Capturing Network Effects



This chapter develops a method to quantify NEs spilling into neighboring networks or regions, in terms of efficiency and accessibility, as part of a research design which includes the selection of transit strategies capable of conveying these benefits into a regional level and their testing on a case study. Four indicators to measure HSR accessibility are reviewed, each with specific characteristics and usefulness. Thus, the choice to use the network efficiency accessibility (NEA) indicator to analyze accessibility at the regional level is justified by its ability to neutralize the effect of geographical location. Then, to obtain significant results from the selected indicator, there is need to develop a computational procedure. However, not much research has investigated the relation that could be established among transit networks through the exchange of accessibility benefits, especially deriving from connection to hierarchically higher networks, such as interregional and HSR. Thus, network and spillover effects are devised as a reverberation of HSR accessibility through the efficiency of interconnected regional networks. Not only it becomes increasingly important to assess NEs as an accessibility derivate but also because they could account for non-transport benefits of improvements in already well-developed networks. These improvements might regard strategies to integrate, interface or complement HSR at the regional level. It would be the intent of next chapter to identify possible feeder/distributor/transit options and understand how their qualities could affect accessibility benefit distribution within a region.


HSR Measure Network Effects Accessibility Region Spillover Impedance Weighting Monetizing Multilevel Efficiency Density Gravity Indicator 


  1. Arentze TA, Borgers AWJ, Timmermans HJP (1994) Geographical information systems and the measurement of accessibility in the context of multipurpose travel: a new approach. Geogr Syst 1(2):87–102Google Scholar
  2. Banister D, Thurstain GM (2010). Quantification of the non-transport benefits resulting from rail investment. J Transp Geogr. doi: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2010.05.001
  3. Baradaran S, Ramjerdi F (2001) Performance of accessibility measures in Europe. J Transp Stat 4(2–3):31–38Google Scholar
  4. Bertolini L, le Clercq F, Kapoen L (2005) Sustainable accessibility: a conceptual framework to integrate transport and land use plan-making. Two test-applications in the Netherlands and a reflection on the way forward. Transp Policy 12(3):207–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blum U, Haynes KE, Karlsson C (1997) The regional and urban effects of high-speed trains. Ann Reg Sci 31(1):1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boarnet MG (1998) Spillovers and the locational effects of public infrastructure. J Reg Sci 38(3):381–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruinsma F, Rietveld P (1993) Urban agglomerations in European infrastructure networks. Urb Stud 30(6):919–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bruinsma F, Rietveld P (1998a) The accessibility of European cities: theoretical framework and comparison of approaches. Environ Plan A 30(3):499–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bruinsma F, Rietveld P (1998b) The impact of accessibility on the valuation of cities as location for firms. In: Egeln J, Sitz H (eds) Stadte vor neuen Herausforderungen. Baden-Baden, NomosGoogle Scholar
  10. Burckhart K, Martí-Henneberg J, Tapiador FJ (2008) Cambio de hábitos y transformaciones territoriales en los corredores de alta velocidad ferroviaria. Resultados de una encuesta de viajeros en la línea Madrid-Barcelona. Scripta Nova 12:270Google Scholar
  11. Cantos P, Gumbau-Albert M, Maudos J (2005) Transport infrastructures, spillover effects and regional growth: evidence of the Spanish case. Transp Rev 25(1):25–50Google Scholar
  12. Cheshire P (1999) Cities in competition: articulating the gains from integration. Urban Studies 36(5/6):843–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheshire P (2009) Spatial policies, planning and urban competitiveness: the particular case of London. In: Karlsson C, Johansson B, Stongh R (eds) Edward Elgar, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
  14. De Bruijn H, Veeneman W (2009) Decision-making for light rail. Transp Res A Policy Pract 43(4):349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Debrezion G, Pels E, Rietveld P (2009) Modelling the joint access mode and railway station choice. Transp Res E Logist Transp Rev 45(1):270–283Google Scholar
  16. EU (European Union) (1996) Interoperability of the trans-European high speed rail system— council directive 96/48/EC. Off J Eur Union L235:0006–0024Google Scholar
  17. EuroCarex (2017) The European high speed rail freight network. Retrieved 27 Feb 2017:
  18. FRA-Federal Railroad Administration (2009) Vision for high speed rail in America. USDOT, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. Fotheringham AS (1989) Scale independent spatial analysis. In: Goodchild M, Gopa S (eds) The accuracy of spatial databases. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 221–228Google Scholar
  20. Fotheringham AS, Wong DWS (1991) The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environ Plan A 23:1025–1044CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Garmendia M (2008) Cambios en la estructura urbana y territorial facilitados por la alta velocidad ferroviaria, la lı´nea Madrid–Sevilla a su paso por la provincia de Ciudad Real. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Castilla-La Mancha (UCLM), Ciudad RealGoogle Scholar
  22. Garmendia M, Urena JM, Ribalaygua C, Leal J, Coronado JM (2008) Urban residential development in isolated small cities that are partially integrated in metropolitan areas by high speed train. Eur Urb Reg Stud 15(3):249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Garmendia M, Urena JM, Coronado JM (2011) Long-distance trips in a sparsely populated region: the impact of high-speed infrastructures. J Transp Geogr 19(4):537–551Google Scholar
  24. Geurs KT, van Eck JRR (2003) Accessibility evaluation of land-use scenarios: the impact of job competition, land-use and infrastructure developments for the Netherlands. Environ Plan B Plan Design 30(1):69–87Google Scholar
  25. Geurs KT, van Wee B (2004) Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions. J Transp Geogr 12:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gutiérrez J (2001) Location, economic potential and daily accessibility: an analysis of the accessibility impact of the high-speed line Madrid–Barcelona–French border. J Transp Geogr 9(4):229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gutiérrez J, Urbano P (1996) Accessibility in the European Union: the impact of the trans-European road network. J Transp Geogr 4:15–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gutiérrez J, Garcia-Palomares JC (2008) Distance-measure impacts on the calculation of transport service areas using GIS. Environ Plan B Plan Design 35:480–503Google Scholar
  29. Gutiérrez J, Gonzalez R, Gomez G (1996) The European high-speed train network. Predicted effects on accessibility patterns. J Transp Geogr 4(4):227–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gutiérrez J, Monzón A, Piñero JM (1998) Accessibility, network efficiency, and transport infrastructure planning. Environ Plan A 30(8):1337–1350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gutiérrez J, Condeco-Melhorado A, Martín JC (2010) Using accessibility indicators and GIS to assess spatial spillovers of transport infrastructure investment. J Transp Geogr 18(1):141–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hagget P, Chorley RJ (1969) Network analysis in geography. Edward Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Harman R (2006) High speed trains and the development and regeneration of cities. Retrieved 12 Jan 2010:
  34. Haywood R (2009) Railways, urban development and town planning in Britain: 1948–2008. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  35. Hewko J, Smoyer-Tomic KE, Hodgson MJ (2002) Measuring neighborhood spatial accessibility to urban amenities: does aggregation error matter? Environ Plan A 34:1185–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. IISD (2002) Means of implementation (Chapter 10: 81–136). Johannesburg plan of implementation of the world summit on sustainable developmentGoogle Scholar
  37. Immers B, Egeter B, van Nes R (2004) Hierarchical network levels. In: Kutz M (ed) Handbook of transportation engineering. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Keeble D, Owens PL, Thompson C (1982) Regional accessibility and economic potential in the European community. Reg Stud 16:419–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kwan M-P, Weber J (2008) Scale and accessibility: implications for the analysis of land use-travel interaction. Appl Geogr 28(2):110–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Laird JJ, Nellthorp J, Mackie PJ (2005) Network effects and total economic impact in transport appraisal. Transp Policy 12(6):537–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Liang XH, Tan KH, Whiteing A, Nash C, Johnson D (2016) Parcels and mail by high speed rail—a comparative analysis of Germany, France and China. J Rail Transp Plan Manag 6(2):77–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. López E (2007) Assessment of transport infrastructure plans: a strategic approach integrating efficiency, cohesion and environmental aspects. Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, MadridGoogle Scholar
  43. López E, Gutiérrez J, Gómez G (2008a) Measuring regional cohesion effects of large-scale transport infrastructure investments: an accessibility approach. Eur Plan Stud 16(2):277–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. López E, Monzon A, Ortega E, Mancebo S (2008) Strategic assessment of transport infrastructure plans on European integration: application for the Spanish strategic transport and infrastructure plan 2005–2020. In: Paper Presented at the 87th transportation research board annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  45. López E, Monzón A, Ortega E, Mancebo S (2009) Assessment of cross-border spillover effects of national transport infrastructure plans: an accessibility approach. Transp Rev 29(4):515–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. López-Bazo E, Vayá E, Artís M (2004) Regional externalities and growth: evidence from European regions. J Reg Sci 44(1):43–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lutter H, Putz T, Spangenberg M (1992) Accessibility and peripherality of community regions: the role of road, long-distance railways and airport networks. Bundesforchungsanstalt fur Landeskunde und Raumordnung, BonnGoogle Scholar
  48. Martín JC, Reggiani A (2007) Recent methodological developments to measure spatial interaction: Synthetic accessibility indices applied to high-speed train investments. Transp Rev 27(5):551–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Martín JC, Gutiérrez J, Román C (2004) Data envelopment analysis (DEA) index to measure the accessibility impacts of new infrastructure investments: the case of the high-speed train corridor Madrid–Barcelona–French border. Reg Stud 38(6):697–712CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martinez FJ (2000) Towards a land-use and transport interaction framework. In: Henscher Button (ed) Handbook of transport modeling. Pergamon Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  51. Martínez H, Givoni M (2012) The accessibility impact of a new high-speed rail line in the UK—a preliminary analysis of winners and losers. J Transp Geogr 24:105–114Google Scholar
  52. Menerault P (1998) Processus de territorialisation des réseaux: Analyse de la grande vitesse ferroviaire à l’échelle régionale. Netw Commun Stud 12(1/2/3):161–184Google Scholar
  53. Menerault P (2006) Reseaux de transports publics a grande vitesse et aménagement aux croisements des echelles spatiales et temporelles. In: Dupuy G, Geneau I (eds) Changement d’échelle de l’activité économique et des réseaux Quelles conséquences pour l’aménagement? Editions du CNRSGoogle Scholar
  54. Miller HJ (1999) Measuring space-time accessibility benefits within transportation networks: basic theory and computational procedures. Geogr Anal 31:187–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Miller HJ (2008) Activities in space and time. In: Stopher P, Button K, Haynes K, Hensher D (eds) Handbook of transport 5: Transport geography and spatial systems. Pergamon/Elsevier Science, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  56. Mishalani RG, McCord MM (2006) Passenger wait time perceptions at bus stops: empirical results and impact on evaluating real-time bus arrival information. J Public Transp 9(2)Google Scholar
  57. Morris JM, Dumble PL, Wigan MR (1979) Accessibility indicators for transport planning. Transp Res A Gen 13(2):91–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Neutens T, Schwanen T, Witlox F, De Maeyer P (2008) My space or your space? Towards a measure of joint accessibility. Comput Environ Urban Syst 32:331–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Openshaw S (1996) Developing GIS-relevant zone-based spatial analysis methods. In: Longley P, Batty M (eds) Spatial analysis: modelling in a GIS environment. Wiley, New York, pp 55–73Google Scholar
  60. Pazour JA, Meller RD, Pohl LM (2010) A model to design a national high-speed rail network for freight distribution. Transp Res A Policy Pract 44(3):119–135Google Scholar
