Beyond a transport node? What residents want from transforming railway stations

ABSTRACT

Transport planning authorities and operators in various countries are planning far-reaching transformations of secondary railway stations into so-called mobility hubs with the aim to foster rail-based and intermodal mobility. The transformations of railway stations do not only affect the transportation network, but also the urban fabric surrounding railway stations. Projects of this nature, therefore, require a deeper understanding of the preferences of local residents, the key users of such hubs. We developed a three-stage adaptive survey experiment with a random sample of 2,028 adult residents in the perimeter of three secondary railway stations in Switzerland to identify preferences towards four potential railway station functions: public transport provision, access to multimodality, retail and services, and stations as a public space. The main findings are that the transportation function is the top priority, followed by the public space function. Other functions, such as retail, services, and multimodal mobility, are less preferred by residents. The findings reveal the importance of also considering non-commercial functions of these hubs and that residents are viewing railway station as more than merely transport hubs or shopping centres; they are considered key neighbourhood components that shape local identities through their role as public spaces.

KEYWORDS:

• Public transport
• urban mobility
• transport hubs
• railway stations
• survey experiment

1. Introduction

The development of railway stations into multimodal transport hubs (Bell 2019) is a widely discussed strategy for promoting low-carbon transportation (Kinigadner and Büttner 2021; Buehler et al. 2017), creating sustainable urban environments (Cervero 2003; et al. 2011), and mitigating climate change (Banister 2011). More precisely, multimodal transport hubs can help to promoting active mobility (Shaheen et al. 2017), reducing traffic congestion (Balcombe et al., 2004), and increasing transport accessibility (Frank, Dirks, and Walther 2021; García-Palomares, Gutiérrez, and Cardozo 2013; Martens, 2016). However, such transformations involve complex challenges for the spatial development of cities and regions (Papa and Bertolini 2015; Bertolini, Curtis, and Renne 2012; de Wijs, Witte, and Geertman 2016; Miramontes et al. 2017) and affect not only transport hubs themselves but also the surrounding urban areas and their residents (Chen and Haynes 2015; Dong 2017; Ibraeva et al. 2020). Transforming and improving railway stations into transport hubs often go hand in hand with the densification of settlements around transport hubs and the improvement of connectivity within and across settlements, resulting in the alteration of housing, urban structure, and community life and thus residents’ everyday lives (Dong 2017; Trepci, Maghelal, and Azar 2020; Croese 2020).

To address these challenges and interdependencies, a systemic perspective is needed that considers railway stations not only as a collection of technical infrastructures but as an integral part of the urban fabric and urban neighbourhoods (Bán 2007; Richards and MacKenzie 1986). Despite the potential benefits of a multimodal mobility system (Givoni and Banister 2013), the perspectives of users and especially residents remain understudied (Bell 2019; Hansson et al. 2019). Their behaviour is crucial for achieving a modal shift towards public transportation, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and for securing the democratic transformation of infrastructure and urban areas (Bell 2019; Monzón, Hernández, and Di Ciommo 2016; Miramontes et al. 2017). Furthermore, public opinion is crucial to ensure the acceptance and implementation of urban policy and planning goals (Huber and Wicki 2021; Wicki, Hofer, and Kaufmann 2022). The developments of infrastructure projects often provoke (local) resistance and trigger (local) public debates (Valentin, Naderpajouh, and Abraham 2018). Consequently, a lack of public acceptance is often a key obstacle to transforming urban areas (Wicki and Kaufmann 2022; Whittemore and BenDor 2019), and it can significantly contribute to slower project implementation or even failure (Arias and Bachmann 2022).

Therefore, understanding and securing public acceptance is crucial to transforming railway stations, specifically in densely populated metropolitan regions. The area of a railway station is a ‘melting pot of interests, desires, and responsibilities’ (de Wijs, Witte, and Geertman 2016, 436). The early inclusion of residential preferences in an optimized planning and design of transport hubs can also prevent a possible misallocation of resources and space.

The objective of this study is therefore to investigate the residents’ preferences of developing secondary urban railway station developments into multimodal transport hubs. The study examines different potential functions of railway stations that we derived from the literature, such as multimodality, public transport usage, and retail/services attracting people. It mainly relies on the analysis of a self-administered survey of 2,028 adult residents near three Swiss secondary railway stations, namely Bern Wankdorf, Nyon, and Ostermundigen. We find that the core function of railway stations in providing access to a well-functioning transport system is being rated as the most important, followed by the function of serving as a public space. The survey experiments reveal lesser preferences for railway stations to provide different services and commercial use, as well as potentials for multimodality (e.g. micro-mobility).

Beyond these empirical findings, the study provides an analytical template for examining residents’ perceptions of railway station transformations. This designed and implemented method involve an innovative survey distribution approach that relies on bike couriers who were able to distribute the survey within predefined perimeters and an adaptive survey experiment that allowed us to include more attributes in one survey experiments than in conventional survey experiments. We then tested and verified the potential of this method in the case of three Swiss secondary railway stations.

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 reviews railway station functions from literature; Section 3 presents the case selection rationale as well as information about the data collection and describes the survey experiment; Section 4 presents empirical results; and the conclusion and discussion imbed the findings from the case studies more generally regarding policy implications and previous results from literature.

2. Functions of railway stations

Railway stations are essential transport infrastructures. Their development is influenced by demographic and socio-cultural changes, as well as the emergence of new modes of transport, such as car-sharing, electric bicycles, and electric scooters (Araghi, van Oort, and Hoogendoorn 2022; Baek et al. 2021; Kong, Jin, and Sui 2020). Also institutions like the European Union have played a significant role in promoting investment and the adoption of these sustainable transportation modes (Finger and Audouin 2019). Similarly, embracing new mobility options in rail is viewed as an opportunity to establish a more sustainable transportation model in the development of the new US high-speed rail system (Albalate and Bel 2012).

However, railway stations are no longer merely facilities for transportation; they have evolved into integrated city spaces providing a range of functions beyond transport services (Zacharias, Zhang, and Nakajima 2011). These functions can include commercial activities for business travellers, recreational amenities, and public spaces for disseminating ideas and promoting lifestyles. This evolution of railway stations into multimodal transport hubs aims to create locations that meet the requirements for a high quality of stay and a wide range of services for public transport users, including those who do not travel by rail (Pitsiava-Latinopoulou and Iordanopoulos 2012). This article suggests that acknowledging these changes, we should concentrate on contextual factors. By using a structured framework, we can create more efficient development strategies. These strategies should tackle both technical and social challenges to promote sustainable development (Zemp et al. 2011b, 2011a).

To accurately assess the relevance of railway stations to the local population, it is essential to understand the distinction between functions, usage, and preferences. Functions refer to the various roles or services that railway stations offer to their users, while usage refers to the extent to which users employ these functions. Preferences, on the other hand, refer to the individual's subjective evaluation of the various services offered by the railway station, which may be influenced by a range of factors such as personal preferences, convenience, accessibility, the location of one’s home and job, and constraints such as time or cost.

In this study, we focus on the preference of residents and users with regard to functions of railway stations. Yet, the functions we identify may not directly correspond to the actual usage of the railway station, but rather reflect the intended usage or the potential use of the station. Therefore, we measure the preferences of residents and (potential) users around railway stations by asking them to rate the importance of the identified functions in their decision-making process when choosing to use the station. While our approach may not capture the complexity of the relationship between functions, usage, and preferences, we believe that it provides a useful starting point for investigating the perceived relevance of the functions of railway stations to the local population.

Users of railway stations are broadly defined as all people who utilize a service offered at the transport hub. Di Ciommo, Monzon, and Barberan (2016) distinguish between travelling and non-travelling users, noting that there can be some overlap as forms of use can be combined. Travelling users primarily use the transport hub for its transport functions, such as a link between the settlement and transport system or for changing their means of transport. In contrast, non-travelling users engage in commercial (e.g. shopping) or non-commercial activities (e.g. use of public space, place-shaping functions) at the transport hub.

Railway stations serve multiple functions catering to various user types. Bell (2019) discusses intermodal mobility hubs, underlining the importance of addressing diverse user needs and looking at the case of San Jose Diridon station. Hernandez and Monzon (2016) explore key factors that define an efficient urban transport interchange in the context of Madrid, focusing on users’ perceptions. Lois (2018) analyze satisfaction factors at urban transport interchanges in Spain, measuring travellers’ attitudes towards aspects like information, security, and waiting times. Loukaitou-Sideris et al. (2017) provide a comparative analysis of high-speed rail station development, examining destination and multi-use facilities with a focus on the San Jose Diridon station. Reusser et al. (2008) emphasize the importance of classifying railway stations for sustainable transitions, considering the balance between node and place functions in Swiss railway stations. Zemp et al. (2011a, 2011b) contribute to a common understanding and assessment criteria for railway stations by exploring their generic functions in Swiss railway stations and stressing the significance of context in classification. In summary, railway stations combine functions relevant to various potential users (Reusser et al. 2008b; Lois 2018; Bell 2019; Hernandez and Monzon 2016; Loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2017; Zemp et al. 2011a, 2011b), with the literature providing valuable insights into the different aspects of user satisfaction, classification, and development of railway stations in various case studies.

Based on a literature review and written as well as oral feedback from project-related local and/or national railway experts on an initial draft of our questionnaire, we identified 16 functions relevant to the analysis of transport hubs from a resident's perspective (see Figure 1). To enable the monitoring and verification of the classification criteria, we have provided a table (Table A4) in the appendix that includes the 16 functions and the corresponding works reviewed (without claiming to provide a complete literature review).

These functions were then categorized into four groups. The first group consists of functions that serve public transport, representing the core offer of the transport system (e.g. interregional trains). The second group includes functions related to individual transport offers (e.g. micro-mobility and individual transport). The third group comprises functions related to services and commercial use (e.g. catering offers). Finally, the fourth group includes functions that describe the transport hub as a public space, as well as those related to place identity (e.g. open spaces). All our functions have been standardized to operate from a baseline of zero. While we acknowledge that our classification could be further refined, we believe that our approach provides a useful starting point for future research in this area.

Figure 1. Functions of Railway Stations from a User Perspective Note. The detailed description of the individual functions and their characteristics can be found in the survey instrument in the Appendix.

2.1. Core public transport services

The core function of a railway station is the primary offering of public transport connections (Ciommo, Monzon, and Barberan 2016; Zemp et al. 2011b). This includes departing, arriving, waiting, and transferring. The goal of the transport hub is to fulfil the function of the transportation node in the best possible way. This is achieved by considering the preferences of the users. For this purpose, the appropriate infrastructure must be provided (Zemp et al. 2011a).

Transfers can take place between two lines of the same mode of transport or between two different modes of transport. It should be noted that transfer times may also be relevant for other modes of transport discussed in the subsequent section. However, at a transport hub, the intention is usually that such a transfer includes at least one mode of public transport, which is why we included this function as a core public transport service. As such, efficient transfers must be ensured across various transport modes (Zemp et al. 2011b). Transport hubs play a critical role in providing seamless connections between different modes of transport, and designing these hubs to cater to the specific needs of users can significantly improve the overall travel experience (Zemp et al. 2011a). Thus, a transport hub should be designed to route different modes of transportation at the hub so that an easy transfer is possible. In addition, coordinating schedules and fare regulations between the different transport systems can further facilitate transfer (Monzón and Ciommo 2016; Rouillard and Guiheux 2020).

2.2. Individual transport and micro-mobility

The concept of multimodal mobility aims to extend the traditionally unimodal choice between either private or public transport towards multiple modes. Unlike unimodal transport, multimodal transport uses two or more transport services. Combining private and public transport modes offers the benefits of both systems while avoiding their weaknesses. Thus, the combination appears promising in changing people’s mode share towards public transportation (Bundesamt für Statistik and Bundesamt für Raumentwicklung (ARE) 2017; Nes 2002; Spickermann, Grienitz, and Von Der Gracht 2014).

A transport hub should enable efficient and secure access and transfer between various user modes (Bell 2019; Yatskiv and Budilovich 2017). Interchanges can occur between two lines of the same transport mode or between two different modes. Multimodality is thus achieved by enabling transfers between at least two transportation modes (Zemp et al. 2011b). Since a transport hub includes different modes of transportation, they must be routed at the hub so that transfers can be made easily and quickly (Yatskiv and Budilovich 2017). To this end, coordinating schedules and fare policies between transport systems can further facilitate interchangess (Ciommo, Monzon, and Barberan 2016; Rouillard and Guiheux 2020).

2.3. Services and commerce

Engaging in several activities during a single visit to a transport hub can be defined as activity-based integration. Depending on the available infrastructure, different activities of daily living can be performed (Givoni and Rietveld 2007; Hernandez and Monzon 2016). Such activities include working, consuming, recreating, and travelling. Furthermore, this encompasses gastronomic establishments like cafes or restaurants, shopping centres, or cultural amenities. These aspects ensure that a transport hub takes on both spatial and organizational function (Ciommo, Monzon, and Barberan 2016; Hernandez and Monzon 2016; Rouillard and Guiheux 2020). Service and commerce zones accommodate all infrastructures that are not directly necessary for a journey. Nevertheless, it is a relevant factor for the quality of the transport hub as it affects the functions a node can perform in addition to transportation (Hernandez and Monzon 2016; Givoni and Rietveld 2007). For example, seating, gastronomic services, or shopping facilities ensure that the hub is not only used as a starting, ending, or intermediate point of a journey but also assumes a stay function (Monzón and Ciommo 2016). The consumption opportunities offered in the hub should consider the hub users’ preferences. For example, regional commuter station kiosks make more sense than a tourist information centre, which should be located at a more prominent transport hub (Monzón and Ciommo 2016).

2.4. Public space

Multimodal transport hubs in populated areas influence their surroundings more than almost any other infrastructure (Ciommo, Monzon, and Barberan 2016; Bertolini 1999). This starts with the accessibility of the surrounding space through the essential transport function and the environmental quality, meaning the perception of railway stations as a place (Lois 2018; Bertolini 1999). This allows people to better access or to exit the transport hub area. Similar to a central square in a village, a transport hub can become a social gathering place. Depending on the infrastructure available and services offered, people can meet for work, leisure, or learning (Zemp et al. 2011a; Bertolini 1999). For example, a transport hub can indirectly provide transfer opportunities to other modes. In addition, transport hubs also have an overarching urban function. As stations may become central points of attraction, they must also fulfil the functions of place identity and the provision of public space (Zemp et al. 2011b, 2011a; Rouillard and Guiheux 2020; Bertolini 1999).

