What values are prioritised in the development of a railway station and its urban surroundings?

A Text-analysis to research the differences between four Western European countries

Master Thesis (2025)
Author(s)

G.W. Aben (TU Delft - Civil Engineering & Geosciences)

Contributor(s)

Wijnand Veeneman – Mentor (TU Delft - Organisation & Governance)

M. Triggianese – Graduation committee member (TU Delft - Building Knowledge)

S.D. Ropers – Mentor (TU Delft - Organisation & Governance)

Faculty
Civil Engineering & Geosciences
More Info
expand_more
Publication Year
2025
Language
English
Graduation Date
07-10-2025
Awarding Institution
Delft University of Technology
Programme
['Transport, Infrastructure and Logistics']
Faculty
Civil Engineering & Geosciences
Reuse Rights

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download, forward or distribute the text or part of it, without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license such as Creative Commons.

Abstract

Railway stations are no longer mere transport nodes; they function as complex urban places where mobility, design, land use, commercial activity, and political legitimacy converge. Building on a perspectives framework synthesised from the literature, this paper quantifies cross-country differences in the value priorities embedded in official planning and project documents for station areas in Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. We construct multilingual, perspective-specific dictionaries (EN/NL/DE) and apply dictionary-based coding to large corpora of available documents. Robustness checks include outlier cleaning and a comparability subset of station masterplans. Results indicate distinctive national profiles: for example, stronger emphases on process/legitimacy and rail-technical concerns in Germany; design, connectivity, and growth in the Netherlands; accessibility/connection priorities in Switzerland; and a focus on financial values in the UK. We discuss institutional interpretations and limitations of dictionary methods, and we outline implications for planning practice and future analytic refinements.

Files

License info not available