Geographies of transport I

Abstract

This first of three reports confirms and extends recent reflections on the diversity and vibrancy of the study of transport in geography. It identifies multiple drivers for the recent re-engagement with transport, suggesting that the way in which transport has become enmeshed with other forms of flow and circulation across multiple spatial and temporal scales may be the most significant. It reviews recent geographical research on the enmeshment of transport and a wide range of other circulations in three settings: the economy, climate change, and public health. The review suggests that the now widespread attention to transport issues by geographers who may not self-identify as experts in transport or mobilities is the defining characteristic of recent work on the geographies of transport. The re-engagement from across the discipline is potentially reinventing the field by bringing an unprecedented variety of perspectives to bear on the geographical analysis of transport. It means that the transport geography community should not limit its attention to staging further dialogue with the mobilities community but rather strike up more topic-oriented conversations across the whole discipline.

Keywords

carbon infrastructure development mobilities obesity transport

I Introduction

Some 15 years ago Susan Hanson, ex-AAG president and long-time leading authority on passenger transport, offered a trenchant critique of much geographical work on transport. Once at the centre, it had ‘become a quiet, some might say moribund, corner’ (Hanson, 2000: 469) of the discipline, overly reliant on ‘analytical frameworks of the 1960s’ (p. 481) with their privileging of the general over the particular, preoccupation with speed and efficiency, and lack of reflectivity on their own situatedness. Hanson’s piece triggered a protracted process of introspection among transport geographers, many of whom have qualified – if not rejected – her views (Horner and Casas, 2006; Keeling, 2007; Goetz et al., 2009; Hall, 2010; Shaw and Sidaway, 2011). She nonetheless appealed to broader sentiments, given that in Europe the mobilities turn in sociology and geography (Cresswell, 2011, 2012, 2014; Merriman, 2015) has been positioned more than once as stemming in part from transport geography’s inadequacy to render understandable contemporary transformations in the (non)movement of people, objects, ideas and so forth (Shaw and Hesse, 2010).

Still, much has changed in geographers’ engagements with transport since the publication of Hanson’s critique. Publication numbers and diversity of substantive topics have thrived unabatedly since Keeling’s (2007, 2008, 2009) previous trilogy of Progress Reports. Whatever one thinks of citation scores, they do indicate that Journal of Transport Geography now ranks among the discipline’s more influential journals. Moreover, and a point developed further below, increasing numbers of geographers are writing about transport without self-identifying or aligning themselves with either institutionalized transport geography – i.e. its flagship journal or specialized research groups in learned societies – or the mobilities community. Transport is no longer drifting away from the centre of human geography, although that centre, insofar as it exists at all, is more difficult to identify than in the 1960s or indeed at the time of Hanson’s paper.

The re-engagement with transport, to use Shaw and Sidaway’s (2011) phrase, reflects multiple processes. The mainstreaming of mobilities scholarship in geography is key, and the emergence of new methodological practices and data – geocomputation, geovisualization, tracking technologies, big data – has benefited the analysis of transport perhaps more than other fields of human geography. However, the way in which transport has become enmeshed with other forms of flow and circulation across multiple spatial and temporal scales is perhaps the most significant driver of re-engagement.

This first of three reports addresses several modes of such flow and circulation. It starts by discussing recent work in geography on the reconfiguration since the rise of neoliberal capitalism of the linkages between transport infrastructure development, mobile capital and governmental strategies to enhance economic growth, and sociospatial inequalities. Then it turns to geographical scholarship on the entangled flows of transport, carbon – now a ‘veritable empty signifier…being invested with a whole range of significations to do with virtuous action on climate change’ (Paterson, 2014: 580) – and energy. Finally, it looks at the convergence of research agendas in the areas of health and transport around questions of obesity. The disentanglement of economy, climate change and public health that this report’s structure seems to suggest is of course a gross and inaccurate simplification of reality. Indeed, much of the current momentum of ‘sustainable transport’ rests on the extent to which it traverses and complicates neat distinctions between domains. The structure has been adopted for heuristic purposes and supports one of this report’s key conclusions: the re-engagement with transport beyond the transport geography and mobilities communities occurs in relation to multiple themes and concerns.

II Economization and inequality

The movement of people and goods has always been integral to economic processes, but its significance seems to have only increased recently. Under neoliberal and post-neoliberal capitalism, a key governmental response to perceived problems of territories’ economic decline or lack of competitiveness has been to make transport more economical. New transport infrastructures in particular have been built – or at least desired and proposed – based on the idea that greater efficiency, speed and reliability of movement will attract capital and create jobs. Developing transport infrastructure to encourage economic growth and overcome capitalism’s crises is anything but new (Harvey, 2001; Paterson, 2014) but especially popular among contemporary ‘rolled-back’ (Peck, 2001) national and regional/local governments wishing to be seen as proactive and supporting businesses. Moreover, while the building and expansion of airports, ports and to a lesser extent roads remain prominent, the rise of sustainability discourses has induced a shift towards high speed rail (HSR), urban rail, bus rapid transit (BRT) and most recently cycling (Parkes et al., 2013; UN Habitat, 2013; Marti-Henneberg, 2015). Reborn and revitalized, rail, bus and cycling schemes circulate around the globe as mutable policy models (Peck, 2011), allowing social and environmental objectives to be allied seemingly seamlessly – yet in practice often subordinated – to economic considerations of congestion relief and network optimization.

