects. The process of this can best described as technocratic and hierarchical, controlled by the Dutch government Also, the thickness of the line is thin bearing the fact it got a local focus, just on the provision of the road infrastructure.

What RATIP? is 15

Figure 3-4 adapted from „From line towards area-oriented approaches in road infrastructure planning‟ by Struiksma et al.: the types of infrastructure planning, level of integration, actor involvement and spatial dimensions; the thickness of the line reflects the spatial focus (local focus: thin line; regional focus: thicker lines) (2) The network approach is located in centre of the graph. The level of integration went up; the new road is part of the total transportation network, including other roads and transport modes. Also, it involves more actors. Contrary to line-oriented planning, the spatial scope is more regional, involving more than just one road in particular; regional network of roads. However, it still focuses on the new road and less on the physical situation in wider area (the rest of region).

(3) Next follows is the context-sensitive approach, more efforts are made towards the aesthetic aspect of road planning. The road, however, remains the central topic in the planning process, but they also try to improve the spatial quality of the road and avoid negative and adverse effects, such as landscape cluttering. The users of the road ought to have the experience of the environment of the road; it is aimed to combine the road provision with its environment to enhance the user‟s perspective when being on the road. Compared to the network approach, there is more integration between transport planning and spatial planning, but not necessary more actors due to small geographical scope. It is although, in contrast to network planning, more externally integrated, but as a whole compared to area-oriented approach and area development it is regarded as internally oriented. Internally oriented in this case is regarded as they take the road as starting point; how to make road infrastructure acceptable by combining

it with the surroundings? What RATIP? is 16

The ones with increasingly more focus on external integration are the area-oriented approach and area development. These approach look for synergy between road infrastructure and the surrounding area; i.e. the added-value which otherwise if separated was not there.

(4) Area-oriented planning integrates mobility objectives with other developments in region with regard to improve spatial quality and sustainability. Due to early involvement and cooperation with many different stakeholders the planning can be more effective and efficient in infrastructure planning. Even though this approach is classified as external-oriented, the road infrastructure remains the base of operation in the planning process. Additional developments are only due to this road infrastructure development (Arts & De Vaan, work in progress).

(5) The last approach is the area development (Dutch: gebiedsontwikkeling); this one can be seen as the aforementioned approach so called total design. The development of road infrastructure to fulfil mobility issues can be one of the planning issues. The objectives of area development depend on the collaborative planning process that takes into account all interests of actors. In this case, infrastructure provision can be induced by increased mobility demand due to the development of functions such as housing (Arts & De Vaan, work in progress; Panman, 2009).

Even though the paradigm change takes place from line-oriented towards more area development approach, it does not mean that the former and formal planning procedures are neither necessary nor useful anymore. Planning with no clear-cut rules and responsibilities might lead to less useful outcomes, and maybe even chaos, especially if the problem is complex. Complex problems do require area development though, and not surprisingly, the spatial development in year 2005 and onwards is complex, because it is aimed at reconstruction and transformation within a built area (Peek, 2011).

Based on this evolvement of infrastructure planning, RATIP in Friesland would clutter between the network-approach to the area-oriented approach. It is certainly not area development, because RATIP takes the road as base of operation in planning process, which is not the case if one applies area development. A common characteristic of these context-sensitive and area- oriented approaches is the road as central topic in planning; see the thin line, meaning local focus. The level of integration goes from low to high: area-oriented approach integrates mobility objectives with other developments in region with regard to improve spatial quality and sustainability, but line-orientation does not.

3.3. Infrastructure planning: the evolvement trends in other countries – CLIOS system Appendix A contains the full details on this theory - CLIOS can potentially help structuring

RATIP and there are many similarities to sustainable area development and process management, which can help the RATIP. Nevertheless, to strengthen the findings of this evolvement, it seems that in the UK, USA, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia are similar

trends happening: the convergence of infrastructure planning and spatial planning is trending. What RATIP? is 17

The spatial quality of infrastructure planning is becoming more important and more sustainable, which are in line with the existing societal and political dynamism. The new infrastructure planning is not solely a mean for economic growth anymore; the societal and environmental aspects, which were omitted in the line-oriented infrastructure planning, are returning (Struiksma & Tillema, 2009; Struiksma et al., 2010, p. 18; Van Nes et al., 2011)

The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a prestigious technical university in the USA, found similar evolvement process in the infrastructure planning and spatial planning. MIT raises the awareness that transportation embodies a CLIOS-ideology, respectively meaning that the issue of system is Complex, Large-scaled, Interconnected, Open, and Socio- technical (Sussman, 2008). The era of transportation can be put in three eras: Infrastructure Era, Transportation Systems Era, and CLIOS Systems Era. From Infrastructure Era to Transportation System Era: from a line to an economic network approach of supply and demand, but no real considerations for environmental and social values. From Transportation System Era to CLIOS System Era: from network approach to systems that are Complex, Large- scaled, Interconnected, Open, and Socio-technical. Its complexity is nested in the institutional spheres, which are influencing the physical sphere: similar to regional context influencing the infrastructure planning (figure 3-3B) (Sussman, 2008; Sussman & Sgouridis, 2004). Large- scaled and interconnected as mentioned about infrastructure‟s importance to spatial planning: they are individual links in a chain that are dependable on each other to provide an overall function. In case of a redundant link, a defect link will deteriorate a part, if not all, its infrastructure network. Openness is the involvement of external factors such as e.g. political and social factors, which essentially will increase as the level of integration increases. Moreover, the openness can be linked with figure 3-4 on the increasing amount of participating stakeholders. Lastly, socio-technical implies the light contemporary dynamism, thus the „ilities‟ are getting more important: flexibility, adaptability, scalability, stability, resilience and most important sustainability.

Regional strategic transport planning (RSTP) is a special case within the CLIOS-process that considers the new technologies and developments within transportation allow the consideration of planning, management, operations, and maintenance of transportation systems at regional scale. Essentially, RSTP is sustainable area development, because the overarching goal of RSTIP is (Hall & Sussman, 2003): „A regional strategic transportation plan should ensure an adequate, efficiently operated, robust, and secure transportation network that maximizes total societal benefits within a sustainable framework.‟ It goes beyond conventional planning that takes transportation system as mean for economic growth only. This was also the issue in the Netherlands.

3.4. Infrastructure planning: sustainability The paradigm of convergence of the infrastructure planning and spatial planning is clearly happening in the Netherlands and in other countries such as the USA. Now, RATIP is already defined and with its road as focus, that will probably lead to the issue about mobility. Road

infrastructure can also fulfil other needs, but most important is the mobility and accessibility What RATIP? is 18 issue. Just mobility is not adequate enough; it has many negative and adverse effects to the environment which are considered harmful (H2Ruimte & Liefland Milieu, 2011).

 Nuisances in terms of noise, vibrations, bad emissions reducing the air quality.  Increased risk in traffic accidents and external risks safely risks such as transporting dangerous goods.  Increased use of gasoline and omitting CO2 in area.  Negative impacts of the transport system (infrastructure, freights, cars) in space: parked cars, environmental zones surrounding the infrastructure, reduced quality of public area, and the infrastructure causing separations of zones for humans and other organisms.  Reduced social quality such as safety of elderly and playing children through increased mobility in area due to better accessibility of region.

These effects are within borders that are transgressing, thus making the situation more complex than needed if its negative effects of infra needs to be cured (Pidwirny & Jones, 2014).

The SVIR is the Dutch guideline for infrastructure, spatial planning and it also contains mobility policies until 2040. One important notice is the transition towards a more sustainable mobility (Rijksoverheid, 2012, p. 38). A transition is a fundamental change in structure, culture, and procedures. It occurs in phases, starting at the micro, meso, and macro level and it is inevitably interrelated with different areas of expertise and sectors (Rotmans, 2003). Thus, in due time, the mobility will slowly change into sustainable mobility. So, even if sustainable mobility is not the main aim of RATIP, it might be in the future. If so, then the current RATIP might not be adequate to solve the problem or past the jurisdictions in process.

According to (Rotmans, 2010, p. 39) sustainable mobility is the method of transferring people and goods from A to B in an enriched, clean, and safe way. It connects people with areas and these areas are multifunctional (e.g. combining mobility function with recreational values) as well. The organizations, H2Ruimte and Liefland Milieu (2011, p. 2) emphasize that sustainability in mobility is only reached when:

1) The social and spatial displacement effects are kept at minimum: meaning that sustainable development does not compromise other users and future generation of their needs (future resilience). 2) The infrastructure‟s function besides mobilizing people and goods, it should contain another function such as storing water, generating energy, and contribute towards the ecological structure of the area (supporting the area development).

In addition, sustainable mobility includes also (Ministers of Transport and Communications,

2001; Rand Europe et al & SUMMA, 2003; Transumo, 2010):

1) Allows the basic access and development needs of individuals, companies and societies to be met safely and in a manner consistent with human and ecosystem health, and

promotes equity within and between successive generations; What RATIP? is 19

2) Is affordable, operates fairly and efficiently, offers choice of transport mode, and supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced area development; 3) Limits emissions and waste within the planet‟s ability to absorb them, uses renewable resources at or below their rates of generation, and uses non-renewable resources at or below the rates of development of renewable substitutes while minimising the impact on the use of land and the generation of noise.

Notice that the difference with area development is that area development is the coherent development of more than one function with regard to the financial, economic and societal aspects. It is not that it should contain, but it must.

3.5. Area development: introduction Area development (Dutch: gebiedsontwikkeling) originates from development planning (Dutch: ontwikkelingsplanologie, type II gebiedsontwikkeling) and the development control planning (Dutch: toelatingsplanologie, type I gebiedsontwikkeling). Since the „Fourth National Policy Document on Spatial Planning‟ (Vierde Nota: Ruimtelijke Ordening) in 2004, the term area development became more popular and the term development planning was eventually omitted (Platform31, 2014).

Appendix A: shows in Dutch an overview of big organizations with their own perspective on area development (H2Ruimte, 2008). A complete universal definition is difficult to give and it depends heavily on the given situation and environment (De Zeeuw, 2007; Wolting, 2006). Area development contains the idea of transdisciplinarity and the idea that the development of an area is done by collaboration with „insiders, as opposed to, „outsiders who plans the area without good consideration of those people affected by the plan (Platform31, 2014; Struiksma et al., 2010). In other words, it is from traditional development control planning to pro-active markt development planning, which the latter is just being called area development (De Zeeuw, 2007). Despite the many characteristics of area development, one can filter the aspects, reducing it to these aspects (De Zeeuw, 2007, 2009; Eiffel, 2009; H2Ruimte, 2008; van der Cammen & van Eijk, 2006; Wolting, 2006):

1. It concerns a spatial change in a complex area. 2. It is the coherent development of more than one function with regards to the financial, economic and societal aspects. 3. These aspects are represented by many different stakeholders, thus collaboration between private and public parties is necessary and important. 4. There is an overarching goal which incorporates all the needs of the stakeholders. 5. It is driven by societal and urgent needs

Aspect two indicates that area development is the pro-active spatial planning on a smaller scale: Wolting (2006) signals that if area development contains an integration of different functions in one district, such as water combined with infrastructure, then that it should be called

integrated area development. What RATIP? is 20

Shared by less amount of literature, but also important is the creation of added-value by smart coupling of various functions in area development (De Zeeuw, 2007; H2Ruimte, 2008).

3.6. Area development: the evolvement in time From 1993 to the fourth National Policy Document on Spatial Planning focused on area development with the concern towards the new-residential areas (VINEX). This was called area development v.1.0 and it was aimed at the large scaled construction and development on building residential areas. Its characteristics are the large scale, high ambitions, extended spatial development in cities‟ borders (connection to highways) and the bigger role for the market to facilitate. The profit model was based on the buying and development of grounds and then selling it to the property developers (Peek, 2011). The focus from 2005 and onwards for the spatial development began to shift towards reconstruction, transformation, and extension within a built area. This made the development process more complex. The development control planning shifts towards the development planning; from static approach towards a more pro-active approach that aligns with the dynamic environment (Peek, 2011; Struiksma et al., 2010). Due to economic crisis in 2008, the earning model of v.1.0 started to fade recalling a new version of area development; area development v.2.0. That is still a focus on reconstruction and transformation, but also with focus on quality and reuse of existing facilitates (Rotmans, 2012). Due to lack of investments, organic developments became more popular. These are relatively small project developments with open-end process, no blueprints, and puts the future user in dominant role whereas the government facilitates (Buitelaar, Kooiman, & Robbe, 2012).

Area development v.3.0 has as characteristics that it operates from the end-user‟s need in region and it operates according to the guiding principles of sustainability (Fakton & Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012). It focuses on transformation of the current spatial area, and it couples it to other functions „streams such as mobility or energy Area development 3.0 will often deal with complex problems, which can be described as wicked problems (Rittel & Webber, 1973). A solution to this wicked problem is never morally right or wrong, nor is there a clear solution in the sense of a definitive answer. This is due to the dissension on the norms, and lack of knowledge and consensus on the facts. To effectively tackle this problem, collaboration is necessary and preferred over the authoritative or competitive approach (Robert, 2000). Hence, the focus on the phases of pre-initiation and development, because in here collaboration is most essential for a successful area development and RATIP.

Table 3-1: the evolvement of area development Area Version v.1.0 Version v.2.0 Version v.3.0

development

Focus: Development Current use Future use

Content: Outer urban areas Inner urban areas Inner urban areas including declining areas

Actors: Few, mainly real The private parties Increasing number of parties, such as end-

estate developers has increased role in What RATIP? is 21

and municipalities project users, investors, and other stakeholders

Financial Estimate of land Cash management (added) value creation in region focus development

Synergy Economy of scale Integration of amplifying the unity of functions realizing functions the potential of the region‟s value

3.7. Area development: sustainability, transdisciplinarity and T- shaped engineers This section is about sustainable area development and how transdisciplinarity and T-shaped engineers can help reaching that sustainability in area development.

What is sustainable area development?

The United Nations defines sustainable development in the report „Our Common Future‟ as the development that meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987, p. 43). It encompasses three integrated, interdependent, and mutually reinforcing pillars of (1) economic development, (2) social development, and (3) environmental protection (United Nations, 2005). These pillars are the same as the triple bottom line (TBL) concept, which is in the Netherlands, better known as 3Ps, „People, Planet, Profit‟. These are components containing themes which should be harmoniously in balance; if one theme component should receive priority over the other, and then the others will suffer. The 3Ps stands for the liveability and social quality; minimum environmental impact through sustainable construction, use and maintenance, and facilitation of economic development (Dorst & Duijvestrein, 2004).

However, in last 20 years, since 1987, the sustainable development has been segregated to what people see as an environmental issue. In addition, development as economic growth continues to be the dominant paradigm (International Council for Science & International Social Science Council, 2013). In addition, development as economic growth continues to be the dominant paradigm. This is because in the construction, the different rates at which social and physical processes are troublesome; social as much faster than the slower physical process. As consequence, sustainable development tends to focus only on environmental measures and not the social-economic ones. This is confirmed by De Zeeuw (2011) that sustainable area development is not the excellence in one of the Ps; but it is the proper balance of the Ps.

A better evaluation tool on sustainable development is needed, moreover also the concept or

framework have to be operationalized with real accountability in actions. The meeting in Rio

2012 operationalized it by making the pillars of sustainability no pillars but more like integrated dimensions from local to global level using bottom-up approach. Interlinkages are advice to overcome silo-„thinking‟. A new and unified framework is needed that embeds

environmental, social and economic framework (Independent Research Forum, 2013). This What RATIP? is 22 will be suggested for the Post-2015 Sustainable Development Agenda (IRF2015) for the United Nations. Independent Research Forum (2013) recommends:

Table 3-2: recommended actions and implications to reach sustainable development Recommended actions: Thus, implying (reflected to the studied theory in this thesis)

The multi-stakeholder decision-making process Process management is becoming more important instead of top-down decision-making

The stakeholder value business model instead of The value of region and thus project is more likely shareholder value business model to be determined by the locals, the end-users, and other stakeholders. See SVIR and CLIOS.

Investing in future resilience instead of damage Instead of minimizing the damage, try to invest to control get added-value through synergy of functions

Cross-scale coordination instead of multiple Cross-scale, transdisciplinarity; coordination on discrete actions all scales is important to tackle these wicked problems

Rotmans (2012) implies that area development v3.0 is „sustainable‟ area development. Moreover, De Zeeuw (2011) also mentions that under ideal circumstances area development is per definition „sustainable‟ area development. With this quote, he wants to inspire the practical use of area development taking into account the broad repertoire of sustainability and stimulate that sustainability is a self-evident and important aspect in area development.

9

9 “We willen de praktijk van gebiedsontwikkeling stimuleren een brede benadering van gebiedsontwikkeling te volgen waarin duurzaamheid een vanzelfsprekend én belangrijk aspect is. Idealiter is gebiedsontwikkeling per definitie duurzame gebiedsontwikkeling.”, aldus Friso de

Zeeuw (De Zeeuw, 2011). What RATIP? is 23

Figure 3-5: introducing the 4th P: Project implying spatial quality, robustness, aesthetics and diversity (Dorst & Duijvestrein, 2004) The concept of sustainable development cannot easily be operationalized into concrete interventions, without losing the total concept of sustainability. Moreover, the opinions on sustainability are also very different, but nevertheless (especially) for urban development a fourth P is introduced, which puts the living environment (residents, built and urban natural environments) as central object of sustainable development (Dorst & Duijvestrein, 2004, p. 4). The 4th P stands for project and process (Ruimtelijke Kwaliteit in figure 3-6): it emphasizes the importance of the spatial quality in the classic PPP of people, planet and prosperity. These three components are the societal components.

The 4th P is also a balance of 3 other spatial values: utilization value, experiential value, and future value (Hooimeijer, Kroon, & Luttik, 2001, p. 17). The utility value and experiential value are represented in time and space as the present at this place; the future value self- evidently implies the future in time and space as in there. The utility value sets out the practical use, distribution and accessibility of space in present time. The utility value is primarily determined by the user. Closely related to the utility-value is the experiential value. This is the opinion of the user on its experience with regard to current space.10

Figure 3-6: balance of societal components and spatial components with regard to the spatial quality (De Zeeuw, 2011) For example, a resident in the city centre might have lower utility value, but higher experiential

value than house in rural area. The future value refers to the appreciation of the uses of space

10 Utility - gebruikswaarde: functionele geschiktheid, doelmatig gebruik, doelmatige aanleg, doelmatig beheer, samenhang, bereikbaarheid en interferentie. Experiential - belevingswaarde: identiteit, diversiteit, herkenbaarheid, zingeving. Future = toekomstwaarde: sturende werking, doelmatigheid in

tijd, uitbreidbaarheid, aanpasbaarheid What RATIP? is 24 throughout time. This is the more collective view on its experience. It also implies the conditions which are counting to measure development and process.

The search to finding the correct balance is always affected by time, place and context. An area should be adequate to fulfil its function which solves its urgent and societal need; it should also be attractive and future-resilience with regards to its beauty and utilization of function. If one of these values are lacking, then eventually the others will be affected. Thus, there should be a balance between the people, planet and profit, but also a balance between user value, experience value and future value: as a result, the ideal spatial quality (optimized project and process).

The underlying aspects for the future value are „experience‟, „identity, and „recognition‟. These three aspects are the preconditions that ought to be there if people want to affiliate themselves with the area, creating an area identity. This is the uttermost basic for a sustainable development of an area (De Zeeuw, 2011).

So being sustainable requires the broadest repertoire of the 4Ps, thus implying that in one region several themes can play a role. Often, the project is bound by the location and the urgent societal needs, thus the applications of the themes are limited, but prioritization of the themes and getting the people and planet within profit are necessary actions to reach sustainable area development (De Zeeuw, 2011). The themes are soil, water, urban greenery, nature and scenery, energy, mobility and transport, health and safety, region‟s identity and history, transformation and spatial use, economic vitality, flexibility, social vitality, and maintenance (Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling, 2009).

Every project will have to involve all themes, although prioritization and limitations of the project, region or resources makes one theme more important than the other. The regional qualities are found in the harmonious combination of all the involved themes which equals the same balance as shown in figure 3-6. Thus, the definition of sustainable area development is (Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling, 2009; De Zeeuw, 2011; Dorst & Duijvestrein, 2004; Hooimeijer et al., 2001; Rotmans, 2012; VROMraad, 2011):

„‟The pragmatic quest of searching the region‟s identity by balancing the themes that define the core value of region, so that the region can fully develop itself according to the balance of societal and spatial components with regard to the spatial quality‟‟

Sustainable area development can be RATIP, which is meant to improve the mobility and transport, which is the urgent and societal problem that has to be resolved. But RATIP is not necessarily sustainable area development., because the latter is integrated to all other themes, that have to be involved as well to balance the societal (People, Planet, Profit) and spatial

(utilization value, experiential value, and future value) components with regard to the spatial quality (fourth P of both the societal and spatial component). RATIP, on the other hand, can solely be infrastructure provision with no coherent and integrated considerations of mobility and transport to other functions or themes. Nor does it have to include collaborations with lots

of stakeholders, as opposed to, area development. What RATIP? is 25

How transdisciplinarity and T-shaped engineers helps sustainable area development approaches

Appendix A describes the full details on transdisciplinarity. The paradigm of tackling infrastructure projects more holistic and integrated is clear. It welcomes the idea of transdisciplinarity and new type of engineer. The T-shaped engineer involves specialized knowledge with broad general knowledge to approach these problems properly (Hertogh, 2014; Sussman, 2008, p. 25). Transdisciplinarity is a way of thinking that might help: that is taking everything relevant in mind, meaning there is no solution in your own mono-discipline, but its solution is when you coordinate all possible disciplines (Max-Neef, 2005). The normative level in planning and design shows that what the spatial planners want (spatial planning/urban planning) was not aligned properly with the reality of what was existing or lacking in that region (see Appendix A: supplement to section 3.7). Thus there was neither public support nor value created at the end. Area development, which can be seen as a „pro- active urban planning‟, ought to connect the disconnection in reality by cooperating closely together with all local stakeholders to realize a feasible and sustainable plan (Platform31, 2014; Struiksma & Tillema, 2009; Struiksma et al., 2010; Wolting, 2006). Friesland‟s success of RATIP is partly due to the availability of these potential people. D. Bergsma, municipality director of Leeuwarden, says that RATIP requires lots of collaborations and compromises. What was supposed to come (initial goal) and what actually came, due to interveniences in compromises, can be different and conflicting. However, if the stakeholders acknowledge the higher ambition and they are content with the compromise, then in his opinion added-value is created. The higher ambition here is similar to the overarching goal in the higher hierarchal level in the transdisciplinarity, and also in sustainable area development that will be explained in just a moment. The added-value is created, because the community‟s wishes are honoured and the higher ambitions of the wishes of the municipality are realized as well (Provincie Fryslan, 2014b; Triple Bridge, 2013b).

3.8. Conclusion: what is RATIP? Based on chapter 3 and all evident literature on infrastructure planning and sustainable are development, RATIP can be placed somewhere in between. RATIP can be a network- approach, context-sensitive or area-oriented approach. It is, however, not (sustainable) area development as that concerns the coherent integrated body of sectoral policies and societal needs in a region - RATIP takes the road infrastructure as central topic and looks in the surroundings for possible improvements and synergies. However, area development can be RATIP if it is concerning mobility issues and the road infrastructure is solely a mean to improve that mobility. Please refer also to the adapted figure 3-4 to see the similarities. Area development can also be called integrated area development, if it concerns areas in which

different functions are combined and integrated in one plan. E.g. the issue of mobility combined with greenery and recreational facilities.

Moreover, under ideal circumstances area development is per definition „sustainable‟ area development: sustainability should be self-evident and an important aspect when it comes to

area development - it has a broad and balanced repertoire: the 4th P with regard to people, What RATIP? is 26 planet and prosperity, but also with regard to the utilization value, experiential value and future value. Due to this there are only five types of approaches: no additional approach is added, despite the literature on sustainable area development.

Table 3-3: what is RATIP? Type of Level of integration Involvement of Spatial Road is RATIP Can this approach actors focus focus in is this TAO be (TOA) planning TAO? RATIP?

Internal/ few/ local/ Yes/ Yes/ Yes/ Balanced/ balanced/ region/ No/ No/ No/ External/ many/

Line- Highly sectoral; no Few Local Yes No No oriented integration

Network Balanced: mid level of Balanced Regional Yes Yes Yes approach integration

Context- Balanced, slightly Balanced, the Local Yes Yes Yes sensitive higher level of same as

integration than network network approach approach

Area- External: high level of Many Local Yes Yes Yes oriented integration

(integrated) Highly external: Highly Regional No, but No Yes (sustainable) higher level of external: higher possible

Area integration level of development integration

What RATIP? is 27

4. THE PROCESS DESIGN OF RATIP The most complex infrastructure planning approach is sustainable area development: the simplest infrastructure planning would be line-oriented infrastructure planning. The two different planning classifications will have two different acts in the spatial planning. This will lead to different activities and project phases. This can impact the process design, although the most influences on this design come from process management. This will be discussed later in chapter 5. Nevertheless, due to the SVIR and expected trends, RATIP might be inclined to become sustainable area development in the future. Thus, both the processes of infrastructure planning and sustainable area development are explained here.

„Meerjarenprogramma Infrastructuur, Ruimte en Transport‟ (MIRT) is the program that contains (financial) information on spatial programmes and projects in which the national government closely collaborate with the decentralized governmental bodies. The aim of MIRT is to (Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2011, p. 9) improve the coherent body of the investments in spatial projects. These are manifested in:

 The different sectoral policy themes in the spatial domain; the connection of themes such as mobility, housing, commercial activities, living environment, nature and water;  The different scale levels in which these themes are formulated; the coherent body of local and regional themes should be balanced with regional and national themes;  The different institutional level between national government and provinces & municipalities.

The MIRT contains 5 sections that should warrant its use.

 Institutional reflections about MIRT: each half year, the national budget will be synchronized with the regional investments. The framework that prioritizes which problems and solutions are written in the SVIR. o The SVIR describes the plans concerning spatial planning and mobility in the Netherlands until 2040. It aims to describe which projects are needed based on the expected developments: generally, it is about the national needs. Till the year of 2028, they defined 3 national goals (Rijksoverheid, 2014c): . Improve the Dutch competiveness in business by improving the national spatial-economic structure;

. Improve the accessibility in the country;

. A safer and sound environment with an increase in quality of life with regard to the unique, natural and rich culture-historical values.  Regional agendas: these are documents, which forms the basic to concretise the long- term plan on the financial investments that are discussed in the institutional reflections about MIRT. These agendas are provided by the national government in cooperation with the region. The SVIR prioritize 13 national goals, thus this can help to steer the regional agenda. It consists of two parts. First part contains the shared regional vision

that should also steer the direction of the preferred solution: here are mentioned the The The process design of RATIP 28

biggest problems. The second part contains an elaboration on those problems that describes which possible projects in the region can potentially solve the problems in region. Even though, the first part is rather static due the incorporated national and regional aims in shared regional vision, the second part is dynamic meaning that it has to be continuously adjusted and fine-tuned in order to be functional in the decision- making process. Notice that the regional agendas do not contain the jurisdictional power to decide to execute certain projects  MIRT research: the solution of this MIRT research is meant to fine-tune the regional agendas. There are two types of MIRT researches. The first is to research on the question whether the problem is in consistency with the regional agenda. The second type of research is to concretise the current problem. The MIRT research is to see whether the project can be made executable: this is not the first step to decide whether there will be a national fund for this project – the result of the research can lead to the MIRT exploration, in which the MIRT-procedure will follow.  MIRT game rules: is to describe the process of a MIRT project. It secures the fact that everyone can follow the internal process of a MIRT project. Moreover, it also contains the functional and financial requirements. The decision-making moments are explicit and it is clear what and who took it. The rules are the same for all stakeholder and the who took the initiative is  MIRT project book: will be yearly delivered with the announcement of the Infrafonds. It will be presented to The House of Representatives that gives them insight on the spatial projects and program, current situation and the future planning.

4.1. Phases and activities: infrastructure planning The infrastructure project phases are not always the same. It depends on the scale of project, but generally there are 4 phases as indicated (Eversdijk & A., 2007). Those are (Van Ham & Koppenjan, 2002):

1) The exploration phase focusing on the mobility problem and potential solution: the activities during this phase are aimed at exploring the problem areas with the stakeholders; 2) The plan development phase focusing on the development of goals, conditions and technical design; 3) The implementation phase focusing on the construction or implementation of the psychical infrastructure; 4) The exploitation phase focusing on the exploitation and maintenance.

However, the MIRT rules only sees three phases and going through these phases there are four

decision-making moments. The The process design of RATIP 29

Starting decision

Prefered solution design decision

•Exploration phase

Project decision

•Plan development phase

Delivery decision

•Implementation phase

Figure 4-1: 3 phases of infrastructure planning, according to the MIRT rules In the exploration phase (Dutch: verkenningsfase) the mobility problem is defined as multiple solution directions are sought. The aim of this phase is to scout the region with the involved stakeholders. Ideally, this phase starts with the starting decision (Dutch: startbelissing) which is an institutional decision. This decision can also be recalled as the initiative that encompasses the problem and chances, plus a global view on its approach, scope, duration and financing of project. In the exploration phase the mobility problem is defined as multiple solution directions are sought. The project can start whether it is noted in the MIRT or not: the only conditions are that a good start or initiation requires a careful and proper trade-off, preparation, and institutional support. Nevertheless, the exploration phase ends with an explicit decision made on the preferred solution decision (Dutch: voorkeursbelissing) that is broadly supported by the stakeholders benefiting the mobility issue. The preferred solution also highlights the costs and financing sources (Ministerie van infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012).

Further specifications of the preferred solution in the plans happen in the plan development phase (Dutch: planuitwerkingsfase) which occurs after exploration phase. The different variants on the solution are tested on its viability through use of MKBA-analyses; they are also tested with Plan-MER to see whether they are not harming the environment and nature. In the plan development phase, the proposed design of the route is being design (Dutch: ontwerp- tracébesluit: OTB). Afterwards, with or without the project-MER, this OTB will be made final: it changes to „The record of decision‟ (Dutch: tracébesluit: TB). If the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment will review this record of decision positively, then it can be made final: record of decision turns into the so called project decision (Dutch: projectbelissing). The location, route, and the design of the road are then put in the land-use plan: this plan is legally binding. Before the execution phase starts, the preparations need to be done such as applying for permits, acquiring lands, scouting the underground cables. These actions for preparations are described in the list of implementation decisions (Ministerie van infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012).

After the list of implementation decisions the (3) implementation phase (Dutch: realisatiefase)

starts. The object is being developed and constructed until the decision is given that the The The process design of RATIP 30 program is finished according to the plans (Dutch: opleveringsbeslissing). Then an evaluation report is conducted to see if the program was finished on time, within scope and with sufficient quality. After the project‟s delivery the project is then being maintained and exploited in the exploitation phase (Ministerie van infrastructuur en Milieu, 2012).

The aforementioned infrastructure act is the extended version. Since January the first in 2012, the procedure of this record of decision can be shortened. After the MIRT-exploration phase, not all projects have to lead according to the record of decision: e.g. one can also follow the Spatial Planning Act, for example the provincial implementation plan (Dutch: provincial inpassingsplan) (Rijksoverheid, 2014a) (Rijkswaterstaat, 2010, pp. 137-139).

Table 4-1: the extensive and shortened Infrastructure Act Extensive infrastructure act shortened infrastructure act

Prepare the starting decision in the exploration Starting decision in exploration phase phase

Starting decision (startsbelissing) Starting decision (startsbelissing) including preferred decision of design

Plan-MER and structural vision including the preferred decision of design (extensive testing)

The preferred decision of design will be The preferred decision of design will be developed into the OTB developed into the OTB

OTB to TB (with possibly project-MER) OTB to TB (with possibly project-MER)

Project decision Project decision

Implementation decision Implementation decision

The extensive procedure holds for new roads or upgrades of existing roads with more than 2 lanes. Also here are three moments of public involvement: at the structural vision, OTB and TB. In the simplified there is only one at the OTB and TB.

The list of phases happens linearly or cyclical. It depends on the complexity. Due to the changing environment, new problems may arise, especially in a long time span, and thus a new problem analysis and problem definition follows. Moreover, infrastructure projects in practice do not follow the aforementioned phases: the phases and decision-making moments are in practice difficult to distinguish and intertwining (J. A. Bruijn, De Jong, & Korsten, 1996).

4.2. Phases and activities: area development Area development has four phases and it follows the Spatial Planning Act (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Neprom,

VNG, & IPO, 2011; Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment, 2014, p. 13). The The process design of RATIP 31

•Initiation phase

Declaration of intention •Feasability phase: consisting of definition, design and preparation phases

Declaration of realization •Realization phase

Declaration of exploitation •Exploration and maintenance phase

Figure 4-2: the four distinctive phases of area development (WRO) The goal in the (1) initiation phase is to research whether area development is appropriate and to seek what globally the solutions might be. Normally, the Structural Vision would give a kind of indication. If that is lacking, then there are three options to scans the region. These are (i) municipality structural vision would prioritize the locations, (ii) Planmer ranks the diverse alternatives with regard to the environmental effects, or (ii) a quick scan on the environmental aspects can be used. The latter does not involve calculations, but qualitative reasoning based on policy documents, internet information, and well-known contours.

(2) The feasibility phase is the complex and resource-intensive phase, so therefore it is split up in three sub phases. Generally speaking, this phase is typically what denotes what regional approach to sustainable development is: the aligning of complex components and create shared vision. It is done iteratively (2a) The definition phase sets up the spatial situations and environmental aspects the boundaries of location and conditions These are fixated in the urban design brief (Dutch: Stedenbouwkundig Programma van Eisen, SpvE). The points of interest are (a) program conditions, which defines the amount of housing, offices and alike. (b) Spatial conditions, the elements of current situation which cannot be changed. (c) Environmental conditions such as air quality, extra safety measures and more. The SpvE is not any by means fixated and can be translated into a regional approach to structural vision (Dutch: gebiedsgerichte structuurvisie). (2b) The design phase: the urban design (Dutch: stedenbouwkundige ontwerp) is being designed. Formally, the design is done by private parties, but the municipality can also design it. This design includes the SpvE, but also the needs originating from the environment like environmental issues in water or archaeology. The design

does through several phases: functional design, conceptual design and final design. Alongside TIP this process, the land-use plan can be developed. It is important to frequently test this land-use plan with the urban design so that the final design is properly aligned. Often, an impression quality design (Dutch: beeldkwaliteitplan) can help the process: to comprehend the expectations, for instance, the architectonical expectations. (2c) The preparation phase prepares the parties to realize the agreed urban design. This also includes the preparation of the planning

permission (Dutch: aanvraag van omgevingsvergunning). The The process design of RA 32

(3) The implementation phase concerns the question who is going to do what and when is that happening. The responsibilities and risk are being shared. The organization of the risk management and construction management are important in this phase. The agreed design plan is going to be constructed, but beforehand the planning permission is asked. After the construction, (4) the maintenance and exploitation are either in the hands of the private or public party which the settled contract will decide.

Concerning sustainable area development, the pre-initiation phase is added before the initiation phase. This can be explained, because when it concerns sustainability incorporates the 4P making area development more complex than it already is.

Questions on quality for Activities and delivering The phases area development products The current user quality: what is the Signaling the needs and urgency; 1) pre-initiation current quality of the region? What kind Working on the declaration of intent; of urgency is there? Product: starting note.

Targeting at the sustainable ambitions; The target quality: given that quality, Working on the joint vision scenario; 2) Initiation which higher level of quality are we Products: ambition document containing the aiming at? program and quality profile (Design brief).

The region’s quality: given the Designing the region and associated objects sustainable ambitions and current based on the aimed quality; situation, how to get the quality at 3) Feasability : Working on the integrated vision at the region; place? A) definition Products: master plan, declaration of A) what is the final design brief? B) design collaboration, business case, implementation B) is the project feasible with those C) preparation plan, program of actions. ambitions? C) how to define it precisely in order to prepare it for the construction phase? Construct according to the agreed terms on quality; Working on the execution of projects and mitigations; The project quality: how to construct 4) Construction Product: Land-use plan, transferal project to and attain on the agreed quality? owners, maintenance plan and vision.

Live through the reached quality; 5) Exploitation The future user quality: how to utilize Working on the maintenance & monitor plan; and and preserve the reached qaulity? Products: maintenance contracts, exploitation maintenance declarations, quality reports (feedback)

Figure 4-3: sustainable area development (H2Ruimte, 2014) The content of a project is important, but concerning wicked problems and area development the process of the project is perhaps even more important. The solution is shaped by its problem definition and vice versa in wicked problems. Moreover, the problem definition in the process is not set; instead the problem is set by the stakeholders that support the definition. Thus, concerning area development one can say that the process design and guidance is very important. That is up to the process manager in process management: process management will

be discussed in chapter 5. The The process design of RATIP 33

If there are many stakeholders involved and the aim is to realize the overarching goal of the 4P, then traditional contracting might not be appropriate. Instead, public-private partnerships (PPP) might be a good mean to realize shared goals. The golden rule is the less people to cooperate with, the easier it is, but nevertheless if everyone agrees on getting added-value of PPP, then it can proof its worth. The added-value of using PPP is (Eversdijk & A., 2007; Wolting, 2006):

 A better financial profile due to better risk and costs distribution;  Integrated process containing collaboration between private and public is aimed at synergy of agreed targets;

PPP is said only to be possible if each stakeholder retrain it‟s identify and profiled responsibility: for the commercial organizations there must be profit and for the public parties there must be societal and economic benefits.

Figure 4-4: non-PPP & PPP involvement (Eversdijk & A., 2007; Wolting, 2006) The pink coloured boxes mean that the market is involved, whereas the grey coloured boxes indicates the involvement of the public parties. Semi pink and grey means both involvements. In sustainable area development, the problem to be comprehended is complex, thus early involvement with the private parties due to PPP can lead to higher spatial quality and a more regional and local support for intervening measures (Elverding, 2008; Struiksma & Tillema, 2009).

4.3. Discussion: Potential structure of phases & activities of RATIP The departments of infrastructure planning and spatial planning are getting more intertwined, thus this section is dedicated to the discussion on RATIP‟s process design. At its most,

complicated state, RATIP is a process that focuses on the provision of the road and additional synergy is sought by looking for further spatial developments in the region where the road is going to be situated. Therefore it is logically to take the phases of the MIRT infrastructure as basis and look for further improvement to create synergy by coupling themes or functions. However, the situation might be too complex for such process to comprehend and in particular if this was not designed to deal with complex problems. Based on this argument, it would be wiser to use the process of area development as basis, but its content is entirely focused on the road infrastructure. That is so to speak, one of the essential puzzle pieces that need to be in the

entire puzzle. Figure 3-4 shows the overarching levels of spatial integration, actor involvement, The The process design of RATIP 34 and its focus of regional instead of local. In that figure, area development, as opposed to area- oriented approach, is relatively more suited to comprehend the difficulties and chances in complex situations.

Infrastructure is a mean to fulfil a certain need, most often it is the improvement of mobility such as reducing traffic jams or increase the location‟s accessibility. But in some cases, it can also be constructed for recreational value. However, for this instance infrastructure is just to improve mobility. Based on this assumption, RATIP can be structured as follows: from each phase to another there is an explicated decision-making moment and this process happens cyclically. This can help the RATIP making the decision on whether to expand the scope of only road infrastructure or not.

Figure 4-5: cyclical rounds in each process phase, adopted from H2Ruimte (2014) In each phase of pre-initiation, initiation and plan development the process happens cyclically to rationally make the decision on whether to expand scope or just stay with road infrastructure provision. The idea of this is keeping in mind the next phase and past phase; looking forward,

while coupling it backwards. E.g. in the initiation phase the question is asked why road infrastructure for mobility and with whom to solve that problem to what extend? Looking forward, to look at „to plan‟ phase, we ought to look back at its „to experience‟ phase. This experience can be put as the new road will impact the spatial quality of the user‟s experience of RATIP expressed in societal and spatial components (Hooimeijer et al., 2001).

The The process design 35

Table 4-2: the spatial quality: in societal and spatial components Spatial quality of Economic value Social value Ecological value Cultural value road infrastructure

Utilization value

Experiential value

Future value

Table 4-3 on next page elaborates on the potential RATIP phases with its activities and products. Here follows an explanation on that table (H2Ruimte, 2014; Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2011).

Before the initiation phases, there is the pre- initiation phase to better distinguish the scope extension. Ideally, the regional agenda gives away the starting point., thus the pre-initiation is not necessary, but this agenda is dynamic and must kept up to date, which is compulsory in order to maintain the regional agenda was starting point for any spatial related project in region which is in line with the national and regional goals (Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat, 2011; Rijksoverheid, 2012, p. 62). This ensures also consistency, even though RATIP occurred pragmatically and did not occur from the regional agenda; however for consistency reasons it is best to let RATIP occur from the regional agendas (Triple Bridge, 2013b, pp. 62 - 63). Nevertheless, this pre-initiation stage should signal the needs in region and commitments of politicians. Multiple solution directions are sought: infrastructure only? Or with other spatial projects as well? Is spatial quality of road infrastructure in check with what the users want? This phase ends with a starting decision note that the problem and chances, plus a global view on its approach, scope, duration and financing of project.

This note leads to the next phase which is called initiation phase. Thus, after signalling the problem and opportunities and having that put in solution directions; the total problem can be explored. Here, the question is asked, what is the preferred solution to the total problem and with who are we going to solve it with what kind of ambition attached to it? Here, if needed, it is important to fuse the stakeholders‟ needs into one joint vision. The phase ends with a program describing the alternative proposed routes with its associated projects attached; also its

preferred solution design is noted.

In the plan development, the join vision is integrated into the plan. From all alternatives, one tries to come with a feasible business case. Preferable the one with the ambition in mind, but all alternatives are considered. Even though, not mentioned in table 4-3, the plan development phase and subdivided into 3 phases of defining, designing and preparing. Meaning, respectively, define the final goals and ambitions, hereafter try to design it into a feasible business case and at last prepare this business case for operation.

The The process design of RATIP 36

Table 4-3: potential RATIP phases with its activities and documents Phases: Pre-initiation Initiation Plan development Questions: Why What is the total problem How to further specify, develop infrastructure and with whom are we and implement the preferred provision? suppose to solve that to solution design? what extend? Implying: It accentuates on It accentuates on the It accentuates on the joint the problem and solution strategies and implementation plan and its possible implementation perspectives perspectives on the exploitation solution space Main Signalling the Exploring and setting up the Designing a feasible and fine- activity: mobility problem ambitions for the mobility tuned plan for region and its and any other problem and other possible associated projects useful extras possibilities in region Composed Signalling the Exploring the feasibility: Developing procedures: of: urgency and need policy, effects and jurisdiction and law for infrastructure acceptance Signalling other Exploring the affordability: Developing financial opportunities and incidental and necessary arrangements: public and/or dilemmas costs, and finance resources private Signalling the Exploring the sustainability Developing exploration and commitment of options: 4P in all concerning maintenance plans politicians project, including infrastructure Exploring the risks: Testing and developing the collaboration‟s risk, project alternatives with MKBA and risk, specific risk during Plan-MER development phase, contract risk Finalizing the plan concerning the goals, requirements, finance, risks and execution by which organization Dividing the risk after qualification and quantification; make the business case feasible and then work it out for the implementation phase Working The declaration A joint vision scenario An integrated joint vision on: of intent Multiple solution Solution space of the Preparing permits, acquiring lands

available solution directions; The process design of RATIP 37

directions alternatives of proposed routes and its associated projects Output Starting decision Program containing the Final record of decision; land-use note preferred solution design of plan; Final design plan containing infrastructure and possibly a feasible business case , program other projects as well of actions, execution plans, declaration of collaboration and execution,

5. PROCESS MANAGEMENT AND SUCCES & FAILURE FACTORS This chapter is about process management and success & failure factors that influence the success of a project. Projects that are increasingly more complex than other will require more need of the soft-side in project management, thus the eyes are set on process management and its process manager (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Kloppenborg & Opfer, 2002). In what situation is process management useful? This is explained in section 5.1. The position of process management and the process manager are explained in section 5.2. The strategic behaviours of actors in the network will impact the process, the decision-making and therefore also the project final results, on whether it was a success or not: these behaviours are categorized as success or failure factors (section 5.3). Additional factors from sustainable area development are added to the success and failure factors (section 5.4).

5.1. When is it useful? Network vs. hierarchy Process management is argued to be useful in complex situation that are characterized (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2010):

 By a network of dependencies: the initiator and desirer of change functions in a network of dependencies, thus he can never impose a one-sided change, because other parties may amend, frustrate, or even obstruct the change during all phases of the project.

 By having no unambiguous substantive solutions: complex problems have many parties with different interests and framing on the problem, thus they prefer different solutions. Substantive arguments fail to convince others; more research and analysis only confirm parties‟ notion of being of being right, thus increasing the level of uncertainty.

Complex problems can also be called wicked, unstructured or untamed problems (Enserink, 2005; Rittel & Webber, 1973; Van de Graaf & Hoppe, 1989). This implies there is no solution which is morally right or wrong, nor is there a clear solution in the sense of a definitive answer. This is due to the dissension on the norms, and lack of knowledge and consensus on the facts. The problem is also bound by resources that changed over time. To effectively tackle such problems, collaboration is necessary instead of using authoritative or competitive strategies (Robert, 2000, p. 3). Nevertheless, H. de Bruijn and Ten Heuvelhof (2010) do imply that in their process management command and control (authoritative strategy) can be used if done

effectively to stimulate collaborative behaviour in process. Process management and succes & failure factors 38

Thus, project approaches such as having strict problem definitions, clear goals, and tight time schedules have limited meaning in complex problems. The parties will simply not accept the initiator‟s framing of problem and proposed solution; and so the right process is only supported if there is interaction, which is called a process approach. In here, a process approach to change implies:

 Shifting focus: focus shifts from the content of change to the way the content is development and implemented  Shaping decision: there is prior agreement between the parties how the decision process is shaped.  Process agreements: due to prior agreements on the process, these will offer each party in question sufficient opportunity to serve their own interests.

The shift from substantive approach to a process approach implies shift in the role of manager of the change. That is the process manager, in which his responsibilities are that he ensures that the process of change proceeds according plan; the parties adhere the rules, the parties are heard, communication is effective, and the decisions are made in according to the process agreements. The process architect, on the other hand, oversees the realisation of process agreements; he ensures that the process design is appealing to the parties involved.

The decision-making on infrastructure planning will takes place in a network if there is spatial, procedural and/or financial intertwinement with other spatial developments.

Table 5-1: hierarchical & horizontal management

Hierarchy Network

Dependence on superior Interdependence

Uniformity Pluriformity

Openness Closedness

Stability, thus predictable Dynamic, thus unpredictable

A network is composed of many actors that are involved in the decision-making. They have different interests and are interdependent. None can realize their own goal (interdependence), without involving the rest and there are many differences (pluriformity) between them that may hamper cooperation and concerted decision-making. Some cases, some actors have no interest in collaborating (closedness), thus will can hamper the process even more. Also, the number of actors may change in the course of the decision-making progress; some join and some leave (dynamic) (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2010).

Here in a network context, hierarchical management would have little chance of success. A manager will command and control strategies will meet resistance. Other parties can obstruct,

delay or change his project. As opposed to command and control is process approach. This Process management and succes & failure factors 39 approach considers the mutual dependencies and hereby the solution that is in consultation and negation with other parties. This does not mean that command and control is not needed, but it is limited. Process approach can be positioned vis-à-vis against project approach. The latter assumes that problems and solutions are reasonable stable. This allows planning of project management techniques; clear goal, a time schedule, clear framework and a predefined end product. This will result in a decision-making which is linear, structured and proceeds towards a solution in different phases. The parties participating act cooperatively in process, partly due to subordination to the actor formulating problem or they back off in progress due to foresight that their interests will be harmed by the available solution. As a result, they will obstruct and resist (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008).

Table 5-2: comparing decision-making in hierarchies and networks

Hierarchy Networks

Regular and sequential Irregular and no clear sequence of activities

Phases Rounds

Actors are stable, act loyally due to subordination Actors join and withdraw and behave strategically

One area, process has a clear starting point and Several areas, no isolated starting point and end end point point

Content of the problem is stable; problem -> Content of the problem shifts; solution -> solution problem

Incentive to regard problems as structured Incentive to regard problems as unstructured

Consistency and predictability Flexibility and unpredictability

The chapter on the intertwinement of infrastructure planning with other spatial development is similar to this table: line-oriented infrastructure planning was done purely from a hierarchical context, where sustainable area development happens more in a network context. RATIP is somewhere in between.

Table 5-3: project-managerial versus process-managerial approach in networks

Project Process

Factors and content Actors and process

Information Relations

Right-Wrong Gain-Loss

One-issue Mutli-issue

Depending on your managerial approach, the attention on issue can shift (H. de Bruijn & Ten Process management and succes & failure factors 40

Heuvelhof, 2008). In a project approach, the accent will be on the content of decision-making, the facts. These facts will determine the nature of problem: the project manager needs information, including a justified analysis, to solve this problem. The quality of this solution depends whether the information was used properly, based on the problem formulation. The solution is judged therefore right or wrong matter. This is different in a network, in which the attention shifts towards the question on how the process of interaction can be influenced. What is the actor‟s commitment, not the information is the key resource, but the relations between actors. Eventually this will result into gain and losses, thus multi-issued decisions.

Nevertheless, in a network and process approach there is no such project-like and phased development. Problems can be formulated by one or more parties, but they are never really solved. This is because, parties see no sufficient reason to place issue on their agenda or they back off in progress due to foresight that their interests will be harmed by the available solution. As a result, they will act strategically and try to obstruct future decision-making. One can say that the decision-making is capricious. It is substantive capricious due to continuously shifting of the content of a problem and of a solution. It is process capriciousness, since it there is no clear starting point and end point and it happens in rounds that succeeds each other

irregularly in an interactive, iterative and dynamic matter.

rs

Figure 5-1: decision-making in erratic and iterative round model This round model reflects a network concept; it endures the relationships between actors. It is an interactive policy game in which actors try to influence, create, or block the process. The policy outcomes are either:

 Impasses, non-decision, aborted process.  Top-down decisions.  Winning coalitions.

 Compromises. Process management and succes & failure facto 41

These are created by actions, negotiations and decision in a game that has rounds with different sets of actors, perceptions, strategies, conditions, outcomes, winners and losers. Success here in process management is only reached when there is:

 Win-win situation (satisfaction).  Winners-compensate-losers‟ situation.

RATIP projects can take place in network situations, thus it can make good use of process approaches.

5.2. Process management and process design Process management is based on a network situation. It aims at organization, communication, and argumentation to produce a compromise among the involved stakeholders in such network context. It is a structured process with clear rules and a fair process involving collective decision-making which is acceptable for most stakeholders. The process design guides this decision making: creating collective rationality through integration of different perspectives and preferences. (J. A. de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 1998).

Process management ideally aims at a win-win situation, where the involved parties feel that they gain net value out of their project. This is exactly, was RATIP tries to do as well. Nevertheless, bringing involved stakeholders together does not immediately lead to such a win- win solution. They ought to be mobilized and committed to process, which can be done by creating an attractive and safe process, on which the process manger can help to shape the decision-making. In general, the motive of process management is to combine different interests of people around a project and lift that project until substantial enrichment and support is gained. Compared to former more hierarchical methods, process management have three advantages (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008) .

1. Higher quality of solutions, due to enrichment by involved actors: different needs and perspectives are taken into consideration and put in the process to create a shared

holistic viewpoint that can optimize the solution. 2. More support from stakeholders, due to achieving the solutions that comes with package deals in which the involved parties feel that they achieved net gain. 3. Increased legitimacy, due to varied actors involved in the planning process which is also transparent.

A process manager in process management is to shape the decision-making – continuously seeking attractive problem definitions, options, and solutions for the involved stakeholders, instead of making the decision. (Galbraith, 1995, p. 157) There are four requirements for a good process or to come to good process agreements. These elements combined make the design: there is always a trade-off and balance between all four key elements. Summarized, the four key elements are:

1. Openness: this concerns the transparency in the game, an open attitude is advised and

no unilateral decisions by the initiator should be undertaken. Other stakeholders are Process management and succes & failure factors 42

included in the decision-making process and agreements on procedures of developing the content so that they can highlight their issues. 2. Protection of core values: every party have their own principal interest that should be protected, so that they can commit to process instead of their result. Exit rules are advised as well to prevent parties feeling from getting into a trap. Moreover, commitments can be postponed to later moment in process. 3. Speed sufficient momentum and progress are needed and should be addressed as one of the four principles in design. With an open decision-making and protection of each other‟s values, there might still be chance that it will come to no decision-making. Speed is essential and can be stimulated by creating opportunities for benefit, profit, and incentives for cooperative behaviour. 4. Substance sets out the quality standard in progress. Decisions which are decided fast and in an open progress with the protection of core values in mind might still be poor decisions if the substance is relatively meagre. Some experts can be invited for developing solutions before the final choice is made to safeguard the substance. These content experts and stakeholders should be distinguished, while not separating them in the process design: to get clear neutrality.

Figure 5-2: the 4 key elements important to a process design (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008) . Once again, these four elements are each other‟s complementary and aspects of the key elements have been mapped out in table 5-4 (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2010, p. 43).

management and succes & failure factors

Process 43

Table 5-4: the four key elements in the process design with sub-factors

Criteria for a process design Sub-factors

Openness 1 Transparency in process and process management 2 Involvement of all parties 3 Transform substance choices to process type agreements

Protection of core values 4 Level of protection 5 Level of commitment to process instead of results 6 The amount of postponement possibilities in commitments 7 The amount of exit rules

Speed 8 Level of simulation early participation 9 Prospect of gain for cooperative behaviour 10 There are quick wins 11 The process is heavily staffed 12 Transferring conflicts to the periphery of the process 13 Tolerance towards ambiguity 14 Command and control to gain momentum

Substance 15 Role of experts in facilitation 16 The role of experts and stakeholders are bundled and unbundled 17 Substance variety to selection

Full description can be read in appendix A. In short, they are briefed here.

