As a planning concept, transit-oriented development (TOD) has become popular in the Netherlands over the last few decades. However, the transition from planning concept to development practice has been fraught with difficulties. Where TOD projects have been implemented, they have often met with limited success in terms of livability and market viability. This paper examines TOD-related efforts in the Netherlands and the reasons for their difficulties up to now. The analysis is built around an analytical framework, which considers the role of ‘ideas’, ‘interests’, and ‘institutions’, as well as their interaction, in affecting the outcomes of these TOD efforts.
BertoliniLle ClercqF, 2003, “Urban development without more mobility by car? Lessons from Amsterdam, a multimodal urban region”Environment and Planning A35575–589
2.
BirklandT A, 2010, “Agenda setting, power, and interest groups”, in An Introduction to the Public Policy Process: Theories, Concepts, and Models of Public Policy Making (M E Sharpe, New York) pp 105–131
3.
CampbellJ, 2002, “Ideas, politics, and public policy”Annual Review of Sociology2821–38
4.
CoxR HBélandD, 2013, “Valence, policy ideas, and the rise of sustainability”Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration, and Institutions26307–328
5.
CPB, 2013De Nederlandse Woningmarkt: Hypotheekrente, Huizenprijzen en Consumptie report, Centraal Planbureau [Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis], The Hague
6.
DruckmanJ, 2001, “The implications of framing effects for citizen competence”Political Behavior23225–256
7.
DudleyGRichardsonJ, 2000Why Does Policy Change? Lessons from British Transport Policy 1945–1999 (Routledge, London)
8.
European Commission, 2013EU Transport in FiguresStatistical Pocketbook, European Commission
9.
FaludiA, 2005, “The Netherlands: A culture with a soft spot for planning”, in Comparative Planning Cultures Ed. SanyalB, (Routledge, London) pp 285–307
10.
FaludiAvan der ValkA, 1994Rule and Order: Dutch Planning Doctrine in the Twentieth Century (Springer, Amsterdam)
11.
GallezCKaufmannVMaksimHThebértMGuerrinhaC, 2013, “Coordinating transport and urban planning: From ideologies to local realities”European Planning Studies211235–1255
HaasP, 1992, “Introduction. Epistemic communities and international policy coordination”International Organization461–35
14.
HaleC, 2012, “TOD versus TAD: The great debate resolved …(?)”Planning Practice and Research, doi: 10.1080/02697459.2012.749056
15.
HallP ATaylorR, 1996, “Political science and the three new institutionalisms”, paper presented at the Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung Board meeting, 9 May, Köln, http://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp96-6.pdf
16.
HansenC J, 2011, “The role of policy-making and planning cultures for sustainable transport”European Transport4789–108
17.
HofstedeG, 2001Culture's Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations across Nations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)
18.
HumpageL, 2010, “Institutions, interests and ideas: Explaining social policy change in welfare states incorporating an indigenous population”Journal of European Social Policy20235–247
19.
KiM, 2012Regie op Knooppunten report, Kennisinstituut voor Mobiliteitsbeleid, The Hague
20.
KernF, 2011, “Ideas, institutions, and interests: Explaining policy divergence in fostering ‘system innovations’ towards sustainability”Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy291116–1134
21.
KnielingJOthengrafenF, 2009, “En route to a theoretical model for comparative research on planning cultures”, in Planning Cultures in Europe: Decoding Cultural Phenomena in Urban and Regional Planning Eds KnielingJOthengrafenF, (Ashgate, Aldershot, Hants) pp 39–62
22.
MajoneG, 1998, “Public policy and administration: Ideas, interests, and institutions”, in A New Handbook or Political Science Eds GoodinRKlingemannH-D, (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 610–627
23.
MajoorSSchuilingD, 2008, “New key projects for station redevelopment in the Netherlands”, in Railway Development Impacts on Urban Dynamics Eds BruinsmaFPelsEPriemusHRietveldPvan WeeB, (Physica, Heidelberg) pp 101–124
MinIenM, 2011Summary National Policy Strategy for Infrastructure and Spatial PlanningMinistry of Infrastructure and Environment, The Hague
26.
Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations [Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken en Koninkrijksrelaties],2013Cijfers over Wonen en Bouwen 2013 report, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations, The Hague
27.
NadinVSteadD, 2008, “European spatial planning systems, social models and learning”disP, the Planning Review4435–47
28.
OstromE, 2005Understanding Institutional Diversity (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
29.
PriemusH, 2006, “HST-railway stations as dynamic nodes in urban networks”, paper presented at the 3rd China Planning Network Conference, Beijing, 14–16 June; copy available from the author, Faculty of Technology, Policy and Management, Delft University
30.
RaspeOvan OortF, 2006, “The knowledge economy and urban economic growth”European Planning Studies141209–1234
31.
ReitanM, 1998, “Ecological modernisation and ‘realpolitik’: Ideas, interests and institutions”Environmental Politics7(2) 1–26
32.
Roodbol-MekkesP Hvan der ValkA JAltesW K Korthals, 2012., “The Netherlands spatial planning doctrine in disarray in the 21st century”Environment and Planning A44377–395
33.
ScottW R, 2001Institutions and Organizations (Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA)
34.
SnellenD, 2013, “De Kracht van Multimodale Knooppunten”ROmagazine318–21
35.
SpaansMTripJ Jvan der WoudenR, 2013, “Evaluating the impact of national government involvement in local redevelopment projects in the Netherlands”Cities3129–36
36.
Statistics Netherlands [Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek], 2014, “Bestaande Koopwoningen; Regio; Verkoopprijzen Prijsindex 2010 = 100”, http://statline.cbs.nl
37.
StoneJ, 2014, “Continuity and change in urban transport policy: Politics, institutions and actors in Melbourne and Vancouver since 1970”Planning Practice and Research29388–404
38.
TanW, 2009, “Policy context of key transit-oriented projects for station locations within the Netherlands”, paper presented at symposium Railways, Real Estate and the Re-Making of Cities in the 21st Century: Rail Station Area Redevelopment Mega-Projects in Europe and Beyond, 10 October, Berlin; copy available from the author, Faculty of Spatial Sciences, University of Groningen
39.
TCRP, 2002. “Transit-oriented development and joint development in the United States: A literature review”, Transit Cooperative Research Program Research Results Digest 52Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC
40.
van der ValkAFaludiA, 1992, “Growth regions and the future of Dutch planning doctrine”, in Sustainable Development and Urban Form Ed. BrehenyM J, (Pion, London) pp 122–137
41.
VarshneyA, 1989, “Ideas, interest and institutions in policy change: Transformation of India's agricultural strategy in the mid-1960s”Policy Sciences22289–323
42.
WilliamsM, 2005“The Third World and global environmental negotiations: Interests, institutions and ideas”Global Environmental Politics5(3) 48–69
