Generic functions of railway stations-A conceptual basis for the development of common system understanding and assessment criteria

Transport Policy

Volumn 18, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 446-455

  Zemp, Stefan ^a   Stauffacher, Michael ^a   Lang, Daniel J ^a,b   Scholz, Roland W ^a  

^a ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^b LEUPHANA UNIVERSITY OF LÜNEBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Assessment; Common system understanding; Functions; Railway station; Stakeholders; Systemic perspective

Indexed keywords

ASSESSMENT METHOD; CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK; PLANNING METHOD; RAILWAY TRANSPORT; STAKEHOLDER; TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

SWEDEN;

EID: 79251635672     PISSN: 0967070X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.09.007     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Aeschimann, W., Wenger, H., 1984. Uerikon-Bauma-Bahn: Rückblick und Ausblick. Self-published: Zürich.
2. ARE, 2004. Monitoring Urbaner Raum Schweiz, Themenkreis B3: Metropolitanräume. Bern.
3. ARE, 2006. Perspektiven des Schweizerischen Personenverkehrs bis 2030. Bern.
4. Banister D. The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy 2008, 15(2):73-80.
5. Bertolini L. Nodes and places: complexities of railway station redevelopment. European Planning Studies 1996, 4(3):331-345.
6. Bertolini L. Spatial development patterns and public transport: the application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research 1999, 14(2):199-210.
7. Bertolini L., Spit T. Cities on Rails: The Redevelopment of Station Areas 1998, Spon, London; New York.
8. Bloor M., Frankland J., Thomas M., Robson K. Focus Groups in Social Research 2001, Sage, London; Thousand Oaks; New Delhi.
9. Cascetta E., Pagliara F. Integrated railways-based policies: The Regional Metro System (RMS) project of Naples and Campania. Transport Policy 2008, 15(2):81-93.
10. Checkland P. Systems Thinking, Systems Practice 2001, Wiley, Chichester.
11. Connolly K., Payne M. Bay Area Rapid Transit's comprehensive station plans: integrating capacity, access, and land use planning at rail transit stations. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board 2004, 1872(1):1-9.
12. Curtis C. Planning for sustainable accessibility: the implementation challenge. Transport Policy 2008, 15(2):104-112.
13. Transit Oriented Development: Making it Happen 2009, Ashgate, Farnham. C. Curtis, J. Renne, L. Bertolini (Eds.).
14. TREN EC DG EU Energy and Transport in Figures: Statistical Pocketbook 2007/2008 2008, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
15. Fisher B., Turner R.K., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological Economics 2009, 68(3):643-653.
16. Freeman R.E. Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach 1984, Pitman, Boston.
17. Gausemeier J., Fink A., Schlake O. Szenario-Management: Planen und Führen mit Szenarien 1996, Carl Hanser Verlag, München; Wien.
18. Gordon P., Richardson H.W. Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?. Journal of the American Planning Association 1997, 63(1):95-106.
19. Grimble R., Wellard K. Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agricultural Systems 1997, 55(2):173-193.
20. Hartz, N., Liechti, H., 1992. Stadtgerechte Bahn - Bahngerechte Stadt. OeV-orientierte Strukturierung von Stadtregionen unter Nutzung der Entwicklungspotentiale an Stationen - Fallbeispiel Bern. NRP 25 City and Traffic Technical Report 26, Zurich.
21. Hatzopoulou M., Miller E.J. Institutional integration for sustainable transportation policy in Canada. Transport Policy 2008, 15(3):149-162.
22. Haywood R. Co-ordinating urban development, stations and railway services as a component of urban sustainability: an achievable planning goal in Britain?. Planning Theory and Practice 2005, 6(1):71-97.
23. Hesse-Biber S., Leavy P. The Practice of Qualitative Research 2005, Sage, London.
24. Hine J., Scott J. Seamless, accessible travel: users' views of the public transport journey and interchange. Transport Policy 2000, 7(3):217-226.
25. Holden E. Ecological footprints and sustainable urban form. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment 2004, 19(1):91-109.
26. Jenks C.W. Transit-Oriented Development: Developing a Strategy to Measure Success. Research Results Digest 294 2005, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
27. Juchelka R. Bahnhof und Bahnhofsumfeld - ein Standortkomplex im Wandel. Standort - Zeitschrift für angewandte Geographie 2002, 26(1):12-16.
28. Kölbl R., Niegl M., Knoflacher H. A strategic planning methodology. Transport Policy 2008, 15(5):273-282.
29. Krueger R.A. Developing Questions for Focus Groups 1998, Sage, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
