Do arguments bridge bridges? The goal of the research described in this paper is to come to recommendations for the next step in the decision making process concerning the bridges over the Waal in the KAN territory, by doing a systematic analysis of the differences and resemblances between the positions and arguments of the actors involved. This paper is about the widening of the A50 between junction between Ewijk and Grijsoord, the extension of the A73 to the A15 and the construction of a new city bridge in Nijmegen. The policy network consists of 17 actors. The analysis made use of the goal tree method from Kuypers and argumentation method of Martens. The goal tree method shows that the actors agree on the nature of the problem and that both options can solve the problem. The opinions differ about what option is the best. On the macro level the features and effects of both solutions are equal for the greater part. On the micro level however there are differences that can be distinguished. The argumentation method is used based on the differences and resemblances of the actors, analysing which effects and characteristics are important (or of importance) according to the actors. This lead to five problematic cases of effect types. These problematic cases have been compared to the argumentation of the respondents. This showed that not every actor sees the presence of all problematic cases and also that they value them differently. To be able to make the next step in the decision making process it is recommended to all the directly involved regional actors to come to a coalition. This research gives five recommendations to accelerate this process. (Author/publisher)
Abstract