The comfort a traveller experiences during his or her journey is one of the most important reasons for deciding whether or not to use public transportation. In order to increase the share of public transport in the modal split, comfort must be considered throughout the trip. This also includes the time spent at the hub and, thus, public space as a function of a transport hub. This includes essential elements such as accessibility, sanitary facilities, rest and waiting facilities, and perceived safety and security (Monzón and Ciommo 2016; Rouillard and Guiheux 2020). However, it must be noted that these functions may not always be clear-cut. Specifically, while often being argued as part of public space, security may also serve as an exclusion of public space, at least for some population groups (Zemp et al. 2011b, 2011a).

3. Case selection and data collection

This section describes the case selection rationale and the survey’s target group, giving an overview of the questions included in the survey, explaining the experiment for weighing the functions of the transport hub from a user perspective, and, lastly, describing the procedure for conducting such a survey.

3.1. Case selection

We conduct a comparative case study to implement a survey around three existing train stations in Switzerland (Gerring 2008). Switzerland is a particularly interesting case due to its highly developed public transport network, one with even growing demand but limited space – thus reaching its capacity limits (Zemp et al. 2011a). The development of railway stations thus represents a key component in fostering public transportation as a mode (Stadler Benz and Stauffacher 2023; Müller 2023). In addition, the (urban) space in Switzerland, as well as the urban fabric, are shaped by no infrastructure as much as by railway stations, which is why railway stations constitute an important infrastructure case to study. However, in such developments, numerous parties are involved, all with different perspectives and objectives (Bertolini and Spit 2005; Zemp et al. 2011a). We, however, wish to take the perspective of the users and study their preferences regarding the allocation of space.

Specifically, we examine citizens’ preferences on three secondary multimodal transport hubs in Switzerland: Bern Wankdorf, Nyon, and Ostermundigen (see Figure 2). These secondary multimodal hubs are strategically located within larger agglomerations and serve as vital links between the urban hinterland and the central stations of the cities. Beyond providing local transport services, secondary multimodal hubs also function as potential stops for long-distance trains, augmenting the capacity and efficiency of the overall transport network. They play a pivotal role in the future development of public transport for countries with a highly developed railway infrastructure such as Switzerland. This is because these hubs not only enhance connectivity and increase capacity but also alleviate congestion at central stations, benefiting both the infrastructure and its users (Cervero and Murakami 2009).

Figure 2. Perimeter and survey area of the three locations Note. The maps show the perimeter (top) and the distribution area (bottom) of the three locations, Bern Wankdorf, Nyon and Ostermundigen. Letters and colours were used to divide the neighbourhoods and the associated self-assignment of the residents within the three survey locations.

Bern Wankdorf, redeveloped in 2004 for the UEFA Euro 2008, is situated on the outskirts of Bern, near the Aare river (Aebischer et al. 2022). Despite the recent development of the WankdorfCity service district to the north and its integration with the tram network, the station maintains a sense of impermanence. The station accommodates approximately 16,800 daily commuters, and is surrounded by a community of 2,708 residents and 10,615 full-time jobs (Aebischer et al. 2022). Future plans involve redevelopment of surrounding areas and enhancement of railway crossings as well as bicycle infrastructure for increased safety and accessibility (Aebischer et al. 2022; Müller 2023).

Ostermundigen, primarily a residential community, lies immediately east of the city of Bern (Aebischer et al. 2022). Historically developed along Bernstrasse, the station is an important transit point for logistics transport due to its central location on the Lötschberg-Simplon axis. Ostermundigen station serves 15,000 daily travellers and is surrounded by 6,807 residents and 4,300 full-time jobs. The planned introduction of a tram line along Bernstrasse will lead to a complete reorientation of platform access, improved public transport connections, and a construction boom in the nearby station perimeter (Aebischer et al. 2022).

Nyon, which features a half-hourly long-distance connection, caters to a broad catchment area comprising small villages and popular tourist spots at the foot of the Jura. It serves as a regional hub for shopping, culture, and leisure activities, in addition to being a frequently used interchange point for trips to Geneva and Lausanne. The station accommodates approximately 19,500 daily travellers, with 7,302 residents and 1,276 full-time jobs in the surrounding area (Aebischer et al. 2022). Future plans include better integration with the local neighbourhood through the transformation of existing parking spaces into enhanced public areas (Aebischer et al. 2022).

By examining the public preferences of different functions of Bern Wankdorf, Nyon, and Ostermundigen, we aim to develop a comprehensive understanding of how to enhance the overall user experience, manage passenger flows, promote interconnectivity, and support sustainable urban development. This comparative analysis of secondary stations with distinct histories, locations, and passenger demographics will provide valuable insights for stakeholders involved in the management and development of Switzerland's railway infrastructure.

3.2. Survey overview

We conducted a survey around the train stations of Bern Wankdorf, Nyon, and Ostermundigen, with a focus on residential areas within approximately 1.2 km radius, a distance typically walked to a station (Saghapour, Moridpour, and Thompson 2016; García-Palomares et al. 2018). Distribution of survey invitations was accomplished via bike couriers to all mailboxes in the respective perimeter and Google Ads.

