Road accessibility and articulation of metropolitan spatial structures: The case of Madrid (Spain)

Journal of Transport Geography

Volumn 37, Issue , 2014, Pages 61-73

  Martinez Sanchez Mateos, Héctor S ^a   Sanz, Inmaculada Mohíno ^a   Francés, José Ma Ureña ^a   Trapero, Eloy Solís ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CASTILLA LA MANCHA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Accessibility; Madrid; Polycentrism; Spain; Urban network

Indexed keywords

ACCESSIBILITY; METROPOLITAN AREA; ROAD TRANSPORT; SPATIAL ANALYSIS; TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE; URBAN TRANSPORT;

MADRID [SPAIN]; SPAIN;

EID: 84899674434     PISSN: 09666923     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.04.003     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Abadía X., Pineda M. La Congestión en los Corredores de Acceso a Madrid 2009, Fundación RACC, Barcelona, (accessed 22.03.13).
2. Anas A., Arnott R., Small K. Urban spatial structure. J. Econ. Liter. 1998, 36:1426-1464.
3. Baum-Snow N. Suburbanization and transportation in the monocentric model. J. Urban Econ. 2007, 62:405-423.
4. Bogart W.T., Ferry W.C. Employment centres in Greater Cleveland: evidence of evolution in a formerly monocentric city. Urban Stud. 1999, 36:2099-2110.
5. Cerdá A. Accessibility: A Performance Measure for Land-use and Transportation Planning in the Montréal Metropolitan Region. Supervised Research Project Report 2009, School of Urban Planning, McGill University, Montreal.
6. Cheng J., Bertolini L., le Clercq F., Kapoen L. Understanding urban networks: comparing a node-, a density- and an accessibility-view. Cities 2013, 31:165-176.
7. del Cin A., de Mesones J., Figueroa J. Madrid. City profile. Cities 1994, 11(5):283-291.
8. Clark W.A.V., Kuijpers-Linde M. Commuting in restructuring urban regions. Urban Stud. 1994, 31:465-483.
9. Condeço-Melhorado A., Gutiérrez J., Garcia-Palomares J.C. Spatial impacts of road pricing: accessibility, regional spillovers and territorial cohesion. Transp. Res. Part A 2011, 45:185-203.
10. Curtis C., Scheurer J. Planning for sustainable accessibility: developing tools to aid discussion and decision-making. Prog. Plan. 2010, 74:53-106.
11. EC (European Commission), 1999. ESDP - European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards a Balanced and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union. Office of the Official Publications of the European Community, Luxembourg.
12. Eiselt H.A., Laporte G. Competitive spatial models. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1989, 39:231-242.
13. ESPON, 2004. Potentials for Polycentric Development in Europe. ESPON Project 1.1.1.
14. Fomento, 2007. Movilia 2006-2007. Encuesta de movilidad, Madrid. http://www.fomento.es/NR/rdonlyres/2D1D40A2-3417-4C74-AF3F-D22D3A161F96/110679/Movilia20062007.pdf.
15. Fujita M., Ogawa H. Multiple equilibria and structural transition of nonmonocentric urban configurations. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 1982, 12:161-196.
16. Gallo M.T., Garrido R., Vivar M. Cambios territoriales en la Comunidad de Madrid: policentrismo y dispersión. EURE 2010, 36(107):5-26.
17. Garcia-López M.A., Muñiz I. Employment decentralisation: polycentricity or scatteration? The case of Barcelona. Urban Stud. 2010, 47:3035-3056.
18. Garcia-López M.A. Urban spatial structure, suburbanization and transportation in Barcelona. J. Urban Econ. 2012, 72(2-3):176-190.
19. Garreau J. EdgeCity: Life on the New Frontier 1991, Doubleday, New York.
20. Geurs K.T., Ritsema van Eck J.R. Accessibility Measures: Review and Applications. RIVM Report 408505 006 2001, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven.
21. Geurs K.T., van Wee B. Accessibility evaluation of land-use transport strategies: review and research directions. J. Transp. Geogr. 2004, 12:127-140.
22. Giuliano G., Small K. Is the journey to work explained by urban structure?. Urban Stud. 1993, 30(9):1485-1500.
23. Giuliano G., Redfearn C., Agarwal A., He S. Network accessibility and employment centres. Urban Stud. 2012, 49(1):77-95.
24. Gordon P., Richardson H.W. Beyond polycentricity. The dispersed metropolis, Los Angeles, 1970-1990. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 1996, 62(3):289-295.
25. Green N. Functional polycentricity: a formal definition in terms of social network analysis. Urban Stud. 2007, 44(11):2077-2103.
26. Gutiérrez J., Gómez G. The impact of orbital motorways on intra-metropolitan accessibility: the case of the Madrid M-40. J. Transp. Geogr. 1999, 7:1-16.
27. Hall P., Pain K. The Polycentric Metropolis 2006, Earthscan, London.
28. Hansen W.G. How accessibility shapes land use. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1959, 25(1):73-76.
29. Harris B. Accessibility: concepts and applications. J. Transp. Stat. 2001, 4(2-3):15-30.
30. Heitkamp T. The integration of unplanned towns in the periphery of Madrid: the case of Fuenlabrada. Habit. Int. 2000, 24:213-220.
31. Helbich M., Leitner M. Spatial analysis of the urban-to-rural migration determinants in the Viennese Metropolitan Area. A transition from sub- to postsuburbia?. Appl. Spat. Anal. Policy 2009, 2(3):237-260.
32. Holl A. Twenty years of accessibility improvements. The case of the Spanish motorway building program. J. Transp. Geogr. 2007, 15:286-297.