The openness emphasizes on the need for transparency in the process progress. (1) The transparency improves the quality in decision-making and it enhances trust and willingness of actors to cooperate in process. (2) Increased actor involvement can lead to an enrichment of solution that is also being enhanced by regarding the diverse roles of actors and wider solution space (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2004). (3) At times not everyone agrees on the substantive decision-making choice, thus it is useful to transform that into a process agreement

in which the process will lead to a substantial decision.

(4) By ensuring the protection of their core interests, parties can easily join and participate in the process. To get a good process, (5) the parties should be committed to the progress instead the results. This can be done, by offering them room; room to distance themselves from the final results, thus the parties are committed to the process agreements in which they openly express their view to construct a common frame of reference. To require the latter, (6) postponement possibilities in commitments is needed to give the room, so that decision- making can be done with reduced costs and pressure, and the learning process and trust are stimulated. (7) Lastly, exit rules ensure that opportunism is prevented and it also lowers the threshold to join.

Speed implies the arrangements and strategic behaviour of the process architect to maintain the steady progress in process. The parties should be (8) stimulated to participate early in process and they ought to be (11) heavily staffed so that they are authorized to make decisions. The process is kept in pace due to (9) the prospect of gain and when parties back off (10) quick Process management and succes & failure factors 44 wins can be offered to keep them in the game. At times, (14) command and control can also be used to act corporately; incentive to collaborate and gain more, if not the power taker will use its own discretion and make a unilateral decision if no consensus is reached. The possible conflicts are transferred to (12) the periphery of the process and ambiguity should be cautiously used to its advantage. Ambiguity can be used to let parties dream about their preference, but De Zeeuw (2011) implies that ambitions and goals should unambiguous if one ought to have sustainable area development through a good process. He implies that ambiguity will probably harm the process, thus sustainable area development cannot reach the expectation of stakeholders; whereas H. de Bruijn and Ten Heuvelhof (2010) mention that (13) ambiguity can be used to keep the progress flowing by keeping the stakeholders in process and the consensus reached is its solution towards the problem definition. In the latter case, the ambiguous agreement moves towards the periphery of the process, thus receiving less media attention and is no longer part of the substance of conflict, and overall results is that the conflict will be avoided because it is unnecessary. Or ambiguous agreement will be clarified at some point, but postponing it will put stakeholders more in the process with possible better end result, then if the ambiguity was clarified at start, and stakeholders cease to cooperative and thus hampering the project.

Often, the opinions of experts in decision-making processes are not accepted by the stakeholders. The stakeholders do not commit to the way to which the analyses have taken place and thus no commitment is given to the analysis‟ results. Or the analysis does not match the dynamics of the decision-making process. (15) In both of these cases, the role of experts should be adjusted to facilitate process. (16) The roles of the experts, however, should be unbundled with the stakeholders, but it is necessary to bundle the activities of the two parties. However, bundling has the risk that the experts may become bias; unbundling is therefore desirable, but that involves the risk that the experts hold no authoritative role in decision making. This issue impacts the relationship between the experts and stakeholders in the process in the following way. The roles of experts and stakeholders should be unbundled, but it is

necessary to bundle the activities of the two parties. Starting from the unbundled roles, they should interact intensively in order to avoid misfits. Bundling activities from unbundled roles has two functions; it improves the quality of decision-making and also the knowledge contributed by experts. To get improved knowledge contribution, it is important to (i) separate the roles of experts and stakeholders, but ensure (ii) bundling of their activities and this goes (iii) parallel between the research process and decision-making process. These are the 3 tasks of the process manager. (17) The transition from substantive variety of options to a selection will enriches the quality of decision-making. Due to wide variety, there is substantial learning. There is cognitive learning; producing and learning new facts, views, values, and so on. Plus, there is social learning; new relationships and interactions. Both these learning will contribute to new insight and more variety and if there is a selection chosen from this, this will be more accepted. The selection is ripe when the cognitive and social learning are stabilized.

Section 5.1 already mentioned the responsibilities of a process manager. To keep experts clearly separated from stakeholders, while bundling their activities are additional tasks of the process Process management and succes & failure factors 45 manager. Moreover, this is done parallel with the decision-making process and research process. His or her leadership is essential for the process of a successful project result. Previously, the role of was to steer and facilitate the issues. Nowadays, due to the transition to area development, the process manager takes the role of innovator, stimulator, mentor and mediator; they also ought to be transparent, flexible and adaptive to new ideas and lay new connections in changing environment (De Jong, 2013). Moreover, instead of minimizing only negative effects of the project, one also ought to search for opportunities and new connections with other functions (or themes) in region to create added-value. According to Groeneveld (2009), his or her role is hard to describe; everyone got their own approach, personality and skills, and each phase in the process is different. Nevertheless, the results of area development depend on the process manager‟s attitude and behaviour and its capability to endure and handle continuous changing environment.

5.3. Strategic behaviours on process design Depending on your managerial approach, the attention on issue can shift. In a project approach, the accent will be on the content of decision-making, the facts. These facts will determine the nature of problem: the project manager needs information, including a justified analysis, to solve this problem. The quality of this solution depends whether the information was used properly, based on the problem formulation. The solution is judged therefore right or wrong matter. This is different in a network, in which the attention shifts towards the question on how the process of interaction can be influenced. What is the actor‟s commitment, not the information is the key resource, but the relations between actors. Eventually this will result into gain and losses, thus multi-issued decisions.

Table 5-5: project-managerial approach versus process-managerial approach

Project Process

Factors and content Actors and process

Information Relations

Right-Wrong Gain-Loss

One-issue Multi-issue

In a network concept, the decisions made by the initiating actors acquire support of other actors. The course in which this happens depends on the behaviours of these actors and these are hardly ever well-structured or well ordered. This is because these actors firstly serve their own individual interest and not the collective interest. In these cases multi-issue decision- making is useful – in those decisions there are several issues on the agenda and there are sufficient interesting issues for each actors which makes it attractive to participate: in other words, the actors have more reasons to make a collective decision (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008, p. 60). In comparison with previous section, such multi-issue decision-

making process allows several benefits: room for giving and taking, incentives for cooperative Process management and succes & failure factors 46 behaviour, chances of desired and unforeseen outcomes, parties learn how to make trade-offs, actors should be willing to abandon their goals. Such situations will always create winners and losers in where the essence is to create win-win situation or worst case where the winner compensates the losers (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008, pp. 50 - 59).

The project-based or process-based decision-making is described here in a number of important phases. The contrasts between them allow better understanding and possible strategies to tackle them.

The problem formulation in a network can be either project-based or process-based. The project-based, it starts with the observation that there is a problem – it is delineated by means of substantive analysis, because the problem is objectivised and the analysis justifies it. Once the problem is formulated, it will give direction to the process of problem solving. If the problem is complex, then it can be divided in sub-systems which each of them are solved individually. Such a complexity education improves the overall quality of solution. Lastly, the problem precedes its solution and is to be solved when it arises.

The process-based looks at the problem formulation as a problem perception. If shared, what is prioritized first? Is it urgent as well? And if they are not shared, what is the use of such substantive analysis? It is little efficient, it is more useful to influence the problem perception by „priming‟ – create a context in which parties are sensitive to a particular problem perception. Or instead of getting a better covering, one can develop broad problem definitions and if possible couple them to other problems. Delineating a problem too sharply can harm the process because it is not so attractive for parties to join – for them there is no gain, they do not recognize the problem and might resist. By raising complexity, one can easier couple and decouple certain solutions to certain problems. It is easier to create a package deal. It allows more room for manoeuvre. The yes or no (is it right or wrong?) to each sub-system – one issue system - can hamper good and efficient decision-making in process. The order of problem formulation and solution differ as well. In a project type, the problem precedes. But in a

network, the solution might look for the problems. If one know the problems of the other actor, he or she can couple their own solution to the problem of the other actor. Vice versa for to decouple solutions to problems. Lastly, the moment when a problem is formulated is always a strategic choice – one waits for the window of opportunity: the moment when the chance of support for the problem formulation is sufficient. It depends on all kind of factors, such as the mood of the actors, but also the amount of issues on agenda etc. The importance of multi-issue decision-making is apparent; the chance to formulate your problem at that current moment.

Table 5-6: problem formulation in network (DM means decision-making)

Project-based DM Process-based DM

There is a problem; substantive analysis is There is a problem perception, so the perception required. has to be influenced: „priming‟

The problem is delineated sharply The problem is kept in broad terms, linkages and Process management and succes & failure factors 47

couplings.

The complexity is reduced The complexity is kept or raised

The problem steers the solution The solution steers the problem

A problem is solved when it arises Moment of the problem formulation is a strategic choice; the „window of opportunity‟ has to be open

The goals in a network can also be project-based or process-based. In a project approach, a goal is a very important point of reference in decision-making process. With none, there is no direction in the project. Each action has to contribute towards realizing the goal, thus a clear and unambiguous goal, established at the start of project is conductive to a smooth progress of the project. Goals are determined by the definition of a problem and formulating boundaries and the scope before the project starts also helps to give direction. It prevents „scope creep‟. (p.65)

On the contra hand in process approach, the goal here is moving continuously and are results of a process or they emerges during a process – the actors go in search of goals that have sufficient support (positional) and that are substantively attractive (substantive). The goals are formulated when the learning processes have been completed. From a project perspective this idea might be a form of opportunism, but it is a sign of wisdom in a process perspective sense - parties learn from the process and formulate their goals in the most favourable way.

Just like the problem formulation, the goals should be recognizable to the critical mass of actors; if not then goal stretching might be an option. With that, the stakeholders can identify adequately with the goal formulation. „Naming and framing‟ is also used in the sense of framing the goal on whether the support for it can be won among other others. If done properly, it might be possible to also couple the same action to several aims that are highly prioritized (multi-targeting). (p.67)

Lastly, boundaries and scopes will evolve during process – they are not set in stone, but they result from negotiations. Hence, in a network approach there is only „negotiated boundaries‟ and „negotiated scope‟. These are „rubbery‟ preconditions.

Table 5-7: goals in a network

Project-based DM Process-based DM succes & failure factors The goal is the point of reference during the The goal is moving continuously and is formulated entire project and it is formulated beforehand when learning processes have been completed

The goal is related to the problem, it is ideally The goal is related to the stakeholders; „goal fixed stretching‟

The content of the problem determines the Naming and framing is determined not only by the substantive description of the goal content; „multi-targeting‟

The boundaries and scope are formulated The boundaries and scope emerges during the Process management and 48 beforehand and are firm process; „rubber preconditions‟

The information used in a network can also be used in twofold. In a project approach, the information is a crucial resource. Decision-making without timely and correct information is not possible; the quality of the decision-making is hereby also dependent on the quality of information. It goes in accordance with the need-to-know principle; information that is necessary to solve the problem is relevant to actor.

This is in strong contrast to process approach. Here, the information gathering and information supply are strongly related to actors and it has a number of important consequences (p.70). In wicked problems, the essence of problem cannot be objectivised. Thus the information providing the problem is also contested. A way out of this, is to negotiate about the correctness of information: negotiated knowledge – negotiate about e.g. what data, system boundaries, methods to be used? These negotiations only come if there is enough incentive to join. Negotiated knowledge can however turn into negotiated nonsense: the state that the negotiated knowledge conflicts with the existing state of knowledge, but at these times the coupling to experts should have them bring „objective‟ information.

Information is also an important means of power, which can be used strategically. One can monopolize information by not sharing the information, or one can distort information by underplaying it. Or one can communicate information selectively to certain actors while not informing the rest.

Since that the decision-making in a network is capricious and chaotic, there is no such thing as „information overload‟ – the term that is used that other information besides you need-to-know information is irrelevant. In fact, nice-to-know information, every kind of information, even when it is not clear what purpose it servers, can be useful as there are unsuspected chances. Today‟s detail can be the headline of tomorrow – the more information one has, the better it can handle the capriciousness.

Lastly, besides the substantive considerations in decision-making, the parties will be receptive or closed towards information at certain moments. That will depend on how the process of decision-making flows. E.g. actors are more likely to be receptive to new information in cases of deadlocks, because new insight can lead to new positions in the process. And they are closed in cases where other different issues from the actors get over-attention.

Table 5-8: information in a network

Project-based DM Process-based DM

Information is robust and intersubjective Information is negotiated knowledge

Content of the problem determines the Instead, information is used strategically; it has to information need be (double) checked.

Information gathering based on need-to-know Information gathering based on nice-to-know Process management and succes & failure factors 49 principle principle

Quality of information determines the extent to Besides the substantive content and its quality, which the decision-making is influenced: the paying attention to the influence of information on better the analysis, the more influence the DC is important as well.

The decision-making in network can go through project managerial style of process managerial style. The decision in the first style is an important moment – it will strongly influence the further progress of project; either go or no go. It follows the principle of problem statement, set goal, and available information to judge and then make the decision.

On contra hand, the decision in a process managerial style is rather put in perspective. The decision-making is the result of process in which parties have negotiated about numerous issues. The formal decision afterwards on the package is not a surprise: the direction has already set in motion in the process that preceded the formal decision-making. The decision-making does not per definition precedes the implementation; it can both be part of the process and therefore not strictly separated. Sometimes implementation follows decision-making, sometimes decision-making follows implementation. Either way it is an on-going process which is also characterized as an open process to which the latter is an incentive for cooperative behaviour. In project managerial style the decision-making tends to be marked by a crucial role for plans, deadlines and milestones – it indicates beforehand what aspects of the decision- making has to be completed at what moment. These are different to process managerial style. The pace of process does not depend, or at least not merely depend, upon plan, deadlines and milestones, but on the threats and opportunities that emerge during the process. To make use of that window of opportunity, actors can suddenly accelerate the process and realize a number of couplings.

An important aspect in decision-making in a network is the way the decisions are communicated. After a decision, a form of external communication is required: the logic or reason behind decision have to be explained towards other actors who did not participate in the process – invoking the way how the negotiations took place. However, the reproaches are easy to guess. The outsiders may find the made decision opportunistic - the outcome would have been different if they took place in the negotiations because it is not based on clear analysis of problems and solutions. Or the outsiders may find the made decision not transparent – the involved parties in decision-making behaved strategically which infringes values such as transparency in decision-making process. On the other hand, a project approach is quite powerful in its external communication: a decision is defended through problem analyses, clear goals and good information. This issue outlines the dilemma. It is advised to combine the strength of the two approaches. The actions in a network are process-based, whereas the communications about the results are in project-based language. This can respectively put into backstage activities and front stage activities. The backstage are formed by the power game: the parties design multi-issue game, widen the agenda, couple and decouple issues to form a package deal. And in the front stage, the public performance, the outcome of process are presented and communicated in dominant language of project management (p.79). Process management and succes & failure factors 50

Table 5-9: decision-making & implementation in a network

Project-based DM Process-based DM

Decision follows from problem, goal and After the decisions, there is a next round, so new information opportunities

Specifying the decision gives direction Specifying the decision makes this vulnerable to resistance

Watertight decisions Decisions with options kept open

Project-managerial techniques such as tight Project-managerial techniques are dysfunctional planning, deadlines, milestones etc.

Planning should be executed Changes of pace are needed

Project-based actions, project-based Process-based actions, project based communication communication

Implementation follows the decision Decision follows the actions already taken or DM is avoided

DM gives imperative direction to DM give partly the results: new rounds and chances implementation

Implementation is an operational activity Implementation requires strategic choices

After the decision, the implementation follows. Or it seems, but this is not always the case in process-based approaches in which these two elements are sometimes hard to distinguish. Implementation in a network is partly the implementation of a package deal, thus it can create a new round with new opportunities. So it is not funnelling – the further the process progresses, the more the degrees of freedom of the actors involved will decrease, but like a glass hour – after the package deal decision it narrows, but also might widen again due to new round.

5.4. Conclusion: success & failure factors for RATIP To understand how process management impacts RATIP, the position of process management and its underlying ideas were explained.

Process management is useful in complex situations that are characterized by a network of dependencies and hereby having no unambiguous substantive solution to it (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2010). These complex situations will arise when the infrastructure planning in RATIP is characterized by more spatial, procedural and financial intertwinement with other spatial developments in region. These complex problems can also be wicked, unstructured or untamed problems (Enserink, 2005; Rittel & Webber, 1973; Van de Graaf & Hoppe, 1989). For this there is no simple and one defined solution, due to dissension on the norms, and lack of knowledge and consensus on the facts. To effectively tackle such problems, collaboration is necessary instead of using authoritative or competitive strategies (Robert, 2000, p. 3).

Nevertheless, H. de Bruijn and Ten Heuvelhof (2010) do imply that in their process Process management and succes & failure factors 51 management command and control (authoritative strategy) can be used if done effectively to stimulate collaborative behaviour in process.

A hierarchical and substantive approach in such a network context will have little chance of succeeding, due to pluriformity and interdependences of actors. Also due to their closedness and dynamic nature, they will most likely obstruct, delay, or change a project which is approached in a hierarchical manner. As opposed to this, a process approach is more appropriate; this approach considers the mutual dependencies and hereby the solution that is in consultation and negation with other parties. This does not mean that command and control is not needed, but it is limited.

Process management is based on this process approach and it aims at organization, communication, and argumentation to produce a compromise among the involved stakeholders in such network context. It is a structured process with clear rules and a fair process involving collective decision-making which is acceptable for most stakeholders. The process design guides this decision making: creating collective rationality through integration of different perspectives and preferences. (J. A. de Bruijn & ten Heuvelhof, 1998). Ideally it aims at a win-win situation, where the involved parties feel that they gain net value out of their project. They cooperate in a so called round model that reflects a network concept; it endures the relationships between actors. It is an interactive policy game in which actors try to influence, create, or block the process. Compared to conventional hierarchical methods, process management in a network context have the three advantages; potentially higher quality solutions, more support from stakeholders, and increased legitimacy (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008).

A process manager in process management is to shape the decision-making – continuously seeking attractive problem definitions, options, and solutions for the involved stakeholders, instead of making the decision (Galbraith, 1995, p. 157). There are four complementary requirements to come to a good process or process agreements. These are openness, protection of core values, appropriate speed and substance (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2010, p. 43).

These are compactly described in section 5.2 and in full details in appendix A.

However, for the synthesis, these requirements are adapted slightly to make the comparison of RATIP projects more convenient. The factors of sustainable area development and CLIOS are put next to the key grouping. These will not be in the synthesis, but they are kept in mind when analyzing. The numbers between the parentheses are the factors that are mentioned few times by more than one author. The underscored texts are related to key grouping underscored text „an adequate pacing‟.

A transparent process stimulates trust and willingness to cooperation; it can also enrich the variety of options and its selection. In process management, the focus lies on the interactive cooperation with stakeholders to come to a supported solution. Therefore stakeholder‟s interests should be protected and enough room should be offered so that they can fully commit to the process instead of the result. In other words, it is less about the substance of project.

However, proper use of experts‟ opinions are required to avoid negotiated nonsense and to get Process management and succes & failure factors 52 to negotiated knowledge, in which that will turn into substantive decision making. The roles of experts are unbundled with the stakeholders, but the activities are bundled. This will make their opinion more legit without being bias to one of the stakeholders. Moreover the interactive cooperation should go with an adequate pace to keep the stakeholders interested in process. Thus, they should be stimulated to join early and there is a prospect of gain and at time quick wins to keep them satisfied. Perhaps, the most important variable to success is the process manager. He or she is embedded in the key groupings such as a transparent process and so on.

Table 5-10: key groupings of important success factors to RATIP

Key grouping (H. de Bruijn & Ten (De Zeeuw, 2011; H2Ruimte, 2014; H2ruimte & Heuvelhof, 2010, p. 43) Liefland Milieu, 2014; Rotmans, 2012; van der Cammen & van Eijk, 2006) + CLIOS, see appendix A (Meyer and Miller, 2001; Sussman & Sgouridis, 2004)

Transparent Transparency in process Transparent exploitation process and process management Clear game rules Involvement of all Trust between partners parties Negotiate on interests and not standpoints Transform substance choices to process type agreements Interactive Level of protection Broad scope of problem definitions cooperation with Level of commitment to Flexibility in analysis an adequate pacing process instead of results Good relationship with co-workers The amount of Commitment and continuity (2) postponement People make the difference (2) possibilities in Develop regional identity commitments Connect dreams with reality: connect ambition The amount of exit rules (vision) with implementation, exploitation and Level of simulation of maintenance (2) early participation Ensure future value now: connect money and future Prospect of gain for societal benefits (2) cooperative behaviour Regional vision which is broadly supported (2) Quick wins The region is central topic Heavily staffed Knowledge up to date and shared with everyone Transferring conflicts to Negotiate on interests and not standpoints the periphery of the Risks are clearly divided process Societal urgency (6) Tolerance towards Passion for sustainability (4P) ambiguity Sustainability is in the shared vision Command and control Fuse interest (2) to gain momentum Each phase is zoom-out and zoom-in (2) Each phase the goals, people, means and process are

coherent Process management and succes & failure factors 53

Early connection between vision and implementation is necessary Cyclical phases (3)

Connection between interests and themes

Connection in scales (2) Connection in time (2) Each phase ends explicitly and the start of next phase starts with a clear project start up and plan Ensure future value now: connect money and future societal benefits Ambition and enthusiasm in all involved stakeholders Early involvement of the representatives in region

Involvement of the inhabitants (2)

Early involvement of the private markets learning trajectory Proper use of Use of experts to Connection in people (2) expert‟s opinion facilitate Use instruments to fullest

Bundling and Engineering company is capable unbundling of experts with stakeholders Procedure of substance variety to selection

Role of Embedded in the key Public stakeholders with vision and guts project/process groupings. The „director‟ of the project is a trusted figure manager Good and clear client with clear vision, responsibility and commitment

Process management and succes & failure factors 54

Sub-question 1: What is Regional Approach To Infrastructure Provision?

„‟Regional Development To Infrastructure Provision‟‟ (RATIP) is a concept approach on project-level, in which infrastructure development and area development are intertwined and executed in a certain manner.

This term, RATIP, is derived from the Dutch term „GebiedsGerichte Aanpak (GGA) naar Complexe Infrastructurele Projecten‟ which is used in the province Fryslân. However, this GGA is also used in the province Brabant, although there are noticeable differences in meanings, which are clearly explained in the analysis and concluding chapters of this thesis. The RATIP here refers to the GGA in Fryslân, the type of project approach in which infrastructure developments and area developments are combined. GGA can also refer to the GGA situation in Brabant, but if so, then it is stated clearly that it is the GGA of Brabant.

Nevertheless, the evolvement and convergence of infrastructure planning and area development is trending in the Netherlands, but also around the world such as in the UK, USA, New Zealand, Canada, and Australia. The evolvement is present in both the scientific literature and real life applications on projects. The compiled scientific overview of approaches is:

● line-oriented infrastructure planning (classification 1) ● network approach (RATIP) (classification 2) ● context-sensitive approach (RATIP) (classification 3) ● area-oriented approach (RATIP) (classification 4) ● (integrated) (sustainable) area development (classification 5)

RATIP, if put in the scientific literature, fits the description of an area-oriented approach: the road infrastructure remains centre of planning and any synergy to the improvement of the overall spatial quality of project is desired, but not necessarily if it conflicts with the goals of road infrastructure planning. Moreover, the other additional spatial developments are only due to this road infrastructure project. However, if RATIP does not succeed to synergize with

other area development goals, then it can also be categorized as a network-approach and/or context-sensitive approach which then lays its focus on the road network and aesthetic aspects of the road. The level of internal and/or external integration to other sectoral policies and the amount of involved actors are not equally spread in a constant line among these three „RATIP- categories‟ and it also depends on the project context.

To get more details on the converging combination of infrastructure planning and area development, an ordinal scaling module so called an intertwinement ladder can be set up. There

are categorized 3 types of intertwinement: spatial intertwinement, procedural intertwinement t and succes & failure factors and financial intertwinement – the spatial intertwinement ladder is focused on the spatial intertwinement in project, whereas the other intertwinement ladders are focused on the phases and content of that spatial intertwinement in project. The spatial quality can be reviewed in a matrix in which each of the utilization, experiential and future value of spatial quality are rated

on its economic, social, ecological, and cultural value (see table 4-2). This is referred as the 4P, Process managemen 55 an additional P (spatial quality: project and process) on the triple bottom line (TBL) or 3Ps (People, Planet, and Profit) to put the living environment as central object of sustainable spatial development. A good balance of this matrix or the 4Ps will result into a satisfactory RATIP- project.

It can be said that RATIP is pragmatic approach, precursory to (integrated) area development, as it makes the attempts of adding extra value to the road infrastructure project by incorporating values which are specific to area development. Thus, RATIP is not (sustainable) area development, as in this case that would be the coherent integrated body of sectoral policies and societal needs in a region. However, the other way around is possible: (sustainable integrated) area development can be RATIP, if the theme is focused on the road infrastructure and look for other themes to couple to. Nevertheless, the current trends and scientific theory on the intertwinement of these two core policies and approaches portrays that the future development of RATIP might be inclined to (sustainable integrated) area development or the CLIOS-system as used in MIT university. If so then this paradigm of constructing infrastructure projects more holistic and integrated can empowered with the ideas of the T- shaped engineer and transdisciplinarity.

Sub-question 2: How can the process design and project of RATIP be structured?

This question contains two parts to be answered. In sub-question 2a, the possible phases of RATIP will be elaborated; these are bound to certain acts, which prescribe the procedures. The procedures will prescribe the mandatory activities and products. Sub-question 2b will elaborate on the underlying key elements in process, regardless which activities will take place. An answer to sub-question 2 is briefed here below.

A process design is the design that guides the decision-making by creating collective rationality through integration of different stakeholder‟s perspectives and it prefers to get a win-win situation in which all parties feel that they gain net value out of their project. The activities and its bound products are dependent on the chosen act: Infrastructure Act or Spatial Planning Act.

The pre-initiation phase or the regional agenda should help determine the scope extension and which act is best followed. A potential RATIP set-up of the procedures is elaborated in main text. Nevertheless, some activities are similar and important; regardless which activity will take place. This is the cyclically process of making an explicit decision in each phase, in which this is perfectly aligned with its current goals and ambitions: looking back and forward. Regardless of the chosen procedure, RATIP will benefit from a good process design in especially complex and wicked problems. This design will have the following elements in balance: transparent processes, interactive cooperation with an adequate pacing, proper use of expert‟s opinion, and adequate project/process manager. These are grouped key elements from the theory on process management and sustainable (integrated) area development. By knowing these (potential success and failure RATIP factors), will allow the user of RATIP to transcend its own approach.

Sub-question 2a: What are the possible phases of RATIP? Process management and succes & failure factors 56

All significant spatial related projects are recorded in the MIRT project book. Whether the project is ready for execution is noted in the regional agendas of the SVIR or if missing the MIRT research might it proof otherwise. After the MIRT research, the road infrastructure will follow the Infrastructure Act (Tracéwet) or Spatial Planning Act (Wet Ruimtelijke Ordening: WRO). The Infrastructure Act has an extensive and a shortened vision. The extensive version includes the mandatory plan-MER, structural vision, and preferred solution design (ontwerp- voorkeursbeslissing), before the OTB and it also has more options for public participation (3 versus 2 options). Both the versions might be subject to project-MER during the transition of OTB to TB.

The most complete RATIP-category: area-oriented approach focuses on the provision of the road and additional synergy with other spatial development goals is sought. Therefore it is logically to take the procedure phases of the Infrastructure Act as basis and look for further improvement to create synergy by coupling other themes or functions. However, if the situation contains a wicked problem or if the region holds potential high value, then the Infrastructure Act alone might not be able to embrace the true value of the region. So based on this situation, it might also be wise to consider the procedure phases of WRO as basis and consider how the theme of infrastructure (mobility and recreational values) fit in the overall picture.

So before choosing which procedure to follow, one can start a „pre-initiation‟ phase to define the scope extension. This should be less necessary, if the regional agenda was kept up to date. Nevertheless, it signals the needs of the region and commitments of politicians, plus multiple solution directions are sought: infrastructure provision only or coupled with other spatial development projects as well? The two procedural phases of the two acts are described in the main text.

Sub-question 2b: What are the possible activities of RATIP?

The activities and their products are bound to the chosen act: either the Infrastructure Act or the Spatial Planning Act. A potential structured RATIP construction of activities and products is given in table 4-3: here one starts with the pre-initiation phase and then can continue with this procedure or switch back to procedures of Infrastructure Act. However, most of the activities are rather procedural and not that interesting: the underlying elements that make those activities work under certain project circumstances are more appealing.

An important activity, regardless of the procedure, is that at the end of each process phase, there is an explicit decision-making that is rationalized in a cyclical manner. In each phase of pre-initiation, initiation and plan development, the process happens cyclically to rationally make the decision on whether the steps to be taken are aligned with its ambitions and goals: „looking forward, while coupling backwards‟.

Increasing levels of intertwinement, while keeping high standards on the 4Ps, will impact a larger spatial area in which more stakeholders are involved by which its interdependencies and conflicting interests are also increasing. This complex situation is called a wicked, unstructured or untamed problem, which is often characterized by a network of dependencies and by having Process management and succes & failure factors 57 no unambiguous substantive solutions. A process approach in such situation put against vis-à- vis a project approach will have a better chance on project success. All elements and activities of a process approach are embedded in the process design: this design guides the decision-making by creating collective rationality through integration of different stakeholder‟s perspectives and it prefers to get a win-win situation in which all parties feel that they gain net value out of their project. This process approach is most suitable for complex situations, whereas simple situations could be dealt with a hierarchical approach such as project approach. RATIP, as somewhere in between, should be a hybrid approach containing both project and process managerial aspects. The important criteria elements to this process design in the process management theory are openness, protection of core values, speed and substance. If combined with important elements and activities for (sustainable integrated) area development, then the key groupings would be transparent processes, interactive cooperation with an adequate pacing, proper use of expert‟s opinion, and role of project/process manager.

Process management and succes & failure factors 58

6. RATIP SUCCESS DEFINITION: CRITERIA AND FACTORS In section 6.1, many literatures on project success criteria and factors are studied: this involves a diverse amount of projects that are not typically infrastructure road projects, but they are still applicable, since they do share other similarities such as the same project goals. This chapter ends with a concluding section on project success for RATIP in section 6.2.

6.1. All kinds of project success criteria and factors Success criteria are the measures by which success or failure of a project will be judged, and success factors are the inputs that directly or indirectly lead to the success of project. These factors are specific from organization to organization depending on the field of specialization. (Rockart, 1979) defines „critical success factors‟ (CSF), which are specific to one organization, although a bit generic, but still usable if the given manager can remember 10 or less. These CSFS are (a) areas of activity that should receive constant and careful attention from management, and (b) are limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance by the organization. If the CSFs are lacking, then the organization‟s effort for the period will be less than desired. CFS is ascertained in two steps – first round are interviews to get compile a preliminary lists of factors and afterwards in the second round they are rated for their importance.

Concerning the criteria, the classical Iron Triangle is often used: completing the project within specified time with a certain budget according to a set of predefined quality criteria. At its best, the criteria of time and costs are estimates at moments where there are many uncertainties in the project. Moreover, the quality is partly a subjective issue subject to attitude and beliefs that changes through time (Atkinson, 1999). A better distinction is made by Baccarini (1999) that identifies project management success and product success. Respectively, the success of a project based on the successful accomplishment of costs, time, and quality measures, versus the after-effects due to that project‟s product. De Wit (1988) calls the latter project success, and the former is called project management success. Bjeirmi (1996) similarly calls project management success the success within the phases of planning, development, and

implementation; project success is the overall success within the phases of initiation, planning, development, implementation, and exploiting (reaping the fruits) until closedown.

It seems besides meeting the success criteria, there should be a high level of satisfaction on the project outcome shared by the key people on project team, key stakeholders, and clientele of project (Baker, Murphy, & Fisher, 1988). The Iron Triangle is often also called project efficiencies. They are indeed necessary and important to meet project success; but only those do not suffice the overall conditions (Xue, Turner, & Anbari, 2013). One project which is over budget and late in time will most likely not meet the business success or satisfaction that upholds the key stakeholders. Even if the factors time, budget, and scope are sufficient, there might still be customer dissatisfaction; customer satisfaction is important (Cooke-Davies, 2002; R. Turner & Zolin, 2012). Serrador and Rodney Turner (2014) did a survey of 1,386 projects and find out that project efficiency (time, scope, budget) correlates 60% with

stakeholder satisfaction and 56% with overall project success (wider business and RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 59 organizational goals). This means that the iron triangle is an important contributor to the stakeholder satisfaction and overall project success, but that also other factors can play a role (R. Turner & Zolin, 2012). That is (i) the performance of the project‟s output post implementation and achievement of the project‟s output and impact, (ii) expectation of project or whether there was an omission in or misinterpretation of specifications, and lastly (iii) risks and changed in environment that were not anticipated. Practically, this means the project efficiencies and its associated project control parameters cannot be overlooked if they want to maximize overall success. Verweij, Klijn, Edelenbos, and Van Buuren (2013) researched the interaction of the three conditions of network complexity, network management and stakeholder involvement that would lead to stakeholder satisfaction in Dutch spatial projects. It seems that three combinations will result into stakeholder satisfaction: network complexity combined with adaptive management (resembles process management), stakeholder involvement combined with adaptive management, and low complexity combined with both limited stakeholder involvement and closed network management (resembles project management).

Turner et al. (2009) combined the success definitions of several academic papers. It aims to indentify leading performance indicators, which include success criteria and success factors, which can forecast success as assessed by key stakeholders. The idea is that an alarm should sound, if a project drifts away from its plan, so that a corrective action can be taken. It seems that project success has multiple meaning to different stakeholders, against different criteria, over different timescales in the phases. A comprehensive success criteria should therefore reflect different interests and views, which can be expressed in what we call multi-dimensional or multi-criteria approaches (Freeman & Beale, 1992; Pinto & Mantel, 1990). Sadeh, Dvir, and Shenhar (2000) defined 4 dimensions in which eventually the total and overall success depends on its combined measure for project success. Moreover, it can be put into a time scale as indicated in table 6-1 (A. Shenhar & Wideman, 2002, p. 4; A. J. Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz, 2001).

Table 6-1: project success throughout time as indicated in four dimensions

Success dimensions Success measures Time frame

Meeting design goals Functional specifications Very short Technical specifications Schedule goals Budget goals

Benefit to the end-user Meeting acquisition goals Short Answering the operational need Product entered service Reached the end-user on time Product has substantial time for use Meaningful improvement of user Operational level

User is satisfied with product RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 60

Benefit to the Had relatively high profit Long developing Opened a new market organization Created a new product line Developed a new technological capability Increased positive reputation Increased positive reputation

Benefit to the defence Contributed to critical subjects Very long and national Maintained a flow of updated generations infrastructure Decreased dependence on outside sources Contributed to other projects

Lipovetsky, Tishler, Dvir, and Shenhar (1997) analyzed in 110 defence projects in Israel and came to the conclusion the dimensions of meeting design goals and benefit to the customers are the most important ones for the involved stakeholders, which were in fact the customers, developers and purchasing organization. Although mainly focused on defence projects, this is still in line with the SVIR: the bedrock of today‟s economy, which the infrastructure partly facilitates, is due to the activities of end-users (Rijksoverheid, 2012). Dov Dvir, Raz, and Shenhar (2003) correlates the project planning efforts (requirements definitions, development of technical specifications, and project management processes and procedures) with the three perspectives of project success uphold by Shenhar et al (1997). They have found that project success is positively correlated with investments in the defining of the requirement and development of technical specifications. This, however, must be done with close cooperation with the end-users in the initiation stage of project, so that the project goals and deliverables requirements can be defined. Tight cooperation with them remains until a successful end. Minimum level amounts of planning tools are required, but what kind of tool does not matter, although the procedural use is important. Hence, stay in close collaboration with the project manager.

As shown here, project success is just a matter of perception in time, across different stakeholders, on how success is perceived as successful due to different criteria and factors

(Atkinson, 1999; Baccarini, 1999; Lipovetsky et al., 1997). The lack of agreement among criteria in different time among different stakeholders is making this difficult to judge on. In addition, J. R. Turner and Müller (2005) argues the impact of the project leader and his/her leadership is often neglected: most of the studies on project success asks project managers, but they do not measure the impact of the project manager on the project success. Especially, a changing environment, a competent project manager has significant impact on overall project success (Prabhakar, 2008). They are as well being critical to other project elements such as the success of project team including the members‟ motivation and creativity (Rickards, Chen, & Moger, 2001).

These managerial project success factors are explored by D. Dvir, Lipovetsky, Shenhar, and

Tishler (1998) and can be put into four groups. RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 61

Table 6-2: project success factors adopted from D. Dvir et al. (1998)

Factors group related to Project success factors

Project initiation and pre-contract activities Definition of operational need Urgency of need Alternative solutions Definition of technical and operational specs Pre-contract activities Customer follow-up team

Project preparation and design policy, technological Pre-project preparation infrastructure and design methods Managerial policy Technological infrastructure Prototypes Number of design cycles Design freeze timing Design considerations

Planning and control processes Project milestones Project control Effectiveness of project control Budget management Discussion and reports

Organization and managerial environment Organization environment Manager style Communication style Flexibility in management Delegation of authority Organizational learning Team characteristics Manager qualifications

Chow and Cao (2008) adopted different but similar groups with similar project success factors.

Table 6-3: project success adopted from Chow and Cao (2008)

Factor groups Project critical success factors

Organizational factors Management commitment Organization environment Team environment

People factors Team capability Customer involvement

Process factors Project management process

Project definition process finition: criteria and factors

Technical factors Technical supports Delivery strategy

Project factors Project nature Project type

Project schedule RATIP success de 62

Moreover, many non-people related success criteria was mentioned, but its soft-side of project management cannot be neglected; the people side in project management is crucial to reach success (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Kloppenborg & Opfer, 2002). Projects that are increasingly more complex than other will require more need of the soft-side in project management, thus the eyes are set on process management and its process manager. This was already discussed in chapter 5.

Many of the success criteria and/or factors mentioned here are analyzed from a big pool of varied projects (IT, Defence, Infrastructure, etc.), which includes public and private partnerships with all kinds of different partnerships through the entire world. Van Loenhout (2013), however, intensively focused on the project success criteria defined by public project managers in the Netherlands. Her success criteria are validated to improvement the alignment of project success to the public sector. The diverged knowledge is based on half integrated contracts and half traditional contracts. The 19 criteria are put in appendix A and are taken into account for the criteria for RATIP.

These criteria are applicable for all kind of projects. However, when it concerns more complex ones such as the need to coupling one need with another one, thus similar to sustainable area development, then those criteria and factors can play a role as well. These factors are put in the process design key factors in section 5.4.

Table 6-4: criteria and factors for (sustainable) area development Criteria Factors

Organizational Passion for sustainability (4P) (H2ruimte & Societal urgency Liefland Milieu, Good relationship with co-workers 2014) Commitment and continuity People make the difference

Process design Sustainability is in the shared vision (H2ruimte & Take time and effort to work the plans out Liefland Milieu, Each phase is zoom-out and zoom-in

2014) Each phase the goals, people, means and process are coherent Early connection between vision and implementation is necessary Cyclical phases

Organizational and Connection in people process design Connection between interests and themes (3P, expressed in the connection between (H2Ruimte, 2014) themes) Connection in scales (national, regional, local) (4th P) Connection in time (process and success; milestones) Each phase got cyclical rounds Each phases is zoom-out and zoom-in Each phase ends explicitly and the start of next phase starts with a clear project start up and plan

Organizational and Fuse interests; connect the different needs process design (De Develop regional identity: connect the qualities of a region Zeeuw, 2011) Connect dreams with reality: connect ambition (vision) with implementation, exploitation

and maintenance RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 63

Ensure future value now: connect money and future societal benefits

Organization, Ambition and enthusiasm in all involved stakeholders process design and Public stakeholders with vision and guts content (van der Involved citizens (participating and informed) Cammen & van Transparent exploitation Eijk, 2006) Regional vision which is broadly supported The region is central topic Use instruments to fullest Knowledge up to date and shared with everyone Negotiate on interests and not standpoints Engineering company is capable The „director‟ of the project is a trusted figure Risks are clearly divided Clear game rules Urgency Trust between partners

Organization, Societal urgency process design and Commitment content (Van Early involvement of the representatives in region Rooy, 2006) Involvement of the inhabitants Early involvement of the private markets Good problem definition Intertwinement of interests and standpoints of different stakeholders to reach consensus in solution The process is very important Concern for ground exploitation Experience area development as learning trajectory Good and clear client with clear vision, responsibility and commitment

Organization, These are fail factors process design and Complex procedures content (van der European tendering Cammen & van Free riders Eijk, 2006) Unclear agreements Dissension among public parties Political shifting PPP too early or to late implemented Permits Wrong partners in PPP

Disengaged key figures Change in law

6.2. Conclusion: what are success criteria and factors of RATIP? A success in project is defined by its success criteria and is under the influences of its success and failure factors. The success criteria are perceived differently among stakeholders, across scale and time. The criteria for project success for the public project manager are discussed here. The public project manager works for the governmental body, which is the client and in this case the provincial house.

The issue with RATIP is that is just infrastructure planning, but if the opportunities arises, it tends to incline to area development or sustainable area development. Those developments does not start with the mobility issue as base of operations, but that can be part of the bigger picture

on which the value in the region have to be created. In other words, what kind of combined and RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 64 integrated plan of multiple themes or issues in region have the best value. That is area development, or sustainable area development. On the other hand, RATIP can be network- oriented, context-sensitive, or area-oriented infrastructure planning. For simplicity, these are called the RATIP-categories, Due to this issue, the success criteria and its associated failure and success factors per RATIP-category will vary depending on the level of combination of infrastructure planning and area development.

These levels of combinations can be expressed in intertwinement levels. The intertwinement of infrastructure provision to other spatial developments can be divided into three main ordinal ladders with several degrees modalities; spatial intertwinement, procedural intertwinement, and financial intertwinement developed by Van Enter (2011, pp. 16 - 20). The level of spatial intertwinement is here closely related to figure 3-4 on the level of integration (internal or external), whereas the level of procedural intertwinement is closely related to the level of the amount of involved stakeholders.

To judge to what extend RATIP has been implemented in project, this ladder can provide more insight. Each intertwinement ladder is ranked, in which the highest level means the most intertwinement. They are ranked in a successive order: e.g. there is no level two, if this description does not fit level one. Notice the similarities with figure 3-4. Level one here corresponds with line-oriented infrastructure planning, whereas the highest level of intertwinement would be sustainable area development.

Table 6-5: spatial intertwinement adapted from Van Enter (2011) LVL Description: Infrastructure planning class RATIP?

1 Infrastructure provision serves one Line-oriented infrastructure planning NO function in region

2 In the region, there is infrastructure Line-oriented infrastructure NO provision and other spatial developments planning/ network-approach

3 Infrastructure provision and other spatial context-sensitive infrastructure YES

developments strengthen each other; planning emphasizes each other‟s qualities and/or minimizes each other‟s negative or adverse effects

4 Infrastructure provision and other spatial context-sensitive infrastructure YES developments are being adjusted to each planning other

5 Not initially the plan, but due to possible Area-oriented infrastructure planning YES added-value in project, the infrastructure provision and other spatial developments

are being integrated in one plan RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 65

6 From initiation plan, the infrastructure (integrated) area development NO provision and other spatial developments go side by side integrated in one plan

7 Infrastructure provision and other spatial Sustainable area development NO developments are being integrated to one plan which reaches the optimum value expressed in sustainability (4P)

The planning classification cannot be applied on the procedural intertwinement, because the theory only discusses the spatial content and not the procedures. In practice, the different pace of both projects might offer additional difficulties in intertwining them at the correct moment in order to create synergy.

Table 6-6: procedural intertwinement adapted from Van Enter (2011). Level Description: RATIP?

1 Only initiative for infrastructure provision NO

2 Infrastructure planning and other spatial development planning are happening YES parallel and are intertwined at some points in the phases of pre-initiation and initiation phases, but its plan development and implementation phases are separated

3 Infrastructure planning and other spatial development planning are happening YES parallel and are intertwined at some points in the phases of pre-initiation and initiation phases; their plan developments are largely integrated, but its implementation are separated.

4 Infrastructure planning and other spatial development planning are happening YES parallel and are intertwined at some points in the phases of pre-initiation and initiation phases; their plan developments are separated, but its implementation

phases are largely integrated or executed at the same moment.

5 Total intertwinement in the entire procedure NO

The spatial intertwinement might lead to the intertwinements in the financial department of these two sectors. If done right, additional synergy can be created through these intertwinements.

Table 6-7: financial intertwinement adapted from Van Enter (2011). Level Description:

1 Infrastructure development and area development have separated budgets

2 The risks of infrastructure development and area development are being shared. RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 66

3 The costs (and risks) of infrastructure development and area development are being shared.

4 The profit (and risks) of infrastructure development and area development are being shared.

5 The profit and costs of infrastructure development and area development are being shared.

6 There is an integrated financial intertwinement of infrastructure development and area development; there is a complete and integrated exploitation.

Considering these three intertwinements, the success of RATIP or another planning classification will depend on the aforementioned criteria in which its success will be judged. Many factors will influence this success: certain activities and procedures (e.g. which Acts?), external project factors, the elements in process design, but also the factors on the strategic behaviours of actors in network.

Table 6-8: success depends on planning classification, success criteria & factors

LVL Planning RATIP Start Focus Success criteria Process classification management + additional influential factors

1 Line-oriented No Road Local =/=

2 network-approach Yes Road Local =/=

3 Context-sensitive Yes Road Local =/=

4 Area-oriented Yes Road Local =/=

5 (integrated) No, but Depends Regional =/= (sustainable) area possible development

How successful the implementation of RATIP is, depends partly on the involvement of the process management, as per ascending level the complexity and amount of involved stakeholders will increase. Process management plays an increasing more important role if the situation gets more complex; simple project can be confined within project management and a problem definition, but in the more complex problems the problem definition is also shaped by the solution. As opposed to process management is project management; control vs. cooperative interaction, „frozen‟ political context vs. interwoven and erratic context, operational decision- making or strategic decision-making (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2010).

The success here is defined as the project management success, the success within project delivery before accounting its after-effects of project delivery (exploitation). However, the after-effects will be taken into consideration, because without project management success there is no project success. In other words, project management success is condition for project

success (Bjeirmi, 1996; De Wit, 1988). RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 67

Pre- Plan Exploitation and Initiation Implementation Closedown initiation development maintenance Project Success Project management Success Figure 6-1: project success adopted from (Bjeirmi, 1996 ; De Wit, 1988) For RATIP, the most four important success criteria are:

1) Iron Triangle (the project efficiencies, time, quality and money) which is used as control planning of project remains vital for project success (Atkinson, 1999; Baker et al., 1988). Serrador and Rodney Turner (2014) proofs that out of 1,386 projects the project efficiency correlates 60% with stakeholder satisfaction and 56% with overall project success; it depends however (i) project‟s performance (output vs. input), (ii) expectations (input: ambition), and (iii) unexpected and unanticipated risks and changes in environment. 2) Stakeholders‟ satisfaction (customer, client, stakeholders) are additional factors in order to meet project success (Cooke-Davies, 2002; R. Turner & Zolin, 2012; Xue et al., 2013). Shareholders‟ satisfaction, the co-financers, are important too (Van Loenhout, 2013). a) Customer‟s/end-user‟s satisfaction: is particularly important. The benefit to customers or end-users is top-most important factor that determines project success (Lipovetsky et al., 1997). This is in line with the SVIR (Rijksoverheid, 2012). Project planning efforts are best rewarded if people put effort in defining the requirement and development of specification by involving the end-users early in the initiation phase, so that the goal and deliverables can be defined (A. Shenhar, Dvir, & Raz, 2003). Especially for more complex projects, such as area development or sustainable area development approach this is a must (Elverding, 2008; Struiksma & Tillema, 2009). 3) Spatial, financial and procedural intertwinement of infrastructure provision and area development projects are conditions which can be measured and put against other project success criteria to discuss the RATIP project success. 4) Learning opportunities and reputation are important as well, an opportunity to learn and development can simulate organizations and individuals to commit; improve one‟s

reputation (D. Dvir et al., 1998; Van Loenhout, 2013).

The project and process manager and fit for purpose solutions are not considered as project success criteria, but success factors that can impact these factors (De Jong, 2013; Groeneveld, 2009; Prabhakar, 2008; Rickards et al., 2001; J. R. Turner & Müller, 2005; Van Loenhout, 2013).

RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 68

Sub-question 3: What are the success criteria of RATIP?

The success criteria are the measures, by which the success or failure of a project will be judged and the success factors are the inputs that directly or indirectly lead to the project success. These criteria are perceived differently among stakeholders, across scale and time. Here are discussed the success criteria for project success for the province Fryslân. As mentioned before, RATIP can be network-oriented, context-sensitive, or area-oriented infrastructure planning. So whether the RATIP-project is a success, depends on the project context, success criteria and its associated success and failure factors.

One of the goals of RATIP is to create added-societal value through synergy with other area development projects. Therefore the levels of spatial, procedural and financial intertwinement are measures too, which can be used to judge whether a RATIP-project is successful or not. Indirectly, this intertwinement criteria can be related to the Iron Triangle, as this Iron Triangle correlates with the project success and stakeholders‟ satisfaction, which the latter is dependent on the input (ambition), process, and output (input vs. output). Nonetheless, more than 17 journal papers are analyzed and the important criteria for RATIP-projects are filtered. The ranking of importance and interdependencies (correlations) between these criteria to project success is entirely not known:

 Iron Triangle (the project efficiencies: time, quality and money) which is used as control planning of project remains vital for project success. A paper review on 1,386 projects showed that the project efficiency correlates 60% with the stakeholders‟ satisfaction and 56% with overall project success.  However, this correlation will depend on the (1) performance of project (output vs. input), (II) expectations (input: ambition), and (III) unexpected and unanticipated risks and changes in environment.  Stakeholders‟ satisfaction (customer, client, stakeholders) are additional factors in order to meet project success. Shareholders‟ satisfactions, the co-financers, are important too.  Customer‟s/end-user‟s satisfaction is particularly important. The benefit to customers

or end-users is the top-most important factor that determines project success. This is in line with the SVIR. Project planning efforts are best rewarded if people put effort in defining the requirement and development of specification by involving the end-users

early in the initiation phase, so that the goal and deliverables can be defined. Especially ia and factors for more complex projects, such as (sustainable integrated) area development this is an obligation.  Spatial, financial and procedural intertwinement of infrastructure provision and area development projects are conditions which can be measured and put against other project success criteria to discuss the RATIP project success.  Learning opportunities and reputation are important as well. An opportunity to learn and to develop can simulate organizations and individuals to commit and to improve one‟s

reputation. RATIP success definition: criter 69

Sub-question 4: What are the success and failure factors of RATIP?

How successful the implementation of RATIP is, depends on the success criteria and these criteria will depend on the input, process, problem context and external project factors. The process management plays an important role and it will become increasingly more important, if the situation gets more complex. A simple problem can be confined with hierarchical project management, but with a more complex problem, more stakeholders are involved. This usually means more perspectives on the problem and thus the truth on the information can be contested, because there is no consensus on the perceived facts. Negotiation on the information, negotiated knowledge, is necessary to reach a harmonious solution benefiting to all stakeholders, while they also remain satisfactory. That is the call for more process- managerial actions.

The correlations between all success and failure factors to project success criteria are not known. Nevertheless, it is possible to appoint the possible correlating success and failure factors of RATIP to the project success criteria. If given that the project success criteria is the output of a project, then this output is influenced by its input (vision, problem, goal, scope, boundaries, stakeholders) and its transformation & handling of that input into the process (overall project-approach, information gathering, decision-making & implementation), leading ultimately to the output, the project success criteria telling whether this RATIP project is a success or not. The elaboration on the success factors and important sub-factors can be found in section 5.3 and 5.4.

Table 6-9: Success factors of Analysis Framework Success factors: Important sub-factors:

The problem and (A) The perception of problem and vision? vision formulation (B) Broad problem formulation: couplings and linkages? Input (C) The moment and the order of problem formulation and proposed solution?

Establishing the (D) The goal formulation?

goals, boundaries (E) Emerging and firmness of the boundaries and scope? and scope

The stakeholders (F) Were all actors known at the start and how were they involved in the decision-making process?

Type of approach (N) Is the applied project managerial approach functional? Process (O) Is the applied process managerial approach functional?

Information (P) The existing and usage of information? gathering (Q) What kind of information was retrieved?

Decision-making (R) Hierarchical, hybrid or process decision-making? and implementation (S) Hierarchical, hybrid or process implementation of decision?

RATIP success definition: criteria and factors 70

PART III: ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK This part introduces the Analysis Framework for analyzing projects on the success of RATIP. It combines the insights gained in previous chapters about project (and RATIP) success and start/context and process-parameters that are explanatory for this success which were derived from literature and expert interviews. CHAPTER 7: SYNTHESIS OF SUCCESS CRITERIA AND FACTORS: RATIP The distilled, relevant and important criteria and factors to RATIP are synthesised into the Analysis Framework, which is put up to use for the case study analyses.

PART III: Analysis Framework 71

7. SYNTHESIS OF SUCCESS CRITERIA AND FACTORS: RATIP The Analysis Framework is developed to review RATIP projects in a structured manner, in order to determine the factors and aspects for a successful RATIP implementation. The Analysis Framework is used for analysing cases, while at the same time; it is validated on its completeness through the case studies.

For each of the case studies selected, policy and project documentation is available for the analysis, and for a few cases (additional) input is required through expert interviews. As a result, the lessons learned and conclusions for successful implementations of RATIP projects can be derived. In the figure below the development towards and the use of the Analysis Framework is summarized.

