ISSN 20799705, Regional Research of Russia, 2011, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 27–34. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011. Original Russian Text © V.N. Bugromenko, 2010, published in Izvestiya RAN. Seriya Geograficheskaya, 2010, No. 4, pp. 7–16.
SPATIAL FEATURES OF SECTORAL DEVELOPMENT
Modern Transportation Geography and Transportation Accessibility V. N. Bugromenko Geogracom Consulting Firm, Moscow, 119415 Russia Received January 14, 2010
Abstract—Causes of stagnation of transportation geography as a scientific discipline and a proposed renewed subject of investigation are discussed in the article. Based on the review of national and foreign tendencies in transportation geography, the scientific potential of transportation accessibility as the main indicator used in the discipline is analyzed. Its classification, quantitative methods of evaluation, and practice of use in regional transport planning are considered. Keywords: transportation geography, transportation accessibility, transport position, transport infrastruc ture, quantitative methods. DOI: 10.1134/S2079970511010047
TRANSPORTATION GEOGRAPHY Among the disciplines of economic and social geography, transportation geography is most affected by internal contradictions. It should have become a basis for all social geography, though it has not. Even N.N. Baranskii underlined the exceptional impor tance of transport for creating spatial advantages of production facilities: “Position relative to transport routes most often has to be considered; its role is sig nificant and at the same time illustrative. So, it is no wonder that the term transport position is often used to address the notion of economicgeographical position” [3]. Moreover, it can be argued that the specificities of spatial functioning of the transport determine almost everything in the economicgeographical approach, though telecommunications' role has been increasing recently. It is caused by the fact that the spatial struc ture of production itself is the result of partial or full implementation of potential generated by transport, since limits of spatial interaction of producing entities are determined by the limitations of the transport infrastructure. There is evidence that the current level of develop ment of transportation geography is inadequate for its object, for instance, its continual (unsolved) prob lems, such as lack of a universally recognized indicator of provision of territory with transport [5], the going around in circles on how to evaluate quantitatively the economic–(transport)–geographical position [2], etc. Another sign is obsolete descriptive definitions of transportation geography replicated continually in textbooks, encyclopedias, and the Internet. These def initions cannot be used today because they do not con tain any reference to sustainable development (i.e., they do not take into account the interests of future generations). The transport infrastructure—being capital intensive and inertial—shapes longstanding
spatial networks which then interact with population settlement and industrylocation patterns, and, increasingly, with the nature component, since trans port gradually becomes the major polluter of the atmosphere and the major source of greenhouse gases (transport’s share in CO2 emissions is 6 to 35%, in NOx emissions, 50 to 76% [41]. I.V. Nikol’skii has clearly described discrepancies among visions of the essence of transportation geogra phy. On one hand, he substantively criticized choro logical bias in study of transport, and on the other hand, he reasonably noted that the transport is an inte gral part of the geographical environment [17]. Before introducing any definitions of the disci pline, the author considers it necessary to highlight some fundamental issues of transport development tendencies in the context of the presentday economy. Thus, the basic problem of primacy is not being discussed and studied, namely, what comes first by its nature: does the transport network (infrastructure) then generate flows, or, on the contrary, do the flows form the network? Many geographers proceed in their studies from the assumption that the latter is correct, while A. Stramentov substantiated the primacy of infrastructure already in the 1950s [20]. Even modern business plans are developed using Soviet transport planning procedures: construction and widening rec ommendations are made according to forecast of dis parities between future flows and current carrying capacity. Under a planned economy, the realization rate of future flow forecasts has been higher than 85%; under a market economy, the rate can hardly be higher than 50%. So, new approaches and instruments are required, rather than mechanical copying of best west ern practices. The abovementioned dilemma can be articulated in another, older, way: is transport a sector of material 27
28
BUGROMENKO
production, or a service? The answer chosen for this— another constant—question determines a lot of things. Today, studies of transportation geography heavily use the indices that represent the interests of transport providers and, therefore, the vision of the transport as a sector of material production. These indices are freight turnover, number of passengers car ried, commercial workload of airplanes, bitumen rate of road patching, etc. It is obvious that such opera tional and volumetric indices are important for pro vider and do not matter for consumer. Environmental indicators of transport operation (such as accessibility, connectedness, and transport discrimination of the population) are far more important for the consumer. These indices truly reflect transport conditions of life and economy, including future conditions. So, trans port is seen as a service in that case. This position