ISSN 1075-7007, Studies on Russian Economic Development, 2019, Vol. 30, No. 6, pp. 692–699. © Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2019. Russian Text © The Author(s), 2019.

REGIONAL PROBLEMS

Transport Accessibility as an Indicator of Regional Development P. A . L av r i n e n k o a, *, A. A. Romashkinab, P. S. Stepanovc, and P. A. Chistyakovc aInstitute of Economic Forecasting of the Russian Academy of Sciences, , bMoscow State University, Moscow, Russia cInfrastructure Economics Centre, Moscow, Russia *e-mail: [email protected] Received July 18, 2018; revised October 10, 2018; accepted February 18, 2019

Abstract—The article examines the factors determining the transport accessibility of territories, as well as pro- vides a brief overview of possible approaches to the calculation of the complex indicator of transport accessi- bility and the method of its calculation. Using this methodology, a quantitative assessment of the transport accessibility of the regions of the Russian Federation is obtained.

DOI: 10.1134/S1075700719060091

Transport accessibility as an economic and geo- account some geographical features of the territory graphical category is defined in the scientific literature (for example, the configuration of the network of set- differently: in relation to the transportation industry as tlements), technological features of transport infra- an industry indicator, to social development as a factor structure (speed), as well as the aviation connectivity of travel behavior of the population, to economic of the territory. development as a factor of efficiency of economic rela- These problems are partially solved using a more tions. Improving transport accessibility is declared as complex formula for calculating the transport devel- one of the priority goals in the Transport Strategy of opment on the basis of a composite index of Uspen- the Russian Federation, a Draft Concept of Spatial sky’s coefficient (Engel’s and Yuzuru Kato’s coeffi- Development of the Russian Federation, the target cient), considering cargo turnover. programs of transport development and other strategic When assessing transport accessibility, indicators documents of the Federal and regional levels, as well describing the connectivity of the transport network as in scientific papers [1–3]. The precise definition of are important. this indicator and the formalized approach to its cal- μ culation are of great practical importance. Thus, in [7] the cyclomatic number ( ) reflecting A large number of scientific works has been the total number of network cycles1 is calculated: devoted to the issue of transport accessibility by both μ=ep −v + , foreign and domestic researchers (see, for example where v is the total number of vertices in the graph2; e [2, 4–6]). Many works focus on the study of transport 3 networks as key elements forming transport accessibil- is the number of edges in the graph; p is the number ity. Also, these works specify that transport accessibil- of autonomous components in the graph. Another important indicator characterizing the transport net- ity is in many respects related to the indicators of δ transport development (provision) of the territory. work is the topological diameter ( ), the minimum distance expressed by the number of edges between the The classical and most common way to assess most distant points of the graph. The more the net- transport development is to calculate it on the basis of work is developed, the more cycles it contains and the standard statistical data: smaller the diameter value with the same number of – Density of the transport network per N square km. vertices. – Provision of transport infrastructure per N people. Russian geographer V. N. Bugromenko [8, 9] intro- – Engel’s and Yuzuru Kato’s coefficient (a combi- duced the indicator of integrated transport accessibil- nation of the two above indicators). 1 Cycle is a closed loop of transport links (edges) in the network. The main drawback of such calculations is that 2 these indicators do not give a clear answer to the ques- Graph is a simplified diagram-drawing of the relative positions of points (nodes) and lines of the transport network, a set of the tion whether the level of transport development is suf- nonempty set of vertices and sets of pairs of vertices (edges). ficient to perform the tasks of socio-economic devel- 3 An edge of a graph is a line connecting a pair of adjacent vertices opment. Also, these coefficients do not take into of a graph.

692 TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY AS AN INDICATOR OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 693 ity of messages from one node of the system to any information on travel time between regions of the Rus- other. The final formula of integrated transport acces- sian Federation5 by three modes of transport. sibility (G) by Bugromenko is as follows: – Car (including private car and bus transport).

