EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CREATION OF AN INTERMODAL PASSENGER TERMINAL AND THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF DEBRECEN: A CASE STUDY

Main Article Content

Balázs Bodnár
György Csomós

Abstract

In the EU programming period of 2014–2020, Hungary’s largest-ever transport development project, an intermodal passenger terminal (IPT), is planned to be built in Debrecen. The IPT will integrate all public transport modes operating in Debrecen in a single building, with the modes being as follows: railways, long-distance and local buses, trolley-buses and trams. In addition, by creating a large number of parking spaces for cars, and by building lanes for bicycles and pedestrians heading into the facility, the public transport and individual transport modes will be directly connected under the roof of the IPT. The IPT development will be accompanied by large-scale urban renewal projects to revitalise Petőfi square, one of Debrecen’s major public spaces, lying in front of the building. Relating to the IPT development, several feasibility studies and sustainability analyses have been performed; however, the impact of the IPT on the development of Debrecen has not previously been examined. The main goal of this paper is to examine whether IPT development contributes to the enhancement of Debrecen’s central position in its agglomeration, the strengthening of Debrecen’s competitiveness in Hungary’s urban system, the spatial decentralisation of the city’s cultural activities and how it may influence the change of Debrecen’s socio-economic factors.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Bodnár, B., & Csomós, G. (2019). EXPLORING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CREATION OF AN INTERMODAL PASSENGER TERMINAL AND THE URBAN DEVELOPMENT OF DEBRECEN: A CASE STUDY. Quaestiones Geographicae, 38(2), 101-119. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2019-0019
Section
Articles

