Assessing the accessibility of urban nodes: the case of TEN-T railway stations in Europe

Abstract

This paper introduces a methodology for assessing urban accessibility to and from railway stations along TEN-T Core Network Corridors, which was developed within the framework of an EU CEF funded project “RAISE-IT” with the aim to offer a simplified but effective way for evaluating the accessibility. The methodology was created in a practical way following the needs of the project partners (i.e. regional and local authorities) that face concrete problems in urban and transport planning. Firstly, it assesses walkability of the urban area within a radius of 800 m from rail stations by evaluating urban design parameters. Secondly, the methodology is characterised by a limited number of disaggregated indicators that gather information on proximity, travel time, costs, etc. for accessing railway stations with different transport modes, i.e. public transport, cycling, sharing mobility, and uses private car accessibility as a baseline for evaluating their performance. The novelty of the methodology lies on two aspects: 1) to recognise the importance of walkability and consider emerging modes of transport such as bike and car sharing; 2) to simplify data collection as the majority of the indicators can be evaluated using online data and tools allowing for their continuous updating and reducing costs. The methodology has been applied to six TEN-T railway nodes along the Rhine-Alpine Corridor and this paper presents results from the case of Düsseldorf. The paper concludes with the assessment of the methodology with considerations on the quantity and availability of required data, its effectiveness, advantages, limitations and transferability.

Full text

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rapm20
Applied Mobilities
ISSN: 2380-0127 (Print) 2380-0135 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rapm20
Assessing the accessibility of urban nodes: the
case of TEN-T railway stations in Europe
Noriko Otsuka, Tiziana Delmastro, Dirk Wittowsky, Stefano Pensa & Marlene
Damerau
To cite this article: Noriko Otsuka, Tiziana Delmastro, Dirk Wittowsky, Stefano Pensa & Marlene
Damerau (2019): Assessing the accessibility of urban nodes: the case of TEN-T railway stations in
Europe, Applied Mobilities, DOI: 10.1080/23800127.2019.1573778
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2019.1573778
Published online: 26 Feb 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data

ARTICLE
Assessing the accessibility of urban nodes: the case of
TEN-T railway stations in Europe
Noriko Otsuka
a
, Tiziana Delmastro
b
, Dirk Wittowsky
a
, Stefano Pensa
b
and Marlene Damerau
a
a
Logistics and Transport Research Area, ILS, Dortmund, Germany;
b
Daily Mobility and Transportation
Systems, SiTI, Turin, Italy
ABSTRACT
This paper introduces a methodology for assessing urban accessibil-
ity to and from railway stations along TEN-T Core Network Corridors,
which was developed within the framework of an EU CEF funded
project “RAISE-IT”with the aim to offer a simplified but effective way
for evaluating the accessibility. The methodology was created in
a practical way following the needs of the project partners (i.e.
regional and local authorities) that face concrete problems in urban
and transport planning. Firstly, it assesses walkability of the urban
area within a radius of 800 m from rail stations by evaluating urban
design parameters. Secondly, the methodology is characterised by
a limited number of disaggregated indicators that gather information
on proximity, travel time, costs, etc. for accessing railway stations
with different transport modes, i.e. public transport, cycling, sharing
mobility, and uses private caraccessibility as a baseline for evaluating
their performance. The novelty of the methodology lies on two
aspects: 1) to recognise the importance of walkability and consider
emerging modes of transport such as bike and car sharing; 2) to
simplify data collection as the majority of the indicators can be
evaluated using online data and tools allowing for their continuous
updating and reducing costs. The methodology has been applied to
six TEN-T railway nodes along the Rhine-Alpine Corridor and this
paper presents results from the case of Düsseldorf. The paper con-
cludes with the assessment of the methodology with considerations
on the quantity and availability of required data, its effectiveness,
advantages, limitations and transferability.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 12 June 2018
Accepted 21 January 2019
KEYWORDS
TEN-T; urban nodes; railway
stations; accessibility;
walkability
1. Introduction
Assessing accessibility within urban areas is a complex process as it is influenced by
a number of factors such as presence and quality of transport modes, transport network,
connectivity and design of the urban environment. Nonetheless, it is an important
element when planning for sustainable cities as it allows identifying critical areas for
targeted improvements in the connection between the railway station and urban area.
The performance of railway stations has been traditionally discussed with reference to
transport related issues such as passenger frequency, travel fares and the number of
CONTACT Noriko Otsuka noriko.otsuka@ils-research.de
APPLIED MOBILITIES
https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2019.1573778
© 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

train services. However, stations have been increasingly playing multifunctional roles,
not only in arriving, departing and transferring trains, but also in facilitating inter-
changes for wider travel networks between different transport modes and in dealing
with public realm beyond the public transport provision. Van Egmond and Van Hagen
(2016) maintained that interchanges exist in all public transport networks and they
represent places where public transport modes and private or alternative forms of
travelling (e.g. walking, cycling, car sharing, bike sharing and carpooling) all come
together. Furthermore, over the last two decades the role of railway has been redis-
covered in providing a better and more and more a seamless access to the city, which is
one of the key missions of urban renewal for the purpose of creating attractive places for
working, living and visiting in urban centres (Vickerman 2015; Peters and Novy 2012;
Garmendia, Ribalaygua, and Urena 2012; Banister and Hall 1993). Stations have been
acting as a catalyst for boosting economic activities and changing the image of place
through the regeneration of station and its surrounding area (Bertolini, Curtis, and
Renne 2012; Apostol 2013; Garmendia, Ribalaygua, and Urena 2012). In the last decades,
they have included new types of users: daily and weekly commuters, business people
and tourists as well as people going shopping or looking for new services and activities
located at the station premises. Following these changes also the analyses of the
different targets and requirements have changed and need to be more and more
focused on multi perspective research.
The performance of railway stations have been traditionally addressed by transport and rail
engineering research which focuses on examining the demand data, travel costs, transport
systems and often simple categories of travel (e.g. community, leisure and businesses) without
addressing the complex patterns of people’s social activities in relation to time, space and
place (Sheller and Urry 2006). Beyond transportation engineering domain “the new mobilities
paradigm”looks into the strong interchange with social science disciplines which has been
led by sociologists and geographers (Hannam, Sheller, and Urry 2006; Sheller and Urry 2006;
Kesselring 2006; Urry 2007; Cresswell 2010). The fact that sociology has neglected social
mobility over many decades was emphasised by Kesselring (2015); Cresswell (2010, 18)
maintained that the “mobilities”approach brings together a diverse array of forms of move-
ment across scales ranging from body to the globe, while emphasising the necessity of the
notion of immobility and moorings. Edensor (2016) discussed how the rhythms of mobility
constitute place with a particular reference to Lefebvre’s rhythms analysis which looks into the
interrelations of time and space in the comprehension of everyday life (2004). Recent work by
Middleton (2018) explored everyday pedestrian mobilities and social aspects of walking and
pointed out a growing academic interest in walking which has been addressed in a wide
range of social and cultural theory, urban planning and transport literatures. In the effort of
linking “mobilities”with architecture and urban design, Jensen (2018, 10) argues the emerging
perspective of “mobilities design”, that is targeting the material, physical and design-oriented
dimensions of the multiple mobilities from the local to the global. The recent “motilities”
approach has been placed in the inter-disciplinary context and aims to provide with a more
holistic understanding of movement by cross-cutting disciplinary boundaries. In response to
research agenda in “the new mobilities paradigm”,thisresearchaimstoanalysetheaccessi-
bility between rail stations and urban area at different spatial scales using spatial and urban
design parameters (subjective indicators and measurement) in addition to conventional
accessibility indicators. Although there have been a number of previous research on railway
2N. OTSUKA ET AL.

nodes and accessibility in the European context, they tend to look into the improvement of
access at the station concerning mode transfers, whereas the accessibility around the station,
namely the walkability from and to railway stations has hardly been integrated in discussing
intermodal connections. Although Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is one of the con-
cepts for strengthening the integration of mixed land use and transport node at local scale
and for promoting a better walking environment around a transit stop (Vale 2015;Dawkins
and Moeckel 2016), it tends to be centred around local and neighbourhood scale. Recent work
published by ITDP (2018), Pedestrians First, has provided a comprehensive tool of measuring
the walkability from three different spatial contexts (metropolitan, neighbourhood and street
levels) in relation to urban environments. Nonetheless, further research is required to examine
the accessibility from and to railway stations at different spatial scales in the context of a wider
urban area concerning not only the walkability, but also intermodal connection with emer-
ging travel modes.
This paper draws upon preliminary results of an EU project, RAISE-IT (Rhine-Alpine
Integrated and Seamless Travel Chain), which is funded by the Connecting Europe Facility
(CEF) programme. The project looks into railway node accessibility along the Rhine-Alpine
Corridor, that is one of the nine Core Network Corridors (CNCs) under the TEN-T Regulations
(EU 2013). Within the framework of RAISE-IT, a new methodology for assessing the urban
node accessibility has been developed with reference to six railway stations along the
Rhine-Alpine Corridor (Arnhem, Nijmegen, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt am Main, Karlsruhe and
Genova). The validity of the methodology has been discussed and refined in collaboration
with local non-academic project partners (i.e. regional and local authorities) who are
responsible for data collection of the six urban nodes. Research presented within this
paper is concerned with the accessibility to and from railway stations by examining walk-
ability of the urban area within a radius of 800 m around a station as well as analysing
a limited number of disaggregated indicators gathering information such as proximity,
travel time, and costs for accessing railway stations with different transport modes.
The paper firstly defines “urban nodes”with reference to TEN-T Regulation in order to
clarify the target area of our study. Then, the methodology is explained together with
a review of existing indicators on walkability and other travel-related variables concern-
ing different transport modes. The methodology has been applied to the six railway
nodes and this paper presents some results from the case of Düsseldorf since it was
used as a pilot study for assessing the validity of the methodology. The paper concludes
with discussing the validity of the methodology in terms of availability of data and
effectiveness of data collection, and also highlighting limitations and transferability to
other TEN-T nodes beyond the six case studies.
2. Definition of ‘urban nodes’and target area of the research
According to the European Commission (EU 2013, 7), the term “urban nodes”is
defined as:
. . .an urban area where the transport infrastructure of the trans-European transport network,
such as ports including passenger terminals, airports, railway stations, logistic platforms and
freight terminals located in and around an urban area, is connected with other parts of the
infrastructure and with the infrastructure for regional and local traffic.
APPLIED MOBILITIES 3

TEN-T Regulation interprets “urban nodes”as the starting point or final destination for
passenger and freight travelling on the trans-European network. They are also con-
sidered as points of transfer within or between different transport modes. In terms of
passenger transport “urban nodes”are areas for catering the interconnection
between rail, road, air and inland waterway and maritime infrastructure (EU 2013).
For this project the term “urban node”refers to an urban area where a railway station
is located, while “node”means the railway station itself. The accessibility of an “urban
node”has been examined at three levels of spatial contexts, that is: 1) accessibility at/
within a “node”(i.e. railway station); 2) access relationship between a “node”and its
surrounding area; and 3) accessibility to and from a “node”at local scale within
municipality’s statutory boundary.
Traditionally, the performance of node is exclusively related to transportation func-
tions of railway stations such as platforms, operational safety and passenger security,
and passenger circulation and capacity. Since stations are increasingly expected to play
roles in multimodal interchange, it is necessary to improve further functions such as
information provision (e.g. wayfinding, signage and real-time information of different
modes), design and security of public space, and station facilities (Hernandez and
Monzon 2016; Van der Hoeven et al. 2013; Debrezion, Pels, and Rietveld 2009). In
addition, integrated ticketing systems and pre-trip planning on common media have
become very important in enhancing the accessibility at and within a node (Christiansen
and Andersen 2013; Malicet et al. 2013; Kuhnimhof et al. 2007).
Secondly, to examine the access and spatial relationship between a node and its
surrounding area, it is essential to establish a working definition for physical proximity
meant by “surrounding area”that is the target of walkability analysis. Station area
development led by TOD is described as “a mixed use place, with a certain urban
density and high-quality walking environment located within half-mile (800 m), i.e.
10 minutes”walk of a transit stop (Vale 2015, 70)’. Previous research has examined the
linkages between TOD and travel behaviour as well as measuring TOD levels regarding
rail-based accessibility, walkability and area development around railway station (Papa
and Bertolini 2015; Vale 2015; Singh et al. 2014), all of which have acknowledged the
prominent role of TOD in creating pedestrian-friendly sustainable urban centres. The
walking distance of 800 m is also applied to the concept of Mobility Oriented
Development (MODe) developed by a Dutch consultant, ARCADIS, whose idea was
inspired by the “node-place”model of Bertolini (1996). ARCADIS (2015) argues that the
quality of a station environment can be assessed with reference to 10 indicators and
more than 70 variables based on four key domains (transit-hub: accessibility and
comfort, urban environment, social placemaking and economic development), and
data are collected within a radius of 800 m around the station. Echoing the rationalisa-
tion of TOD and MODe concepts, the present research considers an area within a radius
of 800 m of a station (i.e. 10 minutes’walk) as a basis of assessing physical proximity for
pedestrians in the walkability study (Figure 1).
Concerning the third scale, a working definition of “accessibility to and from a node”
has been established for this project. Givoni and Rietveld (2007) suggest that getting to
and from the station is an important part of a rail journey and it is essential to achieve
the integration of door-to-door travel network at a continuous level since this is the
critical condition of making the railway more attractive and being seen as an alternative
4N. OTSUKA ET AL.

solution to the private car journey. The UK Government’s Department for Transport
(2015, 1) has introduced the definition of “connectivity”as “how well different places are
connected to each other using the transport system”. The term “connectivity”can be
considered as a synonym of “accessibility”within the framework of RAISE-IT since the
accessibility to and from railway nodes refers to the ease of access to and from a railway
station with different modes of transport. In terms of geographical territory, the acces-
sibility has been evaluated at urban scale within the town or city’s statutory boundary
where the node is located, while hinterland beyond the municipality’s boundary is out of
scope of this paper (Figure 2).
Figure 1. Target area of walkability study in Düsseldorf.
Source: Otsuka and Damerau on City Data: OpenStreetMap © terrestris GmbH & Co. KG. (https://www.openstreetmap.org)
Figure 2. Target area of accessibility analysis on different modes.
Source: adopted by Otsuka from ATOC, 2010 cited by Galiza and Charles 2013:2
APPLIED MOBILITIES 5

