Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

Characterizing European high speed train stations using intermodal

time and entropy metrics
Francisco J. Tapiador a,*, Kerstin Burckhart b, Jordi Mart-Henneberg a,1
a
b

Department of Geography, University of Cambridge, UK

University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 12 February 2007
Received in revised form 2 October 2008
Accepted 28 October 2008

Keywords:
Intermodality
High speed train station
Entropy

a b s t r a c t
This paper presents a quantitative method for characterizing high speed train stations in
terms of passenger intermodality. The aim of the procedure is two-fold: rstly, the method
is to be used as an objective measure for comparing stations in order to detect suboptimal
points and improve the performance of stations as nodal points; secondly, the method provides a means to embed intermodality into regional accessibility models, allowing comprehensive modelling at lower scales. The empirical base of the work comprises data from 27
European high speed rail stations, which is deemed an appropriate statistical sample for
the whole European rail network. Using the entropy metric, we found that several different
patterns emerged: there was a clear hierarchy of stations which was linked to their respective roles within the system, while strong constraints impeded stations from performing
optimally as true intermodal nodes.
2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Improved intermodality is crucial for sustainable transport policies. One of the reasons for the widespread use of private
cars throughout Europe is their ability to provide door-to-door transport despite problems associated with trafc congestion
and the lack of parking spaces in most urban regions. Some of the inconveniences associated with the use of private cars
include: injuries and death due to road accidents; unproductive travel time due to accidents and trafc congestion; the
dependence on non-renewable sources of energy; and damage and other negative effects associated with environmental pollution (Jakob et al., 2006). One way to palliate these effects would be to promote a modal shift from the use of private cars to
public transport. The basic idea would be to restrict use of the private car to trips between the home and public transport,
instead of driving all the way to the nal destination. The success of this intermodal culture would depend on whether or not
public transport is perceived as efcient, and on how seamless the modal shift could be made (UITP, 2003).
There is growing recognition that sustainable mobility implies inter-connecting transport systems that must provide a
door-to-door service (European Commission, 1999e). In this respect, planning intermodality offers a means of increasing
the sustainability of the transport system: the better that different resources are co-ordinated so that they combine in an
integrated manner, the greater the sustainability of the whole transportation system (European Commission, 2001c).
The main nodal points in the intermodal networks of present day Europe are the European high speed train stations (HSTS
hereafter). Whilst the impedances in the rail network itself are related to environmental or physical constraints, such as
slopes and the volume of rail trafc, and are difcult to overcome, friction due to suboptimal HSTS intermodality has much
* Corresponding author. Address: University of Castilla-La Mancha, Institute of Environmental Sciences, 45071 Toledo, Spain. Tel.: +34 925 268
800x5762; fax: +34 925 265 766.
E-mail address: francisco.tapiador@uclm.es (F.J. Tapiador).
1
Permanent address: University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain.
0965-8564/$ - see front matter 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tra.2008.10.001

198

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

more of a planning component. Characterising stations using an objective procedure can therefore help to identify the factors
responsible for HSTS working at below their optimum capacities. Once these factors have been fully characterized, the
resulting scheme can be used to plan new HSTS according to more rational criteria, or to update plans for existing HSTS
at some time in the future.
The aim of this paper is to propose a quantitative framework for analysing intermodality in HSTS. To this end, we chose a
representative sample of these stations and measured intermodal exchange times for these stations taking into account all of
the modes concerned. The resulting matrix was then used to derive an integral intermodal time which was indicative of the
physical size of each HSTS. Another variable, known as intermodal entropy, was also derived to parameterize the homogeneity of the modal time exchanges. Both estimates proved useful for characterising European HSTS in terms of intermodality.
1.1. Intermodality
A basic distinction needs to be made between passenger and freight intermodality. Problems of intermodality affecting
freight transport have already been studied by several authors (including Bontekoning et al., 2004; Ricci and Black, 2005;
Spiekermann, 2005; European Commission, 2006; Kreutzberger, 2008; Gorman, 2008). Here, we are only concerned with
passenger intermodality. To avoid any possible confusion, we will follow the European Commission (EC) denition of passenger intermodality, which denes the concept as a characteristic of a transport system that allows at least two different
modes to be used in an integrated manner in a door-to-door transport chain (European Commission, 2001a). The EC also
denes passenger intermodality policy as a policy and planning principle that aims to provide a passenger using different
modes of transport in a combined trip chain with a seamless journey (European Commission, 2006). These two denitions
are used interchangeably, according to the specic context. Some other terms are also used in the literature to refer to this
concept. For example, Dupuy (1988), Varlet (1992) and Margail (1996) use the term interconnection to refer to intermodality, as the aim of intermodality is to connect two networks involving either the same or different transport modes and
transport operators, with interconnection taking place either at a station or at some other public transport stop point.
Expressions such as Park & Ride have been coined for modes of exchange combining private car and public transport systems. Similar connections include Walk & Ride, Bike & Ride, Kiss & Ride and Ride & Ride, all of which include a combination
involving a public transport mode. Except for the Kiss & Ride term, which refers to a ride to a connecting mode of public
transport given to the user by a second person, the meaning of these expressions is quite clear. With specic reference to
rail intermodality, the concepts of Park & Rail, Rail & Fly and Rail & Bike are also extensively used in both technical and promotional literature and on signposting.
1.2. Accessibility
There is a clear connection between improved intermodality and increased accessibility. Accessibility is dened here as
the ease with which an individual has an opportunity to reach or access a specic place, infrastructure, amenity, job opportunity, or to participate in an activity in general. The more accessible the activity is, the fewer travel barriers and less travel
friction need to be overcome to reach or access it. This term is also used to specically refer to the ability of the disabled to
use transit or transportation facilities. The difference between the two meanings lies in the fact that what can be seen as a
cause of friction within the system (for example, a staircase for two-level exchange) may represent a barrier for disabled
people (if there is not a lift available).
In terms of regional science, accessibility is of great economic and social signicance, as recognised by the reference to the
European Spatial Development Perspective (European Commission, 1999a) which states that accessibility of European regions is considered necessary to improve their competitive position but also the competitiveness of Europe as a whole. For
the USA, Kuby et al. (2004) examined the importance of accessibility (among other factors) in terms of light-rail station boardings, which they found to be signicant. Accessibility inuences the advantage of one location with respect to others. Accessibility estimates have therefore been used to assess the advantages that households and rms derive from the existence and
use of local transport infrastructure. It is supposed that areas with better access to locations supplying input materials and
offering markets will, ceteris paribus, be more productive, more competitive and more successful than areas whose locations
are more remote (Spiekermann, 2005).
1.3. Precedents in quantifying intermodality
Several European research projects have considered intermodality as a crucial element in transportation, with most of
them focusing on rail transportation. A large proportion of the research carried out to date has focused on transfer points, with
particular emphasis on intermodality. The ndings from these projects resulted in recommendations on how to improve
intermodality, giving rise to guidelines and handbooks such as: the HSR COMET-Interconnection of the high speed rail network (European Commission, 1999b); MIMIC-Mobility, Intermodality and Interchanges (European Commission, 2001b);
the PIRATE-Promoting Interchange Rationale, accessibility & transfer efciency (European Commission, 1999c); and COST action 340 Vers un rseau de transports Europen intermodal: les leons de lhistoire (European Commission, 2001c). Other
projects have focused on collecting examples of good practices (UITP 2003; European Commission, 1999d). An in-depth study
was carried out by the Task Force of the Transport Intermodality group, which highlighted modal imbalance in the European