We received a total of 2,028 valid responses from residents within these areas, with a response rate of approximately 10%. The survey pool displayed a range of sociodemographic characteristics, with a preponderance of individuals who were highly educated, employed, and regular users of public transport. The participants were from 18 to 94 years old, with an average age of 48.6 years. 53.4% were male and 46.4% were female. For a sample overview regarding age and gender, see Table A1 in the Appendix. For a comparison of how these samples compare to the studied populations in the three case studies, see Table A2 for Bern Wankdorf and Ostermundigen and Table A3 for Nyon in the Appendix.

The survey comprised of questions concerning sociodemographic factors, station use, general mobility behaviour, and evaluation of station functions, all aimed at understanding not just the logistics but overall mobility preferences. For further details on the survey distribution, the recruitment and response rate, as well as the survey structure and methods see Appendix A1.

3.3. Adaptive survey experiment

We developed an adaptive survey experiment that aims to identify residents’ requirements from for the future development of railway stations based on the approach of the Adaptive Self-Explication Method by Netzer and Srinivasan (2011). For this purpose, relevant functions discussed in Section 2 above were weighed against each other. We further developed and slightly adapted the method for the current project so that different functions were weighed against each other regardless of their assigned importance. This adaptation allowed us to analyze all three experimental parts independently from each another. The results from this method represent a weighing of individual functions of railway stations from the user’s point of view. The survey of residents’ preferences helps to identify a potential lack of acceptance or understanding for the transformation projects at an early stage and to gain knowledge for the design and support of planning and investment decisions, as it enables identifying benefits of different functions that correspond to residents’ requirements.

To do so, we implemented a multi-attribute experiment. A three-stage adaptive survey experiment determined preferences over 16 functions (see Table 1). The three-stage experiment was used to weight and evaluate different functions and their design from a resident perspective (see Figure 3). In the first part of the experiment, participants were asked to rate three to four attributes of the 16 functions on a scale of 1 (very poor) to 7 (very good). The 16 functions had to be ranked from most important to least important in the second part. In the third and final part of the experiment, two of the 16 functions were compared with each other. Specifically, respondents were asked to weight two individual functions by estimating how much more important one factor is than the other by allocating 100 points. This task was repeated four times.

Figure 3. Three-stage Adaptive Experiment Note. The detailed experiment can be seen in the survey instrument in the Appendix.

Table 1. Railway Functions and their Possible Attributes.

Function	Function Attributes
interregional trains	never every 30 min every 15 min
regional trains	never every 30 min every 15 min
local means of transport	never every 30 min every 15 min every 8 min
bike-sharing services	no offer ‘free-floating’ offer (i.e. the bikes are available where they were last parked without a fixed station) fixed rental stations (at the exits)
e-scooter/scoter-services	no offer ‘free-floating’ offer (i.e. the bikes are available where they were last parked without a fixed station) fixed rental stations at the exits
car-sharing services	no offer outside the train station, accessible by bus/tram outside the train station, within walking distance station right next to the train station
park-and-rail facilities	no offer outside the train station, accessible by bus/tram outside the train station, within walking distance station right next to the train station
third-party-services	none unattended machines (e.g. ATM, My-Post24) branches with service
Public Transport-Services	ticket vending machine ticket counter travel centre
shopping facilities and shops	no offer low shopping offer (single shop) diverse shopping offers (different shops)
food services	no offer take-away offer vending machine cafés and restaurants with seating
open areas (e.g. to linger)	no open spaces station square with seating greened station park with seating
architectural identity	no specific architecture the unique train station in Switzerland architecture in harmony with the neighbourhood
security measures	no measures camera surveillance regular patrols
public toilets	none CHF 2, regular cleaning throughout the day free, daily cleaning free, regular cleaning throughout the day
transfer time	20-minute transfer time 10-minute transfer time direct connections without waiting

Note. The detailed description of the individual functions and their characteristics can be seen in the survey instrument in the Appendix. The identified functions are not necessarily fixed but can be adapted contextually for each case. It is also possible to adapt the number and design of the function attributes.

The three experimental parts can be combined at the end. Specifically, the first step is to recode the ranking of the functions on a scale from 0 (always ranked 16th and last on average) to 100 (always ranked first on average). This value corresponds to the Importance rating (aggregated utility) of the best-ranked attribute of the function from the first part of the experiment. The difference between the best and worst rated attribute of the function from the first part of the experiment corresponds to the difference from the third part of the weighting (‘Supply Improvement Rating’), which is used to recode the attribute values accordingly.

4. Empirical results

This section first presents the results for ranking the attributes of the individual functions. Second, we discuss the results for ranking the functions overall and individually for the three sites. Third, we present the results of the decision experiment with the weighting of two functions. Lastly, we show the combined results for all three parts of the experiment.

4.1. Attribute rankings

Figure 4 shows the average attribute rankings for the 16 individual functions (also see Figure A1 in the Appendix for average rankings by case study). Across the board, the coefficients for all attribute characteristics within the individual functions point to the expected direction so that inherently better offers are also rated better. Exceptions to this are interregional trains, where there seems to be a saturation of services at the 15-minute interval. On average, this is rated similarly to the 30-minute interval. The result is similar to Park and Rail, where the best option with a station next to the transport hub is even rated slightly worse than a station within walking distance (although not statistically significantly different). The most significant differences in the rankings can be seen for the public space attribute. Thus, the absence of open spaces and no public toilets are rated six points worse than the best possible option in each case. These results are similar for regional trains, local transportation, and transfer times. The rating of the e-scooter service tends to be indifferent and relatively low in comparison. While fixed rental stations are rated as basically good with an average of just over four, free-floating offers appear to be rather unattractive to respondents: they are only rated noticeably better than no offer. This result is also reflected in the open comment fields: many study participants expressed displeasure with such mobility services, as they view e-scooters as often lying around and blocking pedestrian passages. In the case of services and commercial use, more strongly developed offers are rated better. However, here, too, a kind of saturation seems to prevail, which means that the additional benefit of the fulfilled offer is only slight.

Figure 4. Average Rating of Individual Function Attributes Note. Average rating of the individual functional attributes on a scale from very poor to very good (1-7) if they were available at the transportation hub, e.g. ‘As how good or poor would you evaluate if regional trains (e.g. regional rail) stopped at the [LOCATION] station according to the following options?’ N = 2,028. The error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals. See Figure A1 for average ratings by study location.

Figure 5 shows the average and the distribution of the rankings of the individual functions. Overall, it can be seen that the core offer of the transport system is rated best. Regional trains were rated as the most critical function, followed by short transfer times for connections, local means of transport, and interregional trains. Public space functions, such as public toilets, open spaces, and safety measures, are thus rated as the second most important category after the core concern of offering public transport. This is followed by services and commercial use, which seem to meet demand but are not a core concern. At the bottom of the chart, three of the four multimodal and individual transport functions are listed. In particular, aversion against e-scooters suggests that the understanding of and need for this mobility tool are still lacking at the three locations studied.

Figure 5. Average Ranking of Overall Functions Note. The table shows the results for the following survey question: ‘Please rank the 16 supply improvements in terms of their value to you. Move the supply improvement that is most valuable to you to the top. Repeat this process until all improvements are sorted from most valuable to least valuable. Since this task drives the later questions, the ranking at the bottom is just as important as the ranking at the top.’ N = 2,028. Ranking indicates ranking per case study. Mean indicates the average ranking of each function per case study. The 95% confidence intervals are shown in brackets as CI 95%. The standard deviation is indicated as SD.

Table 2 also shows the rankings by location. Overall, the results are highly homogeneous and consistent across all three locations. Thus, only slight deviations can be seen in the average assessment of the individual functions. The rather supra-regional importance of Nyon deserves specific mention, leading to a higher weighting of supra-regional trains, that were ranked first. Also, SBB (national railroad company) services in Ostermundigen are rated significantly higher, as reflected also in the open comment fields. This result is to be viewed in connection with the dissolution of the rail travel centre in Ostermundigen, which caused great displeasure among some respondents. In contrast, the rating is significantly lower in Bern Wankdorf, potentially because such services are currently not offered but rather obtained at other railway stations nearby.

Table 2. Ranking of Individual Functions: Ranking and Average by Case Study.

	Bern Wankdorf			Nyon			Ostermundigen
	Mean	CI 95%	SD	Mean	CI 95%	SD	Mean	CI 95%	SD
Regional trains	4.92	[4.83, 5]	3.65	4.83	[4.74, 4.91]	3.95	4.83	[4.74, 4.91]	3.78
Transfer time	5.73	[5.65, 5.82]	3.94	5.64	[5.55, 5.73]	4.05	5.46	[5.37, 5.54]	3.81
Local transport	5.23	[5.15, 5.32]	3.71	6.58	[6.49, 6.67]	3.99	5.19	[5.1, 5.27]	3.77
Interregional trains	5.93	[5.83, 6.02]	4.41	4.31	[4.23, 4.4]	4.02	7.17	[7.07, 7.27]	4.61
Public toilets	6.53	[6.45, 6.62]	3.94	7.52	[7.43, 7.61]	4.15	6.45	[6.37, 6.53]	3.63
Open spaces	6.89	[6.8, 6.99]	4.16	7.67	[7.57, 7.77]	4.40	7.89	[7.8, 7.98]	3.97
Security measures	8.30	[8.21, 8.4]	4.36	8.01	[7.91, 8.1]	4.37	7.90	[7.81, 8]	4.27
Food services	7.75	[7.67, 7.84]	3.75	9.02	[8.94, 9.11]	3.82	8.74	[8.66, 8.83]	4.00
Shopping facilities	8.94	[8.85, 9.02]	3.98	9.42	[9.32, 9.51]	4.17	9.39	[9.3, 9.48]	4.16
Public transport services	11.10	[11.01, 11.19]	3.97	9.79	[9.7, 9.88]	4.18	7.64	[7.53, 7.74]	4.77
Bike-sharing	9.33	[9.24, 9.41]	3.88	9.44	[9.35, 9.53]	3.98	10.19	[10.1, 10.28]	3.96
Architectural identity	10.14	[10.04, 10.24]	4.44	10.17	[10.07, 10.27]	4.55	10.32	[10.22, 10.42]	4.34
Third-party services	10.26	[10.17, 10.35]	4.05	10.14	[10.06, 10.23]	3.73	10.12	[10.03, 10.21]	3.92
Car-Sharing	10.72	[10.63, 10.8]	3.66	10.46	[10.38, 10.54]	3.72	10.74	[10.65, 10.82]	3.85
Park and Rail	11.86	[11.78, 11.94]	3.60	10.67	[10.58, 10.76]	3.94	11.09	[11, 11.17]	3.76
E-Scooter	12.37	[12.29, 12.45]	3.72	12.33	[12.24, 12.41]	3.78	12.88	[12.8, 12.96]	3.48