Figure 7-1: RATIP Analysis Framework Use

Figure 7-2: overview of the Analysis Framework The input is the start moment in which the project will be initiated. This can be the result of an environmental scan resulting in a starting note, or it is taken from the regional agenda. Throughout the project process with respect to time and the context, the input and process will result in a certain output: was the project successful keeping in mind the process and given input? The analysis framework identifies Input and Process parameters that contributed to project success (Output).

Synthesis successof criteria and factors: RATIP 72

Output

The output indicates the level of project success. This depends on the input and the process in a project. The success here is defined as the project management success: the success within project delivery, before accounting its after-effects of project delivery. However, the after- effects will be taken into consideration, because without project management success there is no overall project success. In other words, project management success is the condition for project success (Bjeirmi, 1996; De Wit, 1988). Especially, with a more complex project, the criteria for project success will be relatively more important than only project management success.

Pre- Plan Exploitation and Initiation Implementation Closedown initiation development maintenance Project Success Project management Success Figure 7-3: project success adopted from (Bjeirmi, 1996; De Wit, 1988 )

Figure 7-4: scope extension of RATIP After the analysis of the cases, it is interesting to see whether the output matches the initial

input and the corresponding process to get these results.

The aspects and elements in the output box in the framework are based and filtered on literature with a focus on public projects and project success.

Table 7-1: output of the project in the Analysis Framework Aspects: Description: Important elements:

Iron Triangle To steer and control a project, one looks (G) Project efficiency: time and budget? (see section at the aspects of money, time, and (H) Future, utilization, experiential spatial 6.2: page 64) quality. These project efficiencies are quality with regard to the 3P: to which significantly correlated with stakeholder‟s extend is the theory of the 4P satisfied

satisfaction (60%) and project success (added-value)? success criteria and factors: RATIP

(56%) depending on the process and input.

Internal and There is a distinction made in internal (I) The level of internal (organization, client, Synthesis of 73 external and external satisfaction. project team) and external (investors, satisfaction contractors, end-users, NGO) satisfaction? Overall fair process? (see section 6.2: page 64)

Level of The level of intertwinement of (J) The degree to which spatial intertwinement infrastructure planning with area intertwinement of infrastructure planning is (see chapter 3, development planning. This can be involved with area development? but also section separated in spatial and procedural (Uncoupled? Enhancement? Adjustment? 6.2: on page intertwinement. The criteria for project Accidentally integrated? Integrated whole?) 64) success depends on the beforehand (K) The degree to which procedural chosen level of intertwinement. intertwinement of infrastructure planning is involved with area development? (Uncoupled? Parallel? Parallel, but at times integrated? Integrated?) (L) The degree to which financial intertwinement of infrastructure planning is involved with area development? (Uncoupled? Parallel? Parallel, but at times integrated? Integrated?)

Learning The learning opportunities and (M) The learning opportunities and opportunities development contributes to the project reputation improvements for the client and reputation success on long-term orientation; It can organization? (see section create commitment and stimulate people. 6.2: page 64) It is embedded in a good process management approach. The knowledge and experiences can be passed on to next projects.

Input

The input usually starts from the pre-initiation or initiation phase. In the pre-initiation phase, one signals the interests and needs in a region and hereby provides input for a project to start. Given those necessities, the initiation phase can start with the question; till what extend is the problem going to be solved initially? The distinction between these two start phases is particular useful if the problem is complex. However, in relatively simple projects there is no pre-initiation phase; possibility only the initiation phase in which signalling and targeting is combined leading to the definitions of problems, visions and goals.

Table 7-2: input of the project in the Analysis Framework Aspects: Description: Important elements:

The problem The problem formulation happens (A) The perception of problem and vision? and vision through a certain stakeholder‟s (Priming? Initiation? Shared? Raised

formulation perspective on the problem. This complexity?) Synthesis successof criteria and factors: RATIP 74

(see section perspective can be seen as a vision that (B) Broad problem formulation: couplings and 5.3: page might originate from the regional agenda linkages? 47) and SVIR. (C) The moment and the order of problem formulation and proposed solution?

Establishing The goals, boundaries, and scope of (D) The goal formulation? (Point of the goals, project are based on the problem and reference: moving or fixed? Goal stretching to boundaries vision formulation of project. stakeholders or fixed to problem? Naming and and scope (see framing?) section 5.3: (E) Emerging and firmness of the boundaries page 48) and scope?

The How the stakeholders are involved at the (F) Were all actors known at the start and how stakeholders start can determine the process and were they involved in the decision-making (see chapter 4 outcomes of project. process? & 5)

These aspects at the start can strongly influence the outcome of project, thus all of them have to be considered when analysing the study-cases.

Process

The process should fit the input and desired output of a project: the goals and vision on a project is realized with respect to the iron triangle, stakeholder‟s satisfaction, learning opportunities and reputation. Beside the overall managerial approach in a project, the information gathering can also heavily influence the decision-making and therefore the final project results. Thus, this process box consists of three main aspects.

Table 7-3: process of the project in the Analysis Framework Aspects: Description: Important elements:

Type of The overall approach in project. To (N) Is the applied project managerial approach manage and control the project to keep it approach functional? (Methods to control within the iron triangle is at times iron triangle? Mitigating and landscaping? (see chapter 4 necessary, but to what extend? The more Better routing? Project leader?) & 5, specifically complex the project gets, the more need (O) Is the applied process managerial 5.4 on page 51) for process management to seek a approach functional? (Transparent compromised goal instead of fixing the process? Interactive cooperation in goal and controlling it. adequate pace? Proper use of experts‟ opinion? Process leader?)

Information Information serves a different purpose as a (P) The existing and usage of gathering resource in a project or process approach. information? (Information is robust and Its use of information can influence the intersubjecive; or negotiated knowledge? (see section 5.3: decision-making and overall project Content of problem steers the needed page 49) process. information: or information is used

strategically? Quality of information steers Synthesis successof criteria and factors: RATIP 75

the decision-making; or is also the influence of information included?) (Q) What kind of information was retrieved? (Need-to-know; or nice-to-know information?)

Decision- The decision-making follows after the (R) Hierarchical, hybrid or process making and its problem definition, goal formulation and decision-making? (Tickling off; or decision followed up information gathering. The decision will follows from problem, goal, information implementation strongly influence further progress: it is or new round after decision? Open and on- either to go or no go. This is mainly true going process; or watertight decisions that (see section 5.3: for the project managerial approaches. give direction and also resistance? Tight page 50) planning and deadlines; or accelerations in However, the decision-making in a process pace based on opportunity and advance of managerial approach is rather put in threats? Project-based actions and perspective. It does not per se precede the communications; or process-based actions implementation and both the decision- and project-based communications?) making and implementation are part of (S) Hierarchical, hybrid or process the process. That means, after consensus implementation of decision? on the decision, one cannot suddenly (Implementation follows the decision; or switch to a project-based approach, the decision follows the action already because the decision can be part of a taken? Decision as imperative direction to package deal; no project funnelling, but it the implementation; or partly the result of might create a new round of new decision-making – so new round of opportunities. opportunities? Implementation as operational activity; or does it requires strategic choices?)

Synthesis successof criteria and factors: RATIP 76

PART IV: CASE STUDIES & CROSS ANALYSIS To analyse the study cases, an analysis framework was set up in PART III, in which this framework is composed of qualitative „checkboxes‟ based on scientific literature and expert interviews.

The important facts and findings that resulted from applying the Analysis Framework to the cases are enumerated in chapter 8. Besides providing the results and findings, the reader will also get a general idea of the studied cases since facts are stated as well.

By the application of an Analysis Framework the cases have been analysed according to the same criteria and factors. This provides the possibility of cross-analysing the findings in chapter 9 and providing conclusions from the cross-analysis in chapter 10.

This chapter also contains the answer on sub-question 5: How do these success definitions meet up with the case studies? CHAPTER 8: Chapter 8 contains the enumeration findings per case by applying the Analysis Framework to each case. CHAPTER 9: Chapter 9 contains the cross-case analysis in the structure of the Analysis Framework. CHAPTER 10: Chapter 10 contains the findings on the cross-analysis and an answer on sub-question 5.

PART IV: Case studies & Cross analysis 77

8. ENUMERATIONS OF THE FINDINGS PER STUDY CASE The important facts and findings that resulted from applying the Analysis Framework to the cases are enumerated here. The full details can be found in the appendix B: supplement to PART IV – this appendix contains the case analyses. The important facts and findings that resulted from applying the Analysis Framework to the cases are enumerated in

Reasoning for the selected cases: The analysis on case 1 and II on the projects „Junction Joure‟ and „N31 Traverse Harlingen‟ provides more insight on initial RATIP. However, these are projects in Fryslân, thus an analysis on other similar RATIP projects will be helpful for the cross-analysis. This is done in case III about RATIP projects in the province Brabant, and one specifically on the Northeast Corridor. Additionally, case IV „N23 Westfrisiaweg‟ is analyzed as well to provide more information – this project share similarities to RATIP projects in Fryslân.

Study case 1: Junction Joure:

 Infrastructure Act & Crisis- en herstelwet.  Local project scale: one municipality and small geographical area.  Project is executed with the ideas of RATIP. o In the declaration of intention, the desirability to couple to GO is clearly noted, although no explicit GO projects are mentioned. o However the coupling to GO succeeded adequately: . Clear and emphasized efforts and attempts (interface management) to spatially intertwine infra & GO. . Procedural and financial intertwinements are presence to procure the construction works in one attempt to save money; also work-with-work is presence that gives additional savings. . Economic setback did hamper the coupling process. o RATIP is used on tactical level: local project level (not inter-municipal or regional level). o The capability of coupling to GO depends on the user‟s skills.  The decision-making is adequate: good internal collaboration o Line of vision is not always presence; the operational involvement of the municipality in coupling GO with infrastructure is limited.  Elverding process was presence o Early public involvement prior to formal procedure (beginspraak/voorspraak en inspraak). o Informal interaction with public.  Overall adequate project approach: strongly steered on budget and time, but keeping in mind the quality aspect of project.  Little to none negative media news on project; 3 appellants against the project.

Study case 2: N31 Traverse Harlingen

 Infrastructure Act & Crisis- en herstelwet.  Local project scale: one municipality, concentrated urban area.

 Project is executed with the ideas of RATIP. Enumerations theof per findings study case 78

o In the declaration of intention, the desirability to couple to GO is clearly noted, although no explicit GO projects are mentioned. o However the coupling to GO did less succeeded as desired: . Not so much efforts and attempts (interface management) to spatially intertwine infra & GO; clear efforts on landscaping and routing (inpassing en inrichting). . Little procedural and financial intertwinement: clearly separated in procedures and they are independent plans. RATIP is used on tactical level: local project level (not inter-municipal or regional level). o The capability of coupling to GO depends on the user‟s skills.  The decision-making is adequate: good internal collaboration o Line of vision is not always presence; the operational involvement of the municipality in coupling GO with infrastructure is limited.  Elverding process was presence o Early public involvement prior to formal procedure (beginspraak/voorspraak en inspraak). o Informal interaction with public.  Overall adequate project approach: strongly steered on budget and time, but keeping in mind the quality aspect of project.  Little to none negative media news on project; 2 appellants against the project.

Study case 3: Brabant terminology of GGA (applied to all projects in Brabant) + Brainport East (BPE) / Northeast-Corridor (NEC)

 The usage of term GGA is to refer to the successful form of collaboration in the PVVP between municipalities in Brabant. Other stakeholders such as the police and RWS are involved too: all these stakeholders are referred as GGA-partners who are working together in 5 different GGA-regions.  GGA is more used on strategic and tactical level: inter-local.  The DBA, derived from the PVVP, is revisited each two years. Each GGA-region and its GGA-partners makes its own local analyse and regional policy agenda for transport and transportation. This regional policy agenda interacts with Brabant‟s regional agenda, which is similar to Fryslân‟s one. However, Fryslân‟s and Brabant‟s policies are slightly different in their workings; but nevertheless, the learned lessons here can be

taken into account for Fryslân‟s own RATIP and regional agenda.  All the projects of the GGA-regions will be recorded in the provincial programme which contains the measures and executions of these projects.  The PVVP of Brabant focuses more on the mobility issue due to its regional economic that differs from Friesland. The GGA-partners are highly positive about this light form of collaboration: GGA is mainly used as communication tool, in which the small municipalities are actively involved in process.  The PVVP and GGA of Brabant is not used and aimed at seeking synergy by spatially intertwining infrastructure and GO. This, however, could be seen as an opportunity to province Brabant to improve their GGA.  The integrated area development project Brainport East was given as one of the prime examples in their DBA evaluation report on the DBA tactical goal 8: strengthen the cohesion between infrastructure network and the spatial development. However, due to lack of data in their own evaluation, no concrete results were given: that is why NEC is another study case interesting to this thesis topic. Enumerations theof per findings study case 79

Brainport East (BPE) / Northeast-Corridor (NEC)

 Spatial Planning Act & extended MIRT: Provincial Implementation Plan (PIP)  Regional and inter-local project scale: many minor and significant municipalities  Project BPE and NEC are executed with the ideas of RATIP: instead they are totally intertwined in one integrated area development project. o BPE is derived from Provincial Structural Vision after the MIRT-exploration in 2008. o NEC is aimed at the infrastructure provision and together with the other two related projects MEROS and KODA, they form the BPE project. . MEROS (residential and industrial areas) and KODA (environmental projects, greenery and recreational projects). . Economic setback did hamper the coupling process. o Even though, there is complete spatial, procedural and financial intertwinement of infrastructure and other spatial developments, the success of this coupling and the overall project success can be questioned.  Vision on project is mainly reasoned from a regional perspective with eyes on the national and international economic growth of region (Brainport). The mitigating measures are placed within the region (KODA) in which the NIMBY-users do not care much about – misaligned mitigating effects on NIMBY users, little common frame on problem no shared perspective on problem and vision. o The necessity and urgency of the NEC is put in doubt, especially the additional new road East-west connection road (Wilhemina-alternatief) is despised by many opposing parties: the upgrade of the existing N279 from south to north is more accepted. The Wilhelmina road, as opposed to the upgrade of N279, covers the largest expenditure of NEC and it is also the most damaging component in NEC to the environmental values.  The status of NEC is unsure due to political influences on local and national levels: possible strategic voting by opposing parties to lessen the chance of NEC to continue, two motions filed by one the province Brabant and the House of Representatives, „leftist-rightists‟ discussion on the continuation of NEC caused by temporally drawback of national funds. The current economy and decreasing Infra-funds does have its influence on the staggering support for project. 

No informal process prior to the formal procedure was presence: the Elverding advice was taken into account: research all possibilities and then funnel it.  Some process-based actions with good intentions backfired, lack of early public

participation led to contested information. study case  Rather a lot of negative media news: many organizations united under one platform to protest. Also some big significant organizations such as CE Delft gave negative advice.

Study case 4: N23 Westfrisiaweg

. Spatial Planning Act & Crisis- en herstelwet: Provincial Implementation Plan (PIP) o The N23 would not get national funds as an infrastructure project, due to low traffic values. So instead, it profiled itself as an area development project, but the N23 still focuses heavily on the infrastructure road. . Inter-regional and inter-local project scale: many minor and significant municipalities

. Project is not executed with the ideas of RATIP. Enumerations theof per findings 80

o At the start, there was no emphasize on the coupling to GO, but some intertwinement did succeed adequately: . In the plan-MER the road keeps in mind the autonomous area development of the municipalities: spatial intertwinement is present in the form of strengthen the cohesion between infra and GO. It did not succeed in couple infra to GO: focus on landscaping and routing. . There is no procedural intertwinement, plans are not happening parallel, nor were there notions on synergy on the construction phase to save time and money. . Financial intertwinement is present in the fact that the municipalities are ought to invest a percentage of the increasing yield of their autonomous GO-projects due to upgrade of N23 (20% of the costs).  The decision-making was rather quick, fair and adequate despite the lack of a total democratic representation in the steering group of project organization. Overall the process and project managerial approach was effective, but less efficient: o The province negotiated individually with the municipalities that were kept within the process: both the province and municipality would gain from this project – the applied process management had a mutual gain approach or win- win situation, based on the fair, transparent and negotiated process rules. This was empowered by the effective coupling and decoupling of procedures & decision-making process, possible learning opportunities, smart usage of expert opinions, quick wins, and the stimulated interactive cooperation between the governmental bodies. A result of this was the many open and new process rounds and arenas with different involved stakeholders. o Public and private agendas are much interwoven. o The public could co-consult, but could not participate early on in the project, unlike Joure or N31. o Public champions and good narrative stakeholders were needed to keep the public coalition together in favour of the N23.  The industrial companies united as one and lobbied for this project, positive and active involvement in this project has partly led to the success as it is now.  The situation was politically stable.  Economic setback did the support from the government on their part of the funding.  The province made proper use of a 3rd party which acted outside the provincial and

project organization to mediate between all stakeholders. They were steered by the

project steering committee of N23.  Little to none negative media news, but two appeal cases with 18 appellants.

Enumerations theof per findings study case 81

9. THE CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS Each of the study-case is put in this cross-case analysis, in which its explanation is shortly briefed. On the far left are the project criteria and each interlink age with the case study provides an explanation. There are 3 important things to keep in mind, when reading this cross-case analysis. Chapter 9 concludes the findings of this cross-case analysis.

1) Box colour represents the current status of that specific criterion: green has a positive notion, yellow means adequate, but it requires additional attention and red means inadequate. 2) The text inside the boxes can either be green or red: positively influencing the current status or either negatively influencing the status. If it is written in another colour, it means neutral. 3) Prior to the text, there are letters such as (A), (B), and (P). These letters refer to the factors or criteria in that specific case, which is put in appendix B: the full explanation can be read there.

Table 9-1: cross-case analysis, applied with the Analysis Framework

Project Success Junction Joure Harlingen N31 Northeast Corridor 'De Ruit' (NEC) N23 Westfrisiaweg Criteria: On time, possibly due to: 9+ months delayed, possibly due to: 12+ months+ delayed, possibly due to: 24+ months delayed, possible due to:

(A) Priming to national government could be better, (A) Clear vision, but underestimation of the project (A) (C) Clear holistic vision, but its alignment to other (A) underestimation of planning process resulting in but clear vision on problem and approach. complexity in urban context area to the contract form sub-projects within the bigger project to problem- 'big' overrun in time, which in fact might not have (B) Loose coupling with GO - synergy with GO is - causing the needed refinement in landscaping and context is questioned been this bad. Also better priming might have saved desirable, but not necessary: thus reducing quality requirements in contract form (F) (I) The inadequate involvement of stakeholders in time as well. complexity and improving manageability (B) Loose coupling with GO - synergy with GO is decision-making: 2 motions on national and regional (A) (F) (O) Clear vision and united organization of (E) Pre-rubbery scope and negotiated conditions: desirable, but not necessary: did not succeed in saving level and lots of criticism from locals and NGOs companies increased pace of project. Also effective certain flexibility in scope time through couplings. Opportunity costs? (B) (D) (E) Part of the resistance is due to sharp use of command & control (project) actions in the (O) process managerial elements were functional formulated goals of the NEC, and its compensation to process, plus effective coverage of expert's opinion as (G) Project Elverding and enough stimuli reverse associated loss of value a third party to mediate a part of process. efficiency: time (Q) Combination of need-to-know and nice-to-know (N) (O) (P) (R) and also due to the combination of (O) (P) (R) The overall process-managerial approaches info handling the process in limited process-based actions were effective and so was the usage of information (R) (S) Effective decision-making and implementation (which backfired, after motion) and ineffective project- and decision-making & its followed up in alignment with the clear vision and project context. based actions (funnelling, imperative decision to implementation. Except with some actions regard the

implementation in wicked problem-context). time, the decoupling of procedure and decision-

making at two points caused delay: MER and its advice of steering committee, and regional process fixed before requesting the N23 in the MIRT. The lack of feedback to PS and Colleges W&B from steering

committee increases the doubts, which led partly to Iron Triangle Iron this delay. Good, within budget of 70.9M Euros, but there are Good, within the budget of 146M Euros. Possibly due Good, estimated 875M Euros, but high risk of not Good, the estimated needed 350M Euros are risks. Possibly due to: to: getting governmental funds (260M Euros). Possible reserved. Possible due to: due to: (A) (B) (D) (E) Clear vision with focus on iron (A) (B) (D) (E) Clear vision with focus on iron constraint. (A) (F) (B) (C) Clear vision and ambition: profiled the constraint. E.g. omitted aqueduct. Loose coupling Loose coupling with GO: e.g. work with work - seeking (A) (B) (C) (E) clear vision and problem formulation, but project unified as one stakeholder to government as with GO: e.g. work with work - seeking synergy to synergy to save money, but did not work out most likely weak alignment and argumentation of area development project, but executed mostly as (Q) Project save money (sand replacement). (O) (N) Effective project and process managerial problem & vision formulation to the actual context of infrastructure project. The lobbied 35M Euros of efficiency: costs (O) (N) Effective project and process managerial approaches fit for purpose to the project. problem. Also the firm scope and clear funnelling... national funds are scrapped due to economic setbacks. (millions) approaches fit for purpose to the project. (N) (I) (F) (P) (R) along with the ineffective project and But the government is willing and able to compensate

process management in combination with the the budget gap.

associated decision-making and usage of information (N) (O) (P) (Q) Good application of project & process has led to increasing dissatisfaction among many based actions with the adequate gathering of stakeholders and thus the motion filed by government. (negotiated) information, which is played strategically

to get overhand in the power game. The region pays caseanalysis

20% based on GO profits. - The The cross 82

Relatively good, some minor notions: Relatively good, some minor notions: Doubtful, possible due to: Good. Possible due to:

(A) (B) (N) Synergy with GO is sought and partly (A) (B) (N) (O) (R) Synergy with GO is sought, but (A) (B) (D) (N) (O) (Q) The overall utility, experiential (A) (F) (O) (P) The reduced complexity as in realized such as the work with work and reuse of little is actually coupled, thus that could be and future value is predicted to be useful to the uncoupling the infra to GO, allowed the process to (H) Future, sand in one project to another. However, some improved. It is heavily focused on aesthetics, but the region. Except to those suffering of the NIMBY-issue intertwine the public and private inter-local and utilization, and planned GO or alternatives in road were omitted relocation will lessen the spatial and functional or those in favour of environmental issues. In fact, inter-regional agendas. The overall spatial value is experiential spatial due to high costs. Probably due to economic barrier of road. Due to aesthetics and relocation, the overall resistance is increasingly present, so the good due to overall mutual gain to almost all quality setbacks. Project approach focuses on time and the overall value will eventually improve as opposed overall value is also therefore contested: no shared stakeholders. money. to old situation. vision on problem and no negotiated knowledge.

Relatively good, although small tensions: Relatively good, although small tensions: Insufficient data. Good. Possibly due to:

(N) (O) (Q) (R) Effective organizational structure fit to (N) (O) (Q) (R) Effective organizational structure fit to RATIP, the type of collaboration form in the PVVP of (A) (D) (F) (N) (O) (P) The clear vision and goals the problem-context: idem ditto for the decision- the problem-context: idem ditto for the decision- Brabant, is very positively experienced among the steered the process. The good interactive making and informal process prior to procedure. making and informal process prior to procedure. RATIP-partners and stakeholders (2010). The data, collaboration, decision-making, and lessons learned Notion to line of sight when seeking coupling to GO: Notion to line of sight when seeking coupling to GO: specifically for NEC could not be retrieved, in order to between the province and municipalities (& (I) Internal reduce dominating presence of the RWS's existing reduce dominating presence of the RWS's existing make a significant statement. They do act as one companies) created commitment and kept the satisfaction tools and intensify the activities on the borderlines of tools and intensify the activities on the borderlines of organization on the communication to public and stakeholders satisfied. Also champions are present project organization. (to and from external project organization. (to and from external online there are no documents on possible tensions to keep coalition together. There is a steady pace stakeholders) stakeholders) within the internal organization. with content realized in covenants. Despite external resistance, internally there were never any risks.

The province honoured the agreements and also

filled in the loss due to cutback of national funds. Good. Possibly due to: Good. Possibly due to: Inadequate, doubtful: local and national support is Relatively good, but some notions. staggering. Possible due to: (D) (E) Early informal public involvement: Elverding (D) (E) Early informal public involvement: Elverding (A) (F) (N) (O) (P) (S) Effective handling of information, Satisfaction process, co-creation process, co-creation (A) (E) (N) (O) (P) (R) Resistance from NIMBY-group, project and process based actions resulted into (Q) Little negative media news on project; just one (Q) Little negative media news on project; just one environmentalists and influential NGOs are increasing common frame in which every external stakeholder appeal case with three appellants. appeal case with two appellants. with each step in the decision-making: each decision could gain from. The public could co-consult during the taken with its funnelling is an imperative direction to its formal procedure too. Little negative media attention. (I) External implementation, in which the current project and Handling of certain opposing group (Niet door 't Lint) satisfaction process actions also increases the overall resistance and could have done better at the start, but that could be dissatisfaction. No negotiated boundaries, knowledge or considered maybe as tactical and strategic choice to good multi-issued decisions. save time (iron triangle). Two appeal cases against PIP with total of 18 appellants. Also not all municipalities were equally represented in the project organization: democratic representation.

Level 4: The plans of Junction Joure is being adjusted Level 3: the N31 emphasizes each other's strengths Level 6: NEC (infra) is part of the integrated regional Level 4 and 3: the level of intertwinement changes to the possibilities of GO. In the declaration of and minimizes each other's negative or adverse area development project Brainport East, as stated after during the project period. Most of the time, the intention (2010) it is tried to seek synergy with GO: effects. In the declaration of intention (2010) it is tried the MIRT exploration of 2008, to separate the integral infrastructure and GOs are strengthen each other’s (J) Spatial e.g. Sportief Knooppunt Joure was placed elsewhere to seek synergy with GO, however this N23 focuses plan into more specific projects. NEC, MORAS, KODA qualities and minimize each other’s negative or intertwinement after this option within the junction deem not viable more heavily on the landscaping: no succeeded come together in the concluding business case and adverse effects. This is due to the autonomous area Level of of Level and Entrée Joure’ is carefully aligned to Junction Joure coupling to GO is found. provincial implementation plan (PIP). development planned by the municipalities.

intertwinement as well.

caseanalysis

- The The cross 83

Level 4: Intertwinement in initiation phase, but both Level 2: Intertwinement in initiation phase, but plans Level 5: total intertwinement in the entire procedure: Level 1: there is only initiative for infrastructure plan developments are separated - Joure Zuid & development and implementation are separated. Due the procedures of NEC are interwoven with KODA and provision: the procedures of area development and Junction Joure - it is tried to integrate the to economic situation, the budget for GO was the MEROS project in all project phases. This was infrastructure planning are running on two separated (K) Procedural implementation phase of both plans to go work with postponed for a while: the financial aspects of GO planned ahead and the final result is the PIP that paths and are not integrally assessed. intertwinement work and reduces amount of nuisances caused by cannot hamper the procedure of N31, thus therefore a contains the integrated regional ambition. construction. clear separation.

Level 3: the costs and risks are shared, because the Level 2: they have shared risks, but no shared costs, Level 6: there is an integrated financial intertwinement Level 4: The profit and risks of infrastructure and GO costs estimation is done with the idea of synergy to because the finances of area development projects are for infra and spatial development: KODA, MEROS and are being shared: a model with predefined criteria save additional costs and time. This succeeded with completely separated and it does not affect each NEC went through one business plan. Prior to this, there calculates the extra profits to GO with regard to the (L) Financial the dug up sand of ‘Langwarder Wielen’. other: an appeal wanted to obstruct the N31 because were integrated assessments as well, but those were upgrade of the N23. The municipality need to invest a intertwinement of the unknown financing aspect of the GOs related to more based on the iron triangle assessment, whereas percentage of that extra benefit as investment in this N31. This was judged ungrounded and so did the N31 the businesses case looks whether the chosen and upgrade of the road. Each municipality had negotiated project continue. combined options are viable. with the province and project company to cede an amount of money (remittance). Relatively good, but some notions: Relatively good, but some notions: Inadequate, doubtful: Good, slight notion:

(O) (N) (P) (Q) (R) the process did offer opportunities (O) (N) (P) (Q) (R) the process did offer opportunities (A) (C) (D) (E) (O) (N) (P) (Q) (R) The politically (A) (D) (F) (O) (P) (S) The learning opportunities were which did speed up the pace of the internal which did speed up the pace of the internal interwoven situation increased the learning present, because many stakeholders were committed collaboration: this was sufficient to meet overall collaboration: this was sufficient to meet overall opportunities in a good and bad way depending on your to this process and they wanted the project to project efficiencies. The collaboration with external project efficiencies. Harlingen participated more in perspective. The lack of early involvement with the succeed: some were overly committed, resulting into (M) Learning stakeholders could however be improved: as well the organization than Joure. The collaboration with public and the assumed intersubjective information strategic handlings of other stakeholders by trying opportunities lacking presence of some stakeholders and the overall external stakeholders could however be improved: as resulted in (the lack of) learning opportunities that did naming and framing and making multi-issued packages lines of communication and responsibilities. well the lacking presence of some stakeholders and not contributed to constructing a common frame and in which they gain most. The open transparent and the overall lines of communication and responsibilities. negotiated knowledge. possibilities to create new rounds of areas contributed to these lessons: also the interactive cooperation and decision-making had positive effect on these opportunities. Insufficient data. Difficult to say, but assumed Insufficient data. Difficult to say, but assumed decent Reduction of positive reputation: Insufficient data. Difficult to say, but assumed decent decent to positive: to positive: to positive: (C) (F) (I) (N) (O) (P) Inadequate project and process (D) (E) (N) (O) (Q) One appeal case with three (D) (E) (N) (O) (Q) One appeal case with two based actions, plus ineffective decision-making and (D) (E) (F) (N) (O) (P) two appeal cases with total 18 appellants. Early public involvement and little appellants. Early public involvement and little negative communication resulted into noticeable resistance, appellants. Little negative media news, so presumable (M) Reputation negative media news presumable did not worsen the media news presumable did not worsen the reputation which is well united under one platform. Also many the events did not worsen the reputation of project improvement reputation of project (organization). Good fit to of project (organization). Good fit to purpose negative media news, plus negative recommendations (organization). Good fit to purpose communication purpose communication and project & process based communication and project & process based actions in by important organs. New colleges of B&W are not and project & process based actions in project. The actions in project. The public could co-consult in the project. The public could co-consult in the plans (prior supporting this project. Also two motions were filed public could co-consult in the plans.

Learning opportunities and reputation improvement reputation and opportunities Learning plans (prior and during formal plans). and during formal plans). against this project.

caseanalysis

- The The cross 84

10. THE RESULT OF THE CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS Here is presented the results of the cross-case analysis, listed per project success criterion. In bold are the observed results from the cross-analysis. This will be elaborated with a small explanation and followed up by a remark or small lesson, which is cursively marked. Most of the lessons will be bundled for PART V: conclusion.

At the end, sub-question 5 will be answered based on these findings and the cross-case analysis.

IRON TRIANGLE: (G) PROJECT EFFICIENCY: TIME

 Almost all projects are delayed or have risks of delay (case 1 to 4): the projects which were more complex had higher risks of delay or more delays. The complexity as expressed in terms of geographical scale: local, local urbanized, inter-local, regional and inter-regional. Increasing scale of complexity requires more attention to the time project efficiency – what factors can positively influence this risk of delay?  A clear vision and set up of ambition goals can save time, but it is not a warrantee for a good process in project (case 1 & 2): that depends on the complexity surrounding the project and project approach in project. This input set-up will however count for the post-evaluation: good or poor result with good or poor process.  Seeking synergy during process can positively benefit the pace of project (case 1 & 2): work-with-work can speed up the project, but no warrantee can be given that it will succeed. It succeeded better at Joure than Harlingen. Opportunity costs of failing to seek synergy?  Coupling the process with procedures is a double edged sword (case 4): it can be coupled to increase pressure on decision-making, but it can be decoupled as well to save time by having the process go partly parallel with the procedures. It is important to predict how much time can be saved and its opportunity costs: how much time does this parallel approach save and the question of its priming to those who need to give the final decision – if they reject, how does this backfire?  Hiring an expert with good processing skills as independent organization can positively increase the pacing in project (case 4): the expert‟s activity if coupled to the

stakeholder‟s activities can enforce the parties to commit the process instead of their

own results – fair game with transparent process and negotiated conditions. If deem necessary, hire a 3rd adequate party (outside the provincial and project organization) as

mediator to increase the pacing of project. case analysis case  Aside from the complexity and process themselves, the necessity and urgency of project - remain incredibly important (case 3): the project can be much interwoven in terms of spatial planning, but if the necessity and urgency of project is lacking, then it might become a very difficult deadlock in which the negotiations will have to take place with more stakeholders than desired. Especially with the more complex problems. In these cases, it is recommended to have early public participation to develop a common frame on the problem, so that the substantive analysis can provide a fairer result. This will be The result of the cross 85

likely heavily contested with weighty resistance by stakeholders. Important here is to consider the power game in negotiation.

IRON TRIANGLE: (G) PROJECT EFFICIENCY: COSTS

 All projects are estimated fairly within the early predicated budgets (case 1 to 4): some budgets are covered, whereas others such as Joure and NEC hold significant risk of costs-overruns.  The projects with less risk have similarities in their vision and ambition, crystal clear & supported by the critical mass of stakeholders (case 1, 2 & 4): Joure & N31 heavily steered on time and costs and coupling with GO is desirable, the most important stakeholders are clearly participating in project. N23 project profiled as one coherent unit to get the project into the MIRT (clear goal and wide support). The NEC did not succeed on having broad support, although its vision and ambition are clear through the perspective of some stakeholders. Unlike N23, the supports of NEC (companies) were less presence in support of this project. Vision and ambition should have wide support (negotiated knowledge, common frame) and should also be clear and profound (elaboration of necessity and urgency of project). Involve the market in such manner which is benefiting the project.  Mitigating measures should also benefit the NIMBY-users (case 3 vs. the rest): projects who have its mitigating effects affecting the NIMBY-users will likely have less resistance than those mitigating effects who generally favour the overall picture (all users), but focus less on the NIMBY-users. This is seen in NEC, as opposed to other projects: compensation in KODA does not mitigate the lost value experienced by the opposing parties. Mitigating effects should have a good ratio of effectively mitigate the loss in overall picture and loss experienced by those who are losing the most value.  The political situation can play a significant role is whether receiving financial funds for project (case 3 vs. 4): Project NEC is in doubt whether receiving the funds. The entire project can be jeopardized, which its development of plans is already at least 7 years going. N23 heavily lobbied for €35 million, in which they expected at least the triple of this. Give plenty of room in initiation phase to research upon the political stability of project and the economic scenarios. Better priming might have save much effort, which

could be invested in other projects or activities: opportunity costs. The decisions on continuation should consider the sunk cost fallacy.  Seeking synergy during process can reduce the cost of project (case 1 &2): work-with-

work can reduce the financial burden of project. Synergy can also be sought case analysis case innovatively as in N23, in which municipalities will invest a percentage of the predicted - increasing yield of GO due to road upgrade. More intertwinement does not mean better ross synergy, as seen in NEC. Important for synergy to work is that both parties feel that they would get net gain. Also synergy through better cooperation will result in better gain than if they would have worked alone. Synergy can be sought innovatively and

intuitively – synergy is not only to reduce the total costs, but also a chance to improve The The result of the c 86

the yield of both projects (part of predicted yield is asked for investment in road: afdracht).

IRON TRIANGLE: (G) PROJECT EFFICIENCY: FUTURE, UTILIZATION, AND EXPERIENTIAL SPATIAL QUALITY

 All projects have clear visions, but all a different approach on how this quality would suffice the problem in area (case 1 to 4): Joure and N31 seek synergy to GO if possible, although the latter focuses heavily on aesthetic aspects and landscaping to relief the spatial barrier that cuts the city in two-halves. NEC as answer to mobility issue is totally intertwined with BPE project. The N23 almost entirely separates infrastructure and GO. The spatial quality concerning all projects is adequate, except for NEC. The level of intertwinement does not warrant good spatial quality: instead its elaboration on the cohesion between these core issues (infra & GO) and its general project approach do impact the spatial quality: fit for purpose and the right process followed?  Synergy to improve spatial quality is sought (case 1 & 2): Synergy succeeds more in Joure than in N31 Harlingen. The economic setbacks had its influences, but also its project context: new landscaping of N31 already relieves a bit of the spatial barrier in city and if this change would be the city new visiting card (due to reuniting of city parts), then more emphasize on the appearance is needed than on the coupling to other GO. For post-evaluation be aware of self-fulfilling prophesy. Also pay attention to the project-context, whether coupling to GO is beneficial or quite hard to realize under these circumstances; matters to the post-evaluation of project.  Quick wins can boost the future value of project (case 4): quick win is a term in process, in which parties agree upon multi-issued decisions, and parts of this issued task went through acceleration to the finish: this is dubbed as quick win and it gives the project organization a morale boost to its process. It could have happened with NEC, but it did not. Make use of quick wins in process to give a moral boost to project organization and to enhance the future spatial value of project – the multi-issued solutions are indeed possible.

 The political situation can play a significant role in deciding the overall spatial quality

of project (Case 3 vs. 4): the three quality values are interwoven with economical, technical, social and environmental aspects. Increasing the political involvement such as

in NEC will make the project more complex than necessary. Taking into account the case analysis case political factors for long-term project is recommended, especially to those stakeholders - who can influence the political sphere of project.

SATISFACTION: (I) INTERNAL SATISFACTION

 All projects seem to have relative good internal satisfaction, despite the project differences (case 1 to 4): They all communicate to outsiders as one project

organization. For NEC the internal satisfaction is not entirely known, but the RATIP The result of the cross 87

in Brabant in general is well received. The lessons learned here could benefit the Friesian RATIP on how to involve the municipality more. Especially, if the task of the municipality in the alliance (in Joure and N31) is to deal with the locals to create synergy through coupling to GO. N23 had good internal satisfaction that never had any internal risks. Depending of on the project organization, every sub-department should be adequately free, able and have to skills to conduct their prescribed tasks. Line of sight should be kept free too. If not project organization might not function as written on paper.  Inspiring and influential people are necessary to keep the coalition satisfied (case 4): Connect dreams with reality is important, as well good communication. Get capable people for ambitious projects is important, they will keep the coalition together in difficult times.  Fit for purpose process and project managerial approach to problem is needed (case 1 to 4): In the N23 project, actions such as quick wins, interactive collaboration, good learning opportunities, 3rd party as mediator, and transparent process with fair negotiated process rules did benefit the internal satisfaction. These process managerial actions should be done in accordance with the problem context, in which these actions were in NEC not so well executed and led to adverse effects.

SATISFACTION: (I) EXTERNAL SATISFACTION

 All projects, with exception of NEC, show good external satisfaction. However, the more complex the projects gets, the more dissatisfaction is spotted (case 1 to 4): this is argued from the amount of appellants and appeal cases against the case. The amounts of negative and positive media news are also considered, along with the organizational level of the protesting parties. Motions and demonstrations are included too.  Early public involvement, informally prior to formal process presumable did help the external satisfaction (case 1 & 2): both study cases have little negative news or appeal cases.  Fit for purpose process and project managerial approach to problem is most essential (case 1, 2 & 4 vs. 3): the scales of the two projects of NEC and Joure are

different and so are the complexities. The early involvement might help, but more importantly is the entire trajectory in its approach. NEC external satisfaction is rated low, because the protesting group do not see the point of the East-west

connection road, which are the most expensive part of the NEC and most damaging

case analysis case - part to the environment. The mitigating measures and late involvement of the locals did not soften the resistance; after the motion in House of Representatives and several harsh criticisms from big NGOs, the process managerial approach of the project organization backfired. The administrative support (political) is staggering. Lessons learned here is to ensure political support (lobbying) and predict the

political stability of project. Also, early involvement public involvements, getting The The result of the cross 88

common vision, open and interactive interaction with the public and other process- managerial actions are necessary if project is complex. Win-win situation is not created here; the win-lose situation, where losers are inadequately compensated seem the issue here. If deemed necessary, experts should be hired to facilitate this entire process.

LEVEL OF INTERTWINEMENT: (J) SPATIAL INTERTWINEMENT

 All projects are spatially intertwinement at certain minimum level, the lesser intertwined projects are doing relatively better in overall project success: that infrastructure and GO emphasize each other's strengths and minimizes each other's negative or adverse effects.  Joure and Harlingen are clear on the spatial intertwinement: desirable to have spatial intertwinement, although Joure succeed this in a different way than Harlingen. Joure had better coupling to GO than Harlingen; Harlingen focuses heavily on landscaping and routing. Possible explanations are the economic setbacks and nature of infrastructure project and GO projects, in which Harlingen is located in an urbanized area where the current road is acting as spatial and functional barrier to the city. The transformation of Harlingen relocates the exits and ramps to minimize the current negative effects of the road: this road is the new visiting card. The visiting card of Joure is Entrée Joure, another GO-project near Junction Joure, so that possible why Junction Joure could focus more on the coupling to GO. The higher intertwinement does not mean a better project success; besides its process approach, it would depend on the problem context and available GO to couple with.  NEC and Westfrisiaweg are examples of total intertwinement and less intertwinement projects: in which it seems that more spatial intertwinement in this case does not specifically lead to better results as this could be read from the other project success criteria. The increasing levels of intertwinement might have worked if the elaboration on the spatial inter-connection had „better reasoning‟. Higher intertwinement does not mean a better project success.  Westfrisiaweg did not explicitly seek coupling to other GO, while remaining on the

same spatial intertwinement level as Harlingen: they are both heavily focused on landscaping and routing, while Harlingen is regarded as a RATIP project.

LEVEL OF INTERTWINEMENT: (K) PROCEDURAL INTERTWINEMENT case analysis case  None of the projects have the same procedural intertwinement, yet the lesser - intertwined projects are doing relatively better in overall project success: it would seem that increasing levels of procedural intertwinement would make issues more complicated, if not well elaborated and this can result into poorer project success.  Joure and Harlingen, the desired and actualized synergy in RATIP projects: increasing procedural intertwinement in Joure allows savings on time and budget, whereas in Harlingen this is less noticeable due to their focus on landscaping. Both The result of the cross 89

desired synergy through coupling. Economic setbacks did impact GO of Harlingen. This will play a role for the post-evaluation. Seeking chances such as work-with- work is good, although be aware of the opportunity costs though.  NEC and Westfrisiaweg are examples of total procedural intertwinement and one without intertwinement: It seems, despite the scale differences, that more procedural intertwinement does not specifically lead to better project results. To have such a large project split up in multiple projects (NEC, KODA, and MEROS) and to let them come together later on and be evaluated can lead to a bottleneck in the procedure: if one sub-project is inadequate, this might lead to the disqualification of other projects if they are mutually dependent and connected to each other. On the other hand, if there is only infrastructure procedure, this makes the process relatively easier. The higher the intertwinement gets, the more important it will be for all related-sub projects to be of adequate level. Besides that, the cohesion between these sub-projects also has to be passable, so it will not be bottlenecked if disapproved.

LEVEL OF INTERTWINEMENT: (L) FINANCIAL INTERTWINEMENT

 None of the projects have the same level of financial intertwinement, however the least intertwined ones are relatively the most positive ones in terms of project success: more financial intertwinement is no guarantee for project success, neither for optimized spatial quality.  Desirability to couple infrastructure to GO can benefit the project efficiencies: work-with-work was realized in Junction Joure and less in N31. It requires proper timing, good appointments, but it also depends on the situation whether the GO or infrastructure planning allows it. The will and actual approach on acquiring these coupling will play a role for the post-evaluation: cost opportunity costs. Be aware of self-fulfilling prophecy.  NEC and Westfrisiaweg are examples of total financial intertwinement and one with profit intertwinement: coupling to GO to create added-value can be done by not only having two projects share the costs, but also share the additional profits due to each other‟s development. Total financial intertwinement requires additional

attention on the total cohesion and reasoning for the plan to succeed. Work-with work is not only the solution to ultimately share the costs, sharing the benefits and

use that to compensate the costs is also possible. case analysis case

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES & REPUTATION IMPROVEMENT: (M) LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES -

 Sufficient learning opportunities were present in all projects – it can create commitment and it stimulates people either in favour or against the project (case 1 to 4): learning opportunities will give new insight upon the process, in which the stakeholders, depending on their prospect of gain and how the procedures are

structured, will make strategic choices that will influence the decision-making. This The The result of the cross 90

happened a lot in NEC, which turned out at times rather negative, but for the N23 it turned out mostly positive. It was also present at Joure and Harlingen in the sense of early public participation. Proper learning opportunities increase with additional process managerial actions. It will increase the chances of successful multi-issued decisions, but to the province this could be advantageous or disadvantageous depending on the user‟s capability of handling these issues. Nevertheless, for complex projects, it is necessary to mitigate heavy resistance.  Sufficient learning opportunities were embedded in the process design of all projects, except to NEC (case 3 vs. the rest): it was fit for purpose for Joure and Harlingen due to Elverding process – hence the little negative media news. The learning opportunities also contributed to the internal collaboration within the alliances for Joure and Harlingen, although the collaboration with the external stakeholder could be better. For N31 there was no early public participation, but the open process, many different process arenas, and interactive collaboration allowed the parties to negotiate until they were satisfied. At times, the decision- making was coupled with the procedures, so some municipalities pressured the province for (even) more gains or else they would step out the coalition which the province did not want that to happen. The „give and take‟ of many compromises with many municipalities almost overshadows the original regional plan to develop road. So again, the learning opportunities can hurt or benefit the process, depending on the user‟s skill to handle this: it is the balance between trust and strategies that both impact the effective functioning of projects in networks.

LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES & REPUTATION IMPROVEMENT: (M) REPUTATION IMPROVEMENT

 The biggest project, NEC, holds the most negative news coverage and therefore assumed some reputation damage to the project and current provincial organization: there might be a positive correlation between early public participation and improving reputation effects due to increasing awareness in participation. Nevertheless, a bigger project involves more people, so statically there could be more people against the plans. However it does not make the reputation per definition more worse, but instead extra attention should be given to these potential

groups of opposing people, so they will not create a point of no return in process

later on. This almost happened with the project NEC. In that case, the lack of early involvement and inefficient project and process approach did not pack out right for

the reputation of project.

case analysis case -

The The result of the cross 91

Sub-question 5: How do these success definitions meet up with the case studies?

There were four projects that were analyzed: Junction Joure, N31 Traverse Harlingen, North- East Corridor (including brief analysis on RATIP terminology in Brabant), and N23 Westfrisiaweg.

Junction Joure and N31 Traverse Harlingen have both relatively good project success, in which Joure scores slightly better on all project success criteria and it is also much more intertwinement in all three the domains. However, the problem context and project scale is less intensive and complex than N31. On the other hand, the N23 Westfrisiaweg showed good results too, with the exception of the time project efficiency. The spatial and financial intertwinements are similar and effective, without focusing on the coupling, but just adequate project and process management with most simple procedural intertwinement: just the road infrastructure. The project N23 is much bigger than Joure, so for Joure, it is not impossible to transcend RATIP to a bigger project to test it out. Lastly, the Northeast Corridor is part of the integrated area development project so called Brainport East. There is total intertwinement, but yet the overall project success is contested. However, it should be noted, that this project is at least six times bigger than Joure in terms of budget, so it a different scaled project.

There is an inverse correlation between the increasing levels of intertwinements and the analyzed qualitative ratings on other project success criteria such as project efficiencies, external satisfaction, learning opportunities and reputation improvements. If the spatial, financial and procedural intertwinement levels increases, then the project will become more complex as in difficult to comprehend – more stakeholders are involved, thus also more (possible) conflicting interests. This is increasing complexity is a chance (package deal for actors), but also a risk (overly complex, loss of value due to lack of comprehension). Another analogy is that, it can be said, that the complexity is already there due to the problem and project context, but the levels of intertwinements determine the amount of embracement of this complexity: thus to what extend is the complexity in your project scope? If the project and process managerial actions were ineffective and the learning opportunities are not used to positively steer the complex project in a good direction without decreasing the overall resistance, then the external dissatisfaction might become critical which brings in danger the Iron Triangle of project. This happened with the Northeast Corridor (NEC) Project of the integrated area development project Brainport East – complete intertwinement on all three areas, but there is heavy resistance due to lack of early public involvement, interactive collaboration, mismatched priming and limited transparency in project process. The necessity and urgency of the project

plan development, which is already at least 7 years in planning, is being contested due to the analysis case - lack of a joint vision on the problem – there is no negotiated knowledge, no consensus on the facts, and no agreement on the input of the data in the analysis that should justify the project. NEC is a good example, in which the complexity overshadows the risk: the risks were not well noted and harmed the project process in several cases.

To certain lesser extent, just before the full integration of Infra & GO, the spatial, financial and procedural intertwinements can benefit the (internal and external) satisfaction and project The result of the cross 92 efficiencies in terms of saving money and time by implementing the construction works at the same time, or use the waste of one project as investment materials to another project. This is done in Junction Joure and N31 Harlingen. Also, instead of intuitively seeking synergy to cut the costs; one can try seeking synergy by combining the profits of multiple projects as an investment in RATIP project – a percentage of the predicted and increased yield of the autonomous GO, due to upgrade or construction of new road will be put as investment in the RATIP project: thus the costs are not shared, but the benefits are, just like it did in N23 Westfrisiaweg. For the post-evaluation of this project, whether RATIP is a success or not, should consider the opportunity costs of desirably couple Infra to GO and withhold any self- fulfilling prophesy in determining this success. Coupling to GO is a chance, but also a risk. The decision-making on this should also keep in mind the sunk costs, if the plan development takes a long time, as it did in Brainport East/ Northeast-Corridor.

Moreover, different levels in the procedural and financial intertwinements can still lead to project success. Plus, higher levels of financial or spatial intertwinement do not warrant the spatial quality in project. The spatial quality remains subject to the external conditions such as e.g. bad luck, disasters, sudden absences of key people, and economic cutbacks. It also remains subject to the actual desired and realized process and project approach such as assessing the alternative options with whom, against what prioritized project goals (e.g. run for money, planning steered on time, or quality above all) and with what kind process design. In other words, the process and the external conditions will significantly impact the project success, whereas the input (desired coupling to GO, vision, ambition etc.) will be mainly relevant to the post-evaluation on whether the project was truly a success.

case analysis case

- The The result of the cross 93

PART V: CONCLUSION This final part concludes this thesis. It starts with recap on the thesis, followed by an answer on the main research questions. Additional lessons are provided afterwards for the Province Fryslân. For more academic purposes, recommendations are given for further research. CHAPTER 11: CONCLUSIONS FOR SUCCESUL IMPLEMENTATIONS OF RATIP In this part the conclusion is presented in chapter 11, answering the research question and its sub-questions. This includes the reflection of the results of the cross-analysis against the literature study findings. CHAPTER 12: LESSON FROM CASE STUDIES Chapter 12 elaborates the lessons learned from the case studies, which could be useful for Province Fryslân – these are derived from the findings based on the cross-case analysis. CHAPTER 13: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTHER RESEARCH In the chapter 13 recommendations for further research are presented.

PART V: Conclusion 94

11. CONCLUSIONS FOR SUCCESFUL IMPLEMENTATIONS OF RATIP „‟Regional Development To Infrastructure Provision‟‟ (RATIP) is an approach on project-level, in which infrastructure development and area development are intertwined and executed in a certain manner. It is a rather new unique concept, which is known and applied in the projects of the province Fryslân with great success. How does this phenomenon clear up in the scientific literatures and real life cases of other provinces? With regard to the current research goal, the follow research main question was set up at the start of this thesis:

From the pre-initiation phase to the development phase, what aspects in the process design and what activities in the phases are important for a successful implementation of the regional approach to infrastructure provision?

The answer to this main question was split in 5 sub-questions to guide to the final answer.

1. What is RATIP? 2. How can the process design and project of RATIP be structured? a. What are the possible phases of RATIP? b. What are the possible activities in RATIP? 3. What are the success criteria of RATIP? 4. What are the success & failure factors of RATIP? 5. How do these success definitions meet up with the case studies?

The first sub-question will provide an understanding of RATIP. The sub-questions 2-4 address the elements to determine what is important for a successful RATIP implementation. These findings (from literature study and expert interviews) are the basis for the synthesis of the Analysis Framework. The Analysis Framework is used on case studies to validate its completeness, and as a structured approach in reviewing RATIP projects. This addresses sub

question 5. The review outputs are compared in a cross-analysis and reflected against the findings in literature, in order to derive conditions and the lessons for RATIP successful implementation.

RATIP SCIENTIFICALLY

In the Anglo-Saxon world, the infrastructure planning and area development are converging. There are five classifications of planning approaches, in which these two cores are getting more interwoven. RATIP can be network-approach, context-sensitive, or area-oriented approach infrastructure planning. The planning classification determination depends on the succeeded coupling to GO. These couplings can in return be expressed in ordinal scaling modules such as

spatial, financial and procedural intertwinement levels. The spatial ladder is focused on the r r succesful implementations RATIP of spatial intertwinement in project, whereas the other ladders are focused on the phases and financial content of that spatial intertwinement in project. The intertwinement will form one of

the success criteria on which RATIP will be evaluated. Conclusions fo 95

The procedures, activities and products of RATIP are bound to the chosen act: Infrastructure Act or Spatial Planning Act. The pre-initiation phase or the regional agenda should help determine the scope extension and which act is best followed: a potential RATIP set-up of the procedures is elaborated in main text. Regardless of the chosen procedure, RATIP will benefit from a good process design, especially in complex and wicked problems, which is true per ascending planning classification level. Ascending planning classifications come with increasing levels of intertwinement: it impacts a larger spatial area, thus more stakeholders are involved. A network situation can arise. This can be called a wicked problem, because there is a network of dependencies and there are no unambiguous substantive solutions due to conflicting perspectives. A process approach in such situation put against vis-à-vis a project approach will have a better chance on project success. A good process management includes a proper design that guides the decision-making by creating collective rationality through integration of different stakeholder‟s perspectives and it prefers to get a win-win situation in which all parties feel that they gain net value out of their project. Supporting elements to this good design are transparent processes, interactive cooperation with an adequate pacing, proper use of expert‟s opinion, and adequate project/process manager. These are extracted from process management and area development theories.

ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

An analysis framework is set up to analyse the study cases and to judge see whether the RATIP-project is a success. This framework includes the elements of the process design, but also additional project-based and process-based strategies that stakeholders could use to influence this decision-making. These are put in the analysis framework as input and process that influences the output of framework. The strategies could also be sub-divided in project phases such as during the problem and vision formulation, but also during the scope

establishment or information gathering.

Figure 11-1: overview of the Analysis Framework Conclusions for succesful implementations RATIP of 96

Uniquely for RATIP is the desirability of creating added-societal value through synergy with other area development projects. Therefore the levels of spatial, procedural and financial intertwinement are project success criteria measures by which the success or failure of a RATIP project will be judged. This happens along with the other success criteria as noted under output; the success factors influencing these criteria are noted under input and process, which its full description can be read in sub-questions: 2, 3 and 4 or the main text. Each case is analyzed with this framework and its results are put in the cross-case analysis.

SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTING RATIP

The intertwinements as success criteria are interesting to RATIP, because RATIP differs from the conventional infrastructure planning or other project approaches. How do these intertwinements correlate with the other success criteria and what factors are possibly influencing these criteria?

The findings are based on projects, which are not yet finished, so these findings should be treated as preliminary results and they should be validated as soon as possible if more information is available.

(i) It seems that increasing levels of intertwinement does not automatically contribute to project success. There is an inverse correlation between the increasing levels of intertwinements and the analyzed qualitative ratings on the other project success criteria such as project efficiencies, external satisfaction, learning opportunities and reputation improvements. This is not strange, because increasing the intertwinement and thus planning classification, it would increase the complexity of project. The need for a joint-frame vision on project seems necessary with increasing intertwinement levels. (ii) If the process management is inadequate of handling this, then the external dissatisfaction might become critical that it will danger the viability of the project. Interesting is to question, how much process management should be involved with the increasing complexity or planning classification levels? The handling of process and level of complexity should be treated as a chance (package deal), but also a risk (incomprehensible due to complexity). Project NEC, which had total integration, has relatively low success on all areas, whereas the N23 show lesser and more signs of intertwinement than N31, but it is still very successful.

(iii) No integrated plans, but certain spatial, financial and procedural intertwinements can benefit the internal & external satisfaction and project efficiencies in terms saving money and time by implementing the construction works at the same time, or use the waste of one project as investment materials to another project. In Joure the coupling to GO went better than in Harlingen. (iv) To improve the coupling, the line of sight in project organization has to be preserved: intensify the involvement of all actors; especially the municipalities‟ involvement as they seek the coupling to GO, but also make the lines of responsibility more clear and have trust in each other‟s competences (might come with additional mandates). (v) It should be noted that the desirability of coupling infrastructure to GO should be carefully assessed for

post-evaluation on its opportunity costs and self-fulfilling prophesy. Conclusions for succesful implementations RATIP of 97

(vi) The different levels in the procedural and financial intertwinements can still lead to project success: this was the case with Joure and Westfrisiaweg, in which the latter has a lower procedural intertwinement (simple procedure) and also different type of financial intertwinement (more sophisticated calculation). So instead of intuitively seeking synergy to cut the costs; one can try seeking synergy by combining the profits of multiple projects as an investment in RATIP project. (vii) Moreover, higher levels of financial or spatial intertwinement do not automatically lead to better or optimized spatial quality in project: the spatial quality remains subject to external factors outside the project, but it is also depends on the actual desired and realized process and project approaches.

NEC, as the biggest project in the cross-case analysis, scores rather low on the overall project success and it is maximized on its intertwinement criteria. The second biggest project, N23, has less intertwinement, but the overall project success rivals those of the projects Joure and N31 Harlingen. (viii) Due to this and the aforementioned conclusions, it can be said that RATIP has the potential to be applied in inter-regional and inter-local projects and the procedural intertwinement does not have to play a role: it can have a simple procedure and its synergy can be created through financial or spatial intertwinements. (iv) The intertwinements are merely useful, if only the project success criteria on average are rated positively. (v) If two projects have vis-à-vis roughly the positive score on project success criteria, but one is much more interwoven than the other, then the chances are big that the interwoven project hold much more added- value due to synergy-options (assumed that the spatial cohesion are in check). The success and failure factors that influence these intertwinement criteria (and possible synergy) are:11

 External factors: e.g. disasters, bad luck, sudden absence of key people, strikes, economic cutbacks, political changes.  Problem context: e.g. highly urbanized areas, protected nature areas, potential GOs to couple with.

 Clear profound vision and ambition are formulated, which is also widely supported and

shared by the (potential) mass of critical actors.  Informal process (Elverding) prior the formal procedures (Joure and N31 Harlingen)  Broad problem formulation can give room and space to make couplings (Joure/N31)  Or tactically invite players to make the key-decisions and let the democratic voting and „fair‟ rules do its work: majority will win, but the minority struck by the negative and adverse effects of the road will always lose (N23).

11 Indirectly, the intertwinement criteria can be related to the Iron Triangle. The Iron Triangle is for 60% correlated with the stakeholder‟s satisfaction and 56% with the overall project success. This correlation depends on the project performance (output vs. input), expectations (input) and unexpected and unanticipated risk and changes in environment (external factors). Hence, the success and failure factors will thus also impact other project success criteria such as learning opportunities. Conclusions for succesful implementations RATIP of 98

 Clear vision and ambition should profoundly explain the necessity and urgency of project (NEC‟s case was not)  Fit for purpose project and process management: the approach generally fit the problem context.  Coupling the decision-making with the procedures to win/lose time depends on its priming: the parallel process or serial process can either save or lose win, depending whether the anticipation on handling was correct (N23).  Open and transparent process with interactive cooperation: this was stimulated by the learning opportunities, early public involvement, having a prospect of gain, room to escape, awareness due to joint-vision and possibilities to postpone decisions. Based on chances or threats the actors opened a new process arena, in which they made new multi-issued decisions (mutual gain). (N23/Joure/N31)  Hiring an expert with good processing skills as independent organization can positively benefit the organization: increase the pacing in project, but also seek extra couplings (N23).  Mitigating effects are effective: in case of losers, such as the NIMBY-users, ought to be compensated correctly. The case in NEC, the mitigating effects had little effects on the opposing parties, whereas in other cases it did (Joure/N31 vs. N23).  Quick wins: can morally impact the organization in believing that this spatially intertwined project is indeed possible (N23).  Important key figures: actors who can inspire others to keep the coalition together, actors who the skills to comprehend and seek couplings.  Political sphere in project: can hamper or stimulate the process. The political situation in N23 was stable; it was unstable and still staggering at project NEC.

In short, the adequate and fit to purpose approach on the problem, key figures, political sphere and external factors are significant to the project success. The input of project such as the vision and problem formulation will be mainly relevant to the post-evaluation on whether the project was truly a success.

REFLECTING CASE STUDY FINDINGS ON THE LITERATURE

The conclusions from the case analyses and cross-case analysis with the analysis framework show many matching factors that did help or worsen the chances on project success. The corresponding and somewhat underexposed factors will be discussed briefly:

Corresponding fail and success factors in literature with the case studies:

The fail factors on project success of (sustainable) area developments were complex procedures, political shifting, dissensions among public parties, and late or too early involvement of PPPs or wrong partners in the PPP-collaboration. These factors were present in the case study of NEC: the political support was staggering due to political shifting; dissensions among public

organs about the necessity and urgency of project; the companies did not intensively support Conclusions for succesful implementations RATIP of 99 and steer the process in project, as opposed to the companies united in the N23 project; the procedures were complex and detached from locals. Now, these fail factors can be encountered by stimulating the success factors such as creating commitment and continuity, fusing interests and connecting different needs, regional vision which is broadly supported, establishing good learning trajectories etc. For the NEC project, all these success factors were limitedly present and not stimulated through the right means as explained in the process design: e.g. use quick wins to boost morale, couple experts‟ activities with stakeholders, early public involvement to create common frame, adequately compensate the loser in win-lose situations etc.

The success and fail factors to project success of (sustainable) area developments are mentioned because, RATIP is pragmatic approach, precursory to (sustainable) area development, as it makes the attempts of adding extra value to the road infrastructure project by incorporating values which are specific to area development. Thus if one wants the intertwinement to be adequate, it is wise to a take a closer look at those success and failure factors.

Originally, the success and failure factors on infrastructure projects are in line with the classical hierarchal project management, but as mentioned before, the infrastructure and spatial planning getting more intertwined, thus the process managerial actions deem more important per increasing level of planning complexity. This complexity increases per increasing intertwinement, but also if the project impacts a larger spatial area or deals with many stakeholders. RATIP holds a hybrid managerial approach, which is relatively successful, along with the project N23 Westfrisiaweg. The latter did not explicitly seek coupling with GO to create added-value, but still the project is relatively successful. The chosen procedures prescribed by the act seem not to matter to project success. The underlying key success to the project problems would be the fit for purpose approach and having capable people and a political stable situation will increase chances on project success.

Underexposed fail and success factors in literature with the case studies:

The correlation between the hybrid or process managerial approach, political spheres and the key people are however underexposed in the current literature. In the literature, Iron Triangle is heavily correlated with satisfaction, and satisfaction also holds the political satisfaction. The literature on satisfaction correlated with the political satisfaction is underexposed, as this political dissatisfaction almost overthrew the NEC project.

There is no prescribed recipe of a good process design for each project and due to the uniqueness of project, it has to be tailored fit to cause, so it heavily depends on the people‟s capacity, which can be obstructed due to lack of capable manpower, knowledge, new unknown project situations etc. So in this case, knowledge management would be interesting and long- term investment.

THE ANSWER ON MAIN QUESTION

The main question was: Conclusions for succesful implementations RATIP of 100

From the pre-initiation phase to the development phase, what aspects in the process design and what activities in the phases are important for a successful implementation of the regional approach to infrastructure provision?

The success of RATIP, as measured till the end of the plan development phase, depend on several project success criteria such as Iron Triangle, stakeholders‟ satisfaction, learning opportunities, reputation improvement, and the levels of spatial, financial and procedural intertwinements. The higher intertwinement levels do not mean better project success: the intertwinements of infrastructure planning to spatial planning are only useful if the other project success criteria on average are rated positively. If so, then the comparison vis-à-vis will put the more interwoven project ahead of the less interwoven one in terms of project success, assumed that the former has the spatial cohesion in check with the regional needs. That extra project success is the true synergy. The spatial cohesion and quality can be evaluated with a matrix in which a matrix in which each of the utilization, experiential and future value of spatial quality are rated on its economic, social, ecological, and cultural value. This is referred as the 4P, an additional P (spatial quality) on the triple bottom line (TBL) or 3Ps (People, Planet, and Profit) to put the living environment as central object of sustainable spatial development.

The activities in the phases of RATIP depend on the chosen Act, either Infrastructure Act or Spatial Planning Act. RATIP can be area-oriented approach, network approach or a context- sensitive approach. It is also a pragmatic approach, precursory to (sustainable) area development, as it makes the attempts of adding extra value to the road infrastructure project by incorporating values which are specific to area development.

If the problem context is relatively simple, then the classical hierarchal project control methods are sufficient. If the problem context gets wicked or complex, a network of dependencies and no unambiguous substantive solutions, then a process approach have a better chance on project

success, as opposed to project approach. All elements and activities of a process approach are embedded in the process design that decision-making by creating collective rationality through integration of different stakeholder‟s perspectives and it prefers to get a win-win situation in which all parties feel that they gain net value out of their project. Additional project-based and process-based strategies that could influence this process design in the different project phases are also considered. All the strategies and elements are filtered and compiled from theories about project, process and (sustainable) area development success.

These aspects of the process design and elements of the activities are the success and failure factors of RATIP, which is put into the analysis framework together with the project success criteria. The analysis resulted into findings, which were cross-analysed and also once reflected to the original literature. The projects that were successful or less successful had corresponding success and failure factors with the aforementioned studied literature. The deviant and

underexposed factors found in the case studies, but less in the literature, will be put in the Conclusions for succesful implementations RATIP of 101 recommendation section. Nevertheless, the 3 most important aspects and activities (underlying key elements) to a successful RATIP are:12

1. Fit for purpose approach: hybrid form of project and process managerial actions in line with the problem context and input of project (vision, ambition, goals, project scope and boundaries). 2. Important key figures: influential actors whom are able to inspire others, keep the coalition together and connect dreams with the realities; also actors with capabilities to absorb and utilize the intertwined couplings. 3. Political stability: the socio-technical problem is already complex enough, so a political- socio-technical problem should be avoided. Give attention to the political shifting and power game, in which (at first impressions the weak) actors could become potential powerful actors (in blocking your plan): the locals using media to utilize national powers who naturally hold supremacy over the provincial or regional powers.

12. LESSONS FROM CASE STUDIES In 544 – 496 BC, China, there was a Chinese famous military strategist and philosopher named Sun Tzu who wrote a treatise on military tactics named „The Art of War‟. His style of composing the strategies and tactics on ancient warfare remains unrivalled and it is ever since then well utilized and praised around the world in the East and West. In contemporary settings, it still influences many competitive endeavours in the fields of culture, politics, business, modern warfare and sports. Chapter five in this treatise, named forces, explains the use of creativity and timing in changing the momentum of your army in warfare. One of his quotes perfectly explains all the three aspects that are important to a successful RATIP:

„‟Management of many is the same as management of few. It is a matter of organization‟‟

Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The classification of infrastructure planning, whether it is line-oriented infrastructure planning, RATIP or sustainable area development, should not matter, if the organization to tackle this management is on spot (effective and efficient). Inherent to this organization is its prescribed decision-making and plan of approach, thus a (1) tailored fit for purpose approach with the (2) competent key figures in a (3) political stable environment that should maximize the chance on project success.

The following lessons are derived from the conclusions based on the cross-case analysis. The case studies, which were put in the cross-analysis, differ in project scale, time durations, and complexities, although they all have in common the intertwinements to certain levels. These lessons may be prone to coincidence in studied cases, but they can be nevertheless helpful. It should be well noted, that the lessons can sometimes be recommended strategies to tackle that

12 These factors are always influenced by external factors Lessons from casestudies 102 specific problem in that case, but as always a strategic action is considered a chance and risk in a network. This is called the reliability paradox, see the box.

The reliability paradox and rules of the game in networks

Strategies has an positive impact on the effective functioning in networks, but at the same time they will also negatively impact the mutual trust between actors, and that trust will impact the effective functioning of the network as well. So to what extend can we rely on that actor if he uses certain strategic behaviour to influence the decision-making of the process design? This is called reliability paradox. To moderate the strategic behaviour and to increase the mutual trust and reliability of the actors, a set of rules on the game in a multi-actor network needs to be set up. Only if these rules are obeyed to a certain extent, then there will be an increased chance of reaching an agreement in a complex problematic situation. The rules are put in Appendix A: supplement to PART II – section 5.2.

The lessons learned related to the fit for purpose approach: hybrid from of project and process managerial actions aligned with the problem context and input of project such as the formulation of visions, ambitions, goals, project scope and boundaries.

 With increasing intertwinements, the spatial cohesion and the necessity and urgency of project will become increasingly more important. It is recommended to:  Start with a small pilot project, if one wants to transcend RATIP to a higher intertwined level and use knowledge management to absorb & transfer knowledge to the next project.  Research whether a more holistic approach deem more suitable for an integrated area development: no system engineering, in which is believed that optimizing the sub-systems and summed up would automatically lead to the completely optimized system as planned, but a more holistic approach executed in one research plan. See literature on transdisciplinarity.  Asses the necessity and urgency of project with answering 3 questions in combination with the 4P matrix: (i) why infrastructure provision? (ii) What is the real problem in this region and with whom are we going suppose to solve that to what extend? (iii) How to further specify, develop and implement the preferred solution design? In combination with the matrix in which each of the utilization, experiential and future value of spatial quality are rated on its economic, social, ecological, and cultural values.  Carefully examine the possible trajectories of the routes and invest in more strategies and tactics to keep involved the critical actors in the power game.  Early public involvement in an informal fashion can be useful to get negotiated knowledge and a common frame on problem context, but

that alone does not warrant project success. Lessons from casestudies 103

 Do mind that negotiated knowledge is the situation that is frozen and where the „reality‟ will be clarified, which promotes a smoother decision-making progress. However, it can hamper innovation and thus at times the situation has to be unfrozen to see new possible reality definitions (possible chances for new couplings). Is it still in check?  Depending on predicted trajectory, not all actors have to be included in the key decision making process. The weak actors at first with little powers or useful resources can become powerful in terms of creating blocking power, so they should be well regarded, if the trajectory will impact many of such actors. If so, then certainly do include them in your design process – give them a spot in process to voice themselves.  Having ambiguity or no ambiguity in process and goal framing depends on the approach. If there is negotiated knowledge, thus a common frame, among all critical stakeholders, then with little doubt a relatively simple project will go well.  However, for bigger projects if no negotiated knowledge between key parties can be reached, and there is no ambiguity in goals or process, then opposing stakeholders will cease cooperation and hamper the project, because there is no prospect of gain. What to lose if you have lost all? Instead, the ambiguity should be used to its advantage by keeping the stakeholders in the process until a consensus is reached. And hereby let the ambiguity move to the periphery of the process – the conflicting parties with different interest can fight out in the inner shell of the organizational process: if fought in the steering committee shell, then the project group, working groups and external stakeholders are less affected. Less negative media attention, thus less risks to worry about. It is a strategy that should be well carefully considered that it does not escalate and ultimately diminish the project, because the stakeholder steps out of the project with powerful resources. So in short, it is recommended to construct a common viewpoint with all critical stakeholders, or use this option.  Overarching goal of project remains important, in order to get that fit for purpose approach: supported vision, ambitions and goals with net gain to all stakeholders.  Increasing awareness on mutual interdependency among stakeholders helps achieving this shared vision: win-win situation should be aimed for.  In literature, win-lose situation are acceptable as well, if the rules of the games are respected and the losers are managed.  Increasing the transparency of process helps with the mutual trust; however the effective function of network depends both on trust and strategies used by the actors. Increasing transparency does not mean play with open cards. Power revealed can be power reduced. And the power paradox remains: if power is

used without moderation, then the system responsibility might be entitled to Lessons from casestudies 104

you as the most powerful actor in (network) system (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008, p. 100).  Mutual gain: to give and take is a well respected and working method, although the overarching goal (and/or underlying provincial goal) should not be forgotten: the project retains its overarching goal and it is e.g. not a regional project with too many local wishes attached to it – does the over-achieving regional goals still hold, reconsidering the local wishes?  Too many local wishes attached to the regional project can be caused by the fact that the actors know your strategy (open cards), thus they can enforce additional wishes before formal decision-making will be taking place. Hence, the balance in proper trust and strategic options for effective functioning of the network and that connecting aspect is chance and risk, depending on your skill to anticipate and intercept (excluding externals effects). The amount of local wishes should crumble the project in case e.g. the national funds are ultimately rejected and project cannot continue as planned.  Priming remains important. Priming is the context creation, in which parties are made sensitive to a particularly problem of yours (change one‟s problem perspective). Or get a better covering: develop a problem with broad couplings. The general idea is to make his solution your problem, by coupling the solution of your problem as part of a solution which he uses to his other prioritized problems.  The Provincial Implementation Plan (Provinciale Inpassingsplan) can shorten the procedures, if many municipalities are involved. They will follow all one procedures (e.g. one land-use plan), instead of the many different ones.  The connection and cohesion of PIP with the locals is naturally due to its procedures much more distant, than local land-use plans that the municipalities normally use and which the locals are perhaps already accustomed to. Additional attention to process managerial process is needed if the PIP is used.  Fit for purpose is a healthy hybrid form of project and process managerial actions. A process approach might slow down decision-making and/or result in grey harmful compromises that seem to result from political games. At times unilateral (hierarchical) interventions are useful to prevent the disadvantages of process approaches taking over control. The effective and efficient project-based and process-based actions in cases are:

 Hiring an organization of experts that acts independently as a 3rd party outside the project coalition to negotiate on the process with stakeholders. Coupling the expert‟s activity with the other stakeholders, but uncoupling the roles of these two stakeholders can increase the quality of decision-making. All stakeholders should be able to contact the expert for preliminary research.  Mitigating effects should affect the shared regional vision that the stakeholders

had in mind. Thus, it should not compromise the negative and adverse effects Lessons from casestudies 105

through the perspective of a few stakeholders, but it affects the entire vision and ambition shared by all stakeholders through negotiated knowledge. The effects are only effective, if the overall picture of reasoning is holistic and complete. So argumentation reasoned from outside of project (global) to inside of project (details) are the same as reasoned from the inside to the outside of project. A question could be asked, whether the people affected more by these negative effects of the plans should be compromised more than those who are less affected? What is scaling effect?  Decision-making should be open for new process rounds and arenas, in which stakeholders can participate freely and are stimulated to have interactive cooperation with plenty learning opportunities. They should remain having a prospect of gain in process, while their core interests are being protected. Postponement of their commitment is possible, to less the threatening feelings. However, they should have the mandate to decide by themselves to keep the pace in project (heavily staffed). If the process is dragging, then exit rules can be used with the (in)direct soft or hard threatening of laying down unilateral actions.  Hired experts can help managing this process acting as mediator. They can also be used to impose indirect soft threats: please negotiate with me; if we reach good agreement, I am sure that the final decision-maker will not promulgate them.  Learning opportunities are crucial for gaining new insight and have actors commit to the process; early informal involvement is proven to be useful. Be aware that new insight due to political shifting can be used against project.  This kind of decision-making will lead to the dynamic freezing, unfreezing and refreezing of the environment. Freezing is about stabilizing the environment – freeze the problem definitions, goals, boundaries, scope, information and decisions, and amount of involved actors in decision-making. This dynamic can be used strategically by stakeholders to serve their own interests. If not agreed on the opinions when to (un)freeze, then it will only increase the capriciousness instead of reducing it. This moment on when to (un)freeze should be negotiated as well: an addition on the process rules, in which all rules should be

respect and constantly dealt with.

The lessons learned related to important key figures: influential actors who are able to inspire others, keep the coalition together and connect dreams with the realities; also actors with capabilities to absorb and utilize the intertwined couplings.

 The soft-side of project-management is once again emphasized: the reintroduction of

the appreciation for the humanization (menselijke maat) in project: less judgement Lessons from casestudies 106

based on models and numbers alone. The modern project manager does not only deliver just the project prescribed goals such as a school or a road, but he or she should create an added-value towards a more sustainable living environment.  Project success is not only due to the correct project (or process) intervention, but also due to the differences in the persons‟ personalities and the intuition and capabilities to switch from roles as craftsman, manager, or leader in the project process. Additional aspect important to this modern project manager is also to indentify the issues coming to him: the project needs and dynamic process needs. The interventions should be effecting multiple dimensions in the project (A. de Vries, 2014b).

The lessons learned related to political stability: the socio-technical problem is already complex enough, so a political-socio-technical problem should be avoided.

 A stabilized political situation during the formal procedures of the project lessens the chance that the project will not be hampered, due to (hidden) political agendas, which in first place might not serve the interests of the project and the people, but the agenda of the political individual or political party.  So, it is recommended for short, but especially long-during projects to do (additional) research upon the political situation. For a regional project, there might not be only project processes, but also political processes on the local, regional and national levels.  Priming remains important, it is not only a problem to those who are psychically impacted by the proposed plan, but the problem should be coupled to politicians.  Have the regional agenda (streekagenda‟s/MIRT-gebiedsagenda‟s) up to date, so that there is no need for pre-research upon the regional needs. The vision and strategy that RATIP holds should be coupled with the developments of these regional agendas (basically, cut-out maps from the SVIR). These agendas should be used as an instrument to strengthen the harmonization of RATIP and diverse policy sectors.  RATIP should look further than only the (local) area in which the synergy is sought. It should look for inter-local synergy or regional synergy to the infrastructure provision. Hence, Regional Approach to Infrastructure Provision. Better synchronization with the regional agenda‟s should help achieving this.  Also, try adapting this regional agenda with the changes in acts due to the new

and yet to come Act „Omgevingswet‟.  The Fryslân‟s and Brabant‟s policy structures and GGAs terminologies have been compared: which of the findings and lessons are true to your own organization?  RATIP – the collaboration form at PVVP level- in Brabant is used a vertical meeting place and it is also used as a regional policy actor that

implements the regional plans fine-tuned to the local plans. It only Lessons from casestudies 107

works if both parties mutually gain – participation is present with win- win situations. RATIP is regarded not only efficient, but it is also experienced highly positive among the partners and stakeholders. The success of RATIP-collaboration is due to process that can be characterized as informal, non-bureaucratic, transparent, and active: it results into continuity and it raises the awareness and attention among stakeholders. Moreover, there is much freedom in making your own programme. The bigger municipalities are not dominating in the RATIP. The small municipalities have the feeling that they are actively involved in the process, although the risk is that they formulate the regional vision and programme too locally.  It is not known whether the municipalities in Fryslân had this issue of formulating the plans too locally at the regional PVVP level. The municipalities in Fryslân had other troubles instead: at the local level, they had trouble keeping up in the project alliance due to the lack of support, the high sophisticated level of procedures and methods, and the (at times) lost lines of vision (lines of interactive communication to higher ups). The recommendations to these local and regional issues are:  On local (project) level, better guidance and active stimulation is necessary, as this municipality does have the task of coupling infrastructure to GO to potentially create synergy. If the lack of involvement is present, the project organization could be disfunctional, in which Triple Bridge did agree that they could do more on the communication to external stakeholders.  On regional (policy) levels, increase the awareness of translating the regional agendas to implementation programme of project. For consistency, no local projects should be ad hoc added to this programme of projects – they should all derive from the regional agendas.  Make the goals of the province more perceptible and clear, and intensify the discussion on the quality of the projects at a regional level  Increase the foothold of RATIP activities in the organization of the municipality; less „ad hoc‟ and more structured in the policy and process.  Optimize the coordination between the province and the regions in which the regional agenda are used in terms of planning.  Increase the efficiency of the collaboration between small inter- municipalities within the region.  Improve the administrative and organizational process: e.g. electronic forms, virtual work floors, standard templates for

meetings. Lessons from casestudies 108

Additional levels unrelated to one of the three aspects

 The desirability to create synergy by coupling infrastructure to GO could create its own fallacy when it comes to post-evaluation of project success: victim to self-fulfilling prophesy, if not evaluating the loss of manpower in terms of opportunity costs. Also, there is always tension between network and hierarchy: in tempting situations, actors can easily place strong and one-sided emphasize on the reality of the hierarchy, while underplaying the organization network‟s features.  So it is recommended, if one wants milder or more nuanced judgements, to have the post-evaluation include four types of accountabilities: good/bad result and good/bad process. This will make the actor also more sensitive to the process of decision-making.

13. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH There is a rich amount of literature available on the two sectoral domains, but the literature on this combination of domains is very limited. This thesis attempts to contribute new knowledge, by providing an analysis framework, in which the framework is composed of filtered, compiled and synthesized factors on RATIP project success from the domains of infrastructure provision, project management, process management, area development, and sustainable area development. This deductive reasoning - providing the big picture first, the analysis framework- is needed because there is no clear foundation on this domain in which infrastructure and spatial planning are intertwined. This is the reason the thesis chose not to research in-depth the correlation of one variable to another, but to get the big picture in place first, so that any further research on the correlation between these variables would have more significant impact in this domain. Nevertheless, this analysis framework, which has been revalidated during case studies, can be used to evaluate whether (and why) the RATIP projects are a success or not. This will lead to case specific knowledge, by which inductive reasoning and cross-case analysis will pre-conclude rules or lessons from the specific examples. Further research worth pursuing to improve the analysis framework would be:

 Fine-tuning analysis framework, by adding success and failure factors from new papers

in diverse specific fields. Or again revalidate the content of framework whether it is sound, possible reallocations of factors or compressing factors to get better results etc.  Use quantified methodologies to define the correlations of all success factors to the project success criteria. Or use it to find out more on the correlation between the intertwinements to the other project criteria. What are the critical success factors to RATIP? Are the dependent and independent relations between these factors? Etc.  Comparing this framework to other civil fields, so that this framework can be improved, increasing its validation.  Adding more ordinal scaling modules in the criteria and factors in increasing its (re)usability and reducing the subjective components, so that more traceable reviewing

can take place: many factors are done qualitatively, with the exception of the Recommendations for further research 109

intertwinements, and are subject to bias – creating ordinal modules lessen the track and trace work and will increase the (re)usability of framework.  Researching what the scale effect is of increasing intertwinements and the needs for process managerial actions in order to reach project success. Only then a fit for purpose approach can be put on work, but how can this be anticipated besides e.g. early public involvement?

Recommendations for further research 110

PART VI: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND APPENDICES

PART VI: bibliography and appendices 111

BIBLIOGRAPHY A. de Vries. (2014a). Interview with A. de Vries. In J. Cheung (Ed.). A. de Vries. (2014b). Modder, Pluche & Slappe kofie. Anonymous. (2013). Schultz betaalt niet mee aan Westfrisiaweg, RTV NH. Anonymous. (2014). Belangrijke mijpaal in uitvoering N23 Westfrisiaweg. Retrieved 30-8- 2014, from http://www.noord-holland.nl/web/Projecten/N23- Westfrisiaweg/Artikel/Belangrijke-mijlpaal-in-uitvoering-N23-Westfrisiaweg.htm Arcadis. (2012). Structuurvisie Harlingen 2025; stadsvisie deel 2. Arcadis. (2013). Notitie reikwijdte en detailniveau Noordoost Corridor. Arts, J., & De Vaan, M. (work in progress). Infrastructure meets area development; Developments in Dutch planning practice: towards a more balanced finance of development projects? Paper presented at the Fourth conference on planning law and property rights, Dortmund. Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-342. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263- 7863(98)00069-6 Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Management Journal, 30(4), 25-32. Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., & Fisher, D. (1988). Project Management Handbook (2 ed.). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Bjeirmi, B. F. M., A.K. (1996). The role of project management in achieving project success'. International Journal of Project Mangement, 14(2), 81-87. Bouwfonds Ontwikkeling. (2009). Themanummer over duurzame gebiedsontwikkeling NAW dossier (Vol. 34). Hoevelaken. Bouwkunde TU-Delft. (2014). Urban Area Development. Retrieved 26-2-2014, 2014, from http://www.bk.tudelft.nl/nl/over-faculteit/afdelingen/real-estate-and- housing/onderzoek/onderzoeksprogrammas/real-estate-management/urban-area- development/ BrabantStad. (2014). Gebiedsontwikkeling Brainport Oost. Retrieved 25-8-2014, from http://www.brabantstad.nl/samenhangend-wegennetwerk/54-samenhangend-en- aanvullend-wegennetwerk/66-gebiedsontwikkeling-brainport-oost Bruijn, H., & Heuvelhof, E. (2004). Process arrangements for variety, retention, and selection. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 16(4), 91-108. doi: 10.1007/s12130-004-1017-0 Bruijn, J. A., De Jong, P., & Korsten, A. F. A. (1996). Grote projecten: besluitvorming & management. Alphen aan de Rijn. Buitelaar, E., Kooiman, M., & Robbe, C. (2012). Planeconomie en organische gebiedsontwikkeling. Grondzaken in de praktijk, 6. BVR Adviseurs ruimtelijke ontwikkeling. (2008). Houtskoolschets; Harlingen koerst naar 2025 - stadsvisie deel 1. C.M.P.S. Eurlings. (2009a). Aanvangsbeslissing A6-A7 Knooppunt Joure. Staatscourant. C.M.P.S. Eurlings. (2009b). Aanvangsbeslissing N31 Harlingen. Staatscourant. C.M.P.S. Eurlings, P. Adema, & B. de Winter. (2010). Samenwerkingsovereenkomst bestuurlijke afspraken ter inzake Knooppunt Joure. Staatscourant. C.M.P.S. Eurlings, P. A., & P.H.M. Scheffer. (2010). Bestuursovereenkomst Ombouw N31Traverse Harlingen. Staatscourant. Central Project Group Brainport East. (2014a). De Ruit: nu investeren in de toekomst (Vol.

1). Bibliography 112

Central Project Group Brainport East. (2014b). Het traject tot nu toe: 2000-2013. Retrieved 25-8-2014, from http://www.deruitbrabant.nl/meer-weten/historie/ Central Project Group Brainport East. (2014c). Kostenraming. Retrieved 25-8-2014, from http://www.deruitbrabant.nl/meer-weten/planning/ Central Project Group Brainport East. (2014d). Planning. Chow, T., & Cao, D. (2008). A survey of critical success factors in agile software projects. The journal of Systems and Software, 81(6), 961-971. Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2002). The real succes factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management(20), 185-190. de Bruijn, H., & Ten Heuvelhof, E. F. (2004). Process arrangements for variety, retention, and selection. de Bruijn, H., & Ten Heuvelhof, E. F. (2008). Management in Networks on multi-actor decision making. New York: Routledge. de Bruijn, H., & Ten Heuvelhof, E. F. (2010). Process management: why project management fails in complex decision making processes. de Bruijn, J. A., & ten Heuvelhof, E. F. (1998). Procesmanagement. De Friese Meren. (2014). Sportief Knooppunt Joure. Retrieved 4-8-2014, 2014, from http://www.defriesemeren.nl/inwoners/projecten_41429/item/sportief-knooppunt- joure_17225.html De Jong, J. (2013). Kunstig leiding geven in duurzame gebiedsontwikkeling. Amsterdam School of Real Estate, Amsterdam. De Roo, G. (2003). Environmental planning in the Netherlands: too good to be true. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 6. De Zeeuw, F. (2007). De engel uit het marmer: reflecties op gebiedsontwikkeling: Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft. De Zeeuw, F. (2009). Doorbreek de impasse tussen milieu en gebiedsontwikkeling: Delft: Technische Universiteit Delft. De Zeeuw, F. (2011). Duurzame gebiedsontwikkeling: doe de tienkamp! Delft: TU Delft: gebiedsontwikkeling. Dodder, R. S., McConnell, J. B., Mostashari, A., & Sussman, J. (2005). The concept of the ''CLIOS process'': integrating the study of physical and institutional systems using mexico city as an example. Dorst, M. J. v., & Duijvestrein, C. A. J. (2004). Concepts of sustainable development. Paper presented at the The 2004 International Sustainable Development research conference, University of Manchester, UK. Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A., & Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project classifcation: a non-universal approach to project succes factors. Research Policy, 29(7), 915-935. Dvir, D., Raz, T., & Shenhar, A. J. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 89-95. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00012-1 Economisch instituut voor de Bouw. (2014). Infrastructuurmonitor. Ecorys, & Witteveen en Bos. (2009). Werkwijzer MKBA van integrale gebiedsontwikkeling. Edelenbos, J., & Van Buuren, A. V., J. (2010). Verbinding zoeken tussen verlangen en

vermogen: een optekening van de leergeschiedenis van het infrastructuurproject N23 van A(lkmaar) tot Z(wolle). Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam.

Eiffel. (2009). Gebiedsontwikkeling: krachten gebundeld. Bibliography 113

Eindhovens Dagblad. (2013a). Commissie voor mer: doel en effect Ruit is onduidelijk. Retrieved 29-8-2014, from http://www.ed.nl/extra/verkeer-vervoer/commissie-voor- milieueffectrapportage-doel-en-effect-ruit-is-onduidelijk-1.4083113 Eindhovens Dagblad. (2013b). Onderbouwing van Ruit om Eindhoven moet beter. Retrieved 29-8-2014, from http://www.ed.nl/extra/verkeer-vervoer/onderbouwing-van-ruit- om-eindhoven-moet-beter-1.4115956 Eindhovens Dagblad. (2013c). Ruit om Eindhoven uitgesteld door kamer. Retrieved 29-8- 2014, from http://www.ed.nl/extra/verkeer-vervoer/ruit-om-eindhoven-uitgesteld- door-kamer-1.4124210 Eindhovens Dagblad. (2014a). Kersverse college Helmond: geen 'Ruit'. Retrieved 29-8-2014, from http://www.ed.nl/extra/verkeer-vervoer/ruit-om-eindhoven-uitgesteld-door- kamer-1.4124210 Eindhovens Dagblad. (2014b). Provincie Noord-Brabant: 'Folder Ruit legt het waarom uit'. Retrieved 29-8-2014, from http://www.ed.nl/extra/verkeer-vervoer/provincie-noord- brabant-folder-ruit-legt-het-waarom-uit-1.4401107 Eindhovens Dagblad. (2014c). Topondernemers: Ruit moet er gewoon komen. Retrieved 29- 8-2014, from http://www.ed.nl/extra/verkeer-vervoer/topondernemers-ruit-moet-er- gewoon-komen-1.4265949 Eindhovens Dagblad. (2014d). Van Heugten luistert selectief. Retrieved 29-8-2014, from http://www.ed.nl/mening/van-heugten-luistert-selectief-1.4418625 Eindhovens Dagblad. (2014e). Weerstand Ruit in Eindhoven en Helmond toegenomen. Retrieved 29-8-2014, from http://www.ed.nl/regio/eindhoven/weerstand-ruit-in- eindhoven-en-helmond-toegenomen-1.4317714 Elverding. (2008). Sneller en Beter. Enserink, B. (2005). Public Participation in Dutch watermanagement. Marburg. European Commission. (1997). Compendium of European planning systems Regional Development Studies (Vol. 28). Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. European Commission: Development and Cooperation - Europaid. (2014). Infrastructure. Retrieved 3-4-2014 Eversdijk, A., & A., K. (2007). Publiek-private samenwerking bij infrastructurele projecten. De achterkant in beeld. Den Haag: TPC. Evi van der Oever. (2013). 75 miljoen voor groen hart regio, Eindhovens dagblad. Fakton, & Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. (2012). Investeren in gebiedsontwikkeling nieuwe stijl. Federal Office for Spatial Development. (2003). The spatial impact of transport infrastructures: learning from the past. Freeman, M., & Beale, P. (1992). Measuring project success. Project Management Journal, 23(1), 8-17. Fulmer, J. E. (2009). What in the world is infrastructure? : Corridor InfraTrust Management. Galbraith, J. R. (1995). Designing Organizations: an executive guide to strategy, structure, and process. Gebiedsontwikkeling N31 Traverse Harlingen. (2012). MER N31 Traverse Harlingen Samenvatting. Gemeente Harlingen. (2013). Tracébesluit N31 Traverse Harlingen onherroepelijk.

Gemeente Harlingen. (2014). De Nieuwe Afsluitdijk. Retrieved 17-8-2014, from http://www.harlingen.nl/over-stad-en-dorpen/de-nieuwe-afsluitdijk_41781/ Gemeente Helmond. (2012). Notulen 12e vergadering. GGA: Verkeer & Vervoer Hart van Brabant. (2013). Verbindingskracht: regionale

beleidsagenda verkeer en vervoer 2013 - 2017. Bibliography 114

Groeneveld, F. (2009). De rol van de procesmanager. Universiteit Utrecht. Grootsneek. (2010). Inspraakprocedure Knooppunt Joure van start. Retrieved 2-8-2014, from http://www.grootsneek.nl/143/inspraakprocedure-knooppunt-joure-van-start/ H2Ruimte. (2008). Verkenning gebiedsontwikkeling: resultataten van bureaustudie en externe reviews. H2Ruimte. (2014). Plan proces gebiedsniveau. Retrieved 3-10-2014, 2014, from http://www.ruimtexmilieu.nl/wiki/planproces/gebiedsniveau H2Ruimte, & Liefland Milieu. (2011). Achtergronddocument duurzame mobiliteit. H2ruimte, & Liefland Milieu. (2014). Proces: succesfactoren. Retrieved 31-3-2014, from http://www.handreikingdro.nl/proces/succesfactoren/ Hall, R., & Sussman, J. S. (2003). Sustainable Transportation - a strategy for system change. Hertogh, M. (2014). De T-vormige ingenieur. Retrieved 5-4-2014, from http://www.overruimte.nl/2014/t-vormige-ingenieur/ Hoitinga, S. (2013). Notes from conversation. In L. Besselink (Ed.). Hoitinga, S. (2014). Interview with Sieds Hoitinga on RATIP. In J. Cheung (Ed.). Hooimeijer, P., Kroon, H., & Luttik, J. (2001). Kwaliteit in meervoud, Conceptualisering en operationalisering van ruimtelijke kwaliteit voor meervoudig ruimtegebruik. Gouda. Huizenga, F. (2011). De vereniging in de centrifuge; over de effecten van overheidsdecentralisatie op het functioneren van verenigingen. Verenigingsmanagement, #2. IenM. (2013). N31 Harlingen (Traverse Harlingen) MIRT Projectenboek 2013 (pp. 303). Igno Pröpper. (2009). Participatieladder: vorm van participatie en bestuursstijl. Independent Research Forum. (2013). Post-2015: framing a new approach to sustainable development. International Council for Science, & International Social Science Council. (2013). Summary of the Expert Group Meeting on Science and Sustainable Development Goals. J. Helms. (2014). Linkse propaganda tegen de Ruit om Eindhoven en Helmond. Kernteam PVVP: Brabant. (2006). Provinciaal Verkeers- en Vervoersplan Noord-Brabant. Kloppenborg, T. J., & Opfer, W. A. (2002). The current state of project management research: Trends, interpretations, and predictions. Project Management Journal, 33(2), 5-18. landschapsarchitecten, V. (2012). Ambitiedocument gebiedsontwikkeling N31 Traverse Harlingen. Leeuwarden Courant. (2010). Twijfels over inspraak knooppunt Joure. Retrieved 2-8-2014, from http://www.lc.nl/friesland/regio/twijfels-over-inspraak-knooppunt-joure- 11593111.html#.U90kLvmSzaE Leeuwarden Courant. (2012). Geen sportjark Joure in 'driehoek' rontonde [Press release] Lipovetsky, S., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., & Shenhar, A. (1997). The relative importance of project success dimensions. R&D Management, 27(2), 97-106. doi: 10.1111/1467- 9310.00047 M. Cauvern. (2014). Interview with M. Cauvern. In J. Cheung (Ed.). M. Menger. (2014). Drechterland: 4,6 miljoen, Noordhollands Dagblad. Retrieved from http://www.noordhollandsdagblad.nl/stadstreek/enkhuizen- westfriesland/article27165023.ece/Drechterland-4-6-miljoen-voor-N23_?lref=L4 M.H. Schultz van Haegen. (2013). Vaststelling van de begrotingsstaat van het Infrastructuurfonds voor het jaar 2014.

M.H. Schultz van Haegen, S.A.E. Poepjes, & D. Durksz. (2012). Overeenkomst A6/A7 Knooppunt Joure (concept). Marrennijs. (2013). Entree Joure krijgt groen karakter. Retrieved 16-5-2014, 2014, from

http://www.marrennijs.nl/Nieuws/entree-joure-krijgt-groen-karakter Bibliography 115

Max-Neef, M. A. (2005). Foundations of transdisciplinarity. Ecological Economics, 53(1), 5- 16. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.01.014 Meyer and Miller. (2001). Urban Transportation Planning. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (1975). Meerjarenplan Personenvervoer 1976-1980. Den Haag. Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (1979). Structuurschema Verkeer en Vervoer, deel d: Regeringsbeslissing. Den Haag. Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (1988). Tweede Struktuurschema Verkeer en Vervoer, beleidsvoornemen. Den Haag. Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2004). Nota Mobiliteit: naar een betrouwbare en voorspelbare bereikbaarheid. Den Haag. Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2006). Nota Mobiliteit. Den Haag. Minister van Verkeer en Waterstaat. (2011). Spelregels van het Meerjarenprogramma Infrastructuur, Ruimte en Transport. Den Haag. Ministerie van infrastructuur en Milieu. (2012). Spelregels van het MIRT. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu. (2013). De zes instrumenten van de Omgevingswet. Den Haag. Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties, Neprom, VNG, & IPO. (2011). De Reiswijzer Gebiedsontwikkeling: een praktische routebeschrijving voor marktpartijen en overheden. Ministers of Transport and Communications. (2001). Strategy For Integrating Environment And Sustainable Development Into The Transport Policy: April Resolution. Paper presented at the 2340th meeting of the European Union's Council of Ministers, Luxembourg. Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. (2014). Gebiedsontwikkeling. Retrieved 26- 2-2014, 2014, from http://www.infomil.nl/onderwerpen/ruimte/gebiedsontwikkeling/introductie/#Rela tiegebiedsontwikkelingsprocesenonderzoeksopgave Oranjewoud, & Ligtermoet & Partners. (2010a). Evaluatie regionale samenwerking GGA (pp. 29). Oranjewoud, & Ligtermoet & Partners. (2010b). Evaluatie regionale samenwerking GGA: Bijlagenrapport. Panman, R. (2009). Gebiedsontwikkeling bij de planning van nationale infrastructuur. University of Groningen. Peek, G. J. (2011). Van disciplinair raamwerk naar denkraam. Real Estate Research Quarterly,, 16 - 25. Pidwirny, M., & Jones, S. (2014). Physical geography. Retrieved 3-3-2014, 2014, from http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/1b.html Pinto, J. K., & Mantel, S. J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37(4), 269-276. Platform31, K. (2014). Gebiedsontwikkeling van 1950 tot nu. Retrieved 24-2-2014, 2014, from http://kennisbank.platform31.nl/pages/28089/Gebiedsontwikkeling-van- 1950-tot-nu.html Platform Noordoostcorridor. (2014). Stuit de Ruit: homepage. Retrieved 28-8-2014, from http://www.stuitderuit.nl/

Prabhakar, G. P. (2008). What is project succes: a literature review. International journal of business and management, 3(9), 3-10. Projectbureau Knooppunt Joure. (2013a). Nieuwsbrief juli 2013, informatie over de

verbetering van de rotonde en haar omgeving. Knooppunt Joure Journaal. Bibliography 116

Projectbureau Knooppunt Joure. (2013b). Nieuwsbrief november 2013, informatie over de verbetering van de rotonde en haar omgeving. Knooppunt Joure Journaal. Projectbureau Knooppunt Joure. (2014). Knooppunt Joure. Retrieved 15-5-2014, 2014, from http://www.knooppuntjoure.nl/ Projectbureau N23 Westfrisiaweg. (2007). Regioakkoord. Projectbureau N31 Harlingen. (2014a). N31 Harlingen. Retrieved 20-5-2014, 2014, from http://www.n31harlingen.nl/ Projectbureau N31 Harlingen. (2014b). Nieuwspagina Juli 2014 [Press release] Province Brabant. (2014a). De Ruit. Retrieved 25-8-2014, from http://www.brabant.nl/Dossiers/Dossiers-op-thema/Ruimtelijke- ordening/Structuurvisie/Deelstructuurvisies/De-Ruit.aspx Province Brabant. (2014b). GebiedsGerichte aanpak verkeer en vervoer. Retrieved 22-8-2014, from http://www.brabant.nl/dossiers/dossiers-op-thema/verkeer-en- vervoer/verkeers-en-vervoersbeleid/gebiedsgerichte-aanpak-verkeer-en-vervoer.aspx Province Brabant. (2014c). Overdrachtsdossier: gebiedsontwikkeling De Ruit. Province Fryslân. (2011). PVVP 2006 Herzien. Province Fryslân. (2013). Útfieringsprogramma Ferkear en Ferfier 2014. Province North-Holland. (2014). Voordracht Zomernota. Provincie Brabant. (2006). PVVP: Verplaatsen in Brabant - samenvatting Kaders en Ambities 2006 - 2020. Provincie Brabant. (2010). Structuurvisie ruimtelijke ordening deel D Brainport Oost. 's Hertogenbosch. Provincie Fryslan. (2013). Tweede bestuursrapportage uitvoering begroting 2012. provincie Fryslan. (2014a). Complexe infraprojecten: Infra-info. Provincie Fryslan. (2014b). Provincie Fryslân presenteert haar gebiedsgerichte aanpak bij IPO bijeenkomst. Retrieved 21-2-2014, 2014, from http://www.fryslan.nl/gga Provincie Noord-Brabant. (2012). Verplaatsen in Brabant; Sturen op uitvoering, Dynamische beleidsagenda 2012 - 2016. Provincie Noord-Holland. (2012). Inpassingsplan Westfrisiaweg. In V. e. vervoer (Ed.). Provincie Noord-Holland. Provincie Noord-Holland. (2013). Opwaardering N23 Westfrisiaweg van start. Retrieved from http://www.noord-holland.nl/web/Actueel/Nieuws/Artikel/Opwaardering- N23-Westfrisiaweg-van-start.htm Provincie Noord-Holland. (2014). N23 - Westfrisiaweg. Retrieved 17-6-2014, 2014, from http://www.noord-holland.nl/web/Projecten/N23-Westfrisiaweg.htm R. van Heugten. (2014). De ruit: Ruud van Heugten reageert op redactioneel commentaar Eindshovens Dagblad. Retrieved 29-8-2014, from https://www.cda.nl/noord- brabant/actueel/toon/ruud-van-heugten-over-de-ruit-rond-eindhoven/ Raad van State. (2013a). Uitspraak 201209433/1/R1. Raad van State. (2013b). Uitspraak 201209741/1/R1. Raad van State. (2013c). Uitspraak 201209844/1/R4. Raad van State. (2014). Uitspraak 201311551/1/R6. Rand Europe et al, & SUMMA. (2003) SUMMA: Deliverable 2 of Workpackage 1: setting the Context for Defining Sustainable Transport and Mobility. (pp. 15). Rebel. (2013). Samenvatting Business Case Brainport Oost.

Renooy, P. H. (2012). Gebiedsontwikkeling op zijn Engels: lessen uit het Verenigd Koninkrijk. Rickards, T., Chen, M., & Moger, S. (2001). Development of a self-report instrument for exploring team factor, leadership and performance relationships. British Journal of

Management, 3(12), 243-250. Bibliography 117

Rijk van Dommel en Aa. (2014). Hoe en Wat? Retrieved 27-8-2014, from http://www.rijkvandommelenaa.nl/ontwikkeling/hoe-wat Rijksadviseur voor de infrastructuur, & BAPS. (2008). Cahier van de stedelijke autosnelweg: Bijdragen aan de esthetische ontginning van de autosnelweg in het stedelijk veld. Rotterdam: BAPS. Rijksoverheid. (2012). Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte. Rijksoverheid. (2013a). Tracebesluit A6/A7 Knooppunt Joure. Rijksoverheid. (2013b). Zeer grote decentralisatie naar gemeenten. Retrieved 23-2-2014, 2014, from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/nieuws/2013/02/19/zeer-grote- decentralisatie-naar-gemeenten.html Rijksoverheid. (2014a). Bijlage III: Voortgangsrapportage Tracéwetprojecten. Rijksoverheid. (2014b). Spatial Planning in The Netherlands. Retrieved 4-4-2014, from http://www.government.nl/issues/spatial-planning-and-infrastructure/spatial- planning-in-the-netherlands Rijksoverheid. (2014c). Wat is de Structuurvisie Infrastructuur en Ruimte (SVIR)? Retrieved 23-3-2014, from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/ruimtelijke-ordening-en- gebiedsontwikkeling/vraag-en-antwoord/wat-is-de-structuurvisie-infrastructuur-en- ruimte-svir.html Rijkswaterstaat. (2010). Handreiking MIRT-verkenning. Rijkswaterstaat. (2012a). Beantwoording zienswijzen; ontwerp- Tracebesluit N31. Rijkswaterstaat. (2012b). N31 Traverse Harlingen, tracebesluit. Rijkswaterstaat. (2013). Mededeling tracebesluit A6/A7 Knooppunt Joure [Press release] Rijkswaterstaat Noord-Holland. (2014). Reconstructie knooppunt Joure kan door [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.rijkswaterstaat.nl/actueel/nieuws_en_persberichten/2014/juli2014/reco nstructie_knooppunt_joure_kan_door.aspx Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155-169. Robert, N. (2000). Wicked problems and network approaches to resolution. International Public Management Review, 1(1). Rockart, J. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review, 57(2), 81-93. Rotmans, J. (2003). Transitiemanagement, sleutel voor een duurzame samenleving. Rotmans, J. (2010). Transitieagenda voor Nederland; investeren in duurzame innovatie. Rotmans, J. (2012). In het oog van de oorkaan: Nederland in transitie. Boxtel: Aeneas. Sadeh, A., Dvir, D., & Shenhar, A. (2000). The role of contract type in the succes of R&D: defence projects under increasing uncertainty. Project Management Journal, 31(3), 14- 21. Schoemaker, T. J. H. (2002). Samenhang in vervoer- en verkeersystemen. Bussum: Coutinho. Serrador, P., & Rodney Turner, J. (2014). The Relationship between Project Success and Project Efficiency. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 119(0), 75-84. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.011 Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., & Raz, T. (2003). An empircal analysis of the relationship between project planning and project succes. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 89-95.

Shenhar, A., & Wideman, R. M. (2002). Optimizing Success by Matching Style to Project Type. Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699-725. doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-8 Bibliography 118

Spit, T., & Zoete, P. (2006). Ruimtelijke Ordening in Nederland. Een Wetenschappelijke Introductie in het Vakgebied. . Den Haag: SDU. Struiksma, R., & Tillema, T. (2009). Planning van rijkswegen: van lijn- naar gebiedsopgave. Struiksma, R., Tillema, T., & Arts, J. (2010). From line towards area-oriented approaches in road infrastructure planning: a historical analysis and international perspective. Paper presented at the 24th AESOP Annual Conference, Finland. Sussman, J. M. (2008). Where transportation is going: transportation in the CLIOS system era: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Sussman, J. M., & Sgouridis, S. (2004). Regional strategic transporatation planning as CLIOS. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Tauw bv. (2007). MER Opwaardering Westfrisiaweg. The Institute of Asset Management. (2012). Asset Management – an anatomy. Transumo. (2010). Eerste stappen naar duurzame mobiliteit. Zoetermeer: Transumo. Triple Bridge. (2013a). Audit: bestuurlijke allianties, knooppunt Joure en Traverse Harlingen. Triple Bridge. (2013b). Intervisie: gebiedsgerichte aanpak complexe infrastructuele projecten. Turner, Rodney, Zolin, Roxanne, Remington, & Kaye. (2009). Modelling Success on Complex ProjectsMultiple Perspectives over Multiple Time Frames. Paper presented at the International Research Network of Project Management Conference, Berlin. Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager‟s leadership style as a success factor on projects: a literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(1), 49-61. Turner, R., & Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting Success on Large Projects: Developing Reliable Scales to Predict Multiple Perspectives by Multiple Stakeholders Over Multiple Time Frame. Project Management Journal, 43, 87-99. UBS: global asset management. An introduction to infrastructure as an asset class. United Nations. (2005). 2005 World Summit Outcome. United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future (Brundtland Report). Van de Graaf, H., & Hoppe, R. (1989). Een inleiding tot de beleidswetenschap en beleidskunde. Muiderberg: Coutinho. van der Cammen, H., & van Eijk, O. (2006). Gebiedsontwikkeling: kansen en condities voor maatschappelijke meerwaarde: Nirov. Van Enter, D. (2011). Vervlechting van infrastructuur en gebiedsontwikkeling. (Master), Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen. Van Ham, J. C., & Koppenjan, J. F. M. (2002). Publieke-private samenwerking bij transportinfrastructuur: wenkend of wijkend perspectief? . Utrecht: LEMMA. Van Loenhout, L. (2013). The public project manager's perspective on project succes. (Master), Delft University of Technology, Delft. Van Nes, R., Sanders, F. M., Van Lint, J. W. C., & Wiggenraad, P. B. L. (2011). Dictaat CT2710 Transport & Planning. TU Delft: TU Delft. Van Rooy, P. (2006). NederlandBovenWater - praktijkboek gebiedsontwikkeling. Amsterdam: Calff & Meischke. Van Rooy, P. (2009). Nederland Boven Water praktijkboek gebiedsontwikkeling II. Gouda. Van Wee, B. (2002). Land Use and Transport Research and Policy Challanges. Journal of Transport Geography, 10. Veghel. (2014). Standpunt dorpsraad inzake de ombuiging van de N279. from

http://www.zijtaart.nl/dorpsraad.html y Verdaas, C., Slob, A., Hofstra, P., & Mastwijk, J. (2005). MIT-manifest ''Van roerei tot omlet''.

Verhaeghe, R. J. (2012). Infrastructure Projects: assessment and planning. Bibliograph 119

Verkeersnet. (2011). Adviesraden over decentralisatie ruimtelijk beleid: Taken én geld voor de regio. Retrieved 23-2-2014, 2014, from http://www.verkeersnet.nl/5367/adviesraden-over-decentralisatie-ruimtelijk-beleid- taken-en-geld-voor-de-regio/ Verweij, S., Klijn, E.-H., Edelenbos, J., & Van Buuren, A. (2013). What makes governance networks work? . Public Administration, 91(4), 1035-1055. doi: 10.1111/padm.12007 Vista landschaparchitectuur en stedenbouw. (2012). Regionaal landschapspark: Rijk van Dommel en Aa. VROMraad. (2011). Verkenning Ruimtelijke kwaliteit. Den Haag. VTPI. (2004). Comprehensive transport planning: creating a comprehensive framework for transport planning and policy analysis. Waddenvereniging. (2014,). Vismigratierivier door de Afsluitdijk. Retrieved 17-8-2014, from http://www.waddenvereniging.nl/?module=tekstpagina&mid=106&wid=360 Wegener, M. (1999). Land-use Transport Interaction: State of the Art. Dortmund: University Dortmund. Witteveen en Bos. (2012). NOC: N279 en Oostwestverbinding, afwegingskader. Wolting, B. (2006). PPS en gebiedsontwikkeling. Den Haag: Sdu uitgevers. World Economic Forum. (2014). Infrastructure Investment Policy Blueprint. Xue, Y., Turner, J. R., & Anbari, F. T. (2013). Using results-based monitoring and evaluation to deliver results on key infrastructure projects in China. Global Business Perspectives(1), 85-105. Zenit-bgo. (2014). Projecten; N31 Gebiedsontwikkeling Harlingen. Retrieved 17-8-2014, from http://www.zenit- bgo.nl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=27

Bibliography 120

APPENDIX A: SUPPLEMENT TO PART II This appendix contains the supplement to PART II, thus the full details. Some of the found literatures are kept in Dutch, to prevent the issue of „lost in translation‟.

Supplement to section 3.2: the Circle of Wegner If there is a societal need for improved mobility and accessibility of a region, then transport infrastructure is a mean to improve transportation of goods and people from one place to another. Thus, infrastructure is always linked to the transport system, which is always situated in a certain spatial area. This section discusses the terms accessibility and mobility with regard to transport infrastructure.

The spatial allocation of activities such as working or living indicates that people have to travel. Therefore, the configuration of the uses in land or regions will generate travel patterns. The impact of land use on the travelling can be expressed in utilitarian demand for travel: this demand for travel originates from the need to reach certain locations where activities take place (Van Wee, 2002, pp. 259 - 271). The feedback circle of Wegener (1999, p. 99) shows that the land-use and transport system do not interact directly with each other, but indirectly through activities and accessibility. This theory relates infrastructure with the terms mobility and accessibility, and how these can be understood.

Figure 0-1: Feedback circle of Wegener, simplified (left side) and extended (right side) (Wegener, 1999). Starting from the land-use the four relations can be summarised as following, starting from land-use to activities and reversed clockwise:

 The distribution of land uses, such as industrial, commercial, or residential over a region determines the activities like living, working, shopping or education;  The distribution of human activities needs spatial interactions or trips in the transport systems to overcome the distances between locations of happening activities;  The distribution in the transport system allows spatial interactions, which are being

measures in terms of accessibility; Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 121

 From accessibility to land-use: the distribution in space partly determines the decision where locations will be situated thus also the change in the land use system.

The element of car ownership in figure 0-1 indicates the level of mobility, which implies the user‟s choice of travelling, e.g. by car, public transport or bicycle. The more options available, the easier it is for the user to commit to the decision of going on a trip. The mode choice, through „the elements of travel times, distances, and costs for each transport mode‟‟, will determine the level of mobility. The least costs, whereas time is expressed as value of time, will be favoured. However, public transport is omitted from this thesis‟ scope, thus the only option by travel is by car.

How do the land use influences the transport system? It is expected that an overall increase in density of companies and residential areas will positively influence the average travel distance. Due to the closer distance between residents and activities, there will be more trips made. If attractive services in residential areas are provided, then people do not have to travel to the city centre but can pursue their doing in local areas. Moreover, bigger and ever growing cities are negative correlations with the travel distance; if living on corner, one ought to travel further to the city centre (Van Nes et al., 2011, p. 6). The other way around, how does the transport system influence the land-use plans? A good accessible area is seen as attractive: there will be more urban development, more employment opportunities due to staying companies, more educative and commercial facilities. Good accessibility next to highways, roads, train stations, harbours and airports stations are particularly attractive for brain parks, industrial areas, and office locations (Van Nes et al., 2011, p. 7). Bad accessibility does not necessarily mean bad attractiveness as shown in figure 0-1: H2Ruimte and Liefland Milieu (2011) mentions that bad accessibility can lead to smaller, more quiet and picturesque settlements with beautiful sceneries untouched by urbanism.

Supplement to section 3.3: evolvement and CLIOS-system Transportation planning, which is closely related to transportation planning, is according to MIT, currently in the CLIOS Systems Era. Transportation systems are complex, large, integrated, open-ended, socio-technological systems. CLIOS is very similar to sustainable area development due to its overarching goal. Therefore explaining this would give more insight

into the current phases where infrastructure planning is heading to.

There is a „worldwide‟ trend to more integrated approaches. CLIOS is the theory on transport and transportation by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT. MIT is a prestigious ART II university in the USA. But how is the transport infrastructure in some of the rest of the Western countries? Struiksma et al. (2010, p. 18) concludes that the Netherlands is part of the international trend towards innovative planning approaches for the development of road infrastructure that are more suitable in light contemporary dynamics.13 The new approaches are happening in two broad senses. First, quality gained a more important role in spatial planning expressing itself in sustainability and spatial quality. Second, the complexity in problems

13 Researched in UK, USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Appendix A: toSupplement P 122 requires in traditional planning approaches certain dynamism, which is in line with the existing societal and political dynamism. Thus the contemporary planning approach has to be developed more flexible and adaptive.

In the past, transportation and planning was primarily concerned with the design and construction of infrastructure. Nowadays, there is increasing concerns towards the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation of infrastructure with regard to after-effects of the transportation network and safety and cleanness of infrastructure (Struiksma & Tillema, 2009; Struiksma et al., 2010; Van Nes et al., 2011). The latter is particularly important considering Dutch‟s transition: e.g. decentralizing government, declining population growth, increasing demand in mobility, and changing spatial needs in an already built environment as noted in section 3.1. In other words, instead of only looking at the infrastructure‟s design and construction, it also important to regard the system‟s behaviour in its entirety (Sussman, 2008). For that, it requires system engineering, transportation planning and a sustainable approach. MIT raises the awareness that transportation embodies a CLIOS-ideology, respectively meaning that the issue of system is Complex, Large-scaled, Interconnected, Open, and Socio- technical (Sussman, 2008). A historical view on the infrastructure eras is given in the next figure.

Figure 0-2: transportation eras (Sussman, 2008) The Infrastructure Era focuses on what the government wants with infrastructure provision. That restrictive plan process by externals about the proposed road without carefully

considering the environment both physically and socially (Struiksma et al., 2010). Moreover, it is focused on mobility, physical facilities, one kind of modality and economic growth (Sussman, 2008). The Transportation Systems Era emphasize on a economic-based framework of supply, demand, equilibrium and networks (Sussman, 2008). This is also portrayed in the theory on the circle of Wegener (1999) and the layered model system of Schoemaker (2002) that connects the supply and demand of the transport system with the activities-system. Despite the focus on economic development, it does take in considerations the environmental concerns with a focus on both mobility and accessibility. There is also recognition of unprized externalities such as congestion and it has a intermodal perspective, which although is limited to freight only (Sussman, 2008). The CLIOS Systems Era is the new „future‟, which is

characterized by (a) advanced technology and mathematics allowing tailored customer services, Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 123 rich information environment, large-scaled optimization, and sophisticated pricing. (b) Institutional changes such as public sectoral changes, which in fact is happening at the moment of writing, and new business models beyond the traditional ones. See the different types of area development and PPP in section 3.3. (c) Connections with other socio-technical systems, such as the energy or telecommunications infrastructure (Sussman, 2008). (d) Expanded role of stakeholders and broader definition of interested stakeholders in defining the system and its representations, developing strategic alternatives, considering the implementation and overall decision-making. (e) Extra performance considerations („ilities‟) besides traditional considerations such as costs, travel tie, reliability, safety. The ilities are flexibility, adaptability, robustness, And also, the most important „ility‟, which is sustainability on which is CLIOS‟s overarching design principle.

A special case within this CLIOS-process is regional strategic transport planning (RSTP). The idea is that new technologies and developments within transportation allow the consideration of planning, management, operations, and maintenance of transportation systems at regional scale.

The Complexity is defined as (1) structural complexity: the number of components in system and the network of interconnections among them. (2) Behavioural complexity: the emerging type of behaviour due to the manner which the sets of components interact. (3) Evaluative complexity: the competing perspectives of involved stakeholders who share different ideas on the performance‟s criteria. (4) Nested complexity: involved the interaction between a complex „physical‟ domain and a complex Figure 0-3: bi-direction relationship „institutional sphere‟. between the physical system and institutional sphere (Sussman, 2008) Figure 0-3 represented the bi-directional relationship between the physical system and institutional sphere: the physical system, such engineering and economic models, mainly quantitative principles, are

nested inside the institutional sphere which is more qualitative in nature and often participatory involving organizations and stakeholders (Sussman, 2008; Sussman & Sgouridis, 2004). Both aspects are complex and required different methodologies for analysis: analysis within the physical system, between the policy and physical system, and within the policy system. Wolting (2006) recognizes the same issues and mentions that process management is crucial for coupling the policy system (public-public, public-private) with the physical system (e.g. risk management, plan development). Similar to the institutional sphere affecting the physical system is figure 3-3B: where the region influences the infrastructure.

Moreover, RSTP is Large, due to the impacts which is large in magnitude and covers large geographical area. Furthermore, it is an integrated process due to its interconnections with larger entity: subsystems are closely coupled through feedback loops. The Openness is linked Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 124 with the factors that can impact the system, such as social, political, and economic factors: it is included the scope of analysis. The Interconnected is the same as the interrelated system within infrastructure as mentioned in section 3.2.1. Finally, it is Socio-technical, due to complex technology and social impact. RSTP depends on the context that can vary substantially. The decision on transportation planning heavily depends on (1) the level of development of transportation network, (2) overall policy perception, (3) economic condition of region or country (Sussman & Sgouridis, 2004)

Essentially, RSTP is very similar to sustainable area development (Dutch: duurzame gebiedsontwikkeling), because the consensus definition of RSTP‟s overarching goal is (Hall & Sussman, 2003): „A regional strategic transportation plan should ensure an adequate, efficiently operated, robust, and secure transportation network that maximizes total societal benefits within a sustainable framework.‟ Sustainability incorporates three aspects: economic, social, and environmental, so it goes beyond the considerations of conventional planning approach originating from the area development schools where transportation is seen as means for economic growth only (see section 3.2.2 on the circle of Wegener). Hence, sustainability here is again in conformity with sustainability in sustainable area development.

Overview of the steps of the CLIOS-system First of all, the emergent behaviour of CLIOS systems is difficult to predict and often counterintuitive, even if the subsystem behaviour is predictable. This is due to the many sub- systems, the interaction and the degree of human agency involved. This make it difficult to study CLIOS, however a process is designed to better understand the system‟s underlying structure and behaviour, identifying strategic alternatives for improving the system‟s performances, and deploying and monitoring those strategic alternatives (Dodder, McConnell, Mostashari, & Sussman, 2005).

A key motivation behind the need for a CLIOS Process is the presence of “nested complexity”, which results when a physical system is nested inside an institutional sphere, where both are complex and interdependent.

The study of the CLIOS will require that a variety of tools and processes be employed, with quantitative engineering and economic models being used for the physical system and more

qualitative institutional, organizational and stakeholder frameworks being used for the institutional sphere. An important aspect of the CLIOS Process is the integration of physical and institutional sphere analysis.

The CLIOS Process can be thought of as a Christmas tree and its ornaments; the tree represents the overall process and the ornaments represent the specific tools (e.g. benefit-cost analysis, probabilistic risk assessment, stakeholder analysis, etc.) one uses in a particular application.

The CLIOS Process consists of three major stages: representation of the CLIOS structure and behaviour, design, evaluation and selection of CLIOS performance and alternatives, considering

various strategic alternatives and implementation of the selected alternatives. The representation Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 125 stage is diagrammatic in nature. Diagrams are used to represent the structure and behaviour of the CLIOS, by graphically illustrating the elements (components, policy drivers and common drivers) and interactions of the physical and institutional spheres. To aid in the difficult job of effectively representing complexity in a CLIOS diagrammatically, the idea of expanding and layering are introduced(Sussman & Sgouridis, 2004).

Figure 0-4: CLIOS system Representation: the purpose of this stage is to produce the system‟s diagrammatic and text descriptions in terms of its structure and behaviour as well as critical issues and goals.

1. Describe the system: issue and goal identification 2. Identify the major subsystems 3. Develop the CLIOS diagram: nesting, layering, and expanding 4. (A) describe the components (B) describe the links 5. Seek insight about system behaviour

Pay attention to the aforementioned overarching goal of RSTP.

This stage is a representation and experimentation platform where the existing infrastructure, organization structure, and impacts on the economy, land use and the environment are

represented. Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 126

Design and evaluation: the purpose of this stage is to evaluate options, designed for physical system performance improvements. The tools employed here should allow identification of system performance measures, the identification and design of physical performance improvement options, and the evaluation of options and uncertainties. Steps 6 – 9 are the methods.

6. Identify performance measures and refine system goals 7. Identify options for system performance improvements 8. Flag important areas of uncertainty 9. Evaluate options and select robust ones that perform best across uncertainties

These steps lead to various types of strategic options to improve the system‟s performance including the outputs such as: environmental policy, regional planning architecture (RPA, looks like process architecture in process management), operations planning, congestion pricing, land use etc.

Implementation: the role of this stage is to implement improvements to the stem including modification of the institutional system. The methods employed here should allow development of implementation strategy for options, the creation and evaluation of institutional performance improvement options and the post-implementation evaluation.

The process here is the same as the CLIOS-process design and evaluation: the institutional system, among other systems, is modified to archive effective and efficient implementation based on the chosen strategic options.

Regional planning architecture Regional planning architecture (RPA) looks like the process architecture of the process management. Steps 1 to 9 are important, but also the steps of RPA. Together they lead to a

successful implementation of the RSTP/CLIOS process.

Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 127

Figure 0-5: Regional planning architecture

Technical, economic and organizational tools for CLIOS

Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 128

Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 129

Success factors for CLIOS-system, similar to RATIP Aspects from transportation planning that can lead to planning of sustainable transportation systems. FACTORS (Sussman & Sgouridis, 2004, pp. 19 - 21, 63)

A system approach is needed to have sustainable development planning. However, this approach studies the entire system, instead of just examining the system‟s components independently (Fulmer, 2009): this requires comprehensive research methodologies which are intensive in terms of time and data collection (Meyer and Miller, 2001, p. 28; VTPI, 2004). Therefore it is suggested to keep in mind the following aspects when incorporating sustainability into transport planning (Meyer and Miller, 2001, p. 75).

 Setting up a future vision: to comprehend the long term and future impacts of the present day decisions. In addition, this also provides a kind of platform building where the community provides different solution alternatives in the vision (step 9). o Compared to sustainable area development: the future vision is the need for an overarching vision shared by all the locals, kind of platform building is used where all stakeholders give their share in order to attain the higher goal concept.  Responsive to varying scales of analysis: concentrating at one scale narrows the viewpoint of those who possible gain of lose from the project. Performing at regional scale involves also the local or project based scales at which system impacts might occur and can be overlooked (step 6-12). o Compared to sustainable area development: both the approaches emphasizes the needs to connect the different scales and time durations, one project always functions within a certain context of a system.  Broad scope of problem definition: transportation, thus infrastructure affects many other systems such as the environment, economy, and quality of life. Solutions are not easy to define. The purpose of planning is to explore the simple definition of problem and examine the total system in which it operates in order to indentify the vision, systems goals and objectives as well the impacts (both secondary and tertiary). I.e. the physical and organization characteristics of the problem must be analyzed in order to understand the range of potential problems as well solutions (mainly in the representation phase). o Compared to sustainable area development: broadening of scope extensions is necessary. In wicked problems, the solution is defined by its problems and vice versa, which is done in the pre-initiation phase.  Flexibility in analysis: the decision making in transportation planning is political process. The outcomes are influenced by opinions of politicians and different interest groups. The bargaining and search for consensus among stakeholders makes up the process. Effective planning process must have the ability to incorporate new information comparative evaluation for alternatives purposes (step 8 and 9). o Compared to sustainable area development: this is strongly related to process management and the new era of infrastructure planning to be flexible.  Evaluation, feedback, and continuous monitoring of performance measures: the context

which all is happening is dynamic, thus problems, constrains as well solutions tends to Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 130

arise. The process should be capable of continually sending feedback, perform evaluation and monitor its environment to ensure the system‟s operation‟s performance measures are at its aimed level (in all 3 main stages). o Compared to sustainable area development: this emphasizes the need for good process management and someone to overlook all operations in process.  Connection to implementation process: the implementation process, also known as the programming and budgeting phase, entail dealing with new type of politics and correspondingly set of stakeholders with self interest in certain projects. For that reason, it is important that the transportation has a continuous updated plan consisting of smaller programs over a multiyear period. The long term plan should be outlined as well, but less specifically. The outcomes of implementation should be included as well to connect the implementation with the decisions made. (implementation stage) o Compared to sustainable area development: all stages have to be executed well, thus also the implementation phase.  Opportunities for public involvement: everyone is to be involved in the decision- making, it is essential that these opportunities are given (part in representation, integral part of scenario analysis, as well the determination of critical success and goals of system) o Compared to sustainable area development: public involvement is part of

process management, thus extra emphasizes.

Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 131

Supplement to section 3.5: area development definitions H2Ruimte (2008) shows in their report that there are many characteristics of area

development, depending on the perspective of the organization.

Figure 0-6: list of characteristics of area development Ecorys and Witteveen en Bos (2009) defines area development as „Integrale gebiedsgerichte projecten zijn investeringsprojecten waarbij binnen een bepaald gebied diverse grondgebruik functies in hun onderlinge samenhang worden ontwikkeld‟.

De Zeeuw (2007) explains that area development is „Het betreft de kunst van het verbinden van functies, disciplines, partijen, belangen en geldstromen, met het oog op de

(her)ontwikkeling van een gebied.‟ This statement is supported by Platform31 (2014), which is Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 132 a new and independent knowledge platform on urban and spatial development; fusion of organizations KEI, Nirov, Nicis, and SEV.

Bouwkunde TU-Delft (2014) describes area development as „Gebiedsontwikkeling staat voor een manier van werken waarbij overheden, private partijen en andere betrokkenen tot integratie van planvorming en ruimtelijke investeringen komen met als resultaat de uitvoering van (ruimtelijke) projecten‟.

(Van Rooy (2009)) argues that „Gebiedsontwikkeling is een op consensus gerichte werkwijze in het omgaan met complexiteit, netwerken, dynamiek, posities en in het verbinden van de meest uiteenlopende waarden. Het is een gezamenlijke betekenisgeving aan de ruimte en, anders dan de klassieke ruimtelijke ordening, vooral een sociaal-culturele opgave die zich ruimtelijk manifesteert. Gebiedsontwikkeling komt pas in beeld als projectontwikkeling en programmamanagement ontoereikend zijn. Gebiedsontwikkeling is een langjarig proces, gericht op het realiseren van een stip op de horizon die vanuit het proces steeds concreter wordt.‟ The statement is supported by Platform31 (2014).

Lastly, Wolting (2006, p15) mentions that „Gebiedsontwikkeling is een containerbegrip voor grootschalige ruimtelijke ontwikkelingen in het landelijk gebied en het stedelijk gebied. Integrale gebiedsontwikkelingen worden verschillende functies met elkaar geïntegreerd tot een samenhangend programma.‟

Supplement to section 3.7: transdisciplinarity & T-engineer The transition from the Transportation System Era to the CLIOS Systems Era is clear. The decentralizing government and different focuses in the SVIR of tackling problems more integrated and holistic indicates the approach of CLIOS Systems Era. This rather new approach are represented in national and regional agendas (Rijksoverheid, 2012). Due to this transition, a shift in engineering is occurring. A person involved in infrastructure should also have general knowledge besides its specialization in infrastructure. The T-shaped-engineer is required to comprehend such kinds of problems: The horizontal line for breath in transport fundamentals such as technology, systems, and institutions, and the vertical line for in-depth knowledge within a transportation speciality (Hertogh, 2014; Sussman, 2008, p. 25).

The involvement of widening the original spectrum of engineering (e.g. silo, mono-discipline) can be explained with transdisciplinarity. Transdisciplinarity helps understanding complexity in integrated projects in more systematic and holistic matter. Max-Neef (2005, pp. 14, 15) argues we know many, but understand little: the infrastructure engineer knows how to calculate, but he might not possibly grasp the true problem, as his solution in his discipline contains only one level of reality. The overarching goal in the higher hierarchal level is not reached. Transdisciplinarity is the coordination between all hierarchal levels. Respectively, the hierarchal levels from top to bottom are known as value level, normative level, pragmatic level, and

empirical level. Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 133

Figure 0-7: Transdisciplinarity, only if all levels are coordinated with each other (Max-Neef, 2005) Infrastructure planning involves planning and design. It starts at the normative interdiscipline of e.g. planning and design, and it gives purpose for the technical disciplines such as engineering and architecture. The normative level (2nd level in figure: 0-7) refers „what we want to do‟. The T-engineer should be established at this level, acting as a process manger to lead the project of coupling „what we want to do‟ (2nd level) with:

 1st level: higher concept of „how to do what we want to do?‟ (what we must do)  3rd level: lower concept of „what are we capable of doing?‟  4th level: lowest concept of „what exists?‟

In other words, the T-engineer tries ought to have the thoughts of strong transdisciplinarity and embed the ideas of what must we do into what we want to do. There should be a distinction that from level 1 to level 2, the „we‟ is not the same; see box 1. The disconnection of planning and implementing is made clear with transdisciplinarity; the disconnection of the coherent body because every silo/department/sector was acting on its own without acknowledge each other‟s dependencies. This is also displayed in the evolvement of infrastructure planning (Struiksma et al., 2010). The SVIR, in addition confirms the importance of coherent integration of more sectoral policies with regard to spatial planning.

Nevertheless, with process management, this can lead to a broad supported compromise which is eventually what we want to do. If the process manager regards the capabilities (what are we capable of doing) and reality of fact (what exists) then the problem can potentially be solved. Process management will be discussed in later chapters concerning success criteria and factors.

BOX 1

Explanation for the bold „we‟ and underscore „we‟. In spatial planning (Dutch: planologie, if

scientifically approached), the planners plan the physical organisation of space according to an A: toSupplement PART II overall strategy. Area development (Dutch: gebiedsontwikkeling) originates from two sub- spatial planning disciplines: development planning (Dutch: ontwikkelingsplanologie) and development control planning (Dutch: toelatingsplanologie). However, area development Appendix 134 deflects on one important fact that in spatial planning the plan and design of a region is made by outsiders, whereas in area development is plan developed through cooperation of many parties in certain region (Platform31, 2014). From a more traditional development control planning towards a more proactive development planning (Struiksma & Tillema, 2009). This is why „we‟, as opposed to, „we‟ is not the same; the spatial planners vs. the spatial developers/makers. The SVIR notes that the national government want to emphasize the end users of activities in regions (Rijksoverheid, 2012); thus that is why the T-engineer and process management is especially important in today‟s development of projects in infrastructure, area development, and RATIP.

Friesland‟s success of RATIP is partly due to the availability of these potential people. D. Bergsma, municipality director of Leeuwarden, says that RATIP requires lots of collaborations between different stakeholders. Therefore, compromises between what was supposed to come (initial goal) and what is actually coming (due to interveniences in compromises) are inevitable. However, if the stakeholders acknowledge the higher ambition and they are content with the compromise, then in his opinion added-value is created. Notice, that the higher ambition here is similar to the overarching goal in the higher hierarchal level in the transdisciplinarity. The added-value is created, because the community‟s wishes are honoured and the higher ambitions of the wishes of the municipality are realized as well (Provincie Fryslan, 2014b; Triple Bridge, 2013b).

Supplement to section 5.2: process design in process management Here is the complete description. All the sub-factors to the 4 criteria for the process design is explained. Also the rules of the game are given at the end of this section.

Criteria for a process design Sub-factors

Openness 1 Transparency in process and process management 2 Involvement of all parties 3 Transform substance choices to process type agreements

Protection of core values 4 Level of protection 5 Level of commitment to process instead of results 6 The amount of postponement possibilities in commitments

7 The amount of exit rules

Speed 8 Level of simulation early participation 9 Prospect of gain for cooperative behaviour 10 There are quick wins 11 The process is heavily staffed 12 Transferring conflicts to the periphery of the process 13 Tolerance towards ambiguity 14 Command and control to gain momentum

Substance 15 Role of experts in facilitation 16 The role of experts and stakeholders are bundled and unbundled 17 Substance variety to selection

Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 135

1) Transparency in process and process management: A transparent process makes it for parties attractive to participate in process; involved parties can check whether the process is fair and it offers opportunities to promote their interest. This should be regarded in two ways; first he process has an independent value meaning that the process of consultation and negotiation should be ongoing. This can help the parties in losing their firm convictions, unfreeze the process and develop their relationships. Also, there are increased incentives for cooperative behaviours as the cost of quitting will be higher as the process progresses. Second, process agreements will benefit the process progress and will likely prevents opportunism and disorder between parties, resulting in a better decision-making that is less capricious and unpredictable.

2) Involvement of all parties: Due to the involvement of all parties, enrichment of the solution can be stimulated. A wide variety of stakeholders can offer a wide variety of insight and ideas. This will lead to more production opportunities and open processes make it easy for parties to join and account their interests. Parties with either blocking power (to obstruct the process), production power (knowledge or resources), and interests (moral consideration) in project should be considered. To get them involved, a sense of urgency is needed; this makes it interesting for them to cooperate in process.

3) Transform substance choices to process type agreements: the transformation of substantive choices to process agreements is important. At times not everyone agrees on the substantive choice, thus it is useful to transform that into a process agreement in which the process will lead to a substantial decision. E.g. create decision criteria together, parallel development of multiple alternatives. At the start, it is best to have little few substantive choices, since this will give room for parties to bring their own ideas.

4) Level of protection: the core values of parties can be guarded by establishing game rules and by using the process to create respect among each other. If the core values of parties are ensured, then this can stimulate more cooperative behaviour.

5) Level of commitment to process instead of results: a process ends with a result. Parties

cannot be expected to commit to the process, since the project is too unpredictable on what the results might be in these contemporary dynamics. Therefore, at the start parties should have room to distance themselves from the final result; if there is no distance, then the process will be laborious due to the fact parties will always prevent the process from taking a direction that is unfavourable to them and they will influence any sub result in a direction that suits them best. The commitment of parties is limited to process agreements (rules agreed upon beforehand). The nature of commitment that parties have is also influenced by the fact if the results and the implementation are directly coupled or not, with or without room. E.g. if one knows that the result (set of decisions) which parties must implement will have risk to their interest, then they will be uncooperative. By having room means loose

couplings instead of tight couplings. Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 136

6) The amount of postponement possibilities in commitments: Postponement of their commitments during the process is to prevent them of feeling threatened. If a party is required to commit to sub-decision during the process, then there is a chance that there will be a stalemate between parties because they perceive the process as a funnel trap in which everyone sub-decision represents a point of no return. Postponement in commitments is suitable for a process characterized by uncertainties and distrusts. This management strategy if applied comes with several benefits:  Reduced decision-making costs: processes are multi-faceted and multi-issue decision making are always partly unpredictable. This means it is unclear which final decision will be made. If a substantive decision is submitted in such a situation, it will probably be impossible for parties to predict the implications of these interim results for the final decision making and for their own position. As a result, this might lead to a kind of decision making in which parties want to secure their position as much as possible. This can lead to lengthy negotiations that do maximum justice to the parties‟ interests and in turn this may cause the decision to be either complex and detailed, or sketchy and vague. Postponing commitments may avert such laborious decision-making. o Veto right options; postpone commitments and if they dislike they may veto it. At first, such processes seem unlikely to produce any results, but on second thoughts this agreement to come to a unanimous result will engage all users in a process. No is possible, thus compromise is needed to not use veto. This veto right option will keep the decision making costs low.  Possibilities for building mutual trust. In complex situations distrust is often unavoidable. If a decision is made against such background, parties tend to invest into the interest and hidden motives of other parties. By postponing commitments, mutual trust and a successful process can be stimulated.  The stimulation of learning processes. These learning processes are most vital for a process. During the process, new insights will become available, facts will turn different from what is generally assumed and even normative views can change. Therefore, by binding commitments at an early stage can seriously hamper such learning process. At

the start, the parties have no common frame of reference; every party will put in

perspective their conviction that they are the ones who are right. By doing so, a common frame of reference can be build up. This calls for a learning process, which can be realized by the room which is created by postponing commitments. A process should proceed from substantive variety towards selection (H. Bruijn & Heuvelhof, 2004). During the starting phase of process, a variety of options should be considered, allowing an authoritative selection to be made during the final phase.  Reduced pressure on the decision-making. During the course of process, the results have to be presented and by definition an open decision-making process generates a large of quantity of information, which has to be reduced in the course of project. This

implies that the aggregation level at which the information must be processed will rise Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 137

sharply in the course of process. This will decrease the relevance of various sub decisions.  By offering room to postpone can reduce the pressure on decision-making. The opposite attitude of providing room is binding the maximum amount of decisions in a minimum amount of time. The comparison is given here below. The disadvantage of this design principle is the decision-making will not produce any visible results for quite some time. But the sufficient speed with regard to the content should balance this (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008, p. 119).

Figure 0-8: offering room as opposed to preconditions 7) Amount of exit rules: lowers the threshold of particular parties to join the process, but it also grants the possibilities for parties to discontinue their participation in process if they wish. However, the usage of this room should be limited; the process manager should ideally design the process in such a way that it is satisfactory to all parties that leaving is no longer appealing for them. It can prevent opportunistic behaviour of parties; parties that make use of the extra information by participating in process, but as to support the

decision-making they only oppose it. Due to the exit option, they can leave during the process instead of oppose the decision-making. For a party to leave can jeopardize the progress of process, because the party that is allowed to leave can reinforce the conviction that the process has little to offer. Moreover, the credibility of the process manager can be harmed. It is important to give the losing party a prospect of gain. Lastly, if the imminent exit happens, the conflict should be framed as a conflict between parties instead as a conflict between the process manager and one of the parties. This will likely uphold the process manager‟s role as facilitator; he or she can only influence the conflict indirectly, through other parties in process or through the process environment.

Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 138

8) Level of simulation early participation: indicates the important of stimulating parties to participate in process. Arrangements should be undertaken to stimulate this progress and make the waiting game a less appealing option. Early baseline date (EBD) eliminate the risk of slow start that is often characterized when employing wide participatory involvement of the actors. The EBD means that highly motivated parties can come together in an early stage to discuss matters. Measures taken by these early participants will be taken into account in the formulation of later obligations; future arrangements in the following rounds will be based on this data. The parties that join later will have to comply with this situation, which is framed by the early participants in their own favour. The EBD can be an incentive for parties to join at an early stage, which holds a positive momentum to the process. Voluntary Action Plan is the emphasize on the voluntary nature of the actions to be taken, this will lower the threshold to join.

9) The process carries a prospect of gain is the incentive for cooperative behaviour. If people feel that there is something to gain from process, they are more willing to corporate. Parties should be convinced that the process is and will remain sufficiently appealing to them to participate, and above all bring it to a good quick conclusion. Gain for various parties should not pay off too soon – emphasis on a prospect of gain. If it is gained too soon, there is risk of opportunistic behaviour; the party in question may withdraw from process and cease to behave cooperatively. The chances of gain should be maximised towards the end of progress.

10) In case the gain is too far away in the process, quick wins are the wins to which is paid quickly to keep the parties to keep them interested in the process. Parties cannot be expected to commit themselves to the sub decisions; nothing is decided until everything is decided. Nor, can the situation give the gain too soon due to arise of opportunistic behaviour.

11) Process is heavily staffed meaning that the participants in the process have authority to the decision-making representing their organization. Three arguments are given for this cause. First, heavy representation promotes the external authority and image of the process.

Second, usually these representatives have strong commitment power, thus they have opportunities to stimulate the organization‟s commitment. If this staffs are too light, then commitment powers have to be generated‟; this causes trouble for progress. Third, a heavy representative may, if necessary, take some distance from the organization he represents. This is necessary in this kind of process, in which parties sometimes to make compromises.

12) Transferring conflicts to the periphery of the process is that the process is designed in view of potentially conflicting relationships between the participating parties. This process design hold the evident risk that parties that might have conflicting interests will be fought out fiercely and escalating the project. Therefore the process architect needs to take a

number of precautions to prevent too many conflicts arsing between the parties during the Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 139

conflict. The process have limited tolerance for conflict; too much of this will affect the mutual relationship to such an extent that it poses a threat to the process. The process architect might utilize the organizational structure; core structured by number of shells, e.g. steering group, project group, and a working group. Key decisions are made in the steering group, thus project and working groups hold less risk associated with conflicts. To highlight the positive effects of conflicts (better information, better overview of contrasting views) may help the decision-makers to decide.

13) The tolerance towards ambiguity holds two sides of a medial. One side the ambiguous terms have a „feel-good‟ connotation, which allows party to dream on their preferences which are still on the table, thus they have sufficient reasons to participate in process. Such constructive ambiguity allows parties to portray agreements as „victory‟. On the other side, they are vague and it remains unclear what will happen. The consequence is that the process does not end with this victory agreement. There are three possibilities at this stage. The first, the process may take unexpectedly a different turn; the ambiguous agreement moves towards the periphery of the process and thus receive less managerial and media attention. The ambiguous is no longer part of the substance of the conflict and overall result is that the conflict will be avoided that would have proven to be not necessary. The second possibility is that the ambiguous agreement remains on agenda and will be clarified at some point. In this case postponing this explanation may be useful. Third possibility is that the ambiguity will harm the process, because the ambiguity legitimizes the parties‟ loyalty to chosen course.

14) Certain types of command and control are needed when it comes to a good process design and management. The use of command and control may present parties with an incentive to join the process and act cooperatively; thus it is a driver for process management. Moreover, parties may become more susceptible to command and control during the process, perhaps they are in winning position, or they learn that consultation alone produces no results.

15) Often the opinions of the involved experts in the decision-making process are not accepted

by the stakeholders. The role of the experts should be adjusted to facilitate the process. There are generally four reasons why experts‟ opinions are not accepted and to each there is a remedy to it. a. The analysis has insufficient quality; remedy is to improve the analysis. b. The stakeholders do not understand the analysis; remedy is to improve the communication about the analysis. c. The stakeholders do not commit to the way in which the analysis has performed, and thus they do not commit to the results either. Remedy is to improve the interaction between the experts and the stakeholders about the design and

implementation of the analysis, allowing both of them commit to the results. Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 140

d. The analysis does not match with the dynamics of the dynamic of the decision- making process. Remedy is to improve the interaction between the experts and pay attention to the moment of interaction, allowing the analysis to actually facilitate progress in the process.

Strategies a and b will likely not match with unstructured nature of problems, but strategies c and d can play a role in the progress.

16) The role of experts and stakeholders are bundled and unbundled. A process approach to decision-making is used when a purely substantive approach is impossible to such unstructured and wicked problems. However, from a substantive point of view, there are two significant risks in this regard. The first risk is that the process displaces the substance, rather negotiated nonsense than negotiated knowledge. The difference between this is that negotiated knowledge contains (i) acceptance of stakeholders and bears (ii) scientific criticism. With negotiated nonsense, the process displaces the substance and the second criterion is left out. The second risk is that the process makes insufficient use of new and innovative insight provided by the information. To deal with these risks, the answer is self- evident. It is important to give knowledge and expertise a position in the process and secure this position firmly. Science does not hold the sole judge of how well the generated knowledge measures up, it is bundled with society, politics and business. A variety of stakeholders will evaluate to what extend the generated knowledge is relevant, valid and reliable. Experts distinguish themselves from stakeholders by their expertise, which is less strongly tied to a particular interest. Unbundling implies that the expert and stakeholder play a different role. If unbundled, then the expert can advise parties and play a role as countervailing power. If there is no such unbundling of roles and no clear agreements, then there is risk that the experts become biased towards the interests of one of the stakeholders. But bundling can also imply that experts are more aware of the course of the decision- making, which is why they are better able to intervene at the right moments. Moreover, the experts are better equipped to deal with parties‟ criticism of their analysis. Summarized in table.

Experts and stakeholders Unbundling of roles Bundling of roles

Advantages Expert may act as Influence on the decision- countervailing power and can making and potential give advise

Disadvantages The expertise is insufficiently Experts can become biased authoritative and it is towards certain stakeholders submitted at the wrong time and perverts the process

Bundling is necessary, but it involves the risk that the experts may become bias; unbundling is therefore desirable, but that involves the risk that the experts hold no authoritative role in Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 141 decision making. This issue impacts the relationship between the experts and stakeholders in the process in the following way. The roles of experts and stakeholders should be unbundled, but it is necessary to bundle the activities of the two parties. Starting from the unbundled roles, they should interact intensively in order to avoid misfits (as presented in 17, problem c and d). Bundling of activities can be realized through a process agreement that stipulates that the stakeholders have to submit their interim results at certain times, but may submit at all times as well.

Bundling activities from unbundled roles has two functions; it improves the quality of decision- making and also the knowledge contributed by experts. If the first results are bundled it can improve the decision-making. These results, views and assumptions from stakeholders, are submitted to experts. They do not judge which proposal and views are chosen, but they indicate how the parties‟ proposals meet up with scientific insights. If decision makers are involved here as well, then the chances of misfits are reduced, because they are in touch with each other. Decision makers will be better informed and it creates commitment, although experts will be more sensitive to the moment of submit substantive expertise. To get improved knowledge contribution, it is important to (i) separate the roles of experts and stakeholders, but ensure (ii) bundling of their activities and this goes (iii) parallel between the research process and decision-making process. These are the 3 tasks of the process manager.

17) Proper unbundling and bundling enables experts to contribute to the substantive quality of decision making. However, what is the most desirable process from perspective of substance on the quality of decision making? There is quality if the decision-making is characterized by variety; the greater the amount of options, the better the quality of decision-making process. Variety is good, because it holds a better learning process (reflecting strengths and weaknesses in interaction and options), better exploration of possibilities and therefore improved quality through debating. However, a selection is needed; consolidations to which option or options are selected to continue with. The transition from substantive variety to selection holds many advantages. (i) All options are considered. (ii) There is a cognitive: learning: e.g. producing and learning new facts, views, values, arguments. (iii) There is social learning: establishing new relations and interactions, this might result in new insight and variety. (iv) Selection is due to variety and selection more authoritative. The process seems

chaotic and its criticism to variety and selection is that it is difficult to opertationalize. Nevertheless, as long as actors participate in the process and continue to learn, then the variety-generating phase is considered fruitful and should continue. It is ripe to select if there is cognitive and social stabilization. In figure 0-9, selection is at 1, 2 and 5; whereas 3 and 4 indicates iterations due to social and cognitive learning. If it is stable (horizontal

line), then selection can begin. Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 142

Figure 0-9: transition from variety to selection (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2010) Often, the opinions of experts in decision-making processes are not accepted by the stakeholders. The stakeholders do not commit to the way to which the analyses have taken place and thus no commitment is given to the analysis‟ results. Or the analysis does not match the dynamics of the decision-making process. (15) In both of these cases, the role of experts should be adjusted to facilitate process. (16) The roles of the experts, however, should be unbundled with the stakeholders, but it is necessary to bundle the activities of the two parties. However, bundling has the risk that the experts may become bias; unbundling is therefore desirable, but that involves the risk that the experts hold no authoritative role in decision making. This issue impacts the relationship between the experts and stakeholders in the process in the following way. The roles of experts and stakeholders should be unbundled, but it is necessary to bundle the activities of the two parties. Starting from the unbundled roles, they should interact intensively in order to avoid misfits. Bundling activities from unbundled roles has two functions; it improves the quality of decision-making and also the knowledge contributed by experts. To get improved knowledge contribution, it is important to (i) separate the roles of experts and stakeholders, but ensure (ii) bundling of their activities and this goes (iii) parallel between the research process and decision-making process. These are the 3 tasks of the process manager. (17) The transition from substantive variety of options to a selection will enriches the quality of decision-making. Due to wide variety, there is substantial learning. There

is cognitive learning; producing and learning new facts, views, values, and so on. Plus, there is social learning; new relationships and interactions. Both these learning will contribute to new insight and more variety and if there is a selection chosen from this, this will be more accepted. The selection is ripe when the cognitive and social learning are stabilized.

The rules of the game in multi-actor networks (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008, pp. 96- 114)

Rules concerning the position of actors in the decision-making

 Do not dance on the dead body; the loser deserves respect. o Do not flaunt your gain; enjoy it silently. o The loser acquires a right. Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 143

 Do not affect the core values of other actors.  Explain the outcome of the process substantively to your rank and file – and give the other actors the opportunity to do so as well.  Use your power in a reserved way – the more power you have, the more reserved you should be. o If power is used without moderation, then the system responsibility might become yours and problematic. o Power revealed is power reduced.  Go the extra mile with the loser; consultation should not be refused.  Respect the principle of reciprocity; decision-making is giving and taking.  Act proportionately.

Rules concerning the process of the decision-making

 Show respect for the ritual o Respect the process, it has to be followed despite the outcome is already known. o Respect the other parties‟ strategies; moderate handling in unmasking the strategy of the other party (fair rules, fair tactics, fair game).  Do not play chess on two boards at the same time, unless you can be open about it.  Do not use the exit option, at least until after some time and complete the process properly.  Respect the procedures; no change of procedural agreements midway.

Supplement to section 6.1: project success criteria and factors Van Loenhout (2013), however, intensively focused on the project success criteria defined by public project managers in the Netherlands. Her success criteria are validated to improvement the alignment of project success to the public sector. The underscored ones are sporadically mentioned in the literature, but probably relevant to public projects. The italic ones are added to the lists of criteria, after her interviews with the public project managers. The diverged knowledge is based on half integrated contracts and half traditional contracts. For RATIP it is interesting how these will play a role; for RATIP projects which of the criteria is ranked most

important. The 19 criteria are (Van Loenhout, 2013, pp. 34-35):

 Continuation of the client organization: the project contributes to the continuation of the client organization and to achieving the organization‟s goals.  Delivered on time: the total duration of the project does not exceed the planned duration.  Effect on the professional image of client organization: the project has a positive effect on the professional image and reputation of the client organization.  Efficient use of the available resources: the resources (capital, labour, materials)

allocated to the project are used in the most cost-efficient and time-efficient manner. Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 144

 Fit for purpose: the project forms the best solution for the problem for which it was initiated; it is the best choice given the different alternatives.  Good working relationship with contracting partners: the working relationship with the contracting partners is good; there are no conflicts or disputes.  Impact on the environment, sustainability: within the project the effects of construction activities on the environment are taken into considerations.  Learning opportunities for client organization: the client organization learns from this project (e.g. new knowledge, experiences, or getting familiar with new technologies) and this knowledge is applied in subsequent projects to improve the performance of the organization.  Personal growth and development: you are able to professionally and personally develop yourself further through the experience of this project.  Profitability for contractor: the contractor is able to profitable execute its part of the project.  Project specific political or social factors: the project contributes to specific political ambitions or solving of specific problems.  Quality: the project meets the technical requirements that were determined beforehand; it performs as it supposed to perform and meets a presupposed standard of quality.  Right process if followed: the right process is followed throughout the project to deliver an optimal end product.  Safety: within the project attention is paid to safe design and the prevention of accidents during the execution, the use, and the maintenance.  Satisfies needs of project team: the employees of your project team are able to achieve their personal goals and there is a good work atmosphere.  Satisfies needs of shareholders: the shareholders are the co-financers of the project, but they are not the commissioning party. They have interests in the project, which they are able to promote.  Satisfies needs of stakeholders: the stakeholders of the project are defined as those people and/or organization that have an interest in the environment, performance and/or outcome of the project, they are not directly involved in the project, but they do have strong influence. These stakeholders have specific interest and they are able to promote this interest in the project.  Satisfied needs of users: the end-users are satisfied with the final functionality of the project.  Within budget: the total costs do not exceed the original budget.

Appendix A: toSupplement PART II 145

APPENDIX B: SUPPLEMENT TO PART IV – THE CASE STUDIES Here below is briefly presented the evaluation tool; for the full description and explanation please refer to PART III. The analysis framework will be used for a qualitative evaluation on case studies to determine which Input and Process aspects contribute to the Output (outcome) of the project. At the same time these case studies are testing the analysis framework derived from literature.

We will conclude that the analysis framework was a helpful tool for analyzing the case studies and that the case studies have validated the analysis framework so far.

Each case will start with an outline on the project. All cases are based on literature findings such as academic reports, newspaper, news articles, evaluation reports (including interviews) and websites. In addition, a few expert interviews are conducted to collect more data and are also used to verify the collected data.

The analysis on case 1 and II on the projects „Joure‟ and „Harlingen‟ provides more insight on initial RATIP. However, these are projects in Fryslân, thus an analysis on other similar RATIP projects will be helpful for the cross-analysis. This is done in case III about RATIP projects in the province Brabant, and one specifically the Northeast Corridor. Additionally, case IV „N23 Westfrisiaweg‟ is analyzed as well to provide more information.

the studies case

– Appendix SupplementB: to PART IV 146

Aspects: Important elements:

The problem and vision (A) The perception of problem and vision? formulation (B) Broad problem formulation: couplings and linkages? (C) The moment and the order of problem formulation and

proposed solution?

Establishing the goals, (D) The goal formulation? Input boundaries and scope (E) Emerging and firmness of the boundaries and scope?

The stakeholders (F) Were all actors known at the start and how were they involved in the decision-making process?

Iron Triangle (G) Project efficiency: time and budget? (H) Future, utilization, experiential spatial quality with regard to the 3P: to which extend is the theory of the 4P satisfied (added- value)?

Internal and external (I) The level of internal (organization, client, project team) and satisfaction external (investors, contractors, end-users, NGO) satisfaction?

Overall fair process?

Level of intertwinement (J) The degree to which spatial intertwinement of infrastructure

planning is involved with area development? Output (K) The degree to which procedural intertwinement of infrastructure planning is involved with area development? (L) The degree to which financial intertwinement of infrastructure planning is involved with area development?

Learning opportunities (M) The learning opportunities and reputation improvements for and reputation the client organization?

Type of approach (N) Is the applied project managerial approach functional?

(O) Is the applied process managerial approach functional?

Information gathering (P) The existing and usage of information? the studies case

(Q) What kind of information was retrieved? – Process Decision-making and (R) Hierarchical, hybrid or process decision-making?

implementation (S) Hierarchical, hybrid or process implementation of decision?

PART IV

Appendix SupplementB: to 147

A. CASE I: JUNCTION JOURE

a.1. Outline of junction Joure The current roundabout Joure is causing lots of traffic jams and issues, especially during the rush hours. This problem can be possibly solved by constructing a new junction in the form of a roundabout. The most important goals in this project are:

 The connection between the A6 and A7, from Lemmer to Heerenveen.  The safe and smooth traffic flow.  An improved accessibility of the core Joure through the use of an extension of the road „Geert Knolweg‟.  The respect for the historic road connection „Haulstersingel‟ and the connection to the „Haulsterbossen‟.  The safe situation in the surrounding villages due to the disappearing of the cut- through traffic.

In 2003 to 2005 a solution was sought which could solve the traffic issues around Joure. A vision was set up with the ambition to have it finished before 2015. Initially, the RWS regarded this vision too ambitious, thus it was rejected. So from 2005 to 2008 a temporally solution was set up. However, due to the success of the pilot project „Sneek‟, the final proposal was ultimately accepted and budgeted against 70 million Euros. So from mid-2009 the formal planning procedure started. The procedure is according to the law for national route planning (Wet Tracébesluit) and the „crisis and recovery law (Crisis- en herstelwet; Chw)‟ is applied here as well.

In September 2010, there was a consulting period of 4 weeks in which the adjustments in the project could be discussed. First, the environmental effects on the preferred design were discussed based on the results of the environmental impact assessment (EIA) report. Hereafter, the reactions and details could be considered for further plan development; a decision will be taken which of the three alternatives is the best choice, this will result in the proposed design of route (OTB: Ontwerp Tracébesluit) (Grootsneek, 2010). Also, in the same year, due to financial cuts in the provincial budget, the initial planned aqueduct near the Skaster Rien was officially omitted from the OTB. This has caused a half year of delay, because the record of decision of the proposed route (TB: Tracébesluit) was supposed to be published in the first half year of 2013, but it is delayed until the latter half year of 2013 (Projectbureau Knooppunt Joure, 2013a).

In 2012 May, the OTB and Environmental Impact Assessment Report (MER: Milieueffectrapportage) of the junction Joure were presented; within 6 weeks from May 2012 the stakeholders could look into these documents and comment on this proposed plan. The TB, as presented on 12 November 2013, has 8 adjustments compared to the OTB. The adjustments were based on the 28 appealed contentions or new insights in plans (Rijkswaterstaat, 2013). The adjustments on the OTB were not many; some watercourses were transferred and extra mitigations were taken into account to preserve flora and fauna. This was Case I: Junction Joure 148 probably due to the well preparation before the formal procedure in mid-2009 took place: the province Fryslân put good effort in public consultation according to the Elverding report (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014). There is one only lodged appeal against the TB. Furthermore, the new junction in TB presents new opportunities for area development. One of those area development projects is called the Entree Joure. Here the province and municipality closely collaborate on basis of their conversations with the existing companies McDonalds and restaurant Hajé. The new bus station will replace the old six ones and the road Geert Knolweg is adjusted to comply with the development of Entree Joure.

Also in 2012, a temporary governmental alliance was set up. This alliance consisted of representatives from the RWS, province and municipality: they collaborated due to the urgency in interdependencies among the governmental parties to reach the goals within budget, time, costs and certain support for project. Moreover, the alliance was also set-up to couple the project with area development projects. Fryslân and De Friese Meren are both responsible for the area development; Fryslân is the biggest financial risk-taker in alliance and RWS solely holds its responsibility for the execution of the national roads (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 3).

