Share:


Rail freight accessibility of the Visegrád Group countries and Baltic States in the context of Eurasian rail transport system

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the level of infrastructure-based rail freight accessibility and rail freight performance of several Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries in the context of their presence in the Eurasian rail freight transport system. The study′s object was 7 CEE countries: Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland, Czechia, Slovakia and Hungary. The research methodology was based on the TOPSIS method supplemented with literature and statistical analyses. Several selected numerical indicators were considered to create 2 rankings that displayed the results achieved by countries in terms of accessibility and performance. Results showed that Czechia is the leader in infrastructure-based accessibility, with Latvia closing the ranking, and Lithuania is the leader in rail freight performance, with Hungary closing the ranking. Even though the study did not allow to confirm that a country′s rail freight accessibility affects its rail freight performance and vice versa, it can be assumed that both parameters are crucial in the context of the incoming modal shift to rail freight in Eurasia; therefore, they constitute a valuable research endeavour.

Keyword : transport accessibility, rail freight, Eurasian transport system, Belt and Road Initiative, Trans-European Transport Network, Visegrád Group countries, Baltic States, TOPSIS analysis

How to Cite
Wilczewska, M. (2024). Rail freight accessibility of the Visegrád Group countries and Baltic States in the context of Eurasian rail transport system. Transport, 39(2), 114–128. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2024.19802
Published in Issue
Sep 5, 2024
Abstract Views
280
PDF Downloads
302
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

References

Africani, A.; Delpiano, R.; Drewello, H.; Fontanili, A.; Huschebeck, M.; Taake, D. 2016. Comparative analysis of accessibility for freight transport in corridor regions: results of two case studies, in H. Drewello, B. Scholl (Eds.). Integrated Spatial and Transport Infrastructure Development: the Case of the European North–South Corridor Rotterdam–Genoa, 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-15708-5_8

Ben-Akiva, M.; Lerman, S. R. 1979. Disaggregate travel and mobility-choice models and measures of accessibility, in D. A. Hensher, P. R. Stopher (Eds.). Behavioural Travel Modelling, 654–679. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003156055-39

Blanchard, J.-M. F. 2021. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) blues: powering BRI research back on track to avoid choppy seas, Journal of Chinese Political Science 26(1): 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-020-09717-0

Bobenič Hintošová, A.; Bruothová, M.; Vasková, I. 2020. Does foreign direct investment boost innovation? The case of the Visegrad and Baltic countries, Quality Innovation Prosperity / Kvalita Inovácia Prosperita 24(3): 106–121. https://doi.org/10.12776/qip.v24i3.1519

Borghetti, F.; Malavasi, G. 2016. Road accessibility model to the rail network in emergency conditions, Journal of Rail Transport Planning & Management 6(3): 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrtpm.2016.10.001

Bruinsma, F.; Rietveld, P. 1998. The accessibility of European cities: theoretical framework and comparison of approaches, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 30(3): 499–521. https://doi.org/10.1068/a300499

Brumbaugh, S.; Firestine, T.; Notis, K.; Randrianarivelo, S. 2018. Transportation Economic Trends 2018. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, US. 110 p. https://doi.org/10.21949/1502599

Cartenì, A. 2014. Accessibility indicators for freight transport terminals, Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 39(11): 7647–7660. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-014-1333-y

Chen, C.-L.; Vickerman, R. 2017. Can transport infrastructure change regions’ economic fortunes? Some evidence from Europe and China, Regional Studies 51(1): 144–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2016.1262017

Chen, D.; Song, D.; Yang, Z. 2022. A review of the literature on the Belt and Road Initiative with factors influencing the transport and logistics, Maritime Policy & Management: the Flagship Journal of International Shipping and Port Research 49(4): 540–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/03088839.2021.1889063

Chu, N.; Wu, X.; Zhang, P. 2022. Cross-border accessibility and spatial effects of China–Mongolia–Russia economic corridor under the background of high-speed rail environment, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19(16): 10266. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191610266

Chu, N.; Zhang, P.; Li, H. 2019. Transnational economic connection analysis based on railway class accessibility between China and Russia, Chinese Geographical Science 29(5): 872–886. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-019-1064-9

CoEU. 2024a. Fit for 55. Council of the European Union (CoEU). Available from Internet: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/green-deal/fit-for-55/

CoEU. 2024b. Rail Transport Policy. Council of the European Union (CoEU). Available from Internet: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/rail-transport-policy/

Czech, M. 2021. Pan-European transport corridors in the policy of the European Union, Scientific Journal of Silesian University of Technology. Series Transport 112: 51–62. https://doi.org/10.20858/sjsutst.2021.112.4

Czerewacz Filipowicz, K. 2019. The Eurasian economic union as an element of the Belt and Road Initiative, Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe 22(2): 23–37. https://doi.org/10.2478/cer-2019-0010

Çelikbilek, Y.; Tüysüz, F. 2020. An in-depth review of theory of the TOPSIS method: an experimental analysis, Journal of Management Analytics 7(2): 281–300. https://doi.org/10.1080/23270012.2020.1748528

Dalvi, M. Q.; Martin, K. M. 1976. The measurement of accessibility: some preliminary results, Transportation 5(1): 17–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00165245

Dunmore, D.; Preti, A.; Routaboul, C. 2019. The “Belt and Road Initiative”: impacts on TEN-T and on the European transport system, Journal of Shipping and Trade 4: 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41072-019-0048-3

EC. 2021. Customs Duties. European Commission (EC). Available from Internet: https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/eu-budget/long-term-eu-budget/2021-2027/revenue/own-resources/customs-duties_en

EC. 2009–2023. EU Transport in Figures: Statistical Pocketbook. European Commission (EC). Available from Internet: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/facts-funding/studies-data/eu-transport-figures-statistical-pocketbook_en

EC. 2024. TENtec. Version 4.0.3-7. European Commission (EC). Available from Internet: https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/tentec-maps/web/public/screen/home

EC. 2019. Transport in the European Union Current Trends and Issues. European Commission (EC). 171 p. Available from Internet: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/system/files/2019-03/2019-transport-in-the-eu-current-trends-and-issues.pdf

EC. 2011. White Paper: Roadmap to a Single European Transport Area – Towards a Competitive and Resource Efficient Transport System. European Commission (EC). Available from Internet: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:52011DC0144

Eurostat. 2024a. China–EU – International Trade in Goods Statistics. Eurostat Statistics Expanded. Available from Internet: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=China-EU_-_international_trade_in_goods_statistics

Eurostat. 2024b. International Trade in Goods by Partner. Statistics Explained. Available from Internet: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=International_trade_in_goods_by_partner

Eurostat. 2009. Panorama of Transport, 1990–2006. Eurostat Statistical Books. 194 p. Available from Internet: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5711595/KS-DA-09-001-EN.PDF

Fleischer, T. 2016. The EU transport policy and the enlargement process, in A. O. Evin, E. Hatipoğlu, P. Balázs (Eds.). Turkey and the EU: Energy, Transport and Competition Policies, 121–138.

Freiria, S.; Sousa, N.; Calvo-Poyo, F. 2022. Spatial analysis of the impact of transport accessibility on regional performance: a study for Europe, Journal of Transport Geography 102: 103371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2022.103371

Geurs, K. T.; Ritsema Van Eck, J. R. 2001. Accessibility Measures: Review and Applications. RIVM Report 408505 006. National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, Netherlands. 265 p. Available from Internet: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/408505006.pdf

Geurs, K. T.; Van Wee, B. 2004. Accessibility evaluation of land-use and transport strategies: review and research directions, Journal of Transport Geography 12(2): 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2003.10.005

Górniak, J. 2014. Transport accessibility in light of the DEA method, Comparative Economic Research. Central and Eastern Europe 17(4): 55–70. https://doi.org/10.2478/cer-2014-0032

Hajduk, S. 2021. Multi-criteria analysis of smart cities on the example of the Polish cities, Resources 10(5): 44. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources10050044

Halicka, K. 2020. Technology selection using the TOPSIS method, Foresight and STI Governance: Journal of the National Research University Higher School of Economics 14(1): 85–96. Available from Internet: https://foresight-journal.hse.ru/article/view/19345

Hansen, W. G. 1959. How accessibility shapes land use, Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25(2): 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944365908978307

Hawas, Y. E.; Hassan, M. N.; Abulibdeh, A. 2016. A multi-criteria approach of assessing public transport accessibility at a strategic level, Journal of Transport Geography 57: 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2016.09.011

He, A. 2020. The Belt and Road Initiative: motivations, financing, expansion and challenges of Xi’s ever-expanding strategy, Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development 4(1): 139–169. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v4i1.1180

Hwang, C.-L.; Yoon, K. 1981. Methods for multiple attribute decision making, Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems 186: 58–191. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-48318-9_3

Jarocka, M. 2013. Wpływ metody doboru cech diagnostycznych na wynik porządkowania liniowego na przykładzie rankingu polskich uczelni, Prace Naukowe Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego we Wrocławiu – Research Papers of Wrocław University of Economics 279: 85–94. (in Polish).

Jarocka, M. 2015. Wybór formuły normalizacyjnej w analizie porównawczej obiektów wielocechowych, Ekonomia i Zarządzanie 1: 113–126. (in Polish).

Jarocka, M.; Glińska, E. 2017. The state and prospects for development of railway transport infrastructure in eastern Poland – secondary data analysis, Procedia Engineering 182: 299–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.198

Jubiz-Diaz, M.; Saltarin-Molino, M.; Arellana, J.; Paternina-Arboleda, C.; Yie-Pinedo, R. 2021. Effect of infrastructure investment and freight accessibility on gross domestic product: a data-driven geographical approach, Journal of Advanced Transportation 2021: 5530114. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5530114

Keshavarz-Ghorabaee, M.; Amiri, M.; Zavadskas, E. K.; Turskis, Z.; Antuchevičienė, J. 2022. MCDM approaches for evaluating urban and public transportation systems: a short review of recent studies, Transport 37(6): 411–425. https://doi.org/10.3846/transport.2022.18376

Khalili, F. B.; Antunes, A. P.; Mohaymany, A. S. 2020. Evaluating interregional freight accessibility conditions through the combination of centrality and reliability measures, Journal of Transport Geography 83: 102665. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102665

Komornicki, T.; Sleszynski, P.; Rosik, P.; Pomianowski, W.; Stepniak, M.; Silka, P. 2010. Dostępność przestrzenna jako przesłanka kształtowania polskiej polityki transportowej, Biuletyn PAN. Komitet Przestrzennego Zagospodarowania Kraju 241: 6–163. (in Polish).

Kukuła, K. 2000. Metoda unitaryzacji zerowanej. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. 228 s. (in Polish).

Maró, Z. M.; Török, Á. 2022. China’s New Silk Road and Central and Eastern Europe – a systematic literature review, Sustainability 14(3): 1801. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031801

Martín, J. C.; Reggiani, A. 2007. Recent methodological developments to measure spatial interaction: synthetic accessibility indices applied to high‐speed train investments, Transport Reviews 27(5): 551–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640701322610

Miljković, M.; Jovanović Gavrilović, B.; Petrović Vujačić, J. 2018. The trans-European transport corridors: contribution to economic performances of European regions, Industrija 46(2): 173–187. https://doi.org/10.5937/industrija46-18043

Nazarko, J.; Czerewacz-Filipowicz, K.; Kuźmicz, K. A. 2017. Comparative analysis of the Eastern European countries as participants of the New Silk Road, Journal of Business Economics and Management 18(6): 1212–1227. https://doi.org/10.3846/16111699.2017.1404488

Nazarko, J.; Kuźmicz, K. A. 2017. Introduction to the STEEPVL analysis of the New Silk Road initiative, Procedia Engineering 182: 497–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.143

OECD. 2023. Indicators: Transport. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). https://doi.org/10.1787/8dacf707-en

OECD. 2024. Infrastructure Investment Covers spending on New Transport Construction and the Improvement of the Existing Network. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Available from Internet: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/infrastructure-investment.html

Páez, A.; Scott, D. M.; Morency, C. 2012. Measuring accessibility: positive and normative implementations of various accessibility indicators, Journal of Transport Geography 25: 141–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.03.016

Rail Freight Forward. 2018. 30 by 2030: Rail Freight Strategy to Boost Modal Shift. 28 p. Available from Internet: https://www.railfreightforward.eu/sites/default/files/usercontent/white_paper-30by2030-150dpi6.pdf

