Location Economic Potential and Accessibility Impact

8/8/2019 Location Economic Potential and Accessibility Impact

1/14

Location, economic potential and daily accessibility:an analysis of the accessibility impact of the high-speed line

MadridBarcelonaFrench border q

Javier Guti errez *

Departmento de Geograf ia Humana, Facultad de Geograf ia e Historia, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain

Abstract

This paper evaluates the accessibility impact of the future MadridBarcelonaFrench border high-speed line. Accessibility impactof the new infrastructure is measured by means of three indicators: weighted average travel times, economic potential and dailyaccessibility. These indicators respond to di erent conceptualizations and o er complementary information about the issue ac-cessibility. The results are quite di erent: very concentrated e ects in the daily accessibility indicator, less concentrated in theeconomic potential one and more dispersal in the location indicator. The sign (polarizing/balancing) of these e ects depend on thegeographic scale: polarizing e ects at the national level and balancing e ects at both corridor and European levels are identied. Ageographic information system (GIS) was used to carry out this study. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Accessibility; Railway transport; High-speed train; Spain; European Union; Geographic information systems (GISs)

1. Introduction

Historically, changes in transport infrastructureshave produced a progressive contraction of space, in thesense that travel times have been shortened and trans-port costs reduced. Improvement of transportationnetworks reduces interaction costs, increases the overallcompetitiveness of the system and allows for more spe-cialisation such that economies of scale and specialisa-tion benets can be utilised. Hence, we should expectthat production and other economic activities can becarried out more e ciently as the quality and capacityof a region's tranportation networks increase (Forslundand Johansson, 1995).

The high-speed train permits links between cities inconditions hitherto unimaginable. Its competitivity inthe transport market is based on quality of service, accesstimes to the chief economic activity centres and capa-bility to handle large passenger volumes. This through-put is vitally important in the European regions, where

large conurbations are separated by distances of severalhundred kilometres (Campenon, 1995). By shortening

travel times, it brings about changes in accessibilityconditions and hence in the relative location of places,with obvious consequences for the development poten-tial of the regions a ected, since the spatial situation of the EC regions within Europe and the accessibility of large agglomerations and infrastructure facilities arefactors of attractiveness and development capabilities of the regions (Lutter et al., 1992) and good connections inthe international infrastructure networks will be a criticalsuccess factor in the distribution of economic activity inEurope (Bruinsma and Rietveld, 1993).

The European high-speed train network is currentlyat an early stage of development, with a limited numberof mainly unconnected lines, but a number of new linksare planned in order to complete an European high-speed train network (Commission of the EuropeanCommunities, 1990). One of these planned links is theMadridBarcelonaFrench border line, which is cur-rently under construction to standard gauge and will becompleted by the year 2005. Its antecedents are to befound in the AVE MadridSeville, inaugurated in theyear 1992 and also built to standard gauge, so that bothlines will constitute a continuous structuring axis fromSeville to the French border (SevilleMadridZaragoza BarcelonaFrench border). MadridBarcelona services

Journal of Transport Geography 9 (2001) 229242www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo

q This is a revised and enlarged version of a paper presented to theERSA Conference, Dublin, 1999. It is based on research supported bythe Spanish government (Ministerio de Fomento).

* Tel.: +34-1-394-5949; fax: +34-91-394-5960.E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Guti errez).

0966-6923/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S 0 9 6 6 - 6 9 2 3 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 1 7 - 5


2/14

will run at up to 350 km/h, so that travelling times be-tween the main cities on the corridor will be drasticallyreduced (Table 1) and time savings will be also impor-tant for some relevant European connections (Table 2).As a result, it is expected that the new line will have thepotential to improve signicantly the accessibility by railin several European cities and regions. There are plansto extend the Spanish high-speed network beyond theMadridBarcelonaFrench frontier, including the linksMadridValencia/Alicante, MadridValladolid, Zar-agozaBilbao and MadridLisbon.

This paper evaluates the accessibility impact (pre-dicted e ects) of the high-speed line MadridBarcelona French border. In order to reect exclusively the e ectsof the new line, two scenarios are considered: the year2005 ``with'' and ``without'' the new line. Accessibilityimpact is measured by means of di erent indicators.Inequality measures are used in order to verify whetherthe line will reduce or increase existing accessibilitydisparities between cities on di erent spatial scales.

Selection of indicators and geographical scale arevery important issues by measuring accessibility chan-ges. In fact, results can be di erent depending on theindicators used and on the geographical scale. In thispaper we are going to investigate the inuence of bothfactors by analysing accessibility changes in the exampleof this new high-speed line:

Accessibility indicators . Accessibility impact of thenew infrastructure is measured by means of three in-dicators: weighted average travel times, economic po-tential and daily accessibility. 1 These indicatorsrespond to di erent conceptualizations and o ercomplementary information about the issue of acces-sibility.

Geographical scale . The new line will play an impor-tant role for both European and Spanish internal re-lations. From the European point of view, this linewill enable a peripheral space (the Iberian Peninsula)to link up to the rest of Europe; from a national per-spective, it will link the two main cities in Spain andother urban agglomerations along an important cor-ridor of the country. 2 Therefore the problem of scalehas to be carefully taken into account: we analysewhether the new line will increase or reduce dispari-

Table 1Travel times by train between the main Spanish cities on the corridor

Routes Travel time, 2005 Travel time saving

Without new line With new line Absolute %

MadridBarcelona 5 h 28 min 2 h 40 min 2 h 48 min 51.2

MadridZaragoza 3 h 3 min 1 h 25 min 1 h 38 min 53.5ZaragozaBarcelona 3 h 27 min 1 h 15 min 2 h 12 min 68.6

Table 2Travel times by train between BarcelonaMadrid and other European cities

Routes Travel time, 2005 Travel time saving

From To Without new line With new line Absolute (%)

Barcelona Marseilles 5 h 21 min 3 h 31 min 1 h 50 min 34.27Milan 10 h 39 min 8 h 49 min 1 h 50 min 17.21Lyon 6 h 01 min 4 h 11 min 1 h 50 min 30.47Paris 7 h 31 min 5 h 41 min 1 h 50 min 24.39Brussels 8 h 51 min 7 h 01 min 1 h 50 min 20.71Frankfurt 10 h 36 min 8 h 46 min 1 h 50 min 17.29

Madrid Marseilles 10 h 49 min 6 h 11 min 4 h 38 min 42.84Milan 16 h 07 min 11 h 29 min 4 h 38 min 28.75Lyon 11 h 29 min 6 h 51 min 4 h 38 min 40.35Paris 10 h 00 min 8 h 21 min 1 h 39 min 16.50Brussels 11 h 22 min 9 h 41 min 1 h 39 min 14.51Frankfurt 13 h 03 min 10 h 56 min 1 h 39 min 12.64

1 A recent paper (Bruinsma and Rietveld, 1998) compares a numberof accessibility indicators at the European level. The authors use asinput results from other papers, with di erent data and with di erentdemarcations of the study area. Because of this, it is not clear to whatextent variations in the accessibility values depend properly on thedi erent operationalizations and to what extent they depend ondi erences in data and demarcation of the study area.

2 This is a situation similar to that which will result in Italy with thebuilding of the RomeMilan line.

230 J. Guti errez / Journal of Transport Geography 9 (2001) 229242


3/14

ties between cities on the international, national andcorridor scales.In order to dene the study area, it should be borne in

mind that much of the territory of the European Union(including cities such as London, Amsterdam or Brus-sels) will be less than 10 h away from Madrid or Bar-celona once the new line is built and connected up to theFrench TGV (Table 2), so that apart from day servicesfor short or medium distances, there is a possibility thatnight trains could be put into service for longer links. 3

For this reason, it would seem reasonable to extend thestudy to the whole of the territory of the EuropeanUnion, with the exception of the islands and Sweden,Finland and Greece. For these areas, the benets of thenew line can be considered irrelevant at the outset onaccount precisely of their insularity (in the case of theformer) or their great distance from the new line (in thecase of the latter three countries), although they couldnevertheless distort the values of certain accessibility

indicators. Great Britain should logically be taken intoaccount due to its relative proximity and to the fact thatthe Channel Tunnel has eliminated its erstwhile islandcondition. Consequently, the countries which will betaken into account are Spain, Portugal, France, Bel-gium, the Netherlands, Luxemburg, the United King-dom, Germany, Denmark, Austria and Italy, to whichSwitzerland must be added because of its geographicalproximity and economic connections.

This paper is divided into six parts, including thissection. Section 2 examines and discusses the threeaccessibility indicators selected. Section 3 describes thenetwork building and accessibility calculation proce-dures. In Section 4 the accessibility impact of the newline according to the indicators selected is discussed. InSection 5 the inequality measures are used in order toverify whether the line will reduce or increase existingaccessibility disparities. The research ndings are sum-marized in Section 6.

2. Accessibility indicators

Accessibility is not easy to dene in unambiguous andquantiable terms. In its most abstract form, accessi-bility involves a combination of two elements: locationon a surface relative to suitable destinations, and thecharacteristics of the transport network or networkslinking points on that surface (Vickerman, 1974). Ac-tually accessibility concepts are generally used to at-

tempt to encapsulate notions of the opportunitiesavailable to people and rms to reach places where theycan carry out activities that are important to them(Linneker and Spence, 1992). Usually, by accessibility,we mean the ease with which activities can be reachedfrom a certain place and with a certain system of transport (Morris et al., 1978). Since at the regional,national or international levels, activities are particu-larly concentrated in the urban agglomerations and thecompetitiveness of the high-speed train is based onquality of service and access times to the chief cities, itwould seem logical to measure accessibility with respectto such cities.

There is a wide variety of indicators to measure ac-cessibility (see, for example, Vickerman, 1974; Pirie,1979; Jones, 1981; Bruinsma and Rietveld, 1993;Reggiani, 1998). This variety reects the numerous ap-proaches to the concept of accessibility. Most accessi-bility measurements combine the travel cost to , and

attractiveness of , di erent destinations in a single indi-cator (Geertman and Ritsema van Eck, 1995). Travelcost is a measure of the e ect of friction of the distance(the resistance to movement between two points). It canbe expressed in di erent cost units, such as distance(Keeble et al., 1988), travel time (Lutter et al., 1992;Bruinsma and Rietveld, 1993; Dundon-Smith and Gibb,1994; Geertman and Ritsema van Eck, 1995; Guti errezand Urbano, 1996) or generalised cost of transport(Linneker and Spence, 1992; Spence and Linneker,1994). Attractiveness of urban agglomerations dependson their masses. Given the available data, di erent in-dicators of capacity of attraction can be used, such aspopulation (Lutter et al., 1992; Bruinsma and Rietveld,1993), employment (Linneker and Spence, 1992; Spenceand Linneker, 1994) or gross domestic product (Keebleet al., 1988; Guti errez and Urbano, 1996; Guti errezet al., 1996). In European studies travel time is normallyused as an indicator of friction of the distance andpopulation or gross domestic product as an indicator of attractiveness.

2.1. Accessibility indicators selected

To carry out this study, we have selected three indi-cators which respond to di erent conceptualizations ando er complementary information as to the problem of changes in accessibility conditions brought about by anew infrastructure.

2.1.1. Weighted average travel times (location indicator)The weighted average travel time between each node

and all urban agglomerations is calculated taking asweight the mass of the centres according to the follow-ing:

3 Studies carried out at the European level have clearly identied thefavoured niches of the tree main passenger transport systems: under300 km, the motorcar enjoys a virtual monopoly; above 1400 km, airtransport dominates; and in between the two, high-speed rail occupiesa niche which, at both extremities, is subjected to competition fromboth the motorcar and the plane (Campenon, 1995).

J. Guti errez / Journal of Transport Geography 9 (2001) 229242 231


4/14

Li Pn j 1 T ij M j

P n j 1 M j; 1

where Li is the accessibility (location) of node i , T ij is thetravel time by the minimal-time route through the net-work between node i and urban agglomeration j (in

min), and M j is the mass (for example, gross domesticproduct) of the destination urban agglomeration.

The mass of the urban agglomerations is used asweight in order to value the importance of the min-imal-time routes (Guti errez and Urbano, 1996;Guti errez et al., 1996). The measure is not a gravity-based indicator (there is no distance-decay), so that,unlike economic potential, it does not place the em-phasis on short distances. Thus, for example, in theeconomic potential model, the relationship Madrid Guadalajara could weigh more than the relationshipMadridParis, for Guadalajara is much closer toMadrid than Paris. But it seems quite clear that, fromthe perspective of the European high-speed network,the rst of these relationships is less relevant, sincethe second is one of the key trans-European con-nections.

This average-distance-based indicator should be in-terpreted from the locational rather than the economicpoint of view. But economic implications are obvious,since the spatial situation of the EC regions within Eu-rope is a factor of attractiveness and development ca-pabilities of the regions (Lutter et al., 1992). Thismeasure expresses the relative location of each place andthe extent to which a new link modies this location by

reducing access times to the main urban agglomerations.The results are very easily interpreted, for example: fromnode A the average travel time to all centres is 400 minin the scenario ``without the line'' and 360 min in thescenario ``with the line'', which means a time saving of 40 min.

2.1.2. Economic potential The economic potential is a gravity-based measure,

widely used in accessibility studies (see, for example,Harris, 1954; Keeble et al., 1988; Linneker and Spence,1992; Smith and Gibb, 1993; Spence and Linneker,1994). It is a measure of the nearness or accessibility of agiven volume of economic activity to a particular point/region and can be interpreted as the volume of economicactivity to which a region has access, after the cost/timeof covering the distance to that activity has been ac-counted for (Dundon-Smith and Gibb, 1994). Accord-ing to this model, the level of opportunity (accessibility)between a node i and a destination node j is positivelyrelated to the mass of the destination and inverselyproportional to some power of the distance betweenboth nodes. Its classical mathematical expression is asfollows:

P i Xn

j 1

M jT aij

; 2

where P i is the economic potential of node i , a is a pa-rameter reecting the rate of increase of the friction of distance (distance decay) and the other terms are still

known.In this paper (as in most accessibility studies) the

parameter value a used is 1. Using higher values than 1means giving too much importance to relations overshort distances (which would not seem appropriatewhen analysing the e ects of a new infrastructure of anational and international nature such as the line whichis the object of this study) and it also means increasingthe problem known as self-potential (see Frost andSpence, 1995; Bruinsma and Rietveld, 1993).

When discussing the former indicator (weighted av-erage travel times), it has been argued that in the eval-uation of the impact of large transport infrastructures atthe European level it would seem reasonable to pointout the long distance e ects. Yet from a merely eco-nomic point of view, there is no doubt that the economice ects of a new infrastructure are inversely related to thedistance (there are many trips over short distances andfew trips over long distances), so that in this context itwould seem appropriate to use a gravity-based opera-tionalization.

Therefore, the interpretation of the results providedby this indicator must be carried out from an economicviewpoint: the indicator measures the economic poten-tial of each place in each of the scenarios considered andthe changes in potential caused by the new infrastruc-ture.

2.1.3. Daily accessibility indicatorThis indicator consists of calculating the amount of

population or economic activity that can be reachedfrom a node within a certain travel time limit. The timelimit is usually established in 3 or 4 h, so that it ispossible to go and return within the day and carry outan activity at the visit location (Lutter et al., 1992). Thelimit of 4 h travel is considered as a critical cut-o pointsince it represents the likely limit of comfortable dayreturn business tra c, although the limit of 3 h is thelikely cut-o point for major transfers from air to railtransport. A study by the Institute of Air Transportsuggests a loss of 3050% of air tra c for a 3-h railconnection, 1530% at for 4 h and less than 20% at morethan 6 h (see Vickerman, 1995). On account of lack of space, in this paper the results will only be expressed innumber of inhabitants within the travel time limit of 4 h.

This measurement is particularly useful for calculat-ing accessibility in business and tourist trips, for theneed to stay overnight in the destination city means animportant extra expense for both companies and indi-



5/14

viduals. In fact, the empirical evidence shows that newhigh-speed lines produce an increase not only in thenumber of travellers in the relations served by the line,but also in the proportion of those who return within thesame day (Bonnafous, 1987).

In the context of the high-speed train, this indicatorprovides basically the number of possible businesscontacts (for business trips) and the market potential(for tourist trips). It measures how much population canbe reached from a place (or can reach a place) in acertain travel time limit and the changes in accessiblepopulation brought about by a new infrastructure. Theresults are of the following type: from city A, within atravel time limit of 4 h, 10 million inhabitants can bereached in the scenario ``without the line'' and 15 millionin the scenario ``with the line'', which means an increaseof 5 million inhabitants.

2.2. Comparison among indicators

By analysing the accessibility e ects of a new link bymeans of the three indicators selected it is necessary totake into account various critical issues.

2.2.1. Distance (travel time) decayThe three indicators handle the distance (travel time)

in a di erent way (Fig. 1 and Table 3):

The daily accessibility indicator considers exclusivelythe centres within a certain travel time limit. Withinthis time limit there is no distance decay.

The economic potential indicator takes into accountall relationships within the study area, but inverselyto the distance, so that short distance routes contrib-ute very heavily but those over long distances very lit-tle (distance decay).

The weighted average travel time indicator considersall relationships within the area of study too, butroutes on short distances do not contribute morethan others in accessibility calculations, since thereis no distance decay.

Thus, for example, a reduction of the travel time be-tween Madrid and Barcelona from 6 h 30 min to 2 h 30min will be picked up by the three indicators as fol-lowing: The absolute saving on travel time between Madrid

and Barcelona is equally large compared with that

between Lisbon and Barcelona, but according tothe economic potential indicator the accessibility im-provement will be greater for the former relationshipthan for the latter, because Madrid is closer to Barce-lona than Lisbon: a longer distance (travel time) leadsto less weight for the particular relationship (Fig.1(a)).