The planning development lasted till end 2013 when the record of decision (TB: Tracébesluit) was made final. The tendering is planned in 2014 and in 2015 the constructing party will be known. From 2015 to 2017, the construction is planned (Projectbureau Knooppunt Joure, 2013a).

a.2. Evaluation analysis on Junction Joure

Input Proces Output

• Problem & vision • Type of approach • Iron Triangle (G,H) (A,B,C) (N,O) • Satisfaction • Goal & scope • Information (intern/extern) (I) (D,E) gathering (P,Q) • Intertwinement (J,K,L) • Stakeholders (F) • Decision-making and • Learning oppertunities implementation (R,S) (M)

a.2.1. The input of Junction Joure The problem and vision formulation. In 2003, the initial solution of the regional stakeholders (province Fryslân, municipality Skarsterlân, now called De Friese Meren) was rejected by the RWS. (A) The proposed solution was delineated and the analysis justifying it was regarded too

ambitious; it did not fit the problem-solving perception held by the RWS. Their project-like problem formulation is often done against „objectivised‟ protocols – the observation that there is a problem and afterwards the delineation through substantive analysis will give an objectivised problem formulation which is justified by its analysis. In this case there was not enough urgency, nor a shared viewpoint on the problem and vision to solve it. Thus the solution proposed by the regional stakeholders was not well coupled to the problems perceived

by the RWS. (C) If it was timed a few years later, when RWS saw the success of project Case I: Junction Joure 149

„Sneek‟ then this ambition might not have been a problem. One could now mention that the timing has been unfortunate; the window of opportunity to propose the solution might have been better if RWS already regarded Sneek as a successful project – opportunity costs of the regional stakeholders could have been invested in something else as well. (B) The initial proposal was probably too loosely formulated in which the RWS cannot approve; the problem has to be reduced in terms of complexity - more simple and definable, so that the substantive analysis can justify it. After the consideration by the RWS (because of Sneek), the proposed solution (problem and vision formulation) is accepted, and it does contain certain flexibility to couple other spatial projects along this infrastructure project: desirable to connect it with area development projects and other opportunities, but the infrastructure planning is the main activity.

Establishing the goals, boundaries and scope. The goals are initiated by the representatives of Fryslân and the municipality Skarsterlân. The Ministry I&M was involved afterwards. (D) At first sight, the goals are mentioned in a clear and unambiguous matter; the goals are fixated and calculated on the necessary distance between both junctions from a safety perspective. From this impression, it looks like a project approach in which the goals are the point of reference in decision-making. But that is not entirely true, because before the formal procedure an informal process took place: the actors, Fryslân and local inhabitant, were searching for goals that have sufficient support and substantively attractiveness for both parties. So to speak, in the negotiations between the parties the goals were moving continuously, until the learning process has been completed – these goals are the best we can aim for: these are recognizable to the critical mass of actors. This can be seen in the very minor changes in goals after the public consultation on the design of the proposed route (OTB: Ontwerp Trace Besluit). Moreover, the matter of naming and framing is used properly. The road was framed as an opportunity for them to also realize otherwise neglected projects. (E) Due to the Elverding process, the boundaries and scope attached to these goals are negotiated and pre-rubbery conditions – if the conditions such as the budget allows, then the extra projects in the extended scope can be realized. The set-up alliance was to oversee these goals and embedded boundaries and scopes. The area development projects are not clearly mentioned in the goals, but are indirectly involved in the project.

The stakeholders. (F) Due to early public consultation before the formal procedure, the province presumable did know all significant stakeholders. All the important stakeholders were involved in the formal process according to the law for national route planning (Wet Tracébesluit). Whereas, the public was involved at the beginning and the end of OTB, the

provinces choose to involve them earlier before heading in the formal procedure. This led to little resistance in the project, although there were doubts about the involvement before the OTB was finalized and in the end there was still one lodged appeal case (Leeuwarden Courant, 2010). Nevertheless, the province Fryslân worked together with the RWS and municipality Joure to invest 72 million Euros. These funds are extracted from the regional mobility cash- box. The RWS is responsible for the construction and maintenance of the national roads. The municipality holds the responsibility for the spatial design and decisions conform the areas Case I: Junction Joure 150 surrounding the road (including local roads); the province is the financial risk-taker (biggest financier of project and responsible for the budget). The latter two are also accountable for other spatial developments or area developments in area. The project bureau responsible for this project underwent a dialog with inhabitants and companies about the proposed route and its grounds. The OTB was viewable from 12 November 2013 until 24 December 2013. The interests of NGOs and inhabitants could be taken into account in the decision-making concerning the final design (Projectbureau Knooppunt Joure, 2014).

a.2.2. The output of Junction Joure Iron Triangle. The planned aqueduct in 2010 near the Skaster Rien was initially omitted from the OTB, due to financial cuts in the provincial budget. However, in summer 2012 it was decided with the ministry that the budget will be available in 2021. The construction of the aqueduct can continue only if the construction is done parallel with the construction of the Junction – the pre-financing by the province Fryslân can be realized because of the parallel execution and there its added synergy in lowering the overhead prices of work (Provincie Fryslan, 2013). It remains within budget of € 70.9 million, but there are risks on overruns. It is, however, still within the scheduled planning (provincie Fryslan, 2014a).

Nevertheless, as noted in the newsletter of July 2013 the financing for this aqueduct is scrapped due to heavy cuts in the ministry‟s budget (Projectbureau Knooppunt Joure, 2013a). (H) This can be regarded as a possible reduction in the spatial quality in project; the usage of the substitute might not meet to the user‟s expectation (reduced experiential spatial value), or it might impact future or current (utilization) spatial value. The omitting of aqueduct shows that the province favours money over spatial quality and public satisfaction. The aligned area development projects to this Junction Joure will most likely have positive impact on the overall spatial value. So despite missing out the aqueduct, the overall value is probably experienced as positive. (G) This event caused a half year delay in terms of project efficiency; the proposed route (TB: Tracébesluit) was supposed to be published in the first half year of 2013, but it is delayed until latter half year of 2013 (Projectbureau Knooppunt Joure, 2013a). Actually, in the declaration of collaboration in 2010, it is noted that the TB should be decided in the first quarter of 2012 (C.M.P.S. Eurlings, P. Adema, & B. de Winter, 2010). The project was delayed; the finishing date was 2014, but it shifted to 2017, till three years later. In terms of budget, at the moment there is 3.5 Million Euro short on budget. The most important reason for this cause was that the budget was initially too small for this scope, but nevertheless the people within the alliance are overall positive on the work. According to Triple Bridge (2013a), the alliance helps the project positively, because of the increased an better pacing in the internal

collaboration. However, this was much more efficient than the communication to the stakeholders outside the alliance.

The internal and external satisfaction. (I) The external satisfaction could be described as relative positive, because of the little changes in the transition phase of concept design (OTB)

to final design (TB). There is, however, one lodged appeal against the final design, the TB. Case I: Junction Joure 151

The TB, as presented on 12 November 2013, has 8 adjustments in the OTB leading to the TB. They were considered, due to the 28 contentions or new insights in plans (Rijkswaterstaat, 2013). The adjustments on the OTB were not many; some watercourses were transferred and extra mitigations were taken into account to preserve flora and fauna. Furthermore, the new junction in TB presents new opportunities for development as the Entree Joure (one of the area development projects) is being developed. The province and municipality closely collaborate on basis of their conversations with the existing companies McDonalds and restaurant Hajé. The new bus station will replace the old six ones and the road Geert Knolweg is adjusted to comply with the development of Entree Joure. The Entrée Joure has increased greenery on which its keywords are „comfort and serenity‟ (Marrennijs, 2013). The public is informed with an information market (19 November 2013) in which total 80 people visited it; the final plans were published and people‟s questions were answered by experts. The stakeholders can see whether their contentions were taken into consideration; they also had influence on other developments such as the entree Joure.

Nevertheless, there was one appeal case which was initiated by three appellants (Raad van State, 2014).

(i) The owners of some parcels on the road Kerkepand in Haskerhorne felt that they could not practice their horse racing due to the construction of Junction Joure. This was due to the increase in noise nuisance, which according to him is more than 5 dB, causing it to overthrow the maximum limit of 54 dB. Moreover, a part of the horse racing course will be cut off and this was not well implemented in the TB; alternative solutions were offered such as sound walls or putting the road deeper in the ground. These claims were found ungrounded, because the dB was analysed to be lower than the claim and the alternative solutions were too expensive. They are granted the possible to get reimbursed for the damages caused, because the council of state agrees that due to the new plans the horse racing cannot be continued.

(ii) The inhabitants nearby the area Ysbrechtum appeals that the road near Schasterburg should have been 250 metre longer. This claim is found ungrounded as well, because the extension of the Schasterburg is not part of the TB, thus the TB does not have to be adjusted. Nevertheless, the wish is granted and the road will be extended.

(iii) Finally, the exploitations of McDonalds and two more companies pressed issues, because according to them the reports about sound nuisance and safety was not made public on time. Moreover, the chosen design negatively impacts the accessibility and visibility of the restaurants. It also damages the ecological environment. The design was chosen most likely on

only traffic values and the ministry did not incorporate well enough the other interests, such as landscape, nature, local inhabitants and nearby companies. It is proposed to research another alternative that is more fitting on the new road. However, these appeals were judged unfounded as well. The ministry defends that the preferred road was the best choice that fits the goals of project – preventing cut-through traffic and the improvement of traffic flow and traffic safety.

The restaurant remains good accessible. This design was overall the best choice for the Case I: Junction Joure 152 environment, the appellant judged the environmental damage in own perspective and not overall interests of all stakeholders.

Despite the ungrounded appeal, it is said that the alliance will still put effort in working together with the stakeholders in the implementation phase (Rijkswaterstaat Noord-Holland, 2014).

It can be summarized that the external satisfaction is most likely positive, but the risk of dissatisfaction could be lessened if these cases were not overlooked. The lodged appeal did not lead to delay in project. However, there was tension in the internal satisfaction in budget within the alliance, but overall the people in the alliance were satisfied. It was recommended to put the same effort of collaboration orienting to the external stakeholders (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 29). Perhaps, then this appeal would have been prevented.

The level of intertwinement. In 2009, the initial decision (aanvangsbeslissing) in the national route planning procedure does not explicitly relate to any area development project. The note scopes that the first and foremost activity is to improve the traffic flow and safety of the A6- A7 junction. Secondly, the project should lead to a sustainable and safe road network structure and lastly it should improve the core environments of the areas Scharsterburg, Sint Nicolaasga, Haskerhorne, and Oudehaske (these areas are located within Skarsterlân) (C.M.P.S. Eurlings, 2009a). However, in 2010 in the declaration of collaboration there is coupling to area development (C.M.P.S. Eurlings et al., 2010). In article 3 is mentioned that the project will look for synergy with other area development projects, such as the mini-bus station (Entrée Joure) and business area Joure-Zuid. The ministry is the client and initiative of this project. During the planning phase of project, they will closely collaborate with the province and municipality. However, after the planning phase, the RWS will execute the plans according to the RWS-methods and rules. The intensive collaboration, later in form of an alliance, will continue to take place, even in the implementation phase to bring the project in more coherence to the area development of Joure. The measures which are bound to bring synergy to the project are allowed if they confirm the RWS-standards. The adaptation of the project to area development, as mentioned in article 7, is being watched by a steering group in which that group is under the leadership of a provincial deputy. This steering group watches over the context of project. Lastly, in 2012 in the declaration of execution also references to area development are made - On the one hand it is desirable for the project to fine-tune infrastructure planning with area development to obtain synergy and advantageous project efficiencies; on the other hand the region should have improved accessibility (M.H. Schultz van

Haegen, S.A.E. Poepjes, & D. Durksz, 2012, p. 3).

So in the declaration of intention there no were direct couplings mentioned, although in practice there were some events that could be categorized as synergies. First, the freed and unused sand from deepening the area of „Langwarder Wielen‟ in the „Friese Merenproject‟ is used to construct the junction. This brought along financial advantages for buying less sand and saves money on the transport too – work with work (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014; Projectbureau

Knooppunt Joure, 2014). Second, with the new changes in project the nearby area will also be Case I: Junction Joure 153 redeveloped; project „Entrée Joure‟ should function as a visiting card for travellers – it is recognizable in its landscape and culturally it fits the village Joure. It consists of a new bus station, an extended carpool area and new furnishing similar to a city park. The planning boundaries of this land-use plan are close to those of the record of decision on the Junction Joure. That means that this plan is not a part of project Junction Joure, but it is closely related in the fact that the construction will take place at the same moment. Again, this brings forward the financial advantages and the construction nuisances only happen once (Projectbureau Knooppunt Joure, 2013b). Third, an additional event of synergy would be the sport park close to the Junction Joure. Initially, it was planned to have this construction within the junction, but this was proven to be too expensive (Leeuwarden Courant, 2012). So instead, it was put together with another plan in which the swimming pool „Stiennen Flier‟ will be renovated to a bigger pool, although now it will be combined with a sport centre. The place of renovation will be at the same place, although its synergy is that the sport and swimming centre so called „Sportief Knooppunt Joure‟ will benefit from both the same flow of customers and the new place will also benefit from other facilities such as better infrastructure (junction Joure), restaurants and added parking space (Entre Joure) (De Friese Meren, 2014).

So summarized, (J) the spatial intertwinement of infrastructure planning and area development was set at start in a very vaguely matter. In 2005, before the starting note in 2009, Skarsterlân and Heerenveen already made an integrated vision on this area. Those two areas are the economic centres around the highway A7 and with this project Junction Joure the first most and important task was to improve the traffic flow and safety of the road (1st goal in scope); eventually, it would also benefit the economic area (2nd goal in scope) by turning this into a sustainable and safe zone consisting of road networks (3rd goal in scope). In 2010, with the declaration of collaboration between RWS and the region (Fryslân and Skarsterlân), they have made the spatial intertwinement more recognizable; the region would do its best to seek coupling to get synergy, although no direct couplings were structurally documented on the concern of how-to? The project remains a pure road infrastructure project with at times and if possible couplings to area development project such as „Entree Joure‟ and „Sportief Knooppunt Joure‟. Based on this, the spatial intertwinement would be at level 4 - Infrastructure provision and other spatial developments are being adjusted to each other. In the same year of 2010, RWS, Fryslân and Skarsterlân made a spatial vision to landscape the highway and its surroundings. (K) This area development is part of another program that is called „Joure Zuid‟ and it is done separately, but parallel in line with the infrastructure project A6/A7 (Rijksoverheid, 2013a, p. 26). Based on this, the procedural intertwinement would be at level 4 - Infrastructure planning and other spatial development planning are happening parallel and are intertwined at some points in the phases of pre-initiation and initiation phases; their plan developments are separated, but its implementation phases are largely integrated or executed at the same moment. (L) For the financial intertwinement there is a certain form of shared risks. The project junction Joure is budgeted with the idea of synergizing it with other projects, so that the production costs can be lowered. Any time overruns in these projects will chain a

reaction of another time overrun in the critical path. So, for the financial intertwinement holds Case I: Junction Joure 154 a level of 3; the costs and risks of infrastructure development and area development are being shared.

The learning opportunities and reputation. The leaning opportunities and development can contribute to the project success on the long-term orientation; it creates commitment and stimulates people. (M) Due to the organization cultural difference in the alliance there were some tensions. The line of sight was not always visible, because not all the colleges were even intensively involved with the progress. The project teams would have benefit more, if they received more support from the steering committee and management group. Also, due to the loss of line of sight, there were „two‟ groups in the alliance – we (Steering committee & management group) and they (AMT and project teams). This does not contribute the learning opportunities within the alliance. The learning opportunities are mainly internally visible within the alliance, but the learning opportunities and personal development from and to the outside of alliance is limited (Triple Bridge, 2013a). This reduces the opportunity to synergy the infrastructure project with other spatial developments. To increase learning opportunities, one need more process management which includes a more transparent process and more interactive cooperation in an adequate space with all stakeholders.

The reputation improvement, externally to the stakeholders such as inhabitants, could be damaging depending on the outcome which is currently unknown; they did have enough chance to participate in project (before and after the OTB), but the question is whether that mount of involvement is satisfactory. Internally within the alliance, there is a reputation improvement, because in the end it turns out well; the alliance – until now- works.

a.2.3. The process of junction Joure Type of approach: The type of approach got a both the types of approaches (project/process) and whereas the project-managerial is most dominant.

The original plan with vision and goals were initiated and developed by lower public governmental organs and approved by the RWS. Hereafter, there were public participations in four ways. First was the informal process before this project was initiated in 2009. The province went in conversation with the local stakeholders about the project; to inform, active listening and then to act was said by Mr Hoitinga (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014). The mission was to create enough support for the project to start. Second was the public participation before the decision took place about which one of the alternative roads is chosen as preference. This is the public who are acting as consultant (adviseur met inspraak) on the project, although there were some doubts whether the voice could really have impact on the decision-making. Third was the

public participation before the OTB changed into the TB. This was the final chance in which the stakeholders could voice their opinion. Here, these stakeholders act as a final consultants (adviseur met eindspraak) before the design is getting finalized; they will receive general feedback and there is chance that some of the contentions will be implemented. The last involvement is the general feedback on the results of this participatory influence was shown on an information market; the involved stakeholders and everyone was invited to see final results

and in addition to that experts were available to answer the public‟s questions. Here they are Case I: Junction Joure 155 seen as informants. So to conclude the participatory elements, the ruling party took the role of both closed and open authoritative style (Igno Pröpper, 2009). (O) So the process managerial elements were functional; there were enough stimuli for interaction in adequate pace. The process was also transparent and the documents are viewable as well opposable. The use of experts to bundle and unbundle stakeholders is not completely known, but it is assumed they guide the stakeholders to their role in participation on the design. On the other hand, the experts are clearly involved in the information markets to defend and answer questions from the public.

The formal procedure of the project remains rather project-managerial. (N) Unlike a process managerial approach, the project is very based on the substance based knowledge and analyses (first priority is upholding the traffic flow and safety) – and so is the project mitigated (nature compensation) and focused on better landscaping and routing (also due to the 28 contentions,). It is, however, flexible in the sense that synergy and intertwinement to area development is desired, but not necessary as there are no direct couplings with straight forward consequences. In other words, the procedure does not necessary follow a predefined and straight line, but it is fit for purpose – if the environment offers any opportunity to the project and this is spotted by the project team, and then this could be brought forward by introducing it to the steering group which gives the approval (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014). The ability to keep the flexibility in scope and to deal with these changes depends on the person‟s capabilities; partly the reason to keep in the mind flexible in scope, is that the current policy are inadequate to implement the integral approach of both spatial and infrastructure development (Triple Bridge, 2013a). So based on this and other reports, the project is heavily steered on money and time (within alliance), and on the money there was even some internal tension regarding on satisfaction among workers (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014; Triple Bridge, 2013a). The project slightly overruns on budget - 3.5 Million Euro short of the estimated 70 Million Euro: the province pays 10% of the costs of project, partly monetary (€2.3 million), and the rest are bartered (payment in kind is €4.2 million, e.g. the reuse of sand from one project to another) (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 55). This contrast the other source of in 2014, in which the project is within budget of € 70.9 million, but since that is the most recent source the project is regarded within budget (provincie Fryslan, 2014a). Also, for the time aspect it is delayed for at least a half year to three years.

Information gathering: the information gathered in this project is mainly project-based. (P) This is because (i) the content of the problem, steers the goals in project, and thus determines what kinds of information is needed. To know and then to act is what was being said by Sieds

Hoitinga (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014). (ii) The quality of the information is crucial to the decision- making and (iii) (Q) it also goes in accordance with the need-to-know information principle; what information is necessary to solve the problem relevant to the actor? The province sought interaction with the local inhabitants before the project was formally started. This was done, to streamline the project and prevent appeals against the project. (iv) The information is here

treated as robust and intersubjective. Case I: Junction Joure 156

(Q) But later in the project, after the notation of getting synergy with area development in the declaration of collaboration, the information gathering could also be described as to know what is nice-to-know. If not, then the arising opportunities for synergy and fine-tuning to other projects would be limited if only the necessary information was gathered. This is a form of process-based information gathering. In truth, the project teams might get the nice-to-know information, whereas the steering group only wants to decide on the need-to-know information.

The decision-making and its implementations are decided in the steering committee in the hierarchical alliance in project. This hierarchical organization chart is structured as follows, from the highest to the lowest order (Triple Bridge, 2013a, pp. 17 - 18).

 Clients: the municipality, province, and ministry I&M.  Steering committee: alderman, provincial deputy and director RWS. o Organises the governmental decision-making. o Creates administrative and political support (bestuurlijk en politiek draagvlak). o Controls and develops the goals of this alliance. o Watch over the viability of the projects.  Management group: officials such as people from the municipality, province or RWS. o Prepares decision-making in steering committee based on iron triangle. o Creates civil support (ambtelijk draagvlak). o The project manager is the secretary of the management group, whereas the civil representatives of diverse organizations form the management group. o Advising role to the alliance management team.  Alliance management team: o Responsible for operational decision-making in order to achieve a successful project within the predefined conditions (realization of projects). o Looking for synergy with infrastructure. o Reports to higher-ups.  Project teams

The decision-making is generally done hierarchical with one single feedback loop – the management group acts as a portal between the alliance management team and the steering committee. Triple Bridge (2013a, p. 23) shows that the steering committee co-decides, whereas the management groups co-advises the steering committee and lastly the alliance management team will co-produce the products in project. This form of collaboration with only one feedback loop carries the risk that the line of sight is not always warranted as already mentioned in the paragraph about the „the learning opportunities and reputation on Junction Joure‟. The risk increases if in practice the responsibility lines are not that transparent and clear as described beforehand (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 21). The possible loss of line of sight can be seen in the argument about „two groups‟ in the alliance; the AMT and project teams put against

the management team and steering committee (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 23). Case I: Junction Joure 157

(R) The decision-making is not tickling off; instead, it clearly follows from problem, goal and gathered information – this can be seen in the responsibilities in the groups in the alliance set- up. Some interviewees admitted the management group are getting too much involved in the operation tasks of the AMT. This damages the trust between parties and the cause of this is probably due to lack of trust and believe in each other‟s competences (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 26). As result, the AMT might not do their job well – and concerning the intertwinement this issue might be troublesome, as the AMT are the ones who are seeking synergy with the environment (infrastructure planning with area development). The AMT does not have the mandate to co-decide, so any opportunities to get synergy have to be reported to the higher- ups. This indicates that the synergy is not leading, as mentioned before, but it is desirable if it can be put in line with the current project goals. So the decisions made are giving direction and it is not easy to influence them. Moreover, it was also noted that the AMT was primarily focused within the alliance, so the interaction to the external stakeholders are limited (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 23), so both the actions and communications are project-based. (S) The implementation follows the decisions taken by the steering committee, thus the implementation form are regarded as hierarchical – the decisions give imperative directions to implementation. The implementations are done at the lowest level within the alliance; the implementations are operational activities and not strategic choices.

The situation where the project is done can be seen as a hierarchical set-up with if possible coupling to other functions. If it does the latter, then the success can be questioned whether all added-value is reached.

B. CASE II: N31 TRAVERSE HARLINGEN

b.1. Outline of N31 Traverse Harlingen The N31 is a direct road connection and a single carriageway between the A7 and A31. It goes respectively from Amsterdam to Leeuwarden, through the Afsluitdijk and the city Harlingen. The involved governmental bodies, such as RWS, province Fryslân, and municipality Harlingen, are cooperating together in an alliance to (Triple Bridge, 2013b, p. 19):

 To increase the accessibility in province Fryslân.  To make the N31 more safe and sound.  To increase quality of life in the city of Harlingen

In short, they want to make the new N31 more future proof. By doing so, the N31 will become a dual carriageway (between 13.8 KM and 17.3 KM) and parts of the road will be deepened till a maximum NAP of -4.65 metre (between 14.5 KM and 16.3 KM). The new road also crosses under the Harinxmakanaal in the form of an aqueduct. The entire solution is

part of the „integral area development‟ within the municipality Harlingen. CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 158

Figure 10: Outline of the new road (Projectbureau N31 Harlingen, 2014b) As opposed to Joure, the road N31 cuts through Harlingen. As a result, this led to many issues concerning the spatial quality and safety of the region. The N31 as compared to the A31 does not satisfy the current needs – the bottleneck leads to problems in the traffic flow, traffic safety, accessibility of the region and economic concerns. So in addition to the aforementioned goals, three main goals were set up (Rijkswaterstaat, 2012b, p. 20).

 To improve the spatial quality and quality of life.  To realize a sustainable and safe road network structure.  To enhance the economic development.

These 3 main goals will be reached if the preferred solution design in 2010 will be constructed

properly according to the plans. The problems as mentioned here were known since the 1970s and 1980s, because people do want to improve the accessibility between Randstad and Leeuwarden. However, due to higher prioritization this project was postponed, because the south connection to Leeuwarden was more important. The connection from Heerenveen and Meppel to Leeuwarden was prioritized above the Harlingen to Leeuwarden connection. The same happened in the 1990s - the N31 between Zurich and Midlum (south of Harlingen) was prioritized above this project, because the amount of accidents on that road was much higher and the situation to reconstruct is less complex. Nevertheless, the N31 Traverse Harlingen was sped up the fact that the project „Zuiderzeespoorlijn‟ failed. So to improve the region‟s

accessibility, a special program so called „Regio Specifiek Pakket Zuiderzeelijn (RSP-ZZL)‟ CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 159 was set up; a program in which projects that the RWS and region agree upon will be constructed. The region had a hefty investment in program, but they are allowed to determine which projects were to be constructed and they could also control on these projects. The RWS acts more like a supervisor; they monitor the projects. This program can be described as a form of decentralized responsibility.

In October 2008, the exploration phase started: several solutions were investigated and proposed to the ministries. This led to the agreement on 26th of February 2009 about the preferred solution design and the financing – this was the call for the initial decision (aanvangsbeslissing) of the project and it resulted into planning phase consisting of the creation of advice notification (kennisgeving), MER, OTB & TB. On the 29th of May 2010, a declaration of intent was signed by the RWS, province Fryslân, municipality Harlingen and the declaration of execution was signed in 2013 (IenM, 2013; Rijkswaterstaat, 2012b, pp. 21 - 22).

The N31 project follows the law of national route planning (Wet Tracébesluit), although its procedures are according to the shortened version of procedure planning (verkorte Tracéwetproceducure). That is because the road already exists. As the law predicts, the proposed design of route (OTB: Ontwerp Tracébesluit) and Environmental Impact Assessment Report (MER: Milieueffectrapportage) were created, reviewed and placed down for the public to read and oppose if the plans conflicting. The OTB and MER give input for the final call, the record of decision of the proposed route (TB: Tracébesluit). Moreover, the N31 is put under the „crisis and recovery law (Crisis- en herstelwet; Chw)‟. This law accelerates the procedure as a measure to fight against the economic crisis and it should help the recovery of the Dutch economical structure. Concretely for this project, it means that (Gebiedsontwikkeling N31 Traverse Harlingen, 2012);

 The comparison in which the alternatives are judged against the law of environmental maintenance (Wet milieubeheer) is not mandatory.  The advice from the commission of the MER is not mandatory.  Lodged appeals should be judged within 6 months after the end of appeal period.

The TB was decided in 2012 and its constructions starts in 2013. On 6th of February 2013, the TB is beyond recall as decided by the council of state; the only lodged appeal was judged ungrounded. The project is finished in 2017. The budget for this project is 143 million Euros; it is budgeted from the RSP-ZZL and additional risks of costs overruns are of concern for the region (IenM, 2013).

Uniquely, just like Junction Joure, the province is leading the plan development, whereas the RWS is responsible for its execution and monitoring of project as they are the client and initiator. The set up alliance between these two and the municipality are the same as project

Joure. CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 160

b.2. Evaluation analysis on N31 Traverse Harlingen

Input Proces Output

• Problem & vision • Type of approach • Iron Triangle (G,H) (A,B,C) (N,O) • Satisfaction • Goal & scope • Information (intern/extern) (I) (D,E) gathering (P,Q) • Intertwinement (J,K,L) • Stakeholders (F) • Decision-making and • Learning oppertunities implementation (R,S) (M)

b.2.1. The input of N31 Traverse Harlingen The problem and vision formulation. (A) Since the 1970s, the vision to solve the issues concerning the N31 was highly prioritized at only regional level. It failed to share its problem perception on national level – it did not prime well enough to the RWS for its approval. Thus, one can say that the vision was initiated at regional level, but an agreed shared vision was only realized three decades later upon approval by the RWS. The RWS was however the initiator in 2009 to look for a possible solution by starting an exploration. (B) This resulted into the vision as given in the preferred solution design in 2010 (N31 Harlingen) that held opportunities for other spatial developments to develop as well. There are loose couplings in the problem and vision formulation in this project. The vision of City Harlingen as seen by the municipality can be divided into three parts; downtown, waterfront, and central zone. The N31 crosses the through the central zone. Thus the change in road and associated surroundings in that region offers new opportunities for new housing or employment areas. Those are the terrains „Spaansen‟ and „Perseverantia‟, and the living area Plan Zuid (Rijkswaterstaat, 2012a). The other spatial development projects related to N31 are the MADI terrain and South Harlingen (Triple Bridge, 2013b). (C) The order of problem formulation here is that the problem was signalled (bottleneck) and that the solution to expand now is wise; the problem steers the solution.

Establishing the goals, boundaries and scope. In 2008, the companies Zenit bgo and YER did explorative research upon the N31 in Harlingen. One year later, this explorative phase resulted in the initial decision (aanvangsbeslissing) approved by C.M.P.S. Eurlings (2009b). (D) The scope as stated here is to expand the road capacity to improve the traffic flow and road safety. Moreover, the new road will also offer opportunities for coherent spatial development as this road cuts through the city. Adjacent and additional area development projects can be coupled, although it is explicitly mentioned that this is not part of this project; but together it should improve the quality of life in area. So the goals in this project are most likely fixated to the problem and not stretched to the involved and local stakeholders. (E) Just like Joure, the goals and scope seems static, but there is certain recognition for area development and so are these goals and scope not entirely fixated – they are to a certain degree flexible, but the project itself

remains a road-oriented project with loose couplings to area development. The latter is only CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 161 true if applicable and benefiting the overall quality of life in area as expressed in the (separated) plans of infrastructure road development of N31 and area development of N31.

The stakeholders. (F) Just like the case of Joure, the province presumable did know all significant stakeholders before the project started. With the most important stakeholders, they collaborated in an alliance – it is the same alliance as the project Junction Joure, thus the organization responsibilities within the alliance are also exactly the same. The alliance chose the preferred solution design and this design is fine-tuned with the feedback from the other stakeholders. The interests of the national government, province and the municipality are warranted in the alliance and other interests of other stakeholders are justified prior to this formal procedure and during this procedure. Due to the Elverding process, the public is involved before the formal procedure started; they are, however, also intensively involved during the formal procedure (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014). The latter can be explained, as they can view, comment and oppose the plans during each legal phase in the project such as during the OTB and TB. They are co-consultants, but not co-deciders. At the end of project, an ambition document, along with the TB and cost estimation document will form the basis for the procurement of project. The public are intensively involved creating that ambition document.

b.2.2. The output of N31 Traverse Harlingen Iron Triangle. (G) The current milestones are not entirely within predefined time and budgetary conditions; they are ¾ year behind schedule, but they are within project budget of 146 million Euros (provincie Fryslan, 2014a). The delay is confirmed in the latest evaluation report of Fryslân; the formal procurement in 2013 is delayed until the 7th of January in 2014, because of the size and complexity of project – the contract conditions are being redefined to meet the complexity and quality in project (provincie Fryslan, 2014a, p. 4; Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 29).

(H) In short, there is no scope extension in the sense of combining other spatial projects to this infrastructure project; this project heavily focuses on its aesthetics such as landscaping and routing. (H) Currently, the N31 lies on a heightened road body of 2 to 8 metres. Basically, it cuts the city in two halves forming a spatial and functional barrier. The industry areas, such as Spaansen, MADI, and Perseverantia, closely located next to the N31 enlarges the gaps between the two half end. The redevelopment of these areas could help to bind the two half ends of the city with the new N31 into a one coherent city Harlingen, but at the moment there is no development going on, nor planned in documents. If judged on the utility value, experiential value and future value, then the overall value is considered average to good. The utility value refers to the practical use, distribution and accessibility of space in time. The experiential value, the value of opinion on its experience with regard to current space, is difficult to tell whether its experience is negative, neutral or positive. At the moment there is a spatial barrier and this

transformation of the road mitigates this barrier and reconnects the city. So in term of utility 1 1 TraverseHarlingen and experiential value, it will become better, although, the new N31 heavily focuses on the landscaping and routing of the route: the other spatial developments are due to money issues

not well considered, but these developments can however determine the utility and experiential CaseII: N3 162 value. The future value is regarded as potentially good; it does consider the terrains, but it does not make use of it. However if it is connected to the road, means it is better accessible. The other mentioned parts of the new N31 in the ambition document, the Kimswerderweg and the Midlum, are also heavily focused on landscaping (landschapsarchitecten, 2012).

The internal and external satisfaction. Since it is the same alliance as Joure, the remarks for Joure are the same as for Traverse Harlingen. (I) The internal satisfaction within the alliance is satisfactory. Until now the collaboration is going well and the alliance can be seen as an example for future-use for all three governmental bodies. However, there are some issues though. First, the lacks of trust between the sub-departments in organization can sometimes create tensions. This leads to one sub-department wanting to take over control of the tasks of another department, because they think the other party is not capable. Second, the presence of RWS is overruling; the presence of the municipality in the project teams is lacking and they do share the risks but cannot steer the project properly due to lack of knowledge and commitment. The more dominating party should help the weaker party in alliance, because if not then the line of sight can be lost; the municipality was supposed to interact with the environment and seek out chances for synergy. Even if they did that, but the municipality lacks presence in alliance, then possible added-value or synergy is wasted.

The external satisfaction, hereby seen as the satisfaction shared by stakeholders outside the alliance, is presumable positive. They did have a voice in the preferred solutions, prior to the formal procedure but also during the procedure in project. The contentions of the public on the OTB are implemented and additionally the ambition document was set up which also contains the ideas of external stakeholders on the project. Together with the TB and cost estimation document, this will shape the final design on N31. The only lodged appeal against the TB was judged ungrounded by the council of state on 6th of February 2013 (Gemeente Harlingen, 2013). The appellant lodged against the fact that the TB will close down the current in use off-ramps and replace this with a new ovatonde elsewhere. This will damage the accessibility of his car-wash company. Moreover, he also appealed against the MER/IEA, because test advice was neglected and there was also no chance to look into the report to comment on. The appeal was found ungrounded, because the N31 acts under the Chw article 1.11 and thus the testing advice (toetsingadvies) from the commission of MER was not needed. In fact, they only tested the preferred solution design against the unchanged future

situation (nulalternatief); to set up other alternatives and to choose which one is the most environmental friendly (MMA; meest milieuvriendelijk alternatief) is unnecessary. Lastly, he appealed that the TB is incorrect, because the financing for the area development nearby the N31 is unclear. His notion was rejected, because area development is completely separated from the road network and is not a part of the TB; the financing of the area development will not hamper the financing of the N31 (Raad van State, 2013c).

The level of intertwinement. In 2009, the initial decision (aanvangsbeslissing) in the national route planning procedure does not explicitly relate to any area development project. It focuses

on the traffic flow and improvement of traffic safety to improve the quality of life in city. This CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 163 quality of life is closely related to area development project adjacent to this road; the reconstruction of the road offers opportunity for a coherent whole – the old N31 creates a spatial barrier that splits up the city, but it can be restored by reconstructing the N31. It is clearly noted that the area development is not part of this project N31 Traverse Harlingen (C.M.P.S. Eurlings, 2009b). In 2010, the declaration of intent is signed between all three governmental bodies – this declaration covers the mutual agreements on the scope of project, the financing, organization (alliance), task responsibilities and planning. It also emphasizes on the intention to look for unity and synergy between the transformation N31 Traverse Harlingen and an area development project which falls under the program „Stadsvisie Harlingen‟ (article 2.2). The latter is led by the municipality Harlingen and the province Fryslân (P. A. C.M.P.S. Eurlings & P.H.M. Scheffer, 2010). The declaration of execution in 2012 does not offer direct couplings, but it just expands on what is being said before– it is desirable to fine-tune and connect infrastructure development of the N31 with area development as envisioned in the vision of Harlingen in the document „Houtskoolschets‟ dating from 2008. Only for the area development project Perseverantia an ISV-subsidy is requested, besides this none of the other area development projects are explicitly coupled in this declaration of execution.

Here below are three pictures. The second and third figures clearly shows that the old N31 is forming functional and spatial barrier in the city; the central zone forms the corridor of connecting two city half ends and the city is made out of „ functional islands‟ which are reaching critical levels, so the reconstruction is urgent (BVR Adviseurs ruimtelijke ontwikkeling, 2008). The first figure, the expansion on the „Houtskoolschets‟, predicts the transformation of area adjacent to the N31. The N31, near the Central zone, will be constructed at a deepened ground level – this will reduce the spatial barrier in city and the spatial structure can be restored by reinforcing and transforming old areas such as the „Perseverantia‟ and „Spaansen‟. The new N31 and area development should create a coherent new Harlingen and the central zone should act as visiting card to Harlingen as this zone will connect the road to the local road structure; the ovatonde will split it up the road to the city

centre, housing areas, and recreation areas.

Figure 11: zoomed-in map of the central zone (Arcadis, 2012, p. 36) CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 164

Figure 12: The central zone, as shown in the Houtskoolschets, is split up in two; city is made up out small islands (BVR Adviseurs ruimtelijke ontwikkeling, 2008) So summarized, the spatial intertwinement of infrastructure planning and area development are mentioned in 2009 in the initial decision. In 2010, the declaration of intention clearly shows the loose, but willing effort to couple infrastructure planning with area development. In 2012 in the declaration of execution it remains desirable to intertwine these issues, but they are done through two separated plans; the N31 Traverse Harlingen and area development Harlingen (Houtskoolschets). (J) Based on this, the level of spatial intertwinement is considered to be at level 3 - Infrastructure provision and other spatial developments strengthen each other; emphasizes each other‟s qualities and/or minimizes each other‟s negative or adverse effects. The spatial intertwinement is not at level 4 (the level in which the projects are being adjusted to each other), because it is said in the initial decision that they are clearly separated in two plans. As a result, they only recognize each other‟s existence and effort is being put in getting synergy in both plans. The quality of life would improve, only if these two plans are executed properly. Since, they are two separated plans; they also hold two distinguished scopes in projects – there are no adjustments to each other, only interconnections between the scopes of projects. So, if both the plans are adequately executed according to the plans, then both the plans would supplement each other reaching one coherent whole – increasing quality of life in Harlingen.

(K) The procedural intertwinement is rated level 2 - Infrastructure planning and other spatial development planning are happening parallel and are intertwined at some points in the phases of pre-initiation and initiation phases, but its plan development and implementation phases are separated. This is reasoned by the facts that the current developments around the N31 are not intertwined and the N31 Traverse Harlingen acts as a catalyst to speed up the area development in Harlingen (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014; Zenit-bgo, 2014). For instance, the dug up sand of 75.000 m3 in the N31 Traverse Harlingen was not put to use in other projects, although the „Fish mitigating river (vismigratie rivier)‟ is mentioned. This river is related to another project of Harlingen concerning the Waddenzee and Afsluitdijk (Gemeente Harlingen, 2014; Waddenvereniging, 2014,). The other spatial developments such Spaansen, MADI and Perseverantia are rather stagnated or postponed till later development. This is due to budgeting

problems, presumable to the economic crisis. In the 1895 to 1901, the tar factory Perseverantia CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 165 polluted the soil with coal tar products such as naphthalene and phenol. There were no environmental laws against these disposals, but now these harmful products are grounded deep into the soil. Prior the project N31 this sanitation project had no priority, but due to the deepening of the N31 road, this can be used opportunity to redevelop the area (Projectbureau N31 Harlingen, 2014a). Sieds Hoitinga (2014) mentions the unavailable budget is now made free and thus the money can be invested in these area development projects. The other area development projects related to N31 such as the MADI terrain and South Harlingen had no documented feedback either concerning the N31 project (Triple Bridge, 2013b).

The lodged appeal against the TB, which later was judged ungrounded by the council of state, is partly about the rather unknown financing of the area development projects adjacent to the N31 Traverse Harlingen (Raad van State, 2013c). This appeal was rejected, because the council of state clearly defended that the area development is completely separated from the project – it is unrelated to the TB and so will the financing of the area development not hamper the financing of the N31 Traverse Harlingen. (L) Thus for the financial intertwinement, it is at level 2, which means that the risks of infrastructure development and area development are being shared, but they have separated budgets. If the N31 acts as a catalyst to speed up the process and procedures of area development in the city, then failure of this N31 will certainly impact the process of certain area development project such as the sanitation and transformation of Perseverantia and Spaansen.

The learning opportunities and reputation. The leaning opportunities and development can contribute to the project success on the long-term orientation; it creates commitment stimulation for people. (M) The remarks on project Joure is also applicable on this project. That is the cultural difference in the alliance causing slight tensions on the budget and proposed working methods. Also, the line of sight was not always preserved and utilized as it should; the trust in the project teams is sometimes lacking, making the ATM wanting to take over the control on the details (Triple Bridge, 2013a). The loss of line of sight in the lower departments of the alliance with regard to the municipality reduces the learning opportunities and it increases the risk of miscommunication on synergy with the environment to the alliance. Additional information can be added that municipality Harlingen is contributing roughly 10% to the realization cots of project, thus their participation is desirable (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 20).

b.2.3. The process of N31 Traverse Harlingen The type of approach. The type of approach on this project is mainly project-oriented with additional project managerial elements.

(N) The goals are rather kept under control with respect to the iron triangle. The goals, as mentioned before, are sharply defined with loose ends to area development. The area development is recognized, but they function in another plan; interconnections are sought in synergy and fine-tuning these two projects to get a higher quality of life in Harlingen. Methods are used for mitigating the adverse effects and the project is mostly focused on landscaping and

routing. This can be deducted from the ambition document and information from the initial CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 166 decision to keep these two projects separated. The idea behind is most likely that if both plans are executed properly, then added up they would complement each other and thus adding value to a higher quality of life. For the N31 Traverse Harlingen, there is no need taking care of issues outside this project scope; e.g. the rather unknown financing of the area development project „Perseverantia‟ and „Spaansen‟ did not hamper the process of this N31.

(O) The process managerial elements can be found in the interactive cooperation with other stakeholders in adequate pace. The public is involved in 4 stages in project. (i) According to the Elverding process, informal public participation before the formal procedure will decrease the chances of appeals against the project; this is true, as there was only one lodged appeal against the TB (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014; Raad van State, 2013c). (ii) The involvement in the advice notification/OTB/TB to possibly adjust or oppose these plans; for the advice notification (kennisgeving) there 4 comments (Rijkswaterstaat, 2012b). (iii) Uniquely for this project, on the contrary to Joure, is the public involvement in creating an ambition document which was set up by a landscape architect company to steer the final design of N31. The inhabitants of Harlingen, the traffic users on the N31, and the users of the city Harlingen and its landscape (landschapsarchitecten, 2012, p. 16) were participating in this document. This document translates the boundaries of the OTB into more concise and measurable criteria on the road and structures – the ambition document will form, together with the TB and costs estimation document, the basis for the procurement in which the quality of project is described and reviewed upon (to see if the spatial qualities are in check). The experts were unbundled with the stakeholders in their roles, but the activities are bundled in the process (landschapsarchitecten, 2012, p. 10); it is not documented that they are at times bundled and unbundled – there were two workshops, two nights with stakeholders, one separated event with the traffic experts and the alliance and project company N31 were the last ones who can make final adjustment on the plans (landschapsarchitecten, 2012, pp. 6-10). This set-up, the unbundling of roles prevents experts becoming bias to certain stakeholders and hereby perverts the process. The stakeholder could openly submit their results, views and assumptions, in which will reviewed by the traffic experts on their viability. The experts can act countervailing power and give advice, although there is the risk that they do not hold an authoritative voice – in other words, the stakeholders do not commit to the way to which the experts undertook the analysis, thus making this process potentially wasted. This risk can be downplayed by adding another round in which the stakeholders are involved with the experts, with or without the decision-makers of the alliance. This way, the quality in the decision-making process might increase, because it is characterized by a greater variety that comes with a better learning process (reflecting strengths and weakness in interactions and options), better exploration of possibilities, and thus improved quality through debating. Then the transaction should take

place from substantive variety to selection.

TraverseHarlingen CaseII: N31 167

Figure 13: N31, the new visiting card for the city - enhanced materials will be used to coherently match the culture of Harlingen (landschapsarchitecten, 2012) For most users the N31 is a just connection road from one place to another. However, the experience in of the entire trajectory is considered most important factor; that is continuity and identity. The identity factor implies that the road should be recognizable as the city entrée and can be used a visiting card to the city. The continuality factor refers to the city Harlingen as a Friesian city. The construction of N31 creates new space available; this area can be used by inhabitants or private companies and this will influence the total experience as well. The future experience of the N31 can be described in a vision embedded with three criteria; (i) first function is to shape and bind the city together; the current city is split up in two by the old N31. (ii) The new N31 will get a new road; a new be Friesian shaped road and (iii) the city and road are one coherent part, thus its arising opportunities should be used to its benefits (landschapsarchitecten, 2012, p. 34). With each main criterion there were sets of sub criteria that could help finalizing the final design according to the ambitions shared by all stakeholders. E.g. as shown on the next figure, is that they prefer the distance of the road N31 to the city to be at least 15 metres including the stroke of 4 metre.

The information gathering happens in a mixed bag of project and process based tactics. (P) As Joure, the information gathering happens on the basis of the problem content, which sequentially steers the goal setting and thus determines what kind of information is necessary to the project. Nevertheless, the information could also be used strategically in the sense that information is overstated or understated to certain stakeholders. This could have happened in the public involvement prior to the formal process and their interaction during the procedure, because they participate in arenas separated from the decision-makers (landschapsarchitecten,

2012). The information is treated as robust and intersubjective – first you need to know what is happening and then act accordingly (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014). As opposed to this robust and intersubjective information is the negotiated knowledge which is information as well. The involvement of the public prior to the initial decision in 2009 could be that they have negotiated about the correctness on information, although they are not entirely involved in the formal procedure until past mid-way of the process. Therefore, the information used in this project is treated rather robust and intersubjective than negotiated. The quality of the information most likely determines the extent to which decision-making is influenced; the moment on which the influence of information impacts the decision-making is not mentioned,

thus this is assumed as neglected or not important. (Q) Considering the little intertwinement of CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 168 infrastructure development and area development, the information gathering presumably happened on basis on need-to-know information principle – what kinds of information is needed for good landscaping and routing of the N31 Traverse Harlingen?

The decision-making and its implementations are decided in the steering committee in the hierarchical alliance in the project. The alliance organization structure of the N31 is the same as for Joure; please refer back to the previous case analysis. Nevertheless, the alliance is set up for two purposes. First is to deliver effective and efficient project‟s results. Second is to create added-value by synergy with the environment. The alliance was set up in a top-down approach and each sub organization in the alliance has its responsibilities and tasks. That of the municipality is mainly aimed at the interaction with the environment. Their interests are protected by their representatives in the steering committee and management group; but their participation in the project teams are limited due to their capability (0,6 full time equivalent in project teams) (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 20). Just like Joure, the same minor issues were present, although the overall is generally positive. The minor issues were the loss of the line of sight, but also the urgency to take over the control of tasks which are originally not appointed to that party. Moreover, the AMT wished to have more support from the higher-ups, so that they could focus more on the external communication to other stakeholders besides the stakeholders within the alliance. In that way, the AMT could spend more time in looking societal added-value through synergy and fine-tuning with e.g. area development projects or using other smart coupling such as create work with work.

(R) The decision-making follows the traditional path of hierarchy; the decision follows from problem definition, goal definition and its information gathering. It follows the plans and project-managerial techniques such as deadlines and milestones are widely used. The public, on the contrary to, the stakeholders within the alliances are just consultants – they give input on the project, but do not make the decisions on the plans. Therefore there is chance that the formal decisions made on the package in design might come as a surprise, thus the decision is not tickling off. Nor is it entirely an open and on-going process, but rather decisions that give direction and also resistance. The direction follows the predefined path and the decision- making does not depend on the pace based on opportunities or possible threats, such as possible synergy with area development projects, as these projects are as mentioned before separated from this project. E.g. the unknown financing of area development adjacent to this

N31 project does not hamper the process. Moreover, the project-based actions that steers the decision-making are reflected in the alliance, the project teams and AMT do not have the mandate to decide on themselves what is best for project. It has to be communicated and approved by the higher-ups in the steering committee (Triple Bridge, 2013a, p. 23). (S) The implementation only happens if the decision to do so is approved by the steering committee. Thus, the implementation follows the decision and this decision does not follow the action already taken. The implementation is then operational activity and not a strategic choice. The decision prior to implementation will give an imperative direction to the implementation; there is no new round of opportunities, as these decisions are not packages. Instead, they funnel the project, decreasing amount of freedom choices in project – no additional items or elements CaseII: N31 TraverseHarlingen 169 were added in the project as predescribed in the initial decision as result of a package deal with other stakeholders

C. CASE III: RATIP IN THE PROVINCE BRABANT This case analysis does not necessarily focus on the projects of Brabant, but more on the differences in terminology and practices in the usage of RATIP when comparing it with Fryslân. The outline in section 3.1 indicates that one of the differences lies in the application and interpretation of the word RATIP: Fryslân uses RATIP more as an operational and tactical method to plan and execute certain projects, whereas RATIP in Brabant is used as a form of collaboration between all governmental bodies and NGOs to strategically undertake actions to fulfil their goals in the PVVP. To the RATIP of Fryslân (gebiedsgerichte aanpak) is derived from their so called region-oriented approach (gebiedsgewijze aanpak), which is the form of collaboration that Fryslân use to realize their main goal in the PVVP. That region- oriented approach is similar to the RATIP of Brabant (GebiedsGerichte Aanpak: Vervoer en Vekeer): only the terminology is used differently.

The section 3.1 will briefly mention the main difference, which will be followed up by section 3.2 that will dig deeper into the analysis of RATIP in Brabant. At the end, in PART IV, the cross-analysis will point out the differences and similarities that could lead to new learning opportunities for Fryslân.

c.1. RATIP in Brabant; terminology, usage, policy First, a small recap will be given on the RATIP in Fryslân. Afterwards, the outline on RATIP in Brabant will be explained – this happens with an introduction on RATIP in Brabant, then the evaluation report in 2010 on this RATIP is elaborated. And its impact

c.1.1. Recap: RATIP and PVVP in the province Fryslân The RATIP (Gebiedsgerichte Aanpak naar Complexe Infrastructure Projecten: GGA) of Fryslân is derived from the region-oriented approach, which is a form of collaboration within the Provincial Traffic and Transportation Plan (Provinciaal Verkeers- en Vervoersplan: PVVP) of Fryslân (Province Fryslân, 2011, p. 139). Each province has its own PVPP in which they plan to collaborate with the RWS, municipalities, and other organization to improve the traffic safety, quality of life and accessibility of region. In a nutshell, it concludes all activities within a region related to planning of transport and transportation (Triple Bridge, 2013b). The RATIP of Fryslân seems to be like a type of tactical and operational approach, which is characterized by its pragmatic use and its attempts to intertwinement infrastructure provision with area development, so that synergy and added-value in the project can be realized. The amount of intertwinement is, as you can notice in case analysis 1 and II, depends on the project context and external project conditions. Inherent to this efficacy in this typical approach, the key word on RATIP is collaboration, which heavily relies on mutual gains, working together throughout the policy sections, and to create overall support by binding each

other‟s interests (Sieds Hoitinga, 2014). CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 170

The execution of the PVVP happens according to the region-oriented approach, in which the province collaborates with the municipalities to come to the most optimal solutions. From the viewpoint of efficiency and getting one coherent body, it is most advisable to complement this region-oriented approach to other forms of collaboration on the spatial development and the development of regional agendas (streek/gebiedsagenda). The starting-points for the region- oriented approach are (Province Fryslân, 2011, p. 139):

 Seeking the desirable projects that match the goals of PVVP.  The coherent solution to the problems on provincial and local roads.  The fine-tuning of implementation plan on the content of project.  Looking for synergy in between major projects and area development.  The concise elaboration of the PVVP policy on the road categorisation.  The region-oriented approach should fit the provincial collaboration as mentioned in the consultation meeting of transport and transportation in Fryslân (Overleg Verkeer en Vervoer Fryslân: OVVF); in the OVVF, covenants are made between the province with the municipalities and RWS on the plans and vision in the province Fryslân.

Based on this, it seems that RATIP is derived from the region-oriented approach, in which the latter is then derived from the form of collaboration to execute the implementations of the PVVP in a certain way. The execution of the PVVP policy has to be yearly approved by the provincial-executives and upon approval it will be given to the states-provincials (Province Fryslân, 2011, p. 34). This will result into the implementation programme (uitvoeringsprogramma) for that year. This programme usually consists of two parts; (i) the dynamic policy agenda (Dynamische Beleidsagenda: DBA) and Monitoring, and (ii) the more years programme Infrastructure (meerjarenprogramma Infrastructuur MPI). The DBA is, as opposed to the MPI, as the term suggests dynamic in nature; the policy in the DBA depends on the dynamics happening in that year (Province Fryslân, 2013, p. 8).

The PVVP main goal of Fryslân is to realize sustainable traffic and transportation in Fryslân. Inherent to this goal are several sub goals. Those are (i) it fits the need to transport as felt necessary by the inhabitants and travellers in Fryslân. (ii) It also fits the need for transportation of goods. (iii) It contributes to the economy, (iv) all aforementioned sub goals are safe and (v) it limits the damage done to the nature, landscape and environment. The main goal complements to the vision on the spatial development in Fryslân as described in their regional plan (streekplan) (Province Fryslân, 2011, pp. 12, 13). In the near future, the PVVP will be merged into the regional plan, as the national government is trying to unite all legal laws concerning spatial development into one law, the environment law (Omgevingswet). This new law will probably be activated in the period 2018 – 2020, but the province Fryslân reckon it is smart to look ahead and so in 2006 the regional plan was developed. They will try, if the state council agrees, to prepare a starting decision note on this development – to create an environmental vision (omgevingsvisie), that is one of the possible instruments in this environment law; where the PVVP and spatial development are combined in one (Province Fryslân, 2013, p. 15). The Province Overijssel already made such environmental vision, in CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 171 which they implement the regional plan, PVVP, water management plan, environment plan and soil plan into integral vision (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu, 2013).

c.1.2. RATIP in the province Brabant RATIP in Brabant is used as a form of collaboration in which the province Brabant collaborates with the RWS, municipalities and other NGOs. On the regional level, these partners are working together to improve the current transport and transportation problems. With this RATIP, the partners can keep in mind specific geographical and societal-economic features and conditions of a region; these are not bound to the borders of the municipalities. Three quarter of the transportation happens within the radius of 30 KM, so this is on a regional scale. With the help of RATIP, the solutions provided for these problems are tackled in a more integral and efficient way and they are also benefiting the end-user. The end-users, the travellers, do not look at borders of the municipalities, but they do want to travel as quickly and safe as possible with good accessibility to all facilities in the region (Province Brabant, 2014b).

