3 Station areas as nodes and places in urban

networks: An analytical tool and alternative

development strategies

Luca Bertolini

Department of Geography, Planning and International Development

Studies, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands

3.1 Introduction: Why stations?

In cities around the world, railway stations are increasingly the focus of in-
tegrated transport and land use development efforts, whether under the la-
bel ‘Transit Oriented Development’ (TOD) as in North America, or more
plainly, as (re)development of and around railway stations as in Europe
and elsewhere (Bertolini and Spit 1998; Cervero 1998, 2004; Van den
Berg and Pol 1998; Dittmar and Ohland 2004; Dunphy et al. 2005). A
combination of heterogeneous, interrelated factors converge in determin-
ing this upsurge of station area-related urban projects.
A first factor triggering station area projects are the new development
opportunities provided by transport innovations, such as the expansion of
high-speed railways systems (particularly in Europe and Asia) or light rail
systems (as most notably in North America and Western Europe), but also
by the generalised transfer of distribution and manufacturing activities
away from station areas and towards more peripheral locations or new,
dedicated freight interchanges.
A second factor is the ongoing privatisation process or at least the shift
towards greater market-orientation of transportation, and most notably,
railway companies. One consequence of privatisation is that transportation
infrastructure and service providers are increasingly seeking ways to re-
capture the accessibility premium they help to create. Characteristically,
this implies the development of commercial activities within stations and
redevelopment of land above or around stations. Many Asian cities have a
36 Luca Bertolini

long tradition in this respect, but the trend has been expanding in Western
Europe and North America as well.
Third is a wish to boost the competitive position of cities as places to
live, work and consume through new large-scale urban projects. Many of
these projects, typically showing a dense mix of office, retail, leisure, and
housing, are located around highly accessible places such as main railway
stations. High-speed railway station areas in European cities in particular
have been the theatres of many such initiatives in recent years. A last, but
not least, factor and most notably in North America, is mounting concern
about the sustainability of ‘sprawling’ and ‘car-dependent’ urbanisation
patterns. The integrated development of railway networks and land around
the nodes of those networks is seen as a way towards a more public trans-
port and non-motorised, modes-oriented, concentrated urbanisation pat-
tern. The arguments for this shift are not merely environmental (reduction
of pollution, greenhouse emissions, land consumption, etc.); many local
governments and citizens also see it as a condition for the development of
a much needed mobility alternative for metropolises rapidly approaching,
but not yet experiencing, total traffic gridlock.
For all of its perceived potential, the integration of transport and urban
development at station areas is also a very complex undertaking. The
growing flows of people passing through stations are a direct result of the
increasingly open nature of the urban system: of people living in one place,
working in a second and spending their free-time in yet a third, but also of
business relationships requiring exchanges of persons based in distant lo-
cations, or of equally extensive spatial patterns of movement generated by
different types of consumption. The coincidence of different spatial scales
(in the most extreme case from the global scale of High-Speed Train
(HST) destinations to the locale of the station neighbourhood) is mirrored
by the presence of a broad range of users (from the cosmopolitan busi-
nessperson to the drifting homeless).
Station areas are, ambivalently, both ‘nodes’ and ‘places’ (Bertolini
1996). They are (or may become) important ‘nodes’ in both transport and
non-transport (e.g. business, consumption) networks. Conversely, station
areas also identify a ‘place,’ a both permanently and temporarily inhabited
area of the city, a dense and diverse conglomeration of uses and forms ac-
cumulated over time, which may or may not share in the life of the node.
Accordingly, a multifarious array of both node- and place-based actors
crowd station area development processes, of which the local government
and the railway company are characteristic. Depending on the local con-
text, other actors will also have a decisive role. These include different
levels of the public administration, different transportation companies and
market actors: developers, investors, end-users. Furthermore, and particu-
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 37

larly at station areas set in dense, historically stratified urban districts, local
residents and businesses may also have a significant stake. The objectives
of this heterogeneous array of actors are often conflicting and at best un-
coordinated.
Any successful development strategy for station areas needs to deal with
this complex, node-place dynamics. Insight into the characteristics of such
dynamics, its underlying factors, and the possibilities of influencing it,
would seem a necessary precondition for effective action. The information
should be sophisticated enough to be true to the complex reality, but plain
enough to be understood by those involved in the strategy development
process. This is a combination of qualities that is, however, seldom met,
and not just in the case of station areas. Most information on the function-
ing of spatial systems tends to be either too sophisticated to be understood
by policy makers, or too simple to add to already existing insights (Lee
1973, 1994; Vonk et al. 2005).
The aim of this chapter is to help fill this information gap by explicitly
linking exploration of the development dynamics to exploration of poten-
tial development strategies. This is done in two steps. In the first part of
the chapter, I introduce an analytical tool to enhance insight in the devel-
opment dynamics of station areas in urban networks, a ‘node-place model,’
based on Bertolini (1999). Its workings are illustrated by an application to
station areas in the Amsterdam and Utrecht urban regions. In the second
part I show how the gained insight can help characterise and discuss alter-
native development strategies. A more traditional ‘coordinated develop-
ment’ approach typified by the Stockholm case is contrasted with an
emerging ‘reconnecting developments’ approach typified by the examples
of Karlsruhe, Naples and Rotterdam-The Hague. A provisional balance of
the proposed view is made in the conclusion.

3.2 Characterising the development challenge

3.2.1 A node-place model

The node-place model introduced in Bertolini (1999; Figure 3.1) provides

an analytical framework to penetrate the dynamics of station area devel-
opment. The model freely builds on elaborations of the ‘transport land use
feed back cycle’ (e.g., Manheim 1974; Hanson 1995; Wegener and Fürst
1999; Meyer and Miller 2001).
38 Luca Bertolini

Node
Unbalanced Stress
node

Balance

Dependence Unbalanced
place

Place

Figure 3.1. A node-place model

The underlying idea is that improving transport provision in a location

(in the model, its node-value, the y axis in Figure 3.1) will, because of im-
proved accessibility, create conditions favourable to the further intensifica-
tion and diversification of land uses there. In its turn, intensification and
diversification of land uses in a location (or increase in its place-value, the
x axis in Figure 3.1) will, because of growth in the demand for connec-
tions, create conditions favourable to the further development of infra-
structure there. The emphasis on ‘conditions’ is important, as it implies a
distinction between existence of a development potential and its actual re-
alisation, which will by and large, depend on factors other than transport
and land use. As we will see, realisation of the potential may or may not
occur, and development can take different directions.
Five ideal typical situations can be distinguished in the model. Along
the middle line are ‘balanced’ locations, where node and place values are
equally strong. At the top of the line are areas ‘under stress.’ Here the in-
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 39

tensity and diversity of both mobility flows and urban activities is maxi-
mal. This indicates that the potential for land use development is highest
(strong node) and that it has been realised (strong place). The same can be
said about the potential for transport development. However, these are also
locations where the great concentrations of flows and area-based activities
mean that there is an equally great chance of conflicts between multiple
claims on the limited space and that further development might become in-
creasingly problematic. At the bottom of the middle line is a third ideal
typical situation, represented by the ‘dependent’ areas.
The struggle for space is minimal here, but the demand for transporta-
tion services from area residents, workers and other users, and the demand
for urban activities from travellers are both so low that supply can be held
in place only by the intervention of other factors such as peculiarities in the
topography of the area or in the morphology of the transportation net-
works, external subsidies, etc.
Finally, two ‘unbalanced’ situations can be identified. On one side, at
the top left of the diagram, are the ‘unbalanced nodes,’ areas where trans-
portation supply is relatively much more developed than urban activities
(think for instance of a newly opened out-of-town railway station). On the
other side, at the bottom right of the diagram, are the ‘unbalanced places,’
where the opposite is true (consider an historic, relatively difficult to ac-
cess urban neighbourhood).
The latter two are particularly interesting location-types. We can assume
that, following the transport land use feedback cycle, they will show a
strong tendency to move towards a more balanced state. However, and
crucially, this could always happen in two radically different ways. An
‘unbalanced node’ could either increase its place-value (for instance by at-
tracting property development) or decrease its node-value (perhaps
through reduction in the level of transportation services). A reverse reason-
ing can be applied to an ‘unbalanced place’: either the level of connection
will be increased or a lower density, and possibly qualitatively different
functional mix, will be developed. The emergence of ‘unbalanced’ nodes
and places, either as a deliberate policy move, or as the result of autono-
mous trends, can be seen as an essential factor in the development of the
urban transport and land use system: without unbalanced situations, there
will be no change at all. At the same time, the fact that the system can re-
act in different ways means that different, or even divergent development-
paths are possible.
40 Luca Bertolini

3.2.2 Development paths

With the help of the node-place model both up- and down-grading proc-
esses of either single locations or of entire urban networks can be identi-
fied. To illustrate this, let us now consider an application of the model to
station areas in the Amsterdam and Utrecht urban regions in the Nether-
lands (Figures 3.2 to 3.5). For our purposes here, the node and place di-
mensions have been translated into a node- and a place-index, each com-
bining different variables by means of a multicriteria analysis (MCA). The
node-index is a measure of the accessibility of the station area. Intensity
and diversity of transport supply are the key criteria here. The index com-
bines accessibility by train (number of directions served, daily frequency
of services, amount of stations within 45 minutes of travel), by bus, tram
and subway (number of directions, daily frequency), by car (distance from
the closest motorway access, parking capacity) and by bicycle (number of
free-standing bicycle paths, parking capacity).

Figure 3.2. The Amsterdam and Utrecht urban regions in 1997 and 2005.
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 41

1,0 AC

0,8

AS
Ha
0,6
AA AZ
Du AL
Sch
Za
Hd AB
0,4 We AM AR
DZ
AV
Di KB
0,2 Ab

0,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

Legend
Amsterdam AA Amsterdam AR Diemen Di Koog KB
Amstel RAI Bloemwijk
Amsterdam AB Amsterdam AS Diemen-Zuid DZ Schiphol Sch
Bijlmer Sloterdijk Airport1
Amsterdam AC Amsterdam AV Duivendrecht Du Weesp We
CS Vlugtlaan
Amsterdam AL Amsterdam AZ Haarlem Ha Zaandam Za
Lelylaan Zuid/WTC
Amsterdam AM Abcoude Ab Hoofddorp Hd
Muiderpoort
1. No place data available

Figure 3.3. Application of the node-place model to station areas in the Amsterdam
region, 1997.

The place-index is a measure of the intensity and diversity of activities

in the station area. The station area has been defined as the surface in-
cluded within a ‘walkable radius’ of 700 metres from the main pedestrian
entrance to the station. The variables are the number of residents in the
area, the number of workers per each of four economic clusters (re-
tail/hotel and catering, education/health/culture, administration and ser-
42 Luca Bertolini

vices, industry and distribution) and the degree of functional mix (for
methodological and technical details see Zweedijk 1997; Serlie 1998).

1,0 UC

0,8

0,6

0,4
Dr
UO Wo

0,2 UL Br Ho Bu
DD Bi Ma
HR Vl

0,0
0,0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1,0

Legend:
Bilthoven Bi Driebergen Dr Utrecht CS UC Woerden Wo
Breukelen Br Hollandse HR Utrecht Lunet- UL
Rading ten
Bunnik Bu Houten Ho Utrecht Over- UO
vecht
Den Dol- DD Maarssen Ma Vleuten Vl
der

Figure 3.4. Application of the node-place model to station areas in the Utrecht re-
gion, 1997

In the Amsterdam urban region (Figure 3.3) there are both examples of
station areas under stress, of dependent locations and several unbalanced
nodes and places. Patterns of development in the 1997-2005 period seem
to confirm the characterisation of the different locations: for instance, ‘un-
der stress’ Central Station (Amsterdam CS) has been struggling with the
great complexity of further development there, and has accordingly, lost
some of its supremacy; ‘dependent’ Amsterdam Vlugtlaan has been closed
down because the station was deemed not economically viable by the rail-
way company; and it is the unbalanced station areas that have shown the
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 43

greatest development dynamics. Both striking upgrading processes and

downgrading processes have taken place here.

Legend:
Amsterdam AA Amsterdam AR Diemen Di Haarlem HS
Amstel RAI Spaarnw.
Amsterdam AB Amsterdam AS Diemen-Zuid DZ Koog KB
Bijlmer Sloterdijk Bloemwijk
Amsterdam AC Amsterdam AV Duivendrecht Du Schiphol Sch
CS Vlugtlaan Airport1
Amsterdam AL Amsterdam AZ Haarlem Ha Weesp We
Lelylaan Zuid/WTC
Amsterdam AM Abcoude Ab Hoofddorp Hd Zaandam Za
Muiderpoort
1. No place data available

Figure 3.5. Application of the node-place model to station areas in the Amster-
dam region, 1997-2005.
44 Luca Bertolini

Examples of the former are the developments of the station areas of

Amsterdam Sloterdijk and Amsterdam Bijlmer, which have gained on both
node and place index, but also Schiphol Airport, with a marked gain on the
node index (and no data available for the place index). An example of
downgrading is Amsterdam Zuid, which has lost significantly on both
node and place index. New unbalanced situations have also appeared in
this area of the diagram, as in a number of station areas sharp gains on the
place index have been matched by much smaller gains, or even losses on
the node index1.
In the Utrecht urban region (Figure 3.4) there is even less variety of sta-
tion area types. The system is dominated by a single location (Utrecht CS).
The rest follows at great distance; also in the Utrecht region, development
patterns since 1997, while not quantified, seem to confirm the characterisa-
tion of locations. Development efforts have been mainly directed at
Utrecht CS. However, the difficulty of transformation there has meant that
not much has been achieved on the ground. At the same time, little – if any
– development activity has touched the many ‘dependent’ station areas in
the region.
From a system perspective, most interesting are the cumulative patterns
of development at the level of the two urban regions (compare Figures 3.3
and 3.4). The Amsterdam region shows a clustering in the centre of the
‘balance’ line, the Utrecht agglomeration a clustering at the bottom, with
the sole exception of Utrecht Central Station. This is a crucial difference.
As already contended, areas at the very top of the middle line can offer
high opportunities for development, but may also instigate the most intense
conflicts. The (relative) borders of growth will be reached there before it is
reached in areas with lower node and place values. It then becomes impor-
tant to have in supply alternative areas with adequate public transport con-
nections if growth is not to be diverted to areas not well-connected to the
railway network. Amsterdam has those alternative station areas; Utrecht
does not. As a result, in Amsterdam the polycentric, public transport-
oriented pattern is being reinforced (Figures 3.2 and 3.5), while in Utrecht
development has concentrated in peripheral areas with poor public trans-
port access (Figure 3.2).

1
The author wishes to thank Angelique Klinkers for help in updating the origi-
nal analysis to 2005.
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 45

3.2.3 Conditions for change

Which factors might be behind these different development paths? In a

situation where many broader context factors are similar (consider eco-
nomic development, cultural orientation, planning regimes, etc.), a striking
difference between Amsterdam and Utrecht is that between the morphol-
ogy of the two railway networks: a combination of a radial and a tangential
network in Amsterdam – and a strongly radial network in Utrecht (Figure
3.2). The more articulated railway network in Amsterdam seems to have
been an essential condition in allowing the emergence there of a public
transport-oriented polycentrism. This fact supports the frequent plea for
the development of public transport orbitals (Hall and Ward 1998). How-
ever, it also stresses how the shaping of conditions conducive to a particu-
lar urban transport and land use development pattern is a long-term, only
partially controllable process.
The present network morphology in Amsterdam is the result of a very
long chain of decisions and actions, often unknowingly or unwillingly con-
tributing to the final result (Poelstra 2003). This is especially the case with
the development of its most crucial piece: the railway tangents. Decisions
and actions contributing to this development include land reservations for
a – never materialised – railway freight line around the city as early as the
beginning of the 20th century, and the opening – starting in the 1970s and
profiting from those rights-of-way – of new links to connect Schiphol air-
port to the national railway network. The desirability of locations along the
newly emerged railway tangents was further and decisively reinforced by
the realisation – envisaged since the 1960s and implemented since the
1970s – of a motorway ring along the same routes. Intriguingly, most if not
all aforementioned developments were unrelated to any deliberate attempts
to develop a multi-modal, polycentric urban system in Amsterdam and the
region. The only major transport infrastructure that consciously sought to
support such a pattern is the metro ring line – running along the railway
tangents and the motorway ring, and connecting all the major peripheral
development centres, which opened as late as 1997.
If it took Amsterdam so long, including a not-insignificant portion of
chance, a more than legitimate question is also whether Utrecht should,
and could, pursue a similar development pattern, all of its theoretical ad-
vantages notwithstanding. The gap between model and reality may be such
in that case that an alternative, and possibly more incremental strategy, is
plausible. Intriguingly, this is the approach adopted by the Utrecht regional
transport plan now under discussion, where an incremental development of
public transport tangents is proposed. The idea is to begin with bus ser-
vices during rush hour, and move later to regular bus lines, leaving the op-
46 Luca Bertolini

tion of building dedicated infrastructure open and dependent on the evolu-

tion of actual demand (Bestuur Regio Utrecht 2003).
What is true of the differences between Amsterdam and Utrecht is, ar-
guably, even truer when the transfer of solutions between cities in different
national or even continental contexts is contemplated. This recognition
should lead to serious questioning of much literature on sustainable devel-
opment. How much of a solution is, for instance, ‘Transit Oriented Devel-
opment’ of the type being proposed by Calthorpe (1993) and long applied
in European cities as Stockholm and Copenhagen (see next section) for
car-dependent cities in North America? Haven’t the United States and
Canada gone too far in dispersing land use? And how about exploding, re-
source-poor cities in the developing world? Will they ever have enough
means to develop the extensive public transport networks required by such
a model? The point is to not rule out that the answers could still be in the
affirmative. However, the great complications and the very long-term na-
ture of any transition to a significantly different transport and land use pat-
tern should be more carefully appreciated than in much current debate. At
the same time, greater effort should be exerted in understanding the poten-
tial for more incremental, more situation-specific, less orthodox strategies.
Examples of these are successful public transport-based approaches in cit-
ies as diverse as Ottawa in Canada, Curitiba in Brazil, Karlsruhe in Ger-
many, or Mexico City (all discussed in Cervero 1998).
Both network and area specific conditions and historical contingencies
are responsible for the different development paths described above. From
a strategic point of view, the crucial question is if a (re)orientation of urban
development towards the railway network can also be more proactively
supported, and how. In order to find an answer, alternative development
strategies are compared in the next section. With a focus on experiences in
Europe since the post-war period, two possible approaches can be distin-
guished, respectively a ‘coordinated development’ and a ‘reconnecting de-
velopments’ approach. They are illustrated by means of the examples of
Stockholm (coordinated development), and Karlsruhe, Naples and Rotter-
dam-The Hague (reconnecting developments).
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 47

3.3 The search for effective network development

strategies

3.3.1 Coordinated development: Stockholm

Stockholm, Sweden is a classic example of public transport-oriented de-

velopment; in many ways it has literally anticipated the principles being
propagated in much of the recent literature (e.g., Calthorpe 1993; Rogers
1997; Hall and Ward 1998) and strongly reminiscent of established ‘transit
metropolises’ elsewhere (Copenhagen, Munich, Tokyo, or Singapore –
discussed in Cervero 1998). At the heart of Stockholm’s strategy (Figure
3.6) is a radial subway system emanating from the central city, and new
towns built along the lines. Importantly, the latter not only has a residential
but also an employment function, favourable to an efficient bi-directional
use of the public transport network at all times. The Stockholm model is
highly successful in terms of public transport use. With a public transport
share of 28% of all trips (METREX, 2006) and of 44% of home to work
trips (Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation 2006) the
Stockholm region is one of Europe’s most public transport oriented me-
tropolises.
Contributing to these results are not just the general principles sketched
above, but also their consequent application at every spatial scale. Public
transport systems (bus, tram, train) all converge at subway stations, thus
allowing seamless connections. Public transport fares are kept low while
car use is made relatively less attractive (for instance, by expensive, lim-
ited parking facilities). On the land use side, both densities and functional
mix are highest around stations. It is not merely a matter of quantity: sta-
tion areas are the very centres of urban life, especially in the new towns.
Here retail and services are concentrated and public events are held, while
the carefully manicured open spaces are natural meeting points for inhabi-
tants and visitors alike.
The Stockholm approach rests on quite unique institutional conditions,
including a strong role of the central city in the metropolitan region, land
largely in public hands, and an urban development long led by the public
housing sector. While these conditions are important, it should be noted
that not dissimilar development patterns have also emerged in very differ-
ent institutional contexts (for example, market-led Tokyo). However, and
quite crucially, Stockholm shares with these other contexts the great conti-
nuity of the strategy, which has by now been consistently applied for about
60 years.
48 Luca Bertolini

Source: adapted from Cervero (1998)

Figure 3.6. Stockholm, the essential ingredients of the development strategy.

All past successes notwithstanding, the Stockholm model presently also

shows significant tensions, which are essentially due to two developments.
The first is the sheer expansion of the urban system, meaning that dis-
tances are becoming too long to be covered by subway within an accept-
able time. The second development is the increasing amount of mobility
demand between new towns (rather than between new towns and the cen-
tral city); this demand is difficult to cater to with public transport, and cer-
tainly with such a high capacity, low flexibility system as the subway. Po-
tential solutions are being explored; a light rail orbital is being developed
to cope with tangential relationships (albeit serving the central city fringe
rather than new towns). A high-speed train system traversing the entire
Mälaren region to the east of Stockholm has been developed to cope with
the up-scaling of the urban system (see chapter 14 for an evaluation of this
line). Third, the focus of land use policies has shifted from the design of
new urban areas to the densification and diversification of existing ones,
following the motto ‘build the city inwards’ (Office of Regional Planning
and Urban Transportation 2006). It is too soon to say whether these provi-
sions will be enough. The outcome remains uncertain, not lastly because it
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 49

has also become increasingly difficult to coordinate development effec-

tively from one centre in such an enlarged, multi-nuclear urban system.
In conclusion, while successful, the coordinated development approach
also shows emerging tensions (at least in its monocentric, strongly hierar-
chical version), and above all appears dependent on very specific local
conditions, most importantly including multiple decade policy continuity.
Other successful examples of coordinated development in Europe (such as
Copenhagen and Munich) also support this last point. What decision to
take then in the large majority of European cities without such a long-
standing tradition? An alternative approach seems to be emerging there,
which takes spatial and institutional fragmentation as its starting point, is
more incremental, and attempts to achieve greater transport land use inte-
gration combining top-down and bottom-up initiatives (so-called ‘multi-
level governance’). This second approach is entitled ‘reconnecting devel-
opments’ and is much less formalised in practice as well as theory, but it
deserves more recognition, as it better fits the present conditions of many
European cities. Three examples will be discussed below: Karlsruhe in
Germany, Naples in Italy and the Rotterdam-The Hague area (or the South
of the Randstad) in the Netherlands.

