Assessment of territorial benefits and efficiency from the construction of motorway and speed train networks: The Czech case

Open access

Abstract

The Czech Republic has been developing its motorway network since the 1970s, while efforts to upgrade its railway system from the 1990s have been limited to improvements of existing major lines. Only recently has the government decided to construct new “speed connection” rail lines. This article investigates the possible territorial benefits from the future development of planned motorways and of various speed connection railway options. The modelling is based on Huff’s gravity model that calculates the benefits from improved accessibility, to job and service centres for residents of each municipality. The modelling outcomes are used to compare planned motorway development and rail development options with respect to their efficiency, related to the investment and potential numbers of users.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • ADAMS J. S. (1970): Residential structure of mid-western cities. Annals of Association of American Geographers 60: 37–62.

  • BALCHIN P. KIEVE J. L. BULL G. H. (1988): Urban land economics and public policy. London Macmillan Education.

  • BECK M. BLIEMER M. (2015): Does building more roads create more traffic? City Metric [online]. Available at: https://www.citymetric.com/authors/m-beck-and-m-bliemer

  • BEZÁK A. (1975): Několik poznámek k matematickému modelování v ekonomické geografii. Geografický časopis 27(1): 9–15.

  • BLACK W. R. (2003): Transportation: a geographical analysis. New York Guilford Press.

  • BRAESS D. (1968): Über ein Paradoxon aus der Verkehrsplanung. Unternehmensforschung Operations Research 12(1): 258–268.

  • BRINKE J. (1999): Úvod do geografie dopravy. Praha Karolinum.

  • BROVELLI M. A. MINGHINI M. MOLINARI M. MOONEY P. (2017): Towards an automated comparison of OpenStreetMap with authoritative road datasets. Transactions in GIS 21: 191–206.

  • CHRISTIE E. (2001): Potential trade in Southeast Europe: a gravity model approach. Working Papers WIIW Balkan Observatory 011: 1–35.

  • COCHRANE R. A. (1975): A possible economic basis for the gravity model. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 1975: 34–49.

  • COE N. M. KELLY P. F. YEUNG H. W. C. (2007): Economic geography: a contemporary introduction. Oxford Blackwell.

  • CONDEÇO-MELHORADO A. REGGIANI A. GUTIÉRREZ J. (2014): Accessibility and spatial interaction. NECTAR Series on transportation and communication networks. Cheltenham Edward Elgar Publishing.

  • CRESWELL T. (2010): Towards a politics of mobility. Environment and Planning D: Society and space 28: 17–31.

  • ČSÚ (CZECH STATISTICAL OFFICE) (1993 2003 2013). Census 1991 2001 2011.

  • ČTK 2018: Osobní přeprava Českých drah [online]. Available at: https://www.ceskenoviny.cz/zpravy/ceskym-draham-se-loni-zvysil-pocet-cestujicich-na-174-7-milionu/1579722

  • DELBOSC A. CURRIE G. (2011): Using Lorenz curves to assess public transport equity. Journal of Transport Geography 19(6): 1252–1259.

  • GEURS K. T. VAN WEE B. (2004): Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. Journal of Transport Geography 12: 127–140.

  • GEURS K. ZONDAG B. DE JONG G. DE BOK M. (2010): Accessibility appraisal of land-use/transport policy strategies: More than just adding up travel-time savings. Transportation Research Part D. Transport and Environment 15(7): 382–393.

  • GRASER A. STRAUB M. DRAGASCHNIG M. (2015): Is OSM Good Enough for Vehicle Routing? A Study Comparing Street Networks in Vienna. In: Gartner G. Huang H. [eds.]: Progress in Location-Based Services 2014. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer Cham.

  • GRIMES A. YOUNG C. (2013): Spatial effects of urban rail upgrades. Journal of Transport Geography 30: 1–6.

  • HAMPL M. (2005): Geografická organizace společnosti v České republice: Transformační procesy a jejich obecný kontext. Praha Karlova Univerzita.

  • HANLY M. DARGAY J. M. (2003): A panel exploration of travel to work: An investigation. London University College London ESRC Transport Studies Unit Centre for Transport Studies.

  • HANSEN W. G. (1959): How Accessibility Shapes Land-Use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25(2): 73–76.

  • HANSON S. (2004): The context of urban travel. Concepts and recent trends. In: Hanson S. Giuliano G. [eds.]: The geography of urban transportation (pp. 3–29). New York The Guilford Press.

  • HELDT-CASSEL S. MACUCHOVA Z. RUDHOLM N. RYDELL A. (2013): Willingness to commute long distance among job seekers in Dalarna Sweden. Journal of Transport Geography 28: 49–55.

  • HUDEČEK T. (2010): Dostupnost v Česku v období 1991–2001: Vztah k dojížďce do zaměstnání a do škol. Praha Česká geografická společnost.

  • HUFF D. (1963): A probabilistic analysis of shopping center trade areas. Land Economics 39: 81–90.

  • HUFF D. L. JENKS G. F. (1968): A graphic interpretation of the friction of distance in gravity models. Association of American Geographers 58: 814–824.

  • INGRAM D. R. (1971): The Concept of Accessibility: A Search for an Operational Form. Regional Studies 5(2): 101–105.

  • JOHANSSON B. KLAESSON J. OLSSON M. (2002): On the non-linearity of the willingness to commute. Wien ERSA [online]. Available at: http://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa02/cd-rom/papers/476.pdf

  • KEELING D. J. (2008): Transportation geography – new regional mobilities. Progress in Human Geography 32(2): 275–283.

  • KHADAROO J. SEETANAH B. (2008): The role of transport infrastructure in international tourism development: a gravity model approach. Tourism Management 29(5): 831–840.

  • KORUNKA C. KUBICEK B. (2017): Job demands in a changing world of work. Cahm Springer.

  • KRAFT S. (2012): A transport classification of settlement centres in the Czech Reepublic using cluster analysis. Moravian Geographical Reports 20(3): 2–13.

  • KRAFT S. VANČURA M. (2009): Transport hierarchy of Czech settlement centres and its changes in the tranformation period: Geographical analysis Moravian Geographical Reports 17(3): 41–52.

  • LUCAS K. VAN WEE B. MAAT K. (2016): A method to evaluate equitable accessibility: combining ethical theories and accessibility-based approaches. Transportation 43(3): 473–490.

  • MAIER K. FRANKE D. (2015): Trendy prostorové sociálně-ekonomické polarizace v Česku 2001–2011. Sociologický časopis / Sociological Review 51(1): 89–123.

  • MANDERSCHEID K. (2009): Unequal mobilities. In: Ohnmacht T. Maksim H. Bergman M. M. [eds.]: Mobilities and inequality (pp. 27–50). Ashgate Publishing.

  • MARADA M. KVĚTOŇ V. VONDRÁČKOVÁ P. (2010): Doprava a geografická organizace společnosti v Česku. Edice Geographica Praha Česká geografická společnost.

  • MARYÁŠ J. (1983): K metodám výběru středisek maloobchodu a sfér jejich vlivu. Zprávy geografického ústavu ČSAV 20(3): 61–76.

  • MCARTHUR D. P. KLEPPE G. THORSEN I. UBØE J. (2011): The spatial transferability of parameters in a gravity model of commuting flows. Journal of Transport Geography 19: 596–605.

  • MIKKONEN K. LUOMA M. (1999): The parameters of the gravity model are changing – how and why? Journal of Transport Geography 7: 277–283.

  • MULÍČEK O. et al. (2011): POLYREG – Podpora polycentrického regionálního rozvoje. Grant WD-40-07-1. Praha Ministerstvo pro místní rozvoj.

  • MURRAY A. T. DAVIS R. (2001): Equity in regional service provision. Journal of Regional Sciences 41(4): 557–600.

  • NOVOTNÝ V. FRANKE D. POKORNÁ I. (2008): A theoretical approach to the computation of functional accessibility. Journal of Landscape Studies 1: 79–89.

  • NOVOTNÝ V. (2011): Towards the regional acupuncture: How far is too far away. Dissertation Thesis. Prague: Czech University of Life Sciences.

  • O’FARRELL P. N. MARKHAM J. (1975): Commuting costs and residential location: A process of urban sprawl. Journal of Economic and Social Geography 66(2): 66–74.