33. Horner M. Exploring metropolitan accessibility and urban structure. Urban Geogr. 2004, 25(3):264-284.
34. Ingram D.R. The concept of accessibility: a search for an operational form. Reg. Stud. 1971, 5:101-107.
35. Joseph A.E., Bantock P.R. Measuring potential physical accessibility to general practitioners in rural areas: a method and case study. Soc. Sci. Med. 1982, 16:85-90.
36. Kawabata M. Spatiotemporal dimensions of modal accessibility disparity in Boston and San Francisco. Environ. Plan. A 2009, 41:183-198.
37. Kloosterman R.C., Musterd S. The polycentric urban region: towards a research agenda. Urban Stud. 2001, 38:623-633.
38. Krugman P., Venables T. Integration, specialization, and adjustment. Eur. Econ. Rev. 1996, 40:959-968.
39. Lee B. "Edge" or "edgeless" cities? Urban spatial structure in U.S. metropolitan areas, 1980 to 2000. J. Reg. Sci. 2007, 47:479-515.
40. Le Néchet, F., 2012. Urban spatial structure, daily mobility and energy consumption: a study of 34 European cities. Cybergeo: Rev. Eur. Géogr. 580 (accessed 15.03.13).
41. Limtanakool N., Dijst M., Schwanen T. A theoretical framework and methodology for characterising national urban systems on the basis of flows of people: empirical evidence for France and Germany. Urban Stud. 2007, 44(11):2123-2145.
42. Limtanakool N., Schwanen T., Dijst M. Developments in the Dutch Urban System on the basis of flows. Reg. Stud. 2009, 43(2):179-196.
43. La transformación de la ciudad en 20 años de Ayuntamientos democráticos 1999, Ayuntamiento de Madrid, Madrid. R. López (Ed.).
44. López E., Gutiérrez J., Gómez G. Measuring regional cohesion effects of large-scale transport infrastructure investments: an accessibility approach. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2008, 16(2):277-301.
45. Meijers E., Romein A. Realizing potential: building regional organizing capacity in polycentric urban regions. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2003, 10:173-186.
46. Meijers E., Hoekstra J., Leijten M., Louw E., Spaans M. Connecting the periphery: distributive effects of new infrastructure. J. Transp. Geogr. 2012, 22:187-198.
47. Morris J.M., Dumble P.L., Wigan M.R. Accessibility indicators for transportation planning. Transp. Res. A 1979, 13:91-109.
48. Patuelli R., Reggiani A., Gorman S.P., Nijkamp P., Bade F.J. Network analysis of commuting flows: a comparative static approach to German data. Networks Spat. Econ. 2007, 7(4):315-331.
49. Reggiani A., Bucci P., Russo G., Haas A., Nijkamp P. Regional labour markets and job accessibility in city network systems in Germany. J. Transp. Geogr. 2011, 19:528-536.
50. Richardson H.W. Monocentric vs policentric models: the future of urban economic in regional science. Ann. Reg. Sci. 1988, 2:1-12.
51. Rodrigue J.P., Comtois C., Slack B. The Geography of Transport Systems 2009, Routhledge, London.
52. Roca, J., Moix, M., Arellano, B., 2012. El sistema urbano en España. Scripta Nova XVI-(396). http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-396.htm.
53. Schwanen T., Dieleman F., Dijst M. Travel behaviour in Dutch monocentric and policentric urban systems. J. Transp. Geogr. 2001, 9:173-196.
54. Scott A.J., Agnew J., Soja E.W., Storper M. Global city-regions. Global City-regions: Trends, Theory, Policy 2001, 11-32. Oxford University Press, Oxford. A.J. Scott (Ed.).
55. Sohn J. Are commuting patterns a good indicator of urban spatial structure?. J. Transp. Geogr. 2005, 13:306-317.
56. Solís, E., Ureña, J.M., Ruiz-Apilánez, B., 2012. Transformación del Sistema Urbano-Territorial en la Región Central de da España Peninsular: La Emergencia de la Región Metropolitana Policéntrica Madrileña, Scripta Nova XVI-(420). (accessed 22.03.13). http://www.ub.edu/geocrit/sn/sn-420.htm.
57. Solís E., Mohíno I., Ureña J.M. Global metropolitan-regional scale in evolution: metropolitan intermediary cities and metropolitan cities. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2014, 10.1080/09654313.2013.878691.
58. Spiekermann K., Wegener M. The shrinking continent: new time-space maps of Europe. Environ. Plan. B 1994, 21:653-673.
59. van der Laan L. Changing urban systems: an empirical analysis at two spatial levels. Reg. Stud. 1998, 32:235-247.
60. Van Oort F.G., Burger M.J., Raspe O. On the economic foundation of the urban network paradigm: spatial integration, functional integration and economic complementarities within the Dutch Randstad. Urban Stud. 2010, 47:725-748.
61. van Wee B., Hagoort M., Annema J.A. Accessibility measures with competition. J. Transp. Geogr. 2001, 9:199-208.
62. Vickerman R.W. Accessibility, attraction and potential: a review of some concepts and their use in determining mobility. Environ. Plan. A 1974, 6:675-691.
63. Weibull J.W. An axiomatic approach to the measurement of accessibility. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 1976, 6:357-379.
64. Willigers J., Floor H., vanWee B. Accessibility in Land-use/Transport Interaction Modeling: LUTI Models as a Method to Determine the Spatial Economics Effects of High-speed Railway Infrastructure. RS-URBIX Research Papers 2003, Utrecht University.
65. Wilson A.G. A statistical theory of spatial distribution models. Transp. Res. 1967, 1:253-269.
66. Zheng X.P. Metropolitan spatial structure and its determinants: a case-study of Tokyo. Urban Stud. 1991, 28(1):87-104.