3. Methodology for an assessment of walkability and accessibility from
and to railway nodes
Among the three spatial scales for assessing railway nodes (at a node; between a node
and its surrounding; and to and from a node within the municipality’s boundary), the
rest of the paper is dedicated to explain methodologies and results concerning
the second and third scales: the walkability of node’s surrounding area and the acces-
sibility from and to the node within the RAISE-IT framework. Methodologies for examin-
ing the first spatial level (at and within the node) are based on a combination of face-to-
face interview with the station manager and field observation using a checklist devel-
oped by the authors and local partners who are transport planning officers of local and
regional authorities of the six nodes. Nonetheless, research reported in this paper
focuses on the accessibility beyond the station premise since seamless travel chain is
the key theme of this paper and the performance of rail station itself is set aside from
the discussion.
3.1. Walkability study of surrounding area of the node
The accessibility of the public node plays a central role in mobility research but is
defined and operationalised in different ways. In general, the walkability describes the
objective capacity and subjective quality of the built environment characteristics to
support walking for different purposes and also to access the train or rather the public
transport system. The key indicators for the walkability study were therefore identified
with reference to the existing literature on walkability and more comprehensive than
accessibility. According to Geurs and Van Wee (2004), accessibility is based on
a structure of effects whose components consist of land use, the transport system, the
time resources and the individual resources of a particular person.
Actually there is a lively debate in sustainable mobility planning about creating
pedestrian-friendly areas and how such areas are more attractive for using healthy
transport modes (Frank et al. 2006). In general, the debate on accessibility refers
primarily to urban spaces and nodes (Rode and Floater 2014). Ordinary to determine
or indicate the pedestrian-friendliness of an area there are a range of existing models or
measures for combined indices such as the Walk score®, Walkability, the Neighbourhood
Destination Accessibility Index (NDAI) or the Land Use Public Transportation Accessibility
Index (LUPTAI). The walkability (Frank et al. 2005) outlines the relationship between
objectively measured physical activities and the physical environment (intersection
density, residential density, retail floor area ratio and use mix). On the other side, the
most popular tool is the Walk score®, which calculates the walkability on the basis of the
accessibility to a set of amenities. The Neighbourhood Environment Walkability Scale
(NEWS) is used for the subjective assessment of walkability like aesthetics, traffic and
crime safety or neighbourhood satisfaction perceived by respondents in the catchment
area (Saelens et al. 2003).
Neville et al. (2012) sum up, that the access to the station is affected by the availability
of suitable infrastructure like routes and also by the distance to the station. Following this,
the aforementioned TOD analyses the near catchment area and the regional scales to
support high-quality walking environments near transit stations. Garcia-Palomares and
6N. OTSUKA ET AL.

Guiéterrez (2013) analysed the role of walking accessibility of different population groups.
Using distance-decay functions, they developed two indicators for measuring access
quality and potential demands using the metro network in Madrid as an example. Also,
the classification of nodes and their quality is an important key factor in the strategic
urban and transport planning. Zemp et al. (2011) classified railway stations by centrality
like barrier impacts to the urban area; security provision and perception at off-peak hours
to influence the built environment for pedestrian travel.
The present research combines objective environmental characteristics and subjec-
tive aspects grouped into four key criteria: urban structure; design of the street; obsta-
cles and traffic safety; and personal impression. A walkability checklist has been
developed using 21 indicators (Table 1). Each indicator was assessed using a Likert
scale (1 to 5) on the checklist and annotations made on an OpenStreetMap (OSM) as
well as photographs have been taken for collecting visual evidence. Within the target
area of a radius 800 m around a station, two or three zones were generally defined in
collaboration with local partners of each node. Subsequently, two or three walking
routes were identified per zone according to the local partner’s suggestion which
were considered as major routes of pedestrians when they are walking to and from
the station. The research team (i.e. researcher and respective local partner) walked all the
routes between the end point of the 800 m’s circle line and train operator’s information
centre normally located in the middle of the station building. First of all, the walking was
carried out starting from the information centre towards the end point of the 800 m
circle. While the first walk was used for filling in the checklist and taking photographs,
the research team walked straight back from the end point towards the information
centre while time required for walking was measured.
3.2. Accessibility analysis from and to the node
The accessibility analysis from and to the node was carried out following the three steps:
1) desk analysis; 2) data collection; 3) post-processing and data interpretation.
The desk analysis was based on a review on existing accessibility indicators. The
important role of accessibility to and from TEN-T corridor nodes in enhancing transport
flows, intermodal and sustainable mobility, and the reduction of air and noise pollution
is widely recognised by the European Commission (2013) (EU 2013). In addition, different
studies suggest that the journey to and from the rail station can influence both
passenger numbers and passenger satisfaction with rail travel (Bros, Givoni, and
Rietveld 2009; Givoni and Rietveld 2007; Semler and Hale 2010; Monzon, Ortega, and
Lopez 2016; La Paix and Geurs 2016). Therefore, accessibility to and from railway stations
is a key element that needs to be considered when planning for a European green and
seamless door-to-door transport, and improvements in higher speed connections
between nodes should be accompanied by improvements in urban accessibility to
and from nodes (Rietveld 2000). According to Geurs and Van Wee (2004) there are
four important components for measuring accessibility:
●land use: considering opportunities (i.e. jobs, shops, etc.) at destinations and the
demand for these opportunities at origins;
APPLIED MOBILITIES 7

●transportation: describing the transport system, expressed as the disutility for an
individual to cover the distance between an origin and a destination using
a specific transport mode;
●temporal:reflecting temporal constraints, i.e. the availability of opportunities at
different times of the day;
●individual: including the needs, abilities, and opportunities of individuals.
Table 1. Selected indicators for the walkability study, Source: ILS, 2017.
No. Indicators Description of data
BACKGROUND 0.1 Condition of
observation
Date and time, and the weather when observation and walking was
carried out.
0.2 Name of streets on
the walking route
Listing all streets and squares researcher walked from the point of
800 m circle.
0.3 Distance to travel Measuring time from the end of Zone to the Node (Station
information centre)
0.4 Key characteristics of
the street
Qualitative date describing key characteristics of urban
environment in each route (e.g. river, bridge, park, construction
sites, homeless people and beggars, etc.)
URBAN
STRUCTURE
1.1 Land use The level of mixed uses and dominant land use of the route
1.2 Building type High or low rise buildings/harmonisation of the height of buildings
DESIGN OF
STREET
2.1 Pedestrian walkway ●Pedestrianised street or sidewalk; width of sidewalk is wide
enough (more than 2 m).
2.2 Width of the streets ●The width of streets is wide or narrow (duel or single
carriageways)
2.3 Streetscape ●Pedestrians are walking along long wall or show window;
a serial vision of the walking route is interesting.
2.4 Street furniture ●The quality and maintenance of street furniture (e.g. bench,
lighting post, signpost)
2.5 Tree and vegetation ●The amount of green space (e.g. tree-line streets, hanging
baskets, flower beds, plant boxes, parks)
2.6 Shelter Shelter against heavy rain and wind (e.g. mature trees, arcades,
canopies and shops)
2.7 Pavement material Pavement material is pedestrian friendly (e.g. not slippery, even
surface and tactile material for blind people.
2.8 Arts The placement of formal arts (e.g. sculptures and fountains) and
informal arts (e.g. graffiti)
OBSTACLE AND
TRAFFIC
SAFETY
3.1 Barrier free Barrier free access for pedestrians (e.g. access for wheelchair or
push chair users and tactile pavement).
3.2 Safe crossing roads
and streets
Pedestrian refuge islands in place when crossing more than one
traffic light; zebra crossing when there is not traffic light.
3.3 Speed of cars and
traffic calming
Speed reduction and traffic calming system in place (e.g. humps,
traffic bollards,)
3.4 Waiting time for
traffic light
Shorter waiting time: less than 1 min
3.5 Street parking Organised street parking and enough space allocated for parking
between road and pedestrian sidewalks.
3.6 Street connectivity Walking route is visible and well connected without obstacles (e.g.
diversion of routes, construction sites)
3.7 Access for bikes Clear access route for bikes into the traffic system, especially in
areas near bike sharing stations and car parking space at station
PERSONAL
IMPRESSION
4.1 Comfortable in
walking
Subjective feeling of researchers who walked the route (e.g.
enjoyable, comfortable, boring)
4.2 Fear of crime Presence of people misusing alcohols and drugs on streets; not
well-let street or deserted street
4.3 Cleanliness of streets Well maintained street without a lot of litters on route
4.4 Pedestrian flow Many people walking on the route or empty streets that is
depending on time and date and weather when observation is
conducted.
Apart from background information, all the indicators under the four main criteria were assessed using 5 Likert scales
(Excellent, very good, good, fair and poor) and qualitative information has been annotated.
8N. OTSUKA ET AL.

