Decision-making for light rail Hans De Bruijn * , Wijnand Veeneman Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University of Technology, Jaffalaan 5, 2628 BX Delft, The Netherlands article info Article history: Received 20 March 2008 Received in revised form 3 November 2008 Accepted 14 November 2008 Keywords: Public transport Decision-making Light rail Multi-actor context Strategies abstract In transport literature there is an ongoing discussion on the potential of light rail in miti- gating congestion and supporting mobility around urban centres. Throughout Europe and the United States, many policy makers see light rail as an interesting option to improve the accessibility of urban centres. The Dutch national government wanted to support swift light rail realization in a number of promising situations. Several projects gained support from the national government for implementation. How- ever, the decision-making on a local level was not nearly as swift as expected and not in line with the promise. This paper presents an analysis of that perceived slowdown and shows that the approach of the national government with a strict focus on light rail and a detachment from the local processes has played an important role in the slowdown. It shows that light rail can very well be a solid option. However, its successful implementa- tion is not solely dependent on light rail suitability for the mobility patterns in the region, but very much on the approach of the implementation of those supporting the option. Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction This article focuses on how decision-making processes regarding the introduction of light rail are conducted. Light rail is a form of rail-based transport that is particularly suited to distances between 10 and 40 km. Light rail can thus be positioned between subway (‘metro’) and tram on the one hand and the train on the other, and seems the ideal solution to regional transport problems. These problems can concern both urban regions (high commuter traffic, congestion problems) and rural regions (small communities, large distances, high cost of good ‘heavy rail’ links). The choice whether and how to realize light rail can be seen a multi-actor decision-making process: to make the right decision requires the involvement of a wide range of experts and stakeholders. There has been deep criticism about the processes of decision-making on light rail. This criticism follows two broad lines that sometimes meet: first, the decision-making on light rail has been characterized as biased and irrational and the second, the merits of light rail as compared to bus based systems has been contested. Edwards and Mackett (1996) underlined the irrationality of decision-making in a UK context. Pickrell (1992) did the same in the US, showing an optimistic bias in budget and ridership estimations for rail projects. Flyvbjerg et al. (2002) showed similar optimistic estimations for European rail projects. Rubin et al. (1999) show for the US how that prevalence seems to be based on myths about the merits of light rail, a point Richmond for Los Angeles (1998) underlined. The criticism is supported by analyses of the effects, especially com- paring (light rail) projects to bus (rapid transit) projects. Kain and Liu (1999) show after comparing San Diego and Houston, being cities with differing strategies towards rail, that Houston’s bus strategy could be seen as more effective. Similar anal- yses are found at O’Toole (2004) and Richmond (2001). However, Lane (2008) concludes US cities with light rail have higher 0965-8564/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.11.003 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 2788061. E-mail addresses: j.a.debruijn@tudelft.nl (H. De Bruijn), W.W.Veeneman@tbm.tudelft.nl (W. Veeneman). Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 349–359 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Transportation Research Part A journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra