Territorial cohesion impacts of high-speed rail at different planning levels

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 24, Issue , 2012, Pages 130-141

  Ortega, Emilio ^a   López, Elena ^a   Monzón, Andrés ^a  

^a UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID   (Spain)

Author keywords

Accessibility indicators; High speed rail (HSR); Planning levels; Territorial cohesion effects

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; GIS; HIGH-SPEED TRAIN; INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING; RAILWAY TRANSPORT; SPILLOVER EFFECT; STRATEGIC APPROACH; TERRITORY; TRANSPORTATION PLANNING;

SPAIN;

EID: 84865200102     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.10.008     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Banister D., Berechman Y. The economic development effects of transport investments. Transport Projects, Programmes and Policies: Evaluation Needs and Capabilities 2003, Ashgate, Aldershot. A. Pearman, P. Mackie, J. Nellthorp (Eds.).
2. Bertolini L., le Clercq F., Kapoen L. Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transport Policy 2005, 12(3):207-220.
3. Bröcker J., Korzhenevych A., Schürmann C. Assessing spatial equity and efficiency impacts of transport infrastructure projects. Transportation Research Part B 2010, 44:795-811.
4. Chen C.-L., Hall P. The impacts of high-speed trains on British economic geography: a study of the UK's InterCity 125/225 and its effects. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19(4):689-704.
5. Dall'erba S., Le Gallo J. Regional convergence and the impact of European structural funds over 1989-1999: a spatial econometric analysis. Papers in Regional Science 2008, 87(2):219-244.
6. Dundon-Smith D.M., Gibb R.A. The Channel Tunnel and regional economic development. Journal of Transport Geography 1994, 2(3):178-189.
7. EC, 1999. European Spatial Development Perspective (ESDP): Towards Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Committee of Spatial Development, Luxembourg.
8. EC, 2004. A New Partnership for Cohesion: Convergence, Competitiveness, Cooperation: Third Report on Economic and Social Cohesion. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg.
9. EC, 2006. Council Decision of 6 October 2006 on Community Strategic Guidelines on Cohesion (2006/702/EC).
10. Fotheringhman A., Wong D. The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate analysis. Environment and Planning A 1991, 23:1025-1044.
11. Geppert K., Stephan A. Regional disparities in the European Union: convergence and agglomeration. Papers in Regional Science 2008, 87(2):193-217.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Gutiérrez J., Condeço-Melhorado A.M., Martín J.C. Using accessibility indicators and GIS to assess spatial spillovers of transport infrastructure investment. Journal of Transport Geography 2010, 18(1):141-152.
15. Gutiérrez J., Condeço-Melhorado A., López E., Monzón A. Evaluating the European added value of TEN-T projects: a methodological proposal based on spatial spillovers, accessibility and GIS. Journal of Transport Geography 2011, 19:840-850.
16. Hansen S., Kaas A.H., Landex A. The network effects of railway investments. Computers in Railways X. Computer System Design and Operation in the Railway and Other Transit Systems 2006, 45-54. WIT Press. J. Allan, C.A. Brebbia, A.F. Rumsey, G. Scuitto, S. Sone, C.J. Goodman (Eds.).
17. Horner M.A., Murray A.T. Excess commuting and the modifiable areal unit problem. Urban Studies 2002, 39(1):131-139.
18. Howitt R. Scale as relation: musical metaphors of geographical scales. Area 1998, 30(1):49-58.
19. Kwan M.-P., Weber J. Scale and accessibility: implications for the analysis of land use-travel interaction. Applied Geography 2008, 28(2):110-123.
20. Kwan M.-P., Murray A.T., O'Kelly M.E., Tiefelsdorf M. Recent advances in accessibility research: representation, methodology and applications. Journal of Geographical Systems 2003, 5:129-138.
21. López, E., 2007. Assessment of Transport Infrastructure Plans: A Strategic Approach Integrating Efficiency, Cohesion and Environmental Aspects. Ph.D. Dissertation, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid. <>. http://www.ad.upm.es.
