Access Transit Strategies



To achieve the principal aim of demonstrating accessibility benefits for areas not directly served by HSR services, this chapter identifies alternative transit options capable of conveying HSR accessibility benefits into the region. These options are here also defined as strategies since not limited to the conventional network as pure intermodal means to access HSR but selected with specific criteria to exploit a more complementary role. As such, these strategies would allow for NEs to be produced in relation to HSR, thanks to their regional integration of networks and services, as it would be the case with mixed traffic HSR operating models, previously seen. To begin with, transit strategies are defined as potential interfaces of HSR, making a distinction with the notion of feeder systems. It will also be acknowledged how important is to consider infrastructure sharing and mixed traffic operations as possible operational models since the early stages of HSR planning, equally important as network architecture and connectivity, to enhance the integration between different railway systems. The selection of alternative transit strategies is performed upon criteria presenting the following three essential aspects: (1) the ability to integrate (or even enhance) specific competitive advantages of HSR, (2) the capacity to serve a regional context (3) and the interoperability to work synergistically with HSR. Thus, four different strategies are selected accordingly and reviewed. These are the regional metro rail (RMR), the regional high-speed rail (RHSR), the light rail transit (LRT) and the continuous railway system (CRS). However, to assess the efficiency of these strategies and compare them against their distributive ability of accessibility benefits for areas not directly served by HSR services through NEs, the CRS strategy was missing essential data. Even without current applications, the latter strategy is included as a stimulating alternative to stretch the limits of this study and to suggest that there might be scope for future research. While on the RMR, RHSR or LRT, data are ample and publicly available in regard to operating speeds and possible service levels, there was a lack of data available to obtain sufficiently detailed information to compare the CRS strategy with the others. The call for expert advice is first explained as a methodological choice since the CRS strategy requires an estimation that cannot be forecasted through the analysis of existing trends. Thus, a research technique is presented combining two methods: a panel of experts (Delphi) retrieving the steps to determine the feasibility of a proposal (backcasting).


HSR Access Transit Competitive Regionalization Interoperability Feeders Back-casting Delphi Survey Network Technology Metro Light Rail 


  1. Aitken W (1919) Improvements in railway train systems, and the like. Pat. No. GB135999A, Great BritainGoogle Scholar
  2. Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2012) Post-political spatial planning in England: a crisis of consensus? Trans Inst Br Geogr 37:89–103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Armstrong JS, Overton TS (1977) Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. J Mark Res 15:396–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkins Engineering Consultancy (2003) High speed line study. High speed rail report. Atkins, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Banister D, Hickman R (2013) Transport futures: thinking the unthinkable. Transp Policy 29:283–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Banister D, Stead D, Hickman R (2008) Looking over the horizon: visioning and backcasting. In: Himanen V, Lee-Gosselin M, Perrels A (eds) Building blocks for sustainable transport. VATT and Emerald, Helsinki, pp 25–54Google Scholar
  7. Bardet G (1978) Continuous transport systems. Automatisme et Technique. Pat. No. US4083309. United StatesGoogle Scholar
  8. Bardet G, Gayot J, Bouee V (1973) Continuous transport system. Engins Matra. Pat. No. GB1308343, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  9. Barry LD (1962) Railway control system for coincident local and express service. Pat No. US3037462A1, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  10. Barry LD (1977) Container side-transfer system. Pat No. US4065006, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  11. Batelaan J (2002) Express guideway transit: a case for further development in transit automation. J Adv Transp 36(2):157–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Böcker J, Lind J, Zirkler B (2001) Using a multi-agent approach to optimise the train coupling and sharing system. Eur J Oper Res 131(2):242–252CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown J (1902) Railway, tramway, or the Like. Pat. No. US694129A1, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  14. Burckhart K, Martí-Henneberg J, Tapiador FJ (2008) Cambio de hábitos y transformaciones territoriales en los corredores de alta velocidad ferroviaria. Resultados de una encuesta de viajeros en la línea Madrid-Barcelona. Scripta Nova 12:270Google Scholar