Accessibility does not in principle favour certain modes over others (Venter 2016)
and, in relation to railway stations, it is usually examined for four transport modes:
walking, cycling, public transport and car (driver and passenger) (Semler and Hale 2010).
The above review, together with a series of discussions with the local partners,
provided an overview of relevant criteria and indicators for evaluating the performances
of public transport connecting railway stations with urban area in the six case study cities.
Firstly a list of relevant indicators (concerning different transport modes: public transport,
cycling, sharing mobility and additional information) has been defined to explore the
transport connectivity between the node and the urban area within the city’s boundary.
Furthermore, background and context information have been selected in order to provide
detailed information of the study area (Table 2). Those data are ranging from population,
zoning system of a city or town with number of inhabitants and jobs and proximity of the
zones to the node, to travellers’habits (e.g. peak periods, modal split) and performances of
railway stations (e.g. number of trains and platforms). Data on public transport have been
collected both for weekdays’and weekends’peak periods and both for the origin-
destination (O-D) pairs: node-zone and zone-node (Table 2).
A template for gathering all the information has been developed together with
detailed instructions on how to compile data, which was provided to all the local
partners responsible for data collection of their respective nodes. The data collection
lasted from March 2017 to December 2017.
During the post-processing and data interpretation, some new indicators have
emerged in addition to those already identified during the desk analysis. The new
indicators have been added in the analysis in order to compare the performances of
Public Transport (PT) and of the cycling with the car travel:
●PT Performance: Ratio PT fare/Car cost
1
(not including parking fee)
●PT Performance: Ratio PT fare/Car cost (including parking fee)
●PT Performance: Ratio PT Minimum Travel Time/Car Minimum Travel Time (not
including time for parking)
●Cycling Performance: Ratio Cycling Proximity/Car Proximity
2
All the relevant indicators have been calculated, mapped and georeferenced using ESRI
ArcMap®. The thematic maps have been presented to assist in the interpretation of the
collected data and in providing an immediate insight of accessibility to/from the node.
4. Results of the Düsseldorf node
This section explains results from the Düsseldorf node including background informa-
tion of the city and part of findings from the walkability study and the accessibility
analysis from and to the node.
4.1. General information of Düsseldorf
The city of Düsseldorf is situated in Western Germany and is the seventh largest city of
the country with a population of 639.407 and an area of 217 sq km (Landeshaupstadt
Düsseldorf 2017).
APPLIED MOBILITIES 9

Table 2. Selected indicators for accessibility from and to the node, Source: SiTI, 2017.
No. Description Required data
BACKGROUND 0.1 Population Number of inhabitants of the city
where the node is located according to the most recent
census (2016)
0.2 Area Km2 of the city where the node is located
0.3 Zoning Zoning of the city where the node is located: number of
zones and electronic georeferenced file compatible with
GIS
0.4 Centroid Electronic georeferenced file compatible with
GIS or Address for each centroid
0.5 No of inhabitants Number of inhabitants for each zone
0.6 No of jobs Number of jobs for each zone
0.7 Peak period at the node –
weekday
Time period indicating the peak period based on the number
of users at the node on a Tuesday (e.g. 8:00–9:00).
0.8 Peak period at the node –
weekend
Time period indicating the peak period based
on the number of users at the node on a Saturday
(e.g. 10:00–11:00).
0.9 Modal split city level % of travellers by transport mode and year
to which the modal split refers to
0.10 Trip planner Name and website of trip planner in case Google maps is not
reliable
0.11 No of trains Number of train connections per day (international, long-
distance, regional and local trains on Tuesday and on
Saturday)
0.12 No of platform Number of platforms of the station
0.13 Station building Year of construction
CONTEXT 1.1 Modal split –node users % of node users accessing the station by transport mode
1.2 Proximity –road network Distance in km for each node-zone pair
1.3 Minimum travel time (car) Time in minutes for each
node-zone pair
1.4 Car cost Cost (in €) of the car trip to the
node for each node-zone pair
PUBLIC TRANSPORT 2.1 Minimum travel time (PT) Both for weekday and weekend peak periods:
●Minimum travel time (in minutes) for accessing the node
from the zone by PT: bus/tram, underground, rail, etc., or
combination of modes
●Minimum travel time (in minutes) for accessing the zone
from the node by PT: bus/tram, underground, rail, etc.,
or combination of modes
2.2 Number of PT services offering
minimum travel time
Both for weekday and weekend peak periods:
●Number of PT services providing minimum travel time
from the node to the zone
●Number of PT services providing minimum travel time
from the zone to the node
2.3 Average travel time (PT) Both for weekday and weekend peak periods:
●Average travel time (in minutes) by PT from the node to
the zone
●Average travel time (in minutes) by PT from the zone to
the node
2.4 Number of PT options used for
calculating 2.3 Average
travel time (PT)
Both for weekday and weekend peak periods:
●Number of PT options for arriving at the node from the
zone
●Number of PT options for arriving at the zone from the
node
2.5 Average number of transfers Both for weekday and weekend peak periods:
●Average number of transfers when travelling with PT for
arriving at the node from the zone
●Average number of transfers when travelling with PT for
arriving at the zone from the node
2.6 PT fare PT fare (in €) for travelling from the node to the zone
2.7 PT information (timetables and
network maps)
Indicative % of PT stops/stations equipped with timetables
Indicative % of PT stops/stations equipped
with network maps
2.8 PT information tools List with a brief description of all the existing tools providing
information on PT services.
(Continued)
10 N. OTSUKA ET AL.