is accepted, for example, by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry of the Russian Federation [14]. Transport Review [36] magazine held a panEuro pean discussion on the strategic goals of transport in 2008. The main question was the following: what com plex indicator reflects the strategic essence of transport best of all? This question implied another at the same time: what is the main goal of developing transport? As a result, two main no’s were stated. The first is no to the criterion of maximum flows, which reflects secret dreams of transport service providers, because the larger the flows the larger their incomes. D. Banis ter, the most influential modern expert in transporta tion geography in the West, wrote about it. He argued that about 77% of transportation could be shorter, or even be avoided entirely. These transportations are required only by providers to get good financial show ings [26]. The second no relates to applying the transporta tion time indicator, which, not long ago, had been considered one of the most important because it reflected a consumeroriented approach to transport. A third no has been added; it is the negation of signifi cance of the weightintensity rate. Not long ago it was considered as the major macroeconomic indicator reflecting most fully the interests of the state. In reality the weightintensity of GDP, being GDP growth per unit of transportation work done, shows to what extent the economy is burdened with transport [6, 7]. The fundamental yes that resulted from the pan European discussion was yes to transportation accessi bility as the key environmental indicator reflecting interests of both providers and consumers, as well as of the state, because an optimized transport environment provides freedom of choice for all the parties in all kinds of travel, since not only the operational costs of transport providers matter, but also the external costs of the society, i.e., the side costs of functioning of the transport system (traffic jams, accidents, pollution, noise) which are paid mostly by budgetary funds. Optimization of the transport network as a part of the geographical environment leads to minimization of all
costs, which promotes the first principle of sustainable development, namely, approaching zero growth of resource consumption. As the transportation accessi bility indicator is extremely important, it will later be discussed in detail. The next step is to find an adequate measure of transportation accessibility and of provision of the ter ritory with transport. Such indicators as Engel’s, Gol’ts, and Uspenskii’s coefficients, as well as simple topological measures, such as the graph diameter and the α, β, and γindices are too primitive and at the same time contradictory for this task (for more detail about their inadequacy, see [5]). Already in 1989, the author proposed a new set of transportation accessibility and transport provision measures. It was proposed in the article titled “Robustness of Spatial Structure of Society: Commu nicational Aspects” [8]. It is based on the concept of transportinfrastructure accessibility (TIA), which includes two types of reliability: technological and topological (the reliability of the network configura tion). The necessary adoptions have been made from the theory of the reliability of energy supply systems. The main question, though, is how important the topology is in reality, or, in other words, who will win, if it is improved? Such an approach is better fitted for quantitative evaluation of the transportgeographical position and, moreover, gives transportation geogra phy a wide range of new applied instruments. As a result of modeling [5] and further proof calcu lations in the framework of longterm transport strat egies of thirty regions of Russia and the CIS [11, 12, 13], the threshold limit values of the share of the trans port reliability factor in the total reliability of transport systems have been defined. On average, they amounted to 15% (as small as 1–2% in olddeveloped regions and up to 18% in newly developing regions). It means that transport (and, wider, infrastructure) configuration management can provide up to 15% of effects (in the areas of finance, economy, security, etc.). Quantitatively, the TIA can be used to define the privileged positions of certain locations and even regions (dot option and areal option, respectively) in terms of time or money. However, evaluation of spatial privileges (preferences) for fulfilling different purposes is exactly the essence of social geography. Relying upon this thesis, the author proposes the following outline of transportation geography’s object defini tion: it is the evaluation of consequences (economic, social, ecological, geopolitical, demographical, security related) of territories’ development based on spatial priv ileges (preferences) created by transport networks of all modes. The best way to feel the major inner processes in any scientific discipline is to analyze the most frequent topics highlighted in a relevant scientific journal. There is no such journal in Russia, while in Western
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
2011
MODERN TRANSPORTATION GEOGRAPHY AND TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY
countries it is Journal of Transportation Geography. The following subjects of articles are dominant there: urban transport, ports and overseas transport, trans portation accessibility (about 15% each), aviation and travel behavior (10% each). The remaining 35% of articles are distributed among all other themes. Of them, articles on spatial advantages in transport net works and transport econometric models are very rare, as they are in Russian scientific literature. The most valuable theoretical breakthroughs of Russian transportation geography are the following: studies of G. Gol’ts (determination of sizes and con figurations of cities by speed parameters of transport) [10], S. Tarkhov (layered pattern of transport networks evolution) [21], L. Bezrukov (transportgeographical determination of location competitiveness) [4]. Out standing inputs were provided by Yu. Medvedkov, who has studied mostly the inner problems of cities. He developed models of communicational inversion of space, used harmonic curves to represent fluctuations of population densities depending on distance from highways, substantiated the transporttechnological hypothesis that blocks become larger with increase of distance to the city center [15]. Unfortunately, such significant revelations in transportation geography have not occurred recently, nor have reviews and sys tematizing works in the field. At the same time, many studies formally belonging to social geography should rather be considered as belonging to regional economy and economic statis tics. Yu. Mikolaiskii’s thesis may be appropriate in this context. Seeking to defend transportation geography from attackers arguing that is has no separate object of study, he wrote: “Could it really be argued that geogra phy of communication lines just replicate other sci ences studying transport, having no distinct bound aries singling it out of the bulk of other sciences?” [16]. P. Rimmer says the same thing in other words (“trans portation geography has no face”) [38]. If a discipline is called “geography of transporta tion costs,” then it has nothing more geographical in it than geography of sports, geography of religion, geog raphy of crime, etc. In the opinion of the author, the real geography nowadays emerges not when something is being mapped (this was the case for the descriptive stage of its development), but when spatial priorities are defined for an activity type for which objects are distributed over the Earth’s surface and linked to each other in different ways (including transport links). From such a standpoint, some regional economists who have already for a long time paid attention to such things as the role of investments in transport for spa tial–temporal development of regions can be consid ered as significant geographers [34]. This can be also said of town planners who already use an integral transportation accessibility indicator (accessibility of any point from any point) instead of pair accessibility calculation (resulting in circular isochrones maps) used so often in geography [23]. REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
29
Analysis of V.N. Obraztsov’s complex theory of transport shows that it implies uniqueness of the trans portation geography object (which is defined as spatial preferences) [18]. The theory does not include sec tions dedicated to spatial aspects of the development of transport. This field is unoccupied, and scientists of many disciplines sometimes become engaged in it, but not geographers. Spatial preferences are not the cho rology in its common understanding. Chorology con sists of theoretical constructs (for instance, graph the ory α, β, and γindices applied to transport networks) which are not represented in costs and often are just groundless. Spatial preferences, on the contrary, can be applied to various facets of reality (transport policy, business planning, projects and schemes of spatial development, etc.). TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY Transport clearly reflects specificities of the terri tory in a wide sense. It act as key component of socio economic quality of a place and as limiting factor of operational space, i.e., a circuitor of a territory. Numerous regionaleconomic and town planning works on space shrinking usually interpret the trans port as the sole, or at least the major, factor of the shrinkage. Therefore, the spatial structure of society can be seen as system composed by two main blocks: first, the location of production facilities and work force and, second, the operator of various interactions (this is the function of transport and telecommunica tions). Economic and social preconditions for devel opment of the spatial structure of society are fulfill ment of spatial privileges via transport. The key notion for understanding this process is transportation acces sibility. Definitions and interpretations. Modern western interpretation of transportation accessibility rest upon the works of W. Hansen, who defined it as the potential for reaching places [32]. This notion plays an impor tant role in location theories. Transport planning text books put accessibility at the first place in the triad: flows–mobility (which includes freight and passenger turnover)–accessibility. The cause of the primacy is that accessibility creates the very possibility of move ment over territory. Decades passed before the thesis that the major priority of transport planning is provid ing sustainable accessibility became a paradigm of the discipline. For classification of accessibilities, see Fig. 1. More than 80% of researchers in the field use the category of integral transportation accessibility because of its systemic nature, differentiating it from pair accessibility. However, the integral accessibility is rarely calculated. Pair accessibility computing models, which are less complex, prevail nowadays. The following interpretations of integral transpor tation accessibility can be singled out: the factor of space (time) shrinkage; 2011
30
BUGROMENKO
ACCESSIBILITY
PHYSICAL
Transport
ECONOMIC (determined by costs)
Pedestrian
Determined by Determined by time needed distance (remoteness)
(1) Pair (only from one point to another point); (2) Integral (from any point to any point);
Localized (for settlements)
Areal (for territories)
Fig. 1. Types of accessibility.