Note. The table shows the results for the following survey question in the three case studies: ‘Please rank the 16 supply improvements in terms of their value to you. Move the supply improvement that is most valuable to you to the top. Repeat this process until all improvements are sorted from most valuable to least valuable. Since this task drives the later questions, the ranking at the bottom is just as important as the ranking at the top.’ N = 2,028. Ranking indicates ranking per case study. Average indicates the average ranking of each function per case study. The 95% confidence intervals are shown in brackets as CI 95%, and the standard deviation is indicated as SD.

The results of the decision experiment with the weighting of two functions are shown in Figure 6. Overall, the picture is very similar to the ranking of the individual functions. The only difference is that local transportation and transfer times have changed position. Furthermore, the e-scooter is still clearly ranked last. There are only a few differences between the three locations. The local means of transport are of least importance in the case of Nyon. Conversely, interregional trains are rated as very important, which can be explained by the more supra-regional importance of the station for the greater region of Geneva and Lausanne. The higher weighting of Public Transport-Services in Ostermundigen is also noticeable, while these seem to be less central in Bern Wankdorf, where there is also no expanded offer in this respect.

Figure 6. Predicted Rating of Individual Functions by Case Study Note. Predicted rating for the 16 individual functions by case study. Respondents had to weigh two functions each, including an improvement from the worst to the best offer, and assign 100 points. The question asked, ‘Which bid improvement is more valuable to you? The bar length indicates the individual feature level’s importance to you in the comparison. For example, if one improvement is twice as valuable as another, click and drag this bar to make it twice as long as the other.’ N = 2,028. Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.

Lastly, Figure 7 shows the importance ratings (aggregated utility) of the individual functions and their attributes based on the combined results of the three steps in the adaptive experiment. This allows us to compare the individual attributes of the functions. Theoretically, the attribute of the functions with no offer would correspond to an importance value of zero since no actual utility can be derived from it. The results are consistent with the findings from the three individual evaluation steps that we have already shown and discussed. All in all, the core function of the transport system is being rated as the most important, followed by the functions of public space, services and commercial use, and, last, multimodality, especially concerning micro-mobility.

Figure 7. Importance Ratings of the Individual Functions and their Attributes Note. The aggregated utility of the attributes is calculated from the three experiment parts. For this, first, the ranking of the functions was recorded from 0-100, corresponding to the utility of the best-rated attribute of the function from the first part of the experiment. The difference between the best and worst rated attribute of the function from the first part of the experiment was weighted with the difference from the third part (‘Evaluation of supply improvement’), which thus allows the comparison between the attribute values of the individual functions.

5. Discussion

The distribution of the survey within predefined perimeters around railway stations, paired with the application of the adaptive survey experiment method, has illuminated the potential of this approach for identifying residents’ and users’ needs in the planning process of transforming transport hubs. This technique proves to be versatile and thus fits the unique socio-technical characteristics of railway stations. The results gathered suggest that in order for developments of railway stations to become more accepted by the local population and serve the needs of residents and other potential users, they need to extend beyond simple structural and transport improvements (also see Zacharias, Zhang, and Nakajima 2011). Our study finds that railway stations are viewed by residents as more than merely transport hubs or shopping centres; they are considered key neighbourhood components that shape local identities through their role as public spaces. This perspective on railway stations as socio-technical infrastructures that are an integral part of the urban fabric aligns with previous findings (Bán 2007; Richards and MacKenzie 1986). Our resident-centric approach demonstrates the power of empirical studies in unpacking the rich, context-specific dynamics of these unique infrastructures and has the potential to guide decision-makers in effectively balancing the multiple, often competing, demands during redevelopment.