3.3.2 Reconnecting developments: Karlsruhe, Naples and

Rotterdam-The Hague

In the 1990s, when Karlsruhe realised it needed a more public transport-

oriented development strategy, it was already a heavily decentralised urban
system, with the central city accounting for only 300 000 of the 1,1 million
inhabitants of the metropolitan area, and a fragmented public transport sys-
tem lacking clear hierarchies. In this context the greatest weakness of pub-
lic transport was its poor connectivity, both internal (connectivity between
different public transport systems) and external (connectivity between pub-
lic transport and places of activity). Due to limited resources and institu-
tional constraints, a ‘grand plan’ for a whole new system was, however,
not a feasible option. However, on the positive side, there was an extensive
railway network with much under-utilised capacity. The solution was
eventually found in a strategy consisting of three main elements (Figure
3.7): i.) a limited number of new rail links improving the internal connec-
tivity of the public transport system, ii.) new stations improving its exter-
nal connectivity, and iii.) new ‘light-rail’ vehicles combining the features
of trams (more limited disruption, best suited to the intra-urban sections)
and trains (relatively high-speed, best suited to the extra-urban sections).
On the institutional side and as in Stockholm, the core municipality of
50 Luca Bertolini

Karlsruhe has had a pivotal role in promoting this metropolitan strategy.

Differently than in Stockholm, this was not so much attributable to its rela-
tive weight or dominant position, but rather through the effective employ-
ment of its ownership of the urban and regional public transportation
agency.

Source: adapted from Jefferson & Kühn (1996)

Figure 3.7. Karlsruhe, the essential ingredients of the development strategy

(schematic, not to scale).

This strategy has been highly successful in terms of modal shift, with
Karlsruhe being one of the few German cities where public transport use is
growing, and most importantly largely at the expense of the car (60% of
those commuting by public transport are former car drivers: VBK and
ABG 1996).
The second example comes from a very different context: Naples, Italy.
Here too, however, the situation has parallels with Karlsruhe in that it was
one of great network fragmentation (both physically and in fare structures
and timetables) and disconnection between urban developments and public
transport systems. Also here an extensive railway network inherited from
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 51

the past was regarded as an opportunity to develop more integrated sys-

tems. The main elements of the adopted transport strategy remind us of the
approach in Karlsruhe as well: strategic links, more stations (from 45 to
98) and more interchanges (both rail-rail: from 5 to 18, and rail-car: from 0
to 16: Cascetta 2000). Currently this strategy is being up-scaled to the
whole of the Campania region. Fare and timetable integration has been the
first step, already resulting in a 35% passenger increase in 2001-2004
(Pagliara and Cascetta 2006). More proactively than in Karlsruhe, how-
ever, a land use strategy matches the transport strategy. Its essence is a re-
focus of vast urban redevelopment efforts of the metropolitan area around
the stations of the railway network (Figure 3.8). The institutional context
also differs, in that strong leadership and coordination between municipal-
ity and region has been crucial (made possible by broader institutional re-
forms in Italy, and most notably the direct election and increased auton-
omy of the mayor of the municipality and the governor of the region).

Source: adapted from Papa (2004)

Figure 3.8. Naples, the essential ingredients of the development strategy (central
section only).
52 Luca Bertolini

The third and final example comes from the South of the Randstad (Rot-
terdam-The Hague area), in the Netherlands. The South of the Randstad
has been growing in a highly uncoordinated way in the last 30 or so years.
While developments have ironically, followed nationally mandated com-
pact city principles, a very uneven distribution of new built up areas in fa-
vour of secondary centres in the region, coupled with the very short dis-
tances between different centres, has resulted in extensive decentralisation
of activities and diffusion of mobility patterns. The current accessibility
and sustainability problems and a general lack of coherence of the urban
system are associated with these developments and in need of urgent atten-
tion.
The emerging strategy resembles that described for Naples and is
strongly reminiscent of the ‘strategic opportunism’ (a term borrowed from
Frank le Clercq, personal exchange) already noted in the Naples and
Karlsruhe cases. In the South of the Randstad the trigger for identifying a
potential solution has been the realisation that capacity be freed up on the
national railway network (due to the development of new dedicated high-
speed and freight links and the dismissal of short-range passenger services)
to develop a new regional public transport network. As in Karlsruhe and
Naples, a limited number of strategic links (rail and bus) improving the in-
terconnectivity of the network and new stations and better suited to the
dispersed nature of development, are constituent elements of the unfolding
approach (Figure 3.9). Less visibly but not less importantly, higher fre-
quencies, integration with local rail (tram, metro) and road-based public
transport services, also including the car system – mainly via carefully lo-
cated park-and-ride facilities – are also a part.
On the land use side the strategy shows direct parallels with Naples, but
adds a systematic note by demonstrating the amount and type of spatial
program to be developed at each station-node with its relative position in
the emerging multi-modal regional transportation network. A ‘node-place
model’ based on Bertolini (1999; see above) has been applied for the pur-
pose (Platform Zuidvleugel 2003). The strategy is now entering the im-
plementation phase, which, in its manifestation, also aptly typifies the re-
connecting developments approach: not so much a ‘grand plan’ but a
limited number of ‘station-pilots’ selected on the basis of real, short-term
development opportunities identified together with local stakeholders (mu-
nicipalities and private developers). The institutional dimension also has
its specificities: leadership has been taken by the Province of South-
Holland, in close collaboration with the main municipalities of Rotterdam
and The Hague, and intense interaction with such crucial stakeholders as
smaller municipalities, the national government, and the national railway
company.
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 53

Source: adapted from Platform Zuidvleugel (2003)

Figure 3.9. Rotterdam-The Hague, the essential ingredients of the development

strategy.