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

199

Unions transport system and identied obstacles that prevent the development of user-oriented door-to-door intermodal
transport services. In this work, transfer point efciency and the efciency of intermodal networks were identied among
six areas of major interest for advancing research into intermodality. Other scientists have analysed the design and equipment
of railway stations, recommending the elimination of existing barriers in the intermodal trip chain (UITP, 1994; Hultgren,
2002; Vgverket, 2004; Eidgenssisches Departement fr Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation, 2004).
Two main indicators were used to quantify barriers to intermodality: travel time and travel cost. Both indicators are often
embedded in evaluative research. One example of a quantitative approach to this subject is provided by the European GUIDE
project (http://www.cordis.lu/transport/src/guide.htm). In this project, transport users, employees and operators were asked
about their perceived importance of 66 criteria for satisfaction; the result was a performance gap for intermodality at ten
interchanges. Another example can be found in Schnharting et al. (2003), where six criteria (short time intervals, sufcient
parking, integrated timetables, integrated tariffs, connected crossings and short distance transfers) were applied in order to
characterize intermodality and determinate its importance for the different intermodal combinations that can occur at a railway station (HST-private car, HST-taxi, HST-private car, etc.).
In the case of other quantitative estimates, the distance between modes was the indicator most widely used for characterizing transfers in intermodal journeys. The concept of short paths in an intermodality context was used in Lu (2003), Victorian Transport Policy Institute (2005) and Yao and Morikawa (2005).
2. Data
2.1. Station selection criteria
Given that intermodality varies according to the relative location of a station within a given territory, we chose a heterogeneous set of European stations with central, peripheral and isolated locations. We also selected railway stations served by
both high speed train (in France, Spain and Germany) and high speed-like railway services (in Sweden and Switzerland). We
focused our selection on stations located in or near medium-sized cities, as we considered that the potential for improving
and changing intermodality was greatest in this urban context. As a working hypothesis, we observed that investments in
improving interchange points may produce maximum benets in medium-sized cities.
We included as few large cities as possible, as these are characterized by large transfer points in which transport modes
tend to be vertically arranged, in contrast with smaller stations where transfers are generally realized on a horizontal plane
or, at most, on two levels. We similarly excluded very small stations, as they tend to offer very little potential for improving
intermodal transfers. We also considered location within the high speed network and the train services offered, planning our
eld work accordingly, so we could cover a wide variety of cases. These ranged, on the one hand, from stations located at one
extreme of the high speed network to centrally located stations and, on the other, from stations with a balance between conventional and high speed services to others whose activity was heavily concentrated on one type of rail service.
Within the previously mentioned constraints, we selected a total of 27 stations for the present study (Fig. 1). As reported
in Section 3, we used two measuring methods: in situ measurements and map estimates. We carried out the in situ measurements at eleven stations: Berne, Lausanne, Lleida, Lund, Mannheim, Valence, Vsters, Calatayud, Guadalajara, Madrid-Atocha and Zaragoza-Delicias. In order to extend the number of samples, we added a further 16 map estimates for Sweden and
Germany. Measurements at the HSR-stations were carried out between September 2004 and February 2006.
3. Methods
To quantify intermodality, we used the distance between modal stops (such as bus stops, regional train stops, car parks,
bicycle racks and taxi ranks) at HSRT-stations as one of the variables. We measured (several times for each location) the time
a traveller would need to transfer from one mode to another, taking into account all possible combinations. Measurements of
this transfer time were based on a number of assumptions and simplications, such as the distribution of passenger arrival
and departure times and the space available in the different HSTS. In fact, these factors varied according to timetables and
congurations of station infrastructure. However, a certain degree of simplication was required to make the task manageable. We therefore assumed that passengers were aware of the different transport timetables and would therefore minimize
travel costs and waiting times. The timetable factor was quite difcult to include in a model, as we did not know how many
passengers would choose a given service. The infrastructure conguration effect was tackled through carrying out a repeated
set of measurements that constituted the bulk of our eld work. In the stations that we visited, we based mobility on walking
at an average speed of 3.5 km/h with light-weight luggage. If available, escalators, lifts and ramps were used instead of stairs.
We considered situations in which the traveller was already familiar with the station in question: we therefore did not take
into account the quality of signposting or the possibility of wasting time due to mistakes during the transfer process. We did
not take into account any possible slowing of the walking process, due to factors such as mass passenger ows, nor did we
consider possible delays due to passengers having to stop to obtain tickets, etc. We assumed that passengers would have
through fares or take advantage of tariff integration facilities.
As far as measuring points (mode stops) were concerned, we chose the nearest medium or long term car park if several
such facilities were available. If bus stops were very dispersed at certain locations, we took the average distance between the

200

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

Fig. 1. The European high speed rail network service and the stations used as an empirical base for the study.

closest and furthest locations. In the case of bicycle parking, we always chose the surveyed lots rather than the nearest bicycle racks. The on foot mode considered the connectivity of the station with the city centre, taking the main entrance to the
station as the reference point.
For our map measurements, we calculated distances using the map scale. Based on our previous experience with in situ
measurements, we introduced a penalization of 20 s for each change of level (escalator, lift or ramp), one of 10 s for each
change of environment (insideoutside station building) and added another 10 s for each pedestrian crossing. For most travel
models, total travel time combines real travel time and waiting time. Waiting time tends to be weighted twice or three times

201

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

Table 1
Comparison between time measurements and map-derived estimates for the HSTS of Vsters and Mannheim.
Metric
Vsters (Sweden)
In situ measure