robustness of the spatial structure of society [8]; the basis for a friendly transport environment; the factor of economic space distortion; the instrument for equalizing the opportunities that can be used, particularly, for poverty alleviation; geopolitical resources [24]; transboundary regulations [25]. To summarize these interpretations, transportation accessibility can be defined as systemic indicator of spa tial opportunities of the society which is constituted by the transport infrastructure and which reflects competitive ness of localities. Today we are witnessing the ongoing change of par adigms in transport planning (shift from planning vol umes to planning socially friendly indicators). It reflects the fundamental turn for consumers instead of providers. Consumers are not interested at all in vol ume showings of transport or in efficiency showings of providers, because of transport’s infrastructural nature. Instead, they are interested in how transport infrastructure raises the quality of their life. This tran sition from priority of passengers and cargo mobility
towards priority of accessibility has developed widely in western countries [27, 35]. The Russian Federation Transport Strategy 2030 reflects this shift too; for instance, three out of its six strategic directions deal with transportation accessibility of country’s territory [22]. International organizations (such as UN, OECD) usually recognize three principles of socially oriented sustainable development. They are social progress, equality of opportunities, and fairness. These concepts deal with subjects such as poverty, value of housing location, employment, education, and health. The importance of transport for all the listed components of social progress is also commonly recognized. Thus, S. Curtis in his fundamental work “Health and Inequality” supported by the WHO has demon strated that distribution of income is not a major factor of a population’s health. The qualities of water and transport network conditions are more important. There are a number of diseases that almost linearly depend on transportation accessibility. Even in the United Kingdom, only 61% of people living farther than 40 km from a hospital undergo regular medical examination [30]. While in developing countries and Russia, the medical examination rate begins to decline rapidly further than 4 km from paved roads. This, in turn, leads to accumulation of chronic diseases and, therefore, shortened life expectancy [1]. OOO Geogracom’s research conducted in 34 regions of Russia and CIS countries has shown that three medi cal conditions (tuberculosis, infections, and infant mortality) have dependence on transportation acces sibility described by regression equations [9]. Transportation accessibility grossly impacts employment. About 10% of unemployment is caused directly or indirectly by transportation accessibility [33]. In Russia, this figure varies from 4.5 to 24% [12]. Transportation accessibility influences the poverty level not only because of the cost of transport services, but also because of effects on equality of opportunities [28]. Furthermore, the longer the term of planning the greater the transport infrastructure’s role for regional development smoothing social differences [19]. In addition, transportation accessibility contrib utes greatly to population mobility and attractiveness of certain places of living for migrants. Thus, the rates of migrationcaused growth of population within 30min isochrones from a highway are several times higher than outside the isochrones. Quantitative methods and models of transportation accessibility. There is a great distance between the conception of transportation accessibility and its instrumental measuring. Most transportgeographic studies apply simplified models, such as pair accessi bility (represented in isochrones), gravitation models, equilibrium models (including economic equilib rium), and utility functions [31]. Pair accessibility rep resented in isochrones is usually just a linear function
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
2011
MODERN TRANSPORTATION GEOGRAPHY AND TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY
of remoteness between the points; social gravitation models represent interactions within the population and among settlements as analogous to the gravity of physical options with adjustments of parameters used in the formula; the economic equilibrium analog model is based on assessing the balance of interests (in fact, it is just modification of a previous model with some restrictions introduced). Models of accessibility based on the utility function have the following general formula: D = LAF(C), where D stands for accessibility, L stands for length of a segment of the route, A stands for attractiveness of a segment, expressed, for example, in the form of a high technical level, and F stands for the function of cost of passing a segment. Systemic models of transportation accessibility use the accessibility matrix (which indicates accessibility of any point from any other point); weighting factors can be applied to points, which represent settlements, depending on population, gross freight shipped, rank in administrative hierarchy, etc. The systemic models are applied much less often than primitive ones. In the Soviet Union, M. Khauke