The weighted average travel time indicator willrecord the same accessibility improvement for the

Fig. 1. Travel time decay and study area limit (partially based on Bruinsma and Rietveld, 1998).

Table 3Characteristics of the selected accessibility indicators

Indicator Economic centresconsidered

Distance decay Weight according to sizeof economic centres

Measure units:results in

Weighted mean travel costs All No Yes Travel costs a

Economic potential All Yes Yes Economic activity b

Daily accessibility Several No Yes Population or economicactivity b

a The lower the value attained more accessibility.b The higher the value attained more accessibility.



6/14

relationship MadridBarcelona than for the Lisbon Barcelona one (4 h), since there is no distance decayin the operationalization (Fig. 1(b)).

Finally, the daily accessibility indicator will record anaccessibility improvement for Madrid (because thetravel time MadridBarcelona is reduced from 6 h30 min to only 2 h 30 min), but not for Lisbon (be-cause the travel time LisbonBarcelona exceeds thecritical level of 4 h both before and after the link im-provement) (Fig. 1(c)).

As a result, the selected indicators pick up the impact of a new link in a di erent way: it is expected that the ef-fects would be very concentrated in the daily accessi-bility indicator, less concentrated in the economicpotential one and more dispersal in the location indi-cator.

2.2.2. Treatment of internal accessibility: the self-poten-tial problem

The internal accessibility of a city has not a signicantinuence on the calculation of indicators with no dis-tance decay, but may have a substantial impact on thenal outcome in the case of gravity type models (Bru-insma and Rietveld, 1998). Thus, by analysing the e ectsof a new high-speed link, potential values may depend toa great extent on local accessibility, when local accessi-bility (for example, the relationship ParisParis) hasnothing to do with the high speed train network (Gu-tierrez et al., 1996).

This factor is known as ``self-potential'' in gravitymodels: the contribution of the potential of the indi-

vidual city itself to the total potential of that city inaccessing to the network of places in the system. Thiscontribution may be very high for large cities, as thefunction used lead to high weights for self-potential(Frost and Spence, 1995). As a result, by analysing thee ects of a new link relative changes (in percentage) forlarge cities may be very low, since the (xed) self-po-tential are very high for such cities (see Table 5).

2.2.3. Demarcation of total areaA disadvantage of the no gravity indicators is that

they depend rather strongly on the demarcation of thetotal area of study, because there is no distance decay, sothat such a demarcation should be chosen carefully(Bruinsma and Rietveld, 1993). The demarcation of thestudy area should be in correspondence with the dis-tance within which the transport mode is competitive. If the study area is too large, irrelevant relationships overlong distances may weigh heavily in the calculation of the indicator; if the study area is too small, relevantrelationships are not considered (Fig. 1). It is also im-portant to take into account political and economicborders, since such borders produce a decrease in thevolume of the ows (see Section 1).

2.2.4. AsymmetryNetwork improvement may be picked up symmetri-

cally or asymmetrically by accessibility indicators.Asymmetry holds for the three selected indicators (sincethey take into account the mass of the centres), so that areduction of the travel time in a link between a small cityand a large one leads to a larger increase in accessibilityfor the former than for the latter. Thus, for example,according to the indicators selected Zaragoza will ben-et more than Madrid from a new high-speed link be-tween both cities, since Zaragoza will benet from abetter access to a large agglomeration as Madrid.

2.2.5. The ease of interpretationAccessibility indicators must be understandable to

both the public and policy decision makers. Weightedaverage travel time and daily accessibility indicators givea value in meaningful units (minutes and population,respectively) (Table 3), so that results are easily inter-

preted. This is the case, for example, when we say that anew link produces a time saving of 20 min for city A(weighted average travel time) or that 5 million inhab-itants more can be reached from city A (daily accessi-bility). However, a potential value is not easilyinterpreted in terms relating to geographical reality: anincrement of, say, 12,554 potential units for city A doesnot tell us much (Geertman and Ritsema van Eck,1995).

3. Modelling of networks and calculation of indicators

In order to calculate accessibility changes between thescenarios 2005 without and 2005 with the new line, adense intermodal network was modelled in a geographicinformation system (ARC/INFO). The main focus of interest is logically the railway network, but the roadnetwork is also included, for this latter enables access torailway stations from places which have no station.Data of the railway and road networks for the foreseensituation in 2005 and predicted population and grossdomestic product (GDP) data for the main urban ag-glomerations in the same year were stored in the GIS.

When modelling the railway network, all lines at theinterregional and international levels were taken intoaccount. Stations at which long-distance trains stopwere considered as nodes. For each arc on the railwaynetwork, the type of line, distance, speed and travel timewas registered. Distances and travel times for the exist-ing lines were obtained from Cook's European Time-table (1996). For the horizon 2005, the changes foreseen(see Fig. 2) were included by adding the new lines ormodifying the attributes (type of line and travel time) of those lines to be upgraded. In order to calculate traveltimes, we took into account a speed of 275 km/h for thenew lines and 200 km/h for those to be upgraded. In the



7/14

case of the MadridBarcelonaFrench border line, thetravel times foreseen in the project were recorded.

Likewise, penalties times were recorded in turn tablesin order to simulate the change from road to rail mode(60 min) and the change between the Iberian broadgauge (conventional railways) and the European stan-dard gauge (high-speed railways) in Spain (20 min). This20 min penalty is not an estimated time, since it is thetime currently used in the operation of change in trackgauge. On the other side, penalty time for change fromroad to rail could seem too high, but it also incorporatesthe uncertainty linked to road tra c.

A dense road network was also used in order toguarantee access to stations from places which are notdirectly served by the railway network. The nodes onthe road network were selected so that not only allplaces with a signicant demand were included (inaccordance with their population), but also a numberof minor cities in order to cover the whole territoryhomogenously, to guarantee the necessary accuracy inmapping accessibility by using interpolation tech-niques. For each arc on the road network, the length,estimated speed according to type of infrastructure andtravel time were also recorded. Travel time was ob-tained on the basis of the length of the arcs and esti-mated speeds according to the type of road: 120 km/h.for motorways, 110 for expressways, 90 for interre-

gional roads and 70 for other roads. The new linksforeseen in the Trans-European Road Network OutlinePlan were also taken into account, assuming that suchlinks will be nished by the year 2005 (see Guti errezand Urbano, 1996).

In accessibility calculations are necessary not onlynetwork data, but also population and/or GDP data of the destination centres. The 88 urban agglomerations inthe study area (13 of them in Spain) with a population of over the critical mass point of 300,000 inhabitants wereselected as destination centres. The population data of these agglomerations come from the o cial statistics of each country, whereas GDP was calculated on thestrength of the population of each agglomeration andthe GDP per capita of the region (NUT) in which eachagglomeration is located. This latter variable was ob-tained on the basis of REGIO data of the EuropeanUnion, which gives standardised data to this respect.For the year 2005 predictions were made for bothpopulation (based on former growth tendencies of ag-glomerations) and gross domestic product (taking intoaccount the population prediction and assuming anannual increase of 2% in the GPD) of the selected urbanagglomerations.

Obviously there are some uncertainties in predic-tions for population, GDP and road and rail net-works changes, but they do not inuence heavily the

Fig. 2. The European high-speed network in the study area: scenario 2005.



8/14

results (changes in accessibility due to the new link),since population, GDP and road and rail networks

are the same in both scenarios: 2005 without the lineand 2005 with the line (the only di erence betweenthem is the new link). Thus, by comparing thewithout and with accessibility values, we are onlypicking out the e ects of the reduction in travel timedue to the future MadridBarcelonaFrench borderhigh-speed line.

For each of the scenarios (2005 with the new line''and 2005 without the new line), minimal-time routesbetween each node and each destination centre werecalculated, bearing in mind arc and node impedances.When the node of origin has a station, the travel time

between this node and the destination city is equal to thesum of the travel times of the arcs on the railway net-work plus, where necessary, penalty times for change intrack gauge (20 min). When the node of origin has nostation, access time by road to the nearest station wasadded and a penalty for the change from road to railmode (60 min).

In order to calculate accessibility values it is necessaryto take also into account internal relationships. Averagetravel times for these internal relationships were esti-mated in this paper according to the following formula:

T 15 log P 10 ; 3

where T is the average internal travel time and P is thepopulation (in millions) living within this city.

This is a logarithmic function because the averagetravel time of internal relationships tends to increase asthe size of the city increases, but not in a linear fashion(Barber, 1986). The highest value in the study area(ParisParis) is some 26 min.

Once the access times were obtained for all therelationships considered, the accessibility values of the4000 nodes in the network 4 were calculated applyingthe corresponding formula (see Section 2) for each of the scenarios. Once changes in accessibility values foreach node were computed, relative data (changes inpercentage) were interpolated and mapped, so that it

is possible to compare how di erent indicators captureaccessibility changes (see Figs. 35). On the other side,Tables 46 show both absolute and relative improve-ments for those cities that record more signicantchanges.

Fig. 3. Changes in accessibility: location indicator.

4 This high number of nodes is necessary to facilitate isoaccessibilitymapping, so that it is possible to obtain representative results of accessibility conditions in the whole of the study area and notexclusively in the chief cities.



9/14

Fig. 5. Changes in accessibility: daily accessibility indicator.

Fig. 4. Changes in accessibility: potential indicator.



10/14

4. Impact of the new line on accessibility

4.1. Weighted average travel times

The new line will bring about a reduction of 25 min(about 5%) in the average travel times between the se-lected agglomerations (those in the study area with morethan 300,000 inhabitants). Logically, the greatest bene-ts were recorded in the Iberian Peninsula, for the newline o ers its cities better access with each other and withcities in the rest of Europe; on the other hand, the im-provements recorded in the rest of Europe are scant, forthe new line only enables its cities to improve theirconnection with the cities in the Iberian Peninsula, theselatter having relatively little weight with respect to thetotal group of cities in the study area (Fig. 3 and Table4).

The greatest benets logically occur in cities with astation on the new line, but the e ects on the Mediter-

ranean corridor are also important, as likewise on thecorridor of the high-speed MadridSeville line. The ag-

glomeration which obtains the highest time saving (160min, which is equivalent to 22.0%) is Zaragoza. Itshould be borne in mind that Barcelona (with a 17.8%improvement) uses the least amount of kilometres on thenew line in order to reach most European cities (situatedon the other side of the border) and that Madrid (with a13.7% time saving) gains a few minutes in its relationswith the ``blue banana'' cities (Paris, London, Brussels,Amsterdam) due to the fact that this connection beforethe construction of the new line is made via the BasqueCountry and after via Barcelona with a considerabledetour.

The cities served by the high-speed line MadridSe-ville will benet not only from the new line, but alsofrom the suppression of penalty times (due to change intrack gauge) that before had to be carried out in Ma-drid. They will have a percentage improvement around15%, somewhat higher even than that of Madrid, aboveall because the need to change trains in Madrid will be

eliminated. The cities of the Mediterranean corridor willalso benet considerably, for they will take advantage of the TarragonaFrench border stretch in their relationswith most of the European urban agglomerations. Theaverage time saving of such cities as Valencia, Alicanteand Murcia is around 109 min, which is equivalent to1314%. In the north, northwest and west of the Iberianpeninsula, the benets will be less. This is the case, forexample, of Valladolid (4.5% improvement), La Coru

~

na(2.7%), and Bilbao (2.0%), which will use the new linefor their links with cities located in the east (Barcelona,Marseilles, Milan), but for which the new line will noto er anything as regards their links with the ``blue ba-nana'' cities.

Over the border, the greatest benets in absolutevalues (21 min) are located on the natural prolongationof the line eastwards (south of France, Italy). In otherdirections the e ects of the new line become weaker: 10min for most German cities, 8.7 for Paris and Britishcities and Benelux, and only 4 for Bordeaux and Nantes.If time savings are measured in percentages, these willlogically be lower for remoter cities within each of theforementioned directions. Thus, travelling eastwards,Marseilles (5.3%) will give an improvement higher thanthat of Naples (2.7%); the same thing occurs travellingnortheast with Lyon (6.2%) as against Copenhagen(1.3%) or northwards with Paris (3.2%) as against Ed-inburgh (1.5%). However, in any case, the lowest valuescorrespond to south-west France (0.9% in Bordeaux),where the new line hardly brings any benet at all.