Map estimate

Mannheim (Germany)
In situ measure

Map estimate

Mode

HST

Conv. train

Reg. bus

Loc. bus

Cab

Priv. car

Bicycle

Foot

HST
Conv. train
Reg. bus
Loc. bus
Cab
Priv. car
Bicycle
Foot

60
0

160
140
0

165
135
25
0

95
100
125
120
0

110
100
150
160
80
0

105
100
140
115
35
30
0

85
75
90
85
30
105
35
0

HST
Conv. train
Reg. bus
Loc. bus
Cab
Priv. car
Bicycle
Foot

60
0

170
160
0

160
150
30
0

110
100
140
130
0

110
110
190
180
80
0

120
110
150
140
20
40
0

80
70
110
100
40
100
30
0

HST
Conv. train
Reg. bus
Loc. bus
Cab
Priv. car
Bicycle
Foot

60
0

150
120
0

170
120
95
0

140
105
20
95
0

130
95
90
100
90
0

160
100
80
150
35
80
0

130
95
35
60
20
70
100
0

HST
Conv. train
Reg. bus
Loc. bus
Cab
Priv. car
Bicycle
Foot

55
0

130
115
0

140
125
105
0

130
115
15
105
0

120
105
90
120
105
0

155
140
90
180
45
95
0

125
105
40
50
30
75
120
0

as high as actual travel time. The only alternative to doing this is to measure actual waiting time based on specic on-site
observations.
We assumed that in situ measurements would imply greater distortions than more objective map estimates, but no major
deviations were detected between the two ways of measuring when we made comparisons. Table 1 shows that the differences between the two methods were very small. This justied the use of map estimates for stations for which no in situ
estimates were available (see Fig. 2).
Once the intermodality of each station had been estimated with this method, the next step was to calculate the two estimates to quantify intermodality. The intermodality matrix A that we established at a previous step in the process was given
by

t 1;2

t 1;3



t 2;3




Bt
B 1;2
B
AB
B t 1;3
B
@ 







t1;n

t2;n



t n1;n1

t 1;n

C
C
C
 C
C
C
tn1;n1 A
t 2;n

where ti,j represents the time required to reach mode j from mode i. Matrix A is a square matrix and the main diagonal is set
to 0 to indicate an articial zero friction for unimodal trips.
P
The rst estimate of interest is intermodal time: Ti  jti,j. It provides the time required to reach the i mode from every
other mode (j), which indicates how distant that mode is in relation to the rest of the modes. The average of this value
P
T i  1n T i 1n j ti;j is also useful, as it gives the average time required to reach a given mode from all the other modes. Nonetheless, we preferred to use Ti as it is a simpler indicator.
P
From Ti we derived another value which we called the intermodal integral time and dened as Ma = iTi. This value characterizes the HSTS a.

202

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

Mannheim Station
200

180

180

160

160

140

140

Map Estimate

Map Estimate

Vsters Station
200

120
100
80
60

120
100
80
60

40

40

20

20
0

0
0

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

In Situ Measure

In Situ Measure

Fig. 2. Scatterplots of the time measurements and map-derived estimates for the Vsters and Mannheim HSTS.

The third indicator is the intermodal entropy of mode i, which is dened as

Si  k

Pi  log Pi

where k = 1, log stands for the natural logarithm and Pi  MT ia .

The entropy has a minimum value of 0 if T i 1; T j 0 8ji, and its maximum value is obtained if T i T j n1 . These
two situations, respectively, reect a station with a single mode and a station with equidistant modes. Between these
two extremes, the intermodal entropy reects how unbalanced different modes are. Thus, a station with n  1 modes of
which two are close together and with another node that is farther away would have lower entropy than other stations with
n  2 nodes located within a small radius and with two other nodes located farther from them. Intermodal entropy is a useful measure for gauging the dispersion of the different modes present at a station in an unambiguous way. It should be noted
that this cannot be measured using Ti alone, since it can easily be shown that for a given HSTS Ti = Tj does not generally imply
that Si = Sj.
Comparisons between different modes of transport cannot neglect space and location (Nirat, 1997). As noted in the references, the location of the station within the high speed network (k1 below) and the nature of the train service (number and
frequency of services) at the station (k2 below) also inuence intermodality. Both factors were used when selecting stations,
but they were not explicitly included in the calculations. Nevertheless, we reserved a factor called k to account for both of
these effects, if needed. Thus, k / k1, k2, with k, k1, k2 2 [0, 1]. By denition, k1 = 0 for a completely isolated rail station and
k1 = 1 for a perfectly connected station. Similarly, k2 = 0 for the (hypothetical) case of a station with no rail services and k2 = 1
for a station with a perfect offer of rail services. Table 2 shows the imbalance in the number of high speed and conventional
services available at the stations. However, the actual values of ki were not used in our case as we were interested in changes
in intermodality due to impedances at railway stations based on a ceteris paribus argument: with everything else being equal.
We thus isolated high speed train accessibility from other effects by setting k = k1 = k2 = 1 in our calculations. An alternative
approach to the analysis shown here would be to use accessibility as k1 and to use the values presented in Table 2 to derive
an estimate for k2.
4. Results
Fig. 3 shows the resulting intermodal and intermodal integral times for the 27 stations studied. Some differences are
apparent between the stations studied. At Guadalajara and Calatayud, the time required to change from one mode of transport to another was very short compared with other stations. This was not only due to the small physical sizes of these two
stations, which permitted quick mode exchanges, but also to the different modes being relatively close to each other (Calatayud) or to the absence of one or more modes (Guadalajara). At stations such as Lleida, which is of a similar size to Guadalajara, intermodal times are longer due to the relative contributions of the other modes.
As this gure shows, the number of available modes is also an issue when characterizing HSTS in Europe. Some stations
may lack regional bus services or conventional rail connections and this should be acknowledged in the characterization.
This effect is also apparent in Fig. 4, which relates the intermodal time to the balance between the exchange times for
each mode. The more regular the graph is, the more balanced the modes present at a particular station are. From the many
possible ways of plotting this information we chose to plot the stations according to their localizations in their respective
cities, giving us central (red2 in Fig. 4), peripheral (blue) and isolated (green) HSTS. In the top panel, we plotted the inter-