GttZ=ϕ[1 − (12 + ) ] + , –Railway. –Air. where t1 is the number of paths (connectivity) coeffi- cient, in other words accessibility of the node from the and Leningrad oblast join Moscow entire transport network; t2 is a coefficient of configu- and St. Petersburg, respectively, as they form a single ration reserve, in other words additional (reserve) transport complex with common stations and airports. cycles (communication paths) in the transport net- The same applies to the Republic of Crimea and Sev- work (the sum of t1 and t2 for optimal network config- astopol. urations is approximately 0.2); ϕ is partial connectivity The travel time for each mode of transport is deter- (or linear neighborhood), which characterizes the mined in a different way. availability of highways; Z is a transport focus of the For road transport, it is recommended to calculate territory (characterizes the density of the transport the travel time on the basis of open source data pro- network), some constant minimum distance at the vided by map services that offer information about the current time in kilometers, which must be overcome to real road situation (for example, Yandex traffic). reach any point of the territory at an advantageous position of the observed node. Aerospace images available to the public supply the information on the characteristics of the road network Russian scientific literature provides a number of sections. More detailed characteristics are contained approaches to the assessment of transport accessibility in the official documents of the road administration, at the level of specific regions [10–12], within which as well as the statistics on traffic parameters on road such concepts as “transport focus of the territory”, sections, which is also at the road administration dis- “coefficient of the availability of modes of transport”, posal, and from the owners of road video cameras. “coefficient of the configuration reserve of the trans- When compiling a matrix showing the travel time port network” are introduced. However, these indica- by communications (routes), it is recommended to tors typically do not take into account the actual travel add three additional hours for every eight hours of time from point A to point B; in addition, accessibility travel for rest, stops refueling and other purposes. is estimated only by individual modes of transport, and not by their totality. For railway transport by communications (routes), following a direct service, it is recommended to use In this paper, transport accessibility is defined as 6 the possibility of reaching any territory (in this case, time-weighted average for all trains running in this the regions of the Russian Federation) using all kinds direction. Where there are no direct routes between of transport infrastructure. cities, it is necessary to arrange7 a complex route of two Methods of assessing the transport accessibility of the or three routes by rail. For example, if there is no direct regions of the Russian Federation. Within the frame- rail service from point A to point B, the model builds work of the methodology, we propose to assess the a route from point A to point C first and then from C transport accessibility of the territory for the popula- to B. In this case, point C is defined in such a way that tion through the total transport costs, which include the total travel time between A and B is minimal. actual costs (direct costs, i.e., fare, fuel costs, etc.) and If there is no railway station in one of the regional travel time (indirect costs) to the region for all residents centers, the travel time by road to the nearest transport living in the country, by various modes of transport. node with the railway station is added to the travel Transport accessibility of regions is defined as the time. The further route is laid in accordance with the accessibility of the centers of the subjects of the Rus- above methodology. 4 For air transport in cases where there are no direct sian Federation . flights between cities, it is necessary to develop a com- Further description refers to the subjects of the plex route, combinations of two or three flights by air, Russian Federation, however it can also be applied to the calculation is carried out by analogy with rail. If smaller units of administrative-territorial structure. one of the regions does not have an airport, the travel The calculation of transport accessibility of regions time is added to the travel time by road to the nearest of the Russian Federation consists of several phases. 5 As of the 2nd quarter of 2018. In case of change in the number Phase 1. To determine travel time. The first stage of and division of administrative-territorial units, the total number calculation involves matrix compiling, which contains of regions for calculating the indicator of transport accessibility may change. 4 With the exception of Stavropol krai, Khanty-Mansi Autono- 6 In terms of train count. mous okrug – Yugra and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous okrug, 7 It is recommended to use the transport model of road, rail and where the following cities are chosen as the transport centers, air communication with the basic parameters of infrastructure Mineralnye Vody, Surgut and Novy Urengoy, respectively, as the and the location of these objects to automate the optimization most significant transport and economic centers in these areas. calculation of the shortest route.

