Evaluating the European added value of TEN-T projects: a methodological proposal based on spatial spillovers, accessibility and GIS

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 19, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 840-850

  Gutiérrez, Javier ^a   Condeço Melhorado, Ana ^b   López, Elena ^c   Monzón, Andrés ^c  

^a UNIVERSIDAD COMPLUTENSE DE MADRID   (Spain)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALCALÁ   (Spain)

^c Universidad Politecnica de Madrid   (Spain)

Author keywords

Accessibility; European value added (EVA); Project appraisal; Spatial spillovers; Trans European Transport Networks (TEN T); Trans national projects

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; GIS; HUB AND SPOKE NETWORK; PLANNING METHOD; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

EUROPE;

EID: 79957473811     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.10.011     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Banister D., Berechman Y. Transport investment and the promotion of economic growth. Journal of Transport Geography 2001, 9(3):209-218.
2. Beuthe, M., 2002. Transport evaluation methods: from cost-benefit analysis to multicriteria analysis and the decision framework. In: Giorgi, L., et al., (Eds.), Project Policy Evaluation in Transport, Ashgate, Burlington, United Kingdom, pp. 209-241.
3. Bruinsma F.R., Rietveld P. The accessibility of European cities: theoretical framework and comparison approaches. Environment and Planning A 1998, 30:449-521.
4. Camagni R. Territorial impact assessment for European regions: a methodological proposal and an application to EU transport policy. Evaluation and Program Planning 2009, 32:342-350.
5. Chen N. Intra-national versus international trade in the European Union: why do national borders matter?. Journal of International Economics 2004, 63(2004):93-118.
6. Commission of the European Communities, 1994. Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Decision on Community Guidelines for the Development of the Trans-European Transport Network, Brussels.
7. Commission of the European Communities, 2004. A New Partnership for Cohesion, Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion, Brussels.
8. Commission of the European Communities, 2009. Green Paper: TEN-T: A policy review. Towards a better integrated Transeuropean Network at the service of the Common Transport Policy, Brussels, COM, p. 44.
9. de Groot, Henri L.F., Linders Gert.-Jan., Rietveld P., Subramanian U. The institutional determinants of bilateral trade patterns. Kyklos 2004, 57(1):103-124.
10. de Jong, T., Ritsema van Eck, J., E.A., 2000. Flowmap 6.3. Manual and web site: Utrecht: Faculty of Geographical Sciences. http://flowmap.geog.uu.nl.
11. Dundon-Smith D.M., Gibb R.A. The channel tunnel and regional economic development. Journal of Transport Geography 1994, 2(3):178-189.
12. Geurs K.T., van Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 2004, 12:127-140.
13. Grant-Muller S., Mackie P., Nellthorp J., Pearman A. Economic appraisal of European transport projects: the state-of-the-art revisited. Transport Reviews 2001, 21(2):237-261.
14. Gutiérrez J. Location, economic potential and daily accessibility: an analysis of the accessibility impact of the high-speed line Madrid-Barcelona-French border. Journal of Transport Geography 2001, 9(4):229-242.
15. Gutiérrez J., Condeço A., Martín J.C. Using accessibility indicators and GIS to assess and monetarize spatial spillovers of transport infrastructure. Journal of Transport Geography 2010, 18:141-152.
16. Halden, D., 2003. Accessibility analysis: concepts and their application to transport policy, programme and project evaluation. In: Pearman, A., Mackie, P., Nellthorp, J., (Eds.), Transport Projects, Programmes and Policies: Evaluation Needs and Capabilities, Ashgate, Aldershot.
17. Hansen W.G. How accessibility shapes land-use. Journal of American Institute of Planners 1959, 25(2):73-76.
18. Hay A. Concepts of equity, fairness and justice in geographical studies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series 1995, 20(4):500-508.
19. Knowles R.D., Matthiessen C.W. Barrier effects of international borders on fixed link traffic generation: the case of Øresundsbron. Journal of Transport Geography 2009, 17(3):155-165.
20. Koenig J.G. Indicators of urban accessibility: theory and applications. Transportation 1980, 9:145-172.
21. Kwan M.-P. Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis 1998, 30(3):191-216.
22. Laird J., Nellthorp J., Mackie P. Network effects and total economic impact in transport appraisal. Transport Policy 2005, 12:537-544.
23. Linneker B., Spence N.A. Accessibility measures compared in an analysis of the impact of the M25 London orbital motorway on Britain. Environment and Planning A 1992, 24:1137-1154.
24. López E., Gutiérrez J., Gómez G. Measuring regional cohesion effects of large-scale transport infrastructure investments: an accessibility approach. European Planning Studies 2008, 16(2):277-301.
25. Lopez E., Monzón A., Ortega E., Mancebo S. Assessment of cross-border spillover effects of national transport infrastructure plans: an accessibility approach. Transport Reviews 2009, 29(4):515-536.
26. McCallum J. National borders matter: Canada-US regional trade patterns. American Economic Review 1995, 85(3):615-623.
27. Morris J.M., Dumble P.L., Wigan M.R. Accessibility indicators for transport planning. Transportation Research 1978, 13A:91-109.
28. Nitsch V. National borders and international trade: evidence from the European Union. Canadian Journal of Economics 2000, 33(4):1091-1105.
29. Pereira M.A., Roca-Sagalés O.R. Spillover effects of public capital formation: evidence from the Spanish regions. Journal of Urban Economics 2003, 53:238-256.
30. Pirie G.H. Measuring accessibility: a review and proposal. Environment and Planning A 1979, 11:299-312.
31. Reggiani, A., 1998. Accessibility, trade and locational behaviour. Ashgate.
32. Reggiani, A., Bucci, 2008. Accessibility and network structures: the case of commuting in Germany. In: Paper Presented at the 2008 Nectar Workshop "The Future of accessibility: New Methodological Developments" Las Palmas, Spain.
33. Rich D.C. Population potential, potential transportation cost and industrial location. Area 1978, 10:222-226.
34. Roy, R., 2003. European versus national-level evaluation: the case of the PBKAL high-speed rail project. In: Pearman, A., Mackie, P., Nellthorp, J., (Eds.), En Transport Projects, Programmes and Policies: Evaluation needs and capabilities. Ashgate, Aldershot.
35. Song S. Some tests of alternative accessibility measures: a population density approach. Land Economics 1996, 72(4):474-482.
36. Van Exel J., Rienstra S., Gommers M., Pearman A., Tsamboulas D. EU involvement in TEN development: network effects and European value added. Transport Policy 2002, 9(4):299-311.
37. Wegener, M., Bökemann, D., 1998. The SASI Model: Model Structure. SASI Report D8. Berichte aus dem Institut für Raumplanung 40. Dortmund: Institut für aumplanung, Universität Dortmund.