In recent years geographers have both charted and critically analysed the latest wave of transport’s economization. This term is used here to refer not only to attempts to (re)construct the economy through interventions in transport systems, but also – following Çalişkan and Callon (2009) – to the (re)constitution of ‘old’ forms of transport, such as rail, as economical and efficient. Niedzielski and Malecki (2012) chart the revaluation of urban rail as a means to foster agglomeration economies and economic efficiency in contemporary world cities, whilst simultaneously enhancing inhabitants’ quality of life and cities’ image. Nonetheless, their discussion of the ‘glocal’ infrastructure of the express rail between a city’s airport and its centre/CBD, and its over-representation among cities at the apex of the world city hierarchy, highlights how carefully designed urban rail systems are now widely seen as pivotal to a city-region’s economic fortunes.

A similar impression, at an aggregated scale, emerges from the now substantial literature on HSR suggesting that investments in fast, intercity rail connections can bring important economic benefits, such as new employment and GDP growth, to national and regional economies through faster travel times and improved accessibility to destinations (Chen and Hall, 2011; Willigers and Van Wee, 2011; Preston, 2012; Tierney, 2012; see also Lakshmanan, 2011). Nonetheless, many geographers are cautious regarding the proclaimed benefits of HSR investments, pointing out various risks and issues. Some argue that academic and planning discourses often disregard the fact that the actual economic benefits depend on the extent to which door-to-door travel times are reduced rather than simply the duration of travel on high speed tracks (Givoni and Banister, 2012; JJ Wang et al., 2013; Shaw et al., 2014). This observation raises important questions about whether and how HSR is supported by a ‘conventional’ rail network and where HSR stations are located vis-à-vis urban centres.

Also, research focused on Spain, the UK, the USA and China has demonstrated the prevalence of spatial polarization caused by HSR investment (Martínez Sánchez-Mateos and Givoni, 2012; Monzón et al., 2013; Chandra and Vadali, 2014; Jiao et al., 2014; Shaw et al., 2014): some cities and regions gain whilst others lose because they are bypassed or see economic activity disappear to places with HSR connections. There is also the issue that HSR investments are very large, resulting in debt-ridden states taking significant financial risks – Spain is a well-known case (Guirao, 2013; Marti-Henneberg, 2015). Moreover, HSR construction is deeply political. As in parts of France and Spain, it can become a means of spatial redistribution and/or career advancement for ambitious politicians, leading to the construction of stations and lines that are not easily justifiable on the basis of demand levels. Alternatively, as Minn (2013) suggests in reference to the USA, the incompatibility of the vision for urban development that HSR implies with the locked-in political economy of urban sprawl may militate against HSR becoming a physical reality in the vast majority of American cities, notwithstanding the anticipated economic benefits.

In a more critical fashion, geographers have unravelled the politics and power dynamics shaping public transport infrastructure investments in neoliberal and post-neoliberal cities (Farmer, 2011; Addie, 2013; Enright, 2013; Jonas et al., 2014; Young and Keil, 2014). Farmer (2011) shows how since the 1990s public transport investments have helped to restructure and enhance uneven spatial development to the benefit of ‘capital and the affluent’ (p. 1169) and at the expense of working-class and ethnic/racial minority residents in Chicago. Focusing on regional transport governance in Chicago and Toronto, Addie (2013) complements Farmer’s analysis by suggesting that the uneven development logics of neoliberal city-regionalism are likely to be perpetuated rather than fundamentally altered by the financial crises in the wake of the Great Recession. Enright (2013) also emphasizes the sociospatially divisive impacts of urban rail investment in Greater Paris, suggesting that the envisaged Grand Paris Express network will likely deepen rather than reduce sociospatial inequalities because of its tight coupling to gentrification processes and logics of commodification and territorial competition. Nonetheless, new alliances across common sociospatial divisions can also coalesce around urban rail projects in the era of the ‘competition’ state. According to Jonas and colleagues (2014), new regional coalitions among businesses, local government, civil society and the electorate made possible the construction of new regional public transport systems in Denver (CO) for various reasons. Their study did not consider whether Denver’s new public transport systems are truly inclusive and make transport easier and quicker for all. It thus remains to be seen whether, as in so many other cities around the world, the (re)constitution of public transport as efficient and economical has intensified sociospatial polarization.

III Carbon and energy

Because of its near total – 94% according to the International Energy Agency (IEA, 2012) – reliance on oil, the continued growth of freight and passenger transport is a key factor in the changing circulations of carbon within the geo-sphere which result in anthropogenic climate change. In 2011, transport accounted for 27% and 22% of global energy consumption and CO2 emissions, respectively (IEA, 2012, 2013). It is widely seen as one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonize (IPCC, 2014), given the myriad obstacles that exist to deep cuts in emissions and energy consumption through a combination of fewer and shorter trips, use of other transport modes, deployment of more fuel-efficient vehicles, and utilization of less carbon-intensive fuels. There is now an extensive literature in the broader interdisciplinary field of transport studies on emission and energy consumption reduction (Schwanen et al., 2011; Figueroa et al., 2013, 2014). Geographers are contributing to this literature in multiple ways but also undertake important work that is directed towards other academic communities, not least other geographers.

At least three observations can be made regarding geographers’ recent work on carbon, energy and transport. First, attention is divided unevenly across transport systems. The focus is very much on passenger transport and much less on freight and logistics, and also more on short-distance, urban travel than on long-distance transport. This selectivity is understandable insofar as the vast majority of trips is short (< 25 km) and within urban regions yet also worrying because, globally, the sharpest growth in transport volumes and emissions occurs in aviation and maritime transport (IPCC, 2014). Recent authoritative reviews of the significant achievements of port and maritime transport geography since 1950 (Ng, 2012; Ng and Ducruet, 2015) do not contain the words ‘carbon’, ‘emission’, ‘CO2’ or ‘energy’. Carleton and Travis (2013) note a dearth of research on aviation’s climate impacts in geography, although several air transport geography publications have recently emerged on energy and emissions (Park and O’Kelly, 2014; Loo et al., 2014; Ryley, 2014) and the geopolitical implications of aviation’s inclusion in the EU’s emissions trading scheme (Lin, 2013, 2014).

Secondly, geographers interested in carbon, energy and transport increasingly work with multiple sociotechnical perspectives that examine the multifaceted linkages among, and indeed complicate neat divisions between, infrastructures and the material fabrics of cities (‘supply’), institutions and governance (‘regulation’) and user behaviour and practices (‘demand’). Conceptually originating elsewhere in the discipline and beyond (Bulkeley et al., 2010; Geels, 2012; Shove et al., 2012; Rutherford and Coutard, 2014), these perspectives, which are characterized by a heterogeneity to which this report can do no justice, have usefully been brought to bear on the uptake and evolution of park-and-ride facilities (Dijk and Parkhurst, 2014), car sharing (Kent and Dowling, 2013), cycling (Watson, 2012; Vreugdenhil and Williams, 2013), and London’s congestion charge (Shove and Walker, 2010). Castán Broto and Bulkeley (2013) place urban experiments with transport in a wider context of urban low-carbon initiatives, showing not only that such experiments have become more common since the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol but also that they are disproportionally led by local governments and are oriented toward technology or infrastructure. Work on peak oil and biofuels, whilst not always directly focused on transport, has also drawn inspiration from sociotechnical perspectives, even if political economy thinking often shines through more clearly (Bailey et al., 2010; Bridge, 2010; Palmer, 2014; Ponte and Birch, 2014). Nonetheless, research informed by sociotechnical perspectives overwhelmingly stems from Europe; the idea that the linkages of ‘supply’, ‘regulation’ and ‘demand’ need to be examined in conjunction can also be gleaned from studies from North America and Asia and in closer alignment with transport geography’s theoretical and methodological roots (Horner, 2013; Kelley and Kuby, 2013; Loo and Wang, 2014). Whatever its theoretical background, geographers’ work seems to suggest that technological change, pricing mechanisms and low-carbon transport infrastructures that are efficient and well integrated with compact urban developments will not be sufficient to enact deep cuts in emissions and energy consumption in transport; wider institutional, political and cultural changes across multiple geographical scales will be at least as important.

Finally, geographers interested in transport, carbon and energy have critically engaged policy-making and governance, sometimes actively working with policy-makers and other stakeholders. Engagement has not been limited to conveying the above point regarding the need for comprehensive change. Individualistic approaches to behaviour change informed by social psychology and behavioural economics, and increasingly popular among policy-makers in liberal democracies, have been criticized for misunderstanding and under-appreciating the collective dimensions of mobility practices (Schwanen et al., 2012; Barr and Prillwitz, 2014; see also Shove, 2010) and for neglecting the possibility of unintended and undesirable effects on transport systems and individuals’ ethical self-transformation (Te Brömmelstroet, 2014). Moving beyond critique, Hickman and Banister (2014) have developed scenarios analysis methods that allow stakeholders to learn about the likely mismatch between the changes in transport that different policies may bring about and the deep cuts in emissions and energy consumption that are actually required to reduce transport’s contribution to anthropogenic climate change.

At the same time, research on the governance of carbon in the transport context would significantly benefit from paying greater attention to the implications of climate change mitigation policies from a social justice perspective (Lucas and Pangbourne, 2014) and to the consequences of the creation of carbon markets – and the challenges of doing so (Boyd et al., 2011; Lovell and Ghaleigh, 2013) – for transport’s role in contemporary society. Both these topics would allow transport-related research to become even more connected to wider engagements with climate change across the discipline.