The surveys conducted in Bern Wankdorf, Ostermundigen, and Nyon have shown consistency across case studies and survey tasks, reinforcing the general validity of our findings for secondary Swiss stations (see figure A1). The homogeneity of results highlights minor differences in individual functions and attributes, such as the supraregional importance of train traffic in Nyon or the rail travel centre in Ostermundigen. However, we are aware that the transformation of railway stations into transport hubs is a process that varies greatly depending on the specific context. For example, studies of high-speed rail development in Sweden and China, respectively, emphasize the significance of the geographical and policy context when generalizing results (Chen and Haynes 2015; Åkerman 2011). Our methodology can adapt to these contextual differences and still provide robust, comparable insights across diverse settings. This point is crucial in appreciating the potential of our approach to inform not only the Swiss context but also a broad range of geographical and policy contexts.

Thus, our resident-centric and user-centric approach adds to the literature by providing a method for decision-makers to understand local perspectives better, to more effectively overcome obstacles and successfully implement transformative projects (Emberger et al. 2008; Eskandarpour, Ouelhadj, and Fletcher 2018; Stadler Benz and Stauffacher 2023). However, as also indicated by Ciommo, Monzon, and Barberan (2016), it is important to acknowledge that the survey primarily targets residents, and thus results might vary if other users with different needs were the target group of this survey.

The findings of the embedded decision experiment in the survey emphasized the importance of transport hubs as parts of public space and, to a lesser extent, commercial services and shopping facilities. These findings align with the discussions by Zemp et al. (2011b, 2011a), suggesting the need for a better prioritization of non-commercialized aspects of railway stations uses within public transport agencies in their roles as operators and owners of railway stations. While participants did express a basic demand for services and facilities, these aspects were not central concerns, reflecting the findings of Lois (2018) and Zacharias, Zhang, and Nakajima (2011). Connections to other transport means, such as bike rental and car-sharing, were deemed less crucial. The e-scooters, in particular, faced strong opposition in free-floating operations, suggesting that the role of micro-mobility in solving the last-mile problem is limited. This raises questions about the actual need for additional transportation modes or the lack of attention they receive, further enriching the already established debates (Albalate and Bel 2012; Finger and Audouin 2019).

6. Conclusion

Railway station development into multimodal transport hubs transcends mere renewal of buildings, transportation connections, spatial structures, and functions. Instead, it addresses the environment of transport hubs, particularly public spaces and the urban social fabric. This study thus contributes to the growing body of research emphasizing the multifaceted role of railway stations, underscoring the importance of a holistic approach that integrates both commercial and non-commercial functions of these hubs.

The findings contribute new insights to European planning research by highlighting the importance of considering the social and urban context of railway stations in their redevelopment as multimodal transport hubs. This aligns with previous discussions on railway stations as more than transportation nodes, but also as integral parts of neighbourhoods and urban environments (Zacharias, Zhang, and Nakajima 2011; Pitsiava-Latinopoulou and Iordanopoulos 2012; Zemp et al. 2011a, 2011b).

It's notable from our study that residents appreciate the non-commercial aspects of railway stations, viewing them as more than mere conduits for transport and commerce. They perceive railway stations as key components of their neighbourhoods, contributing to the shaping of local identities and public spaces. This sentiment is not merely anecdotal; it finds resonance in studies that highlight the socio-technical nature of railway stations and their intrinsic role in the urban fabric (Richards and MacKenzie 1986; Bán 2007). Therefore, overlooking these non-commercial functions during redevelopment could lead to public opposition, posing a significant obstacle to implementation. For instance, prioritizing commercial functions could diminish the value of the station as a public space, causing disapproval among residents who value the station's role as a community hub. As a result, an integrated approach that includes these non-commercial aspects is vital in the redevelopment of railway stations. This approach could promote greater public acceptance and minimize resistance to change by maintaining the station's role as a cornerstone of local identity while adapting to modern transportation and commercial needs. By focusing on the integration of railway stations into the urban fabric and giving due importance to their non-commercial roles, railway stations can better serve their diverse user groups and continue to be perceived as a valuable part of the community.

This article adds empirically and methodologically to the discussions of transforming railway stations. Empirically, we present a study of three local Swiss railway stations. Despite focusing on a specific geographical context, the insights gleaned from our study have broader relevance, as the conflicts, trade-offs, and potential solutions identified can inform the redevelopment of railway stations in other contexts. Methodologically, we could show how to rigidly examining the relevance of 16 railway stations functions identified in the literature. The proposed adaptive survey method can support an integrated redevelopment process that facilitates informed decision-making on trade-offs between conflicting functions (Bell 2019; Hernandez and Monzon 2016; Lois 2018; Loukaitou-Sideris et al. 2017; Reusser et al. 2008a; Zemp et al. 2011b, 2011a). Ultimately, this approach will aid in formulating planning principles and optimizing the allocation of scarce resources (such as money or land) for the redevelopment of railway stations. In summary, the empirical and methodological contribution of our study underscores the value of our research to the wider academic and practical discussions on the role and redevelopment of railway stations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The research for this paper was part of the transdisciplinary project ‘Co-Creating Mobility Hubs (CCMH)’ by EPF Lausanne, ETH Zurich, and the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB CFF FFS). The Swiss Federal Railways (SBB CFF FFS) funded the research for this project.