In this chapter, the theoretical standpoint of the article is approached from two different perspectives. Firstly, the concept of transit-oriented development is introduced based on the multiple aims it seeks to achieve. Secondly, the theoretical discussion on related decision-making, focusing on the interaction between politicians and civil servants, is explored. Of course, limiting the study of interaction to only politicians and civil servants exclude important actors - such as the media and citizen interest groups. However, within the scope of this article, we must assume that both groups also bring other perspectives into the discussion beyond their own. Additionally, the interviews highlight key points from the broader public debate. All in all, the question of interaction brings more depth to the key question of the article: how transit-oriented development is made to happen in different cities, especially in Western welfare states.

Transit-oriented development, as a concept, includes numerous goals that are always connected to the themes of urban development, especially when implementing a city that is sustainable in various ways (Renne 2009, Ibraeva et al. 2020, 110-130). The first set of goals consists of economic perspectives. These emphasize the savings in public investments enabled by public transit projects as land use intensifies, the increase in land and property values resulting in increased revenues for public entities (Mohammad et al., 2013), and the economic activity brought by increased vitality (Ghebreegziabiher et al., 2010; Salat & Ollivier, 2017; Zandiatashbar, 2019). Direct impacts of urban development can include positive developments in business activities when public transit investments have made the urban environment more attractive (Credit, 2018).

The second set of goals concerns social sustainability objectives, such as the impacts on residential area safety, accessibility, and social development, which are often seen to improve with public transit projects (Salat & Ollivier, 2009; Stenhäll & Rossi, 2024). However, some studies, particularly in global contexts, have noted that public transit projects can contribute to gentrification by prompting the displacement of lower-income residents (Liang et al., 2022; Wallin et al., 2018; Zuk et al., 2018). Interestingly, this phenomenon has not been conclusively observed in Finland (Vaattovaara et al., 2010; Rosengren et al., 2024). Compared to many other parts of the world, segregation in Finland is relatively low, and residential areas, as well as nearby services, are not strongly classified in minds of the people based on the area's reputation (Tunström et al., 2016; Rosengren et al., 2024). Additionally, social sustainability is influenced by broader urban development trends, including the creation of safer pedestrian environments, which are often associated with improvements in public transit (Wey & Chiu, 2013; Sung & Sugie, 2015).

The third set of goals relates to ecological sustainability, which has played an increasingly significant role in public decision-making in recent decades. Examples include the impact on traffic-related greenhouse gas emissions and particulate matter emissions (Ali et al., 2021; Kimball et al., 2013), both of which have been shown to decrease in connection with light rail investments, as car traffic is increasingly replaced by public transit. At the same time, broader effects on the transportation system have also been observed. As urban structures become denser due to transit-oriented development, people are more often directed toward walking, which further reduces the environmental harm caused by transportation (Renne, 2009).

The second theoretical standpoint in this article, the interaction between public officials and political decision-makers, has been widely researched (Svara, 2006; Nasi et al., 2022). In the context of transit-oriented development, it is particularly relevant to examine under what conditions of interaction urban development projects, such as light rail systems, are perceived as worthwhile (Strong et al., 2017), and how they can be successfully implemented. The importance of different stakeholders and their perspectives is also emphasized in research concerning how to measure the benefits of public transit-based urban development (Renne, 2009). For example, to implement large-scale projects, it is necessary to maintain sufficient institutional power to ensure that the development serves the objectives set by public entities, such as cities (Suzuki, Cervero, & Iuchi, 2013, p. 188).

But who defines when urban development generates enough value, and who holds the institutional power? A classic study in this field is Bent Flyvbjerg’s Rationality and Power (1998). In Flyvbjerg’s analysis, an urban revival project began with strong political support to improve the bus facilities and expand pedestrian-friendly zones in Aalborg’s city center. However, the most compelling aspects of his study relate to the interaction between public officials and political decision-makers (Flyvbjerg, 1998, pp. 20, 73), and how the ownership of the urban revival project shifted between these two groups. Another central theme (Flyvbjerg, 1998, p. 131) is the conflict between rational, argument-based decision-making and power-driven decision-making - where rationality may be sidelined in favor of political strategy.