was one of the pioneers of this method. He applied total accessibility criterion for town planning estima tion in the 1950s [23]. A typical example of the systemic transport model is the SASI, which is used in the European Union [39]. It includes seven interrelated sections (GNP, employ ment, population, labor pool, socioeconomic indi ces, transport network, and accessibility as the main component). The model allows forecasting per capita GDP as dependent on transportation accessibility. The coefficient of determinations has declined by 5– 10% over the decade. The Geogracom model. In Russia, the Geogracom model has been used most widely. Integral transporta tion accessibility is the main model indices used for decision making. It is interpreted as an analog to the potential reliability of functioning of the integral transport infrastructure network. Additionally, the model assesses network configuration (topology) as an independent resource. Application of the model has shown that the quality of the transport environ ment can be improved not only by technological mod ernization of communication lines, but also by opti mizing the topology of the network (irredundant com pletion) [5]. Figure 2 shows the main steps of applying the model in decision support system Geogracom 6W; the steps are represented by the dial diagram of user options. In short, the steps are as follows. The first step is to collect and process the statistical and other data; the second is to define the end param eters of the planning, both general and sectoral. This step is crucial for transport system diagnostics because otherwise there is no defined goal to be achieved. REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
31
The next step is the transport system diagnostics itself. At this stage, the standard networks are defined, and the basic networks and others are compared to standard networks. So, the divergence of the end parameters (transportation accessibility, reliability, maintenance supply, etc.) is calculated. After the diagnostics is completed and distribution of forecasted traffic load over the current infrastruc ture is defined, the development of the correcting pro gram begins based on experts’ proposals. It can be elaborated using normative documents, such as already endorsed (on federal, regional, and municipal levels) target sectoral programs. However, these sources can be even ignored when expert planning of a desirable transport network is conducted. In that case, the result can be achieved by measures proposed by experts alone. The activity includes assessment of narrow and wide economic and social effects of the proposed mea sures, planning of efforts and costs, ranking the mea sures by their economic and social significance. On the grounds of these estimations, the measures most important for robustness of the transport network are defined. Then the order of execution of the measures is modeled for the territory with budgetary restrictions ignored. Then scaleefficiency curves (showing the dependence of programs’ efficiency on funding) are traced. The last step is defining temporal economic sce narios of a region’s development and funding of the program. Fulfillment of the program is modeled then for each of the scenarios, and yearbyyear the action plan of the program is developed. Then tolerance of the program to external factors is assessed through the analysis of road and transport curves, as well as dynamics of transport system efficiency. The assess ment results in recommendations on the scale of project funding—as a percent of GRP—which will provide its feasibility. The integral transportation accessibility, a compre hensive indicator of the environment, is used in all these calculations. The integral transportation accessibility (ITA) shows how long it will take to reach every point of the region from a chosen point, provided the shortest routes are used. Both technical reliability of each sec tion and structural reliability of the whole network are considered in the process. In fact, ITA is a measure of the advantages of the transportgeographical position for any point in region, or for the region as a whole. ITA is measured in weightaverage (the whole region as a base) net timing of reaching any point in the region from the chosen point via both existing and planned routes. All in all, the indicator is very sensitive to changes in the network parameters. The technical reliability of the network and its segments is measured by a coefficient of the same name, which is calculated as a quotient of real technical speed (journey speed, cruising speed) and standard speed. Estimation of the 2011
32
BUGROMENKO
Compilation of report documents and development of a white paper Modeling the scenario of development of a territory
Collection and processing of raw data
12 1
11 Assessment of effectiveness of programs
3
9 Modeling the order of implementation of a program
Data uploading
2
10
8
4
User
Shaping the vision of future
5
7 Expert assessment and recommendations
Diagnostics of a transport system
6
Adjustment of spatial distributions and volumes of cargo dispatches
Regression analysis and assessment of integral transportation accessibility equivalents
Making demographic forecast
Fig. 2. General algorithm of modeling in a decisionsupport system Geogracom 6W.
real speed is based on 5 to 7 parameters of the route (which differ by modes of transport) that directly impact the available speed. The structural reliability of the network reflects the quality of the network pattern (graph structure). It can be considered as an indepen dent resource of socioeconomic development of a region. The connectivity has been taken as the main crite rion of structural reliability. It shows possible deterio ration of transport services provision in case a segment of a route (or a segment of the whole network) fails. Therefore, the ITA indicator allows assessing the reli ability of functioning of both current and perspective transport networks, and reliability is one of the major preconditions for sustainable regional development. Foreign best practices of transportation accessibility provision. Countries of the world fall into four different groups if state participation in accessibility planning (and financing of its implementation) is chosen as the criterion. Countries without any transportation accessibility planning (the majority of countries, including Russia). Accessibility studies are financed and their results are applied, but there is no transportation accessibility indices planning (Netherlands). State regulation of transportation accessibility exists, though limited (United States). State regulation of transportation accessibility is comprehensive (United Kingdom, New Zealand). The following is a review of transportation accessi bility planning specifics in the countries of the fourth group [29]. In these countries, spatial planning schemes always include accessibility action plans,
which usually have four parts (strategic, or country level, accessibility, local accessibility, details (such as planned funding, supposed impediments, etc.)). The accessibility is estimated separately for the following population groups: low income population; those who have no private automobile; disabled persons; children and the young (planning of school bus routes is included); the elderly; national minorities and migrants; rural population. Assessment of accessibility plans requires that the following types of activity be singled out to apply spe cial accessibility indicators to them: schools and other secondary education facilities; location of jobs; shopping centers; hospitals and (always separately) outpatient clinics; post offices and banks (other financial institu tions); drugstores; gas stations; buses and other public transport stations (for rural areas). Table 1 shows some of the indicators applied. It is necessary to mention a number of results in the field of transport planning related to the accessibility issue. In Sweden 16% of municipalities have accessi bility programs, sometimes even divided into subpro grams. These are three examples of their titles: “Acces
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
2011
MODERN TRANSPORTATION GEOGRAPHY AND TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY
33
Table 1 Activity type
Indicator
General accessibility
Share of population that can reach the center (of city, of municipality) in 30 min or less; number of centerdirected runs of public vehicles per day Accessibility for the disabled Share of lowfloor and specially equipped buses School accessibility Share of pupils who live within 30min (for primary schools) and 40min (for secondary schools) distance from schools Accessibility of job locations Share of employed who live within 20min walking or 40min transportaided (45 in United States for peak hours) distance from job Price accessibility Quotient of public transport individual prices and cost of journey via taxi or personal car Table 2 Distance from Service cost per year Including the trans a clinic per person, $ port component, $ 0–5 miles 5–10 miles 10–20 miles >20 miles
67 198 736 2157
17 42 117 218