The Düsseldorf railway central station, Düsseldorf Hauptbahnhof (Hbf), is located at
the middle of Düsseldorf City and is acting as the gateway for transnational network
services with cities in the Netherlands along the northern part of Rhine-Alpine Corridor
(Figure 3). The modal split of Düsseldorf (Figure 4) city indicates a high use of sustain-
able modes of transport for daily trips. Despite the fact that the share of private car is the
highest among the different transport modes (40%), it still has a relatively low
Figure 3. Municipality’s boundary of the city of Düsseldorf (a) and its location along the Rhine-
Alpine Corridor (b).
Source: Damerau and ILS, Data: terrestris GmbH & Co. KG © OpenStreetMap. (a) and http://blog.interreg.de (b)
Table 2. (Continued).
No. Description Required data
CYCLING 3.1 Proximity –cycling Distance (in km) between the node and the zone on the
cycling network.
3.2 Cycling information tools List with a brief description of all the existing tools and
materials providing information on cycling.
SHARING 4.1 Bike sharing Name of the bike sharing service/s
Dock-based service: number of bike sharing docking
stations per zone
Dock-less service: list of the zones covered by the bike
sharing service
4.2 Car sharing Name of the car sharing service/s
Station based services: number of stations per zone
Free floating service: list of the zones covered by the car
sharing service
ADDITIONAL
ELEMENTS
5.1 Availability of multi-modal
information
List with a brief description of all the existing tools and
materials integrating information on all transport modes
available for travelling to and from the node.
5.2 Smart ticketing Description of the smart ticketing system
APPLIED MOBILITIES 11

percentage when compared to the sustainable modes of transport together (60%). In
other words, it can be assumed that public transport, cycling and walking offer a valid
alternative to car transport, and as a result, it is expected that the Düsseldorf node will
be easily accessible by sustainable modes of transport.
4.2. Results from the walkability study
Two researchers walked in total seven routes between the end point of the 800 m circle
line and Deutsche Bahn (DB) information centre located near the main entrance of
Düsseldorf Hbf. The study was carried out on two different dates (24 and
29 August 2017), and the weather on the both dates was sunny and hot. To present
information gained during the walkability study, walkability maps have been created
including a variety of quantitative and qualitative data: walking routes, measured time
per route, position of PT stops and traffic lights, the number of car sharing and bike
sharing stations, location of bicycle rental services and long-distance bus terminals,
points of interests (e.g. panoramic viewpoint, tourist information, etc.), empty buildings
and social problems such as concentration of alcohol and drug users. Results from the
walkability analysis on the seven walking routes are presented in three maps (Figures 5–
7). Generally speaking, areas closer to the station in all the routes look relatively run-
down because of empty buildings and vacant retail units, untidy street pavements and
the presence of people with alcohol and drug-related problems.
In zone 1 (Stadtmitte), the route starts with Ackerstraße, a mixed use street with
individual art shops, continuing to Worringer Platz with a busy junction of three crossing
roads and tram stops. On Worringer Straße a long-distance bus is located without
sufficient weather shelter and a signage from the station. The route Immermannstraße
is a pleasant tree-lined street, with wide sidewalks and a plenty of street parking space
and is occupied by a mixture of offices, hotels, tourist information, specific Japanese and
Korean related shops, cafés and restaurants. The route Steinstraße to Friedrich-Ebertstra
ße starts with the fountain at “Platz der deutschen Einheit”, which has mixed uses of
offices, residential accommodation and shops. From Karlstraße on to the train station,
29
12
18
31
9
Modal Split Duesseldorf (in %)
Walking
Cycling
Public Transport
Car driver
Car passenger
Figure 4. Modal split of the city of Düsseldorf (2013).
Source: TU Dresden (2015)
12 N. OTSUKA ET AL.

Figure 5. Walkability map of Düsseldorf Hbf. Zone 1 (Stadtmitte).
Source: Otsuka and Damerau, 2017
Figure 6. Walkability map of Düsseldorf Hbf. Zone 2 (oberbilk).
Source: Otsuka and Damerau, 2017
APPLIED MOBILITIES 13

the route changes its appearance suddenly from higher-end to lower quality in gastro-
nomy and shops; there are derelict houses and gambling places near the station. The
crossing at Konrad-Adenauer-Platz over tram tracks is quite dangerous since there is no
traffic light despite many trams frequently passing the square.
Zone 2 (Oberbilk) is predominantly residential, having nice features such as parks,
squares and tree-lined streets which make it more pedestrian-friendly. The first route
starts at Langer Straße, then crosses Erkrather Straße and reaches the Bürgerpark IHZ.
The park is quite spacious with landscaped garden, ponds and benches, which would
offer a good opportunity for families to spend waiting time between train connections
there. Ludwig-Erhard-Allee has well-maintained and wide pedestrian walkways facing to
businesses buildings such as offices, banks and hotels. The second route starts at
Oberbilker Markt, which has market stalls, and outside tables and chairs of cafés. It
then continues through the mature tree-lined street Eisenstraße, mainly residential and
partly pedestrianised. Towards the station when reaching Heinz-Schmöle-Straße, there
are more mixed uses of offices, a gym studio, cafés, a kiosk and apartment blocks.
Finally, the zone 3 (Friedrichstadt) is composed of two distinctive walking routes. The
first route, Graf-Adolf-Straße, is characterised by shops selling kebabs and Arabic sweets
and a lot of hotels along a wide and tree-lined pedestrian walkway. There is
a roundabout decorated with palm trees in old rubber tyres. Closer to the station, the
street is more characterised by lower quality services such as sex shops, a sex cinema
Figure 7. Walkability map of Düsseldorf Hbf. Zone 3 (friedrichstadt).
Source: Otsuka and Damerau, 2017
14 N. OTSUKA ET AL.

and cash converters as well as some restaurants. The second route starts at Fürstenplatz,
which is a park with trees and shrubs, benches and a playground. The area is charac-
terised by a residential Wilhelminian style neighbourhood with nice cafés and exclusive
shops. Following Helmholtzstraße, the route becomes rather empty and less used by
pedestrians, and then reaches a run-down area at Miltropplatz. Drunkards gather under
the railway bridge and sleep on benches at the time of the observation, midday. The first
part of the route is tidy and clean owing to well-structured pedestrian sidewalks and
bike lanes, while the part from Miltropplatz over Harkortstraße and Graf-Adolf-Straße to
the train station looks disorganised due to the fact that traffic, pedestrian and bike lane
are not integrated.
The three walkability maps have been developed based on the four walkability criteria
(Table 1) and this appeared to be a useful tool in visualising future improvement areas
around the station. Those data together with photographic evidence are now under the
process of being integrated in an Interactive Visualisation Tool (InViTo) which has been
developed by SiTI within another research on Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS). It is
a web-based GIS toolbox for visually supporting the analysis, the exploration, the visualisa-
tion and communication of both spatial and non-spatial data in order to facilitate discus-
sions for policy and decision-making (Figure 8). The distinctive features of InViTo are
dynamicity and interactivity, which make it open to various users at different skill levels
and suitable to be part of instrumental equipment for meetings and workshops, providing
a shared basis for enhancing the debate. InViTo focuses on a visual language as a vehicle for
the social inclusion in the planning processes. In particular, it does not provide spatial
solutions, but it aims at facilitating the analysis of data in order to improve the communica-
tion between actors coming from various backgrounds and with different interests. The
main task of InViTo is to create opportunities for reasoning on data producing maps, where
Figure 8. Walkability map of Düsseldorf Hbf in InViTO.
Source: Pensa, 2017
APPLIED MOBILITIES 15