In addition, more recent studies on decision-making logic help to explain how decisions are made - apart from considerations related to rationality and power. For instance, the “logic of appropriateness” (March & Olsen, 2009) has provided valuable insight into how certain projects are viewed as normalized and even deterministic courses of action across multiple actor levels – for example, light rail project could be seen as an “appropriate” urban development response for a growing city. Other viewpoint for this is “logic of consequences” where decision-makers want to align “predicted consequences with their general preferences – their values, goals, interests or tastes – then choose the action for which the consequences align most closely with their preferences” (Brunsson & Brunsson, 2017).

As this article focuses on two Nordic projects, it is also relevant to consider research on traditions and qualities of “Nordic decision-making”, such as those studied under the framework of “associative governance” (Lund et al., 2024). According to Lund et al. (2024), “associative governance is a mode of societal governance that involves negotiation, compromise, and institutionalized conflict between mutually recognized actors - these actors being the state on the one hand and society’s associations-turned-corporations on the other”. In the Finnish context, this can be seen, for example, in regional urban development, where state-level officials, regional public authorities, local politicians, and the public negotiate and compromise on shared land-use objectives (Kanniainen, 2017, p. 217). Each of these actors, including national-level decision-makers who are primarily for funding, have their own agenda when influencing city-level projects such as light rail development (Maggetti & Trein, 2018). In Finland, this strategic agenda is even written out in the agreements between state and local actors (Ministry of the Environment, 2023). In the research literature, this kind of alliance-building and strategic framing of democratic processes (Salet, 2008) is seen as a key factor in successful urban governance, especially when balancing democratic control and professional public administration (Mouritzen & Svara, 2002).

In the context of relatively close-knit Finnish cities, another important consideration is the fluidity of the relationship and roles between political decision-makers and public office holders. One recent study (Kyösti, 2024, p. 70) examined this relationship, noting that some key political decision-makers are becoming more “professional”- for instance, by serving as mayors or deputy mayors, as has occurred in both Tampere and Turku in recent years. In these roles, politicians often represent broader, city-wide coalitions in addition to their own political parties which affects on how they frame their goals (Kyösti, 2024). Simultaneously, the role of public officials is also evolving. A relevant concept, particularly in the cases of Tampere and Turku, is the idea of “political bureaucracy,” which has been explored in the context of urban development (see Laine, 2003, p. 345; Hoikka & Borg, 1990, pp. 91–97). This concept refers to the tradition of senior politicians transitioning into key civil servant positions, bringing their political background and objectives into what is nominally a neutral administrative role – which may affect on their goals as well (Laine, 2003).

In conclusion, these shifting roles are also reflected in the expectations placed on public officials. Haveri et al. (2018) observe that as political fragmentation increases, public officials are required to devote more time and energy to “strategizing, keeping the long-term vision visible, and securing the implementation of strategic projects” - a role somewhat contrasted with that of elected, time-limited political decision-makers. Thus, as Flyvbjerg (1998, p. 73) points out, it is often difficult to determine whether the primary drivers of urban development projects are politicians, public officials, or both - and this ambiguity has a significant impact on the outcomes of such projects. As a conclusion, this kind of “Nordic decision-making” that focuses on interactions of political decision-makers and public officials on multiple levels provides interesting theoretical framework for this article.

In the comparison between two cities, the first pointer is overall geography. The current urban topography of Tampere provides a more straightforward structure for setting up the tram compared to Turku – the whole of the narrow city center and major suburbs can be reached with the first lines already. In Turku, in comparison, the city center is more distributed – a light rail system with a single line can reach only parts of the city center, and at the same time there are more blind spots.

In terms of numbers, the city of Turku expects (City of Turku, 2024) that within 600 meters of the light rail route in 2050, there will be 30% of all inhabitants, 46% of workplaces, and 42% of residential building operations. In Tampere, around 60% of the inhabitants and around 50% of the workplaces are located within 800 meters of the initial light rail route – and residential building operations were mostly planned to happen along the route as well (City of Tampere, 2016). At the same time, of course, future urban development will add to the use of the light rail. In both cities, there are major plans for urban development, especially alongside the light rail route (City of Tampere 2020, 2023; City of Turku, 2024), and with this development, light rail would have more economic benefits and ridership – however, based on different models (City of Tampere, 2023; City of Turku, 2024), these are difficult to compare, but it seems that the obvious economic benefits are greater for Tampere – and those were widely accepted by the political decision-makers. In the material presented for decision-makers of Tampere, the economical benefits were estimated to bring around two euros for every euro invested (City of Tampere, 2016) and in later material this urban development progress seemed to happen as planned (City of Tampere, 2020) – which of course provides solid background for future investment decisions as well.