For interpretation of color in Fig. 4, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.

203

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

Table 2
Number of high speed and conventional rail services at the HSTS stations analyzed in this study.
HSTS

HST services

Conventional rail services

Ciudad Real
Madrid-Atocha
Guadalajara
Calatayud
Zaragoza
Lleida
Valence TGV
Bern
Stuttgart
Mannheim
Montabaur
Siegburg
Hannover
Kassel-Wilhelmshhe
Fulda
Wrzburg
Nrnberg
Malm
Lund
Hssleholm
Skvde
Karlstad
Gvle
Vsters
Katrineholm
Norrkping
Sdertlje

48
190
17
18
44
30
50
29
58
103
35
61
146
108
107
100
114
17
15
25
38
13
21
16
27
18
28

13
77
14
4
40
38
5
301
300
175
11
43
291
137
97
203
375
163
180
73
20
24
47
45
33
58
48

modal times between all the modes, whereas the bottom one only shows the times to the HST. The gure shows that central
(red) stations enjoy good intermodal locations, when all relations are considered, but these locations are less favourable
when only times to the HSR are contemplated. Peripheral (blue) and isolated (green) stations seem better located for the
high speed rail modes than for a full intermodal set of relations. This nding underlines the fact that all peripheral and isolated stations were specically built for high speed rail systems, while central stations have had to integrate this new transport mode into existing conventional station systems.
Neither intermodal nor integral intermodal times are, by themselves, capable of fully characterizing intermodality in the
HSTS. Stations such as Madrid-Atocha and Norrkping both have intermodal integral times of 6500, but the former lacks a
regional bus connection. Any comparison between these stations in terms of intermodal times would be misleading, as it
would place both stations in the same category. In the cases of Mannheim, Stuttgart and Sieburg/Bonn, these statistics would
(correctly) identify similarities as these three stations have similar modal times (see Fig. 3) and the same number of modes.
This inability to distinguish different numbers of modes justies the inclusion of intermodal entropy in the analysis. Intermodal entropy takes into account the number of available modes and differences in exchange times at each mode. Intermodal entropy is low when exchange times between modes are very different or when a particular mode is absent, and
it is maximised when all modes are equal, irrespective of the actual time involved in each exchange.
By combining intermodal integral time and intermodal entropy, HSTS can be classied into four major types (Fig. 5).
Type 1 includes HSTS with low intermodal entropies (very dissimilar exchange times) and large intermodal integral times
(with one mode very distant from the rest, or all the modes separated by large distances). Typical examples are Madrid-Atocha, Zaragoza and Lleida. In contrast, Type 3 corresponds to small HSTS in which at least one mode is absent. Interestingly, all
Spanish stations are either Type 1 or Type 3. The majority of HSTS belong to Types 2 and 3. Type 2 includes stations with well
balanced modes but with large intermodal integral times, which tend to result (on average) in long walks for passengers.
Type 4 corresponds to the optimum HSTS: well balanced in terms of modes, and with moderate to short transfer times.
In our sample of HSTS, Lund appears to the best station in terms of intermodality.
There is currently little available data on intermodal travel patterns at the European scale. Nonetheless, the INVERMO
study (Last et al., 2003) shows that about 60% of long-distance trips have a mono-modal travel pattern, with 75% of these
involving the car. The other 40% were intermodal, but fewer than 25% of those completing the survey had considered alternative modes of travel. These statistics clearly show the potential of intermodal travel, but promoting a modal shift from
private car to public transport will only be possible if intermodality can be presented as an attractive alternative. This is
important in terms of policy, since the absence of one or several modes seriously limits intermodality and thus accessibility;
the result is an HSTS that works at below its optimum level. This situation, which can be easily identied by applying this
approach, is generally hidden when only intermodal and intermodal integral times are assessed.
Further information can be extracted from intermodal entropy and intermodal integral time using these statistics as input
for a hierarchical cluster classication algorithm. The idea behind this approach is to analyse the data in order to identify