  61. Pels E, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (2000) A note on the optimality of airline networks. Econ Lett 69(3):429–434CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  62. Pereira AM, Roca-Sagalés O (2003) Spillover effects of public capital formation: evidence from the Spanish regions. J Urb Econ 53(2):238–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Plassard F (1991) Le train a grande vitesse et le réseau des villes. Revue Transports 345:14–23Google Scholar
  64. Priemus H, Konings R (2001) Light rail in urban regions: what Dutch policymakers could learn from experiences in France, Germany and Japan. J Transp Geogr 9(3):187–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Reggiani A (1998) Accessibility, trade and locational behaviour: an introduction. In: Reggiani A (ed) Accessibility, trade and locational behaviour. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 1–14Google Scholar
  66. Rietveld P, Bruinsma F (1998) Is transport infrastructure effective?. Springer, BerlinCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Roy R (2003) European versus national-level evaluation: the case of the PBKAL high-speed rail project. In: Pearman A, Mackie P, Nellthorp J (eds) Transport projects, programmes and policies: evaluation needs and capabilities. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp 125–138Google Scholar
  68. Sasaki K, Ohashi T, Ando A (1997) High-speed rail transit impact on regional systems: does the Shinkansen contribute to dispersion? Ann Reg Sci 31(1):77–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Sauvant A (2002) Le transport ferroviaire de voyageurs en France: enfin un bien normal? Ministère des transports. Note de synthèses du SES, juillet/octobre 2002:6pGoogle Scholar
  70. Sichelschmidt H (1999) The EU programme trans-European networks—a critical assessment. Transp Policy 6:169–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Simmonds D, Banister D (2007) Transport and integrated land use/transport planning tools. In: Dimitriou H, Thompson R (eds) Strategic planning for regional development. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  72. Tapiador FJ, Burckhart K, Martí-Henneberg J (2009) Characterizing European high-speed train stations using intermodal time and entropy metrics. Transp Res A Policy Pract 43:197–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tobler WR (1989) Frame independent spatial analysis. In: Goodchild M, Gopa S (eds) The accuracy of spatial databases. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 115–122Google Scholar
  74. Tsamboulas D, Vrenken H, Lekka AM (2007) Assessment of a transport policy potential for intermodal mode shift on a European scale. Transp Res A Policy Pract 41(8):715–733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Typsa (2002) Estudio de los efectos de la linea de alta velocidad Madrid-Sevilla sobre la movilidad, el sistema territorial y el desarrollo regional. Ministero de Fomento, Madrid. Unpublished resultsGoogle Scholar
  76. UIC (International Union of Railways) (2014) High speed and the city, vol 2. Brochure. Passenger & High Speed Department, ParisGoogle Scholar
  77. Urena JM, Menendez JM, Guirao B, Escobedo F, Rodriguez FJ, Coronado JM, Ribalaygua C, Rivas A, Martinez A (2005) Alta Velocidad ferroviaria e integracion metropolitana en Espana: el caso de Ciudad Real y Puertollano. EURE Revista Latinoamericana de Estudios Urbano Regionales 92:87–104Google Scholar
  78. Urena JM, Menerault P, Garmendia M (2009) The high-speed rail challenge for big intermediate cities: a national, regional and local perspective. Cities 26:266–279Google Scholar
  79. USAID (1998) Criteria for selecting quality performance indicators. Retrieved 02 Mar 2011:
  80. USAID (2010) Glossary of ADS terms. Retrieved 02 Mar 2011:
  81. van Exel J, Rienstra S, Gommers M, Pearman A, Tsamboulas D (2002) EU involvement in TEN development: network effects and European value added. Transp Policy 9(4):299–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Vickerman R (1997) High-speed rail in Europe: experience and issues for future development. Ann Reg Sci 31(1):21–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Vickerman R, Spiekermann K, Wegener M (1999) Accessibility and economic development in Europe. Reg Stud 33(1):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Vuchic RV, Casello JM (2002) An evaluation of Maglev technology and its comparison with high speed rail. Transp Q 56(2):33–49Google Scholar
  85. Whitelegg J, Britton E (2011) UK high speed rail: going very fast in the wrong direction. Retrieved 23 Feb 2011:

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Polytechnic Department of Engineering and ArchitectureUniversity of UdineUdineItaly

Personalised recommendations