Regarding the use of public transit, the numbers of transit ridership have diverged in Turku and Tampere. In 2019, the ridership in the Turku region was 26.3 million journeys per year, whereas in the Tampere region the figure was 41.8 million journeys (Föli, 2024; Nysse, 2024). After the COVID-19 pandemic, in 2023, the figures were 25.4 million journeys per year in Turku (Föli, 2024) and 50.4 million journeys per year in Tampere (Nysse, 2024). The development of ridership in the Turku region has been stagnant, whereas in Tampere, with the start of light rail traffic, the rise from the slump caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has been fast. It also should be noted that light rail system ridership in Tampere has consistently exceeded expectations (Nysse, 2024) – from the 55,000 daily riders expected initially to up to 80,000 daily riders.

In addition, one of the things interesting to compare from the social development side is segregation, which was already discussed before. As both cities, Turku and Tampere, are relatively large in the Finnish context, both cities also have differentiated residential areas. Based on the academic discussion (Rosengren et al., 2024), the subject is on the rise in all larger Finnish cities and is currently under review in both cities. As a phenomenon, segregation seems to be somewhat more prevalent in Turku (Saikkonen et al., 2018), based especially on the larger immigrant-based population and on residential structure: in Turku, there are more extensive exclusively rental-based residential areas – therefore it is seen as a more articulated topic in the materials in Turku (City of Turku, 2023).

Both cities have also similar strategic aims on economic, societal, and sustainability measures: as Finnish cities are often governed by coalitions with members from all sides of the political spectrum, the strategies that emphasize sustainable growth, measures against segregation, and economic vitality tend to dominate (City of Turku, 2019; City of Tampere, 2020). One example of this is the goals for climate neutrality, which have been set in Turku for the year 2029 and in Tampere for the year 2030. In terms of political governance of the city, both cities operate on a similar model, with 67-member city councils and with an executive city board chosen from the city councillors. Also, both cities have politically elected mayors and deputy mayors, although this change in the political model has happened at different times: in Tampere in 2007 and in Turku in 2021. The impact of these similarities and differences will be analyzed later in the article.

From the interviews, the differences between the Tampere and Turku light rail projects seem to stem from different approaches to transit-oriented development. Although in both cities the interconnection between the light rail projects and urban development can be seen in various master plans as early as the early 2000s (Tampere Region, 2010; WSP Finland, 2009), the interviews indicate that this connection is even more emphasized in the Tampere light rail project. In the interviews with stakeholders from Turku, the beginning of the project was more traffic-oriented - in other words, it was initially seen more as a solution to urban public transport than to drive urban development.

However, it is important to note that in recent years, the urban development perspective has become more emphasized in the Turku project as well. In the interviews, areas in the Turku city center with significant economic potential emerge as key drivers for an effective public transit system. In this respect, at least partly, the experiences and realized economic developments in Tampere have influenced stakeholders in Turku:

At the same time, it can be seen in both cities that the emphasis on urban development and economic benefits—such as rising land values and increasing numbers of residents—plays an increasingly important role in the discussion. These economic impacts are discussed later when analyzing the findings from the key stakeholders.

As discussed before, the effects on public transit and solving urban traffic challenges are, of course, crucial in light rail projects. In this part of the discussion, two key questions arise: firstly, is light rail the best or most cost-effective way of organizing public transit, and secondly, what are the effects on other parts of the traffic system, including cars, cycling, and pedestrians?

The debate about the best way to organize public transit appears in the interview material, especially in Turku, where competing solutions, such as “superbuses,” were thoroughly discussed in the late 2010s. In addition, discussions about the initial route and possible connections to neighbouring towns took considerable time, as different options were repeatedly explored. The first route was not as obvious as it was in Tampere:

At the same time, it's interesting that, at certain points, earlier discussions around urban development and the economic benefits of land use might outweigh the most obvious public transit choices. For example, the selected light rail route might be suboptimal for organizing transit but chosen due to other factors, such as its urban development potential. Examples of this can be seen in both Tampere and Turku:

Of course, it's also relevant to consider that, when addressing traffic challenges, urban development can impact the long-term cost-effectiveness of the light rail route. A route that may seem suboptimal today might become optimal based on the urban development carried out in the coming years.

From the interview material, one theme emerges in addition to urban development and addressing traffic challenges: transit-oriented development, and in the cases of this article, especially the light rail projects, can be seen as tools for addressing segregation.