  • OSLAND L. THORSEN I. (2013): Spatial Impacts Local Labour Market Characteristics and Housing Prices. Urban Studies 50(10): 2063–2083.

  • PÁEZ A. SCOTT D. M. MORENCY C. (2012): Measuring accessibility: positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators. Journal of Transport Geography 25: 141–153.

  • PAVLÍK Z. KÜHNL K. (1981): Úvod do kvantitativních metod pro geografy. Praha SPN.

  • REIF B. (1973). Models in urban and regional planning. Aylesbury Leonard Hill.

  • ROBEŠ M. ZEMAN J. (2003): Strategie rozvoje železniční a související cyklistické dopravy v ČR [online]. Available at: http://www.srkd.eu/dokument/080602/Kapitoly1_5prosinec_08_aktualizace.htm

  • RODRIGUE J. P. COMTOIS C. SLACK B. (2017): The geography of transport systems. Routledge.

  • ROUWENDAL J. (1999): Spatial job search and commuting distances Regional Science and Urban Economics 29: 491–517.

  • ŘSD (ŘEDITELSTVÍ SILNIC A DÁLNIC) (2016): Záměry rozvoje silniční sítě [online]. Available at: https://www.rsd.cz/wps/wcm/connect/750816c7-fba2-43af-a2c7-c9b2784f2d56/rsd-mapa-vystavba-2016_v1_2016-02-24.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

  • ŘSD (ŘEDITELSTVÍ SILNIC A DÁLNIC) (2013): Komunikace.

  • SCHERSCHEL K. STRECKEISEN P. KRENN M. [eds.]: (2012): Neue Prekarität: Die Folgen aktivierender Arbeitsmarktpolitik – europäische Länder im Vergleich. Frankfurt/New York Campus-Verlag.

  • SEIDENGLANZ D. (2008): Geografie dopravy. In: Toušek V. Kunc J. Vystoupil J. [eds.]: Ekonomická a sociální geografie (pp. 231–269). Plzeň Aleš Čeněk.

  • SEN A. SMITH T. E. (1995): Gravity models of spatial interaction behaviour. Berlin Heidelberg Springer.

  • ŠLEGR P. et al. (2012): Rychlá železnice i v České republice. CEDOP.

  • SPIEKERMANN K. WEGENER M. (2007): Update of selected potential accessibility indicators. Final report [online]. Available at: http://www.mdrl.ro/espon_cd2/Project_Reports/Scientific_briefing_and_networking/MapUpdate_final_report.pdf

  • SÝKORA L. MULÍČEK O. (2009): The micro-regional nature of functional urban areas (FUAs): Lessons from the analysis of Czech urban and regional system. Urban Research and Practice 2(3): 287–307.

  • SÝKORA L. MULÍČEK O. (2012): Urbanizace a suburbanizace v Česku na počátku 21. století. Urbanismus a územní rozvoj 15(5): 27–38.

  • SŽDC (2010): Přehledná situace VRT Praha – Brno [online]. Available at: http://www.vysokorychlostni-zeleznice.cz/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/P%C5%99ehledn%C3%A1-situace_VRT_Praha_Brno_SUDOP_2010.pdf

  • SŽDC (2014): Rychlá spojení – Interoperabilita železniční infrastruktury [online]. Available at: http://www.sizi.cz/file.php?nid=14068&oid=4665874

  • TSE C. Y. CHAN A. (2003): Estimating the commuting cost and commuting time property price gradients. Regional Science and Urban Economics 33: 745–767.

  • TSEKERIS T. STATHOPOULOS A. (2006): Gravity models for dynamic transport planning: development and implementation in urban networks. Journal of Transport Geography 14: 152–160.

  • VAN WEE B. (2001): Land use and transport: research and policy challenges. Journal of Geography 10: 259–271.

  • WELCH T. F. MISHRA S. (2013): A measure of equity for public transport connectivity Journal of Transport Geography 33: 29–41.

  • WHEELER J. O. MULLER P. O. (1981): Economic geography. New York Wiley.

  • WILSON A. G. (1967): A statistical theory of spatial distribution models. Transportation Research 1: 253–269.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.870
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.858

CiteScore 2018: 2.07

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.445
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.877

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 33 33 6
PDF Downloads 29 29 5