the correlation between information and their localisation generates an essential instru-
ment for the knowledge of urban dynamics and resilience in answering to specific policies.
Thus, InViTo can be used to detect critical areas and areas with more opportunities, design
alternative options and investigate data spatial distribution as well as to stimulate discus-
sions or elaborate shared solutions. This can be seen as a powerful method for visualising
the walkability results since the local partner of each node will plan a roundtable discussion,
inviting local stakeholders such as local, regional and state authority representatives, train
and local PT operators, infrastructure managers, local academics, Chamber of Commerce,
interest groups (e.g. retailers association, pedestrians and cyclists associations, disabled
group).
4.3. Accessibility analysis from and to the node
For the accessibility analysis of the railway node in Düsseldorf a zoning system was used
dividing the city into 19 zones (Figure 9).
1 Königsalle 28A, 40212
2 Höherweg 63, 40233
3 Derendorfer Allee 31, 40476
4 Düsseldorfer Str. 119, 40545
5 An der Vehlingshecke 33, 40221
6 Willstätterstraße 25, 40549
7 Spielberger Weg 31, 40474
8 Unterrather Str. 71, 40468
9 Dachsbergweg 71a, 40472
10 Metzkauser Str. 55, 40625
11 Vennhauser Allee 93, 40627
12 Nosthoffenstr. 1A, 40589
13 Kölner Weg 51, 40589
14 Peter-Behrens-Str. 13, 40595
15 Hasselsstr. 37A, 40599
16 Großer Torfbruch 14, 40627
17 Erkrather Landstraße 22, 40629
18 Kalkumer Schloßalle 60, 40489
19 Auf der Krone 79, 40489
Figure 9. Düsseldorf zoning.
Source: zoning provided by ILS. Centroids source: SiTI elaborations on data received. Map service layer credits: ESRI,
HERE, Delorme, MapmyIndia, ©OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.
16 N. OTSUKA ET AL.

The accessibility analysis for Düsseldorf took into consideration the weekday and
weekend peak periods (7:00–8:00 on Tuesday and 9:00–10:00 on Saturday). The analysis
shows as a first outcome that all the zones are provided with at least two different public
transport travel solutions from the Düsseldorf Hbf during the peak period, apart from
the zone 19 which has only one (Figure 10) and most of the zones have a direct
connection, apart from the zone 16 (Figure 11).
Performance in terms of travel times appeared to be very good. For instance, 90% of
the population lives within 30 min by PT from the node, that is a reasonable time when
considering the size and population of the city, 217,41 sq km and 635.704 inhabitants,
respectively (Figure 12). PT is more competitive than private car concerning the fares
(with and without parking fees), in particular for the peripherals zones (Figure 13).
Figure 10. Number of PT options used to calculate the average travel time with PT during the peak
period (7:00–8:00) on a weekday.
Source: Rheinbahn Service Center, 2017.
APPLIED MOBILITIES 17

All the zones of Düsseldorf are connected to the node with a cycle route and nearly
half of the population (48%) lives within a distance of 5 km by bike from the node. For
many zones of the city, the distances from the Düsseldorf Hbf by bike and by car are
very similar.
The Düsseldorf node is also served by sharing mobility, that is two bike and four car
sharing services. Bike sharing operators serve only 7 zones out of 19 and car sharing is
present in the core area of Düsseldorf. Car sharing can be considered as an alternative
mode for node users only when travelling between the node and the central zones of
Düsseldorf and there is a room for improvement in the peripheral area.
More in general the analysis indicates that the node is well connected to the different
urban districts both with PT and cycling network and it is also served by sharing mobility
Figure 11. Average number of transfers when travelling from the node to each zone during the peak
period (7:00–8:00) on a weekday.
Source: Rheinbahn Service Center, 2017.
18 N. OTSUKA ET AL.

services, such as bike sharing and car sharing, even if the modal split of the city (Figure
4) still indicates a large proportion of private car users.
5. Conclusions
This paper presented the methodology for evaluating the accessibility of TEN-T rail-
way nodes along the Rhine-Alpine Corridor. Both the qualitative and quantitative
methods have been utilised to assess the accessibility of railway stations with refer-
ence to the definition of “urban nodes”provided by the European Commission (EU
2013). An “urban node”refers to an urban area around a node in a broader context
and for this project the three different spatial scales were selected to examine the
Figure 12. Minimum travel time with PT from the node to each zone during the peak period
(7:00–8:00) on a weekday.
Source of Minimum Travel Time: Rheinbahn Service Center, 2017. Source for proximity: Google maps https://www.
google.it/maps/, accessed in September 2017.
APPLIED MOBILITIES 19

accessibility of TEN-T railway nodes: 1) at the node and its immediate surrounding; 2)
the walkability within a radius of 800 m around the node; and 3) the accessibility
from and to the node within the municipality boundary by PT and sharing mobility.
The methodology has been developed with reference to existing indicators and
systematically tailored to address accessibility issues at the different spatial scales of
selected six urban nodes. Beyond the transportation issues (e.g. platforms, operational
safety and passenger capacity), the accessibility was concerned with the relationship
between urban spaces and nodes (Van der Hoeven et al. 2013; Rode and Floater 2014;
Hernandez and Monzon 2016); the integration of land use and transport nodes (Geurs
and Van Wee 2004;Vale2015; Dawkins and Moeckel 2016); and information provi-
sions such as wayfinding, pre-trip planning and integrated ticketing systems
(Christiansen and Andersen 2013; Malicet et al. 2013; Kuhnimhof et al. 2007).
Figure 13. PT performance: ratio PT fare/car cost (including 1 h parking fee in the node zone).
Source: SiTI elaborations on data provided by ILS based on Rheinbahn Service Center (2017), https://vtmanager.
duesseldorf.de/info/#main accessed in November 2017, Google maps http://maps.google.com and www.adac.de/
20 N. OTSUKA ET AL.

Furthermore, subjective feeling of station users concerning liveability and comfort
(Van Egmond and Van Hagen 2016) was included in the analysis. The research has
attempted to contribute in the discussion of “the new mobilities paradigm”by
encompassing spatial and urban design parameters (subjective indicator and mea-
surement) in addition to accessibility indicators as well as examining the movement
at different spatial scales (Cresswell 2010; Jensen 2018). Railway stations are hybrid
systems that combine (social) mobilities, infrastructure and places of economy and
knowledge. Therefore, the analyses are getting more and more complex including the
mobility systems, the needs of the users and the built environment.
Data collection of the first two spatial scales was heavily relied on field observation at
the six nodes, and results were therefore drawn upon their subjective views. However,
findings have been cross-checked by using another qualitative method, i.e. semi-
structured interview with the station manager and a series of discussions with respective
local partners. Benefits of methodological triangulation (Denscomb 2017) have been
carefully considered in overcoming subjective bias led by the field observation. Station
managers tend to emphasise positive aspects of their station, while they are reluctant to
acknowledge negative elements. It should be pointed out that local authority predomi-
nantly owns surrounding area around the station and this situation resulted in creating
the territorial boundary in managing the station. It seems that the territorial segregation
would impose constraints on providing a comprehensive view of the accessibility
between the station and urban area. The walkability study aims to unlock this problem
by visualising the current state of pedestrian accessibility from and to the station
building. The key objective is to facilitate a discussion among various stakeholders
who play a role in developing, managing and using the station.
For the assessment of the largest spatial scale GIS map analysis has been carried out.
As shown in the examples from the Düsseldorf case study, comparative analysis of
demographic and economic distribution with transportation-related parameters (e.g.
number of PT options including new sharing services, average and minimum travel
time, and ratio of PT fare and car cost) suggested by Geurs and Van Wee (2004) was
carried out and this allowed revealing less accessible zones within the municipality’s
boundary. The research team has developed a clear and prescriptive instruction of each
indicator and a simplified way of data collection, which made it possible for the local
partners to collect data using an online travel planning APP. It has appeared to be
a cost-effective and collaborative approach with the local partners, and most impor-
tantly the interpretation of GIS maps have appeared to be a powerful method for
clarifying weaknesses of the accessibility within the municipality’s boundary.
Finally, results from the six urban nodes studies have informed a number of critical
issues in each of the six urban nodes, which will be discussed at roundtables inviting
public authority representatives, train and local PT operators, infrastructure managers,
local academics, Chamber of Commerce and interest groups, to be organised at each
case study location. The validity of the methodology has so far been tested among the
six urban nodes and a wider application for any other nodes along the Rhine-Alpine
Corridor is a future agenda of this research. The paper shows that it is important for
further analyses to measure the accessibility of urban nodes on different scales.
Therefore it is not sufficient only to record objective indicators, but subjective parameter
of accessibility also plays a key role. This requires a lot of different measuring
APPLIED MOBILITIES 21