STUDIES ON RUSSIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Vol. 30 No. 6 2019 694 LAVRINENKO et al. transport center with the airport. Then the further The first phase of calculation results in three matri- route is laid. ces “region-region” indicating the travel time between Three and a half hours are added for all routes, the regional centers by three modes of transport. which include the following additional time: Phase 2. To determine travel costs. The second com- – An hour to reach the airport from the city center ponent of the total transport costs is the actual cost of (unlike with a railway station, an airport is considered to be much further to the city center). travel, which is determined differently for each mode of transport. – One and a half hours for check-in procedures. – An hour for baggage claim on the way from the For road transport shall be calculated as per for- airport of arrival. mula listed below:

auto =⋅ Costjk−− Dis tan ce jk 100 FuelCons Fuel Pr ice jk − , where Cos tauto is the actual cost of travel by road from port). Communications should contain all three types jk− of passenger traffic excluding strong deviations in region j to region k, ruble; Distan cejk− 100 is the dis- favor of one of them caused by the lack of development tance between regions j and k by road, the fastest pos- of other modes of transport. sible variant (the one used to calculate the travel time), Phase 4. Calculating the cost of travel time (indirect divided by 100, km; FuelCons is average fuel con- costs). The specific value of travel time for passengers sumption of light-duty vehicles (this figure is recom- varies and depends on the mode of transport used and mended to be calculated in terms of average age of the duration of the trip, as well as the route. There is a vehicle fleet in the country), 100 L/km; Fuel Pricejk− significant inequality in the level of income of the popu- is the average cost of fuel in the regions of travel from lation in the regions of Russia, so the value of travel time region j to region k, ruble/L. for passengers on different routes is different. The depreciation cost of road vehicles is not In general, the value of travel time, which is a com- included in the calculation, as this figure depends on ponent in the assessment of the total transport costs the length of the route and is fully correlated with fuel for the trip, is calculated by the formula: consumption. In this regard, an additional indicator pp= will not affect the comparable level of availability of Ctjk−− l jk nN jk −, regions in their ranking (increases for all communica- p tions proportionally). where Ct jk− is the value of travel time by transport p Bus transport is not considered in the study due to between the regions j and k, ruble/hour; l jk− is the both the availability of private road transport, which weighted average income of one employed in the fully covers the bus service area and the lesser impor- regions j and k (weight depends on the population of tance of buses in interregional transport. regions); n is the average number of working hours in To estimate the average annual fare for flights p the month; N jk− is the coefficient of significance of between regions (including transfers if necessary) the the value of time for the passenger on the route from annual average cost of travel between regions is used. the region j to the region k when using the mode of It is calculated on the basis of data provided by aggre- transport p. gator sites, as well as considering the cost of access to p the airport in accordance with the route defined in Coefficient N jk− varies by the mode of transport, phase 1. as the value of time for a passenger using different To estimate the actual cost of travel by rail between modes of transport varies considerably. Thus, for a regions, the annual average cost of travel is used, as passenger using air transport, the value of an hour of well as the cost of access to the station in accordance time will be close to the average value of an hour of with the route defined in phase 1. working time, while for a passenger using bus trans- The second phase of calculation results in three port, it is many fold lower. travel cost matrices. To obtain quantitative estimates of this coefficient, Phase 3. To determine the correlation of transport it is necessary to study the differences in the income of modes. In the third phase, the shares of different the passengers using different modes of transport. modes of transport on routes of different lengths are Such data can be obtained as a result of sociological determined (Table 1). These shares are calculated on surveys among passengers of different modes of trans- the basis of real statistics on passenger traffic using port on a number of communications (determined by various modes of transport (road, rail, air) for at least expertise), as well as the use of special software prod- 5 000 communications (including multimodal trans- ucts of a model nature8, which calculate the elasticity

STUDIES ON RUSSIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Vol. 30 No. 6 2019 TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY AS AN INDICATOR OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 695

Coefficient of the transport accessibility of the regions of the Russian Federation 1.00 0.51–0.60 0.46–0.50 0.41–0.45 0.36–0.40 0.31–0.35 SSt.t. PPetersburgetersburg KKaliningradaliningrad 0.26–0.30 0.21–0.25 0.16–0.20 IzhevskIzhevsk 0.11–0.15 MoscowMoscow TTulaula NizhnyNizhny NNovgorodovgorod CCheboksaryheboksary KKazanazan PermPerm VVoronezhoronezh UlyanovskUlyanovskIzhevskIzhevsk TyumenTyumen Saratov SamaraSamara UfaUfa SSaratovaratov ChelyabinskChelyabinsk RRostov-on-Donostov-on-Don VVolgogradolgograd OOrenburgrenburg TomskTomsk OOmskmsk KrasnoyarskKrasnoyarsk KKrasnodarrasnodar AAstrakhanstrakhan NNovosibirskovosibirskKemerovoKemerovo SStavropoltavropol MMineralnyeineralnye VVodyody AAstrakhanstrakhan BBarnaularnaul KhabarovskKhabarovsk NovokuznetskNovokuznetsk IrkutskIrkutsk MakhachkalaMakhachkala

VVladivostokladivostok 0125 150 500 m

Fig. 1. Transport accessibility of the regions of Russian Federation. of demand for passenger transportation depending on regions k by mode of transport, ruble; DirectCos t jk− the travel time. At this phase of study, we have not car- is actual (direct) weighted average transport costs for ried out reliable calculations of the coefficient of time travel from the region j to all other regions k by mode significance for users of different modes of transport, of transport, ruble; IndirectCos t is indirect and therefore the value of travel time (indirect costs) jk− varies only by region (based on data on average wages) weighted average transport costs for travel from the without differences by mode of transport. region j to all other regions k by mode of transport, rubles. Phase 5. Calculation of the integral index. The inte- gral indicator of transport accessibility of the country’s Actual (direct) weighted average transport costs by regions, showing the total transport costs, is calculated the mode of transport are calculated according to the according to the following formula: formula:

Accessibility= m TotalCos t − , jk jk DirectCos t jk− k = (Cospp ), where Accessibility is the integral transport accessi-  tsharejk−− jk j p bility of region j; mk is the population of region k, mil- lion people; TotalCos t jk− is total transport costs for travel from the region j to all other regions k, rubles. Table 1. Shares of modes of transport on routes of different lengths, % In this case total transport costs are calculated according to the formula: Share of modes of transport Route length, km road railway air TotalCos t jk− =+ DirectCos tjk−− Indirect Cos t jk , 0–500 60 40 0 501–1000 40 40 20 where TotalCos t jk− is total weighted average trans- port costs for travel from the region j to all other 1001–1500 25 35 40 1501–2500 20 30 50 8 In this case, the simulation results based on the software product TMF (Transport Mobility Forecast) recommended for use by 2501–3000 15 20 65 the Ministry of Digital Development, Communications and 3001–5000 10 15 75 Mass Media of the Russian Federation: https://reestr.mins- vyaz.ru/reestr/126987 5001 and more 5 10 85

STUDIES ON RUSSIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Vol. 30 No. 6 2019 696 LAVRINENKO et al.

The results of calculating the level of transport acces- where DirectCos t jk− is actual (direct) weighted aver- age transport costs for travel from the region j to all sibility of Russian regions. As expected, the Moscow other regions k by the mode of transport, rubles; region (including Moscow and Moscow oblast) is the p area with the highest rate, and it is significantly ahead Cost jk− is the cost of travel by mode of transport p of the second place. If the highest value of the trans- p port accessibility index is taken as a unit (Moscow), between the region j and regions k, rubles; sharejk− is the share of the mode of transport p in passenger traf- then the second place (Tver oblast) will be equal to fic between regions j and k. 0.59, which is almost half. It stems from the fact that, firstly, Moscow is the main transport node of the In this case, the share of the mode of transport p is country, its transport functions are hyper concen- defined as a function of distance (based on the previ- trated here (for example, Moscow accommodates ously prepared in phase 3 table.1): more than 80% of all domestic flights). Secondly, p = Moscow and Moscow oblast are the two most densely sharejk−− f(tan), dis ce jk populated regions of Russia with a total population of p more than 20 million people. Where sharejk− is the share of the mode of transport p in passenger traffic between regions j and k, %; The following four regions by level of transport accessibility (index value: from 0.56 to 0.58) are also fdis(tan) ce is a function of the distance between jk− the closest neighbors of Moscow: Kaluga oblast, Vlad- regions j and k. imir oblast, Ryazan oblast and Tula oblast. Their high Indirect weighted average transport costs by the rates are explained by proximity to Moscow, which mode of transport are calculated according to the for- allows a large number of residents of Moscow and the mula: region to get to these regions in a relatively short period of time. IndirectCos t jk− However, the proximity of Moscow can have a neg- =⋅⋅ppp (),Timejk−−− share jk Ct jk ative impact on the transport infrastructure. For p example, in Tver oblast, Kaluga oblast, , Ryazan and Tula oblast there is a lack of devel- where IndirectCos t jk− is indirect weighted average transport costs for travel from the region j to all other opment of air transport, which is compensated by the p proximity of the capital, which makes it relatively easy regions k by mode of transport, rubles; Timejk− is to get to any other region of Russia. travel time from the region j to the region k by trans- The Federal City of St. Petersburg with Leningrad p port p, hours; sharejk− is the share of the mode of oblast, with more than 7 million people ranks seventh transport p in passenger traffic between regions j and place (the index of transport accessibility is 0.5). Also, p high-speed rail links and the wide development of all k, %; is the value of time in travel by the mode of Ct jk− modes of transport allow residents of the Northern transport p between the region j and k, rubles/hour. capital get to Moscow in a very short time. All this As a result, in addition to direct and indirect costs, explains the high value of the index. transport accessibility is also affected by: Next on the list (up to about 20th place; transport – The size of regions (population); the larger the accessibility index from 0.4 to 0.5) are the regions– region, the higher the transport accessibility. This is neighbors of Moscow of the second order, as well as due to the fact that the transport accessibility is calcu- the most developed and densely populated subjects of lated in relation to the entire population of the Russian the Russian Federation. The first includes such Federation, including those living in the region. regions as (a remote neighbor of the – The size of surrounding regions (population), first order), Ivanovo oblast, Lipetsk oblast, Tambov travel time to which is minimal. oblast, Orel oblast, Kostroma and Bryansk oblast, – Advantageous geographical location, i.e., the where the influence of Moscow is less, but still quite ability to quickly reach as many regions as possible. strong. The second group includes oblast, the Republic of Tatarstan, Voronezh oblast, All these factors indicate that transport accessibil- Krasnodar krai, as well as Rostov and . ity can be described by the gravity model. In other words, the scale of transport accessibility is propor- In 21st place is the Republic of Bashkortostan. tional to the population of the regions and inversely These regions feature relatively developed various proportional to the distance between them (travel modes of transport and quite large populations. In time). addition, these subjects of the Russian Federation are located in the European part of the country within the The results of the calculation of the index of trans- main settlement zone. They are followed by most of port accessibility of the regions of the Russian Feder- the regions located in the European part of Russia ation are given below in tabular and graphical form (Table 2 and figure see below)9. 9 https://yadi.sk/i/NNA-SbV46_J6rw

STUDIES ON RUSSIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Vol. 30 No. 6 2019 TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY AS AN INDICATOR OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 697

Table 2. Transport accessibility (integral index) of the regions of the Russian Federation. Index of transport accessibility: Region Transport accessibility Rank 0 – 1 А123 The Federal City of Moscow 30.48 1 1.00 Tver oblast 18.01 2 0.59 Kaluga oblast 17.55 3 0.58 Vladimir oblast 17.47 4 0.57 Ryazan oblast 17.34 5 0.57 Tula oblast 17.06 6 0.56 The Federal City of St. Petersburg 15.11 7 0.50 Nizhny Novgorod oblast 14.41 8 0.47 Yaroslavl oblast 14.31 9 0.47 Ivanovo oblast 14.10 10 0.46 Republic of Tatarstan 13.90 11 0.46 Voronezh oblast 13.81 12 0.45 Lipetsk oblast 13.78 13 0.45 Krasnodar Krai 13.61 14 0.45 Tambov oblast 13.60 15 0.45 Oryol oblast 13.51 16 0.44 Kostroma oblast 13.02 17 0.43 Bryansk oblast 12.95 18 0.42 Rostov oblast 12.78 19 0.42 Sverdlovsk oblast 12.62 20 0.41 Republic of Bashkortostan 12.45 21 0.41 Kursk oblast 12.27 22 0.40 Penza oblast 12.23 23 0.40 Samara oblast 12.15 24 0.40 Republic of Mordovia 12.14 25 0.40 Chelyabinsk oblast 11.79 26 0.39 Ulyanovsk oblast 11.76 27 0.39 Chuvash Republic 11.59 28 0.38 Saratov oblast 11.59 29 0.38 Smolensk oblast 11.53 30 0.38 Novgorod oblast 11.49 31 0.38 the Mari El Republic 11.22 32 0.37 oblast 11.21 33 0.37 Volgograd oblast 10.92 34 0.36 Belgorod oblast 10.82 35 0.35 10.74 36 0.35 Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol 10.68 37 0.35 Udmurt Republic 10.55 38 0.35 Stavropol krai 10.05 39 0.33 oblast 9.95 40 0.33 Republic of Dagestan 9.68 41 0.32 Orenburg oblast 9.65 42 0.32 Kirovsk oblast 9.57 43 0.31

STUDIES ON RUSSIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Vol. 30 No. 6 2019 698 LAVRINENKO et al.

Table 2. (Contd.) Index of transport accessibility: Region Transport accessibility Rank 0 – 1 А123 Pskov oblast 9.53 44 0.31 Chechen Republic 9.31 45 0.31 oblast 9.12 46 0.30 Kabardino-Balkar Republic 9.01 47 0.30 8.81 48 0.29 Karachay-Cherkess Republic 8.79 49 0.29 Altai krai 8.60 50 0.28 Kurgan oblast 8.60 51 0.28 Republic of North Ossetia – Alania 8.54 52 0.28 8.45 53 0.28 Republic of Adygea 8.38 54 0.28 8.35 55 0.27 Astrakhan oblast 8.20 56 0.27 Republic of Ingushetia 8.11 57 0.27 Republic of Karelia 7.73 58 0.25 oblast 7.57 59 0.25 Kaliningrad oblast 7.31 60 0.24 Komi Republic 7.03 61 0.23 oblast 6.99 62 0.23 oblast 6.94 63 0.23 Republic of Kalmykia 6.82 64 0.22 Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug – Yugra 6.81 65 0.22 Altai Republic 6.25 66 0.21 Murmansk oblast 5.97 67 0.20 Republic of Khakassia 5.86 68 0.19 Primorskii krai 5.57 69 0.18 krai 5.39 70 0.18 Republic of 5.23 71 0.17 5.03 72 0.16 Nenets Autonomous okrug 4.77 73 0.16 Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous okrug 4.74 74 0.16 oblast 4.63 75 0.15 Tyva Republic 4.50 76 0.15 Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) 4.32 77 0.14 4.26 78 0.14 Sakhalin oblast 3.61 79 0.12 Kamchatka krai 3.47 80 0.11 Magadan oblast 3.40 81 0.11

(transport accessibility index: from 0.3 to 0.4). The Despite the fact that Novosibirsk is a major transport region of the Asian part of the country with the best node, transport accessibility here cannot be high, transport accessibility is , which is because even with the good development of all modes located in 40th place (about the middle of the list). of transport to get from here to the regions located in

STUDIES ON RUSSIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Vol. 30 No. 6 2019 TRANSPORT ACCESSIBILITY AS AN INDICATOR OF REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT 699 the European part of Russia (where the majority of the REFERENCES population is situated) requires a lot of time, even if air 1. V. V. Ivanter, M. Yu. Ksenofontov, et al., Prospects for transport services are used. the Development of the Russian Economy: Forecast until The next group of regions (transport accessibility 2030 (Inst. Narodnokhoz. Prognozirovaniya Ross. index from 0.2 to 0.3) includes the republics of the Akad. Nauk, Moscow, 2013) [in Russian]. North Caucasus, the majority of Asian subjects of the 2. A. S. Neretin, Candidate’s Dissertation in Geography Russian Federation, and also remote regions of Euro- (Moscow, 2018). pean Russia (or with inconvenient transport and geo- 3. K. V. Yankov, “Problems of the long-term planning of graphical position: regions “placed in the infrastruc- the development of a core transport network in the Far East and Baikal region,” Stud. Russ. Econ. Dev. 24 (6), ture shadow”). Among these are , Pskov 604–606 (2013). oblast and Astrakhan oblast, the Komi Republic, Karelia, etc. 4. S. A. Tarkhov, Changing the Connectivity of Russia’s Space (on the Example of Air Passenger Communication) The most inaccessible regions (11 last places) are (Inst. Geogr. Ross. Akad. Nauk, Smolensk–Moscow, predictably the subjects of the Russian Federation 2015) [in Russian]. located in the Far East or the Far North, which do not 5. S. A. Tarkhov, Evolutionary Morphology of Transport have very large populations: the Republic of Buryatia, Networks (Universum, Smolensk, 2005). Zabaykalsky krai, Nenets Autonomous okrug and 6. Yu. A. Shcherbanin, E. A. Ivin, A. N. Kurbatskii, and Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous okrug, , the A. A. Glazunova, “Econometric modeling and fore- Tyva Republic, the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia), the casting of demand for railway freight transportation in Jewish Autonomous oblast, Sakhalin oblast, Kam- Russia,” in Problems of New Economy. Siberian State st University of Railway Engineering (Novosibirsk, 2017), chatka krai and Magadan oblast (the last, 81 place). pp. 83–90 [in Russian]. Accessibility was not calculated for the Chukotka 7. K. Kansky, Structure of Transportation Networks: Rela- Autonomous okrug due to the peculiarities of its trans- tionships between Network Geometry and Regional Char- port situation and small population. However, this acteristics (Econometrica, Chicago, 1963). region would likely be the last on the list. 8. V. N. Bugromenko, Transport in Territorial Systems (Nauka, Moscow, 1987) [in Russian]. CONCLUSIONS 9. V. N. Bugromenko, Transport Discrimination of the Population: Ways to Solve the Problem. http://ooolid- Distinctive features of the methodology imple- erclimat.ru/discnas.htm. mented in this study account for both time and cost, 10. A. P. Abramov, Marketing on Transport. Textbook for and also for all major modes of transport. The pro- High Schools (Uchebno-Metod. Tsentr Obraz. posed methodology for determining transport accessi- Zheleznodorozhn. Transp., Moscow, 2001) [in Rus- bility and the resulting indicators can be used in a vari- sian]. ety of ways, including as: 11. V. L. Badenko, V. V. Garmanov, and G. K. Osipov, State Land Cadastre. Handbook (S.-Peterb. Gos. Peda- – Target indicators of the development of the gog. Univ., St. Petersburg, 2002) [in Russian]. transport system of the country and its regions. 12. M. V. Ivanov, “To the problem of the theory of trans- – Explaining components when conducting port accessibility. Organizational and economic prob- econometric research of the impact of various factors lems of the development of transport industry enter- prises,” in Proceedings of the Seventh Prokhorov Read- on the overall socio-economic development of the ter- ings (Litera, Nizhny Novgorod, 2011), pp. 115–117. ritories. – A tool for compiling interregional ratings. Translated by A. Simakova

SPELL: 1. OK

STUDIES ON RUSSIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Vol. 30 No. 6 2019