It should be noted that the rise of segregation in public discussion (Rosengren et al., 2024) might influence this as well. When the topic is already being discussed and causing concern in the public sphere, it may be beneficial to connect it to the development project at hand (March & Olsen, 2009) - such as the light rail project in Turku. It is also worth noting that segregation is addressed more in the material related to the Turku light rail, and it comes up more frequently in the interviews with stakeholders involved in the Turku project.

There may be several reasons for this. One is that the topic of segregation has become more emphasized in public discourse in the 2020s than it was in the 2010s, when Tampere was making its initial decisions regarding the light rail system. In addition, the urban development context in Turku differs: the suburb of Varissuo, with its diverse and more immigrant-based population, is mentioned in the interviews as an area that should be more strongly connected to Turku's city center through the light rail.

In Tampere, a somewhat similar development occurred when the suburb of Hervanta was connected to the city center by the light rail, but in the interviews, this aspect is not highlighted as much. However, the light rail system and transit-oriented development are still seen as important tools for preventing segregation. The approach in the Tampere-related interviews is more general: the light rail is viewed as a means of bringing new developments to older urban areas and attracting more diverse population groups, which may also bring positive effects in terms of advocacy and activation within those areas.

As seen from the research literature discussed earlier (Ali et al., 2021; Kimball et al., 2013), transit-oriented development provides a framework through which different aspects of sustainable urban development are addressed. In addition to urban development, traffic challenges, and social issues such as segregation, the interview material presents a wide range of other aims that can also be addressed.

One of the key goals linked to light rail is climate goals, and it is typically associated with greening cities in other ways as well. From the interview material, it is interesting to note that in both Tampere and Turku, this overall greening is connected to creating more attractive and enjoyable neighbourhoods overall.

At the same time, the attractiveness of the city can be seen as a separate aim from sustainable growth. From the interviews, we find that stakeholders view the light rail project itself as something that adds value to the city, especially when it is connected to broader urbanism:

Lastly, in addition to the physical and social changes in the urban areas of Tampere and Turku, the interviews reveal effects related to decision-making in general, especially concerning transit-oriented development. It is interesting to analyze what kind of unification of ideas, social cohesion, and “shared vision” is required from political decision-makers and civil servants to make the plans happen.

In Tampere, this kind of pivotal moment for identifying the light rail project as a transit solution is not as easy to pinpoint. As discussed earlier, different light rail systems were already being considered in the early 2000s, but more as part of overall urban planning (Tampere Region, 2010).

The political decision-making model itself, as noted in the interviews, might also have an effect. For example, in Tampere, the mayoral model, with a politically elected mayor and deputy mayors, has been in place since 2007, whereas in Turku, it only came into effect in 2021. In the interviews, the strong role of the politically elected mayor and deputy mayors is seen as significant in the new phase of the Turku light rail project:

At the same time, the shift in priorities, from a transit-focused project toward broader urban planning, as well as experiences from Tampere and other cities, has also influenced the senior officials of the city:

The main limitations of this article stem from the limited settings in which the interviews were conducted: the cities of Tampere and Turku have their own unique environments and cultures, which also influence their light rail and urban development projects. Another key limitation is the number of interviews and the roles of the interviewees: the focus of the article was strictly on the roles and interactions of public officials and decision-makers, which also shaped the interview approach.

These limitations open several questions for further research. One evident question is the nature of decision-making in cities beyond close-knit Finnish communities such as Tampere and Turku. For example, differences in funding models between projects (Xuto et al., 2023), and the interaction between city and state levels, may reveal different approaches among city decision-makers and public officials. The reality may be quite different in urban environments where funding comes primarily from the state level.

Another interesting avenue for further study is the expectations at the state level regarding urban development in general. Recently in Finland, state-level funding for light rail projects has tightened, which naturally results in fewer transit-oriented development projects and less urban development overall. It would be valuable to explore the drivers and expectations in state-level policy that affect the funding of these kinds of projects - especially given that this kind of “leveraged” sustainable urban development has been a central focus in Finnish urban policy throughout the 2010s and early 2020s.

Lastly, the interaction between public officials, decision-makers, and other stakeholders, such as private investors and the public, is an area that could benefit from deeper investigation. In light rail projects, for example, public expectations vary significantly across different groups, while the expectations of business representatives may differ as well. These complexities merit further study so that the focus related to light rail projects can be broadened beyond the core actors in city halls - namely, public officials and decision-makers.