4.2. Economic potential

The average variation in the economic potential of the selected urban agglomerations (it only increases by1.45%) is much less than the one which corresponds tothe location indicator (travel times are reduced by 5%).

Table 4Weighted mean times (in min) in the without and with scenarios forselected cities (only cities showing a percentage di erence above 2.5%are included)

Cities Scenarios Di erence

Withoutnew line

Withnew line

Absolute (%)

Alicante 805.6 696.5 109.1 13.5Amsterdam 321.8 313.1 8.7 2.7Barcelona 613.6 504.4 109.2 17.8Brussels 276.9 268.1 8.7 3.1Cordoba 897.2 749.0 148.2 16.5Frankfurt 300.1 289.8 10.2 3.4Geneva 380.6 359.7 20.8 5.4Granada 1020.8 951.3 69.5 6.8Grenoble 413.7 392.7 20.9 5.0La Coru

~

na 983.9 957.3 26.6 2.7Lisbon 1227.8 1196.1 31.7 2.5London 337 328.3 8.7 2.6Lyon 337.1 316.3 20.8 6.1Madrid 742.3 640.8 101.5 13.6Malaga 1031.3 883.1 148.2 14.3

Marseilles 398.3 377.3 21.0 5.2Milan 529.4 508.4 21.0 3.9Murcia 832.1 722.9 109.1 13.1Naples 767.4 746.4 21.0 2.7Oporto 1121.7 1095.0 26.7 2.3Paris 269.8 261.1 8.8 3.2Rome 703.3 682.3 21.0 2.9Seville 941.8 793.6 148.2 15.7Turin 540.4 519.4 21.0 3.8Toulon 443.4 422.5 21.0 4.7Toulouse 507.8 493.6 14.1 2.7Valencia 741.5 631.6 110.0 14.8Valladolid 709.2 677.5 31.7 4.4Zaragoza 729.2 568.5 160.6 22.0



11/14

This is due to the fact that the potential indicator is agravity-based measure, so that most European citieslocated far from the new line undergo very little varia-tion in their potential values. In fact, changes in acces-

sibility are concentrated on cities most directly a ectedby the new line to a greater extent than the former in-dicator (Fig. 4 and Table 5). The city that most benetsfrom the new line is Zaragoza (37%), which is locatedvery close in travel time to two large agglomerationssuch as Madrid and Barcelona and greatly improves itslinks with cities located beyond the French border.Benets are less for Barcelona (16%) and for Madrid(8%).

In relative values, Madrid (8%) grows even less thanCordoba (14%), Seville (13%) and Malaga (12%). Thisapparently anomalous situation is due not only to the

fact that it is no longer necessary to change trains inMadrid, but also that self-potential in Madrid (see Table5) represents a very large part of its total potential. 5

However, if we bear in mind the absolute values of di erences, we observe that due to the distance decay,Madrid's potential has a greater increase (603 million

units) than those of Cordoba (520), Seville (454) orMalaga (360).

We should also point out the benets (around 10%)which the line brings to cities in the southern stretch of

the Spanish sector of the Mediterranean arc, such asValencia, Alicante and Murcia, which obtain betterconnections not only with Barcelona, but also withmany of the European cities located beyond theFrench border. In north and northwest Spain thechanges are less. Thus, for example, Bilbao and LaCoru

~

na only record increases of 2.0% and 2.5%, re-spectively.

Outside Spain, improvements in percentages aresomewhat reduced, more so when their distance in timefrom the new line is greater. Both in Portugal (Lisbon,Oporto) and in the south of France (Toulouse, Mar-

seilles, Toulon) potential increases higher than 2% arerecorded. In French regions even further from Spainand in the north of Italy, the potential variations areeven around 1% and 2%. But in the rest of the studyarea, the changes are almost irrelevant (below 1% andeven below 0.5% in the farthest regions).

4.3. Daily accessibility

With the building of the new line the average acces-sible population within the 4-h limit for the selectedurban agglomerations rises from 20.7 to 21.1 million

Table 5Potential indicator: potential values (million ECUS of 1995) in the without and with scenarios for selected cities (only cities showing a percentagedi erence above 1% are included)

Cities Scenarios Di erence Self-potential (%)

Without new line With new line Absolute (%)

Alicante 3892.2 4304.3 412.1 10.5 10.4Barcelona 6388.0 7472.1 1084.0 16.9 36.6Bilbao 4639.2 4733.9 94.7 2.0 18.9Cordoba 3529.5 4049.7 520.2 14.7 7.3Geneva 8290.3 8427.5 137.2 1.6 18.3Granada 2727.7 2880.3 152.6 5.5 11.2Grenoble 6886.3 7043.3 157.1 2.2 11.4La Coru

~

na 2723.2 2793.5 70.3 2.5 12.6Lisbon 2393.0 2443.5 50.5 2.1 22.7Lyon 10187.5 10366.9 179.3 1.7 21.2Madrid 7149.3 7752.5 603.2 8.4 52.4Malaga 2918.3 3278.4 360.2 12.3 14.9Marseilles 8270.8 8489.1 218.3 2.6 23.5Milan 6949.7 7019.8 70.1 1.0 28.0Murcia 3628.7 4010.0 381.3 10.5 9.5

Oporto 2227.2 2278.6 51.3 2.3 7.6Seville 3480.4 3935.2 454.8 13.0 16.9Turin 6228.2 6307.4 79.2 1.2 22.5Toulon 6506.8 6676.5 169.7 2.6 10.1Toulouse 5874.9 6085.9 211.0 3.5 21.0Valencia 4635.2 5161.7 526.5 11.3 21.9Valladolid 4774.4 4999.3 224.8 4.7 7.9Zaragoza 4156.8 5731.6 1574.8 37.8 12.4

5 Self-potential of all the cities is equal in absolute terms in bothsituations, ``with'' and ``without'' the new line, so that cities with highself-potential values tend to record low percentage improvements (seeSection 2.2). Big cities, such as Paris, London and Madrid, tend tohave high self-potential values (Table 5).