References

  1. Balaguer J., Cantavella-Jordá M., 2002. Tourism as a long-run economic growth factor: The Spanish case. Applied Economics 34(7): 877–884. https://doi. org/10.1080/00036840110058923
  2. Bar-Kołelis D., Wendt J.A., 2018. Comparison of cross-border shopping tourism activities at the Polish and Romanian external borders of European Union. Geographia Polonica 91(1): 113–125. https://doi.org/10.7163/GPol.0103
  3. Bertolini L., Dijst M., 2003. Mobility environments and network cities. Journal of Urban Design 8(1): 27–43. https:// doi.org/10.1080/1357480032000064755
  4. Bertolini L., 1996. Nodes and places: Complexities of railway station redevelopment. European Planning Studies 4(3): 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319608720349
  5. Bodnár B., 2017. Az intermodális közösségi közlekedési központok értelmezése. Jelenkori társadalmi és gazdasági folyamatok 12(3): 189–201.
  6. Bodnár B., Csomós G., 2018. Az intermodális közösségi közlekedési központ lehetséges hatásai Debrecen fejlődésére. Területi Statisztika 58(5): 505–538. https://doi. org/10.15196/TS580504
  7. Bontekoning Y.M., Macharis C., Trip J.J., 2004. Is a new applied transportation research field emerging? – A review of intermodal rail-truck freight transport literature. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 38(1): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2003.06.001
  8. Browning J., 2016. Global Logistics & Trade: Intermodal Transport. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, Seattle.
  9. Caris A., Macharis C., Janssens G.K., 2008. Planning problems in intermodal freight transport: Accomplishments and prospects. Transportation Planning and Technology 31(3): 277–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/03081060802086397
  10. Csomós G., 2015. The ranking of cities as centres of the Hungarian economy, 1992–2012. Regional Statistics 5(1): 66–85. https://doi.org/10.15196/RS05104
  11. Dacko S.G., Spalteholz C., 2014. Upgrading the city: Enabling intermodal travel behaviour. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 89: 222–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.039
  12. Debrecen MJV Cultural Strategy, 2018. Debrecen Megyei Jogú Város Kulturális Stratégia 2018−2030. Társadalmasítási változat. Online: https://www.debrecen.hu/assets/media/file/hu/10308/debrecen-megyei-jogu-varos-kulturalis-strategia-2018.pdf (accessed: 25 June 2018).
  13. Debrecen MJV UDC/IUDS Feasibility Study, 2014. Debrecen Megyei Jogú Város Településfejlesztési Koncepciója és Integrált Településfejlesztési Stratégiája 2014–2020 Megalapozó Vizsgálat. Online: https://www.debrecen.hu/assets/media/file/hu/4821/debrecenmjv-its-megalapozo-vizsgalat-melleklettel.pdf (accessed: 12 May 2018).
  14. Debrecen MJV UDC, 2014. Debrecen Megyei Jogú Város Településfejlesztési Koncepciója 2014–2020. Online: https://www.debrecen.hu/assets/media/file/hu/7309/koncepcio.pdf (accessed: 12 May 2018). Debrecen MJV IUDS, 2017.
  15. Debrecen Megyei Jogú Város Integrált Településfejlesztési Stratégiája 2014–2020. Akcióterületek kijelölésével kapcsolatos technikai módosítás, 2017. Online: https://www.debrecen.hu/assets/media/file/hu/7308/strategia.pdf (accessed: 12 May 2018).
  16. de Langen P.W., Lases Figueroa D.M., van Donselaar K.H., Bozuwa J., 2017. Intermodal connectivity in Europe, an empirical exploration. Research in Transportation Business and Management 23: 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2017.02.003
  17. Dohány M., Kádi O., 2016. IMCS (r)evolúció. Városi közlekedés 2016/12: 38–41.
  18. EC (European Commission) – CORDIS., 2012. Innovative design and operation of new or upgraded efficient urban transport interchanges: New tools for design and operation of urban transport interchanges (Project ID: 314618); City-HUB (Project ID: 314262). Online: https://cordis.europa.eu/programme/rcn/18086_en.html (accessed: 12 May 2018).
  19. Efthymiou M., Papatheodorou A., 2015. Intermodal passenger transport and destination competitiveness in Greece. Anatolia 26(3): 459–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2015.1012171
  20. Enyedi Gy., 2011. A városnövekedés szakaszai – újragondolva. Tér és Társadalom 25(1): 5–19.
  21. Erdősi F., 2002. Gondolatok a közlekedés szerepéről a régiók/városok versenyképességének alakulásában. Tér és Társadalom 16(1): 135–159.
  22. ESIF (European Structural and Investment Funds) Data, 2018. Network Infrastructure in Transport and Energy. Online: https://cohesiondata.ec.europa.eu/themes/7 (accessed: 9 July 2018).
  23. Fenyővári Zs., Lukovics M., 2008. A regionális versenyképesség és a területi különbségek kölcsönhatásai. Tér és Társadalom 22(2): 1–20.
  24. Ferrir R., 2015. Major infrastructure changes occurring in Polish host cities in connection with the staging of Euro 2012. MPRA Paper 68209. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, University Library of Munich.
  25. Fleischer T., 2006. A vasúti pályaudvarok új szerepe a kibővített Európai Unióban. Európai Tükör 11(5): 53–63.
  26. Ghaderi H., Cahoon S., Nguyen H.O., 2016. The role of intermodal terminals in the development of non-bulk rail freight market in Australia. Case Studies on Transport Policy 4(4): 294–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2016.09.003
  27. Givoni M., 2006. Development and impact of the modern high-speed train: A review. Transport Reviews 26(5): 593– 611. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441640600589319
  28. Gombos Sz., 2016. A kulturális szolgáltatások kínálata közötti különbségek a magyarországi tízezer fő feletti városokban. Területi Statisztika 56(5): 565–587. https:// doi.org/10.15196/TS560504
  29. Green C., Hall P., 2009. Better Rail Stations Department for Transport, London, Online: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101007153226/ http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/passenger/stations/betterrailstations/ (accessed: 6 July 2018).
  30. Haas T., Locke R., 2018. Reflections on the ReUrbanism paradigm: Re-weaving the urban fabric for urban regeneration and renewal. Quaestiones Geographicae 37(4): 5−21. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2018-0037
  31. Heddebaut O., Palmer D., 2014. Multimodal city-hubs and their impact on local economy and land use. HAL. Online: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01073030 (accessed: 17 July 2018).
  32. Henry L., Marsh D.L., 2008. Intermodal surface public transport hubs: Harnessing synergy for success in America’s urban and intercity travel. In: 2008 American Public Transportation Association (APTA) Bus & Paratransit Conference. American Public Transportation Association, Austin TX: 1–13.
  33. Kido E.M., 2005. Aesthetic aspects of railway stations in Japan and Europe, as a part of “context sensitive design for railways”. Journal of the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies 6: 4381–4396.
  34. Kido E.M., Cywiński Z., 2014. The new steel-glass architecture of railway stations in Japan. Steel Construction 7(3): 208–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/stco.201420022
  35. Klementschitz R., Stark J., 2009. Public transport systems development for urban regeneration – evidence from the city of Linz/Austria. REAL CORP 2009: CITIES 3.0 – Smart, Sustainable, Integrative Strategies, concepts and technologies for planning the urban future. Online: https://www.corp.at/archive/CORP2009_12.pdf (accessed: 12 April 2018).
  36. Lengyel I., 2000. Porter-rombusz: a regionális gazdaságfejlesztési stratégiák alapmodellje. Tér és Társadalom 14(4): 39–86.
  37. Li L., Negenborn R.R., De Schutter B., 2015. Intermodal freight transport planning – A receding horizon control approach. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 60: 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trc.2015.08.002
  38. Loukaitou-Sideris A., Peters D., Colton P., Eidlin E., 2017. A comparative analysis of high-speed rail station development into destination and multi-use facilities: The case of San Jose. Diridon Mineta Transportation Institute Publications. Online: http://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1223&context=mti_publications (accessed: 8 May 2018).
  39. Lucietti L., Hoogendoorn C., Cré I., 2016. New tools and strategies for design and operation of urban transport interchanges. Transportation Research Procedia 14: 1240–1249. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.195
  40. Mező F., Kovács T., 2011. Az egészségturizmus, mint lehetséges kitörési pont az Észak-alföldi régióban. Debreceni Szemle 19(2): 208–225.
  41. MTÜ (MAGYAR TURISZTIKAI ÜGYNÖKSÉG), 2017. Nemzeti Turizmusfejlesztési Stratégia, 2030. Magyar Turisztikai Ügynökség, Budapest. Online: http://www.kormany.hu/download/8/19/31000/mtu_kiadvany_EPUB_297x210mm%20-%20preview.pdf (accessed: 03 July 2018).
  42. Nobis C., 2007. Multimodality: Facets and causes of sustainable mobility behaviour. Transportation Research Record 2010: 35–44. https://doi.org/10.3141/2010-05
  43. OECD, 2016. Intermodal connectivity for destinations OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship. SMEs and Local Development, Paris.
  44. Páthy A., 2017. Types of development paths and the hierarchy of the regional centres of Central and Eastern Europe. Regional Statistics 7(2): 124–147. https://doi. org/10.15196/RS070202
  45. Pitsiava-Latinopoulou M., Zacharaki E., Basbas S., Politis I., 2008. Passenger intermodal terminal stations: Role and infrastructure. WIT Transactions on the Built Environment, 101: 233–242. https://doi.org/10.2495/UT080231
  46. Pitsiava-Latinopoulou M., Iordanopoulos P., 2012. Intermodal Passengers Terminals: Design standards for better level of service. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 48: 3297–3306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.1295
  47. Rivasplata C.R., 2001. Intermodal transport centres: Towards establishing criteria. In: 20th Annual South African Transport Conference 2001. Meeting the Transport Challenges in Southern Africa. SATC, Pretoria: 1–12.
  48. Rogerson C.M., 2014. Reframing place-based economic development in South Africa: The example of local economic development. Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic series 24: 203–218. https://doi.org/10.2478/bog-2014-0023
  49. Sammer G., 2009. Non-negligible side effects of traffic demand management. In: Saleh W., Sammer G. (eds), Travel demand management and road user pricing: Success, failure and feasibility. Ashgate Publishing, Farnham-Burlington, VT: 13–36.
  50. Stark J., Uhlmann T., 2009. Railway stations of the future – services supporting intermodal travelling and promising strategies for their development. REAL CORP 2009: CITIES 3.0 – Smart, Sustainable, Integrative Strategies, concepts and technologies for planning the urban future. Online: https://programm.corp.at/cdrom2009/papers2009/ CORP2009_13.pdf (accessed: 12 April 2018).
  51. Sugawara J., 2017. Port and hinterland network: A case study of the Crescent Corridor intermodal freight program in the US. Transportation Research Procedia 25: 916–927. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.466
  52. Teperics K., 2008. Debrecen oktatási vonzáskörzete TERD projekt, a Területi statisztikai alprogram eredményei, Debreceni Egyetem, Online: http://terd.unideb.hu/doc/de_okt_vonzask.pdf (accessed: 16 May 2018).
  53. Terrin J.-J., 2014. High speed mobility and urban planning thematic report. ENTER.HUB European Network exploiting Territorial Effects of Railway Hubs. Online: urbact.eu/ file/9612/download?token=pUx1YNt5 (accessed: 26 June 2018).
  54. The Financial Times, 2018. fDi European Cities and Regions of the Future 2018/19. The Financial Times, London. Online: https://www.fdiintelligence.com/Locations/Europe/fDi-s-European-Cities-and-Regions-of-the-Future2018-19-FDI-Strategy-Cities (accessed: 28 July 2018).
  55. Tömöri M., 2010. Investigating shopping tourism along the borders of Hungary – a theoretical perspective. GeoJournal of Tourism and Geosites 6(2): 202–210.
  56. Trenecon, 2016. Debrecen Fenntartható Városi Mobilitási Terve. Trenecon, Budapest: 156.
  57. Tsuchihashi K., 2003. Evolution theory of train stations. Contemporary Architecture 57(3): 84–85.
  58. Weedy S., 2018. EU/US alliance: ‘intermodal transport vital for competition’. Railfreight.com. Online: https://www.railfreight.com/policy/2018/02/06/eu-us-alliance-intermodal-transport-vital-for-competition/ (accessed: 25 June 2018).