204

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

HST

Reg. Bus

Cab

Bicycle

Conv.Train

Loc. Bus

Priv. Car

On foot

8000

Intermodal Time

6000

4000

2000

Valence TGV
Bern
Ciudad Real
Lleida
Sdertlje
Skvde
Norrkping
Malm
Katrineholm
Karlstad
Hssleholm
Gvle
Vsters
Lund
Calatayud
Guadalajara
Madrid-Atocha
Zaragoza
Nrnberg
Hanover
Kassel
Fulda
Montabaur
Wrzburg
Siegburg/Bonn
Stuttgart
Mannheim
Fig. 3. Intermodal integral times, by mode, for the 27 HSTS studied.

similar patterns and divide HSTS into several different classes. Here, we used Wards distance to generate clusters and derived a dendrogram (Fig. 6).
This dendrogram clearly identies three major clusters, one of which corresponds to Type 1, with the others being of
Types 2 and 4. Wards distance suggests two different classes for Type 3, but the relationship between Types 1 and 3 is
not obvious from this plot. We preferred to maintain Type 3 as a single group in order to facilitate interpretation.
5. Discussion
Two main conclusions can be drawn from the results of this research into European HSTS planning. Firstly, intermodality
is linked to accessibility. The absence of any particular mode (such as a conventional rail service, or regional bus service)
penalizes the intermodal entropy, resulting in lower intermodality. HSTS in Europe should be located to maximize access
to as many different modes of transport as possible and seeking to minimise intermodal travel time. In terms of design, stations need to promote and facilitate seamless mode exchange. Stations with predominantly horizontal layouts are shown to
be less efcient in terms of intermodality than those with several interconnected levels, as these minimize transfer times.
Coordinating timetables between bus, coach, conventional train and HST services is highly desirable, as it means that passengers can then plan multimodal trips.
The empirical work carried out within this research showed that the Swiss system provides an example of good practice.
Good timetable planning combined with punctuality, and a dense network of train, bus and coach services make intermodal
transport a positive, stress-free experience from the passenger point of view and also saves the country money. The combination of having: specic places in which to safely keep bicycles; good access to the station for private cars and taxis; punctual and reliable arrivals and departures; consistent departure and arrival platforms; and timetables that optimise

205

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

Mannheim
Stuttgart

HST

Siegburg/Bonn
Wrzburg
Fulda
Hanover

Co nv.Train

On F o o t

Nrnberg
Madrid-Atocha
Lund
Gvle
Hssleholm
Karlstad
Katrineholm
B icycle

Reg.B us

Malm
Norrkping
Lleida
Skvde
Bern
Sdertlje
Zaragoza
Kassel

P riv.Car

Lo c.B us

Calatayud
Ciudad Real
Vsters
Montabaur

Cab

Valence TGV
Guadalajara

Conv.Train

Mannheim
Stuttgart
Siegburg/Bonn
Wrzburg
Fulda

On Foot

Reg.Bus

Hanover
Nrnberg
Madrid-Atocha
Lund
Gvle
Hssleholm
Karlstad
Katrineholm
Malm
Norrkping

Bicycle

Loc.Bus

Lleida
Skvde
Bern
Sdertlje
Zaragoza
Kassel
Calatayud
Ciudad Real
Vsters

Priv.Car

Cab

Montabaur
Valence TGV
Guadalajara

Fig. 4. Polar plots of integral intermodal time for central (red), peripheral (blue) and isolated (green) stations. The upper panel is for all the modes
considered, whereas the bottom panel is restricted to modes from/to the high speed train mode.