  15. Campos J, Gagnepain P (2009) Measuring the intermodal effects of high speed rail. In: de Rus G (ed) Economic analysis of high speed rail in Europe. Bilbao, BBVA FoundationGoogle Scholar
  16. Casello JM (2007) Transit competitiveness in polycentric metropolitan regions. Transp Res Part A 41:19–40Google Scholar
  17. Cheng J (2006) Railway transfer integrated operation system for passengers non-stop embarking and got-off on intermediate station. Pat. No. CN1769114A, Chinese Patent Office, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  18. Cheshire P (1995) The spatial implications of motorway and train corridors in Europe. In: Paper presented at a workshop on regional and urban effects of high-speed trains. Jonkoping International Business School, SwedenGoogle Scholar
  19. Chongzuo P (1992) Non-stop train. Pat. No. CN1062506A, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  20. Clever R (1994) Eine Zukunftvision des InterCity Systems: notwendige Änderungen in der Fahrplan- und Tarifgestaltung. Zeitschrift für Verkehrswissenschaft 65(2):121–147Google Scholar
  21. Clever R (2006) Airport and station accessibility as a determinant of mode choice. Ph.D. thesis, University of California, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  22. Crosby B, Bryson JM (2010) Integrative leadership and the creation and maintenance of cross-sector collaborations. Leadersh Quart 21:211–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Daly B (2001) System for operating trains. Pat. No. Gb2377419A, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  24. De Bruijn H, Veeneman W (2009) Decision-making for light rail. Transp Res Part A: Policy Pract 43(4):349–359Google Scholar
  25. EU (European Union) (1996) Interoperability of the trans-European high speed rail system—council directive 96/48/EC. Off J Eur Union L235:0006–0024Google Scholar
  26. Frensch M (2005) Ermittlung Von Wirtschaftlich Und Betrieblich Optimalen Fahrzeugkonzepten Für Den Einsatz Im Regionalverkehr. Technische Universität Darmstadt, DarmstadtGoogle Scholar
  27. Fröidh O, Nelldal B-L (2008) Regional high-speed trains on the Svealand line: evaluation of effects. In: Bruinsma F, Pels E, Rietveld P, Priemus H, van Wee B (eds) Railway development: impacts on urban dynamics. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, pp 295–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Fryer CEJ (1997) A history of slipping and slip carriages. The Oakwood Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Garmendia M, Urena JM, Rivas A, Coronado JM, Menendez M, Gallego JI, Romero V (2009) High speed rail, a new mode of suburban metropolitan transport. WIT Transport Built Environ 107:265–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gayot J (1973) Rail vehicle steering system. Pat. No. US3759187A1, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  31. Geurs KT, van Wee B (2004) Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J Transp Geogr 12:127–140Google Scholar
  32. Geurs KT, van Wee B, Rietveld P (2006) Accessibility appraisal of integrated land-use-transport strategies: methodology and case study for the Netherlands Randstad area. Environ Plan B—Plan Des 33(5):639–660Google Scholar
  33. Givoni M (2010) High speed rail development in the United States: gauging the approach. Retrieved 26/02/2011:
  34. Grow HB (1974) Non-stop rapid transit system. Pat. No. US3848533A1, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  35. Gudehus T (1974) Nonstopbahn-system. Eine Problemlosung für den Personenfernverkehr? Nahverkehrs. Praxis 22(6):231–236Google Scholar
  36. Gunn J (1915) Transfer car. Pat. No. 1139411, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  37. Gutiérrez J, Gonzalez R, Gomez G (1996) The European high-speed train network. Predicted effects on accessibility patterns. J Transp Geogr 4(4):227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hall P (1999) The European high-speed train and urban development: experiences in fourteen European regions. Prog Hum Geogr 23(4):670–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hall P (2009) Magic carpets and seamless webs: opportunities and constraints for high speed trains in Europe. Built Environment 35(1):59–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Healey P (2003) Collaborative planning in perspective. Plan Theor 2(2):101–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hsu CW, Lee Y, Liao CH (2010) Competition between high-speed and conventional rail systems: a game theoretical approach. Expert Syst Appl 37(4):3162–3170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Johnson GS (2000) An alternative approach for high speed rail corridor study. In Proceedings of the ITE 2000 meeting (9 p). Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  43. KVV (Karlsruher Verkehrsverbund GmbH) (2016) Liniennetzplan Schiene Übersicht aller Regionalbahn-, Stadtbahn- und Straßenbahnlinien im KVV. Retrieved 06/04/2017.