IV Health and obesity

Increased public concern over the (non-)circulation of bodies deemed unhealthy, the ‘responsibilization’ of individuals regarding their own health and the shift from treatment towards prevention in the medical sector, and a long-standing academic interest in health inequalities have recently produced a flurry of research in geography and beyond on the intersections of health and transport. Whilst unequal accessibility to health services has received increased interest (F Wang, 2012; Bell et al., 2013; Hawthorne and Kwan, 2013), the bulk of geographers’ attention focuses on obesity. Here too, accessibility is a key concept, appealing to transport geographers and others who may not self-identify as experts in transport or mobility.

Work on transport and obesity is deeply influenced by the obesogenic environment thesis (Hill and Peters, 1998; Guthman, 2013): the ubiquity of cheap and convenient high-calorie food, coupled with predominantly physically inactive lifestyles in car-oriented spatial settings, has produced widespread imbalance between energy intake and expenditure among individuals. Geographical critiques are accumulating (Guthman, 2013; Colls and Evans, 2015), but the thesis has spawned two bodies of geography literature over the past two decades. One is on ‘food deserts’ – typically poor areas where residents cannot buy affordable healthy food – which in a transport context translates into questions over accessibility, or the ease with which places that sell healthy food items, such as fruits and vegetables, at affordable prices can be reached. A range of authors, often concentrating on North America, have examined accessibility to healthy food in poorer urban neighbourhoods (Bader et al., 2010; Eckert and Shetty, 2011; Russell and Heidkamp, 2011; McKenzie, 2014) and rural areas (McEntee and Agyeman, 2010; Yeager and Gatrell, 2014). This work is overwhelmingly quantitative and GIS based, and tends to rely on fairly simple accessibility indicators, such as distance to the nearest supermarket or grocery shop. Since such measures cannot account for the time constraints that individuals – and especially women, who also continue to be disproportionally responsible for food shopping – experience and food shopping trips need not originate from the home location (cf. Kwan, 1999), it is encouraging to see increased use of time-sensitive and space-time accessibility measures in food desert research (Chen and Clark, 2013; Widener et al., 2013; Horner and Wood, 2014). Nonetheless, while accessibility of supermarkets and grocery stores can be correlated with lower obesity levels among poor people (Chen et al., 2010), its relevance in shaping food consumption seems to be trumped by affordability (Alkon et al., 2013; Gill and Rudkin, 2014). Also, the implicit assumption underpinning much food desert research that low-income households tend to patronize the nearest shopping facility has been challenged by research on their actual shopping practices (Hillier et al., 2011; LeDoux and Voinovic, 2013). In short, recent geographical research on food deserts implies that policy interventions should go beyond changing the spatial patterning of shops offering high-quality food. Policy should also address the institutional regimes of local food provision and wider socioeconomic inequalities, and be based on (poor) people’s actual practices and experiences of mobility and food consumption (Alkon et al., 2013; Donald, 2013; Guthman, 2013).

The other body of work is on ‘active travel’ – walking and cycling. Geographers have engaged extensively with the unprecedented debates about walking and cycling in both transport and urban studies¹ and public health research (e.g. Millward et al., 2013; Pooley et al., 2013; Lanzendorf and Busch-Geertsema, 2014). However, as regards the obesogenic environment thesis, their perhaps most significant contribution relates to children’s travel to school and other places. Extensively studied across disciplines (Mitra, 2013), recent geographical research complicates environmentally deterministic and narrowly individual- or household-oriented understandings of children’s and parental travel. Although information on the material fabric of neighbourhoods and other spatial units is indispensable to understanding such travel (Yamada et al., 2012; F Wang et al., 2013), ‘walkability’ or ‘bikeability’ cannot be reduced to a function of readily quantifiable indicators of the built environment, street networks and/or traffic volumes (Kelly et al., 2011; Andrews et al., 2012). Parents’ perceptions of trip length and road safety, concerns over children’s fitness and competence, their wider activity-travel patterns, as well as locally specific social norms and parenting cultures are all important (Christie et al., 2011; Lang et al., 2011; Mitra and Buliung, 2014). Moreover, children’s views and perspectives need to be considered as well, which has been done through both survey and qualitative methods (Pooley et al., 2010; Zwerts et al., 2010; Fusco et al., 2012). In short, not only do walkability and bikeability for children emerge from the situated and locally specific interactions of materiality, discourse, bodily capacity and affect; walkability and bikeability also need not translate into active travel because car use may be more compatible with parents’ juggling of employment, care-giving and other commitments. This is especially so because, in car-dependent communities, a car trip shared between parent(s) and child(ren) is more than a utilitarian movement from A to B but also an expression of care and a moment of family time (Dowling, 2000; Bean et al., 2008). More generally, and utilizing insights from the mobilities literature, geographers have argued that interdisciplinary research on active travel and obesity should more critically unpack the norms and power relations embedded in seemingly objective indicators of body size, energy expenditure and socio-physical environments, and pay much more detailed attention to differentiation in embodied experience and bodily capacities (Andrews et al., 2012).

V Beyond transport versus mobilities

This report cannot do justice to all dimensions of the re-engagement with transport across the discipline, even if attention is restricted to only a few of the ways in which transport is now enmeshed in other forms of circulation and flow. Research on transport continues to be diverse and vibrant, not least because the institutionalized transport geography research community is expanding and because ‘transport’ and ‘mobilities’ are increasingly engaging in productive dialogue (as evidenced in, for instance, Shaw and Hesse [2010], Bissell et al. [2011] and Ernste et al. [2012]). However, perhaps the greatest change in recent years has been that – because of transport’s significance to current attempts to enhance economic growth, reduce emissions and energy consumption, and halt obesity – many geographers who would probably not self-identify as transport or mobility specialists have directed their attention to the transport of people and, to a lesser degree, freight. Transport tends not to be their central concern, but their engagements are incredibly important and, to some extent, reinvent the research field. For they bring new concepts, ideas, approaches and data to bear on the study of transport within geography in ways that the mobilities research community cannot always do. This much is suggested by the above discussions of political economy perspectives on transport infrastructure investment and planning; socio-technical approaches to the analysis of linkages between transport, carbon and energy; and health geography interests in food deserts and walkability.

These observations do not imply that endeavours to stage further dialogue between ‘transport’ and ‘mobilities’ should be discontinued; both research communities still have much to learn from each other. Nonetheless, as a body of work, the geographical analysis of transport would benefit at least as much from transport geographers engaging in further exchange and collaboration with geographers from every nook and cranny of the discipline. Our collective understanding of transport and mobility would benefit most if identity-based dialogues were complemented, and ultimately superseded, by more topic- or problem-oriented debates on the (non)movement of people and objects.

Footnotes

Note

References

Addie

J-PD

(2013) Metropolitics in motion: The dynamics of transportation and state reterritorialization in the Chicago and Toronto city-regions. Urban Geography 34(2): 188–217.

Alkon

Block

Moore

Gillis

DeNuccio

Chavez

(2013) Foodways of the urban poor. Geoforum 48: 126–135.

Andrews

Hall

Evans

Colls

(2012) Moving beyond walkability: On the potential of health geography. Social Science & Medicine 75(11): 1925–1932.

Bader

MDM

Purciel

Yousefzadeh

Neckerman

(2010) Disparities in neighborhood food environments: Implications of measurement strategies. Economic Geography 86(4): 409–430.

Bailey

Hopkins

Wilson

(2010) Some things old, some things new: The spatial representations and politics of change of the peak oil relocalisation movement. Geoforum 41(4): 595–605.

Barr

Prillwitz

(2014) A smarter choice? Exploring the behaviour change agenda for environmentally sustainable mobility. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 32(1): 1– 19.

Bean

Kearns

Collins

(2008) Exploring social mobilities: Narratives of walking and driving in Auckland, New Zealand. Urban Studies 45(13): 2829–2848.

Bell

Wilson

Bissonnette

Shah

(2013) Access to primary health care: Does neighborhood of residence matter? Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103(1): 85–105.

Bissell

Adey

Laurier

(2011) Introduction to the special issue on geographies of the passenger. Journal of Transport Geography 19(5): 1007–1009.

10.

Boyd

Boykoff

Newell

(2011) The ‘new’ carbon economy: What’s new? Antipode 43(3): 601–611.

11.

Bridge

(2010) Geographies of peak oil: The other carbon problem. Geoforum 41(4): 523–530.

12.

Bulkeley

Castán Broto

Hodson

Marvin

(2010) Cities and Low Carbon Transitions. Abingdon: Routledge.

13.

Çalişkan

Callon

(2009) Economization, part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy & Society 38(3): 369–398.

14.

Carleton

Travis

(2013) Aviation-contrail impacts on climate and climate change: A ready-to-wear research mantle for geographers. The Professional Geographer 65(3): 421–432.

15.

Castán Broto

Bulkeley

(2013) A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change 23(1): 92–102.

16.

Chandra

Vadali

(2014) Evaluating accessibility impacts of the proposed America 2050 high-speed rail corridor for the Appalachian region. Journal of Transport Geography 37: 28–46.

17.

Chen

Hall

(2011) The impact of high-speed trains on British economic geography: A study of the UK’s InterCity 125/225 and its effects. Journal of Transport Geography 19(4): 689–704.

18.

Chen

Florax

RJGM

Snyder

Miller

(2010) Obesity and access to chain grocers. Economic Geography 86(4): 431–452.

19.

Chen

Clark

(2013) Interactive three-dimensional geovisualization of space-time access to food. Applied Geography 43: 81–86.

20.

Christie

Kimberlee

Towner

Rodgers

Ward

Sleney

Lyons

(2011) Children aged 9–14 living in disadvantaged areas in England: Opportunities and barriers for cycling. Journal of Transport Geography 19(4): 943–949.

21.

Colls

Evans

(2015) Making space for fat bodies? A critical account of ‘the obesogenic environment’. Progress in Human Geography, in press. DOI: 10.1177/0309132513500373.

