Evaluation of public transport: regional policies and planning practices in Sweden

References

• Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Alvesson, M. (2011). Interpreting interviews. London: SAGE.10.4135/9781446268353
   Google Scholar
• Andersson, P. G., Bergman, A., Eriksson, P., Fredriksson, L., Gibrand, M., Hansson, J., & Sjaunja, E. (2012). Kol-Trast: Planeringshandbok för en Attraktiv och Effektiv Kollektivtrafik [Kol-Trast: A planning handbook for an attractive and effective public transport]. Linköping: LTAB Linköpings Tryckeri AB.
   Google Scholar
• Annema, J. A., Mouter, N., & Razaei J. (2015, 14–16 July). Cost-benefit analysis (CBA), or multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) or both: Politicians’ perspective in transport policy appraisal. 18th Euro Working Group on Transportation, EWGT. Delft, The Netherlands.
   Google Scholar
• APTA. (2007). Public transportation: Benefits for the 21st century. Retrieved February 1, 2016 from http://www.apta.com/resources/reportsandpublications/documents/twenty_first_century.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, K. D. (1987). Methods of social research. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Banister, D. (2005). Unsustainable transport – City transport in the new century. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Banister, D., & Hickman, R. (2006). How to design a more sustainable and fairer built environment: Transport and communications. IEE Proceedings – Intelligent Transport Systems, 153(4). doi: 10.1049/ip-its:20060009
   Google Scholar
• Banister, D. (2008). The sustainability mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15, 73–80. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bare, J. C. (2014). Development of impact assessment methodologies for environmental sustainability. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 16, 681–690. doi:10.1007/s10098-013-0685-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Basaric, V., Djoric, V., Jevdjenic, A., & Jovic, J. (2015). Efficient methodology for assessment of targets and policy measures for sustainable mobility systems international. Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 98(3), 217–226. doi:10.1080/15568318.2012.756088
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beria, P., Maltese, I., & Mariotti, I. (2012). Multicriteria versus cost benefit analysis: A comparative perspective in the assessment of sustainable mobility. European Transport Research Review, 4(3), 1–16. doi:10.1007/s12544-012-0074-9
   Google Scholar
• Bocarejo, J. P., & Portilla, I. (2016). Social fragmentation as a consequence of implementing a bus rapid transit system in the city of Bogotá. Urban Studies, 2016(53), 1617–1634. doi:10.1177/0042098015588739
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing (3rd ed.). London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• Bristow, A. L. & Nellthorp, J. (2000). Transport project appraisal in the European Union. Transport Policy, 7(1), 51–60.
   Google Scholar
• Browne, D., & Ryan, L. (2011). Comparative analysis of evaluation techniques for transport policies. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 31, 226–233. doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2010.11.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Börjesson, M., Jonsson, R. D., Berglund, S., & Almström, P. (2014). Land-use impacts in transport appraisal. Research in Transportation Economics, 47, 82–91. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervero, R. (2013). Transport infrastructure and the environment: Sustainable mobility and urbanism. Retrieved October 10, 2016 from http://iurd.berkeley.edu/wp/2013–03.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Cervero, R., & Kang, C. D. (2011). Bus rapid transit impacts on land uses and land values in Seoul. Transport Policy, 18, 102–116. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2010.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Kwan, S., & Hisham Hashima, J. (2016). A review on co-benefits of mass public transportation in climate change mitigation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 22, 11–18. doi:10.1016/j.scs.2016.01.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cloke, P., Cook, I., Crang, P., Goodwin, M., Painter, J., & Philo, C. (2004). Practising Human Geography. London: SAGE.
   Google Scholar
• De Palma, A., Lindsey, R., Quinet, E., & Vickerman, R. (2013). A handbook of transport economics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson, J., Börjesson, M., Odeck, J., & Welde, M. (2015). Does benefit-cost efficiency influence transport investment decisions? Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 49(3), 377–396. Retrieved from http://www.transportportal.se/swopec/CTS2014-6.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Eliasson, J., & Proost, S. (2015). Is sustainable transport policy sustainable? Transport Policy, 37, 92–100. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.09.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Förordning (2010):185 Government instruction for the Transport Administration (Förordning med instruktion för Trafikverket).
   Google Scholar
• Hrelja, R., Pettersson, F., & Westerdahl, S. (2016). The qualities needed for a successful collaboration: A contribution to the conceptual understanding of collaboration for efficient public transport. Sustainability, 8, 542. doi:10.3390/su8060542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hrelja, R., Hansson, L., Richardson, T., Svensson, T., Lissandrello, E., Næss, P., … Longva, F. (2013). Innovations for sustainable public transport: Experiences and challenges in the Scandinavian countries. VTI Rapport 799, Linköping: VTI.
   Google Scholar
• Isaksson, K., Antonsson, H., & Eriksson, L. (2017). Layering and parallel policy making – Complementary concepts for understanding implementation challenges related to sustainable mobility. Transport Policy, 53, 50–57. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2016.08.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jackson, P. M. (2011). Governance by numbers: What have we learned over the past 30 years? Public Money & Management, 31, 13–26. doi:10.1080/09540962.2011.545542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaramillo, C., Lizárraga, C., & Luis Grindlay, A. (2012). Spatial disparity in transport social needs and public transport provision in Santiago de Cali (Colombia). Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 340–357. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, D., Jackson, J., & Nash, C. (2013). The wider value of rural rail provision. Transport Policy, 29, 126–135. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kay, I., Noland, R., & DiPetrillo, S. (2014). Residential property valuations near transit stations with transit-oriented development. Journal of Transport Geography, 39, 131–140. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.06.017
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenworthy, J. R. (2006). The eco-city: Ten key transport and planning dimensions for sustainable city development. Environment and Urbanization, 18, 67–85. doi:10.1177/0956247806063947
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Keseru, I., Bulckaen, J., Macharis, C., & de Kruijf, J. (2016). Sustainable consensus? The NISTO evaluation framework to appraise sustainability and stakeholder preferences for mobility projects. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 906–915. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.070
   Google Scholar
• Koglin, T. (2013). Vélomobility – A critical analysis of planning and space (Doctoral Dissertation). Lund University, Department of Technology and society, Transport and Roads, Bulletin 284.
   Google Scholar
• Koglin, T., & Rye, T. (2014). The marginalisation of bicycling in Modernist urban transport planning. Journal of Transport and Health, 1(4), 214–222. doi:10.1016/j.jth.2014.09.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Koglin, T. (2015). Organisation does matter – Planning for cycling in Stockholm and Copenhagen. Transport Policy, 39, 55–62. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2015.02.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kvale, S. (1997). Den kvalitativa forskningsintervjun. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
   Google Scholar
• Larsson, G. (2006). Spatial planning systems in Western Europe. Amsterdam: ISO Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ljungberg, A. (2003, September 14–18). Empirical evidence of the non-use of cost-benefit analysis in Swedish local/regional public transport. Thredbo 8, Rio de Janeiro.
   Google Scholar
• Ljungberg, A. (2010). Local public transport on the basis of social economic criteria. Research in Transportation Economics, 29, 339–345. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2010.07.043
   Google Scholar
• Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now?. Transport Policy, 20, 105–113. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.01.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macharis, C., & Bernardini, A. (2015). Reviewing the use of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis for the evaluation of transport projects: Time for a multi-actor approach. Transport Policy, 37, 177–186. doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.11.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, P. (2010). Cost-benefit analysis in transport - a UK perspective. OECD/ITF Discussion Paper, 2010–16.
   Google Scholar
• Mackie, P., Worsley, T., & Eliasson, J. (2014). Transport appraisal revisited. Research in Transportation Economics, 47, 3–18. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moriarty, P. (2016). Reducing levels of urban passenger travel. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(8), 712–719. doi:10.1080/15568318.2015.1136364
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouter, N., Annema, J. A., & van Wee, B. (2013). Ranking the substantive problems in the Dutch cost-benefit analysis practice. Transportation Research Part A, 49, 241–255. doi:10.1016/j.tra.2013.01.020
   Google Scholar
• National Board of Housing, Building and Planning. (2012). Vision Sverige 2025 (Vision Sweden 2025). Retrieved June 10, 2016 from http://sverige2025.boverket.se/
   Google Scholar
• Nilsson, J.-E. (2011). Kollektivtrafik utan styrning (rapport 2011:6). Expertgruppen för studier i offentlig ekonomi (ESO).