  44. Lacote F, Michaut P (2006) Method and apparatus for controlling trains, in particular a method and apparatus of the ERTMS type. Pat. No. US7089093B2. USA: United States Patent OfficeGoogle Scholar
  45. Latour B (1993) Aramis, ou l’amour des techniques. Editions de la Découverte, PairsGoogle Scholar
  46. Linstone H, Turoff M (2002) The Delphi method: techniques and applications. In Turoff M, Linstone H (eds) Retrieved 26/11/2009:
  47. Manabu K, Yasuto T (2006) Railroad operation method with non-stop train and car float. Pat. No. JP2006213305A2. Japan: Japanese Patent OfficeGoogle Scholar
  48. Martínez H, Givoni M (2012) The accessibility impact of a new high-speed rail line in the UK—a preliminary analysis of winners and losers. J Transp Geogr 24:105–114Google Scholar
  49. MBWSV-Ministerium für Bauen, Wohnen, Stadtentwicklung und Verkehr des Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen (2017) RRX-Zielnets NRW im Viertelstundentakt. Retrieved 19/05/2017:
  50. Miyachi M, Kato T (1999) The Train Detecting Equipment using Loop coils for the Automatic Train Coupling System on Shinkansen Lines. IEEE Vehicular Technology Conference Proceedings, 2278–2282Google Scholar
  51. Nelson A, Niles J (1999) Essentials for transit-oriented development planning: analysis of non-work activity patterns and a method for predicting success. In: Paper presented at the 7th transportation research board conference on the application of transportation planning methodsGoogle Scholar
  52. Pavaux J (1991) Rail/air complementarity in Europe: the impact of high speed train services. Institute of Air Transport, PairsGoogle Scholar
  53. Perrott FC (1995) Improvements in or relating to transportation. International Patent WO95/13948 based on PCT/GB94/02510Google Scholar
  54. Pottgiesser H (1968) Rendezvous-Manöver im Eisenbahnbetrieb? Die Bundesbahn 42(16):599–603Google Scholar
  55. Priemus H, Konings R (2001) Light rail in urban regions: What Dutch policymakers could learn from experiences in France, Germany and Japan. J Transp Geogr 9(3):187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Quille F (2010) Le TER a grande vitesse a désenclave le littoral. Retrieved 22/03/2011:
  57. Revier D (2005) Einde doorloopkop van de koploper. Retrieved 10/04/2017:
  58. Rice WH (1906) System for transferring passengers and freight to and from moving railway-trains. Pat. No. US828340A1, United StatesGoogle Scholar
  59. Robinson J (2003) Future subjunctive: backcasting as social learning. Futures 35(8):839–856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rowe G, Wright G (1999) The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis. Int J Forecast 15(4):353–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Samuelson GB, Glaser WH (1920) Railway system. Pat. No. US1353423A1. United StatesGoogle Scholar
  62. Sasaki K (2005) Position detection system using gps for carbody tilt control. QR of RTRI 46(2):73–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schneider JB (1994) The design of intermodal stations for a high speed ground transportation system. US DOT/FRA: Final Report No. DOT/FRA/NMI-92/94, 277 ppGoogle Scholar
  64. Schneider JB (2011). Maybe HSR is a marvelous opportunity for PRT? Retrieved 02/02/2011:
  65. Schulte W (1971) Zielreines Fahren ohne Zwischenhalt mit Entkuppel und Rendezvousmanövern im Eisenbahnbetrieb. Technische Universität Hannover, HannoverGoogle Scholar
  66. Shin DH (2001) Moebius train. Pat. No. WO01/81146A1. International Application Published under the Patent Cooperation TreatyGoogle Scholar
  67. SNCF (Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français) (2015) Le Réseau Ter Nord-Pas-De-Calais. Retrieved 06/04/2017:
  68. SNCF, Société Nationale des Chemins de fer Français (2017) Le réseau TER Hauts-de-France. Retrieved 22/06/2017:
  69. Stahn U (2003) Aktives schienengebundenes Transportsystem mit passiven Weichen. Pat. No. DE20211494U1. German Patent and Trade Mark Office, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  70. Susematsu T (2006) Super railway for USA. Pat. No. US2006/027133A1. United States Patent Application Publication, USAGoogle Scholar
  71. Tatkeu C, Elhillali Y, Rivenq A, Rouvaen J (2004) Evaluation of coding’s methods for the development of a radar sensor for localization and communication dedicated to guided transport. In IEEE vehicular technology conference proceedings, pp 2244–2247Google Scholar
  72. Thomas ME (1989) Transport systems. Pat. No. GB2232649A, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  73. Thompson GL (2003) Defining an alternative future: birth of the light rail movement in North America, transportation research board. Retrieved 22/03/2011: http:/ Scholar
  74. Torchin F, Grilly D, Combes S, Hasiak, Menerault P (2008) High speed rail for regional transport: case studies in European countries. In Paper presented at the European transport conferenceGoogle Scholar
  75. Torchin F, Grilly D, Combes S, Hasiak S, Menerault P (2009) Transport Ferroviaire Régional A Grande Vitesse—Des Exemples Européens. Bagneux Cedex, Ministere EEDA Sétra, p 48pGoogle Scholar
  76. Uebel H (2006) Method for operating railway vehicles as well as train control centre therefore. Pat. No. EP0958987B1. European Patent Office, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  77. UK DfT-Department for Transport (2014). Transport Analysis Guidance. The Transport Appraisal Process. Retrieved 06/08/2017:
  78. van der Meulen D (2006) Identifying the key factors for long-term sustainability. Railway Gazette International 162(9):529–536Google Scholar
  79. Vickerman R (1997) High-speed rail in Europe: experience and issues for future development. Ann Reg Sci 31(1):21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vickerman R, Spiekermann K, Wegener M (1999) Accessibility and economic development in Europe. Reg Stud 33(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Voskuhl DEF (1995) Interlinking the region with its centre: the example of the Karlsruhe region in Germany. J Transp Geogr 3(4):281–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. VRR (Verkehrsvernbund Rhein-Ruhr) (2017) Linienpläne SPNV. Retrieved 06/04/2017:
  83. Vuchic RV (2007) Urban transit systems and technology. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Watanabe T (1990) Detection of Distance between Two Trains by Ultrasonic Sensors for the Purpose of Automatic Train Stopping and Coupling Control. QR of RTRI 31(3):118–121Google Scholar
  85. Wong CY (1981) Transfer of passengers and cargo in motion. Pat. No. GB2065582A, United KingdomGoogle Scholar
  86. Xianchun Z (1998) High-Speed Railway Transport System for Engaging and Shunting of Trains. Pat. No. CN1192975A. State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C., ChinaGoogle Scholar
  87. Ying L (1998) Two-Section Passenger Train and Non-Stop Motion Method. Pat. No. CN1180629A. State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C., ChinaGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhiming L (1998) Non-Stop Railway Station System. Pat. No. CN1170678A. State Intellectual Property Office of the P.R.C., ChinaGoogle Scholar
  89. Zeppenfeld K (1987) Flying Passenger Change over Railways. Pat. No. DE3608327A1. German Patent and Trade Mark Office, GermanyGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polytechnic Department of Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations