Citizens’ Rail – Using citizens‘ participation for rail revitalization

Citizens’ Rail – Using citizens‘ participation for rail revitalizationComparing two regional governance settings in Europe

Dominik Elsmann

Economic Geography

RWTH Aachen University

Using citizens‘ participation for rail revitalizationDominik Elsmann | RWTH Aachen University | 19.08.2014

2

Introduction


3

Agenda

i. Introduction

ii. Context

iii. Background

iv. Leading questions

v. Conceptual framework

vi. Regional Railway Governancei. Lancashire Region (UK)

ii. Aachen Region (GER)

vii. Conclusion


4

Context

Source: Citizens’ Rail 2014


5

Background

1991: 91/440/EEC EU Directive

1994: Rail Reform

1st Step

1996:Regionalisation

Act

1999:Rail Reform

2nd Step

1991: 91/440/EEC EU Directive

1993: Railways Act

2002:Formation of Network Rail

2004:Community Rail

Development Strategy

Source: BDI 2006: Kap. 2


6

Background

Implications for further research:

Institutional settings have changedNew stakeholders dealing with new functionsOld stakeholders with modified functionsComplex network of different stakeholders

Participative approaches in new structures?Social sustainabilityBottom up in context of public servicesRelevance


7

Leading questions

Is the governance concept adaptable for explaining processes in the regional rail system?

Which research design seems appropriate for focusing on regional railway governance with specific focus on citizens‘ participation?

To what extent do discovered structures in both regions differ from each other?


8

Conceptual framework

Governance Participation Social Innovation

Stakeholder network

Decision making processes

Regional governance

Multilevel governance

Paradox of participation

Ladder of citizens‘ participation

Social sustainability

Emergence, implementation and diffusion of new social practices

Result of participatory governance?


9

Paradox of participation

High

Low

Identification of problems

Planning Decision Implementation

Possibilities to engage

Interest and need

for communicatio

n

Timescale

Source: Authors‘ diagram based on König & König 2010: 131


10

Research design

Qualitative expert interviews

Development of a transnational ideal type

Matching ideal type and theory

Recommendations for action

Lancashire Region

Aachen Region

Ideal type

Stakeholder network„regional rail“

… … …

Decision making processes … … …

Participation … … …


11

Overview of first findings

Lancashire Region


“[…] let's take Accrington station as an example, then the 3 principle stakeholders in the project were ourselves, Network Rail and Northern Rail.“ (RW_00:19:09-6)

“Generally we would have a standard meeting timetable with local authorities and PTEs at least once a week.“ (CH_00:24:23-9)


“So the decisions are multi-layered.“ (RW_00:33:55-6)

“Without a shadow of doubt the Department for Transport. They are the lords and masters in the system. So in terms of who controls the railway it is definitely the DfT, there is no question about it.“ (RW_00:35:49-0)

Participation

“I think social media is going to be a key.“ (CH_00:17:47-0)

“Yes, of course there is, because at the end of the day you may actually raise expectations beyond everything that you are able to satisfy.“ (RW_00:44:15-2)


12

Stakeholder network Lancashire

Association of Community Rail

Partnerships (ACoRP)

Virgin Trains

Lancashire County Council

Citizens

Local politics

Rail user groups

Friends of station groups

Department for Transport

Passenger Focus

Ambassadors

Community Rail Partnerships

Northern Rail

Volunteers

Regulation

Funding

EU

Train operating companies (TOCs)

Tendering & Regulation

Office of Rail Regulation

Association of Train Operating Companies ATOC

Funding

Coordination

National Rail

Source: Own research

Funding

Fares

Network RailRegulation

Rail Safety and Standards Board

Community Rail Lancashire


13

Overview of first findings

Aachen Region


“Primarily these are contact persons on the side of AVV, although they are not responsible anymore.“ (UM_00:17:27-5)

„Those meetings take place on a voluntary basis to foster the complex planning process.“ (AW_00:31:45-0)


“Considering what has to be decided for shaping the future, the degree of openess of ongoing discussions is at a very low level from my point of view.“ (UM_00:33:47-6)

Participation

“Engaging with citizens‘ at an early planning stage is hardly possible or even impossible. That is a problem in my view.“ (UM_00:44:32-3)

“We have to criticise ourselves as well. Maybe without supply there‘s no demand. We have to adress this topic much more.“ (AW_01:00:22-3)

all quotes translated from German


14

Stakeholder network Aachen

Aachen Transport Association AVV (+ ltd.)

City of Aachen

Administration union NVR (+ ltd.)

Heinsberg

Düren

StädteRegion Aachen

DB NetzDB Station & Service

Railway undertaking (DB Regio)

Railway infrastructure EVS

Belgium

Citizen

The Netherlands

Local politics

Passenger association (PRO BAHN)

Federal government

North Rhine-

Westphalia

Regulation

EU

Funding

Tendering / Coordination

Federal railway

authority (EBA)

Rail regulator

Funding

Civil associations

Source: Own research


15

Conclusion

Since the Railways Act development led to different structures in regional rail stakeholder networks in terms of:

Network composition Network governance Implementation of participatory approaches

Comparing the British and German situation reveals a more intense focus on participatory approaches in the British context:

Community Rail Partnerships (CRP) in Great Britain can be considered as a best practice in terms of participation

Work in progress!

Thank you for your attention!

Dominik Elsmann

RWTH Aachen University

Templergraben 55

52056 Aachen

[email protected]

www.citizensrail.org

Citizens’ Rail – Using citizens‘ participation for rail revitalization

Travel

Transcript of Citizens’ Rail – Using citizens‘ participation for rail revitalization