22. López E., Monzón A. Integration of sustainability issues in strategic transportation planning: a multi-criteria model for the assessment of transport infrastructure plans. Computer Aided and Civil Infrastructure Engineering 2010, 25:440-451.
23. 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.
24. López 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.
25. Martín J.C., Gutiérrez J., Román C. Data envelopment analysis (DEA) index to measure the accessibility impacts of new infrastructure investments: the case of the high-speed train corridor Madrid-Barcelona-French border. Regional Studies 2004, 38(6):697-712.
26. Martínez L.M., Viegas J.M., Silva E.A. A traffic analysis zone definition: a new methodology and algorithm. Transportation 2009, 36(5):581-599.
27. Martínez Sánchez-Mateos, H.S., Givoni, M., 2009. The Accessibility Impact of a New High Speed Rail Line in the UK - a Preliminary Analysis of Winners and Losers. Transport Studies Unit (Ref. 1041). School of Geography and the Environment, Oxford.
28. Miller H.J. Potential contributions of spatial analysis to geographic information systems for transportation (GIS-T). Geographical Analysis 1999, 31:373-399.
29. Ministerio de Fomento, 2005. Plan Estratégico de Infraestructuras y Transporte 2005-2020 (PEIT). Secretaría de Estado de Infraestructuras y Planificación, Dirección General de Planificación y Coordinación Territorial, Madrid.
30. Mu L., Wang F. A scale-space clustering method: mitigating the effect of scale in the analysis of zone-based data. Annals of the Association of American Geographer 2008, 98(1):85-101.
31. Murray A., Davis R. Equity in regional service provision. Journal of Regional Science 2001, 41(4):557-600.
32. Norman C., Vickerman R. Local and regional implications of trans-European transport networks: the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. Environment and Planning A 1999, 31:705-718.
33. Ogryczak W. Inequality measures and equitable locations. Annals of Operational Research 2009, 167:61-86.
34. Ortega, E., 2009. Diseño de un sistema experto implementado en SIG para la evaluación ambiental, social y económica de planes de infraestructuras. Ph. D. Dissertation. Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid.
35. Pereira A.M., Roca-Sagales O. Spillover effects of public capital formation: evidence from the Spanish regions. Journal of Urban Economics 2003, 53(2):238-256.
36. Preston J., Rajé F. Accessibility, mobility and transport-related social exclusion. Journal of Transport Geography 2007, 15(3):151-160.
37. Puga D. European regional policies in light of recent location theories. Journal of Economic Geography 2002, 2(4):373-406.
38. Reggiani A. Accessibility, Trade and Location Behavior 1998, Ashgate, Aldershot.
39. Steel D.G., Holt D. Rules for random aggregation. Environment and Planning A 1996, 28:957-978.
40. Steel D.G., Holt D. Analysing and adjusting aggregation effects: the ecological fallacy revisited. International Statistical Review 1996, 64(1):39-60.
41. Talen E. Visualizing fairness: equity maps for planners. Journal of the American Planning Association 1998, 64(1):22-49.
42. Talen E. School, community, and spatial equity: an empirical investigation of access to elementary schools in West Virginia. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 2001, 91(3):465-486.
43. Talen E., Anselin L. Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A 1998, 30:595-613.
44. Thomas I. Spatial data aggregation: exploratory analysis of road accidents. Accident Analysis & Prevention 1996, 28(2):251-264.
45. Thompson I.B. High-speed transport hubs and Eurocity status: the case of Lyon. Journal of Transport Geography 1995, 3(1):29-37.
46. Tsou K.W., Hung Y.T., Chang Y.L. An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities 2005, 22:424-435.
47. Uboe J. Aggregation of gravity models for journeys to work. Environment and Planning A 2004, 36:715-729.
48. Ureña J.M., Menerault P., Garmendia M. The high-speed rail challenge for big intermediate cities: a national, regional and local perspective. Cities 2009, 26(5):266-279.
49. Vickerman R., Spiekermann K., Wegener M. Accessibility and economic development in Europe. Regional Studies 1999, 33(1):1-15.
50. Wei L., Fahui W. Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS environment: synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design 2003, 30(6):865-884.