The RATIP-partners are working together in 5 regions; northeast, „s Hertogenbosch, mid- Brabant, Breda, and west-Brabant. Besides this collaboration, the province are also working together with five big cities: Brede, Tilburg, „s Hertogenbosch, Eindhoven and Region Eindhoven (Samenwerkingsverband Regio Eindhoven: SRE); they are called the B5 and are also named the urban network cities of Brabant (stedelijk netwerk BrabantStad/Versterkt Stedelijk Netwerk Brabant: VSNB). In each of the five regions there are administrative and civil (bestuurlijk en ambtelijk) meetings, in which the partners can exchange information, fine-tune projects and bring in new initiatives. An external RATIP-coordinator is guiding the overall process on the regional level; whereas the internal RATIP-coordinators are functioning within the region – they are responsible for the communication to region and within the region

(Province Brabant, 2014b).

CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 172

Figure 14: RATIP and collaboration with BRabantStad (Kernteam PVVP: Brabant, 2006, p. 37)

c.1.2.1. Evaluation report in 2010 on RATIP In 2010, the regional collaboration „RATIP‟ of the 5 regions in Brabant was evaluated (Oranjewoud & Ligtermoet & Partners, 2010a, pp. 2 - 5). The RATIP has contributed to the goals of the DBA, partly contributed to the goals of the PVVP, and most projects are chosen correctly. The realized projects are likely focused on the contribution to the traffic safety, improvement of accessibility, cycling routes and public transport. The least amount of focus in the projects is to the quality of life in terms of air quality and noise nuisance. Also, the public transport in terms of communication and execution of the timetable are kind of off-focus. As opposed to the region-oriented approach of Fryslân, the RATIP here is very focused on the traffic related topics; the coherence with other policy disciplines is still difficult and the chances are untouched. This can be concluded from the results on the interviews from the evaluation report with several GGA-coordinators (GC), provincial coordinators (PC), administrative chairman (bestuurlijk voorzitter: VZ), and deputies (G). Aside from the positive aspects, the points of attention with the concern to spatial development are quoted below in Dutch (Oranjewoud & Ligtermoet & Partners, 2010b, pp. 11, 12, 14):

„‟De samenhang met de andere disciplines is lastig. Er wordt te weinig gekeken naar aansluitende thema‟s. Kansen voor aansluiting andere beleidsterrein (milieu, lucht en ruimtelijke ontwikkeling). Aandacht voor verschil in schaalniveau (GC) (PC) (VZ).‟‟

„Kansen voor ruimtelijke ontwikkeling, bereikbaarheid in één van de afwegingen in RO (PC).‟

CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 173

„Regionaal ontwikkelen van beleid is nog een uitdaging, zeker in relatie met andere beleidsvelden, past ook minder bij huidige lichte samenwerkingsvorm (GC) (PC)‟

„Er is geen blauwdruk voor uitvoering (PC)‟

„Evaluatie had in een eerder stadium moeten plaatsvinden en het procescirkel wordt half doorlopen, monitoring ligt bij provincie, wordt niet in de regio gedaan (GC)‟

„Duidelijk zijn in grenzen van projectorganisatie en ook nadenken over begrenzing GGA‟s bij betrekken andere disciplines (GC) (PC)‟

„De dynamische beleidsagenda wordt 2-jaarlijks geupdated. Vier jaar is ook goed, gekoppeld aan nieuwe bestuurperiode GGA (GC) (PC)‟

The partners and stakeholder are actively involved in the RATIP to realize the goals – the RATIP primarily acts as instrument to exchange network and knowledge (vision, ways to implement projects, budgets and subsides), especially between the province and municipalities. They also find the RATIP suitable as a regional policy actor, which lays down its plans (policy and implementation) and implements projects that transcends the level of the municipality projects. They do not use RATIP in the manner to exchange local municipality plans – instead as said before RATIP is used as a vertical meeting place and is used as a regional policy actor that implements the regional plans fine-tuned to the local plans (Oranjewoud & Ligtermoet & Partners, 2010a, p. 15). Mutuality is, however, a condition for this RATIP to work; the parties will only participate if they can profit from this cause – „the win-win situation‟ should be aimed at. The involved actors in the RATIP are considering the functions of the internal and external GGA-coordinator useful.

The chosen form of collaboration is regarded not only efficient, but it is also experienced highly positive among the partners and stakeholders. The NGOs and commercial companies

are involved in the process in an ad hoc basis – it does however depend on the project context.

The success of RATIP-collaboration is due to process that can be characterized as informal, non-bureaucratic, transparent, and active: it results into continuity and it raises the awareness and attention among stakeholders. Moreover, there is much freedom in making your own programme. The bigger municipalities are not dominating in the RATIP. The small municipalities have the feeling that they are actively involved in the process, although the risk is that they formulate the regional vision and programme too locally. Nevertheless, a few adjustments in activities were recommended to the municipalities to make their presence in the RATIP even more useful (Oranjewoud & Ligtermoet & Partners, 2010a, pp. 22, 24): 1 to 4 are related to the content of RATIP, 5 to 7 are related to the process of the organization, and

8 is about the procedures in RATIP. CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 174

1. Increase the awareness of translation of regional agenda to the „regional multiple years‟ measure package‟ (regionale maatregelenpakket: RMMP): some of the projects in the local agenda of the municipalities are added to the „regional implementation programme‟ (regionale uitvoeringsprogramma‟s: RUP) – it is better for the consistency to add projects to the RUP, which are derived from the regional agenda. 2. Increase the structuring of human-oriented measures in the projects to improve traffic safety and increase the involvement of regional discussion on the quality of the measures. 3. Make the goals of the province more perceptible and clear, and intensify the discussion on the quality of the projects at a regional level 4. Do not only involve with transport related projects, but look for possibilities that can be coupled to other disciplines such as spatial development and sustainable environment. 5. Increase the foothold of RATIP activities in the organization of the municipality; less „ad hoc‟ and more structured in the policy and process. 6. Optimize the coordination between the province and the RATIP regions on the planning aspect 7. Increase the efficiency of the collaboration between small inter-municipalities within the region. 8. Improve the administrative and organizational process: e.g. electronic forms, virtual work floors, standard templates for meetings, one type of format for RUP/RMMP, possible coupling between the software PRIOR and „projectvolgsysteem‟.

So if the RATIP works, then how does the policy and implementation process look like? How is the decision-making process? Inherent to these questions is related the guarantee on how the coupling is warranted between the provincial policy and regional implementation packets (regionale uitvoeringspakketen). Each region act accordingly to a fixed procedure on a fixed order. The province sets up the DBA – each of the 5 RATIP regions will translate this agenda with their own partners into their own regional problem analysis and regional policy agenda. Afterwards, the projects are put in the „regional multiple years‟ measure package‟ (Regionale

Meerjaren Maatregelenpaketten: RMMP) and the „regional implementation programme‟

(Regionale Uitvoeringsprogramma: RUP) will be executed, along with the measures. If they all agree on the RMMP and RUP, then province can help to finance. At the end, there will be an evaluation on the projects. Please see figure 15: the province is leading the process. Besides leading this role, the role of the province Brabant can be put in 3 roles: 1) Regional authority, they are responsible for the development of the region Brabant. 2) Professional client for the implementation; they are responsible as client for the execution of her legal tasks and implementation of the supra-local (bovenlokale) projects. 3) Supervisor on its quality; the province is feeling responsible for the well-being and well functioning of the society in Brabant, thus they are supervising the governance in Brabant (Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2012, p. 55).

The application of this process can however be improved. The RUP is at times being filled with projects that are not derived from the regional policy agenda, but they are derived from CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 175 the local agenda of the municipalities. It is still possible, because the projects are matching the other projects in the RUP, but it does go along with the procedure and that hampers the optimization of procedure including its evaluation. Moreover, the evaluation is too focused on the progress of procurement of the project and its finances: more focus should be put into the contribution of the GGA projects to the goals of the DBA (Oranjewoud & Ligtermoet & Partners, 2010a, p. 23).

Figure 15: schematic overview of the exeuction of the PVVP policy (Provincie Brabant, 2006) As described here, the RATIP of Brabant seems to refer to what is known to Friesland as the region-oriented approach in their PVVP.

c.1.2.2. RATIP as in present day Prior to 2010, the DBA was revised each two years to take into account the dynamics in the region. However, based on the evaluation report it was said by the interviewees that the DBA could revised in each 4 years that better overlaps with the GGA board (Oranjewoud &

Ligtermoet & Partners, 2010b, p. 12). The most recent DBA is revised in 2012 and it looks over to the year 2016.

As mentioned before, the DBA is derived from the PVVP. In 2006, the PVVP was set up to visualize the vision, ambitions and scope of the province to solve the transport and transportation problem in Brabant in an innovative and sustainable way. This is a long-term oriented plan, from 2006 predicted to the future of 2020. The slogan „van deur tot deur‟ is used to put the end-user in the spot-light; their need for mobility is the starting point of this PVVP. Uniquely to this PVVP is the regional approach (regionale aanpak) and region- oriented solutions (gebiedsgerichte oplossingen). There is no blueprint for the solution in the entire province, but the province is collaborating in regions to seek out the most optimized (fit for purpose: per gebied mobiliteit op maat) solution for the problem that fits the users and the area. The province does not lay the rules down in a top-down approach, but there is freedom in CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 176 designing in your solutions within the boundaries of the scope that the province provides. The PVVP is a form of deregulation; less rules and more collaboration – collaboration in the form of RATIP is the spine of this PVVP (Provincie Brabant, 2006, p. 2). With regard to spatial development, the PVVP goals are based on the ambitions on better routing and landscaping: the coupling to area development and synergy are not mentioned (Provincie Brabant, 2006, p. 3).

The DBA from 2009 is revised in Societal goals 2012.The DBA is a tactical implementation agenda of the strategic PVVP e.a. PVVP. It is the coupling between

The revision in 2012 the strategic goals from the tactical DBA PVVP and future projects which have to be decided and operational BMIT constructed. It gives the RATIP partners a direction in making a Network GGA choice on how to choose implementation Monitoring and programmes evaluation programmes implement the projects. New to the revision is the feedback on realized projects; the effects and

Societal effects performances are implemented to improve the steering on future projects and thus benefiting the societal goals of Brabant. See the diagram. BMIT is the abbreviation for the more years programme of infrastructure and transportation of province Brabant (Brabants Meerjarenprogramma I&T) (Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2012, p. 5).

The evaluation report in 2010 on the GGA-collaboration on the regions does not lead to any changes in the DBA of 2012-2016. Nor does the structural vision spatial development North- Brabant 2010 (Structuurvisie RO: SVRO) and the provincial water management plan (Provinciaal Waterhuishoudingsplan: PWP) change the content of the DBA. The reason is that these documents are already actualized within the strategic boundaries and they can be coupled

with the strategic and tactical of this DBA. The SVIR, TELOS sustainable balance 2010, and the environment law are also considered if these documents would change the content of this DBA. The policy documents in the SVIR such as „Nota Mobiliteit‟ and the „Essentiele Onderdelen‟ are already implemented in the definitions of the goals in the PVVP and DBA. So due to this, there is no reason to change the DBA: the consequences of the SVIR will only change organizational aspects for certain network programmes such as the VSNB. The TELOS indicators have to be revised due the revisited DBA tactical goals; TELOS is knowledge base that makes sustainable development societal recognizable, they work together with NGOs, the government and some universities.

As said before, the DBA steers future projects and has also evaluated on how many of the

current projects of their tactical goals matches the strategic goals of the PVVP. In total there CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 177 are 18 tactical (T) goals and 15 strategic (S) goals. The DBA is also synchronised with the Agenda of Brabant and covenant „Tien voor Brabant 2011-2015‟: this one puts the accents on the accessibility of the economic centre and regions, multimodal transport, and good public transport. These accents are coupled to the DBA tactical goals: T3, T4, T5, T7, T9, T18, T19, and T20 (Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2012, pp. 15, 16). Out of the 18 tactical goals, these are also the most important ones; DBA focuses on these goals, but the others are not neglected. However, for the intertwinement of infrastructure development with area development, and the organization aspect (decision-making and processes), the T8, T18, and T20 are more relevant. For all the description and couplings of all these goals, please refer to the appendix. Nevertheless, the relevant Ts are described here below, as well is given the score on its evaluation and coupling to the strategic goals of PVVP (Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2012, pp. 29, 45, 49, 51).

T8: strengthen the cohesion between infrastructure network and the spatial development. The related strategic goals are S2, S3, S10, and S14. The cohesion can by strengthen in three ways:

a) To think and act from a viewpoint that benefits the function of that region – from this viewpoint the intertwinement of spatial development and infrastructure can be developed. b) Preserve room for possible extension of the current and new infrastructure (water, road, and rails). c) The correct activity on the correct place, keeping in mind the infrastructure and multimodal mobility.

Currently, a few infrastructure projects are being monitored on their possible indications on persevering and reserving enough space for infrastructure expansion. These projects are the NOC, N69, ROBEL, and Railway line Breda- Utrecht.

Also a few operational measures and actions, in line to this tactical goal, were executed.

 Space reservation the spatial development plans (T8b)  Search areas for possible urban expansion (T8c)

 Area development, such as corridor N69 and Brainport East.

Several examples in the region were given as well.

 Extra attention was given to the junction Paalgraven (A59 Oss).  Exit Eerde (A50 Veghel).  The construction of the regional industry area Laarakker in combination with the road Haps (Cuijk).  As A58 Corridor.  N261: As Tilburg-Waalwijk.

 Area development: N65 Vught-Haaren CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 178

T18: Collaboration between the governments, knowledge institutions, business companies, and societal organizations (the 4 Os). 14 The related strategic goals are S1, S2, and S14. This collaboration is necessary to ensure a good climate to live and work in: the spatial, economic and mobility issues can be improved through this collaboration. The indicators in this DBA need to be synchronised with those indicators in the Agenda of Brabant in order to continue the monitoring.

A few operational measures and actions, in line with this tactical goal, were executed.

 The RATIP-collaboration form was used to strengthen this collaboration: RATIP- partners with the B5, the addition of regional agendas.  For specific topics, alliances were formed as well.  Network programme BrabantStad.  Innovative procurement.  More exploration on the possibilities in collaboration to improve the logistics in South-Holland (corridor A58/A59/A67).

T20: Improving the knowledge development and innovation within alliances. The related strategic goal is S15. The indicators in this DBA need to be synchronised with those indicators in the Agenda of Brabant in order to continue the monitoring.

A few operational measures and actions, in line with this tactical goal, were executed.

 Adjustment to the TELOS on the monitoring and predictions of effects.  Development of network visions, e.g. the cross linking of networks between different transport modalities.  Development of instruments for the traffic-flows, pricing, information distribution, and environmental information.  Insight into the performances of policy and its effects, such as the yearly overview of the projects and its attained effects in the goals of PVVP.

Based on the overall overview as seen in the appendix, in which is explained in how much of the tactical goals are realized, when measured in 2011. The overall goals, in which the desired effects are reached, are relatively positive (6 positively, 7 neutral, 4 unknown due to lack of monitoring information). It can be concluded, that the most important Ts are performing well and these are also Ts that the province puts its accents on. T18 is rated positively, but the T8 and T20 are lacking data to objectively judge: the progress to its finish of T8 and T20 are rated respectively 20% to 80% (Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2012, p. 53).

14 4 Os: Overheden, kennisinstellingen (Onderwijs en Onderzoek), Ondernemers (bedrijfsleven) and Omgeving (maatschappelijke organisaties en burgers). CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 179

c.2. Overview of brainport east - the diamond This section is dedicated to the brainport east, which is also known as the diamond (De Ruit). This area development was mentioned in the revised DBA in 2012. The revision includes the monitoring and evaluations on diverse infrastructure projects related to the tactical goals of the DBA and the strategic goals of the PVVP. To what extend did all projects in 2011 meet the expected effects of the tactical goals? The evaluation in 2011 showed no results due to the lack of data: therefore a qualitative evaluation will follow on the diamond, which was mentioned and related to the tactical goal (T8) of the DBA – T8: strengthen the cohesion between infrastructure network and the spatial development (Oranjewoud & Ligtermoet & Partners, 2010a).

First, the overview of the diamond is given in section 3.2.1: general information on project. Then, in section 3.2.2 it is about the organizational structure of project and its decision- making from 2000 to present day and process for the future is also sketched. The diamond can be divided in smaller projects, such as in section 3.2.3 the infrastructure project North-east corridor (Verkeersruit: Eindhoven) and in section 3.2.4 the other area development projects such as „Het Rijk van Dommel en AA‟. This chapter ends with section 3.2.5 on the level of intertwinement.

c.2.1. Overview of the diamond Overview: The project „diamond‟ (De Ruit) is directly related to the regions of Eindhoven, Helmond and Veghel. This project will complete the network link, which is needed to provide good traffic flow and accessibility to the region in order to sustain the current economic growth and competitive business position. This project is necessary, as the city Eindhoven is as a region rated in 2014 as the best economic performer and it is also the 2nd biggest Dutch growing economic region

(Central Project Group Brainport East, 2014a).

The region between Eindhoven and Helmond is also known as Brainport East, but it is now Figure 37: project Diamond (De Ruit) (Province named diamond. It is one of the nine areas, in Brabant, 2014a). which the province collaborates with its partners. The investments in the diamond are done in sub-projects, which can be divided in three parts. The cohesion of these three projects will benefit the long-term oriented goal of a good living and working area, which is combined with good accessibility to its facilities. On the short-term orientation (2013-2015), the investment will give an impulse to the spatial quality

of the region. On the mid-term orientation (2020), measures are taken to improve the CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 180 accessibility (North-east corridor) and landscape park (Rijk van Dommel en Aa) for the future (BrabantStad, 2014). The works are planned in 2017 and the project will be delivered in 2020, except for a few smaller area development projects. The project Brainport East has 3 main goals: (i) The improvement on the accessibility is directly related to the project North-east corridor: the realization of a robust, trustworthy national and regional infrastructure system surrounding Eindhoven and Helmond. This road network, which does not cut through the living environment „The kingdom of Dommel and Aa‟, will enhance (ii) this recreational area with greenery and water projects. Lastly, urban development (project MEROS) is planned to improve (iii) the prosperity in region Eindhoven, Helmond, along the axes of A2, Brainport Avenue and the N279. The diamond, Brainport East, is an integral area development project – that couples diverse needs and developments related to infrastructure, landscape and urbanism (Provincie Brabant, 2010, p. 15).

The cost for the project diamond is estimated at € 970 million, in which € 875 million goes to the North-east corridor; the rest is divided on the area development projects – Kingdom of Dommel and Aa costs € 75 million and the rest cost € 20 million (Central Project Group Brainport East, 2014c). The province as biggest financial risk taker is also responsible for the execution of this project.

c.2.2. Organizational structure and decision-making process Organizational structure of the diamond: the province are working together with 12 other municipalities in order to realize this project: municipality Eindhoven, Helmond, Son en Breugel, Neunen, Geldrop-Mierlo, Sint-Oedenrode (agenda member only), Veghel, Asten, Deurne, and Gemert-Bakel. The administrative representatives of these governmental bodies are involved in the steering committee; also the Ministry of Infrastructure & the Environment, SRE, Waterboard De Dommel, Waterboard Aa en Maas, and the Central Government Real Estate Agenda (Rijksvastgoed en Ontwikkelingsbedrijf: RVOB) are involved (Province Brabant, 2014a). They all have their own binding role to their own organization. The steering committee advises the GS and PS, and/or mayor and executive board about the process and results of this project. This steering committee is getting advices, prior to the important decision-making moments from the advising group, whose group consists of divers NGOs,

societal companies and work unions. This advising group, however, does not have a direct relationship with the central project group Brainport East. This central project group is only related to the steering committee and it can be subdivided into a project group for the North- east corridor (NEC) and another one for the Kingdom of Dommel and Aa (KODA) (Province

Brabant, 2014a). CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 181

GS/PS and/or College Advising group Steering commitee of BW

Work groups: * Land acquistion Central project group * Communication Brainport East * Business case * Acceleration task (versnellingsopgave)

Project group NEC Project group KODA

Sounding boards: * N279 Centre * N279 South * East-west connection Figure 17: Decision-making process on this project

Figure 18: An overview of the involved parties in the advising group and steering committee (Province Brabant, 2014c) The history of project (Central Project Group

Brainport East, 2014b): The traffic flow in region

Eindhoven was always vulnerable due to the fact that multiple highways are flocked together near the city area and 80% of the 750.000 inhabitants are working within their own region. So the traffic has to be warranted. Therefore, since 2000, the government and region have made appointments to keep this accessibility available for future use. First, the smaller Figure 40: sketch of region (Central diamond was investigated in the BOSE-study in 2005: Project Group Brainport East, 2014b) the connection from Ekkersrijt through Nuenen and Geldrop to the A67: basically the diamond surrounds Einhoven with Helmond on the east side

of the Diamond. However, this concept is proven not robust enough and the nature areas CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 182

„Strabrechtse Heide and Dommeldal‟ are environmentally protected. Thus the bigger diamond was chosen: the diamond surrounds Eindhoven and Helmond. This was recorded down in the „accessibility-agreement Zuidoostvleugel BrabantStad‟ in 2007. With this concept, the east and west side of the region are central within the diamond and this is combined with a lively and green area in the centre as well (Kingdom of Dommel and Aa): the concentration of work employment is preserved and the centre is discharged of traffic, but the commuter traffic flow is still being managed with this concept. To warrant the accessibility of the east side of the city, diverse measures were added such as fast lanes for bicycles and HOV-axes (hoogwaardig openbaar vervoer)

Figure 20: respectively, small diamond and the bigger diamond (Central Project Group Brainport East, 2014b) In 2008, on basis of the agreement on the accessibility in 2007, the MIRT-exploration was executed. The intentions in the program of 2007 were translated in concrete projects, in which one of them is the North-east corridor. Several appointments were made between the national government and the province: e.g. widening of the A2, constructing the big diamond with the financing help from the national government. In 2008 to 2011, the provincial structural vision on spatial development in 2011 (Structuurvisie Ruimtelijke Ordening) was combined with the MIRT-exploration in 2008 to a new project so called „area development Brainport East‟. Here the project scope was determined on basis of the plan-MER North-east corridor. Several alternatives were compared, but eventually the Wilhelmina alternative with the upgrade of the N279 was chosen: the road can change within the yellow-coloured road-zone in which the

Wilhelmina upgraded alternative was chosen. The law of environmental maintenance enforces that the plans for area development (living and work areas) and adjustment on infrastructure are happening through the MER procedures (plan-MER). There is a MER for the area development projects (MEROS) and one for the North-east corridor. These advices on these two MERs were published in 2011. On contrary to the other projects, this project holds the

extensive MER procedure. The interested parties could consult on these plans. CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 183

Figure 21: respectively the MIRt-exploration in 2008, and the structural vision in 2010 (Central Project Group Brainport East, 2014b) From 2012 to 2015, the Provincial Integration plan (PIP) is being used with the combination of project-MER. In this plan the preferred solution design with the mitigating and compensating measures are being laid down. This plan can be split in 3 phases as seen in the overview of the process: (i) assessment framework (afwegingskader) and note on scope and details (notitie reikwijdte en detailniveau: NRD), (ii) preferred solution design and project- MER (voorkeursalternatief en project-MER), and (iii) PIP. Public participation, as in consulting and opposing the documents is possible in the PIP. Parallel to this process is the

CBA in collaboration with the SRE and Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment.

Figure 22: overview of the process (Province Brabant, 2014c, p. 20) CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 184

Even though, the PLAN-mer and structural vision were finished; there were still too many alternatives to compare these on a detailed level such in project-MER. Therefore, in 2012, the assessment framework was set up to limit the alternatives. This happened in an interactive process in two rounds. In the first round, divers groups have mapped out the values, chances and threats. In the second round, workshops had been set up in which the project groups and sounding boards are divided to sketch out the alternative roads in 3 separated sub-projects: N279 Centre, N279 South and the East-west connection (Witteveen en Bos, 2012, p. 23). The final results of this interactive process are consolidated and mapped out in one map: within the shaded area on map, the green lines rare from the sounding boards and the red lines are from the project groups. The amounts of alternatives have been reduced for the NRD to follow up: one road with 8 spots in which there is a dilemma. So in 2013, the NRD continues with the elaboration of the goals and problem, and it determines the framework in which the scope and effects on detail level will be assessed. The goal of this NRD is come to one preferred solution design: the consolidated alternatives are elaborated on its design, costs, th environmental effects, and opportunities within the framework. On 12 of September in 2013, the steering committee of Brainport East has given its advice to the provincial deputies; they have taken over this advice without any changes on the content. The alternatives from the NRD form the starting-points for the research in the project-MER. The public could have comment on this report between the 4th of November and the 16th of September in 2013. There were 1.900 comments on the NRD: these are partly integrated on the reaction nota (Reactienota: RN) from the deputies, in which they give an answer on how these comments will be taken into account for the project-MER and PIP. Also the advices of the commission for the MER and the provincial environment commission (Provinciale Omgevingscommissie:

POC) are in that nota (Province Brabant, 2014c). CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 185

Figure 23: latest map with the prefered road design and 3 issues to be considered (Province Brabant, 2014c) The RN and NRD are the starting points for the project-MER. This research was planned from April 2014 to October 2014. In September 2014, the State Deputies will choose on basis of the project-MER, the temporally preferred solution design (Voorkeursalternatief: VKA).

As for the VKA now, the existing N279 from Asten to Veghel will get upgraded to increase the road capacity of the diamond network and new traces will come: the East-west connection which starts from the T-intersect to Dommeldal and a new road which deflects from Zijtaart to connect with the A50 in order to connect those local business areas. Please see appendix for a bigger picture.

After, the advice of the advising group, steering committee, and wishes and demands from States-provincials (PS), the provincial executives (GS) will choose the VKA. The CBA will be discussed in the BO-MIRT, which will also be considered for the PIP. The VKA will be elaborated in its details in the PIP. This concept PIP will laid down for public viewing, and a new RN will follow. Based on that RN and advices of e.g. municipalities and commission for the MER, the PS and GS will conclude the final VKA. All of the planned decision-making are

once again given in the picture here below. CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 186

Figure 24: planned decision-making from august 2014 to 2015 (Province Brabant, 2014c) c.2.3. North-east corridor The planning of the North-east corridor (NEC) is not a standalone project. It is a part of the integral area development of the Southeast wing BrabandtStad, or better known as Brainport. In the MIRT-exploration of 2008 shows the integral ambitions, goals and tasks ahead: the accessibility problem is approached with an area-oriented (gebiedgerichte) approach. In the MIRT-exploration they made use of the „Zevensprong van Verdaas‟ to improve the accessibility in region. This method consists of 7 steps with measures to improve the accessibility through a sustainable method: step 6 is the adjustment on roads and step 7 is building new roads. Even with all the measures, in 2020 it is predicated that the road capacity on the N279 (14.000 to 19.000 per day in 2020) and also on the A/N270 (37.000 to 50.000 per day in 2020) are running short. The general idea on improving the accessibility is by leading the current roads more to the roads, which is getting extended or broadened: at the same time, this idea will reduce the cut-through traffic through the villages, municipalise and local environments such as The Kingdom of Dummel and Aa. The improvement on the accessibility, will benefit the goals of the brainport (e.g. sustain the economic growth) and the goals of improving nature and recreational areas (e.g. Kingdom of Dummel and Aa). There are four goals that this NEC at least has to fulfil (Provincie Brabant, 2010, pp. 24-27):

1. Improving the accessibility of the economic clusters in Brainport area: Med-tech (Philips-medtech), High-tech (High-tech campus/ASML), Automotive (Automotive campus/TNO) and Agro-food (Oost-Brabant, Bavaria, Veghel). 2. Reducing the traffic in the Kingdom of Dommel and Aa (A/N270, N614 and N615). 3. Reducing the traffic through the living areas (e.g. Eindhoven-east and the centres of

Helmond and Veghel) CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 187

4. Improving the robustness of the road network system: better resilience against accidents and future resilience – the network system has absorbing capacity on the accidents on the A2/A67.

From the total project costs of € 970 million, at least € 875 million goes to the North-east corridor (NEC) (Rebel, 2013). The national government is willing to help with the finance up to € 268 million (grey). The network organization „Samenwerkingsverband Regio Eindhoven (SRE)‟ will invest € 112.5 million (blue). The province is the biggest financial risk taker with € 450 million (red), whereas the local region makes up for the rest, the remaining € 44 million (green). The new road East-west connection is the most expensive part of NEC: upgrading the existing N279 is cheaper.

The procedures of the NEC follow the PIP. This is already explained in the previous section. The preferred solution design of Wilhelmina with the upgrade of N279 is chosen; this does, however, ask a big sacrifice on the landscape, but this design contributes most to the goals (Provincie Brabant, 2010, p. 42). To compensate this, extra conditions are set up: coupling to greenery and ensure the quality of life remains viable in the Laarbeek, Helmond, Veghel and smaller residential areas.

c.2.4. Other development projects: KODA and MEROS Other area development projects can be categorized in the „Kingdom of Dommel and Aa‟ (KODA), MEROS, and of part of the subsidised and accelerated projects dubbed „Subsidie Versnellingsopgave‟.

KODA:The SRE is the project leader of this KODA project. The project group KODA was set to support the steering committee of the area development project Brainport East. In project group KODA, the province Brabant are working with 12 municipalities represented: Eindhoven, Geldrop-Mierlo, Helmond, Laarbeek, Nuenen, Someren and, Son en Breugel. Also the waterboards Aa en maas and De Dommel are involved. KODA is the area in between Eindhoven, Helmond and the axes of the A67 road and the Wilhelmina channel. The idea is that the accessibility surrounding this region will improve, whereas the amount of traffic here will be discharged, so that this area can completely focus on its beauty. E.g. the A270 will be downgraded to a park way, whereas other roads such as the N279 will be upgraded: the downgrading allows a better network connection to other local roads and it reduces the local spatial barrier in area (Evi van der Oever, 2013; Vista landschaparchitectuur en stedenbouw, 2012, p. 16). It can therefore also be said that the urbanization of Eindhoven to Helmond is stopped, by developing this area as a green and recreational area with extra hiking and biking trails. On the west side of Eindhoven and east side of Helmond are divers residential and

working area planned. The traffic here does not have to be redirected to the diamond network. CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 188

In 2011, the inter-municipality structural vision (intergemeentelijke Structuurvisie: ISV) specified 3 goals (Rijk van Dommel en Aa, 2014):

1) Maintaining and strengthen the nature and landscape: to keep KODA attractive, extra investments have to come – reinforce the ecological main structure, landscape and improve the beekdal-systems. 2) Strengthen the recreational qualities: extend the hiking, biking and horse trails – the existing trials will be recovered and extended and two extra river crossings (Dommel and Eindhovens channel) are planned with additional possibilities for the water sport. 3) More research and couplings to the following issues: a. Economic measures for the agricultural sector: companies within the area need to have the opportunities to economically grow within the conditions of ISV. b. More research to the possible policy for an economic and sustainable development of the recreational section within this area c. Adjustments on the A270 and N615: these roads are cutting through KODA, creating nuisance for the users of this area – the NEC should improve this.

On 12th September 2013, the steering committee had given the signal to start developing the KODA. Based on the ISV in 2011, roughly € 75 million will be invested in 16 projects to improve the nature and recreational value of this area: the 16 projects are planned to be realized within 2014 to 2024. E.g. mountain bike trails on the Gulbergen, canoe in Son en Breugel, and passenger port in Aarle-Rixtel. Of available € 75 million, € 16 million is extracted from the nature compensation fund Figure 46: overview of the 16 projects (Province Brabant,

2014c) of NEC (Evi van der Oever, 2013; Province Brabant, 2014a).

KODA will be implemented with the NEC, as well with the MEROS-locations in the business plan.

MEROS (Provincie Brabant, 2010, pp. 16-23): is the abbreviation for the Dutch word „milieueffectrapportage Oostelijk deel van de Stedelijke regio‟. The urbanization growth will be put in focus close to the highly urbanized areas. The development of the brainport is most important: for that better accessibility is needed, but also a better climate to reside, work or recreate. For the latter, MEROS should help to decide where these residential and business areas will come. The conclusion of this MER was that the most environmental friendly

alternative (Meest Milieuvriendelijke Alternatief) consists of the areas: CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 189

 Residential areas: Kloostereind, Stiphout-Zuid, Brandevoort, Goor, and a part of Lungendonk.  Business areas: Varenschut, Bemmer IV, and BZOB-forest.

Two VKAs were setup. The first one includes the business areas Varenschut, BZOB-forest and Bemmer IV, and the residential areas Goor and Lungendonk. The second VKA differ only in one of the business area: the BZOB-bos is swapped for Diesdonk.

The initiating municipalise of the advising group to include the MEROS to the preparation of the regional spatial policy of the region Eindhoven-Helmond are Helmond, Asten, Deurne, Someren, Laarbeek, and Geldrop-Mierlo. They gave the advice to choose VKA 1: they all agreed to the residential areas of Goor and Lungendonk, although there are different opinions on the business areas: Diesdonk or BZOB-forest. The municipality of Deurne was opinionated that they were involved too late into this process, which resulted into a lack of knowledge and their vote against the development of the forest.

Nevertheless, whether BZOB-forest or Lungendonk will be chosen depends on the integral assessment of the cohesion of this choice to e.g. draught, noise nuisance, spatial integration, etc. Despite the fact that the BZOB-forest heavily damages the main ecological structure (90% as opposed to 40%), it scores better than Diesdonk. The reasons are that, if Diesdonk is chosen, then this will create a big barrier effect, creating lots of noise nuisance, and the area might dry out as this impact the important area of the Beekdalen near Aa and the Astense Aa. The BZOB- forest as choice is better, because this area is already forming a barrier between the Brouwhuissche Heide and current existing business area BZOB. Moreover, the BZOB-forest is a better choice, because it better connects to the urban and industrial structure of Helmond: the business area in the south of Helmond will be discharged; the land acquisition is easier and can happen in phases as the forest aligns to the already existing business area BZOB. Lastly, the area lies closer to the N279, thus its accessibility is better than the one of Diesdonk. Diesdonk is located much further from Helmond, aside from the urbanized concentrations and is thus quite isolated. So in short, the option of Diesdonk falls short on its alternative option of BZOB- forest. Both will quite damage the nature and landscape, but it will be compensated.

Based on the integrated approach to find a solution, the province has chosen to construct the following business areas in the period of 2015 to 2030: Varenschut 1, 2, 3 (75 Ha), BZOB- forest Helmond (45 Ha), BZOB Deurne (15 Ha), Bemmer IV (5). In total there will be 140 Ha available for business parks to which 109 Ha will be compensated in nature elsewhere. The compensation in nature will be laid down in the local land-use plans, but it is planned to reinforce the nature near Kloostereind/Brouwhuissche Heide, Groene Peelvallei, and others in the DOKA.

These MEROS-locations will be implemented in the business plan, along with the NEC and KODA, to which all of these project form the integrated area development plan of Brainport East.

Accelerated projects: is in Dutch the project „Subsidie Versnellingsopgave‟. Some of the project

related to water, nature or recreation can be realized earlier, starting from 2014 to 2015. Before CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 190

January the first in 2018, these subsidised ought to be finished; they are suppose to be constructed before the N279 (Veghel to Asten) and East-west connection are starting its construction phase. In March 2014, the GS have given a subsidy budget of € 9.5 million for these projects. However, the subsidy is only given if there is at least 50% co-financing, so in this region there is € 19 million to start to construct with. The goal is to improve the attractiveness of the region for living and working (Province Brabant, 2014a)

The municipalities and water boards can ask for subsidise for certain projects during the period of 3 March to 31 July 2014. The projects might get approval if they apply to one of more of the preconditions (Province Brabant, 2014c):

 Raising the awareness and liveability of the Beekdalen.  Improve the spatial quality of the corridors of cities and villages.  Make the cultural historic valued areas more approachable and liveable.  Improve the accessibility of the area to the users.

c.3. Evaluation analysis on RATIP and Brainport East The evaluation analysis focus on the infrastructure project North-east corridor (NEC), which is also known as the diamond of Eindhoven (De verkeersRuit van Eindhoven). This project is undeniable integrated with the integrated area development project so called Brainport East. The additional projects in this integrated area development projects are the projects MEROS (to increase employment and residential areas) and KODA (to improve the nature, landscape, and quality of life), respectively if written full out „milieueffectrapportage Oostelijk deel van de Stedelijke regio‟ and „The Kingdom of Dummel and Ae‟ (Het rijk van Dummel en Aa).

At the moment of writing, the Brainport East is still in its plan development phase. Before heading to the final stage of the Provincial Implementation Plan (Provinciaal Inpassings Plan: PIP), the Project-MER needs to be finished. This PIP is one of the current researches; the other is the extra research, which was requested from the House of Representatives, based on the concluding business case. That topic of that extra research is about extra alternatives within the preferred solution design (VoorKeursAlternatief: VKA). These are happening parallel,

which was also the case for the CBA-analysis and the PIP-process.

Input Proces Output

• Problem & vision • Type of approach • Iron Triangle (G,H) (A,B,C) (N,O) • Satisfaction • Goal & scope • Information (intern/extern) (I) (D,E) gathering (P,Q) • Intertwinement (J,K,L) • Stakeholders (F) • Decision-making and • Learning oppertunities implementation (R,S) (M)

CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 191

c.3.1. The input of NEC The problem and vision formulation: (A) the problem and vision formulation of NEC is mainly project-based. The complexity of the problem is delineated by the means of the MIRT- exploration in 2008, stating that the NEC is to improve the overall accessibility in the region in order to let the economic centre of Brainport East to develop. By doing so, it is more difficult for stakeholders to couple their own solution to this problem set. The NEC project is derived from a bigger project so called integrated area development Brainport East (BE): the other sub-projects of Brainport East are KODA and MEROS. The problem formulation of NEC precedes the solution – (C) the problem steers the solution in which BE was suppose to solve. The problem is objectivised and the substantive analysis of MIRT and plan-MER are justifying it. The problem is mostly shared with the most important stakeholders, as represented in the advising group and steering committee. Although, at the moment of writing, the support for this project is not entirely supported: e.g. the House of Representatives were in doubt for their support (as seen in the motion of Dik-Faber/Van Veldhoven), and there are several big opposing parties as well (located near the preferred solution design: VKA). (C) So based on this, the priming at the beginning did not created enough support and/or it went wrong somewhere else in the process (see process section on type of approach). (B) The problem formulation is done with sharp couplings to the goals as mentioned in section 3.2.3 NEC. In other words, the design of road in NEC needs to meet those four goals – anything else which might benefit the overall ambition of Brainport East (including MEROS and KODA) is desirable, but not necessary. It is questioned, whether the problem and vision formulated in Brainport East was sufficient enough, since now the resistance is remarkably noticeable.

Establishing the goals, boundaries and scope. In 2005, the BOSE-study on the smaller diamond has proven that this is not robust enough to absorb the capacity of traffic in 2020. So in 2007, the accessibility agreement „Zuidoostvleugel BrabantStad‟ was signed to look for another solution that does fit the needs for a certain accessibility-level in this region: the bigger diamond was born, including the additional measures to keep the east-side of the city Eindhoven still accessible, as this central area between Eindhoven and Helmond is kept „empty‟ for traffic, so that the nature and recreational areas can redevelop. In the MIRT-exploration of

2008, concrete projects such as the NEC was set up. (D) So the formulations of the goals are ideally fixated to the problem and they are the reference point for further decision-making, except to the special decision-making moments in which all these sub-projects integrated together, such the business case in which NEC, KODA and MEROS are analysed. Naming and framing only works if the coupled actions or plans do not conflict with these four goals or the overall goal of the Brainport East area development project in e.g. the concluding business case. Naming & framing is more applicable to the accelerated projects in KODA or MEROS, in which stakeholders can couple their solution plan to one of the goals in NEC. E.g. that is why BZOB-forest was preferred over the Diesdonk, because the N279 (which will be upgraded) lies closer to that forest than Diesdonk. (E) From the 2008 MIRT-exploration, the

boundaries and scope of NEC are getting less rubbery – the scope and boundaries are getting CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 192 tighter and less freedom in alternatives are offered. First in 2008, then in 2011, 2012 and 2013, the scope and boundaries are getting firmer. This is in line with the appointments made with the commission for Elverding: they advised to research everything at the beginning and from that point it is recommended to filter and funnel the options – through this process a VKA will arise with good argumentation, in which this design can be elaborated to its details in the PIP (Gemeente Helmond, 2012, p. 2).

The stakeholders. (F) The MIRT-exploration in 2008 was initiated and led by the Province Brabant, in which they also collaborated with the ministries and the SRE. Here, the NEC originated, along with MEROS and KODA projects. The organization structure was set up, in which the most important and powerful stakeholders were involved in the advising group. The public involvement was only involved in the formal procedure, as they could co-consult on the plans: i.e. plan-MER, NRD, and project-MER. The plan-MER for the global road alternatives and for the details followed up by the NRD and project-MER. Nevertheless, there were many opposing parties (24 parties) united under the name „Platform Noordoostcorridor‟: to mention a few, „Actiegroep Landelijk Laarbeek‟, „Comite Nederwetten zegt Nee‟, „Dorpsraad Lieshout‟, „Dorpsplatform Aarle-Rixtel‟, and „Brabant Landschap‟ (Platform Noordoostcorridor, 2014). Also, the village Zijtaart, part of the municipality Veghel is heavily opposing the plans (Veghel, 2014). It seems that most opposing parties are having the NIMBY issue with this project: the urgency and necessity of the project is put in doubt, because this is not proven well enough and it is also weighted against personal interests. Municipality Laarbeek is hit the hardest, because there will be a new junction due to the East-west connection road and the upgrade of N297.

c.3.2. The output of NEC Iron Triangle. (G) Concerning the project efficiency of time, the project NEC which is bound to the concluding business case, is at least a year delayed. The MIRT program book of 2010 referred the planning as in the hands of the province. The provincial structural vision of 2010, which includes the plan-MER and MEROS, stated that the concluding business case was supposed to be delivered in 2012 (Provincie Brabant, 2010, p. 45). Nevertheless, the concluding business came later than planned; on 22 October 2013 the summary of this business case was send the minister. Needlessly to say, the business-case had to be redone,

because the House of Representatives did not want to give the funds. That partly explains the overrun in time. The MIRT-project programme book estimated that the best cost-efficient alternative will cost € 804 million: this already increased to € 875, so the NEC became more expansive than before (even if including the inflation and such). (H) The utility, experiential and future value can roughly be explained in two ways. The decision to choose the Wilhelmina alternative along with the upgrade of N297 is argued by the supports that this completes the diamond shaped road network and there discharge the overall traffic flow. This also includes a discharge of cut-through traffic in villages and in the centre core of KODA, plus a buffer zone if traffic accidents happen. This is of great value to the travellers outside this region as they will easier access this region with less traffic jams: the users within region might not benefit due to relatively more traffic (NIMBY). In fact, the opposing party disagree on these facts: the

regional traffic on the N270 and A270 remains, because the current commuting users still use CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 193 the same road, the centre of KODA will get more users due to the better accessibility, the East- west connection will be constructed in area with lots of nature, thus the compensation of KODA does not justify it etc. Overall, it seems that the support for the NEC is weakening, due to political loss of support (new elections, new College of B&W) and increasing resistances among locals. Eventually, the future value and its spatial value will depend whether those predictions on traffic flow and increasing population growth are correct. In each decision- making moment, the NEC and KODA are integrally assessed.

The internal and external satisfaction. (I) The internal satisfaction can be described that there might be internal conflicts, but the communication to the outside world seems as one team. Although, as the time progresses from 2010 to now, it seems that there is increasingly more resistance. The sounding boards were created in 2011 to interactively communicate with the locals about the landscaping on the T-structured form, but nevertheless, it still met heavy resistance. One notion to this cause is the new East-west road (along Wilhelmina River) which was recorded in 2007 that this new road will be below ground level.

The external satisfaction is at the moment not good. Besides the NIMBY stakeholders group, the project is also a discussion to which the battle has spread between political „leftists‟ or „rightists‟. So, NEC is not only a socio-economic problem as it is criticized by a few big NGOs, but it is also highly influenced by politics. The fight on the rightness of the information and the constant debate about substance and content of the problem: they do not agree on the facts and inputs in the substantive analysis, there is no negotiated knowledge, nor negotiated information. This can be read in full details in the box below.

NIMBY-GROUP, ENVIRONMENTALIST, TOP-SEGMENT INDUSTERIES, THE RANDOM CAR DRIVER AND POLITIANS

The title in this box indicates the possible perceptions of stakeholders on the problem formulation, as well on the proposed solution at stake. The debate is clearly about the rightness on the information used in the substantive analysis that should justify the decision-making, in which in return is made difficult by the changed politics in region. The possible hidden agendas are not excluded, but they certainly do make the project process much more interesting and

difficult.

Between 2010 and now, there has been many voices who oppose the plans. The longer the project takes, the more increasingly the resistance is seems to develop. At first, it was only the NIMBY-group, which were highly in support by the NGOs in support for the environment such as „Brabants Landschap‟ and „Brabantse Milieufederatie‟. The new East-west corridor along the Wilhelmina river is highly damaging the nature, so they are against the current plan, which this corridor is the most expensive part of the NEC and its necessity is not proven well. Also, the compensations in nature, such as extra projects in DOKA do not help (Platform Noordoostcorridor, 2014).

As mentioned before, the business case on the 22th of October in 2013 as presented to the minister of I&E for funds approval was heavily criticized by the House of Representatives. The CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 194 motion was filed by Christenunie, supported by PvdA, SP, D66, Groenlinks, PvdD and 50+. They filled a motion on the 3rd of December in 2013 against the minister. The minster cannot sign the agreement on the funds: however, they are not scrapped, but other projects such as A27, A57, and the A67 have higher priorities. The funds will only be granted, if within a year, a new and better CBA is set up, which can proof the need and urgency of this project. Additional attention should be paid to optimize the project, keeping in mind the potential environmental value of the environmental main structure (EHS), and low/high growth scenarios. Now, at the moment of writing, the province is currently investing the project-MER, while doing these additional researches. In late 2014, the province will present a new CBA (M.H. Schultz van Haegen, 2013). The political friction was not out of the blue. They appoint to the previous criticism of the commission for MER (CMER), Provincial Environment commission (Provinciale Omgevingscomissie: POC), and research panel CE Delft (CED). The biggest criticism is about the need and urgency of project: (i) CMER criticise that there are no real concise numbers on the increasing of the traffic volume, which is in fact the strongest argument for this project to happen (ii) POC wonder if the economic and population growth are realistic and if not other projects in Brabant are more urgent; plus the project might get more expensive in the future. (iii) CED calculated that the yield of this project might be zero or negative (Eindhovens Dagblad, 2013a, 2013b, 2013c).

The criticism does not end in 2013; in 2014, the political shifts also influenced the support for this project. Before the election, there was enough political support for this project, but since the results of the elections in March 2014 this support became less and less. In Eindhoven, the resistance also grows: PvdA, SP, D66, and Groenlinks do not want the project, they rather see the money invested into better roads or public transport (Eindhovens Dagblad, 2014e). Seven days later, the new college of B&W Helmond does not want the project either: VVD, CDA were in favour, but now opposes the plan, just like SP always did (Eindhovens Dagblad, 2014a). Those were in favour of the project are top-segment of the industrial companies within the project corridor: they argue that Brabant is being neglected and all the money goes to Randstad – more people are going to live in Brabant in the upcoming years, the current road is full of traffic jams, and our Brabant economy is run on transportation of goods (Eindhovens

Dagblad, 2014c).

On the 12th of June 2014, the province has spread in total 258.931 four coloured pamphlets packed within the local magazines such as „Groot Eindhoven‟, „Traverse‟, „Mooi Laarbeek‟, and „Stadskrant Veghel‟. The pamphlet was spread; because in the years a lot of time was spend on the process communication, but not much information about the need and necessity of the project (Eindhovens Dagblad, 2014b). Soon after this, lots of columns and opinion pieces were online debating about the top-topic whether to have this project or not. Most interestingly is the political aspect of this game and left to right accusing on the rightness of information and the debate should be about the „substantive‟ content. On the same day, the editor of „Eindhovens Dagblad‟ H. Vermeeren had accused the provincial deputy R. van Heugten of mobility and finance that he undermines democratic state and that his pamphlet is propaganda, as the cities Helmond and Eindhoven along with many others are opposing the plans. Two CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 195 days later, J. Helms, ex-VVD alderman mingles in the discussion. He entitled his opinion piece with „left political propaganda from Helmond and Eindhoven‟: the information as argued by the opposing parties are not new, in fact the opposing stakeholders of Helmond and Eindhoven are opposing this, because this regional area development was created by CDA, VVD and SP, and PvDA & GL are now opposing it on municipal level and in the House of Representatives, as told by their provincial colleagues. That is propaganda. In respond to this, were many other opinion pieces, represented by pro or contra figures on this plan. Nevertheless, on June the 24th, in return, R. van Heugten responded that he is not deaf, nor blind, but that he regrets the opposing voices of the new colleges, even though the new CBA is not finished yet. So the project is being impressed by the accuser that it is a failed project and the defender emphasize that this is not true, neither are the cities Eindhoven and Helmond the only co- deciders in this provincial project. Millions of Euros were invested into this project, it is not randomly. R. van Heugten also said that the public letter of H. Vermeeren seems to personalize the project as if it is the pièce de résistance of him, but nevertheless, he is entitled to execute the project as long the PS agrees with him and it is also written in the covenants (accessibility- agreement 2007, advice from steering group in 2013), and thus it is legit. In his return, A. van Halem (chairman of Platform Noordoostcorridor) backed up H. Vermeeren that he does agree with R. van Heugten, but that the made covenants are not classified as beyond a certain point of no return and his comments on the colleges of B&W of Eindhoven and Helmond are exaggerated. Every involved stakeholder, the municipalities, SRE, province, and the government can make their own decision, but this is best decided if we all cooperate and the current situation is that some of them do oppose – this is how the democracy works (Eindhovens Dagblad, 2014d; J. Helms, 2014; R. van Heugten, 2014).

The debate is clearly about the rightness on the information used in the substantive analysis that should justify the decision-making, in which in return is made difficult by the changed politics in region. The possible hidden agendas are not excluded, but they certainly do make the project process much more interesting and difficult.

The level of intertwinement: can be analysed in each of these important decision-making

moments as portrayed here below.

CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 196

• Mirt-exploration Looking for the cause, urgency and neccisity behind (2008) project

• Provincial Structural Vision 1st funneling: looking for alternative spatial development (2010) areas in which the road can be situated. + Plan-MER (2010)

• Framework assesment (2012) 2nd funneling: road alternatives within the searching area.

3rd funneling: the • Note on scope & detail (NRD, 2013) limited alternatives to be researched in the project-MER

PIP • Project-MER (2014)

In 2008, in the MIRT-exploration and Provincial Structural Vision, the NEC is described as an inseparable part of the broad spatial-economic development of the Southeast-wing and area development Brainport East. The solution to the transport and transportation problem is contributing to the integrated regional ambition on the development of this region. Sustaining and strengthening the competitive position in the high-technology and knowledge distribution centre is the most important motive for the Brainport and Southeast-wing development. The accessibility in the region is an essential precondition for that development to take place: this is the first and foremost important goal of the 4 goals, as already mentioned before. Nevertheless, the first funnelling in 2011 has led to the solution of the Wilhelmina alternative and the upgrade of the N279. These are offering additional opportunities for extra area development (MEROS, Distribution/Automotive) along those geographical axes (Provincie Brabant, 2010, p. 40). This alternative is also less harmful to the nature, landscape and cultural historic places, as opposed to the other alternatives. The discharge on Kingdom of Dummel and Aa allows

good opportunities to work on a vital and divers rural and green landscape between the urban areas of Eindhoven and Helmond. In the provincial structural vision on spatial development, the results of the MIRT-exploration, plan MER, and MEROS were included as well: to assessment is done integrally, by combining the results from different reports. In 2010, in the „Afsprakenkader Oostelijk deel Brainport‟, it was decided that the integral approach of area development Brainport East should lead to a closing business case, so this includes the NEC, MEROS-locations, the accelerated projects within KODA and KODA itself (Provincie Brabant, 2010, p. 43; Rebel, 2013). The closing business case should conclude whether this solution design fits within viable conditions, so that the national government is willing to help in its project finances of contributing € 260 million. The business case on 22th of Octboer 2013 concluded that this selection of option is viable and so is the letter send to the minister of infrastructure and environment. Notice that this CBA-analysis of the business case happened CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 197 parallel with the PIP-process and thus is it based on the 2nd and 3rd funnelling. These funnelling happened in corresponding interactive cooperation with the stakeholders and public of supporting and opposing parties (Arcadis, 2013; Witteveen en Bos, 2012). Nevertheless, the fund did not come, because of the motion. The province is currently busy with the new CBA, along additional research on some alternatives (Central Project Group Brainport East, 2014d; Platform Noordoostcorridor, 2014).

So based on the information, (J) the level of spatial intertwinement is considered to be at level 6 - From initiation plan, the infrastructure provision and other spatial developments go side by side integrated in one plan. Whether to confirm if this was happening and resulting in the most optimum value expressed in the 4P sustainability, a post-evaluation on the project is needed. This is at the moment not possible, as the project is in its planning phase and the construction still has to start. (K) The procedural intertwinement is rated level 3 – total intertwinement in the entire procedure. All the procedures are happening through one plan, which was planned ahead in time resulting in the PIP and eventually a successful integrated area development project Brainport East. (L) The financial intertwinement is at level 6 - there is an integrated financial intertwinement of infrastructure development and area development; there is one exploitation. This fact can be argued that there are separated budgets for each of the sub- project, but at the end in the business case they are all integrated to see if the plan is viable – in order to proceed with the plan with the financing help of the national government.