12/14

inhabitants, which means an increase of 1.64%. Thebenets of the new line are very concentrated accordingto this indicator (Fig. 5 and Table 6). They are locatednot only along the MadridBarcelona corridor, but alsoin other parts of Spain and in southern France. It shouldnot be forgotten that Barcelona is one of the chief me-tropolises of southern Europe and that it will be acces-sible in under 4 h from most of the south of France.Logically, most European cities will record no benetaccording to this indicator, which only reects dailyaccessibility.

The increase in accessible population is particularlyimportant in Barcelona, 7.7 million inhabitants (139%),which fundamentally corresponds to the population of Madrid, Valladolid, Marseilles and Toulouse. Zaragozagains 2.7 million (28.4%) through improvements in itslinks with Valencia, Seville and Valladolid. The increasein 3.2. million for Madrid (32.8%), Murcia (48%),Toulouse (64.9%) and Marseilles (19.2%) are due to thefact that with the new line they can reach Barcelona inunder 4 h.

5. Increasing or reducing accessibility inequalities?

Finally, there is the question of whether the new linewill contribute to increasing inequalities (in terms of accessibility) among European cities, or whether it willon the contrary favour a reduction in same. Increase orreduction in disparities among cities can be measured bythe coe cient of variation. The changes on the coe -cient of variation of the three indicators used clearlypoint in the same direction: the new line will reduceexisting disparities by 1.87% in travel times, by 1.37% ineconomic potential and by 2.30% in daily accessibility(Table 7). This evolution was predictable in accordancewith the analysis of the spatial distribution of the e ects

of the new line, which basically favoured the IberianPeninsula (when a transport infrastructure mainly fa-vours a peripheral space, it is obvious that it lessens thecentre-periphery disparities).

However, if we change the scale and look merely atthe impact of the new line on Spanish internal links withcities with a population of over 75,000 inhabitants, theresults are quite di erent (Guti errez and Jaro, 1999)(Table 8). In all the selected indicators, the new linebrings about an increase in the coe cient of variation,that is, an increase in the di erences in the accessibilityvalues of the total group of Spanish cities. This is notsurprising given that the new line connects a number of cities to each other (as Madrid, Zaragoza and Barce-lona) that at the national level are already highly ac-cessible in the situation without the new line, and thatthese cities are those which most benet from the newline, which logically results in an increase in disparitiesbetween cities.

Finally, if we once more change scale and considerexclusively the centres situated along the corridor Ma-dridBarcelonaFrench border, the results are verydi erent: the value of the coe cient of variation clearlydrops in all the accessibility indicators (Table 9). This isbecause the three indicators selected reect the e ects of a new infrastructure asymmetrically, so that the smallestcities on the corridor (less accessible than the large onesin the without situation) are those which obtain greatestimprovements in accessibility from the new line, aboveall in the indicators which express their results in units of activity (indicators of economic potential and daily ac-cessibility).

Table 6Daily accessibility indicator: reachable population (thousands of in-habitants) in a limit of 4 h in the without and with scenarios for se-lected cities (only cities showing a percentage di erence above 0% areincluded)

Cities Scenarios Di erence

Withoutnew line

Withnew line

Absolute (%)

Barcelona 5597 13,375 7778 138.9Cordoba 7442 8038 596 8Madrid 9945 13,209 3264 32.8Marseille 16,992 20,256 3264 19.2Murcia 6789 10,053 3264 48Seville 7093 8038 945 13.3Toulouse 5022 8286 3264 64.9Valencia 10,402 10,998 596 5.7Valladolid 8488 12,814 4326 50.9Zaragoza 9690 12,451 2761 28.4

Table 7Changes on the coe cient of variation for selected accessibilityindicators: urban agglomerations in the study area

Indicators Scenario, 2005

Without thenew line

With thenew line

Di erence

Location 44.30 42.43 ) 1.87Economic potential 41.90 40.53 ) 1.37Daily accessibility 71.97 69.67 ) 2.30

Table 8Changes on the coe cient of variation for selected accessibilityindicators: Spanish cities


Without thenew line

With thenew line

Di erence

Location 28.20 33.15 4.95Economic potential 46.36 49.75 3.39Daily accessibility 63.70 67.25 3.55



13/14

6. Conclusion

The e ects of the new line on accessibility will berelevant not only in the northeast part of Spain, but alsoin other areas of the Iberian Peninsula and in the south southeast of France, albeit unequally, according to thelocation of the cities with regard to the new line. On the

other hand, the accessibility impact of the new line willbe markedly asymmetrical, since Iberian urban ag-glomerations have little weight in the total group of cities in the study area.

The three indicators used respond to di erent con-ceptualizations and o er complementary informationabout the accessibility issue. The location indicatoremphasizes relationships over long distances and thedaily accessibility one emphasizes relationships overshort distances. Logically, the results are quite di erent:very concentrated e ects in the daily accessibility indi-cator, less concentrated in the economic potential indi-cator and more dispersal in the location indicator (seeaccessibility maps). In fact, most of the study area isincluded within the 2% contour in the location indicator,but only the Iberian Peninsula and the southsoutheastof France in the economic potential indicator and somediscontinuous areas in Spain and the southsoutheast of France in the daily accessibility indicator. Since there isa travel time limit in the daily accessibility indicator, thismeasure captures the accessibility e ects of the new linein a very discontinuous way: large changes near therailway stations along or near the new line and little orno changes in the spaces between them.

As expected, the highest average improvement inaccessibility for the total group of the main urban ag-glomerations in the study area is recorded by the loca-tion indicator (5%). It is surprising that a similar averageimprovement (1.5%) is recorded in both economic po-tential and daily accessibility indicators. But in the av-erage improvement calculation more dispersal e ects inthe economic potential indicator are compensated bydramatic changes near the new line in the daily acces-sibility indicator, so that similar average values are ob-tained by both indicators.

Finally, according to the changes in the coe cient of variation of the three indicators used, it seems clear that

at the national level the new line will lead to an increasein inequality in the distribution of accessibility, for thecities which have greatest increases in accessibility arealready highly accessible in the without the new linescenario. Nevertheless, both at the corridor and at theEuropean level the line will reduce disparities in terms of accessibility measures used: within the corridor becausethe small and medium-sized cities will obtain greaterincreases in accessibility than the large ones, whichsuggests that spreading processes for economic growthwill be induced; and at the European level because bettercommunication of Iberian cities with each other andwith the central regions will result in a greater increase inaccessibility of Iberian cities and therefore, in a reduc-tion of core-periphery imbalances.

In summary, caution is required when considering theaccessibility e ects of a new infrastructure. Certainstatements could be true or false according to the geo-graphical scale and the accessibility indicator selected.

The new infrastructure will reduce accessibility in-equalities among cities at the European scale, but willincrease inequalities at the national scale. On the otherside, it will have signicant accessibility e ects at theEuropean scale if European relationships (trips overlong distances) are emphasized (location indicator), butthe e ects will be only minor if relationships over shortdistances (potential and daily accessibility indicators)are highlighted.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank J.C. Huertas, L. Jaro,R.Knowles and two anonymous referees for their com-ments and G. G omez, M. Alonso and P. L opez for as-sisting him in computing and mapping accessibilityvalues.

References

Barber, G., 1986. Aggregate characteristics of urban transportation.In: Hanson, S. (Ed.), The Geography of Urban Transportation.New York, The Guildford Press, pp. 7390.

Bonnafous, A., 1987. The regional impact of the TGV. Transportation14, 127137.

Bruinsma, F.R., Rietveld, P., 1993. Urban agglomerations in Euro-pean infrastructure networks. Urban Studies 30, 919934.

Bruinsma, F.R., Rietveld, P., 1998. The accessibility of Europeancities: theoretical framework and comparison approaches. Envi-ronment and Planning A 30, 449521.

Campenon, G., 1995. 2nd report of the working group of theEuropean Commission High-Speed Europe. In: Paper presentedat the PTRC, Proceedings of Seminar A, Pan-European TransportIssues, Warwick, pp. 5360.

Commission of the European Communities, 1990. The EuropeanHigh-Speed Train Network. Brussels/Luxembourg.

Cook, T., 1996. European Timetable. London.

Table 9Changes on the coe cient of variation for selected accessibilityindicators: cities along the corridor


Without thenew line

With thenew line

Di erence

Location 21.60 16.15 ) 5.45Economic potential 46.81 28.34 ) 18.47Daily accessibility 29.00 12.16 ) 16.84



14/14

Dundon-Smith, D.M., Gibb, R.A., 1994. The Channel Tunnel andregional economic development. Journal of Transport Geography2 (3), 178189.

Forslund, U.M., Johansson, B., 1995. Assessing road investments:accessibility changes cost benet and production e ects. TheAnnals of Regional Science 29, 155174.

Frost, M.E., Spence, N.A., 1995. The rediscovery of accessibility andeconomic potential: the critical issue of self-potential. Environment

and Planning A 27, 18331848.Geertman, S.C.M., Ritsema van Eck, J.R., 1995. GIS and models of

accessibility potential: an application in planning. InternationalJournal of Geographical Information Systems 9 (1), 6780.

Guti errez, J., Jaro, L., 1999. Impacto de la nueva l nea de altavelocidad MadridBarcelonafrontera francesa en la accesibilidaddel sistema de ciudades espa

~

nol. Estudios de Construcci on,Transportes y Comunicaciones 85, 5181.

Guti errez, J., Urbano, P., 1996. Accessibility in the European Union:the impact of the Transeuropean road network. Journal of Transport Geography 4 (1), 1525.

Guti errez, J., Gonz alez, R., G omez, G., 1996. The European high-speed train network: predicted e ects on accessibility patterns.Journal of Transport Geography 4 (4), 227238.

Harris, C.D., 1954. The market as a factor in the localisation of

industry in the United States. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 44, 315348.

Jones, S.R., 1981. Accessibility measures: a literature review. Crow-thorne, Transport and Road Research Laboratory, TRRL Labo-ratory Report, 967.

Keeble, D., O ord, J., Walker, S. 1988. Peripheral Regions in aCommunity of Twelve. O ce for O cial Publications of theEuropean Communities, Brussels/Luxembourg.

Linneker, B., Spence, N.A., 1992. Accesibility measures compared inan analysis of the impact of the M25 London Orbital Motorway onBritain. Environment and Planning A 24, 11371154.

Lutter, H., P utz, T., Spangenberg, M., 1992. Accessibility andPeripherality of Community Regions: The Role of Road Long

Distance Railway and Airport Networks. Commission of theEuropean Communities, Brussels.

Morris, J.M., Dumble, P.L., Wigan, M.R., 1978. Accessibility indica-tors for transport planning. Transportation Research 13A, 91109.

Pirie, G.H., 1979. Measuring accessibility: a review and proposal.Environment and Planning A 11, 299312.

Reggiani, A., 1998. Accessibility, trade and locational behaviour: anintroduction. In: Reggiani, A. (Ed.), Accessibility Trade andLocational Behaviour. Aldershot, Ashgate, pp. 116.

Smith, D.M., Gibb, R.A., 1993. The regional impact of the Chan-nel Tunnel. A return to potential analysis. Geoforum 24 (2),183192.

Spence, N., Linneker, B., 1994. Evolution of the motorway networkand changing levels of accessibility in Great Britain. Journal of Transport Geography 2 (4), 247264.

Vickerman, R.W., 1974. Accessibility, attraction and potencial: areview of some concepts and their use in determining mobility.Environment and Planning 6, 675691.

Vickerman, R.W., 1995. The regional impacts of trans-Europeannetworks. The Annals of Regional Science 29, 237254.


Documents

Location Economic Potential and Accessibility Impact