instruments, but would increase the quality for benchmarking urban node enormously.
The next step ties in exactly with this question and develops a weighted index from
these different analyses of accessibility and walkability. Based on the results, the local
planners have an objective basis for decisions in a new quality to discuss different
measures.
(1) “Car cost”evaluates the cost of travelling from the node to each zone by car and it
is estimated by using the following formula: Car cost = Total Cost per Kilometre *
Proximity (road network). Total Cost per Kilometre is estimated for a VW Golf, 2012,
1.4, 125 CV, gasoline with an annual mileage of 15.000 km and it includes: the cost
of capital used for the vehicle, the loss of value of the vehicle (depreciation),
insurance, annual road tax, fuel, tires, repairs and maintenance. Usually, this
information is available at the national level (e.g. ACI in Italy).
(2) Proximity (road network) refers to the road network distance of the node to the
different zones.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Ioanna Lepinioti (formerly worked at SiTI) for her input in
developing the methodology as well as Peter Endemann and Sofia Robbe Bender of
Regionalverband FrankfurtRheinMain for their contributions to developing walkability maps as
a pilot study in Frankfurt Hbf.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
RAISE-IT is co-financed by the European Union’s Connecting Europe Facility [Grant number: INEA/
CEF/TRAN/M2015/1131325]
References
Apostol, I. 2013.“Railway Stations as Interface between the Local and the Global.”Paper Presented
at Joint AESOP/ACSP Congress, Planning for Resilient Cities and Regions. Proceedings held on
15–19 July 2013 in Dublin. Ireland.
Arcadis. 2015.“Our Mobile Future: Developing City Value & Prosperity Through Mobility Oriented
Developments.”Accessed April 2 2018. https://www.arcadis.com/media/2/4/0/%7B240EF743-
54E0-405F-8F54-50791BB50519%7DArcadis-Our-Mobile-Future-MODe-FINAL%20REPORT.pdf
Banister, D., and P. Hall. 1993.“The Second Railway Age.”Built Environment 19 (3–4): 157–162.
Bertolini, L. 1996.“Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Redevelopment.”European
Planning Studies 4 (3): 331–345. doi:10.1080/09654319608720349.
Bertolini, L., C. Curtis, and J. Renne. 2012.“Station Area Projects in Europe and Beyond: Towards
Transit Oriented Development.”Built Environment 38 (1): 31–50. doi:10.2148/benv.38.1.31.
Bros, M., M. Givoni, and P. Rietveld. 2009.“Access to Railway Stations and Its Potential in Increasing
Rail Use.”Transport Research Part A 43: 136–149.
22 N. OTSUKA ET AL.

Christiansen, P., and J. Andersen. 2013.Deliverable 2.3: Lessons from Descriptive Case Studies –
Recommendations for City-HUB Model. EU project: City-HUB. Accessed April 3 2018. http://www.
cityhub.imet.gr/Default.aspx?tabid=96
Cresswell, T. 2010.“Towards a Politics of Mobility.”Environment and Planning D 28: 17–31.
doi:10.1068/d11407.
Dawkins, C., and R. Moeckel. 2016.“Transit-Induced Gentrification: Who Will Stay, and Who Will
Go?”Housing Policy Debate 26 (4–5): 801–818. doi:10.1080/10511482.2016.1138986.
Debrezion, G., E. Pels, and P. Rietveld. 2009.“Modeling the Joint Access Mode and Railway Station
Choice.”Transportation Research Part E 45: 270–283. doi:10.1016/j.tre.2008.07.001.
Denscomb, M. 2017.The Good Research Guide: For Small-Scale Social Research Projects. 6th ed.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Department for Transport. 2015. Transport Connectivity Travel Time Indicators: Guidance Notes.
Accessed April 2 2018. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/journey-time-statistics-
guidance
Edensor, T. 2016.“Introduction: Thinking about Rhythm and Space.”In Geographies of Ryhthem:
Nature Place, Mobilities and Bodies, edited by T. Edensor, 13–30. Abingdon: Routledge.
European Commission. 2013.Annex, A Concept for Sustainable Urban Mobility Plans to the
‘Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Together towards competitive
and resource-efficient urban mobility’(COM(2013) 913 final). Brussels: European Commission.
European Union. 2013.“TEN-T Regulation.”Regulation (EU) No 1315/2013 of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013.
Frank, L. D., J. F. Sallis, T. L. Conway, J. E. Chapman, B. E. Saelens, and W. Bachman. 2006.“Many
Pathways from Land Use to Health: Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and Active
Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality.”Journal of the American Planning Association
72 (1): 75–87. doi:10.1080/01944360608976725.
Frank, L. D., T. L. Schmid, J. F. Sallis, C. James, and B. E. Saelens. 2005.“Linking Objectively Measured
Physical Activity with Objectively Measured Urban Form. Findings from SMARTRAQ.”American
Journal of Preventive Medicine 28: 117–125. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2004.11.001.
Galiza, R., and P. Charles. 2013.Improving Rail Station Access in Australia, Brisbane: CRC for Rail
Innovation. Project No.: R1.133. Brisbane: CRC for Rail Innovation.
Garcia-Palomares, J. C., and J. Guiéterrez. 2013.“Walking Accessibility to Public Transport. An
Analysis Based on Microdata and GIS.”Environment and Planning B 40: 1087–1102. doi:10.1068/
b39008.
Garmendia, M., C. Ribalaygua, and J. M. Urena. 2012.“High Speed Rail: Implication for Cities.”Cities
29: S26–S31. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2012.06.005.
Geurs, K. T., and B. Van Wee. 2004.“Accessibility Evaluation of Land-Use and Transport Strategies:
Review and Research Directions.”Journal of Transport Geography 12: 127–140. doi:10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2003.10.005.
Givoni, M., and P. Rietveld. 2007.“The Access Journey to the Railway Station and Its Role in
Passengers’Satisfaction with Rail Travel.”Transport Policy 14: 357–365. doi:10.1016/j.
tranpol.2007.04.004.
Hannam, K., M. Sheller, and J. Urry. 2006.“Editotial: Mobilities, Immobilities and Moorings.”
Mobilities 1 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1080/17450100500489189.
Hernandez, S., and A. Monzon. 2016.“Key Factors for Defining an Efficient Urban Transport
Interchange: User’s Perceptions.”Cities 50: 158–167. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.09.009.
ITDP (Institute for Transportation and Development Policy). 2018.Pedestrians Frist, Tool for
Walkability City. 1st ed. New York: ITDP.
Jensen, O. B. 2018.“Urban Design for Mobilities –Towards Material Pragmatism.”Urban
Development Issues 55: 5–11. doi:10.2478/udi-2018-0012.
Kesselring, S. 2006.“Pioneering Mobilities: New Patterns of Movement and Motility in a Mobile
World.”Environment and Planning A 38: 269–279. doi:10.1068/a37279.
Kesselring, S. 2015.“Corporate Mobilities Regimes. Mobility, Power and the Socio-Geographical
Structurations of Mobile Work.”Mobilities 10 (4): 571–591. doi:10.1080/17450101.2014.887249.
APPLIED MOBILITIES 23