   Google Scholar
• NISTO. (2015). Guidance for target monitoring. Retrieved December 23, 2016 from http://nistotoolkit.eu/apps/docs/Guidelines%20of%20target%20monitoring.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Nordlund, A. & Westin, K. (2013). Influence of values, beliefs, and age on intention to travel by a new railway line under construction in northern Sweden. Transport Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 48, 86–95.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OECD. (2015). Organisation for economic co-operation and development. The metropolitan century: Understanding urbanisation and its consequences. Paris: Author
   Google Scholar
• Parry, I. W. H., & Small, K. A. (2009). Should urban transit subsidies be reduced? American Economic Review, 99(3), 700–724. doi:10.1275/aer.99.3.700
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Persson, C. (2013). Deliberation or doctrine? Land use and spatial planning for sustainable development in Sweden. Land use policy, 34, 301–313. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.04.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SFS (2010:900) Swedish Planning and Building Act (Plan- och bygglagen).
   Google Scholar
• SFS (2010:1065) Swedish Public Transport Act (Lag om kollektivtrafik).
   Google Scholar
• Riedel, V., & Dziekan, K. (2012, June 18–22). Cost-benefit-analysis – A walk through the labyrinth for city level evaluation? Experiences from CIVITAS PLUS. Proceedings from the Kuhmo nectar conference and summer school on transportation economics, Berlin. Retrieved from https://www.ivp.tu-berlin.de/fileadmin/fg93/Forschung/Projekte/MIMOSA/Riedel_Dziekan_BCA_Experiences_from_CIVITAS_PLUS.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Rubin, J. H., & Rubin, S. I. (2005). Qualitative interviewing – The art of hearing and data. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.10.4135/9781452226651
   Google Scholar
• Rye, T., & Wretstrand, A. (2014). Converging structures? Recent regulatory change in bus-based local public transport in Sweden and England. Research in Transportation Economics, 48, 24–32. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2014.09.028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2000). The discipline of cost-benefit analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 29(S2), 931–952. doi:10.1086/468100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stjernborg, V., & Mattisson, O. (2016). The role of public transport in society – A case study of general policy documents in Sweden. Sustainability, 8, 1120. doi:10.3390/su8111120
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• TIDE. (2015). Impact assessment methodology for urban transport innovations. A handbook for local practitioners. Retrieved October 10, 2015 from http://www.tide-innovation.eu/en/Results/Impact-assessment-methodology-for-urban-transport-innovations-A-handbook-for-local-practitioners/
   Google Scholar
• TISSUE. (2007). Trends and indicators for monitoring the EU Thematic strategy on sustainable development of urban environment (Final report). VTT Publications 643.
   Google Scholar
• Trafikförvaltningen SLL. (2012). Regionalt trafikförsörjningsprogram för stockholms län. Stockholm.
   Google Scholar
• Transport Analysis. (2016). Local and regional public transport 2015 ( report 2016:26). Author.
   Google Scholar
• Tzeng, G.-H., Lin, C.-W., & Opricovic, S. (2005). Multi-criteria analysis of alternative-fuel buses for public transportation. Energy Policy, 33(11), 1373–1383. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2003.12.014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• UITP. (2009). Position paper on ‘assessing the benefits of public transport’. Retrieved October 2, 2015 from http://www.uitp.org/assessing-benefits-public-transport
   Google Scholar
• UITP. (2015). Position paper on the European Parliament’s ‘draft report on the implementation of the 2011 White paper on Transport’. Retrieved October 10, 2015 from http://www.uitp.org/eu-position-papers
   Google Scholar
• Van Wee, B. (2011). Transport and ethics. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.10.4337/9781849809658
   Google Scholar
• Vickerman, R. (2008). Transit investment and economic development. Research in Transportation Economics, 23, 107–115. doi:10.1016/j.retrec.2008.10.007
   Google Scholar
• Vigren, A., & Ljungberg, A. (2017). Public transport authorities’ use of cost-benefit analysis in practice (CTS Working Paper 2017:8). Stockholm: Centre for Transport Studies.
   Google Scholar