3.3.3 Comparing the two strategies

The coordinated development approach has been very successful in the

(few) European cities able to coherently maintain it throughout the second
half of the 20th century. Next to Stockholm, the examples of Copenhagen
and Munich can also be cited. However, even in these classic examples,
de- and re-centralisation processes are challenging the approach, as shown
in the Stockholm case. Even more importantly, the coordinated develop-
ment approach appears not to be an option for European cities that are only
now addressing the problem. The hypothesis advanced at the end of this
discussion is that, next to other aspects, a determinant factor of the viabil-
54 Luca Bertolini

ity of a development strategy is the phase of a city in its urban lifecycle.

There is in Europe a huge difference between the rapid urban growth of the
post-war boom and the much slower pace of the last decades. In these
more mature phases, cities that have not completely adopted a coordinated
development strategy seem poised to gain much from the reconnecting de-
velopments strategy illustrated by Karlsruhe, Naples and the Rotterdam-
The Hague region. In so doing, they may also be able to address problems
arising from the classic, strongly hierarchical monocentric model typified
by Stockholm, and thus learn to cope with an urban reality increasingly
characterised by multiple, unstable hierarchies, and multi-directional
flows, both in the spatial and institutional sense. In the meantime, identify-
ing the salient distinguishing features of the two approaches may help to
focus the debate. A tentative attempt in this direction is carried out in Ta-
ble 3.1.

Table 3.1. The two ideal typical approaches compared

Coordinated development Reconnecting develop-
ments
Spatial scale Urban Regional
Spatial hierarchy Vertical, strong Horizontal, weak
Urban morphology Monocentric Polycentric
Infrastructure morphology Radial (first phase); Organic grid
Radial with tangents (sec-
ond phase)
Transport system Mono-modal (rail) Multi- and inter-modal
(rail, bus, car)
Urban growth rate Fast (as in post war Europe) Slow (as in contemporary
Europe)
Institutional hierarchy Strong Weak
(core-municipality domi-
nated)
Inter-institutional interac- Limited Extensive
tion (across scales, sectors,
domains)
Policy discourse Growth management Sustainable development;
Metropolitan competitive-
ness
Planning philosophy Comprehensive, plan-drivenIncremental, project-driven
(‘strategic opportunism’)
Temporal horizon Long-term Short-term
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 55

3.4 Conclusions

Proactively supporting a re-orientation of urban-regional development to-

wards the railway network and its nodes requires addressing the complex,
urban-region-wide node-place dynamics of stations areas. The node-place
model introduced in the first part of the chapter can be seen as an analyti-
cal tool to help gain insight into the dynamics, raise questions about its un-
derlying factors, and explore the scope for intervention. Application of the
model to the Amsterdam and Utrecht urban regions has, for instance,
shown how the more articulated railway network of the Amsterdam region
may have both supported and been reinforced by a polycentric, station
area-focussed urban development pattern. At the same time, an enquiry
into the way this network emerged has warned against a too-direct transfer
of the strategy to other contexts. It has been contented that, in other situa-
tions including Utrecht, a lighter, incremental approach towards enhanced
network articulation may be better suited.
Further elaborating on this discussion, in the second part of the chapter,
two alternative, ideal-typical ways of linking the development of the urban
system to the development of the railway network were discussed: a ‘coor-
dinated development’ approach, typified by Stockholm, and a ‘reconnect-
ing developments’ approach, illustrated by Karlsruhe, Naples and Cam-
pania, and the Rotterdam-The Hague area. While the ‘coordinated
development’ approach has a long and successful history in some Euro-
pean cities, the examples illustrating the reconnecting developments ap-
proach are still in their early stages. It is too soon to determine whether
they will achieve their expected trend-breaking status. Whatever the out-
come, the variety of solutions they document suggests that it is not the spe-
cific form of development which is crucial here, but rather it is the degree
of consistency between land use and transport policies that matters most.
The content of these policies can, and should be different, as they respond
to specific and continuously evolving local conditions (consider the new
challenges posed by poly-centrism and up-scaling of the urban system in
Stockholm).
The above means that the universal models on which some current litera-
ture tend to focus (e.g., Calthorpe 1993; Rogers 1997; Hall and Ward
1998) should not be embraced uncritically, and that the diversity of ap-
proaches central to other studies (e.g., Cervero 1998) could be a more use-
ful source of inspiration. Identifying a workable and working strategy
seems to require understanding what works in a given, historically-grown
situation, with all its unique constraints (such as a strongly decentralised
urban system) but also its opportunities (an existing under-utilised national
56 Luca Bertolini

railway network). Furthermore, in all contexts there seems to be both a

need and a possibility to identify relatively marginal changes (such as a
few extra links) that may achieve system-wide radical changes (as a much
more integrated network). This is in any event the hope, at least already
supported by some evidence (consider the modal shifts in Karlsruhe and
Naples), indicated by the last three cases outlined above.