sible city,” “Going over the barriers,” “Streets for everyone” [42]. In Belgium, a rather small country, the conclusion was made that spatial inequality was very high, after conducting a study of cities and railroad stations accessibility for all 2616 municipalities (com munes) [40]. An experimental study was conducted in several states of the United States showing how accessibility of clinics affects the costs of health for the population (see Table 2). This conclusion has something in com mon with the idea of compensation for poor transport conditions which has been developed by OOO Geogracom for several of Russia’s regions and included in regional transport strategies. The figures in the last column of the table show how much the Ameri cans pay for transportation accessibility problems, which means a poor transport environment for living [37]. In conclusion, it is necessary to note that the general layouts of transport sections of cities are the primary field of use of transportation accessibility planning. REFERENCES 1. Artem’ev, S.S., Issues of Spatial Organization in Settle ment Systems, Dostizheniya i Perspektivy, vol. 31, Mos cow: VNIISI, 1983. 2. Baklanov, P.Ya. and Romanov, M.T., Ekonomiko geograficheskoe polozhenie i geopoliticheskoe polozhenie Tikhookeanskoi Rossii (EconomicGeographical Posi tion and Geopolitical Position of Pacific Russia), Vladivostok: Dal’nauka, 2009. 3. Baranskii, N.N., Stanovlenie sovetskoi ekonomicheskoi geografii (Establishment of the Soviet Economic Geog raphy), Moscow, 1980. REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
4. Bezrukov, L.A., Continent–Ocean Dichotomy in International and Regional Development, Extended Abstract of Doctoral (Geogr.) Dissertation, Irkutsk, 2006. 5. Bugromenko, V.N., Transport v territorial’nykh siste makh (The Transport in Spatial Systems), Moscow: Nauka, 1987. 6. Bugromenko, V.N. and Kalinchikov, M.Yu., Effective ness of Network Projects for Transport Infrastructure, in Transportnye investitsionnye proekty: narod nokhozyaistvennaya, regional’naya i kommercheskaya effektivnost’ (Investment Projects in Transport: Macro economic, Regional, and Microeconomic Efficiency), Moscow: SOPS, 2005. 7. Bugromenko, V.N., Povyshenie kapitalizatsii regionov na osnove upravleniya makroekonomicheskikh pokaza telei razvitiya transporta (Increasing the Asset Value of Regions through Management of Macroeconomic Indicators of Transport Development), Sochi, 2007, www.geogracom.ru. 8. Bugromenko, V.N., Robustness of Spatial Structure of Society: Communicational aspects, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Geogr., 1989, No. 1. 9. Bugromenko, V.N., On a LongTerm Strategy of Trans port Development: White Papers about Transport, in Sotsial’noekonomicheskoe razvitie transportnykh sistem gorodov i zon ikh vliyaniya (SocialEconomic Develop ment of Cities’ Transport Systems and the Affected Zones), Yekaterinburg, 2006. 10. Gol’ts, G.A., Theoretical Basics of Interrelated Devel opment of Transport and Population, Extended Abstract of Doctoral (Geogr.) Dissertation, Moscow: IG AN, 1985. 11. Dolgosrochnaya strategiya razvitiya transporta respubliki Tatarstan (LongTerm Strategy of Development of Tatarstan), Moscow: Epifaniya, 2005. 12. Dolgosrochnaya strategiya razvitiya transporta i dorozh nogo khozyaistva Kirovskoi oblasti (LongTerm Strategy of Development of Transport and Road Facilities of Kirov oblast), Moscow: Maiprint, 2006. 13. Dolgosrochnaya strategiya razvitiya seti avtodorog Pri morskogo kraya (LongTerm Strategy of Development of Road Network of Primorskii krai), Moscow: Mik sprint, 2009. 14. Materialy Vserossiiskogo kruglogo stola “Tekhnolo gicheskii proryv, innovatsionnyi put’ razvitiya—osnova realizatsii Transportnoi strategii do 2030 goda” (Papers of AllRussia Panel Discussion “Technological Break 2011
34
15.
16. 17. 18.
19.
20. 21.
22.
23.
24. 25.
26. 27.
BUGROMENKO through, Innovative Development Framework as the Basis for Implementation of 2030 Transport Strategy), TPP RF, 2008. Medvedkov, Yu.V., Matematika v mikrogeografii gorodov (odna iz glav spetsial’noi teorii kul’turnogo landshafta) (Mathematics in Microgeography of Cities: One of the Sections of Special Theory of Cultural Landscape), in Geogr. Sb. No. 2 (Geographic Collection No. 2), Mos cow: VINITI, 1966. Mikolaiskii, Yu., On Approaches and Issues in Trans portation geography, Izv. VGO, 1961, vol. 93, No. 1. Nikol’skii, I.V., Izbrannye trudy (Collected Papers), Smolensk, 2009. Obraztsov, V.N., On the Issue of Complex Theory of Transport, Otdelenie Tekhnicheskikh Nauk. Izv. AN SSSR, 1945, No. 10–11. Obshcheekonomicheskie i otraslevye problemy territo rial’nogo razvitiya Rossii (Macroeconomic and Sectoral Problems of Spatial Development of Russia), Moscow: SOPS, 2003. Stramentov, A., Issues of Urban Traffic in Urban Plan ning, Arkhitektura SSSR, 1959, No. 4. Tarkhov, S.A., Evolyutsionnaya morfologiya transport nykh setei (Evolutionary Morphology of Transport Net works), Moscow: IG AN, 1989. Transportnaya strategiya RF do 2030 goda (Transport Strategy 2030 of the Russian Federation), Moscow, 2008. Khauke, M.O., New Method of Computing and Applying Isochrones Maps for Solving Population Dis tribution Problems, Izv. AS i A., 1961, No. 3. Yakunin, V.I., Politologiya transporta (Political Science of Transport), Moscow: Ekonomika, 2006. Assessment of CrossBorder Spillover Effects of National Transport Infrastructure Plan: An Accessibil ity Approach, Tr. Rev., 2009, vol. 29, No. 4. Banister. D., Unsustainable Transport, 2006. Banister. D., The Sustainable Mobility Paradigm, Tr. Policy, 2008. No. 2.
28. Caubel, D., Methodologics and Tools to Evaluate Issues Relating to Landuse and/or Social Aspects of Urban Transportation Policies: An Accessibility Approach, in 10th WCTR, Istambul, 2004. 29. Chapmen, S. and Wier, L., London: Accessibility plan ning methods, New Zealand, 2008. 30. Curtis, S., Health and Inequality, London: SAGE Publ, 2004. 31. Geurs, K.T. and Ritsema, J., Accessibility Measures, in Proc. 9th WCRT, Seoul, 2001. 32. Hansen, W.G., How Accessibility Shapes Land Use, J. Amer. Institute Plan, 1959, vol. 35, No. 2. 33. Hoyle, B. and Preston, J., Moving Transportation Geog raphy Forward IGG, Glasgow, 2004. 34. Isard, W. and Liossatos, P., Transport Investment and Optimal SpaceTime Development, Reg. Sci. Assoc. Pap., 1973, No. 31, 1973. 35. Litman, T. Evaluating Accessibility for Transportation Planning, Melbourne, 2008. 36. Metz, D., The Myth of Travel Time Saving, Transport Rev., 2008, No. 3 and 2009, No. 1. 37. No Way to Go: A Review of The Literature on Trans portation Barriers in Health, World transport Policy Practice, 2008, vol. 14, No. 3. 38. Rimmer, P.J., Redirections in Transportation Geogra phy, Progress Human Geography, 1978, vol. 2, No. 1. 39. Spiekermann, K. and Wegener, M., SocioEconomic and Spatial Impacts of TransEuropean Transport Net work: The SASI Project, in Proc. 8th WCRT, Antver pen, 1998. 40. Vandenbulke, G., Sneenberger, T., and Thomas, I., Mapping Accessibility in Belgium: A Tool for Land Use and Transport Planning, J. Transportation Geogra phy, 2009, vol. 17, No. 1. 41. Wees, B.V., Janse, P., van der Brink, R., Comparing Energy Use and Environmental Performance of Land Transport Mode, Transport Rev., 2006, No. 1. 42. Wennberg, H., Stahl, A., and Hyden, Ch., Implement ing Accessibility in Municipal Planning, J. Transport Landuse, 2009, vol. 2, No. 2.
REGIONAL RESEARCH OF RUSSIA
Vol. 1
No. 1
2011
