http://phg.sagepub.com/Progress in Human Geography

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/32/2/275The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0309132507084400

2008 32: 275 originally published online 18 December 2007Prog Hum GeogrDavid J. Keeling

new regional mobilities−Transportation geography   

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Progress in Human GeographyAdditional services and information for    

  http://phg.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://phg.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

http://phg.sagepub.com/content/32/2/275.refs.htmlCitations:  

What is This? 

- Dec 18, 2007 OnlineFirst Version of Record 

- Jan 9, 2008 OnlineFirst Version of Record 

- Mar 14, 2008Version of Record >>

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Progress in Human Geography 32(2) (2008) pp. 275–283

© 2008 SAGE Publications DOI: 10.1177/0309132507084400

Transportation geography – new regional mobilities

David J. Keeling*Department of Geography and Geology, 1906 College Heights Blvd #31066, Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY 42101–1066, USA

*Email: david.keeling@wku.edu

I PreludeRegional approaches to transportation geography continue to adjust to changing relationships at multiple scales. Theoretic-ally, it is the region that provides meaningful connections between the global and the local, although conceptualizing the region has proven quite challenging. Just as transport is frequently treated merely as a means of moving people and goods from one place to another, so regions are often viewed as unproblematized spatial containers with little analysis of their meaning or structure. Inadequate theory and context can pre-sent significant empirical challenges for transportation geographers working at the regional scale. This is especially import-ant as markets continue to widen, trans-portation becomes ever more sophisticated, mobility increases, and traditional notions of the boundaries of political states are changed.

In the fi rst of three reviews, advances in transport geography at the global scale were discussed, with an emphasis on research that explicates transport’s role in structuring the global system and making global-local interactions possible. The fi nal review will

discuss research that addresses the role of transportation in local environments. This year’s review explores the role of the region – the focal point, if you will, between global systems and local communities – as seen through the analytical lens of transportation geographers. Although individual countries, and regions within those countries, long have been the meat and potatoes of meso-scale transportation analysis, trans-state regions have become increasingly important in re-cent decades. Driven by the expansion of trade and political blocs such as the European Union (EU), North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA), Asia-Pacifi c Economic Co-operation (APEC), and the Southern Cone Common Market (MERCOSUR), new sets of spatial relationships across traditional political boundaries have provided fertile ground for transportation analysts. Have transport geographers risen to the chal-lenge presented by these new regional inter-connections with imaginative and innovative research? Recent scholarship drawing on the ‘new mobilities’ paradigm suggests that transportation research is turning in an exciting new direction (Pooley et al., 2005; Hall et al., 2006; Sheller and Urry, 2006).

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

276 Progress in Human Geography 32(2)

II The social context of transportationTransport geographers have argued con-sistently that transportation is inherently spatial, thus the need for analysis (Kagermeier, 2000; Nuhn and Hesse, 2006). Less consist-ently argued has been the critical role that the social plays in structuring transport networks, systems, and consumption. As Knowles (2006a), Lyons (2004), and others have often pointed out, transport shapes society and space in myriad practical ways. Yet society also shapes transportation in ways that are critical to the ordering of space, place, and people. Transportation is a social construct that is broadly and deeply intertwined with the fabric of daily life across the globe. From regional politics and political struggles (Khosa, 1995) to new ways of thinking about old established networks (Shaw et al., 2003), questions about the transport-social interface are being raised that challenge geographers to analyze mobility within and between soci-eties from fresh perspectives.

In a new textbook that offers a refreshingly holistic approach to transport geography, Knowles et al. (forthcoming: xiv) argue that researchers have made real progress in understanding ‘the underlying economic, environmental and social processes that contribute towards continually changing transport patterns.’ Key to this progress is a growing realization that mobilities, spaces, and fl ows lie at the core of transport geo-graphy, and thus human geography gen-erally. As markets have widened through globalization processes and transportation technologies have improved, concomitant increases in the mobility of people, goods, and information require a more nuanced and perhaps counter-intuitive approach to understanding regional flows and spaces (Dodge and Kitchin, 2004; Farrington, 2007).

By drawing on the new mobilities para-digm, transport geographers could be in a strong position to help revitalize research on the critical connections between trans-portation and the social and natural sciences

at the regional scale (Larsen et al., 2006). Recent research demonstrates that myriad approaches exist to advance our understand-ing of the transport–society nexus. For ex-ample, the relationship between gender and mobility (Kwan, 1999; Law, 1999), the politics of transport management (Whitehead, 2005), the promotion of social change though transport pricing mechanisms (Owen, 1995), or the problems of social exclusion (Kenyon et al., 2002) all are critical to understanding accessibility and mobility challenges. Indeed, these issues could benefi t from even greater attention by transport geographers. The chal-lenge, of course, is whether moving beyond a fairly ‘static’ social science approach to mobility will promote harmony or sow discord among the various practitioners of transport geography! Yet asking questions about why, when, and how people travel within a soci-etal context is as important to broader policy development as modeling basic transport flows and mapping networks (Lyons and Urry, 2005; Knowles, 2006a; Lyons and Loo, forthcoming). In this vein, signifi cantly more research could be done on time–space issues, especially in terms of time as a constraining factor and the speed needed to provide greater reach across space.

Significant new research possibilities might also be found in the area of socially constructed heritage tourism. There is a clear link between economic development, greater leisure time, and the growing number of visits to locations and facilities that represent how a society has changed over time. Yet transport geographers have been reticent to analyze how the historical geography of societies’ heritage in different regions is being packaged and marketed for niche consumption. What role do private steam railroads (Halsall, 2001), national parks (Dickinson et al., 2004), or re-creational canals (Shipley, 1999), for instance, play in shaping how a society represents itself or is experienced by others? Lumsdon and Page (2003) and Hall (1999) make a com-pelling case for greater attention to the role of transport in tourism generally. Others

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

David J. Keeling: Transportation geography 277

have talked a great deal about the types of transport services needed to support tourism but have not provided much specifi c analysis (see Williams, 1998; Shaw and Williams, 2002). In essence, transport geographers face significant challenges in linking the social aspects of accessibility and mobility to broader conceptions of regions and places at the sub-state level and above.

III Interlude – can you get there from here?Traditional regional defi nitions continue to limit the imagination of transport geograph-ers. For example, typical geography texts that analyze the USA and Canada as a region with shared characteristics often ignore Mexico, despite this country’s critical role in shaping society and economics in Anglo-North America. Mexico is usually incorporated into analyses of either Latin America or Middle America, with little treatment of critical link-ages with ‘el Norte’ beyond the basics (see Blouet and Blouet, 2005). Similarly, the role of Malta or Sicily as Mediterranean stepping stones between North Africa and Southern Europe is frequently ignored in regional treatments of Europe. Sub-Saharan Africa is rarely treated regionally from the stand-point of important political, cultural, religious, economic, and transportation ties to North Africa or Southwest Asia. Indeed, most trad-itional ‘regional’ treatments tend to look inward. If these texts do address transport issues, it’s mostly from an internal perspect-ive, with connections to the wider region or world rarely discussed. Simon’s (1996) treat-ment of transport development in the Third World is an exception to this tendency. More integrative studies of broader socio-economic regions could help address some of the key transportation questions related to economically emerging societies and their accessibility and mobility needs.

In North America, important questions need to be asked about how social and eco-nomic changes in the NAFTA region are shaping transportation. How might new or

improved road, rail, air, and shipping connec-tions within the NAFTA region and beyond to Central America and the Caribbean im-pact economic potential or social mobility (Keeling, 1998)? Very little work has been done yet on the transport networks of mi-grants between Middle and North America, for example, despite the signifi cant political and social debates swirling around illegal migration and its social impact on both re-gions. Given the lack of sophistication in the inter-modality of transport systems in the NAFTA region, it is not surprising that transport geographers have not really stretched themselves to look beyond the fairly narrow confi nes of sub-state regional or national accessibility and mobility. Goetz and Rodrigue (1999) have argued for greater attention to the role of transport terminals in shaping broader trade regions, while Rodrigue and Hesse (2007) have analyzed globalized trade and logistics from a North American perspective. Some exceptional research also has been produced on airline networks, hub-and-spoke systems, and other aspects of the US airline industry (Goetz and Sutton, 1997; Goetz, 2002), yet a lacuna exists in piecing together how regional spaces and places interact, especially in terms of policy formation and transport demand.