References

Berg L van den, Pol P (1998) The European High-Speed Train and Urban Devel-
opment. Ashgate, Aldershot
Bertolini L (1996) Nodes and Places: Complexities of Railway Station Redevel-
opment. European Planning Studies 4:331–345
Bertolini L (1999) Spatial Development Patterns and Public Transport: the Appli-
cation of an Analytical Model in the Netherlands. Planning Practice & Re-
search 14:199–210
Bertolini L, Spit T (1998) Cities on Rails: the Redevelopment of Railway Station
Areas. E & FN Spon, London
Bestuur Regio Utrecht (2003) Regionale Verkeers- en Vervoesplan. Bestuur Regio
Utrecht, Utrecht
Calthorpe P (1993) The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the
American Dream. Princeton Architectural Press, Princeton
Cascetta E (2000) La Metropolitana nel Progetto della Mobilità di Napoli, In:
Spadea, R (ed) La Metropolitana di Napoli. Nuovi Spazi per la Mobilità e la
Cultura. I: Electa, Napoli
Cervero R (1998) The Transit Metropolis; a Global Inquiry. Island Press, Wash-
ington DC
Cervero R (ed) (2004) Transit-Oriented Development in the United States: Ex-
periences, Challenges and Prospects. TCRP Report 102, Washington DC
Dittmar H, Ohland G (eds) (2004) The New Transit Town: Best Practices in Tran-
sit-Oriented Development. Island Press, Washington DC
Dunphy R, Cervero R, Dock F, Mc Avey M, Porter D (2005) Development
Around Transit. Urban Land Institute, Washington DC
Hall P, Ward C (1998) Sociable Cities: the Legacy of Ebenezer Howard. John
Wiley & Sons, Chichester
Hanson S (ed) (1995) The Geography of Urban Transportation. The Guilford
Press, New York/London
Jefferson C, Kühn A (1996) Multimodal LRT Vehicles: a Development for the
Future? In: Recio J, Sucharov L (eds) Urban Transport and the Environment
II. Urban Transport 96, Barcelona
Lee DB (1973) Requiem for Large-Scale Models. Journal of the American Plan-
ning Association 39:163–178.
Lee DB (1994) Retrospective on Large-Scale Urban Models. Journal of the
American Planning Association 60:35–40.
 Station areas as nodes and places in urban networks 57

Manheim ML (1974) Fundamentals of Transportation Systems Analysis, Volume

1: Basic Concepts. MIT Press, Cambridge
Meyer MD, Miller EJ (2001) Urban Transportation Planning, Second Edition.
McGraw-Hill, New York.
METREX (2006) Region of Stockholm. www.Eurometrex.org/Docs/eAtlas/
STOCKHOLM eAtlas.pdf
Office of Regional Planning and Urban Transportation (2006) The Stockholm Re-
gion: Regional Planning and Development Review. Stockholm County Coun-
cil, Stockholm
Pagliara F, Cascetta E (2006) Integrated Land Use and Transport Planning: the
Metro Systems Project of Naples and Campania. Paper presented at the con-
gress: Transportation planning: A policy design challenge? Amsterdam
Papa E (2004) Land Use Transportation Planning Policies: the Naples 100 Sta-
tions Plan and the Case of Municipio Station. Paper presented at the AESOP
2004 congress, Grenoble
Platform Zuidvleugel (2003) De Stedenbaan. Provincie Zuid-Holland, Den Haag
Poelstra H (2003) Eerst Infrastructuur, Dan Beleid. In: Dienst Ruimtelijk Orde-
ning Gemeente Amsterdam (ed) Stadsplan Amsterdam 1928-2003. Nai uit-
gevers, Rotterdam, pp 118–129
Rogers R (1997) Cities for a Small Planet. Faber & Faber, London
Serlie Z (1998) Stationslocaties in Vergelijkend Perspectief. Master Thesis, Uni-
versiteit Utrecht, Utrecht
VBK, ABG (1996) Report ’95. Verkehrsbetriebe Karlsruhe and Albatal Verkehrs-
Gesellschaft mbH, Karlsruhe
Vonk G, Geertman S, Schot P (2005) Bottlenecks Blocking Widespread Usage of
Planning Support Systems. Environment and Planning 37:909–924
Wegener M, Fürst F (1999) Land-Use Transport Interaction: State of the Art. In-
stitut für Raumplanung, Dortmund
Zweedijk A (1997) Knoop of Plaats? Naar een Operationalisering van het Begrip
Stationslocatie. Master Thesis, Universiteit Utrecht, Utrecht