22.

Cresswell

(2011) Mobilities I: Catching up. Progress in Human Geography 35(4): 550–558.

23.

Cresswell

(2012) Mobilities II: Still. Progress in Human Geography 36(5): 645–653.

24.

Cresswell

(2014) Mobilities III: Moving on. Progress in Human Geography 38(5): 712–721.

25.

Dijk

Parkhurst

(2014) Understanding the mobility-transformative qualities of urban park and ride polices in the UK and the Netherlands. International Journal of Automotive Technology and Management 14(3/4): 246–270.

26.

Donald

(2013) Food retail and access after the crash: Rethinking the food desert problem. Journal of Economic Geography 13(2): 231–237.

27.

Dowling

(2000) Cultures of mothering and car use in suburban Sydney: A preliminary analysis. Geoforum 31(3): 345–353.

28.

Eckert

Shetty

(2011) Food systems, planning and quantifying access: Using GIS to plan for food retail. Applied Geography 31: 1216–1223.

29.

Enright

(2013) Mass transportation in the neoliberal city: The mobilizing myths of the Grand Paris Express. Environment and Planning A 45(4): 797–813.

30.

Ernste

Martens

Schapendonk

(2012) The design, experience and justice of mobility. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 103(5): 509–515.

31.

Farmer

(2011) Uneven public transportation development in neoliberalizing Chicago, USA. Environment and Planning A 43(5): 1154–1172.

32.

Figueroa

Fulton

Tiwari

(2013) Avoiding, transforming, transitioning: Pathways to sustainable low carbon passenger transport in developing countries. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(2): 184–190.

33.

Figueroa

Lah

Fulton

McKinnon

Tiwari

(2014) Energy for transport. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 39: 295–325.

34.

Fusco

Moola

Faulkner

Buliung

Richichi

(2012) Toward an understanding of children’s perceptions of their transport geographies: (Non)active school travel and visual representations of the built environment. Journal of Transport Geography 20: 62–70.

35.

Geels

(2012) A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: Introducing the multi-level perspective into transport studies. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 471–482.

36.

Gill

Rudkin

(2014) Deconstructing supermarket intervention effects on fruit and vegetable consumption in areas of limited retail access: Evidence from the Seacroft Study. Environment and Planning A 46(3): 649–665.

37.

Givoni

Banister

(2012) Speed: The less important element of the high speed train. Journal of Transport Geography 22: 306–307.

38.

Goetz

Vowles

Tierney

(2009) Bridging the qualitative–quantitative divide in transport geography. The Professional Geographer 61(3): 323–335.

39.

Guirao

(2013) Spain: Highs and lows of 20 years of HSR operation. Journal of Transport Geography 31: 201–206.

40.

Guthman

(2013) Too much food and too little sidewalk? Problematizing the obesogenic environment thesis. Environment and Planning A 45(1): 142–158.

41.

Hall

(2010) Transport geography and new European realities: A critique. Journal of Transport Geography 18(1): 1–13.

42.

Hanson

(2000) Transportation: Hooked on speed, eyeing sustainability. In: Sheppard

Barnes

(eds) A Companion to Economic Geography. Oxford: Blackwell, 468–483.

43.

Harvey

(2001) Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography. New York: Routledge.

44.

Hawthorne

Kwan

(2013) Exploring the unequal landscapes of healthcare accessibility in lower-income urban neighborhoods through qualitative inquiry. Geoforum 50: 97–106

45.

Hickman

Banister

(2014) Transport, Climate Change and the City. Abingdon: Routledge.

46.

Hill

Peters

(1998) Environmental contributions to the obesity epidemic. Science 280(5368): 1371–1374.

47.

Hillier

Cannuscio

Karpyn

Chilton

Glanz

(2011) How far do low-income parents travel to shop for food? Empirical evidence from two urban neighborhoods. Urban Geography 32(5): 712–729.

48.

Horner

(2013) Exploring the linkages between transportation, urban form, and energy. Journal of Transport Geography 33: 207–209.

49.

Horner

Casas

(2006) An introduction to assessments of research needs in transport geography. Journal of Transport Geography 14(3): 228–229.

50.

Horner

Wood

(2014) Capturing individuals’ food environments using flexible space-time accessibility measures. Applied Geography 51: 99–107.

51.

IEA (2012) World Energy Outlook 2012. Paris: International Energy Agency.

52.

IEA (2013) CO₂ Emissions from Fuel Combustion: Highlights (2013 Edition). Paris: IEA.

53.

IPCC (2014) Working Group III – Mitigation on Climate Change. Chapter 8: Transport. Available at: http://report.mitigation2014.org/drafts/final-draft-postplenary/ipcc_wg3_ar5_final-draft_postplenary_chapter8.pdf (accessed 17 November 2014).

54.

Jiao

Wang

Jin

Dunford

(2014) Impacts on accessibility of China’s present and future HSR network. Journal of Transport Geography 40: 123–132.

55.

Jonas

AEG

Goetz

Bhattacharjee

(2014) City-regionalism as a politics of collective provision: Regional transport infrastructure in Denver, USA. Urban Studies 51(11): 2444–2465.

56.

Keeling

(2007) Transportation geography: New directions on well-worn trails. Progress in Human Geography 31(2): 217–225.

57.

Keeling

(2008) Transportation geography: New regional mobilities. Progress in Human Geography 32(2): 275–283.

58.

Keeling

(2009) Transportation geography: Local challenges, global contexts. Progress in Human Geography 33(4): 516–526.

59.

Kelley

Kuby

(2013) On the way or around the corner? Observed refueling choices of alternative-fuel drivers in southern California. Journal of Transport Geography 33: 258–267.

60.

Kelly

Tight

Hodgson

Page

(2011) A comparison of three methods for assessing the walkability of the pedestrian environment. Journal of Transport Geography 19(6): 1500–1508.

61.

Kent

Dowling

(2013) Puncturing automobility? Carsharing practices. Journal of Transport Geography 32: 86–92.

62.

Kwan

(1999) Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space-time measures. The Professional Geographer 51(2): 210–227.

63.

Lakshmanan

(2011) The broader economic consequences of transport infrastructure investments. Journal of Transport Geography 19: 1–12.

64.

Lang

Collins

Kearns

(2011) Understanding modal choice for the trip to school. Journal of Transport Geography 19: 509–514.

65.

Lanzendorf

Busch-Geertsema

(2014) The cycling boom in large German cities – empirical evidence for successful cycling campaigns. Transport Policy 36: 26–33.

66.

LeDoux

Voinovic

(2013) Going outside the neighborhood: The shopping patterns and adaptations of disadvantaged consumers living in the lower eastside neighborhoods of Detroit, Michigan. Health & Place 19: 1–14.

67.

Lin

(2013) A geopolitics of (im)mobility?. Political Geography 36: A1–A3.

68.

Lin

(2014) The politics of flying: Aeromobile frictions in a mobile city. Journal of Transport Geography 38: 92–99.

69.

Loo

BPY

Wang

(2014) Changing landscapes of transport and logistics in China. Journal of Transport Geography 40: 1–2.

70.

Loo

BPY

Psaraki

Pagoni

(2014) CO₂ emissions associated with hubbing activities in air transport: An international comparison. Journal of Transport Geography 34: 185–193.

71.

Lovell

Ghaleigh

(2013) Climate change and the professions: The unexpected places and spaces of carbon markets. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 38(3): 512–516.

72.

Lucas

Pangbourne

(2014) Assessing the equity of carbon mitigation policies for transport in Scotland. Case Studies in Transport 2(2): 70–80.

73.

McEntee

Agyeman

(2010) Towards the development of a GIS method for identifying rural food deserts: Geographic access in Vermont, USA. Applied Geography 30(1): 165–176.

74.

McKenzie

(2014) Access to supermarkets among poorer neighborhoods: A comparison of time and distance measures. Urban Geography 35(1): 133–151.

75.

Marti-Henneberg

(2015) Attracting travellers to the high-speed train: A methodology for comparing the capacities of stations to attract travellers. Journal of Transport Geography, in press. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2014.11.003.

76.

Martínez Sánchez-Mateos

Givoni

(2012) The accessibility impact of new high-speed rail line in the UK: A preliminary analysis of winners and losers. Journal of Transport Geography 25: 105–114.

77.

Merriman

(2015) Mobilities I: Departures. Progress in Human Geography, in press. DOI: 10.1177/0309132514527030.

78.

Millward

Spinney

Scott

(2013) Active-transport walking behaviour: Destinations, durations, destinations. Journal of Transport Geography 28: 101–110.

79.

Minn

(2013) The political economy of high speed rail in the United States. Mobilities 8(2): 185–200.

80.

Mitra

(2013) Independent mobility and mode choice for school transportation: A review and framework for future research. Transport Reviews 33(1): 21–43.

81.

Mitra

Buliung

(2014) The influence of neighborhood environment and household travel interactions on school travel behavior: An exploration using geographically-weighted models. Journal of Transport Geography 36: 69–78.

82.

Monzón

Ortega

López

(2013) Efficiency and spatial equity of high-speed rail extensions in urban areas. Cities 30: 18–30.

83.

AKY

(2012) The evolution and research trends of port geography. The Professional Geographer 65(1): 65–86.

84.

AKY

Ducruet

(2015) The changing tides of port geography (1950–2012). Progress in Human Geography, in press. DOI: 10.1177/0309132513516178.

85.

Niedzielski

Malecki

(2012) Making tracks: Rail networks in world cities. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(6): 1409–1431.

86.

Palmer

(2014) Biofuels and the politics of land-use change: Tracing the interactions of discourse and place in European policy making. Environment and Planning A 46(2): 337–352.

87.

Park

O’Kelly

(2014) Fuel burn rates of commercial passenger aircraft: Variations by seat configuration and stage distance. Journal of Transport Geography 41: 137–147.

88.

Parkes

Marsden

Shaheen

Cohen

(2013) Understanding the diffusion of public bikesharing systems: Evidence from Europe and North America. Journal of Transport Geography 31: 94–103.

89.

Paterson

(2014) Governing mobilities, mobilising carbon. Mobilities 9(4): 570–584.

90.

Peck

(2001) Neoliberalizing states: Thin policies/hard outcomes. Progress in Human Geography 25(3): 445–455.

91.

Peck

(2011) Geographies of policy: From transfer-diffusion to mobility-mutation. Progress in Human Geography 35(6): 773–797.

92.

Ponte

Birch

(2014) The imaginaries and governance of ‘biofueled futures’. Environment and Planning A 46(2): 271–279.

93.

Pooley

Jones

Tight

Horton

Scheldeman

Mullen

Jopson

Strano

(2013) Promoting Walking and Cycling: New Perspectives on Sustainable Travel. Bristol: Policy Press.

94.

Pooley

Whyatt

Walker

Favies

Coulton

Bramford

(2010) Understanding the school journey: Integrating data on travel and environment. Environment and Planning A 42(4): 948–965.

95.

Preston

(2012) High Speed Rail in Britain: About time or a waste of time? Journal of Transport Geography 22: 308–311.

96.

Russell

Heidkamp

(2011) ‘Food desertification’: The loss of a major supermarket in New Haven, Connecticut. Applied Geography 31(4): 1197–1209.

97.

Rutherford

Coutard

(2014) Urban energy transitions: Places, processes and politics of socio-technical change. Urban Studies 51(7): 1353–1377.

98.

Ryley

(2014) Environmental externalities of air transport. In: Goetz

Budd

(eds) The Geographies of Air Transport. Farnham: Ashgate, 73–80.

99.

Schwanen

Banister

Anable

(2011) Scientific research about climate change mitigation in transport: A critical review. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 45(10): 993–1006.

100.

Schwanen

Banister

Anable

(2012) Rethinking habits and their role in behaviour change: The case of low-carbon mobility. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 522–532.

101.

Shaw

Hesse

(2010) Transport, geography and the ‘new’ mobilities. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 35(3): 305–312.

102.

Shaw

Sidaway

(2011) Making links: On (re)engaging with transport and transport geography. Progress in Human Geography 35(4): 502–520.

103.

Shaw

Fang

Tao

(2014) Impacts of high speed rail on railroad network accessibility in China. Journal of Transport Geography 40: 112–122.

104.

Shove

(2010) Beyond the ABC: Climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A 42(6): 1273–1285.

105.

Shove

Walker

(2010) Governing transitions in the sustainability of everyday life. Research Policy 39(4): 471–476.

106.

Shove

Pantzar

Watson

(2012) The Dynamics of Social Practice: Everyday Life and How It Changes. London: SAGE.

107.

Te Brömmelstroet

(2014) Sometimes you want people to make the right choices for the right reasons: Potential perversity and jeopardy of behavioural change campaigns in the mobility domain. Journal of Transport Geography 39: 141–144.

108.

Tierney

(2012) High speed rail, the knowledge economy and the next growth wave. Journal of Transport Geography 22: 285–287.

109.

UN Habitat (2013) Planning and Design for Sustainable Urban Mobility: Global Report on Human Settlements 2013. Abingdon: Routledge

110.

Vreugdenhil

Williams

(2013) White line fever: A sociotechnical perspective on the contested implementation of an urban bike lane network. Area 45(3): 283–291.

111.

Wang

(2012) Measurement, optimization and impact of health care accessibility: A methodological review. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 105(5): 1104–1112.

112.

Wang

Wen

(2013) Population-adjusted street connectivity, urbanicity and risk of obesity in the U.S. Applied Geography 41: 1–14.

113.

Wang

(2013) Spatial impacts of high-speed railways in China: A total-travel-time approach. Environment and Planning A 45(9): 2261–2280.

114.

Watson

(2012) How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. Journal of Transport Geography 24: 488–496.

115.

Widener

Farber

Neutens

Horner

(2013) Using urban commuting data to calculate a spatiotemporal accessibility measure for food environment studies. Health & Place 21: 1–9.

116.

Willigers

Van Wee

(2011) High-speed rail and office location choices: A stated choice experiment for the Netherlands. Journal of Transport Geography 19: 745–754.

117.

Yamada

Brown

Smith

Zich

Kowaleski-Jones

Fan

(2012) Mixed land use and obesity: An empirical comparison of alternative land use measures and geographical scales. The Professional Geographer 64(2): 157–177.

118.

Yeager

Gatrell

(2014) Rural food accessibility: An analysis of travel impedance and the risk of potential grocery closures. Applied Geography 53: 1–10.

119.

Young

Keil

(2014) Locating the urban in-between: Tracking the urban politics of infrastructure in Toronto. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38(5): 1589–1608.

120.

Zwerts

Allaert

Janssens

Wets

Witlox

(2010) How children view their travel behaviour: A case study from Flanders (Belgium). Journal of Transport Geography 18(6): 702–710.