206

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

Mannheim

9000

Stuttgart

Type 2

Siegburg/Bonn
Wrzburg

8000

Montabaur
Fulda
Kassel

7000

Germany

Type 1

Hanover
Zaragoza
Guadalajara

5000

Calatayud

Spain

Madrid-Atocha

Lleida
Ciudad Real

4000

Lund
Vsters
Gvle

3000

Hssleholm
Karlstad
Katrineholm

2000

Sweden

Intermodal Integral Time

Nrnberg

6000

Malm
Norrkping

1000

Skvde
Sdertlje

Type 3
0
0.55

Type 4

Bern
Valence TGV

0.65

0.75

0.85

CH
FR

0.95

Intermodal Entropy
Fig. 5. HSTS classication in terms of intermodal integral time and intermodal entropy.

combinations between different modes, all contributes to providing good door-to-door service for commuters and travellers
and helps to promote public transport.
On the other end of the scale, the Toledo HSTS (Spain) is a paradigmatic case of poor planning for intermodality. The
high speed track, which was built with European R&D funds, served as a test site, but the new system was superimposed
on the old regional system, which had been partly dismantled. Current travel time is less than 35 min, whereas the regional trains previously made the same trip in 45 min: only a minor time saving that hardly compensates for the increase in
ticket prices and reduction in intermodality. Furthermore, the previous regional train service included intermediate stops
that helped to integrate the surrounding area within the intermodal chain, thus increasing total regional accessibility.
Keeping conventional services alongside the new high speed services would have increased intermodality and accessibility
by increasing passenger choice. Car access to the station was penalized, as the new system implied an increase in cost,
except for Kiss & Ride trips. The result has been increased trafc congestion in neighbouring areas. The regional bus station
is half a mile from the HSTS and connecting local bus services are infrequent. All these factors limit intermodality. More
importantly, however, the HSTS is a dead-end station that is only connected to Madrid-Atocha HSTS, which represents a
waste of resources.
Intermodality can be viewed from both a site specic and a global perspective. The former is conditioned by the design of
the public transit stop or station and its surroundings. In such cases, the designer of an intermodal exchange should try to
avoid what constitute suboptimal points from the point of view of total trip utility and also diseconomies associated with
crowding (Lam et al., 1999). The global perspective is conditioned, on one hand, by the performance of the different connecting modes, and on the other, by local, regional and national politics. Whatever the case, intermodality can only be effective if
a quality service is provided.
A second conclusion from our research is that improving intermodality can help to integrate transport systems and make
them more efcient by establishing networks of interconnected modes within which transfers from one mode to another are
easy and comfortable and passengers are offered several different options. Door-to-door trips including public transport can
form part of complex trip chains which put great demands on the interfaces and operational integration of the transport
system.

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

207

Fig. 6. The results of hierarchical cluster analysis depicted as a dendrogram, illustrating the Wards distance classication using intermodal integral time
and intermodal entropy.

6. Summary and conclusion

In this study, we analyzed the intermodality associated with connections between different modes of transport, specifically focusing on an on-site perspective of the high speed rail system. We have provided a new measure: intermodal entropy, which may help to characterize HSTS and improve their intermodal performance. This variable can also be integrated into
models of regional accessibility to take into account the intermodality of HSTS within a single comprehensive estimate.
These models can then be used to embed complex intermodal chains at the regional level, in a more realistic way, thereby
paving the way for better, quantitatively based policies. A series of robust methods and tools for assessing potential modal
shifts have recently been described (Tsamboulas et al., 2007); these include complete policy action plans that could be useful
for decision makers.
More seamless journeys will produce more efcient individual trips and also foster improvements at the wider, regional
level in terms of reducing total socio-economic costs. Increased choice and efciency can help to counter some of the problems of capacity, especially in the air and road networks, that undermine current half-modal, loosely connected networks. Last but not least, improved transport systems contribute to more employment, better environments, sustainable
development and territorial cohesion (European Commission, 2004).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by research grants SEJ2004-02824 (J.M.H., K.B.); CGL2006-03611, CGL2008-00432-E/CLI (MICINN),
PAI06-0101 and the Ramon y Cajal programme (F.J.T.); and the FP-005 Water, Road and Rail 2005SGR01089 (J.M.H., F.J.T.)
project of the European Science Foundation. The work was carried out while F.J.T. and J.M.H. were invited scholars at the
department of Geography of Cambridge University. Thanks are due to two anonymous referees who suggested more specic
on location.
References
Bontekoning, Y.M., Macharis, C., Trip, J.J., 2004. Is a new applied transportation research eld emerging? A review of intermodal rail-truck freight transport
literature. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 38 (1), 134.

