地理研究 ›› 2019, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (11): 2730-2744.doi: 10.11821/dlyj020190132

• 论文 • 上一篇    下一篇

珠江三角洲城际轨道网络结构:基于连接、容量和流量的对比

李涛1,2, 张维阳3,4,*(), 曹小曙1,2, 汪丽5, 张隆6   

  1. 1. 陕西师范大学西北国土资源研究中心,西安 710119
    2. 陕西师范大学全球区域与城市研究院,西安 710119
    3. 华东师范大学中国现代城市研究中心,上海 200062
    4. 华东师范大学城市与区域科学学院,上海 200241
    5. 西安外国语大学旅游学院人文地理研究所,西安 710128
    6. 南京师范大学地理科学学院,南京210023
  • 收稿日期:2019-02-21 修回日期:2019-08-13 出版日期:2019-11-20 发布日期:2019-12-02
  • 通讯作者: 张维阳
  • 作者简介:李涛(1985-),男,山西长治人,博士,副教授,硕士生导师,主要从事交通运输地理与区域发展研究。E-mail: taoli-2008@163.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(41501120);国家自然科学基金项目(41901186);广州市科技计划项目(201704020136);中央高校基本科研业务费项目(18SZYB01);教育部人文社会科学重点研究基地重大项目(17JJD790007)

Analyzing intercity railways network in the Pearl River Delta: A comparative study based on connections, capacity and actual flow

LI Tao1,2, ZHANG Weiyang3,4,*(), CAO Xiaoshu1,2, WANG Li5, ZHANG Long6   

  1. 1. Northwest Land and Resource Research Center, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an 710119, China
    2. Global Regional and Urban Research Institute, Shaanxi Normal University, Xi'an 710119, China
    3. The Center for Modern Chinese City Studies, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
    4. School of Urban and Regional Science, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200241, China
    5. Tourism College and Institute of Human Geography, Xi'an International Studies University, Xi'an 710128, China
    6. School of Geography, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210023, China
  • Received:2019-02-21 Revised:2019-08-13 Online:2019-11-20 Published:2019-12-02
  • Contact: ZHANG Weiyang

摘要:

城际交通网络包含提供联系可能性的基础设施连接网络(铁轨等),反映承载容量的组织网络(列车班次等)与实际需求的流量网络(客货流等)3类,分别从连接可能性、潜力容量和实际流量三方面映射了网络发育的不同特征。理清城市在这3种维度网络中的不同位置,对分辨城市的节点位势和城市系统构造具有重要意义。以珠三角城市群城际轨道网络为研究对象,本文系统分析了3种网络整体结构、城市的节点位置和城际连接性的差异。结果表明:虽然3种网络城镇地方中心度均呈现出显著的等级差异特征,相较于需求网络,设施网络和组织网络扁平化特征更为显著;组织网络和需求网络均表现出了以广深为核心、以广深、广珠和广佛为主要联系的结构体系,设施网络则呈现出明显的“沿线效应”,突出了珠江口西岸广珠城际沿线的骨干地位;与组织和设施网络相比,需求网络突出了肇庆、江门等城市的重要性,轨道沿线中小城镇位势则逐渐降低。研究一方面通过区分3种铁路交通网络强调了城市网络研究中明确“刻画何种网络”的重要性;另一方面通过对比城市节点和城际连接在不同网络中的位置,识别出可能性、利用潜力和实际流量的差异,为交通线路规划和区域空间优化政策制定提供依据。

关键词: 城市网络, 城际轨道, 基础设施连接, 容量, 流量, 珠江三角洲

Abstract:

Intercity transportation network can be manifested as infrastructure connection network, connection capacity network, and actual flow network. The layer of infrastructure connection (rail, etc.) enables the occurring of intercity transportation, and thus providing the possibility of contact. The layer of connection capacity reflects the volume of connection, in which the number of trains can be deemed as a concrete index of connection capacity, while the layer of actual flows reflect the tangible moving of goods or passengers. These different layers project different characteristics of networks from the lenses of possibility, potentiality, and actual flow, respectively. As a result, clarifying different positions of cities in the three networks could help to carefully distinguish urban system structure and cities’ node position. Taking the intercity rail network of the Pearl River Delta metropolitan area as an example, this paper empirically investigates the differences between connections, capacity and actual flow. To be specific, differences of the overall structure, node position of cities and intercity connectivity are systematically analyzed. The results show that the hierarchical structure of local centrality of nodes in the three networks presents a clear rank-size distribution, while the flattening characteristics of connection network and capacity network are more significant when compared with the flow network. In both the capacity network and the flow network, Guangzhou and Shenzhen are the core nodes, and Guangzhou-Shenzhen, Guangzhou-Zhuhai, and Guangzhou-Foshan are the core links. The connection network shows a clear feature of backbone along main railway lines, highlighting the key position of Guangzhou-Zhuhai railway in the west coast of the Pearl River estuary. The flow network highlights the importance of Zhaoqing, Jiangmen and other prefecture-level cities, while the advantages of position of small and medium-sized towns along the railway is gradually shrinking. This study emphasizes the importance of clarifying the definition of ‘network’ in urban network research on the one hand, while on the other hand it identifies the difference between possibility, utilization potentiality and actual flow in railway transportation networks. Furthermore, this research provides potential references for making transportation planning and regional allocation policies. For instance, for the central cities such as Guangzhou and Shenzhen, more attention should be paid to improving their connections in infrastructure and capacity networks, while surpluses of infrastructure and capacity should be fully utilized to attract more tangible flows of goods and passengers.

Key words: urban network, intercity transit, infrastructure connectivity, capacity, flow, Pearl River Delta