30. Lang D.J., Binder C.R., Scholz R.W., Wiek A., Stäubli B., Sieber C. Sustainability Potential Analysis (SPA) of landfills-a systemic approach: initial application towards a legal landfill assessment. Journal of Cleaner Production 2007, 15(17):1654-1661.
31. Lang D.J., Scholz R.W., Binder C.R., Wiek A., Stäubli B. Sustainability Potential Analysis (SPA) of landfills-a systemic approach: theoretical considerations. Journal of Cleaner Production 2007, 15(17):1628-1638.
32. Laws D., Scholz R.W., Shiroyama H., Susskind L., Suzuki T., Weber O. Expert views on sustainability and technology implementation. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology 2004, 11:247-261.
33. Lélé S., Norgaard R.B. Sustainability and the scientist's burden. Conservation Biology 1996, 10(2):354-365.
34. Loorbach D., Rotmans J. Managing transitions for sustainable development. Understanding Industrial Transformation: Views from Different Disciplines 2006, 187-206. Springer, Dordrecht. X. Olsthoorn, A.J. Wieczorek (Eds.).
35. Meijers E. Polycentric urban regions and the quest for synergy: is a network of cities more than the sum of the parts?. Urban Studies 2005, 42(4):765-781.
36. Mieg H.A., Näf M. Experteninterviews in den Umwelt- und Planungswissenschaften: Eine Einführung und Anleitung 2006, Pabst Science Publishers, Lengerich, Germany.
37. Pahl G., Beitz W., Feldhusen J., Grote K.H. Engineering Design: A Systematic Approach 2007, Springer, London.
38. Peek G.-J., Bertolini L., De Jonge H. Gaining insight in the development potential of station areas: a decade of node-place modelling in The Netherlands. Planning Practice and Research 2006, 21(4):443-462.
39. Pels E., Rietveld P. Railway stations and urban dynamics. Environment and Planning A 2007, 39(9):2043-2047.
40. Pretsch H., Spieshöfer A., Puccio B., Soulas C., Leclerque R., Bentayou G. Schienengestützte Siedlungsentwicklung und Verkehrsverknüpfung in deutschen und französischen Regionen: Ergebnisse und Hinweise für die Planungspraxis aus dem Projekt BAHN. VILLE 2007, ISB RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
41. Reusser D.E., Loukopoulos P., Stauffacher M., Scholz R.W. Classifying railway stations for sustainable transitions-balancing node and place functions. Journal of Transport Geography 2008, 16(3):191-202.
42. Ritsema van Eck J., Burghouwt G., Dijst M. Lifestyles, spatial configurations and quality of life in daily travel: an explorative simulation study. Journal of Transport Geography 2005, 13(2):123-134.
43. SBB, 2010. Swiss Federal Railways: Annual Report 2009. Bern.
44. Scholz R.W., Lang D.J., Wiek A., Walter A.I., Stauffacher M. Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability learning: historical framework and theory. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education 2006, 7(3):226-251.
45. Scholz R.W., Spoerri A., Lang D.J. Problem structuring for transitions: the case of Swiss waste management. Futures 2009, 41(3):171-181.
46. Scholz R.W., Tietje O. Embedded Case Study Methods: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Knowledge 2002, Sage, Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi.
47. Shaw D., Westcombe M., Hodgkin J., Montibeller G. Problem structuring methods for large group interventions. Journal of the Operational Research Society 2004, 55(5):453-463.
48. Stauffacher M., Flüeler T., Krütli P., Scholz R.W. Analytic and dynamic approach to collaboration: a transdisciplinary case study on sustainable landscape development in a Swiss prealpine region. Systemic Practice and Action Research 2008, 21(6):409-422.
49. Te Brömmelstroet M., Bertolini L. Developing land use and transport PSS: meaningful information through a dialogue between modelers and planners. Transport Policy 2008, 15(4):251-259.
50. Wiek A., Lang D.J., Siegrist M. Qualitative system analysis as a means for sustainable governance of emerging technologies: the case of nanotechnology. Journal of Cleaner Production 2008, 16(8-9):988-999.
51. Wiek A., Walter A.I. A transdisciplinary approach for formalized integrated planning and decision-making in complex systems. European Journal of Operational Research 2009, 197(1):360-370.
52. Wucherpfennig C. Bahnhof - (stadt)gesellschaftlicher Mikrokosmos im Wandel. Eine "neue kulturgeographische" Analyse 2006, BIS-Verlag Carl von Ossietzky Universität, Oldenburg, Germany.
53. Wulfhorst G. Flächennutzung und Verkehrsverknüpfung an Personenbahnhöfen - Wirkungsabschätzung mit systemdynamischen Modellen. Institut für Stadtbauwesen und Stadtverkehr ISB 2003, RWTH Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
54. Zemp, S., Stauffacher, M., Lang, D.J., Scholz, R.W., in press. Classifying railway stations for strategic transport and land use planning: context matters! Journal of Transport Geography, http://doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.08.008.
55. ZVV, 2009. Geschäftsbericht 2008. Zürich.