The energy and mobility sectors are increasingly interlinked, offering new opportunities for synergies in infrastructure use. However, the governance processes that underlie such cross-sectoral innovation are often overlooked. This case study examines the intricate decision-making process behind the development of an E-PT-hub. This initiative, undertaken by a Dutch public transport operator, aims to repurpose its metro power grid to support public electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure.
From Grassroots to Milestones
The initiative started within the asset department of a regional public transport provider (RET) and aimed to explore broader societal use for its energy infrastructure. Initial proposals failed due to unclear ownership roles and institutional boundaries, highlighting the siloed nature of infrastructure governance. However, persistent bottom-up efforts and increasing inter-organizational commitment eventually led to a shared vision among RET, the Municipality, and the regional transport authority (MRDH).
This collaborative journey went through several rounds of trial and error over nearly a decade. The partners shifted focus multiple times — from EVs to garbage trucks — and cancelled projects when developments stalled. Despite the setbacks, the actors maintained a commitment to the societal rationale for integrated infrastructure use. Two key milestones were eventually reached: legal approval and the establishment of new coordination mechanisms.
Governance Challenges and Key Insights
The E-PT-hub case surfaces several critical governance challenges for sustainable infrastructure:
- Integrative Asset Thinking
The traditional view of infrastructure as sector-specific must evolve. RET’s role as both mobility and energy asset owner enabled innovative thinking, but such dual roles remain rare. Harnessing synergies requires rethinking how infrastructure is defined, valued, and managed across sectors. - Transcending Organizational Boundaries
Realizing synergies meant that actors had to step beyond institutional silos. Mapping assets, such as substations, parking spaces, and charging stations, on a shared spatial layer facilitated a more holistic view. Still, a lack of a formal forum to coordinate roles and responsibilities hindered progress. - The Role of Informal Organization and Individual Agency
Much of the collaboration relied on personal commitment rather than formal structures. The case underscores the importance of informal governance mechanisms, which remain underexplored in existing collaborative governance (CG) literature. - Time, Iteration, and Emergent Outcomes
Early rounds yielded few results, but were essential for building trust and alignment. The most significant outcomes emerged unexpectedly, supporting the idea that collaborative processes cannot be thoroughly planned or predicted. Emergent, iterative development — rather than linear progression — appears more realistic. - Management Capacity and Leadership
A lead organization proved critical in maintaining a minimal level of coordination, aligning with research that emphasizes management capacity as a core enabler of effective network formation.
Methodological Reflections and Future Directions
The study emphasizes the need for a longitudinal view to understand collaborative processes. Many networks develop slowly, shaped by shifting contexts (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic or net congestion concerns). The E-PT-hub benefited from political tailwinds and increased urgency over time. Evaluating success in such cases should go beyond traditional metrics to consider network “health,” resilience, and the ability to generate practical learning.
Theoretical fragmentation within the collaborative governance field complicates the definition of boundaries and units of analysis. This study relied on process tracing to identify patterns across six decision-making rounds. Future research should further explore the interplay between formal and informal governance, particularly in self-initiated collaborations.
Conclusion
The E-PT-hub case offers valuable lessons on integrating energy and mobility infrastructure through collaborative governance. It illustrates how persistent bottom-up commitment, combined with evolving political and contextual support, can eventually lead to institutional breakthroughs as cities and operators seek to align infrastructure use with sustainability goals. However, slow and messy, integrative, cross-sectoral approaches are increasingly vital. Success hinges not only on technical feasibility but on navigating complexity, embracing emergence, and enabling structures that support joint decision-making across traditionally siloed domains.
Also read: What can we learn from charging infrastructure collaboration at the Amsterdam Central Station?