Kuhnimhof, T., C. Schlosser, M. Wirtz, and J. Last. 2007.“Central Issues in Passenger Intermodality
(Deliverable 1).”EU project: KITE - A Knowledge Base for Intermodal Passenger Travel in Europe.
Karlsruhe: Institute for Transport Studies, University of Karlsruhe.
La Paix, L., and K. T. Geurs. 2016.“Train Station Access and Train Use: A Joint Stated and Revealed
Preference Choice Modeling Study.”In Accessibility, Equity and Efficiency: Challenges for Transport
and Public Services, edited by K. T. Geurs, R. Patuelli, and T. Ponce Dentinho, 144–166.
Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar Publishing.
Landeshaupstadt Düsseldorf. 2017.Demographie-Monitoring Düsseldorf 2012–2017. Accessed
March 5 2018. https://www.duesseldorf.de/fileadmin/Amt12/statistik/stadtforschung/down
load/Demografie-Monitoring2012bis2017.pdf
Lefebvre, H. 2004.Rhythmanalysis –Space, Time and Everyday Life. Translated by Elden, S. and
Moore, G. London: Continuum.
Malicet, M., P. van Egmond, L. Lucietti, C. Hoogendoorn, and P. Skoniezki 2013.Intermodality and
ICT, a Benchmark Tool (Deliverable 3.4.2 - Final). EU project: NODES. Brussels: UITP.
Middleton, J. 2018.“The Socialities of Everyday Urban Walking and the ‘Right to the City’.”Urban
Studies 55 (2): 296–315. doi:10.1177/0042098016649325.
Monzon, A., E. Ortega, and E. Lopez. 2016.“Influence of the First and Last Mile on HSR
Accessibility Levels.”In Accessibility, Equity and Efficiency: Challenges for Transport and
Public Services, edited by K. T. Geurs, R. Patuelli, and T. Ponce Dentinho, 125–143.
Cheltenham: Edwar Elgar Publishing.
Owen, N., A Goode, B. Fjeldsoe, T. Sugiyama, and E. Eakin. 2012.“Designing for the Dissemination
of Environmental and Policy Initiatives and Programs for High-Risk Groups.“In Dissemination
and Implementation Research in Health Translating Science to Practice, edited by R. C. Brownson,
G. A. Colditz, and E. K. Proctor, 114–127. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780199751877.003.0006
Papa, E., and L. Bertolini. 2015.“Accessibility and Transit-Oriented Development in European
Metropolitan Areas.”Journal of Transport Geography 47: 70–83. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2015.07.003.
Peters, D., and J. Novy. 2012.“Rail Station Mega-Projects: Overlooked Centrepieces in the Complex
Puzzle of Urban Restructuring in Europe.”Built Environment 38 (1): 5–12. doi:10.2148/
benv.38.1.5.
Rietveld, P. 2000.“The Accessibility of Railway Stations: The Role of the Bicycle in the Netherlands.”
Transportation Research Part D 5: 71–75. doi:10.1016/S1361-9209(99)00019-X.
Rode, P., and G. Floater. 2014.“Accessibility in Cities: Transport and Urban Form.”NCE Cities Paper
03. LSE Cities. London: London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE).
Saelens, B. E., J. F. Sallis, J. B. Black, and D. Chen. 2003.“Neighborhood-Based Differences in
Physical Activity. An Environment Scale Evaluation. American.”Journal of Public Health 93 (9):
1552–1558.
Semler, C., and C. Hale. 2010.“Rail Station Access –An Assessment of Options.”CRC for Rail
Innovation. Project No. R1.123. Brisbane: CRC for Rail Innovation.
Sheller, M., and J. Urry. 2006.“The New Mobilities Paradigm.”Environment and Planning A 38:
207–226. doi:10.1068/a37268.
Singh, Y. J., P. Fard, M. Zuidgeest, M. Brussel, and M. van Maarseveen. 2014.“Measuring Transit
Oriented Development: A Spatial Multi Criteria Assessment Approach for the City Region
Arnhem and Nijmegen.”Journal of Transport Geography 35: 130–143. doi:10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2014.01.014.
Stanton, N. A., R. C. McIlroy, C. Harvey, S. Blainey, A. Hickford, J. M. Preston, and B. Ryan. 2012.
“Following the Cognitive Work Analysis Train of Thought: Exploring the Constraints of Modal
Shift to Rail Transport.”Ergonomics 56 (3): 522–540. doi:10.1080/00140139.2012.718366.
TU Dresden. 2015.Mobilität der Düsseldorfer Bevölkerung 2013 (SrV 2013), Ergebnisse. Accessed
March 5 2018. https://www.duesseldorf.de/fileadmin/Amt66/verkehrsmanagement/pdf/schluss
bericht_srv13.pdf
Urry, J. 2007.Mobilities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Vale, D. S. 2015.“Transit-Oriented Development, Integration of Land Use and Transport, and
Pedestrian Accessibility: Combining Node-Place Model with Pedestrian Shed Ratio to Evaluate
24 N. OTSUKA ET AL.

and Classify Station Areas in Lisbon.”Journal of Transport Geography 45: 70–80. doi:10.1016/j.
jtrangeo.2015.04.009.
Van der Hoeven, F., A. van Nes, S. van der Spek, J. Albecoa, P. Skoniezki, H. Berends, A. Venema,
M. van Hagen, and I. Cré. 2013.State of the Art (Deliverable 2.1 - Final). EU project: NODES.
Accessed February 25 2017. http://www.nodes-interchanges.eu/documents/2014/05/nodes_
wp2_d2-3_final-3.pdf
Van Egmond, P., and M. Van Hagen. 2016.CIVITAS E-Course ‘Quality of Public Transport
Interchanges, the Customer Point of View’. CIVITAS Learning Centre. Accessed February 25
2017. http://civitaslearningcenter.talentlms.com/catalog/info/id:158
Venter, C. 2016. Developing a Common Narrative on Urban Accessibility: A Transport Perspective.
Brookings Institution. Accessed February 25 2017. https://www.brookings.edu/research/develop
ing-common-narrative-urban-accessibility-transportation/
Vickerman, R. 2015.“High-Speed Rail and Regional Development: The Case of Intermediate
Stations.”Journal of Transport Geography 42: 157–165. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.008.
Zemp, Z., M. Stauffacher, D. J. Lang, and R. W. Scholz. 2011.“Classifying Railway Stations for
Strategic Transport and Land Use Planning: Context Matters!”Journal of Transport Geography 19:
670–679. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.08.008.
APPLIED MOBILITIES 25