Recent research on the transport–society nexus in emerging regions (at least from a transportation perspective) has focused on such diverse topics as market accessibility (Ochia, 1989), rural mobility (Porter, 2002), airline hubs (Bowen, 2000; Pirie, 2006), port management (Wang et al., 2004), and freight movements (Pedersen, 2001). At the state level, significant progress has been made in understanding the strengths and weak-nesses of transport policies for countries differing in size from Malta (Attard, 2005) to China (Garver, 2006). How are state-level policies shaping transport connections across and within political boundaries? Are there transportation confl icts between the economic aspirations of globalizing societies and the movement of people, goods, and

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

278 Progress in Human Geography 32(2)

information? Despite good progress in this area, though, transport geographers could do a much better job of teasing out the critical research questions emanating from cross-boundary accessibility and mobility demands. For example, studies examining the historical foundations of transport development, par-ticularly in regions that emerged as key com-ponents of emerging global transportation networks (Keeling, 1993; Brady, 1996), have illuminated important links between past and present transport policies, but more research is urgently needed in this area.

By far the most comprehensive and in-depth analyses of transportation within a traditionally circumscribed region have taken place in and about Europe (see, for example, Banister et al., 1995; Norman and Vickerman, 1999; Kovács and Spens, 2006). This is not surprising, given the structure of the European Union, the number of political states in a geographically small area, and the level of inter-modal sophistication in regional transport networks. Connections between European cities and the global airline system raise some interesting questions about the social implications of movement across re-gional boundaries (Burghouwt et al., 2003; Zook and Brunn, 2005; van de Coevering and Schwanen, 2006). Tourism and colonial legacies obviously play an important role in shaping such movements, but more detailed analyses of the political, social, and economic implications of these connections are needed. This is especially true of recent political and economic changes in Eastern Europe (Hall, 1993) and the fl ow of workers from countries like Poland to the UK and Ireland. Similar research is needed on the fl ows of people, goods, and money to and from Francophone Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and South Asia in order to provide a more nuanced understanding of transport’s role in the shifting social and political structures of contemporary Europe.

Accessibility and mobility within coun-tries long have attracted the attention of transport geographers, especially when

questions of transport equity and unequal development are driving the research. One of the more signifi cant research challenges is that transport policies emanating from distant political centers frequently take a homogenous approach to spatial planning that ignores the transport needs of regional and local populations (Keeling, 1994; McDonagh, 2006; Taylor, 2006; Docherty et al., 2007). Linking sustainability and economic growth to transportation access-ibility has raised several critical questions about state policies towards interior regions (Docherty et al., 2004; Fenley et al., 2007). However, more research is needed that critiques regional development policies and focuses greater attention on both the pro-duction and consumption of transportation at all levels of society. Rural settings remain a popular focus of research by transport geo-graphers, especially as they attempt to tease out the benefi ts and limitations of transport provision and consumption away from coreareas (Su, 1995; Porter, 1997; Fearnside, 2007). The role of transport infrastructure in a society’s development also has received renewed attention (Gunasekera, 2005; Pfaff et al., 2007), especially as regional fl ows and spaces are rapidly being restructured through globalizing forces (Ivy, 1995; Brunt, 2000). Yet much more remains to be done in expli-cating how a society’s mobility is constantly reshaped and restructured by transport facil-ities and services. Tying all of these disparate research strands into empirical analysis that re-situates time and space in a restructured, socially informed regional context requires new ways of theorizing accessibility and mobility at myriad levels.

IV Time–space in a regional world – new transport frontiers?An immediate challenge for transport geographers is to engage more directly with issues of hyper-mobility, sustainability, and the desire for speed as both the social and the spatial are transformed through global production and consumption systems.

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

David J. Keeling: Transportation geography 279

Bringing the social and the spatial together in a regional context in order to understand more clearly how transport systems both shape and are shaped by accessibility and mobility demands requires a more analytic-ally sophisticated approach. It also requires transportation geographers to rethink how time and space are theorized and analyzed empirically. For example, grand syntheses of national or regional transport geographies of the kind produced by Dick and Rimmer (2003), Button et al. (1998b), and Vance (1995) could provide useful frameworks for more focused and sophisticated analyses of linkages between the global and the local. What are the key transportation challenges facing regions in the twenty-first century (Keeling 2002), and how are transport pol-icies responding to regional accessibility and mobility needs (Button et al., 1998a)?

As new frontiers in transportation devel-opment open up, researchers should focus more attention on the big issues shaping societies in regions across the globe, especially from the perspective of transport policy implications. In recent years, sustainability has become an important component of transportation planning and policy, as con-cerns mount over global climate change and the carbon footprint associated with travel (Haq, 1997; Docherty and Shaw, 2003). Transport geographers could carve out ex-citing new research opportunities if they contributed more directly to the larger debate about climate change and its implications for changing accessibility and mobility. For instance, Ragner (2000) questions how the melting of Arctic sea ice might influence shipping networks between Europe, Asia, and North America, given the obviously shorter distances across the Arctic Ocean. Nicholls and Klein (2004) have examined the potential policy implications of rising sea levels for coastal communities, suggesting that transportation geographers could help to inform and infl uence such policies, espe-cially as they relate to threats to accessibility and mobility.

Emerging competition between the Pacifi c Rim, European, and Western Hemi-sphere economic regions raises new ques-tions about both the quality and accessibility of transport infrastructure and its impact on social and economic change (Rimmer, 1999). Transportation geographers have already focused signifi cant attention on production networks (Leinbach and Bowen, 2006), seaports (Rimmer, 1998), inland water-ways (Comtois et al., 1997), and airports (O’Connor, 1995), among other topics, at the regional level. However, railroad devel-opment more than any other transport infra-structure has captured the imagination of researchers, the media, and the general public in recent years, in part because of advances in high-speed rail infrastructure.

Mundane questions about monopolies, network management, and privatization remain the backbone of rail research (Shaw et al., 1998; Freeman and Shaw, 2000; Haywood, 2007), but the speed and futuristic design of modern high-speed rail systems raise myriad questions about their long-term social and economic implications (Givoni, 2006; Charlton and Vowles, forthcoming).

Europe and parts of East Asia are leading the way in high-speed rail development, with the Americas, Africa, and the rest of the world a long way behind, but there hasn’t been much analysis of why this regional imbalance exists. Transport geographers have produced an impressive body of re-search on the impacts of high-speed rail development within and between regions, focusing attention on the social and eco-nomic benefi ts and limitations of this tech-nology (Vickerman, 1997; Fröidh, 2005; Kitagawa, 2005). Yet a more robust set of theories and methodologies is needed if critical linkages between social overhead capital, regional development policies, and mobility demands are to be more broadly understood. For example, the recent forma-tion of a European ‘rail team’ (Railteam, 2007) raises many questions about how such net-works might reshape hyper-mobility and

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

280 Progress in Human Geography 32(2)

transborder traffi c over the coming decades, especially along Europe’s critical north-south and east-west axes (Zonneveld and Trip, 2003; Giorgi and Schmidt, 2005). Examin-ations of transport corridors in Japan, China, South Korea, and Taiwan (Rimmer, 1995; Rodrigue, 1996), along with the growing number of regional transport mega-projects around the world that incorporate new rail-road technologies, illustrate that transport geographers might stretch the frontiers of research by fi nding new ways to address exist-ing accessibility and mobility challenges.

V Postlude: Back to the futurePast transportation research provides a use-ful template for understanding how society, place, and space might be reconfi gured for the future. At the regional scale, transport geo-graphers need to develop new theories and techniques that can bring the social aspects of accessibility and mobility more sharply into focus. For example, as Goodchild (2000) and Thill (2000) have argued, applying Geo-graphic Information Systems (GIS) to trans-portation events in a manner that moves analysis from a fairly static approach to a more dynamic, socially and regionally centered methodology could reveal new solutions to mobility challenges. Grand transport infra-structure projects that connect meta-regions also can provide opportunities to develop more robust theories and empirical approaches to understanding changing accessibility and mobility within the global system. Research on the proposed Bering Strait project (Oliver, 2007), the Channel Tunnel (Gibb, 2004) and Øresund (Knowles, 2006b) fi xed links, or on fanciful ideas like South America’s bi-oceanic highway or a link across the Strait of Gibraltar, have focused attention on the role of mega-infrastructure in altering time–space dynamics. If transportation infrastructure is critical to the reshaping of the social and eco-nomic world order, how might the ongoing shrinking of space and time change the transport–society nexus?

Rapidly changing mobilities also have revealed new threats to society in the form of terrorism (Miller, 2003). How does trans-portation infl uence a rapidly changing secur-ity situation, from trans-boundary insurgent movements to the potential shipment of weapons of mass destruction? Transport geo-graphers have much to offer policy makers in deepening society’s understanding of the benefits and limitations of hyper-mobility and easier accessibility. There are encourag-ing signs in the recent transport geography literature of a renewed level of innovative and energetic approaches to understanding how social structures shape transportation and how transport, in turn, shapes society.

As Preston and O’Connor (forthcoming: 343) point out, however, ‘[u]nderpinning all of this is the likelihood that many of the recent certainties of modern transport geo-graphy will be replaced by the multiple un-certainties of post-modern geographies of mobilities, fl ows, and spaces.’ This challenge alone should inspire the current and future generation of transport geographers to seek out new frontiers and to unbundle the social, economic, and political complexities of new regional mobilities.

ReferencesAttard, M. 2005: Land transport policy in a small

island state – the case of Malta. Transport Policy 12(1), 23–33.

Banister, D., Capello, R. and Nijkamp, P., editors 1995: European transport and communications networks: policy evolution and change. New York: Wiley.

Blouet, B.W. and Blouet, O.M. 2005: Latin America and the Caribbean: a systematic regional survey (4th Edition, updated). New York: Wiley.

Bowen, J. 2000: Airline hubs in Southeast Asia: national economic development and nodal accessibility. Journal of Transport Geography 8(1): 25–41.

Brady, S.A. 1996: Honduras’ transisthmian corridor: an historical geography of roadbuilding in colonial Central America. PhD Dissertation, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Lousiana State University.

Brunt, B. 2000: Ireland’s seaport system. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 91(2), 159–75.

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

David J. Keeling: Transportation geography 281

Burghouwt, G., Hakfoort, J.R. and Ritsema van Eck, J.F. 2003: The spatial confi guration of airline networks in Europe. Journal of Air Transport Management 9(5), 309–23.

Button, K.J., Haynes, K. and Stough, R. 1998a: Flying into the future: air transport policy in the European Union. Cheltenham: Elgar.

Button, K.J., Nijkamp, P. and Priemus, H., editors 1998b: Transport networks in Europe: concepts, analysis and policies. Cheltenham: Elgar.

Charlton, C. and Vowles, T. forthcoming: Inter-urban and regional transport. In Knowles, R., Shaw, J. and Docherty I., editors, Transport geographies, London: Blackwell, 175–201.

Comtois, C., Slack, B. and Sletmo, G.K. 1997: Political issues in inland waterways port develop-ment: prospects for regionalization. Transport Policy 4(4), 257–65.

Dick, H. and Rimmer, P.J. 2003: Cities, transport and communications: the integration of Southeast Asia since 1850. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Dickinson, J.E., Calver, S., Watters, K. and Wilkes, K. 2004: Journeys to heritage attractions in the UK: a case study of National Trust property visitors in the south west. Journal of Transport Geography 12(2), 103–13.

Docherty, I. and Shaw, J., editors 2003: A new deal for transport? The UK’s struggle with the sustainable transport agenda. Oxford: Blackwell.

Docherty, I. Shaw, J. and Gather, M. 2004: State involvement in contemporary transport. Journal of Transport Geography 12(4), 257–64.

Docherty, I., Shaw, J. and Gray, D. 2007: Transport strategy in Scotland since devolution. Public Money and Management 27(2), 141–48.

Dodge, M. and Kitchin, R. 2004: Flying through code/space: the real virtuality of air travel. Environ-ment and Planning A 36(2), 195–211.

Farrington, J.H. 2007: The new narrative of access-ibility: its potential contribution to discourses in (transport) geography. Journal of Transport Geography 15(5), 319–30.

Fearnside, P.M. 2007: Brazil’s Cuiabá- Santarém (BR-163) Highway: the environmental cost of paving a soybean corridor through the Amazon. Environmental Management 39(5), 601–14.

Fenley, C.A., Machado, W.V. and Fernandes, E. 2007: Air transport and sustainability: lessons from Amazonas. Applied Geography 27(2), 63–77.

Freeman, R. and Shaw, J. 2000: All change: British railway privatization. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.

Fröidh, O. 2005: Market effects of regional high-speed trains on the Svealand line. Journal of Transport Geography 13(4), 352–61.

Garver, J.W. 2006: Development of China’s overland transportation links with Central, South-west and South Asia. The China Quarterly 185, 1–22.

Gibb, R., editor 1994: The Channel Tunnel: a geographical perspective. New York: Wiley.

Giorgi, L. and Schmidt, M. 2005: Transalpine trans-port: a local problem in search of European solutions or a European problem in search of local solutions? Transport Reviews 25(2), 201–19.

Givoni, M. 2006: Development and impact of the modern high-speed train: a review. Transport Reviews 26(5), 593–611.

Goetz, A. 2002: Deregulation, competition, and antitrust implications in the US airline industry. Journal of Transport Geography 10(1): 1–19.

Goetz, A. and Rodrigue, J-P. 1999: Transport terminals: new perspectives. Journal of Transport Geography 7(4), 237–40.

Goetz, A. and Sutton, C.J. 1997: The geography of deregulation in the U.S. airline industry. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 87(2), 238–63.

Goodchild, M. 2000: GIS and transportation: status and challenges. Geoinformatica 4(2), 127–39.

Gunasekera, K. 2005: Transport infrastructure induced development: An empirical study in Sri Lanka. PhD Dissertation, Department of Geography, Boston University.

Hall, D.R. 1993: Transport and economic development in the New Central and Eastern Europe. London: Belhaven.

Hall, D.R. 1999: Conceptualising tourism transport: inequality and externality issues. Journal of Trans-port Geography 7(3), 181–88.

Hall, P., Hesse, M. and Rodrigue, J-P. 2006: Exploring the interface between economic and transport geography. Environment and Planning A 38(8), 1401–408.

Halsall, D.A. 2001: Railway heritage and the tourist gaze: Stoomtram Hoorn-Medemblik. Journal of Transport Geography 9(2), 151–60.

Haq, G. 1997: Towards sustainable transport planning: a comparison between Britain and the Netherlands. Aldershot: Avebury.

Haywood, R. 2007: Britain’s national railway network: fi t for purpose in the 21st century? Journal of Transport Geography 15(3), 198–216.

Ivy, R.L. 1995: The restructuring of air transport link-ages in the new Europe. The Professional Geographer 47(3), 280–88.

Kagermeier, A. 2000: German research in transport geography: Life in the space between objective analysis and political advice. GeoJournal 50(1), 17–24.

Keeling, D.J. 1993: Transport and regional devel-opment in Argentina: structural defi ciencies and patterns of network evolution. Yearbook: Conference of Latin Americanist Geographers 19, 25–34.

Keeling, D.J. 1994: Regional development and trans-port policies in Argentina: an appraisal. The Journal of Developing Areas 28(4), 487–502.

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

282 Progress in Human Geography 32(2)

Keeling, D.J. 1998: Transportation, regional development, and economic potential in Mexico. In Noble, A.G., Costa, F.J., Kent, R.B. and Dutt, A.K., editors, Regional development and planning for the 21st century: new priorities, new philosophies, Aldershot: Ashgate, 101–23.

Keeling, D.J. 2002: Transportation challenges for Latin America in the 21st century. In Knapp, G., editor, Latin America in the 21st century: challenges and solutions, Austin: UT Press, 77–103.

Kenyon, S., Lyons, G. and Rafferty, J. 2002: Transport and social exclusion: investigating the possibility of promoting inclusion through virtual mobility. Journal of Transport Geography 10(3), 207–19.

Khosa, M.M. 1995: Transport and popular struggles in South Africa. Antipode 27(2), 167–88.

Kitagawa, T. 2005: Extending the Shinkansen net-work. Japan Railway and Transport Review 40(1), 14–17.

Knowles, R.D. 2006a: Transport shaping space: differential collapse in time–space. Journal of Transport Geography 14, 407–25.

Knowles, R.D. 2006b: Transport impacts of the Øresund (Copenhagen to Malmö) fixed link. Geography 91(Autumn), 227–40.

Knowles, R., Shaw, J. and Docherty, I., editors forthcoming: Transport geographies. London: Blackwell.

Kovács, G. and Spens, K.M. 2006: Transport infra-structure in the Baltic States post-EU succession. Journal of Transport Geography 14(6), 426–36.

Kwan, M-P. 1999: Gender, the home-work link, and space-time patterns of non-employment activities. Economic Geography 75(4), 370–94.

Larsen, J., Urry, J. and Axhausen, K. 2006: Mobilities, networks, geographies. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Law, R. 1999: Beyond ’women and transport’: towards new geographies of gender and daily mobility. Progress in Human Geography 23(4), 567–88.

Leinbach, T.R. and Bowen, J. 2006: Global pro-duction networks and competitive advantage: Air freight services and the electronics industry in Southeast Asia. Economic Geography 82(2), 147–66.

Lumsdon, L. and Page, S.J. 2003: Tourism and transport: issues and agenda for the New Millennium. New York: Pergamon.

Lyons, G. 2004: Transport and society. Transport Reviews 24(4), 485–509.

Lyons, G. and Loo, B. forthcoming: Transport dir-ections to the future. In Knowles, R., Shaw, J. and Docherty, I., editors, Transport geographies, London: Blackwell, 316–33.

Lyons, G. and Urry, J. 2005: Travel time use in the information age. Transportation Research Part A 39(2–3), 257–76.

McDonagh, J. 2006: Transport policy instruments and transport-related social exclusion in rural Republic of Ireland. Journal of Transport Geography 14(5), 355–56.

Miller, H.M. 2003: Transportation and communi-cation lifelines disruption. In Cutter, S.L., Richardson, D.B. and Wilbanks, T.S, editors, The geographical dimensions of terrorism, New York: Routledge, 145–52.

Nicholls, R.J. and Klein, R.J. 2004: Climate change and coastal management on Europe’s coast. In Vermaat, J., Bouwer, L., Turner, K. and Salomons, W., editors, Managing European coasts: past, present, and future, Berlin: Springer, 199–226.

Norman, C. and Vickerman, R. 1999. Local and regional implications of trans-European transport networks: the Channel Tunnel rail link. Environment and Planning A 31(4), 705–18.

Nuhn, H. and Hesse, M. 2006: Verkehrsgeographie. Paderborn, Germany: Schöningh.

Ochia, K.C. 1989: Commercial activities and the geography of movement in a West African urban market: A study of market-stall traders in Onitsha with implications for transport policy. PhD Dis-sertation, Department of Economics, Portland State University.

O’Connor, K. 1995: Airport development in southeast Asia. Journal of Transport Geography 3(4), 269–79.

Oliver, J.A., editor 2007: The Bering Strait Project: the intercontinental divide in the 21st century. London: Information Architects.

Owen, S. 1995: From ‘predict and provide’ to ‘predict and prevent’? Pricing and planning in transport policy. Transport Policy 2(1), 43–49.

Pedersen, P.O. 2001: Freight transport under globalisation and its impact on Africa. Journal of Transport Geography 9(2), 85–99.

Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Walker, R., Aldrich, A., Caldas, M., Reis, E., Perz, S., Bohrer, C., Arima, E., Laurance, W. and Kirby, K. 2007: Road investments, spatial spillovers, and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Regional Science 47(1), 109–23.

Pirie, G. 2006: ‘Africanisation’ of South Africa’s inter-national air links, 1994–2003. Journal of Transport Geography 14(1), 3–14.

Pooley, C., Turnbull, J. and Adams, M. 2005: A mobile century? Changes in everyday mobility in Britain in the twentieth century. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Porter, G. 1997: Mobility and inequality in rural Nigeria: the case of off-road communities. Tidjschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografi e 88(1), 65–76.

Porter, G. 2002: Living in a walking world: rural mobility and social equity issues in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Development 30(2), 285–300.

Preston, J. and O’Connor, K. forthcoming: Revitalised transport geographies. In Knowles, R., Shaw, J. and

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from

David J. Keeling: Transportation geography 283

Docherty, I., editors, Transport geographies, London: Blackwell, 334–53.

Ragner, C.L. 2000: The 21st century-turning point for the northern sea route? New York: Kluwer Academic.

Railteam 2007: High-speed rail in Europe: the future. (http://www.railteam.eu/en/high-speed-rail.php, visited 9 July 2007).

Rimmer, P.J. 1995: Moving goods, people, and infor-mation: putting the ASEAN mega-urban regions in context. In McGee, T.G. and Robinson, I.M., editors, The mega-urban regions of Southeast Asia, Vancouver: UBC Press, 150–75.

Rimmer P.J. 1998: Impact of global strategic alliances on Pacifi c Rim seaports. Maritime Studies 98, 1–29.

Rimmer, P.J. 1999: The Asia-Pacifi c Rim’s transport and telecommunications systems: spatial struc-ture and corporate control since the mid-1980s. Geojournal 48(1), 43–65.

Rodrigue, J-P. 1996: Transportation corridors in Pacific-Asian urban regions. In Hensher, D.A. and King, J., editors, Proceedings of the 7th World Conference on Transport Research, Sydney: Pergamon, 487–516.

Rodrigue, J-P. and Hesse, M. 2007: Globalized trade and logistics: North American perspectives. In T. Leinbach and C. Capineri, editors, Globalized freight transport: intermodality, e-commerce, logistics, and sustainability, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 103–34.

Shaw, G. and Williams, A.M. 2002: Critical issues in tourism: a geographical perspective. London: Blackwell.

Shaw, J., Charlton, C. and Gibb, R. 1998: The competitive spirit re-awakens the ghost of railway monopoly. Transport Policy 5(1), 37–49.

Shaw, J., Walton, W. and Farrington, J. 2003: Assessing the potential for a ‘railway renaissance’ in Great Britain. Geoforum 34(2), 141–56.

Sheller, M. and Urry, J. 2006: The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and Planning A 38(2), 207–26.

Shipley, R. 1999: Making a silk purse from a sow’s ear: lessons from the failure to develop the Welland Canal as a tourism resource. Environments 27(2), 25–44.

Simon, D. 1996: Transport and development in the Third World. New York: Routledge.

Su, S-J.B. 1995. Rural industry and rural development in China: The role of geography, transportation, and policy in Jiangsu Province. PhD Dissertation, Department of Geography and Anthropology, Lousiana State University.

Taylor, Z. 2006: Railway closures to passenger traffi c in Poland and their social consequences. Journal of Transport Geography 14(2), 135–51.

Thill, J-C. 2000: Geographic information systems in transportation research. New York: Pergamon.

Vance, J.E. Jr. 1995: The North American railroad: its origin, evolution, and geography (2nd Edition). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

van de Coevering, P. and Schwanen, T. 2006: Re-evaluating the impact of urban form on travel patterns in Europe and North America. Transport Policy 13(3), 229–39.

Vickerman, R. 1997: High-speed rail in Europe: experience and issues for future development. The Annals of Regional Science 31(1), 39–56.

Wang, J.J., Ng, A.K-Y. and Olivier, D. 2004: Port governance in China: a review of policies in an era of internationalizing port management practices. Transport Policy 11(3), 237–50.

Whitehead, T. 2005: Transport charging inter-ventions and economic activity. Transport Policy 12(5), 451–63.

Williams, S. 1998: Tourism geography. New York: Routledge.

Zonneveld, W. and Trip, J. 2003: Megacorridors in North West Europe: investigating a new transnational planning concept. Delft: DUP Science.

Zook, M. and Brunn, S.D. 2005: Regions, hierarchies, and legacies: European cities and global air travel. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 13(2), 203–20.

at National Dong Hwa University on March 26, 2014phg.sagepub.comDownloaded from