The learning opportunities and reputation. (M) The learning opportunities and development contribute to the project success on the long-term orientation; it creates commitment stimulation for people. In this case, as you can read in the box under the section of internal and external satisfaction, the reputation of the project is staggering: it is unsure if the project can continue if the new and second CBA in 2014 does not show better and more concise results. The learning opportunities inherent to the learning process contribute to the development of a common frame to all stakeholders: if they all did participate, used up their learning opportunities, resulting into a deadlock, then one weighs the insight on the benefits and costs. By doing so, in general stakeholders feel more involved and respected in process; because this is after all the best choice we could think of together. This might not be the case here, because the

public and opposing parties were involved later in the process in which they could only choose and development options within certain borders of the zone of the NEC. The learning opportunities connected to the political agenda of politicians did influence the project: the new election overthrew the old governmental body, new insight of project (from opposing and supporting parties), influenced the project greatly. The reputation of project (organization) is more likely have a negative notion, than a positive one. The project seems to drag and the resistance seems to increase with each negative recommendation of other big NGOs. See section of internal and external satisfaction on NEC.

c.3.3. The process of NEC The type of approach. (N) The project managerial approach is not very functional, as this met

much resistance in 2013-2014. Many substantive analyses were used to weigh the costs against CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 198 the overall benefits, and therefore many alternatives did not make it to the first, second and third funnelling of the options of the VKA. The project NEC is the most expensive project of the integral project Brainport East, and correspondingly the North-east corridor is the most expensive project of NEC. This road is also the one, where most of the resistance is given to. Thus, the goals of NEC are heavily influenced by the iron triangle: too expensive smaller alternatives of the VKA (tunnels) are left out and the VKA is chosen on basis of the contribution of the overall benefit of the Brainport East project (quality). The damage to nature and landscape with this VKA in NEC is mitigated and landscaped into the KODA project. This however does not soften the resistance: one reason can be given that this compensation benefits the overall picture of Brainport East, but it adds little value to the individual damaged property or nearby located landscape. Better routing is applied through use of plan-MER and PIP, in which sounding boards were created so that people could co-consult within the borders of the already chosen design. (O) The process managerial approach is used in a limited manner: there are no documents on the informal process prior to the formal process. So it is assumed, that the formal process began, without intensively involving the local and now opposing public. The transparency of the project can therefore be felt as not that transparent, as the current opposing party, were suddenly invited to talk about the VKA – they could only influence the minor issues in the already chosen VKA. Moreover, before the VKA was chosen, they could comment and oppose the plans of the plan-MER. The interactive cooperation with other stakeholders in adequate pace is rated inadequate. The resistance grew: first from the locals of certain villages and afterwards the criticisms from big NGOs (CMER etc.). The latter will only stimulate the opposing party that they are right on their judgement: the input in the calculation models might be vague and/or incorrect. After the motion in 2013 from the House of Representatives, the province wanted to improve their communication to the outside world in this project: they made a brochure and launched a new website. This brochure, defending the project, backfired intensively, as you can read this in the section internal and external satisfaction section. This might not have happened on this scale, if the province chooses to go in dialog with these opposing parties. It is not that there was no interaction cooperation: the opposing and supporting party were involved 2nd funnelling; all road alternatives were sketched within and slightly outside the planning zone and afterwards rd filtered on basis of their cost and benefit (iron triangle). Or the 3 funnelling, in which many tweaks on the funnel option were considered as well (Arcadis, 2013; Witteveen en Bos, 2012). However, they are all the type of involvement that only minor issues in the already decided location of the road. During the 2nd and 3rd funnelling, the experts were bundled with the stakeholders, in search of the best solution. That was good, although based on the documents there is only one single feedback loop. If the bundling of experts with all the stakeholders did happen in multiple rounds, then this could have positive influence on the decision-making: the opposing party disagrees with the facts in analysis, thus if they were present along with the decision-makers, then one could create negotiated information and based on this the facts can

be concluded. CaseIII: RATIP in province the Brabant 199

The information gathering happened in a strongly project-oriented manner. At the moment, the opposing party argues on the information used in the analysis. E.g. the population, economic, and traffic growth are exaggerated: the higher these numbers, the more positive the CBA becomes. There is no consensus on the input and therefore the result holds no authority. It became worse, because it was also criticized by the CMER and POC. (P) Based on these events, the existing and usage of information is treated mostly as robust and intersubjective and not as negotiated knowledge (Q) It is true that the content of the problem steers the information what is needed: NEC only retrieves the need to know information in order to fit the 4 goals. This idea originates that the main project is split in KODA, MEROES, and NEC. If all projects succeed in optimizing their own projects, then bringing it together it together in an integral assessment will ultimately also result into an optimized whole project. (P) At times, the information is also used strategically in positive and negative way: the information is downplayed or the other way around. An example would be the pamphlet of the province and its reaction stating it is propaganda.

The decision-making and its implementations. (R) The decision-making is not tickling off: the decision follows a clear line of problem formulation and goal statements. Based on that, the projects are set up and one look for the information as input for the analysis. Based on this analysis, a decision will be made. There is no new round of discussions, after the decision- making. As advised by the MER-commission, it is said to investigate the entire area and then funnel it: less freedom movements, less options as well. The process is not open and on-going, but each time if the decision is made, this will give a clearer direction and ironically also more resistance if people do not agree on the input in models. As mentioned before, the information is not properly negotiated. The planning is rather tight. It is only delayed, because the funds are kept in reserve and it is not funded due to the inappropriate CBA. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is acceleration in pace in order to grasp that opportunity or to mitigate a threat. Based on this and without the results of any documented Elverding process or informal processes before the formal procedure, this overall decision-making is rather decided on basis of project-based actions and project-based communications. (S) The implementation follows the decision and the decision is also an imperative direction to the implementation, so that means there are no new rounds of possibilities (hourglass decision-making as opposed to funnelling in decision-making).

D. CASE IV: N23 WESTFRISIAWEG Different from case 1 & 2 is that the outline of N23 in section 4.1 includes the process described in process rounds, which is largely based on the document of J. Edelenbos (2010). Additional interviews are done to get more insight: these will be taken into account in the

evaluation analysis in section 4.2.

IV: IV: N23 Westfrisiaweg

Case 200

d.1. Outline of the N23 Westfrisiaweg

Figure 26: The westfrisiaweg with two alternatives close to Drechterland (Provincie Noord-Holland, 2014) The N23 is a project split in two major parts. The N23 covers the area in the province North- Holland and the areas in the provinces Flevoland and Overijssel. The improvement on this N23 road would bring benefits to the safety, liveability and accessibility in the area. Moreover, it would serve as an economical booster and it will offer more job opportunities as well. The Westfrisiaweg on the N23 project is an essential part of the road to alternatively go from the east to the west in the Netherlands, respectively from Alkmaar through Hoorn and Lelystad to Zwolle.

Since 1960 there were discussions on improving this east to west road. Ultimately in 2006, the pro-active approach of the province has led to the declaration of intention between public and private parties. On 17 October 2007, the regional approval was signed for the North-Holland part of the N23 and this formed the lead for the MIRT request. In 2010, the declaration of implementation was signed as well. The entire plan was presented in a provincial implementation plan (provinciaal inpassingsplan: PIP).

The N23 has total length of 42 KM; the road consists of 3 intersections and it will have more than 15 overpasses and tunnels. The maximum allowed speed is 80 and 100 km/h; the N23 will consist of both single and dual carriageways. The N23 will cross through the municipalities Heerhugowaard, Koppenland, Medemblik, Hoorn, Drechterland, Stede Broec, and Enkhuizen. Thus, the province North Holland will have to collaborate with many stakeholders. To be exactly, they will be collaborating with 15 municipalities, the water board, and the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Environment. The contracting is done through the best value procurement and as a matter of fact, it is the biggest project done through best value procurement (BVP) until now – the N23 project has a budget of €350 million. The indexed

budget is €421 million (Provincie Noord-Holland, 2014).

In 2013, the Council of State Act decided that the lodged appeals against the land-use plans are unfounded, thus the implementation phase of project N23 can officially start. The N23 is scheduled to be built between 2013 and 2018 according to the provincial implementation plan (PIP) (Edelenbos & Van Buuren, 2010, pp. 5, 15, 23; Provincie Noord-Holland, 2013).

NETWORK, ROUNDS AND DECISION-MAKING

The planning and decision-making process of the N23 is viewed as complex, dynamic and coupled to the situation – in other words the process is substantive capricious due to CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 201 continuously shifting of the content of a problem and of a solution. There is no clear starting point and end point and it happens in rounds that succeeds each other irregularly in an interactive, iterative and dynamic matter. The rounds are defined in a network situation – a situation where none of the stakeholders can realize own goal (interdependence) without properly involving the other stakeholders (pluriformity) that also might have other interest that can hamper cooperation and concerted decision-making; some actors have no interests in collaborating (closedness) and the amount of actors involved in the course of decision-making process might chance as well (dynamic) (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008; Edelenbos & Van Buuren, 2010).

In each round there are some overlapping activities that led to important decisions. The outline of the N23 is largely based on the document of J. Edelenbos and Van Buuren (2010), which has chronologically put this project in 5 major rounds on basis of important decision-making moments. Another round is added till current date, round 5 (December 2010 – July 2013). The stakeholder analysis on this process is put in the appendix.

Preliminary round (1960-2000): Ever since the 1960s to 2000, there were discussions to improve this connection from the east to west. However, the national government, the one responsible for this project, did not have much interest due to the low traffic values, according to the national norms. Thus, it was not recorded in the MIT of 1996. The region insisted the need: the trade and industrial companies united as one (TAI) and urged the necessity in a note to the province. The province North-Holland (NH) in return mingled with the process. They took the lead, despite being slow as said by the TAI, but nevertheless the exploration of the province was finished in 1997. And it was in vain, because the traffic value was too low: N23 is not recorded in the MIRT of 1998. However, the province still holds the lead in transforming this plan into a highly qualified road plan: they can now design and implement the road by themselves.

Round 1 (May 2000-June 2005): several actors are joining the process in different arenas. The province NH continued their initiator role in process. In 2003 the Provincial Executives (GS) created an ambition document based on their first explorative research, but until 2004 no concrete steps are considered. Thus, the TAI formed a new group so called „Van A(lkmaar) tot Z(wolle)‟, which again highlights the need for this N23, but then it is aimed to all the three provinces. Also, in 2003, the first opponents are arriving as well: the inhabitants of Hoogkarspel and nearby surrounding are opposing against the ambition plan, because it cuts through the historical valued lint villages. From 2003 to 2006, the communication from these opponents to the province happens in a one way process: the province does not listen and the opponents felt that they were not dealt seriously.

After 2004, the province NH took concrete steps in their planning: the plan of approach was being developed and in 2005 it should give the answer on the to-go or no-go of project. The plan contained data on the traffic values, the finances, and the execution of project: how much if the municipalities willing to contribute? They were approached individually. They agreed upon the plan on the condition if they get a favour back, e.g. permits for real estate. An internal CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 202 project company was set up and they were led and steered by a steering committee, which consisted of representatives of NH, such as all the municipalities and TAI. Sadly, not all the municipalities are directly involved: 5 out of 16 are directly represented. The RWS and province Flevoland are acting consulting members only in the steering committee.

On 28th in June 2005, the GS confirmed the to-go on the plan of approach. Prior to this, the GS was already advised by the steering committee and everyone was in favour of to-go. As to be seen on the picture in the introduction, this global route has two variations on the eastern part, the northern or southern version. The province would like to see this N23 in the MIRT, but the government only agrees if the entire trajectory is measured: now it is only the Westfrisiaweg.

Round 2 (June 2005 – July 2007): in this period, all the preparations in the provinces were done to get the N23 in the MIRT. The three provinces had to cooperate and this was not very difficult, because the three provincial executives are from the same political party.

The N23 is focused on the infrastructure, but for the regional stakeholders the decisive point in project is the assumed area development that brings forth the benefits. The traffic values of the N23 is low, thus to have the project to succeed oneself have to profile the N23 as an area development project. Despite this profiling, the project itself remains mostly focused on the infrastructure: coupling with other spatial development projects is lacking.

The provinces, municipalities and diverse commercial companies are continuing lobbying for this project to come. Also on 5 July 2006, they signed together with the Water Board a declaration of intention. The MER started in May 2006 with a starting note: within the MER there is no open discussion on the diverse alternatives, it is not coupled with the process of fine-tuning the route. The decisions are defended and explained in public events. The first impressions gave no clear answer, thus it continues on presume of the area development arguments. In Heerhugowaard in the winter of 2006, one of the smaller project associated with the N23 got financial help from the government. The sponsoring of 25% of the costs is considered a quick win and it gave the N23 project a moral boost. The N23 could not be split in smaller project due to mutual distrust: municipalities are not sure of the national funds.

The N23 Westfrisiaweg project company is set up as an individual party outside the provincial organization. They are guided by the steering committee. The N23 project is planned with the PIP. In 2007 the MER shows its first results. Two major issues are discussed: the route of the road and the finances of N23.

The eastern side of the route near the A7 (Markerwaardweg – Enkhuizen) offer two choices, but to most stakeholders the two choices are the same; most municipalities do not mind and TAI just want the road as soon as possible. Those in favour of the southern version are province NH and municipality Enkhuizen. They do not want to risk of losing the valuable seed companies, nor damage the nature and landscape. Those in favour of the northern version are municipality Drechterland and NGO „Niet door „t Lint‟: the reason are the lint villages. The municipality Stede Broec do not want both options, due to the occurring damage to the nature CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 203 landscape and traffic bottle neck. They insisted another road, which caused a half year delay. This alternative was rejected by the steering committee without the consent of Stede Broec. They were not represented in the steering committee, so it did not have effect. In June 2007, the steering committee chose the southern version, despite the vote against it from the municipality Drechterland. The definitive MER came one month later, so this is a political choice and not based on the environmental aspects. Nevertheless, the choice is not final: it has to be set in the regional approval.

The financial issues were solved by the project company: together they negotiated on a set of criteria in which it came down to the one who profits more from this road should pay more. Eventually after much discussion, every stakeholder was still in favour of the N23 due to the inspiring aldermen who kept the coalition together. The regional parties agreed to pay 20% (5% less than wanted). Lastly, the project company also made a detailed model plan which justified the benefits and costs of each party.

Round 3 (June 2007 – July 2008): three major events happened. The Regional Approval is set, the MER is finished and everyone is united to request reconsideration of the N23 in the MIRT.

The agreement on the Regional Approval on the design of route and its financial contributions is reached on the 17th of October in 2007. This however only counts if the PS and Colleges of B&W are agreeing. From October 2007 to March 2008, there were political discussions and they were in doubt. This is caused by the lack of interaction in the previous round; the lacks of the democratic representations in the decision-making in previous round. They are behind the actual facts and they are running after the current facts and information. This hesitation is enforced by the strong presence and public lobbying of NGOs such as „Niet door „t Lint‟ and a new group „Geen Weg Terug No Way‟. Externally, outside the coalition it led to problems, but internally there were never any risks. Despite the opposing parties, most of the PS and Colleges of B&W consent due to 4 reasons.

1. There was a collective urgent feeling- there is interdependency between the involved stakeholders and cooperation is needed if this project were to succeed. 2. The MIRT could only be approached if this N23 project was unified and presented was one – this pressure to act was one whole left out the necessary discussions, but on the other hand it might worsen the stakeholder‟s relations with each other. Third

3. Creative solutions have convinced Stede Broec to consent the southern version of trace, because the plan did not let to the assumed bottle neck. 3.1. Moreover, this solution allowed the process of planning and constructing to be split in two phases, whereas the implementation in the first phase is coupled with the planning in the second phase. This decoupling and postponing of plans allowed more flexibility. 4. Inspiring people who held the coalition together.

Some of the PS and Colleges of B&W were still in doubt, because they weigh their opinion

based on the results from the MER. The advice from the commission for the MER has to CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 204 consider all information and public contentions, but 5 February 2008, the commission gave positive advice. On March 2008, the last Provincial-States and city councils gave their approval.

Also, during this period of end 2007 and begin 2008, the public got more involved in the process. Since, October 2007, there was a public information group for each part of the route, in which local people could get involved into the decision-making concerning N23. The goal of these groups was to distribute information, create support and make use of the local knowledge to improve the road. The NGOs against the N23 were invited as well, but they did not participate because they disagree with the southern choice in the route and they will not consent.

After the unification as one voice, they appealed for the MIRT. There were however two issues. The CBA and second analysis only based on the traffic values. The MIRT-analysis in 2008 was negative. The regional parties disagree, because the standard procedures in the MIRT are not considering well enough the broader view in which the social-economic chances are included on which the upgrade of the N23 might bring.

On 11th of April 2008, the region procured the MIRT request. The costs of the first phase in the plans are estimated €525 million in which €250 million will be financed by the region and the €275 million will be requested to which the government can finance.

Round 4 (March 2008 – December 2010): the most important events are the contra-expertise fights and the confirmation of €35 million that the national government is willing to invest in N23.

In April 2008, the MIRT was submitted. End of 2008, the decision came out that there is no budget in 2009 for the N23. The money needed for the N23 was rejected. However, the lobby trajectory is continuing and people who requested the MIRT believed that the money will still come. During this moment, the region was relatively quiet, but the two NGOs opposing the plans joined together – „‟Niet door „t Lint‟ en „Geen Weg Terug No Way!‟ collaborated and started to seek contra-expertise on the already finished researches. The results from the report, which was done by the same company who did the reports for the steering group on the N23, were presented in the summer for 2008 and it has given rise to much debate – the northern version of the proposed route is € 90 million cheaper. The province NH was in a pinch, due the promise that every new insight given on the project would be seriously regarded and revisited into the plans. However, the province NH regarded the used variables as wrong. All this had led to the back and forth of reports in which they all try to proof their cause and justification in N23 – NGOs versus the project office. Despite this event during summer 2008 to begin 2009, they never came together to constructively talk about the N23. As consequence of this event, this again has led to doubt among the representatives. This was already the weak link in the N23 process due to lack of feedback to the PS and city councils,

and the lack of good proportioned representatives in the steering group. CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 205

From begin 2009 onwards; there was a parallel process in the N23, one was to work on the declaration of implementation and the other intensively lobbied for extra money. The latter resulted in favourable events which can be described as increase in funds for N23 from no budget in the early 2009, to €13 million in September 2009 and from €13 million to €35 million in December 2009. Moreover, continues lobbying by the province NH led to extra funding in December 2010: € 21.6 million for N23 of which €11.6 was destined for Westfrisiaweg. The intensive lobbying resulted positively, but in the same period to the regional parties received less attention because the focus was shifted on lobbying towards the government. The regional parties were asked to believe in the project and the money from the national government to come. They were however nervous, because the declaration of the implementation did not went smooth and they were worried about their promised funds for their other project related to the N23. Many regional development projects were dependent on the N23 and at the same time the N23 is dependent on the regional development project to raise funds. The summer of 2009, the economic crisis worsened the situation.

Nevertheless, the funds were gifted, although disappointing in the amount of money. The step was to either decide to implement the project step-wise, because the government only gave limited funds and will give more as the project progresses, or to implement the project was one- whole. The latter was chosen, because if they could procure the road as whole it would bring forth the bottle necks in project. Ironically, they did not have much choice, because in the Regional Approval was written that the project would be executed as one whole.

Meanwhile, the spatial procedures are continuing. In begin 2010, the two plans are arising – the landscaping MER (Inrichtings-MER) and preliminary land-use plan design (Voorontwerp Inpassingsplan). The preliminary PIP is the first step to the definite PIP. The definite version contains the drawing up, argumentation and landscaping of the route. Both plans were approved in April 2010 by the GS, but not all municipalities are satisfied due to the lack of many local wishes left outside or it was included limitedly. Again, patrons and opposes are using this dissatisfaction to lobby; the crisis and recovery law (Crisis- en Herstelwet) in March 2010 did not led to extra financial costs, but it did led to increased tensions among all stakeholders. All hectic events led to the project gaining „all or nothing‟ project, meaning that if one municipality drops out, then the project will fail.

Despite the heavy criticism from e.g. municipalities Drechtenland, Stede Broec, Medemblik, and Koggenland, the steering group signed the declaration of implementation on 26th of August 2010 with the precondition that all city councils and States-Provincials have to agree. The province will try to finance on that moment the left out €146 million and trusting the funds of the national government still to come. The States-Provincials agrees, but they do find the enormous financing of €100 million, plus €146 million troublesome. This led to heavy discussions. Later in 2010, the city councils of the municipalities also agree.

The final obstacles in this process are caused by the fact that the N23 project has to remain within the €350 million borderlines. If the budget is lacking due to lack of money from the national government then some special arrangements can occur – this has led to a small CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 206 commotion in which municipalities are afraid that one for project on the wishing list is getting scrapped by this special arrangement.

Round 5 (December 2010 – July 2014): is the almost the end of the plan development phase. At the moment of writing, they are currently busy with the project preparations such as expropriations, land acquisition, and laying down the cables and pipes. The real construction starts after the summer of 2015. If everything goes according to the plans then end of 2017 the road will be delivered (Anonymous, 2014).

From 28th of May till 9th of July 2010, interested parties could take a look in the preliminary PIP. During this period, the GS did approve the plan, but those who wish to influence the PIP could comments on the plans. In 2011, the appealed contentions of the public were answered in the two documents: the MER-reaction note (Reactienota-MER) and the preliminary landscaping design plan Westfrisiaweg (voorontwerp-inpassingsplan). In the same year, this preliminary plan was developed into two more detailed plans: the landscaping design plan (ontwerp-inpassingsplan) and the concept landscape plan (landschapsplan). These were viewable for voicing and consultation between 13th of October 2011 and 24th of November 2011. In 2012, the landscaping plan is made final (Provincie Noord-Holland, 2012). However, in this period there were some appeals against the plan due to the traffic noise nuisances.

One of the bigger opposing parties against this plan was the municipality Drechterland, because this municipality is hit worst due to the plans. Nevertheless, they agreed to the plan only if the tunnels would come that minimizes the adverse effects of the road near Streekweg and Binnenwijzend. They were unsure whether the province would guarantee this request due the economic cuts, but they honoured the appointments, although Drechterland still has to pay the agreed investment in project (M. Menger, 2014).

Later, in 2013 on 10th of July, the Council of State Act decided that the lodged appeals against the land-use plans are unfounded. The project is procured through the means of best value procurement – in the pre-award phase and tendering phase the invited contractors have to present their plans for a budget of €421 million. This reward includes the indexation from 2008 to 2017. The N23 Westfrisiaweg project is recorded into the budget of Province NH for 2014 with the look out to 2017. So the finances for this project is round, but it had to withdraw money from the reserves, so in 2016 it is estimated that the province NH will have a

budget deficit for other projects (Province North-Holland, 2014, pp. 10, 235).

In 2013, for the MIRT 2014, it seems that the national funds are not being gifted due to cutbacks in the MIRT budget. The government will save €22 million. The Province NH is disappointed, but will continue the N23 project (Anonymous, 2013; Economisch instituut

voor de Bouw, 2014, p. 37) CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 207

d.2. Evaluation analysis on the N23

Input Proces Output

• Problem & vision • Type of approach • Iron Triangle (G,H) (A,B,C) (N,O) • Satisfaction • Goal & scope • Information (intern/extern) (I) (D,E) gathering (P,Q) • Intertwinement (J,K,L) • Stakeholders (F) • Decision-making and • Learning oppertunities implementation (R,S) (M)

d.2.1. The input of N23 The problem and vision formulation. (A) Originally in the 1990s, it was the national government who initiated the research on the upgrade of the N23. They however find the upgrade not useful; the traffic values are too low - it was not recorded in the MIRT 1996. From that moment, the Province NH took over the lead. They did research in 1997, but in vain because the government still regards the project not viable. The Province NH did not prime it well enough and the government do not share the same vision on problem, and thus was it omitted again in 1998. Generally, the government and the regions share different viewpoints, but a good attempt is done by the province and TAI to prime the road as east-west road through 3 provinces to the government – making this an inter-regional problem and a national problem with its attached economy. This is partly the reason, with the good lobbying, why the €35 was granted in 2008. However, due to the bad economy, in 2013 the funds were withdrawn. The complexity was not raised, but implicitly reduced: to have the N23 to succeed, it has to be profiled as an area development project, because the attached economic prospering will ultimately be the key to success. (B) However, the project was mainly focused on the infrastructure itself, and loose couplings were made to area development, but insufficient to say it did raise that part of the complexity of project. (C) The problem steers the solution: the trade and industrial companies want that upgrade of the road and lobbied intensely, in which later the province NH supported them.

Establishing the goals, boundaries and scope. The goal formulation is derived from the earliest reports published for the public on internet. Both the MER and the regional agreement state that the ambition of this project is to improve the region on its accessibility, liveability and traffic safety. This is essential to ensure the economic growth as predicted in the „Streekplan Ontwikkelingsbeeld NH in 2004‟, which according to them is even bigger than the economic growth of Randstad. The goal for the Westfrisiaweg is explicitly mentioned as to (i) improve the traffic safety and (ii) improve the traffic flow with the starting point of using as much of the existing roads. In the MER, the landscaping and routing of the road, including the traffic analysis, is keeping in mind the local recreational areas such as biking trails and water sports. Also the autonomous spatial development is considered: the planned development of projects, even though if the N23 were not to be upgraded (Projectbureau N23 Westfrisiaweg, 2007, p.

11; Tauw bv, 2007, pp. 11, 43-46): CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 208

 Industrial area de Vork, municipality Heerhugowaard (80 Ha)  Industerial area Jaagweg, municipality Koggenland (80 Ha)  Golf park Weel en Weere (18 holes, 9 practice holes, 200 residential areas)  Westerfrisia North, municipality Hoorn (70 Ha)  WFO-ABC-terrain, municipality Wervershoofd (50 Ha)  Horticulture Het Grootslag, municipality Wervershoof (250 Ha)  Residential areas: 15+ areas consisting of more than 7.000 houses, planned to be built from 2005 to 2015, municipalities Enkhuizen, Hoorn, Stede Broec, Kogenland.  Recreational development park: De Blauwe Berg (annually 260.000 visitors, including cinema, hotel and event hall). Municipality Hoorn.

The focus of this Westfrisiaweg is on the two mentioned goals and they indirectly contribute to the autonomous and recreational development in region. (D) Throughout the process the goals are the points of reference in project and they are formulated beforehand: the design of the road is adjusted mainly to ensure the realization of those two goals. However, implicitly the goal is stretched to the stakeholders, because the road cuts through many municipalities and in order to have to road to succeed, they all have to act as one party, thus much effort in kept to keep the coalition intact. That was through making promises to the municipalities on e.g. permits. Naming and framing is done well by both parties, because the regional stake is the alternative east-west connection ensuring their economic growth, and for the local parties they do know that and so they ask „presents‟ benefiting their own cause in return for the cooperation and financing of the road (multi-targeting). (E) After the MER shows its first results, there were two major issues: the southern or northern variant and the financing of project. The boundaries of this global route are firm, but the scope within the boundaries is rubbery and can be negotiated, as they actually did.

The stakeholders. Based on the stakeholder analysis, which in return is largely based on the process rounds by J. Edelenbos (2010), the following statements can be said (F) The national government is generally interested in national projects that give the best yield, the N23 was not one of them, although through timeless lobbying by supporters, they ultimately gave a small fund of € 35 million in December 2009 (that is however € 146 million short, in which the province NH compensates on its own), but it was withdraw in 2013 due to budget cuts in the MIRT program. They are passively involved in the decision-making in process. The province

NH on the other hand is actively involved in the decision-making and they lead the process: they make compromises with the municipalities to keep the project united and in return the municipalities will finance 20% of the project. Their continuous lobbying for national funds has a drawback, that the devotion to the municipalities was less attentive in the period of 2008- 2010. The drawback of funds impacts the local wishes of municipalities: in the implementation-agreement there is an austerity clause for the municipalities (versoberingsclausule) in case the budget of €350 is less than expected. The involvements of the municipalities in the decision-making were always in favour of the road despite the disputes on the finances and alternative road design. After discussions, the most important partners CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 209

Heerhugowaard, Enkhuizen and Hoorn gave in. The municipalties Stede Broec and Drechterland remain against the sourthern version. In fact, the steering committee chose this road without the proper involvement of Stede Broec, they were not in the steering committee and could not influence the decision. However, before signing the „regioakkoord‟ a creative solution was proposed in favour of Stede Broec. Drechterland remained against the plan, but were overshadowed by the democratic support in favour of the southern version. The united organizations consisting of commercial companies were always in favour and in support of the project, the quick decision-making and realizing the project is their cause in support. The lack of interaction and feedback to the States-Provincials and City Councils caused tension in signing the regional approval and declaration of implementation: this was caused by the lack of good representation in the steering committee, lack of interactive feedback, voice of opposing citizens, disappointing national funds, and the political choice that the steering committee made on the preferred route without the advice of the commission for the MER. The opposing citizens, composed of „Niet door „t Lint‟ and „Geen Weg Terug No Way!‟, united and tried to block the plan. The first NGO tried to talk with the province, but they were neglected until roughly 2006, in which the decision was already made. In 2008 – 2009, in waiting of the government‟s response for their funds, the opposing NGOs were using contra-expertise to challenge the plans. The northern version was found out to be cheaper by an independent company, thus this created extra tension among the politicians. This was worsened by the small fund of the government.

d.2.2. The output of N23 Iron Triangle. (G) The budget for this project has to remain within €350 million. The government was supposed to support this program with the requested € 180 million. None was given, but in 2010 the province NH lobbied for €35 million, although in 2013 the government withdrew their support due to the economic circumstances. Now, the province NH pays the planned € 100 million, plus the missing funds of €180 million. It is assumed that the municipalities finance the agreed 20% of € 350 million: that is roughly € 70.000 including the funds from the companies and water boards (Provincie Noord-Holland, 2012, p. 74). Concerning the time, in the regional agreement in 2007, it is said that the implementation agreement (Realisatie overeenkomst) should be signed end 2008 and the construction should start in 2010. Based on this with the most recent information, they are at least 2 years behind schedule: the implementation agreement was signed on 26th of August 2010, and the latest news article mentions that the construction does not start earlier than summer 2015

(Anonymous, 2014; Projectbureau N23 Westfrisiaweg, 2007, pp. 42, 43).

(H) For the public with NIMBY-issues will probably have low utility and experiential value. The new or upgraded road will attract more traffic and its negative side effects. The public without these issues will increasingly benefit from the increased accessibility to all areas, especially the lobbying companies for a better road. In their cases the utility and future value will be relatively higher than the previous group. For example, the northern version is likely not very well considered because of the state-of-the-art and world-top companies (seed valley) with

highly specialized (PhD) workers in the works of seeds and seeding. To the province, this CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 210 weighs heavier than the historical valued villages: utilization and future value are favoured above the experiential value of those who want the lint villages. The experiential value for this group depends on the quality of the landscaping of this road. Lots of attention in the planning is paid to the routing and landscaping, so it is assumed it is average to good.

The internal and external satisfaction. Internal refers to the internal satisfaction within the project organizational structure. The external refers to those outside this structure. (I) The general local public and companies do not mind the upgrade and extension of this N23, because it will benefit the accessibility of the region and all its current and planned facilitates. It will also create an alternative road from the east to west. There are those who are opposing the route, these NIMBY-users and action groups are most likely not satisfied, because their voice were not properly noted, nor was there a proper discussion on the facts: one way communication about the rightness of information, as be seen in early 2000 to 2006 and the summer of 2008 on the discussion on facts, which created additional tension among all stakeholders. The province NH and municipalities are disappointed on the national support, but they are continuing with this project on the expense of the provincial budget. Based on this, the average external satisfaction is relatively good with the exception of the opposing group (mainly Drechterland), which in the end still agreed to this plan if certain conditions were met (tunnel to minimize adverse effects). There were in total 2 lodged appeal cases. The first appeal case was 16 appellants against the States-Provincial on the PIP. The second appeal case was 2 appellants against the Provincial executives on the PIP as well, but then concerning noise nuisances. For damage reimbursement was not mentioned: they were all judged ungrounded and referred to other procedures to get that reimbursement (Raad van State, 2013a, 2013b).

The internal satisfaction was good as well. Despite the protests, internally it is said that there were never any risks. This is due to some inspiring people who did keep the coalition together, even with the means of awarding them with presents such as extra permits to that municipality. Also, not all municipalities were equally represented in the steering committee and due to the layout of the road; the democratic voting is „easier‟ if most people benefit and one or two „loses‟.

The level of intertwinement. The information is based on the outline of N23 and interviews with A. de Vries (2014a) and M. Cauvern (2014) (J) The spatial level of intertwinement varies throughout the process in project. The quality of the area determines the routing of the road. At the start of project, the spatial intertwinement could be rated at level 4 - Infrastructure provision and other spatial developments are being adjusted to each other. The junction near city Hoorn would be connected with a road to Alkmaar: the first half of the junction is already realized, but the second part never came because there was no political support due the highly appreciated environment. So in this case the spatial development of that part adjusted the infrastructure planning: that design was omitted from the plans (A. de Vries, 2014a). However, after the declaration of intention in 2006, the level could be rated as level 3 - Infrastructure provision and other spatial developments strengthen each other; emphasizes each

other‟s qualities and/or minimizes each other‟s negative or adverse effects. This can be CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 211 explained due the autonomous spatial development planned by the municipalities: these plans will not change, even if the upgrade of N23 is omitted. So the road does not change its route depending on other spatial developments. (K) The procedural intertwinement is rated at level 1 – there is only imitative for infrastructure provision. In other words, the procedures of spatial development and infrastructure planning are running on two separated paths and they are not at points integrally assessed. (L) The financial intertwinement is rated at level 4 - The profit and risks of infrastructure development and area development are being shared. With a model that the N23 project company made, they could calculate what the municipality would earn on their grounds and area development projects. Thus, they would know what the profit would be if the N23 is getting the upgrade. A percentage of that earning is requested as investment in the N23 project. This model and negotiation took one year: each municipality had negotiated with the province and project company to cede an amount of money (remittance). This happened on basis of predefined criteria and the municipalities did know each other‟s remittance. So based on this, the profits are shared, but the costs of projects are not shared. They do share the risk, because some of the planned spatial developments might be dependent on the upgrade of the N23 to get its positive yield (A. de Vries, 2014a).

Despite being profiled as an area development project, the N23 Westfrisiaweg or the N23 is most likely portrayed as an infrastructure project with loose linkages to area development. See the section on the establishing of the goals. Improvement is most likely on the routing and landscaping of the road: not necessarily the coupling to area development.

The learning opportunities and reputation. The learning opportunities and development contributes to the project success on long-term orientation; it can create commitment and stimulate people. The early learning opportunities gave the participating stakeholders in the decision-making and steering committee the idea that this N23 project can only succeed on behalf of the entire picture: not solely an infrastructure project, but it selling points are the attached prosperity, a new road from east to west, benefiting the regional economic. With many stakeholders, it is difficult, but with the aspiring alderman and such they succeeded to act as one group: they successfully lobbied for extra funds, all the stakeholders gave their approval to continue, and there is political support on regional and local level. (M) The learning opportunities have sufficiently contributed to the commitment of people to this project. Not much can be said about the client organization, in which the province NH got the lead. On one hand, they have generally successfully lead the process though lots of obstacles. Some

improving points might have been the early interactive involvement with the opposing party: the lack of this interaction created extra unneeded tension later on.

d.2.3. The process of N23 The type of approach. (N) The used project managerial approach was mostly functional and useful. For example, the method set up by the project company to calculate the amount of investment of the municipalities in the upgrade of the N23 is rather a project-like intervention, but effective in this network-like situation: a balance sheet is made on what one municipality

can earn and a percentage is requested. Or the invitations to the public to join the sounding CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 212 boards, to have them support, enrich or make possible changes on the design within certain conditions with respect to the iron triangle. This is all focused on a better landscaping and mitigating effect on road. Normally, this is typed as process action, but its timing is rather late, so its impact and influence on project is limited: the steering committee was ensuring its scope first with the other stakeholders.

(O) The applied process managerial actions were highly effective and functional. The transparency was mostly transparent, with the exception of a few cases such as the decoupling of the plan MER to the decision-making process in the period of 2006. The decisions were just defended and explained in public events without any open discussions on the MER – the interim results were secretly passed on the steering committee, so they did have a tactical and strategic advantage on the information and decision-making. Good transparency was for example, that all municipalities knew of each other‟s remittance to the N23 investment or clear process rules. The rules such as additional request had to benefit the current (negotiated) criteria and whoever is asking is also paying. It is important to be consistent with the rules (M. Cauvern, 2014). The interactive cooperation was also clearly present in multiple ways, in good and less good ways. For example, 2/3 of the municipalities involved with the projects are not well represented in the steering committee, this certainly will impact their interest and involvement in the project and it did lead to time-overruns due to doubts and tensions caused by the lack of interactive involvement and representation. The interaction with the opposing party at the start was lacking as well – this caused a time delay, unneeded tensions to doubtful shareholders and stakeholders, as well spilled opportunity costs. The strong opposes did not join the sounding boards as this would be a surrender to the cause of the „enemy‟. Nevertheless, this action did involve others in which they could influence the course of project, so that interaction is good. The interaction among municipalities and with the commercial companies were intense, it was not always pleasant, but at the end still rewarding – the public and private interests on local and (inter)regional levels were well interwoven and the project profiled as one unit. The private party succeed in lobbying the province to take action and they help with the investments. The public invests 20% of project; originally the independent project company asked only 10% (A. de Vries, 2014a). The downside is the possibility of overburden of conditions and local wishes set by the municipalities in order to have them cooperating with the province. The pace in which this happened was good: the MIRT was coupled to the decision-making, thus it acts to speed up the progress. But before the MIRT, the focus was on the regional process and then hand it over. This is good as profiling, but the lack of parallel procedures in process costs precious time that could have be spent otherwise. The involvement of expert‟s opinion as in this case the hiring of an external project organization N23 Westfrisiaweg is well done and it acts as an independent organization outside the provincial organization. This bundling of the expert‟s activities with the activities of other stakeholders proved to be highly efficient: the roles are kept separated. The presence of project/process leader should be inspiring, one who can create mantra in binding the reality and dreams

together to keep the stakeholders in process committed (M. Cauvern, 2014). CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 213

The existing and usage of information. The retrieving and application of the use of information can influence the decision-making. (P) The information was largely negotiated knowledge based on the negotiation between the most important municipalities and province on the rightness of the information. This was not the case between the province and opposing citizens, in which this never came down to a constructed dialog, but just one way communication in which each party proof their justness through barrage of counter expertise reports. The economic utility and future value of the northern route in which seed valley was situated is too valuable to demolish on contrary to the Lint villages, nevertheless to give the opposing voice a spot in process can mitigate their resistance and therefore also the time-overrun and tension they have caused. The information is used strategically, as seen in the decoupling of the MER with the decision-making and the late involvement of the public in the soundings broads. Moreover, the municipalities Not only the quality of information steers the decision-making, but the information on the decision-making is important as well. In other words, some of stakeholders are receptive to information at certain moments and at times also not. Whether they are receptive depends on how the process of decision-making proceeds, than only considering the substantive options only. The deadlocks arrived in the period when the region proposed the N23 into the MIRT in 2008, and in 2009-2010 when the government was not convinced and gave almost none or little funds. The opposing parties knew of this process and they heavily opposed, resulting into that expertise war. Some of the municipalities were not satisfied with their share in N23 project as opposed to their contribution and they knew that the project is „all or nothing‟. E.g. Enkhuizen and Drechterland were not pleased that Koggenland get relatively much more than they did, and so Enkhuizen insisted another round of discussions just before the declaration of implementation – they did not get it and they „threatened‟ to step out of the game, which was prevented by the Province because they gave Enkhuizen at the end some „presents‟ (M. Cauvern, 2014). (Q) Nice-to-know information is the information that serves no purpose, but it is still absorbed to better handle the capriciousness of the network and therefore have the better ability to make a multi-issued decision. The stakeholders used the strategy on obtaining nice-to-know information, because of the successful intertwinement of (inter)public and private interests.

The decision-making and implementation. (R) The decision-making is rather hybrid: at times process managerial and at other times project managerial. It was a combination of tickling off (already fully negotiated decision has to be formally confirmed) and also not. (S) At certain moments, the decision-making and implementation are in this order, as to be seen in the set-up of first the regional process before handing the MIRT over. Afterwards, the MIRT is clearly coupled to the decision-making: extra pressure and pacing. At other times, the implementation precedes the decision-making. The decision-making did not await the advice of the ME, in which later the PS and colleges of B&W had their doubts on the approval of this plan, because the steering committee did not well considered the advice of MER and had weak interaction to the PS & Colleges of B&W. One can wonder whether the province could have better waited on the advice of the MER: a better window of opportunity for better support and learning

opportunities to all stakeholders. The decision-making was an open and on-going process until CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 214 the declarations were signed: before the critical moment of decision-making or signing treaties, municipalities were able to „open‟ a new round of discussions before they knew the province will take effort to keep everyone in the process to let the road come with the national funds. It can therefore also be said that there were accelerations in pace based on the opportunities chances: this was a good window of opportunity for some municipality to open the discussion and pressure to process to gain little bit more benefits: also called „gain in the slipstream of the decision-making‟ (H. de Bruijn & Ten Heuvelhof, 2008). The municipalities knew of each other‟s plan, Moreover, it can be characterized as a process-based action (backstage activities formed by this power game), but the communication outside is project-based.

CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 215 e. Appendix of the studied cases

Figure 27: Description of the tactical goals of the DBA (Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2012, p. 8) There are 18 tactical goals, because T1 and T2 are omitted, due to the fact that these are not goals, but instruments. T1 refers to the development of vision and T2 refers to the

development of the instruments.

CaseIV: N23 Westfrisiaweg 216

Figure 28: strategic goals of PVVP coupled to the nota 'Essentiele onderdelen' (EO) (Provincie

Noord-Brabant, 2012, p. 51)

/ 217

Figure 29: The coupling of tactical goals of the DBA to the strategic goals of the PVVP. The TELOS indicators are also presented, but not updated to the revisited DBA goals (Provincie Noord-Brabant,

2012, p. 52)

/ 218

Figure 30: the monitoring and evaluation of the Tactical goals (Provincie Noord-Brabant, 2012, p. 53)

219

Figure 31: Complete, current he VKA of project (Central Project Group Brainport East, 2014b)

220

Stakeholder analysis based on the process rounds in the project N23. There are 5 process rounds, thus 5 separated stakeholder analysis. It is structured with actors, visions, goals and their actions and its sequences. At time there might be between brackets, [unchanged], that means that their vision or goals are unchanged, thus it is the same goal/vision as in the previous round. The analysis helps in the analysis of answering the aspects in input/output of N23.

Table 2: preliminary round (1930s - 2000) Actors Vision Goal Action & sequence

The national Best yield in project value Proper investments in Did research on the N23, government (NG) in the Netherlands projects based on but N23 was omitted in the research MIT programme in 1996

United organization Improved accessibility on Convince the government Lobby for road upgrade. formed by trade and the N23 is needed for to upgrade N23 Also created the urgent industrial companies local economy feeling which is afterwards (UO) shared by NH and MU.

The Province North- Shared vision as UO, after Steer and stimulate Did explorative research on Holland (NH) the UO‟s intensive stakeholders to get an N23. There is little lobbying lobbying intentions support to get approval for N23 upgrade towards on the N23 in the MIT NG

The municipalities Shared vision as UO Collaborate with UO to United with the organized (MU) get companies to work on note to the government to reconsider upgrade N23. This occurred after MU and UO felt that the NH did not lobbied enough.

Table 3: round 1 (May 2000 - June 2005) Actors Vision Goal Action & sequence

The national Best yield in project Proper investments in Viewed the plan of approach of government (NG) value in the projects based on research North-Holland. NG rather sees Netherlands [unchanged] the total picture as a complete [unchanged] whole; not only Westfrisiaweg.

United Improved accessibility Push and highlight the Lobby for road upgrade. Created organization on the N23 is needed N23 project to the new unified group – van A tot Z - formed by trade for local economy government, provinces and consisting of employers of all 3 and industrial [unchanged] municipalities provinces to highlight the companies (UO) economical benefits of the N23.

The Province Shared vision as UO, Steer and stimulate Created ambition document North-Holland after the UO‟s stakeholders to get an (2003) that partly led to a new (NH) intensive lobbying support to get approval on stakeholder who opposes this

intentions plan. And created a plan of

221

[unchanged] the N23 in the MIT approach (2004) that ultimately led to the overall supported to-go decision (2005).

The municipalities Shared vision as UO. To form mutual gain Negotiations with NH: comply (MU) [unchanged] contracts between MU and with the plan of approach of the NH. Province NH, but reconsiders certain conditions for approval. E.g. agree upon the road to come upon exchange for real estate expansion nearby

Steering committee Represents the Steer and advise the Advised the provincial executives of the internal province NH and working group to come to on the results of this plan of project bureau therefore holds the a to-go/no-go solution, approach. responsible for the same vision as NH, the solution which is in Steered when needed to gain best plan of approach of although some of the best interest of the solution in plan of approach. the province NH representatives are Province NH (SG) under/overpresented.

Opposing citizens The current ambition Prevent plan from Activated the media to express (OC) document and plan of happening or adjust the their concerns. Attempted to approach will harm plans approach the MU and NH, but the lint villages and the approach was futile (2003- surroundings 2006).

Table 4: round 2 (June 2005- July 2007) Actors Vision Goal Action & sequence

The national Best yield in project Proper investments None, awaiting response of the 3 provinces government value in the in projects based on on a complete N23 plan. (NG) Netherlands research [unchanged] [unchanged]

United Improved accessibility Support the process Lobby for road upgrade. organization on the N23 is needed of project so that Agreed with the declaration of intention. formed by trade for local economy the N23 will be and industrial [unchanged] realized as fast as Neutral position for the dilemma on the companies possible preferred route to come. (UO)

The Province Shared vision as UO, Steer and stimulate Supports the southern version of the route North-Holland after the UO‟s stakeholders to get to come. (NH) intensive lobbying a support to get Agreed with the declaration of intention. intentions approval on the [unchanged] N23 in the MIT.

[unchanged]

222

The Provinces Improved accessibility Steer and stimulate Quickly cooperated with NH to propose Flevoland and on the N23 is needed stakeholders to get this N23 plan to the NG. Overijssel for local economy a support to get Agreed with the declaration of intention. approval on the N23 in the MIT.

The Shared vision as UO. To form mutual  All MU agreed with the declaration municipalities [unchanged] gain contracts of intention. (MU) between MU and  Heerhugowaard got NGs support NH. for its first associated project of the N23.  Municipality Enkhuizen favours the southern version of route.  Municipality Drechterland favours northern version of route.  Municipality Stede Broec does not like both options. Offered an alternative route which led to a half year delay. Ultimately, it was rejected by the steering committee in which they have no voice.

Commission for The proposed route Weights the  Most alternatives were less or more the MER should be researched alternatives against the same in results, except for the on environmental each other to come eastern part of the route which led impacts to the best solution to heavy discussion  Made definite MER in July 2007, but in June 2007, the steering committee already chose a route. Project office An independent and Actively and  Seek interaction with the Westfrisiaweg mediating role is independently environment. (led by AT needed for good involve other  Made a detailed and fair plan that Osborne and process of the N23 stakeholders in the justified the benefits and costs of occupied by project project each involved actor in project. several civil servant)

Steering Represents the Steer and advise the  Chosen the southern version of the committee (SG) province NH and project office. preferred route, which was a therefore holds the political move, because the definite Make the decisions same vision as NH, MER was not published yet. which are best for although some of the the three provinces representatives are and the project. under/overpresented.

Opposing The current plans Prevent plan from Activated the media to express their 223 citizens unified will harm the lint happening or adjust concerns. Supported Drechterland, but as NGO known villages and the route attempt was futile. as „Niet door „t surroundings Lint‟. [unchanged]

Table 5: round 3 (June 2007 - March 2008) Actors Vision Goal Action & sequence

The national Best yield in project Proper investments According to the RWS‟ criteria, such as government value in the in projects based on cost-benefit ratio and traffic value, the N23 (NG) Netherlands research at first does not look impressive. Requested [unchanged] [unchanged] by the regional stakeholders to judge with other criteria than usual.

United Improved accessibility Support the process Lobby for road upgrade. [unchanged] organization on the N23 is needed of project so that formed by trade for local economy the N23 will be and industrial [unchanged] realized as fast as companies possible (UO) [unchanged]

The Province Shared vision as UO, Steer and stimulate Stimulate to get support for the Regional North-Holland after the UO‟s stakeholders to get Approval. (NH) intensive lobbying a support to get

intentions approval on the [unchanged] N23 in the MIT. [unchanged]

The Shared vision as UO. To form mutual  Most important partners such as municipalities [unchanged] gain in contracts Heerhugowaard, Enkhuizen, and (MU) between MU and Hoorn agreed after some NH. [unchanged] discussions  Stede Broec and Drechterland still against the plans  Stede Broec was convinced after creative solution, thus was in support for the southern route in the Regional Approval Diverse States- The best alternative Give the final  Lack of interaction and feedback to Provincials and for the project should approval for the this group in previous has led to a City Councils have chosen which is Regional Approval loss of information. As done in a fair and Plan. consequence, they are in doubt representative way. concerning the decisions made in the Regional Approval.

Strengthened by NGOs against the plans.

 Awaited the results from the 224

Commission for the MER – awaits heavy in their judgment for consent to the Regional Approval. Commission for The proposed route Weights the  Finalized the MER report; the MER should be researched alternatives against processed the feedback from the on environmental each other to come public citizens. Due to the political impacts [unchanged] to the best solution choice in the preferred route, it was [unchanged] not sure whether this was fair and best.  Gave a positive result, which resulted to the final approval needed for the Regional Approval plan. Project office An independent and Actively and  Seek interaction with the Westfrisiaweg mediating role is independently environment. (led by AT needed for good involve other  Organized the events on which the Osborne and process of the N23 stakeholders in the locals can influence the final occupied by project project decision-making process before the several civil plan gets finalized. servant)

Steering Represents the Steer and advise the  None committee (SG) province NH and project office. therefore holds the Make the decisions same vision as NH, which are best for although some of the the three provinces representatives are and the project. under/overpresented [unchanged] [unchanged].

Opposing The current plans Prevent plan from  Activated the media to express their citizens unified will harm the lint happening or adjust concerns. Supported Drechterland, as NGOs such villages and the route but again their attempt was futile. as „Niet door „t surroundings [unchanged] This has led to extra-long decision- Lint‟ and „Geen [unchanged] making process; put the States- Weg Terug No Provincials and City Councils in Way!‟ doubt.  Did not join the public information groups to influence the final decision-making in N23, before the Regional Approval is finalized.

Table 6: round 4 (March 2008 - December 2010) Actors Vision Goal Action & sequence

The national Best yield in project Proper investments Initially, there was no budget available, but government value in the in projects based on after strong lobbying of the regional parties,

(NG) Netherlands research the NG granted €35 million in December

225

[unchanged] [unchanged] 2009. It is possible to grant more money as the N23 progresses.

United Improved accessibility Support the process Lobby for road upgrade. organization on the N23 is needed of project so that formed by trade for local economy the N23 will be and industrial [unchanged] realized as fast as companies possible (UO) [unchanged]

The Province Shared vision as UO, Steer and stimulate  Promised that new insight on North-Holland after the UO‟s stakeholders to get project will be investigated, the (NH) intensive lobbying a support to get contra-expertise on reports by intentions approval on the opposing NGOs led to some [unchanged] N23 in the MIT. uncertainties experienced by other [unchanged] stakeholders.  NH tries to find other sources of

funding, as they are €145 million short. NG grants only €35 million.  Continues intensive lobbying for extra funds, from no budget to ultimately a budget of €35 million. This however had as drawback, that the devotion on the municipalities was less attentive.

The Shared vision as UO. To form mutual  And so the MU started discussions municipalities [unchanged] gain in contracts as they are unsure about the finance (MU) between MU and on the N23 and thus also their NH. [unchanged] local projects associated with N23.  Some MU dislike the left out local wishes in the approved landscaping MER and preliminary land-use plans designs by the steering committee.  Some municipalities had strong criticism on the plans and the special arrangement that might confront them if the N23 project exceeds the agreed budget of €350 or the N23 cannot get the funds right.

Diverse States- The best alternative Give the final  After discussions on the little funds Provincials and for the project should approval for the received, they eventually agreed on

City Councils have chosen which is declaration of the declaration of implementation

226

done in a fair and implementation. set out by the steering committee. representative way.

Project office An independent and Actively and  Seek interaction with the Westfrisiaweg mediating role is independently environment. (led by AT needed for good involve other  Wrote reports to proof the contra- Osborne and process of the N23 stakeholders in the expertise by the opposing NGOs occupied by project project wrong. several civil servant)

Steering Represents the Steer and advise the  Agreed on the landscaping MER committee (SG) province NH and project office. and preliminary land-use plans therefore holds the designs, despite disagreement of Make the decisions same vision as NH, MU on their local wishes to be which are best for although some of the disappeared. the three provinces representatives are  Approved the declaration of and the project. under/overpresented implementation for further notice. [unchanged] [unchanged].

Opposing The current plans Prevent plan from  United together to create more citizens unified will harm the lint happening or adjust pressure, activated media, and used as NGOs such villages and the route contra-expertise to proof the plans as „Niet door „t surroundings [unchanged] wrong. Lasted from summer 2008 Lint‟ and „Geen [unchanged] to begin 2009. It did not resulted Weg Terug No in a constructive dialog between Way!‟ parties.

227