Raimondi, M. 2022. Rail freight traffic in Małaszewicze significantly drops, Rail Freight 9 August 2022. Available from Internet: https://www.railfreight.com/railfreight/2022/08/09/rail-freight-traffic-in-malaszewicze-significantly-drops/

Rollnik-Sadowska, E.; Jarocka, M. 2021. CEE labour markets – homogeneity or diversity?, Technological and Economic Development 27(5): 1142–1158. https://doi.org/10.3846/tede.2021.15014

Rosik, P. 2012. Dostępność lądowa przestrzeni Polski w wymiarze europejskim. Prace geograficzne Nr 233. Instytut geografii i przestrzennego zagospodarowania im. Stanisława leszczyckiego. Polska akademia nauk. Warszawa, Polska, 309 s. Available from Internet: https://rcin.org.pl/dlibra/publication/35679/edition/17917 (in Polish).

Roszkowska, E. 2009. Application TOPSIS methods for ordering offers in buyer–seller transaction, Optimum. Studia ekonomiczne 3(43): 117–133.

Samoilenko, S.; Osei-Bryson, K.-M. 2015. Before and after joining the European Union: the impact of investments in telecoms on the Visegrád group of countries and Baltic States, Journal of Global Information Technology Management 18(2): 94–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/1097198X.2015.1052685

Schürmann, C. 2013. Accessibility patterns: Baltic States case study, Europa XXI 24: 95–110. https://doi.org/10.7163/Eu21.2013.24.7

Spiekermann, K.; Neubauer, J. 2002. European Accessibility and Peripherality: Concepts, Models and Indicators. Nordregio Working Paper 2002: 9. 43 p. Available from Internet: https://archive.nordregio.se/en/Publications/Publications-2002/European-Accessibility-and-Peripherality-Concepts-Models-and-Indicators/

Stawicki, M. 2018. Development of transport infrastructure in Latvia, Lithuania and Poland with support of structural funds, in Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference “Economic Science for Rural Development”, 9–11 May 2018, Jelgava, Latvia, 244–251. https://doi.org/10.22616/ESRD.2018.091

Tóth, B. L. 2018. The V4 railway cooperation – is there a homogeneous Visegrad railway area?, Köz-Gazdaság – Review of Economic Theory and Policy 13(3): 158–177. Available from Internet: https://retp.eu/index.php/retp/article/view/47

Van den Heuvel, F. P.; Rivera, L.; Van Donselaar, K. H.; De Jong, A.; Sheffi, Y.; De Langen, P. W.; Fransoo, J. C. 2014. Relationship between freight accessibility and logistics employment in US counties, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 59: 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.11.002

Van Leijen, M. 2022. 4 months of war and sanctions – an assessment of the alternatives, Rail Freight 17 June 2022. Available from Internet: https://www.railfreight.com/beltandroad/2022/06/17/4-months-of-war-and-sanctions-an-assessment-of-the-alternatives/

Völgyi, K.; Lukács, E. 2021. Chinese and Indian FDI in Hungary and the role of eastern opening policy, Asia Europe Journal 19(2): 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10308-020-00592-1

Wenner, F.; Thierstein, A. 2020. Which regions benefit from new rail accessibility? Germany in 2030, DisP – the Planning Review 56(3): 59–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2020.1851910

Wiśniewska, I.; Jakóbowski, J. 2021. Kaliningrad na kolejowym jedwabnym szlaku, Komentarze OSW 389: 1–7. Available from Internet: https://www.osw.waw.pl/pl/publikacje/komentarze-osw/2021-04-19/kaliningrad-na-kolejowym-jedwabnym-szlaku (in Polish).

Wilczewska, M.; Nazarko, J.; Wang, H. 2022. Adaptation of Polish regions to the challenges and opportunities of the Belt and Road Initiative, Engineering Management in Production and Services 14(1): 125–142. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2022-0011

Zhang, X.; Zhang, Q.; Sun, T.; Zou, Y.; Chen, H. 2018. Evaluation of urban public transport priority performance based on the improved TOPSIS method: a case study of Wuhan, Sustainable Cities and Society 43: 357–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.08.013