208

F.J. Tapiador et al. / Transportation Research Part A 43 (2009) 197208

Dupuy, G., 1988. Les interconnexions. Transport et socit. En: Transports no. 331, p. 430.
Eidgenssisches Departement fr Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und Kommunikation und Bundesamt fr Strassen, 2004. Standards fr Intermodale
Schnittstellen im Verkehr, SVI 2001/525, Zrich.
European Commission, 1999a. The European Spatial Development Perspective. <http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/forum/spatreport_en.pdf>
(accessed 31.03.2006).
European Commission, 1999b. Urban Research: HSR-Comet. <http://www.cordis.lu/transport/src/hsrcomet.htm> (accessed 27.05.2005).
European Commission, 1999c. Urban Research: Pirate. <http://www.cordis.lu/transport/src/pirate.htm> (accessed 31.03.2006).
European Commission, 1999d. Urban Research: Guide. <http://www.cordis.lu/transport/src/guide.htm> (accessed 27.05.2005).
European Commission, 1999e. Task Force Transport Intermodality. <http://cordis.europa.eu/transport/src/taskforce/home.html> (accessed 15.05.2006).
European Commission, 2001a. Thematic synthesis of transport research results. Freight Intermodality, Paper 10, Transport RTD Programme.
European Commission, 2001b. Urban Research: MIMIC. <http://www.cordis.lu/transport/src/mimic.htm> (accessed 27.05.2005).
European Commission, 2001c. COST 340. Towards a European Intermodal Transport Network: Lessons from History. <http://www.cordis.lu/cost-transport/
src/cost-340.htm> (accessed 10.08.2005).
European Commission, 2004. Towards passenger intermodality in the EU. Report 1, Dortmund, p. I.
European Commission, 2006. The Marco Polo Programme. <http://europa.eu.int/comm/transport/marcopolo/index_en.htm> (accessed 03.03.2006).
Gorman, M.F., 2008. Evaluating the public investment mix in US freight transportation infrastructure. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 42
(1), 114.
Hultgren, K., 2002. Stations-Guide, Inter-modal Travel Centres, Att utveckla resecentrum frn dlig skarv till bra koppling. Editorial Stationsrdet, Tierp.
Jakob, A., Craig, J.L., Fisher, G., 2006. Transport cost analysis: a case study of the total costs of private and public transport in Auckland. Environmental
Science & Policy 9, 5566.
Kreutzberger, E.D., 2008. Distance and time in intermodal goods transport networks in Europe: a generic approach. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 42 (7), 973993.
Kuby, M., Barranda, A., Upchurch, C., 2004. Factors inuencing light-rail station boardings in the United States. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and
Practice 38 (3), 223247.
Lam, W.H.K., Cheung, C.-Y., Lam, C.F., 1999. A study of crowding effects at the Hong Kong light rail transit stations. Transportation Research Part A: Policy
and Practice 33 (5), 401415.
Last, J. et al, 2003. Heterogenitt im Fernverkehr. Wie wenige reisen wie viel? Internationales Verkehrswesen (55), 270.
Lu, L., 2003. The vital role of Metropolitan access in intercity rail passenger transportation and its relationship to technology. Working Paper #7, Center for
Transportation Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, p. 3.
Margail, F., 1996. De la correspondance linteroprabilit: les mots de linterconnexion. Flux 25, 2935.
Nirat, P., 1997. Market area of rail-truck terminals: pertinence of the spatial theory. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 31 (2), 109127.
Ricci, A., Black, I., 2005. The social costs of intermodal freight transport. Research in Transportation Economics 14, 245285.
Schnharting, J. et al, 2003. Towards the multimodal transport of people and freight: interconnective networks in the RheinRuhr Metropolis. Journal of
Transport Geography 11, 193203.
Spiekermann, K., 2005. Transport and accessibility in Europe. Interreg North Sea Programme & North Sea Commission. In: Joint Annual Conference,
Vlissingen, 15 June 2005.
Tsamboulas, D., Vrenken, H., Lekka, A.M., 2007. Assessment of a transport policy potential for intermodal mode shift on a European scale. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice 41 (8), 715733.
UITP, 1994. Location and design of interchanges rail, bus and car, Brussels.
UITP, 2003. A one-stop approach to mobility: the challenge of integration, Brussels.
Vgverket, 2004. Trak fr en attraktiv stad, Stockholm, p. 212.
Varlet, J., 1992. Rseaux de transports rapides et interconnexions en Europe Occidentale. Linformation Gographique 56, 105107.
Victorian Transport Policy Institute, 2005. Dening, Evaluation and Improving Accessibility. <http://www.vtpi.org/> (09.05.2005).
Yao, E., Morikawa, T., 2005. A study of an integrated intercity travel demand model. Transportation Research Part A 39, 367381.